Pave it or save it

Material Information

Pave it or save it wildlife protection planning under the base closure and realignment acts
William, Thomas N
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
xx, 379 leaves : ; 28 cm


Subjects / Keywords:
Military base closures -- United States ( lcsh )
Air bases -- United States ( lcsh )
Wildlife conservation -- United States ( lcsh )
Reclamation of land -- United States ( lcsh )
Military bases -- Environmental aspects -- United States ( lcsh )
Air bases ( fast )
Military base closures ( fast )
Military bases -- Environmental aspects ( fast )
Reclamation of land ( fast )
Wildlife conservation ( fast )
United States ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references (leaves 342-379).
General Note:
School of Public Affairs
Statement of Responsibility:
by Thomas N. Williams, Jr.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
44105619 ( OCLC )
LD1190.P86 1999d .W555 ( lcc )

Full Text
Thomas N. Williams, Jr.
B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Louisiana Tech University, 1991
M.S., Environmental Science, University of Colorado, Denver, 1996
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctorate of Philosophy
Public Administration

1999 by Thomas N. Williams, Jr.
All rights reserved.

This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Thomas N. Williams, Jr.
has been approved
Toddi Steelman

Dedicated to my daughter Haley and her generation,
who tomorrow must live with the choices we make today.

First off, I want to thank the Air Force for giving me this opportunity to
further my education. I had always thought that if I was to get a doctorate that I
would have to treat it like a full-time job and do nothing else; otherwise, I would
probably never finish it. In the summer of 1996, the Air Force came to me and said,
We would like you to get your doctorate, take three years off and treat it like a full-
time job. Needless to say, I consider myself very lucky to get this kind of dream job.
Second, I would like to thank my chair, Dr. Burton. Not only did he help me stay on
schedule for my dissertation (I only had a year), he understood that I did not have a
strong qualitative background in public administration, and correspondingly, he took
the time to explain unfamiliar concepts, going so far as drawing pictures and spelling
it out for me. Third, I would like to thank my wife Beth. Doing a dissertation in a
year is not an easy task. She put up with the days when my mind was elsewhere, my
months in front of the computer, and my moments of extreme self-doubt (there were
many). She proofread my work, took care of our daughter, earned the money that I
spent on transcription services and copy editors, and listened to my constant dialogue
on topics she (no doubt) had little interest in. Because of ail her patience and help, I
was able to cram eight years of public administration into three; without her I could
not have done it. Fourth and finally, I express my sorrow for all the trees that were

killed in the writing of this dissertation. I hope that one day we as a race will learn
our way around our tragic flaw of fighting for peace.

Williams, Thomas N., Jr. (Ph.D., Public Administration)
Pave it or save it: Wildlife preservation planning under the Base Closure and
Realignment Acts
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Lloyd Burton
This dissertation addresses the following question: What factors
appear most closely associated with successful wildlife protection planning at
Air Force bases closed under the Base Closure and Realignment Acts? Six
factors were investigated: local environmental ethical concern and activism,
local community wealth, community cohesion and stability,
demographic/geographic characteristics, public participation, and
administrative context and processes. A modified grounded theory approach
to knowledge creation and a historical comparative case study between a
closed Air Force base that successfully produced wildlife protection plans and
one that did not produce equivalent plans was used in this research. Data
were collected through semi-structured, open-ended interviews and the
analysis of relevant documents. The interview data, document data, and
themes for each base were then compared. Once this was done, salient

differences and points of commonality between the bases, relevant factors,
and supporting theories were then assessed. Out of the six factors
investigated, a high level of local environmental activism, local community
cohesion and stability, and public participation by a community surrounding a
base were most closely associated with the creation of wildlife protection
plans. In respect to each other, these factors behaved in the following manner:
environmental activism initiator, local community cohesion and stability
enabler, and public participation impacter.
This study suggests that if the Department of Defense, in general, and
the Air Force, in particular, wish to ensure that existing wildlife habitats on
military bases continue to exist after that base is closed, more explicit
language in the implementing regulations would be helpful. Future
reuse/redevelopment commissions/authorities could be required to solicit
volunteers from the local community rather than relying on the friends of
political appointees to fill these positions, which is a common practice. This
requirement would then be a condition of receiving redevelopment funding
from the Office of Economic Adjustment. As an alternative to this, in order to
limit federal involvement in base redevelopment but also encourage wildlife
protection, the military could provide the same guidelines, in the form of non-
binding recommendations.

This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I
recommend its publication.

In May of 1991,1 graduated from college, received my commission in
the Air Force, and got married it was a very busy month. After four months
of waiting, I arrived at my first assignment, Lowry Air Force base (AFB), in
Denver, Colorado, with instructions to clean it and close it. Over the next
three years, as an Air Force Environmental Engineer, I personally handled
over 500,000 pounds of hazardous materials, managed a $30 million base
restoration program, and was responsible for maintaining all natural and
cultural resources. Out of the above three jobs, I enjoyed being the natural
and cultural resource manager the most. It got me out of the office, and I
didnt have to wear a gas mask to do it.
Lowry AFB, surrounded by neighborhoods, shopping districts, and
industrial areas, was located between the cities of Denver and Aurora.
However, when I was on the base, I didnt get the feeling that I was just a
couple of miles from downtown Denver. The base had hundreds of acres of
open space, beautiful views of the mountains, 50 acres of wetlands, five
families of foxes, and a turtle named Fred who lived in one of the ponds on
the golf course. When cast in the context of the adjacent urban sprawl, Lowry
was an island of nature surrounded by a city.

Four years later, while visiting friends who still worked at Lowry, I
was dismayed to find the bases open spaces being converted into identical
tract homes, miles of new streets, and other commercial developments. I also
learned that there were plans to expand the golf course to the edge of the
nearby wetlands, an expansion that would greatly increase the amount of
pesticide runoff that would reach the wetlands. Finally, I was very sad to
learn that most of the foxes had disappeared, and no one had recently seen
Fred. My island of nature was sinking under the weight of a growing city.
Around this time I entered the University of Colorado, at Denver, to
get my Ph.D. in Public Administration (with an environmental emphasis) in
preparation for teaching environmental management courses at the Air Force
Institute of Technology. While driving through Denver on chores, I would go
by my old haunts at Lowry to see how things had changed. I found myself
saddened to see more and more wildlife habitat sacrificed on the altar of urban
The redevelopment of Lowry has been (and is) being praised as a
wonderful example of howto successfully redevelop a closed military base.
However, it seems a shame that this economic redevelopment has to come at a
cost of paved over open space, lost wildlife habitat, and disappearing animals.
Or does it? It was then that I decided to develop ways to ensure that wildlife

protection issues would be included in the planning of other bases
redevelopment under the Base Closure and Realignment Act. My first step in
determining how to do this was to understand and describe how wildlife issues
are (or are not) integrated into base redevelopment planning. This subject
eventually became the focus of my dissertation. What is the point of ensuring
the economic development of base, a large industrial complex, a city, a state,
or a nation if that development destroys the environment that its people must
live in and hope to pass on to future generations?

1. INTRODUCTION.......................................... 1
Vanishing Wildlife.................................. 1
Military Bases as Wildlife Refuges.............. 2
Closed Base Redevelopment =
Wildlife Habitat Destruction?................... 3
The Research Question............................... 4
Importance and Need for Research................ 6
Research Methods................................ 9
Wildlife Protection, Economic Development,
and Sustainability................................... 11
Structure of the Dissertation........................ 13
CONVERSION POLICY....................................... 17
Base Closures........................................ 17
The Decade When No Large Bases Closed,
1977-1987 ....................................... 18
Four Rounds of Closures, 1988-1995 .............. 19
Base Closures in the Future?..................... 22
Base Closure Environmental Issues................ 26
The Reuse Planning Process........................... 27
Reuse Planning and Redevelopment
Environmental Issues............................. 30

Critiques of Base Closure and Redevelopment........... 32
Modified Grounded Theory................................... 38
Qualitative Methods................................... 39
Grounded Theory....................................... 40
Base Selection for Case Studies............................ 42
Interviews............................................ 45
Documents............................................. 49
Analysis.............................................. 52
Supporting Literature...................................... 54
Overview of Sustainable Development Literature............. 55
Sustainable Land Use Planning......................... 57
Other Areas Related to Sustainable Development
Planning.............................................. 62
Sustainable Development Indicators......................... 65
Wildlife Status............................................ 68
Literature............................................ 69
Measurements.......................................... 72
Environmental Ethical Concern and Activism................. 74
Literature............................................ 74
Measurements ......................................... 76
Local Community Wealth..................................... 77
Literature............................................ 77
Measurements.......................................... 79
Demographic and Geographic Characteristics................. 80

Literature......................................... 80
Measurements....................................... 82
Public Participation.................................... 83
Literature......................................... 83
Measurements....................................... 95
Administrative Context and Processes.................... 97
Literature......................................... 97
Measurements....................................... 98
Pilot Study -- Lowry Air Force Base, Colorado............. 101
Bifurcation............................................... 103
Summary................................................... 106
4. MYRTLE BEACH AIR FORCE BASE ............................... 115
Background................................................ 115
Demographic, Economic, and
Environmental Aspects................................ 116
Myrtle Beach AFB Closure and Redevelopment................ 124
1991-1992 ........................................... 124
1993- 1999........................................... 125
Documents............................................ 129
Interviews........................................... 134
Factor Narrative.......................................... 138
Demographic and Geographic Characteristics........... 139
Local Community Wealth............................... 144
Administrative Context and Processes................. 146
Environmental Ethical Concern and Activism........... 150
Public Participation................................. 157

Wildlife Status..................................... 162
Factor Model............................................. 163
Conclusion............................................... 165
5. PEASE AIR FORCE BASE...................................... 169
Background............................................. 169
Demographic, Economic, and
Environmental Aspects............................... 171
Pease AFB Closure and Redevelopment...................... 174
1988-1990 .......................................... 174
1991-1999 .......................................... 177
Documents........................................... 180
Interviews.......................................... 186
Factor Narrative......................................... 189
Demographic and Geographic Characteristics.......... 191
Local Community Wealth.............................. 193
Administrative Context and Processes................ 195
Environmental Ethical Concern and Activism.......... 199
Public Participation................................ 207
Wildlife Status..................................... 216
Factor Model............................................. 217
Conclusion............................................... 219
6. CONCLUSION................................................ 222
Comparison of Base Factors............................... 222
Wildlife Status Outcomes............................ 222
Demographic and Geographic Characteristics.......... 226

Local Community Wealth............................. 227
Administrative Context and Processes............... 232
Environmental Ethical Concerns and Activism........ 233
Public Participation............................... 235
Community Cohesion and Stability................... 237
Social Capital..................................... 240
Results................................................. 246
Discussion.............................................. 251
Recommendations......................................... 259
Policy Implications................................ 260
Community Background Conditions.................... 260
Reuse Committee Dynamics........................... 266
Recommendations for Future Research................ 271

A. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS...................... 276
B. INTERVIEWEE DATA......................... 288
C. MYRTLE BEACH MAP......................... 291
FOR MYRTLE BEACH AND PEASE............... 312
F. PEASE MAP................................ 323
G. PEASE INTERVIEW QUOTES................... 325
REFERENCES................................... 342

2.1 Base Reuse Planning Process............................... 29
3.1 Sustainable Development Literature Areas.................. 64
3.2 Flowchart of Factors and Their Measurements................ 100
4.1 Myrtle Beach Air Force Base Regional Map................... 117
4.2 Population, Horry County................................... 118
4.3 Timeline, Redevelopment of Myrtle Beach AFB................ 123
5.1 Pease Air Force Base Regional Map.......................... 170
5.2 Population, Rockingham County.............................. 172
5.3 Timeline, Redevelopment of Pease AFB....................... 175
6.1 1994 Metropolitan Cost of Living Index..................... 229
6.2 Factor Relationships....................................... 255
6.3 Policy Outcome & Influencing Elements...................... 258

2.1 Major Air Force Closures 1988, 1991, 1993,1995 ......... 23
2.2 Grant Summaries for Selected Air Force Closure Bases.... 31
2.3 Civilian Jobs Lost & Gained in the 1988 & 1991 Closures. 33
3.1 Base Comparison Table................................... 46
3.2 Summary of Myrtle Beach Documents Analyzed.............. 50
3.3 Summary of Pease Documents Analyzed..................... 51
3.4 Tools for Measuring Environmental Activism.............. 77
3.5 Tools for Measuring Local Community Wealth.............. 80
3.6 Tools for Measuring Demographic & Geographic Aspects.... 82
3.7 Tools for Measuring Public Participation................ 96
3.8 Tools for Measuring Administrative Context.............. 99
3.9 Thematic Codes and Data Sources............................... 109
4.1 Myrtle Beach Interviewees..................................... 135
4.2 Myrtle Beach Trend Summary.................................... 164
5.1 Pease Interviewees............................................ 187
5.2 Pease Environmental Groups.................................... 204
5.3 Summary of Pease Trends....................................... 218
6.1 Comparative Summary of Wildlife Status Outcomes............... 223
6.2 Community Wealth Comparison................................... 228
6.3 Differences in Environmental Ethical Concern and Activism .... 235
6.4 Public Participation Differences.............................. 237
6.5 Community Cohesion and Stability Differences.................. 239

The ideas and conclusions presented in this work are strictly my own.
Nowhere in this document do I speak for the Department of Defense, United States
Air Force, or any other military agency or individual.

