this fall, October or November, Mr. Downing. We hope by that time to have a determination within the agency as to whether either of these programs will be sufficiently firm to justify continued use of that area. In any event, it appears to us at this time that some of that sitehere (fig. 9) is the site, and you can see it was originally used by the Air Force for ocean-looking tracking, and it has just this one building. It was picked primarily for remoteness, an ideal optic and camera tracking site, with very little background noise. We have 52 acres from the Air Force transferred to us, and 23 acres of easements toward the ocean, to preclude interference from outside activities. Mr. DOWNING. Has GSA agreed to deferral on the camera site? General CURTIN. I don't know that we have had a reaction from them. Mr. THAWLEY. Mr. Downing, my staff has been in constant contact with NASA people on this. We have been furnished basically all the information that is being presented here today. I think it demonstrates that the system I described to you does work. Our original look at the Wallops Station by our field survey came up with a recommendation to us initially that some 2,600 acres there were excess. There they perhaps didn't have the benefit onsite of all the planning and restrictive easements and radiation zones that the headquarters people were aware of. As a result of that information being brought out we have retrenched, I guess is the proper word, in our position, and recognized NASA's needs, it is still a very dynamic thing. We have not reached a final conclusion. We have not gone with it to the Property Review Board. Whether we have today or in the past agreed to defer, I assure you if we have not, we do today. Our purpose here is not to disturb land that is being well utilized in a practical way. Mr. DOWNING. That sounds reasonable. What is the next step in the procedures to excess this land so far as Wallops and Langley are concerned? Mr. THAWLEY. The next step would be, with the information that we have received from NASA Headquarters here, that we would take that into consideration against the recommendations for excess. If we cannot reach a quid pro quo with them on the question that there is some acreage to be excessed here, or otherwise better used, if we felt in our judgment that there was still land remaining that should be excess to the NASA need there, we would then, under the procedures, report it to the Property Review Board for their consideration. Mr. DOWNING. One more question: Was Wallops Naval Air Base included in this excess? That still belongs to the Navy; does it not? General CURTIN. The naval air station was transferred to NASA. The Chincoteague Naval Air Station is part of the main base; we are custodian of that, and that was part of the survey. Mr. DOWNING. Was that part of the property to be excessed? Mr. DOWNING. NASA still has continuing use for that? General CURTIN. Yes, sir. In fact, the use is increasing considerably. Mr. DOWNING. Has GSA established a schedule for surveys of the balance of the NASA installations? Mr. AUSTIN. No. We do not schedule them by Mr. THAWLEY. That is right. Mr. Downing, we do not schedule a survey of a NASA installation. We do it on a regional, a geographic basis, within the resources available to the administration of the region. Mr. DOWNING. Thank you. Mr. MORITZ. I believe, Mr. Chairman, GSA had conducted an initial survey of Marshall on July 25 and 26 of this year. Mr. THAWLEY. A survey, or a scouting? Mr. MORITZ. I am not sure about that. There was a visit at Marshall, apparently at least preparatory to a survey there. Mr. THAWLEY. That is one of the four underway now. Mr. DOWNING. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that a copy of the GSA survey at each installation, and the NASA position on that, be inserted in the record for future reference. Mr. FUQUA. Can that information be provided? Mr. THAWLEY. Yes, sir. Mr. FUQUA. It will be inserted in the record. 1 Included in this record are excerpts from the GSA survey reports and the NASA responses thereto. The complete GSA survey reports in each case has been retained in the committee files. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL SERVICE, Maj. Gen. ROBERT H. CURTIN, Director of Facilities, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, DEAR GENERAL CURTIN: We recently completed our survey of the Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, pursuant to the provisions of Executive Order 11508 and General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Property Management Regulation 101-47.8. Excerpts of the survey report dated March 19, 1971, are enclosed. These excerpts are furnished for National Aeronautics and Space Administration review and comments. Your response should include the date that property recommended for disposal will be reported excess to GSA or a detailed justification for retention. In view of the keen Presidential interest in this program, your prompt review would be appreciated. We request that your comments be submitted to this office within 20 days from the date of this letter. A copy of this letter and excerpts of the survey report are being forwarded to Mr. Bruce Lundin, Director, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lewis Research Center, 2100 Brookpark, Cleveland, Ohio 44135. Sincerely, DOUGLAS K. KINSEY, Commissioner. Enclosure. Mr. DOUGLAS K. KINSEY, Commissioner, Property Management and Disposal Service, General Services DEAR MR. KINSEY: Your letter of June 16, 1971, furnished us with excerpts from the GSA Field Survey Report of Lewis Research Center, dated March 19, 1971, and requested NASA comments thereon within 20 days. The survey report recommended that two tracts of land in the West Area of Le RC, each tract consisting of about 45 acres, be declared excess. Your letter further requested that our response include (1) the date this property will be reported excess to GSA, or (2) a detailed justification for its retention. The future worth of Le RC as a research and development installation is dependent upon its ability to expand and undertake new R&D missions as they emerge. As you know, the installation is bounded by the Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport and by deep ravines so that the West Area is the only land available for expansion. Recognizing this, the Congress in Fiscal Year 1958 authorized and funded the acquisition of the West Area at Lewis including the land now being discussed. The sole justification for the acquisition of this land was to provide the Lewis center with a potential for expansion. The enclosed photographic sequence is designed to portray the expansion of LeRC over the years. To supplement the fact that the West Area is needed for expansion, there is a further consideration. As an R&D center, Lewis has available large blocks of power, an elaborate array of basic test systems such as air and gasses at various pressures, and a reservoir of back-up laboratories, shops, and personnel skills. If and as new facilities are provided in the expansion area under consideration, these resources become