[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