DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

for ESTABLISHMENT AND MANAGEMENT of

ALAMEDA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Appendix F of Comprehensive Conservation Plan

December 1998

Prepared by

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

911 NE 11th Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97232-4181

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Proposed Action

1.3 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action

1.4 Project Area

1.5 Decisions to be Made

1.6 Issue Identification

1.7 Alameda National Wildlife Refuge Public Involvement

1.8 Related Actions by Other Agencies

1.9 National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities

1.9.1 Purposes of the Proposed Alameda National Wildlife Refuge

1.9.2 Goals of the Proposed Alameda National Wildlife Refuge

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

2.1 Features Common to Alternatives

2.2 Alternative A. No Action

2.2.1 Wildlife and Habitat Management

2.2.2 Predator Management

2.2.3 Public Use Management

2.2.4 Nonrecreational Uses

2.2.5 Management of Former Military Structures

2.2.6 Costs

2.3 Alternative B. Establish NWR with a Minimum Level of Management

2.3.1 Wildlife and Habitat Management

2.3.2 Predator Management

2.3.3 Public Use Management

2.3.4 Nonrecreational Uses

2.3.5 Management of Former Military Structures

2.3.6 Costs

2.4 Alternative C. Establish NWR and Optimize Wildlife Management and Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses (Preferred Alternative)

2.4.1 Wildlife and Habitat Management

2.4.2 Predator Management

2.4.3 Public Use Management

2.4.4 Nonrecreational Uses

2.4.5 Management of Former Military Structures

2.4.6 Costs

2.5 Alternative D. Establish NWR and Maximize Public Use with Moderate Wildlife Management

2.5.1 Wildlife and Habitat Management

2.5.2 Predator Management

2.5.3 Public Use Management

2.5.4 Nonrecreational Uses

2.5.5 Management of Former Military Structures

2.5.6 Costs

2.6 Alternatives Considered but Not Studied in Detail

Chapter 3. Affected Environment

3.1 Physical Environment

3.2 Biological Environment

3.2.1 Vegetation

3.2.2 Wildlife

3.3 Contaminants

3.4 Social and Economic Environment

3.4.1 Local Population Base

3.4.2 History and Economy

3.4.3 Public Use Programs

3.5 Visual Resources

3.5.1 Regional Landscape Character

3.5.2 Landscape Character of Proposed Alameda National Wildlife Refuge

3.5.3 Views from the Proposed Refuge

3.5.4 Views of the Proposed Refuge

3.6 Cultural Resources

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences

4.1 Effects on Physical Environment

4.2 Effects on Biological Environment

4.2.1 Vegetation

4.2.2 Wildlife

4.2.2.1 California Least Tern

4.2.2.2 Other Endangered Species

4.2.2.3 Migratory Waterfowl and Other Waterbirds

4.2.2.4 Marine Mammals

4.2.2.5 Other Wildlife

4.3 Effects on Contaminants

4.4 Effects on Social and Economic Environment

4.4.1 Public Use

4.4.2 Economy

4.5 Effects on Visual Resources

4.6 Effects on Cultural Resources

4.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impact

4.8 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

4.9 Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity

4.10 Cumulative Impacts

Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination with Others

5.1 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

5.2 Environmental Review and Coordination

5.3 Other Federal Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders

5.3.1 Environmental Justice

5.3.2 Coastal Zone Management Act

5.3.3 Hazardous Materials

5.4 Distribution and Availability

Chapter 6. List of Planning Team Members

References

Figures

Figure 1. General Location Map

Figure 2. Specific Locality Map

Figure 3. Alternative B

Figure 4. Alternative C

Figure 5. Alternative D

Tables

Table 1. Summary of Alternatives

Table 2. Summary of Environmental Consequences

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

PROPOSED ALAMEDA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Alameda and San Francisco Counties, California

Chapter 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 Introduction

This draft environmental assessment evaluates the alternatives and environmental effects of establishing an approved Alameda National Wildlife Refuge boundary and implementing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan. This assessment will be used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to encourage public involvement in the Refuge planning process and to determine whether the proposed establishment of the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge and implementation of a management plan would have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This environmental assessment is part of the Service's decision-making process in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

1.2 Proposed Action

The Service proposes to establish an approved boundary for the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and to implement a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for management of the proposed Refuge. Land acquired by the Service would be managed as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

1.3 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action

The proposed Alameda National Wildlife Refuge would be acquired from the Navy for its "particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program" (16 U.S.C. 667b). The purpose of the Refuge is to protect and enhance migratory birds and other wildlife, particularly threatened and endangered species; and to provide opportunities for environmental education.

A plan is needed to guide management of the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge. In addition, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires that Comprehensive Conservation Plans be in place for all refuges within 15 years of its enactment.

1.4 Project Area

The proposed Refuge is located at the western end of Alameda Island along the eastern side of San Francisco Bay, adjacent to the City of Oakland (Figure 1). The majority of the site lies within the City of Alameda in Alameda County, except for the southwest corner of the land and water area, which lies in the City and County of San Francisco (Figure 2). The Refuge is bordered to the west and south by San Francisco Bay, and to the east by airfield hangars and other properties of the former Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda. The U.S. Navy and the City of Alameda currently are preparing a joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report regarding the Navy property disposal and subsequent community reuse of the former NAS Alameda property adjoining the proposed Refuge area. To the north lies the "Northwest Territories," a portion of the former east-west runway, and relatively undeveloped grasslands. The NAS Alameda Reuse Plan calls for development of a links-style golf course, soccer fields, and light-industrial/business park in the Northwest Territories (U.S. Navy 1997a).

The proposed Refuge consists of approximately 565 acres of land and 413 acres of open water. Approximately 534 acres of land and 405 acres of water are located in Alameda County, and 31 acres of land and 8 acres of water are located in San Francisco County. Land areas include two tidal wetlands, along with the former NAS Alameda airfield. The topography of the site is basically flat, reflecting its history as filled baylands, and the elevation is essentially at sea level. The open water area includes the approach to the former seaplane lagoon and a breakwater.

1.5 Decisions To Be Made

Based on the analysis documented in this environmental assessment, the following decisions will be made by the California/Nevada Operations Manager in Sacramento, California:

Determine whether or not the Service should establish the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge. If so, Determine the type and extent of management and public access on the proposed Refuge and whether the selected management alternative would have a significant impact upon the quality of the human environment.

1.6 Issue Identification

Issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified through early planning discussions and through the public scoping process, which began with a public meeting in August 1997. Comments were received orally from meeting attendees and in writing. The following issues, concerns, and opportunities are a compilation of information received by the Service throughout the planning process: habitat and wildlife management, predator management, public use opportunities, contaminant cleanup, nonwildlife-related uses, and funding and staffing needed to

FIGURE 1







FIGURE 2

manage the Refuge. A detailed discussion of these issues is in Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

A core multidisciplinary planning team helped to define the issues. Service employees from the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, field offices, and the Regional office were on the team, as well as U.S. Department of Agriculture personnel.

1.7 Alameda National Wildlife Refuge Public Involvement

Three Planning Updates for the proposed Alameda NWR were sent to a mailing list of approximately 1,150 individuals, groups, and agencies in July 1997, November 1997, and June 1998. A public workshop was held in August 1997, and an additional workshop is planned for January 1999.

Over the past year, the Service has briefed the U.S. Navy, members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Base Reuse Advisory Group, and community and environmental groups on the proposed Refuge.

Public input received in response to these updates, workshops, and briefings is incorporated into the CCP and EA, and a summary of comments is included in Chapter 2 of the CCP. The original comments are being maintained in Refuge files and are available for reading upon request.

1.8 Related Actions by Other Agencies

Other agencies are planning new projects beyond the boundaries of the proposed national wildlife refuge. The East Bay Regional Park District will develop the northern sector of the Perimeter Trail. In addition, the District is exploring the potential for self-sustaining (i.e., revenue-generating) projects such as management of a nearby beach and development of the existing Recreation Center through an arrangement with a concessionaire. Other potential developments include a park at the northwest tip of Alameda Point.

Although no final decisions have been made regarding the Navy property disposal and subsequent community reuse of the former NAS Alameda, the City of Alameda has proposed a marina and associated businesses in and around the former Seaplane Berthing Lagoon (ARRA 1996). This would result in the need for year-round boat access traversing the Refuge in an east-west direction between the southern shore of the Refuge and Breakwater Island. Other City plans adjacent to the Refuge on the northern boundary include maritime-related light industry, a links-style golf course, a golf clubhouse, and a conference center with lodging facility. North and east of the Refuge, plans call for a sports complex with six soccer fields. An urban area on the eastern boundary of the proposed Refuge has been proposed as the site of business and research and development facilities, as well as a university campus, a museum, a library, a recreation center, a new ferry terminal, and other civic facilities.

The historic aircraft carrier, U.S.S. Hornet, is berthed at the pier southeast of the Seaplane Lagoon and accomodates daily tour boat service from San Francisco through the proposed Refuge. The Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration leases pier space in this same area for 11 ships available to the Department of Defense in times of war or national emergency.

1.9 National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to conserve, protect, and enhance the Nation's fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for migratory birds, endangered plants and animals, certain marine mammals, and anadromous fish. This responsibility to conserve our Nation's fish and wildlife resources is shared with other Federal agencies and State and Tribal governments.

As part of this responsibility, the Service manages the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). The NWRS is the only nationwide system of Federal land managed and protected for wildlife and their habitats. The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (16 USC 668dd et. seq.).

The Alameda National Wildlife Refuge would be managed as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, Executive Order 12996 (Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System), and other relevant legislation, Executive orders, regulations, and policies. Chapter 2 of the CCP summarizes these major laws, regulations, and policies and also describes the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

1.9.1 Purposes of the Proposed Alameda National Wildlife Refuge

A refuge purpose may be specified in or derived from Federal law, proclamation, Executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum. In addition to providing a basis for making compatibility determinations, a refuge's purpose also serves as a vision or broad mission statement for refuge management and the public.

The purpose of the Alameda NWR is to protect and enhance migratory birds and other wildlife, particularly threatened and endangered species; and to provide opportunities for environmental education.

The Refuge would also serve purposes encompassed by the following legislation: Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918; the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended by the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978; and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1977.

1.9.2 Goals of the Proposed Alameda National Wildlife Refuge

The following goals of the proposed Alameda Refuge reflect the core mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect wildlife resources of national importance while providing compatible opportunities for the public to appreciate and enjoy the natural heritage of the region.

Goal 1. Preserve, restore, and enhance endangered and threatened species, including the California least tern.

Goal 2. Preserve, maintain, and enhance habitat for migratory birds, and protect important foraging, nesting, and roosting habitats from disturbance.

Goal 3. Protect important haul-out, roosting, nesting, and foraging habitat on Breakwater Island and other shoreline habitats.

Goal 4. Restore and preserve biological communities in vegetated habitats of the Alameda NWR.

Goal 5. Provide an opportunity for environmental education, wildlife-dependent

recreation, and other compatible and safe public use.

Chapter 2. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Chapter 2 describes four alternatives for the establishment and management of Alameda National Wildlife Refuge: Alternative A, No Action; Alternative B, Establish National Wildlife Refuge with Minimum Level of Management by the Service; Alternative C, Establish National Wildlife Refuge and Optimize Wildlife Management and Public Use; and Alternative D, Establish National Wildlife Refuge and Maximize Public Use with Moderate Wildlife Management. The alternatives are summarized in Table 1.

Most proposed management activities and projects described below (including expansion of the tern colony, predator management, removal of predator perches, vegetation control, boundary fencing, management of open water areas, and the public use program) will be described and analyzed in sufficient detail in this EA to satisfy National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. The CCP does not contain site plans and exact locations for certain projects, such as tidal wetland enhancement, upland habitat restoration involving soil movement, and any trail reconstruction. Therefore, additional NEPA compliance and public review may be required once site-specific plans are completed, depending on the nature of the activity. Some of these site-specific plans cannot be completed until the Navy finalizes and implements remedial alternatives to clean up contaminated areas around the wetland areas, and East Bay Regional Parks completes planning for the Perimeter Trail. For purposes of NEPA, predator management at the proposed Alameda NWR is tiered to the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Predator Management Plan and Final Environmental Assessment (USFWS SFBNWR 1991).

Certain management activities described in the CCP may qualify as "categorical exclusions," provided they meet certain conditions that include not adversely affecting a listed or proposed threatened or endangered species. This means they would not require review in an environmental assessment or impact statement because they are actions which typically do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. The following activities are potential categorical exclusions: environmental education and interpretation (not involving construction); research, inventory, and information collection activities; operation, maintenance, and management of existing facilities, and routine recurring management activities and improvements; construction of new small structures or improvements such as installation of fences, construction of small water control structures, berms and dikes, planting of vegetation, and development of limited access for routine maintenance and management purposes; reintroduction of native, formerly native, or established species; minor changes in amounts or types of public use; issuance of new or revised management plans when only minor changes are planned; and activities directly related to enforcement of fish and wildlife laws.

2.1 Features Common to Alternatives

Under any alternative, the Navy would be responsible for the clean up of contaminants. The Service would not implement a public hunting program on the proposed Refuge. Funding for the operation and maintenance of the Refuge would be subject to the availability of Congressional appropriations.

The U.S. Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration would require access to the open bay via the 500-foot access corridor through the Refuge. If wider access is ever needed, a special use permit would be considered. If the corridor needed to be dredged, the project proponent would apply to the Refuge for permission to dredge, and conditions to protect Refuge resources would be included in any special use permit authorizing the dredging. See Chapter 5 of the CCP, Goal 1, Objective D for limitations on dredging.

