Record of Decision for the Disposal and Re-use of Naval Station Treasure Island, CA, 71100-71105 [E5-6507]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
• Department of the Navy
• Navy Department

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 226 (Friday, November 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71100-71105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-6507]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Record of Decision for the Disposal and Re-use of Naval Station 
Treasure Island, CA

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of Record of Decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy (DON) pursuant to section 102(2)(c) 
of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 United 
States Code (U.S.C.) 4332(2)(c), and the Council on Environmental 
Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), announces its decision to 
dispose of Naval Station Treasure Island (NSTI), which includes both 
Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island. NSTI is located midway between 
the shores of the cities of San Francisco and Oakland. The disposal of 
NSTI will be accomplished in a manner that will allow the Treasure 
Island Development Authority (TIDA), the redevelopment authority 
established by the State of California and recognized by DoD, to reuse 
the property as set out in Alternative 1, described in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) as the preferred alternative. The 
decision by DON to dispose of the property in a manner that allows TIDA 
to reuse the property as described in the preferred alternative does 
not make the DON responsible for any obligation or commitment, fiscal 
or other, made by TIDA to the State of California or to third parties. 
Obligations or commitments made by TIDA in the course of developing its 
redevelopment plan, or in obtaining approval of the redevelopment plan 
from the United States Department of Housing and

[[Page 71101]]

