[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13056-13062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5127]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air 
Station Tustin, California

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy (Navy), pursuant to Section 
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) (1994), and the regulations of the Council on 
Environmental Quality that implement NEPA procedures, 40 CFR Parts 
1500-1508, hereby announces its decision to dispose of Marine Corps Air 
Station (MCAS) Tustin, which is located in Tustin, California.
    Navy and the City of Tustin jointly analyzed the impacts of the 
disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin in an Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR), as prescribed by NEPA and the 
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Cal. Pub. Res. Code, 
Secs. 21000-21177. The City of Tustin is the Local Redevelopment 
Authority (LRA) for MCAS Tustin, as defined in the Department of 
Defense Rule on Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Community 
Assistance (DoD Rule), 32 CFR 176.20(a).
    The City of Tustin's proposed reuse of MCAS Tustin is set forth in 
the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan, 
dated October 1996, as modified by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse 
Plan Errata, dated September 1998 (Reuse Plan). The Reuse Plan is set 
out in Chapters 1, 2 (except Section 2.17), and 5 of these

[[Page 13057]]

documents. The Specific Plan, which includes the Reuse Plan, describes 
the proposed design for redevelopment of the base as well as certain 
private property adjacent to the base. The EIS/EIR analyzed three reuse 
alternatives and identified the Reuse Plan as Alternative 1. Navy will 
dispose of the base in accordance with Alternative 1.
    The alternative chosen will use the base for residential, 
commercial, educational, research and development, and light industrial 
purposes, to develop parks and recreational areas, and to build access 
roads. These land uses will complement the urban character of the City 
of Tustin and the surrounding area, and meet the Navy goals of 
achieving local economic redevelopment, creating new jobs, and 
providing additional housing, while limiting adverse environmental 
impacts and ensuring land uses that are generally compatible with 
adjacent property. Selection of the specific means to achieve the 
proposed redevelopment is in the hands of the acquiring entities and 
the local zoning authorities.

Background

    Under the authority of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act 
of 1990 (DBCRA), Public Law 101-510, 10 U.S.C. 2687 note (1994), the 
1991 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommended the 
closure of Marine Corps Air Station Tustin. The Commission also 
recommended that Navy retain the Air Station's family housing and 
related personnel facilities to support those stationed at the nearby 
Marine Corps Air Station El Toro. These recommendations were approved 
by President Bush and accepted by the One Hundred Second Congress in 
1991.
    The 1993 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission 
recommended the closure of MCAS El Toro. Thus, it was no longer 
necessary to retain the family housing and related personnel support 
facilities at MCAS Tustin, and these facilities were also closed. The 
recommendation to close MCAS El Toro was approved by President Clinton 
and accepted by the One Hundred Third Congress in September 1993. The 
Air Stations at Tustin and El Toro closed on July 2, 1999.

