[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 3, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30205-30211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14732]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Record of Decision For The Disposal and Reuse of Naval Station 
Long Beach and Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, 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. Sec. 4332(2)(C), and the regulations of the Council on 
Environmental Quality that implement NEPA, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, 
hereby announces its decision to dispose of Naval Station Long Beach 
and Long Beach Naval Shipyard in Long Beach, California.
    This disposal decision does not apply to the Navy Fuel Depot, which 
Navy will retain and operate, or to property that will revert to the 
City of Long Beach in accordance with the judgment of the United States 
District Court for the Southern District of California in United States 
of America v. 1,039 Acres of Land, Civil No. 63-1204 HW (S.D. Cal. 
1963).
    Navy intends to dispose of the Naval Station and the Naval Shipyard 
property in a manner that is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan for 
Reuse of Surplus Naval Property, dated July 1995, the Redevelopment 
Plan for Reuse of Surplus Naval Property, dated December 1995, and the 
Long Beach Naval Shipyard Comprehensive Reuse Plan, dated July 1996. 
The City of Long Beach (City), the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) 
for both installations, prepared and approved these three reuse plans.
    The LRA Reuse Alternative, identified in the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) as the 
Preferred Reuse Alternative, reflects the City's three reuse plans and 
proposes to use the Navy property as a marine container terminal 
facility with an intermodal railyard, a ship repair facility at Drydock 
1, a liquid bulk terminal, breakbulk and neobulk terminals, a Sea 
Launch facility, an oil production relocation area, and a roadway 
network. Under this alternative, the City of Long Beach would use 
Building 300 and the surrounding Naval Shipyard property to relocate 
the City's police headquarters and police training academy.
    In deciding to dispose of the Naval Station and the Naval Shipyard 
in a manner consistent with the LRA's reuse plans, Navy has determined 
that the LRA Reuse Alternative will meet the goals of achieving local 
economic redevelopment and creating new jobs, while ensuring land uses 
that are generally compatible with adjacent property. This Record Of 
Decision does not mandate specific land uses. Rather, it leaves 
selection of the particular means to achieve the proposed redevelopment 
to the acquiring entity and the local land use planning authority.
    Navy and the City analyzed the impacts of the disposal and reuse of 
these properties in a Joint Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR), as required by NEPA and the 
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Cal. Pub. Res. Code, 
Sec. 21000, et seq., as amended. For purposes of the analysis required 
by CEQA, the Joint EIS/EIR serves as an EIR for reuse of the Naval 
Shipyard and a Subsequent EIR for reuse of the Naval Station.

Background

    The Naval Station and the Naval Shipyard are bounded on the north 
and east by the Port of Long Beach (Port), on the west by the Port of 
Los Angeles, and on the south by San Pedro Bay. The Naval Station is 
composed of the Station proper, the Navy Mole, Site 6A in Long Beach 
(6A-LB), Site 6A in Los Angeles (6A-LA), part of the West Basin, and 
the Taper Avenue, Savannah and Cabrillo housing areas. The Naval 
Shipyard is

[[Page 30206]]