Urban Development (HUD), remain the responsibility of TIDA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Patrick McCay, telephone 619-532-
0906; E-Mail: patrick.mccay@navy.mil or write to: Director, BRAC PMO 
West, ATTN: Mr. Patrick McCay, 1455 Frazee Road, Suite 900, San Diego, 
CA 92108.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 1993 Defense Base Realignment and 
Closure Commission (BRAC 93 Commission) recommended the closure of 
NSTI. President Clinton approved this recommendation and the 103rd 
Congress accepted it on September 27, 1993. NSTI closed on September 
30, 1997, and DON is in the process of disposing of the property to 
meet the requirements of the Defense Base Closure Realignment Act 
(DBCRA) of 1990 to reduce and realign United States military operations 
and enable productive reuse of this surplus Federal property.
    On July 11, 1994, the majority of land and facilities at this 
installation were declared surplus to the needs of the Federal 
Government. State and local governments, representatives of the 
homeless, and other interested parties located in the communities in 
the vicinity of the installation were eligible for use of the property. 
The Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance 
(BCCRAHA) Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-421) amends DBCRA of 1990, exempting 
base closure property from the McKinney Act and establishing a process 
that requires a balancing of homeless assistance needs with the need of 
the communities in the vicinity of the installation for economic 
redevelopment and other development.
    Representatives of the homeless submit notices of interest for the 
installations to the redevelopment authority. The definition of 
redevelopment authority (generally referred to as a local redevelopment 
authority or LRA) is found in section 2910 of the amended DBCRA of 1990 
(Pub. L. 101-510).
    In 1997, California State Legislation created a special LRA for 
NSTI, transferring the LRA status from San Francisco, to TIDA. In March 
of 1998, DOD's Office of Economic Adjustment recognized TIDA as the 
implementing LRA for NSTI. For the purposes of this Record of Decision, 
DON will refer to TIDA as the LRA for NSTI.
    Notices submitted to the LRA contain detailed information regarding 
the assistance program that the representative of the homeless proposes 
to carry out at the installation. The LRA, not the Federal Government, 
may address those notices of interest regarding needs either on or off 
base, and is responsible for screening to meet the needs of the 
homeless. Additionally, the BCCRAHA Act of 1994 requires that an LRA 
prepare a redevelopment plan for a closing installation that considers 
the expressed needs of the homeless, and that this plan be approved by 
HUD. Obligations or commitments made by TIDA in the course of 
developing its redevelopment plan, or in obtaining approval of the 
redevelopment plan from HUD, remain the responsibility of TIDA.
    Before disposal of any real property, DON must analyze the 
environmental effects of the disposal action. As required by DBCRA, DON 
has treated the 1996 Draft Reuse Plan as part of the proposed Federal 
action for the installation.
    The city and county of San Francisco prepared an Environmental 
Impact Report (EIR) for the transfer and reuse of NSTI. The proposed 
action and alternatives were essentially identical to that of DON's 
EIS. The EIR was recently certified in May 2005.
    Master development plans for TIDA have continued to evolve since 
July 2002, as reflected in the preparation of initial studies, master 
development submittals and public workshops. The development plans do 
not show substantial changes to the overall proposed land use 
assumptions. The city and county of San Francisco will prepare a second 
EIR; specific to the proposed development, once the development plans 
have become sufficiently detailed.
    Alternatives Considered: A screening process, based upon criteria 
set out in the Draft EIS, was conducted to identify a reasonable range 
of alternatives that would satisfy DON's purpose and need regarding 
property disposal.
    Alternative 1, the Preferred Alternative, reflects disposal of the 
property in the context of the redevelopment scenario described in the 
1996 Draft Reuse Plan developed by the LRA. Alternative 1 features a 
post-disposal reuse of publicly oriented development (155 acres), open 
space and recreation (118 acres), institutional and community uses (40 
acres), and residential development (137 acres) at full build out. This 
scenario represents the most intensive redevelopment scenario proposed 
in the FEIS. Actual redevelopment by an entity would likely reflect 
this intensity, but may not reflect the specific conceptual 
construction types provided in the 1996 Draft Reuse Plan.
    Alternative 2 presents less intensive post-disposal reuse than 
Alternative 1, but has similar land uses and development concepts. 
Alternative 2 was developed during the scoping process, including the 
recommendations of an advisory panel convened by the Urban Land 
Institute. Under this scenario, no new housing would be built at NSTI, 
and the existing housing would be reused initially (21 acres).
    Alternative 3 represents a scenario where little new post-disposal 
development would occur and existing facilities would be used. No new 
housing units would be constructed.
    The No Action alternative represents a scenario that maintains the 
status quo with DON retaining ownership of NSTI. Those structures 
subject to an existing lease would continue to be leased until such 
lease expires or is terminated. Those structures not subject to an 
existing lease would be maintained in a caretaker status. No demolition 
or construction would occur, except as allowed by existing lease 
authorization. Approximately 50 persons would be assigned to perform 
caretaker activities. The No Action Alternative would have no 
significant impacts; therefore, it is the environmentally preferred 
alternative.
    Environmental Impacts: DON analyzed the direct, indirect, and 
cumulative impacts of the disposal action on the environment. 
Potentially significant impacts associated with Alternative 1, the 
alternative selected in this Record of Decision, are summarized below.
    Land Use/Zoning: The anticipated land use zone classifications 
required for redevelopment as illustrated in Alternative 1 (i.e., 
public, residential, mixed use) would be inconsistent with the existing 
city and county of San Francisco General Plan designation and zoning 
classification. The General Plan land use designation for NSTI is 
military. Amendments to the General Plan, using the public process 
established by the State of California for such amendments, would be 
required before redevelopment could occur.
    Subsequent to the Naval Appropriations Act of 1942 (Pub. L. 441) in 
which Congress appropriated funds for the acquisition of Treasure 
Island, the Government pursued the condemnation process for the 
property now known as NSTI in the United States District Court of San 
Francisco. The declaration of taking was filed on April 17, 1942. The 
parties reached a joint settlement of the condemnation case on April 3, 
1944. As compensation for the taking, the Government completed 
construction of 10 million dollars of permanent improvements at San 
Francisco Airport. Chapter 3 of the California Statutes of 1942 
authorized

[[Page 71102]]

