Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1996-09-04 ARRA Packet
MARGARET ENSLEY AGENDA ARRA SECRETARY Regular Meeting of the Governing Bod,, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda High School Cafeteria West Wing, Historic Alameda High School Corner of Central Avenue and Walnut Street Wednesday, September 4, 1996 5:30 p.m. Alameda, California IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE AUTHORITY: 1) Please file a speaker's slip with the Secretary, and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the rostrum and state your name. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes per item. 2) Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3) Applause, signs or demonstrations are prohibited during Authority meetings. 1. ROLL CALL 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of August 7, 1996. 2 -B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending ARRA Approve the Selection of Trident Management, Inc. to Provide Port Management and Maintenance Services at Piers 1, 2, and 3 and Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a Contract. 2 -C Recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA Authorize the Executive Director to Work with the State Lands Commission to Secure an Appraiser and Sign a Contract to Conduct Land Appraisals of NAS Alameda Property for Potential State Lands Trades. 3. ACTION ITEMS 3 -D. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of "Alameda Point" as the New Name for the NAS Alameda Area. 3 -E. Recommendation from the Executive Director for the ARRA to Approve the Proposed Conceptual Management Plan for the California Least Tern for the Wildlife Refuge as Part of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -F. Overview and Timetable for housing Feasibility Study by Janet Smith- Heimer, Bay Area Economics (BAE). 4 -G. Presentation on Status of Cooperative Services Agreement and Master Lease Discussions by Dave Ryan, EFA West and Kay Miller, ARRA Executive Director. ARRA Agenda - September 4, 1996 Page 2 4 -1-1. Oral Report from the BRAG Updating the ARRA on Current Activities. 4 -I. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the ARRA on 1. Status of Feasibility of Airfield Operation. 2. Current Lease Status of Buildings at NAS Alameda. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) (Any person may address the Governing Body in regard to any matter over which the Governing Body has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda.) 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY 7. ADJOURNMENT Notes: * Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Margaret Ensley, ARRA Secretary, at 864 -3400 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. * Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. * Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print. * Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request. Next ARRA meeting scheduled for October 2, 1996. APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, August 7, 1996 The meeting convened at 5:36 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda; Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th Congressional District; Alternate Beverly Folrath- Johnson (arrived at 6:15 p.m.) for Charles Mannix, Councilmember, City of Alameda; Alternate Jay Leonhardy (arrived at 6:11 p.m.) for Henry Chang, Jr., Councilmember, City of Oakland; Alternate Tony Daysog (arrived at 6:07 p.m.) for "Lil "Arnerich, Councilmember, City of Alameda; Alternate Gary Loeffler for Ellen Corbett, Mayor, City of San Leandro; Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda; Alternate Greg Alves for Karin Lucas, Councilmember, City of Alameda; Alternate Mark Friedman for Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3; Ex- officio Lee Perez, Chair, Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) and Alternate Ardella Dailey (arrived at 5:45 p.m.) for Ex- officio Barbara Rasmussen, Alameda Unified School District. Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Alternate Friedman moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Member DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried the following voice vote: Aye: 6. Noe: 0. Abstain: 0. Absent: 3 - Mannix, Chang, Arnerich (their alternates arrived subsequent to this vote). Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk. *2 -A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of June 5, 1996. Approved. *2 -B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending the ARRA Approve a Four Month No -cost Extension of the Economic Development Administration (EDA) Grant for the Alameda Center for Environmental Technologies (ACET). Approved. ACTION ITEMS 3 -C. Authorization to Participate in Trip to Korea at Pan Pacific University Expense and Selection of Attendees. Mayor Appezzato announced that item 3 -C would not be heard as the request for members of the Authority to visit Korea had been withdrawn. ®Printed on recycled paper ORAL REPORTS 4 -D. Preliminary report on restricted use airfield operation at NAS Alameda by Mike McClintock of PDD Engineering. Mike McClintock of P &D Aviation [correct company name] made a preliminary report on the feasibility of a restricted use airfield operation at NAS Alameda. The final report will be presented at the September meeting. Speakers: Kurt Bohan, Kaylor Energy Products, strongly endorsed the airport, stressing the historic and economic benefits it could provide. Jon Rodgers, Alameda resident, spoke in favor of the airport and explained his proposal to operate a glider ride. Gratz Powers, a 60 -year Alameda resident, endorsed the airport and explained his group's interest in having an area set aside to operate radio - controlled airplanes. 4 -E. Preliminary Report on Interim Marketing Plan and Materials by John Guillory of Guilltone Properties, Inc. and Jill Young of Miilhauser and Young. John Guillory provided an overview of the marketing goals and objectives, the challenges and obstacles to be faced, and the marketing process. He then announced the position statement "Great History. Greater Future." and the alternate positioning statement "Alameda Advantage." Speakers: Neil Patrick Sweeney, Alameda resident, suggested that volunteers answer phones, file, etc. at the ARRA offices and emphasized the importance of the base conversion to the community. Richard Nevelyn, Alameda resident and radio - controlled model builder /pilot, endorsed the use of remote- piloted vehicles and radio - controlled airplanes on the runways to help revitalize the community and form a transportation mecca. Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson emphasized the potential for interim use of the piers by foreign Navys as well as the U.S. Navy and MARAD ships. 4-F. Status Report on Science Center Feasibility Study by Jim Gollub, Bill Bennett, and Helen Birss of Information Design Associates (IDeA). Jim Gollub of IDeA outlined the preliminary findings of IDeA's feasibility assessment of planning/forming an economically -based science center (industrial cluster) at NAS Alameda. 4-G. Presentation on Education/Technology and Business Consortium by Doug deHaan and Andrea Safir. Doug deHaan and Andrea Safir outlined the formation of a consortium of local educational and technological institutions to help insure the successful conversion of NAS Alameda. A ®Printed on recycled paper 2 Memorandum of Understanding will be submitted to ARRA at a future meeting after their Bylaws have been formulated. Speakers: Neil Patrick Sweeney, Alameda resident, stated his concern that the U.C. San Francisco Research Hospital be included in the Education/Technology and Business Consortium. John Thayer Fee, Alameda resident, discussed many ideas for base reuse. 4 -L Oral Report from the BRAG Updating the ARRA on Current Activities. Lee Perez, Chair of BRAG, reported on the success of BRAG Appreciation Day in the base museum. He suggested that presentations (such as those given this evening) be videotaped so that they could be seen by more people. 4 -J. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the ARRA. Ms. Miller gave the current status on the EIS /EIR; wildlife refuge discussions; the BCDC Container Cargo Forecast Roundtable scheduled for September 17; the RFP issued by the City of Alameda to locate an operator for the O' Club; formation of a committee to help rename streets at NAS Alameda; issuance of an RFP for port services; the RFQ for FISC redevelopment site ; the Public Trust appraisal; interim leasing status; efforts to explore leasing Navy housing for civilian use; consultant work; and an invitation that has been extended to ARRA to participate in EURONAVAL 96. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) Neil Patrick Sweeney, Alameda citizen, suggested that the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation furnish their plans to the USS Missouri and that Pan Pacific University use the internet for marketing. Bill Smith, Virtual Agile Manufacturing, endorsed the airfield concept to help promote tourism. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSIDER: At 8:45 p.m., the meeting adjourned to closed session for Conference with Legal Counsel- Anti- cipated Litigation: Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9: 1 case. READJOURNMENT TO PUBLIC SESSION AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY At 9:00 p.m. the meeting reconvened and it was announced that direction was given to staff. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 9:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Printed on recycled paper 3 Margaret E. Ensley Secretary Printed on recycled paper 4 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum August 28, 1996 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director 2 -B SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending ARRA Approve the Selection of Trident Management, Inc. to Provide Port Management and Maintenance Services at Piers 1, 2, and 3 and Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a Contract. Background: Portions of Piers 1, 2, and 3 are now available for reuse. Prior to closure, the Navy's only docking requirement will be for the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson, which returns from its current deployment in November 1996 and leaves for its new home port in Bremerton, Washington in January 1997. Thereafter, ARRA will be able to sublease all available pier space at NAS Alameda. The prime tenant for these piers will be the United States Maritime Administration (MARAD). MARAD wishes to berth up to 13 of its West Coast Ready Reserve Force (RRF) vessels at the three piers. A berth shall also be provided for the decommissioned aircraft carrier Hornet, which is being restored as a historic vessel by the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation. Discussion: The ARRA needs to contract with a qualified port management firm to manage operations and maintain these piers. The contractor services shall include the following: - An overall port management program that sustains or improves the condition of the port. - Provision of ship "hotel services" for berthed ships. - Provision of crane and rigging and other pierside support services. - Operation of the Bilge Oily Wastewater Treatment System (BOWTS). - Provision of an oil and hazardous substance spill response capability for berthed ships. - Maintenance of pier structures and associated utility systems. - Maintenance of associated port equipment. - Maintenance of land and infrastructure associated with port. Six firms responded to a Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by ARRA staff to select a port services operator. Following review of the proposals, four firms were interviewed: Bay Ship & Yacht, Nelson Marine, Gianotti, Inc., and Trident Management, Inc. The interview panel included Kay Miller and Ed Levine of the ARRA; Dave Wilson of the EBCRC; Vello Kiisk, former Executive Director of the San Francisco Port District and special consultant to the ARRA; and Michael Beritzhoff, Senior Engineer with the Port of Oakland. The panel unanimously selected Trident Management, Inc. to provide these services. A copy of the panel's evaluation criteria is attached. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority August 28, 1996 Page 2 Trident Management, Inc. is a new company formed by the Navy personnel who are currently in charge of operating the port. Trident's president, CDR Michael Crouch, was until recently Base Closure Officer at NAS Alameda. Trident personnel have direct and proven experience in operating this port. This will be particularly advantageous during the transition period prior to base closure and in maximizing on the potential of the Bilge Oily Wastewater Treatment System (BOWTS) which is viewed as a possible major revenue source for the ARRA. By virtue of their established experience in this operation, Trident was considered to be the firm best qualified to provide port services. If the ARRA Governing Body approves this recommendation, ARRA staff will enter into negotiations with Trident to finalize the terms of a port services contract. Since the specific scope of services of this contract will depend largely on the needs of MARAD, staff will concurrently negotiate a berthing service agreement with MARAD. Fiscal Impact: The cost of the services provided by the port operator will be passed through to MARAD and the Hornet Foundation through their berthing agreements with the ARRA. Therefore, there will be no net cost impact to the ARRA resulting from this contract. It is anticipated that substantial revenues will be generated from the berthing agreements with MARAD and the Hornet Foundation; however, since these agreements have not yet been negotiated, estimates of these revenues are not available. Recommendation: It is recommended that the ARRA Governing Body approve selection of Trident Management, Inc. and authorize ARRA staff to negotiate and enter into a port services contract with Trident in general accordance with the terms and conditions of their proposal. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director Attachment: Proposal Review Criteria EL /jcb /mee Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority PORT MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES PROPOSAL REVIEW CRITERIA Points 15 Quality of proposal — not a mere repetition of the tasks taken from the Scope of Work. The detail, clarity, and demonstrated understanding of the issues involved. 25 Firm/team's past experience in the specific areas of port management and maintenance. 25 Demonstrated general ability of the project team to successfully implement this project. Assessment of the capabilities of the fines and individuals involved in the project. 25 Cost and revenue criteria, including costs for baseline services, and proposed revenue to the ARRA from operation of the BOWTS and turnkey operation of Pier #3. 10 The diversification (M/W/DVBE) and depth of personnel of the firm and /or subcontractors. Commitment to partnering, mentor- protege relationship with M/W/DVBEs. 100 TOTAL POINTS A :',PORTS V C S. PTS Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum August 28, 1996 To: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority From: Kay Miller Executive Director 2 -C Re: Recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA Authorize the Executive Director to Work with the State Lands Commission to Secure an Appraiser and Sign a Contract to Conduct Land Appraisals of NAS Alameda Property for Potential State Lands Trades. Background A substantial amount of property within NAS Alameda is filled tide and submerged lands that are subject to the "public trust." Public trust allowable uses include water - related commerce, navigation, fisheries, recreation, and open space. Some of these lands within the existing developed core of the base are no longer useful for public trust purposes due to the existing buildings and infrastructure. In addition, future uses planned for the area are not allowed within areas subject to public trust except as long-term leases. The City would like to free these lands from the public trust so that they may be sold and put to permanent non -trust uses. With the participation of the State Lands Commission, land that is not useful for public trust purposes may be exchanged out of the public trust. This "land trade" can be done by exchanging or bringing other lands into the trust that are of equal or greater economic value and that are useful for public trust purposes. Therefore, it is necessary to perform a fair market value appraisal of any lands that might be include in an exchange. Discussion The State of California has provided up to $50,000 for a public trust lands appraisal through the California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant Program. This appraisal is also necessary for completion of the ARRA's Economic Development Conveyance application to the Department of the Navy. The land appraisal will study both existing lands at NAS Alameda within the public trust and those lands outside of the public trust suitable for trade. If there is insufficient land value available for the necessary land trade, the State Lands Commission could also approve payments to a State Trust Account. The State Lands Commission is an integral part of this process and will be working with the ARRA staff in preparing instructions and guidance for the appraisal. The State Lands Commission will review and need to be satisfied with the appraisal before it can be used to support an exchange. ARRA staff has been working with the State Lands Commission staff to develop an acceptable RFP and list of qualified land appraisers to perform this tasks. The State Lands Commission has provided Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority August 28, 1996 Page 2 a short list of qualified appraisers with expertise in Public Trust appraisals who have worked for the Commission in the past. Given the need to move quickly with the EDC process, it is highly desirable to complete an appraisal as quickly as possible. For this reason, ARRA's approval is requested to allow the Executive Director to select the appraiser and execute a contract in order to get this work underway by September. Fiscal Impact The ARRA has been awarded a State of California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant of $50,000 for the completion of a State Lands property appraisal. Without a public trust land trade, land use restrictions will have a significant impact on the ability of the ARRA to sell property for future long- term permanent redevelopment purposes. Any property trade will not be made until a more complete evaluation is made and the land swap is approved by the City of Alameda and the ARRA. Recommendation The Executive Director recommends that the ARRA authorize the Executive Director to work with the State Lands Commission to secure an appraiser and sign a contract to conduct land appraisals of NAS Alameda Property for a potential State Lands trade. Respectfully Submitted, `71/t4,e,bA2,6 Kay Miller Executive Director PT /gm/mee cc: Interim City Manager California State Lands Commission C: \MY FILES\ARRA \STAFF- RE.PRT \APPRAISE.R Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum August 28, 1996 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director 3 -D SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending. Endorsement of "Alameda Point" as the New Name for the NAS Alameda Area. Background Effective marketing of interim use and new development opportunities at NAS requires adoption of a new name and identity for the converted base. Two parallel efforts have been underway to decide on the name. The BRAG's Community Involvement Working Group conducted a survey to elicit name suggestions from the public and, after an exhaustive process, agreed on the name "Alameda Point." The BRAG concurred with this recommendation at its August 21, 1996 meeting. At the same time, the ARRA's marketing consultant, John Guillory, in conjunction with his advertising associates Mulhauser & Young, developed a list of over a hundred possible names that were eventually narrowed down to five top choices. These included: "Point Alameda," "Alameda Point," "Alameda Harbor," "Alameda Pacific Park," and "Alameda Pacific Gateway." A copy of Miilhaiiser and Young's name selection criteria is.attached. Recommendation It is recommended that the Governing Body concur with the BRAG recommendation and adopt "Alameda Point" as the new name for the NAS Alameda area. Sincerely, Kay Miller Executive Director Attachment: Alameda NAS Name Criterion, Muhlhauser & Young 7/19/96 EL /jcb /mee C: \MYFILES\ARRA \STAFF- RE.PRT\NAML NAS. M =� t Y17N ;' „nk: ADVERTISING / PACKAGING / DESIGN Alameda NAS Name Criterion 7/19/96 1. Integrate with the city of Alameda. It should not appear to be a separate community. 