Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of Naval Station Puget Sound at Sand Point, Seattle, Washington

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of Naval Station

Puget Sound at Sand Point, Seattle, Washington

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

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 Naval Station Puget Sound at Sand

Point, Seattle, Washington, (Sand Point).

Navy intends to dispose of the property in a manner that is

consistent with the City of Seattle Community Preferred Reuse Plan for

Sand Point (Reuse Plan) that was submitted in November 1993 by the City

of Seattle, the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for the base, as

modified by certain revisions endorsed by the City Council in June 1997

and designated as Options to the City's 1993 Reuse Plan. The 1993 Reuse

Plan and the 1997 Options are described in the Final Environmental

Impact Statement (FEIS) as the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred

Alternative proposes a mixed land use consisting of educational

facilities, community facilities, arts and cultural facilities, open

space and recreational areas, residential areas, and institutional land

uses.

In deciding to dispose of Sand Point in a manner consistent with

the Preferred Alternative, Navy has determined that this mixed land use

will enhance community and cultural resources, provide housing for the

homeless, limit adverse environmental impacts, and ensure land uses

that are compatible with surrounding properties. This Record Of

Decision (ROD) does not mandate a specific mix of land uses. Rather, it

leaves selection of the particular means to achieve the mixed use

redevelopment to the acquiring entity and the local zoning authority.

Background:

Sand Point is located in King County, Washington, and lies within

the limits of the City of Seattle. The base occupies 152 acres on the

western shore of Lake Washington, about 6 miles northeast of downtown

Seattle.

Under the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and

Realignment Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-526, the Defense Secretary's

Commission on Base Realignment and Closure recommended ``closing the

portion of Naval Station Puget Sound (Sand Point) whose mission is to

serve fleet units at Naval Station Puget Sound (Everett).'' The

Commission's recommendation was approved by the Secretary of Defense

and accepted by the One Hundred First Congress in April 1989. In 1991,

under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Pub. L.

101-510, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission

recommended the complete closure of Sand Point. This recommendation was

approved by President Bush and accepted by the One Hundred Second

Congress in September 1991. On September 28, 1995, Navy ceased

operations at Sand Point and placed the property in caretaker status.

Two Federal agencies, the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Department of the

Interior's U.S. Geological Survey (Biological Resources Division)

requested interagency transfers of base closure property at Sand Point.

Navy will transfer to NOAA Building 27 and Building 409 and about 10

acres of land in the northern part of the base adjacent to NOAA's Sand

Point area facilities, as well as the access road that covers about 1.2

acres. Navy will transfer Building 61 and about 5 acres of land at the

southeast corner of the base to Interior for use as the National

[[Page 66062]]

Fisheries Research Center. Navy declared the remaining property surplus

to the needs of the Federal Government in the Notice published in the

Federal Register on October 11, 1995.

Navy published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on

November 19, 1993, announcing that Navy would prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) that would analyze the impacts of disposal and

reuse of the land, buildings, and infrastructure at Sand Point. Navy

conducted the public scoping process between November 19, 1993 and

January 14, 1994. A public scoping meeting was held at NOAA's Building

9 Theater, adjacent to the base, on December 16, 1993.

On November 8, 1996, Navy distributed a Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (DEIS) to Federal, State, and local agencies, elected

officials, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and interested persons. Navy

held a public hearing on December 2, 1996, at the Eckstein Middle

School in Seattle. The forty-five day public comment period on the DEIS

expired on December 23, 1996, but was extended to January 17, 1997, to

permit submission of additional comments.

Federal and State agencies, local governments, community groups and

associations, and the general public submitted comments on the DEIS.

The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe did not submit comments on the DEIS. These

comments and Navy's responses were incorporated in the Final

Environmental Impact Statement, which was distributed to the public on

October 24, 1997, for a review period that concluded on November 24,

1997. Navy received two letter comments on the FEIS.

Alternatives

NEPA requires Navy to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives

for the disposal and reuse of this Federal property. In the NEPA

process, Navy analyzed the environmental impacts of various proposed

land uses that could result from disposal of the Sand Point property.

Navy also evaluated a ``No action'' alternative that would leave the

property in a caretaker status with Navy maintaining the physical

condition of the property, providing a security force, and making

repairs essential to safety. For its analysis, Navy relied upon the

reuse and redevelopment plan proposed by the City of Seattle and a

redevelopment plan proposed by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.

