Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 1997 / Notices 66061

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE

SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND

THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

In addition to those disclosures

generally permitted under 5 U.S.C.

552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records

or information contained therein may

specifically be disclosed outside the

DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5

U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

The ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ set forth at

the beginning of the Army’s compilation

of systems of records notices also apply

to this system.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING,

RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND

DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

STORAGE:

Paper records in file folders, CD ROM;

computer disks, and magnetic tape.

RETRIEVABILITY:

By individual’s name and/or Social

Security Number. For research

purposes, the data are usually retrieved

and analyzed with respect to relative

times of entry into service, training

performance, and demographic values.

Scheduled data for follow-up data

collections however, are retrieved by

month of scheduled follow-up and by

name.

SAFEGUARDS:

Access to records is restricted to

authorized personnel having official

need therefor. Automated data are

further protected by controlled system

procedures and code numbers governing

access.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

Information is retained until

completion of appropriate study or

report, after which it is destroyed by

shredding or erasing.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

Director, U.S. Army Research Institute

for Behavioral and Social Sciences,

ATTN: PERI-AS (Privacy Act Officer),

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria,

VA 22333–5600.

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:

Individuals seeking to determine if

information about themselves is

contained in this record system should

address written inquiries to the Director,

U.S. Army Research Institute for

Behavioral and Social Sciences, ATTN:

PERI-AS (Privacy Act Officer), 5001

Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA

22333–5600.

Individual should provide the full

name, Social Security Number, current

address, subject area, and the year of

survey, if known.

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

Individuals seeking access to records

about themselves contained in this

record system should address written

inquiries to the Director, U.S. Army

Research Institute for Behavioral and

Social Sciences, ATTN: PERI-AS

(Privacy Act Officer), 5001 Eisenhower

Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333–5600.

Individual should provide the full

name, Social Security Number, current

address, subject area, and the year of

survey, if known.

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

The Army’s rules for accessing

records, and for contesting contents and

appealing initial agency determinations

are contained in Army Regulation 340–

21; 32 CFR part 505; or may be obtained

form the system manager.

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

From the individual, his or her peers,

or, in the case of ratings and

evaluations, from supervisors.

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:

None.

[FR Doc. 97–32871 Filed 12–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–F

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

Record of Decision for the Disposal

and Reuse of Naval Station Puget

Sound at Sand Point, Seattle,

Washington

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 Naval Station Puget Sound at

Sand Point, Seattle, Washington, (Sand

Point).

Navy intends to dispose of the

property in a manner that is consistent

with the City of Seattle Community

Preferred Reuse Plan for Sand Point

(Reuse Plan) that was submitted in

November 1993 by the City of Seattle,

the Local Redevelopment Authority

(LRA) for the base, as modified by

certain revisions endorsed by the City

Council in June 1997 and designated as

Options to the City’s 1993 Reuse Plan.

The 1993 Reuse Plan and the 1997

Options are described in the Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

as the Preferred Alternative. The

Preferred Alternative proposes a mixed

land use consisting of educational

facilities, community facilities, arts and

cultural facilities, open space and

recreational areas, residential areas, and

institutional land uses.

In deciding to dispose of Sand Point

in a manner consistent with the

Preferred Alternative, Navy has

determined that this mixed land use

will enhance community and cultural

resources, provide housing for the

homeless, limit adverse environmental

impacts, and ensure land uses that are

compatible with surrounding properties.

This Record Of Decision (ROD) does not

mandate a specific mix of land uses.

Rather, it leaves selection of the

particular means to achieve the mixed

use redevelopment to the acquiring

entity and the local zoning authority.

Background:

Sand Point is located in King County,

Washington, and lies within the limits

of the City of Seattle. The base occupies

152 acres on the western shore of Lake

Washington, about 6 miles northeast of

downtown Seattle.

Under the Defense Authorization

Amendments and Base Closure and

Realignment Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100–

526, the Defense Secretary’s

Commission on Base Realignment and

Closure recommended ‘‘closing the

portion of Naval Station Puget Sound

(Sand Point) whose mission is to serve

fleet units at Naval Station Puget Sound

(Everett).’’ The Commission’s

recommendation was approved by the

Secretary of Defense and accepted by

the One Hundred First Congress in

April 1989. In 1991, under the Defense

Base Closure and Realignment Act of

1990, Pub. L. 101–510, the Defense Base

Closure and Realignment Commission

recommended the complete closure of

Sand Point. This recommendation was

approved by President Bush and

accepted by the One Hundred Second

Congress in September 1991. On

September 28, 1995, Navy ceased

operations at Sand Point and placed the

property in caretaker status.