composed of the Shipyard proper, the remainder of the West Basin, Site 
6B, the water tank parcel, and the San Pedro, Palos Verdes, Whites 
Point, and Los Alamitos housing areas. With the exception of the 
housing areas, all of these properties are located on Terminal Island.
    This Record of Decision addresses the disposal and reuse of the 
surplus Navy property on Terminal Island that lies within the corporate 
limits of the City of Long Beach. This property covers 1,140 acres and 
contains about 225 buildings and support structures. It includes 
administrative offices, warehouses, industrial space, an Officers' 
Club, a medical clinic, a chapel, 11 piers, three drydocks, a heliport, 
and recreational facilities. The area known as the Roosevelt Base 
Historic District is located on the Naval Station.
    Although located on Terminal Island, Site 6A-LA, Site 6B, the water 
tank parcel, and a sliver of the Navy Mole lie within the City of Los 
Angeles, which is the LRA for these properties. Consequently, Navy 
treated these properties separately when it evaluated the impacts of 
disposal and reuse.
    None of the associated housing area is located on Terminal Island. 
The Taper Avenue, San Pedro, Palos Verdes, and Whites Point housing 
properties are located within the City of Los Angeles. The Los Alamitos 
housing property is located within the City of Los Alamitos. The 
Savannah and Cabrillo housing properties are located in the western 
part of the City of Long Beach. As a result of their physical 
separation and functionally independent uses, the impacts of disposal 
and reuse of the housing properties are being addressed in separate 
environmental documents.
    In accordance with the judgment in United States of America v. 
1,039 Acres of Land, Civil No. 63-1204 HW (S.D. Cal. 1963), 602 acres 
of the West Basin and 84 acres Known as Navy Pier E in the Naval 
Shipyard will revert to the City. Navy has no discretion regarding the 
disposal of reversionary property, nor any authority to control its use 
following reversion. Therefore, in this Record of Decision, the Federal 
action is the disposal of 454 acres of nonreversionary Naval Station 
and Naval Shipyard property.
    Under the authority of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act 
of 1990, Public Law 101-510, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2687 note, the 1991 Defense 
Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommended the closure of 
Naval Station Long Beach. This recommendation was approved by President 
Bush and accepted by the One Hundred Second Congress later in 1991. 
While Navy ceased operating most of the Naval Station on Station on 
September 30, 1994, part of the Naval Station remained open to support 
activities at the still active Naval Shipyard. Navy declared the Naval 
Station property surplus to the needs of the Federal Government in 
September 1995.
    On July 1, 1995, the 1995 Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
Commission recommended by closure of Long Beach Naval Shipyard. This 
recommendation was approved by President Clinton and accepted by the 
One Hundred Fourth Congress later in 1995. The mission of the Naval 
Shipyard ceased in 1996, and Navy closed the remaining Naval Station 
facilities that had supported the Naval Shipyard on September 30, 1996. 
Navy closed Long Beach Naval Shipyard on September 30, 1997. Navy 
declared the Naval Shipyard surplus to the needs of the Federal 
Government in August 1997.
    In 1992, the City of Long Beach formed the Naval Properties Reuse 
Committee (NPRC) to conduct background briefings, fact-finding visits, 
and public meetings and to solicit requests for redevelopment concepts 
in the event that the Naval Station property became available. On July 
27, 1993, the City accepted and endorsed a plan prepared by NPRC to use 
the Naval Station property to expand the Port of Long Beach's capacity 
to handle cargo.
    In 1994, Navy determined that the Navy Mole, Site 6A-LB, and an 
access corridor to Ocean Boulevard were not needed to support 
operations at the Naval Shipyard and would be available for reuse. On 
July 18, 1995, the City approved the reuse plan for these parcels that 
had been prepared by NPRC. This reuse plan recommended that the Port of 
Long Beach use the Navy Mole and the access corridor for cargo handling 
activities. The plan also proposed to use Site 6A-LB as a multipurpose 
center managed by homeless assistance providers.
    Navy declared the Mole, Site 6A-LB, and the access corridor surplus 
to the needs of the Federal Government on September 8, 1995. Navy 
declared the remaining 70 acres of the Naval Station surplus to the 
needs of the Federal Government on September 28, 1995. The Department 
of Defense's Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) designated the City of 
Long Beach as the LRA for the Naval Station on May 30, 1995. On 
December 12, 1995, the LRA approved NPRC's recommendation to use this 
70 acres of Naval Station property as a marine container terminal 
facility.
    In 1995, the City established the Shipyard Reuse Advisory Committee 
(SRAC) to prepare a reuse plan for Long Beach Naval Shipyard. In order 
to meet the projected demand for expanded port facilities and to 
satisfy the need for new police facilities, the City expanded its reuse 
planning to include land adjacent to the Naval Shipyard that was owned 
by the Port of Long Beach.
    The Office of Economic Adjustment designated the City of Long Beach 
as the LRA for the Naval Shipyard on March 1, 1996. The reuse plan 
prepared by SRAC and approved by the City in July 1996, proposed to 
include on Shipyard property a marine container terminal facility, a 
ship repair facility, a liquid bulk terminal, expanded breakbulk and 
neobulk terminal facilities, and a police headquarters and police 
training academy. Navy declared the Naval Shipyard property surplus in 
August 1997.
    Navy published a Notice Of Intent in the Federal Register on 
October 30, 1995, announcing that Navy would prepare an EIS to analyze 
the impacts of disposal and reuse of the land, buildings, and 
infrastructure at Naval Station Long Beach. In 1996, the City, through 
its Harbor Department, prepared an EIR for reuse of the Naval Station. 
On September 3, 1996, the City of Long Beach's Board of Harbor 
Commissioners certified the EIR.
    On September 30, 1996, Navy also published a Notice of Intent to 
prepare an EIS for the disposal and reuse of Long Beach Naval Shipyard. 
On November 1, 1996, the City, through its Harbor Department, published 
a Notice of Preparation of an EIR for the proposed redevelopment of the 
Naval Shipyard.
    Navy and the City reevaluated their decisions to prepare separate 
environmental documents for disposal and reuse of the two properties 
and determined for several reasons that they would address disposal and 
reuse of the Naval Station and the Naval Shipyard in a single 
environmental document. The proposed disposal and reuse actions for 
both properties would occur in the same general time frame. The City's 
proposed reuse plans for each property were generally similar, and the 
possibility existed that a combined analysis could identify 
alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to the 
Roosevelt Base Historic District as well as other potential 
environmental impacts.
    Navy published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on July 
21, 1997, announcing that Navy and the City of Long Beach would prepare 
a Joint EIS/EIR for the disposal and reuse of the

