DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. Department of the Navy

Transcription

1 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal and Reuse of the Former Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, Concord, California AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD ACTION: Record of Decision SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy), after carefully weighing the environmental consequences of the proposed action, announces its decision to dispose of surplus property at the former Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, Detachment Concord (NWS Concord), Concord, California for reuse consistent with the City of Concord s Concord Reuse Project Area Plan (Area Plan), as presented under Alternative 1 in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Disposal and reuse will be implemented in accordance with Public Law , the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as amended in 2005 (DBCRA). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Erica Spinelli, Navy Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Program Management Office (PMO) West, Concord EIS, Nixie Way, Building 50, San Diego, California, , telephone: , erica.spinelli@navy.mil, website: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321 et seq.), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.] parts ), and Department of the Navy (Navy) regulations for implementing NEPA (32 C.F.R. part 775), the Navy announces its decision to dispose of surplus property at NWS Concord, Concord, California, for subsequent reuse in a manner consistent with Alternative 1 of the Final EIS and the Area Plan as developed and approved by the City of Concord. This decision will make approximately 4,972 acres of former NWS Concord property available to the local community for economic redevelopment. On March 6, 2007, the Navy declared approximately 5,028 acres of property (subsequently revised to 4,972 acres of property) at the former NWS Concord to be surplus to the needs of the federal government. The surplus property is located entirely within the City of Concord, Contra Costa County, California, approximately 35 miles northeast of the City of San Francisco. On February 7, 2006, the Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment designated the City of Concord as the Local Redevelopment Authority for redevelopment of the former NWS Concord, and the City prepared and adopted in 2012 the Area Plan to guide the proposed reuse of the surplus property. 1

2 The Final EIS identified Alternative 1 as the Preferred Alternative and consists of reuse of the property in accordance with the Area Plan, as adopted by the City of Concord. Alternative 1 includes a mix of land use types and densities, demolition of most installation facilities, preservation of a significant amount of open space and conservation areas, sustainable and transit-oriented development (TOD), and parks. Full build-out of Alternative 1 is projected to occur over an approximately 25- to 35-year period. Two major conservation areas proposed include a 2,537-acre regional park, which would encompass the east side of the property along the ridgeline of Los Medanos Hills, and the Mount Diablo Creek corridor. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) served as a cooperating agency with the Navy on the preparation of the Final EIS because the USACE is the lead federal agency for the review of the proposed redevelopment under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). BACKGROUND AND ISSUES: Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed action is to dispose of surplus property at the former NWS Concord for subsequent reuse in a manner consistent with the policies adopted by the City of Concord during reuse planning that took place between 2008 and The need for the proposed action is to comply with the DBCRA and to provide the local community an opportunity for economic development and job creation. Public Involvement From the initial stages of the NEPA process, the Navy has actively engaged and encouraged public participation. The Navy published the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register on March 14, 2013 (78 FR 16255). In addition, public notices were published on March 17, 29, 30 and 31, 2013, in two local newspapers in the regional area of NWS Concord. Letters and s were sent to federal, state, and local agencies and officials, interested groups and organizations, Native American Indian tribes, and individuals. A public scoping meeting was held in the Concord Senior Citizens Center in the City of Concord on April 4, During the public scoping period, comments were invited from federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public on the scope of issues to be addressed in the EIS. Comments received during the public scoping period were considered by the Navy in the development of the Draft EIS. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIS in the Federal Register on October 10, 2014 (79 FR 61303), which initiated a 45-day public review and comment period. The Navy distributed copies of the Draft EIS to federal, state, and local agencies and officials, interested groups and organizations, Native American Indian tribes, and other members of the public for review and comment. The Navy also made the Draft EIS available for public review on the BRAC program website ( and at three local libraries: Concord Library, Pittsburg Library, and Pleasant Hill Library. The Navy published a notice for a public meeting in the Federal Register on October 10, 2014 (79 FR 61299). In addition, the Navy published NOAs for the Draft EIS and public meeting on 2

