46726 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 171 / Thursday, September 4, 1997 / Notices

the City of Oceanside in compliance

with the City of Oceanside Local Coastal

Plan and the California Coastal

Management Program. The Oceanside

City Planning Commission has

approved the Coastal Use Development

Permit.

The proposed action has been

evaluated with respect to environmental

and social impacts, as well as access to

public information and an opportunity

for public participation in the NEPA

process as mandated by Executive Order

12898, ‘‘Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justices in Minority

Populations and Low-Income

Populations.’’ The project is consistent

with the goals and provisions of that

Executive Order and no

disproprotionate impacts to minority or

low-income populations will occur.

In the event that the Marine Corps

and City of Oceanside are unable to

come to an agreement for connecting to

the La Salina ocean outfall, the Marine

Corps will utilize the new force main

pipeline to collect treated effluent from

sewage treatment plants 1, 2, 3 and 8

and dispose of treated effluent at

percolation/equalization basins that will

be constructed at the Lemon Grove site,

as discussed in the FEIS. Also, as

discussed in the FEIS, effluent diversion

from sewage treatment plants 1 and 2

will be continued and be used primarily

to irrigate the Marine Memorial Golf

Course during the dry season, and a

separate pipeline would be constructed

(included within the 98,000 foot

estimate) from the golf course to the

new force main pipeline (to the Lemon

Grove percolation/equalization ponds)

to dispose of surplus irrigation effluent

during the winter months. In addition,

as discussed in the FEIS, effluent from

sewage treatment plants 3 and 8 would

also flow to the Lemon Grove

percolation/equalization ponds. Finally,

treated effluent from sewage treatment

plant 13 would continue to be

discharged to the existing Twin Lakes

equalization/percolation ponds; to the

Santa Margarita River; and possibly to

the Lemon Grove Ponds, capacity

permitting. Any continued discharge to

the Santa Margarita River would be in

violation of the Cease and Desist Order.

Accordingly, continued discharge from

sewage treatment plant 13 into the Santa

Margarita River would require an

upgrade to sewage treatment plant 13 to

meet current permit conditions or a

modification of the National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System permit

granted to MCB Camp Pendleton by the

San Diego Regional Water Quality

Control Board. Implementation of any

proposal to obtain a revised National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

permit or to add advanced treatment to

sewage treatment plant 13 to comply

with the existing permit conditions

would require additional engineering

and environmental analysis.

Accordingly, subsequent environmental

documentation would be prepared, as

appropriate, pursuant to NEPA if the

need arises to further pursue or

continue discharge of treated effluent

from sewage treatment plant 13 into the

Santa Margarita River.

Preparation of the Environmental

Impact Statement began with a public

scoping process to identify issues that

should be addressed in the document.

Involvement in scoping was offered

through a combination of documented

public announcements and meetings

with State of California agencies. Public

announcements were handled through

scoping letters sent to Federal, State,

and local governmental agencies, citizen

groups and associations, and the general

public. Also, a Notice of Intent to

prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement was published in local

newspapers and the Federal Register.

The notice of availability of the DEIS

appeared in the Federal Register on

December 20, 1996. The DEIS was

distributed to Federal, State and local

governmental agencies, officials,

citizens groups and associations, public

libraries and other interested parties.

The public review period for the DEIS

was from December 20, 1996 through

February 2, 1997. Comments received

on the DEIS focused on alternatives

analysis, groundwater recharge,

endangered species and wetlands

issues. The FEIS addressed these

comments and was distributed to

officials of Federal, State and local

governmental agencies, citizens groups

and associations, public libraries and to

other interested parties on June 27,

1997. The public review period for the

FEIS ended on July 27, 1997. No

comments were received on the FEIS.

The Department of the Navy believes

that there are no remaining issues to be

resolved with respect to this project. In

the event that the La Salina ocean

outfall is unavailable, all pertinent

issues have been identified and

addressed. Questions regarding the

Environmental Impact Statement

prepared for this action may be directed

to Mr. Lupe E. Armas, Assistant Chief of

Staff, Environmental Security, Marine

Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, CA

92055–5008, telephone (619) 725–4512.