[[Page 30207]]

Naval Station and the Naval Shipyard. Navy and the City held a public 
scoping meeting at the City Council Chambers on August 20, 1997, and 
the scoping process concluded on September 3, 1997.
    Navy and the City distributed a Draft EIS/EIR to Federal, State, 
and local agencies, elected officials, and interested persons on 
December 19, 1997, and commenced a 45-day public review and comment 
period. Navy and the City held a public hearing to receive comments on 
the Draft EIS/EIR on January 14, 1998, at the Convention Center in Long 
Beach. During the forty-five day public review period, Federal, State, 
and local agencies, community groups and associations, and the general 
public submitted oral and written comments concerning the Draft EIS/
EIR.
    The responses of Navy and the City to all public comments received 
during this review period were incorporated in the Final EIS/EIR. Navy 
and the City distributed the Final EIS/EIR to the public on April 10, 
1998, for a thirty-day review period that concluded on May 11, 1998. 
Navy received 72 letters concerning the Final EIS/EIR.

Alternatives

    NEPA required Navy to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives 
for the disposal and reuse of this Federal property. Navy analyzed the 
environmental impacts of two disposal alternatives for the Naval 
Station and Naval Shipyard property: (1) disposal of the 454 acres of 
nonreversionary Navy property and (2) ``No action''. Other than for the 
Navy Mole, which is currently under lease, the ``No action'' 
alternative would leave the Navy property in caretaker status with Navy 
maintaining the physical condition of the property, providing a 
security force, and making repairs essential to safety.
    The City evaluated three reuse alternatives. These alternatives 
were developed by the LRA's reuse planning process and Navy's Historic 
Properties Adaptive Use Feasibility Study of the Roosevelt Base 
Historic District (AUFS). These three alternatives were (1) the LRA 
Reuse Alternative, (2) the Auto Terminal Alternative, and (3) the 
Institutional Campus Alternative.
    The LRA Reuse Alternative, identified in the EIS/EIR as the 
Preferred Reuse Alternative, proposes to develop a 327-acre marine 
container terminal and intermodal railyard facility on the Naval 
Station and Naval Shipyard properties; an 18-acre ship repair facility 
centered around Drydock 1 on the Naval Shipyard; a 42-acre oil 
production relocation area on Port property; an 87-acre breakbulk and 
neobulk terminal with 61 acres on Port property and 26 acres on the 
Navy Mole; a 17-acre Sea Launch facility on the Navy Mole; a 15-acre 
police headquarters and police training academy at Shipyard Building 
300; 46 acres for port-related facilities on the Navy Mole; and 18 
acres for roads on the Navy Mole.
    In order to accommodate the deep draft container vessels that would 
call at the marine container terminal facility, approximately 6.6 
million cubic yards of sediment would be dredged from the West Basin. 
An additional 1.6 million cubic yards of sediment would be dredged to 
accommodate ships using the liquid bulk cargo terminal.
    All existing structures within the proposed marine container 
terminal facility area, including all of the Roosevelt Base Historic 
District on the Naval Station, would be demolished. Some buildings and 
structures on the Navy Mole and in the Naval Shipyard would be 
renovated, refurbished, and reused where feasible.
    The Auto Terminal Alternative proposes to use 86 acres at the 
marine container terminal facility area for a 78-acre automobile 
terminal and an 8-acre Naval museum centered around Building 1, the 
Naval Station Headquarters. All other uses and areas would remain the 
same as in the LRA Reuse Alternative. The Auto Terminal alternative 
would reuse most of the buildings within the Roosevelt Base Historic 
District.
    The Auto Terminal Alternative would require the dredging of about 
7.4 million cubic yards of sediments from the West Basin. Of this 
total, 2.8 million cubic years of sediments would be removed to 
accommodate the auto terminal; 3.0 million cubic yards of sediments 
would be removed to accommodate the marine container terminal facility; 
and 1.6 million cubic yards of sediments would be removed to 
accommodate the liquid bulk terminal.
    The Institutional Campus Alternative proposes to use 37 acres at 
the marine container terminal facility area for a police headquarters 
and police training academy, Port administration offices, fire 
department offices, and a Naval museum located within the Roosevelt 
Base Historic District. This alternative also proposes to develop a 
268-acre marine container terminal facility and a 91-acre ship repair 
facility. All other uses would remain the same as in the LRA Reuse 
Alternative.
    Most of the buildings and structures within the Roosevelt Base 
Historic District would be reused in the Institutional Campus 
Alternative. About 4.8 million cubic yards of sediments would be 
dredged from the West Basin to accommodate the marine container 
terminal facility.

