Federal Facilities: Alternative Land Uses Could Save Water at Fallon
Naval Air Station, Nevada (Letter Report, 12/10/1999,
GAO/RCED/NSIAD-00-42).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on
alternative land uses that could save water at Fallon Naval Air Station,
Nevada, focusing on: (1) the aviation safety and operational
requirements for the runway protection zone at Fallon Naval Air Station
(NAS); (2) the alternative land use strategies Fallon NAS identified in
response to congressional direction and how it evaluated them; and (3)
the land use strategies at five military facilities and two commercial
airports that operate in similar environments.

GAO noted that: (1) Fallon NAS must comply with the Department of
Defense's (DOD) aviation safety and operational requirements for runway
protection zones; (2) these requirements specify the maximum safe
heights for buildings, towers, poles, and other possible obstructions to
air navigation; (3) under these requirements, where possible, areas
immediately beyond the ends of runways and along primary flight paths
should be developed sparsely, if at all, to limit the risk from a
possible aircraft accident; (4) at Fallon NAS, the agricultural and
other low-density land uses are compatible with air operations; (5) the
land surrounding the airfield is owned by the Navy and leased to farmers
for agricultural use, which is permitted by DOD; (6) Fallon NAS gave
detailed consideration to three land management strategies in developing
its approach to managing land in the runway protection zone in the early
1990s; (7) each of these strategies involved irrigating the greenbelt;
(8) as many as 11 different land management strategies were identified
at the outset, but three of them were eliminated before an initial
screening because Fallon NAS officials believed they would be
environmentally or economically unacceptable or would cause unacceptable
operational or safety impairments; (9) Fallon NAS officials eliminated
five of the remaining eight strategies prior to a detailed analysis
because they believed the strategies did not meet the Navy's evaluation
criteria, which were based on provisions of the law; (10) the criteria
Fallon NAS used in evaluating these land management strategies were
based on the officials' assessment of whether the strategies would
minimize dust, bird strikes, fire and other hazards, would enhance air
safety, and, to a lesser extent, would reduce the amount of irrigation
water used; (11) after a detailed analysis and the application of these
criteria, Fallon NAS officials selected the strategy that involves
conventional farming combined with water conservation practices because
they believed it would have a very high probability of satisfying the
safety goals while providing moderate water savings compared with the
air station's historical usage; (12) at the seven other military
facilities and commercial airports GAO visited, the land management
strategies varied--two used strategies involving greenbelts, while five
did not; (13) the military facilities and commercial airports operating
in desert-like conditions similar to Fallon NAS' have employed land
management strategies that have resulted in water savings; and (14)
Fallon NAS officials said that they were aware of these other land

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED/NSIAD-00-42
     TITLE:  Federal Facilities: Alternative Land Uses Could Save Water
	     at Fallon Naval Air Station, Nevada
      DATE:  12/10/1999
   SUBJECT:  Comparative analysis
	     Naval facilities
	     Military aviation
	     Water conservation
	     Land management
	     Airports
	     Environmental policies
	     Transportation safety
IDENTIFIER:  Bureau of Reclamation Newlands Reclamation Project
	     Nevada

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

Report to the Honorable
Harry Reid, U.S. Senate

December 1999

FEDERAL FACILITIES

Alternative Land Uses Could Save Water at Fallon Naval Air Station,
Nevada
*****************

*****************

GAO/RCED/NSiad-00-42

Letter                                                                     3

Appendixes

Appendix I:Land Use Practices at Five Military Facilities
and Two Commercial Airports

                                                                         16

Appendix II:Comments From the Department of Defense

                                                                         30

Appendix III:Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

                                                                         33

Appendix IV:GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

                                                                         35

Table 1:  Comparison of Land Use Strategies Considered in Detail
for Fallon NAS                                  10

Figure 1:  Fallon NAS' Runway Protection Zone and Greenbelt Area7

Figure 2:  Map of Lemoore Naval Air Station     17

Figure 3:  Map of Yuma Marine Corps Air Station 19

Figure 4:  Map of China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station21

Figure 5:  Map of Nellis Air Force Base         23

Figure 6:  Map of Luke Air Force Base           25

Figure 7:  Map of McCarran International Airport27

Figure 8:  Map of Sky Harbor International Airport29

DOD     Department of Defense

FAA     Federal Aviation Administration

NAS     Naval Air Station

NOTS    Naval Ordnance Test Station

                                                  Resources, Community, and
                                              Economic Development Division

B-283968

December 10, 1999

The Honorable Harry Reid
United States Senate

Dear Senator Reid:

The U.S. Navy, which operates the Fallon Naval Air Station (NAS) in
Nevada, pursues a strategy for managing land around its runways-the runway
protection zone-that requires extensive water usage in an area where water
is scarce. The Fallon area averages less than 5 inches of rain per year.
Since the 1950s, the Navy has maintained a (r)greenbelt(c) at the air
station that consists of acreage leased to local farmers who grow
irrigated crops on the land. In the Navy's view, having a (r)greenbelt(c)
serves to protect the operational capability of the facility by reducing
the risk of fire, lowering the chance of bird strikes or other damage to
aircraft from foreign objects, and controlling dust. Since 1990, the Navy,
on average, has annually used approximately 1.6 billion gallons of surface
water supplied by the local irrigation project to irrigate this land.
According to Fallon NAS officials, the average annual water consumption
for the balance of Fallon NAS has been 219 million gallons, which is drawn
from wells. Other military facilities and commercial airports located in
similar environments have opted for land use approaches that are less
water intensive.