The City of Seattle presented its Reuse Plan to the Department of

the Navy in November 1993. In a letter to the Navy dated February 22,

1996, the City set forth several revisions to the 1993 Reuse Plan.

These changes, endorsed by the City Council in June 1997, were

designated in the FEIS as Options to the City Plan.

The 1993 Reuse Plan proposed a mixed use of the Sand Point property

that divided the base into six activity areas: (1) A waterfront park in

the northern part of the base known as the north shore recreation area;

(2) the education and community activities area in the western part of

the base composed of educational and community activity buildings, a

firefighter training facility, and a commercial film studio; (3) the

Magnuson Park Arts, Culture and Community Center in the eastern part of

the base composed of an indoor community center and an outdoor

amphitheater for community events; (4) the Magnuson Park open space/

recreation expansion area, composed of public parkland, athletic

fields, pedestrian paths, bicycle paths and expanded bus routes in the

southeastern part of the base adjacent to Magnuson Park, a new entrance

to Magnuson Park at the intersection of Sand Point Way and Northeast

65th Street, and wetland restoration at the former Mud Lake in the

southeastern part of the base; (5) the residential area composed of 50

low income housing units in a barracks building and 200 transitional

housing units for the homeless in the southwestern part of the base;

and (6) institutional uses reflected in the activities of the Federal

agencies that will occupy property at Sand Point.

The 1997 Options to the City Plan eliminated the 50 low income

housing units and instead proposed to use the former barracks building

for educational classrooms and school administrative spaces. The

Options proposed to use other facilities to train City employees such

as police officers and to provide an activity center for senior

citizens. The Options also proposed expanding the boundaries of the

north shore recreation area to include Buildings 2 and 67. The Options

would eliminate the fire training center that the 1993 Reuse Plan

intended for Building 67 and replace it with a cultural and community

activities center. The Options would also eliminate the film studio

initially planned for Building 2 and instead use the building as an

indoor athletic facility.

The Preferred Alternative in the FEIS is a combination of the 1993

Reuse Plan and the 1997 Options to the City Plan. This alternative also

reflects the 1997 discussions between the City of Seattle and the

University of Washington that resulted in the LRA's proposal to use

certain facilities at Sand Point for classrooms and administrative

activities.

In June 1993, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe submitted a draft plan

to Navy proposing reuse of the entire 152-acre base. The FEIS refers to

this proposal as the Muckleshoot Plan. In a letter dated July 26, 1993,

the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

submitted a request on behalf of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe under the

Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 40 U.S.C 471,

seeking an interagency transfer of 85 acres of base closure property in

the northern part of Sand Point. On September 7, 1995, BIA withdrew its

request for transfer of the 85-acre Sand Point property. Nevertheless,

Navy analyzed the Muckleshoot Plan in the FEIS as a reasonable

alternative under NEPA.

The Muckleshoot Plan proposed a mixed use of the Sand Point

property that included: (1) a commercial marina in the northern part of

the base that would accommodate tribal fishing vessels and activities,

fishing net storage, fisheries research, and recreational activities;

(2) light industrial and warehousing activities in the north central

part of the base; (3) social services, including a drug and alcohol

treatment facility, a health clinic, a senior citizens center, and a

student counseling facility in the central part of the base; (4) a

vocational technical school for 5,000 to 7,000 Native American students

with housing for the school's staff and approximately 600 students in

the south central part of the base; (5) commercial activities in the

southern part of the base; and (6) a new entrance to Magnuson Park at

the intersection of Sand Point Way and Northeast 65th Street.

Environmental Impacts

Navy analyzed the potential impacts of the Preferred Alternative,

the Muckleshoot Plan, and the ``No action'' alternative for each

alternative's effects on land use, historic and cultural resources,

socioeconomics (including demographics, housing, the local economy,

social services, schools, and environmental justice), recreation,

transportation, noise, public services and utilities, public health and

safety, soils, biological resources and endangered species, water

quality, and air quality. This Record Of Decision (ROD) focuses on the

impacts that would likely result from implementing the Preferred

Alternative.

In the FEIS, Navy used existing land uses as a basis for assessing

the impact of the land uses proposed by the Preferred Alternative, the

Muckleshoot

[[Page 66063]]

Plan, and the ``No action'' alternative. Navy also considered the

compatibility of the proposed land uses with the current uses of

property adjacent to Sand Point.

