37866 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Notices

To obtain a copy of the Draft EIS/EIR,

please contact Ms. Deborah Lamb, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles

District, Attn: CESPL–PD–WA, P.O. Box

532711, Los Angeles, California, 90053–

2325, telephone (213) 452–3798. Please

address written comments on the Draft

EIS/EIR, to Ms. Lois Goodman, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles

District, Attn: CESPL–PD–RL, P.O. Box

532711, Los Angeles, California, 90053–

2325, Fax number (213) 452–4204.

Dated: July 7, 1998.

Robert L. Davis,

Colonel, Corps of Engineers, District Engineer.

[FR Doc. 98–18676 Filed 7–13–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–KF–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

Record of Decision for the Disposal

and Reuse of the Department of

Defense Housing Facility Novato,

California

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy

(Navy), pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of

the National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C),

and the regulations of the Council on

Environmental Quality that implement

NEPA procedures, 40 CFR Parts 1500–

1508, hereby announces its decision to

dispose of the Department of Defense

Housing Facility (DoDHF) at Novato,

California.

Navy intends to dispose of the

property in a manner that is consistent

with the Hamilton Army Airfield Reuse

Plan dated October 1995, as revised in

November 1996 (Revised Reuse Plan).

These plans address reuse of both

DoDHF and the Department of the

Army’s adjacent Hamilton Army

Airfield (HAA). The Hamilton Reuse

Planning Authority (HRPA), the Local

Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for the

DoDHF property, prepared both the

October 1995 Reuse Plan and the

November 1996 Revised Reuse Plan.

The City of Novato approved the

Revised Reuse Plan in February 1996

and published it in November 1996.

The Revised Reuse Plan Alternative,

identified in the Final Environmental

Impact Statement (FEIS) as the Preferred

Alternative, would implement the

Revised Reuse Plan. The Preferred

Alternative proposes an adaptive reuse

of certain DoDHF buildings and the

retention of existing land uses, i.e.,

residential areas, community facilities,

commercial activities, parkland, and

open space.

In deciding to dispose of DoDHF

Novato in a manner consistent with the

Preferred Alternative, navy has

determined that a mixed land use will

meet the local economic redevelopment

goals of providing housing and

recreational resources while also

limiting adverse environmental impacts

and ensuring land uses that are

compatible with adjacent property. This

Record Of Decision does not mandate a

specific mix of land uses. Rather, it

leaves selection of the particular means

to achieve the proposed redevelopment

to the acquiring entity and the local

zoning authority.

Background

The Department of Defense Housing

Facility at Novato is located in the

southeastern part of the City of Novato

in Marin County, California, about 20

miles north of the City of San Francisco.

The property covers an area of about

411 acres on two sites that are separated

by United States Highway 101.

The 304-acre Main Site is located on

the east side of U.S. Highway 101 and

contains military family housing, a

Commissary, a Navy Exchange, an

Officers Club, community service areas,

a bowling alley, and recreational fields.

The 107-acre Rafael Village military

family housing site is located on the

west side of U.S. Highway 101, about

one mile northwest of the Main Site.

The 142-acre Spanish Housing area lies

adjacent to the Main Site and was

formerly part of the Main Site. Navy

will transfer this property to the United

States Coast Guard (Coast Guard).

The Hamilton Reuse Planning

Authority developed a reuse plan for

DoDHF Novato in October 1995. This

plan, designated the Hamilton Army

Airfield Reuse Plan, addressed reuse of

both DoDHF and the adjacent Army

Airfield. The Hamilton Army Airfield

Reuse Plan proposed adaptive reuse of

most of the existing housing and other

buildings and retention of the existing

land uses.