At your request, we gathered information on (1) the aviation safety and
operational requirements for the runway protection zone at Fallon NAS, 
(2) the alternative land use strategies Fallon NAS identified in response
to congressional direction/Footnote1/ and how it evaluated them, and (3)
the current 

land use strategies at five military facilities and two commercial
airports that operate in similar environments./Footnote2/

Results in Brief

Fallon NAS must comply with the Department of Defense's (DOD) aviation
safety and operational requirements for runway protection zones. These
requirements specify the maximum safe heights for buildings, towers,
poles, and other possible obstructions to air navigation. Under these
requirements, where possible, areas immediately beyond the ends of runways
and along primary flight paths should be developed sparsely, if at all, to
limit the risk from a possible aircraft accident. At Fallon NAS, the
agricultural and other low-density land uses are compatible with air
operations. The land surrounding the airfield is owned by the Navy and
leased to farmers for agricultural use, which is permitted by DOD.

Fallon NAS gave detailed consideration to three land management strategies
in developing its current approach to managing land in the runway
protection zone in the early 1990s. Each of these strategies involved
irrigating the greenbelt. As many as 11 different land management
strategies were identified at the outset, but three of them were
eliminated before an initial screening because Fallon NAS officials
believed they would be environmentally or economically unacceptable or
would cause unacceptable operational or safety impairments. Fallon NAS
officials eliminated five of the remaining eight strategies prior to a
detailed analysis because they believed the strategies did not meet the
Navy's evaluation criteria, which were based on provisions of the law. The
criteria Fallon NAS used in evaluating these land management strategies
were based on the officials' assessment of whether the strategies would
minimize dust, bird strikes, fire and other hazards; would enhance air
safety; and, to a lesser extent, would reduce the amount of irrigation
water used. After a detailed analysis and the application of these
criteria, Fallon NAS officials selected the strategy that involves
conventional farming combined with water conservation practices because
they believed it would have a very high probability of satisfying the
safety goals while providing moderate water savings compared with the air
station's historical usage. 

At the seven other military facilities and commercial airports we visited,
the land management strategies varied; two used strategies involving
greenbelts, while five did not. The military facilities and commercial
airports operating in desert-like conditions similar to Fallon NAS' have
employed land management strategies that have resulted in water savings.
For example, Sky Harbor International Airport, in Phoenix, Arizona,
converted a significant amount of its surrounding area to desert
landscaping that receives little or no watering. Airport officials also
adopted other water conservation measures such as using rock to replace
watered vegetation. These efforts helped save the airport about 70 million
gallons of water in 1997. At Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, the terrain
around the runways has always been mostly "disturbed" desert (regrown
native plants, thistle, or weeds) that is not watered. Because of the
base's increased emphasis on desert landscaping, water consumption has
dropped by almost half, from about 1.4 billion gallons in fiscal year 1996
to about 760 million gallons in fiscal year 1999. Fallon NAS officials
said that they were aware of these other land management strategies but
that, to date, they had not studied them in detail.

Background

Fallon NAS was constructed in the 1940s on land that previously had been
farmed using water provided by the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands
Reclamation Project. Prior to the project, which was authorized in 1903,
early settlers irrigated about 20,000 acres using simple diversions from
the Truckee and Carson rivers. The Newlands project nearly quadrupled the
amount of irrigated land to 78,000 acres, and the land surrounding the
airfield has been irrigated farmland since. In the 1950s, the Navy
obtained, as a buffer against encroachment, land surrounding the airfield
that had been irrigated farmland. It has since leased the bulk of that
land to farmers. Fallon NAS officials believe that continued use of the
land for agriculture is of value to the local community as well as to the
air station. They point out that the City of Fallon and Churchill County
are concerned that any reduction in Fallon NAS' irrigation could have a
negative impact on the recharging of the underlying aquifer, cause the
manifestation of noxious weeds in fields, and have an impact on the
economics of neighboring ranches and farms. 

The Navy currently holds water rights under the Newlands project for
approximately 2,900 acres of the land at Fallon NAS. Of this acreage, the
Navy has active water rights to about 1,900 acres of land. Water rights
are attached to specific parcels of land, and Fallon NAS is entitled to
3.5 acre-feet of water per acre of water-righted land from the Newlands
project. An acre-foot is the volume of water sufficient to cover an acre
of land to the depth of 1 foot, which is about 325,900 gallons. The water
rights for the remaining 1,000 acres are inactive./Footnote3/ The active
water rights, which would equal about 2.2 billion gallons, are used to
obtain irrigation water to support the Navy's 3,595-acre greenbelt
surrounding Fallon NAS' airstrip areas. The greenbelt has consumed an
average of 1.6 billion gallons of this irrigation water each year since
1990. This figure includes drought years in which less water than the
normal allocation was available and other years in which water over and
above the acreage's entitlement was made available.

As can be seen in figure 1, about a third of the greenbelt acreage lies
inside the runway protection zone.

Figure****Helvetica:x11****1:    Fallon NAS' Runway Protection Zone and
                                 Greenbelt Area
*****************

*****************

Under Public Law 101-618, enacted in 1990, officials at Fallon NAS were
required to develop an alternative land management plan that would control
dust, provide for fire abatement and safety, and control damage to
aircraft from foreign objects, while at the same time reducing the use of
irrigation water. The law also required Fallon NAS to select and implement
land management plans without impairing the safety of air operations.
Under this act, the Navy has discretion to determine what constitutes
operational air safety for Fallon NAS. In addition, the Secretary of the
Navy was required to consult with the Secretary of Agriculture and other
interested parties to fund and implement a demonstration project and test
site at Fallon NAS for the cultivation and development of grasses, shrubs,
and other native plant species. The project's goal was to help with the
restoration of previously irrigated farmland in the Newlands project area
to a stable and ecologically appropriate dryland condition.