2.2 Alternative A: No Action

This alternative describes the level of management activity being conducted by the Navy since and immediately prior to base closure in April 1997 (see Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan). It is essentially the status quo, as it includes management actions that the Navy is continuing during the "caretaker" or transition phase between an operating naval air station and disposal of the property. Implementing this alternative is not considered viable because the 1993 Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission recommendations, approved by the President and accepted by Congress, require the Navy to cease military use of the former NAS Alameda. This alternative is required by NEPA and included for purposes of establishing baseline conditions for comparison. A national wildlife refuge would not be established under this alternative.

2.2.1 Wildlife and Habitat Management

The California least tern management program currently being conducted by the Navy would continue. Least tern management consists of the following activities: (1) regular monitoring of the nesting site since 1980; (2) protective fencing of the colony site; (3) site preparation; (4) limited vegetation control on taxiways and runways; and (5) predator control (U.S. Navy 1997a). This program, together with protection from human disturbance afforded by the access restrictions, has contributed greatly to the breeding success of the tern colony.

Under Navy management, the California least tern colony is monitored at least three to five days a week during the nesting season. Monitoring records include numbers of pairs, number and location of nests, hatching success, number of fledglings, and predation incidents/threats, which are summarized in annual reports. The intensive monitoring allows rapid response to predation problems (U.S. Navy 1997a).

An electric fence was constructed around the least tern colony in the early 1980s and replaced in 1990. The fence protects the colony from mammalian predators and prevents fledglings from wandering onto the airfield and being run over by aircraft or vehicles. The fence is a solar-powered, three-foot-high (height limited by Navy airfield safety restrictions), 13-strand aluminum wire electric fence. Wire mesh covers the bottom of fence and wraps around onto the ground surface outside the fence (Pomeroy 1994).

Site preparation consists of removing vegetation at the colony site by herbicide application (Roundup®) and hand-pulling, depositing gravel, and repairing the fence prior to the nesting season. On several occasions, the Navy also has added oyster shells, and placed cinder blocks and drain tiles to create visual disruptions and provide shade for chicks (Pomeroy 1994). Cinder blocks form a grid pattern to facilitate monitoring of tern nests.

While Navy documents do not specifically state a least tern breeding pair population goal, the current number of breeding pairs is 200 to 250. It is assumed that this number would remain stable or increase slightly until carrying capacity of the nesting site is reached.

Runway maintenance consists of applying herbicide to weedy vegetation that grows in the cracks of the tarmac. When the airfield was operational, vegetation was controlled over the entire airfield area, for the purpose of aircraft safety. While the airfield was active, blasts from the aircraft engines also diminished growth of weeds. During, and just prior to, the caretaker period, the area of vegetation control was reduced. Herbicide treatment of tarmac weeds only occurs within and immediately adjacent to the tern colony (Pomeroy, pers. com.).

2.2.2 Predator Management

The current predator management program would continue. Predator management is conducted by USDA Wildlife Services (formerly Animal Damage Control) prior to and during the tern nesting season. Feral cats are generally trapped and transported to a local animal control facility. Feral cats are occasionally shot if they are observed in the vicinity of the endangered California least tern nesting area and live-trapping efforts to remove them have been unsuccessful. Other target mammalian predators listed in the San Francisco Bay NWR Predator Management Plan (rats, raccoons, striped skunks, and opossum) are occasionally taken. Red fox, a target species, has not yet been found in the immediate area but would be taken if found in the vicinity of the tern colony.

Avian predators are managed on a case-by-case basis. Live-trapping and relocation is the preferred method. Some avian species and/or individuals will avoid live traps, so shooting becomes the only viable option (Steuber, pers. com.). Therefore, avian predators are also removed by shooting when their activities threaten to destroy the entire fledgling production for the nesting season (Pomeroy 1994).

Preventative methods to reduce predation by northern harriers are also taken by modifying the nesting attempts of some pairs. If there is only one nesting pair in the grassland areas west of the airfield, it is not considered a threat to the tern colony. If more than one nesting pair is found, the eggs of the additional nesting pair(s) are addled, or the young of the additional nesting pair(s) are relocated.

2.2.3 Public Use Management

Under the Navy's caretaker management, very little public use or recreation occurs. No public use facilities or programs would be developed under the no action alternative, and no public access would be allowed. Therefore, none of the six priority public uses identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 would occur (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation). Some environmental education and interpretation would be conducted off-site by volunteers from the Golden Gate Audubon Society. Interpretive brochures describing the sensitive nature of the migratory birds and marine mammals would be distributed in the community to encourage compliance with wildlife laws.

No official volunteer program would be developed. The Friends of Alameda Wildlife Refuge probably would create a program for off-site education (see above), but the Fish and Wildlife Service would not be involved except in an advisory capacity.

Under caretaker management, the Navy no longer restricts public access to open water portions of the proposed Refuge. Recreational use of the open water areas (including the high-use tern foraging areas) is not encouraged, discouraged, or regulated in any manner. Some anglers have been noted using the area, and fishing would be expected to continue. There are no signs or enforcement preventing people from landing on Breakwater Island. Boaters have been observed landing on Breakwater Island (Elsey, pers. com.) since base closure, and a large dog was observed there numerous times during April and May 1998, having swam across Breakwater Gap (Buffa, pers. obs.). The dog was subsequently captured and removed, but it is expected that similar disturbances would continue periodically under this alternative.

Law enforcement services would be minimal, provided by a contract protection firm.

2.2.4 Nonrecreational Uses

Some nonrecreational uses, such as use of the bunkers for storage, may be allowed at the Navy's discretion on a case-by-case basis.

2.2.5 Management of Former Military Structures

The Navy does not intend to take any further action to remove, restore, or alter any of the remaining structures within the proposed Refuge boundary.

2.2.6 Costs

There would be no cost to the Service under the no-action alternative.

2.3 Alternative B: Establish a National Wildlife Refuge with a Minimum Level of Management

Under this alternative, the Navy would transfer ownership of approximately 978 acres of land and water to the Service, and the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge would be established.

2.3.1 Wildlife and Habitat Management

The Refuge would continue wildlife protection and habitat management programs similar to those that occurred under the Navy's caretaker management following base closure (Alternative A). Activities include tern monitoring, colony site preparation, and herbicide control of weedy tarmac vegetation immediately adjacent to the tern colony. Some additional activities would be required because of the establishment of a national wildlife refuge. An 8-foot-high chain link fence would be constructed along the northern boundary. It would be topped by several strands of barbed wire angled outward to exclude predatory mammals and screened with slats for aesthetics and to provide security.

The management goal would be to maintain a stable least tern breeding population of 200 to 250 pairs, with slight increases possible until carrying capacity of the nesting site is reached.

No habitat restoration activities or wildlife monitoring programs would be initiated.

2.3.2 Predator Management

Same as Alternative A.

2.3.3 Public Use Management

Under Alternative B, minimal public use would be planned. The lower portion of the existing perimeter levee would be used for guided tours. Off-site environmental education would be conducted by Friends of Alameda Wildlife Refuge (FAWR) volunteers. No improvements to the existing trail or observation blinds would be constructed. Interpretive literature would be distributed in the community to encourage voluntary compliance with wildlife laws.

No wildlife-dependent recreation programs or activities would be developed. Breakwater Island would be closed to human access and signs would be placed on the Island indicating the closure (Figure 3). Boats would not be allowed within 600 feet of Breakwater Island, and a 600-foot wide open water buffer area around it would be closed to public access and marked with buoys.

FIGURE 3 ALTERNATIVE B

Recreational boating would be allowed outside the closed area. All high-use tern foraging areas, both within and outside the Refuge boundary, would be open to boating.

A Refuge Volunteer Program would be created, but it would be small and oriented to maintenance tasks rather than environmental education, interpretation, or other visitor services.

The Fish and Wildlife Service would provide law enforcement services. Refuge Complex police officers, based in Fremont, would conduct occasional patrols, and a minimum of two Refuge staff would be commissioned as collateral-duty peace officers. The Refuge would request assistance from the Alameda Police and Fire Departments to provide law enforcement and emergency support.

2.3.4 Nonrecreational Uses

No nonrecreational public uses would be allowed.

2.3.5 Management of Former Military Structures

No action would be taken to evaluate the removal, restoration, or future use of buildings and structures within the proposed Refuge boundary, and they would remain in their current state.

2.3.6 Costs

Funding needed for any wildlife refuge would include both initial capital costs for equipment, facilities, structures, and other one-time expenditures, as well as annual costs for staff, contracts, supplies, and other recurring expenditures. Under Alternative B, the initial capital costs and annual costs to the Service would be approximately $393,000 and $227,650, respectively.

2.4 Alternative C: Establish a National Wildlife Refuge and Optimize Wildlife Management and Wildlife-dependent Public Use (Preferred Alternative)

The Navy would transfer ownership of approximately 978 acres of land and water to the Service, and the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge would be established.

2.4.1 Wildlife and Habitat Management

Least tern nesting pairs and reproductive success would be monitored according to statewide protocols. Site preparations, consisting of fence repair, vegetation removal, and substrate enhancement would be conducted prior to tern arrival each year at the existing 4-acre nest site, and any additional sites created. Additional least tern nesting habitat would be created. The existing California least tern nesting habitat would be enlarged from the current 4 acres to 6 to 8 acres by depositing suitable nesting substrate (gravel, oyster shell, cinder blocks, and drain tiles) on one side of the existing site. The shape of the site would be changed from a triangle to a rectangle or oval to eliminate the existing confining triangle corners. A new 3- to 4-acre site would be created by depositing suitable substrate on the airfield. The new colony would be located in an area that would minimize potential predation, avoid developed areas, and maintain integrity of existing tern habitat. Several options for locating the additional site are shown on Figure 8 of the CCP. This additional habitat could accommodate approximately 300 additional nesting pairs (500 total pairs and 500 chicks produced annually is the management goal).

Most tarmac areas would be maintained free of vegetation. The herbicide Roundup® would be applied to vegetation growing in cracks and other areas of decomposing tarmac before the least terns arrived and after most rainfall stopped. Areas to be treated are indicated on Figure 8 of the CCP. A core area (approximately 142 acres), consisting of the least tern colony site and adjacent high use roosting/fledgling areas would be treated annually. Tarmac outside of the core area (approximately 97 acres) would be treated every 2 or 3 years, the exact frequency would be determined by the goals of providing unobstructed views for terns and eliminating cover for predators. The configuration of the areas to be treated will be refined based on monitoring and where additional tern nesting habitat is created. Vegetation between taxiways would be mowed to reduce predator cover.

The northern boundary would be fenced and posted with Refuge signs. The eastern boundary fence would be realigned to follow the actual Refuge boundary, raised from its current height of 4 to 6 feet to a uniform 8 feet, and have similar design features as the northern fence.

Native vegetation would be restored in wetlands and upland habitats dominated by exotic annuals, iceplant, and pampas grass by removing these exotic plants and replanting native species that do not attract predators. Vegetation control would primarily be done by herbicide application. Roundup® would be used for upland areas, and Rodeo® (an herbicide approved for aquatic use) would be used for wetland areas. Mechanical methods (hand-pulling, mowing) and biological control (if effective control organisms are developed) may also be used. Once the Navy finalizes and implements remedial alternatives to clean up contaminated areas around the wetland areas, additional site-specific wetland enhancement plans would be developed that may involve water level management and/or soil recontouring.

Grassland in the northwest corner of the proposed refuge would be expanded by up to 14 acres to attract avian predators away from the least tern colony.

Habitat for a minimum of 300 pairs of nesting Caspian terns would be maintained, and habitat would be enhanced to restore suitable nesting conditions for additional pairs (management goal is 1,000 nesting pairs). Monitoring of Caspian terns and baseline surveys of waterbirds would be initiated.

Open water areas within the Refuge would be closed to boating to protect tern foraging areas and wintering waterfowl, except for a 500-foot-wide marked channel for boat through-traffic only. Only a portion of the high-use tern foraging habitat (areas 4, 5, and 6 on Figure 4 of the CCP) is included within the proposed Refuge; foraging areas outside the Refuge boundary would continue to be open to fishing and boating. Breakwater Island would be closed to human access to protect roosting brown pelicans, harbor seal haul-out sites, and shorebird nesting, foraging, and roosting areas. Monitoring of wildlife use on Breakwater Island would be initiated. Bird nesting and roosting on the wooden pier south of the runway would be protected by the closure of open water and posting of a ground access route.

2.4.2 Predator Management

Predator management would continue essentially as it did under Navy management, except for the implementation of additional preventative measures to make habitat around the least tern colony less attractive to predators. More details are provided here on objectives, methods, protocols, and predators of concerned species so that the impacts of the predator management program can be analyzed and disclosed, in compliance with NEPA, in subsequent sections of this EA. Activities described below would occur on Refuge property, or on adjacent properties in cooperation with the appropriate landowner.

The objective of the predator management program at Alameda NWR and on adjacent lands would be to protect endangered and threatened species, primarily the California least tern breeding colony and nesting western snowy plovers, from predation. Predation at Alameda and other breeding sites has caused high mortality levels for both species, and extirpated the Oakland Airport least tern colony. Management of predator populations is essential to recovery and survival of these endangered and threatened species.