Because we cannot, over the long run, sustain an American economy in this New
World unless we have a theory of sustainable development
that puts the environment first, not last, and recognizes that we can grow the
economy and still preserve our natural heritage...
President Bill Clinton, in a speech given at the
Presidio of San Francisco, June 1996

Protecting our national security in the post-CoId War era includes integrating
the best environmental practices into all Department of Defense activities.
Dr. William J. Perry, Conserving
Biodiversity on Military lands
Vanishing Wildlife
Over the past ten years there has been a great deal written about vanishing
wildlife, the destruction of wildlife habitat, and the importance of wildlife and its
habitat to the future of the human race (Baskin 1997; Kellert 1996; Power 1996;
Grumbine 1994; Dubasak 1990; Soule and Kohm 1989). The main concern
expressed by these authors is that human-induced wildlife losses are increasing at an
alarming rate, and once a species is extinct, that unique genetic resource is gone
How many species are there to begin with? How many species are going
extinct? There are almost as many different answers as there are experts. Most of
the global estimates seemed to fall in the range of four to 23 million animal species
with four to 60 going extinct each day (Noss and Cooperrider 1994; Spellerberg and
Hardes 1992; Wilson 1992; Tudge 1991; Norton 1986). In regard to the United
States, there are no solid numbers on species losses (Mac 1998; Langner and Flather

1994; Committee on the Formation of the National Biological Survey 1993).
However, there is a general agreement that biodiversity is declining:
Comparison of data from the 1960s indicates that native diversity has
declined in the U.S., over the past three decades, and is likely to continue to
decline .... natural habitats will continue to decline and fragment as a result
of growing human populations and associated pressure on a shrinking base
of natural habitats. (Langner and Flather 1994, 18)
Diversity refers to the number of different species and population numbers for each.
Diversity loss can come from the extinction of one species or the population
reduction of a species to the point that its genetic code variations become extremely
limited. This biological diversity loss in the United States has been related to rapid
economic development and habitat destruction (Dunlap 1988, 142).
Military Bases as Wildlife Refuges
Most of the large wildlife populations remaining in the United States reside
on public lands, and mostly federal lands at that (Boice 1997; Dubask 1990; Owen
and Chiras 1990). In February of 1997, the periodical Endangered Species Bulletin
published an issue describing wildlife preservation on Department of Defense
(DoD) installations. This issue described how the DoD manages 25 million acres of
land (along with 220 endangered species), making it the nations fifth largest federal
land management department. For example, the Presidio (a closed Army base) has
some of the only undeveloped property in the San Francisco Bay area that provides

a habitat for the only remaining Presidio Manzanita in the wild. The Desert
Tortoise at George Air Force Base in California is also another good example of a
federally listed threatened species living on a former DoD base.
Closed Base Redevelopment = Wildlife Habitat Destruction?
As noted earlier, the DoD is the nations fifth largest federal land
management department. In many instances, its bases represent the last remaining
native ecosystems in, or near, urban centers:
In early 1993 entomologist Rudi Mattoni was surveying a Navy-owned
vacant lot south of Los Angeles when he noted the presence of a small blue
butterfly, which he identified as Palos Verdes blue (Glaucopsyche lydamus
palosverdesensis). This butterfly was believed to have become extinct
almost a decade earlier, shortly after its only known habitat was converted
into a baseball diamond. (Cooper and Perlman 1997, 3)
Many military lands, whether they are Navy, Army, or Air Force, have large areas
of relatively untouched ecosystems. Since 1988, many of these bases have been
handed over to local municipalities, and the redevelopment of these bases is now
progressing. In the 1988 and 1991 rounds of base closures, 42 major military
installations were closed. Many of these facilities had thousands of acres of
relatively undisturbed wildlife habitat (Fort Ord, Loring Air Force Base, and Pease
Air Force Base to name a few). Some of the best-preserved wildlife habitat
remaining in the United States consists of buffer zones in and around military bases,
and some of these have been closed (or are in the process of being closed). Thirty-

seven1 bases in the 1988 and 1991 rounds of closures contain 200,000 acres, much
of them representing healthy and stable ecosystems (Government Accounting Office
1995, passim).
Some biologists are beginning to express concern about wildlife protection
on closed military bases (Cooper and Perlman 1997). In the redevelopment of these
bases, economic development, urbanization, and agricultural activities are becoming
the greatest threat to wildlife communities that exist on them. These biologists and
some of their colleagues believe that the protection of wildlife at closed military
bases is the most pressing conservation issue facing the military today.
The Research Question
What factors appear most closely associated with the redevelopment of
closed military bases in ways that encourage the protection of base wildlife? This is
the research question on which this dissertation is based. In this question, protection
of wildlife means the safekeeping of current wildlife populations so that they will be
preserved as viable populations in their present location. Base closures present very
useful case studies for determining factors that may be associated with public
decision making that produces wildlife-friendly results. Twro normative
propositions underline this research: 1) that we as a society have a moral
responsibility to minimize the impacts on wildlife during base redevelopment; and
2) in moving from military to local community management of former bases, it is

important that planning occurs in a way that honors democratic values. According
to Weiss and Bucuvalas (1980), the public decision-making process is a fragmented
enterprise with many actors both inside and outside the agency [where] ...
decisions are influenced by legislators, superior officials, subordinates, collateral
divisions, other agencies, constituents, and clients (20). In this study I sought to
determine what local community and planning factors in this process were most
closely associated with the creation of wildlife protection plans (or the lack thereof).
The literature I reviewed suggested a total of five initial factors to
investigate: environmental ethical concern and activism, local community wealth,
demographic and geographic characteristics, public participation, and administrative
context and processes. The interviews and document analysis for the two case
studies resulted in the discovery of a sixth factor: community cohesion and stability.
Out of these six factors a high level of local environmental ethical concern and
activism, a high level of local community cohesion and stability, and more public
participation in the redevelopment process by the community surrounding the base
were closely associated with positive wildlife protection planning. Each of these
factors behaved in a particular manner: environmental ethical concern and activism
was the initiator; local community cohesion and stability was the enabler that
connected the initiator to public processes; and public participation in the planning
process influenced government decision makers. Since local community cohesion
and stability sat in the middle and connected a communitys collective desire to

local political action, an increase in a communitys cohesiveness and stability may
be an important means to achieve a communitys stated agenda. Therefore, in
respect to communities that would like to see more wildlife protection policies
implemented in their area, the data suggests that these communities should
implement policies to increase community cohesion and stability.
Importance and Need for Research
Why does wildlife protection at a closed military base matter, especially to
the military? When one considers that up to 17,500 plant and animal species may
become extinct every year (Davis 1998, 131), wildlife protection appears very
important. Wilson (1992) estimates that if the current rate of species loss continues,
this human-induced extinction could approach the great natural catastrophes that
ended the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras when 60% to 90% of all species in existence
disappeared. Also, with the increasing loss of wildlife on private lands, the
protection of wildlife on federal lands takes on even more significance (Cooper and
Perlman 1997; Ripley and Leslie 1997).
Additionally, by creating an Environmental Security Office, the Department
of Defense has come to recognize the significance of environmental degradation and
biodiversity preservation in regard to national security.2 Environmental security is
defined as environmental issues that impact national security (Shaw 1999). In
this vein:

Some military planners now question whether a single F-15 fighter plane at
$125 million would purchase more real, enduring, and all-around security
than the same sum spent on pushing back the deserts, replanting the forests,
protecting farmland soil, stabilizing climate, slowing population growth, and
a lengthy list of similar items. (Myers 1996, ix)
This concern about the environmental aspect of national security is becoming an
increasingly important topic among national policy makers (Terry 1995; Burk 1994;
Cassidy and Bischak 1993; Romm 1993; Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute 1993; Romm 1992). Therefore, if the DoD wants to preserve the
environment to ensure security, it should begin at its own front door, that is, closed
military bases.
During the first two centuries of this nations existence, the military had a
narrowly defined mission to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign
and domestic. However, as the worlds political climate has grown more diverse
and complex, identification of enemies foreign and domestic has also grown more
diverse and complex. For example, the major wars engaged by the United States
from its struggle to become an independent nation till the end of the Cold War (War
of 1812, Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, Korean War, and Vietnam) were
fought against a relatively clearly defined enemy that represented a threat to
American interests. In contrast, since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the
Cold War, clearly defined threats against the United States are fewer in number
while indirect threats to American security seem to be growing (i.e., growing

instability in the Balkans). Much like the old adage that work rises to meet the
time allowed, new and unorthodox threats have risen to fill the void left by the
dissolution of the Soviet Union. These new threats are directly related to new
global relationships where there is an increased interdependence in economic,
environmental, political, and informational issues (Stiner 1994, 81). In response to
these new and unorthodox threats that are related to new global relationships, the
militarys role has evolved from one of primarily providing national defense to one
of conducting international policing actions, providing peace keeping forces, and
supplying humanitarian aid.
Non-military problems are now being recognized as presenting serious
security threats (Myers 1996; Burk 1994; Cassidy and Bischak 1993; Romm 1993,
1992). Nevertheless, military security has not vanished as a key element of
national security, but it has certainly declined in importance relative to the issues of
economic, energy, and environmental security (Romm 1993, 1). The Gulf War
was partially fought for economic and energy security reasons. When and where
will wars for environmental security be fought? Environmental degradation,
resource depletion, and severe pollution are non-military threats that defense
theorists and policymakers now consider to be important security issues (Bidlack
1996). Before the United States considers the possibility of sending its military
forces into developing nations to implement reforestation programs, we must first
understand how long-term conservation strategies implemented by a military

organization can exist long after that military presence is gone. In this respect,
closed bases in the continental United States can be perceived as laboratories where
we can experiment with different policies to determine what factors lead to
environmentally sustainable results.
I hope that by showing how redevelopment goals were met while protecting
wildlife habitat in a past base closure, my research may be able to suggest methods
for ensuring that the future redevelopment of other closed bases may be directed in a
similar manner (a substantive theory). Many economic studies have been done on
base closures (Siehl and Knight 1997; Dardia, et al. 1996; Hatcher 1994; United
States Government Accounting Office reports: NSIAD-95-3; NSIAD-96(1996)-139;
NSIAD-97-151; NSIAD-96-149; NSIAD-95-70; NSIAD-95-139). In contrast,
except for limited wildlife surveys needed for environmental impact statements and
endangered species listings, little documentation has been done on wildlife and
wildlife habitat preservation at closed military bases. One of the goals of this
dissertation is to help fill this gap by concentrating on wildlife protection issues at
two closed military bases.
Research Methods
This research took a modified grounded theory approach to knowledge
creation (Green 1998; Strauss and Corbin 1990). Grounded theory is a
methodological approach that uses a cyclical process of induction, deduction, and

verification where the case subjects themselves often provide key theoretical input
(Strauss and Corbin 1990; Strauss 1987). When working on a modified version of
this theory, the coding of initial themes can be based upon the existing literature
(Green 1998). In this way, instead of relying solely on my research subjects to
suggest themes (as in a pure grounded theory approach), I went to the environmental
literature for initial themes to investigate. I then took these theoretical suggestions
into the field to see if they would survive encounters with real people working in the
real-world scenario of base redevelopment. The theories that I investigated are
directly related to the two case studies that I conducted: wildlife protection versus
economic development pressures in the arena of public planning.
I have spent eight years working as an environmental engineer and
commissioned officer for the Air Force. Because of this experience and my intimate
knowledge of the Air Force closure process, I limited this study to closed Air Force
bases (AFBs). However, the results from this study may be applicable to other
military installations along with other similar redevelopment projects. I studied two
AFBs using an historical comparative case study design. One base presented an
example in which wildlife protection planning attained a high priority in reuse
(Pease AFB, New Hampshire) while the other did not (Myrtle Beach AFB, South
Semi-structured, open-ended interviews (both in person and by phone) were
the primary data collection method. People in similar positions at the different

bases were interviewed. Data generated from the interviews were supplemented and
verified by document analysis. The documents analyzed were environmental
impact statements for closure, base reuse plans, public surveys, reuse committee
minutes, newspaper articles, journal articles, and other pertinent documents
identified in the interviews or by this researcher.
The open-ended interviews used in this study were basically the semi-
structured ones as described by Whyte (1984, 1991). These interviews have a
definite and distinct purpose and a limited range of topics; therefore, the interactions
between the interviewees and the interviewer were like a series of discussions about
a single topic (wildlife protection at closed military bases). Analysis of the
interviews and documents yielded themes unique to each base. I then compared
these themes (Denzin and Lincoln 1998). It is this thematic analysis that led to my
policy recommendations for possible base closures conducted under any future
version of the Base Closure and Realignment Acts.
Wildlife Protection. Economic Development,
and Sustainability
In this research, I approached the issue of planning for wildlife protection in
respect to the concept of sustainable development (Rodiek and DelGiudce 1994).
This was the literature of choice for the discovery of initial factors (indicators) for
investigation because it concentrates on indicators that ...reflect the interface

