Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Oakland, California

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