the transfer of Treasure Island to the government including all tide 
and submerged lands and further stated that the transfer: Shall be free 
and clear of all conditions and reservations respecting the title to or 
use of said lands.
    The State made no provisions for the reservation of a tideland 
trust or public trust easement over tidelands or submerged land nor was 
there any reversion rights contained in the statute. Therefore, the 
DON's position is that the United States acquired full fee simple 
absolute title to all the property, including the tidelands and 
submerged lands, and that the property would not be subject to the 
public trust upon disposal by DON. The State of California, however, 
considers all former and existing tide and submerged lands on Treasure 
Island to be subject to the public trust in the event of a transfer of 
the property from DON.
    The Treasure Island Conversion Act of 1997 (1997 Cal. Stat. 898, AB 
699), granted TIDA the power to administer and control property at 
NSTI, identified by the State of California as land that will be 
subject to the public trust upon its release from Federal ownership. 
Under the 1997 Act, existing buildings and structures located on public 
trust lands which are incapable of being devoted to trust purposes may 
be used for other purposes, consistent with the reuse plan, for their 
remaining useful life. If the trust were deemed to apply, this would 
not be expected to have a substantial effect on future land use 
patterns on NSTI.
    Similarly, the Treasure Island Public Trust Exchange Act (2004 Cal. 
Stat. 543, SB 1873), authorized an exchange of public trust lands 
whereby certain trust lands on NSTI would be freed from the public 
trust in exchange for encumbering other lands on Yerba Buena Island 
that are not now public trust lands. The Act specifically approved an 
exchange resulting in the configuration of trust lands substantially 
similar to that depicted on the diagram in section 12 of the Act. If 
the trust were deemed to apply, such an exchange would not be expected 
to have a substantial effect on future NSTI land use patterns.
    Traffic: The proposed action would result in peak hour traffic 
volumes on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB)/Interstate-80 
Yerba Buena Island westbound on-ramp, on the west side of Yerba Buena 
Island, that would exceed the current ramp capacity of 330 vehicles per 
hour (vph). The projected demand would result in a queue ranging from 7 
vehicles (during the AM peak hour) to 239 vehicles (during the weekend 
midday peak hour). This queue would constrain vehicular circulation on 
the island.
    Alternative 1 would result in a substantial increase in traffic 
volumes on the eastbound off-ramp on the west side of Yerba Buena 
Island that would exceed the practical capacity of the off-ramp (500 
vph), resulting in a maximum queue of 36 vehicles, or about 700 feet 
(219 meters) of the SFOBB.
    Alternative 1 would result in substantial increases in traffic 
volumes during the weekend, midday, peak hour on the eastbound on-ramp 
on the east side of Yerba Buena Island. While the increased volumes 
would be accommodated by the upgrade of this ramp as part of the 
California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) SFOBB East Span 
project, it may create a secondary impact of potential traffic delays 
on the SFOBB.
    Under Alternative 1, increased traffic on and off the SFOBB during 
the A.M. peak period (6:30 to 9:30) and P.M. peak period (3:30 to 6:30) 
would cause westbound traffic on segments of the SFOBB to deteriorate 
from Level of Service (LOS) D to LOS F during the last hour of the A.M. 
peak period (8:30 to 9:30) and to deteriorate from LOS B to LOS E or 