Description of the Installation

    Marine Corps Air Station Tustin covers an area of about 1,602 
acres, and nearly all of the property is located in the City of Tustin, 
near the center of Orange County. About 95 acres are located in the 
City of Irvine. The City of Santa Ana lies west and northwest of the 
Air Station. The main property, located largely within the City of 
Tustin, covers about 1,503 acres and contains the air operations 
facilities personnel support facilities, and most of the military 
family housing units. A second property, located south of the main 
property in the City of Irvine along Harvard Avenue between Barranca 
Parkway and Warner Avenue, covers 74 acres and also contains military 
family housing units. A third property, located east of the main 
property in Tustin at the intersection of Edinger Avenue and Harvard 
Avenue, covers 25 acres.
    The aviation facilities at MCAS Tustin consist of one runway, about 
2,000 feet long, oriented in an east-west alignment, four helicopter 
parking aprons, four helicopter hangers, and other airfield support 
facilities that are located in the center of the base. Two large blimp 
hangars (Hangars 28 and 29), each about 175 feet tall and about 1,000 
feet long, are also located in this area. These wood-frame structures 
were built in 1942 and are listed on the National Register of Historic 
Places. The two blimp hangars, five blimp mooring mats constitute an 
historic district eligible for listing on the National Register of 
Historic Places.
    The gate at the intersection of Redhill Avenue and Valencia Avenue 
provides the primary access to MCAS Tustin. There is a secondary 
access, currently closed except for emergencies, at the intersection of 
Harvard Avenue and Moffett Avenue. Personnel support, administrative, 
storage, and medical facilities and barracks form a campus-like setting 
around the main gate in the northeastern part of the base. Recreational 
facilities, composed of athletic fields, playgrounds, and picnic areas, 
separate a residential neighborhood of 274 housing units along Edinger 
Avenue from the personnel support and administrative areas of the base. 
There are cultivated fields located along Barranca Parkway in the 
southwestern part of the base, northwest of Jamboree Road in the 
southeastern part of the base, and on property south of Edinger Avenue 
along the northeastern boundary of the Air Station.
    Military family housing is found in two places at the base. One 
cluster of 274 housing units is located along Edinger Avenue on the 
northwest edge of the base. The other cluster is located on the 
southeast edge of the Air Station. This cluster is composed of 1,263 
housing units located along the eastern side of Peters Canyon Channel 
and is bounded by the Channel and Harvard Avenue and by Edinger Avenue 
and Barranca Parkway. The boundary between the City of Tustin and the 
City of Irvine crosses this housing area; 771 residential units are 
located in Tustin and 552 units are located in Irvine.
    In 1992, Navy acquired 25 acres of undeveloped property east of the 
main property that it planned to develop as military family housing to 
support MCAS El Toro. When MCAS El Toro was designated for closure in 
1993, there was no longer a requirement for the housing and Navy 
included this undeveloped property in the surplus Federal property 
associated with MCAS Tustin.
    During the Federal screening process, one Federal agency, the 
Department of the Army (Army), requested an interagency transfer of 
base closure property at MCAS Tustin. Navy plans to transfer about 17 
acres in the southwestern part of the Air Station along Barranca 
Parkway to Army. Army will continue to use this property as an Army 
Reserve Center. The remaining 1,585 acres at MCAS Tustin were declared 
surplus to the needs of the Federal Government.

The Environmental Analysis Process

    Navy published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on July 
5, 1994, announcing that Navy and the City of Tustin would jointly 
prepare an EIS/EIR under NEPQA and CEQA that would analyze the impacts 
of the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin. On July 20, 1994, Navy and 
the City held a public scoping meeting in the Tustin City Council 
Chambers at the Tustin Civic Center; the scoping process concluded on 
August 5, 1994.
    Navy and the City distributed a Draft EIS/EIR (DEIS/EIR) on January 
16, 1998, and commenced a 45-day public review and comment period. Both 
oral and written comments were received. On February 5, 1998, Navy and 
the City held a public hearing in the Tustin City Council Chambers.
    After the public comment period for the DEIS/EIR concluded, Navy 
and the City modified the analysis for the disposal and reuse of MCAS 
Tustin and prepared a Revised DEIS/EIR. On July 9, 1999, Navy and the 
City distributed the Revised DEIS/EIR and commenced a 45-day public 
review and comment period. Again, both oral and written comments were 
received and considered. On August 11, 1999, Navy and the City held a 
public hearing on the Revised DEIS/EIR in the Tustin City Council 
Chambers.
    Navy's and the City's responses to the public comments concerning 
the Revised DEIS/EIR were incorporated in the Final EIS/EIR (FEIS/EIR), 
which was distributed to the public on December 23, 1999, for a review 
period that

[[Page 13058]]

concluded on January 24, 2000. Navy received eight letters commenting 
on the Final EIS/EIR.

Alternatives

    In the FEIS/EIR, Navy analyzed the environmental impacts of three 
reuse alternatives for MCAS Tustin. Navy also evaluated a ``No Action'' 
alternative that considered leaving the property in caretaker status 
with Navy maintaining the physical condition of the property, providing 
a security force, and making repairs essential to safety.
    In early December 1993, a Task Force established by the City 
Council of the city of Tustin composed of representatives of the cities 
of Tustin, Irvine and Santa Ana, Orange County, local area businesses, 
homeowner associations, residents of the City of Tustin and the United 
States Marine Corps proposed three reuse alternatives that it 
designated as the Arterial Loop Pattern/Large Community Core/Medium 
Residential Alternative (Alternative 1); the Arterial Grid Pattern/No 
Core/High Residential Alternative (Alternative 2); and the Arterial 
Loop Pattern/Low Residential Alternative (Alternative 3). On December 
11, 1993, the Task Force conducted a public workshop to consider these 
three redevelopment proposals and selected Alternative 1 as the 
preferred option. Navy adopted these alternatives for in its 
environmental impact study.
    On October 21, 1996, the City of Tustin approved the Marine Corps 
Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. On September 8, 
1998, the City adopted the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Errata. 
City Council Resolution No. 98-80. The 1993 Errata refined the 1996 
reuse plan but did not change any of the land uses proposed in that 
plan. That plan is consistent with the Task Force identified preferred 
option, Alternative 1.