Dated August 26, 1997.

Duncan Holaday,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy

(Installations and Facilities).

[FR Doc. 97–23375 Filed 9–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810–AE–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

Record of Decision for the Disposal

and Reuse of the Fleet and Industrial

Supply Center, Oakland, 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),

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 the Fleet and Industrial

Supply Center (FISC) Oakland,

California.

Navy intends to dispose of this

property directly to the Port of Oakland

(Port) as authorized by the Department

of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

year 1993, Public Law 102–484, Section

2834, as amended by the Department of

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1996, Public Law 104–106, Section

2867. Based upon the Port’s Vision 2000

Program, it proposes to develop marine,

rail, and truck cargo facilities on the

property. The Port’s Vision 2000

Program is consistent with the

designation of the area for ‘‘priority port

use’’ in the April 1996 San Francisco

Bay Seaport Plan Update, issued jointly

by the San Francisco Bay Conservation

and Development Commission and the

Metropolitan Transportation

Commission. The Port’s redevelopment

will also provide public access to the

waterfront and, in the Oakland Middle

Harbor, a marine habitat enhancement

area.

In deciding to dispose of FISC

Oakland, Navy has determined that the

Port’s proposed use of the property as

an intermodal cargo facility is consistent

with Public law 102–484, as amended

by Public Law 104–106. 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 Port of Oakland.

Navy and the Port analyzed the

impacts of disposal and reuse under the

Vision 2000 Program in a Joint

Environmental Impact Statement/

Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR),

as required by NEPA and the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 171 / Thursday, September 4, 1997 / Notices 46727

California Public Resources Code,

Section 21000, et seq. The EIS/EIR

analyzed four reuse alternatives and

identified the Reduced Harbor Fill

Alternative as the Preferred Alternative.

This alternative proposed a mix of land

uses that allocated about three-fourths

of the FISC property to industrial, rail

and marine terminal activities and

reserved the remaining property for

public access and habitat enhancement.

The Port plans to redevelop the FISC

property in phases over several years

and will prepare additional CEQA

documentation as particular projects are

ready for evaluation. While this Record

Of Decision completes Navy’s

responsibility under NEPA, the Federal

Highway Administration, a cooperating

agency in preparation of the EIS/EIR,

will prepare a separate Record Of

Decision that reflects its decision

concerning funding for the Port’s

redevelopment project.

Background

The FISC Oakland property is situated

on 528 acres in West Oakland, about

two miles west of Oakland’s central

business district, on the east side of San

Francisco Bay. It lies within the limits

of the City of Oakland in Alameda

County and falls under the planning

jurisdiction of the Port of Oakland.

In 1940, Navy acquired from the City

of Oakland 392 acres of the 528 acres

that comprise the FISC Oakland

property and established the Oakland

Naval Supply Depot (later renamed the

Naval Supply Center) to provide

logistical support for the Pacific Theater

in World War II. The City conveyed this

property to Navy subject to a

reversionary clause that would cause

the property to revert to the City of

Oakland if Navy decided not to use it

as a supply depot or for other military

purposes.

Navy subsequently acquired an

additional 136 acres of adjacent upland

property and increased the total area of

the FISC property to 528 acres. This

additional 136 acres has no reverter

limiting Navy’s ability to convey the

property and is currently leased to the

Port for use as warehousing, open

laydown storage, and parking.

Because the 392 acres acquired from

the City of Oakland will revert to the

City by operation of law, the only

property for which Navy must make a

disposal decision is the remaining 136

acres. Therefore, disposal of that 136

acres is the subject of this Record of

Decision.

The Department of Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993,

Public Law 102–484, Section 2834,

authorized Navy to lease up to 195 acres

of FISC Oakland property to the Port of

Oakland for 50 years. The Department of

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1994, Public Law 103–160, Section

2833, amended these provisions to

permit Navy to lease available property

to the Port.