LOS F during the first hour of the P.M. peak period (3:30 to 4:30). LOS 
designations are a qualitative description of a facility's performance, 
based on travel speeds, delays, and density (number of cars per unit of 
lane). The designation for a facility ranges from LOS A, representing 
free-flow conditions, to LOS F, representing severe traffic congestion.
    Due to a lack of direct bus service between NSTI and the East Bay, 
bus patrons would have to travel to San Francisco using existing 
routes, transferring at the Transbay Terminal to another transit 
service to the East Bay, or to drive, which would add to the vehicular 
demand and congestion at the Yerba Buena Island ramps. Approximately 
4,290 weekday daily and 4,000 weekend daily bus transit patrons are 
estimated between NSTI and the East Bay.
    Natural Resources: Significant impacts to mudflat habitat, 
including eelgrass beds, may occur as a result of increased pedestrian 
and boating activity around Clipper Cove. The enlarged marina would add 
approximately 200 new boat slips and 100 new tie-up buoys to the 
existing 100 slips and would quadruple boat traffic in Clipper Cove. 
This would increase the potential for mudflat habitat disturbance, 
especially during low tides when recreational boating traffic could 
erode nearshore sediments, which could directly affect invertebrate 
prey species in shallow water.
    Increased pedestrian and boating activity around Clipper Cove could 
have a significant impact on shore and water birds by affecting 
mudflats and eelgrass beds where shorebirds forage. An increase in 
pedestrian activities from new residents or visitors could result in 
more people exploring the mudflats during low tide, disturbing avian 
species and sensitive habitat zones. In addition, the quadrupled boat 
traffic could erode nearshore sediment during low tide, affecting 
invertebrate and fish populations, resulting in a decrease of food 
sources for migratory birds, and decrease in foraging success.
    Increased boat and pedestrian activity around Clipper Cove could 
have a significant impact on essential fish habitat by degrading 
eelgrass vegetated areas and shallow water in the same manner that 
mudflat habitat could be impacted. These areas provide important fish 
spawning, rearing, and foraging habitat.
    Public Safety: Significant impacts could occur in the form of 
damage to structures and infrastructure on Treasure Island due to 
liquefaction induced ground failure in the event of a major earthquake. 
Low-lying areas of Yerba Buena underlain by heterogeneous artificial 
fill are also potentially subject to liquefaction, lateral spreading, 
and differential settlement hazards.
    The installation of residential development in low lying areas 
would result in net increased exposure of approximately 3,000 
residents, 13,799 daily visitors, and property to both ponding and 
flooding hazards due to seepage or overtopping of the dike. While 
nearby bodies of surface water will probably not be significantly 
impacted, the exposure to these types of hazards is potentially 
significant.
    Hazardous Waste: Construction activities at NSTI associated with 
future development of the housing unit area, including demolition of 
existing structures, may interfere with remedial actions under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
(CERCLA).
    CERCLA Remediation Actions: The following measures have been 
developed to mitigate potentially significant impacts to remedial 
actions under the CERCLA program. DON is in the process of implementing 
various remedial actions at NSTI pursuant to and in accordance with the 
requirements of CERCLA and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances 
Pollution Contingency Plan that will

