[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64813-64816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32104]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Record of Decision for the Realignment of the Naval Sea Systems 
Command

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.


[[Page 64814]]


ACTION: Notice of record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy announces its decision to relocate 
the Naval Sea Systems Command from leased spaces in Arlington, Virginia 
to the Washington Navy Yard, Washington DC.

DATES: This Record of Decision is effective December 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tom Peeling, Office of the Chief 
of Naval Operations (N456), Crystal Plaza #5, 2211 South Clark Place, 
Arlington, VA 22244, (703) 604-1232.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the entire Record of Decision is 
provided as follows:

Notice of Record of Decision for the Realignment of the Naval Sea 
Systems Command.

    Pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 
(DBCRA), Pub.L. 101-510, Section 102(2)C of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the Council on Environmental Quality 
Regulations for implementing NEPA procedures (40 CFR 1500-1508), the 
Department of the Navy (Navy) announces its decision to relocate the 
Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) from leased space in Arlington, 
Virginia to the Washington Navy Yard (WNY) Washington, DC. The 
realignment will be accomplished as set out in Alternative One 
described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) as the 
preferred alternative.
    The Recommendations of the 1995 Defense Base Closure and 
Realignment (DBCR) Commission, which were approved by the President and 
accepted by the Congress, directed the Navy to relocate NAVSEA to the 
WNY or other Government-owned property in the metropolitan Washington, 
DC area. Section 2904 of the DBCRA requires the completion of this 
realignment no later than six years from the date the President 
transmitted the recommendations of the 1995 DBCR Commission to 
Congress. Consequently, the Navy must complete the NAVSEA realignment 
no later than July 2001.
    In response to the 1995 DBCR Commission recommendation, the Navy 
established criteria for screening available sites in the metropolitan 
Washington, DC area. To qualify as a receiver site for NAVSEA, each 
site must: (1) have sufficient capacity to accommodate the office space 
required for the 4,100 NAVSEA employees. Based upon a detailed analysis 
of NAVSEA space needs, one million square feet of office and associated 
space is required to accommodate NAVSEA personnel and functions; (2) 
have sufficient capacity to allow location of NAVSEA facilities in a 
single building or in a closely related complex of buildings; (3) have 
the capacity to meet National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) 
criteria that large federal employment centers be served by public 
transportation and that federal development be consistent with local 
development plans and policies; and (4) be available to the Navy on a 
timely and unencumbered basis, so that NAVSEA's realignment can be 
completed by July 2001.
    Using these criteria, the Navy evaluated eighteen Navy-owned or 
occupied sites in the metropolitan Washington, DC area. Of these sites, 
only the Washington Navy Yard met the criteria to accommodate a 
realigned NAVSEA. Fifteen of those sites did not have sufficient 
physical capacity to accommodate NAVSEA due to lack of available 
buildable land and were eliminated from detailed analysis. The Naval 
Surface Warfare Center at White Oak, Maryland had sufficient buildable 
land, but was eliminated from detailed analysis because it was 
identified for closure by the 1995 DBCR Commission. Federal Office 
Building 2 (Navy Annex) in Arlington, Virginia also had sufficient 
space, but was eliminated from detailed analysis because the facility 
could not be cleared of its current occupants, renovated, and re-
occupied by NAVSEA by July 2001. Additionally, the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense owns the Navy Annex and plans to dispose of the 
property after renovation of the Pentagon is complete.
    To determine whether other government-owned property in the 
metropolitan Washington, DC area would be available for NAVSEA use, the 
Navy sent letters to the Army and Air Force requesting that they 
identify any properties which could be utilized. Both services 
responded by letter that no suitable property in the Washington, DC 
metropolitan area under their ownership could be made available. 
Additionally, the Navy considered General Services Administration (GSA) 
property for potential use by NAVSEA. However, because the WNY already 
has been shown to have sufficient capacity to accommodate a command the 
size of NAVSEA, use of GSA property would be inconsistent with Federal 
Property Management Regulations, 41 CFR Ch 101.
    While a No-Action alternative was initially identified, it was 
eliminated from detailed analysis because Section 2905(c) of the DBCRA 
expressly exempts decisions to close or realign facilities from NEPA 
analysis. The four construction alternatives focused on a group of 
existing buildings within the western area of the WNY. The alternatives 
vary in the degree of renovation, demolition and new construction 
required. Alternative One is a mixture of renovation of existing 
buildings and demolition and new construction. Alternative Two includes 
the renovation of existing facilities to meet the office space 
requirement and construction of a twelve level parking garage. 
Alternative Three favors demolition and new construction over 
renovation. Alternative Four involves extensive demolition and new 
construction and a minor amount of renovation.
    Alternative One, identified as the Preferred Alternative in the 
FEIS, provides excellent functionality for the NAVSEA Headquarters. 
Components of NAVSEA, which must work closely together, are located in 
a small number of tightly clustered buildings. The employee parking 
garage is sited directly in the center of the NAVSEA complex with 
optimum pedestrian access to NAVSEA occupied buildings. The garage can 
be laid out in a highly efficient four bay configuration, and is served 
on two sides by two collector streets. Although Alternative One 
involves potentially adverse impacts on cultural resources due to the 
demolition of several buildings, the Navy developed a mitigation plan 
for these impacts. The District of Columbia Office of Historic 
Preservation and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation reviewed 
and approved that plan. The mitigation plan is documented in a 
Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Navy, the District of 
Columbia Office of Historic Preservation and the Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation on 23 December 1996.
    Alternative Two, which consists entirely of renovating existing WNY 
buildings and involves no demolition, is the environmentally preferable 
alternative because it minimizes adverse effects on cultural resources. 
However, it fragments NAVSEA offices into six separate buildings. This 
dispersed configuration would adversely affect the functioning of 
NAVSEA as a systems command headquarters. Additionally, the retention 
of all the existing WNY buildings leaves no suitable site for the 
required employee parking garage. The garage would be forced into an 
awkward and inefficient linear configuration allowing only one bay of 
parking spaces with extensive external ramping to serve its twelve 
levels. Also, the garage would be served by only one collector street, 
increasing the potential for traffic

