[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 171 (Thursday, September 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46726-46730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23448]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of the Fleet and
Industrial Supply Center, Oakland, California
SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy (Navy), pursuant to Section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), and the regulations of the Council on Environmental
Quality that implement NEPA procedures, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, hereby
announces its decision to dispose of the Fleet and Industrial Supply
Center (FISC) Oakland, California.
Navy intends to dispose of this property directly to the Port of
Oakland (Port) as authorized by the Department of Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal year 1993, Public Law 102-484, Section 2834, as amended
by the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996,
Public Law 104-106, Section 2867. Based upon the Port's Vision 2000
Program, it proposes to develop marine, rail, and truck cargo
facilities on the property. The Port's Vision 2000 Program is
consistent with the designation of the area for ``priority port use''
in the April 1996 San Francisco Bay Seaport Plan Update, issued jointly
by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The Port's redevelopment
will also provide public access to the waterfront and, in the Oakland
Middle Harbor, a marine habitat enhancement area.
In deciding to dispose of FISC Oakland, Navy has determined that
the Port's proposed use of the property as an intermodal cargo facility
is consistent with Public law 102-484, as amended by Public Law 104-
106. This Record Of Decision does not mandate a specific mix of land
uses. Rather, it leaves selection of the particular means to achieve
the proposed redevelopment to the Port of Oakland.
Navy and the Port analyzed the impacts of disposal and reuse under
the Vision 2000 Program in a Joint Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR), as required by NEPA and the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
[[Page 46727]]
California Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq. The EIS/EIR
analyzed four reuse alternatives and identified the Reduced Harbor Fill
Alternative as the Preferred Alternative. This alternative proposed a
mix of land uses that allocated about three-fourths of the FISC
property to industrial, rail and marine terminal activities and
reserved the remaining property for public access and habitat
enhancement.
The Port plans to redevelop the FISC property in phases over
several years and will prepare additional CEQA documentation as
particular projects are ready for evaluation. While this Record Of
Decision completes Navy's responsibility under NEPA, the Federal
Highway Administration, a cooperating agency in preparation of the EIS/
EIR, will prepare a separate Record Of Decision that reflects its
decision concerning funding for the Port's redevelopment project.
Background
The FISC Oakland property is situated on 528 acres in West Oakland,
about two miles west of Oakland's central business district, on the
east side of San Francisco Bay. It lies within the limits of the City
of Oakland in Alameda County and falls under the planning jurisdiction
of the Port of Oakland.
In 1940, Navy acquired from the City of Oakland 392 acres of the
528 acres that comprise the FISC Oakland property and established the
Oakland Naval Supply Depot (later renamed the Naval Supply Center) to
provide logistical support for the Pacific Theater in World War II. The
City conveyed this property to Navy subject to a reversionary clause
that would cause the property to revert to the City of Oakland if Navy
decided not to use it as a supply depot or for other military purposes.
Navy subsequently acquired an additional 136 acres of adjacent
upland property and increased the total area of the FISC property to
528 acres. This additional 136 acres has no reverter limiting Navy's
ability to convey the property and is currently leased to the Port for
use as warehousing, open laydown storage, and parking.
Because the 392 acres acquired from the City of Oakland will revert
to the City by operation of law, the only property for which Navy must
make a disposal decision is the remaining 136 acres. Therefore,
disposal of that 136 acres is the subject of this Record of Decision.
The Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993,
Public Law 102-484, Section 2834, authorized Navy to lease up to 195
acres of FISC Oakland property to the Port of Oakland for 50 years. The
Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, Public
Law 103-160, Section 2833, amended these provisions to permit Navy to
lease available property to the Port.
Navy has leased about 190 acres of FISC property to the Port to
permit expansion of the Port's rail and marine terminal facilities. On
May 25, 1995, following a Joint EIS/EIR, Navy issued a separate Record
of Decision concerning that leasing action.
The 1995 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
recommended closure of FISC Oakland. This recommendation was approved
by President Clinton and accepted by the One Hundred Fourth Congress in
1995. The base is scheduled for operational closure in September 1998.
Section 2834 of Public Law 102-484 was subsequently amended by the
Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Public
Law 104-106, Section 2867, which gave Navy authority to convey the FISC
property to the Port. This authority is independent of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 40 U.S.C. Sec. 471,
et seq., and its implementing regulations, the Federal Property
Management Regulations, 41 CFR part 101-47, as well as the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, 10 U.S.C.