[[Page 71103]]

remove, manage, or isolate any potentially hazardous substances present 
on the property prior to conveyance. These remedial actions will ensure 
that human health and the environment will be protected based on the 
land use redevelopment scenario illustrated in the 1996 Draft Reuse 
Plan. If the CERCLA remedy for a particular site includes land use 
controls, the acquiring entity or entities will be required to comply 
with the land use controls during construction and/or operations to 
ensure continued protection of human health and the environment. 
Subsequent redevelopment of the existing housing area that would 
involve demolition of existing structures and the grading and 
reconfiguring of the soil would likely be subject to land use controls 
on the property. These may include compliance with a city administered 
soil management plan that would require permits for soil and 
groundwater disturbance, subject to proper characterization and 
management. In addition, deeds conveying the affected property will 
contain a notice that areas of the property not subject to remediation 
efforts, such as areas beneath existing foundations, may require 
additional characterization and possible response actions, subject to 
appropriate regulatory oversight. Adherence to land use controls and 
regulatory requirements would mitigate potentially significant impacts 
to an acceptable level.
    Mitigation: As a result of the identification of a number of 
potentially significant impacts associated with Alternative 1, DON has 
identified measures that can assist the new property owner(s) in 
mitigating reuse impacts. As DON cannot exercise control over the 
property once title has been transferred, DON cannot be responsible for 
implementation of mitigation identified in the FEIS. The following 
mitigation measures have been identified for possible implementation by 
the entity (or entities) acquiring the property:
    To achieve consistency between the selected reuse Alternative 1 and 
city policies, it will be necessary to amend the San Francisco General 
Plan to include land use designations consistent with the 1996 Draft 
Reuse Plan for Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island, prior to 
approving land use actions.
    SFOBB/Interstate-80 Yerba Buena Island on-ramps are substandard by 
current Caltrans standards; primarily in acceleration/deceleration 
lengths, ramp radii, and sight distances. Upgrading the on-ramps would 
increase ramp capacity and level of operation and decrease queuing 
impacts. However, upgrades to the on-ramps may be constrained by the 
geology of the site (elevation change and bedrock), and structural 
limitations due to the viaduct. Additional measures would include 
signage and notices to residents to encourage residents and visitors to 
use the second westbound on-ramp east of the Yerba Buena Island tunnel. 
Similarly, redirecting traffic during the weekend, midday, peak hour to 
the second on-ramp east of the Yerba Buena Island tunnel would reduce 
the queue at the first westbound on-ramp. Further measures include 
implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to 
further reduce traffic generation during peak hours, especially during 
the weekend. Implementation of additional or enhanced TDM measures 
include discounted ferry passes, flex-time, public relations campaigns, 
and giving employees working on Treasure Island or Yerba Buena Island 
preferential access to housing on NSTI. Such measures would encourage 
ferry use and encourage vehicle trips during the non-peak period, to 
reduce queues on both westbound on-ramps to tolerable levels. 
Additional measures include monitoring NSTI ramp traffic volumes to 
ensure that the transportation goals and objectives established by the 
1996 Draft Reuse Plan are successfully implemented; monitoring NSTI bus 
transit demand on an annual basis (or at each phase of development) and 
ensuring that planned bus services are implemented to meet or exceed 
demand; implementing a similar monitoring program for ferry demand; 
restriping the portion of Treasure Island Road between the Main Gate 
and the westbound on-ramp on the west side of the Yerba Buena Island 
tunnel from two lanes to accommodate three traffic lanes; and, using 
traffic control measures, such as signage, to encourage eastbound 
motorists to use the second Yerba Buena Island off-ramp (the off-ramp 
on the east side of Yerba Buena Island). Implementation of TDM and 
monitoring measures discussed above would help reduce traffic volumes 
on this off-ramp.
    In order to improve traffic volumes during the weekend, midday, 
peak hour on the eastbound on-ramp on the east side of Yerba Buena 
Island, Caltrans should consider the installation of a ramp metering 
device if the added traffic onto this on-ramp would cause significant 
traffic delay on the SFOBB mainline. The mainline includes the main 
lanes of a freeway as opposed to an off ramp or exit lane. A ramp 
metering device would restrict/govern the number of vehicles accessing 
the SFOBB for the benefit of maintaining free flow conditions on the 
SFOBB.
    To alleviate increased traffic on and off the SFOBB during peak 
A.M. conditions, causing westbound traffic segments to deteriorate, 
traffic volumes should be monitored at each phase of development. If it 
is determined that traffic from NSTI is constraining the capacity of 
the SFOBB, either more aggressive TDM and transit improvements must be 
implemented or additional development should be delayed until such 
improvements are implemented.
    Establishing direct transit service between NSTI and the East Bay 
would mitigate the lack of current direct service to a not significant 
level. Bus service would need to be at 10-minute headways (the interval 
between the trips of 2 successive vehicles) throughout the day during 
the weekday and at 15-minute headways throughout the day during the 
weekend. Additional measures include monitoring NSTI bus transit demand 
on an annual basis (or at each phase of development), ensuring planned 
services are implemented to meet or exceed demand, and implementing TDM 
measures to encourage bus transit. If monitoring indicates an imbalance 
between transit service and demand, the city and county of San 
Francisco could limit planned land use development on NSTI until 
required services are funded.
    In response to comments from Bay Area Air Quality Management 
District (BAAQMD), DON has identified additional potential mitigation 
measures not discussed in the FEIS. DON recommends that future 
redevelopment projects implement the measures set out in sections 4.3 
and 4.4 of the BAAQMD California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 
Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans 
(BAAQMD 1999). First, as indicated in section 4.3 of the CEQA 
Guidelines, incorporate transit-oriented development in project design. 
This strategy is intended to reduce automobile usage associated with 
suburban land uses by integrating residential and commercial land uses 
with transportation routes and making communities more amenable to 
transit, bicycle, and pedestrian activities. Second, as indicated in 
section 4.4 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, measures identified in 
Tables 15, 16, and 17 to reduce vehicular emissions from commercial, 
institutional, industrial, and residential uses should be implemented 
in project-specific phases.