Control methods would use a combination of humane preventative, nonlethal, and lethal measures. Preventative measures would include habitat modifications to make areas close to the tern colony unfriendly to predators, preseason and breeding season predator surveys, and monitoring of the breeding colony. Nonlethal methods for mammals would be primarily box-type traps and soft-catch padded leghold traps. Nonlethal methods for avian predators would include hazing, egg addling, Bal-chatri traps, pole traps, Dho gazo nets, bow nets, and lures (the use of lures is a specialized method for trapping peregrine falcons). Lethal methods would include euthanasia, snares, body-grip traps, and shooting. Sometimes nonlethal and lethal methods would be combined; for example, some animals would be euthanized following capture in nonlethal traps, while other animals would be released, relocated, or taken to an animal shelter, depending on the species and its threat to the tern colony. While general methods and protocols are outlined here, decisions on method and disposition of any captured animals would often be made on-site on a case-by-case basis, jointly by USDA Wildlife Services and Refuge personnel. Other live-trapping methods may be used as they are developed. The San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Predator Management Plan and Final Environmental Assessment (USFWS SFBNWR 1991) provides a more detailed description of the methods.

Live-trapping would be the preferred option for capturing problem predators. Lethal controls would be used when live-trapping is determined to be ineffective, and would be conducted as humanely and selectively as possible (i.e., only problem predators would be removed). Every effort would be made to avoid and minimize collection of nontarget native wildlife. Nontarget wildlife would be released on-site to the maximum extent possible. All live-captured dogs and cats that are suspected pets would be taken to an approved animal shelter facility for adoption opportunities. All nonnative mammalian predators, and problem native mammals from the list below that are determined to be a threat, would be humanely euthanized. Live-trapped native mammalian predators that are determined not to be a threat would be released. All live-captured avian predators would be removed and held in a licensed and permitted rehabilitation/holding facility until they could be released back into the wild. Release would take place at a suitable off-site location or at the Refuge after the endangered species nesting season is completed.

Mammalian predators of concern include the following: feral cat*, feral dog*, red fox*, opossum*, Norway rat*, raccoon, striped skunk, gray fox, coyote, jackrabbit, California ground squirrel, and long-tailed weasel (* denotes nonnative or naturalized species).

Avian predators of concern include the following: kestrel, northern harrier, red-tailed hawk, peregrine falcon, barn owl, burrowing owl, common raven, American crow, loggerhead shrike, and gulls (several species).

Procedures for intervention with predator species would be dependent upon several factors:

(1) type of predator, (2) degree of threat to endangered species population, (3) condition/breeding stage of the least tern colony or snowy plover population, (4) degree of sensitivity of the predator species, (5) native or nonnative status of the predator, (6) resident or migratory status of the predator, and 7) individual considerations (for example, if the problem animal has previously been trapped, it may be trap-shy). The general protocol would be to remove all nonnative predators. Native mammalian predators would be removed if they are found in the immediate vicinity of the colony, or determined to otherwise pose a threat to endangered or threatened species. Avian predators would be removed if they are suspected of preying on individuals or eggs of endangered or threatened species, or if they pose an immediate threat to the nesting colony.

Only licensed and authorized agencies or individuals would implement predator management actions, and they would be under direction of the refuge manager. Most trapping would be conducted by USDA Wildlife Services, although Refuge personnel and their contractors may assist with capture efforts. Shooting would only be conducted by government personnel trained and certified in firearm safety. It would be done only when people are not in the area, thereby avoiding any human safety hazard. Any predator management involving peregrine falcons would follow established protocols developed by the Service and the Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group (PBRG). Trained and authorized PBRG personnel usually would conduct the trapping of peregrines.

2.4.3 Public Use Management

Under Alternative C, public use facilities would be developed, an environmental education and interpretation program would be created, wildlife-dependent recreation would be promoted, and compatible nonwildlife-dependent recreation, along with some nonrecreational uses, would be allowed.

The majority of the Refuge would be closed to public use except for the Perimeter Trail (seasonally open), guided interpretive tours during tern nesting season, organized environmental educational activities, and the 500-foot wide boat corridor (Figure 4).

Four of the six priority public uses would be permitted. Environmental education, interpretation, and wildlife observation and photography would be allowed. Two of the priority public uses, hunting and fishing, would not be allowed. Hunting would be prohibited because of the extremely limited extent of waterfowl habitat, as well as the crowded nature of the public use area (i.e., the Perimeter Trail). Fishing would not be allowed. Several contaminated remediation sites occur immediately adjacent to the potential shoreline fishing areas and there is a potential for health hazards in eating fish from these areas. In addition, impacts from fishing could include litter ending up in offshore waters. Monofilament fishing lines and fish hooks are of particular concern, since they pose a threat to wildlife that become entangled in the lines. Fish-eating birds, such as the endangered California least tern, may also ingest hooks and sinkers.

The lower portion of the perimeter levee would be improved in cooperation with the East Bay Regional Park District; it would be used for education, interpretation, and recreation. The Perimeter Trail would be closed during the least tern nesting season (April 1 to August 15). One or more screened observation platforms would be constructed on the upper levee of the Perimeter Trail. A Refuge employee would develop and oversee these programs with the assistance and guidance of the public use staff at Refuge Complex headquarters in Fremont. No activities along the Perimeter Trail near the West Wetland would be allowed until Navy cleanup activities on the adjacent landfill have progressed to a stage that visitor safety can be assured.

A temporary, removable fence along the runway portion of the Perimeter Trail, between the Trail and the Runway Wetland, would encourage hikers to stay on the trail. During nesting season, when the fence would provide perching sites for raptors, the fence would be removed following seasonal closure of the Trail.

A Wildlife Observation Center would be created, if a building or part of a building becomes available off-site. This Center would include a visitor reception desk staffed by a Refuge volunteer; an area suitable for audiovisual programs, including closed-circuit television coverage of the tern nesting area; exhibits describing Refuge resources; and restrooms. Another option would be a visitor center developed north of the West Wetland. The visitor center could range in size from a covered kiosk with chemical toilets to a new building with water and power.

FIGURE 4 ALTERNATIVE C

Unforeseeable fiscal resources and constraints would determine the size and character of the visitor center.

The Environmental Education Program would be teacher-led. Backpacks full of equipment would be issued to groups of students supervised by adult volunteers from the visiting school. Teachers and parents would attend workshops at the Refuge in advance of the field trip. Activities would be conducted in areas where they would not disturb wildlife.

Refuge volunteers would conduct interpretive activities for families on weekends. These would consist of tours along the Perimeter Trail, visits to the California least tern nesting area in an enclosed bus or van, and slide shows or informal lectures in the Wildlife Observation Center.

Off-site interpretation and environmental education would be conducted by staff and by Refuge volunteers, and interpretive literature would be distributed in the community.

Wildlife-dependent recreation would consist of wildlife observation and wildlife-oriented artistic pursuits. Shoreline fishing would not be allowed on the Refuge. Boat-access fishing would not be allowed, although boaters will be able to fish in nearby areas outside the Refuge. Wildlife photography may be possible at a former watchtower overlooking a small ponded area north of the landfill. This site would be considered for use under a special use permit system in order to control access. The site can be reached from the north and access would not disturb wildlife in the three main wildlife concentration areas: least tern colony, West Wetland, and Runway Wetland.

Limited nonwildlife-dependent recreation would be allowed. Boat access to the proposed marina in the old Seaplane Berthing Lagoon would be allowed, but would be confined to a 500-foot wide corridor within the navigational channel marked with buoys (Figure 4). Speed would be limited to 5 miles per hour. Bicycling, jogging, and aerobic walking would be allowed on the Perimeter Trail, as long as such use remained compatible with the purposes of the proposed Refuge. Other nonwildlife-dependent recreation, such as dog walking, would not be allowed.

As in Alternative B, the Fish and Wildlife Service would provide law enforcement services. Refuge Complex police officers would conduct occasional patrols, and two to three Refuge staff members would be commissioned as collateral-duty peace officers.

2.4.4 Nonrecreational Uses

Nonrecreational uses of the Refuge, such as the use of bunkers for storage, would be considered, provided that such proposed uses require limited access; are nondisturbing to the wildlife; avoid important wildlife use areas shown on Figure 6 in the CCP; are flexible in accommodating access restrictions or closures to protect wildlife; involve only nonflammable, noncorrosive or nonhazardous materials; and are otherwise compatible with the purposes of the proposed Refuge.

2.4.5 Management of Former Military Structures

Once the Refuge assumes management responsibility of the property, all buildings and structures will be inspected and evaluated, on a case-by-case basis, to determine their fate. Criteria used in this assessment will include potential use, historical status, physical condition, safety hazards, aesthetics, predator perching opportunities, and other wildlife management considerations. Appropriate action will be taken as a result of this process and may include removal, restoration, or no action

2.4.6 Costs

The initial capital costs and annual costs to the Service would be approximately $848,000 and $299,400, respectively.

2.5 Alternative D: Establish a National Wildlife Refuge and Maximize Public Use with Moderate Wildlife Management

The Navy would transfer ownership of approximately 978 acres of land and water to the Service, and the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge would be established. The main difference between this alternative and Alternative C is that more open water areas would be open to public use, additional nonwildlife-dependent recreational activities would be allowed, and fewer wildlife habitat enhancement projects would be implemented.

2.5.1 Wildlife and Habitat Management

Habitat for least terns and other wildlife species would be enhanced, and new monitoring programs would be initiated, but at somewhat lower levels than under Alternative C.

Actions to protect, manage, and monitor California least terns would be the same as described under Alternative C, except that less additional habitat would be created. The existing colony site would be expanded by approximately 2 to 4 acres to accommodate approximately 100 to 150 additional nesting pairs (total 350 pairs) and produce approximately 350 chicks annually. An additional nesting colony would not be created. Pre-nesting season preparation of the least tern colony site and monitoring activities would be as described under Alternative C.

Most tarmac areas would be maintained free of vegetation. The herbicide Roundup® would be applied to vegetation growing in cracks and other areas of decomposing tarmac before the least terns arrived and after most rainfall stopped. Areas to be treated are indicated on Figure 8 of the CCP. A core area (approximately 142 acres), consisting of the least tern colony site and adjacent high use roosting/fledgling areas would be treated annually. Tarmac outside of the core area (approximately 97 acres) would be treated every 2 or 3 years, the exact frequency determined by the need to provide unobstructed views for terns and eliminate cover for predators. The configuration of the areas to be treated will be refined based on monitoring and where additional tern nesting habitat is created. Vegetation between taxiways would be mowed.

An 8-foot-high chain link fence would be constructed along the northern boundary. It would be screened with slats for aesthetics and to provide security. The eastern boundary fence would be realigned to follow the actual boundary, and raised from its current height of 4 to 6 feet to a uniform 8 feet.

Native vegetation would be restored in wetlands and upland habitats dominated by exotic annuals, iceplant, and pampas grass by removing these exotic plants and replanting native species that do not attract predators. Vegetation control would primarily be done by herbicide application: Roundup® would be used for upland areas, and Rodeo® (an herbicide approved for aquatic use) would be used for wetland areas. Mechanical methods (hand-pulling, mowing) and biological control (if effective control organisms are developed) may also be used.

Grassland in the northwest corner of the proposed refuge would be expanded by up to 14 acres to attract avian predators away from the least tern colony.

Habitat for a minimum of 300 pairs of nesting Caspian terns would be maintained by controlling encroaching exotic vegetation on the nesting site. Monitoring of Caspian terns and baseline surveys of waterbirds would be initiated.

Open water areas within 600 feet of Breakwater Island would be closed to boating to protect the brown pelican roosting site, the harbor seal haul-out, and other waterbird nesting/foraging sites. Breakwater Island would be closed to human access. Baseline surveys of wildlife use of Breakwater Island would be conducted. Birds nesting and roosting on the wooden pier south of the runway would be protected by the closure of open water and posting of ground access routes.

2.5.2 Predator Management

Same as Alternative C.

2.5.3 Public Use Management

Under this alternative, public use that is safe and compatible with the purposes of the proposed Refuge would be maximized. Four of the National Wildlife Refuge System's six priority public uses would be permitted. Environmental education, interpretation, and wildlife observation and photography would all be allowed. Two of the priority public uses, hunting and fishing, would not be allowed. Hunting would not be allowed because of the extremely limited extent of waterfowl habitat, as well as the crowded nature of the public use area (i.e. Perimeter Trail). Fishing would not be allowed for reasons stated under Alternative C. Public use facilities would be developed and staffed as described above under Alternative C. Public use programs would

also be established as described under Alternative C, as would the Refuge's law enforcement effort.

All of these recreational uses described under Alternative C would be allowed. Boat use would still be managed, although recreational boaters, would be allowed in more areas and would be prohibited only from the area within 600 feet of Breakwater Island (Figure 5). All high-use tern foraging areas, both within and outside the Refuge boundary, would be open to boating.

Carefully managed activities would be allowed along the Perimeter Trail and in other areas that are not important wildlife habitat areas (Figure 6 of the CCP). A temporary, removable fence along the runway portion of the Perimeter Trail, between the Trail and the Runway Wetland, would encourage hikers to stay on the trail. During nesting season, when the fence would provide perching sites for raptors, the fence would be removed following seasonal closure of the Trail. Dog walking would not be allowed.

2.5.4 Nonrecreational Uses

Nonrecreational uses of the Refuge would be considered as described under Alternative C.

All public use at the Refuge, regardless of alternative, must be compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge has been proposed.