between social, economic, and environmental issues... (OConner 1995, 91). In
this dissertation, the following sustainable development definition is used:
development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland 1987, 8). This
definition was chosen for two reasons. First, its emphasis on meeting the needs of
future generations underscores the importance of protecting our natural resources,
including wildlife. Second, this definition points to one of the largest dangers to
wildlife protection: growth-driven development that substantially transforms land
use patterns, and thus, wildlife habitats. The redevelopment of closed bases
presented an opportunity to observe how wildlife protection does or does not occur
in the public planning process when held up against this growth-driven
For most of this nations history, the degradation of natural resources has
been considered an inevitable consequence of economic development (Davis 1998;
Owen and Chiras 1990; Richards 1986). This assumption began to be seriously
challenged at the beginning of the 20th century by figures such as President
Theodore Roosevelt, John Muir, Gifford Pinchot, and Aldo Leopold (Des Jardins
1997; Owen and Chiras 1990). For example, Pinchot and Roosevelt epitomized
the conservation movement of the turn of the century. Its tenets were protection of
American natural resources for enjoyment and use (Davis 1998, 192). In contrast,
figures such as John Muir and Aldo Leopold promoted wilderness protection for its

own sake or for use as public parks. What the two sides of this management versus
preservation debate had in common was the belief that the natural environment did
not have to be completely sacrificed to ensure continued economic development.
More recently, the notion that economic development is always a zero-sum
game in competition with environmental quality has been even more significantly
challenged through the current emphasis on sustainability and sustainable
development. Since concerns about protecting wildlife on closed military bases
center on new economic development, urbanization, and agricultural activities
(Cooper and Perlman 1997), and since some of the sustainable development
literature specifically addresses economic, social, and environmental interactions
(OConner 1995), a review of this literature was a natural place to start my modified
grounded research.
Structure of the Dissertation
This dissertation opened with an introduction that stated the research
question, accounted for its importance, and explained the need for research.
Chapter two reviews the recent history of base closures in the United States,
concentrating on the formulation and implementation of domestic military base
closure and conversion policy. In chapter three I further describe the modified
grounded theory approach to knowledge creation and how it was used it the
comparative case studies. Also presented are selection criteria for the pilot study

and two case studies. I then go into my literature review, explaining how this
review revealed five initial factors for investigation. I discuss the measurements
used to gauge these factors/indicators, the questions asked, and the documents
reviewed to gauge and evaluate their presence. Then the coding used to identify
these themes (indicators and their measurements) is presented. The chapter is ended
with a short description of the pilot study at Lowry Air Force Base and how it
suggested new measurements for the case studies.
Chapter four presents a brief history of Myrtle Beach in South Carolina and
analyzes the Myrtle Beach interviews and documents in respect to chosen factors.
From this factor narrative, I build a factor model of the reuse planning process at
Myrtle Beach in respect to the protection of base wildlife. Chapter five presents a
comparable history, analysis, and model for Pease Air Force Base in New
Hampshire in respect to its different wildlife status outcome. In conclusion, chapter
six discusses the new that arose from the case studies. This chapter also contains a
comparative analysis of the two case studies, a discussion of the results, makes
some policy recommendations, and suggests areas for future research.

The 37 bases are:
1. Army Materials Technology Laboratory, Massachusetts
2. Bergstrom AFB, Texas
3. Cameron Station, Virginia
4. Castle AFB, California
5. Chanute AFB, Illinois
6. Chase Naval Air Station, Texas
7. Davisville Naval Construction Battalion Center, Rhode Island
8. Eaker AFB, Arkansas
9. England AFB, Louisiana
10. Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana
11. Fort Devens, Massachusetts
12. Fort Ord, California
13. Fort Sheridan, Illinois
14. Fort Wingate Army Depot, New Mexico
15. George AFB, California
16. Grissom AFB, Indiana
17. Jefferson Proving Ground, Indiana
18. Lexington Army Depot, Kentucky
19. Long Beach Naval Station (NS)/Naval Hospital, California
20. Loring AFB, Maine
21. Lowry AFB, Colorado
22. Mather AFB, California
23. Moffett Naval Air Station (NAS), California
24. Myrtle Beach AFB, South Carolina
25. Norton AFB, California
26. Pease AFB, New Hampshire
27. Philadelphia/NS/Naval Hospital/Naval Shipyard, Pennsylvania
28. Presidio of San Francisco, California
29. Puget Sound NS (Sand Point), Washington
30. Richards-Gebaur Air Reserve Station, Missouri
31. Rickenbacker Air Guard Base, Ohio
32. Sacramento Army Depot, California
33. Tustin Marine Corps Air Station, California
34. Warmister Naval Air Warfare Center, Pennsylvania
35. Williams AFB, Arizona
36. Woodbridge Army Research Facility, Virginia
37. Wurtsmith AFB, Michigan
(Government Accounting Office 1995, Passim)

2 The components and budgets for the Air Force environmental security program
are listed below in millions of dollars for FY 1998, FY 1999, and FY 2000; all
dollar amounts are in January 1999 constant dollars:
Cleanup (active bases)
Cleanup (closed bases)
Pollution Prevention
Environmental Technology
1998 1999 2000 (proposed)
377 371 377
256 148 130
391 409 388
40 43 44
63 46 91
8 6 0
1,135 1,025 1,030
Department of Defense. 1999. FY2000 Environmental Security Budget,
Defense Department's fiscal year 2000 budget proposal. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office.

We are under the influence of previous generations of our ancestors and our
society. At the same time we hold within us the seeds of all future
Thich Nhat Hanh, Vietnam: Lotus in a Sea of Fire
Base Closures
Recent base closures have their roots in the military cutbacks that occurred
after WWII, the Korea War, and Vietnam Conflict; based upon defense spending as
percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), these cutbacks were much more
draconian than today. During the 1988-1995 closures, the amount of GDP spent by
the military fell by 2.9%. In contrast, after WWII, the percent of GDP spent on
military functions fell from a high of 39.3% in 1944 to a low of 3.7% in 1948 (a
35.6% difference). After the Korean War, the amount of GDP spent on military
operations fell by 4.3%, and after Vietnam, it fell an additional 4.8% (Defense
Conversion Commission 1992, 11). Because of these cutbacks, many bases were
closed. Finally, in the late 1970s, many of the bases that had not been closed after
Vietnam were deemed unnecessary and considered for closure.

The Decade When No Large Bases Closed, 1977-1987
In early 1976, President Ford made an announcement that there would be
160 closures and realignments starting in March of that year (Dering 1996, 10). In
response, Congress attempted to greatly restrict the DoDs ability to close bases.
For example, the 1977 fiscal military construction bill had a provision that would
have affected any DoD proposal to close a domestic base employing 300 or more
civilians. The DoD would have been required to take four steps before closing a
base: First, notify the armed services committees in both chambers of the proposed
closure action; second, wait nine months while assessing the economic, strategic,
environmental, and operational consequences of the proposal; third, submit the
results of these assessments to the appropriate committees; and fourth, wait an
additional three months for approval (Dering 1996, 13).
These requirements could have been used to substantially delay closures
because they mandated public hearings in local communities and required detailed
environmental impact statements that were open to judicial challenge. President
Ford vetoed the bill. However, he signed a compromise bill that reduced the
advance notice to 60 days but kept all other provisions intact (P.L. 94-431). Finally,
these terms were made permanent in the 1978 military construction bill (P.L. 95-
...effectively preventing the Department of Defense from closing any
of its major bases. Each time the Secretary [of Defense] initiated a
closure or realignment, under the statutes procedures, Congress
blocked it. For the next decade, the Department of Defense was forced to
keep open many unneeded bases. (Ginsberg, et al. 1993, 171)

Because of this, any base with more than 300 civilians was not closed for a decade
(1977-1987). However, by the end of 1987, the DoD, facing more budget
reductions, was again looking for ways to economize.
Four Rounds of Closures. 1988-1995
By 1987, the military had far too many bases. Representative Dick Armey
(R. TX, later to become the chair of the House Appropriations Committee), who had
no bases in his district, came within four votes of winning a floor amendment to the
1988 defense authorization bill that would have created an independent panel to
close bases (Cong. Rec. 1987, 11919-25). Armey proposed the same measure a
year later. This measure went through drastic changes until coming full circle on 12
July 1988 when the House passed a substitute amendment that replaced the entire
text of the bill (Cong. Rec. 1988, 17777). Significant changes from Armeys
original bill were that (1) Congress reserved the right to reject the entire closure list
by majority vote in both chambers; (2) closed bases would have partial exemption to
environmental regulations; (3) and the commissioners would be nominated by the
Secretary of Defense, pending Senate confirmation (Dering 1996, 17). With this
bill, Congress finally agreed to allow base closures, suspending the congressional
moratorium (Ginsberg, et al. 1993, 171). Armeys bill was well received because in
the late 1980s Congress was looking for ways to cut the budget and Armeys bill

looked promising since it provided a way to deflect the political heat from base
closures while reducing budget expenditures (Hatcher 1994).
The suspension of the earlier code and the passage of Armeys bill resulted
in the creation of the Defense Authorization Amendments and the Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1988. This Act provided the military with a single opportunity
to close and realign major military bases. Under this 1988 Act, a total of 86 bases
were closed, of which 16 were considered major military installations.1 Out of
these 16 major bases, five were Air Force bases.
Base closure recommendations were made using a four-step process, with a
different decision-maker taking each step:
...the Secretary of Defense, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Commission [BCRA Commission], the President and, finally the
Congress. By establishing these multiple phases with discrete actors
the Act strikes a delicate balance between the executive and the
legislative branches. (Ginsberg, et al. 1993, 173)
The 1988 selection of bases to be closed used the process above. The Secretary of
Defense initiated the process by creating a force classified structure plan that
assessed probable threats to national security during the next six fiscal years (1989-
1995) and estimated the funding needed to meet them.2 Once this assessment was
completed, the various branches of the military estimated the number of bases it
needed to close in order to meet the new fiscal and security reality.
Next, this estimate was submitted to the 1988 Closure Commission
(November 1988). The 1988 Commission was an independent eight-person body

charged with creating the actual closure list. In December of 1988, the Commission
selected 86 bases for closure. After that, the list was sent to President Bush for
approval or disapproval (January 1989). The President had only two weeks in
which he could approve or disprove of the list in its entirety. The President
approved the list and then sent it to Congress, which had 45 legislative days to enact
a joint resolution disapproving of the entire package. In this final stage of the
process, Congress did not enact such a resolution; therefore, the 1988 closure
recommendations became final and binding (Cong. Rec. 1989, 6871).
This base selection process for the 1988 round of closure became the
blueprint for base selection in the next three rounds of closure. Once bases were
selected, the DoD had up to six years to complete the actual closures. In this final
disposal process, there was a statutorily established hierarchy of priority in the reuse
of closed facilities: DoD agencies first, other federal agencies second, state agencies
third, local municipalities fourth, and private organizations last (unless there were
special legal requirements, such as a prior existing lease agreement between the
base and the surrounding community).
With the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the ending of the Cold War in
1990 (the Soviet Union did not officially disband until Gorbachev resigned
December 26, 1991), three more rounds of closure were authorized under a new
Closure Act, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990. This Act
differed from the 1988 Act in three ways. First, the new Commission had to hold
their deliberations and hearings in public. Second, the Commission had to start its
review of bases from a list submitted by the Secretary of Defense. In the previous
round they created the list from scratch (with DoD help). Furthermore, the

Commission could only modify the Secretarys list when it showed that the military
had deviated substantially from the established criteria. And third, the General
Accounting Office was made available to the Commission to assess DoDs
methods; again, as under the previous Commission, the DoD still provided a great
deal of assistance (Dering 1996, 20).
In these three rounds, 82 additional major military installations were closed,
including 24 major Air Force installations (Siehl and Knight 1997,4). Table 2.1
summarizes major Air Force closures in the 1988, 1991,1993, and 1995 rounds.
Table 2.1 also shows that the average large base closed by the Air Force in the past
four rounds of closures was usually around 3,000 acres in size, had about 1,300
civilian workers, and took about three years to close. My study centered on these
types of military installations.
The workforce at most military facilities is, roughly, 15 to 45 percent
civilian, depending on the type of facility (Beech 1998). With this in mind, the size
of an Air Force base that met the minimum requirement of having 300 civilians
usually had a minimum of 3,000 people (including military and their dependents),
over a 100 buildings, and over 1,000 aircraft, vehicles, and mobile support
equipment. These were sizable installations.
Base Closures in the Future?
In the summer of 1997, the Department of Defense released a draft of its
Quadrennial Defense Review report. This report is a periodic review of military