Two Federal agencies, the Department

of Commerce’s National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

and the Department of the Interior’s U.S.

Geological Survey (Biological Resources

Division) requested interagency

transfers of base closure property at

Sand Point. Navy will transfer to NOAA

Building 27 and Building 409 and about

10 acres of land in the northern part of

the base adjacent to NOAA’s Sand Point

area facilities, as well as the access road

that covers about 1.2 acres. Navy will

transfer Building 61 and about 5 acres

of land at the southeast corner of the

base to Interior for use as the National
66062 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 1997 / Notices

Fisheries Research Center. Navy

declared the remaining property surplus

to the needs of the Federal Government

in the Notice published in the Federal

Register on October 11, 1995.

Navy published a Notice of Intent in

the Federal Register on November 19,

1993, announcing that Navy would

prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) that would analyze the

impacts of disposal and reuse of the

land, buildings, and infrastructure at

Sand Point. Navy conducted the public

scoping process between November 19,

1993 and January 14, 1994. A public

scoping meeting was held at NOAA’s

Building 9 Theater, adjacent to the base,

on December 16, 1993.

On November 8, 1996, Navy

distributed a Draft Environmental

Impact Statement (DEIS) to Federal,

State, and local agencies, elected

officials, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe,

and interested persons. Navy held a

public hearing on December 2, 1996, at

the Eckstein Middle School in Seattle.

The forty-five day public comment

period on the DEIS expired on

December 23, 1996, but was extended to

January 17, 1997, to permit submission

of additional comments.

Federal and State agencies, local

governments, community groups and

associations, and the general public

submitted comments on the DEIS. The

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe did not

submit comments on the DEIS. These

comments and Navy’s responses were

incorporated in the Final Environmental

Impact Statement, which was

distributed to the public on October 24,

1997, for a review period that concluded

on November 24, 1997. Navy received

two letter comments on the FEIS.

Alternatives

NEPA requires Navy to evaluate a

reasonable range of alternatives for the

disposal and reuse of this Federal

property. In the NEPA process, Navy

analyzed the environmental impacts of

various proposed land uses that could

result from disposal of the Sand Point

property. Navy also evaluated a ‘‘No

action’’ alternative that would leave the

property in a caretaker status with Navy

maintaining the physical condition of

the property, providing a security force,

and making repairs essential to safety.

For its analysis, Navy relied upon the

reuse and redevelopment plan proposed

by the City of Seattle and a

redevelopment plan proposed by the

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.

The City of Seattle presented its Reuse

Plan to the Department of the Navy in

November 1993. In a letter to the Navy

dated February 22, 1996, the City set

forth several revisions to the 1993 Reuse

Plan. These changes, endorsed by the

City Council in June 1997, were

designated in the FEIS as Options to the

City Plan.

The 1993 Reuse Plan proposed a

mixed use of the Sand Point property

that divided the base into six activity

areas: (1) A waterfront park in the

northern part of the base known as the

north shore recreation area; (2) the

education and community activities

area in the western part of the base

composed of educational and

community activity buildings, a

firefighter training facility, and a

commercial film studio; (3) the

Magnuson Park Arts, Culture and

Community Center in the eastern part of

the base composed of an indoor

community center and an outdoor

amphitheater for community events; (4)

the Magnuson Park open space/

recreation expansion area, composed of

public parkland, athletic fields,

pedestrian paths, bicycle paths and

expanded bus routes in the southeastern

part of the base adjacent to Magnuson

Park, a new entrance to Magnuson Park

at the intersection of Sand Point Way

and Northeast 65th Street, and wetland

restoration at the former Mud Lake in

the southeastern part of the base; (5) the

residential area composed of 50 low

income housing units in a barracks

building and 200 transitional housing

units for the homeless in the

southwestern part of the base; and (6)

institutional uses reflected in the

activities of the Federal agencies that

will occupy property at Sand Point.