The Reuse Planning Authority revised

the original HAA Reuse Plan to take

account of changes in the Coast Guard’s

request for an interagency transfer of

base closure property at DoDHF. The

Revised Reuse Plan developed by HRPA

incorporated the Coast Guard’s revised

request. It was approved by the City of

Novato in February 1996 and published

in November 1996. The Revised Reuse

Plan, described in the FEIS as the

Revised Reuse Plan Alternative, is the

Preferred Alternative. The Department

of the Army issued the Record Of

Decision for the disposal and reuse of

Hamilton Army Airfield on February 24,

1997.

Under the authority of the Defense

Base Closure and Realignment Act of

1990, Public Law 101–510, 10 U.S.C.

2687 note, the 1993 Defense Base

Closure and Realignment Commission

recommended disestablishment of the

Navy Public Works Center, San

Francisco Bay, which included DoDHF

Novato. The recommendation was

approved by President Clinton and

accepted by the One Hundred Third

Congress in 1993. Navy closed the

housing facilities at Novato on

September 30, 1996.

During the Federal screening process

for the Novato housing facilities, two

Federal agencies, the Department of

Veterans Affairs and the United States

Coast Guard, expressed interest in

property at DoDHF. The Department of

Veterans Affairs initially requested an

interagency transfer of 54 housing units

at the Main Site but later withdrew its

request. The Coast Guard, in its revised

request, sought 282 housing units at the

Spanish Housing area of the Main Site,

and Navy will transfer the 142-acre

property that contains these units to the

Coast Guard. The remaining property is

surplus to the needs of the Federal

Government.

Navy published a Notice Of Intent in

the Federal Register on October 31,

1995, announcing that Navy would

prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) to analyze the impacts

of disposal and reuse of the land,

buildings, and infrastructure at DoDHF

Novato. A public scoping meeting was

held at San Marin High School in

Novato on November 16, 1995, and the

scoping process ended on December 1,

1995.

On January 31, 1997, Navy distributed

a Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS) to Federal, State, and local

agencies, interested parties, and the

general public. Navy held a public

hearing concerning the DEIS on

February 27, 1997, at San Marin High

School. During the forty-five day review

period after publication of the DEIS,

Federal, State, and local agencies,

community groups and associations,

and the general public submitted oral

and written comments concerning the

DEIS. These comments and Navy’s

responses were incorporated in the

Final Environmental Impact Statement

and was distributed to the public on

November 21, 1997, for a thirty-day

review period that concluded on

December 22, 1997. navy received five

letters concerning 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Notices 37867

two ‘‘action’’ alternatives that could

result from disposal of the DoDHF

Novato 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 Revised Reuse Plan developed

by HRPA and approved by the City of

Novato.

In March 1994, the City of Novato and

the County of Marin entered into the

Hamilton Reuse Planning Agreement to

establish the HRPA and procedures for

ensuring public participation in the

reuse planning process. The HRPA is

composed of representatives from the

City of Novato, the County of Marin,

and several advisory groups. The HRPA

prepared the Reuse Plan after extensive

public involvement and comment.

This process also resulted in the

establishment of the Hamilton Advisory

Commission (HAC), a citizens

committee composed of 25

representatives from various stakeholder

groups; the Technical Advisory

Committee, a technical guidance

committee composed of 33 members

from local service districts (i.e., water

districts and fire districts) and Federal

and state agencies; and the MultiAgency Board (MAB), composed of two

members from the Novato City Council,

one member selected by the City

Council, two members from the County

Board of Supervisors, and one member

selected by the Board. The MAB

reviewed HAC’s recommendations and

made recommendations to the Novato

City Council regarding adoption of the

reuse plan. The goal of this planning

process was to develop a reuse plan for

HAA, DoDHF and the adjacent private

lands and reflected a consensus gained

through public participation by the

community.

After the City adopted the Reuse Plan,

the Department of Veterans Affairs

withdrew its request for property at

DoDHF and the Coast Guard revised its

request for DoDHF property. As a result,

the HRPA changed the Reuse Plan. The

City of Novato approved the Revised

Reuse Plan in February 1996 and

published it as the Hamilton Army

Airfield Reuse Plan, ‘‘Revised November

1996’’.

