2) The main difference in land use impacts will be the reduction in land available for active park use in the Northwest Territories, when and if money becomes available for the park district to create a regional park. The city will be giving up about 70 acres.

3) The property is currently owned by the Navy.

4) Yes. The city has zoned federal property in the past. The base is currently zoned “Industrial – Government.” The federal property on McKay Avenue (part of which has become controversial of late) has always been zoned by the city.

The zoning, however, would not be binding on the federal government. The main benefit of the city zoning federal property is for adjacent or nearby land owners to know what to expect.

With regard to the wildlife refuge, zoning it open space or wildlife refuge would take on symbolic importance because of the community reuse planning effort that pre-dated the VA’s interest in the property, and which stipulated that a wildlife refuge would be created. Since the VA’s acquisition of the property was only for their 110-acre project, their stewardship of the 511 acres they don’t need is discretionary. Maintaining the “refuge” zoning would be a major step in reaching full wildlife refuge status.

It is not inevitable that the refuge (as in “Welcome to the Alameda Wildlife Refuge” – not “You are entering VA Undeveloped Area”) will fade into memoryland, if the Navy and VA are pushed to perform an Environmental Impact Statement. This will broaden the discussion beyond the heretofore narrow focus on the Endangered Species Act and one species – the terns – that was the impetus for the Biological Opinion recently issued.

As things now stand, I think we can infer from the VA/Navy’s timeline for conveyance of property that they will stop the review process with an abbreviated environmental review called an Environmental Assessment (EA). The federal review process allows for them to wrap up their review process when they issue an EA by issuing what is called a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The reason that it appears that this is what they are planning to do is because there will not be enough time between when they issue their Environmental Assessment early next year and August when they say they expect to receive the land.

The Golden Gate Audubon Society and the Sierra Club have sent a joint letter to the Navy and VA calling on them to perform an Environmental Impact Statement (see Conservation Action Documents page).

The other avenue for pressuring the Navy and VA to permanently protect the refuge as a wildlife refuge or wildlife conservation area is at the Alameda city council level. Because the VA has agreed to move their clinic northward, the city has to agree to amend its agreement with the Navy. Alameda is currently scheduled to receive all 220 acres of the Northwest Territories. They will be asked to amend their agreement early next year to allow the Navy to keep some of the land to then give to the VA.

What I am advocating is that the city should make the placement of a conservation easement on the 511 acres a condition for the amendment. The easement would not guarantee any funding beyond the current commitment to look out for the least terns. But what it would do is guarantee that non-wildlife habitat uses do not become the norm. We can wait for the funding. But it would be difficult at best to revive discussions about a wildlife refuge after years of training exercises, driving events, blimp landings, and who knows what else have become the norm.

The city could also join with the Audubon Society and Sierra Club in their call for a full Environmental Impact Statement. Such a review would look at the importance of the runway area for burrowing owls, for example. The burrowing owl may not be an endangered species today, but it’s not far away. Besides the presence of ground squirrel burrows that the owls can appropriate for themselves, the soil in most parts of the runway area is easy for them to dig into. It’s a great opportunity to make amends, so to speak, for all the habitat that society has exploited for its own needs at the expense of wildlife.