The 1997 Options to the City Plan

eliminated the 50 low income housing

units and instead proposed to use the

former barracks building for educational

classrooms and school administrative

spaces. The Options proposed to use

other facilities to train City employees

such as police officers and to provide an

activity center for senior citizens. The

Options also proposed expanding the

boundaries of the north shore recreation

area to include Buildings 2 and 67. The

Options would eliminate the fire

training center that the 1993 Reuse Plan

intended for Building 67 and replace it

with a cultural and community

activities center. The Options would

also eliminate the film studio initially

planned for Building 2 and instead use

the building as an indoor athletic

facility.

The Preferred Alternative in the FEIS

is a combination of the 1993 Reuse Plan

and the 1997 Options to the City Plan.

This alternative also reflects the 1997

discussions between the City of Seattle

and the University of Washington that

resulted in the LRA’s proposal to use

certain facilities at Sand Point for

classrooms and administrative

activities.

In June 1993, the Muckleshoot Indian

Tribe submitted a draft plan to Navy

proposing reuse of the entire 152-acre

base. The FEIS refers to this proposal as

the Muckleshoot Plan. In a letter dated

July 26, 1993, the Department of the

Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

submitted a request on behalf of the

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe under the

Federal Property and Administrative

Services Act of 1949, 40 U.S.C 471,

seeking an interagency transfer of 85

acres of base closure property in the

northern part of Sand Point. On

September 7, 1995, BIA withdrew its

request for transfer of the 85-acre Sand

Point property. Nevertheless, Navy

analyzed the Muckleshoot Plan in the

FEIS as a reasonable alternative under

NEPA.

The Muckleshoot Plan proposed a

mixed use of the Sand Point property

that included: (1) a commercial marina

in the northern part of the base that

would accommodate tribal fishing

vessels and activities, fishing net

storage, fisheries research, and

recreational activities; (2) light

industrial and warehousing activities in

the north central part of the base; (3)

social services, including a drug and

alcohol treatment facility, a health

clinic, a senior citizens center, and a

student counseling facility in the central

part of the base; (4) a vocational

technical school for 5,000 to 7,000

Native American students with housing

for the school’s staff and approximately

600 students in the south central part of

the base; (5) commercial activities in the

southern part of the base; and (6) a new

entrance to Magnuson Park at the

intersection of Sand Point Way and

Northeast 65th Street.

Environmental Impacts

Navy analyzed the potential impacts

of the Preferred Alternative, the

Muckleshoot Plan, and the ‘‘No action’’

alternative for each alternative’s effects

on land use, historic and cultural

resources, socioeconomics (including

demographics, housing, the local

economy, social services, schools, and

environmental justice), recreation,

transportation, noise, public services

and utilities, public health and safety,

soils, biological resources and

endangered species, water quality, and

air quality. This Record Of Decision

(ROD) focuses on the impacts that

would likely result from implementing

the Preferred Alternative.

In the FEIS, Navy used existing land

uses as a basis for assessing the impact

of the land uses proposed by the

Preferred Alternative, the Muckleshoot
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 1997 / Notices 66063

Plan, and the ‘‘No action’’ alternative.

Navy also considered the compatibility

of the proposed land uses with the

current uses of property adjacent to

Sand Point.

The Preferred Alternative would

result in a substantial increase in

recreational and educational activity on

the Sand Point property and a decrease

in administrative and commercial

activity as compared with the activities

that Navy conducted on the base. These

increased recreational and educational

uses would not likely have a significant

impact on the property or on the

surrounding neighborhoods.

While the Preferred Alternative would

result in an increase in residential use

of the Sand Point property, this land use

is similar in nature to the single family

and multifamily residential community

adjacent to Sand Point. The increase

would not likely have an adverse impact

on the surrounding area.

Several structures at Sand Point are

eligible for listing on the National

Register of Historic Places. Since the

Preferred Alternative proposes to use

these buildings for purposes similar to

Navy’s use of the buildings, their

historic integrity will be maintained, as

will that of the proposed historic district

on the base. Although Navy did not

discover any surface archeological

resources at Sand Point, those resources

could be present in undisturbed areas

under the surface. If discovered, they

will be protected by restrictions

incorporated in documents conveying

the property.