The Alternative Selected

    The selected alternative, identified in the FEIS/EIR as Alternative 
1, sets out a mix of land uses for MCAS Tustin. It dedicates about 686 
acres and more than nine million square feet of space to commercial, 
research and development, and light industrial activities, 475 acres to 
residential development, 236 acres and more than two million square 
feet of space to institutional and recreational activities, and 187 
acres to roadways and drainage facilities. The two historic blimp 
hangars, which together contain 660,416 square feet of space, are to be 
re-used if an economically feasible reuse is found for them.
    At full build-out, the selected alternative will be characterized 
by an arterial loop roadway system. This roadway will circumscribe a 
225-acre community Core (containing residential, commercial, and light 
industrial uses) as well as an 85-acre Urban Regional Park that 
surrounds Hangar 28. This alternative will allow or development of 
about 4,600 housing units. It will also reuse the military barracks as 
transitional housing for the homeless. The selected alternative 
includes development of one high school, three local elementary 
schools, one community park, and three neighborhood parks. Finally, 
this alternative foresees the development of educational and training 
facilities, offices, a 500-room hotel, an 18-hole golf course 
(available for public use), retail stores, and restaurants.

Other Alternatives

    Navy analyzed a second reuse alternative, identified in the FEIS/
EIR as Alternative 2. This Alternative dedicates about 681 acres and 
more than eight million square feet of space to commercial, research 
and development, and light industrial activities, 595 acres to 
residential uses, 178 acres to roadways and drainage facilities, and 
131 acres and more than one million square feet of space to 
institutional and recreational activities.Similar to the Selected 
alternative, Hangar 28 would be adaptively used if an economically 
feasible reuse were found, but under this alternative, Hangar 29 would 
be demolished.
    At full build-out, Alternative 2 allows for development of more 
housing (6,205 units) than that proposed by the selected alternative. 
Like the selected alternative, this alternative would allow for 
development of offices, schools, neighborhood parks, community parks, a 
hotel, an 18-hole golf course, retail stores, and restaurants, but in 
different densities. However, unlike the selected alternative, it does 
not develop a Community Core and an Urban Regional Park and the layout 
of the development would be characterized by a grid pattern system of 
roadways.
    Navy analyzed a third reuse alternative, described in the FEIS/EIR 
as Alternative 3. This Alternative dedicates about 815 acres and more 
than nine million square feet of space to commercial, research and 
development, and light industrial activities, 446 acres to residential 
uses, 184 acres to roadways and drainage facilities, and 139 acres and 
more than one million square feet of space to institutional and 
recreational activities. Similarly to the selected alternative, Hangar 
28 would be adaptively used if an economically feasible reuse were 
found, but under this alternative, hangar 29 would be demolished.
    At full build-out, Alternative 3 allows for development of less 
housing (4,340 units) than that proposed by the selected alternative. 
As in the selected alternative, this alternative allows for development 
of offices, schools, neighborhood parks, community parks, a hotel, an 
18-hole golf course, retail stores, and restaurants, but in different 
densities. Alternative 3 is characterized by an arterial loop roadway 
system similar to that proposed by the selected alternative, however, 
unlike the selected alternative, it does not immediately develop a 
Community Core within the loop, but sets aside 179 acres of land for 
future development; this alternative does not develop an Urban Regional 
Park.

Environmental Impacts

    Navy analyzed the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the 
disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin for each alternative. Effects on land 
use, socioeconomics, utilities, public services and facilities, 
aesthetics, cultural and paleontological resources, biological 
resources, agricultural resources, soils and geology, water resources, 
hazardous wastes, substances and materials, traffic and circulation, 
air quality, and noise are discussed in detail in the EIS/EIR.