Sec. 2687 note.
Navy published a notice of intent in the Federal Register on May
30, 1996, announcing that Navy, with the Port of Oakland, would prepare
a Joint EIS/EIR. This analysis would consider the impacts of Navy's
disposal of the property not covered by the reverter, i.e., the 136
acres, and the Port's reuse of the entire 528-acre FISC property,
including the buildings and infrastructure. A thirty-day public scoping
period was established, and a public scoping meeting was held on June
13, 1996, at the McClymonds High School Auditorium in the City of
Oakland.
On March 7, 1997, Navy and the Port distributed a Draft EIS/EIR
(DEIS/EIR) to Federal, State, and local agencies, interested parties,
and the general public. Navy held a public hearing on April 8, 1997, at
the West Oakland Public Library in the City of Oakland. During the
forty-five day review period after publication of the DEIS/EIR, Federal
agencies, California State agencies, local government agencies, and the
public submitted written comments. These comments and Navy's responses
were incorporated in the Final EIS/EIR (FEIS/EIR), which was
distributed to the public on July 25, 1997, for a thirty-day review
period that concluded on August 25, 1997. Navy received comments on the
FEIS/EIR from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the Association of Bay Area
Governments, the East Bay Regional Park District, the Golden Gate
University Environmental Law and Justice Clinic, and Arc Ecology.
Alternatives
NEPA requires Navy to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives
for the disposal and reuse of this Federal property. Because Navy
proposes to dispose of the property pursuant to Section 2834 of Public
Law 102-484, as amended by Section 2867 of Public Law 104-106, Navy
analyzed the environmental impacts of two alternatives: (1) Disposal of
the property to the Port and (2) no action. The ``No action''
alternative would result in Navy retaining ownership of the 136 acres
of nonreversionary property while the other 392 acres would revert to
the Port. Navy would continue leasing the nonreversionary property to
the Port by way of the existing 50-year lease agreement.
In the diposal alternative, the 136-acre property would be conveyed
to the Port of Oakland which would use the property to implement its
Vision 2000 Program. In the Joint EIS/EIR, the Port evaluated four
reuse alternatives for implementing this Program. Each of these
alternatives involved intermodal port development and differed only in
respect of waterfront configuration, the amount of bay fill, and public
access. In the Joint FEIS/EIR, the Port identified the Reduced Harbor
Fill Alternative as its Preferred Alternative.
Environmental Impacts
Navy analyzed the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of its
disposal and the Port's proposed reuse on land use, socioeconomics,
public services, cultural resources, aesthetic resources, biological
resources, water resources, geology and soils, traffic and circulation,
air quality, noise, utilities, and hazardous materials and waste.
The direct environmental impacts are those associated with Navy's
proposed disposal of the 136 acres and with the ``No action''
alternative. The indirect impacts are those associated with the Port's
reuse of this nonreversionary 136-acre Navy property. The cumulative
impacts are those associated with the redevelopment of the reversionary
FISC property (the 392 acres), third-party property included in the
Vision 2000
[[Page 46728]]
Program, and other development activity in the area. Navy has no
authority to control the Port's use of the reversionary property after
it reverts to the Port, nor to control use of the third-party property
that is part of the Vision 2000 Program.
With the exception of the impact on cultural resources, no
significant direct impacts would result from Navy's disposal of the
FISC Oakland property. Therefore, this Record of Decision will focus on
the indirect and cumulative impacts that are likely to result from the
Port's implementation of the Preferred Alternative, designated as the
Reduced Harbor Fill Alternative.
The Reduced Harbor Fill Alternative would not have any significant
impact on land use. Although the one-acre Middle Harbor Park would be
eliminated, this alternative would provide public access to 31 acres of
shoreline along the Oakland Middle Harbor, a substantial increase over
current public access to the property.
The Reduced Harbor Fill Alternative would not result in any
significant adverse socioeconomic impacts. Indeed, the Port's proposal
would generate about 10,000 more new jobs than would the ``No action''
alternative.
The Reduced Harbor Fill Alternative would have a significant impact
on public services as a result of the elimination of the Spectrum
Medical Care Clinic that provides medical services to the West Oakland
community. This impact could be mitigated, however, by moving the
clinic to another site in West Oakland.
