Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices 28185

b. D.C. Public School Initiative

c. Education Award Only Programs

d. Forums

3. 1997 AmeriCorps Changes

4. Grant Renewal Update

5. Evaluation Update

V. Report on Special Projects

A. First National Senior Service Corps

Training Conference and National

Leadership Forum on Senior Service

B. Presidents’ Summit for Community

Volunteering and National Service

C. Olympics and Paralympics—

AmeriCorps Team for the Games

D. National Volunteer Week

VI. Ethic of Service Discussion

VII. Future Board Meetings

A. Locations

B. Dates (October 3 and 4, 1996)

VIII. Public Comment

Adjournment

ACCOMMODATIONS: Those needing

interpreters or other accommodations

should notify the Corporation by June 6,

1996.

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION: Rhonda Taylor, Associate

Director of Special Projects and

Initiatives, Corporation for National

Service, 8th Floor, Room 8619, 1201

New York Avenue NW, Washington,

D.C. 20525. Phone (202) 606–5000 ext.

282. Fax (202) 565–2794. TDD: (202)

565–2799.

Dated: May 31, 1996.

Terry Russell,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 96–14085 Filed 5–31–96; 2:46 pm]

BILLING CODE 6050–28–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

Record of Decision for the Disposal

and Reuse of Naval Air Station

Glenview, IL

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. § 4321 et seq.,

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 Air Station (NAS)

Glenview, Illinois.

Navy intends to dispose of the

property in a manner that is consistent

with the Glenview Naval Air Station

Consensus Reuse Plan submitted by the

Village of Glenview, the Local

Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for

NAS Glenview, described in the Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

as the preferred alternative. The

Consensus Reuse Plan proposed a

mixed use approach of commercial,

residential, recreational, public service,

and open space land uses.

In deciding to dispose of NAS

Glenview in a manner consistent with

the Consensus Reuse Plan, Navy has

determined that mixed land use will

meet the goals of local economic

redevelopment and creation of new jobs,

while also maintaining the Village of

Glenview’s character and fiscal

integrity, minimizing adverse

environmental impacts, and ensuring

land uses that are compatible with

surrounding properties. This Record Of

Decision 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

The 1993 Defense Base Closure and

Realignment Commission recommended

closure of NAS Glenview. This

recommendation was then approved by

President Clinton and accepted by the

One Hundred Third Congress in 1993.

Operations at NAS Glenview ceased on

September 9, 1995, and the property has

been in caretake status since that date.

NAS Glenview is located entirely

within the Village of Glenview and

consists of 1,121 acres of fee-owned

land with 110 buildings that contain

1,332,138 square feet of office and

storage space. Navy has reserved 78

acres containing military family housing

and open space for use as family

housing that will serve the Naval

Training Center at Great Lakes, Illinois.

The remaining property is surplus to the

needs of the Federal Government and

can be conveyed.

Navy published a Notice of Intent in

the Federal Register on February 3,

1994, announcing that Navy would

prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement that would analyze the

impacts of disposal and reuse of the

land, buildings, and infrastructure at

NAS Glenview. A 30-day public scoping

period was established, and a scoping

meeting was held on February 17, 1994,

in the Village of Glenview.

On July 14, 1995, Navy distributed a

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS) to Federal, State, and local

agencies, elected officials, special

interest groups, and interested persons.

Navy held a public hearing on August

17, 1995, in the Village of Glenview.

Federal agencies, Illinois State agencies,

local governments, and the general

public commented on the DEIS. These

comments and Navy’s responses were

incorporated in the Final Environmental

Impact Statement (FEIS) which was

distributed to the public on December 1,

1995, for a review that concluded on

January 2, 1996. Navy did not receive

any comments on the FEIS.

Alternatives

NEPA requires Navy to evaluate a

reasonable range of alternatives for

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 Air Station

property. As the basis for this analysis,

Navy relied upon the reuse and

redevelopment alternatives identified by

The Glenview Community Reuse

Planning Group, an organization created

by the Village of Glenview in its

capacity as the LRA. The Community

Reuse Planning Group analyzed various

redevelopment scenarios and land uses

and prepared the Glenview Naval Air

Station Consensus Reuse Plan which

was presented to the Department of the

Navy on June 21, 1995.

