[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4741-4744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2469]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy, DoD


Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of Naval Civil 
Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, 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. 4321 et seq., 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 Naval Civil 
Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, California (NCEL).
    Navy intends to dispose of the property in a manner that is 
consistent with the NCEL Community Reuse Plan (Reuse Plan) submitted by 
the Port Hueneme Surplus Property Authority (SPA), the Local 
Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for NCEL. The City of Port Hueneme 
established SPA to plan future uses of the closing facilities. The 
Reuse Plan is general in nature and proposes maritime and related uses 
rather than particular reuse projects.
    In its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Navy evaluated 
a ``No action'' alternative and three ``action'' alternatives: port and 
coastal activities (``Port/Coastal''), described in the FEIS as the 
preferred alternative; port and related industrial activities (``Port/
Industrial''); and port, aquaculture, retail and commercial activities 
(``Mixed Use''). In a Resolution dated August 7, 1996, SPA determined 
that the Port/Industrial alternative's emphasis on port activities 
would be consistent with the Reuse Plan and endorsed the land uses 
proposed in that alternative.
    In deciding to dispose of NCEL Port Hueneme, Navy has determined 
that both the Port/Coastal alternative and the Port/Industrial 
alternative will meet the goals of achieving local economic 
redevelopment of the closing facility and creating new jobs, while 
limiting adverse environmental impacts and ensuring land uses that are 
compatible with adjacent property. This Record Of Decision leaves 
selection of the particular means to achieve the proposed redevelopment 
to the acquiring entity and the local zoning authority.

Background

    The 1993 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission 
recommended closure of NCEL Port Hueneme. This recommendation was 
approved by President Clinton and accepted by the One Hundred Third 
Congress in 1993. NCEL Port Hueneme closed in April 1996, and the 
property has been in caretaker status since that date.
    The NCEL property occupies 33.1 acres along the Pacific Ocean in 
the City of Port Hueneme, which is located in Ventura County, 
California. NCEL lies adjacent to the Oxnard Harbor District's Port of 
Hueneme, about 60 miles northwest of Los Angeles and 40 miles southeast 
of Santa Barbara, California. The property contains 53 structures that 
were used for Naval research and development.
    Navy published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on March 
8, 1995, announcing that Navy would prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement that would analyze the impacts of disposal and reuse of the 
land, buildings, and infrastructure at NCEL Port Hueneme. A 30-day 
public scoping period was established, and Navy held a public scoping 
meeting on March 23, 1995, at the Port Hueneme City Hall.
    On February 13, 1996, Navy distributed a Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (DEIS) to Federal, State, and local agencies, elected 
officials, special interest groups, and interested persons. Navy held a 
public hearing in the Port Hueneme City Council chambers on March 12, 
1996, to discuss the DEIS. During the forty-five day review period 
after publication of the DEIS, Federal, State, and local agencies 
submitted written comments concerning the DEIS. These comments and 
Navy's responses were incorporated in the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement (FEIS), which was distributed to the public on July 19, 1996, 
for a 30-day review period that concluded on August 18, 1996. Navy 
received three letters commenting on and supportive of the FEIS.

Alternatives

    NEPA requires Navy to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives 
for the disposal and reuse of this Federal property. In the NEPA 
process, Navy analyzed the environmental impacts of various proposed 
land uses that could result from disposal of the NCEL property. Navy 
also evaluated a ``No action'' alternative that would leave the 
property in a caretaker status with Navy maintaining the physical 
condition of the property, providing a security force, and making 
repairs essential to safety.
    As the basis for its analysis of the ``action'' alternatives, Navy 
relied upon SPA's proposals for maritime and related uses that were set 
forth in the Reuse Plan. SPA considered various activities that the 
NCEL property could support, prepared the Reuse Plan, and submitted it 
to Navy in August 1995.
    The first ``action'' alternative, the Port/Coastal alternative, 
proposed a moderate expansion of the Oxnard Harbor District's port 
facilities by using 5.5 acres on the NCEL property as additional area 
for wharfside activities such as the handling and storage of cargo. 
Another part of the property, 6.1 acres, would be dedicated to 
recreation and public access, and the remainder, 21.5 acres, would be 
set aside for coastal activities such as fish processing, aquaculture, 
and maritime training and other educational uses.
    The second ``action'' alternative, the Port/Industrial alternative, 
proposed greater expansion of the Oxnard Harbor District's port 
facilities on to the NCEL property, with 27 of NCEL's 33 acres 
dedicated to cargo handling, storage, and distribution. As in the Port/
Coastal alternative, 6.1 acres at NCEL would be dedicated to recreation 
and public access.
    The third ``action'' alternative, the Mixed Use alternative, 
proposed the use of 5.5 acres at NCEL for expansion of the Oxnard 
Harbor District's port facilities, 9.2 acres for use in aquaculture and 
commercial activities, and 12.3 acres for retail stores, offices and 
maritime education. As in the Fort/Coastal and Port/Industrial 
alternatives, 6.1 acres would be dedicated to recreation and public 
access.