2.5.5 Management of Former Military Structures

Once the Refuge assumes management responsibility of property, all buildings and structures will be inspected and evaluated to determine their fate. This determination will be made on a case by case basis. Criteria used in this assessment will include potential use, historical status, physical condition, safety hazards, aesthetics, predator perching opportunities, and other wildlife management considerations. Appropriate action will be taken as a result of this process and may include removal, restoration, or no action

2.5.6 Costs

The initial capital costs and annual costs to the Service would be approximately $819,700 and $351,400, respectively.

2.6 Alternatives Considered but Not Studied in Detail

During the initial planning stages for the Refuge, the Service considered a possible "restricted use airport" at the proposed Refuge. Some individuals were interested in using the existing airfield to allow planes to access the hangars adjacent to the proposed Refuge property, as well as for tourist flights and air shows. Airport operations were assumed to range up to a maximum of 30 flights per day, in addition to several air shows and fly-ins throughout the year. However,

FIGURE 5 ALTERNATIVE D

based on a review of State and Federal safety regulations, accident data, and bird strike hazard reports prepared for the Navy, the Service rejected this potential use of the Refuge for safety and liability reasons.

Management activities needed to achieve the purposes of the Refuge (protecting and increasing the avian populations using the site) conflict with airport safety needs. For example, Federal Aviation Administration regulations and advisories recommend that birds be controlled or removed from wetlands within 10,000 feet of runways used by turbine-powered aircraft, whereas two wetlands supporting large waterbird concentrations occur within 2,000 feet of the

main north-south runway (#13-31). Because of these and other safety considerations, the Service determined that the proposed airport operations at Runway #13-31 would not be allowed. The Service informed the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) that occasional use of the east-west runway (#7-25), which lies partially within the proposed Refuge boundaries, would be considered. However, the ARRA determined that this option would conflict with its development plans for the Northwest Territories. The ARRA agreed to consider very occasional use of the runway (one to two times annually) for planes to be displayed at the aviation museum. This level of activity would not require a separate planning alternative, but could be considered under a special use permit after the Refuge is established.

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

Chapter 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This chapter briefly outlines the physical, biological, social and economic environments that would most likely be affected by the alternatives. See Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for a more detailed description.

3.1 Physical Environment

The proposed Refuge is located at the western end of Alameda Island along the eastern side of San Francisco Bay, adjacent to the City of Oakland (Figures 1 and 2). The majority lies within the City and County of Alameda, except for the southwest corner of the land and water area, which lies in the City and County of San Francisco. The topography is basically flat, reflecting its history as filled baylands, and the elevation is essentially at sea level.

Chapter 3 of the CCP provides a detailed description of the physical environment and Figure 3 in the CCP shows the existing facilities.

3.2 Biological Environment

3.2.1 Vegetation

The land portion of the proposed Refuge comprises three main "habitat types": wetland, upland, and paved. These areas, as well as more detailed delineations and descriptions of vegetation types, are described in Chapter 3 of the CCP and are shown on Figure 5 in the CCP.

3.2.2 Wildlife

Nine species that are federally listed as endangered or threatened are either known to inhabit, or could potentially occur, on the proposed Refuge, based on their presence on similar areas in Alameda County. Species include winter-run chinook salmon, tidewater goby, California brown pelican, California clapper rail, western snowy plover, California least tern, American peregrine falcon, Steller sea lion, and salt marsh harvest mouse. The tern, pelican, plover, falcon, and salmon, discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, have been observed on the site. Suitable habitat currently does not exist within the proposed Refuge for the harvest mouse, clapper rail, or tidewater goby, and only a single Steller sea lion sighting has been reported near the former NAS Alameda. Figure 6 in the CCP shows the wildlife use areas of the proposed Refuge.

Lists of plant and animal species observed or predicted to occur on the proposed Refuge are in Appendix C of the CCP. These lists were adapted from various sources, including Navy documents, unpublished studies and surveys (e.g., least tern foraging and nesting studies, Breakwater Island and Gap Study), Christmas bird count data, and incidental observations during various wildlife studies on NAS Alameda (Feeney and Collins 1993).

Wetlands are used by nesting Canada geese, mallards, gadwall, killdeer, black-necked stilts, American avocets, California gulls, western gulls, Caspian terns, and Savannah sparrows. Mudflats, tidal/seasonal ponds, and vegetated areas within the Runway and West Wetlands provide feeding, resting, and roosting areas for shorebirds and waterfowl in the winter and during migration. Raptors and swallows forage in the marshes, and other landbirds (see Appendix C of the CCP) have also been observed using the wetland areas.

Uplands provide nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of landbirds and raptors, including northern harriers, white-tailed kites, red-tailed hawks, American kestrels, and burrowing owls. Uplands and portions of the wetland areas are important in providing a source of prey (e.g., ground squirrels, mice, voles and other rodents) that focuses the foraging activity of predators away from the California least tern colony (Collins, pers. com.).

Breakwater Island contains a nesting colony of western gulls and a haul-out site for harbor seals. It also is a roosting site for the California brown pelican, three cormorant species, at least six gull species, at least eight shorebird species, and at least two species of egrets and herons (Bailey 1994).

Open water areas of the proposed Refuge provide important foraging habitat for California least terns and feeding/resting areas for other waterbirds (Figure 4 of the CCP). Fish species observed during surveys conducted within open water areas of the former NAS Alameda are listed in Appendix C in the CCP.

3.3 Contaminants

Military operations at NAS Alameda resulted in the release of a number of contaminants to the environment over the years. The Navy began remedial investigations of contaminated sites in 1982. Although the majority of contaminated sites are located outside the boundaries of the proposed Refuge, the Installation Restoration Program has identified approximately six contaminated or potentially contaminated sites within or near the proposed Refuge boundary.

The sites within the proposed Refuge boundary include a 110-acre landfill northeast of the West Wetland (and nearshore areas adjacent to the landfill), the West Wetland, the Runway Wetland, and a portion of the storm sewer system. The sites outside the proposed Refuge boundary include a 12-acre landfill at the northwest corner of the former NAS Alameda (and nearshore areas adjacent to the landfill) and the Seaplane Lagoon. Contaminants present include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, various petroleum products, and chlorinated solvents.

Decisions on the selected cleanup methods for the landfills and nearshore areas are due in April 2000 and June 2000, respectively (U.S. Navy 1997c). The wetland areas and Seaplane Lagoon will be more fully characterized during aquatic ecological risk assessments, for which work plans are now being prepared. Contaminated sediments in the storm sewer system have been removed, and the lines have been cleaned and inspected (IT Corporation 1997).

Chapter 3 of the CCP provides a more detailed description of the contaminants.

3.4 Social and Economic Environment

3.4.1 Local Population Base

The City of Alameda has 72,500 residents (California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, 1998). The city has 19 public schools (California Department of Education, 1997a), 11 private schools (California Department of Education, 1997b), and one public community college. Alameda County has 1,408,100 residents (California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, 1998) and 328 public schools (California Department of Education, 1997a), 279 private schools (California Department of Education, 1997b), and 7 community colleges.

3.4.2 History and Economy

Alameda was settled as early as 3,500 years ago by Ohlones, whose economy was based on acorns and shellfish. At that time a "bayside oak grove," Alameda was a peninsula that apparently provided a good living to its occupants, based upon evidence in Alameda's many shell mounds (which were later removed - shells, tools, human bones and all - for paving material on Bay Farm Island). In 1772 the first Europeans, led by Lt. Pedro Fages and Father Juan Crespi, traveled through the area seeking a route from Monterey to Point Reyes, and camped in numerous sites throughout Alameda County. Following colonization by Spain, the Ohlones, along with the coastal Miwoks, were decimated by European diseases and settler hostility (Merlin 1978).

Spain, and later Mexico, awarded large grants of land to encourage settlement in Alta California. In 1820 Luis Peralta received 350 square miles of east bay land that included the present cities of Alameda, Berkeley, Albany, and Oakland. He later divided it between his children, and Antonio Maria Peralta received Alameda peninsula (Ibid.).

The Gold Rush began, California achieved statehood, and the population of Alameda began to grow. In 1851, Peralta sold 587 acres of his holdings to W.W. Chipman, who intended to cut the forest of coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) and sell the wood. That portion of Alameda is adjacent to the area that would become Alameda Naval Air Station. Western Alameda was further divided and sold, or at least relinquished, to the growing population of settlers and squatters.

Alameda County, with a total population of 3,000 (McCormack 1998), was formed from portions of Contra Costa and Santa Clara Counties in 1853 (Country Club of Washington Township, 1965). The economy was based primarily on agriculture, oyster harvesting, shipping, and ship building (Merlin 1978).

Alameda peninsula, together with Bay Farm Island, was organized in 1855 as Alameda Township. It included three small enclaves: the Town of Alameda east of what is now Versailles Avenue, Encinal (also known as Hibbard's Wharf) on the central peninsula, and Woodstock at the west end of the peninsula. Woodstock, known for large flocks of waterfowl in its northern marshes, was the home of Robert Louis Stevenson, who moored a yacht in the estuary.

Ferry service was begun between Woodstock and San Francisco in 1864, and the Transcontinental Railroad terminated in Woodstock for several months in 1869. Webster Street Bridge was built in 1871. This was followed by a Bay Farm Island Bridge in 1874 and the Park Street Bridge in 1892 (Merlin 1978).

In 1872, the Town of Alameda, Encinal, Woodstock and Bay Farm Island were all incorporated as the City of Alameda, with a population of 6,000. Two years later the Federal government granted funds for improving the estuary, and by 1902 the present channel had been cut, creating Alameda Island. The dredgings from this project were poured onto the Woodstock marsh, creating the upland area north of Atlantic Avenue. Meanwhile, two more bridges, Fruitvale and High Street, were completed in 1901 (Ibid.).

The economy of Alameda Island had changed by this time. The first of several oil refineries was built on Alameda Point (formerly Woodstock) in 1880. Fishing was also big business; Alaska Packers based its large fleet of square riggers at Alameda. One of these ships, the Star of Alaska, was later restored and docked in San Francisco as the Balclutha. Ship building, both sailing ships and steamers, was a very important industry in Alameda through World War I (Ibid.).

Automobile traffic to and from the Island appeared in the early 1900s and increased thereafter. The Posey Tube replaced the Webster Street Bridge in 1928, and was joined by a second tube in 1963 (Ibid.).

The United States military arrived on Alameda in 1936, when the western portion of the island was turned over to the Navy for use as an air station. In 1940, Alameda Naval Air Station was commissioned. Much of the new base was built on new dredgings which extended Alameda Point westward several miles (Ibid.). The base remained active until 1997.

During the time it was an active military base, the airfield area was used daily by a variety of military activities including landings and take-offs by jets, propeller aircraft, and helicopters (including touch-and-gos); maintenance activities on taxiways, runways, building areas, and perimeter road; and security patrols. Human activity on the airfield mostly occurred within aircraft or vehicles; there was some, but not much, foot traffic. This activity took place year round, including during the tern nesting season. Human activity of the airfield gradually decreased after the decision to close the base in 1993, and personnel were reassigned to other locations. During caretaker status (April 1997 to present), the airfield area has been closed to general public use. Human activity has mainly consisted of security patrols, biological monitoring, predator management, and permitted special use activities. Most human activity has occurred from vehicles, although some unauthorized aircraft landings have occurred.

Presently, the City of Alameda is in transition, undergoing a dramatic change in its economy. "The Navy town gone high-tech" (Carr 1998) numbers 72,500 residents (California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit 1998) and the economy is becoming largely computer related (City of Alameda 1998).

Alameda County's economy has also changed from agricultural to information-based and industrial. In 1997, there were 642,400 nonfarm wage and salary jobs in the County, along with 91,300 manufacturing jobs (Levy et al. 1997). Personal income averages $29,083; household income averages $81,523 (Association of Bay Area Governments 1997). Taxable sales in 1997 reached $18.26 billion for the County (Ibid.).

3.4.3 Public Use Programs

The City of Alameda operates several parks and a municipal golf course within its boundaries. In addition, the East Bay Regional Parks District operates the Crab Cove Visitor Center within the Robert Crown Memorial Beach and Shoreline Park.

Little public use now occurs in the area of the proposed Refuge except for boating within the open water sections. Although the waters are still noted as closed on nautical charts, the restriction has not been patrolled or enforced since base closure. The general public has no access to the lands within the proposed Refuge boundary, there are no public use facilities, and, except for occasional visits by Friends of Alameda Wildlife Refuge with docent candidates, no educational, interpretive, or recreational activities are allowed. No Service volunteer program has been established. However, Golden Gate Audubon Society has conducted a docent training program and classroom environmental education activities in Alameda grade schools. Areas of the former base not within the Refuge boundary are leased for a variety of economic and recreational uses.

Located mainly within the city limits of Alameda, most of the former naval base falls within the jurisdiction of the Alameda Police Department. Concurrent jurisdiction has been established to provide a legal basis for law enforcement.

3.5 Visual Resources

This section describes the appearance of the landscape and how the landscape is perceived by the public. The landscape is composed of natural and constructed features.

3.5.1 Regional Landscape Character

The proposed Alameda NWR is located at the southwestern tip of the island of Alameda on the eastern shore of the San Francisco Bay (bay). It is bordered to the north and east by the remainder of the closed Alameda Naval Air Station, proposed for conversion to civilian land uses. Beyond the Naval Air Station is the Oakland Inner Harbor (inner harbor) and City of Oakland to the north and the City of Alameda to the east. To the west and south of the proposed refuge lies open waters of San Francisco Bay.