Significant Effects

    The selected alternative will have a significant and unmitigable 
impact on agricultural resources. There are 702 acres at the Air 
Station that are currently being used for agricultural activities. The 
United States Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation 
Service has determined that 862 acres at MCAS Tustin meet the 
definition of prime farmland, defined as land that contains the best 
combination of physical and chemical features for the production of 
agricultural crops. The Service classified an additional 20 acres, 
located in the City of Irvine between Marble Mountain Road and Barranca 
Parkway, as farmland of statewide importance, which the Service defines 
as land that contains a good combination of physical and chemical 
features for the production of agricultural crops.
    The Farmland Protection Policy Act, 7 U.S.C. 4201-4209 (1994), was 
enacted to minimize the extent to which Federal programs contribute to 
the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to 
nonagricultural purposes. In May 1999, pursuant to the Farmland 
Protection Policy Act, Navy and the Natural Resource Conservation 
Service

[[Page 13059]]

conducted a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating of MCAS Tustin to 
determine whether the 702 acres of farmland in Tustin and Irvine 
qualified for protection under the Act. Navy concluded that this 
farmland did not qualify for such protection.
    The selected alternative would not use any of the farmland for 
agricultural purposes. There is no long-term, feasible mitigation that 
would offset the impact of converting the farmland on MCAS Tustin to 
nonagricultural uses.
    The selected alternative could have significant unmitigable impacts 
on visual resources. The two blimp hangars have been the most visibly 
dominant and unique marks on the landscape since their construction in 
1942. The selected alternative could demolish one or both of these 
hangars if no economically feasible reuse were found after completion 
of a marketing survey. The loss of both of these hangars will 
constitute a significant unmitigable visual impact.
    There will be other significant visual impacts that will result 
from changing the land uses at the Air Station from a less developed 
landscape with agricultural fields to a more developed urban setting. 
Integration of the new uses with adjacent land uses could, however, 
result in a beneficial impact.
    The selected alternative could have a significant and unmitigable 
impact on cultural resources. In 1975, the two blimp hangars, Hangar 28 
and Hangar 29, were placed on the National Register of Historic Places. 
In 1993, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 
Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 470f (1994), and its implementing regulations, 
Protection of Historic Properties, 36 CFR Part 800, Navy performed a 
cultural resources survey to assess the potential impacts that could 
result from the disposal of MCAS Tustin. Navy concluded that seven 
other structures (Buildings 28A and 29A, and five blimp mooring mats) 
and their connecting roads were related to the World War II mission of 
the hangars and thus were eligible for listing on the National Register 
of Historic Places as a discontiguous historic district. In a letter 
dated June 28, 1996, the California State Historic Preservation Officer 
(SHPO) concurred with Navy's determination.
    Navy has completed consultations with the Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation and the SHPO. These consultations identified 
actions that Navy must take before it conveys property at MCAS Tustin 
and actions that the acquiring entities must take to avoid or mitigate 
adverse impacts on the structures that are listed or eligible for 
listing on the National Register. These obligations were set forth in a 
Memorandum Of Agreement (MOA), dated December 13, 1999, among Navy, the 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the California State 
Historic Preservation Officer. The City of Tustin, Orange County, and 
the United States Department of the Interior's National Park Service 
signed the MOA as concurring parties.
    Navy has completed an Historic American Building Survey for the 
historic hangars and contributing structures in the discontiguous 
historic district; the National Park Service approved that survey on 
March 16, 2000. Navy will donate copies of plans and architectural 