3 October 12, 2014 and November 8 and 9, 2014, in two newspapers in the regional area of NWS Concord. The Navy held a public meeting in the Concord Senior Citizens Center in the City of Concord on November 13, A total of 34 comment statements were received during the public comment period. Comments received during the public comment period and the Navy s responses to those comments are included in the Final EIS. The EPA published the NOA for the Final EIS in the Federal Register on August 18, 2017 (82 FR 39424). The Navy also published notices between August 18 and August 20, 2017, in one newspaper in the regional area of NWS Concord because the two newspapers previously used for notification had merged into a single publication. The Navy distributed copies of the Final EIS to federal, state, and local agencies and officials, interested groups and organizations, Native American Indian tribes, and other members of the public. The Navy also made the Final EIS available for public review on the BRAC program website ( and at local libraries. The Final EIS addressed all comments received during the Draft EIS public comment period. Alternatives Considered The Navy evaluated two action alternatives for disposal and reuse of NWS Concord, referred to in the Final EIS as Alternative 1 (the Preferred Alternative) and Alternative 2 (Intensified Reuse), as well as the No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 is the Preferred Alternative and consists of reuse of the property in accordance with the Area Plan, as adopted by the City of Concord. The Navy developed Alternative 2 to identify potential impacts associated with a slightly smaller development footprint and land use pattern, increased residential development, and a higher intensity of use overall. Both redevelopment alternatives focus on the preservation of a significant amount of open space and conservation areas and sustainable development characterized by walkable neighborhoods, TOD, and complete streets that balance multiple types of transportation. Both alternatives include the demolition of most installation facilities, development of the west side of the property as a series of mixed-use development districts, with a high concentration of development at the north end, near State Route (SR) 4 and the North Concord/Martinez Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station. Redevelopment under either alternative would be in accordance with sustainable design and planning principles and would include parks and open spaces. The No Action Alternative is required per CEQ regulations and establishes a baseline by which to compare and identify the potential environmental consequences of disposal and reuse of the surplus property at NWS Concord. Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative): Alternative 1 includes disposal of the former NWS Concord property by the Navy and its reuse in accordance with the adopted Area Plan. The Area Plan covers a total of 5,046 acres, which includes approximately 4,972 acres of Navy property and 74 acres of non-navy property. Under Alternative 1, approximately 70 percent of the property will be maintained as conservation, parks, or recreational land uses, and 30 percent will be mixed-use development, including a mix of office, retail, residential, community facilities, light industrial, and research and development/educational land uses. Development on the site will allow for up to a maximum of 12,272 housing units and 6.1 million square feet of commercial space within the development footprint. Two major conservation areas proposed include a regional park to be managed by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), which will encompass the east side of the property along the ridgeline 3

4 of Los Medanos Hills, and the Mt. Diablo Creek corridor. Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative because it meets the purpose and need and allows for disposal and reuse in a manner consistent with the City of Concord s Area Plan. Alternative 2 (Intensified Reuse): Alternative 2 provides for the disposal and reuse of the surplus property at NWS Concord, but with a slightly smaller development footprint and land use pattern, increased residential development, and a higher intensity of use overall. Alternative 2 is also generally consistent with the policies adopted by the City of Concord during the reuse planning process. Under Alternative 2, approximately 70 percent of the property would be maintained as conservation, parks, or recreational land uses, and 30 percent would be mixed-use development, including a mix of office, retail, residential, community facilities, light industrial, and research and development/educational land uses. Development on the site would allow for up to a maximum of 15,872 housing units and 6.1 million square feet of commercial space within the development footprint. The total area of commercial uses would be the same for Alternative 2 as for Alternative 1. Two major conservation areas proposed include a regional park and the Mount Diablo Creek corridor. No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative is the retention of the surplus property at NWS Concord by the U.S. government in caretaker status. No reuse or redevelopment would occur on any part of the property. Any currently approved uses on the property would continue until remaining leases expire or the Navy decides to renew the lease. No new leases would be created under the No Action Alternative. Any remedial activities underway would continue until environmental cleanup is complete. Facilities would be maintained in accordance with the BRAC PMO Building Vacating, Facility Layaway, and Caretaker Maintenance Guidance. Environmentally Preferred Alternative The No Action alternative is considered the environmentally preferred alternative, as it results in the least amount of impact on the environment. However, the No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action and would not be consistent with the DBCRA. The No Action Alternative maintains the status quo, and no reuse or redevelopment of the property would occur. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action In order to assess the impact of the future reuse and redevelopment of the surplus property at NWS Concord, impacts of construction and operation were assessed based on full build-out, which is anticipated to occur over an approximately 25- to 35-year period. The final build-out would be subject to many variables, including future market conditions, changes to local and state land use regulations, and other development factors. The Final EIS analyzed the potential human and environmental consequences of implementing Alternatives 1 and 2 and the possible magnitude of those impacts relative to the following resource categories: land use and zoning; socioeconomics and environmental justice; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; topography, geology, and soils; hazards and hazardous substances; noise; public services; transportation, traffic, and circulation; utilities and infrastructure; visual resources and aesthetics; and water resources. The Final EIS also addressed 4