The regional landscape character surrounding the proposed refuge is mixed. East of the proposed refuge, the area has an industrial character, dominated by warehouses and other large buildings. Immediately to the north is an extension of the tarmac and runway and beyond that, the industrial-looking Oakland Inner Harbor. San Francisco, about three miles to the west across the bay, provides a dense urban landscape character with its high-rise skyline in the background and, in the far background, San Bruno Mountain and Twin Peaks. The Oakland Bay Bridge (Bay Bridge) and Yerba Buena Island are also visible to the west. The view across the bay to San Francisco, the Bay Bridge, and the Peninsula Hills is picturesque. To the south, the views are primarily of open water with Breakwater Island visible at a distance. The topography of the immediate area is essentially flat, the only topographic relief on the far horizon are the Berkeley and Peninsula Hills.

3.5.2 Landscape Character of Proposed Alameda NWR

Most of the proposed refuge is a former airfield. The dominant feature is tarmac and concrete. Natural habitat preferred by California least terns is large, open expanses, such as flat sandy beaches, that allow the terns to see predators. The open areas required by the terns are mimicked by the tarmac and concrete. While it was an active airfield the paved areas were kept free of vegetation. Since the airfield was closed, weedy vegetation has begun to grow through cracks in the pavement. The Navy removes this weedy vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the tern colony with herbicides in the spring, however the overall appearance of the site is an inactive airfield. Vegetated areas, composed primarily of non-native grasses and other weedy species, exist primarily west and south of the paved airfield area, and in strips between the taxiways of the former airfield.

Although most of the site is flat and paved, there are other features on the site that have readily identifiable visual character, including the following:

The West Wetland (approximately 32.4 acres) occupies the northwestern corner of the site. It is bounded by a perimeter levee topped with a 25-foot wide dirt road which overlooks the wetland. Although artificially created, the area presents a natural wetland character consisting of shallow ponded areas, vegetated wetlands, and bare ground. The Runway Wetland, consisting of approximately 16.5 acres, is located in the southeastern edge of the proposed refuge and is similar in visual character to the West Wetland.

The proposed Perimeter Trail would follow the lower level of the existing perimeter levee and the southern edge of the airfield. The trail would parallel the shoreline, which has been reinforced with broken chunks of concrete and asphalt debris, along most of its length, except along the southeast corner where it would follow the north side of the Runway Wetland.

Approximately 413 acres of San Francisco Bay are included in the proposed refuge. Most of the open water area is located to the south of the land portion of the refuge with a small portion located to the west. The open water is a wide expanse of the bay, with a breakwater located in the southern section. A wooden pier at the end of the former north -south runway extends into the open water.

3.5.3 Views from the Proposed Refuge

Looking west and south, sweeping, panoramic views of the bay area and San Francisco skyline can be seen from most points within the proposed refuge. Because the refuge is flat and lacks structures, the views of the bay area are unobstructed. Looking east, views are mostly of large warehouses and buildings. Current views to the north are of the airfield and low-growing vegetation. Views to the north will change when the City of Alameda's plans to build a golf course and soccer field are realized.

The Perimeter Trail would have some views of the tarmac, however, the dominant view is a sweeping panorama of the bay and the picturesque San Francisco skyline, including the Bay Bridge. The West Wetland would not be visible from the trail, except from one or two observation platforms which would be constructed atop the levee. There would be partial views of the Runway Wetland where the trail parallels the wetland, however the existing topography would screen portions of the wetland.

3.5.4 Views of the Proposed Refuge

The following discusses sensitive views of the proposed refuge from surrounding areas. Views are considered sensitive when they are experienced by people from publicly accessible locations, and are located in the foregound (within ˝ mile of the viewer) or middle ground (˝ mile to 3 miles from the viewer). Duration of viewing time also influences sensitivity (all day versus a few minutes).

Currently, land use to the east of the proposed refuge is light industrial and it is anticipated that it will primarily remain light industrial. An outdoor antique market has been proposed to be held one Sunday a month on the former taxiway just outside the refuge's east boundary. It is possible other activities could also occur on this open area. Properties adjacent to the eastern refuge boundary are slightly higher in elevation than the refuge. The refuge is visible in fore and middle ground views from the east side. The refuge is most visible from the east side, and hence views from this side are considered most sensitive.

Lands north of the proposed refuge consist of former airfield and undeveloped areas. Public use is currently minimal, and hence viewer sensitivity is low. In addition, the properties adjacent to the refuge on the north are slightly lower in elevation than the proposed refuge. From the north, the refuge is only visible in the foreground view because vegetated areas along the northern boundary (Figure 5) and site topography screen most of the tarmac and the bay from view . Views from the north are therefore considered less sensitive. A golf course and soccer field are currently being proposed in the northern area by the City of Alameda, thus viewer sensitivity is expected to increase in the future. If these facilities are constructed at the current grade or slightly higher, the golf course and soccer field would have some views of the proposed refuge.

Ferry boats and other public-bearing craft would primarily have views of the rip-rap shoreline and perimeter levee. This levee obscures views of the West Wetland and most of the airfield. From the west, the airfield area is only visible from one vantage point, where the east-west runway intersects the bay at the western boundary of the proposed refuge. Although the Bay Bridge is visible from the refuge, the refuge is generally not visible from the bridge because it is obstructed by the infrastructure of the Oakland Inner Harbor. Views from the West are considered less sensitive than views from any other direction.

Viewers from the south are primarily engaged in recreational boating, including fishing. This use is recent and unquantified because prior to base closure the area was closed to public use. Maritime Administration Fleet vessels infrequently transit the area to gain access to the piers where the vessels are docked. Passengers on these craft have midground views of the land portion of the refuge. Views are of the rocky rip-rapped shoreline, perimeter levee, vegetated upland areas, and tarmac. Visual sensitivity from the south could increase in the future. A recreational marina is proposed for the former Seaplane Lagoon, which could increase the number of boats traveling through the refuge. The Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation has proposed tour boat service to one of the piers, which would also increase the number of people viewing the refuge from the water.

3.6 Cultural Resources

No prehistoric cultural resources are expected to be present within the proposed Refuge boundary, because the area is composed of bay lands that were filled between 1918 and 1940 (U.S. Navy 1997a), and no historic buildings or other features are present (U.S. Navy 1997b). No properties of national historic significance exist within the proposed Refuge.

Chapter 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Chapter 4 discusses and analyzes the environmental impacts expected to occur from the implementation of Alternatives A through D as described in Chapter 2. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are described where applicable for each alternative. Alternative A (no action) is continuation of caretaker status by the U.S. Navy and serves as the baseline against which Alternatives B, C, and D are compared. Table 2 summarizes the environmental consequences of each alternative.

4.1 Effects on the Physical Environment

The soils would not be disturbed under Alternatives A, B, and D; therefore, there would no be effect. Alternative C may result in some excavation and recontouring of wetlands or areas along the wetland/upland interface to enhance or expand wetland areas. Site-specific plans cannot be developed and impacts of these actions cannot be fully analyzed until the Navy finalizes and implements remedial alternatives to clean up contaminated areas around the wetland areas. The Service is working with the Navy as it develops its remedial alternatives, and it is possible that wetland creation/enhancement could be accomplished in conjunction with the cleanup activities.

Under all alternatives, the herbicide Roundup® would be applied to the tarmac areas, and in Alternatives C and D, Roundup® and Rodeo® would be used to control exotic species in uplands and degraded wetland areas. Roundup® (used in upland areas) and Rodeo® (formulated for use in wetland areas) both have glyphosate as their active ingredient. Glyphosate does not affect vertebrates, and bio-accumulation does not occur (Newton et. al 1984, Monsanto 1992).

Glyphosate is considered practically nonmobile in soils and sediments because it rapidly and strongly adheres to soil particles (Sprankle et al. 1975). Thus, even though it is highly soluble in water, field and laboratory studies show it does not leach appreciably, and has a low potential for runoff (Edwards et al. 1991). One estimate indicated that less than 2 percent of the applied chemical is lost to runoff (Malik et al. 1989). Because of these properties, it would not be expected to move into the groundwater.

Glyphosate degrades in the soil by normal soil microbial degradation. It is moderately persistent in the soil, with an estimated half-life of 47 days (WSSA 1994, Wauchope et al. 1992). Half-life is the length of time required after application for the chemical to decrease to one-half of its original concentration. Persistence is the length of time required for a chemical to degrade to the point where it can no longer be detected.

Under Alternatives A (no action), B, C, and D, there may be minor improvement in the quality of water discharged from storm drains as compared to when the airfield was an active airport. Less oil or herbicides would drain off the tarmac. Less herbicide would be applied because vegetation control needed to maintain suitable tern habitat would be less than needed to maintain the site as an airport.

Under Alternatives A (no action) and B, there would be no change to current air quality. Under Alternatives C and D, increased automobile traffic to the Refuge may result in minor increases in emissions.

Under Alternative A (no action) and B, there would be no change in noise levels. Under Alternatives C and D, noise levels may be increased due to increased automobile traffic but would not result in measurable noise pollution.

Under Alternative A and B, there would be no change to the buildings and structures that exist within the proposed Refuge boundaries. Under Alternatives C and D, some buildings and structures would be removed, and some would remain for use as Refuge storage facilities. The fate of each building/structure would be evaluated and decided on a case-by-case basis using the criteria listed under 2.4. Removal could result in minor short-term impacts to air quality and noise levels. Building removal could also improve aesthetic qualities of the area.

4.2 Effects on the Biological Environment

4.2.1 Vegetation

Under Alternatives A (no action) and B, the herbicide Roundup® would continue to be applied just prior to the nesting season to control weedy vegetation on the least tern nesting area, and on tarmac areas in the immediate vicinity. No other vegetation control or mowing would occur. Weedy vegetation is becoming established in tarmac cracks over a large portion of the former taxiways, but the concrete runway remains mostly free of vegetation. The extent and density of weedy vegetation is expected to increase over much of the former airfield.

Under Alternatives C and D, the majority of the tarmac would remain free of vegetation through regular treatment with the herbicide Roundup®. Native vegetation would be restored in wetlands and upland habitats that are dominated by exotic annuals, iceplant, and pampas grass by removing these exotic plants and replanting native species that do not attract predators. General areas where treatment would occur are shown in pink on Figure 8 in the CCP. Chemical treatment with Roundup® or Rodeo® would be the preferred method. Both are broad-spectrum herbicides (i.e., work on all grass and broad-leafed plant species) that are absorbed through the foliage of plants on which they are directly applied. They have no residual properties in the soil; once they get into the soil, they do not continue to kill other plants.

The herbicide would be applied by hand, truck, or ATV-mounted sprayer. This would allow individual target plants (primarily iceplant and pampas grass) to be treated very selectively, while avoiding impacts to native vegetation and other non-target species. (For example, it may be desirable to maintain some areas of non-native grasses because they provide food and cover for small birds and mammals). Trained applicators would apply herbicides following manufacturers' recommendations. Alternative control methods could involve hand-pulling, mowing, or release of approved biological control agents. Hand-pulling could improve the seedbed for nonnatives, thereby increasing their germination and spread, therefore it would be done only after carefully evaluating the site conditions and target species involved. Currently there are no approved biological control organisms.

Under Alternatives C and D, the vegetated strips between runways and taxiways in the tarmac area would be mowed to maintain grassland vegetation cover below 6 inches during tern nesting season.

Under Alternatives C and D, the grassland in the northwest corner of the proposed refuge would be expanded by up to 14 acres to provide habitat for prey that would attract predators away from the tern colony.

4.2.2 Wildlife

4.2.2.1 California Least Tern

Alternatives A and B would result in similar impacts to least terns. Although the management goal would be to maintain the status quo of 200 to 250 pairs, it is reasonable to expect that nesting pair numbers would continue to increase at a rate of 10 to 15 percent per year and that fledgling success would remain high, as long as predator control, site preparation, and weed control on tarmac areas continued. Once the colony numbers 300 to 325 pairs, further increases are unlikely because carrying capacity of the existing colony site would be reached. This is based on the number of pairs nesting in the 4.3-acre Venice Beach colony (Caffrey 1995). The Alameda colony may reach carrying capacity with fewer nesting pairs because its triangular shape discourages nesting in the corners (Venice Beach is rectangular in shape) (Caffrey, pers. com.). Given these assumptions, carrying capacity of the existing site would be reached in three to five years, possibly longer if the 1997­98 El Nino event reduces food supplies and therefore decreases breeding success. Foraging terns would receive more disturbance from recreational and through boat traffic under Alternatives A and B than occurred prior to base closure because high-use tern foraging areas south of the shoreline (Figure 4 in the CCP) would be open to boat use. This would have a negative but unquantifiable effect on fledgling success and also could slow growth of the colony.

Under Alternative C, least tern nesting pairs are predicted to increase at a similar growth rate. The main difference between Alternative C and Alternatives A and B is that the colony's carrying capacity would be increased by enlarging the existing site to between 6 and 8 acres and creating a new 4-acre site. The management goal is 500 nesting pairs within 15 years; even higher growth is possible, but difficult to predict. Another difference between this alternative and all other alternatives is that reproductive success rate, as measured by fledgling success, would be more ensured because high-use tern foraging areas within the open water areas of the Refuge would be protected from boat disturbance. Disturbance from boat traffic and fishing would continue outside the Refuge boundary.