2. Have an identity with the land, city or history of Alameda or the Navel Station. It should not be generic enough of a name that it could be placed on any project in California. 3. Separate itself from typical names given to apartment, condominium, single family residential or business park developments. 4. Be suitable for a master planned, mixed use community which encompasses industrial, educational, recreational, commercial, governmental, and residential components. 5. While it can have a connection to the historic significance of the Naval Base, it should not imply it is merely the reallocation of the Bases' assets. It should connote a great future over its past. 6. It should imply significance and quality. 7. It must appeal to large corporations as well as small businesses and service organizations. 8. It must capture the imaginations of everyone involved, now and in the future. It must not be common place, but a source of ever growing pride and development. It should grow positively on individuals as much as NAS will grow positively on Alameda. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum August 28, 1996 To: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority From: Kay Miller Executive Director 3 -F, Re: Recommendation from the Executive Director for the ARRA to Approve the Proposed Conceptual Management Plan for the California Least Tern for the Wildlife Refuge as Part of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan. Background The Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda Community Reuse Plan has recommended a major portion of the NAS Alameda airfield as a Wildlife Refuge under the management of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The plan recommends that this area be no less than 390 acres (land area) and no more than 525 acres, with the exact size and boundary of the refuge to be determined by further scientific studies and the development of an acceptable predator management program in order to preserve the Least Tern. The Community Reuse Plan also states that the USFWS and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) will be responsible for developing a management plan and philosophy for the Wildlife Refuge. This plan should include measures for habitat conservation and management, predator control, refuge design, public access and use guidelines, and guidelines for the development of adjacent land uses. The BRAG, through their public review process, recommended that the size of the Wildlife Refuge be 390 acres of dry land area plus 375 acres of water area to the south around the island breakwater. The USFWS requested 525 acres of land area. The BRAG's recommendation also called for a major predator management program. The process for determining the acceptable size refuge is the USFWS Section 7 Consultation process during the EIS/EIR prepared for the Community Reuse Plan. For the past year, ARRA staff, the City of Alameda, and the U.S. Navy have been in informal Section 7 Consultation with the USFWS on the issues related to the Least Tem habitat. During these meetings, USFWS also determined that the size of the Wildlife Refuge was directly related to the type and extent of the predator management practices for the site. Thus, in order to provide a document for review by the USFWS, ARRA staff contracted with Zander Associates to prepare a Conceptual Management Plan for the Least Tern habitat. Discussion The Conceptual Management Plan for the California Least Tern Habitat is intended to provide USFWS and the Navy with a management strategy for review in conjunction with the and use alternatives in the EIS /EIR process and the USFWS Section 7 Consultation. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority August 28, 1996 Page 2 While the Conceptual Management Plan provides predator management controls that could work for a 390 acre refuge, these practices are recommended for any size refuge. The Conceptual Management Plan was developed in consultation with experts in the field, USFWS, and the U.S. Navy environmental staff. The Draft Conceptual Management Plan was reviewed by the BRAG and forwarded to the ARRA for its consideration. Fiscal Impact The Conceptual Management Plan would have a major fiscal impact on the reuse of NAS Alameda. The plan includes initial .capital costs of $2,335,315 and annual ongoing costs to the ARRA or the City of Alameda of $130,500. These costs would be paid over and above the USFWS management costs for a larger development site in the Northwest Territories (northern airfield area). The higher management costs of this plan would be offset by taxes collected in a large development site in the Northwest Territories under the 390 -acre Wildlife Refuge alternative. Without the additional development, the USFWS would be responsible for these costs in a 525 -acre refuge. Payment of these costs could be included in the overall infrastructure assessment and service fees for the site and would be paid when development occurs in the Northwest Territories. These management costs could also be offset by federal and state grants from the Department of the Defense, Navy cooperative service payments for continued management during the interim period, higher visitor fees, and donations from local environmental organizations. Recommendation The Executive Director recommends that the ARRA approve the proposed Conceptual Management Plan for the California Least Tern Wildlife Refuge as part of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan and transmit the plan to the Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Navy for review and inclusion in the EIS/EIR for the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan and the USFWS Section 7 Consultation. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director CA MYPt LEMARRA \sTAFP- RE.PR'1lTGRNMGMT.PLN ' CV: (sit (..)111`..)IN.) -a • -a . -a. • ; CO ---.1■0)1(J1;41, CADIMI--.1-,..01(01■110)101141a1COINDINDIOIODICX:11--410)1C.D14'Ca)11\-)1•-a, o 0 to 3 (c. 0 5 0 5. 0. 0 * . ' 1 *1 1 *1 ' *1 I 1 1 *1' *: *: *. *. *; *: ' * * , 4 i I J, -;-. ,- ! . cn: 731 CD! -DI > 0 ZI>' >1-ruciol> K100' cn' --I1 xi KI > Olz col -fli (-) 010Ia =-!.--<- 0 IC 1= `< 0 ic ,TTIZ > (111-1 >OD -I 0 =10 c 10 Q- ;---;:i iTy: a) ! > 0 -c'T ( 9 _ i"‹ m <. a i =.! c n 7; -1c n xj•-<icn * D - 7 - . - - I n i 0 F , 8 1 3 :‘< := Ir., 0-, 1=:151r* %) (Ei ='-', in 1— 01— > col— 0 la) Ica 1-1 0..:!0 co : cf)170 0 ,,,,, icnI (p , 0 ; i 0 sl) , 0 1 1c.) 01m _<=,11-0-,,,•,..:,::10: ci_.,:•1:7:::71 m >len' IC ,0 :=1 • ))." 0) r-T-1!)< 17-•,-.. 0:1!"1> 01'61 .° >I Ira..1 .1-1... ''.. ° ODIK 0; (D • D-, -• 5 I -, 1.-.. 01 ,,-, 0 1 < 0 • 1, 721.,•(7.5; CD ' -1, a- 1D , C ! Cr • ! ,0 : ,..i3, , 0 I"' '." , • -, ■ ". .15.!:-1.1.1w '•(t) ,5 '''.!01 El)!010r-](.0!_l 0)!3 cnc-151-6- ....74i3O r,icp .711(D cr:■:,....10!0,cp '-i5!E oi .. 0 AD !(D 0.10 •.--, -a I - D''' , ! 0 :01-ICD '31(1)13 ct, ! (n -•1 !(/) 1 co Ic..,IWID • •('D f M ▪ : ... '... [ ID i < . 1 0 '...< . D'' ''', . al rn TV ...2 2. ; ••••••Th 1..... 1 0 , 1 •'," 0 • < -0 an (f) 0 a 4( 0 _ c0 ( , 5 . .. 0 0 i m 0 -, c ED 0- 0 - f < 0 < IC C ISD .. '..11.1.• .-611‘<•,-,-.1-,17'01,-,'- - ....4 . 5,0 : -, 1-0 !(.0 0 !...._...1„.:-.4„., , '...... • so ,c, I .... IC N • . 7 ....-. ,,,--, '''''V, , i•Ln...1-0 0 ' cr in-. 0 CI:Jiff );> .•,.:,,..."-. . !!....... (0 , : ,D-• ,n) --...i , ! = o ! .7 ; -• : ! . Ho , ,•-c ! •-• 1 <, , -0 !--_-.-- .o -1 -' :a) , ' -•7*,- ' • 13 --, --ft : , , 0 (0 i 0 ; '; • . ' I 0) ,n) 0) -(- .. I 0)1 -0 --‘ : --:, 1 0..) 1 (0 , to !, -0 --‘! n): -0!1.) co! cro col -.11->! IV' -,,)> li : co c o a! C D --11 0 0); 4 (0 --J 0 0)! -'1- 1 c0i l\!)'.0) ,1\) 01 mr, N.)' 0)1 0.1 0 C D 0 ) 0 . 0 ( 0 - 0 ' 0 0) - IV 1 n) ,,- N.) : fz) : -,. o ...... -4 : (3). ! •-4 0) , o 5 en szo, K; „....„, 90, cl 0 -r' 0 cn 0 -- 2. o = 1 W cn N.) ‘ c,,, --., .... o o - ts.) co o 0 4).• =a a. 1 13 ' - .... 0 - ■ -.• I. \ .) ^*' Cr ' CD 0 -.■ DJ 4 - CD 0 -A •-.. l'‘) ND CO - . 93 S20 0) (0 • Fp' , Ct. Pa 1,.3 ND 00 (‚.3 CA CD1 7 CA1) 1 C , • 0 , ! . . . . ; 1 (1) 1 ' C15:1) CD • , : • • : . . ! 1 ' , ' 1 011 0) CD `.1. .._ CD 7 CO r-* JagwnN 6uipumg CD -.a • -a . - :-.1. ....a. 11 Do Ca) -x ' --, ; - 1 OD 01 .1). ' -, • CO ' -al CO 0 • CD 1 -a , 01 ! 00 • : 01 . 0.) I 01 • 4. -a .-a 04 1 0) (.... o c NiIp. -);1-ol1-oi1rvi•co!14:- --4101 cn !mi 1 ‘• . -) ,! 0 — () CD 00 DN 00000ND 0004CDry -4 C0 00—r0 42 cp cpic) (Di(31 oloicplolo, al c)loic01c.); .1).1011-.41 IC) 01011 10.01crifoilo. 0:010 cr.)0 0,010;01010 olotoloiclo!0:01cp!cp!o!k :o10.0:010. - : • , , — (-D 11 (-D7 11 ...,CDICD 1 w 07, r-1 o ! ! r- r!! air- , , , c ? 0_ _-. . Z (0 (0 .1)a 0 CD M-D•IZZaDZ-'.N3ZIZ Z1Z Z 0 0")° mIc)!°° °I 0 03 5 0'8 8 .< CD 0) 0) -4 cY) 0) 0) --I I * I * 0) * ---) --4 ! t * , * * o) a) ▪ a. ca. o)! Q.! o_ o..; •. ....... ----- , i--- , i , I • • ; ; • , 0 1 . 0 C) 2 2 i010 00 0 01,„ -0 o (o. , 1010, 10 00 010 0H-*W0 3 ...A. _.,. 3 3 , 3 _,. 3 310 0 ol 41.1 Ilz.! cr.) .0 cr.) o cp I 10 o ,13 1-0 112...I (-70- (-6 micoliBica, CD CD CO ! CD • CD CD ■ a), '61 co rc-01 03,01(0 ID cr) a) al.! ■ I I I 1 , ■ • ' ■ 1 I : ' ' ■ I 1 : ■ 1 ' o!) oli 4:,.!(.31oltv o • o I \▪ )1, CO CD -' 1 1 OD ^.1 col I cp ! , OD • -- CD' 01 I 0 CD 1 <xi 1 al , c)! al cp o oil ol o 0 , c.311 c.,..) 01 cn 1 o 1 c)! c!....: cr, c> I c:). „ 1 I : • , 1 , : • , . , , ■ • , , . I ; - ><! IX! : X I ! : X ><I>!<! :><.