The Preferred Alternative proposes to

consider demolition and modification of

certain buildings within the proposed

education and community activities

area, if renovation and reuse are not

feasible within 10 years. Either of these

could have an adverse impact on

buildings within the historic district.

Thus, Navy entered into a Programmatic

Agreement (PA) with the State Historic

Preservation Officer (SHPO) on October

29, 1997, that was accepted by the

Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation (ACHP) on November 20,

1997. This PA would protect the

historic district and its constituent

elements after conveyance of the Sand

Point property. The PA requires the

incorporation of restrictive covenants in

the conveyance documents to ensure

protection of the historic properties and

any subsurface archeological resources

that may be discovered after

conveyance.

Navy’s consideration of the

socioeconomic impacts of disposal and

reuse examined the potential effects on

demographics, housing, the local

economy, social services, schools, and

environmental justice. The Preferred

Alternative would cause an increase in

population in the Sand Point area of

about 2 percent and an increase in

homeless assistance housing units of

about 2 percent. It would not have a

significant impact on employment or

social services in the region.

The Preferred Alternative would not

have a significant impact on the regional

economy. Navy’s appraisal of its impact

on property values, set forth in

Appendix G of the FEIS (the Property

Value Study), concluded that reuse of

the southwestern part of the base along

Sand Point Way for transitional

multifamily housing should not result

in a diminution in the value of nearby

properties.

Children living in the transitional

housing would continue to attend the

same schools that they attended before

occupying this housing, using

transportation provided by the Seattle

School District. Thus, the Preferred

Alternative would not have an impact

on schools in the Sand Point area.

Navy also analyzed the 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. There would be no

disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental effects

on minority and low-income

populations. The Preferred Alternative

would, in fact, benefit minority and

low-income populations by providing

increased housing, social services and

educational opportunities.

The Preferred Alternative would

increase the amount of property

available for recreational use by 160

percent, from 30 acres to 78 acres. This

increase would be reflected in

additional indoor and outdoor

recreational facilities.

Navy’s evaluation of the impacts on

transportation considered current traffic

conditions and transportation systems,

transit routes, high occupancy vehicle

routes, bicycle and pedestrian traffic,

traffic volumes, traffic safety, and

parking. The Preferred Alternative

would generate about 9,050 average

daily trips, compared with 7,600 such

trips when the base was active in 1993.

Although not a significant impact, the

Preferred Alternative’s housing and

educational uses would result in an

increase in bus ridership. Similarly,

because it increases access to the

property, this alternative would also

result in an increase in the use of

existing bicycle and pedestrian routes.

In light of the availability of space on

the base, parking and constructionrelated traffic would not likely cause

adverse impacts in the Sand Point area.

The noise associated with the

Preferred Alternative would emanate

from four sources: (1) Traffic (both on

and off site); (2) construction; (3)

heating, ventilating, and other

mechanical equipment; and (4) other

sources (people, activities, and

equipment). With the exception of noise

generated by outdoor music concerts at

the proposed amphitheater, the

Preferred Alternative would not cause

any significant impact. The noise

generated by these concerts, however,

could cause a significant impact on the

surrounding area.

The Preferred Alternative would not

cause any significant impact on public

services (i.e., water, wastewater and

sanitary sewer, stormwater and solid

waste) and utilities. Similarly, it would

not have a significant impact on public

health and safety (i.e., crime and law

enforcement, fire protection, emergency

and medical services, and

environmental health) in the Sand Point

area.

The environmental remediation

required by the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of

1980, 42 U.S.C. 9601, et seq. (CERCLA),

and Washington’s Model Toxics Control

Act, RCW 70.105D, WAC 173–340

(MTCA), has been completed. Those

areas on the base that still contain

contaminants are not likely to cause an

impact if left undisturbed. The

Washington State Department of

Ecology concurs that with proper

notification to future users of the

property and deed restrictions limiting

use of the property, no further action is

necessary. However, unless adequately

mitigated, the disturbance of asbestoscontaining materials and lead-based

paint during demolition and remodeling

could have an impact on human health.

The Preferred Alternative would not

cause any significant impact on soils,

geology, and topography. This

alternative would have only minimal

and insignificant impacts on vegetation,

wildlife, endangered species, and

wetlands. It would increase the amount

of wetlands by restoring a wetland

habitat at the former Mud Lake.

