[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