Environmental Impacts

    Navy analyzed the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of 
disposal and reuse of this Federal property on land use, 
socioeconomics, utilities, historic and archaeological resources, 
aesthetics, biological resources, topography, soils and geology, 
hydrology and water quality, generation of hazardous materials and 
environmental contamination, public health and safety, traffic and 
transportation, air quality, noise and vibration, low-income and 
minority populations, and children.
    The direct environmental impacts are those associated with Navy's 
proposed disposal of 454 acres of nonreversionary Navy property and 
with the ``No action'' alternative. The indirect impacts are those 
associated with reuse of nonreversionary Navy property. The cumulative 
impacts include those associated with redevelopment of the reversionary 
Navy property (686 acres) and the adjacent Port of Long Beach property 
discussed in the LRA reuse plans (89 acres), as well as other projects 
within the immediate area.
    With the exception of the impact on historical and archaeological 
resources, no significant direct impacts will result from Navy's 
disposal of Navy property. Therefore, this Record of Decision will 
focus on the indirect and cumulative impacts that are likely to result 
from the City's implementation of the LRA Reuse Alternative that was 
designated as the Preferred Alternative.
    The LRA Reuse Alternative will have significant impacts on land 
use. All of the proposed uses are compatible with existing land use 
policies and the use of adjacent land, except for the policy 
headquarters and policy training academy. This use is not compatible 
with surrounding land use, the City of Long Beach General Plan, the 
Long Beach zoning ordinance, the Port of Long Beach Port Master Plan, 
and the California Coastal Act.
    While disposal of the Naval Station and the Naval Shipyard will not 
have an effect on California coastal resources, it will be necessary 
for the Port of Long Beach to obtain coastal development permits from 
the California Coastal Commission before redeveloping the Naval 
Shipyard and surrounding Port properties. Because they are not port-
related uses, the proposed police headquarters and police training 
academy are not consistent with the California Coastal Act and the Port 
of Long Beach Port Master Plan and may constitute an unmitigable impact 
on these policies.

[[Page 30208]]

