Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 23, 2000 / Notices 33301

Council on Environmental quality, the

Army has prepared the ROD in

association with the completion of the

Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS) for the disposal and Reuse of Fort

Chaffee, Arkansas. The approved 1995

base closure and realignment actions

required by the Base Closure and

Realignment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–

510), and subsequent actions in

compliance with this law, mandated the

closure of Fort Chaffee. It is DoD policy

to dispose of property no longer needed

by DoD. Consequently, as a result of the

mandated closure of Fort Chaffee, the

Army is disposing of excess property at

Fort Chaffee.

The ROD establishes the Army’s

decision to proceed with the disposal of

excess properties/facilities in

accordance with the Army’s preferred

alternative (encumbered disposal)

described in the FEIS.

ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of the

FEIS or ROD may be addressed to Mr.

Jim Ellis, Little Rock District, U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CESWL–ET–

WP, PO Box 867, Little Rock, AR 72203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Jim Ellis at (501) 324–5033 or by fax at

(501) 324–5605.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FEIS

analyzed three disposal alternatives: (1)

The no action alternative, which entails

maintaining the property in caretaker

status after closure: (2) the encumbered

disposal alternative, which entails

transferring the property to future

owners with Army-imposed limitations,

or encumbrances, on the future use of

the property; and (3) the unencumbered

disposal alternative, which entails

transferring the property to future

owners with fewer or no Army-imposed

restrictions on the future use of the

property. The preferred action identified

in the FEIS is encumbered disposal of

excess property at Fort Chaffee. Based

upon the analysis contained in the FEIS,

encumbrances and deed restrictions

associated with the Army’s disposal

actions for Fort Chaffee will mitigation

measures.

Planning for the reuse of the property

to be disposed of is a secondary action

resulting from closure. The local

community has established the Fort

Chaffee Redevelopment Authority

(FCRA) to produce a reuse development

plan for the surplus property. The

impacts of reuse are evaluated in terms

of land use intensities. This reuse

analysis is based upon implementing

one of three reuse alternatives, all of

which are based upon the FCRA reuse

plan. The Army has not selected one of

these three reuse alternatives as the

preferred action. Selection of the

preferred reuse plan is a decision that

will be made by the FCRA.

Dated: May 18, 2000.

Raymond J. Patz,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army,

(Environment, Safety and Occupational

Health) OASA(I&E).

[FR Doc. 00–12935 Filed 5–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Environmental Assessment (EA) and

Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI)

for the National Park Seminary Historic

District, Forest Glen Annex, Walter

Reed Army Medical Center

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army

proposes to report the National Park

Seminary Historic District (NPSHD), in

its entirety, as excess property to the

General Services Administration (GSA),

in accordance with Army Regulation

405–90 and federal property law. The

NPSHD is part of the Forest Glen Annex

of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center

(WRAMC) in Montgomery County,

Maryland, and is listed on the National

Register of Historic Places.

The Army’s proposed action will

begin the screening and disposal

process, by providing notice to the GSA

that the NPSHD is excess to the Army’s

needs. Under the Federal Property and

Administrative Services Act and

accompanying regulations, GSA is

responsible for the disposal of excess

federal property. The EA for the NPSHD

identifies analyzes the potential impacts

of four alternatives: (1) Excessing the

NPSHD; (2) excessing NPSHD with

additional parcels of land; (3) no action;

or (4) moth-balling the historic

buildings. The Army’s preferred

alternative for implementing the

proposed action is Alternative 2.

DATES: Public comments on the EA and

FNSI must be submitted by June 22,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Address comments to Ms.