In Alternative D, nesting pairs would also increase as a result of habitat management, predator control, and habitat expansion. The rate of increase would be expected to be slower and the management goal of 350 nesting pairs would be smaller than in the preferred alternative (Alternative C). It is reasonable to assume that increased boating and the added impact of fishing under this alternative would negatively impact foraging terns. Bailey (1985) noted that heavy vessel traffic in the Oakland estuary could have inhibited terns from foraging there. Both fishermen and terns were observed concentrating in the same areas (where the fish were), which could lead to competition for resources (Bailey 1985). Fishing also could cause direct mortality; one researcher watched a tern get hooked on fishing line at Venice Beach (Caffrey, pers. com.). Increased boat traffic could obscure the presence of fish or disturb terns, as they must avoid hitting boats and they are flushed from their roost by boats (U.S. Navy 1995). A researcher conducting foraging studies in San Diego Bay observed that pleasure boats traveling through foraging flocks caused terns to disperse and not reform (Baird pers. com.). This would result in terns expending more energy and time hovering, reforming flocks, and locating fish. This could reduce the amount of food brought to chicks, thereby negatively affecting chick growth and survival. In years when food supplies are more limited, this could ultimately reduce the reproductive success rate for the entire colony.

Under Alternatives A and B, encroaching vegetation on the tarmac would increase the amount of cover for predators compared to that which existed before base closure. This would increase predation threats to terns because the area may harbor more predators, and sight distances needed for least terns to detect predators around the colony would be reduced. This could result in decreased adult survival, lower reproductive success, or decreased population size of the least tern colony.

Under Alternatives C and D, the majority of the tarmac would be maintained free of weedy vegetation, thereby reducing predation threats as compared to Alternatives A and B.

Under Alternatives C and D, the northern and eastern boundaries would be fenced with an 8-foot high chain-link fence to control access and protect terns from disturbance. It would be topped with several strands of barbed wire angled outward to discourage climbing and perching predators, and contain slats to screen views. Slats could result in either beneficial or negative effects to nesting least terns. Slats could provide terns with a sense of security because it would screen activity that occurs outside the Refuge. Conversely, slats could provide a sense of confinement by obstructing the terns' field of view. The fences will be constructed in such a way to portray an open expanse as viewed from the colony site, and if slats are used they should be white to accomplish this desired perception.

Alternatives A, B, C, and D would all result in less human activity on the airfield area compared to that which occurred before base closure, and therefore public use programs are not expected to impact California least terns under any of the alternatives. Human activity on the airfield under Alternatives A and B would be similar to that occurring under caretaker status, consisting of security patrols, predator management, tern monitoring, and guided tours of the Perimeter Trail. These activities would not disturb the tern colony. Alternatives C and D would result in slightly more human activity as occurs under caretaker status (Alternative A), but considerably less than what occurred when the airfield was an active military base. During the tern nesting season, human activity would consist of security patrols, predator management, tern monitoring, guided van/bus tours to the colony (several per season), and docent-led tours of the Perimeter Trail (the trail would be closed to general public use during nesting season). This level of human activity is not expected to impact nesting least terns.

Each of the alternatives would further the goals of the California Least Tern Recovery Plan (USFWS 1980). However, Alternative C will contribute the most to meeting recovery plan goals: 300 additional nesting pairs are anticipated under Alternative C compared to 150 additional pairs under Alternative D. Smaller increases in breeding populations are expected under Alternatives A and B. From 1987 through 1997, Alameda supported 5 to 6 percent of the statewide breeding population (Caffrey 1995, USFWS unpubl. data). An increase of 300 nesting pairs could increase Alameda's contribution to the statewide breeding population by an estimated 5 to 8 percent, but this is dependent on the success of other colonies.

The Alameda least tern colony is considered important in meeting recovery plan goals because it consistently produces large numbers of fledglings each year, thus adding many potential new breeding birds to the population. Between 1987 and 1994 the Alameda colony produced an average of 10.6 percent of the total number of fledglings produced statewide in each of those years (Caffrey 1995). Therefore, the site is considered an important "source" population, serving to balance out losses at many "sink" locations throughout the state. A "sink" location is a site where mortality exceeds births.

Specific Recovery Plan (USFWS 1980) actions that would be accomplished by the Alameda Comprehensive Conservation Plan include the following:

Preserve existing habitat by acquiring nesting habitat (public ownership) and developing California least tern management plans.

Create or restore habitat and construct alternate nesting sites. Least terns readily accept artificially created bare ground areas as nesting sites.

Manage nest sites by removing vegetation and placing artificial shelters for shading chicks.

Protect colonies from human disturbance.

4.2.2.2 Other Endangered Species

Under Alternatives A and B, impacts to brown pelicans roosting on Breakwater Island are expected as a result of increased traffic from recreational boaters, and people and domestic animals landing on the island. Under caretaker status (Alternative A), the Navy no longer enforces a boat closure on open water areas. Recreational boats have been noted near or tied to Breakwater Island (Feeney, pers. com.). Under Alternative B, open water within 600 feet of Breakwater Island and the breakwater itself would be closed to boating. Trespass is likely to occur, however, because patrols and enforcement would be minimal. Humans approaching within 600 feet of roosting brown pelicans would likely cause individuals or the entire colony to flush. Substantial decreases in roosting brown pelican numbers were noted when a large dog repeatedly visited Breakwater Island during April and May 1998 (Buffa, pers. obs.). Jaques and Anderson (1988) documented flushing distances ranging from 110 to 600 meters (361 to 1,969 feet) and averaging 220 meters (722 feet) at the Moss Landing nonbreeding roost. Flushed birds either fly to an alternate roost or re-land. Repeated disturbances would negatively affect the energy budget of birds and compound other physiological stresses from migration, breeding, food shortages, and heavy contaminant loads (Jaques et al. 1996). Chronic disturbance could cause roost abandonment.

Recreational fishing close to Breakwater Island could also directly impact brown pelicans through physical injury caused by fishing tackle. Live anchovies used as bait attract young pelicans, and they often swallow baited hooks or get hooks embedded in their bills or pouches. Even relatively small tears in a pouch can hinder feeding and ultimately cause death from starvation (USFWS 1983). Pelicans also may become ensnared in monofilament fishing line that would likely accumulate around the breakwater (Jaques-Strong, pers. com). This could cause serious injury, impair movement and flight, prevent feeding, and cause infection from cuts. Entangled birds generally die from starvation (USFWS 1983).

Under Alternatives C and D, the brown pelican roost would be protected from human disturbance, as it was prior to the Navy base closure, because Breakwater Island and open water within 600 feet of the breakwater would be closed to human access. Even though human activity would be excluded from an area narrower than the average flushing distance (722 feet) cited above, this distance should adequately protect roosting pelicans because of the water buffer (Jaques-Strong, pers. com.). The closure would be enforced by Refuge law enforcement patrols. Alternatives C and D are consistent with the following recovery plan actions: protect major roosting areas for both breeding and nonbreeding birds during the breeding season and for wintering migrants; and limit human access on public lands where needed (USFWS 1983).

Snowy plover and salmon would not be affected under Alternatives A (no action) and B, because there would be no changes from the existing situation or habitat conditions that existed when the area was managed as a military base.

Alternatives C and D would benefit snowy plover because management to increase terns could create nesting habitat for plovers. Salmon would not be affected under either alternative.

Individual peregrine falcons found to be depredating terns or impacting reproductive success could be removed from the area under either of the alternatives. Predator management may therefore affect individual peregrine falcons. One peregrine was live-trapped and re-located away from the Alameda colony site in 1997, after it was discovered to be feeding on terns. This is the first time this species had been managed in all the years of predator management (U.S. Navy 1998). Trapping and removal of problem peregrines would follow protocols developed by the Service and the Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Group. These include criteria for when problem peregrines will be monitored, hazed, humanely trapped, and/or re-located from the site. As long as depredating peregrines are removed in compliance with these protocols, no measurable effect on the peregrine population is expected to occur.

4.2.2.3 Migratory Waterfowl and Other Waterbirds

Alternatives A, B, and D would result in continuous flushing of diving ducks resting or feeding on open water areas because recreational boater use would be more frequent, of longer duration, and more dispersed throughout the Refuge compared to Alternative C or when the area was operated as a Navy Base. Disturbance to wintering waterfowl from recreational fishing boats and other forms of pleasure boating is well-documented, and boats approaching within 300 to 500 meters (984 to 1,640 feet) of rafting ducks would likely cause individuals or flocks to flush (Havera et al. 1992, Hume 1976, Mathews 1982). The most harmful impact on wintering waterfowl numbers is associated with the presence of angling, sailing, and rowing (Tuite et al. 1983). Boating activities associated with fishing and hunting resulted in more birds taking flight than when they were disturbed by barge traffic, and boating activities associated with fishing affected a higher number of birds and caused a greater disturbance than shore activities (Havera et al. 1992). Increased disturbance could cause waterfowl to leave Refuge open water areas either temporarily or permanently and deplete fat reserves needed for northward migration; it could ultimately affect their survival (Kahl 1991).

Alternative C would cause some disturbance and flushing of wintering waterfowl from boat traffic in the marked channel. Impacts are expected to be minimal, however, because disturbance would be confined to a small area, and waterfowl could seek refuge in closed areas. The 5-mile per hour speed limit would further minimize impacts; ducks are less likely to flush from slow-moving boats than fast-moving boats (Kahl 1991).

Alternatives A, B, and D would result in more impacts to waterbirds (western gulls, great blue herons, and double-crested cormorants) nesting and roosting on the wooden pier, and shorebirds roosting and feeding along the shoreline as compared to Alternative C, because recreational boats would be able to approach these habitats at very close distances. Predicted impacts include flushing, increased energy costs, and diminished reproductive success for nesting species. Alternative C would reduce or eliminate disturbance impacts to waterbirds because open water areas adjacent to the shoreline and wooden pier would be closed to through boat traffic (Figure 3).

Alternatives A and B could result in substantial impacts to nesting migratory birds on Breakwater Island from people or domestic animals landing on the breakwater. A dog depredated 95 percent of the Western gull nests during repeated visits in April and May 1998 (Buffa, pers. obs.). It reached Breakwater Island by swimming across Breakwater Gap.

Under Alternatives A and B, habitat conditions for wintering shorebirds and nesting Caspian terns in the West Wetland and Runway Wetland would decrease in value as exotic vegetation continues to invade these areas. Caspian terns may eventually abandon the nesting colony as habitat conditions become unsuitable for nesting.

Alternative C would restore nesting habitat for Caspian terns through a combination of vegetation treatment, and possibly water level management and land recontouring. The management goal is to restore breeding populations to early 1990 levels of 1,000 nesting pairs. Wetland enhancement would also result in improved habitat conditions for shorebirds, waterfowl, and other waterbirds due to increased protection, exotic vegetation control, water level management, and land recontouring. Site-specific wetland enhancement plans would be developed after the Navy finalizes and implements remedial alternatives to clean up contaminated areas around the wetlands.

Alternative D would maintain the existing nesting habitat for Caspian terns, mainly by controlling the encroachment of exotic vegetation into the colony area. Moderate increases in the number of Caspian tern nesting pairs (beyond 300 pairs) may result. Compared to Alternatives A and B, this alternative would result in higher value waterfowl and shorebird habitat due to control of exotic vegetation. There would be smaller increases in waterfowl and shorebird populations than in Alternative C, however, because wetlands would not be enhanced by water level management or land recontouring.

Compared to Alternatives A and B, Alternatives C and D could result in some additional disturbances to migratory and wintering waterfowl and shorebirds using the Runway Wetland due to the establishment of the Perimeter Trail near the west and northern edge. People straying off the trail could cause birds to flush. Installing a temporary fence while the trail is open would minimize this impact.

4.2.2.4 Marine Mammals

Under Alternatives A and B, impacts to harbor seals on Breakwater Island would be expected due to increased traffic from recreational boaters and people landing on Breakwater Island (see above discussion under brown pelican). Compared to other marine mammals, harbor seals are particularly sensitive to human disturbance, and would likely flush (i.e., move into the water) in response to boats landing on or approaching close to their haul-out on Breakwater Island. Various flushing distances reported in the literature range from 30 to 500 meters (98 to 1,640 feet), but the majority of disturbance has been documented to occur within 600 feet of haul-out sites. Swift and Morgan (1993) found that 80 percent of disturbances were within 200 meters (656 feet) of the haul-out, and that boats were responsible for most of these events. Allen et al. (1984) studied the effects of power and nonpower boats on harbor seal haul-outs in Bolinas Lagoon, California. They found that boats approaching within 100 meters (328 feet) caused harbor seals to flush 93 percent of the time, approaches within 100 to 200 meters (328 to 656 feet) flushed seals 58 percent of the time, and approaches within 200 to 300 meters (656 to 984 feet) flushed seals 22 percent of the time. Repeated disturbance could eventually cause harbor seals to abandon Breakwater Island as a haul-out. Other bay-area haul-outs that have been abandoned following persistent disturbance include Strawberry Spit, a sand spit at the east end of the Bay Bridge, and Hog Island, in Marin County (Roletto, pers. com.).

Under Alternatives C and D, the harbor seal haul-out would be protected from human disturbance as it was prior to the naval base closure, because Breakwater Island and open water within 600 feet of the breakwater would be closed to human access. Seals may occasionally be disturbed (exhibited by head alert posture, movement toward water, or flushing), but this disturbance would be expected to be minimal because boats would be 600 feet or more away, and because vessels that maintain constant speed cause less disturbance (Roletto, pers. com.).

4.2.2.5 Other Wildlife

Under all alternatives, the current predator management program to protect endangered species would continue, and resulting impacts to target and nontarget wildlife would be similar under Alternatives A, B, C, and D. The only difference is that under Alternative C, additional preventative actions, such as the removal of perches, would result in fewer raptors hunting over the tarmac areas and perhaps fewer active control measures.