drawings and other archival materials and records concerning the layout 
of the original blimp facility and its buildings and structures to the 
City of Tustin and to a local curation facility.
    The MOA requires that Orange County and the City of Tustin 
undertake a marketing effort to determine whether there is an 
economically feasible reuse for Hangar 28 and its supporting Building 
28A and for Hangar 29 and its supporting Building 29A. If those 
marketing efforts produce an economically feasible reuse for either or 
both hangars, then Navy will place an historic preservation covenant in 
the deed for the hangar and its associated building.
    If there is no economically feasible reuse for Hanger 28 and 
Building 28A, as determined by the National Park Service (because 
Hangar 28 and Building 28A are situated on property to be acquired from 
Navy through the National Park Service by way of a public benefit 
conveyance) or for Hangar 29 and Building 29A, as determined by the 
SHPO, then Navy will not place an historic preservation covenant in the 
deed for these hangars and buildings. In that event, Orange County and 
the City of Tustin will undertake specific mitigation measures that are 
set forth in the MOA and consist of preparing a written history of the 
base, an interpretive exhibit, and a documentary film concerning the 
hangars and the base's World War II mission.
    The selected alternative will have significant impacts on traffic 
circulation. By the year 2020, the Reuse Plan, if built out, will 
generate about 216,445 average daily motor vehicle trips compared with 
the 12,400 average daily trips that were associated with the Marine 
Corps' use of the property. The traffic generated can be predicted to 
cause substantial delays during peak commuting hours at seventeen 
intersections near the base.
    The selected alternative will have significant impacts on air 
quality. The traffic predicted will increase ozone precursor emissions, 
carbon monoxide emissions, and sulfur oxide emissions above the South 
Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) thresholds. Although 
the carbon monoxide emissions will exceed SCAQMD thresholds, they will 
not result in violations of current Federal or State standards for 
ambient air quality. However, the particulate matter emissions and the 
reactive organic compound emissions resulting from demolition, 
construction, and renovation activities over the 20-year build-out 
period will exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance in spite of 
mitigation undertaken by the acquiring entities. The selected 
alternative will not be consistent with the Final 1994 Air Quality 
Management plan for this region that was approved by the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency. Although this Plan acknowledges the 
closure of MCAS Tustin, it is not evident that the 1994 Plan considered 
the air emissions that would be generated by activities of the 
intensity proposed by the Reuse Plan.
    Section 176(c) of the Clean air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506 (1994), 
requires Federal agencies to review their proposed activities to ensure 
that these activities do not hamper local efforts to control air 
pollution. Section 176(c) prohibits Federal agencies from conducting 
activities in air quality areas, such as the South Coast Air Basin, 
that do not meet one or more of the national standards for ambient air 
quality, unless the proposed activities conform to an approved 
implementation plan. The United States Environmental Protection Agency 
regulations implementing Section 176(c) recognize certain categorically 
exempt activities. Conveyance of title to real property and certain 
leases are categorically exempt activities. 40 CFR 93.153(c)(2)(xiv) 
and (xix). Therefore, the disposal of MCAS Tustin will not require Navy 
to conduct a conformity determination.
    The selected alternative could have significant impacts on ``waters 
of the United States'' that are subject to the regulations that 
implement Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344 (1994). 
These waters consist of about two acres of vegetated wetlands and about 
29 acres of natural bottom stormwater channels. Of these 29 acres, 
thirteen acres are located in Peters Canyon Channel and would be 
affected by the Orange County Flood Control District's improvement of 
that Channel. These improvements would accommodate drainage resulting 
from