5 the direct and indirect impacts and accounted for cumulative impacts from other foreseeable federal, state, or local activities at and around the former NWS Concord property. The No Action Alternative was evaluated in the EIS to provide a point of comparison between the action (disposal and reuse) alternatives and the property being left in caretaker status. The discussion below summarizes the potential environmental consequences of the implementation of Alternative 1. Land Use and Zoning: Implementation of Alternative 1 will result in changes to existing land use conditions within the boundaries of the former NWS Concord, including the introduction of a densely populated, mixed-use TOD. Implementation of Alternative 1 would also result in open public access to the formerly secure and restricted military property; however, altering the existing land use conditions and providing access to previously inaccessible open space would be considered an overall beneficial impact. Implementation of Alternative 1 would not impact regional land uses as they are currently planned in the City of Concord, City of Pittsburg, and Contra Costa County in the vicinity of the former NWS Concord because the proposed action would not negatively impact the region s housing or commercial markets. Reuse of the site could have the indirect beneficial effect of relieving development pressure on areas that might possess sensitive resources, such as prime and unique farmland in eastern Contra Costa County, because future demands for housing and commercial space could be met by reuse of the installation. Proposed land uses along the periphery of the installation would be compatible with existing land uses adjacent to the installation. Implementation of Alternative 1 would be consistent with applicable principles, policies, goals, and strategies outlined in regional and local plans. Specific development proposals throughout the build-out period will need to follow a design review and permitting process by the City of Concord. During this review and permitting process, a site-specific environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will also need to be completed. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice: Implementation of Alternative 1 will have short- and long-term beneficial impacts, some of which would be significant, on the local and regional economies. Construction expenditures over the build-out period are estimated to be $6.3 billion, resulting in an increase of 18,933 jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) during the construction period. At full build-out, Alternative 1 would result in a net increase of 26,537 direct, indirect, and induced jobs. The local population in the City of Concord will expand by approximately 31,462 residents, and the city s housing stock would be increased by 12,200 units. The current demand for housing in the city and region outstrips the available supply. Due to the anticipated population expansion and associated increase in demand for housing in the region, the construction of these additional housing units over the build-out period of Alternative 1 is not expected to significantly impact housing demand or prices in the residential housing market. The commercial real estate market would experience an increase of 6.1 million square feet of commercial space. Some downward price pressure may occur as a result of this additional construction; however, the projected growth of the regional economy would absorb much of this increased commercial space. Ad valorem property tax 5

6 revenues and sales/use tax receipts would increase by $70 million, as previously tax-exempt property would become taxable private property, and the additional population would increase the amount of purchases made within the local economy. The Final EIS includes an analysis conducted in compliance with Executive Order (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) and Executive Order (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This analysis found that, although minority, Hispanic, and/or lowincome communities exist within the study area, these communities will not experience disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects from implementation of Alternative 1 because no significant unmitigated environmental, human health, or safety impacts are expected to occur in the surrounding communities as a result of Alternative 1. Additionally, no unique environmental health or safety issues will impact children in the affected communities. Air Quality: Construction and operational air emissions associated with the reuse of the former NWS Concord under Alternative 1 will result in significant impacts on air quality. Daily and annual emission estimates of criteria air pollutants from construction and operations would exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management District significance thresholds. The generation of construction emissions will not be permanent, and emissions will occur intermittently during the build-out period. The City of Concord will require all feasible construction-activity control measures to be applied at the site. These measures will accompany all development permits and authorizations as a condition of approval and will be monitored as part of the permit and authorization process. Operational emissions will result from building energy use and increased vehicle traffic. The City of Concord will adhere to measures included in its Area Plan and citywide Climate Action Plan to reduce automobile dependence and potential vehicle emissions. These measures include development of the complete streets concept to accommodate mass transit, vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians; mixed-use development; and high-density development near the North Concord/Martinez BART Station. To further reduce particulate matter emissions, wood-burning fireplaces will be prohibited or required to employ best available control technologies. Redevelopment of surplus properties will result in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Since the estimated annual per-capita GHG emissions resulting from the implementation of the Area Plan with planned mitigations will meet state and local air quality goals, the GHG emissions associated with Alternative 1 will not result in significant adverse impacts. Biological Resources: Redevelopment under Alternative 1 will include the removal of approximately 1,800 acres of vegetation communities and associated habitats, consisting primarily of California annual grassland (1,660 acres). Other vegetation communities impacted include coyote brush scrub/coastal sage scrub (5 acres), oak woodland savannah (9 acres), riparian woodlands (5 acres), wetlands and non-wetland waters (7 acres), and orchards and plantations (113 acres). Approximately 2,715 acres will be preserved as conservation open space, including a 2,537-acre regional park along the ridgeline of the Los Medanos Hills, and the Mount Diablo Creek corridor. 6