As noted earlier, the Reduced Harbor Fill Alternative would have a
significant impact on cultural resources, because historic buildings
and structures in the Naval Supply Center Oakland Historic District
would be demolished in the redevelopment. This historic district is
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Thus,
in order to permit the planned redevelopment, it was necessary to amend
an existing Memorandum Of Agreement (MOA) with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP). This MOA provided for recordation and demolition
of only those historic structures that were located on FISC property
that the Port had leased from Navy. Navy, the SHPO, and the ACHP agreed
upon an amendment that provides for recordation and demolition of all
historic structures on the entire FISC property. The amended MOA was
signed by Navy on March 7, 1997, the SHPO on April 11, 1997, and the
ACHP on April 30, 1997.
The Reduced Harbor Fill Alternative would have a significant impact
on aesthetic resources. Middle Harbor Park, which now provides visitors
with a clear view of Oakland Harbor, would be replaced with marine
terminal facilities. The Port, however, proposes to replace Middle
Harbor Park with another park that will afford visitors enhanced
opportunities to view Oakland Harbor and San Francisco Bay. This
proposal should adequately mitigate the adverse impact caused by the
loss of Middle Harbor Park.
On June 26, 1997, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) issued a Biological Opinion concerning the endangered
California least tern. The Service concluded that Navy's disposal of
the FISC property is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of the California least tern.
The Port's proposal, however, could have a significant impact on
biological resources because it may result in the loss of least tern
foraging habitat. Thus, the Port will engage in programmatic
consultation with USFWS pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, 16
U.S.C. 1531 et. seq., and will consult with the United States Army
Corps of Engineers to ensure that construction of the marine terminal
and dredging do not cause significant adverse impacts on the least
tern's foraging habitat.
The Reduced Harbor Fill Alternative could have another significant
impact on biological resources arising out of the accumulation of
sediments on eelgrass beds. This impact could be mitigated by
relocating the eelgrass beds as part of the marine habitat enhancement
project. Such a relocation would also enhance the environment for
marine and biological resources in the Oakland Middle Harbor.
The pollutant runoff that would be generated by the Port's Reduced
Harbor Fill Alternative would have a significant impact on water
resources. The combination of a well-designed stormwater management
facility and the implementation of best management practices, such as
those already developed by the Port for vehicle maintenance, could
reduce the project's stormwater pollutant runoff to an insignificant
level.
The Port's dredging and its disposal of dredged material, including
filling Oakland Middle Harbor, could cause adverse impacts. Thus, the
Port is considering several alternatives for the disposal and reuse of
any contaminated material that may result from dredging. The nature and
extent of these impacts can only be determined after the sediments have
been tested, the dredging methods have been selected, and the disposal
and reuse sites have been identified. In any event, the Port will
conduct dredging and disposal of dredged material in a manner suited to
the particular conditions at the dredge site and consistent with the
permit requirements of the appropriate regulatory agencies.
Redevelopment of the FISC Oakland property would continue to expose
the public to those risks typically associated with regional seismic
events, i.e., earthquakes, liquefaction, and ground settlement. Thus,
the redevelopment must comply with local building and waterfront design
codes and seismic safety requirements.
The Reduced Harbor Fill Alternative would have a significant impact
on traffic at the intersection of Third Street and Adeline Street
during peak hours. Its impact could be mitigated by restriping the
eastbound and westbound Third Street approaches to the intersection.
This Alternative would not have a significant impact on nearby
highways, although some Bay Area freeway segments would experience
increased traffic. The Port's proposal would generate about 54,705
passenger car equivalent (PCE) average daily trips (weighted for
additional truck traffic), as compared with the ``No action''
alternative's 38,513 PCE average daily trips. However, these additional
trips would be distributed throughout the day so that freeway
operations would not likely be significantly affected.
The Reduced Harbor Fill Alternative would have a significant impact
on air quality because of the increase in transportation-related air
pollutant emissions. Redevelopment of the property will attract
additional automobile, truck, rail and ship traffic. Emissions from
this traffic will include reactive organic compounds, nitrogen oxides,
sulfur oxides, and particulate matter (less than 10 microns). Thus, the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District's planning for attainment of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards will require consideration
of these additional emissions as well as those generated by other
growth projected for the San Francisco Bay area.