[[Page 71104]]

    Implementation of these transportation measures would ensure that 
the proposed actions would not contribute to significant cumulative air 
quality impacts within the region.
    To minimize significant impacts to mudflat habitat and eelgrass 
beds, several measures are recommended for the entity acquiring the 
land and applying for regulatory permits that will be required to allow 
development in sensitive areas. Measures include minimizing disturbance 
to sensitive habitats during construction and preparing and 
implementing a plan to minimize disturbance of sensitive habitats due 
to recreational activity. The permittee for the development projects 
for Clipper Cove could be required to post signs along the shore 
adjacent to the mudflats and at the marina to inform pedestrians and 
recreational boaters that the mudflats are a protected sensitive area 
and trespassing is not permitted. Buoys could be placed in the bay to 
identify the restricted mudflat area. A ``No Wake'' zone could be 
established in Clipper Cove to minimize shoreline and mudflat erosion. 
A ``No Wake'' speed (not exceeding 5 miles per hour) is the speed at 
which a vessel does not produce a wake. Any impacts related to 
construction or fill would be addressed during the Army Corps of 
Engineers section 404 permitting process.
    Impacts on migratory birds from pedestrian and boating activities 
are closely associated with impacts on mudflat habitat and eelgrass 
beds. Impacts on migratory birds will be mitigated through compliance 
with all applicable laws, regulations, and regulatory permits. 
Additional mitigation may include posting signs along the shore 
adjacent to the mudflats and at the marina, informing pedestrians and 
boaters that the mudflats are a protected and sensitive area. Placing 
buoys in the bay, identifying the mudflat area as restricted and 
establishing a ``No Wake'' zone in Clipper Cove could also reduce 
impacts.
    Mitigation measures for increased boat and pedestrian activity on 
eelgrass areas, mudflats, and shallow water areas are the same as those 
proposed to mitigate impacts to mudflat areas.
    A zone of ``improved ground'' would be created around the perimeter 
of the island to reduce lateral spreading. Interior island areas shall 
be similarly improved to reduce large differential settlement. All 
sensitive structures, such as buildings greater than three stories, 
buildings intended for public occupancy, structures supporting 
essential services, and buildings housing schools, medical, police, and 
fire facilities, shall be supported on pile systems or other specially 
designed foundations. Detailed geotechnical studies shall be completed 
in accordance with the city and county of San Francisco requirements 
for individual development sites.
    Filling low-lying portions of the residential area to at least 9 
feet (3 meters) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) prior to 
development would mitigate the increased exposure of occupants, 
visitors, and property to ponding hazards due to seepage through the 
dike during some high tide events. In addition, other low-lying areas 
within 500 feet (152 meters) of the Treasure Island perimeter should be 
similarly filled before development is allowed.
    A setback for development inboard of the perimeter dike, to allow 
room for periodic dike raising without substantially increasing bay 
fill, would reduce impacts caused by exposure of people and property to 
flooding hazards due to dike overtopping during storms. Other measures 
include raising the dike as necessary to account for site settlement or 
for changes in maximum tidal heights and rises in sea levels; 
inspecting the dike after each major storm to identify repair needs; 
and repairing the dike promptly as required.
    Response to comments received regarding the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement: Below is a summary of substantive public comments 
received in response to the release of the FEIS, as well as DON 
responses to comments.
    The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) commented that 
Installation Restoration (IR) Site 30 should be represented as an 
active site until the CERCLA process is complete. DON agrees with this 
comment and will ensure that IR Site 30 is fully addressed under 
CERCLA, including the preparation of a Remedial Investigation and 
Feasibility Study to determine what, if any, action is necessary.
    DTSC requested additional information regarding polychlorinated 
biphenyls (PCBs) and asked DON to demonstrate that PCBs are not an 
issue. DON addressed PCBs in section 4.13 of the FEIS. All PCB release 
sites have been identified at NSTI, and surveys are being completed. 
All PCB sites requiring a response will be remediated under CERCLA 
prior to property conveyance. Additionally, DON will comply with all 
applicable provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 
U.S.C. 2605) and other applicable laws and regulations designed to 
minimize the risks posed by PCBs.
    DTSC commented that it intends to hold any future owners of the 
property liable for lead in soil around residential and non-residential 
property and asked that the FEIS be modified to reflect that intent. 
HUD regulations (Title X, 42 U.S.C. 4851) and the DOD/United States 
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) ``LBP'' Joint Interim Final 
Field Guide (1999) set out the standards and responsibilities regarding 
lead based paint. Inasmuch as those standards and responsibilities are 
fully discussed in the FEIS, modification of the FEIS is not necessary.
    The BAAQMD commented that without mitigation, emissions from any of 
the three project alternatives would contribute to significant 
cumulative degradation of regional air quality. BAAQMD also commented 
that it was unable to determine how the project emissions presented in 
Table 4.6-1 were obtained. Table 4.6-1 of the FEIS was based on a 
mobile source emissions inventory generated by Radian International 
(1997) for DON. The data was adjusted to consider variations in project 
alternative operational characteristics between 2001 and 2010.
    The TDM program and other transportation mitigation measures 
recommended in the FEIS (and discussed above) would reduce vehicle 
trips and associated vehicle miles generated by the project and would 
increase the flow of future traffic within the project region. 
Implementation of these transportation measures would reduce project 
emissions from the unmitigated levels presented in Table 4.6-1. In 
response to this comment from BAAQMD, DON identified additional 
potential mitigation measures and included them in the preceding 
mitigation discussion.
    One individual commented that the FEIS failed to address a 
``Maximum Homeless-Use'' Alternative. The individual cites the BCCRHA 
Act of 1994, which mandates that a redevelopment plan take into 
consideration a number of homeless issues, including the size and 
nature of the homeless population in the local communities, the 
availability of existing homeless services, and the suitability of the 
redevelopment plan for the use and needs of the homeless. Chapter 2.2.1 
of the FEIS describes the Homeless Assistance planning process, 
including the opportunities for local communities to participate in the 
decision regarding disposal of military properties by requiring 
homeless providers to work through TIDA. As previously stated, the 
extent of the DON's role in meeting homeless assistance needs is 
limited by the review conducted by HUD. Representatives of the homeless 
submit notices outlining their needs and proposals to TIDA and not to 
the

