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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-32938

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Notice
- **Published:** December 17, 1997
- **Citation:** 62 FR 66061

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-32938. Public record. Not legal advice.