[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28677-28685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-13802]



[[Page 28677]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Environmental Impact Statement for the Relocation of the U.S. 
Army Chemical School and the U.S. Army Military Police School to Fort 
Leonard Wood, Missouri--Record of Decision

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of record of decision.

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

Table of Contents

1. Decision
2. Proposed Action
3. Alternatives
4. Selection of the Army's Preferred Alternative
5. Impacts and Mitigation Commitments
6. Conclusion

1. Decision

    In my capacity as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
Installations, Logistics and Environment, and based on the analysis 
contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the 
Relocation of the U.S. Army Chemical School and the U.S. Army Military 
Police School and their associated units and support elements to Fort 
Leonard Wood (FLW), Missouri, I have determined the FEIS adequately 
assesses the impacts of the proposed action and related alternatives on 
the biological, physical, and cultural environment. Therefore, in 
accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, 
Public Law 101-510, the Army will proceed with construction of 
facilities at FLW to support the relocation of the Chemical School and 
Military Police School and shall relocate the schools, their associated 
units and support elements, and associated personnel to FLW in 
accordance with the Army's Preferred Alternative and the general 
implementation schedules described in the FEIS.
    The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (1990 Base 
Closure Act), Public Law 101-510, requires the closing of Fort 
McClellan (FMC), Alabama, and the relocation of the Chemical School and 
Military Police School to FLW. In addition, the 1990 Base Closure Act 
requires the Chemical Defense Training Facility (CDTF) to continue to 
operate at FMC until the capability to operate a replacement facility 
at FLW has been achieved.
    The 1990 Base Closure Act also exempts the Commission's decision-
making process from provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA). The law also relieves the Department of Defense (DoD) from the 
NEPA requirement to consider the need for closing, realigning or 
transferring functions, and from looking at alternative installations 
to close or realign. However, the Department of the Army must evaluate 
the environmental impact of implementing actions that are necessary to 
relocate specified missions and operations. The environmental and 
socioeconomic impacts of facility construction and future training and 
operations must be analyzed and documented. Therefore, my decision to 
approve implementation was based on consideration of whether or not the 
Army has adequately considered the environmental effects of 
implementing the relocation decision. In addition, my review considered 
whether the Army has developed and considered an alternative to avoid 
or minimize environmental impacts and has or will comply with all 
environmental laws and regulations during the implementation. The Army 
will conduct fog oil training within the constraints of the existing 
Missouri Department of Natural Resources Air Quality Permit #0695-010, 
or other permits in existence at the time the training takes place, 
until such time a permit is issued that will accommodate the full 
implementation of the preferred alternative.
    My decision considered: the mitigation commitments outlined in the 
FEIS; transcripts of the scoping meeting; the public hearing on the 
Draft EIS; all written comments received during the public comment and 
the 30-day post-filing periods; and the National Academy of Sciences 
Committee report (see paragraph 5.14). In addition, I have considered 
the results of continued coordination with interested federal, state 
and local agencies and public interest groups in making my decision.
    I have reviewed the FEIS for the Relocation of the U.S. Army 
Chemical and the U.S. Army Military Police Schools to Fort Leonard 
Wood, Missouri, and associated correspondence received in response to 
coordination of this document, and have decided that the plan as 
recommended in the FEIS should be executed and that the construction 
associated with the proposed action should proceed. I find the plan 
outlined in the Executive Summary of the FEIS to be technically sound, 
environmentally sustainable, socially and economically acceptable, and 
in agreement with the 1990 Base Closure Act. Any new or additional 
missions will be evaluated in compliance with NEPA and all other 
federal, state, and local laws and regulations prior to deciding to 
implement at FLW.

2. Proposed Action

    The proposed action is described in the FIS in the context of three 
primary elements including: (1) Training missions to be relocated to 
FLW; (2) facilities required to support the relocated missions; and (3) 
the population to be relocated to FLW as a result of the action. The 
Military Police School and the Chemical School have the mission to 
provide education and training of selected U.S. military, foreign 
military and civilian personnel. Chemical School students are trained 
to: detect and identify Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) agents; 
protect themselves and others from harm caused by NBC agents; employ 
smoke and other obscurants to increase soldier combat effectiveness and 
survivability; and construct and detonate flame field expedient 
deterrents to protect our troops in battle. Military Police School 
students are trained in traditional police functions as well as 
specialized military operations such as battlefield circulation, area 
security, and prisoner-of-war handling.
    The action also includes relocation of units and missions to FLW 
that are required to support the Chemical School and Military Police 
School. All activities evaluated in the FEIS are considered ``directed 
relocations'' which are specifically identified by, or required to 
implement, the 1990 Base Closure Act requirements. Additional 
facilities (buildings, specialized training facilities, and designated 
training land areas) are required at FLW to meet the needs of the 
Chemical School and Military Police School. Implementation of the 
action results in completion of approximately $200 million in military 
construction projects, and an increase of approximately 9,000 persons, 
including permanent party military personnel and dependent family 
members, military and civilian student trainees, and civilian 
employees.