    The LRA Reuse Alternative will not result in any significant 
adverse socioeconomic impacts. This alternative will likely generate 
1,046 direct jobs and 2,017 direct and indirect jobs in Los Angeles 
County and Orange County. Although the July 1995 reuse plan for the 
Naval Station includes a homeless service center on Site 6A, traffic 
mitigation measures for the marine container terminal facility will 
require relocation of that center with a resultant potential impact on 
homeless assistance services. To mitigate such a loss, the Port has 
acquired property for a homeless assistance facility and will provide 
funding to renovate the property.
    The LRA Reuse Alternative will not result in any significant 
impacts on utilities or utility systems, because the intensity of land 
use will decrease and the number of people working at the facilities 
will be less than when the Naval Station and the Naval Shipyard were 
operational.
    The demolition of many structures will generate debris that must be 
transferred to landfills. Although the volume of such waste will not be 
significant in terms of landfill capacity, landfill capacity is not 
unlimited and additional demand for these facilities has a potentially 
significant effect. To mitigate this impact, implementation of the LRA 
Reuse Alternative will be designed to comply with the City's existing 
program to reduce solid waste pursuant to the California Solid Waste 
Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, Cal. Pub. Res. Code, 
Sec. 42900, et seq.
    The LRA Reuse Alternative's proposed use of the Naval Station will 
have a significant impact on historical and cultural resources for 
three reasons. First, the transfer of the Roosevelt Base Historic 
District from Federal ownership is considered an adverse effect under 
36 C.F.R. Sec. 800.9(b), because it will decrease the protection 
afforded by the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 470, 
et seq. (NHPA). Second, the LRA Reuse Alternative proposes to demolish 
the Roosevelt Base Historic District to allow construction of the 
marine container terminal facility. Third, although the likelihood of 
encountering archeological resources is minimal, disturbances and 
modifications to the ground surface may have an adverse effect on 
potential archeological resources.
    In accordance with Section 106 of NHPA, Navy consulted with the 
California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Advisory 
Council on Historic Preservation, and several interested parties 
concerning ways to avoid and mitigate adverse impacts to the Roosevelt 
Base Historic District resulting from Federal disposal of the Naval 
Station and the LRA's proposed reuse. This consultation concluded on 
January 27, 1998, with a Memorandum Of Agreement (MOA) that defined the 
mitigation measures that shall be implemented before the Naval Station 
is conveyed and before any demolition of the Roosevelt Base Historic 
District may occur.
    Navy shall ensure that the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) 
documentation is made available to the SHPO and to any archive 
designated by the SHPO. The Port of Long Beach shall prepare a written 
curation plan; develop a professional quality story board exhibit; 
determine the feasibility of conducting an open house and tour of the 
Roosevelt Base Historic District; prepare a professional quality 
documentary film about the history of the Navy in Long Beach and 
conduct an outreach program to make the film available to the public; 
prepare a plan for the salvage and reuse of architectural and landscape 
elements; and deposit $4,500,000 in the Long Beach Heritage Fund for 
the express purpose of fostering and supporting the identification, 
evaluation, preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and 
interpretation of historical resources within the municipal boundaries 
of the City of Long Beach.
    The MOA also requires that, in the unlikely event that unidentified 
cultural material is encountered during demolition or other ground 
disturbing activities, work will be temporarily halted until a 
qualified archeologist can evaluate the importance of the find and 
appropriate consultation has been conducted. Implementation of these 
mitigation measures will not, however, reduce the impacts to a less 
than significant level, because the entire Roosevelt Base Historic 
District will be demolished under the LRA Reuse Alternative.
    The LRA Reuse Alternative will not have a significant adverse 
impact on aesthetics. The proposed reuse is consistent with the 
existing industrial character of Terminal Island and the surrounding 
port area.
    The LRA Reuse Alternative will not have significant adverse impacts 
on the California brown pelican and the California least tern, two 
Federally endangered species listed under the Federal Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531, et seq. The proposed dredging 
for the marine container terminal facility, however, would eliminate 26 
acres of shallow water habitat in the West Basin that may be used by 
the Terminal Island least tern colony.
    Thus, Navy and the Port of Long Beach conducted an informal 
consultation with the Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 
to identify mitigation measures that would respond to these impacts. As 
a result, the Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the Port's 
proposal to create a shallow water habitat area in a sheltered and 
relatively secluded triangular area east of the Pier 400 causeway and 
southwest of the Navy Mole.
    The LRA Reuse Alternative will have a significant adverse impact on 
the black-crowned night heron rookery that occupies the large 
ornamental focus trees on the Naval Station. These trees would be 
removed to build the marine container terminal facility. Black-crowned 
night herons are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 16 
U.S.C. Sec. 703, et seq., and have been classified by the California 
Department of Fish and Game as a ``California Special Animal''. 
Consequently, their rookeries are considered sensitive resources in 
southern California.
    The Port of Long Beach and USFWS discussed mitigation that would 
respond to the loss of these trees. The Port proposes to relocate the 
colony to Gull Park at the eastern end of the Navy Mole. This 
relocation will be accomplished by removing about 30 nesting trees from 
the Naval Station and replanting them at Gull Park with 20 additional 
new ficus trees. The relocated trees and the new trees will be planted 
among the existing trees at Gull Park to develop an interlocking canopy 
favored by the herons. Additionally, salvaged nests, artificial nests, 
decoys, and recorded calls will be used to attract herons to the new 
site. These mitigation measures will reduce the impacts below the 
significant level. If the relocation is not successful, the Port will 
prepare and implement a contingency plan that would expand and enhance 
rookeries elsewhere in southern California.
    The LRA Reuse Alternative will not have any significant adverse 
environmental impacts on topography, soils, or geology. Similarly, the 
LRA Reuse Alternative will not have any significant adverse 
environmental impacts on hydrology or water quality.
    The generation of hazardous materials and environmental 
contaminants under the LRA Reuse Alternative will not have any 
significant adverse impacts. Although no mitigation is required, the 
Port of Long Beach will continue to work closely with the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers and the Los Angeles