Navy has leased about 190 acres of

FISC property to the Port to permit

expansion of the Port’s rail and marine

terminal facilities. On May 25, 1995,

following a Joint EIS/EIR, Navy issued

a separate Record of Decision

concerning that leasing action.

The 1995 Defense Base Closure and

Realignment Commission recommended

closure of FISC Oakland. This

recommendation was approved by

President Clinton and accepted by the

One Hundred Fourth Congress in 1995.

The base is scheduled for operational

closure in September 1998.

Section 2834 of Public Law 102–484

was subsequently amended by the

Department of Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Public Law

104–106, Section 2867, which gave

Navy authority to convey the FISC

property to the Port. This authority is

independent of the Federal Property and

Administrative Services Act of 1949, 40

U.S.C. § 471, et seq., and its

implementing regulations, the Federal

Property Management Regulations, 41

CFR part 101–47, as well as the Defense

Base Closure and Realignment Act of

1990, Public Law 101–510, 10 U.S.C.

§ 2687 note.

Navy published a notice of intent in

the Federal Register on May 30, 1996,

announcing that Navy, with the Port of

Oakland, would prepare a Joint EIS/EIR.

This analysis would consider the

impacts of Navy’s disposal of the

property not covered by the reverter,

i.e., the 136 acres, and the Port’s reuse

of the entire 528-acre FISC property,

including the buildings and

infrastructure. A thirty-day public

scoping period was established, and a

public scoping meeting was held on

June 13, 1996, at the McClymonds High

School Auditorium in the City of

Oakland.

On March 7, 1997, Navy and the Port

distributed a Draft EIS/EIR (DEIS/EIR) to

Federal, State, and local agencies,

interested parties, and the general

public. Navy held a public hearing on

April 8, 1997, at the West Oakland

Public Library in the City of Oakland.

During the forty-five day review period

after publication of the DEIS/EIR,

Federal agencies, California State

agencies, local government agencies,

and the public submitted written

comments. These comments and Navy’s

responses were incorporated in the

Final EIS/EIR (FEIS/EIR), which was

distributed to the public on July 25,

1997, for a thirty-day review period that

concluded on August 25, 1997. Navy

received comments on the FEIS/EIR

from the United States Environmental

Protection Agency, the Bay Area Air

Quality Management District, the

Association of Bay Area Governments,

the East Bay Regional Park District, the

Golden Gate University Environmental

Law and Justice Clinic, and Arc

Ecology.

Alternatives

NEPA requires Navy to evaluate a

reasonable range of alternatives for the

disposal and reuse of this Federal

property. Because Navy proposes to

dispose of the property pursuant to

Section 2834 of Public Law 102–484, as

amended by Section 2867 of Public Law

104–106, Navy analyzed the

environmental impacts of two

alternatives: (1) Disposal of the property

to the Port and (2) no action. The ‘‘No

action’’ alternative would result in Navy

retaining ownership of the 136 acres of

nonreversionary property while the

other 392 acres would revert to the Port.

Navy would continue leasing the

nonreversionary property to the Port by

way of the existing 50-year lease

agreement.

In the diposal alternative, the 136-acre

property would be conveyed to the Port

of Oakland which would use the

property to implement its Vision 2000

Program. In the Joint EIS/EIR, the Port

evaluated four reuse alternatives for

implementing this Program. Each of

these alternatives involved intermodal

port development and differed only in

respect of waterfront configuration, the

amount of bay fill, and public access. In

the Joint FEIS/EIR, the Port identified

the Reduced Harbor Fill Alternative as

its Preferred Alternative.

Environmental Impacts

Navy analyzed the direct, indirect,

and cumulative impacts of its disposal

and the Port’s proposed reuse on land

use, socioeconomics, public services,

cultural resources, aesthetic resources,

biological resources, water resources,

geology and soils, traffic and

circulation, air quality, noise, utilities,

and hazardous materials and waste.