3. Alternatives

    In accordance with NEPA and Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) 
regulations, the Army developed and evaluated a reasonable range of 
alternatives for implementing the mandated BRAC at FLW. Alternatives 
were developed for each of the primary elements of the action including 
relocation of training missions, provisions of required support 
facilities, and relocation of related personnel. A summary of 
alternatives considered in the FEIS is provided below.

[[Page 28678]]

3.1  Training Alternatives

    The FEIS alternatives formulation process was initiated with a 
review of over 70 Programs of Instruction (POIs) that define training 
activities of the Chemical School and Military Police School. Training 
activities were grouped into 11 categories, which included a total of 
43 specific training goals. The EIS team then identified and considered 
a total of 204 training method alternatives for accomplishing these 
training goals at FLW. Volume IV of the FEIS provides information 
regarding alternative training methods considered, and the rationale 
that led to selection of those methods to be analyzed in detail in the 
FEIS. This alternative formulation process resulted in further 
considered of a No Action Alternative, and three training goal 
implementation alternatives. The training implementation alternatives 
included the: 1) Relocate Current Practice (RCP) Alternative; 2) 
Optimum Training Method (OPTM) Alternative; and 3) Environmentally 
Preferred Training Method (EPTM) Alternative.
    Analysis of the No Action Alternatives as it relates to the 
training element of the FEIS considered the impact of not implementing 
individual training goals associated with the Chemical School and 
Military Police School missions. Failing to implement any of the 43 
training goals identified and considered in the FEIS was not reasonable 
because training in each of these goals is essential to meeting mission 
requirements. Therefore, the No Action Alternative is not evaluated in 
detail in the FEIS. However, the No Action Alternative (the 
continuation of ongoing and planned (pre-BRAC) activities at FLW) is 
used as the environmental baseline against which the impacts of each 
training implementation alternative were evaluated.
    The RCP Alternative evaluates relocating all training methods to 
FLW as they are currently (at the time of the BRAC decision) conducted 
at FMC. The training methods defined in the RCP create a baseline 
against which the alternative methods were evaluated. The OPTM 
Alternative was formulated to identify and evaluate the impact of 
implementing training methods which best met a combination of initial 
environmental and training/operating efficiency screening criteria as 
documented in Volume IV of the FEIS. The EPTM Alternative was 
formulated to evaluate the impact of implementing the combination of 
training methods which received the highest score based solely on 
consideration of environmental screening criteria.