Environmental Impacts

    Navy analyzed the potential impacts of the ``No action'' and three 
``action'' alternatives for their effects on land use, socioeconomics, 
public services, cultural resources, biological resources, water 
resources, geology and soils, traffic and circulation, air quality, 
noise, utilities, hazardous materials and hazardous waste. In light of 
SPA's endorsement of the Port/Industrial alternative, this Record Of 
Decision will focus on the impacts that could result from implementing 
that proposal.
    No significant adverse impacts on land use would arise out of the 
Port/Industrial alternative. This proposal is compatible with the 
existing and projected uses of adjacent property and is consistent with 
the existing land use

[[Page 4742]]

and environmental plans of the city of Port Hueneme and Ventura County.
    The Port/Industrial alternative would not result in any significant 
adverse socioeconomic impacts. Indeed, this alternative would create 
from 86 to 309 net new jobs. While the proposal may increase enrollment 
in the three local public school districts by 157 students, that 
increase would occur over a 25-year period.
    This alternative would not cause any significant adverse impacts on 
public services. Police and fire protection and emergency medical 
services would be provided by the City of Port Hueneme's Police 
Department and the Ventura County Fire District. The proposal would not 
require any increase in current staffing or equipment nor would it 
adversely affect the established response time for emergency calls.
    The International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union's (ILWU) 
Hiring and dispatching Hall is eligible for listing on the National 
Register of Historic Places. While located on NCEL property, this 
building is owned by ILWU. On March 12, 1996, Navy and the California 
State Historic Preservation Officer concluded a Memorandum of Agreement 
(MOA) concerning the building pursuant to the regulations that 
implement Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 36 CFR 
Part 800. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation accepted this 
MOA on May 8, 1996, and Navy has completed the prescribed recordation 
of the ILWU Hall in accordance with Historic American Buildings Survey 
standards.
    The United States Coast guard owns the Point Hueneme Lighthouse, 
which is composed of the lighthouse structure, the light works and 
supporting facilities and is located at the southwest corner of the 
NCEL property. The light works, while not eligible for listing on the 
National Register of Historic Places, is a listed Ventura County 
landmark. Its preservation status from the County will not change with 
disposal of the NCEL property.
    No significant adverse impacts on biological resources would result 
from the Port/Industrial alternative. There are no sensitive habitats 
on the NCEL property, and no endangered or threatened species are 
likely to inhabit, nest or forage on the property.
    The seawall on the southern boundary of the NCEL property will be 
conveyed with the property. The entity that acquires the NCEL property 
will be responsible for maintaining the seawall, and failure to 
maintain it may expose the property to shoreline erosion and damage 
from storm surge and tidal waves.
    There would be no significant adverse impacts on the property's 
geological characteristics. The NCEL property is located in an area of 
high seismic hazards, i.e., Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 4. Thus, 
the City of Port Hueneme's Building and Safety Agency would likely 
require inspection of all structures on the site to determine whether 
modifications are necessary to permit reuse. The acquiring entity can 
minimize the potential for soil erosion during construction by 
implementing erosion control plans as required by the Stormwater 
Pollution Prevention Program of the National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System.
    The Port/Industrial alternative would generate 4,319 average daily 
vehicle trips that would be distributed primarily along Ventura Road 
and Hueneme Road. This level of traffic would not have a significant 
adverse impact on the critical roadways identified in the Ventura 
County Congestion Management Program.
    Ventura County has been classified as a severe nonattainment area 
under Federal and State ozone standards. In the Port/Industrial 
alternative, the projected emissions of reactive organic compounds and 
nitrogen oxides from vehicles and construction equipment would not 
exceed the Federal threshold of 25 tons per year that triggers the 
requirement for a conformity analysis under Section 176(c) of the Clean 
Air Act.
    The projected emissions from traffic in the Port/Industrial 
alternative would exceed the Ventura County Air Pollution Control 
District's impact significance threshold of 25 pounds per day. 
Emissions from this traffic, however, have already been considered in 
the emissions forecast of the Ventura County Air Quality Management 
Plan and would not likely interfere with California's schedule for 
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
    Ventura County is in attainment with Federal standards governing 
suspended particulate matter. Under California's stricter standards, 
however, Ventura County is classified as a nonattainment area. While 
demolition, renovation, and new construction may generate local dust 
conditions, the acquiring entity can mitigate this impact by following 
routine dust control practices.
    There would not be any significant adverse impacts from noise. The 
existing noise levels on the property are dominated by industrial 
activities associated with Hueneme Harbor and the Oxnard Harbor 
District. An increase in use of the existing railroad spur that serves 
the Oxnard Harbor District would not likely cause off-site noise 
impacts. The existing Coast Guard foghorn causes local intermittent 
noise at the southwestern edge of the NCEL property, but the acquiring 
entity can mitigate this circumstance by moving the foghorn.
    Reuse of the NCEL property could cause the City of Port Hueneme to 
exceed the amount of water it has been allocated by the United Water 
Conservation District, and shortages could result. To mitigate this 
potential impact, the acquiring entity could obtain an additional 
allocation of water from the Oxnard or United Water Conservation 
Districts.
    If future wastewater discharges exceed the current allocation for 
the NCEL property, the acquiring entity could seek an increased 
allocation from the City of Port Hueneme. Should such an increased 
allocation cause the City of Port Hueneme to exceed its share of 
regional wastewater treatment capacity, it may be necessary for the 
City of Port Hueneme to acquire additional regional treatment capacity 
from other municipal users.
    No significant adverse impacts would be caused by the hazardous 
materials and hazardous waste that may be generated by the Port/
Industrial alternative. Hazardous materials and hazardous waste 
management would be the responsibility of the property's owners and 
users under the governance of Federal, State, and local regulations.
    Navy also analyzed the 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. 4321 note. There would be no 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority and low income populations. All groups would 
experience equally any impact related to reuse of the NCEL property 
within the regional population.