The Revised Reuse Plan Alternative,

designated in the FEIS as the Preferred

Alternative, would implement the

Revised Reuse Plan. It proposed a mix

of residential, open space, parkland,

community, and commercial uses.

The Revised Reuse Plan identifies 10

planning areas and a runway area.

Planning Area 1 is the Rafael Village

site, a 107-acre suburban residential

development located on the west side of

U.S. Highway 101. Under the Revised

Reuse Plan, the 503 existing Rafael

Village structures would be demolished

and 500 dwelling units would be built

on 86 of the 107 acres. The remaining

property would be used for parkland

(seven acres), open space (seven acres),

and roadway (seven acres). The other

planning areas are located at the Main

Site, on the east side of U.S. Highway

101 and southeast of Rafael Village.

Planning Area 2 is located in the

southwest section of the Main Site.

Known as Capehart Housing, it is a 216-

acre suburban residential development.

Under the Revised Reuse Plan, the

existing 100 acres of housing, nine acres

of parkland, and 107 acres of open space

would be used for the same purposes as

their current uses.

Planning Area 3, the Spanish Housing

area, is located east of the Capehart

Housing and will be transferred to the

Coast Guard. It is not available for reuse

by the community.

Planning Area 4, the Commissary

Triangle, is a 13-acre site located at the

northwest corner of the Main Site.

Under the Revised Reuse Plan, this

property would be used for community

and civic purposes and would provide

an 80-bed shelter for the homeless.

Planning Area 5, the Navy Exchange

Triangle, is located on the west side of

the Main Site and covers 28 acres.

About 26 acres would be dedicated to

community and civic uses, i.e., a public

transit center consisting of a park and

ride lot and bus stop, a library, a charter

school, a homeless shelter, a child care

facility, and senior housing. The

remaining two acres would be used for

private commercial activities that would

serve the local residents.

Planning Area 6, the Town Center, is

located at the northeast corner of the

Main Site and covers eight acres. The

Revised Reuse Plan proposes to use four

of these acres as a neighborhood

commercial area that could

accommodate a theater, offices, cafes,

specialty shops, personal service shops,

and artists workplaces. Two acres

would be used for community facilities,

e.g., the former chapel, and two acres

would serve as a central plaza.

Planning Area 7, known as Hospital

Hill, is located southeast of the Town

Center area and is part of the Hamilton

Army Airfield property. Navy is not

responsible for this Army property and

did not consider alternative reuses for it.

Planning Area 8, known as the

Bowling Alley, is located on the east

side of the Main Site and covers 3 acres.

The Preferred Alternative would use the

existing bowling alley an gymnasium for

recreational purposes.

Planning Area 9, the Officers Club, is

located on a five-acre landscaped hill

south of the Bowling Alley and contains

two buildings. The Revised Reuse Plan

would use three acres for community

and civic purposes with a cultural

center, community center and library.

Two acres would be used commercially

to provide lodging for visitors.

Planning Area 10, the Ballfields, is

situated in the southeast corner of the

Main Site and covers 31 acres. It

contains open space, baseball fields, a

swimming pool and poolhouse, and

parking lots. The Preferred Alternative

would use this entire area as a park and

retain the swimming pool complex for

recreational activity.

The runway area east of the Main Site

is part of the Hamilton Army Airfield

property. Navy is not responsible for

this Army property and did not consider

alternative reuses for it.

In the NEPA process, Navy

considered a second ‘‘action’’

alternative, described in the FEIS as the

Open Space Alternative. This

alternative also proposed a mix of

residential, open space, parkland,

community and commercial facilities.

Under the Open Space Alternative, all

503 existing structures at Rafael Village

would be demolished. This property

would then be used for open space and

parkland, and no new houses would be

built on the site. Reuse of the Main Site

would be similar to the Preferred

Alternative but would also allow the

development of certain facilities that

were designated in the Open Space

Alternative as corporation yards. These

corporation yards would provide areas

for the maintenance and storage of up to

50 buses and 40 pieces of heavy

equipment. The yards would also

contain warehouses, office space and

parking lots.