3.2  Supporting Facility Alternatives

    Implementation of the planned BRAC action at FLW will require 
facilities to support the training requirements of the relocated 
schools and to support the housing, administrative and support 
requirements of increased personnel. The Army's analysis for this 
action included a detailed review of facility requirements for all 
activities. This process resulted in identification of Chemical School 
and Military Police School facility requirements in excess of 1.6 
million square feet of space and numerous range and training area 
requirements. Detailed analysis of existing facilities at FLW resulted 
in identification of approximately 800,000 square feet of existing 
facility space that could be used to meet approximately half of the 
relocation requirements. This left a shortfall of an additional 800,000 
square feet of facility space that must be met through new 
construction.
    The FEIS documents the rationale for consideration of a No Action 
Alternative and three facility implementation alternatives. Each of the 
implementation alternatives included a unique BRAC Land Use and 
Facility Plan (LU&FP) which identified modifications to FLW's existing 
approved land use plan required to meet needs of the relocated schools, 
and a facility construction program which identified the type, extent, 
and location of facility development associated with each alternative.
    Under the No Action Alternative for this study element, FLW would 
continue to implement its pre-BRAC land use and facility development 
plan, but no new facilities would be provided in response to BRAC 
actions. The analyses documented in the FEIS, demonstrates that FLW can 
support approximately 50 percent of the identified requirements, and 
that opportunities to lease space off-post are very limited. None of 
the specialized training facilities such as the Chemical Defense 
Training Facility, radiation laboratory, crime scenes and other unique 
facilities for the two schools are available. Therefore, since BRAC 
legislation directs the relocation, the No Action Alternative is not 
reasonable, and, therefore, is not analyzed in further detail in the 
FEIS, other than to serve as an environmental baseline against which 
the impacts of each facilities implementation alternative are 
evaluated.
    The ``Army's Proposed LU&FP (Combined Headquarters and Instruction) 
Alternative'' locates the headquarters for the three schools (existing 
Engineer School at FLW, and the Military Police School and Chemical 
School to be relocated) in Hoge Hall, Lincoln Hall and a new General 
Instruction Facility (GIF) complex. The ``Alternative 1 LU&FP (Combined 
Headquarters)'' is based on the concept of collocating the headquarters 
for each of the three schools (existing Engineer School at FLW and both 
schools to be relocated) in Hoge Hall and Lincoln Hall. However, three 
separate ``school houses'' would be provided, thereby allowing the 
individual specialty branches to retain more autonomy. The 
``Alternative 2 LU&FP (Separate Headquarters)'' would locate the 
headquarters for the Chemical School and the Military Police School in 
separate buildings, but would consolidate general instruction and 
library facilities in the ``800-area'' of the FLW post. The Engineer 
School would remain in Hoge, Lincoln and Clark halls.

3.3  Population Relocation Alternatives

    The third and final element of the alternative formulation process 
involved consideration of the population to be relocated to FLW as a 
result of the proposed action. The action is expected to result in a 
total population increase of approximately 9000 persons to the FLW 
area, including permanent party military personnel and their dependent 
family members, military and civilian student trainees, and civilian 
employees. The FEIS considered a No Action Alternative and three 
implementation alternatives for this element including a: (1) Total 
Early Move Alternative; (2) Total Late Move Alternative; and (3) Phased 
Move Alternative.
    The FEIS concludes the No Action Alternative, as it applies to 
relocation of personnel, is not reasonable. However, the No Action 
Alternative was used to compare population conditions and related 
impacts at the current (pre-BRAC) level at FLW, to those expected to 
occur under each of the BRAC action implementation scenarios. Regarding 
the three implementation alternatives, the FEIS concludes the Total 
Early Move and Total Late Move alternatives were not reasonable because 
they resulted in facility utilization problems and disruption of 
ongoing training programs. Accordingly, all implementation scenarios 
considered in detail in the FEIS are based on the Phased Move 
Alternative. The Phased Move Alternative would involve relocation of 
personnel (and related missions and equipment) on a phased schedule. 
This phrasing is expected to occur over a period of approximately 9

[[Page 28679]]

months, tied to the availability of renovated or new facilities and 
completion of training classes at FMC, and startup of the relocated 
classes at FLW.

4. Selection of the Army's Preferred Alternative

    In accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1505.2), the FEIS and 
this ROD identify the Army's Preferred Alternative which includes 
implementation of (1) the Optimum Training Method (OPTM) Alternative; 
(2) the Army's Proposed LU&FP (Combined Headquarters and Instruction) 
Alternative; and (3) the Phased Move Alternative. As stated above, the 
Army determined that the only reasonable method for relocating the 
personnel associated with the Chemical School and the Military Police 
School was as described under the Phased Move Alternative. Therefore, 
that element is part of the Army's preferred method for implementing 
the total action. The rationale for the selection of the Army's 
Preferred Alternative relative to the training missions to be relocated 
and required support facilities is summarized below, and further 
documented in the FEIS.