The predator management program would result in small, localized reductions of some native mammalian and avian predator species around the tarmac areas of the Refuge, and the removal of nonnative species from all areas of the Refuge. In most years, an estimated dozen or fewer birds and two dozen or fewer individual mammals would be affected (i.e., removed by either nonlethal or lethal means). Reductions of native predators would be short-term, since control efforts would take place immediately before and during the endangered/threatened species breeding season. Live-captured raptors would be released back into the Refuge or off-site, once the breeding season is over. Native mammalian predator species that prey on terns are transitory in nature, being attracted to the temporary, concentrated, vulnerable prey source the colony provides; the tarmac is otherwise unsuitable habitat for predatory mammalian species. Therefore, control efforts would not affect any native species on a population level. Nonnative predator populations (feral cats, and red fox if they colonize the area) would be reduced.

Impacts to individual animals would be minimized because trapping would be done humanely and selectively, using nonlethal methods as the preferred option. Nontarget animals inadvertently caught in live-traps would be released on-site. Live-trapped target mammals that are determined to be a threat to endangered species would be humanely euthanized with an injection of sodium pentobarbital. A small number of avian species would likely be removed each season and cared for in a licensed wildlife care/rehabilitation facility until release. It is expected that a small number of avian species would need to be lethally taken per season because they could not be live-trapped.

Populations of raptors and other avian predators using other upland habitats and wetland areas would not be affected. The goal for habitat management would be to attract predatory species to vegetated areas away from the tarmac where they would feed on rabbits, ground squirrels, and other rodents instead of endangered species.

Species potentially negatively affected by the predator management program (i.e., could be nonlethally or lethally removed) include the predators of concern listed below. These predators have been documented killing least terns or snowy plovers, and either have been or could become a problem at the Alameda Refuge. Based on data from the Navy's predator management program, six or fewer of these species would likely trigger control actions in any one nesting season.

Mammalian predators of concern include the following: feral cat*, feral dog*, red fox*, opossum*, Norway rat*, raccoon, striped skunk, gray fox, coyote, jackrabbit, California ground squirrel, and long-tailed weasel (* denotes nonnative or naturalized species).

Avian predators of concern include the following: kestrel, northern harrier, red-tailed hawk, white-tailed kite, peregrine falcon, barn owl, burrowing owl, common raven, American crow, loggerhead shrike, and gulls (several species).

Without effective predator management, large losses of eggs, chicks, and adults of the endangered California least tern would threaten the recovery of this listed species. It is highly likely that, without predator management, the least tern colony would be completely abandoned due to predation, as occurred with the colony nesting at Oakland Airport in the early 1990s (Caffrey 1995). With predator management, the Alameda least tern colony is expected to, at a minimum, maintain its current high level of reproductive success, and ideally, continue to increase in breeding population size.

Application of herbicides would occur under Alternatives A, B, C, and D, and are not expected to impact invertebrate or vertebrate species. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the two herbicides, Roundup® (applied around non-water areas) and Rodeo® (approved for use around water), which would be used. Glyphosate has low bioconcentration factors (Heydens 1991). (Bioconcentration is the degree to which a chemical can be concentrated in the tissues of organisms). Studies and acute toxicity tests on vertebrates found that Rodeo® and Roundup® are non-toxic to mammals, birds, and fish at the application rates which would be used (Budavari 1989, Mayer and Ellersieck 1986, Newton et al. 1984). A recent study showed that concentrations of 4.7 liter/hectare of Rodeo® and 0.9 liter/hectare of X-77 (the surfactant which is used when applying Rodeo®) were found to pose a minimal hazard to estuarine organisms, since post-treatment residue levels were found to be far below toxic concentrations for monitored species (Paveglio et al. 1996).

Under Alternatives A (no action) and B, there would be no changes to current management and therefore no effect on biological diversity. Under Alternatives C and D, biological diversity may be increased because of enhanced habitat protection and management.

4.3 Effects on Contaminants

The U.S. Navy is required to clean up contaminants. Implementation of any of the alternatives would not affect this responsibility.

4.4 Effects on the Social and Economic Environment

4.4.1 Public Use

Under any alternative, the Service would not implement a public hunting program.

Under Alternatives A and B, there would be no opportunities for on-land public use because there would be no facilities or access. There would, however, be an environmental education program conducted in the local schools by non-Refuge volunteers. Under Alternative A, the Navy no longer restricts public access to the open water portions, so recreational boaters have begun to use these areas and would continue to do so. Under Alternative B, only the open water area within 600 feet of Breakwater Island would be closed to boats.

Under Alternative C, there would be an increase in public use opportunities. Public use facilities, including a perimeter trail, observation platform, and possible wildlife observation center, would be developed. Environmental education and interpretation, wildlife observation and photography, bicycling, jogging, and walking would be managed, and a full volunteer program would be developed. A 500-foot-wide boat-access corridor would allow passage across the Refuge between the open Bay and a marina in the old Seaplane Berthing Lagoon. Fishing would not be allowed, but on-shore fishing would be reconsidered following completion of the Navy's contaminant cleanup process.

Under Alternative D, compatible public use opportunities would be maximized. In addition to activities described in Alternative C, boating would be allowed in all open water areas of the Refuge except for that area within 600 feet of Breakwater Island.

The social environment would be positively affected by the Public Use Program under all Alternatives. Under Alternative A (no refuge) there would still be environmental education by docents trained and administered by the Refuge and the Friends of Alameda Wildlife Refuge (FAWR) in the local schools. As a result, knowledge of students regarding conservation and wildlife would be increased.

The same would hold true for Alternative B (minimal management of a refuge). Under Alternatives C (preferred alternative) and D(maximized public use), environmental education would also be conducted on the Refuge, thereby enhancing students' knowledge of conservation and wildlife to a greater degree than that obtained by just off-site programs.

4.4.2 Economy

Under Alternative A (no action), there would be no change to current conditions.

In a study commissioned by the Golden Gate Audubon Society, Hrubes (1995) stated that the potential benefits that could be generated by the proposed national wildlife refuge and day-use recreational areas are both market-based (e.g., visitor spending, administrative budgets, fiscal cost avoidance) and independent of market transaction (e.g., habitat and species conservation, community amenities). Hrubes concluded that the proposed wildlife refuge/day-use area could generate annual visitor expenditures of up to $10 million (benefitting Alameda, the East Bay, and the greater Bay Area) and generate up to $2.7 million in total net social value of public use. However, benefits generated from the day-use area must be subtracted from these estimates because the day-use area is not part of the Refuge. Therefore, if the Hrubes estimates are not overly optimistic, the proposed Refuge alone could generate annual visitor expenditures of up to $8.9 million and up to $1.45 million in total net social value of public use. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the Service estimated its annual administrative expenditures at $227,650, $299,400, and $351,400, respectively.

Hrubes stated that a wildlife refuge in an increasingly urbanized and congested region can generate community benefits for regional inhabitants, particularly those living in and near Alameda. He further stated that the quality of community life is enhanced by maintenance of open space and recreational areas. This community amenity can be reflected in higher land values, particularly for properties nearby. Open space also contributes other benefits, such as the avoidance of additional freeway congestion and air pollution. Open space land use designation may allow local jurisdictions to avoid fiscal costs associated with alternative land uses.

Tax Revenue

Federal lands are not subject to State or local taxes or assessments. However, under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, the Service would make an annual payment to the County of Alameda to offset the loss of property tax revenues. Refuge Revenue Sharing Act payments for acquired lands are based upon the greatest of the following three formulas: (1) three-fourths of 1 percent of the appraised value, (2) 25 percent of the net receipts produced from the lands, or (3) 0.75 dollars per acre. The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act also requires that Service lands be reappraised every five years to ensure that payments to local governments remain equitable. Funding for Refuge Revenue Sharing Act payments are derived from all revenues received from refuge products, such as timber fees, grazing fees, permit fees, oil and gas royalties, and leases. If these funds are not sufficient to make full payments to the counties, Congress is authorized under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act to appropriate funds to make up the shortfall. In the past, Congress has not fully appropriated funds to enable full payments to be made and the counties have received a pro-rata reduction in their Refuge Revenue Sharing Act disbursement.

4.5 Effects on Visual Resources

This section describes the effects of the proposed refuge on the visual resources. An effect is considered adverse if it would noticeably increase visual contrast and substantially reduce scenic quality as seen from any foreground view (within ˝ mile) or middle ground view (within ˝ mile to 3 miles), or if it would block or disrupt existing views.

All of the proposed refuge alternatives are consistent with relevant policies of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission's Bay Plan for the area. Most of the proposed refuge alternatives would preserve views of the bay and would provide the viewing public with additional views of the bay.

Under Alternative A, there would be essentially no change to the visual resources of the proposed refuge. No additional facilities would be constructed, nor would any facilities be removed. Vegetation would continue to be removed within and immediately adjacent to the tern colony, but not mowed in the weedy areas. Nonnative plants in wetlands and uplands would not be removed. Eventually, vegetation not immediately adjacent to the tern colony would grow larger and taller, which may screen the tarmac to some extent. However, the vegetation that naturalizes would likely be nonnative and may look weedy.

Alternative B would result in minimal impacts to the visual resources of the proposed refuge. Alternative B is similar to Alternative A except that an 8-foot-high chain-link fence would be constructed along the northern boundary, topped with several strands of barbed wire angled outward and screened with slats. Slats would be of a color that gives the terns the illusion of wide open space. Most likely, the color of the slats would be a light color, such as white. Currently, the area north of the proposed refuge is an extension of the tarmac and runway. However, the City of Alameda plans to allow a golf course over most of this land and soccer fields over a small portion of it. The fence would likely be visible to golfers playing within several hundred feet of the proposed refuge; golfers located further from the fence would be less likely to notice the fence. The fence would minimally increase visual contrast and reduce foreground views of the refuge. This impact on visual quality is considered minimal because the existing topography combined with the vegetated areas along the refuge's northern boundary screens much of the tarmac area from view even without the fence. The fence would not block the more natural background views of the bay or distant hills. Slats in the fence would shield some of the tarmac area from the foreground view, focusing the viewers attention on the more natural landscape of the bay and distant hills. Slats would also make the fence more visible and contribute to its perception as a barrier.

Under Alternative B the lower perimeter levee would be opened for limited public use (guided tours). Since no improvements are proposed for the trail under this alternative, opening the trail will have no impact on the visual resources of the proposed refuge. The effects of opening the trail to the public, however, will be beneficial. Public access to the visual resources of the area will be enhanced as compared to Alternative A, but less so than under Alternatives C or D. Views of the bay and skyline from the perimeter trail are impressive. The best unobstructed views of the bay and hills across the bay will be experienced from the shoreline areas. Important regional features viewed from the perimeter trail include the bay, the downtown San Francisco skyline, the Bay Bridge, Yerba Buena Island, the Peninsula, and the Berkeley Hills. Most of the proposed refuge will not be visible to the perimeter trail users because the earthen levee located between the trail and tarmac will shield the former airfield from view.

Alternative C differs from Alternatives A and B in several ways that would create different effects on the visual resources of the proposed refuge, some positive and some negative. Under Alternative C, most of the tarmac areas would be maintained free of vegetation as compared to the more limited vegetation control under Alternatives A and B, where weedy vegetation would grow in cracks over much of the tarmac. Removing weeds growing on the tarmac would increase the visual contrast, but is not expected to reduce the scenic quality or block existing views.

Under Alternative C, the eastern boundary fence would be realigned and raised to a height of 8 feet. It would be a chain-link fence screened with light-colored slats, and topped with several strands of barbed wire angled outward. The fence would be noticeable to viewers along the eastern boundary, reducing their foreground view of the refuge. The fence would also minimally increase visual contrast. Views of the Bay Bridge, San Francisco skyline, Twin Peaks, San Bruno Mountain, and the Peninsula Hills would be partially obstructed by the fence when the viewer stands next to it. However as one moves away from the fence, it would obstruct the middle ground view of the refuge, but would not obstruct the background views to an observer standing 600 feet or more from the fence. Instead, the fence would tend to focus the viewer's attention on the more natural landscape of the bay and distant hills, rather than the tarmac which is screened from the middle ground view. Overall, the eastern boundary fence would result in a moderate negative impact to the visual resources.

Under Alternative C one or two observation platforms would be constructed on the upper levee of the perimeter trail. These platforms would provide visitors with sweeping views of the bay and other important regional features, and also provide views of the wetlands and the proposed refuge.

Some of the structures on the proposed refuge may be removed under Alternative C. Most of these structures are former utility or storage buildings. Their removal would decrease visual contrast, and increase the scenic quality of the refuge as seen from foreground and middleground views.

Alternative D would result in similar impacts to visual resources as Alternative C. There would be additional nonwildlife-dependent recreational activities and fewer wildlife habitat improvements as compared to Alternative C, but these differences are not expected to affect the visual quality.

4.6 Cultural Resources

Refuge activities will not affect prehistoric cultural resources or historic properties because these resources are not expected to be present within the proposed Refuge boundary.

4.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

No direct or indirect unavoidable adverse impacts to the biological environment would result from the selection of any of the alternatives. Once the Refuge is established, the Service would prevent incremental adverse impacts, such as degradation and loss of habitat over time, to the lands and their associated native plants and animals.

4.8 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Under the no action alternative with no active habitat management, some plant and animal species could become extirpated over time, causing an irreversible and irretrievable loss. Once the Refuge is established and lands are actively managed by the Service, there would be irreversible and irretrievable commitments of funds to protect these lands (such as expenditures for fuel, fences, and staff).