The Capehart Housing area at the

Main Site would be used in the Open

Space Alternative to provide housing,

open space, and parkland. The

Commissary Triangle area would

provide community and civic facilities.

The Navy Exchange Triangle area would

be used for community and civic

purposes as well as neighborhood

commercial activities and would also

provide a homeless shelter. A

corporation yard would be located in

either the Commissary or Exchange

Triangles. The Town Center area would

be used for community activities. The

Bowling Alley area would be used for

recreational activities. The Officers Club

would be used for commercial and

community activities. The Ballfields
37868 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Notices

area would be used for parkland and

open space.

Environmental Impacts

Navy analyzed the potential impacts

of the Preferred Alternative, the Open

Space Alternative, and the ‘‘No action’’

Alternative for each alternative’s effects

on land use, aesthetics and scenic

resources, socioeconomics (including

employment, income, population,

housing, schools, recreation, and

environmental justice), public services,

utilities, cultural resources, biological

resources, geology and soils, water

resources, traffic and circulation, air

quality, noise, and hazardous materials

and waste. This Record of Decision

focuses on the impacts that would likely

result from implementing the Preferred

Alternative.

The Preferred Alternative would not

cause any significant impacts on land

use, because the proposed uses of each

planning area are similar or identical to

Navy’s historical uses. Although

demolition of existing structures and

construction of new facilities would

cause short term disruption, these

temporary activities would not have a

significant impact on land use.

The Preferred Alternative would not

have significant impacts on aesthetic

and scenic resources. The visual

impacts arising out of demolition and

construction would be minimal and

insignificant as a result of their short

duration.

The Preferred Alternative would not

result in any significant adverse

socioeconomic impacts. Indeed, it

would enhance affordable housing

opportunities, generate additional jobs,

and provide more recreational facilities

for the City.

The Preferred Alternative would

result in a 2.9 percent increase in

enrollment in the Novato Unified

School District compared with 1995

levels. However, since most schools in

this District are operating below their

enrollment capacities, implementation

of the Preferred Alternative would not

exceed school capacity.

The Preferred Alternative would not

result in significant impacts on police

and fire protection or on emergency

medical services in the Novato area.

However, the number of requests for

these public services will likely increase

as the population increases.

The Preferred Alternative would not

result in significant impacts on utility

systems, i.e., electricity, natural gas,

telephone, water supply, storm drainage

and sanitary sewer systems. The

acquiring entity will upgrade the

existing utility systems to meet current

utility standards.

While demolition of the Rafael Village

houses would not significantly affect the

County’s landfill capacity, the

additional demolition waste would

contribute to Marin County’s solid

waste stream. Thus, a significant impact

could result if demolition of the Rafael

Village structures prevented Marin

County from meeting the State’s

requirement, set forth in Cal. Pub. Res.

Code, § 41780, et seq., to reduce solid

waste by 50 percent by the year 2000.

The Preferred Alternative would not

have a significant impact on cultural

resources. There are four historic

properties within an area designated as

the Hamilton Army Airfield

Discontiguous Historic District. These

are the War Department Theater

(Building 507) and the Amphitheater in

the Town Center planning area; the

Bachelor Officers Quarters in the

Officers Club planning area (Building

201); and the Swimming Pool (Building

205) in the Ballfields planning area. The

Preferred Alternative would use these

buildings and structures for purposes

similar to Navy’s uses.

Navy may convey the War

Department Theater and the Bachelor

Officers Quarters to the City of Novato

through the National Park Service’s

Historic Monuments Program. 40 U.S.C.

§ 484(k)(3). Navy may convey the

Amphitheater and Swimming Pool to

the City of Novato through the National

Park Service’s Surplus Federal Lands to

Public Parks Program. 40 U.S.C.