Table 2.1
Major Air Force Closures 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995
Base 1988 Acres Civilian jobs lost Actual/proiected closure date
Chanute, IL 2,132 1,035 September 1993
George, CA 5,068 506 September 1994
Mather, CA 5,716 1,012 September 1993
Norton, CA 2,115 2,133 March 1994
Pease, NH 1991 4,257 400 March 1991
Bergstrom AFB, TX 3,216 942 September 1993
Carswell AFB, TX 2,579 884 September 1993
Castle AFB, CA 2,777 1,149 September 1995
Eaker AFB, AR 3,286 792 December 1992
England AFB, LA 2,282 697 December 1992
Grissom AFB, IN 2,722 807 September 1994
Loring AFB, ME 9,482 1,326 September 1994
Lowry AFB, CO 1,866 2,290 September 1994
Myrtle Beach AFB, SC 3,744 799 March 1993
Richards-Gebaur, MO 428 569 September 1994
Rickenbacker, MO 2,015 1,129 September 1994
Williams AFB, AZ 4,043 781 September 1993
Wurtsmith AFB, MI 1993 2,205 705 June 1993
Griffiss AFB, NY 2,488 1,191 September 1996
Homestead AFB, FL* 2,221 289 March 1994
K.I. Sawyer AFB, MI 3,200 788 September 1995
March AFB, CA 6,594 997 September 1995
Newark AFB, OH 70 1,760 September 1996
Plattsburgh AFB, NY 1995 4,865 352 September 1995
Kelly AFB, TX** 4,757 10,912 July 2001
McClellan AFB, CA* 3,763 243 July 2001
Onizuka AS, CA** 35 1,039 September 2000
Reese AFB, TX 2,987 1,238 September 1997
Roslyn ANGB, NY* 52 45 September 1997 |
* Note These had less than 300 civilian positions, but they were considered major
closures based upon alternate criteria (Government Accounting Office 1994, 41).
** Note These were called realignments, which caused the loss of over 300 civilian
jobs and cancellation of most operations (Government Accounting Office 1994, 41).

strategy, threats, and future needs concerning the development of the United States
armed forces. This report emphasized that levels of military forces, facilities, and
operations had to be scaled back to ensure future ability to modernize and upgrade
the military. The report pointed out two key actions that the DoD deemed necessary
to save money.
First, the military must reduce current spending by conducting procurement
reform, privatization, and force reductions. Second and most important, additional
bases needed to be closed: since 1985, total military spending has decreased by
38%, but the infrastructures bases, depots, and the like were only 21% smaller.
In response to this, Congress voted to delay base closures (66 to 33) until a
congressional report analyzing the benefits of previous base closures was completed
(The Washington Post 1997, A18).
The possibility of base closures in the immediate future was again cast into
doubt in June of 1998 when Congress cut closure funding in the FY 99 Defense
Authorization Bill. Also, in a 48-45 vote, the Senate approved an amendment that
expressed the sense that no further rounds of closures should be authorized until
pending closure actions were completed (National Association of Installation
Developers 1998a, 6). However, according to a Pentagon press release, Secretary
William Cohen has not given up on the hope of achieving additional rounds of
closure in the future, mainly in the early part of the next century (National

Association of Installation Developers 1998a, 6). On 13 May 19, 1999 A Senate
panel rejected appeals by the Pentagons civilian and military leaders for more base
closures, voting 11 to 9 yesterday to defeat a proposal that would have authorized a
new round of closings in 2001 (Graham 1999, A8). Congress then voted 60 to 40
in support of the Committees measure, dashing DoD hopes for base closures in
2001 (Dewar 1999, A13). These actions by the Senate Armed Services Committee
and Congress marked the third year that the DoDs bid for more closures has failed.
Because of these measures, prospects for future military closures do not look
promising. Nevertheless, the debate still continues, and as of 1999, Cohen is still
pushing to close bases because ...this measure if taken, would eventually generate
at least $4 billion a year in savings that could be spent on pay, retirement, readiness
and quality of life (Evans and Novak 1999, 89). With the continued push by the
DoD to achieve fiscal balance through base closures, and if the deficit becomes an
issue like it did in the late 1980s when base closures were a reality, then possible
funding may be found, and future military closures may again become possible
(Beech 1998). Moreover, the 1998 general elections clearly indicate that voter
and therefore congressional priorities continue to be subject to change. Therefore,
additional closures may or may not occur, depending on the nations economic
conditions, security situation, and voter and congressional moods.

Base Closure Environmental Issues
In the closure process, attention given to environmental issues has
concentrated on environmental assessments and the cleanup of hazardous waste
(Bidlack 1996; GAO/NSIAD-95-70; Hatcher 1994). The base closure laws require
that the DoD comply with environmental laws for disposal of real property
(GAO/NSIAD-95-70, 2). In regard to this, the four sets of federal environmental
regulations given the most attention in the DoD Base Reuse Implementation Manual
are the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund), Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
(Department of Defense 1996, Al-10). Each one of these laws require that certain
actions be taken in the reuse planning process. Out of these four federal
environmental laws, only one, the ESA, concentrates on wildlife protection issues.
The ESA (as the name implies) is designed to protect federally listed endangered
species. It does not require protection of habitat that does not have federally listed
endangered species living on them.
Neither Pease nor Myrtle Beach (my two case study bases) has a federally
listed endangered species currently living within their boundaries; although species
of special concern are known to pass through both. At Pease, the American Bald
Eagle is known to roost in the undeveloped areas in the winter months (United
States Air Force 1990; 1991). At the time of Peases closure, the Bald Eagle was a
federally listed endangered species. In 1995, it was reclassified as threatened,
which is a less critical category, and there is talk of taking it off the threatened list

this summer (Katz 1999). The eagles did not nest on the base; therefore, the
preservation of this land did not automatically fall under the ESA.
At Myrtle Beach, American Alligators are often found in the irrigation
ditches next to the runways (Suza 1998; Williams 1998). In the 1980s, the
American Alligator was a threatened species that was taken off the list later that
decade (Wildinson and Rhodes 1997). Much like the Bald Eagle at Pease, this
species did not nest on the base and because of this, the ESA did not take
precedence in reuse planning. In contrast, bases like Fort Ord in California that has
some federally listed endangered species living on it do fall under the ESA (United
States Army Corps of Engineers 1996). The selection of bases that did not have
federally listed endangered species living on them was intentional because I wanted
to see what factors were associated with wildlife protection when the planning
bodies had a full range of options available to them. A habitat given special
protection under the ESA from a federally listed endangered species living on it
would have limited possible reuse planning outcomes.
The Reuse Planning Process
Once a base was selected for closure, its reuse planning process began.
Reuse planning consisted of many activities, and there were two main players at this
early stage base military personnel and the reuse planning committee (reuse
committee is a generic name). The reuse committee usually consisted of local, state,
county, and/or city representatives. These representatives were usually state
legislators, county officials, city councilmen, or representatives appointed by them.
Also, these reuse committees usually had sub-committees centered on specific

issues consisting of local citizens and interested parties that provided advisory
information for the committee. These specific issues usually covered the following
topics: base reuse planning, economic development, human resources, environment,
housing, health, and education (Presidents Economic Adjustment Committee 1994,
10). The first thing usually done by a reuse committee was to create a
redevelopment plan. Upon completion of the plan, the planning committee was
usually dissolved and a redevelopment authority (also a generic title) established.
At same time that the reuse committee was formed, base military personnel
usually started work on or updated the following documents and programs:
1) The Environmental Impact Statement
(an NEPA requirement whenever a large base was closed),
2) The Natural and Culture Resource Plan
(partially to determine if federally listed endangered species live on base),
3) The Environmental Baseline Survey
(an NEPA/Superfimd/RCRA-related requirement), and
4) The Installation Restoration Program
(a Superfiind/RCRA-related requirement).
In addition to these environmental activities, base personnel identified installation
property that was excess to any continued DoD need, inventoried personal property,
relocated active mission elements, and performed caretaker maintenance on base
facilities. All of these steps were taken as soon as possible after the closure
announcement and concurrently with each other and with the steps taken by the
reuse authority (a generic term for the reuse committee and redevelopment
authority). All of the steps are summarized in figure 2.1 (next page).

Community Reuse Planning
Military Disposal Planning
Environmental Impact Analysis
Environmental Baseline Survey
Installation Restoration Program
Installation management
Draft Reuse Plan
Final Reuse Plan
Draft Disposal Plan
Caretaker Arrangement
Transfer Property
Figure 2.1
Base Reuse Planning Process

Both the Closure Act of 1990 and the Redevelopment Act of 1994 identified
specific reuse planning requirements and time lines (Pub. L. 101-510,10 U.S.C.,
Section 2687, and Pub. L. 103-421,32 CFR, Part 1760). Many of these
requirements related to ways of soliciting interest in the installation, identifying
personal property needs, and preparing and submitting the reuse plan. To facilitate
the reuse plans and base redevelopment, the DoD, through its Office of Economic
Adjustment, provided grants. Furthermore, grants from other federal agencies were
also made available for reuse planning and redevelopment. Table 2.2 shows all
grants (as of 1995, in 1995 dollars, listed in descending totals) provided for 17
major Air Force bases. The Median and Mean of federal funding made available for
reuse authorities in 1998 dollars was $7,915,563 and $15,327,780, respectfully.
Reuse Planning and Redevelopment Environmental Issues
As in the base closure process, the main environmental issues in base
redevelopment were the completion of the Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
for the closure and redevelopment of bases (an NEPA requirement) and the
restoration of hazardous waste sites (Bidlack 1996; GAO/NSIAD-95-70; Hatcher
1994). The level of restoration depended on whether the base was a Superfund site
or not. If a base was considered a Superfund site (listed on the National Priority
List by the Environmental Protection Agency), then it had to be cleaned up
according to requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Table 2.2
Grant Summaries for Selected Air Force Closure Bases
Baser year-) $TotalOEAa STotalFAA^ $TotalEDAc STotal DQL^ STotal
Bergstrom (91)2 200,000 110,841,266 0 1,228,260 112,269,526
Myrtle Beach (91) 1,180,006 18,948,100 3,500,000 925,000 24,553,106
Pease (88) 859,790 7,774,618 10,200,000 0 18,834,408
Norton (88) 726,000 3,438,638 6,825,000 2,916,000 13,905,638
Wurtsmith (91) 1,226,318 508,000 9,717,500 1,250,000 12,701,818
England (91) 2,174,047 149,850 6,411,800 500,000 9,235,697
George (88) 533,648 118,638 6,525,000 1,000,000 8,177,286
Castle (91) 920,706 2,143,000 4,500,000 0 7,563,706
Chanute (88) 962,978 937,830 2,500,000 3,000,000 7,400,808
Williams (91) 1,515,339 3,018,000 587,500 2,000,000 7,120,839
Loring (91) 1,903,263 50,000 2,267,000 2,100,000 6,320,263
Eaker (91) 2,287,786 90,000 1,962,600 0 4,340,386
Mather (88) 933,670 238,526 75,000 1,750,000 2,997,196
Lowry (91) 1,771,525 0 112,500 800,000 2,684,025
Rickenbacker (91) 111,000 1,110,803 0 684,545 1,906,348
Richard-Gebaur (91) 241,985 1,572,000 0 0 1,813,985
Grissom (91) 1,139,528 0 50,000 612,500 1,802,028
a- Office of Economic Adjustment, b- Federal Aviation Administration
c- Economic Development Administration, d- Department of Labor
(GAO/NSIAD-95-139 1995, 116)
Compensation, and Liability Act. If the base was not a Superfund site, then
restoration could be done according to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
requirements (usually less stringent). Both of my case study bases had EISs
performed, but only Pease was listed as a Superfiind site. These three areas of
environmental concern had very little to do with wildlife protection.
Again, as in the closure process, the only federal environmental law in the
redevelopment process that concentrated on wildlife issues was the ESA. Since

neither of my case study bases had federally listed endangered species living on
them, the ESA did not take precedence in the redevelopment process.
Critiques of Base Closure and Redevelopment
How has this closure and redevelopment process faired? In answer to that
question, a great number of documents have been generated, ranging from military
evaluations and Government Accounting Office (GAO) reports to academic
endeavors like this one.3 The vast majority of these documents, not surprisingly, are
centered on fiscal concerns (Bradshaw 1999; Siehl and Knight 1997; Dardia et al.
1996, Hatcher 1994; United States Government Accounting Office reports: NSIAD-
95(1995)-3; NSIAD-96-139; NSIAD-97-151; NSIAD-96-149; NSIAD-95-70;
NSIAD-95-139). This reflects Congresss long-time concern about base closures
having adverse economic impacts on their local communities. But in document
after document, investigators have discovered that about 10 years after closure
former bases have often generated more civilian jobs and local income than if the
base had continued to operate (Bradshaw 1999; Darida et al. 1996; Hatcher 1994;
Presidents Economic Adjustment Committee 1986; GAO/NSIAD-97-151). To test
some of these assertions, I went to the Air Force Base Conversion Agency web site
that keeps a running total of new jobs generated since each base was closed and
performed my own job count. Out of the 18 major Air Force bases that were closed
in 1988 and 1991 (see table 2.1), nine base have created more civilian jobs than they

lost, two have generated about the same number of civilian jobs, and five bases have
generated about half as many jobs (Air Force Base Conversion Agency 1999a). See
table 2.3 for a summary of civilian jobs lost, gained, and percent changed based
upon job lost at closure.
Table 2.3
Civilian Jobs Lost and Gained in the 1988 and 1991 Closures
Base (vear) Civilian iobs lost Jobs created % change
Chanute (1988) 1,035 1,500 + 45%
George (1988) 506 706 + 40%
Mather (1988) 1,012 2,230 + 120%
Norton (1988) 2,133 2021 - 5%
Pease (1988) 400 1,682 + 320%
Bergstrom (1991) 942 263 - 72%
Carswell (1991) 884 806 -9%
Castle (1991) 1,149 2,209 + 92%
Eaker (1991) 792 450 - 43%
England (1991) 697 1,483 + 113%
Grissom (1991) 807 402 - 50%
Loring (1991) 1,326 706 - 47%
Lowry (1991) 2,290 990 - 53%
Myrtle Beach (1991) 799 1,080 + 35%
Richards-Gebaur (1991) 569 370 - 35%
Rickenbacker (1991) 1,129 723 - 36%
Williams (1991) 781 1,704 + 118%
Wurtsmith (1991) 705 1,122 + 59%
All in ali, a total of 17,956 civilian jobs were lost when these 18 bases closed, and
since then, a total of20,447 new civilian jobs have been created (a 14% increase).
Furthermore, a 1986 report by the Presidents Economic Adjustment
Committee found that out of 100 bases that were closed between 1961-1986
jobs [128,138] more than replaced the loss of93,424 DoD civilian jobs ...