In responding to the act's requirements, the Navy studied various land
management strategies, consulted with the Secretary of Agriculture and
interested parties, and selected a strategy for the greenbelt that
combines conventional farming with water conservation practices. Fallon
NAS officials have started to implement this strategy for the runway
protection zone. When fully implemented, the strategy would use
approximately 1.4 billion gallons of water per year, somewhat of a
decrease from the average of 1.6 billion gallons used annually in recent
years.

Aviation and Safety Requirements for the Runway Protection Zone at Fallon
NAS

Fallon NAS is governed by aviation safety and operational standards
established by DOD for runway protection zones./Footnote4/ DOD's standards
for military facilities and the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA)
standards for commercial airports require runway protection zones to
protect lives and property. Under these standards, airports can obtain
sufficient authority to restrict the use of the land for the runway
protection zones in three primary ways. First, an airport can purchase the
approach areas outright. Second, an airport can seek zoning requirements
to control the way land owned by others is used. Third, an airport can
purchase easements proscribing the incompatible use of land owned by
others. Outright ownership is preferable because it gives an airport
maximum control.

It is DOD's and FAA's policy to oppose incompatible land uses that are
proposed for property within the runway protection zones. Incompatible
land uses include residences and places of public assembly such as
churches, schools, hospitals, office buildings, and shopping centers.
Compatible land uses within the runway protection zones are generally uses
such as agriculture or golf courses that do not involve concentrations of
people or the construction of buildings or other structures. DOD and FAA
also allow other land uses that do not attract wildlife and that do not
interfere with navigational aids. Neither policy requires the
establishment of a greenbelt.

Fallon NAS Limited Its Detailed Consideration 
to Three Alternatives 

In arriving at the land management strategy for Fallon NAS, the Navy
considered three alternatives in detail. Each involved continued
irrigation of land in Fallon NAS' greenbelt.

As many as 11 different land management strategies were identified by
Fallon NAS officials at the outset. Three strategies were eliminated from
consideration before the initial screening was conducted. These three
included covering the greenbelt with asphalt, cement, or rocks, or
allowing the irrigated fields to go fallow. These strategies were
eliminated because the officials believed that they would be
environmentally or economically unacceptable or would cause unacceptable
operational or safety impairments. They also felt that the strategies
would be expensive to maintain and would not provide a "soft" landing for
any aircraft accident./Footnote5/

The remaining eight land management strategies were subjected to an
initial screening on the basis of how they would contribute to the Navy's
policy of zero accidental aircraft mishaps and at the same time fulfill
the requirements of P.L. 101-618. Four evaluation criteria were used to
assess the viability of the strategies:

o controlling dust and damage from foreign objects, including bird strikes;

o minimizing fire hazards;

o establishing a high probability of achieving safety objectives and
  contributing to zero-mishap management; and

o reducing the direct surface deliveries of irrigation water.

Of the eight land management strategies, five were eliminated because
Fallon NAS officials believed those strategies did not meet the evaluation
criteria. These five strategies ranged from changing the plants allowed to
be grown in the area to using drainwater for irrigation.

The remaining three land use strategies were then subjected to detailed
consideration. Table 1 presents a comparison of the features of the three
strategies Fallon NAS officials considered in detail.

Table****Helvetica:x11****1:    Comparison of Land Use Strategies
                                Considered in Detail for Fallon NAS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Land use        : Crop planting  : Irrigate : Nonirrigat :      Water  |
| strategy        : pattern        :   d land :    ed land :    savings  |
|                 :                :  (acres) :    (acres) :  (millions  |
|                 :                :          :            :         of  |
|                 :                :          :            :    gallons  |
|                 :                :          :            :  per year)  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1)             : Alfalfa hay,   :    1,914 :      1,681 :      750.4  |
| Conventional    : tall           :          :            :             |
| farming with    : fescue/clover  :          :            :             |
| water           : mix, barley,   :          :            :             |
| conservation    : tall           :          :            :             |
| practices       : wheatgrass     :          :            :             |
|                 : pasture, and   :          :            :             |
|                 : improved       :          :            :             |
|                 : irrigated      :          :            :             |
|                 : pasture        :          :            :             |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) Alfalfa     : Alfalfa hay,   :    1,914 :      1,681 :    1,039.2  |
| and pasture     : improved       :          :            :             |
| cropping        : irrigated      :          :            :             |
| pattern with    : pasture, and   :          :            :             |
| water           : barley         :          :            :             |
| conservation    :                :          :            :             |
| practices       :                :          :            :             |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (3)             : Alfalfa hay,   :    1,653 :      1,942 :      414.9  |
| Conventional    : tall           :          :            :             |
| farming of      : fescue/clover  :          :            :             |
| fewer acres     : mix, and tall  :          :            :             |
| but with no     : wheatgrass     :          :            :             |
| water           : pasture        :          :            :             |
| conservation    :                :          :            :             |
| practices       :                :          :            :             |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Environmental Assessment for the Management of the Greenbelt Area
at Fallon Naval Air Station, 1994.