[[Page 13060]]

the Reuse Plan, as noted above, and from redevelopment of the Eastern 
Transportation Corridor, a State toll road located east of the Air 
Station. While impacts on some or all of these waters may be avoided 
during the proposed redevelopment, it may be necessary for the 
acquiring entities to consult with the Army Corps of Engineers and with 
California environmental regulatory agencies and obtain permits for 
construction projects that do affect these waters.
    The selected alternative could have significant noise impacts on 
the new housing and parks that would be built on the MCAS Tustin 
property. The construction of new roads and the resultant traffic would 
generate noise impacts on any residence and park located within 75 feet 
of the centerline of these roads. Additionally, the operations and 
maintenance activities of the Southern California Regional Rail 
Authority and the Orange County Transportation Authority along Edinger 
Avenue could have significant noise impacts on the proposed residential 
areas at Edinger Avenue. The use of noise attenuation measures such as 
barriers and insulation would reduce these potentially significant 
impacts to a less than significant level.

Less Than Significant Impacts of Disposal and Reuse

    The selected alternative will not have an adverse impact on 
socioeconomics. Orange County expects the increases in employment, 
population, and housing that are reflected in the County projections 
upon which the local jurisdictions rely for land use planning. About 90 
percent of the projected new jobs are expected to be filled by current 
residents of Tustin, Irvine, Santa Ana, and other communities in Orange 
County. The selected alternative will result in an increase in 
population of about 12,500 people in the vicinity of the base. By the 
full build-out year of 2020, the selected alternative will develop 
about 4,600 residential units on the former Air Station. These units 
will readily serve the projected increase in population.
    The selected alternative will not have a significant impact on 
utilities. Utility distribution systems will be replaced or upgraded 
during the redevelopment. Although the projected demand for potable 
water would increase by about 1.5 million gallons per day over the 
Marine Corps' historical use, there is an adequate supply of water off 
the base and an adequate system to deliver that water to meet the 
projected daily demand. The local wastewater treatment plants in Tustin 
and Irvine have sufficient capacity to manage the projected average 
daily sewer flow of 2.5 million gallons.
    The amount of solid waste generated will increase as a result of 
demolition, construction, and redevelopment activities but will 
decrease over time as the demolition and construction activities are 
completed. The local landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate 
the solid waste that the selected alternative would generate.
    The selected alternative will not have a significant impact on 
public services and facilities. The proposed redevelopment of MCAS 
Tustin will, however, increase the demand for police, fire, and 
emergency medical services. Additional personnel and equipment will be 
needed for each of these services to meet the demand created by the 
increase in new residents and jobs. This impact will not be significant 
and it will not be necessary to build new facilities.
    The selected alternative will not have a significant impact on 
local school districts in the City of Tustin or the City of Irvine. As 
a direct result of the Reuse Plan, by the year 2020, an additional 
1,473 students will live in the Tustin Unified School District, and an 
additional 959 students will live in the Irvine Unified School 
District. The selected alternative proposes to build two elementary 
schools and one high school on MCAS Tustin property in the Tustin 
district and one elementary school on MCAS Tustin property in the 
Irvine district. The availability of these properties, combined with 
State statutory development fees, redevelopment taxes, special district 
financing and other funding sources, will provide sufficient resources 
to build the four schools.
    The selected alternative did not propose to build new residential 
units or new schools in that part of the Air Station that is located in 
the Santa Ana district. However, the Reuse Plan will create new 
employment opportunities that could result in an increase in the number 
of students residing in neighborhoods served by the Santa Ana district. 
The precise nature of this indirect impact on the Sana Ana district 
will not be known until the Reuse Plan is built out.
    The selected alternative will not have a significant impact on 
libraries, parks, recreational facilities, and bike paths and trails. 
There are three libraries located within three miles of the Air Station 
that would adequately serve the current and projected residents. The 
selected alternative proposes to develop three kinds of parks to 
accommodate the current and projected demands for recreational 
resources. The General Plans of Tustin and Irvine require three acres 
of parks for every 1,000 residents. The City of Tustin currently has a 
deficit of 100 acres of parks and recreational areas, and the selected 
alternative's increase in population will generate a requirement to 
provide an additional 33 acres for the 10,900 new residents. The 
selected alternative will develop 127 acres of parks and recreational 
areas in Tustin to satisfy nearly its entire General Plan requirement. 
In the City of Irvine, the selected alternative will develop 18 acres 
of parks and recreational areas, which will exceed its requirement to 
provide five additional acres of parks and recreational areas for the 
1,600 new residents. The selected alternative provides for development 
of recreational bike paths and trails in Tustin and Irvine and will 
incorporate bicycling lanes and parking areas in satisfaction of the 
South Coast Air Quality Management District's air quality regulations.
    The selected alternative will not have a significant impact on 
geology and soils. The Air Station is located in an area known for 
seismic activity and non-seismic geologic conditions such as local soil 
settlement, soil expansion, and erosion. Existing structures that are 
renovated and new structures that are built will be required to meet 
current building codes governing seismic safety. State and local laws 
and regulations and the use of standard soil erosion and sedimentation 
control measures during construction will ensure that significant 
impacts are avoided.
    The selected alternative will not have a significant impact on the 
environment arising out of the use or generation of hazardous 
substances by the acquiring entities. Construction activities that 
include dewatering or disturbing subsurface soils would be subject to 
the institutional controls set forth in the process required by the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675q (1994). These controls will 
ensure that construction activities do not affect the groundwater 
gradient and cause migration of contaminants.
    Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 3 CFR 859 
(1995), requires that Navy determine whether any low income and 
minority populations will experience disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects from the proposed action. 
Navy analyzed the impacts on low income

[[Page 13061]]

and minority populations pursuant to Executive Order 12898. The FEIS 
addressed the potential environmental, social, and economic impacts 
associated with the disposal of MCAS Tustin and subsequent reuse of the 
property under the three proposed alternatives. None of the reuse 
alternatives will have a disproportionate impact on minority 
populations or low income populations. Although the adjacent City of 
Santa Ana has a greater proportion of minority residents and low income 
residents than the City of Tustin, the City of Irvine, and Orange 
County, there are no significant unmitigable impacts that affect only 
the City of Santa Ana. Indeed, the increased employment opportunities, 
housing, and recreational resources generated by the selected 
alternative would have beneficial effects.
    Navy also analyzed the impacts on children as required by pursuant 
to Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks, 3 CFR 198 (1998). Under the selected 
alternative, the largest concentration of children would be present in 
the residential, educational, and recreational areas. The selected 
alternative would not pose any disproportionate environmental health or 
safety risks to children.