The direct environmental impacts are

those associated with Navy’s proposed

disposal of the 136 acres and with the

‘‘No action’’ alternative. The indirect

impacts are those associated with the

Port’s reuse of this nonreversionary 136-

acre Navy property. The cumulative

impacts are those associated with the

redevelopment of the reversionary FISC

property (the 392 acres), third-party

property included in the Vision 2000
46728 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 171 / Thursday, September 4, 1997 / Notices

Program, and other development

activity in the area. Navy has no

authority to control the Port’s use of the

reversionary property after it reverts to

the Port, nor to control use of the thirdparty property that is part of the Vision

2000 Program.

With the exception of the impact on

cultural resources, no significant direct

impacts would result from Navy’s

disposal of the FISC Oakland property.

Therefore, this Record of Decision will

focus on the indirect and cumulative

impacts that are likely to result from the

Port’s implementation of the Preferred

Alternative, designated as the Reduced

Harbor Fill Alternative.

The Reduced Harbor Fill Alternative

would not have any significant impact

on land use. Although the one-acre

Middle Harbor Park would be

eliminated, this alternative would

provide public access to 31 acres of

shoreline along the Oakland Middle

Harbor, a substantial increase over

current public access to the property.

The Reduced Harbor Fill Alternative

would not result in any significant

adverse socioeconomic impacts. Indeed,

the Port’s proposal would generate

about 10,000 more new jobs than would

the ‘‘No action’’ alternative.

The Reduced Harbor Fill Alternative

would have a significant impact on

public services as a result of the

elimination of the Spectrum Medical

Care Clinic that provides medical

services to the West Oakland

community. This impact could be

mitigated, however, by moving the

clinic to another site in West Oakland.

As noted earlier, the Reduced Harbor

Fill Alternative would have a significant

impact on cultural resources, because

historic buildings and structures in the

Naval Supply Center Oakland Historic

District would be demolished in the

redevelopment. This historic district is

eligible for listing on the National

Register of Historic Places. Thus, in

order to permit the planned

redevelopment, it was necessary to

amend an existing Memorandum Of

Agreement (MOA) with the State

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)

and the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation (ACHP). This MOA

provided for recordation and demolition

of only those historic structures that

were located on FISC property that the

Port had leased from Navy. Navy, the

SHPO, and the ACHP agreed upon an

amendment that provides for

recordation and demolition of all

historic structures on the entire FISC

property. The amended MOA was

signed by Navy on March 7, 1997, the

SHPO on April 11, 1997, and the ACHP

on April 30, 1997.

The Reduced Harbor Fill Alternative

would have a significant impact on

aesthetic resources. Middle Harbor Park,

which now provides visitors with a

clear view of Oakland Harbor, would be

replaced with marine terminal facilities.

The Port, however, proposes to replace

Middle Harbor Park with another park

that will afford visitors enhanced

opportunities to view Oakland Harbor

and San Francisco Bay. This proposal

should adequately mitigate the adverse

impact caused by the loss of Middle

Harbor Park.

On June 26, 1997, the United States

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

issued a Biological Opinion concerning

the endangered California least tern.

The Service concluded that Navy’s

disposal of the FISC property is not

likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of the California least tern.

The Port’s proposal, however, could

have a significant impact on biological

resources because it may result in the

loss of least tern foraging habitat. Thus,

the Port will engage in programmatic

consultation with USFWS pursuant to

the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C.

1531 et. seq., and will consult with the

United States Army Corps of Engineers

to ensure that construction of the

marine terminal and dredging do not

cause significant adverse impacts on the

least tern’s foraging habitat.

The Reduced Harbor Fill Alternative

could have another significant impact

on biological resources arising out of the

accumulation of sediments on eelgrass

beds. This impact could be mitigated by

relocating the eelgrass beds as part of

the marine habitat enhancement project.