[[Page 30209]]

Regional Water Quality Control Board to develop appropriate control 
measures that will minimize the transmission of contaminated sediments 
in the West Basin during dredging. The standard control measures that 
are part of any dredging plans or permits issued by the regulatory 
agencies will precluded hydraulic dredging of contaminated sediments; 
require the use of silt curtains during dredging and disposal of highly 
contaminated sediments; and require frequent sampling of the West Basin 
to ascertain the presence of potential contaminants.
    The LRA Reuse Alternative will have certain significant unmitigable 
adverse impacts on public health and safety. During construction of the 
intermodal railyard on the Navy Mole, workers will be present within 
the explosive arc associated with the Navy Fuel Depot. Construction of 
the ship repair facility and the police headquarters and police 
training academy on the Naval Shipyard will require workers to be 
present within the explosive arc associated with the existing liquid 
bulk terminal on the Port of Long Beach's property at Pier T and the 
radiant heat arc of Southern California Edison's (SCE) fuel tank farm. 
Although the Port of Long Beach will train and inform workers about 
potential hazards and evacuation plans, the significance of these 
impacts cannot be reduced.
    Similarly, locating the police headquarters and training academy 
and the ship repair facility within the radiant heat arc of the 
existing SCE fuel tank farm and within the explosive arc of the 
proposed expansion of the existing liquid bulk terminal could have 
unavoidable significant adverse impacts on the health and safety of 
employees and visitors at these facilities. Additionally, the location 
of these facilities is inconsistent with existing hazard footprints and 
thus contrary to the Port of Long Beach's Risk Management Plan that 
discourages the siting of habitable buildings and uses within known 
hazard footprints.
    The LRA Reuse Alternative will not cause significant adverse 
impacts on traffic and transportation. Implementation of this 
alternative will generate about 14,880 average daily trips, compared 
with 62,580 such trips when the Naval Station and the Naval Shipyard 
were open in 1990. Operation of the marine container terminal facility 
will increase train movement by an additional 27 trains per week, 
creating significant vehicular delays where there are at-grade railroad 
crossings. However, the fact that the Alameda Corridor project will be 
completed before the LRA Reuse Alternative is fully operational will 
mitigate the impact on these vehicles.
    The Alameda Corridor is a 20-mile railway improvement project that 
separates rail traffic from vehicular traffic at roadway intersections 
from the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach to the downtown 
Los Angeles railyards. This corridor will reduce rail traffic on the 
existing major rail lines and reduce traffic-related delay, disruption, 
and train noise.
    The LRA Reuse Alternative will cause of significant adverse impacts 
on air quality. Although the net operational emissions of Nitrogen 
oxides (Nox) and particulate matter (PM10) will 
exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds, 
redevelopment of the Naval Station and the Naval Shipyard was 
incorporated in the 1994 and 1997 State Implementation Plans in terms 
of projected emissions and transportation control measures.
    Section 176 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7506, as amended, 
requires Federal agencies to review their activities to ensure that 
they do not hamper local efforts to control air pollution. This statute 
prevents Federal agencies from conducting activities that do not 
conform to an approved implementation plan but recognizes certain 
categorically exempt activities. The conveyance of real property, 
regardless of the method, is a categorically exempt activity. 
Accordingly, disposal of the Naval Station and the Naval Shipyard does 
not require Navy to conduct a conformity analysis.
    The LRA Reuse Alternative will not result in significant adverse 
impacts on noise or vibration. Additionally, the completion of the 
Alameda Corridor will mitigate vibration impacts along the rail routes.
    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, requires that Navy determine if any low-
income and minority populations will experience disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects from the proposed 
action. While there are substantial minority and low-income populations 
residing in areas in the vicinity of the Naval Station and the Naval 
Shipyard, these populations are not adjacent to the site and will not 
experience disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects. Those minority and low-income populations who 
reside along existing major rail lines could experience 
disproportionately high and adverse effects from the increase in rail 
traffic if the additional rail lines planned under the Alameda Corridor 
project are either not built or are delayed.
    Executive Order 13045, Environmental Health and Safety Risks to 
Children, 62 Fed. Reg. 19885 (1997), requires Navy to analyze the 
impacts on children. There are no residential neighborhoods in the 
immediate vicinity of the Naval Station and the Naval Shipyard. 
Therefore, there will not be any adverse environmental health risks or 
safety risks to children arising out of construction an operation of 
the proposed LRA Reuse Alternative. However, children who reside along 
existing rail lines could be adversely affected by the increase in rail 
traffic if the Alameda Corridor project is either not built or is 
delayed.