Implementation of the Reduced Harbor Fill Alternative would not
result in any significant impact from noise. There would, however, be
additional noise generated by traffic, trains, railyard operations and
marine terminal activities. The new Cypress Freeway, located between
the project site and the West Oakland neighborhoods, should attenuate
the additional noise generated at the project site.
The Reduced Harbor Fill Alternative would not result in any
significant
[[Page 46729]]
impacts on the utilities that serve the FISC property, i.e., landfill
capacity, water distribution, sanitary sewers, stormwater drainage,
electric power, natural gas, and telephone systems.
Navy also analyzed the potential for impacts on low-income and
minority populations pursuant to Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations, reprinted in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 note. Although a low-
income, minority population resides adjacent to the FISC property,
there would be no disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on that population as a result of the proposed
action.
Mitigation
Implementation of Navy's decision to dispose of the FISC Oakland
property does not require Navy to perform any mitigation measure beyond
that already accomplished, i.e., amendment of the MOA concerning the
Naval Supply Center Oakland Historic District. The FEIS/EIR identified
and discussed those actions that would be necessary to mitigate the
impacts associated with reuse of the FISC Oakland property. The Port of
Oakland, under the direction of Federal, State, and local agencies with
regulatory authority over protected resources, will be responsible for
implementing necessary mitigation measures. The implementation of
mitigation concerning the historic property will be governed by the
MOA.
Comments Received on the FEIS
Navy received comments on the FEIS/EIR from the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District, the East Bay Regional Park District, the Association of Bay
Area Governments, and two citizens groups: the Golden Gate University
Environmental Law and Justice Clinic, and Arc Ecology. The following
substantive issues were identified.
The EPA requested that Navy quantify the amount of ``contaminated''
dredged material associated with the Preferred Alternative that would
be not suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal. Navy and the Port
anticipate that the amount of dredged material not suitable for
unconfined aquatic disposal will be small. Most of the dredging
required to complete the project is expected to be in rocky areas or
clean sand areas, which typically have minimal sediment contamination.
Contamination is most likely to be found in the upper layers of
shoreline sediment near piers and wharves. Based upon the footprint of
the preferred reuse alternative and discussions with the Port of
Oakland, Navy estimates that 300,000 cubic yards, or less than 7% of
the 4,500,000 cubic yards to be dredged, will not be suitable for
unconfined aquatic disposal. Precise information will be developed and
specific impacts discussed when the Port of Oakland submits an
application for a Dredge and Fill permit under the Clean Water Act to
the Army Corps of Engineers.
EPA recognized that the programmatic levels of analysis in the
FEIS/EIR were too preliminary for biological resource impacts to be
fully evaluated. EPA, however, questioned the one half mile Region Of
Influence (ROI) used in the FEIS/EIR for analyzing impacts from
dredging and requested that the ROI in the FEIS/EIR not artificially
constrain the project-level analysis of the potential introduction of
contaminants into the aquatic food chain. As the precise location and
extent of dredging has not been determined and no disposal sites have
been identified, Navy considers the estimated one-half mile ROI for
biological resources appropriate for this FEIS/EIR. The Port of Oakland
will define the ROI more precisely when it prepares project-level CEQA
documentation for dredging.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District requested that the
Port of Oakland consider mitigation measures to minimize air emissions,
even if these measures would not reduce air emissions below the
significant level. The Port of Oakland intends to continue to meet with
the community to discuss air quality issues and mitigation. Should it
identify mitigation measures which would further reduce air emissions,
the Port of Oakland will consider such measures in future project-
specific CEQA documents prepared for its Vision 2000 Program.
The East Bay Regional Park District requested that the Port of
Oakland make a firm commitment to construct or fund a bicycle/
pedestrian access in Oakland Middle Harbor as part of this joint EIS/
EIR. The Port of Oakland has not yet proposed specific locations for
public access improvements. It will consider specific public access
proposals such as the bicycle/pedestrian path in future project-
specific CEQA documents for Oakland Middle Harbor.