communities can recover effectively from base closures. Adjustment can provide
long-term opportunities not necessarily a crisis (i). Perhaps Bradshaw, in his
1999 article Communities not fazed: Why military base closures may not be
catastrophic, said it best:
Predictions that military base closures will be catastrophic to communities
have generally been exaggerated. While many communities face periods of
decline after a base closure or fail to grow as rapidly as they might have
otherwise, initial impacts on the community are often surprisingly milder
than expected ...(193)
There has been some fiscal criticism in regard to the base conversion process itself.
For example, the military has been criticized for reaping smaller cost savings from
the closures than it had originally predicted, especially the Air Force (GAO/NSIAD-
97-151; GAO/NSIAD-96-67; GAO/NSIAD-95-133).
Another major criticism has been the perceived sluggishness of the
redevelopment process, especially the length of time taken to hand base property
over to local authorities. This criticism came from two primary sources. First, local
municipalities that were responsible for the creation and implementation of base
reuse plans consistently complained about the sluggish response from military
agencies responsible for the disposal of base property. In the case of the Air Force,
the federal agency which had (and has) primary responsibility for base disposal was,
and still is, the Air Force Base Conversion Agency (AFBCA). This was an issue
that became very apparent in my interviews with members of base reuse committees
and in my analysis of pertinent newspaper articles.

Another source for these concerns about the sluggishness of the conversion
process came from the federal government itself, mainly the GAO, which was
saddled with the responsibility of evaluating the conversion process. The GAO
found that cleanup actions may delay property transfer and reuse, hurt the
economic revitalization of communities affected by the closure process, and harm
the environment and health (GAO/NSIAD-97-151, 30). Other GAO reports
presented similar findings (GAO/NSIAD-95-133 and GAO/NSIAD-96-149). These
concerns President Clintons July 1993 base reinvestment plan, designed to speed
up the recovery of communities affected by base closures. This reinvestment plan
was called the Five Point Plan. As the title implies, this plan had five main
actions associated with it:
1. Give priority to local economic redevelopment plans,
2. Provide additional transition and redevelopment assistance to local
workers and communities,
3. Speed up environmental cleanup activities,
4. Provide transition coordinators at major closure bases, and
5. Allocate more funds for economic redevelopment planning grants.
(Environmental Protection Agency 1996, 1)
Part three developed into a DoD program titled Fast-track Cleanup. The
proclaimed goal of this program was to accelerate cleanup at closed military bases
so that the property could be available for transfer to the local community quickly,
while still protecting human health and the environment (Department of Defense
1995, i).

The main environmental attention in the closure and redevelopment of
closed military bases centered on assessment and restoration of contaminated land
so it could be quickly used for local economic development. However, some
biologists have begun to express their concern about wildlife protection on closed
military bases (Cooper and Perlman 1997). In the redevelopment of closed bases
rapid economic development, urbanization, and agricultural activities have
threatened the wildlife populations that exist on these former bases. The only
wildlife populations that are given regulatory protection are federally listed
endangered species (under the ESA). Nevertheless, other wildlife populations do
exist, and the habitat for these populations often represents the last remaining
naturally functioning ecosystem in the area, especially for bases in suburban or
urban areas (Cooper and Perlman 1997). Therefore, these biologists and their
colleagues believe that the preservation of wildlife at closed military bases is the
most pressing conservation issue facing the military today.

1 Major (large) closure bases are ones that:
[have] 300 or more civilian employees authorized to be employed, or any
realignment with respect to any installation involving the reduction of 50
percent or 1,000 (whichever is smaller) of the civilian employees authorized
to be employed at the base. (Ginsberg et al. 1993, 173)
2 Bergstrom is a good example of a preexisting lease on a military base and how
this type of lease arrangement can impact redevelopment funding. When the city
of Austin, Texas sold the land that would one day become Bergstrom to the Air
Force, the Air Force agreed that if they ever closed the base they would hand the
land over to the city of Austin. In September of 1993, the city of Austin got the
base back and immediately started to redevelop it in such a way that it would
replace their older, aging, and city-encroached airport. This is why the FAA
provided a $110,841,266 grant/loan and why Bergstroms total ($112,269,526)
was so much higher than all the other bases.
3 There are serious questions about the degree to which the DoD used national
security concerns as the only criteria for closure. Derings 1996 research strongly
suggests that that politics also played a critical role in closure decisions as the
DoD sought to punish non-cooperative members of congress. Since my
research concentrates on the redevelopment of closed bases and not their
selection, this will be the last time I mention this.

We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see
land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and
Aldo Leopold, Our Environment
Modified Grounded Theory
There are two basic types of research methods available in public
administration: qualitative and quantitative (OSullivan and Rassel 1995; Creswell
1994; White and Adams 1994). According to Creswell (1994), a qualitative study is
.. .an inquiry process of understanding a social or human problem, based upon
building a complex, holistic picture, formed with words, reporting detailed views of
informants, and conducted in a natural setting (2). In contrast, a quantitative study
.. .is an inquiry based upon testing a theory composed of variables [input and
output], measured with numbers, and analyzed with statistical procedures, in order
to determine whether the predictive generalizations of theory hold true (Creswell
1994, 2). Because I was looking for factors associated with a particular outcome
(not necessarily causing that outcome) and because a holistic approach also
provided a better means for practitioners to understand the interactions of different
factors without relying on an education in statistics, a qualitative study seemed to

hold the most promise. I was also concerned that in using a deductive quantitative
approach, the purpose of which was to test the applicability of one or two possible
theoretical explanations for base closure impact on wildlife, I might miss several
other factors.
Qualitative Methods
Which qualitative method to use? There are many inquiry strategies to
choose from: Case Studies, Ethnography, Participant Observation, Phenomenology,
Ethnomethdology, Interpretive Practice, Grounded Theory, Biographical, Historical,
Clinical Research, or a combination of these (Denzin and Lincoln 1994). There are
also many methods for collecting and analyzing qualitative empirical data for these
inquiries: Interviews, Observational Techniques, Document Interpretation, Visual
Methods, Personal Experience Methods, Narrative Analysis, or a combination of
these (Denzin and Lincoln 1994). Several readings in qualitative methods informed
this choice (Denzin and Lincoln 1998; Kvale 1996; Denzin and Lincoln 1994; Miles
and Huberman 1994; Whyte 1991; Strauss and Corbin 1990; Yin 1989; Kirk and
Miller 1986; Whyte 1984; Glaser and Strauss 1967). On reflection, a historical case
study approach was chosen since it presented the possibility, through in-depth
analysis, of discovering a wider array of factors that might be at work rather than a
less in-dept look at a larger number of bases (Yin 1989). Since some closed bases
produced wildlife protection plans in their redevelopment process and others did

not, a comparative approach also seemed a good way to double check findings and
to investigate different outcomes for the same factors. Because of these reasons a
historical comparative case study design was selected. Now, how was the data
going to be collected and knowledge created? The eventual choice was modified
grounded theory, for the reasons given below.
Grounded Theory
Grounded theory can be traced back to Glaser and Strauss landmark book,
Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967). This was followed by Glasers Theoretical
Sensitivity in 1978, Strauss and Corbins Basics of Qualitative Research in 1990.
Grounded theory is qualitatively based. According to Strauss and Corbin (1990)
qualitative means a nonmathematical analytic procedure that results in findings
derived from data gathered by a variety of means (Strauss and Corbin 1990, 18).
Why this method? My research question lended itself to this approach
because I was looking at the intricate relationships between social forces (the
community around a closure base), government institutions (the reuse committee,
the DoD, and local municipalities), and the environment (wildlife protection issues).
A qualitative method such as grounded theory holds promise for uncovering .. .the
intricate details of phenomena that are difficult to convey with quantitative
methods (Strauss and Corbin 1990, 19). Additionally, this type of research
encourages development of subsequent substantive theory (Strauss and Corbin

1990, 31) that may be applied to the study of similar policy issues, thereby
becoming useful to practitioners. Finally, some sustainable theorists themselves
have promoted grounded theory-type procedures because they are convinced of the
necessity of tying theory to practice by closely combining research, development,
and field-testing (IUCN Assessment Team 1995, 153).
Grounded theorys starting point is non-categorical field observations,
allowing respondents to portray in their own words the issue under study. From
these initial observations, the researcher then derives descriptive categories.
Successive iterations of this process eventually lead to theoretical conclusions.
Strauss and Corbins 1990 book deviated from this original approach in that it
recommended the organization of initial categories, using existing literature, before
going into the field. This has come to be known as modified grounded theory. A
grounded theory, whether modified or not, is one that is inductively derived from
the study of the phenomenon it represents. It is developed and verified through
systematic data collection and analysis of data pertaining to that phenomenon.
Therefore, it is a reciprocal approach where one does not begin with a theory and at
a later time prove it. Rather, one begins with an area of study and the theory is
allowed to emerge.
In my study, Glasers pure grounded theory would not have been practical
because his approach requires reiterative site visits to re-interview respondents in
the wake of categories derived from the initial interview data, which was something

that I had neither the time nor resources for. My proposals literature review
already suggested a significant amount of factors and categories for investigation;
therefore, Strauss and Corbins modified grounded theory approach presented a
much better fit. This review led to categories that I used as starting points in my
interviews. In this way, the sustainable development literature reviewed in later
sections of this chapter are used to stimulate theoretical sensitivity by providing
concepts (factors/indictors) and relationships (emerging themes) which I
investigated by conducting interviews at closed military bases. In turn, the
interviewees suggested new themes, measurements, and questions that caused me to
return to the theoretical literature, base documents, and to ask additional questions
in later interviews. If enough respondents across the respondent groups
independently alluded to the same factor or dynamic, it became an excellent
candidate for a thematic nexus in my theory building. This is why I also used the
open-ended ethnographically oriented interview approach portrayed in Whytes
(1984) Learning From the Field.
Base Selection for Case Studies
In this dissertation, two closed bases were comparatively studied in an
attempt to discover how local communities were redeveloping them, with attention
to the impact of redevelopment on base wildlife, and what factors were associated
with these results. After eight years working as an environmental engineer and

commissioned officer for the Air Force, I had access to data related to Air Force
closures. Therefore, I limited my research to Air Force bases. Additionally, this
study only looked at relatively large bases because their closure generally
represented a more significant impact on local communities and usually included
sizable wildlife habitats. Another selection criteria was bases at which closure was
initiated at least six years ago because the military has six years to complete a
closure, and the older the closure the more history there was for analysis. For the
sake of comparative analysis, it was also important to focus on closures that have
followed similar administrative procedures.
The 1988 and 1991 rounds of base closure/conversion met those
requirements. Referring back to table 2.1, this left 18 Air Force bases from which to
choose. It was then necessary to identify' bases, the closure of which included an
emphasis on wildlife protection. The surest way to find bases that produced plans
emphasizing wildlife protection was to find closed bases that created wildlife
refuges. There were only two Air Force bases in the 1988 and 1991 round of
closures that ended up creating wildlife refuges: Pease in New Hampshire and
Loring in Maine. Loring was only one of three truly rural bases that was closed in
the first three rounds. In contrast, there were many other bases that had
characteristics similar to Pease (i.e., size, metropolitan area, suburban setting, and
the amount of continuously undeveloped land on the base). To improve my chances

of finding another base that had similar characteristics but a different wildlife
outcome, Pease AFB was selected.
This left 16 bases to choose from, to find one that shared as many
characteristics as possible with Pease except for wildlife protection outcomes.
These characteristics were (1) size of the base; (2) presence and/or absence of
federally listed endangered species living on the base; (3) metropolitan context; and
(4) area of unbroken undeveloped land. Furthermore, there was an emphasis on
selecting Air Force bases that would be similar in size and community context to
those that may be selected for closure in the future in the hope that this research
might be more relevant to future closure processes. Air Force bases that are most
likely to be closed in any future rounds are about 5,000 acres or less in area, include
runways, and are in suburban or urban areas (Beach 1998). Since Pease is 4,257
acres, I ruled out bases that were significantly smaller (less than 3,000 acres) or
significantly bigger (more than 6,000 acres). This left 6 bases to choose from
(George, Mather, Bergstrom, Eaker, Williams, and Myrtle Beach). Next, since
Pease was in a metropolitan area and did not have a federally listed endangered
wildlife living on it, I ruled out bases that were in rural areas or had federally listed
endangered species living on them. This excluded George (federally listed
threatened species), Mather (federally listed endangered species), and Eaker (rural).
Finally, since Pease was on the East Coast and very close to the ocean, I looked for
a base with a similar geographic setting. This ruled out Bergstrom (in Texas) and