§ 484(k)(2). The National Park Service

would review and approve plans for the

adaptive reuse of these four properties

to ensure their preservation after

disposal by the Federal Government.

Navy has completed consultation

pursuant to Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C.

§ 470 (f), and its implementing

regulations, Protection of Historic

Properties, 36 CFR Part 800, with the

California State Historic Preservation

Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation

(ACHP). The SHPO and the ACHP

concurred on October 16, 1997 and

October 30, 1997, respectively, with

Navy’s conclusion that there would be

no adverse effect on these four

properties or on the HAA Discontiguous

Historic District if they were conveyed

to the City under the National Park

Service programs.

Although Navy did not discover any

surface archeological resources at

DoDHF Novato, archeological resources

could be present in undisturbed areas

under the surface. If there are any such

discoveries, work will cease in the

vicinity of the discovery until

professional archeologists have had an

opportunity to evaluate the discovery

and implement an appropriate treatment

plan in accordance with the Novato

General Plan and Cal. Pub. Res. Code

§ 5097, et seq.

Increased erosion resulting from

demolition and new construction could

have a significant impact on biological

resources such as sensitive wetland and

riparian habitats and on the species that

inhabit these areas. The acquiring entity

will reduce these impacts to an

insignificant level by introducing

standard erosion control measures such

as silt fences, sedimentation basins, and

other structural methods that minimize

sedimentation runoff into creeks and

wetlands during new construction.

Additionally, in accordance with

Executive Order 11990, Protection of

Wetlands, dated May 24, 1977, Navy

will place a Notice in the conveyance

document that describes those uses that

are restricted under Federal, State, and

local wetland regulations.

Navy has completed consultation

with the National Marine Fisheries

Service and the United States Fish And

Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7

of the Federal Endangered Species Act,

16, U.S.C. § 1531, et seq. The National

Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S.

Fish And Wildlife Service concurred on

March 24, 1997 and March 27, 1997,

respectively, with Navy’s conclusion

that disposal and reuse of the DoDHF

Novato property is not likely to

adversely affect any species on the

Federal list of endangered or threatened

species.

The Preferred Alternative would

allow redevelopment in areas at DoDHF

Novato that contain potential geologic

hazards. Thus, potentially significant

impacts could result from demolition

and construction in the Rafael Village

area if these actions undermine or

weaken unstable slopes. The City of

Novato’s General Plan requires

developers to conduct geotechnical

investigations in areas that have

landslide potential. The acquiring entity

will reduce the potential for landslides

to an insignificant level by

implementing protective measures

during construction.

Parts of the Main Site were built on

fill over the San Francisco Basin’s Bay

Mud formation and are particularly

susceptible to damage during

earthquakes. The acquiring entity can

reduce this potential for earthquake

damage to existing structures and new

construction to an insignificant level by

upgrading the existing structures to

comply with current seismic safety

standards and by designing new

structures that meet current building

codes governing seismic safety.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Notices 37869

The Preferred Alternative could

degrade surface water quality, because

the demolition and construction of

buildings may disturb the soil and

increase erosion and sedimentation into

San Jose Creek at the Rafael Village site

and Pacheco Creek at the Main Site. The

acquiring entity will reduce this impact

on surface water quality to an

insignificant level by implementing

storm water pollution prevention plans

and standard erosion control measures

before clearing and grading particular

sites.

Parts of the property at DoDHF

Novato could be subject to flooding.

Certain parts of the Rafael Village,

Capehart Housing, Commissary

Triangle, Navy Exchange Triangle,

Town Center, Bowling Alley, and

Ballfields areas are located in the 100-

year floodplain. In accordance with

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain

Management, dated May 24, 1977, Navy

will place a Notice in the conveyance

document that describes those uses that

are restricted under Federal, State, and

local floodplain regulations.