7 Fish and wildlife will be exposed to short- and long-term adverse impacts resulting from the construction and operation activities in accordance with the Area Plan. Long-term impacts will include mortality of less mobile individuals and permanent loss of potentially suitable habitat; short-term impacts will include temporary displacement during construction activities. The preservation of habitats in the regional park, restoration of Mount Diablo Creek, and establishment of a 300-foot-wide buffer along the creek will provide for long-term benefits to fish and wildlife populations in the regional area. The disposal of the former NWS Concord property will have no effect on federally listed species, and it will not result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. However, the subsequent reuse of the property through implementation of Alternative 1 will be an interrelated action that may affect and is likely to adversely affect the following Endangered Species Act (ESA) federally listed threatened species: the California red-legged frog, the California tiger salamander, and the Alameda whipsnake. Implementation of conservation measures and compliance with the terms and conditions of the ESA Section 7 Biological Opinion (BO) (issued May 30, 2017) will ensure that Alternative 1 will not jeopardize the continued existence of these species and will limit impacts to a non-significant level. The Navy, USACE, City of Concord, and EBRPD will implement a series of conservation measures provided in the ESA Section 7 Biological Opinion (BO) to address potential impacts on federally listed species. The conservation measures are a combination of land management activities, monitoring programs, construction-related avoidance and minimization measures, habitat conservation, and compensatory mitigation that will ensure that adverse impacts on listed species from transfer and implementation of the Area Plan will not be significant. Cultural Resources: In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, and the implementing regulations for Section 106 at 36 CFR Part 800, the Navy identified two prehistoric archaeological sites (sites CA-CCO-680 and P ) on the surplus property that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Navy consulted with the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and other consulting parties, including federally recognized Native American Indian tribes and proposed property recipients, on the effects of the disposal and reuse of the former NWS Concord on historic properties and the Navy and the California SHPO executed a Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on April 10, Implementation of the measures prescribed by the executed 2017 Section 106 MOA and implementation of the City of Concord mitigation measures will resolve the potential impacts of Alternative 1 on the NRHP-eligible archaeological sites at former NWS Concord such that they are not considered significant under NEPA. Similarly, with the implementation of the measures in the executed MOA, the adverse effects of the disposal and reuse of the former NWS Concord on historic properties would be resolved under Section 106 of the NHPA. Alternative 1 will have no impacts on architectural or built resources because no NRHPeligible historic buildings or structures were identified during cultural resources investigations within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for Alternative 1. 7

8 Topography, Geology, and Soils: New construction will have a minor impact on soils from clearing and grading and from an increase in impervious surfaces and storm water runoff. Hydric soils may present limitations to development activities. Although the hillsides or steeper slopes along the northeastern property boundary have higher landslide susceptibility, these areas will be conservation areas or open space. The property is located in a seismically active area and has a high probability of earthquake hazard. One active fault is located along the southeastern to northeastern portion of the site; however, there is no record of historic earthquakes (those occurring within the last 200 years) on this fault section. Compliance with Area Plan policies addressing earthquake and landslide hazards would address impacts associated with seismically induced ground shaking and associated ground failure and with surface fault failure such that no significant adverse impacts would occur under Alternative 1. In addition, buildings would be engineered and designed per the International Building Code (or reference the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures [Federal Emergency Management Agency P-749 and P-75]). The developer will implement appropriate erosion and sediment control measures and storm water management in accordance with local and state laws and the Construction General Permit. The implementation of Area Plan policies requiring that structures be designed to reflect the findings of evaluations of geologic hazards and soil conditions would address impacts associated with hydric soils and constructability. With the implementation of mitigation measures, the impacts of Alternative 1 on soils, topography, and geology would not be significant. Hazards and Hazardous Substances: Implementation of Alternative 1 will not have significant impacts on Environmental Restoration (ER) Program Sites, Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) Sites, or radiological sites, and there will be no reasonably foreseeable releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants from ER Program sites, SWMU sites, or radiological sites. Hazardous wastes and materials associated with ER Program Sites, SWMU sites, and radiological sites will be minimized to the extent practicable by the implementation of legally prescribed Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act remedial actions, including the use of appropriate and legally enforceable Institutional Controls, and the expectation that future developers or owners of the former NWS Concord will adhere to local, state, and federal laws and regulations during construction and operation. Hazardous wastes and material management associated with reuse will not result in significant impacts due to compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations. Removal of asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paint, polychlorinated biphenyls, and underground and aboveground storage tanks will comply with applicable federal and state laws and regulations. Future site activities will use hazardous materials and generate hazardous waste. Hazardous materials and waste will be managed by the developer and occupants (businesses, management, and service contractors) of the property in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. Noise: Short-term noise impacts on nearby receptors, especially on the western boundary of the property, from the use of heavy equipment and vehicle traffic during construction will be mitigated such that impacts will not be significant. Construction activities will occur during 8