The Community Reuse Planning

Group initially considered ten

preliminary scenarios for

redevelopment that it described as: (1)

General Aviation, which based reuse on

continued use of the Air Station as a

general aviation airport with compatible

industrial, office, and warehouse uses;

(2) Inherent Land Use Suitability, which

based reuse on a variety of physical

characteristics such as accessibility, area

requirements, adjacent land use, site

attractiveness, and environmental

constraints; (3) Core Area Prominence,

which based reuse on maximizing

adaptive reuse of the core area buildings

and related development of other areas;

(4) Residential Neighborhood Focus,

which based reuse on the establishment

of new neighborhoods and the

introduction of other uses compatible

with the residential neighborhoods; (5)

Open Space Focus, which dedicated

half of the Air Station to open space and

recreation; (6) Public Use Focus, which

based reuse on recreational, cultural,

educational, and public service

facilities; (7) Major Institution Focus,

which based reuse on the presence of a

major institution such as a university

campus, regional government center, or

medical facility; (8) Commercial/

Industrial Focus, which based reuse on

revenue-generating activities that would

create jobs, maximize revenue flow, and

minimize government costs; (9) Sports/

Leisure Complex Focus, which based

reuse on the development of private and

public sports and recreational facilities

of regional interest; and (10) A

Comprehensive Plan, which based reuse

on the Village of Glenview’s 1990

Comprehensive Plan that emphasized
28186 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices

residential development of the entire

Naval Air Station property.

The Community Reuse Planning

Group evaluated these ten

redevelopment scenarios by considering

the central theme of each scenario, the

configuration of the scenario, its

economic feasibility, its impact on the

quality of life, and its potential for

creating new jobs. Based upon these

factors, the Community Reuse Planning

Group selected four of the ten scenarios

for further detailed analysis. These four

scenarios were Inherent Land Use

Suitability, Open Space Focus, Major

Institution Focus, and Sports/Leisure

Complex Focus. The Group then

evaluated these four scenarios in light of

twenty-two community redevelopment

objectives.

The Community Reuse Planning

Group’s analysis examined the extent to

which each of these four scenarios

reflected community goals and

objectives. The Group then adopted

aspects of each scenarios and combined

them into one land use plan designated

as the Glenview Naval Air Station

Consensus Reuse Plan. Navy selected

the Consensus Reuse Plan as the

preferred alternative in the FEIS. Navy

also considered a ‘‘No Action’’

alternative in the FEIS that proposed

continued Navy ownership of the

property in caretaker status with Navy

maintaining the physical condition of

the property, providing a security force,

and making repairs essential to safety.

The Consensus Reuse Plan proposed

mixed use of the Naval Air Station

property to achieve local economic

redevelopment. Light industrial,

commercial, retail, and sports and

leisure activities would occupy about

354 acres. Residential uses would

occupy about 245 acres. Open space and

public recreational uses would occupy

about 342 acres, and the remaining 104

acres of the Air Station property would

be occupied by public service uses such

as public works facilities and a

commuter rail station.

Environmental Impacts

Navy analyzed the potential impacts

of the ‘‘No Action’’ alternative and the

Consensus Reuse Plan alternative for

their effects on earth resources,

transportation, air quality, noise, water

resources, hazardous materials and

hazardous waste, historical and

archaeological resources, biological

resources, socioeconomic resources, and

environmental justice. This Record of

Decision focuses on the impacts that

would likely result from implementing

the Consensus Reuse Plan.

In order to implement the Consensus

Reuse Plan, it would be necessary to

change the topography of some areas on

the Naval Air Station property by

grading, filling, and excavating land. It

would also be necessary to change the

elevation of some areas of the property

to permit construction of facilities,

roadways, and stormwater retention

areas. None of these changes would

result in significant environmental

impacts.

Based upon the redevelopment

proposed by the Consensus Reuse Plan,

vehicular traffic in the area would

increase. The proposed redevelopment

would generate 52,821 average daily

trips in the vicinity of the Air Station by

the year 2010. This increase in traffic

would require roadway and intersection

improvements. Additionally, this region

is projected to grow in the future and

this future growth would account for

most of the increased traffic in the area.

Thus, most of these improvements

would be needed even if the Naval Air

Station were not redeveloped. Roadway

and intersection improvements that are

currently planned and roadway and

intersection improvements on the Naval

Air Station property recommended by

the LRA should adequately mitigate

impacts caused by the increased traffic.

The long term impact on air quality

that would arise from stationary

emission sources, including heating

units, will depend upon the nature and

extent of the activities conducted on the

property. The Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (IEPA) will have

jurisdiction over these emission sources,

and it will be necessary for all such

sources to comply with IEPA standards.