[[Page 64815]]

conflicts and bottlenecks within the base.
    Alternatives Three and Four were not selected because they would 
have greater adverse impacts on cultural resources than either 
Alternative One or Two and they do not offer significantly better 
functionality than Alternative One.
    There are no significant environmental impacts resulting from 
implementation of Alternative One. The Navy will implement all 
practical means to avoid or minimize other impacts to the environment. 
The mitigation measures are summarized at pages 4-28 through 4-31 of 
the FEIS.
    Comments Received on the FEIS: In response to the FEIS, the Navy 
received comments from one private individual, an environmental 
planning group associated with the General Services Administration 
Southeast Federal Center, and the Arlington County (Virginia) Chamber 
of Commerce. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) informed the 
Navy that it could not comment within the 30-day comment period. To 
date, the Navy has received no comments from EPA. Responses to similar 
comments are grouped by issue of concern.
    All commentors expressed concern over impacts to local traffic in 
the vicinity of the WNY. The Navy considered traffic as one of the more 
important issues of concern related to the proposed action, and 
acquired the services of a professional traffic consultant familiar 
with local/regional transportation to conduct studies, analyze 
potential impacts and advise the Navy concerning traffic related 
matters. The results of these efforts are contained in the FEIS and a 
WNY Traffic Management Plan. Although the Navy does not have the 
authority to regulate off-base traffic or personal privileges of its 
employees with regard to travel to or from their place of employment, 
it will limit the development of new parking at the WNY, and modify 
internal circulation and increase operation of the M Street and Isaac 
Hull Gate to mitigate potential impacts to local traffic from the 
mandated realignment. The results of traffic analysis for the proposed 
action show that the resulting traffic related impacts will not be 
significant.
    The Arlington County Chamber of Commerce expressed concern that the 
Navy Annex was not included in the FEIS as a reasonable alternative for 
the NAVSEA Headquarters. The Navy provided a discussion in the FEIS of 
the criteria and rationale used to identify reasonable alternatives and 
a brief discussion of the reasons for eliminating other alternatives. 
As stated in the Background Section of the FEIS, office space at the 
Navy Annex is currently occupied by Headquarters Marine Corps and the 
Bureau of Naval Personnel and is therefore unavailable to meet the 
requirements in terms of space and timing. Utilization of Navy Annex as 
the receiver site for NAVSEA Headquarters is infeasible because it 
cannot be vacated of its existing tenants, renovated for new occupancy 
and re-occupied by NAVSEA within the legally mandated six year 
timeframe. In addition the property is owned by the Department of 
Defense, which does not intend to retain this building beyond the 
completion of the Pentagon renovation project. As a result, it is not 
analyzed as a feasible alternative in the FEIS.
    The Arlington County Chamber of Commerce expressed concern over the 
adequacy of contamination studies data at the WNY relative to assessing 
the risks to relocated personnel, and disposal of contaminated 
materials encountered through project construction. Investigation of 
contamination at the WNY is being conducted in accordance with 
established procedures of the Installation Restoration Program and in 
coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency. These protocols 
are designed to guide property owners and regulators in deducing the 
presence of contamination and, if necessary, the appropriate remedial 
actions. A risk assessment for employees at the WNY, conducted in 
accordance with Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for 
contaminated sites, found that there is no significant risk to office 
workers at the Installation. In direct support of the DBCRA relocation, 
the Navy also conducted an environmental site investigation of the 
buildings which will be affected by the NAVSEA projects (Baker, 
November 1997). The report included several recommendations which will 
be incorporated into the construction contract to mitigate potential 
impacts. These mitigations are identified in Section 4.8 of the FEIS. 
Implementation of the recommendations/mitigation will serve to fully 
protect construction workers, employees at the WNY, individuals in the 