><I><! . , (D I 0 Cn. 0 | | Total Years ment Year | Year | '---- '=�'` | 1'5 ! Reimbursable by . ' | ARRA ---'-- -$ - ' 98,000 I $ 99,000 Q $ 9900 0 i $ �--3 9c000 1 F- $ 4 95 UUU $410,00 O ---7---- -'- ( ( ( ■ $ 144,000 $ 150000 . I !To be determined ---7- ����� 1 !To be determined $200,000 $ 350000 To be determined • I determined! determined' determined! determined' determined! Minimal ! I . 0 0 : 1.. Cr) CIS Cr) a) ›.- EA- . 0 i 0 i cc i �; CO 1 LO C \ I I CD CD CS co , : 7, 4) . . , . . co 0 -0 0 ; , , 70 . "0 i CD ' i O O 0 0 , 0 0 i [ TS ) 0 0 0 ** 1CALSTART }Cem�r Portions | of 24 & | °^ ' 25 Film Studios*** Portionsi 0 Cn. 0 Correspondence Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Honorable Member of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Kay Miller Executive Director August 20, 1996 Meeting with Navy Families Re: Issues Around Possible ARRA Lease of Housing As I mentioned at the August 7 ARRA meeting, ARRA staff has been in active discussions with the Navy about the steps that would be necessary for the ARRA to undertake leasing of East housing units to civilians. The Navy has suggested that we meet with the military families who live in East housing to understand their concerns about management, security, etc. I will be attending a "Town Meeting" of the East housing families to explore this leasing concept with them. I have asked Police Chief Bernie Matthews and Fire Chief Bob LaGrone to attend to answer questions and hear concerns. Again, this meeting is intended only to "float" this concept with Navy families and flesh out their reaction and concerns. We will not make a decision regarding the leasing of Navy housing without a thorough discussion with the BRAG and the ARRA. I simply wanted you to know in advance of our intent to discuss this idea with the military residents in East housing. The Navy feels strongly that these familites would need to feel comfortable with the prospect before we could proceed further. cc: Rob Wonder, Interim City Manager ©Recycled paper Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory, I3uilding 90 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 Governing Body Ralph Appezzato Chair Mayor, City of Alameda Sandre R. Swanson Vice -Chair District Director for Ronald V. Dellums 9th Congressional District Anthony J. "Lil" Arnerich Councilmember City of Alameda Wilma Chan Supervisor, District 3 Alameda County Board of Supervisors my Chang, Jr. Oakland Councilmember serving for Elihu Harris Mayor, City of Oakland Ellen M. Corbett Mayor City of San Leandro Albert H. DeWitt Councilmember City of Alameda Karin Lucas Councilmember City of Alameda Charles M. Mannix Vice -Mayor City of Alameda Kay Miller Executive Director t)Recycled paper August 20, 1996 CAPT Bruce J. Goode U.S. Coast Guard, CMDR (S) NLC Pac. Bldg. #54D Coast Guard Island Alameda, CA 94501 -5100 Dear CAPT Goode: (510) 864-3400 Fax: (510) 521 -3764 This letter is intended to reflect the discussion we had at a meeting yesterday, August 15, also attended by LCDR Rod Smith of your office, Rob Vanderloo, Coast Guard real estate office, and Dave Ryan and Bill Carsillo from EFA West. The purpose of the meeting was to define the terms that would make the Coast Guard agreeable to the ARRA receiving the 582 housing units and Building 545 and then "leasing back" the property to the Coast Guard under the authority provided in Section 2837 of the 1996 Defense Authorization Act. We agreed that these are the elements of a "leaseback" that need to be clear: . The lease would be for 50 years with no rental payments per §2837; the lease would allow an option for renewal or extension at the discretion of the Coast Guard. 2. The Coast Guard wishes to retain the right to review their need for housing and continually reduce the number of housing units under the lease if the Coast Guard's demand for housing decreases. 3. The Coast Guard or its contractors would be responsible for the management and maintenance and repair of the buildings, grounds, etc. 4. Any improvements to the property are the responsibility of the Coast Guard. 5. All costs for utilities, maintenance, and services associated with the property will be the responsibility of the Coast Guard. 6. The Coast Guard's position is that current law precludes you from paying for municipal police and fire services. CAPT Bruce Goode August 20, 1996 Page 2 I trust this accurately reflects the major features we discussed. If it does, I hope you will move quickly to recommend to your superiors that the Coast Guard accept this arrangement and immediately notify the U.S. Navy of that decision. I think we all agree that this arrangement gives us both the most flexibility and protects your interest as well as ours. I look forward to an official response to this arrangement. Very truly yours, Kay Miller Executive Director KM /mee cc: Dave Ryan, Base Conversion Manager, EFA West William R. Carsillo, Head, Southern Section, EFA West Rob Wonder, Interim City Manager, City of Alameda Heather McLaughlin, Assistant City Attorney, City of Alameda William J. Cassidy, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy Congressman Dellums' office, Att: Bob Brauer, Professional Staff Member ARRA Governing Body August 9, 1996 Mayor Ralph Appezzato City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 -4456 Dear Mayor Appezzato, We have been approached by a public relations firm which is contracted to manage a major celebration in, and of, the bay area next spring. "Britain By The Bay" proposes to focus on companies in the U. K. doing business here, and visa versa. We are not at liberty to mention any notables who will be involved, but the suggested array is quite impressive. • We feel that this would be a perfect opportunity for the City of Alameda to flaunt their prestigious NAS Alameda as a crown jewel. Captains of industry, heads of state and media idols from around the world would view the bay area as never before. Imagine a myriad of colorful tents on the ramps next to anything from the SST Concord (of British Airways), to the classic "Dakota" ( English parlance for the DC -3), or a Virgin Atlantic A340 jumbo jet. At this juncture, anything is possible. We are very much aware of the Nimitz Field Project. Although we are not actively involved, it would be very desirous, from our perspective, if the NAS Alameda remained an open airfield. We have worked with Joe Davis on the Doolittle Flights and hold him, and his aspirations, in the highest regard; he is a proven visionary. An event such as the one described above, could be the norm rather than just a unique occasion; the phenomenal space and strategic location is unrivaled - the possibilities are endless. As this British project is developed we solicit your support in making the base available for a possible launch of the campaign and /or a focal point during its three -month duration. Please contact me at your convenience. It would be my pleasure to share with you any further information as it becomes available. My telephone number is 800 -938 -1900 EXT 232. Sincere egrds, Mr. Geoff Macfee President Otis Spunkmevcr, Inc. • 14490 Catalina Street, San Leandro, California 94577 • (510) 649-5900 Golden Gate Audubon Socie 2530 San Pablo Avenue. Suite G • Berkeley. CA 94702 • Phone: (510) 843-2222 • Fax: (510) 843 -5351 Americans Committed to Conservation • \ Chapter of the National Audubon Society usauszemsalr August 18, 1996 Ms. Kay Miller, Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory Building 90 c.< wiaui:;ua, i..r1 7‘t-.IV Dear Ms. Miller: AUG 2 3 '996 CITY OF .L AM' » -, The following are the comments of the Golden Gate Audubon Society concerning the Draft Conceptual Management Plan for the California Least Tern far the Preferred Alternative Conununity Reuse Plan i'/ASAlameda. The Golden Gate Audubon Society believes that the above referenced Conceptual Management Plan is inadequate for the purpose of sustaining the California Least Tern colony located on the Naval Air Station, Alameda . While the comment period on this Draft Plan is too short to allow for full examination the following flaws are readily recognized: 1) The Draft Plan is inaccurate in describing the Draft's proposed 390 -acre Refuge as representing the Preferred Alternative of the Community Reuse Plan. The ARRA, in fact, adopted a Reuse Plan that included a range of acreages for the Refuge from 390 to 525 acres. Therefore, the "Preferred Alternative" language should be removed or the Draft redone so as to include Conceptual Management Plan for a 525 -acre Refuge. As noted in BRAG Environmental Working Group Chair Malcolm Mooney's July 19, letter, the "community" has not chosen on a 390 -acre Refuge. 2) Proposing a management plan only for a 390 -acre Refuge would appear to be an attempt to coerce the Fish and Wildlife Service ( Service) or the Department of Interior into accepting such a reduced acreage Refuge. Similarly, the offer of substantial dollars in support of Refuge management if the smaller Refuge is adopted while withholding all financial support if a larger Refuge is adopted is also unpleasantly reminiscent of coercion. We would hope to see the ARRA also propose funding for a 525 -acre Refuge. 3) The first sentence of the Executive Summary: "There is no scientific or public consensus on what factors associated with reuse of the Naval Air Station, Alameda could increase predation and /or human disturbance of the California Least Tern colony..." is simply not true. The preponderance of scientific opinion agrees on the threats to the - California Least Tern at the Alameda Naval Air Station and also agree on the solutions. The biologists of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have proposed a 525 -acre Refuge as the minimum necessary to insure the continued existence of the Alameda California Least GGAS: Comments on Draft Conceptual Management Plan page 2 For a 390 -Acre Refuge Tern colony. Seven pre - eminent Least Tern scientists (and there are not all that many more in existence) have written a letter which describes why the present colony is so successful, i.e., because sufficient buffers reduce predator threats and facilitate predator control. They call for the largest Refuge possible based on those factors. We understand that the USDA Animal Damage Control agency personnel support the request for a larger Refuge based on these known factors concerning predation control. The only scientist, that we know of, who has challenged these conclusions, if she does indeed challenge these conclusions, is the scientist hired by the ARRA. Clearly there is a preponderance of scientific opinion, i.e. a consensus, that a larger Refuge is necessary. 