Certain sources will require appropriate

permits fro IEPA. The elimination of

aircraft operations and maintenance

activities at the Air Station will reduce

mobile sources of emission from the

area. The projected increase in vehicular

traffic would increase mobile source

emissions of nitrogen oxides and

volatile organic compounds. The extent

of this increased would be mitigated by

the proposed commuter rail station, bike

paths,pedestrian paths, and shuttle

buses.

The cessation of military aircraft

activity will also result in a substantial

decrease in noise. Construction and

demolition activities arising out of

redevelopment would cause a

temporary increase in ambient noise

levels. The long term noise that would

be generated under the proposed reuse

plan would be typical of that present in

the community that now surrounds the

Air Station.

Redevelopment of the Naval Air

Station property would increase the

surface areas that will not absorb

rainwater, largely by the construction of

buildings, roadways, and parking lots

on land that was previously

undeveloped. In turn, this would

increase stormwater runoff. To address

this problem, the LRA proposed in its

resue plan to build a stormwater

management system consisting of 25 to

60 acre lake and drainage swales.

Together with existing drainage areas,

these systems should adequately

manage normal stormwater runoff.

While a 25-acre lake would adequately

manage stormwater runoff for the

redeveloped Naval Air Station property,

the proposed larger lake would also

meet the stormwater drainage

requirements of the surrounding area,

resulting in a positive impact on the

area’s stormwater management and

water quality.

Navy has identified several hazardous

waste sites on the Air Station property

and is developing methods for

remediating the sites. Navy has already

initiated cleanup at some of these sites.

Navy, the Environmental Protection

Agency, and the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency will continue to

review and approve the risk assessments

developed to ascertain the potential

impacts of existing contamination on

human health and the environment

before Navy remediates the

contaminated sites and conveys the

property.

Aircraft Hanger One, known as the

Curtiss-Reynolds Building, is the only

building or site on the Air Station that

is eligible for listing on the National

Register of Historic Places. Navy, the

Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation, and the Illinois State

Historic Preservation Officer entered

into a Programmatic Agreement on May

13, 1996. Under this Agreement, Navy

will encourage adaptive reuse of this

historic structure and maintain and

preserve the building until conveyance.

Navy will include protective covenants

in the deed for the parcel that contains

this historic building.

While some wetlands may be drained

or filled as a result of redevelopment,

the net amount of wetlands would

increase from construction of the

stormwater retention lake and the

drainage swales. Among the existing

wetlands, the Naval Air Station also

contains small areas of prairie. The

proposed commercial and industrial

redevelopment in the northern part of

the Air Station may eliminate most of

this remnant prairie. However, since the

State of Illinois’ Department of Natural

Resources has classified this prairie as

moderately heavily disturbed, its loss

would not cause a significant impact on

local biological resources.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices 28187

There are no threatened or

endangered species listed under the

Federal Endangered Species Act, 16

U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., that inhabit the Air

Station property.There are two Statedesignated endangered and two Statedesignated threatened species that may

be adversely affected by implementation

of the Consensus Reuse Plan. The

upland sandpiper and the golden sedge

are endangered, and the mountain blueeyed grass and early fen sedge are

threatened. Thus, it will be necessary

for future developers to coordinate with

the Illinois Department of Natural

Resources before conducting activities

that may have an impact on these

endangered and threatened species.

Two of the species (the golden sedge

and the early fen sedge) occur in

wetlands and may be afforded

additional protection under Sections

401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33

U.S.C. § 1252, et seq., which establishes

a permitting process that is

administered by the United States Army

Corps of Engineers.

Redevelopment of the Naval Air

Station would result in the creation of

new jobs and improved socioeconomic

conditions. Although the redevelopment

would generate a demand for additional

infrastructure and community services,

the Consensus Reuse Plan projects that

public revenue generated by the

redevelopment would be sufficient to

fund the additional infrastructure, i.e.,

roadway improvements and public

utilities, and services, i.e., schools and

police and fire protection.

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, and found that there would

be no disproportionately high and

adverse human health or environmental

effects on minority and low income

populations. Any impact related to

reuse of the Naval Air Station would be

experienced equally by all groups

within the regional population.

Mitigation

No mitigation measures are required

to implement Navy’s decision to dispose

of the Naval Air Station property.

Navy’s FEIS identified and discussed

the actions that would be necessary to

mitigate the impacts associated with

reuse and redevelopment. 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.

Absent statutory authority, Navy

cannot impose restrictions on the future

use of this surplus Federal property.