Such a relocation would also enhance

the environment for marine and

biological resources in the Oakland

Middle Harbor.

The pollutant runoff that would be

generated by the Port’s Reduced Harbor

Fill Alternative would have a significant

impact on water resources. The

combination of a well-designed

stormwater management facility and the

implementation of best management

practices, such as those already

developed by the Port for vehicle

maintenance, could reduce the project’s

stormwater pollutant runoff to an

insignificant level.

The Port’s dredging and its disposal of

dredged material, including filling

Oakland Middle Harbor, could cause

adverse impacts. Thus, the Port is

considering several alternatives for the

disposal and reuse of any contaminated

material that may result from dredging.

The nature and extent of these impacts

can only be determined after the

sediments have been tested, the

dredging methods have been selected,

and the disposal and reuse sites have

been identified. In any event, the Port

will conduct dredging and disposal of

dredged material in a manner suited to

the particular conditions at the dredge

site and consistent with the permit

requirements of the appropriate

regulatory agencies.

Redevelopment of the FISC Oakland

property would continue to expose the

public to those risks typically associated

with regional seismic events, i.e.,

earthquakes, liquefaction, and ground

settlement. Thus, the redevelopment

must comply with local building and

waterfront design codes and seismic

safety requirements.

The Reduced Harbor Fill Alternative

would have a significant impact on

traffic at the intersection of Third Street

and Adeline Street during peak hours.

Its impact could be mitigated by

restriping the eastbound and westbound

Third Street approaches to the

intersection. This Alternative would not

have a significant impact on nearby

highways, although some Bay Area

freeway segments would experience

increased traffic. The Port’s proposal

would generate about 54,705 passenger

car equivalent (PCE) average daily trips

(weighted for additional truck traffic), as

compared with the ‘‘No action’’

alternative’s 38,513 PCE average daily

trips. However, these additional trips

would be distributed throughout the day

so that freeway operations would not

likely be significantly affected.

The Reduced Harbor Fill Alternative

would have a significant impact on air

quality because of the increase in

transportation-related air pollutant

emissions. Redevelopment of the

property will attract additional

automobile, truck, rail and ship traffic.

Emissions from this traffic will include

reactive organic compounds, nitrogen

oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulate

matter (less than 10 microns). Thus, the

Bay Area Air Quality Management

District’s planning for attainment of the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

will require consideration of these

additional emissions as well as those

generated by other growth projected for

the San Francisco Bay area.

Implementation of the Reduced

Harbor Fill Alternative would not result

in any significant impact from noise.

There would, however, be additional

noise generated by traffic, trains,

railyard operations and marine terminal

activities. The new Cypress Freeway,

located between the project site and the

West Oakland neighborhoods, should

attenuate the additional noise generated

at the project site.

The Reduced Harbor Fill Alternative

would not result in any significant
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 171 / Thursday, September 4, 1997 / Notices 46729

impacts on the utilities that serve the

FISC property, i.e., landfill capacity,

water distribution, sanitary sewers,

stormwater drainage, electric power,

natural gas, and telephone systems.

Navy also analyzed the potential for

impacts on low-income and minority

populations pursuant to Executive

Order 12898, Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations, reprinted in 42 U.S.C.

§ 4321 note. Although a low-income,

minority population resides adjacent to

the FISC property, there would be no

disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental effects

on that population as a result of the

proposed action.

Mitigation

Implementation of Navy’s decision to

dispose of the FISC Oakland property

does not require Navy to perform any

mitigation measure beyond that already

accomplished, i.e., amendment of the

MOA concerning the Naval Supply

Center Oakland Historic District. The

FEIS/EIR identified and discussed those

actions that would be necessary to

mitigate the impacts associated with

reuse of the FISC Oakland property. The

Port of Oakland, under the direction of

Federal, State, and local agencies with

regulatory authority over protected

resources, will be responsible for

implementing necessary mitigation

measures. The implementation of

mitigation concerning the historic

property will be governed by the MOA.