Mitigation

    Implementation of Navy's decision of dispose of the NCEL property 
does not require Navy to perform any mitigation measures. The FEIS 
identified and discussed the actions that would be necessary to 
mitigate any impacts associated with reuse and redevelopment. The 
acquiring entity, under the direction of Federal, State, and local 
agencies with regulatory authority over protected resources, will

[[Page 4743]]

be responsible for implementing necessary mitigation measures.

Regulations Governing the Disposal Decision

    Since the proposed action contemplates a disposal action under the 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (DBCRA), Public Law 
101-510, 10 U.S.C. 2687 note, Navy's decision was based upon the 
environmental analysis in the FEIS and application of the standards set 
forth in DBCRA, the Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR), 41 
CFR Part 101-47, and the Department of Defense Rule on Revitalization 
Base Closure Communities and Community Assistance (DoD Rule), 32 CFR 
Parts 90 and 91.
    Section 101-47.303-1 of the FPMR requires that the disposal of 
Federal property benefit the Federal government and constitute the 
highest and best use of the property. Section 101-47.4909 of the FPMR 
defines the ``highest and best use'' as that use to which a property 
can be put that produces the highest monetary return from the property, 
promotes its maximum value, or serves a public or institutional 
purpose. The ``highest and best use'' determination must be based upon 
the property's economic potential, qualitative values inherent in the 
property, and utilization factors affecting land use such as zoning, 
physical characteristics, other private and public uses in the 
vicinity, neighboring improvements, utility services, access, roads, 
location, and environmental and historical consideration.
    After Federal property has been conveyed to non-Federal entities, 
the property is subject to local land use regulations, including zoning 
and subdivision regulations, and building codes. Unless expressly 
authorized by statute, the disposing Federal agency cannot restrict the 
future use of surplus Government property. As a result, the local 
community exercises substantial control over future use of the 
property. For this reason, local land use plans and zoning affect 
determination of the highest and best use of surplus Government 
property.
    The DBCRA directed the Administrator of the General Services 
Administration (GSA) to delegate to the Secretary of Defense authority 
to transfer and dispose of base closure property. Section 2905(b) of 
DBCRA directs the Secretary of Defense to exercise this authority in 
accordance with GSA's property disposal regulations, set forth at 
Sections 101-47.1 through 101-47.8 of the FPMR. By letter dated 
December 20, 1991, the Secretary of Defense delegated the authority to 
transfer and dispose of base closure property closed under DBCRA to the 
Secretaries of the Military Departments. Under this delegation of 
authority, the Secretary of the Navy must follow FPMR procedures for 
screening and disposing of real property when implementing base 
closures. Only where Congress has expressly provided additional 
authority for disposing of base closure property, e.g., the economic 
development conveyance authority established in 1993 by Section 
2905(b)(4) of DBCRA, may Navy apply disposal procedures other than the 
FPMR's prescriptions.
    In Section 2901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1994, Public Law 103-160, Congress recognized the economic 
hardship occasioned by base closures, the Federal interest in 
facilitating economic recovery of base closure communities, and the 
need to identify and implement reuse and redevelopment of property at 
closing installations. In Section 2903(c) of Public Law 103-160, 
Congress directed the Military Departments to consider each base 
closure community's economic needs and priorities in the property 
disposal process. Under Section 2905(b)(2)(E) of DBCRA, Navy must 