Navy will, however, include appropriate

notification in the deeds for any parcels

that are inhabited by endangered or

threatened species protected under State

law and that contain wetlands or lie

within floodplains that are protected

under Federal and State laws.

Comments Received on the FEIS

Navy did not receive any comments

on the FEIS.

Regulations Governing the Disposal

Decision

Since the proposed action

contemplates a disposal action under

the Defense Base Closure and

Realignment Act of 1990 (DBCRA),

Public Law 101–510, 10 U.S.C. § 2687

note, selection of the Consensus Reuse

Plan 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

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

Public Law 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
28188 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices

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–

8); 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 Consensus Reuse Plan proposed

by the Village of Glenview presents the

highest and best use of the NAS

Glenview property. The Village of

Glenview, as the LRA, has determined

in its Consensus Reuse Plan that the

property should be used for several

purposes, including commercial, light

industrial, retail, residential,

recreational, public service, and open

space uses. The property’s physical

characteristics and the current uses of

adjacent lands make it appropriate for

this mixed use redevelopment.

The Consensus Reuse Plan responds

to local economic conditions, promotes

rapid economic recovery from the

impact of the Naval Air Station’s

closure, and is consistent with President

Clinton’s Five-Part Plan for revitalizing

base closure communities, which

emphasizes local economic

redevelopment of the closing military

facility and creation of new jobs as the

means to revitalize these communities.

32 CFR Parts 90 and 91, 59 Fed. Reg.

16,123 (1994). The resultant

environmental impacts can be mitigated

by the acquiring entity under the

direction of Federal, State and local

regulatory authorities.

Although the ‘‘No Action’’ alternative

has less potential for causing adverse

environmental impacts, this alternative

would not constitute the highest and

best use of the Naval Air Station

property. It would not take advantage of

the property’s physical characteristics

and the current uses of adjacent

property. It is not compatible with the

LRA’s Consensus Reuse Plan. It would

not foster local economic

redevelopment of the Air Station and

would not create new jobs.

Accordingly, Navy will dispose of

Naval Air Station Glenview in a manner

that is consistent with the Village of

Glenview’s Consensus Reuse Plan for

the property.

Dated: May 28, 1996.

William J. Cassidy, Jr.,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy

(Conversion and Redevelopment).

[FR Doc. 96–13807 Filed 6–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–M

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Notice of Proposed Information

Collection Requests

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Proposed collection; comment

request.

SUMMARY: The Director, Information

Resources Group, invites comments on

the proposed information collection

requests as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on or before August 5,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

requests for copies of the proposed

information collection request should be

addressed to Patrick J. Sherrill,

Department of Education, 600

Independence Avenue, S.W., Room

5624, Regional Office Building 3,

Washington, DC 20202–4651.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patrick J. Sherrill (202) 708–8196.

Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the Federal Information

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time,

Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires

that the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) provide interested

Federal agencies and the public an early

opportunity to comment on information

collection requests. OMB may amend or

waive the requirement for public

consultation to the extent that public

participation in the approval process

would defeat the purpose of the

information collection, violate State or

Federal law, or substantially interfere

with any agency’s ability to perform its

statutory obligations. The Director of the

Information Resources Group publishes

this notice containing proposed

information collection requests prior to

submission of these requests to OMB.

Each proposed information collection,

grouped by office, contains the

following: (1) Type of review requested,

e.g., new, revision, extension, existing

or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary

of the collection; (4) Description of the

need for, and proposed use of, the

information; (5) Respondents and

frequency of collection; and (6)

Reporting and/or Recordkeeping

burden. OMB invites public comment at

the address specified above. Copies of

the requests are available from Patrick J.

Sherrill at the address specified above.

The Department of Education is

especially interested in public comment

addressing the following issues: (1) is

this collection necessary to the proper

functions of the Department, (2) will

this information be processed and used

in a timely manner, (3) is the estimate

of burden accurate, (4) how might the

Department enhance the quality, utility,

and clarity of the information to be

collected, and (5) how might the

Department minimize the burden of this

collection on the respondents, including

through the use of information

technology.

Dated: May 30, 1996.

Gloria Parker,

Director, Information Resources Group.

Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: State Plan Under Part B of the

Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act.

Frequency: Triennially.

Affected Public: State, local or Tribal

Gov’t, SEAs and LEA.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping

Burden: Responses: 1; Burden Hours:

551.

Abstract: State Educational agencies

are required to submit a State Plan to

the U.S. Department of Education in

order to receive funds under Part B of

the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act.

[FR Doc. 96–13900 Filed 6–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P