The East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) commented that it
supports a goal of maximum feasible public access in the Oakland Middle
Harbor area, preferring multiple public access areas to a single, large
public access area. The Port of Oakland has not yet proposed specific
locations for public access improvements. It will consider specific
public access proposals such as multiple access areas in future
project-specific CEQA documents for Oakland Middle Harbor.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) noted that the San
Francisco Bay Trail map in the FEIS/EIR was inaccurate because it did
not show a proposed trail route between Mandella Parkway and Maritime
Streets. The identification of this map error, while useful, does not
change the environmental impact analysis in the FEIS/EIR.
The Golden Gate University Environmental Law and Justice Clinic
(Environmental Law Clinic) submitted comments on behalf of West Oakland
Neighbors, a local citizens group. The Environmental Law Clinic
expressed concerns that the FEIS/EIR did not consider feasible
mitigation measures which would reduce air emissions. Specifically, the
Environmental Law Clinic suggested that truck parking facilities remain
open continuously to preclude the parking of trucks on the residential
streets of West Oakland where residents would be subjected to emissions
and noise from diesel engine start-up and idle, and that the Port of
Oakland purchase emission credits.
The FEIS/EIR evaluated a variety of mitigation measures to reduce
air emissions associated with port redevelopment. While some mitigation
measures, such as a 24 hour parking facility, will be implemented and
will reduce noise and air emissions in the West Oakland community, none
of the proposed mitigation measures would reduce ozone precursors and
particulate matter emissions below thresholds established by the local
Air Quality District. For example, use of emission reduction credits
are available for mobile sources, is project specific. The FEIS/EIR
analyzed port redevelopment at the programmatic level. The Vision 2000
Program will be implemented in phases with project-specific analysis
completed for each phase or project. Whether use of emission credits is
appropriate and whether credits are actually available can be analyzed
in project-specific CEQA documents. The Port of Oakland will continue
to discuss possible mitigation with the local community.
The Environmental Law Clinic also suggested that EPA's informal
proposal to redesignate the San Francisco Bay area as moderate
nonattainment for ozone should be considered new information requiring
supplemental analysis in the FEIS/EIR. At present EPA has not formally
proposed a change in ozone designation for the bay Area.
[[Page 46730]]
Even if EPA has published a proposed change in designation from
attainment/maintenance to nonattainment, the amount of emissions
associated with the reuse alternatives would not change. Air impacts
would still be significant and the Port of Oakland would still need to
evaluate additional mitigation measures in project-specific CEQA
documents. The more stringent emission restrictions normally associated
with nonattainment designations are not applicable to the Navy's
proposed action as federal disposal actions are exempt from application
of the Clean Air Act's Conformity provisions.
The Environmental Law Clinic expressed concern that, contrary to
the analysis in the FEIS/EIR, minority and low income residents of West
Oakland were disproportionately and adversely affected by air emissions
from the proposed port redevelopment. As discussed in the FEIS/EIR,
ozone precursor and particulate emissions from motor vehicle, rail, and
ship traffic would occur over a broad dispersed geographic area, and
therefore would not result in a localized impact on West Oakland
neighborhoods. Particulate emissions during demolition and construction
will be controlled, eliminating any adverse impacts on the West Oakland
community during the construction phase. Impacts associated with the
proposed redevelopment therefore would not be disproportionately high
and adverse.
The Environmental Law Clinic also commented that the FEIS/EIR did
not include mitigation for impacts to shorebirds from the Port's Vision
2000 Program. Suitable habitat for shorebirds is very limited in the
area. Impacts identified in the FEIS/EIR are so limited that mitigation
is not required.
Conclusion
Of the 528-acre FISC Oakland property, about 392 acres will revert
to the Port. The remaining nonreversionary property, 136 acres, is
currently leased to the Port by way of a 50-year lease. Although the
``No action'' alternative has less potential for causing adverse
environmental impacts, it would not permit efficient use of the
nonreversionary Navy property.
Navy's conveyance of the nonreversionary property to the Port would
allow the Port to reuse and redevelop the entire FISC Oakland property
efficiently, with other nearby property, in a manner consistent with
the ``port priority use'' designation of the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission. Additionally, disposal of the property
relieves Navy of the burden of owning, managing, and maintaining
property that it no longer needs.
Accordingly, Navy will dispose of the FISC Oakland property by
conveying it to the Port of Oakland pursuant to Section 2867 of Public
Law 104-106.
Dated: August 28, 1997.
Robert B. Pirie, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of the Navy, (Installations And Environment).
[FR Doc. 97-23448 Filed 9-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M