The first and second strategies considered in detail included water
conservation practices. The methods considered for saving water included
lining canals, leveling fields for proper drainage, establishing
windbreaks, and improving irrigation scheduling. The third strategy would
not have required any changes to the way Fallon NAS officials had been
managing the greenbelt land but would have reduced the use of water by
irrigating fewer acres. Fallon NAS officials believed that, over time,
this strategy would result in land degradation and that there was a low
probability that it would control safety hazards such as dust, fire, and
damage to aircraft from foreign objects and bird strikes.

In considering these strategies, Fallon NAS officials made no distinction
between the greenbelt areas that lie within the runway protection zone and
the areas that lie outside the zone. Approximately 1,145 acres of the
greenbelt lie within the runway protection zone, while 2,450 acres are
outside of it. We found no analysis that had determined whether the 2,450
acres of the greenbelt outside the runway protection zone required the
same level of prevention of foreign objects, bird strikes, or dust as the
1,145 acres within the zone. Fallon NAS officials confirmed that no such
distinction had been made in conducting their analyses.

Fallon NAS officials selected the first strategy: conventional farming
with water conservation practices. At the time, these officials believed
that the advantages of this strategy were the very high probability that
it would satisfy the safety goals for the greenbelt for the long term and
provide moderate water savings. They believed that the disadvantage would
be the substantial capital, operations, and maintenance costs of the water
conservation methods.

When fully implemented, the chosen strategy would encompass 1,914 water-
righted acres of land, using approximately 1.4 billion gallons of water
per year. Navy officials believed that the plan would be costly to
implement because it included lining irrigation canals with concrete,
leveling fields for proper drainage, and other measures. According to Navy
officials, the total cost to implement all these measures could be as much
as $3.5 million.

Since selecting the strategy of conventional farming with water
conservation practices in 1995, Fallon NAS officials have undertaken
efforts to implement it. As of May 1999, Fallon NAS had lined 16,419
linear feet of irrigation ditches and leveled 347 acres of fields at a
cost of about $655,000. This cost was in addition to an estimated $817,000
spent on studies and pilot projects. According to the officials, the
implementation of this strategy has stalled because of excessive costs and
a shortage of funds. In 1998, Fallon NAS advertised a contract to line
another 45,000 linear feet of ditches with concrete and level another 800
acres of fields. Fallon NAS originally estimated the cost of the
additional work to be $1.4 million, but the lowest bid it received for the
work was $1.9 million. According to Fallon NAS officials, because of the
excessive costs, a shortage of funds, and concern that the work would save
what they believed would be a relatively small amount of water, this
contract was not awarded. Hence, Fallon NAS' chosen land management
strategy is not currently being fully implemented.

After the completion of our field work, Fallon NAS officials took action
to comply with the Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act,
which was enacted on October 5, 1999. The act included a provision
concerning water usage at Fallon NAS. To comply with their understanding
of the law, Fallon NAS officials informed us that they have decided to
reduce the irrigated land by about 700 acres. They will cease irrigation
in areas farthest from the airfield and the runway protection zone. Fallon
NAS officials expressed misgivings about this action but said that it
would allow them to comply with the new law. While they pointed out that
the affected land is not "technically within the runway protection zones,"
they were concerned that "improper management could impair operational
safety and create negative environmental impacts" and that Fallon NAS may
incur added costs "to properly manage the land for [foreign object
damage], fire, weed and dust control." They also expressed concern about
possible "long-term degradation of the land." On balance, however, they
said that the strategy meets the requirement of the new law, and they also
pointed out that the action will serve as "an excellent pilot study" of
what happens when irrigation ceases.

Land Management Strategies Varied at Military Facilities and Commercial
Airports Visited

The land management strategies varied at the seven other military
facilities and commercial airports we visited. All were located in
environments similar to Fallon NAS'. Two military facilities used
greenbelts, while the other five did not. Officials at all seven
facilities said their current land use strategies provided a safe
environment for their aircraft operations. The strategies varied because
of differences in land formation, history, access to established
irrigation facilities, and ownership. For example, at the two Navy and one
Marine Corps facilities we visited, the government owned outright the
areas surrounding the airfields as it does at Fallon NAS. According to
Navy officials, it has been the Navy's practice to purchase land
surrounding airfields to reduce possible encroachment and, where possible,
to lease this land for agricultural purposes-an activity compatible with
aircraft operations. One of the two Navy facilities and the one Marine
Corps facility we visited had greenbelts that were being farmed. Like
Fallon NAS, Lemoore NAS in Lemoore, California, and Yuma Marine Corps Air
Station in Yuma, Arizona, were constructed on land that was originally
used for irrigated farming. These three facilities maintain agricultural
outlease programs through which the Navy or Marine Corps leases the land
adjacent to the airfields to farmers. The farmers maintain the land and
grow the irrigated crops specified by the leases. The third naval location
we visited, China Lake Naval Weapons Station in Ridgecrest, California,
does not have a greenbelt and does not plan to have one. The station was
constructed in a desert area where crops are not grown and where the vast,
sparsely populated area is considered to be an ideal location for testing
weapons and conducting research and development.

Neither of the two Air Force bases nor the two commercial airports we
visited had an agricultural program like the Navy and Marine Corps
facilities', nor did they try to maintain green areas around their runways
and taxiways. None has returned substantial acreage of well-established
agricultural land to native conditions. Officials from these facilities
told us that their research had not uncovered any reports equating the
safety of air operations with vegetation at the end of runways. In
addition, they said that the cost to maintain and water green areas in the
absence of available irrigation facilities would be substantial. At
present, their water usage for the runway protection zones was minimal. 

