That's one incredibly long, target-rich sentence.
1. No one but the Port 'purports' any such thing. Lease is irrelevant to the 6(f) ruling. RCO, NPS and anyone who can subtract 30 from 2012 agree on this. The 20+ acre lease in question was signed in 1982. The acquisition grant contract was signed in 1981. The grant application's assurances of compliance were signed in 1980. The retroactive waiver requested by the Port for the HJ Carroll land to be included in an LWCF park was 1977/78!
2. Since the lease for 20+ acres did not exist in 1980 or 1981, it cannot be what 'allowed' the City to 'qualify' for anything.
3. The only lease in place between the City and Port in late 1980/early 1981 was for a few underwater parcels and a 10-ft strip of shoreline on the southeastern side of the lagoon so that the boundary of the area containing all private parcels to be purchased would be controlled by the City. And even this lease was an afterthought, toward the end of the application process, to help the acquisition grant application earn enough points in the evaluation process to qualify for funding.
4. The lease in 1982, for 20+ acres of Port land, was needed by the Port because it offered them control of City-owned rights of way in the boat yard, which the Port required for their own Comprehensive Plan. The City also needed to show control of the Port land for its 1983 IAC development grant application because the Port had not yet transferred its property to the City as it had agreed to do in the acquisition grant application process.