[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 122 (Monday, June 27, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-15476]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 27, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
 

Decision and Availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) 
Document on the Proposed South Tongue Point Land Exchange and Marine 
Industrial Park Development Project

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service (lead agency); General Services 
Administration, Army Corps of Engineers, and Oregon Division of State 
Lands (cooperating agencies).

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public that a decision on the proposed 
South Tongue Point Land Exchange and Marine Industrial Part Development 
Project has been made and that the Record of Decision Document is 
available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benjamin Harrison, South Tongue Point 
EIS Team Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastside Federal 
Complex, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 or David Blum, 
South Tongue Point Project Coordinator, Oregon Division of State Lands, 
775 Summer Street NE., Salem, Oregon 97310.
    Individuals wishing copies of this ROD should contact the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service's (Service) Portland Regional Office. Copies of 
the ROD have been sent to all agencies and individuals who previously 
received copies of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements 
and to all others who have already requested copies.

DECISION: The Service's decision is to implement the Preferred 
Alternative, Alternative A, as it is described in the Final EIS for the 
South Tongue Point Land Exchange and Marine Industrial Development 
Project. This decision is based on a thorough review of the 
alternatives and their environmental consequences.

Other Agency Decisions

    A record of Decision will be produced by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (Corps). The responsible officials at the Corps will adopt 
the Final EIS as part of the permit process required by Section 404 of 
the Clean Water Act.
    A Record of Decision will be produced by the General Services 
Administration (GSA). The responsible officials at GSA will adopt the 
EIS in order to comply with National Environmental Policy Act 
requirements for the disposal and exchange of Federal properties.

RATIONALE FOR DECISION: The Preferred alternative has been selected for 
implementation based on consideration of a number of environmental and 
social factors. Alternative A has been selected as the preferred 
alternative because: (1) The land exchange provides the most durable 
means for protecting wildlife habitats and exchange wildlife 
populations; (2) the development component avoids significant adverse 
environmental impacts; and (3) the project will result in significant 
economic benefits in a economically depressed area.
    Alternative A was selected because it balances resources protection 
with water dependent development. The preferred alternative provides a 
net benefit for wildlife and benefits for the local economy. The land 
exchange is the most practical means available to secure and protect 
additional lands from incompatible uses within the administrative 
boundary of the Refuge. Migratory bird and resident wildlife 
populations will benefit from additional secure habitat and be enhanced 
through wildlife management programs which could not be implemented 
without fee title ownership. The development component has been 
carefully designed to minimize adverse environmental effects. Wintering 
bald eagles will benefit from compensatory measures designed to enhance 
foraging opportunities. A net gain in wetlands will be realized through 
successful implementation of mitigation measures.
    Implementation of the Preferred Alternative extends the protection 
of the environmental resources and maintenance of environmental quality 
beyond what would be achieved under either of the other two 
alternatives. Alternative B was not selected as the preferred 
alternative due to the significant impacts expected to resident bald 
eagles. Alternative C, the No Action Alternative, was not selected as 
the preferred alternative because it would not result in the Service 
increasing habitat protection within the Refuge.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background