4) For this Least Tern colony to succeed in the long term, a Refuge should be created that needs the least amount of management rather than one that is based on intensive management. The greater the intensity of management, the greater the likelihood for disaster. The 390 -acre Refuge Conceptual Management Plan is based on and relies on intensive management, a totally inappropriate management scenario. This is why a larger 525 -acre Refuge is the appropriate size. Basing a Refuge on intensive management can only lead to future disaster for many reasons, among them: A) Reduced funding levels- the ARRA's suggested funding is hypothetical and based entirely on the problematic development of the Air Station. Even if ARRA funding becomes available, in recessionary times those funds may well disappear. The history of the City of Alameda's finances, for example its difficulty in keeping its City Hall open, reflect the likelihood of such an eventuality. Also, under the Conceptual Plan, the ARRA funding does not materialize until reuse development occurs. What happens to Refuge management in the interim, which may be decades? Since the Refuge will be 390 acres and requiring intensive management from the outset, where will the needed management money come from during that time period? Furthermore, since this Least Tern colony will hopefully exist for hundreds of years, it is likely that inflation over that period of time will significantly diminish the value of the Conceptual Management Plan's fixed amount of $100,000 per year. A Management Plan should have funding based on management tasks rather than on a fixed amount of dollars. While we remain confident that federal funding will be forthcoming for an Alameda National Wildlife fe Refuge, it may at certain tunes be less than desired. A 525- acre refuge provides the bare minimum of buffer area so that colony survival is likely to result even if predator management is relaxed. A 390 -acre Refuge has no such margin of error and disaster is likely if management levels are at all reduced. B) Illness to staff- -the ARRA conceptual management plan is based on intensive management with one Least Tern monitor constantly on duty during the nesting season. If that person were to be ill during the nesting season the entire program would be thrown in jeopardy. A flu lasting three days could prove disastrous because, with the lack of sufficient buffer, raptors will identify the Least Tern colony much more quickly on a 390 -acre Refuge than under a 525 -acre scenario. With a 525 -acre Refuge, absence of the Least Tern monitor for a few days, while serious and damaging to predator control, would not be a disaster because there is GGAS: Comments on Draft Conceptual Management Plan page 3 For a 390 -Acre Refuge sufficient buffer present so that the likelihood. ofraptors finding the Least Tern nests is not as great. C) The basic premise of the Conceptual Management Plan is one can scare away all, or almost all, threatening raptors and thus remove, to a great degree, the need to shoot predators. There are many problems with this assumption. First of all, we believe that the harassment techniques described in the Plan will probably not work. There are many instances where harassment of avifauna is unsuccessful. Attempts to scare off waterfowl at the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge proved unsuccessful and this included firing off very loud guns. Biologists we have spoken to insist that once a raptor has prey in sight they will not be distracted by shouting or waving of arms. There is also the likelihood that raptors will acclimatize to hazing once they realize no harm results from the hazing techniques. It is well known that many avian individuals acclimatize to human disturbance. Furthermore, raptors troubling the colony do not have to perch on the Air Station perimeter before they attack the Least Tern colony. It is our understanding that many predation problems at the NAS, Alameda Least Tern colony result from raptors who come from points far outside the Naval Air Station vicinity. These are raptors who, by chance, are flying over the Tern colony, see the nesting Terns and then attack them. Harassment simply cannot effect this type of raptor activity. Another problem is that since, for the Conceptual Plan to work, all raptors must be immediately Harassed to remove them from the site, one full -time employee is insufficient. There are many raptors in the Alameda Naval Air Station vicinity and thus there will likely be more than one raptor perching near the Refuge at any one time. Since even a 390 -acre Refuge is too large to allow for rapid human movement from one end to the other it is impossible for one staff person to harass all perching raptors at the same time. Thus, even if the harassment techniques worked, the increased number of paid staff necessary to maintain the level of harassment proposed in the Plan would make the Plan non - achievable because of the high management costs. The text of the Conceptual Plan implies that predators are continually shot under present management operations. This is not the case. Often no raptor destruction is required at all during a nesting season, while in the worst years we understand that fewer than eight raptors, and usually only one or two, require destruction. A large enough Refuge, such as the current configuration or a 525 -acre configuration, provides sufficient buffers so that relatively little predator destruction is actually necessary. On the other hand, under the ARRA scenario, if raptor harassment fails, there will be increased need for predator destruction because of the reduced amount of buffer area. With a 390 -acre Refuge, raptors will be closer to the Least Tern colony and much more likely to see it. A 390 -acre Refuge could well lead to the need for increased shooting of raptors rather than less. Another major flaw in the Conceptual Management Plan is its apparent assumption that it is an appropriate and positive action to remove all raptors from the vicinity of the Refuge. In fact, such management techniques would be disastrous in terms of a Refuge concept, which is one of ecosystem management. Raptors are a vital part of GGAS: Comments on Draft Conceptual Management Plan page 4 For a 390 -Acre Refuge Bay Area coastal ecology. Raptors are a desirable part of our ecology, both from biological and from human esthetics points of view. The presence of raptors at an Alameda National Wildlife Refuge should be seen as an indication of the success of the Refuge and not as a sign of disaster. Least Terns evolved with raptor predation and have developed techniques to frustrate such predation (not always, of course successfully). They nest with intensive camouflage and they mob aerial predators. If raptors were successfully removed from this colony, young Terns would not experience the mobbing technique and this may lead to their inability to use such techniques if they move on to other colonies. After all, the ANAS colony is so successful that it is believed to provide new adults for other Least Tern colonies. Thus, even if the Conceptual Management plan worked in terms of raptor harassment, unlikely as we believe that to be, the end result may lead to significant negative impacts on the California Least Tern and to all the other wildlife currently inhabiting the western end of the Air Station. The Refuge should be managed to provide habitat for both raptors and Terns and all the other wildlife species presently inhabiting the site. For this to be possible the largest possible Refuge is necessary. Much more could be said about this management scheme. It is, we believe, scientifically invalid and motivated by the desire to reduce Refuge size rather than by a desire to protect and preserve the Alameda California Least Tern colony. We believe that implementation of such a management scheme would likely result in the rapid abandonment of the Least Tern colony site due to excessive raptor predation. We urge the ARRA to abandon its scientifically indefensible 390 -acre Refuge concept and to adopt the scientifically valid 525 -acre Refuge proposal. Sincerely yours, Arthur Feinstein Program Coordinator (./&o e filadada4 So -a :thy, ! . .99„, L August 19, 1996 Ms. Kay Miller, Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory Building 90 Alameda, California 94501 RECE1W AUG 2 1 1996 AR:RA CITY OF ALAMEDA Subject: DRAFT Conceptual Management Plan For The California Least Tern for The Preferred Alternative Community Reuse Plan NAS Alameda. Alameda., California Date: August 1996 Dear Ms. Miller: The Ohlone Audubon Society has reviewed the subject document and has the following comments and questions. During the August 8, 1996 briefing meeting with the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) staff, the statement was made that ARRA would contribute $2 million upfront and $100,000 annually for operation and maintenance for the 390 acre ARRA management plan for the California Least Tern wildlife refuge. The draft management plan does not state there is $2 million for the ARRA 390 acre refuge. On Page 12,, second paragaraph it states, "This funding would be available as development occurs in the airfield area and so implementation of the management measures included in this plan would be phased. However, without the additional revenues generated from this development, there would be no funding available from the community to contribute to management of the refuge ". The draft plan promises funding froth development in the future, but there is no indication there