Williams (in Arizona). This left Myrtle Beach Air Force Base in South Carolina.
Not only was Myrtle Beach in an Atlantic coastal area like Pease, Myrtle Beach also
had an area of undeveloped land around its old weapons storage depot almost as
large as the one at Pease.
Table 3.1 summarizes some basic differences and similarities between these
two bases. I also limited my research to the base reuse planning process because
current base wildlife conditions might not accurately reflect future conditions. For
example, a base may sit undisturbed for several years while its reuse options are
discussed. During this time, base wildlife populations could increase. Conversely,
construction can temporarily drive off wildlife that can normally co-exist with
certain levels of human activity.
The primary data collection method used in the case studies was the open-
ended interview process (both in person and by phone). People in similar positions
at each base were interviewed. Based upon the pilot study experience, the following
list of standard interviews was derived. These particular respondent roles were

Table 3.1
Base Comparison Table
Pease Mvrtle Beach
Size 4,257 acres 3,937 acres
Number of federally listed endangered
species currently living on base None None
Biggest area of continuous, undeveloped land 1,335 acres 1,095 acres
Location New Hampshire, South Carolina,
northeast Atlantic southeast Atlantic
coastal area coastal area
Metropolitan area Yes Yes
Setting Suburban1 2 3 Suburban
Nearest large city of 119 miles from 187 miles from
100,000 or more Boston Charleston
Planned acres of wildlife protection 1,095 acres 0 acres
Number of new civilian jobs (table 2.4) 1,282 (+ 320%) 281(+ 35%)
chosen based upon their inside information each had and the actual roles that each
played or reported on during the closure process:
1. The DoD Base Conversion Agency (BCA) site manager &
environmental coordinator,
2. The Military Natural Resource Manager at time of closure,
3. The chair and/or executive director of the reuse committee,
4. Local citizens (i.e., a designated neighborhood representatives, an
environmental interest group representative, a local business leader,
and a journalist),
5. The base liaison officer (base transition coordinator), and
6. The chair and/or executive director of the local redevelopment
authority.4 5 6

For a copy of interview questions, refer to Appendix A. The data generated from
the interviews was also used to supplement and verify the document analysis.
Interviews used a standard protocol for all individuals at the different bases.
Generic interview questions, outlined in Appendix A, were slightly modified for the
different positions. These modifications consisted of position specific information
questions that were added to the end of the standard protocol questions (again, see
Appendix A). Each of the interviews was summarized, salient points of
commonality discussed, differences identified, and associations with the outcome of
wildlife status established. Finally, emerging themes were also identified
(OSullivan and Rassel 1995; Denzin and Lincoln 1994; Miles and Huberman
The open-ended interviews I used in this study were the semi-structured
interviews as described by Whyte (1984; 1991). These interviews had a definite and
distinct purpose and a limited range of topics. Interviews usually started with the
same particular questions; however, if the interviewee raised other pertinent issues
these were also explored. These interactions between the interviewees and the
interviewer were a series of discussions about a single topic (wildlife preservation at
the closed base). Even though there was no limit to the range of responses, if the
interviewee came to a natural stopping point in their dialogue where they had made
their point and had nothing more to add, I returned to the original list of questions. I

audio taped these interviews (whenever possible) as well as took notes. The
interviews were transcribed and organized into three respondent groupings based
upon the role they played in the redevelopment planning process:
1. Closure personnel (Air Force Base Conversion Agency and military),
2. Reuse planners and local government agency representative (Reuse
committee chair and/or executive director, Local redevelopment chair
and/or executive director, and the Base Transition Coordinator), and
3. Nongovernmental respondents (Local community representatives,
Environmental interest groups, Local businesses, and the Media).
I refer to the above three groups as Close, Reuse, and NGR. The Close group tried
to dispose of the base and leave. The Reuse group, usually state and local
government agencies responsible for redeveloping the base, took control of the base
in the form of a reuse authority (refer back to chapter two for more details on this).
In this way they would, hopefully and eventually, work themselves out of their jobs.
NGR encompasses all the other interests outside of these two groups local
neighborhood organizations, environmental groups, private citizens, and other
organizations that wished to acquire a portion of the base for their own use. That is,
they desired a use not related to continued military or redevelopment authority
Interview transcripts were analyzed for data content, factors identified from
the literature, and emerging themes. I then coded them (Miles and Huberman
1994). My interviews were processed in the following manner:

1. Conducted the interviews,
2. Transcribed the interviews,
3. Highlighted and coded parts of the interview that commented on my
indicators, emerging themes, and any other salient points, and
4. Performed analysis of highlighted sections.
I completed this analysis by condensing points of commonality from each bases
interviews and categorizing them (Kvale 1996). Once this was completed and
factor/indicator narrative was written for each base, the results from both were
compared. The Myrtle Beach and Pease individuals that I interviewed, position at
time of closure, respondent grouping, and other pertinent data are presented in
Appendix B.
Starting in chapter four, to facilitate comparisons between Pease and Myrtle
Beach and to provide some privacy for my interviewees, I refer to each interviewee by
base initials, respondent grouping title, and interviewee initials. All quotes are verbatim
except for the few interviews that I could not record (again, see Appendix B). While I
was able to write down some nice verbatim quotes even in these interviews, most of the
responses are paraphrased. These paraphrases are identified by the abbreviation para.
listed in the reference.
Myrtle Beach documents collected and examined are listed in table 3.2.
These documents represent key publications produced in the closure and
redevelopment of Myrtle Beach Air Force Base.

Table 3.2
Summary of Myrtle Beach Documents Analyzed
Document # Title/Description (Date) Respondent Group
MBD1 Preliminary Final EIS, including public
comments (January 1993) Close
MBD2 Record of Decision Final EIS Disposal and Reuse
of Myrtle Beach AFB (MBAFB) (November 1993) Close
MBD3 MBAFB Community Redevelopment Plan,
including public comments (January 1993) Reuse
MBD4 General Redevelopment Plan for the Air Base
Planning Area (April 1993) Reuse
MBD5 Myrtle Beach Jetport Master Plan and Base
Re-utilization Study, Final Report (October 1992) Reuse
MBD6 Task Force, Redevelopment Commission, and
Air Base Redevelopment Authority minutes (N/A) Reuse
MBD7 Community Relations Plan (Tune 1995) Reuse
MBD8 Newspaper Articles (N/A) NGR
MBD9 TPI Theme Park Documents (N/A) NGR
These documents are discussed in greater depth in chapter four (Myrtle Beach
case study chapter). Documents 1-5 and 6 are referenced using their code
identifiers (i.e., MBD1, etc.). These documents are also listed in my references
using the above codes. Documents 6, 8, and 9 are referenced by the code
identifier and author of the specific article or document. For example, if Smith
wrote an article in the Myrtle Beach City newspaper, I referenced it in the
following way: £MBD8-Smith. These specific references are listed in my
reference section by the authors name only.

The documents that I examined relating to Pease are listed in table 3.3.
Table 3.3
Summary of Pease Documents Analyzed
No. Title/Description (Date') Respondent Group
PD1 Final Environmental Impact Statement For the Closure of Pease Air Force Base
(February 1990) Close
PD2 Final Environmental Impact Statement For Pease Disposal and Reuse, including
a public comment section (August 1991) Close
PD3 Record of Decision, Disposal and Reuse
of Pease Air Force Base (August 1991) Close
PD4 Pease Air Force Base Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan: Scope of Work,
including a public comment section (1989) Reuse
PD5 Pease Air Force Base Comprehensive
Redevelopment Plan: Phase l (February 1990) Reuse
PD6 Pease Preferred Development Concept (May 1990) Reuse
PD7 Pease Air Force Base Comprehensive Development
Plan, including public comments (September 1990) Reuse
PD8 Pease Redevelopment Commission minutes, including subcommittees, resolutions, and
proposals & redevelopment authority minutes (N/A) Reuse
PD9 Base Personnel Survey (February 1990) Reuse
PD10 Newspaper Articles (N/A) NGR
PD11 Letter Writing Campaign Documents (N/A) NGR
These documents, representing key publications produced in the closure and
redevelopment of Pease, are discussed in greater detail in chapter five. These
documents are also referenced and listed in my reference section in the same
manner as the Myrtle Beach documents.

Since I used Strauss and Corbins modified grounded theory
approach to knowledge creation, I also used their literature and document
descriptors. Strauss and Corbin describe two types of literature in their 1990
book, technical and nontechnical:
Technical literature: Reports of research studies, and theoretical or
philosophical papers characteristic of professional and disciplinary
writing. These can serve as background materials against which one
compares findings from actual data gathered in grounded theory
Nontechnical literature: Biographies, diaries, documents,
manuscripts, records, reports, catalogs, and other materials that can
be used as primary data or supplemental interviews and field
observations in grounded theory studies. (48)
In this study I refer to the technical literature as literature and the nontechnical
literature as documents. To denote quotes from the document sources I use the
document identifiers presented in table 3.2 and 3.3 of this chapter for my references
(i.e., MBD# & PD#). Document analysis followed the below four steps:
1. Collected the same documents for each base,
2. Found points of commonality and differences for each bases documents,
3. Categorized, condensed, and coded these points, and
4. Compared them to the interview results, and each other.

One of the main clues that I looked for in this document analysis was the way
choices were presented in the most prominent publications (Schneider & Ingram
1997; Baumgartner and Jones 1991). Was there a clear choice between wildlife
protection and economic development as presented to the public? Or was the
writing of key documents done in such a way as to make one option seem the only
logical decision to make? This type of problem presentation, or issue framing, has
often been described as an artificial Hobsons choice (Stone 1997; Friedman 1962)
and was one the key themes investigated for wildlife status outcome in the
document analysis.
Analysis of the interviews identified past trends and produced stories of
successful and unsuccessful attempts to preserve wildlife. I then compared these
findings with my document findings. These two separate methods not only filled in
each others gaps, but they tended to act as compasses, pointing towards factors
associated with environmentally sustainable redevelopment. From the analysis of
both the interviews and documents, recurrent themes unique to each base emerged.
I then compared the bases themes (Denzin and Lincoln 1998). It was this thematic
comparison that led to policy lessons and implementation recommendations for any
base closure that may be conducted under a future version of the Base Closure and
Realignment Act.
Since I used the modified grounded theory approach to knowledge
creation and investigated several factors, I wrote the following literature

review in such a way as to represent this cyclical approach. It begins with an
overview of some of the sustainable development literature most relevant to
issues of wildlife protection and economic development. The following
discussion first cites the literature suggesting each of the initial factors, then
discusses how each was measured. The five initial factors that this literature
suggested were (1) environmental ethical concern resulting in activism, (2)
local community wealth, (3) demographic and geographic characteristics, (4)
public participation, (5) and administrative context and processes.
Following this is a discussion of how these factors were evaluated in the
Lowry pilot study, followed by a discussion of how the pilot study suggested
new measurements and questions for these factors that were used in the case
Supporting Literature
In the modified grounded theory approach, theoretical literature provides
suggestions for structuring initial interviews (Green 1998; Strauss and Corbin
1990). In this way, instead of relying solely on the research subjects to suggest
factors for initial consideration, the literature provided them. The sustainable
development theories investigated were directly related to the two case studies
conducted -- wildlife protection versus intensive redevelopment in the arena of
public planning and decision making at closed military bases. Since I eventually

investigated six theoretical sub-areas of sustainable development literature (the sixth
resulting from comparative analysis of the case studies), I was also able to
determine if more than one sustainable development factor needed to be present for
there to be successful wildlife protection outcomes.
Overview of Sustainable Development Literature
The concept of sustainable development was brought onto the global stage
during the 1980 World Conservation Strategy of the International Union for the
Conservation of Natural Resources (Carew-Reid et al. 1994, xiii). Three years later,
the United Nations established the World Commission on Environment and
Development to formulate an agenda. The Commission, headed by the former
Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brudtland, published its final report, Our
Common Future, in 1987. In this work (and for the purpose of this dissertation),
sustainable development was defined as development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs (Brundtland 1987, 8). This and other similar efforts led to the 1992 United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro and
AGENDA 21, which was the resulting action plan from the conference. A theme
that ran through AGENDA 21 was that the worlds environment (which includes
wildlife) must be conserved to ensure the future of the human race and that raising
peoples environmental awareness, improving socioeconomic conditions, and