Beverly Chidel, Acting Public Affairs

Officer, Walter Reed Army Medical

Center, 6900 Georgia Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20307–5001 or via

email at

beverly.chidel@na.amedd.army.mil.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Beverly Chidel, Acting Public Affairs

Officer, at (202) 782–7177.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Little or

no direct adverse impacts on the natural

and human environment are anticipated

as a result of the Army’s proposed

excessing action. The Army will retain

control of the property and will

continue to provide current levels of

security and maintenance until a new

owner is found. Indirect adverse

impacts on air quality, noise, surface

water, soil erosion, biological resources,

land use, and traffic would result from

the eventual reuse of the property by the

new (non-Army) owner, which can be

avoided or minimized by using best

management practices and complying

with state and local laws and

regulations. The Army is committed to

remedying environmental

contamination, associated with the

Army’s past ownership or use of the

NPSHD property, as necessary to protect

human health and the environment. On

the basis of currently available

information, no remedial action is

expected to be necessary for hazardous

substances or wastes, as defined by 42

U.S.C. 9601(14). Indirect adverse effects

on historic properties are expected.

Consultation with the Maryland State

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)

under Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act is ongoing.

The GSA, Army, SHPO, Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation, as

well as any other consulting parties

identified by GSA, will work to achieve

an appropriate agreement to address

potential adverse effects on the historic

district. Further evaluation of impacts

will be provided in National

Environmental Policy Act

documentation that will be prepared by

GSA for their action of disposal.

On the basis of the environmental

impact analyses found in the EA, which

was incorporated into a FNSI, it has

been determined that implementing the

Army’s proposed action of reporting the

NPSHD to GSA as excess property will

not have significant individual or

cumulative impacts on the quality of the

human environment. Therefore, an

Environmental Impact Statement is not

required and will not be prepared.

Individuals who want to review the

EA and FNSI may obtain a copy and

provide comments during this 30-day

period, by writing to Ms. Beverly Chidel

at the address listed above. Copies of the

EA will also be available for public

review at the Silver Spring Branch

Library (8901 Colesville Road, Silver

Spring, MD). The EA also may be

viewed on the Internet at

www.wramc.amed.army.mil/

departments/dpw.

33302 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 23, 2000 / Notices

Dated: May 18, 2000.

Raymond J. Fatz,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army

(Environment, Safety and Occupational

Health) OASA (I&E).

[FR Doc. 00–12972 Filed 5–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

Record of Decision for the Disposal

and Reuse of Naval Air Station Agana,

Guam

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 C.F.R.

Parts 1500–1508, hereby announces its

decision to dispose of Naval Air Station

(NAS) Agana, which is located in the

United States Territory of Guam. Guam

is the southernmost island of the

Mariana archipelago in the western

Pacific Ocean.

Navy analyzed the impacts of the

disposal and reuse of NAS Agana in an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

as required by NEPA. The EIS analyzed

four reuse alternatives and identified

the NAS Agana Base Reuse Master Plan

(Reuse Plan), approved by the

Government of Guam on July 8, 1997,

and described in the EIS as the Airport/

Business/Industry Alternative, as the

Preferred Alternative.

The Preferred Alternative proposed to

use NAS Agana for commercial aviation;

for industrial and commercial activities;

to develop parks and recreational areas;

and to build and expand roads and

highways. The Government of Guam is

the local Redevelopment Authority

(LRA) for NAS Agana. Department of

Defense Rule on Revitalizing Base

Closure Communities and Community

Assistance (DOD) Rule), 32 C.F.R.

§ 176.20(a).

Navy intends to dispose of NAS

Agana in a manner that is consistent

with the Reuse Plan. Navy has

determined that the mixed land use

proposed for NAS Agana will meet the

goals of achieving local economic

redevelopment and creating new jobs

while limiting adverse environmental

impacts and ensuring land uses that are

compatible with adjacent property. This

Record Of Decision does not mandate a

specific mix of land uses. Rather, it

leaves selection of the particular means

to achieve the proposed redevelopment

to the acquiring entities and the local

zoning authority.