The Preferred Alternative would result in a substantial increase in

recreational and educational activity on the Sand Point property and a

decrease in administrative and commercial activity as compared with the

activities that Navy conducted on the base. These increased

recreational and educational uses would not likely have a significant

impact on the property or on the surrounding neighborhoods.

While the Preferred Alternative would result in an increase in

residential use of the Sand Point property, this land use is similar in

nature to the single family and multifamily residential community

adjacent to Sand Point. The increase would not likely have an adverse

impact on the surrounding area.

Several structures at Sand Point are eligible for listing on the

National Register of Historic Places. Since the Preferred Alternative

proposes to use these buildings for purposes similar to Navy's use of

the buildings, their historic integrity will be maintained, as will

that of the proposed historic district on the base. Although Navy did

not discover any surface archeological resources at Sand Point, those

resources could be present in undisturbed areas under the surface. If

discovered, they will be protected by restrictions incorporated in

documents conveying the property.

The Preferred Alternative proposes to consider demolition and

modification of certain buildings within the proposed education and

community activities area, if renovation and reuse are not feasible

within 10 years. Either of these could have an adverse impact on

buildings within the historic district. Thus, Navy entered into a

Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the State Historic Preservation

Officer (SHPO) on October 29, 1997, that was accepted by the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) on November 20, 1997. This PA

would protect the historic district and its constituent elements after

conveyance of the Sand Point property. The PA requires the

incorporation of restrictive covenants in the conveyance documents to

ensure protection of the historic properties and any subsurface

archeological resources that may be discovered after conveyance.

Navy's consideration of the socioeconomic impacts of disposal and

reuse examined the potential effects on demographics, housing, the

local economy, social services, schools, and environmental justice. The

Preferred Alternative would cause an increase in population in the Sand

Point area of about 2 percent and an increase in homeless assistance

housing units of about 2 percent. It would not have a significant

impact on employment or social services in the region.

The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on

the regional economy. Navy's appraisal of its impact on property

values, set forth in Appendix G of the FEIS (the Property Value Study),

concluded that reuse of the southwestern part of the base along Sand

Point Way for transitional multifamily housing should not result in a

diminution in the value of nearby properties.

Children living in the transitional housing would continue to

attend the same schools that they attended before occupying this

housing, using transportation provided by the Seattle School District.

Thus, the Preferred Alternative would not have an impact on schools in

the Sand Point area.

Navy also analyzed the impacts on low-income and minority

populations pursuant to Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations, reprinted in 42 U.S.C. 4321 note. There would be no

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects on minority and low-income populations. The Preferred

Alternative would, in fact, benefit minority and low-income populations

by providing increased housing, social services and educational

opportunities.

The Preferred Alternative would increase the amount of property

available for recreational use by 160 percent, from 30 acres to 78

acres. This increase would be reflected in additional indoor and

outdoor recreational facilities.

Navy's evaluation of the impacts on transportation considered

current traffic conditions and transportation systems, transit routes,

high occupancy vehicle routes, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, traffic

volumes, traffic safety, and parking. The Preferred Alternative would

generate about 9,050 average daily trips, compared with 7,600 such

trips when the base was active in 1993. Although not a significant

impact, the Preferred Alternative's housing and educational uses would

result in an increase in bus ridership. Similarly, because it increases

access to the property, this alternative would also result in an

increase in the use of existing bicycle and pedestrian routes. In light

of the availability of space on the base, parking and construction-

related traffic would not likely cause adverse impacts in the Sand

Point area.

The noise associated with the Preferred Alternative would emanate

from four sources: (1) Traffic (both on and off site); (2)

construction; (3) heating, ventilating, and other mechanical equipment;

and (4) other sources (people, activities, and equipment). With the

exception of noise generated by outdoor music concerts at the proposed

amphitheater, the Preferred Alternative would not cause any significant

impact. The noise generated by these concerts, however, could cause a

significant impact on the surrounding area.

The Preferred Alternative would not cause any significant impact on

public services (i.e., water, wastewater and sanitary sewer, stormwater

and solid waste) and utilities. Similarly, it would not have a

significant impact on public health and safety (i.e., crime and law

enforcement, fire protection, emergency and medical services, and

environmental health) in the Sand Point area.