Navy’s evaluation of the impacts on

traffic and circulation considered

freeway operations, local roadway and

intersection operations, public transit

facilities and service, and pedestrian

and bicycle circulation. The Preferred

Alternative would not have significant

impacts on freeway and intersection

operations. It would generate about

12,095 average daily trips, slightly more

than the 11,340 average daily trips that

were associated with Navy’s use of the

DoDHF Novato property, and it would

result in a significant increase in the

demand for public transit services.

There would not be any significant

impacts on pedestrian and bicycle

traffic.

The Preferred Alternative would have

a significant but mitigable impact on air

quality. Local dust would be generated

during building demolition, renovation,

and new construction activities. The

acquiring entity will reduce these

potential impacts to an insignificant

level by implementing standard dust

control measures during demolition,

renovation and construction.

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 a

categorically exempt activity.

Accordingly, disposal of the DoDHF

Novato property does not require Navy

to conduct a conformity analysis.

The Preferred Alternative would have

significant but mitigable temporary

noise impacts on adjacent land arising

out of demolition, renovation, and

construction activities at the Rafael

Village, Navy Exchange Triangle and

Commissary Triangle areas. The

acquiring entity will reduce these

potential noise impacts to an

insignificant level by limiting

demolition and construction activities

to normal daytime hours.

The Preferred Alternative would have

a significant noise impact on some

residents of the Rafael Village and

Capehart Housing areas arising out of

the high noise levels generated by

existing traffic adjacent to these areas on

U.S. Highway 101 and Ignacio

Boulevard. Under the Preferred

Alternative, residents of these areas

would be exposed to 24-hour average

noise levels that would exceed the 60

decibel average for residential areas

prescribed in the Novato General Plan

as the upper limit of acceptability. This

is a significant impact that cannot be

mitigated to an insignificant level.

Although DoDHF Novato generated a

small amount of hazardous waste,

Navy’s survey identified several areas of

contamination. In response, Navy’s

remediation actions include removal

and remediation of underground storage

tank areas; abatement of damaged,

friable and accessible asbestos; and

inspection for and notification of leadbased paint (LBP) for housing units in

accordance with the Residential LeadBased Paint Hazard Reduction Act of

1992, 42 U.S.C. 4822.

Residential surveys for LBP showed

that LBP is present in the Rafael Village

and Capehart Housing units. Since all of

the Rafael Village structures will be

demolished, no LBP abatement will be

performed there. The Capehart Housing

units were completed after 1960 and are

therefore subject only to the inspection

and disclosure requirements of the

Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard

Reduction Act.

No significant adverse impacts would

be caused by the hazardous materials

and hazardous waste that may be used

and generated by the Preferred

Alternative. The quantity of hazardous

materials used, stored, and disposed of,

and the quantity of hazardous waste

generated on the property would

decrease under the Preferred

Alternative. Additionally, hazardous

materials used and hazardous waste

generated under the Preferred

Alternative would be controlled by

existing regulations under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976,

42 U.S.C. § 6901, et seq., codified at 40

CFR parts 260–266.

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. Indeed, the Preferred

Alternative would increase the amount

of housing in the City and County and

provide emergency shelter and

transitional housing that would benefit

the homeless and low-income residents

in the area.

Mitigation

Implementation of the decision to

dispose of DoDHF Novato does not

require Navy to perform any mitigation

measures. However, the National Park

Service must review and approve all

plans for adaptive reuse of the four

historic properties if they are conveyed

under the Historic Monuments and

Surplus Federal Lands to Public Parks

programs. As required by Executive

Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands,

and Executive Order 11988, Floodplain

Management, Navy will incorporate

Notices in the conveyance document

describing wetland and floodplain uses

that are restricted under Federal, State,

and local regulations.

Navy’s FEIS identified and discussed

those actions that would be necessary to

mitigate the impacts associated with the

disposal and reuse of DoDHF Novato.

The acquiring entity, under the

direction of Federal, State, and local

agencies with regulatory authority over

protected resources, will be responsible

for implementing all necessary

mitigation measures.