Bald eagles, which are on the Federal

and State lists of threatened species, are

present in the vicinity of Lake

Washington and Sand Point. Peregrine

falcons, which are on the Federal and

State lists of endangered species, are

also present in this area. The Preferred

Alternative would not affect either the

bald eagle or the peregrine falcon

because it would not affect their critical
66064 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 1997 / Notices

habitats or the species upon which they

prey.

The Preferred Alternative would

result in a decrease of 30 acres in the

amount of paved surface on the

property. This decrease would occur

largely at the southeastern end of the

base where the Mud Lake wetlands and

grassy recreational areas would be

restored. The conversion of impervious

surface to wetlands and grassy fields,

however, would not have an adverse

impact on surface water in Lake

Washington and may result in less

pollutants draining into the lake.

There would not be any impact on air

quality from implementation of the

Preferred Alternative. This alternative,

however, could result in the temporary

and intermittent release of pollutants

during demolition and construction

activities. The Puget Sound Air

Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA)

regulations governing demolition and

construction activities (Washington

Clean Air Act RCW T. 70 Ch. 94) will

ensure consistency with applicable air

quality standards. The increases in

carbon monoxide that would result from

the increased traffic would not exceed

applicable regional standards.

Section 176 of the Clean Air Act, 42

U.S.C. 7506, as amended, requires

Federal agencies to review their

activities to ensure that they do not

hamper local efforts to control air

pollution. This statute prevents Federal

agencies from conducting activities that

do not conform to an approved

implementation plan but recognizes

certain categorically exempt activities.

The conveyance of real property,

regardless of the method, is such a

categorically exempt activity.

Accordingly, disposal of the Sand Point

property does not require Navy to

conduct a conformity analysis.

Mitigation

Implementation of the decision to

dispose of Sand Point does not require

Navy to perform any mitigation

measures beyond those discussed here.

Navy will include appropriate

restrictive covenants in the deeds for

any parcels where hazardous substances

remain and for the historic properties in

accordance with applicable Federal and

State laws.

These restrictive covenants will limit

the use of certain property and notify

future users of the property’s condition.

In accordance with the Programmatic

Agreement that Navy entered into with

the SHPO and the Advisory Council,

restrictive covenants in the deed

conveying the property will protect both

historic and archeological resources and

establish a process for preserving the

historic district and its constituent

elements.

Navy’s FEIS identified and discussed

those actions that would be necessary to

mitigate impacts associated with the

reuse and redevelopment of Sand Point.

The acquiring entity, under the

direction of Federal, State, and local

agencies with regulatory authority over

protected resources, will be responsible

for implementing necessary mitigation

measures.

The fact that the Preferred Alternative

conforms to the City of Seattle’s

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and

Physical Development Management

Plan provides assurance that the

property will be redeveloped in a

controlled manner. Additionally, the

City of Seattle is developing a

Transportation Management Program

and a Construction Management

Program for Sand Point that will

mitigate the effects caused by increased

traffic volumes and construction

activities. The City’s Design Guidelines

will be applied to control Sand Point’s

reuse and preserve the property’s

unique and historic character.

Comments Received on the FEIS

Navy received comments from a

community group and an individual.

They expressed concern about the

proposed reuse of certain Sand Point

facilities by the University of

Washington for educational activities.

Their comments did not raise any new

issues or problems concerning

implementation of the Reuse Plan or

propose any mitigation measures.

Navy’s consideration in the FEIS of

the impacts arising out of the City’s

educational proposal was sufficient to

ascertain the impacts of the particular

uses advanced by the University of

Washington and proposed by the LRA

after conclusion of the FEIS. Navy

determined that the educational uses

advanced by the University of

Washington fall within the scope of

impacts analyzed in the FEIS and that

no further consideration is required.

Regulations Governing the Disposal

Decision

Since the proposed action

contemplates a disposal action under

the Defense Base Closure and

Realignment Act of 1990 (DBCRA), Pub.

L. 101–510, 10 U.S.C. 2687 note,

selection of the City of Seattle’s 1993

Reuse Plan and 1997 Options as the

Preferred Alternative was based upon

the environmental analysis in the FEIS

and application of the standards set

forth in 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 90

and 91.