Officials at the facilities we visited expressed a strong desire to hold
down their water costs and believed that maintaining green areas around
runways was inconsistent with this objective. For example, Sky Harbor
International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona, used rock to landscape areas
surrounding the airport that were once irrigated. Additionally, Sky Harbor
officials have converted a significant amount of the airport's surrounding
area to desert landscaping and have adopted other water conservation
measures such as using a computerized irrigation system. According to the
officials, these efforts helped the airport save about 70 million gallons
of water during 1997. Similarly, at Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas,
Nevada, the terrain around the runways is mostly disturbed desert (regrown
native plants, thistle, or weeds). Because of the base's increased
emphasis on desert landscaping, water consumption has dropped by almost
half, from about 1.4 billion gallons of water in fiscal year 1996 to about
760 million gallons of water in fiscal year 1999.

The facilities we visited without green areas around their runways used
several techniques to maintain their land for safety purposes. These
techniques include (1) mowing their fields to maintain them as open space,
(2) covering specific areas within and surrounding the airstrip with
asphalt or cement, and (3) allowing their fields to go fallow and applying
a soil cement sealant in strategic locations to control dust and damage to
aircraft from foreign objects. Fallon NAS officials said that, while they
are aware of these other land management strategies, to date they have not
studied them in detail. More detailed information on the land use
practices of the five military facilities and two commercial airports we
visited are included in appendix I.

Conclusions 

The Navy chose a land management strategy for the runway protection zone
at Fallon NAS that is water intensive in an area where water is a scarce
resource. Other strategies used in similar environments use less water
while at the same time providing safety for air operations. Navy officials
at Fallon NAS are aware of many of these other land management strategies
but, to date, have not studied them in detail. Nor have they considered
adopting different strategies for specific areas within and beyond the
runway protection zone.

Recommendation

In light of the congressional concern over water consumption in this
desert area as expressed in statute and in light of the techniques used at
other desert air fields that are less water intensive, we recommend that
the Navy consider these techniques for Fallon NAS. Specifically, the Navy
should consider its earlier identified strategies and adopt specific
actions that would achieve safety and operational requirements while
reducing water use at the air station. It should consider adopting
different strategies that recognize the distinction between areas within
the runway protection zone and those beyond the zone. The results of the
Navy's decision to stop irrigating 700 acres of previously irrigated land
should be closely monitored to determine whether this strategy can be
successfully applied to additional land at Fallon NAS.

Agency Comments

We provided the Department of Defense with a draft of this report for its
review and comment. DOD's written comments are in appendix II. DOD
generally concurred with the draft report's recommendation. However, DOD
expressed concern that the report did not accurately provide detailed
information on the water usage conditions at Fallon NAS as compared with
other civilian and military installations and that the report did not
fully convey the specific actions taken by the Navy to comply with the
requirements of congressional direction. DOD also stated that the report
did not mention the value of the Navy's use of irrigation water to the
local community for agriculture and to enhancement of the safety of the
Navy's operations. We have provided additional information in the report
to address DOD's concerns. DOD also provided technical changes, which were
made as appropriate.

We performed our review from May through December 1999 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Our scope and
methodology are discussed in appendix III.

We will provide copies of this report to the Honorable William Cohen,
Secretary of Defense; the Honorable Richard Danzig, Secretary of the Navy;
and to representatives of McCarran International Airport, Sky Harbor
International Airport, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. We will
also make copies available to others on request. If you or your staff have
any questions, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or Brad Hathaway at
(202) 512-4329. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,
*****************

*****************

Barry T. Hill
Associate Director, Energy,
Resources, and Science Issues

--------------------------------------
/Footnote1/-^In 1990, the Congress passed P.L. 101-618, which requires the
  Secretary of the Navy to "undertake a study to develop land management
  plans and measures to achieve dust control, fire abatement and safety,
  and foreign object damage control on those lands owned by the United
  States within the Naval Air Station at Fallon, Nevada, in a manner that,
  to the maximum extent practicable, reduces direct surface deliveries of
  water." Upon completion of the study, the Secretary of the Navy must
  "select and implement land management plans or measures developed by the
  study . . . upon determining that water savings can be made without
  impairing the safety of operations at Naval Air Station, Fallon."
/Footnote2/-^These seven airports in desert locales were Lemoore Naval Air
  Station, Calif.; China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station, Calif.; Yuma
  Marine Corps Air Station, Ariz.; Luke Air Force Base, Ariz.; Nellis Air
  Force Base, Nev.; Sky Harbor International Airport, Ariz.; and McCarran
  International Airport, Nev.
/Footnote3/-^Fallon's acres with inactive water rights have been taken out
  of agricultural production and used for concrete pads, housing areas, or
  other structures.
/Footnote4/-^We define "runway protection zone" as including clear zones
  and "accident potential" zones. Thus, runway protection zones encompass
  those areas that are immediately adjacent to and just off the end of
  runways and beyond, where the potential for accidents is considered to
  be significant or measurable.
/Footnote5/-^Navy officials could provide us with no documentation of
  studies supporting the contention that vegetation provides a safer
  landing than other surfaces. 