available to support such activities as may be located in this area. This is a most important consideration since this basic support is essential to most any activity which would be sited in this expansion area. The prior foresight in providing this expansion area has been and continues to be confirmed. Roads and utilities were brought into the West Area almost immediately after its acquisition. Electric Propulsion, Energy Conversion, and Space Power Research Laboratories were authorized by Congress and constructed on portions of the land in 1961, 1962, and 1968, respectively. That the expansion area is not yet fully used does not, of course, mean that it will not be eventually needed. It retention for the basic purpose for which it was acquired appears well justified. While the remainder of the expansion area awaits the authorization and construction of proposed new facilities, it has also served as a buffer zone between the NASA facilities and the residential development off-site to the West. Additionally, we have achieved interim multiple use of this buffer property. Four acres have been made available to the Federal Aviation Administration for a simultaneous automatic broadcasting and homing facility. Three acres-the property referred to in the survey as being outside the fence-have been made available to the City of Brook Park by cooperative agreement for a playground. Although initiated prior to the issuance of Executive Order 11508, this interim use of the expansion property is, of course, in keeping with the requirements of the Federal Property Management Regulations regarding temporary use of real property by others. We therefore strongly recommend that NASA not declare excess these two tracts at Lewis Research Center. Mr. BRUCE T. LUNDIN, Cleveland, Ohio, March 29, 1972. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Cleveland, Ohio. DEAR MR. LUNDIN: It was a pleasure meeting with you and members of your staff last week to discuss the necessary future expansion of Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, and how this future expansion may affect NASA. I, of course, understand your concern for the protection of the NASA facility, especially the DEB building and the area known as the South Forty Plot. Please be assured that this department will work very closely with your Director of Engineering Services on matters relating to the relocation of Brookpark Road and the possible affect the relocation of this road may have on the ingress and egress to the DEB facility. You have in your possession, a copy of the James C. Buckley, Inc. study for the landing area facilities requirements for Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. This study proposes a new runway in a northeast-southwest direction. The Buckley report recommends that this runway be constructed prior to 1975 in order to meet projected aircraft traffic demands. The report also proposes an extension to the north of our existing north-south runway. This runway is recommended by our consultants to be constructed in the 1980-85 period. Both the Federal Aviation Administration and the Air Transport Association have received copies of the report for their review and comments. I anticipate favorable reaction from them as to construction of these runways. The Division of Airports is so convinced of the necessity for this further runway development at Hopkins, that it has requested bond funding authorization of five million dollars more than is required for our current Airport Development Aid Program. We have requested these additional funds so that we may begin to acquire land for these future developments upon FAA's approval of our Airfield Layout Plan. We would be hopeful of meeting with you further to mutually resolve our problems as they relate to these runway extensions. Very truly yours, GUNTHER E. KATZMAR, Acting Director, Department of Port Control. Mr. JAMES R. BERGDAHL, Acting Deputy Director, Surveys Division, Office of Real Property Disposal, Subject: Airport Plans having Possible Effect on 90-Acres at Lewis Research As a follow-up to our discussion on March 7, 1972, we are sending you a copy of correspondence recently received from Mr. Lundin, Director, Lewis Research Center. Mr. Lundin's correspondence encloses a letter from a Cleveland Hopkins International Airport official giving the current status of plans to extend the airport runways. We wanted you to have this correspondence since the airport plans, if carried out, and we assume that they will be, will directly and severely impact the 90-acre tract of land referenced in the GSA Field Survey Report of Lewis Research Center. In view of these impending actions it would appear that any consideration of possible disposal of this land should be held in abeyance at least until the matter of the airport extension is resolved. Enclosure. R. H. CURTIN, Director of Facilities. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Maj. Gen. ROBERT H. CURTIN, Dear GeneraAL CURTIN: We recently completed our survey of the Lewis Research Center, Plum Brook Station, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Sandusky, Ohio, pursuant to the provisions of Executive Order 11508 and the General Services Administration Federal Property Management Regulation 101-47.8. After a careful evaluation of land utilization at this facility, no property was identified as not utilized, underutilized, or not being put to optimum use and recommended for disposal. Therefore, we are closing this case. A copy of this letter is being sent to Mr. Bruce Lundin, Director, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lewis Research Center, 2100 Brookpark, Cleveland, Ohio 44135. We appreciate your cooperation with respect to this survey, and your assistance in submitting additional technical data to our regional office. Sincerely, DOUGLAS K. KINSEY, Commissioner. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Maj. Gen. ROBERT H. CURTIN, D.C. DEAR GENERAL CURTIN: We recently completed our survey of Wallops Station, Wallops Island, Virginia, pursuant to the provisions of Executive Order 11508 and General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Property Management Regulation 101-47.8. A copy of the survey report, dated February 2, 1972, is enclosed. This copy is furnished for National Aeronautics and Space Administration review and comments. Your response should include the date property recommended for disposal will be reported excess to GSA or a detailed justification for retention. In view of the keen Presidential interest in this program, your prompt review would be appreciated. We request that your comments be submitted to this office within 20 days from the date of this letter. If your comments are not received within the requisite period of time, our recommendations will, nonetheless, be forwarded to the Property Review Board in compliance with section 101-47.802 of the Federal Property Management Regulations. A copy of this letter and the survey report are being forwarded to Mr. Robert L. Krieger, Director, Wallops Station, Wallops Island, Virginia 23337. Sincerely, Enclosure. DOUGLAS K. KINSEY, |