Comments Received on the FEIS

Navy received comments on the FEIS/

EIR from the United States

Environmental Protection Agency, the

Bay Area Air Quality Management

District, the East Bay Regional Park

District, the Association of Bay Area

Governments, and two citizens groups:

the Golden Gate University

Environmental Law and Justice Clinic,

and Arc Ecology. The following

substantive issues were identified.

The EPA requested that Navy quantify

the amount of ‘‘contaminated’’ dredged

material associated with the Preferred

Alternative that would be not suitable

for unconfined aquatic disposal. Navy

and the Port anticipate that the amount

of dredged material not suitable for

unconfined aquatic disposal will be

small. Most of the dredging required to

complete the project is expected to be in

rocky areas or clean sand areas, which

typically have minimal sediment

contamination. Contamination is most

likely to be found in the upper layers of

shoreline sediment near piers and

wharves. Based upon the footprint of

the preferred reuse alternative and

discussions with the Port of Oakland,

Navy estimates that 300,000 cubic

yards, or less than 7% of the 4,500,000

cubic yards to be dredged, will not be

suitable for unconfined aquatic

disposal. Precise information will be

developed and specific impacts

discussed when the Port of Oakland

submits an application for a Dredge and

Fill permit under the Clean Water Act

to the Army Corps of Engineers.

EPA recognized that the

programmatic levels of analysis in the

FEIS/EIR were too preliminary for

biological resource impacts to be fully

evaluated. EPA, however, questioned

the one half mile Region Of Influence

(ROI) used in the FEIS/EIR for analyzing

impacts from dredging and requested

that the ROI in the FEIS/EIR not

artificially constrain the project-level

analysis of the potential introduction of

contaminants into the aquatic food

chain. As the precise location and

extent of dredging has not been

determined and no disposal sites have

been identified, Navy considers the

estimated one-half mile ROI for

biological resources appropriate for this

FEIS/EIR. The Port of Oakland will

define the ROI more precisely when it

prepares project-level CEQA

documentation for dredging.

The Bay Area Air Quality

Management District requested that the

Port of Oakland consider mitigation

measures to minimize air emissions,

even if these measures would not

reduce air emissions below the

significant level. The Port of Oakland

intends to continue to meet with the

community to discuss air quality issues

and mitigation. Should it identify

mitigation measures which would

further reduce air emissions, the Port of

Oakland will consider such measures in

future project-specific CEQA documents

prepared for its Vision 2000 Program.

The East Bay Regional Park District

requested that the Port of Oakland make

a firm commitment to construct or fund

a bicycle/pedestrian access in Oakland

Middle Harbor as part of this joint EIS/

EIR. The Port of Oakland has not yet

proposed specific locations for public

access improvements. It will consider

specific public access proposals such as

the bicycle/pedestrian path in future

project-specific CEQA documents for

Oakland Middle Harbor.

The East Bay Regional Park District

(EBRPD) commented that it supports a

goal of maximum feasible public access

in the Oakland Middle Harbor area,

preferring multiple public access areas

to a single, large public access area. The

Port of Oakland has not yet proposed

specific locations for public access

improvements. It will consider specific

public access proposals such as

multiple access areas in future projectspecific CEQA documents for Oakland

Middle Harbor.

The Association of Bay Area

Governments (ABAG) noted that the San

Francisco Bay Trail map in the FEIS/EIR

was inaccurate because it did not show

a proposed trail route between Mandella

Parkway and Maritime Streets. The

identification of this map error, while

useful, does not change the

environmental impact analysis in the

FEIS/EIR.

The Golden Gate University

Environmental Law and Justice Clinic

(Environmental Law Clinic) submitted

comments on behalf of West Oakland

Neighbors, a local citizens group. The

Environmental Law Clinic expressed

concerns that the FEIS/EIR did not

consider feasible mitigation measures

which would reduce air emissions.