LAND USE PRACTICES AT FIVE MILITARY FACILITIES
AND TWO COMMERCIAL AIRPORTS
===========================

Lemoore Naval Air Station, California

Land History/Ownership
----------------------

The decision to construct Lemoore Naval Air Station (NAS) was made in
October 1954 when it became clear that Moffett Field NAS near San
Francisco could not be expanded because of urban encroachment. Lemoore was
chosen because of its central location, good weather for flying,
relatively inexpensive land, and nearby accommodations. At the time of
this decision, the land chosen for the air station and the surrounding
area was agricultural, as it remains today. Lemoore still has room to
expand beyond its two parallel runways, and Navy officials told us that,
if necessary, they could add another runway and an additional 265 F/A-18
aircraft to the 252 now stationed there. 

Land Use 
---------

Reeves Field at Lemoore NAS has two parallel 13,500-foot runways that are
4,600 feet apart. (See fig. 2.) According to Navy officials, the runways
are offset, with hangars, fueling, fire stations, towers, and parking
located between them. The shoulders of the runways are paved. Outside of
the paved areas is a 10-foot-wide strip that is periodically sprayed with
herbicide to control vegetation. At the end of each of the two runways is
a 1,000-foot paved overrun and an additional 1,000-by-3,000-foot mowed
grass overrun. The remainder of the areas around the airfield are
described as grassland that is kept mowed. Beyond the overruns and to
either side of the runways are cultivated fields. Approximately 11,000
acres of privately owned farmland to the west of the station are under
airspace easement. The terrain throughout Lemoore NAS is best typified as
flat or level.

Lemoore NAS has one of the largest agricultural outlease programs in the
Department of Defense (DOD). It currently leases nearly 14,000 acres of
agricultural land, which brings in between $1.5 million and $2.0 million
annually. These funds support conservation and natural resource activities
at Lemoore NAS and other Navy locations.

The water for Lemoore's domestic and agricultural uses is supplied by the
Westlands Water District via the California Aqueduct, which brings water
from Shasta Lake behind Shasta Dam in northern California. This water
supply is generally adequate in quantity and quality. Freshwater can also
be obtained from a well system on the base.

Figure****Helvetica:x11****2:    Map of Lemoore Naval Air Station

*****************

*****************

Yuma Marine Corps Air Station, Arizona

Land History/Ownership
----------------------

In 1928, the federal government leased land for a base from Yuma County,
Arizona. When the United States entered World War II, an air base was
erected. At the end of the war, all flight activity at Yuma ceased, and
the area was partially reclaimed by the desert. During the period of
inactivity, the base was controlled successively by the War Assets
Administration, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, and the Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Land Reclamation, which used it as a headquarters for
its irrigation projects. In 1951, the Air Force reactivated the base. The
facility was signed over to the Navy in 1959 and was designated a Marine
Corps Auxiliary Air Station. In 1962, the designation was changed to
Marine Corps Air Station.

Land Use 
---------

At the Yuma Marine Corps Air Station, the Corps owns the land, which
encompasses four runways, and has granted permission to the City of Yuma
to operate a civilian international airport in conjunction with the air
activities of the military. (See fig. 3.) Land use documents for 1994 (the
latest available) indicate that military air operations were nearly two-
thirds (about 95,000) of the total of 149,485 takeoffs and landings at the
facility.

The areas just adjacent and between the runways are maintained using
different methods. The land just adjacent to the runway is mowed. In
addition, there is some use of herbicide to destroy weeds. The land
between the two original 1943 runways is covered with a very light coat of
asphalt. The land between the newer runways built in 1962 is maintained
mainly by mowing and using herbicides. The air station is located on the
southern side of Yuma and is surrounded mainly by agricultural fields,
with smaller sections of open space (disturbed and undisturbed desert) and
business areas containing commercial and industrial facilities. Marine
Corps and city officials have agreed to use the surrounding land for
agricultural production or light industry because of the compatibility of
those uses with the operations of the air station. The Marine Corps leases
about 90 acres of this land to local farmers. Leases for this land provide
between $18,000 and $60,000 in revenues annually. The city and the air
station receive their water from the neighboring Colorado River.

Figure****Helvetica:x11****3:    Map of Yuma Marine Corps Air Station

*****************

*****************

China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station, California

Land History/Ownership
----------------------

In 1943, adequate facilities were needed for the testing and evaluation of
rockets being developed for the Navy by the California Institute of
Technology. The Navy also needed a new proving ground for all aviation
ordnance. The Naval Ordnance Test Station (NOTS) was established in
response to those needs in November 1943, forming the foundations of China
Lake Naval Air Weapons Station near Ridgecrest, California.

An auxiliary field was established near Inyokern, and the first facilities
for China Lake were established there while the main field was being
constructed. Weapons testing began at China Lake less than a month after
the station's formal establishment, and by mid-1945, NOTS' aviation assets
had been transferred to the new airfield, Armitage Field, located at China
Lake. The vast, sparsely populated desert around China Lake and Inyokern,
with near-perfect flying weather year-round and practically unlimited
visibility, was considered to be an ideal location for testing weapons and
for research and development purposes.

Land Use 
---------

The China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station operates its airstrips in desert
terrain. At the end of each of China Lake's three runways is a 1,000-foot
clear zone. (See fig. 4.) The runways are approximately 9,100 feet long.
The land between the runways is paved. The clear zones are not paved but
are plowed. Beyond the clear zones and along the sides of the runways, the
land is disturbed desert (regrown native desert plants) with undisturbed
native desert beyond.

The land surrounding China Lake's airfield has always been desert and is
not watered. Navy officials at China Lake are satisfied with the type of
terrain that exists at the end of the runways and in the zones under the
flight paths. One of the advantages of this land is that the natural
desert vegetation controls dust and does not attract birds. Navy officials
believe the desert terrain allows personnel to respond more quickly to a
crash site than if the area had vegetation.

