When the Pentagon recently announced its proposed list of military base closures, leaders around Colorado breathed a sigh of relief, and some were excited by the prospect of growth at some of the state’s existing military installations.
Looking back, the state can take pride in the vibrant economic redevelopment of Lowry Air Force Base and Fitzsimons Army Medical Center in the Denver metropolitan area.
And, military facilities that now are earmarked for closing across the country and the communities around them can take important lessons from the closure and redevelopment of Lowry and Fitzsimons. Those communities whose military facilities are growing also need to plan for how those facilities and the surrounding communities will grow together without conflicts.
Some of the key lessons that an experienced Colorado can share with closing installations include:
A strong investment in researching installation history and environmental investigation pays dividends down the road in terms of the cost and schedule of environmental cleanup and redevelopment.
Wherever possible, this should include examination of aerial photography and subsurface utility infrastructure of the site, and interviews of former workers of the facility, since practices that may have affected the environment were often not well-documented. When dealing with facilities that predated most of our current environmental standards and practices by decades, surprises are likely. The more developers can anticipate potential problems, the better they and the regulators will be able to deal with them.
Military offices, redevelopers and governmental regulatory agencies can work effectively, arm-in-arm, to conduct environmental investigations and cleanups that support development priorities.
The typical process proceeds logically from the stages of research and investigation to the stages of cleanup and follow-up monitoring. Cleanup may be divided into logical steps, such as developing treatment for groundwater separately from cleanup of contaminated soil. However, developers need to get infrastructure in place and property sold and redeveloped to generate income. That process is often out of sync with environmental cleanup. But that doesn’t mean that the two can’t be reconciled.
For example, regulators can focus their attention first on the areas that redevelopers are anxious to sell or work. Also, cleanup plans can incorporate features of the redevelopment. An asphalt-covered parking lot may be the perfect cover for soils with low levels of contamination so long as the cover remains undisturbed. Together, the diverse groups can pledge to support early and frequent communication and try to be nimble about responding to changing priorities. This isn’t always easy, but it can be done.
A few things make this process easier. For one, it helps to minimize the number of government agencies involved, particularly between the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the state environmental agency. The responsibilities of state and federal environmental agencies often overlap, potentially resulting in delays and conflicting requirements. Since states have primary responsibility for implementation of hazardous, solid waste, air and water quality laws, my bias is that, wherever possible, state regulators take the lead, with support from the EPA as needed.
Local government environmental departments also can provide an important service and perspective, representing the community that is inheriting the property. They must be brought into the process early to make sure, for example, that they are comfortable with plans for constructing infrastructure in contaminated areas.
Environmental cleanup that supports redevelopment often proceeds more smoothly if the military turns the job over to the private environmental engineering industry. This is not meant to denigrate the military, but merely to recognize that its primary responsibility and expertise is not environmental cleanup. All of the military services have tried privatization, where the military negotiates with the redevelopment authority to take over the cleanup, often for a fixed price and backed by insurance. Successful privatization relies on a good site history and field investigation. Our experience in Colorado is that this approach often works better, if only because decisions can be made faster.
The picture is brighter for installations that are growing. These facilities are usually in compliance with environmental regulations and may be going through a regulated process for cleanup of contaminated areas. Growth – both of the installations and the communities around them – has the potential to create conflicts between the uses of the installation and the quality of life in their host communities. Noise, traffic congestion and sprawl are just a few of these impacts.
Smart installations and communities can take steps, often through land-use planning and controls, to avoid future conflicts. A military advisory committee, at either the state or community level, can be used to address these issues.
An example of such planning is the work that Fort Carson is doing with The Nature Conservancy, state and federal agencies, private landowners and others to create open space and wildlife habitat buffers that integrate well with its existing comprehensive conservation plan. Such partnerships serve both the installation and the surrounding community well.
Other communities have created buffer zones between bases and communities, either through acquisition or dedication of land on or adjacent to installations or through planning and zoning that ensure minimal conflicts.
Military installations are a part of the fabric of many of our communities. Whether closing or growing, a close partnership among the military, developers, community leaders and regulators and a shared vision of the role of the facility in the community are key elements of a successful future.
Howard Roitman is director of environmental programs at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
