Record of Decision For The Disposal and Reuse of Naval Station Long Beach and Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, California

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