All water used at China Lake comes from wells. The base's golf course is
watered with treated effluent.

Figure****Helvetica:x11****4:    Map of China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station

*****************

*****************

Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada

Land History/Ownership
----------------------

Nellis Air Force Base is located in the Great Basin area of southern
Nevada, about 10 miles northwest of Lake Mead and 8 miles northeast of Las
Vegas. In 1941, the property was signed over by the City of Las Vegas to
the U.S. Army Quartermaster Corps for the development of a gunnery school
for the Army Air Corps. Locating the school there had many advantages.
Flying weather was practically ideal year-round; more than 90 percent of
the area to the north was wasteland in the public domain and available at
$1 per acre; the strategic inland location was excellent; rocky hills
approximately 6 miles from the base afforded a natural backdrop for cannon
and machine gun firing; and dry lake beds were available for emergency
landings. In 1948, the base became Las Vegas Air Force Base and hosted a
pilot training wing. In 1950, the base was renamed Nellis Air Force Base.

Land Use 
---------

Nellis Air Force Base has two parallel runways and 2.2 million square
yards of airfield pavement. (See fig. 5.) The land surrounding the base
consists mostly of disturbed and undisturbed native desert. The disturbed
areas have regrown native plants, thistle, and weeds. The undisturbed
areas consist of sagebrush. Some areas contain eroded natural flood
channels. Within the areas at the end of the runways are roads and parts
of a golf course. Soil cement is applied at aircraft turning points as a
method of controlling dust and damage to aircraft from foreign objects.
Foreign objects and dust on the runways and taxiways are controlled using
flightline vacuum sweepers and having personnel walk through the area to
find and pick up any lose objects. Vegetation is being removed from
between the runways, and soil cement will be applied in these areas. The
base has no plans for clearing vegetation from the runway protection zones.

Water is provided by the Southern Nevada Water Authority, the City of
North Las Vegas, and potable water wells on the base. Because of an
increased emphasis on using a desert environment rather than watered-plant
landscaping, water consumption dropped by almost half from about 1.4
billion gallons of water in fiscal year 1996 to about 760 million gallons
in fiscal year 1999.

Figure****Helvetica:x11****5:    Map of Nellis Air Force Base

*****************

*****************

Luke Air Force Base, Arizona

Land History/Ownership
----------------------

In 1940, the U.S. Army choose a site in Arizona for an Army Air Corps
field for advanced training in conventional aircraft. The City of Phoenix
bought 1,440 acres of land and leased it to the government for $1 a year,
and in March 1941, construction began for what was then known as
Litchfield Park Air Base. The first class of 45 students arrived in June
1941 to begin advanced flight training. During World War II, the field was
the largest fighter training base in the Air Corps. By 1946, the number of
pilots being trained had dropped significantly, and the base was
deactivated. However, after combat developed in Korea, the field was
reactivated on February 1, 1951, as Luke Air Force Base.

Land Use 
---------

Luke Air Force Base has two runways. Both runways are 150 feet wide; the
primary runway is 10,000 feet long, while the secondary runway is 9, 910
feet long. (See fig. 6.) Luke owns 2,200 acres outright and has another
2,000 acres in easement. The base is within the city of Glendale and in
the jurisdiction of Maricopa County. According to the base's land use
documents, there is little land available for expansion or development.
The land west of Luke is primarily agricultural, as is some of the land to
the east and southeast. Residential, industrial, and commercial areas are
located north, south, and east of the base. Approximately 190 F-16
aircraft are housed at Luke.

The runways are surrounded by the base's infrastructure on the east and
part of the south and by roads, fences, golf courses (both civilian and
military), and agricultural land where flowers and vegetables are grown on
the north, west, and the remainder of the south. The vegetation growing
immediately around the runways is mostly weeds. The area between the
runways is a combination of old asphalt and disturbed desert. The unused
portions of the airfield have gone untreated, and as a result, weeds are
growing in the cracks. Air Force officials at Luke have a program to mow
the vegetation so that it does not exceed 14 inches in height. Sections of
the airstrip have been sprayed with a soil sealant that helps control dust
and foreign objects.

The irrigation of the green areas maintained on the base for aesthetic
purposes, such as recreation areas and at base housing, uses treated
effluent from the base's wastewater treatment plant piped to automatic
sprinkler systems. A new golf course will be irrigated using a similar
system. Potable water for the base is supplied by seven groundwater wells
on the base.

Figure****Helvetica:x11****6:    Map of Luke Air Force Base

*****************

*****************

McCarran International Airport, Nevada

Land History/Ownership
----------------------

McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas, Nevada, is 51 years old. In
1948, Clark County purchased an existing airfield on Las Vegas Boulevard
and established the Clark County Public Airport. All commercial activities
were moved from an existing field to this new site, which was renamed
McCarran Field. Initially, the airport served four airlines-Bonanza,
Western, United, and TWA-and averaged 12 flights a day. Clark County,
through its Department of Aviation, now owns and operates five airports,
including McCarran.

Land Use 
---------

McCarran has four runways; the surrounding area is desert habitat. On
average, the runways are 14,500 feet long and about 150 feet wide. (See
fig. 7.) McCarran has both disturbed and undisturbed desert areas. Most of
the airport's terrain has been disturbed by grading, rolling, and
watering. Airport officials have attempted to control weed growth by
spraying herbicides. The undisturbed areas are native sage and cactus
terrain. The area between the runways is paved. The runway protection
zones are graded dirt. The surrounding land encompasses a golf driving
range, a golf course, a cemetery, vacant land, and industrial property.