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 1993

Defense Base Closure and Realignment

Commission recommended the closure

of Naval Air Station Agana. The

Commission also recommended that

navy retain the Air Station officers

housing to support Navy personnel

stationed at Andersen Air Force Base in

the northern part of Guam. These

recommendations were approved by

President Clinton and accepted by the

One Hundred Third Congress in 1993.

Naval Air Station Agana closed on

March 31, 1995.

Prior to closure of the Air Station, the

A. B. Won Pat Guam International

Airport Authority (GIAA) operated the

Guam International Airport at NAS

Agana through a joint use agreement

with Navy. Under this agreement,

Guam’s International Airport Authority,

which owns and operates a passenger

terminal and maintenance area adjacent

to NAS Agana, used the Naval Air

Station runways and taxiways and

relied upon Navy’s air traffic controllers

for civilian air operations. After NAS

Agana closed, GIAA assumed

responsibility for all air operations and

began using Navy’s maintenance

hangars through a lease with Navy. The

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

currently provides air traffic control

services.

The 1995 Defense Base Closure and

Realignment Commission modified the

1993 Commission’s recommendation by

directing Navy to close the officers

housing at NAS Agana. The 1995

Commission’s recommendation was

approved by President Clinton and

accepted by the One Hundred Fourth

Congress in 1995.

Naval Air Station Agana is located in

the central part of Guam, about three

miles northeast of the Village of Agana,

which has been renamed Hagatna. The

area around the base is also known as

Tiyan. The Air Station covers an area of

about 1,824 acres of Navy property, and

Navy controls an additional 208 acres

near the Air Station by way of

easements for air operations and

drainage. Navy plans to transfer its

interests in these easements to GIAA.

Disposal and reuse of the officers

housing, covering 93 acres, were treated

in a separate environmental analysis

and document.

Naval Air Station Agana is oriented

along a northeast-southwest axis and

has a generally triangular shape. The

base is bounded on the north by a steep

bluff and Route 10A; on the east and

southeast by Route 16; and on the south

by the intersection of Routes 16, 10, and

8; on the southwest by Route 8; and on

the west and northwest by Route 1 and

Agana Bay.

The Village of Tamuning, the Airport

Authority’s passenger terminal and

maintenance area, and the Harmon

industrial area are located north of the

base property. The Village of Dededo is

located northeast of the Air Station.

Barrigada Heights and facilities

associated with the United States Naval

Computer and Telecommunications

Station, Guam are located, respectively,

east and southeast of the Air Station.

The Village of Barrigada is located south

of the Air Station; and the villages of

Mongmong, Toto, and Maite are located

southwest of the base.

During the Federal screening process,

two Federal agencies requested

interagency transfers of base closure

property at NAS Agana. These were the

National Weather Service of the

Department of Commerce’s National

Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration and the Federal

Aviation Administration.

On July 23, 1998, Navy transferred

three acres just south of the runways to

the National Weather Service, which is

building a weather forecasting facility

on the site. Navy will transfer the

control tower and base operations

building (Building 17–75) and a

transmitter building (Building 16–3231)

and two non-contiguous parcels

covering about three acres in this part of

the base to the Federal Aviation

Administration for air traffic control

activities. The remaining 1,725 acres of

Navy property at NAS Agana are

surplus to the needs of the Federal

Government.

This Record of Decision addresses the

disposal and reuse of those parts of NAS

Agana that are surplus to the needs of

the Federal Government. The Air

Station contains two parallel runways in

a northeast-southwest alignment: a

10,000-foot primary runway (Runway

06L–24R) and an 8,000-foot secondary

runway (Runway 06R–24L). Navy plans

to transfer its interests in the air

operations easements and the drainage

easements to GIAA. The base contains

about 592 buildings and structures that

were used for aviation operations,

training, housing, administrative and

support activities. The surplus

property’s undeveloped areas on the

western side of the base contain

wetlands and, on the eastern side of the

base, a forest with limestone soil. There

is an archaeological site eligible for

listing on the National Register of

Historic Places in a developed area

south of the airfield.