9 daytime hours in accordance with local ordinances, and compliance with the City of Concord noise control measures for new developments will mitigate noise impacts associated with construction activities. Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in new land uses that would expose sensitive receptors to new sources of noise, such as residential, commercial, and community use buildings and public spaces; vehicular traffic; rail system use; as well as permanent sources associated with urban development, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems and utility transformers. Sensitive receptors would also experience vibration associated with construction and rail system use. The number of sensitive receptors would also increase over time, as construction will happen in phases and new residents will move into the developed areas. Compliance with local requirements, including acoustical analysis and the use of noise-reducing design, building materials, and construction techniques, would reduce effects on closest sensitive receptors to moderate to minor levels of intensity such that impacts will not be significant. With the implementation of mitigation, adverse noise impacts associated with construction and operation of Alternative 1 would not be significant. Public Services: The increase in residential population, school-aged children, and additional workforce will result in the need for additional educational facilities, public safety, emergency, and health care facilities. New schools will be required to meet the demand generated by new residents; associated increases in municipal expenses will be offset by a proportional growth in the tax base. Because additional land will be allocated toward the development of schools and new development would create additional funding sources, implementation of Alternative 1 will not result in a significant, long-term impact on educational services. Police and fire department staffing and equipment will need to be increased at the existing facilities, and if it is not feasible to rehabilitate the Inland Firehouse, two new fire houses will be constructed. A new First Responder Training Center will support city and county public safety departments. Because development of the site would occur incrementally over the build-out period, these services would be expanded slowly, on an asneeded basis. Costs incurred from expanding public services are anticipated to be partially offset by property taxes generated from the development or other funding sources. The City of Concord, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, and future project proponents will work together through a specific plan (or other detailed planning) process to define the number and location of fire facilities needed to support the development, when to provide any additional facilities, and funding for those facilities. Although the demand for health care would increase, Alternative 1 would be implemented incrementally over the build-out period, and private health care and medical providers will have sufficient time to increase their facilities to accommodate this additional demand. Therefore, Alternative 1 will not negatively impact the provision of these public services in the City of Concord. Implementation of Alternative 1 will also provide for 786 acres of greenways, citywide parks, and active recreational areas. This includes a Central Greenway that would extend throughout the site, neighborhood frame greenways that will provide a transition space between development districts and existing neighborhoods adjacent to the site, and three city parks and smaller pocket and neighborhood parks. One city park will include an approximately 75-acre tournament sports facility to allow for active recreational opportunities. In addition, approximately 2,537 acres of the eastern side of the surplus property is proposed as a regional 9

10 park. The proposed increase in greenways, citywide parks, and active recreational areas will result in significant, long-term beneficial impacts on recreational services and facilities. Transportation, Traffic and Circulation: A significant and unavoidable increase in traffic associated with implementation of Alternative 1 is anticipated, primarily due to annual growth in population, addition of new roadways, and an increase in traffic over the build-out period. A projected 203,205 daily trips will be added to the new and surrounding road network. Redevelopment has the potential to exceed performance standards and have an impact on 12 intersections, two roadway segments, four freeway segments, and 16 freeway ramps, resulting in adverse impacts. The City of Concord plans to mitigate transportation impacts through implementation of the design standards in its Climate Action Plan and other travel demand management (TDM) strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled in support of state and local policies to reduce GHGs. TDM strategies may include financial, system, and demand incentives that provide reasons for motorists to switch transportation modes, carpool, or eliminate or reduce the number of vehicle trips. TDM strategies will be evaluated as development occurs in the future. The City will monitor intersections impacted and develop updated traffic volume forecasts based on the performance of its vehicle miles traveled reduction program. Based on future conditions, roadway and traffic-flow improvements may be considered by the City of Concord. Utilities and Infrastructure: Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in an estimated water demand of 3.2 million gallons per day at full build-out, excluding irrigational needs, and a need for infrastructure updates. However, because sufficient water is currently available to support future development, future developers will be required to ensure that additional supply is secured prior to development, and recycled water will be used as a conservation method, there would be no significant, long-term adverse impacts on water supply under Alternative 1. There would be no significant, long-term adverse impacts on water treatment and treated-water distribution under Alternative 1. Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in a 301 percent increase in impervious surface area, the need for new storm water infrastructure, an increased demand for wastewater capacity and associated need for new/upgraded infrastructure. However, because development will be required to comply with local regulations and mitigation measures adopted by the city, there will be no significant, long-term, adverse impacts on storm water and collection systems or sanitary collection and treatment under Alternative 1. There would be a minor impact on the environment from small increases in the amount of solid waste requiring disposal in a landfill compared to current conditions. Because the solid waste would be generated across the build-out period, and the small increases in landfilled waste could be accommodated by existing solid waste facilities, which operate below capacity, these impacts would not be significant under Alternative 1. Because future development is required to comply with mitigation measures outlined in the City of Concord s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), there would be no 10