Mitigation

    Implementation of Navy's decision to dispose of MCAS Tustin does 
not require Navy to implement any mitigation measures. Navy will take 
certain actions to implement existing agreements and to comply with 
regulations. These actions were treated in the FEIS as agreements or 
regulatory requirements rather than as mitigation. If, after completion 
of the marketing surveys, an economically feasible reuse is found for 
Hangar 28 and Building 28A and for Hangar 29 and Building 29A, Navy 
will place historic preservation covenants in the deeds that convey 
these hangars and buildings. In the event that the property is ready 
for conveyance before the marketing surveys are completed, Navy will 
place historic preservation covenants in the deeds in accordance with 
the MOA.
    The FEIS identified and discussed those actions that will be 
necessary to mitigate the environmental impacts associated with the 
reuse and redevelopment of MCAS Tustin. The Acquiring entities, under 
the direction of Federal, State, and local agencies with regulatory 
authority over protected resources, will be responsible for 
implementing necessary environmental mitigation measures.

Comments Received on the FEIS

    Navy received comments on the FEIS from one State agency, three 
local agencies, two private organizations, and two persons. The State 
agency was California's Department of Transportation. The local 
agencies were Orange County, the City of Irvine, and the City of Santa 
Ana. The private organizations were the Irvine Business Consortium and 
The Gas Company.
    All of the substantive comments received concerned the same issues 
raised in comments submitted on the DEIS. These substantive issues were 
fully addressed in the FEIS and require no further discussion here. 
Several of the comments received addressed the efforts of Santa Ana 
Unified School District to obtain some of the former MCAS Tustin 
property to construct new educational facilities. The City of Tustin 
and the Santa Ana Unified School District laudably continue to look for 
a solution within the parameters of the approved reuse plan, the 
Federal Property Act, and the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act. 
Continuing discussion among the federal, state and local governmental 
entities responsible for identifying, screening and requesting transfer 
of surplus federal property pursuant to a Public Benefit Conveyance for 
educational use, such as the U.S. Department of Education, is the 
appropriate process for resolving this issue.

Regulations Governing the Disposal Decision

    Since the proposed action contemplates a disposal under the Defense 
Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (DBCRA), Public Law 101-510, 
10 U.S.C. 2687 note (1994), Navy's decision was based upon the 
environmental analysis in the FEIS/EIR and application of the standards 
set forth in the DBCRA, the Federal Property Management Regulations 
(FPMR), 41 CFR Part 101-47, and the Department of Defense Rule on 
Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Community Assistance (DoD 
Rule), 32 CFR Parts 174 and 175.
    Section 101-47.303-1 of the FPMR requires that disposals of Federal 
property benefit the Federal Government and constitute the ``highest 
and best use'' of the property. Section 101-47.4909 of the FPMR defines 
the ``highest and best use'' as that use to which a property can be put 
that produces the highest monetary return from the property, promotes 
its maximum value, or serves a public or institutional purpose. The 
``highest and best use'' determination must be based upon the 
property's economic potential, qualitative values inherent in the 
property, and utilization factors affecting land use such as zoning, 
physical characteristics, other private and public uses in the 
vicinity, neighboring improvements, utility services, access, roads, 
location, and environmental and historic considerations.
    After Federal property has been conveyed to non-Federal entities, 
the property is subject to local land use regulations, including zoning 
and subdivision regulations, and building codes. Unless expressly 
authorized by statute, the disposing Federal agency cannot restrict the 
future use of surplus Government property. As a result, the local 
community exercises substantial control over future use of the 
property. For this reason, local land use plans and zoning affect 
determination of the ``highest and best use'' of surplus Government 
property.
    The DBCRA directed the Administrator of the General Services 
Administration (GSA) to delegate to the Secretary of Defense authority 
to transfer and dispose of base closure property. Section 2905(b) of 
the DBCRA directs the Secretary of Defense to exercise this authority 
in accordance with GSA's property disposal regulations, set forth in 
Part 101-47 of the FPMR. By letter dated December 20, 1991, the 
Secretary of Defense delegated the authority to transfer and dispose of 
base closure property closed under the DBCRA to the Secretaries of the 
Military Departments. Under this delegation of authority, the Secretary 
of the Navy must follow FPMR procedures for screening and disposing of 
real property when implementing base closures. Only where Congress has 
expressly provided additional authority for disposing of base closure 
property, e.g., the economic development conveyance authority 
established in 1993 by Section 2905(b)(4) of the DBCRA, may Navy apply 
disposal procedures other than those in the FPMR.
    In Section 2901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1994, Public Law 103-160, Congress recognized the economic 
hardship occasioned by base closures, the Federal interest in 
facilitating economic recovery of base closure communities, and the 
need to identify and implement reuse and redevelopment of property at 
closing installations. In Section 2903(c) of Public Law 103-160, 
Congress directed the Military Departments to consider each base 
closure community's economic needs and priorities in the