curbing population growth would help ensure this. This theme was summed up as
their Principle 4, which stated, in order to achieve sustainable development,
environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process
and cannot be considered in isolation (United Nations 1992, 9).
What is really meant by development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs
(Brundtland 1987, 8)? Sustainable development itself has been a hotly debated
concept ever since the creation of the term, the field of study, and Brundtlands
report, which brought it to the worlds attention. John Pezzy, a professor at the
University of Colorado, Boulder, has an on-going working paper that lists 23
different definitions of sustainable development.3 In a 1996 article, Dobson claims
that there are 300 different definitions of sustainable development although he fails
to list them in his article. Furthermore, ...sustainable development's]
irredeemably contested nature guarantees plural understandings (Dobson 1996,
403). Toman (1992) summed up the problem of defining sustainable development:
Like many evocative terms, sustainable development means many things to
different people and can be used in reference to a number of important issues (3).
In 1995, Munro echoed this concern: The terms sustainable development and
sustainability have been used to characterize almost any path to the kind of just,
comfortable, and secure future to which everyone aspires (27). Nevertheless, many
theorists agree that an important component in defining sustainable development is

intergenerational fairness (Buell and DeLuca 1996; Haughton and Hunter 1994;
May 1994; Thomas 1994; Lewis 1996; Gore 1992; Toman 1992). Because of this
view, I have chosen Brundtlands definition.
This research concentrates on environmental resource protection. A better
term to use could be environmental sustainability. Environmental sustainability
specifically refers to environmental resource conservation. However, since my
concern is with preserving wildlife for future generations and Brundtlands
definition provides the necessary intergenerational emphasis, I treated this definition
as broad enough to include the concept of environmental sustainability.
Sustainable Land Use Planning
Over most of the nations history, the degradation of natural resources has
been considered an inevitable consequence of economic development (Davis 1998;
Owen and Chiras 1990; Richards 1986). This assumption began to be seriously
challenged at the beginning of the 20th century by figures such as President
Theodore Roosevelt, John Muir, Gifford Pinchot, and Aldo Leopold (Des Jardins
1997; Owen and Chiras 1990). More recently, the notion that economic
development is always a zero-sum game in competition with environmental quality
has been even more significantly challenged through the current emphasis on
sustainability and sustainable development. This zero-sum game concept also
centers on issues of land use planning.

Planning, specifically related to land use, is a stage of the political process
where future land use policies are often created (Kozlowski and Hill 1993; DeGrove
and Metzger 1991; Stroud and OConnell 1986; Popper 1983). Development
(whether ecologically friendly or not) is where these plans are often implemented
(Lewis 1996, Hoover and Shannon 1995; DeGrove and Metzger 1991). Land use is
crucial to environmental changes, and influences the formulation of an
environmental policy. Government policies and localized bodies determine the land
use planning system objectives (Healey and Shaw 1993, 769). If there will be
wildlife for future generations to appreciate, enjoy, and use, there must be habitat
for these species to live in. For there to be wildlife habitat, .an attempt to assist
in incorporating ecological contents into the planning process in which land use
patterns are generated must be welcome (Kozolowski and Hill 1993, viii).
The history of suburban land development in the United States is one
of urban sprawl. Private investors who make their living by building upon
natural landscapes are usually referred to as developers. These developers
have promoted a growth economy because more growth means new
development, and it is mainly through new development projects that
developers make more money. This growth tends to occur on the fringes of
cities. Hence growth tends to increase demand for land throughout the urban
region but the increases are greater at the periphery... (Blair 1995, 229). This

leads to increased urban sprawl that gobbles up green spaces and wildlife
Why have developers done this? Land that does not have improvements
associated with it (streets, utilities, and city services) is cheaper for a developer to
buy than land that does have it. The developers objective may be approximated
by the desire to maximize profits... (Blair 1995, 215). A developer cannot realize
profits if the land he or she wishes to speculate on is left in its natural condition.
Defenders of this type of land development which they call metropolitan spread
contend that local development is a matter of personal preference and market
economics, not collective community action (Blair 1995). Opponents of traditional
land development contend that it increases air pollution, resource consumption (in
the form of fuel consumption from increased vehicle miles traveled), and reduces
agricultural land and wildlife habitats (Gunn 1998; Rosenfeld 1997; Selman 1996;
Blair 1995). These theorists also propose that some type of balance between
economic development and environmentally safe practices should be achieved.
In creating wildlife safe development plans, the Presidents Council on
Sustainable Development (1996) suggests that America needs to change its natural
resource management style from that of resource user to resource steward:

Stewardship is an essential concept that helps to define appropriate human
interaction with the natural world. An ethic of stewardship builds on
collaborative approaches; ecosystem integrity; and incentives in such areas
as agricultural resource management, sustainable forestry, fisheries,
restoration, and biodiversity conservation. (109)
This new stewardship would have to express itself in the planning process in
order to change development patterns. In respect to base closures, the specific
process investigated was the reuse planning process as explained in chapter two.
The heavy development of local natural landscapes to maximize economic
gain versus controlled development that includes the protection of wildlife habitat
has been a tension described by many environmental authors (Bartelmus 1994;
Beatley et al. 1993; Oldfield 1991; Noss 1987; Faludi 1985). Des Jardins (1997)
stated it well: Quite often, environmental interests are pitted against entrenched and
influential corporate and government interests (189). These authors state that a
balance needs to be reached because both people and animals must live off the same
Although few remaining natural areas are large enough to contain natural
disturbance regimes and natural community mosaics within their boundaries,
or to meet the needs of wide-ranging animals, an integrated network of
protected areas and buffer zones of low-intensity land use [like clear zones
around munitions storage areas on military bases] may approximate the
natural pattern. (Noss 1987, 2)
The essence of local-level sustainable planning is a collaborative, participation-
based decision-making process that takes into account the protection of natural

resources to assure a healthy community (Schwab 1997; Hancock and Gibson 1996;
Porter and Salvesen 1995; Hicks 1993; Grosse 1992; Tober 1989).
How is local-level sustainable planning achieved? Planning to sustain
landscapes implies not only a new philosophy but also different land-use practices
within communities (Grant, Manuel, and Joudrey 1996, 331). Three practices are
heavily promoted: reinvestment in the central parts of cities, the preservation of
rural agricultural land and wildlife habitat, and the creation and maintenance of
green belts around cities to limit urban sprawl (Gunn 1998; Rosenfeld 1997;
Grant, Manuel, and Joudrey 1996; Seiman 1996). These goals are important,
combined they aim to pave over as little natural area as possible. The health and
prosperity of communities over the long term depends upon natural processes and
landscape functions. Without a healthy environment, human communities face
uncertain futures (Grant, Manuel, and Joudrey 1996, 331). For example, if
wetlands are filled in, then this land cannot absorb as much water as it once did, and
local flood events can become more severe. This is what happened in the 1993
Midwest Flood, which was considered one of the worst to ever occur in the United
States. Much of this flooding was attributed to the filling in of wetlands for
agriculture purposes (McManamy 1993).

Other Areas Related to Sustainable Development Planning
In 1997, Pezzoli attempted to map out sustainable development fields of
discourse. According to Pezzoli, there are ten fields, and each of these fields also
has several sub-fields.4 Accompanying this article, discussing his transdisiciplinary
overview of sustainable development literature, a transdisiciplinary bibliography in
support of these categories was aiso presented. Pezzoli concluded that the main
focus of sustainable development was its attempt to address four concerns: (1)
holism and co-evolution, (2) social justice and equity, (3) empowerment and
community building, and (4) sustainable production and reproduction (549).
In 1996, Marien published Environmental issues and sustainable futures: A
critical guide to recent books, reports, and periodicals. In this book Marien
identified three broad categories and many subcatagories:5 Environmental Issues,
Toward Sustainability, and Politics & Planning. These lists are not authoritative;
you could go to other sustainable development theorists and get almost as many
different lists as there are theorists. Nevertheless, in comparing the two lists,
similar areas of discourse became apparent economics, philosophy, ethics,
politics, planning, and specific environmental issues. I could have spent a great
deal of time comparing these lists with the rest of the sustainable development
literature, but that would have been extraneous to what I needed to do, which was to
identity where my particular question fell in the sustainable development literature.
I used these lists as a starting point. Since I wanted to identify factors of sustainable

development, Pezzolis sub-area of sustainable development indicators was a
natural starting point. My outcome of concern was the protection of local wildlife
resources for the sustainable redevelopment of a closed military base, Mariens
subcategory of biodiversity became the second literature group related to my
research. Finally, since my study focused on local government efforts to redevelop
closed military bases, Mariens category of politics & planning became a final
group. Although I conducted this literature review based upon the areas listed
above, there was a great deal of overlap. An important theoretical concept for one
indicator was usually found in another. For example, the area that I discuss first,
sustainable development indicators, addresses ways to measure theoretical concepts
that I address in the following areas. These literature groups provide the
framework, context, and supporting literature and their theoretical relationships can
be thought of as nested and overlapping theoretical concepts (see figure 3.1).
Because sustainable development indicator literature influences all the
initial factors for consideration (factor and indicator are used interchangeably),
sustainable development indicators are discussed first and separately. Following
that is a discussion of the supporting literature for each of the initial factors and
their respective measurements.

Figure 3.1
Sustainable Development Literature Areas

Sustainable Development Indicators
If protecting wildlife while allowing economic development is a sustainable
development goal, how do we know if we are making progress? Many sustainable
development theorists suggest that creating ways to measure sustainable
development progress is an important step (Bossel 1998; Flicker 1998; Yu et al.
1998; Presidents Council on Sustainable Development 1996; Trzyna and Osborn
1995; van Dieren 1995; Brown, Flavin, and Postel 1991; Kuik and Verbuggen 1991;
Pirages 1977). Additionally, without special measurements for ensuring that future
generations and non-human species are represented in public decision making, they
could be systematically underrepresented (Goldman et al. 1995). Furthermore, any
indicators ... should reflect the interface between social, economic, and
environmental issues ... Statistics alone are not enough for decision-making and
must be supplemented by textual and geographically referenced information
(OConner 1995, 91). Meanwhile, Agenda 21 identified the need for indicators of
sustainable development for use in decision-making, but those that have been
developed are not easy to apply in project level... (George 1999, 175). Finally,
almost all sustainable development indicators that have been created for the United
States have concentrated on environmental or economic issues at the national,
regional, or state levels very little work has been done on local indicators (Corson

So far, most of the suggested sustainable development indicators seem to fall
into three broad categories (with overlap): global overviews, new economic
indicators, and environmental indicators. Global overviews are broad-based, world-
wide factors such as total earth population, per-capita consumption rates, global
climate change, planetary natural resource depletion rates, air and water pollution
issues, and the growth of environmental hazards (Arizpe, Stone, and Major 1994;
Goudie 1994; Kendall 1992; Tolba and El-kholy 1992; Meadows et al. 1972). As
can be seen from their global nature, these indicators do not hold a great deal of
promise for identifying local factors for my research question. The second group of
proposed sustainable development indicators center on economic measurements in
general and national economic measurements in particular.
Economic approaches to social modeling, natural resource management, and
population prediction led many researchers to wonder if the United States economic
indicators truly measured actual economic health while taking into account
environmental and social issues (Goodland and Daly 1995; OConner 1995; Sheng
1995; Bartelemus 1994; Cobb and Cobb 1994; Pearce and Warford 1993; Foy 1990;
Daly and Cobb 1989). Even though this area of new economic indicators emphasizes
national accounts, it also addresses some local economic issues. Some of the literature
suggests that the creation of economic equity indicators is an important step for
sustainable land use planning. According to the 1987 Brudtland report, when it comes
to trying to achieve sustainable development ...many problems of resource depletion

and environmental stress arise from disparities in economic and political power (46).
For example, an industry may get away with unacceptable levels of air and water
pollution because the people who bear the brunt of it are poor and unable to complain
effectively. In this example, local groups and individuals have little ability to impact
the management of their local environment because of their low socio-economic status.
Economic growth needs to be more ...equitable in its impact (Brudtland 1987, 52).
Income distribution is one aspect of the quality of growth ... and rapid growth
combined with deteriorating income may be worse than slower growth combined with
redistribution in favor of the poor (Brundtland 1987, 52). For instance, the
introduction of large-scale commercial agriculture may produce revenue rapidly, but it
may also displace a large number of small family farms and make income distribution
more inequitable. In the same vein, Scruggs (1993) describes that one of British
Columbias basic principles for sustainability is to meet basic needs and aim for fair
distribution of the benefits and the costs of resource use and environmental
protection... (23). In 1994, the Tides Foundation held a Conference titled, "Defining
Sustainable Communities. The report from this conference concluded that a new
definition of prosperity is needed. Core to this is that capital is a resource to be shared
with the community, not controlled by an elite.
Environmental indicators center on measuring human impact on the
environment. These environmental indicators concentrate on measuring
environmental conditions and attempt to determine if these conditions are improving