    In 1979, the U.S. Government declared the property known as South 
Tongue Point near Astoria, Oregon, to be excess to the Federal 
inventory. In 1981, the State of Oregon contacted the Federal 
Government regarding a possible exchange of property involving South 
Tongue Point and State-owned islands in the Columbia River.
    In May 1989, the U.S. Navy contacted the Oregon Division of State 
Lands (Division) in regard to the possibility of homeporting mine 
hunter coastal vessels at South Tongue Point. At the time, the Division 
was studying the feasibility of acquiring South Tongue Point and 
developing the site as a marine industrial part in conjunction with the 
Federal Government's proposal to exchange property with the State of 
Oregon. The Navy's interest led to the development of a master plan for 
the marine industrial part at South Tongue Point, with the Navy as the 
first proposed tenant.
    The GSA is proposing to convey approximately 130 acres of land at 
South Tongue Point near Astoria, Oregon (Section 12, T.8N., R.9W.), 
administered by the Corps to the State of Oregon. In exchange for the 
Federal land, the Division is proposing to convey approximately 3,930 
acres of State-owned land within the administrative boundary of Lewis 
and Clark National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), to GSA which will in turn 
transfer those lands to the Service. An additional 950 acres of State-
owned land within the Refuge is proposed for Service management under a 
long-term cooperative agreement.
    The State is proposing to develop a multitenant shallow draft 
marine industrial park moorage facility for a variety of water-
dependent and general industrial uses. Water-dependent uses would have 
water access by means of pile-supported piers. General industrial uses 
would be located in upland areas without water access.
    This development activity is intended to create real property 
assets and associated income for the Common School Fund of the State of 
Oregon, encourage new industrial employment within the area, and 
contribute to the economic stability and employment diversification of 
Clatsop County and the State of Oregon. Under the proposed action, the 
Service would gain fee title to lands within the administrative 
boundary of the Refuge. This would provide the Service with the needed 
management flexibility to control future expected incompatible uses and 
enhance wildlife populations and their habitats.
    Scoping activities were undertaken preparatory to developing an EIS 
with a variety of Federal, State, and local entities. A Notice of 
Intent to prepare the EIS was published in the Federal Register on 
November 4, 1991. A Draft EIS was issued in June 1992. A Notice of 
Availability for the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on 
July 2, 1993. A Notice of Availability for the Final EIS was published 
in the Federal Register on May 20, 1994.

B. Key Issues

    Through public scoping and with input from various agencies and 
publics, key issues were identified. These focused on the following 
subject areas: (1) Certain aspects of the physical environment, 
especially the potential for hazardous materials to be released from 
local sediments; (2) certain aspects of the biological environment, 
especially wetlands and threatened and endangered species; and (3) 
certain aspects of the cultural and social environment, especially the 
local and regional economy. These factors were also examined for the 
State-owned islands proposed as additions to the Refuge. These issues 
were thoroughly examined in the Draft and Final EIS.

C. Alternatives

    More than 20 alternatives were considered before limiting the 
alternatives to be advanced for further study. Alternatives considered 
but not advanced for detailed analysis included alternative development 
concepts, alternative sites, and single versus multi-tenant 
developments. Alternatives advanced for detailed analysis include (A) 
the proposed land exchange and development of a multi-tenant marine 
industrial development; (B) the proposed land exchange and multi-tenant 
marine industrial development with connecting road to North Tongue 
Point; and (C) a No Action Alternative. Adverse and beneficial impacts 
of each alternative are considered.

Alternative A

    Alternative A comprises two elements: (1) the land exchange, and 
(2) the multi-tenant marine industrial development.
    (1) Approximately 3,930 acres of State-owned land within the 
administrative boundary of the Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge 
would be exchanged through GSA to the Service for the 130 acres on 
South Tongue Point. The remaining 950 acres would be managed under a 
long-term cooperative agreement between the Division and the Service.
    (2) Development of the multi-tenant marine industrial site would 
occur in two phases. Phase 1 would involve site infrastructure 
developments and construction of marine industrial facilities. 
Construction would begin in 1994 and occur at a rate supported by 
market conditions.

Alternative B

    Alternative B comprises the same two elements as Alternative A with 
the addition, in Phase 2, of a road connecting South Tongue Point to 
North Tongue Point. Construction of the connecting road would be 
dependent upon the need for additional land to support marine 
industrial development and increased port activities at North Tongue 
Point.

Alternative C

    With the No Action Alternative, South Tongue Point would remain in 
its present undeveloped condition except for the existing Corps Field 
Station. There would be no land exchange. The No Action Alternative 
would not have direct adverse impacts to the physical and biological 
environment. However, the No Action Alternative would not have direct 
economic benefits from job creation and tax revenues.

    Dated: June 20, 1994.
Marvin L. Plenert,
Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 94-15476 Filed 6-24-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M