Mitigation

    Implementation of the decision to dispose of the Naval Station and 
the Naval Shipyard does not require Navy to perform any mitigation 
measures beyond those discussed here. Navy has completed the actions 
required by the Memorandum of Agreement for the Disposal of the 
Roosevelt Base Historic District, dated January 27, 1998. Additionally, 
in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws, Navy will include 
appropriate restrictive covenants in the deeds and leases in 
furtherance of conveyance for any parcels where hazardous substances 
remain.
    The Final EIS/EIR identified and discussed those actions that will 
be necessary to mitigate the impacts associated with reuse and 
redevelopment of the Naval Station and the Naval Shipyard. The 
acquiring entity, under the direction of Federal, State, and local 
agencies with regulatory authority over protected resources, will be 
responsible for implementing any necessary mitigation measures.

Comments Received on the FEIS

    Navy received comments on the Final EIS/EIR from one Federal 
agency; three local agencies; seven organizations; and 61 individuals. 
Many of the comments simply stated support for or opposition to a 
particular reuse alternative. The Institutional Campus Alternative 
received the most support from those commenting on the Final EIS/EIR, 
followed by the LRA Reuse Alternative, and the ``No action'' 
alternative. All of the substantive comments received concerned issues 
already discussed in the EIS/EIR. Those comments that require 
clarification are addressed below.
    Several comments suggested that a national park alternative should 
be

[[Page 30210]]