or declining (Environmental Protection Agency 1992; Kozlowski and Hill 1993;
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 1991; Thomas 1976).
For instance, the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development (1996) proposed
that to measure whether the United States is achieving its goal of a healthy and
clean environment, indicators for measuring progress (or lack thereof) in cleaning
the air, improving drinking water, identifying toxic exposures to hazardous waste,
and accounting for deaths from these exposures need to be developed.
This research relates to local politics, planning, and land use. This is
significant because ...scientists must learn more of the four-interactions of
population, the environment, economy, and culture (Cohen 1995, 386). And these
interactions take place on the local level even though their collective impact is felt at
the global level thus the maxim think globally act locally. To successfully
measure local interactions that impact sustainability, indicators need to be ...a
multidisciplinary effort. The integration of contributions from the natural and social
sciences on this subject is essential (Kuik and Verbruggen 1991).
Wildlife Status
In determining the conditions that were present in the local community and
within the reuse committee that were associated with wildlife status, the first step
was to determine a means for gauging relative levels of wildlife protection. This

was derived from review of the biodiversity/sustainable development literature and
from the pilot study conducted at Lowry AFB, Colorado, in the summer of 1998.
The sustainable development literature suggests that environmental
resources not be overtaxed so that they may be available for future use. Brown
(1987) points out that when a population exceeds the sustainable yield of their
forests, croplands, and aquifers, ...they begin to consume the resource base itself,
gradually destroying it (21). The eventual result of this destruction is a collapse of
the biological and environmental support system. There have been volumes of
material written about vanishing wildlife, the destruction of wildlife habitat, and the
importance of this wildlife habitat to the future of the human race (Baskin 1997;
Kellert 1996; Power 1996; Grumbine 1994; Board on Science and Technology for
International Development 1992; Spellerberg and Hardes 1992; Dubasak 1990;
Soule and Kohm 1989; Norton 1986). The main concern expressed by these works
is that human-induced wildlife extinction is increasing at an alarming rate and once
a species is extinct, that unique genetic resource is gone forever. How many species
are going extinct? How many species were there to begin with? As with the
question what is sustainable development?, there are almost as many different
answers as there are experts. Most of the estimates on the total number of animal
species in existence and their rate of human-induced extinction seems to fall in the

range of 4 to 23 million species with four to 60 going extinct each day (Noss and
Cooperrider 1994; Spellerberg and Hardes 1992; Wilson 1992; Tudge 1991; Norton
In regard to the United States, there are no solid numbers on species losses
(Mac 1998; Langner and Flather 1994; Committee on the Formation of the National
Biological Survey 1993). However, there is a general agreement that biodiversity is
Comparison of data from the 1960s indicates that native diversity has
declined in the U.S., over the past three decades, and is likely to continue to
decline.... natural habitats will continue to decline and fragment as a result
of growing human populations and associated pressure on a shrinking base
of natural habitats. (Langner and Flather 1994, 18)
In the above quote, diversity refers to the number of different species and population
numbers for each species. Diversity loss can come from the extinction of one
species or the population reduction of one species to the point that its genetic code
variations become extremely limited. Biological diversity loss in the United States
has been related to rapid economic development and habitat destruction (Dunlap
1988, 142).
Can wildlife protection (the avoidance of biodiversity loss) truly be
considered a subcategory of sustainable development, or is it its own environmental
category? The recognized need to conserve and/or preserve wildlife has been

around longer than the concept of sustainable development, but sustainable
development theorists concentrate on the intricate relationships between biological
diversity, socio-political arenas, and human based actions (Rodiek and DelGiudice
1994; Naveh 1994; Clark and Munn 1986). Since I am looking at public decision
making in regard to base reuse, it seems logical to take the view of wildlife
protection as a component of sustainable development. To borrow from Rodiek and
DelGiudice (1994):
Biological diversity, landscape sustainability and wildlife habitat
conservation should not be viewed as separate missions. They should be
viewed as complementary responses designed to help resolve the conflicts
between human actions as they relate to the use of natural resources and
environmental impacts. (2)
There seems to be some consensus that human-induced biodiversity losses need to
be stopped or slowed (Dobson 1996; Ehrenfeld 1995; McDonnell and Pickett 1993;
Perrings 1994; Norton 1986; Warren and Goldsmith 1983). Furthermore, there
seems to be a consensus that more land set aside for wildlife habitat, growing
wildlife populations, and more attention to wildlife issues are positive wildlife
protection trends that need to be encouraged. George (1999) developed three
indicators of biodiversity status in project management:

- The quantification of natural habitat that will be lost which is important for
species conservation,
- The setting aside of equivalent replacement habitat for area lost, and
- Justification for habitat area lost, as a proportion of the total area of this
type of habitat, in such a way that the overall loss will not damage wildlife
regeneration rates. (George 1999, 181)
This factor was rather straightforward, and the measurements for this factor
in my case studies were also rather straightforward -- amount of wildlife habitat,
wildlife conditions, and specificity (attention) given to wildlife in the planning
process (Rapport et al. 1998; Kozlowski and Hill 1993; Environmental Protection
Agency 1992; OECD 1991; Thomas 1976). The two main measurements were the
percent of wildlife habitat set aside in base reuse planning and specificity given to
wildlife in the reuse planning process. Specificity refers to the amount of attention
that planners, the public, and the military paid to wildlife preservation issues in base
reuse planning. By measuring the specificity given to wildlife, I tried to determine
if wildlife was being protected without the creation of a refuge. Another
measurement was actual acres set aside for wildlife habitat and current wildlife
conditions. To gauge the amount of wildlife habitat protected, I reviewed
Environmental Impact Statements, Records of Decisions, and Reuse Plans for both
bases. Specificity was measured by reviewing newspaper articles and meeting
minutes to see how much dialogue there was concerning the protection of wildlife

In respect to influencing factors that may be associated with wildlife
preservation status at closed bases, I divided them into two categories -- background
community factors and reuse committee dynamics. Grouping the factors
investigated into separate categories based upon similar characteristics made it
possible to determine which category had more of an impact in producing wildlife
protection plans. This was estimated by determining which category had more
factors associated with successful wildlife protection outcomes.
Background community factors are items that described the local
community. Since reuse planning for a closed base must physically take place in
that community, certain aspects of the community became important factors that
comment on how a community thinks, acts, and plans with regard to wildlife. The
initial factors that this study looked at were environmental ethics and activism, local
community wealth, and demographic/geographic characteristics. Reuse committee
dynamics were factors that described the actual redevelopment planning process
itself. These factors were divided into two categories: public participation and
administrative context.
Environmental Ethical Concern and Activism
Environmental ethics refers to the consideration of what should be the
appropriate moral relationship between human beings and the environment.

Environmental ethics explores different views of this relationship, such as whether
nature is intrinsically valuable or is of instrumental value only (Des Jardins 1997).
Instrumental value can be viewed as a function of usefulness. An object with
instrumental value possesses that value because it can be used to attain something
else of value. Thinking of natural objects in terms of resources often implies an
instrumental value related to a human-centered (anthropocentric) view of the world.
For example, Gifford Pinchots conservation movement emphasized the
instrumental value of forest and wilderness areas. In contrast, John Muir saw an
intrinsic value in wilderness for its own sake. And it is from these two historical
figures that we inherited the conservation management versus preservation
management debate.
However, many environmental ethicists consider Aldo Leopold to be the
prominent founder of American environmental ethics. His lifes work sought to
integrate ecology and ethics (Des Jardins 1997, 173). Leopold (1966) considered
wildlife management an ethical issue based upon normative relationships; to
describe these relationships he coined the term the land ethic. From this
perspective, the natural environment has as much right to exist as we do (Singer
1990; Nash 1989; May 1978; Trefethen 1975). And this proclamation that nature
has a right to exist due to its intrinsic value has two theoretical camps associated
with it biocentric and ecocentric environmental ethics. Biocentric ethics refers to
the view that all life (animal and plant) possesses some intrinsic value (Taylor 1986;

Regan 1983). Biocentric ethics excludes the nonliving aspects of the natural world
because it only equates value with life. In contrast, an ecocentric ethic gives moral
consideration to nonliving natural objects and ecological systems (Des Jardins
The animal rights movement has theoretical foundations in both biocentric
and ecocentric ethics (Bissell 1993). The animal rights movement has exemplified
the specific ethical concern of wildlife preservation in respect to public policy
(Singer 1990). Indeed, an environmental ethic that ...does not address the question
of wilderness preservation would seem, at best, incomplete (Des Jardins 1997,
149). But environmental ethics can only take us so far; environmental activism that
seeks to influence and direct public wildlife policy is also essential (Des Jardins
1997; Devall and Sessions 1985; Fox 1984; Naess 1984). This points towards the
importance of environmental ethics and activism as an indicator for consideration.
Environmental ethics is a branch of philosophical ethics that also deals with
real-world environmental issues (Euston 1995; Merchant 1992; Shearman 1990;
Callicott 1989; Hargrove 1989; Rolston 1988). One theorist (Nash 1989) holds that
environmental ethics will fall into direct conflict with policy formulation as
practiced by American public administration. In the laboratory of base closures, a
communitys environmental ethic may or may not be incorporated into base reuse
planning depending upon the communitys drive (activism) to impose its
environmental beliefs on base reusing planning.

Environmental activism is not only related to environmental ethics but also
to politics, specifically interest group politics, often called pluralism (Davis 1998;
Hrebenar and Scott 1990). Interest group theorys central tenet is that ...society
will inevitably form into groups to promote their common political interests (Davis
1998, 14). A theory that runs opposite to pluralism is elite theory. Elite theorys
main postulate is that the ...wealthy elite control policy because its members are
more likely to hold those positions due to their head start in life, and because the
elite pull the strings from behind (Davis 1998, 15). In this dissertation I have
defined environmental activism as the political action taken by interested people of
a local community to impose a certain environmental ethic.
What is the level of environmental activism for a community and how to
measure it? This study included interviews with individuals who were able to
comment on their local communitys level of environmental activism at the time of
closure. These individuals were asked to characterize the local communities
environmental activism and how this affected reuse planning dynamics.
Additionally, a document search was conducted to determine the number and type
of environmental interest groups involved in the local communitys reuse
discussions. By counting and identifying the number and types of environmental
groups involved in the reuse process, I was able produce a measurement that

facilitated a comparison between the two bases. Particular attention was paid to the
involvement of national level environmental interest groups colloquially known as
the big ten.6 In this study I refer to the grouping of individuals, environmental
interest groups, and local organizations as a preservation coalition. The literature
sources, measurements, questions, and documents used to investigate these factors
at both bases are listed in table 3.4.
Table 3.4
Tools for Measuring Environmental Ethics and Activism
Literature Indicator
Davis 1998; Environmental
Euston 1995; Activism
Pirages 1977;
Gore 1992;
Merchant 1992;
Des Jardins 1997;
Leopold 1949;
Singer 1990.
Perceived environmental
activism level
Number and types of
wildlife conservation
groups that were involved
in reuse planning; level of
involvement; relationship
between actions taken
and results achieved
1. Could you describe
the local level of
environmental activism?
2. Do you recall which
wildlife groups
were involved?
3. Why do you think
they were involved?
MBDocs 6, 8.
PDocs 8,10.
Local Community Wealth
A sustainable economy is held to be necessary for intergenerational equity
... concerning ... resource depletion; conserving the stock of resources, resource
diversity, and assimilative capacity (Attfleld 1998, 207). In planning for
sustainable development, economic issues have received considerable attention

(Goodland and Daly 1995; Foy 1990; Stivers 1976; Boulding 1966). A specific area
of economic concern under sustainable development is the equitable distribution of
economic wealth. Policies designed to promote sustainable development, improve
environmental quality, and insure democracy cannot be divorced from questions
about the present day distribution of wealth and welfare (Rees 1991, 292). Those
who trumpet the supremacy of democracy forget that it is merely one of many
systems that govern the decisions affecting our lives. Capitalism, our economic
system, exerts an equally profound influence, perhaps greater (Chomsky 1999, 8).
There has also been a great deal of writing concerning relationships between
economic wealth and the natural environment (Myers 1996; Goodland and Daly
1995; Daly 1994; Duming 1992; Gore 1992; Costanza 1991). In regard to wildlife
habitat preservation in local communities, the wealth of the local residents seems to
be an important factor for consideration. Specifically, many theorists have noted
that as the affluence of a community increases, that communitys desire to preserve
its landscapes may also increase (Bernard and Young 1997; Downs 1994; Pye-
Smith, Feyerabend, and Sandbrook 1994; Pick 1993; Caimcross 1992; Frieden
1979). Often, the environmental goals that affluent groups seek to achieve are
wildlife preservation, landscape preservation, and reductions in air and noise
pollution (Frieden 1979, 8). With increased wealth comes increased political
power; therefore, as individuals with preservation interests gain affluence, their
ability to preserve local wildlife habitats can also increase. However, landscape