[[Page 71105]]

Federal agency that owns the property. TIDA may address those needs 
either on or off base. TIDA, as the LRA, must prepare a redevelopment 
plan for the closing installation that considers the expressed needs of 
the homeless. DON has a role if and only if HUD determines that the 
redevelopment plan submitted by TIDA does not meet regulatory criteria 
set forth at 24 CFR part 586 and TIDA fails to revise the redevelopment 
plan in a manner that HUD determines meets those regulatory 
requirements.
    On November 1, 1995, the Treasure Island Homeless Development 
Initiative (TIHDI) submitted a Notice of Interest to the LRA for 
surplus property including homeless housing, support services, 
employment, and economic development programs and services. On November 
26, 1996, HUD approved the San Francisco Office of Military Base 
Conversion's homeless assistance submission including its proposed 
agreements with TIDHI. TIDA was not established as the LRA until the 
1998, at which time they inherited the approved plan. Currently, TIHDI 
operates one of the most intensive San Francisco homeless provider 
initiatives at Treasure Island. In addition to a day care center, TIHDI 
manages 190 units housing formerly homeless individuals. DON has met 
the requirements of both NEPA and BCCRHA Act in its analysis of 
homeless requirements through the consideration of the 1996 Draft Reuse 
Plan. Under the requirements of DBCRA of 1990, as amended, any entity 
responsible for developing NSTI or implementing the redevelopment plan 
would be bound by the homeless assistance requirements set forth in the 
BCCRHA Act.
    The San Francisco Municipal Railway Service Planning (MUNI) staff 
commented that it currently provides bus service between the NSTI and 
Transbay Terminal in San Francisco for residents and visitors to the 
island. They concur that bus service may need to increase to meet 
demand under the proposed redevelopment plan for NSTI. MUNI also 
comments that they cannot commit to any service expansion to the East 
Bay without a concurrent commitment of funding from an identified 
source. Determining funding for increased bus service is beyond the 
scope of this FEIS and should be addressed by the city and county of 
San Francisco in a subsequent CEQA analysis to ensure the effectiveness 
of the transportation mitigation measures associated with the proposed 
maximum build-out scenario. MUNI requested a breakdown of bus service 
demands in the FEIS analysis by mode, direction, and time of day. The 
FEIS provided estimates of MUNI bus demand based on three different 
levels of development for NSTI. These development scenarios were 
designed to evaluate a range of potential environmental impacts, from 
low to high. The actual development (both land uses and quantities of 
land uses) that will be approved by the city and county of San 
Francisco may ultimately differ from those analyzed in the FEIS. 
Consequently, MUNI demand and transit usage patterns could be different 
from those presented in the FEIS. The Reuse Plan assumes that ferry 
services will be a travel mode between San Francisco and NSTI, in 
addition to bus services. Bus passenger estimates were made for bus 
trips to and from NSTI, not within NSTI. MUNI bus demand should be 
analyzed in depth when the city and county approve specific development 
plans for NSTI, based on the approved land use. This would include both 
trips to and from NSTI as well as internal shuttle bus demand.
    Conclusion: After considering the analysis contained in the FEIS, 
comments from Federal, State, and local agencies, and comments from the 
public, I conclude that Alternative 1 is the NEPA alternative that best 
meets DON's purpose and need regarding disposal of the NSTI property 
while allowing TIDA to execute redevelopment that will provide the best 
opportunity for economic recovery from the closure of NSTI. While 
Alternative 1 presents the potential for significant impacts in several 
respects, especially traffic, reuse of the property in accordance with 
TIDA's reuse plan can be accomplished without significant harm to the 
environment through implementation of the mitigation measures by TIDA 
or subsequent developers.
    Although the No Action alternative is the environmentally preferred 
alternative, it would not meet DON's purpose and need regarding 
property disposal and would preclude the economic recovery intended by 
Congress when it enacted the DBCRA 1990. The No Action alternative 
would result in continued caretaker activities; therefore, 
socioeconomic gains in terms of new jobs and increased revenue in the 
region from disposal and subsequent reuse of NSTI would not be 
realized.

    Dated: November 17, 2005.
Eric Mcdonald,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
 [FR Doc. E5-6507 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P