 |
|
 |
| ||
|
Anatomy of a Base Closure
When Mare Island Naval Shipyard was put on the base closure list in October 1993, the city of Vallejo braced itself for a hard hit. Its relationship with the Navy -- at the center of the city's identity and pride for more than 140 years -- was now ending.
What would remain was a 5,500-acre island that was both National Historic Landmark -- the base's 900-plus buildings represent every historical era of the West Coast's oldest shipyard -- and home to 3,200 acres of wetlands which host the S.F. Bay's largest population of the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.
Mare Island is one of ten major Bay Area bases -- encompassing approximately 10,000 acres of dry land and over 5,000 acres of wetlands -- slated for decommissioning between 1990 and 1995 as part of the federally-mandated base closure process (BRAC). Many of these bases feature both wetlands and endangered species habitat long beyond the reach of disruptive visitors and developers and, simultaneously, some of the most toxic pockets of Bay waterfront. According to the S.F. Regional Board's Shin-Roei Lee, the most seriously contaminated bases are the region's most challenging clean-up projects "in terms of size, complexity, and threat."
But when Mare Island was handed over, job loss not toxics concerned the city most -- over 8,500 residents of Vallejo and neighboring communities were employed at the shipyard and many more made an indirect livelihood from it. The closure also presented obstacles which by now are well-known in base closure circles: fierce conflicts over the highest and best future uses; a morass of oft-conflicting regulations; and a daunting toxic clean-up bill exacerbated by federal reluctance to pay up.
With less than three years to prepare for the actual closure on April 1, 1996, Mare Island's reuse commission, which became known as the "Futures Project," didn't waste any time getting started. By bringing together a wide array of people from the city of Vallejo and neighboring communities and involving the public early on they hoped to avoid the mistakes which have paralyzed reuse of bases like Marin's Hamilton for decades. According to Napa Supervisor and Future's Project participant Mike Rippey, "This advance planning allowed us to come up with a plan without a lot of contentiousness and put the Mare Island reuse process ahead of other communities' closure programs."
The Futures Project's first priorities were job creation and economic stimulation. Reuse officials were all too aware that hesitation could lead to the flight of skilled workers and the deterioration of the local economy. Efforts to address such concerns, however, hinged on environmental clean-up. Under federal law, the Navy could lease but not transfer the site until its extensive toxic contamination was addressed. At the time of the closure announcement, contaminants on the base included radioactive materials such as strontium and radium (painted on ship dials to make them glow in the dark), as well as unexploded ordnance, PCBs, heavy metals and petroleum products. Since then, the Navy has spent $120 million surveying the base for radioactivity and removing radioactive and other materials, largely from an old scrapyard.
Without this clean-up push, Vallejo would not have succeeded in leasing out significant commercial space on the island and replacing more than 950 lost jobs within six months of actual closure -- the most of any Bay Area BRAC base closure. Three major Hollywood films, attracted by the island's scenery and historic character -- which includes the most tiffany glass in the Western U.S. -- have already been shot on site and firms ranging from XKT Engineering to California Northern Railroad are leasing space on the island.
According to Arc Ecology's Karen Hack, however, serious contamination remains on site. Hack worries that some of the island's polluted sites are dangerously close to Mare Island Strait which leads directly into the Estuary. In particular, an old fuel depot near the causeway continues to leak pollutants into the water while the Navy stalls on a proposed removal action to put in a trenchto catch petroleum products that, according to Hack, have been "moving into the strait for who knows how long." Hack thinks other problems may exist that are not even known due to the Navy's slow rate of investigation.
Cost estimates for remaining clean up range from the Navy's $159 million to triple that amount, which would make Mare Island the second most expensive base clean up in California. However high the bill, the federal government remains reluctant to pass out clean-up dollars during a time of such fiscal constraint. Indeed in 1996, the regional division of the Navy only received $9.5 million out of a requested $25 million for Mare Island de-tox.
Despite these uncertainties, Rippey remains optimistic that Vallejo's doing its best to see the closure process to a safe and successful outcome. Meanwhile, the island's large and diverse terrain has provoked many mini-battles over future development. Real estate interests, a powerful force in Vallejo, saw the base as a prime development opportunity and argued that construction would produce those much needed jobs. Environmentalists argued that the largely undeveloped piece of property should stay that way, both for its economic and aesthetic values as recreational space. One key battle was waged over a 200-acre hill in the middle of the island. While developers suggested building expensive view-homes, environmentalists led a coalition to preserve the hill as open space and prevailed.
Save the Bay's Myrna Hayes -- a Vallejo resident -- is disappointed, however, with what she calls "a plan without vision" in which reuse issues not seen as directly connected to job creation are given low priority. In particular, she fears that the Navy will attempt to transfer Mare Island to Vallejo before the property is squeaky clean and that the city -- worried about its economic future -- will acquiesce. While this would be illegal under current federal law, the Department of Defense is pushing a bill through Congress, nicknamed the "dirty transfer amendment," which would enable transfer pre-completion of clean-up with money left in a public trust to finish the job.
"Voices of caution are dim thoughts compared to the energy of the city teamed up with the Navy," says Hayes. "If we don't get our act together we will have lost not only the economic benefit of conversion but we'll be left with a legacy of environmental hazards and reuse plans that pave over the small jewels left by the military around the Bay."
Hayes and other enviros argue that tourism, recreation, and wildlife preservation can create their own jobs and profits. "Wildlife brings in dollars," says the Audobon Society's Arthur Feinstein, citing two recent studies -- one showing $15 million in increased revenues to the Bay Area from a proposed wildlife refuge at the closing Alameda base (Hrubes) and another documenting the enormous economic value of coastal open space (Coast Year 2010, Resources Agency). Indeed, environmentalists hope to expand the adjacent San Pablo Bay Wildlife Refuge to include 670 acres of Mare Island and a site for a new visitor center for all area refuges.
Proposals abound for other environmentally-friendly base uses. The Bay Area Defense Conversion Action Team would like to sponsor a Mare Island demonstration project to pioneer new and faster on-site contamination assessment and treatment techniques. U.C. Davis has proposed a research station on Mare Island to study the effects of a polluted site on adjacent waters and wetlands. And some Mare Island ponds are among 22 of the most highly feasible sites baywide for either confined placement or rehandling of dredged material for future beneficial reuse.
Whether any of these proposals will come to fruition remains uncertain. At the very least, most base closures, including Mare's, represent an opportunity to remedy persistent environmental thorns -- toxic contaminants may finally be contained and long-degraded wetlands restored. It's too soon to tell if the Mare Island reuse team will achieve its goal of becoming a national model for successful base conversion. From Hayes perspective, future generations will judge the reuse process not just on jobs lost and gained but also on the environmental and historical legacy preserved on the island.
Contact: Futures Project (707)649-5452
An excellent new resource is Defense Conversion: A Roadmap for Communities, published by the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission. The roadmap includes 75 practical strategies for both mitigating the effects of base closure and maximizing reuse potential. (510)834-6928
[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]
Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project