11 significant, long-term adverse impacts on energy infrastructure or the availability of electricity, natural gas infrastructure or the availability of natural gas, or information technology/communications infrastructure under Alternative 1. Visual Resources and Aesthetics: The visual analysis conducted for the project is programmatic in nature because specific plans for development of the former NWS Concord have not yet been approved by the City of Concord, and details such as the location, height, mass, and appearance of buildings and the location and nature of greenspace have not yet been determined. Disposal and redevelopment of the former NWS Concord will change the current visual condition of the installation to include a variety of urban uses and park and recreational facilities, as well as maintain the existing open spaces. A transitional green buffer of varying distances would be developed around the majority of the site, and a network of green corridors are proposed in strategic locations (ridgelines, between districts/villages) that offer opportunities for view corridors from existing neighborhoods and viewpoints around the City of Concord toward Mount Diablo and the Los Medanos Hills. In addition, redevelopment of the site would maintain open space areas that help minimize view obstruction and maintain the existing visual character of parts of the site, particularly east of Mount Diablo Creek and south of Bailey Road. Scenic quality contrast between current conditions and the development of Alternative 1 will range from none to strong, depending on the observation point. For some observation points, views of hills, ridgelines, and open space could be substantially changed. In accordance with the measures outlined in the City s MMRP, future developers will be required to incorporate design best management practices (BMPs) and light-reducing and light-controlling measures into site development plans to minimize adverse impacts from new sources of light or views from several key observation points, including SR 4, Panoramic Drive, and the Sun Terrace neighborhood. These BMPs and measures would mitigate potential impacts, and no significant long-term impacts would result. Water Resources: Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in direct and indirect impacts on surface waters, but no significant impacts. Construction activities would involve the removal of vegetation and disturbance of soils, which would increase the potential for erosion and sedimentation of substrates in surface waters. Drainage patterns also could be altered, and impacts on the beds and banks of streams would occur where crossings would be implemented. Surface waters would also be directly impacted by filling as a result of the development footprint. Approximately 2.43 acres of jurisdictional other waters would be impacted through the placement of fill, resulting in a net loss of 1.43 acres of other waters. In addition, redevelopment activities would result in the creation of approximately 1,442 acres of impervious surface, which would increase the potential for storm water runoff and impacts on water quality. Permanent impacts on surface waters resulting from filling would be mitigated through adherence to the USACE- and EPA-issued regulations governing compensatory mitigation for authorized impacts on streams; these are codified in 40 CFR Part 230 as the Final Rule for Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources. Specific requirements for future development would be determined in coordination with the USACE and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Alternative 1 will also result in adverse impacts on wetland habitats from the direct placement of fill in wetlands and the alteration of hydrology. The Area Plan would result in the filling in 11