34.1 Training Element Decision

    For the training element of the proposed action, the FEIS impact 
analysis documents that the RCP Alternative would result in 
substantially higher adverse environmental impacts (taken as a whole) 
than either the OPTM Alternative or the EPTM Alternative, and that the 
RCP Alternative would result in a lower level of training effectiveness 
than the OPTM Alternative. Therefore, the RCP Alternative was dropped 
from further consideration prior to completion of the cumulative impact 
analysis section of the FEIS. This focused the decision on how to 
conduct training at FLW between the OPTM and EPTM alternatives.
    The analysis indicates selection of the EPTM Alternative would 
reduce the annual quantity of fog oil used, thereby reducing the extent 
of impacts on the environment (including some reduction in the degree 
of impact to air quality and threatened and endangered species). 
However, significant adverse impacts to both air quality and threatened 
and endangered species may still occur under both the OPTM and EPTM 
alternatives, and the nature and extent of mitigation required under 
the OPTM and EPTM alternatives are very similar. Furthermore, 
implementation of the EPTM Alternative would reduce the overall 
training effectiveness relative to the OPTM Alternative in six of 43 
training goals as discussed in the FEIS. The most significant reduction 
in training effectiveness under the EPTM Alternative would be 
associated with Training Goal 7.4 (Fog Oil Training Field Proficiency 
Test), where the reduced levels of fog oil usage would result in 
soldiers that are not as highly trained under realistic field 
conditions as the OPTM Alternative provides. Proficiency in deployment 
and maintenance of smoke screen cover over specified areas under 
battlefield conditions is critically important to the successful 
performance of certain military missions, and to protect our troops and 
defend our national interests and those of our allies. In consideration 
of these factors, and all other information provided by the FEIS 
analysis, I selected the OPTM Alternative as the preferred method of 
implementing training activities to be conducted by the Chemical School 
and the Military Police School at FLW.

4.2  Supporting Facility Element Decision

    The FEIS analysis revealed the environmental impacts of the 
Alternative 2 LU&FP (Separate Headquarters) were clearly more adverse 
than either the Army's Proposed LU&FP (Combined Headquarters and 
Instruction) or the Alternative 1 LU&FP (Combined Headquarters). 
Furthermore, the Alternative 2 LU&FP did not provide any significant 
operational advantages over the other two alternatives. Therefore, the 
Alternative 2 LU&FP was dropped from further consideration prior to 
completion of the cumulative impact analysis section of the FEIS. The 
analysis also showed that the Army's Proposed LU&FP (Combined 
Headquarters and Instruction) has less overall adverse environmental 
impacts than the Alternative 1 LU&FP. In addition, the FEIS analysis 
documents that the Army's Proposed LU&FP (Combined Headquarters and 
Instruction): (1) is the most effective plan with regard to utilization 
of existing available facilities at FLW to meet requirements; (2) has 
the lowest construction cost of any of the implementation alternatives; 
(3) provides the highest degree of collocation of similar facilities; 
(4) provides the greatest long-term operational cost savings; and (5) 
provides the highest potential for synergistic training activities at 
FLW. In consideration of these factors, and all information provided by 
the FEIS analysis, I selected the Army's Proposed LU&FP (Combined 
Headquarters and Instruction) as the preferred method for providing 
facilities required to support the relocation of the Chemical School 
and the Military Police School to FLW.

5. Impacts and Mitigation Commitments

    Fifteen natural, cultural, sociological, and economic resource 
categories, plus a category to consider the operational efficiency of 
planned actions, were established to provide a framework for 
identifying baseline conditions and determining the impact of 
alternatives in the FEIS. A summary of the type and extent of impacts 
anticipated as a result of implementing the Army's Preferred 
alternative at FLW is provided below for each analysis category. 
Impacts discussed represent the cumulative impact of implementing all 
elements of the Army's Preferred Alternative, in association with past, 
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions as discussed in 
detail in the FEIS. Where appropriate, this subsection of the ROD 
identifies mitigation measures that will be taken by the Army to avoid 
or minimize adverse environmental impacts.
    Several of the following impact discussions will refer to Volume 
III, Appendix K (Summary of Monitoring Programs) which documents the 
intent of monitoring programs that will be implemented by FLW to ensure 
impacts associated with the Army's Preferred Alternative are consistent 
with those predicted in the FEIS and in full compliance with applicable 
laws, regulations and permit conditions. Specifically, Appendix K 
describes monitoring program elements, associated adaptive management 
strategies, and compliance schedules for six distinct monitoring 
programs including: (1) Air Quality; (2) Soils and Vegetation; (3) 
Human Health; (4) Endangered Species; (5) Biological Indicators; and 
(6) Water Quality.

5.1  Land Use and Training Areas

    The FEIS concludes implementation of the Army's Preferred 
Alternative will not require change in the previously approved land use 
pattern for the non-cantonment training areas at FLW. Existing non-
cantonment training areas will remain in use for training, and no 
additional areas will be converted to this land use, although the type 
of training conducted at several of the training areas will change. All 
such changes are compatible with adjacent training activities. 
Implementation will result in some adjustments to the existing land use 
plan within the FLW cantonment area. However, these changes are minimal 
in relation to the total land area involved, and each of

[[Page 28680]]

these changes will result in improved functional relationships and 
efficiency of post operations. The action will also modify existing 
off-post land use patterns associated with development of additional 
civilian residential and commercial activities in areas surrounding 
FLW.