will be up -front money for wildlife refuge management and construction. As a result of these vague promises, there. is no justification to reduce the size of the wildlife refuge from 525 acres to 390 acres. As a reminder, the original refuge request was for 595 acres. Negotiations with US Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) resulted in the reduction of the USF6:S's refuge size to 525 acres. Where are the revenues from those 70 acres? Why are they not credited to the refuge? The HRRA's 390 acre design was based on geometry not biology. The distance from the Least Tern colony to the nearest building was used as the radius for a circle from the Least Tern colony to the north boundary line. This design facilitated ARRr''s desire for residential development in the Northwest Territories, and this design had no basis in biology. Page 2. indicates a distance of 1,300 feet between development and the Least Tern colony. Scaled measureents for PIUCU ?1 3. indicate that the - Ms. Kay Miller August 19, 1996 Page 2. distance from the Least Tern colony to the north boundary line is 1,600 feet. There is misrepresentation of the boundary line in FIGURE 3. PAGE 2. TABLE 1: The acreage figures for the GOLF COURSE AREA should be the same for both alternatives. Why were 72 acres shown as PARKS and OPEN SPACE under the USFWS ALTERNATIVE PLAN? If 5 acres for PARKS and OPEN SPACE are sufficient for the ARRA PLAN, why did the consultant increase the PARKS and OPEN SPACE to 72 acres for the USFWS ALTERNATIVE? Couldn't most of the 72 acres be added to the GOLF COURSE and /or to LIGHT INDUSTRY, R & D? PAGE 3. THIRD PARAGRAPH The ARRA DRAFT PLAN promises funding for habitat enhancement, monitoring, and access controls during the breeding /nesting season, but any such funding will not be available until some unknown future date. If funding is to be useful, it must be available for the 1997 breeding season for the Least Terns. Will ARRA provide funding for the 1997 season? PAGE 4. The ARRA DRAFT PLAN indicates that the airfield tarmac will require maintenance. The consultant fails to acknowledge there could be airfield tarmac maintenance accomplished by the limited use airfield project, and will not require ARRA funding. PAGE 5. PROACTIVE PREDATOR CONTROL: It appears that ARRA is attempting to dictate to USFWS predator management control. What expertise does ARRA and its consultants have in the way of superior predator management control for this particular Least Tern colony? ACCESS CONTROL: Fencing is proposed for the northern and eastern boundaries of the wildlife refuge. There should be clarification as to the location or configuration of the fencing. Is it possible to have the 8' fence and the limited use airfield with the 390 acre refuge? HABITAT EXPANSION AND ENHANCEMENT: The proposed 70 acre expansion of the Least Tern nesting habitat has not been carefully thought out for the following reasons: 1. Dredge spoils on the proposed 70 acres would create an unmanageable vegetation problem. How will the vegetation be controlled, and how much will the control cost? 2. Spreading sand and oyster shells will convert the 70 acres to a highly desirable nesting area for more aggressive birds. Have the consultants considered that the proposed enhancement would create an ideal nesting area for American Avocets, Black - necked Stilts, Forster's Terns, Caspian Terns, and Western Gulls to name a few? Some of these birds establish nests before Least Terns arrive for their nesting season. Expansion of the Least Tern nesting site should be done slowly and over a long period of time and centered around the present nesting site. The Least Terns should dictate their own requirements. RUNWAY WETLAND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT: What is the purpose of clearing the 25 acres of wetland? Has the consultant considered that changing this wetland could bring in more aggressive birds? Ms. Kay Miller August 19, 1996 Page 3. Changing the vegetation could imbalance the existing predator /prey relationship adversely. ( Is it possible that the proposed enhancement is for cosmetic reasons for humans ?) LIMITED USE AIRFIELD: How will it be possible to maintain a limited use airfield with a 390 acre refuge? The runway passes through and over a large portion of the golf course and part of the proposed light industrial. area. DREDGING RESTRICTIONS IN LEAST TERN FORAGING AREAS: To avoid potential impacts to the Least Terns, the consultant states that dredging in the tern foraging area should not be allowed between May 1 and July 15. On PAGE 7. the consultant states that construction activities adjacent to the wildlife refuge would only be allowed during the time the Least Terns are absent from the colony (September - March). The proposed plan should have the restricted dredging activity from March to September. PAGE 7. PLANNING AND DESIGN: Add to the building design list restrictions on building overhangs, cornices, cavities, hollow tile roofing, and similar design features that could provide undesirable nesting sites. GOLF COURSE: Is the consultant aware of the avian population that is attracted to golf courses? Golfers consider Canada Geese and Coots a nuisance. DEVELOPMENT PHASING: The consultant should describe the time factors in the phasing of development adjacent to the wildlife refuge. The report indicates there could be negative impacts on the Least Tern colony with the construction of each building. Will there be an EIS /EIR for each building to be constructed adjacent to the refuge? DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATIONAL /PUBLIC AWARENESS PROGRAM: The San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (SFBNWR) has an extensive environmental educational program. The SFBNWR should be included in ARRA,s BASE PLANNING GROUP, "EDUCATION /TECHNOLOGY': PAGE 8. MANAGEMENT AREA 2: NORTHWEST TERRITORIES: The report states there will be ball fields and soccer fields in the NORTHWEST TERRITORIES. Is the consultant aware of the City of Alameda's Parks and Recreation Department's CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN for their SPORTS COMPLEX dated July 17, 1996? The SPORTS COMPLEX includes ball fields and soccer fields on a 33 acre site east of the NORTHWEST TERRITORIES. Are there restrictions on the recreational building and meeting facilities proposed for the NORTHWEST TERRITORIES? When in the phased development plan will the golf course be constructed? PAGE 11. MANAGEMENT COSTS: The consultant did not take into consideration the many services provided by volunteers for the SFBNWR. The consultant should investigate volunteer participation and factor the services provided by volunteers into the management cost estimates. Ms. Kay Miller August 19, 1996 Page 4. APPENDIX C: PROPERTY ANALYSIS RECORD: Financial information in APPENDIX C is skewed by listing unnecessary expenditures for items not needed to maintain a 525 acre or any other size refuge. Items such as dredge spoils, sand, shell cover and fencing are not needed for the Least Terns. These items eliminate more than $1.1 million worth of expenses. The cost of the counter - productive revegetation and reconstruction of the 25 acre wetland should be eliminated. The avoided cost would reduce the total by $262,500. By eliminating these major expenditures, the initial capital would be reduced from $1.65 million to $275,000. This number could be further reduced by using the services of volunteers and students from the College of Alameda. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 1. Why was only a 390 acre refuge considered in this DRAFT PLAN, rather than the range of 390 to 525 acres as finalized in the ARRA REUSE PLAN and submitted to the Navy for the EIS /EIR preparation? 2. The un- supported mitigation and habitat enhancements proposed in this DRAFT PLAN do not justify reducing the size of the 525 acre wildlife refuge. 3. The first paragraph of the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY is unclear. 4. The ARRA DRAFT PLAN proposes to provide $100,000 per year to support the refuge. Is there any consideration given to cost inflation and adjustments to the revenues for the refuge? 5. The ARRA COMMUNITY REUSE PLAN Table 9 -3 shows a Revenues vs. Expenditures estimate at buildout of the entire base of +$225,600. How will this slim margin of estimated revenue be committed to the refuge? The Ohlone Audubon Society appreciates the opportunity to comment on this ARRA DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN, and will be looking forward to receiving a copy of the FINAL PLAN. Sincerely, Frank and Janice Delfino Ohlone Audubon Society Conservation Section 18673 Reamer Road Castro Valley, CA 94546 (510) 537 -2.387 cc: interested parties. 