added to the EIS/EIR. A reasonable range of reuse alternatives was 
analyzed in the EIS/EIR. Reuse of the Navy property on the Naval 
Station for a park, whether national, state, regional or local, is not 
a feasible reuse alternative. The justification for eliminating a park-
related reuse from detailed analysis is addressed in Chapter 2 of the 
Final EIS/EIR. Despite the assertions in a comment that the Department 
of the Interior was actively considering development of a national park 
on the Naval Station, no governmental entity has advocated or supported 
developing a park there.
    Responding to a proposal from private citizens that consideration 
be given to establishing a national park at the Naval Station, the 
Department of the Interior, by letter dated April 23, 1998 stated that 
it would review the proposal to determine whether to place it on 
Interior's list of proposals earmarked for future study. Interior has 
taken no action to designate the Naval Station as a national landmark 
or part of the national park system.
    Several individuals also commented on the adequacy of the 
discussion of the ship repair facility. Navy is not required, nor is it 
feasible, to evaluate every increment in the size and capability of the 
ship repair facility proposed under all three reuse alternatives. The 
Final EIS/EIR presents a thorough discussion of the environmental 
impacts associated with a ship repair operation and allows a reasoned 
decision concerning disposal and reuse of the property.
    The Port of Los Angeles commented on potential traffic problems 
associated with truck traffic waiting for access to the marine 
container terminal facility. The Port of Los Angeles asked Navy to 
place deed restrictions on the property that would require construction 
of the ``Terminal Island Freeway/Ocean Boulevard Interchange Project,'' 
an unrelated port access demonstration project. This project has not 
been identified in the EIS/EIR as mitigation for potential traffic 
congestion. Additionally, as Navy explained in response to comments on 
the DEIS/EIR, Navy has no statutory authority to use deed restrictions 
to require construction of such a demonstration project.
    The Port of Los Angeles also commented on safety issues associated 
with existing and projected hazard footprints for nearby fuel storage 
tanks and the proposed liquid bulk terminal. The Final EIS/EIR 
recognized that the proposed police headquarters and police training 
academy and the ship repair facility would lie within these hazard 
footprints and acknowledged that this proximity constitutes a 
significant adverse impact on the safety of individuals working at the 
proposed facilities. While some mitigation measures that would respond 
to this impact on safety have been identified in the Final EIS/EIR, 
there is no mitigation that will reduce the impact below the 
significant level.
    The El Dorado Audubon Society submitted comments concerning impacts 
on the black-crowned night heron that would result from the proposed 
reuse of the Naval Station property. The impacts on the heron were 
thoroughly discussed in the final EIS/EIR, and the establishment of a 
nesting site at Gull Park was selected as an appropriate mitigation 
measure. In fact, during recent surveys of the heron population, Navy 
discovered that a large number of the nesting heron pairs had 
voluntarily relocated to Gull Park even though no nesting trees have 
yet been removed from the Naval Station.
    Several individuals and community groups commented on the impacts 
associated with increased rail traffic on rail lines that provide 
access to Terminal Island. The Final EIS/EIR discussed the potential 
safety and noise-related impacts on individuals, low-income and 
minority populations, and children residing along the rail corridor. 
The Alameda Corridor project, which reduces rail traffic on existing 
rail lines that traverse predominately residential areas and moves rail 
crossings below road grade, will mitigate potential significant impacts 
from the increased rail traffic. Additionally, the Alameda Corridor is 
scheduled to be completed before the intermodal and rail facilities 
that the LRA has proposed under any of the reuse alternatives would 
become fully operational.

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. Sec. 2687 note, Navy's decision was based upon the 
environmental analysis in the Final EIS/EIR 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 Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Community Assistance 
(DoD Rule), 32 CFR Parts 174 and 175.
    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 considerations.
    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 exercise 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 in Part 
101-47 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 that those in the FPMR.
    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

[[Page 30211]]

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 174.4 of 
the DoD Rule, is to help base closure communities achieve rapid 
economic recovery through expeditious 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 175.7(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-
47.304-9); 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's proposed reuse of the Naval Station and the Naval 
Shipyard, reflected in the combined LRA reuse plans and embodied in the 
LRA Reuse Alternative, is consistent with the requirements of the FPMR 
and Section 174.4 of the DoD Rule. The LRA has determined in its reuse 
plans that the property should be used primarily as a port. The 
property's location, physical characteristics and existing 
infrastructure as well as the current uses of adjacent property make it 
appropriate for the proposed use. While the use of certain adjacent 
property for a police headquarters and police training academy and a 
ship repair facility is not consistent with the restrictions imposed by 
certain port operations, those facilities constitute only a small part 
of the entire reuse plan.
    The LRA Reuse Alternative responds to local economic conditions, 
promotes rapid economic recovery from the impact of the closures of the 
Naval Station and the Naval Shipyard, and is consistent with President 
Clinton's Five-Part Plan for Revitalizing Base Closure Communities, 
which emphasizes local economic redevelopment and creation of new jobs 
as the means to revitalize these communities. 32 CFR Parts 174 and 175, 
59 Fed. Reg. 16123 (1994).
    Although the ``No action'' alternative has less potential for 
causing adverse environmental impacts, this alternative will not take 
advantage of the property's location, physical characteristics and 
infrastructure or the current uses of adjacent property. Additionally, 
it will not foster local redevelopment of the Naval Station and the 
Naval Shipyard property.
    The acquiring entity, under the direction of Federal, State, and 
local agencies with regulatory authority over protected resources, will 
be responsible for adopting practicable means to avoid or minimize 
environmental harm resulting from implementing the reuse plans.
    Accordingly, Navy will dispose of Naval Station Long Beach and Long 
Beach Naval Shipyard in a manner that is consistent with the City of 
Long Beach's reuse plans for the Naval Station and the Naval Shipyard 
property.

    Dated: May 26, 1998.
Robert B. Pirie, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of the Navy, (Installations and Environment).
[FR Doc. 98-14732 Filed 6-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M