Land Use and Training Area Impact Mitigation Commitments

    None of the land use or training area impacts identified in the 
FEIS are significant, and no mitigation is required. The Army will 
construct BRAC related facilities and conduct related training and 
support operations in full compliance with the existing installation 
Master Plan, and those modifications to the Master Plan described as 
part of the Army's Preferred Alternative.

5.2  Air Quality

    Recognizing that environmental agencies and members of the public 
are concerned about impacts of proposed fog oil obscurant training on 
the air quality within and around FLW, the Army conducted an in-depth 
evaluation of this issue and has fully documented the results in the 
FEIS. The FEIS air quality analysis was modified, in response to 
comments received on the Draft EIS, to clarify several issues and to 
provide additional details concerning impacts on air quality. This 
additional information is presented in subsections 5.2.2.3 and 5.5.5 of 
the FEIS, Appendix J (Air Permit #0695-010) to Volume III of the FEIS, 
and in a separate ``Air Quality Technical Reference Document: 
Relocation of the US Army Chemical School and US Army Military Police 
School to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri,'' which was included in each the 
11 public repositories identified in the FEIS.
    Due to the quantity of air emissions associated with the planned 
fog oil obscurant training activities, the action is subject to permit 
review in compliance with 40 CFR Part 51 and Missouri State Rule 10 CSR 
10-6.060. Full implementation of the Army's Preferred Alternative for 
fog oil obscurant training requires the use of up to 84,500 gallons of 
fog oil per year and up to 1,200 gallons per day. Review of subsection 
5.5.3.3.2 (and other air quality subsections of the FEIS) indicate 
that, based on conservative assumptions for modeling, full 
implementation of the action would result in exceeding the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 24-hour PM-10 (see subsection 
5.5.3.3.2 for details). Mitigation is thus required to comply with the 
NAAQS and the terms of the existing Missouri Department of Natural 
Resources (MDNR) Air Quality Permit #0695-010 for fog oil training at 
FLW. Fog oil training will be constrained to the level allowed by the 
permits in existence at the time the training occurs. Procedures to be 
used to ensure the general public is not exposed to air which does not 
meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards because of fog oil 
training are described in subsection 5.2.2.15.B of Volume I of the FEIS 
and Appendix K of the FEIS.
    The cumulative impact analysis included in the FEIS quantifies the 
level of mitigation (through reductions in the quantity of fog oil to 
be used) necessary to reduce PM-10 air quality impacts to acceptable 
levels. The FEIS demonstrates that implementation of the Army's 
Preferred Alternative, with fog oil training reduced to conditions and 
use limits established by the current MDNR Air Permit #0695-010 (as 
included in Appendix J. Volume III of the FEIS), will comply with the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM-10.
    Because the implementation of fog oil training at the mitigated 
(existing MDNR Air Quality Permit #0695-010) level does not provide the 
level of training considered optimum by the U.S. Army Chemical School, 
the FEIS states that FLW intends to pursue a new or revised air permit 
with MDNR after evaluating the assumptions used for the air dispersion 
model in conjunction with site-specific (within and immediately 
adjacent to FLW) meteorological data that is currently being collected. 
The revised permit application may request consideration to use fog oil 
quantities up to the maximum levels specified under full implementation 
(non-mitigated) of the Army's Preferred Alternative (up to 84,500 
gallons per year and up to 1,200 gallons per day). Any such permit 
renewal process will be subject to full disclosure and comment per the 
conditions and procedures established by MDNR. Additional details 
regarding the cumulative impact analysis and other factors relating to 
the air permitting process are fully documented in subsection fog 
5.5.3.3.3 of the FEIS, and in the separate air quality technical 
reference document as referenced above.