74 Mizpah Street San Francisco, CA 94131 (415) 585 -5304 August 22, 1996 Ms. Kay Miller, Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory Building 90 Alameda, CA, 94501 AUG 2 6 996 CITV OFAtg44E04 Re: Draft Conceptual Management Plan for the CA Least Tern Dear Ms. Miller: I appreciate your invitation to the August 8th briefing on the Conceptual Management Plan for the California Least Tern, and I am sorry that I was unable to attend. Here are some of my comments regarding the Draft Plan. It is disappointing to see that resources have been expended to develop a management plan for a refuge of a size that many experts are convinced will not work. It also seems less than cost effective to be developing a management plan for an endangered species absent any participation from the agency charged with protecting that species, an agency with far more experience and expertise in species management than the consultants who drafted the Plan. I am also concerned that the observations of those individuals with the greatest familiarity with the ANAS Tern Colony were not taken into account. The methods utilized during the Navy's tenure were developed and refined over time by experts who took an ecosystem approach to management. As a long -time supporter of the protection and restoration of the Bay -Delta Estuary, I have been very excited by the opportunities presented at ANAS — for a wildlife refuge that would contribute to the biodiversity of the whole Bay ecosystem, and for an environmental education center to allow future generations to know the beauty and wonder of Nature's complexities. As we focus in on the Least Tern we tend to forget about the rich diversity of life at ANAS — the horned larks, Caspian terns, herons and egrets, several kinds of native raptors, hares and other mammals, and all kinds of ducks and grebes and plovers and on and on. Single species management, while sadly essential for our special- status species in the short term, is not nearly enough if we are going to protect and restore SF Bay in a comprehensive and sustainable way. It isn't even good for the Tern, in the long run, to deprive it of the natural processes which allow it to adapt to predators and to continue to transmit its self - defense abilities to future generations. Ms. Kay Miller, August 22, 1996 Page 2 The predator -prey relationship is part of Nature. It is a process — like pollination or the recycling of nutrients or plant succession — that assures biodiversity and sustainability. It is wrong to adopt a plan that depends upon the perpetual squelching of this natural process. Of course it is essential to differentiate between the native predators that are part of this ecosystem's food web and the introduced invasive predators which do indeed threaten biodiversity. While we may temporarily need to control or discourage all species that would prey on the Least Tern, the long -range plan should call for the control (or even the eradication) of only those species introduced into the area by humans (or whose numbers have gotten out of balance as a result of human activities). If the survival of the Least Tern colony requires continued interference with the native raptors, it is proof that our goal of a diverse and sustainable refuge is not being met. A successful Wildlife Refuge at ANAS will require enough acreage so that: the harriers, red -tails and peregrines will have foraging areas away from the least tern colony; the colony must have enough space to expand over time (the Estuary Project's CCMP calls for the recovery of the Least Tern, not merely its survival); the colony can exercise its relocation defense method, if necessary, within the refuge; potential territorial conflicts with the Caspian Tern will be avoided; and we will not be putting the Least Tern at risk by relying on management techniques unproven for this colony. It is clear that these needs cannot be met within a 390 -acre site. We have heard repeatedly that we must balance the needs of the refuge with economic needs, yet we have seen no hard evidence that limiting the refuge to 390 acres will result in a more economically viable reuse plan. When all the infrastructure, cleanup and seismic stabilization costs of development are taken into account, it may well be that a reuse plan with a refuge of more than 525 acres will make the most sense. It is distressing to see that the Conceptual Management Plan refers to the 390 -acre alternative as "The Preferred Alternative Community Reuse Plan." It was the community's understanding that the Reuse Plan encompassed a range of acreages from 390 to 525. This kind of leap betrays people's trust in participatory democracy. In summary, the adoption of a Least Tern management plan at this time is premature. The decision about the size of the refuge should first be made by qualified Least Tern biologists who are familiar with the ANAS site, and then a management, plan should be prepared under the direction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Please abide by State's policies calling for an ecosystem approach to wildlife management, and set aside the Conceptual Management Plan in favor of a new plan to be based on biodiversity and sustainability goals. Sincerely, 1L*11A Ruth Gravanis Arc Ecology '7 33 Market Street, Suite 1107, San Francisco, CA 9-1103 Tel: (-115) 495 -1786 Fax: ( -115 495- 1737 E -mail arcetigc.apc.org August 23, 1996 Governing Body Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory, Building 90 Alameda, California 94501 -5012 Dear Members of the ARRA Governing Body: RECF ED AUG 2 6 1996 AFHRA CITY OF ALAMEDA When you adopted the Preferred Alternative for the Alameda Naval Air Station with a wildlife refuge that ranged from 390 to 525 acres, you conveyed a message to the public that the size would ultimately be based on the best available scientific information available to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Since then, stakeholders in the issue have anxiously awaited a decision ensuring that the important least tern colony on the airfield continues to thrive, and enabling planning for the rest of the base to move forward expeditiously. We are concerned that your Executive Director's efforts to influence Fish and Wildlife's decisions on refuge issues have become increasingly inappropriate and are unnecessarily polarizing community opinion. In particular, we are disturbed by correspondence with the Departments of both Interior and Defense in which she misrepresents public tnist requirements, mischaracterizes the intentions of environmental organizations, and urges the substitution of conjecture for time - tested conservation practices. We would like to correct the misimpressions created by these letters and also request your assistance in preventing such problems from occurring in the future. Misrepresentation of Public Trust requirements On May 2nd, in a letter to Ms. Bonnie Cohen, Assistant Secretary of Interior, ARRA's Executive Director Kay Miller stated the following: Over 75% of the property at NAS Alameda (including the airfield areas under discussion) fall within the California Public Trust or Tidelands Trust jurisdiction. Under special stale legislation, all public trust lands within the City of Alameda must be owned and administered by the City of Alameda. Some of these tidelands areas were deeded to the US. Federal government in World War II for the Department of Defense. As the Nmy Iemes, the refuge area can only be conveyed to the City; (page 4) Ms. Miller clearly intended to convey the impression that a California statute preempts federal authority to transfer land (that has not been declared surplus) from the Defense to the Interior Department. There is no provision in statet or federal law, nor in the deeds that supports this unique interpretation. It appears that Ms. Miller is referring to a 1913 State statute establishing the City of Alameda as tntstec for all tidal and submerged lands held by the State within Alameda city limits. This law was superseded in 1917 by legislation that, among other provisions, specifically enabled the City of Alameda to sell trust lands to the U.S. government "for public purposes of the United States." The Naval Air Station was established on November 1, 1940 on two properties acquired by the Federal Government in conformance with the provisions of this 1917 State statute: the first was Benton Field, deeded to the War Department in 1930 for use as an Army air base, and subsequently transferred by Executive Order to the Navy in 1936; the second property was sold by the City of Alameda to the Federal government in 1937 for $1. The only restrictions mentioned in the deeds concern a railroad franchise and the requirement that the U.S. government spend a certain amount of money developing the sites. ltlischaracterization of the intentions of environmental organizations On July 15th, Ms. Miller wrote to Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy William Cassidy: The strongest proponents of the refuge are environmental groups in the region who see this request as a means of capturing more open space 111 the Bay Area. These groups would most likely challenge any EISIEIR that does not include the impacts of the alternative sizes of the proposed wildlife refuge. (page 1) Disparaging the motives of the many individuals and organization dedicated to wildlife protection is unnecessary and counterproductive. Environmental organizations have consistently and clearly limited demands for refuge size, configuration, and management to those protections recommended by leading scientists in the field. There is no evidence whatsoever that environmental organizations are advocating the wildlife refuge as a proxy for open space or anything else. Similarly, Ms. Miller has no factual reason to allege that environmental organizations would challenge the EIS \EIR if it did not examine, all refuge alternatives. To the contrary, we support Fish and Wildlife's request for a 525 acre refuge precisely because it would preserve existing protections and would, therefore, prevent adverse impacts. Arguments that untested ideas can provide prudent protections In the letter to Ms. Cohen, Ms. Miller repeatedly suggests that Fish and Wildlife Service scientists are at fault for designating a refuge that will replicate existing protections for the endangered least tern. The USEWS has advocated a conservative approach of maintaining the status quo in terms of both predator controls and management. (page 3) Based on discussions with unnamed consultants, Ms. Miller argues that unspecified methods of control should be substituted for conventional eradication of predators; she suggests that Fish and Wildlife should persuade the least terns to change their nesting habits. Unfortunately her letter offers no indication that its "creative" ideas have been tested under local conditions. Insisting that experimental (at best) ideas justify reduction of refuge acreage implies that basic breeding conditions of the least tern can be manipulated without risk. Difficulties encountered in the field in west coast attempts to restore this fragile species' viability advise that this approach is either uninformed or cavalier. It is ecologically irresponsible to make irreversible changes to the habitat of a species in danger of extinction on the basis of wishful thinking. Speaking for "the community" As a final note, we would like to concur with the comments of Malcolm Mooney's in his July 19 