surrounding community and the environment. As discussed in the FEIS, 
specific requirements will be included in the construction contract for 
the NAVSEA facilities to deal with contaminated materials encountered 
during construction. These requirements implement applicable regulatory 
procedures for appropriate treatment and/or disposal of contaminated 
materials should such materials be found during construction.
    The Arlington County Chamber of Commerce also expressed concern 
that construction of facilities for NAVSEA at the WNY would impede 
future remediation efforts at the Installation. Surface soil 
contamination within the project site (former coal storage area), has 
been remediated. Implementation of Alternative One will not impede 
future remediation efforts, if required, because it does not 
significantly affect access to subsurface soil or ground water. Future 
remediation of subsurface contaminants, if required, would most likely 
involve a flushing method which would be unaffected by implementation 
of Alternative One.
    The Arlington County Chamber of Commerce expressed concern over the 
effects of stormwater runoff from the project site. As stated in the 
FEIS, the project site is covered by impermeable surfaces and 
construction at the project site will not increase surface runoff. 
Surface contamination within the project site, associated with the 
former coal storage pit, has been remediated as part of the 
Installation Restoration Program. An approved Erosion and Sediment 
Control Plan for the project will be implemented to contain eroded 
materials on-site. Water associated with excavation sites will be 
tested and treated prior to discharge into the sanitary system in 
coordination with the District Water and Sewer Authority Pretreatment 
Office. Stormwater control structures will be incorporated into the 
project design in accordance with regulatory guidance. The repair and/
or replacement of existing stormwater conveyances structures throughout 
the Installation will be completed as part of the National Pollution 
Discharge Elimination System Permit requirements for the Installation.
    The Arlington County Chamber of Commerce expressed concern that 
airborne material from construction activities will impact surrounding 
communities. Airborne contaminants associated with project construction 
will be controlled through the implementation of specific plans 
prepared in accordance with regulatory guidance. These include an 
Asbestos Plan, Lead (paint) Removal and Disposal Plan, an erosion and 
Sediment Control Plan, and various construction related requirements 
such as the application of dust suppressants, wet mopping, vacuuming, 
wet cutting and covering open bed haul trucks. Controlling airborne 
pollutants at the source protects construction workers, WNY employees 
and the surrounding community.

[[Page 64816]]

    The Arlington County Chamber of Commerce expressed concern that the 
FEIS failed to address Environmental Justice issues with regard to the 
effectiveness of onsite mitigation to protect the surrounding community 
and that implementation of the DBCRA action takes precedence over 
Installation Restoration Program efforts at the WNY. The protection 
provided to on-site personnel through implementation of project related 
mitigation would extend to those outside the immediate area of the 
project site. As discussed in the FEIS, the NAVSEA DBCRA action is 
separate from remediation at the WNY conducted under the Installation 
Restoration Program. Each has its own regulatory guidelines, scheduling 
and funding. Development of facilities at the WNY and implementation of 
the DBCRA realignment of NAVSEA has no bearing on the priority for 
scheduling of activities conducted under the authority of Installation 
Restoration Program. Moreover, the relocation of NAVSEA to the WNY will 
bring jobs to the area and has the potential to benefit current 
residents of the neighborhood.
    The Navy carefully considered all comments received on the FEIS. 
The FEIS fully addresses all of the issues and concerns identified in 
the comments received on the FEIS. Therefore, no additional discussion 
is necessary in this Record of Decision.
    Based on the analysis contained in the FEIS and support provided in 
the administrative record, I select Alternative One to implement the 
realignment of NAVSEA.

    Dated: December 1, 1997.
Duncan Holaday,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Facilities).
[FR Doc. 97-32104 Filed 12-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P