12 of 4.50 acres of wetlands; 4.23 acres of permanent fill would occur within the development districts and 0.27 acres of temporary fill would result from the conservation enhancements for federally listed species. The City of Concord submitted an Individual Permit application under Section 404 of the CWA to the USACE with the goal of securing a site-wide permit for future development activities. If the city is able to secure a site-wide permit from the USACE that is certified by the RWQCB, the Section 404 Individual Permit would include conditions to adequately avoid, minimize, or mitigate for any adverse impacts on Waters of the U.S. If the city does not secure a sitewide permit, future property owners or developers would be responsible for identifying the need for and securing any necessary permits to fill in Waters of the U.S. In addition, the city or future property owners or developers would have to comply with any future conditions set forth by the San Francisco RWQCB in the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the Area Plan. Alternative 1 will not result in significant impacts on groundwater. As necessary, the developer(s) will use standard dewatering techniques, comply with storm water permits and management plans, and erosion and sediment control plans, as required by the San Francisco RWQCB and other agencies to reduce any impacts. The Area Plan will not result in significant impacts on water and groundwater quality. Compliance with local and state permit requirements, including the General Construction Permit, the City of Concord s Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance, and CWA Section 404 permit and Section 401 Water Quality Certification would reduce any adverse impacts. Alternative 1 will also not result in significant impacts on floodplains. The majority of NWS Concord has not had flood hazard areas mapped within the property; the exception is the floodplain of Mount Diablo Creek. Approximately 7.3 acres of Zone A floodplain and 1.3 acres of Zone AE floodplain will be impacted by road construction. Approximately 60 acres of 100-year floodplains will be impacted by implementation of the Area Plan. Once the mapping of flood hazard areas is complete, the City of Concord will require a Conditional Letter of Map Revisions from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to demonstrate that 100-year design flow is contained within Mount Diablo Creek. Conceptual design elements for Mount Diablo Creek and the 40-acre detention basin will address 100-year flood event and would reduce impacts. Cumulative Impacts: Implementation of Alternative 1 will result in potentially cumulative impacts on socioeconomics; air quality; biological resources; transportation, traffic, and circulation; hazards and hazardous substances; public services; and water resources when added to impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The proposed action, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, will not result in cumulatively significant impacts that cannot be mitigated. With respect to socioeconomics, Alternative 1 would have a significant positive cumulative contribution to both the local and countywide economies through employment and tax revenues. Cumulative impacts on air quality are managed through the existing regulatory processes under the Clean Air Act, including monitoring, inspecting emission sources, developing state implementation plans and permit requirements, and establishing and implementing air pollutant emission inventories to comply with National Ambient Air Quality 12

13 Standards (NAAQS) and GHG reduction goals. Implementation of Alternative 1 would have a potential to result in cumulative effects on wetland and non-wetland waters and vegetation communities. There would also be significant cumulative impacts on the federally threatened California red-legged frog and the federally threatened California tiger salamander; however, these impacts would be mitigated to non-significant levels through conservation measures provided in the ESA Section 7 BO and the use of BMPs. Cumulative impacts on transportation were included in the analysis of the proposed action, and a significant increase is projected to occur primarily due to annual growth in population, addition of new roadways, and traffic over the build-out period. Measures to mitigate cumulative impacts on transportation include use of mitigation measures as identified for Alternative 1. Cumulative impacts on hazards and hazardous substances are anticipated due to an increase in the use of these substances, although the long build-out time for the proposed action and the requirement for compliance with applicable laws and regulations would minimize hazards and reduce impacts. Cumulative impacts on public services are anticipated and would result in an incremental increase to the amount of open space, parks, and recreation land available in the City of Concord, northern Contra Costa County, and the EBRPD, with a cumulatively significant beneficial impact on the total area of the City of Concord s open space and parks. Cumulative effects on water resources have a potential to occur under Alternative 1; impacts on surface waters, water quality, wetlands, groundwater, and floodplains will be minimized by the implementation of protective measures within the Area Plan and the implementation of mitigation, as would be required through adherence to the USACE- and EPA-issued regulations governing compensatory mitigation. Agency Consultation and Coordination The results of agency consultation and coordination are summarized below. EPA Region 9: EPA Region 9 provided comments on the Draft EIS during the public comment period. The EPA primarily recommended revisions to the EIS regarding wetland avoidance and minimization, clarification of the regulatory review process with respect to wetlands, the status of cleanup actions at the ER Program sites, and air quality impacts/mitigation. The Navy addressed the comments on the Draft EIS and revised the Final EIS to the satisfaction of EPA. USACE, EPA, and RWQCB: The USACE served as a cooperating agency with the Navy for the preparation of the EIS because the USACE is the lead federal agency for the review of the proposed redevelopment under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). On November 6, 2012, the City of Concord applied for a sitewide Section 404 Individual Permit from USACE in order to comply with CWA requirements for unavoidable impacts on wetlands and Waters of the U.S. The City provided supplemental information to the USACE on December 10, The USACE issued a Public Notice for this project on June 14, 2016, and at this time, the permit is still under review by the USACE. If the City is able to secure a sitewide permit from the USACE that is certified by the RWQCB, the Section 404 Individual Permit would include conditions to adequately avoid, minimize, or mitigate for any adverse impacts on Waters of the U.S. If the City does not secure a sitewide permit, future property owners or developers would be responsible for identifying the need for and securing any necessary permits to fill in Waters of the U.S. Permanent impacts on surface waters and wetlands 13