4.9 Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity

The habitat protection and management program proposed as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System is permanent and exclusively dedicated to maintaining the long-term productivity of Alameda NWR habitats. Restricting boat traffic to a channel would be a short-term loss of recreational activity balanced against the area's long-term ability to support waterbird populations. The local short-term uses of the environment following acquisition would include increased management of wildlife habitats and development of public use facilities. The resulting long-term productivity would include increased protection and management of endangered species and a myriad of wetland-dependent species. The public would gain long-term opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreational activities and enhanced quality of life.

4.10 Cumulative Impacts

The proposed Alameda NWR would have long-term cumulative benefits for native wildlife species and habitats within the area. The protection of wildlife habitats within the Refuge would represent a cumulative benefit to the long-term conservation of endangered and other native wildlife species.

Table 2. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Chapter 5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS

5.1 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan and environmental assessment were prepared with the involvement of representatives from the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, community groups, and citizens. The Service has invited and continues to encourage public participation through an extensive public involvement program consisting of public meetings and project planning updates. A public meeting to discuss and to receive comments on the documents is scheduled for January 1999.

5.2 Environmental Review and Coordination

As a Federal agency, the Service must comply with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. An environmental assessment is required under the National Environmental Policy Act to evaluate reasonable alternatives that will meet stated objectives and to assess the possible impacts to the human environment. The environmental assessment serves as the basis for determining whether implementation of the proposed action would constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

5.3 Other Federal Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders

In undertaking the proposed action, the Service would comply with the following Federal laws, Executive orders, and legislative acts: Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988); Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs (Executive Order 12372); Protection of Historical, Archaeological, and Scientific Properties (Executive Order 11593); Protection of Wetlands (Executive Order 11990); Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Executive Order 12996); Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (Executive Order 12898); Hazardous Substances Determinations (Secretarial Order 3127); Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; Refuge Recreation Act, as amended; National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended; National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.

Key consultations include Environmental Justice, Coastal Zone Management Act, and Hazardous Materials determinations.

5.3.1 Environmental Justice

The establishment and management of a national wildlife refuge would not cause any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts to minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian Tribes.

The proposed Refuge would increase opportunities for families to view wildlife without driving long distances, and neighborhood schools would have an additional environmental education resource close at hand. The Refuge would allow area youth to experience wildlife as part of their community and their growing-up experience.

5.3.2 Coastal Zone Management Act

The Service will request concurrence from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission that establishment of a national wildlife refuge would be a use consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the San Francisco Bay Plan, the federally approved local coastal plan for San Francisco Bay.

5.3.3 Hazardous Materials

The Service is working with the Department of Defense, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control to determine the nature, extent, and remedial alternatives for several contaminated sites in or near the proposed Refuge.

5.4 Distribution and Availability

The draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment will be sent to various agencies, organizations, community groups, and individuals for review and comment (see Appendix H in the CCP).

Chapter 6. LIST OF PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS

Joy Albertson, Wildlife Biologist, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Fremont, California (M.A. Conservation Biology, San Francisco State University). Responsible for biological information.

Jim Browning, Senior Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California (B.S. Wildlife Ecology, Oklahoma State University and M. S. Outdoor Recreation Management, University of Idaho). Responsible for endangered species information and CCP and EA review.

Joelle Buffa, Wildlife Biologist, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Fremont, California (B.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Biology, Iowa State University). Planning team co-leader responsible for biological information and CCP and EA preparation and review.

Jim Haas, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California (M.A. Ecology and Systematic Biology, San Francisco State University). Responsible for contaminants information.

Margaret Kolar, Project Leader, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Fremont, California (M.S. Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University). Responsible for CCP and EA review.

Leslie Lew, Landscape Architect, Division of Refuge Planning, Sacramento, California (B.S. Landscape Architecture, University of California, Davis). Responsible for visual resources information.

Cathy Osugi, Wildlife Biologist, Division of Refuge Planning, Portland, Oregon (B.A. Wildlife Conservation, San Jose State). Planning team co-leader responsible for CCP and EA preparation and review and NEPA compliance.

John Steiner, Outdoor Recreation Planner, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Fremont, California (M.S. Biological Science, Cal State Hayward). Responsible for public use information, CCP and EA preparation and review, and public involvement.

John Steuber, Assistant State Director/Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services, Sacramento, California (B.S. Biology and Wildlife Management, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point). Responsible for CCP and EA review.

REFERENCES

Allen, S.J., D.J. Ainley, G.W. Page and C.A. Ribick. 1984. Effects of Disturbance on Harbor Seal Haulout Patterns at Bolinas Lagoon, California. Fisheries Bulletin 20(3): 493-500.

ARRA, 1996. NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan. Community Reuse Plan. Prepared by EDAW, Inc. As adopted January 1996.

Association of Bay Area Governments. 1997. Projections 98. Association of Bay Area Governments, Oakland, CA.

Bailey, Stephen. 1985. California Least Tern Foraging and Other Off-Colony Activities Around Alameda Naval Air Station During 1985. Unpubl. Final Report to U.S. Navy NAS Alameda.

Bailey, Stephen. 1994. Waterbirds Using the Alameda Naval Air Station, With Special Attention to Caspian Terns. In: Proceedings of Alameda Naval Air Stations's Natural Resources and Base Closure Planning for the Future. Unpubl. Rpt. Golden Gate Audubon Society. Berkeley, CA.

Budavari, S (Ed.). 1989. The Merck index. Merck and Co., Inc. Rahway, NJ.

Caffrey, Carolee. 1995. Characteristics of California Least Tern Nesting Sites Associated With Breeding Success or Failure, With Special Reference to the Site at the Naval Air Station, Alameda. Unpubl. report. Naval Facilities Engineering Command. San Bruno, CA.

California Department of Education, 1997a. California Public School Directory, 1997. California State Office of Printing, Sacramento.

California Department of Education, 1997b. California Private School Directory, 1996-1997. California State Office of Printing, Sacramento.

California Department of Finance, 1998. City/County Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change, January 1, 1997 and 1998. Sacramento.

Carr, J.R. 1998. Discover Silicon Island. City of Alameda, CA.

City of Alameda. 1998. Who Lives in Alameda? City of Alameda Community Development Department. Alameda, CA.

Country Club of Washington Township Research Committee. 1965. History of Washington Township. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Edwards, I.R., D.G.Ferry, and W.A. Temple. 1991. Fungicides and related compounds, In Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology. Hayes, W.J. and E.R. Laws, Eds. Academic Press, New York, NY.

Feeney, Leora and Laura Collins. 1993. Partial Lists of Mammals, Reptiles, Birds, and Fishes of the Naval Air Station, Alameda. Prepared for the Environmental Clean-up and Restoration Committee serving the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission. October 16, 1993.

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 20:290-298.

Heydens, W.F. 1991. Rodeo herbicide use to control Spartina. Impact of glyphosate on marine and terrestrial organisms. Monsanto Agricultural Company, St. Louis, MO, USA.

Hrubes, R. 1995. The potential economic benefits of the proposed Alameda National Wildlife Refuge: an overview. Golden Gate Audubon Society, 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G, Berkeley, CA 94702.

Hume, R.A. 1976. Reaction of goldeneyes to boating. British Birds 69:178-179.

IT Corporation. 1997. Final Project Closure Report Site 18 - Storm Drain System Naval Air Station Alameda, California. Unpubl. Report (Contact No. N62474-93-D-2151) submitted to the U.S. Navy. San Bruno, CA.

Jaques, D.L. and D.W. Anderson. 1988. Brown pelican use of the Moss Landing Wildlife Management Area: Roosting behavior, habitat use and interactions with humans. CA Resources Agency, Dept. Fish and Game Nongame Bird and Mammal Section Report. Sacramento, CA.

Jaques, D., C.S. Strong, T.W. Keeney. 1996. Brown pelican roosting patterns and responses to disturbance at Mugu Lagoon and other nonbreeding sites in the Southern California Bight. USDI Natl. Biol. Service Technical Report No. 54. Tucson, AZ.

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 19:243-248.

Levy, S., A. Mills, A. Scroggins, N. Levy. 1997. California county projections - 1998 edition. Center for Continuing study of the California Economy. Palo Alto, CA.

Malik, J., G. Barry, and G. Kishore. 1989. Minireview: The herbicide glyphosate. Biofactors 2(1):1725.

Mathews. G.V.T. 1982. The control of recreational disturbance. Chapter 42. Pages 325-330 in D.A. Scott, editor, Managing wetlands and their birds, a manual of wetland and waterfowl management. Proc. 3^rd Tech. Meeting on Western Palearctic Migratory Bird Management, Biologishche Station Rieselfelder Munster, Germany, 12-15 October 1982.

Mayer, F.L. and M.R. Ellersieck. 1986. Manual of acute toxicity: interpretation and database for 410 chemicals and 66 species of freshwater animals. Resource Publ. 160, USFWS, Washington DC.

McCormack, D. Ed. 1998. Alameda county '98. McCormack's Guides. Martinez, CA.

Merlin, I. 1978. Alameda - a geographical history. Friends of the Alameda Free Library, Alameda, CA.

Newton, M., K.M. Howard, B.R. Kelpsas, R. Danhaus, C.M. Lottman, and S. Dubelman. 1984. Fate of Glyphosate in an Oregon Forest Ecosystem. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry. #0:1144-1151.

Paveglio, F.L., K.M. Kilbride, C.E. Grue, C.A. Simenstad, and K.L. Fresh. 1996. Use of Rodeo and X-77 spreader to control smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) in a southwestern Washington estuary: 1. Environmental Fate. Env. Tox. and Chem. 15:961-968.

Pomeroy, Douglas. 1994. Management of Least Terns and Natural Resources at the Alameda Naval Air Station. In: Proceedings of Alameda Naval Air Stations's Natural Resources and Base Closure Planning for the Future. Unpubl. Rpt. Golden Gate Audubon Society. Berkeley, CA.

Sprankle, P., W.F. Meggitt and D. Penner. 1975. Rapid inactivation of glyphosate in soil. Weed Sci. 23:224-228.

Swift, R. and L. Morgan. 1993. The effect of disturbance on harbor seal haul out in Bolinas Lagoon, California, abstract. Tenth Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals. Galveston, TX.

Tuite, C.H., M. Owen, and D. Paynter. 1983. Interaction between wildfowl and recreation at Llangorse Lake and Talybont Reservoir, South Wales. Wildfowl 34:48-63.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. California Least Tern Recovery Plan. Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR, in cooperation with the recovery team.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. The California Brown Pelican Recovery Plan. USFWS Portland, OR.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. 1991. San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Predator Management Plan and Final Environmental Assessment. Unpubl. Report. San Francisco Bay NWR Complex. Newark, CA.

U.S. Navy 1995. California least tern foraging and other off-colony activities around Alameda Naval Air Station during 1993. Prepared for Engineering Field Activity West. San Bruno, CA. Prepared by Laura Collins and Leora Feeney. August 1995.

U.S. Navy. 1997a. Biological Assessment for Disposal and Reuse of Naval Air Station Alameda and Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Alameda Facility and Annex Alameda, California. Unpubl. report. EFA West Naval Facilities Engineering Command. San Bruno, CA.

U.S. Navy. 1997b. Historic Archaeological Resources at NAS Alameda. Unpubl. memo from Lou Wall to Doug Pomeroy dated 21 October 1997.

U.S. Navy. 1997c. Naval Air Station Alameda BRAC Cleanup Plan, Revision 3. February 26, 1997.

U.S. Navy. 1998. California Least Tern Nesting Season at the Alameda Naval Air Station - 1997. Prepared for Engineering Field Activity West. San Bruno, CA. Prepared by Laura Collins. February 16, 1988.

Wauchope, R.D., T.M. Butler, A.G. Hornsby, P.W.M. Augsutijn Beckers, and J.P. Vurt. 1992. SCS/ARS/CES Pesticide properties database for environmental decisionmaking. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 123:1-157.

Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). 1994. Herbicide Handbook, Seventh Edition. Champaign, IL.



PERSONAL COMMUNICATION

Baird, Pat. January 24, 1998. California least tern researcher. Conversation at Pacific Seabird Group conference to obtain information on least tern foraging behavior.

Caffrey, Carolee. January 7, 1998. Biologist, Professor. Telephone conversation to obtain information on California least tern biology and management.

Collins, Laura. October 30, 1997. Biologist. On-site meeting to discuss biological resources of Alameda.

Elsey, Michael. May 21, 1998. Port Operations, Trident Management. Field visit to attempt removal of dog from Breakwater Island.

Feeney, Leora. October 30, 1997 and April 7, 1998. Biological Field Services. Meeting and phone conversation to discuss biological resources of Alameda.

Jaques-Strong, Deborah. April 13, 1998. Biologist. Telephone conversation to discuss specific recommendations for protecting brown pelicans at Alameda roost.

Pomeroy, Douglas. December 16, 1997. Biologist, U.S. Navy EFA West, San Bruno. Telephone conversation to obtain information on Navy management activities.

Roletto, Jan. April 8, 1998. Marine Mammal Biologist, Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. Telephone conversation to obtain information on harbor seal disturbance factors.

Steuber, John. October 28, 1997. Wildlife Biologist, USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services, Sacramento. Planning team meeting.

APPENDIX A

DISTRIBUTION LIST

ELECTED OFFICIALS

FEDERAL AGENCIES

NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES

STATE AGENCIES

CITY/COUNTY/LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

ORGANIZATIONS/BUSINESS/CIVIC GROUPS

MEDIA

UNIVERSITIES/COLLEGES

LIBRARIES

INDIVIDUALS