McCarran officials have studied a number of methods of controlling airport
dust, including soil cement. A study on dust control, conducted by a
contractor for McCarran, highlighted measures that McCarran should
consider, among them mulches, rock, and native vegetation for non-traffic
areas and salts, coatings, and pavement for traffic areas. Watering in
both the non-traffic and traffic areas was also suggested for
consideration. McCarran receives its water through the City of Las Vegas
from Lake Mead.

Figure****Helvetica:x11****7:    Map of McCarran International Airport

*****************

*****************

Sky Harbor International Airport, Arizona

Land History/Ownership
----------------------

In 1935, the City of Phoenix purchased what became Sky Harbor
International Airport. At that time, Sky Harbor was 258 acres of isolated
and rural land. Today, the airport consists of 2,232 acres of land. The
City of Phoenix operates Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport through
its Aviation Department.

Land Use 
---------

Sky Harbor International Airport has two runways, one 11,000 feet long and
the other 10,300 feet long. (See fig. 8.) Both runways are 150 feet wide.
A third runway being completed is to be about 7,800 feet long. Land use
surrounding the airport varies. On the west end of the airport is an
industrial park. Weeds are growing on some of the vacant lots near the
airport, and these weeds are mowed when needed. However, workers first
water and roll the area to keep down the dust. Workers also apply small
amounts of herbicide on these areas to kill weeds. 

To conserve water, Sky Harbor used rocks to landscape areas surrounding
the airport that were once irrigated. Additionally, Sky Harbor officials
have converted a significant amount of the airport's surrounding area to
desert landscaping and have adopted other water conservation measures,
such as using a computerized irrigation system. According to airport
officials, these efforts helped save the airport about 70 million gallons
of water during 1997.

Terminals and concrete can be found between the runways. To meet Federal
Aviation Administration and Environmental Protection Agency regulations,
Sky Harbor implemented a plan to control dust and to reduce damage to
aircraft from foreign objects. The substance that proved to be the most
environmentally safe and the most durable was a product called "Soil
Sement," an acrylic polymer type of liquid sealer. This sealer was applied
using two separate methods-topical and soil stabilization. The topical
application process consisted of applying the sealer to the undisturbed
soil, while the stabilization application, which is more concentrated, was
plowed into the top 6 inches of the surface of the soil.

Sky Harbor receives its water from the City of Phoenix Water Service
Department.

Figure****Helvetica:x11****8:    Map of Sky Harbor International Airport

*****************

*****************

COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
=======================================

*****************

*****************

*****************

*****************

*****************

*****************

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
==================================

After receiving a letter from Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, we visited
Fallon NAS for background briefings and information on the air station's
actions in response to Public Law 101-618. After follow-up discussions
with Navy officials and with Senator Reid's office, we undertook this
review to provide information on (1) the aviation safety and operational
requirements for the runway protection zone at Fallon NAS, (2) the
alternative land use strategies Fallon NAS identified in response to
congressional direction and how it evaluated them, and (3) the current
land use strategies at five military facilities and two commercial
airports that operate in similar environments.

To determine aviation safety and operational requirements, we obtained the
regulations on runway protection zones issued by the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Department of Defense, and the military services. We
also obtained other regulations on airport safety and land requirements at
military and commercial airports. We obtained extracts of Fallon NAS' air
installation compatible use plans on runway protection zones. We
interviewed commercial airport, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps officials.

To determine the land use strategies Fallon NAS identified and how it
evaluated them in selecting the greenbelt approach, we obtained Fallon
NAS' Natural Resources Management Plan, its Environmental Assessment for
Management of the Greenbelt Area, and a study by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service, "Plant Materials
Trials on Revegetation of Abandoned Farmland." We interviewed Fallon NAS
and Conservation Service officials on the results of these studies. We
analyzed the efforts of Fallon NAS officials in evaluating the land use
strategies.

To determine the current land use practices at military and commercial
airports that operate in desert-like environments and the impacts these
practices have on water usage, we visited seven airports-five military
(Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps) and two commercial facilities:

o Lemoore Naval Air Station, California;

o Yuma Marine Corps Air Station, Arizona;

o China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station, California;

o Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada;

o Luke Air Force Base, Arizona;

o McCarran International Airport, Nevada; and

o Sky Harbor International Airport, Arizona.

We obtained land use documents at the seven locations and their documents
on water use and consumption. We also interviewed safety and operations
officials at the seven locations.

GAO CONTACT AND STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
=====================================

GAO Contact

Brad Hathaway, (202) 512-4329

Acknowledgments

In addition, Rudolfo G. Payan, Uldis Adamsons, Richard W. Meeks, Doreen S.
Feldman, and Kathleen A. Gilhooly made key contributions to this report.

(141337)

Figure 1:  Fallon NAS' Runway Protection Zone and Greenbelt Area7

Figure 2:  Map of Lemoore Naval Air Station     17

Figure 3:  Map of Yuma Marine Corps Air Station 19

Figure 4:  Map of China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station21

Figure 5:  Map of Nellis Air Force Base         23

Figure 6:  Map of Luke Air Force Base           25

Figure 7:  Map of McCarran International Airport27

Figure 8:  Map of Sky Harbor International Airport29

Table 1:  Comparison of Land Use Strategies Considered in Detail
for Fallon NAS                                  10

*** End of document. ***