14 resulting from filling will be mitigated through adherence to the USACE- and EPA-issued regulations governing compensatory mitigation for authorized impacts on streams and wetlands. In addition, the City or future property owners or developers will have to comply with any future conditions set forth by the California RWQCB in the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the Area Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS): On November 6, 2012, the City of Concord applied to the USACE for a sitewide Section 404 Individual Permit in order to comply with CWA requirements for unavoidable impacts on wetlands and Waters of the U.S. from implementation of the Area Plan. The City provided supplemental information to the USACE on December 10, 2015, which included a Biological Assessment (BA) to comply with requirements of Section 7 of the ESA for impacts on threatened and endangered species and their habitats. Accordingly, the USACE initiated consultation with the USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA on June 12, 2013, to support permit issuance and review, and the Navy joined this consultation on October 2, The USACE informally consulted with the NMFS regarding the issuance of a Section 404 permit for the Area Plan, and the NMFS concurred that the proposed action would have no effect on the Central California coast steelhead and its designated critical habitat because steelhead are not located in Mount Diablo Creek, and Mount Diablo Creek is not designated as critical habitat. On May 30, 2017, the Section 7 ESA consultation concluded with the USFWS issuance of a Biological Opinion (BO) and Incidental Take Statement (ITS) providing guidelines for minimizing impacts on federally listed species during implementation of the Area Plan. During the consultation process with the USFWS, a number of conservation measures were identified as part of the proposed action to minimize the potential effects of the proposed action on federally listed species and their habitat. In addition, the ITS includes terms and conditions that are designed to ensure that the conservation measures are fully implemented and the extent of incidental take is monitored and reported to the USFWS on a timely basis. California SHPO, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), federally recognized Native American Indian Tribes, and other consulting parties: The proposed action required consideration under Section 106 of the NHPA and implementing regulations for Section 106 at 36 CFR Part 800. The Navy consulted with the California SHPO, federally recognized Native American Indian tribes, and other consulting parties to identify cultural resources within the APE for the proposed action, evaluate identified cultural resources for NRHP eligibility, assess the effects of the proposed action on historic properties, and resolve any adverse effects on historic properties. The Navy conducted a 2008 Phase I archaeological survey of the APE and completed a Phase II archaeological evaluation in In the Phase II evaluation, the Navy evaluated 21 archaeological resources and identified two prehistoric archaeological sites (sites CA-CCO- 680 and P ) as eligible for listing in the NRHP. 14

15 The Navy consulted with the California SHPO and 11 other consulting parties on the results of the Phase II archaeological evaluation. The 11 consulting parties were: the City of Concord, the EBRPD, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, the California Valley Miwok Tribe, the Ione Band of Miwok Indians, the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, the Trina Marine Ruano Family, the Concord Historical Society, Save Mount Diablo, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the Contra Costa Water District. On January 23, 2014, the California SHPO concurred with the Navy s determination that archaeological sites CA-CCO- 680 and P are NRHP-eligible and that the other 19 archaeological resources identified during the Phase I survey are not eligible for listing in the NRHP. The Concord Historical Society and the EBRPD concurred with the NRHP-eligibility conclusions. None of the other consulting parties had comments on the NRHP-eligibility conclusions for the 21 archaeological resources. In 2013, the Navy updated the results of previously conducted historic building inventories and evaluations for architectural or built resources in the APE at former NWS Concord. The 2013 Historic Building Inventory and Evaluation Update Report evaluated a total of 422 architectural or built resources in the APE for the proposed undertaking. Results of the 2013 report confirmed that none of the 422 building or structures appeared eligible for listing in the NRHP. On January 30, 2013, the Navy consulted with the California SHPO and other consulting parties regarding the results of the 2013 Historic Building Inventory and Evaluation Update Report. On February 14, 2013, the California SHPO concurred with the Navy s determination that none of the 422 architectural or built resources in the APE are eligible for listing in the NRHP. The Concord Historical Society, the City of Concord, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation also concurred with the conclusions. None of the other consulting parties had comments on the NRHP-eligibility conclusions for the 422 architectural or built resources. In compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, the Navy consulted with the California SHPO and other consulting parties, including federally recognized Native American Indian tribes and proposed property recipients, on the effects of the disposal and reuse of the former NWS Concord on historic properties and determined that this undertaking would have an adverse effect on historic properties. As a result of continued consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA, the Navy developed a MOA between the Navy, the California SHPO, the City of Concord, and EBRPD stipulating measures to resolve the adverse effects of implementing the disposal and reuse of the former NWS Concord on prehistoric archaeological sites CA-CCO- 680 and P The MOA was executed on April 10, 2017 and stipulates the measures to mitigate the adverse effects of the proposed action. As required by 36 CFR 800.6(b), the Navy submitted a copy of the executed MOA to the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation on April 28, With the execution of the MOA, the Navy has completed the Section 106 consultation process for the proposed action. With implementation of the above-stipulated measures to mitigate adverse effects in accordance with the terms of the executed MOA, the Section 106 compliance process for the proposed action is complete. 15