The environmental remediation required by the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42

U.S.C. 9601, et seq. (CERCLA), and Washington's Model Toxics Control

Act, RCW 70.105D, WAC 173-340 (MTCA), has been completed. Those areas

on the base that still contain contaminants are not likely to cause an

impact if left undisturbed. The Washington State Department of Ecology

concurs that with proper notification to future users of the property

and deed restrictions limiting use of the property, no further action

is necessary. However, unless adequately mitigated, the disturbance of

asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint during demolition

and remodeling could have an impact on human health.

The Preferred Alternative would not cause any significant impact on

soils, geology, and topography. This alternative would have only

minimal and insignificant impacts on vegetation, wildlife, endangered

species, and wetlands. It would increase the amount of wetlands by

restoring a wetland habitat at the former Mud Lake.

Bald eagles, which are on the Federal and State lists of threatened

species, are present in the vicinity of Lake Washington and Sand Point.

Peregrine falcons, which are on the Federal and State lists of

endangered species, are also present in this area. The Preferred

Alternative would not affect either the bald eagle or the peregrine

falcon because it would not affect their critical

[[Page 66064]]

habitats or the species upon which they prey.

The Preferred Alternative would result in a decrease of 30 acres in

the amount of paved surface on the property. This decrease would occur

largely at the southeastern end of the base where the Mud Lake wetlands

and grassy recreational areas would be restored. The conversion of

impervious surface to wetlands and grassy fields, however, would not

have an adverse impact on surface water in Lake Washington and may

result in less pollutants draining into the lake.

There would not be any impact on air quality from implementation of

the Preferred Alternative. This alternative, however, could result in

the temporary and intermittent release of pollutants during demolition

and construction activities. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control

Agency (PSAPCA) regulations governing demolition and construction

activities (Washington Clean Air Act RCW T. 70 Ch. 94) will ensure

consistency with applicable air quality standards. The increases in

carbon monoxide that would result from the increased traffic would not

exceed applicable regional standards.

Section 176 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 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 such a categorically exempt activity.

Accordingly, disposal of the Sand Point property does not require Navy

to conduct a conformity analysis.

Mitigation

Implementation of the decision to dispose of Sand Point does not

require Navy to perform any mitigation measures beyond those discussed

here. Navy will include appropriate restrictive covenants in the deeds

for any parcels where hazardous substances remain and for the historic

properties in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws.

These restrictive covenants will limit the use of certain property

and notify future users of the property's condition. In accordance with

the Programmatic Agreement that Navy entered into with the SHPO and the

Advisory Council, restrictive covenants in the deed conveying the

property will protect both historic and archeological resources and

establish a process for preserving the historic district and its

constituent elements.

Navy's FEIS identified and discussed those actions that would be

necessary to mitigate impacts associated with the reuse and

redevelopment of Sand Point. The acquiring entity, under the direction

of Federal, State, and local agencies with regulatory authority over

protected resources, will be responsible for implementing necessary

mitigation measures.

The fact that the Preferred Alternative conforms to the City of

Seattle's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and Physical Development

Management Plan provides assurance that the property will be

redeveloped in a controlled manner. Additionally, the City of Seattle

is developing a Transportation Management Program and a Construction

Management Program for Sand Point that will mitigate the effects caused

by increased traffic volumes and construction activities. The City's

Design Guidelines will be applied to control Sand Point's reuse and

preserve the property's unique and historic character.

Comments Received on the FEIS

Navy received comments from a community group and an individual.

They expressed concern about the proposed reuse of certain Sand Point

facilities by the University of Washington for educational activities.

Their comments did not raise any new issues or problems concerning

implementation of the Reuse Plan or propose any mitigation measures.

Navy's consideration in the FEIS of the impacts arising out of the

City's educational proposal was sufficient to ascertain the impacts of

the particular uses advanced by the University of Washington and

proposed by the LRA after conclusion of the FEIS. Navy determined that

the educational uses advanced by the University of Washington fall

within the scope of impacts analyzed in the FEIS and that no further

consideration is required.

Regulations Governing the Disposal Decision

Since the proposed action contemplates a disposal action under the

Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (DBCRA), Pub. L. 101-

510, 10 U.S.C. 2687 note, selection of the City of Seattle's 1993 Reuse

Plan and 1997 Options as the Preferred Alternative was based upon the

environmental analysis in the FEIS and application of the standards set

forth in DBCRA, the Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR), 41

CFR Part 101-47, and the Department of Defense Rule on Revitalizing

Base Closure Communities and Community Assistance (DoD Rule), 32 CFR

Parts 90 and 91.