Section 101–47.303–1 of the FPMR

requires that the disposal 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 historical

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 DBCRA

directs the Secretary of Defense to

exercise this authority in accordance

with GSA’s property disposal

regulations, set forth at Sections 101–

47.1 through 101–47.8 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 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 DBCRA, may Navy apply
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 1997 / Notices 66065

disposal procedures other than the

FPMR’s prescriptions.

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 Pub.

L. 103–160, Congress directed the

Military Departments to consider each

base closure community’s economic

needs and priorities in the property

disposal process. Under Section

2905(b)(2)(E) of 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 90.4 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 Local Redevelopment

Authority’s reuse plan and encourage

job creation. As a part of this

cooperative approach, the base closure

community’s interests, e.g., 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

91.7(d)(3) of the DoD Rule provides that

the Local Redevelopment Authority’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, 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. 101–47.304–

9); and by competitive sale (FPMR Sec.

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

committed by law to agency 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 City of Seattle’s proposed reuse of

the Sand Point property, which consists

of the City’s 1993 Reuse Plan and its

1997 Options and is embodied in the

Preferred Alternative, is consistent with

the prescriptions of the FPMR and

Section 90.4 of the DoD Rule. The LRA

has determined in its Reuse Plan that

the property should be used for several

purposes, including educational and

community facilities, arts and cultural

facilities, open space and recreational

areas, residential areas, and institutional

land uses. 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

property’s location, physical

characteristics and infrastructure or the

current uses of adjacent property.

Additionally, it would not foster local

redevelopment of the Sand Point

property.

The acquiring entity, under the

direction of Federal, State and local

agencies with regulatory authority over

protected resources, will be responsible

for implementing necessary mitigation

measures.

Accordingly, Navy will dispose of

Naval Station Puget Sound at Sand

Point in a manner that is consistent with

the City of Seattle’s 1993 and 1997 plans

for the property.

Dated: December 8, 1997.

William J. Cassidy, Jr.,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy

(Conversion And Redevelopment).

[FR Doc. 97–32938 Filed 12–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

Public Hearings for the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS) for Development of Facilities to

Support Basing U.S. Pacific Fleet F/A–

18E/F Aircraft on the West Coast of the

United States

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Announcement of public

hearings.

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy

has prepared and filed with the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency a

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS) for development of facilities to

support basing U.S. Pacific Fleet F/A–

18E/F aircraft on the West Coast of the

United States. Two public hearings will

be held for the purpose to receive oral

and written comment on the DEIS.

Federal, state and local agencies, and

interested individuals are invited to be

present or represented at the hearing.

DATES: Hearing dates are as follows:

1. January 7, 1998, 7:00 p.m.,

Lemoore, CA.

2. January 8, 1998, 7:00 p.m., El

Centro, CA.

ADDRESSES: Hearing locations are:

1. Lemoore—Lemoore City Council

Chamber, 429 C Street, Lemoore,

California.

2. El Centro—Imperial County Board

of Supervisors Chambers, 940 West

Main Street, El Centro, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Surinder Sikand, (650) 244–3020.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: Pursuant to

the Council on Environmental Quality

regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508),

implementing the procedural provisions

of the National Environmental Policy

Act, the Department of the Navy has

prepared and filed with the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency a

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS) for development of facilities to

support basing U.S. Pacific Fleet F/A–

18E/F aircraft on the West Coast of the

United States.

A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare

the DEIS was published in the Federal

Register on 7 April 1997 (62 FR 16563).

Public scoping meetings for the

proposed project were held on Monday,

April 28, 1997, at the Lemoore High

School Cafeteria, Lemoore, California;

on Tuesday, April 29, 1997, at the

Imperial County Board of Supervisors

Office, El Centro, California; and on

Wednesday, April 30, 1997, in the

Bougainvillea Room, Orchid

Professional Building, Camarillo,

California.

The proposed action includes siting

164 F/A–18E/F aircraft, locating

associated military personnel and

family members, and providing

associated training functions at the

receiving installation. The two

installations considered in detail for the

West Coast base are Naval Air Station

(NAS) Lemoore and Naval Air Facility

(NAF) El Centro. NAS Lemoore is the

preferred alternative evaluated in the