Air Quality Impact Mitigation Commitments

    Until a new or revised air permit is issued by Missouri Department 
of Natural Resources, the Army will comply with and adhere to annual 
and daily fog oil use levels specified in the existing MDNR Air Quality 
Permit #0695-010 (65,000 gallons per year and approximately 481 gallons 
per day) and comply with all terms and conditions established in the 
existing MDNR Air Quality Permit #0695-010 including air monitoring. 
The air quality monitoring plan includes three types of monitoring 
activities: (1) Ambient air quality monitoring of PM-10 and ozone; (2) 
meteorological monitoring; and (3) smoke movement monitoring.
    Ambient air quality and meteorological monitoring will be conducted 
using a network of nine monitoring stations located on and near FLW. 
This network include four previously established stations that are only 
used to collect meteorological data. In addition, five meteorological 
and ambient air monitoring stations have been added at FLW (one at each 
of the four fog oil obscurant training areas, and a fifth at Forney 
Army Airfield). Meteorological and air quality monitoring will be 
conducted for at least 2 years prior to initiation of fog oil training 
at FLW to establish baseline conditions, and will continue for at least 
2 years after fog oil training is initiated at FLW. Smoke movement 
monitoring will be conducted during mobile and field fog oil training 
exercises to ensure that training will comply with the National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards for PM-10. Additional details regarding the air 
quality monitoring plan and related adaptive management response is 
provided in Appendix K (subsection K.4.1, Volume III) of the FEIS.
    Fort Leonard Wood will develop and implement a Public Awareness 
Program (as defined in Appendix L, Volume III of the FEIS) to inform 
the general public of potential health risks associated with exposures 
to fog oil. FLW will continue to adhere to established policies and 
procedures that are designed to ensure that the general public does not 
enter active training ranges, including those lands to used to support 
future smoke training activities. Procedures to be used to ensure that 
the general public does not enter active smoke training ranges are 
described in subsection 5.2.2.15.A of the FEIS and include: (1) 
establishment of appropriate safety zones adjacent to smoke training 
areas; (2) daily patrols of all closed or restricted training areas and 
related safety zones to ensure that no unauthorized persons enter these 
areas; and (3) appropriate signs along with physical barriers (such as 
gates or cables) on roads leading into training areas.

5.3  Noise

    Elements of the Army's Preferred Alternative that result in direct 
and indirect effects to noise include: (1) Expansion of the amount of 
exterior

[[Page 28681]]

training activities, including the amount of ammunition, grenades and 
explosives to be used; (2) expansion of aircraft operations in and near 
Forney Army Airfield; and (3) noise associated with the construction of 
BRAC related construction projects. The FEIS concludes that the impacts 
of these activities, in association with other past, present and 
reasonably foreseeable future actions that could influence noise 
levels, are not expected to exceed significance criteria.

Noise Impact Mitigation Commitments

    No mitigation is required. However, continued coordination between 
the installation and the Regional Commerce and Growth Association in 
Pulaski County and adjacent cities will help to ensure that noise 
sensitive land uses are avoided in those limited off-post areas that 
have previously been (as a result of current, baseline operations at 
FLW) and are expected to continue to be exposed to adverse noise 
levels.

5.4  Water Resources

     Under this evaluation category, the FEIS considers the potential 
for impacts to regulatory flood plains, surface water and groundwater 
resources. The FEIS concludes that implementation of the Army's 
Preferred Alternative will not result in any adverse impact to 
regulatory flood plains within or beyond the FLW boundaries. The FEIS 
notes that the action may result in minor adverse cumulative impacts to 
surface water quality within FLW boundaries; and that minor, adverse 
impacts may occur as a result of sediment-laden surface water flowing 
into karst features (sinkhole and related rock fractures and openings 
that allow for rapid groundwater movement) that occur within 
installation boundaries. However, implementation of numerous specific 
surface water/sediment control projects (including the construction of 
an impermeable liner under the proposed flame training range and 
construction of several sediment retention basins) and adherence to 
Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are defined as part of the 
proposed action will ensure that these impacts do not reach significant 
levels.

Water Quality Impact Mitigation Commitments

    In addition to continuation of existing (pre-BRAC) water quality 
monitoring at FLW (as defined in Volume III, Appendix H of the FEIS), 
the Army will implement a BRAC Water Quality Monitoring Plan to ensure 
compliance with the revised National Pollution Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES) Missouri State Operating Permit MO-117251; the Missouri 
Clean Water Law, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and all other 
applicable laws, regulations and permits. Subsection K.4.6 of Appendix 
K, Volume III of the FEIS describes all substantive elements of the 
water quality monitoring program to be implemented at FLW. The Army 
will also ensure BRAC construction projects are completed in accordance 
with specified erosion and surface water control features. This 
includes construction of berms around the flame training range, 
construction of water retention ponds to collect water runoff from the 
flame range, and construction of an impervious liner to control 
groundwater flows beneath the flame training range. FLW will implement 
management controls on training in order to avoid potential impacts 
associated with in-stream vehicle crossings including: (1) Limiting 
high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) stream crossing 
training to specifically designated training area with an obstacle 
designed to replicate a stream crossing; and (2) limit other instream 
crossings associated with maneuver operations and mobile and field 
smoke training to areas which have been improved to minimize adverse 
impacts. Finally, the Army will continue to conduct all accordance with 
approved operating procedures, and use the FLW Installation Spill 
Prevention and Response Plan to minimize adverse impact of any spill 
that may occur in or near water resources.