Comments Received on the FEIS

Navy received comments on the FEIS

from the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), the Golden

Gate Bridge, Highway, and

Transportation District, the Novato Fire

Protection District, the Lanham Village

Homeowners’ Association, Inc., and

Marvelous Marin, Inc.

The EPA commented that navy

should compare the projected

environmental impacts of the two

‘‘action’’ alternatives against two

standards: historical environmental

conditions (the standard that Navy

applied) and those conditions that

would exist under the ‘‘No action’’

alternative, i.e., with the facility in a
37870 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Notices

caretaker status. Navy believes that its

use of historical or previously

established environmental conditions is

appropriate, because it evaluates the

impacts of the proposed reuse in light

of the conditions that existed when the

facility was open and actively operating.

The Golden Gate Bride, Highway, and

Transportation District asked Navy to

include additional information in the

FEIS concerning existing public transit

routes, park and ride lots, bus stops,

previous land acquisition by the

Transportation District, projected hourly

transit trips, and the mission of the

Transportation District. The District did

not provide comments during the public

scoping period or during the DEIS

public review period.

As discussed in the FEIS, the

anticipated increase in the demand for

public transit services under the

Preferred Alternative can be reduced to

an insignificant level by providing

internal collector roadways within the

project area that would accommodate

public transit vehicles and by providing

shuttle services to existing public transit

routes. The inclusion of the additional

information requested by the

Transportation District would not

change the results of Navy’s

environmental analysis in the FEIS.

The Novato Fire Protection District

(NFPD) commented that ti is currently

providing emergency services to DoDHF

Novato through a contract with Navy

and the DoDHF Novato is presently

located outside the boundaries of the

NFPD. The NFPD stated that it would

not be able to provide emergency

services to the DoDHF site if Navy

terminated the contract before other

arrangements were made with the NFPD

or unless the DoDHF property was

annexed into the district.

The Coast Guard challenged NFPD’s

claim that it requires a contract to

provide emergency services to DoDHF

Novato. On January 7, 1998, the United

States District Court for the Northern

District of California decided that

NFPD’s exclusion of Federal property

from the fire district was invalid. This

decision has the effect of including

DoDHF Novato in the fire district.

Novato Fire Protection District v. United

States, No. C 96–3893 FMS (N.D. Cal.,

Jan. 7, 1998), reh. den. (N.D. Cal., Jan.

27, 1998).

Navy also received comments from

the Lanham Village Homeowners’

Association, Inc. (LVHA) that reflect the

views of a neighborhood adjacent to the

Main Site on the DoDHF Novato

property. The Homeowners’ Association

requested additional analysis of the

Preferred Alternative with respect to the

Novato Unified School District’s

(NUSD) request for a public benefit

conveyance of the former Navy Vehicle

Maintenance Building. The School

District proposes to use the building as

a vehicle repair training facility.

The Association also requested

additional analysis of a corporation yard

that was proposed under the Open

Space Alternative. The Association

disagrees with Navy’s conclusions

regarding the environmental impacts of

these components of the Preferred

Alternative and the Open Space

Alternative.

Navy analyzed the proposed reuse of

the former Navy Vehicle Maintenance

Building under the Preferred Alternative

and concluded that it was similar to

Navy’s historical use of this facility. The

proposed NUSD vehicle repair training

facility would be required to meet all

health and safety regulations concerning

noise and air emissions, and reuse of the

Vehicle Maintenance Facility would not

have significant impacts on land use,

noise, and air quality. Navy considers

this analysis adequate. Additionally, the

land use policies in the Revised Reuse

Plan require the acquiring entity to

establish landscaping and buffer zones

and to consider the compatibility of new

uses with existing residential uses such

as Lanham Village before approving

new uses.