Specifically, the Environmental Law

Clinic suggested that truck parking

facilities remain open continuously to

preclude the parking of trucks on the

residential streets of West Oakland

where residents would be subjected to

emissions and noise from diesel engine

start-up and idle, and that the Port of

Oakland purchase emission credits.

The FEIS/EIR evaluated a variety of

mitigation measures to reduce air

emissions associated with port

redevelopment. While some mitigation

measures, such as a 24 hour parking

facility, will be implemented and will

reduce noise and air emissions in the

West Oakland community, none of the

proposed mitigation measures would

reduce ozone precursors and particulate

matter emissions below thresholds

established by the local Air Quality

District. For example, use of emission

reduction credits are available for

mobile sources, is project specific. The

FEIS/EIR analyzed port redevelopment

at the programmatic level. The Vision

2000 Program will be implemented in

phases with project-specific analysis

completed for each phase or project.

Whether use of emission credits is

appropriate and whether credits are

actually available can be analyzed in

project-specific CEQA documents. The

Port of Oakland will continue to discuss

possible mitigation with the local

community.

The Environmental Law Clinic also

suggested that EPA’s informal proposal

to redesignate the San Francisco Bay

area as moderate nonattainment for

ozone should be considered new

information requiring supplemental

analysis in the FEIS/EIR. At present

EPA has not formally proposed a change

in ozone designation for the bay Area.
46730 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 171 / Thursday, September 4, 1997 / Notices

Even if EPA has published a proposed

change in designation from attainment/

maintenance to nonattainment, the

amount of emissions associated with the

reuse alternatives would not change. Air

impacts would still be significant and

the Port of Oakland would still need to

evaluate additional mitigation measures

in project-specific CEQA documents.

The more stringent emission restrictions

normally associated with nonattainment

designations are not applicable to the

Navy’s proposed action as federal

disposal actions are exempt from

application of the Clean Air Act’s

Conformity provisions.

The Environmental Law Clinic

expressed concern that, contrary to the

analysis in the FEIS/EIR, minority and

low income residents of West Oakland

were disproportionately and adversely

affected by air emissions from the

proposed port redevelopment. As

discussed in the FEIS/EIR, ozone

precursor and particulate emissions

from motor vehicle, rail, and ship traffic

would occur over a broad dispersed

geographic area, and therefore would

not result in a localized impact on West

Oakland neighborhoods. Particulate

emissions during demolition and

construction will be controlled,

eliminating any adverse impacts on the

West Oakland community during the

construction phase. Impacts associated

with the proposed redevelopment

therefore would not be

disproportionately high and adverse.

The Environmental Law Clinic also

commented that the FEIS/EIR did not

include mitigation for impacts to

shorebirds from the Port’s Vision 2000

Program. Suitable habitat for shorebirds

is very limited in the area. Impacts

identified in the FEIS/EIR are so limited

that mitigation is not required.

Conclusion

Of the 528-acre FISC Oakland

property, about 392 acres will revert to

the Port. The remaining nonreversionary

property, 136 acres, is currently leased

to the Port by way of a 50-year lease.

Although the ‘‘No action’’ alternative

has less potential for causing adverse

environmental impacts, it would not

permit efficient use of the

nonreversionary Navy property.

Navy’s conveyance of the

nonreversionary property to the Port

would allow the Port to reuse and

redevelop the entire FISC Oakland

property efficiently, with other nearby

property, in a manner consistent with

the ‘‘port priority use’’ designation of

the San Francisco Bay Conservation and

Development Commission and the

Metropolitan Transportation

Commission. Additionally, disposal of

the property relieves Navy of the burden

of owning, managing, and maintaining

property that it no longer needs.

Accordingly, Navy will dispose of the

FISC Oakland property by conveying it

to the Port of Oakland pursuant to

Section 2867 of Public Law 104–106.

Dated: August 28, 1997.

Robert B. Pirie, Jr.,

Assistant Secretary of the Navy, (Installations

And Environment).