[[Page 13062]]

property disposal process. Under Section 2905(b)(2)(E) of the DBCRA, 
Navy must consult with local communities before it disposes of base 
closure property and must consider local plans developed for reuse and 
redevelopment of the surplus Federal property.
    The Department of Defense's goal, as set forth in Section 174.4 of 
the DoD Rule, is to help base closure communities achieve rapid 
economic recovery through expeditious reuse and redevelopment of the 
assets at closing bases, taking into consideration local market 
conditions and locally developed reuse plans. Thus, the Department has 
adopted a consultative approach with each community to ensure that 
property disposal decisions consider the LRA's reuse plan and encourage 
job creation. As a part of this cooperative approach, the base closure 
community's interests, as reflected in its zoning for the area, play a 
significant role in determining the range of alternatives considered in 
the environmental analysis for property disposal. Furthermore, Section 
175.7(d)(3) of the DoD Rule provides that the LRA's plan generally will 
be used as the basis for the proposed disposal action.
    The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 40 
U.S.C. 484 (1994), as implemented by the FPMR, identifies several 
mechanisms for disposing of surplus base closure property: by public 
benefit conveyance (FPMR Sec. 101-47.303-2); by negotiated sale (FPMR 
Sec. 10-47.304-9); and by competitive sale (FPMR 101-47.304-7). 
Additionally, in Section 2905(b)(4), the DBCRA established economic 
development conveyances as a means of disposing of surplus base closure 
property.
    The selection of any particular method of conveyance merely 
implements the Federal agency's decision to dispose of the property. 
Decisions concerning whether to undertake a public benefit conveyance 
or an economic development conveyance, or to sell property by 
negotiation or by competitive bid, are left to the Federal agency's 
discretion. Selecting a method of disposal implicates a broad range of 
factors and rests solely within the Secretary of the Navy's discretion.

Conclusion

    The LRA's proposed reuse of Marine Corps Air Station Tustin, 
reflected in the Reuse Plan, is consistent with the requirements of the 
FPMR and Section 174.4 of the DoD Rule. The LRA has determined in its 
Reuse Plan that the property should be used for various purposes 
including residential, commercial, educational, research and 
development, and light industrial activities and to develop parks and 
recreational areas. The property's location, physical characteristics, 
and existing infrastructure as well as the current uses of adjacent 
property make it appropriate for the proposed uses.
    Although the ``No Action'' Alternative has less potential for 
causing adverse environmental impacts, this alternative would not take 
advantage of the location, physical characteristics, and infrastructure 
of MCAS Tustin or the current uses of adjacent property. Additionally, 
it would not foster local economic redevelopment of the base.
    The acquiring entities, under the direction of Federal, State, and 
local agencies with regulatory authority over protected resources, will 
be responsible for adopting practicable means to avoid or minimize 
environmental harm that may result from implementing the Reuse Plan.
    Accordingly, Navy plans to dispose of MCAS Tustin in a manner that 
is consistent with the land uses identified in the LRA's Reuse Plan for 
the property.

    Dated: February 9, 2001.
Duncan Holaday,
Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 
Navy, (Installations and Environment).
[FR Doc. 01-5127 Filed 3-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M