The LVHA commented that the

proposed NUSD facility could

eventually become a regional bus repair

facility. However, the School District is

not proposing such an action in its

public benefit conveyance request, and

HRPA did not propose such a facility in

the Revised Reuse Plan.

In response to LVHA’s comments on

the DEIS concerning the Open Space

Alternative, Navy considered the

possible uses of the corporation yard in

the FEIS. Navy concluded that the

establishment of a corporation yard

under the Open Space Alternative

would not have significant impacts on

land use and noise. Additionally, the

Preferred Alternative, i.e., the Revised

Reuse Plan, does not propose to

establish an corporation yards.

The LVHA also stated that the siting

of the bus repair training facility or the

corporation yard may raise

environmental justice concerns. As

stated in the FEIS, however, there are no

significant and adverse environmental

impacts that would disproportionately

affect minority and low-income

populations.

Marvelous Marin, Inc. did not

comment directly on the FEIS, but

provided copies of correspondence to

the Secretary of the Navy dated

November 20, 1997. Marvelous Marin

also filed suit in the United States

District Court for the Northern District

of California on September 30, 1997,

alleging that private entities and/or

Marin County may have reversionary

rights to DoDHF Novato property.

Marvelous Marin, Inc. v. United States,

No. C 97–3584 CW (N.D. Cal., filed Sept.

30, 1997). Navy considered these claims

and concluded that no such

reversionary rights exist. On May 6,

1998, the District Court dismissed the

lawsuit with prejudice on the merits.

Marvelous Marin, Inc. v. United States,

id. (Order and Judgment filed May 6,

1998).

In any entity were to establish

reversionary property rights in the

future, the City of Novato’s zoning and

other ordinances would still govern

redevelopment of this property. Thus,

the FEIS adequately addressed the

potential environmental impacts of

disposal and reuse of this property

under the Preferred Alternative.

Regulations Governing the Disposal

Decision

Since the proposed action

contemplates disposal under the

Defense Base Closure and Realignment

Act of 1990 (DBCRA), Public Law 101–

510, 10 U.S.C. § 2687 note, Navy’s

decision 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 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Notices 37871

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

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

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 HRPA’s proposed reuse of the

DoDHF Novato property, reflected in the

1996 Hamilton Army Airfield Reuse

Plan and embodied in the Preferred

Alternative, is consistent with the

prescriptions of the FPMR and Section

174.4 of the DoD Rule. The LRA has

determined in its Revised Reuse Plan

that the property should be used for

several purposes including residential,

community, civic, commercial, parkland

and open space. 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.

The Revised Reuse Plan responds to

local economic conditions, promotes

rapid economic recovery from the

impact of the facility’s closure, and is

consistent with President Clinton’s

Five-Part Plan for Revitalizing Base

Closure Communities, which

emphasizes local economic

redevelopment of the closing military

facility and creation of new jobs as the

means to revitalize these communities.

32 CFR Parts 174 and 175, 59 Fed. Reg.

16123 (1994). 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 that may result

from implementation of the reuse plan.

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

economic redevelopment of the DoDHF

NOvato property.

Accordingly, Navy will dispose of the

Department of Defense Housing Facility

at Novato in a manner that is consistent

with the Hamilton Reuse Planning

Authority’s Revised Reuse Plan for the

property.

Dated: July 1, 1998.

William J. Cassidy, Jr.,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy

(Conversion And Redevelopment).

[FR Doc. 98–18741 Filed 7–13–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

Availability of Government-Owned

Inventions for Licensing

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The inventions listed below

are assigned to the United States

Government as represented by the

Secretary of the Navy and are made

available for licensing by the

Department of the Navy.

Copies of patents cited are available

from the Commissioner of Patents and

Trademarks, Washington, D.C. 20231,

for $3.00 each. Requests for copies of

patents must include the patent number.

Copies of patent applications cited are

available from the National Technical

Information Service (NTIS), Springfield,

Virginia 22161 for $6.95 each ($10.95

outside North American Continent).

Requests for copies of patent