consult with local communities before it disposes of base closure 
property and must consider local plans developed for reuse and 
redevelopment of the surplus Federal property.
    The Department of Defense's goal, as set forth in Section 90.4 of 
the DoD Rule, is to help base closure communities achieve rapid 
economic recovery through expeditions reuse and redevelopment of the 
assets at closing bases, taking into consideration local market 
conditions and locally developed reuse plans. Thus, the Department has 
adopted a consultative approach with each community to ensure that 
property disposal decisions consider the Local Redevelopment 
Authority's reuse plan and encourage job creation. As a part of this 
cooperative approach, the base closure community's interests, e.g., 
reflected in its zoning for the area, play a significant role in 
determining the range of alternatives considered in the environmental 
analysis for property disposal. Furthermore, Section 91.7(d)(3) of the 
DoD Rule provides that the Local Redevelopment Authority's plan 
generally will be used as the basis for the proposed disposal action.
    The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 40 
U.S.C. 484, as implemented by the FPMR, identifies several mechanisms 
for disposing of surplus base closure property: By public benefit 
conveyance (FPMR Sec. 101-47.303-2); by negotiated sale (FPMR Sec. 101-
47.304-8); and by competitive sale (FPMR 101-47.304-7). Additionally, 
in Section 2905(b)(4), the DBCRA established economic development 
conveyances as a means of disposing of surplus base closure property. 
The selection of any particular method of conveyance merely implements 
the Federal agency's decision to dispose of the property. Decisions 
concerning whether to undertake a public benefit conveyance or an 
economic development conveyance, or to sell property by negotiation or 
by competitive bid are committed by law to agency discretion. Selecting 
a method of disposal implicates a broad range of factors and rests 
solely within the Secretary of the Navy's discretion.

Conclusion

    The LRA has proposed that the NCEL property should be redeveloped 
for use as a port facility with maritime industrial, commercial, 
educational and recreational activities. The property's location and 
physical characteristics as well as the current uses of adjacent 
property make it appropriate for the proposed uses. The combinations of 
port and maritime activities embodied in the Port/Coastal and Port/
Industrial alternatives present the highest and best use of NCEL Port 
Hueneme.
    Both the Port/Coastal and Port/Industrial alternatives evaluated in 
the FEIS respond to local economic conditions, promote rapid economic 
recovery from the impacts of the NCEL Port Hueneme closure, and are 
consistent with President Clinton's Five-Part Plan for revitalizing 
base closure communities, which emphasizes local economic redevelopment 
of the closing military facility and creation of new jobs as the means 
to revitalize these communities. 32 CFR Parts 90 and 91, 59 FR 16,123 
(1994). Any resultant environmental impacts can be mitigated by the 
acquiring entity under the direction of Federal, State, and local 
regulatory requirements.
    Although the ``No action'' alternative has less potential for 
causing adverse environmental impacts, that alternative would not 
constitute the highest and best use of the NCEL property. It would not 
take advantage of the property's location and physical characteristics 
and the current uses of adjacent property. It is not compatible with 
the NCEL Community Reuse Plan. It would not foster local economic 
redevelopment of the NCEL property and would not create new jobs.

[[Page 4744]]

    Accordingly, Navy will dispose of NCEL Port Hueneme in a manner 
that is consistent with the NCEL Community Reuse Plan's proposal for 
port and maritime activities.

    Dated: January 22, 1997.
William J. Cassidy, Jr.,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Conversion and Redevelopment).
[FR Doc. 97-2469 Filed 1-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M