[FR Doc. 97–23448 Filed 9–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–M

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Notice of Waivers Granted

ACTION: Notice of waivers granted by the

U.S. Secretary of Education under the

authority of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act.

SUMMARY: The Elementary and

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as

reauthorized in the Improving

America’s Schools Act (IASA) (Pub. L.

103–382), the Goals 2000: Educate

America Act (Pub. L. 103–227), and the

School-to-Work Opportunities Act (Pub.

L. 103–239) provide State education

agencies, school districts, schools, and

other recipients of Federal education

funds with unprecedented flexibility in

using Federal education programs to

meet specific local needs for improving

teaching and learning, and to support

systemic education reform initiatives

designed to help all children reach

challenging academic standards. In

order to facilitate effective innovation

and program improvement, these Acts

authorize the Secretary of Education to

grant waivers of certain Federal program

requirements.

As of June 30, 1997, the U.S.

Department of Education had approved

164 waiver requests under the waiver

authorities identified above. This notice,

published as provided for in section

14401(g) of the ESEA, identifies the 21

waiver requests approved by the

Department of Education from January

1, 1997 through June 30, 1997.

(A) Waivers Approved Under the

General Waiver Authority in Section

14401 of the ESEA

(1) Name of Applicant: Puerto Rico

Department of Education, San Juan, PR.

Requirement Waived: Section

1113(a)(3) of the ESEA.

Duration of Waiver: Two years.

Date Granted: January 2, 1997.

(2) Name of Applicant: Hawaii

Department of Education on behalf of

Kapalama School, Honolulu, HI.

Requirement Waived: Section

1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA.

Duration of Waiver: Three years.

Date Granted: January 30, 1997.

(3) Name of Applicant: Hawaii

Department of Education on behalf of

King Kaumuali’i Elementary School,

Honolulu, HI.

Requirement Waived: Section

1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA.

Duration of Waiver: Three years.

Date Granted: January 30, 1997

(4) Name of Applicant: Hawaii

Department of Education on behalf of

Pearl Harbor Elementary School,

Honolulu, HI.

Requirement Waived: Section

1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA.

Duration of Waiver: Three years.

Date Granted: January 30, 1997.

(5) Name of Applicant: Hawaii

Department of Education on behalf of

Pearl Harbor Kai Elementary School,

Honolulu, HI.

Requirement Waived: Section

1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA.

Duration of Waiver: Three years.

Date Granted: January 30, 1997.

(6) Name of Applicant: Oregon

Department of Education on behalf of

the Oregon State System of Higher

Education, Salem, OR.

Requirement Waived: Section 2206(b)

as applied to Section 2203(2) of the

ESEA.

Duration of Waiver: Three years.

Date Granted: January 30, 1997.

(7) Name of Applicant: West Perry

School District, Elliotsburg, PA.

Requirements Waived: Sections

1113(c)(1) and 1113(c)(2) of the ESEA,

and 34 CFR Section 200.28(c).

Duration of Waiver: Three years.

Date Granted: January 30, 1997.

(8) Name of Applicant: Philadelphia

School District, Philadelphia, PA.

Requirements Waived: Section

1113(c)(1) of the ESEA, and 34 CFR

Section 200.28(c).

Duration of Waiver: Three years.

Date Granted: January 31, 1997.

(9) Name of Applicant: Hawaii

Department of Education on behalf of

Waipahu Intermediate School,

Honolulu, HI.

Requirement Waived: Section

1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA.

Duration of Waiver: Three years.

Date Granted: March 9, 1997.

(10) Name of Applicant:

Amphitheater Public Schools, Tucson,

AZ.

Requirement Waived: Section

1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA.

Duration of Waiver: Three years.

Date Granted: March 18, 1997.

(11) Name of Applicant: Arizona

Department of Education, Phoenix, AZ.

Requirement Waived: Section

1208(b)(5)(A) of the ESEA.