memorandum to Ms. Miller (attached) in which he criticizes her May 2nd letter to Bonnie Cohen for "lack of,balance" when she asserts that the community supports reductions in refuge size. Mr. Mooney, a retired Naval officer and Chair of Alameda's Base Reuse Advisory Commission's Environment Working Group who supports the smaller acreage, goes on to say: The fact that your letter was not made mailable in the ARRA meeting book and no copy was ever given to our working group, nor was there any discussion of it at any BRAG meeting, nor was any attempt made to discuss the text with me personally as a rep of the Environmental WG, is sad confirmation of the popular belief that substantial staff activity may not fairly represent public concerns. Finding agreement on the refuge issue Over the past year or so of discussions and analysis, environmentalists have been able to support scaling back acreage for the refui2e by 12% based on scientific evidence and careful analysis. Fish and Wildlife's d:`.cvc \cnvnct'DO!DOD DOCAuuust 10961-u96 -It) na' -c original application for a 595 acre refuge has dropped to 525 acres. The Alameda Naval Air Station is fortunate that habitat protection is consistent with economic and social conversion objectives. The economic difference between the largest refuge under current consideration (525 acres) and the smallest (390 acres) is not likely to be very great on a 1,700 acre site, especially since the site preparation costs for the acreage in question would be very high. Yet scientists tell us that those 135 acres could make a life or death difference to the Alameda least tern colony. Ensuring the integrity of the least tern habitat in Alameda is a high priority for Bay Area Military Base Closures Environmental Network. Repeated surveys indicate that a majority of Alameda residents share our goal, as do environmental organizations nationally. We believe that public officials can assist the process of community consensus building on the refuge issue by insisting on a conservative decision based on the best available science. We request that you make clear to your staff that you are opposed to end runs around the experts within the federal agencies working to resolve this issue. Yours truly, Saul Bloom, Executive Director Eve Bach, Economist/Planner cc: /Ms. Kay Miller ARRA Executive Director Ms. Bonnie Cohen Assistant Secretary of Interior for Policy, Budget. and Management Mr. William J. Cassidy, Jr. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Nagy, Conversion and Redevelopment Mr. Malcolm Mooney Chair BRAG Environment Working Group Mr. Bnicc Babbitt Secretary Department of Interior Mr. John Garamcndi Deputy Secretary Department of Interior Mr. Michael Spear Director Region I Fish and Wildlife Service d:Acv•c'cnynctvDolDori Doc.Ali gist 23. 1996bu96 -10 The Honorable Ronald V. Dellums Representative 9th Congressional District attn: Bob Brauer Bay Area Base Closures Environmental Network Environmental Principles endorsing organizations (list attached) enc: 1. Environmental Principles endorsers 2. Correspondence: + 5/2/96 Kay Miller to Bonnie Cohen ♦ 7/15/96 Kay Miller to William Cassidy ♦ 7/19/96 Malcolm Mooney to Kay Miller 3. Alameda Times -Star article 8/16/96 pa�zc3 News and Views of Ronald V. Dellums 9th California District 2108 Rayburn House Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2661 For Release: August 23, 1996 1301 Clay Street, Suite 1000N Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763 -0370 Contact: H. Lee Halterman (DC) Charles C. Stephenson, Jr. Dellums Applauds Oakland, CA: U.S. Rep. Ronald V. Dellums (D -CAL, 9th CD) today issued the following statement: "I am pleased to announce the award of a $3 million grant by the Economic Development Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce to the City of Alameda to fund roadway improvements for Main Street, the primary eutz.auce to Alameda Naval Air SLaL.ion. This project is essential to a successful conversion of Naval Air Station from military to civilian use. The project will include raising the road above the floodplain, alleviating concerns of potential tenants regarding seasonal flooding. Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor announced the grant today and said: 'This project illustrates the commitment of the Clinton Administration to working with local communities toward economic revitalization in the wake of the downsizing of many of our nations's defense facilities. We will continue to focus on the conversion of military facilities to civilian use, to help communities divert their economic base from the defense industry, and to create more jobs and opportunities for growth.' We will continue to work with the appropriate agencies in the Federal Government to provide the necessary funding for a successful conversion. This grant is a very important component and exemplifies a successful Federal /local partnership. #30# .PR ...... _ ,,.._) 0,... 7, ..7..... ,.....:, .) :,... . „.:ctr2. .., (Lii ...c.:2' 0' : tA'1) 7.0 7) a--.. :)(13 I) °...)' 'Ur -2 ''''" 2- , V) • • C) .4. 2 0 c„, 0 ,,,, 0 . ..-- 0 •-•" > vj 0 .•-■ •-•" • •-• T". H ,•-' 4.:,' . - cu o '-' .,--, :-: 0 ,-, (7-, :_. ,•-) 0 -0° .C..-. a') • '•-• CL') %-• 0 '..." 0. 0r.' 3-,-- -5_, ... .._ — 0 •:•.= ,..., ° - ° ° ,.,) (1.2_, ..,`") S .2 E:5 t rf, !-:),c91 i*i. --.0..,P ..._. us. • --, = (11 = „ _ = 7., ::: -_-, ,.._, c.) ,--. c...) ,--, • - .'-',.. ,...,:u ....- •-' 7'1 te ,.. ;:-_,, ...a .c C) ,, C.) 0 cr, ,.... - 0 CU • 0 .0 •-••• 0 0 .-. :-..., E -- , _ a - ,./, s- 10 a > - 0..-. o > ,--z`') - "ci 0 '"El ° ``' (...° °. • — :,-, 0 o o - - --- - ,..„., ...0 ,_. o .0 - a .- 0 s... 0 P .-.. • — '-' - ..) 4, c4 a ,- - -0 , a cci u :1 :"E' <-) ?..: a) = a) s4- '-: - '-' , a p • On :5 .;.:: vc — a) — --1) c,.) (1) (1,) .....> 0.," ''''' •-•° ° 0 " •--; -0 ,, --• .-% a) C CD 0.) .-. .•-• "-' a. •.- 0 -- t...„ s- c-^ , 0.) • ^ " :-. - ''r) . 0 0 '-' `a -C b- ,..,,, a -- , --, ...- • ,„ , 0 r-- --. 4--• i;,1-_ ::,) - 7-:- - :., .-..: J • c- .) _0 o.) ,c0 ) ,a a , 0 ,c.v.., , :" 0:,) ,, ' ;" . ".t..r., . •c..--f•- •: • ," -0 , Cr> , 7 ■.,---_- - r „', U.' ,.'.c-) .. ''= r,-'/.'2' . , .Va-) . +CcuD ' f, , • C0 -U - aE .) - .a C c- -> -rd -, u , 0 0 ) ) e • > • --i 0 ,;'- -E o 0 • c ro n j t,f3 •C a, '7,7, U ^ < C.”) [%'-' *-0 C") ",....: '--'' ° ° '--' '-''' Cn .-, 0) ::". " --- 'r't2 -C• ° • .6..-1 . 0. 0 :-.) ,s2 ,_:: ,=) _ ..„ - - r `-' • ...- C ''- '' • •-• :-.. •-•' ''''' .... , G. 0 .,.; 0 err 0 ,c rsi %.-4 > • ..... c 4-+ 0 .--• >> -- 0 0 0 •-• • --• •-••••• .1' 3.4 4-, 14- C314 C 0 .--. CZ • •-• 04 C'... •-•• ..., C , „. i • ■ a) 7,, = c/a (1.) O0 -. ,-, M c6 C/• . : ".1.1 D •--) --I, = C""" '-' • -- ..-' -0 > ..- 0 0 -0 --" 0 0 0 ,- :•-: > , ‘.-='. 0 G : .... ...- >_ 0- ' 2 cl-E „,,., "--.. oc 0 .. , ,c2 - • - - • > . 0 , - , 0 J..., .._ . ...0 :_. -• 0 .--, 1... 0 ,r, .., E ,_ c, _ ..„ , ., o L.-T.: tr; " t.) .- --- — > 7.1 r. ..-:- c-) -7-1 .-/-• "'-' I, ( : ) = - . - ...) ::-.." CD 0 • .-. 4--, tr) , ._.. '2,1 . N..., ,-. f -.• 77.1 ••-■• • •-■ ,_, C) > • .-4 > ,..., _,, -2 '••• 0 • --. 0 0 L_: %A C.) •-• u 0 ,..) (,) 0 c'3 r,-„ G ---. 0 ... 0 E c-. E - -- „o E i .- - '.-' 5 ' 8 . - 0 • -.. -0 0 >, 0 > C) 0 •7; -,:, r- ,- %-% -4 -). ::::, .."' " •-::: V.' F:: ''') ":2.,D .2 • *'-' ,-•• 1) a') P s- - :-. '-' ,_, 0 C-.: ° N V) 0 ,-."• '-' > --, >. .• • ' - 't-i 0 •-,-1 .10 ..- .„ •_•• -_. 0 ....„ zi 0 .--. = ..,-, ,..._. ,....„, .:... ".. • ''...1 ''' '..--. 0 0 ,r--e. 6 .1--,1 '-' ^ ▪ ,...., " CO .74 0 "' C. ..-' 1..-/ >,,,. :5 ::,. ,..., r, > `..' 73 (.13 •V1 33,0 tx 3-. C'%1 ,:,', 0 .?..., •••• - . ra. ,-, ,... 0 :.... c,,_, ••••• •-•, > ....) V) ''' ••••-• V.,, — •-• C...; ,--• `-' %- 2 , -- •-' .""' ,- 0 0 > 4 < .• 0 -,...,• C — .--,-- "-- ---. C.) -2 ,- ;') 0 0 r•-• ra ' ■•• 3 •-•-• ,:.I .--. e-• 4-, 0 > ••.. 0 ...-• 0 , r--• •"" i; ...„>, -1..... 7----, •-•4 7•-•: 7,••• -.,..: .__8. _ ,,,., r..,. ,.....) • _ :-.... ,_ . ..... _ _ _ 0 ,•%-:. C,) ,-. . - 7.7) :.•%; 0: 0 -0 C.) C. 1 > .... •'" ,-- ,./: ,..-- .— •-• ,-` - ,-. -_, 2 0 , ;_, c•-• ••-•J E 0 c„, - c., - 4.4 `---▪ -, > - — z.- --• 4- - ,_ ,-,:, 0 0 -- 0- ,,, %-, ... • 0 -,-1 ?-' ;•- .. .... c) 0 - ''',--•,-, •-•.--.0 • %--%"‘000.--'.:7-.-0•-•- •- o a 0 ,..=.2 E - , - al tr; a c - 0 --- > ,..: •-' ,-, •-• 0 — _., ..a 0 . ,- ri, V) .-. N co ,_. • ,, V) *.r."' . Ct '-". -.." ' :;"" ....--. '''. • ". CO Z7., .1) ° >1 ;:.i CZ G :: ) .-' C) , , • ", .--. ..G _ , ,.., ■--.. .t.) • : : " H ;;_) . --_,- , 7-1 . - - . -. , . . . , , L) t z . a . c o 1) f , .) '..-• 7- — -' G ° ,.0 ;..... ;-,). ,:,-; ,_, iff.: 1--; U ...-. . _ ,... .--, --.■ ..., ,--. , , --- N.40,, "Z'•,„ - '- P 0 -: - ---- - ac = '•4 > 0 - %-)-- . =. E-.-' 0. '') 0 .• -: G 0 0 --- .0 • 0 ..---1 "'- ^ ''' -.• - -- — 0 0 L-, --• ; "0 0 G ,,;; O : u • — ,. -,-, .t.,.. _,. r-.2, -a 2 ' E.... ,.,:-:, :...)0 4•111 - O .0 a - .., a '..3 ' E o , . E - • -. ) E E ..t.. -a 8 .; ,D .- •? .:.. - pi . ° • ril04 csi , „3 - „ _. c., ._ - 0 ,I '--■ 0 ..c -,_, 5, .:.-- c., • - ..0 -- =-- -,„, :._. cn ''', .„ • 111001 C....,2 Pallei 0 a) -- Pm( .rz- 2,8 1 Pa4 0 •.i.-■ C.Z ....,4..... ..., " C..) C'' > V: *4.--1 _a 'ci") o •-• '''' x ..-- V) (21 . U.) ,..7 .-, .-,. 0% r. 0 0 .--4 .,..., -, •'-' CV P.14 • *-% c/. --• > ...a - •-- P„-, — ,--, i----. 424 -u • CO 0 t--, F5 - 0 4.-■ G ,,.. = ..., = C CI Agna < ll 5- 1 E Ca -a e...) U ,_:" %-.• CD C) a o o ,...; o .E C/2 a) :_-_,-. a) '...,.. a .-a _., 0 -.a .- E „ o Q) ---, • •-• ••••••• 0 ,f2 „:::, 0 v.) S--, 0 ,- 4-, 4-4 V) ( : ) , , o " — a •-• a o -a o ci) s- - 0, O 9..) a..,cn > 0 C' ,.,-,>' •-' > --' 0 G.__.. c-,-, . 0 0: ---, C:8 Z., --• r (.) " > a) E 0 0 • 0. .... • ,,, .... ,..4 1-, Cil 4.4 ,.., 4-, V 0 , _ ,,, ",-,' " . ... Tu'-' , 2 t c9 -acri ▪ -9 n 142 ' i 1 It ) 1) § t%) 0 E c,i . - • - 0 - o a 0 O w 0 0 0 a cn a 1_- -_•0- . , r ._1 , Er.e, .7,. f_,,,, 0 :a 8 2 ... 6, r.-, . -E ....,-. -,, ..- ..,... .... - _ . ,_, ...,.. . , (,) • ,.... ,..54 ,. , CA 0 ‘•-• ,--! tb CO ,,, 1-, (1) ,..„/ > • "I Cf7 >, c.) = C. j-. f .. E; 8 2, ct, ...., ,., 0 < cz: .; _, (/) .. ?; G 0 U H .-. reino) • Psi 41E4 From Journal staff reports