Section 101-47.303-1 of the FPMR requires that the disposal of

Federal property benefit the Federal government and constitute the

highest and best use of the property. Section 101-47.4909 of the FPMR

defines the ``highest and best use'' as that use to which a property

can be put that produces the highest monetary return from the property,

promotes its maximum value, or serves a public or institutional

purpose. The ``highest and best use'' determination must be based upon

the property's economic potential, qualitative values inherent in the

property, and utilization factors affecting land use such as zoning,

physical characteristics, other private and public uses in the

vicinity, neighboring improvements, utility services, access, roads,

location, and environmental and historical 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 exercises substantial control over future use of the

property. For this reason, local land use plans and zoning affect

determination of the highest and best use of surplus Government

property.

The DBCRA directed the Administrator of the General Services

Administration (GSA) to delegate to the Secretary of Defense authority

to transfer and dispose of base closure property. Section 2905(b) of

DBCRA directs the Secretary of Defense to exercise this authority in

accordance with GSA's property disposal regulations, set forth at

Sections 101-47.1 through 101-47.8 of the FPMR. By letter dated

December 20, 1991, the Secretary of Defense delegated the authority to

transfer and dispose of base closure property closed under DBCRA to the

Secretaries of the Military Departments. Under this delegation of

authority, the Secretary of the Navy must follow FPMR procedures for

screening and disposing of real property when implementing base

closures. Only where Congress has expressly provided additional

authority for disposing of base closure property, e.g., the economic

development conveyance authority established in 1993 by Section

2905(b)(4) of DBCRA, may Navy apply

[[Page 66065]]

disposal procedures other than the FPMR's prescriptions.

In Section 2901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 1994, Public Law 103-160, Congress recognized the economic

hardship occasioned by base closures, the Federal interest in

facilitating economic recovery of base closure communities, and the

need to identify and implement reuse and redevelopment of property at

closing installations. In Section 2903(c) of Pub. L. 103-160, Congress

directed the Military Departments to consider each base closure

community's economic needs and priorities in the property disposal

process. Under Section 2905(b)(2)(E) of DBCRA, Navy must consult with

local communities before it disposes of base closure property and must

consider local plans developed for reuse and redevelopment of the

surplus Federal property.

The Department of Defense's goal, as set forth in Section 90.4 of

the DoD Rule, is to help base closure communities achieve rapid

economic recovery through 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 91.7(d)(3) of the

DoD Rule provides that the Local Redevelopment Authority's plan

generally will be used as the basis for the proposed disposal action.

The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 40

U.S.C. 484, as implemented by the FPMR, identifies several mechanisms

for disposing of surplus base closure property: by public benefit

conveyance (FPMR Sec. 101-47.303-2); by negotiated sale (FPMR Sec. 101-

47.304-9); and by competitive sale (FPMR Sec. 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 City of Seattle's proposed reuse of the Sand Point property,

which consists of the City's 1993 Reuse Plan and its 1997 Options and

is embodied in the Preferred Alternative, is consistent with the

prescriptions of the FPMR and Section 90.4 of the DoD Rule. The LRA has

determined in its Reuse Plan that the property should be used for

several purposes, including educational and community facilities, arts

and cultural facilities, open space and recreational areas, residential

areas, and institutional land uses. The property's location, physical

characteristics, and existing infrastructure as well as the current

uses of adjacent property make it appropriate for the proposed uses.

Although the ``No action'' alternative has less potential for

causing adverse environmental impacts, this alternative would not take

advantage of the property's location, physical characteristics and

infrastructure or the current uses of adjacent property. Additionally,

it would not foster local redevelopment of the Sand Point property.

The acquiring entity, under the direction of Federal, State and

local agencies with regulatory authority over protected resources, will

be responsible for implementing necessary mitigation measures.

Accordingly, Navy will dispose of Naval Station Puget Sound at Sand

Point in a manner that is consistent with the City of Seattle's 1993

and 1997 plans for the property.

Dated: December 8, 1997.

William J. Cassidy, Jr.,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Conversion And Redevelopment).

[FR Doc. 97-32938 Filed 12-16-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P