5.5  Geology and Soils

    The FEIS concludes that implementation of the Army's Preferred 
Alternative will result in minor adverse impacts to soils and geologic 
resources within FLW boundaries. These impacts include impacts to soils 
as a result of erosion on lands disturbed for construction and training 
activities, and the potential for impacts as a result of accumulation 
of hydrocarbons released at the planned flame training range.

Geology and Soil Impact Mitigation Commitments

    The rate of soil erosion will be reduced through the implementation 
of BMPs during construction and continued implementation of the FLW 
Integrated Training Area Management Plan. Planned construction has been 
sited to avoid sensitive geologic areas. As stated above, the Army will 
also continue to conduct all training in accordance with approved 
operating procedures and use the FLW Installation Spill Prevention and 
Response Plan to minimize the adverse impact of any spill that may 
occur.
    In accordance with Special Conditions 25 through 30 of the existing 
MDNR Air Quality Permit #0695-010, the Army will also develop and 
implement a Soils and Vegetation Monitoring Plan to monitor if there is 
fog oil residue (total petroleum hydrocarbons or TPHs) remaining on 
soil and vegetation. Additional information regarding this monitoring 
requirement are provided in subsection K.4.2 of Appendix K, Volume III 
of the FEIS.

5.6  Infrastructure

    The FEIS documents that an increase in traffic volume and delays is 
anticipated as a result of the BRAC action; however, the degree of this 
traffic impact is not considered to be significant. The proposed action 
includes planned improvements relating to utility system distribution 
and collection systems. In consideration of these improvements, and the 
fact that existing treatment and plant facilities have adequate 
capacity to serve all current and reasonably foreseeable future needs, 
no significant adverse impacts are expected to occur to on-post utility 
systems. Energy, communication systems, and solid waste disposal 
provided by outside sources will be adjusted by the suppliers in 
accordance with all applicable laws and regulations concerning these 
operations, and no significant adverse impacts to these systems were 
identified by the EIS process. Energy consumption at FLW will increase, 
but energy efficient facility construction, existing facility 
renovations, and continued expansion of the natural gas system at FLW 
will help to reduce energy usage, and no significant adverse impacts 
are anticipated.

Infrastructure Impact Mitigation Commitments

    The degree of traffic congestion problems will be reduced due to 
improvements included as part of the proposed action construction 
projects for the Combined Headquarters and Instruction facility plan 
(e.g., improvements planned for the intersections of Nebraska Avenue 
and First Street and Gate Street at Missouri Avenue). Realignment of 
Nebraska Avenue and improving Gate Street will also help offset the 
increased traffic volume expected to occur near the new consolidated 
Headquarters area. FLW will ensure utility distribution and collection 
systems are upgraded as required to accommodate the new facilities as 
part of the BRAC

[[Page 28682]]

construction program. All new buildings will meet applicable energy 
conservation guidelines and standards.

5.7  Hazardous and Toxic Materials

    The addition of BRAC activities to FLW will increase the volume of 
hazardous materials used, handled, stored and transported on FLW over 
current levels. This increase in hazardous materials will also result 
in an increase in the amount of hazardous and special wastes being 
removed from FLW for disposal through properly licensed and monitored 
contract operations. The FEIS documents that all hazardous and toxic 
materials, low-level radioactive materials, regulated medical wastes, 
fuels, and special wastes will be handled, stored, transported and 
disposed of in a manner which protects the environment and human 
health, and in compliance with Army regulations and federal and state 
laws and regulations.
    The FEIS was expanded to include additional information regarding 
the chemical characterization of liquid wastes generated by the 
Chemical Defense Training Facility (CDTF), and to further quantify the 
potential risks associated with the transportation of decontaminated 
special waste by-products associated with the CDTF to off-post disposal 
facilities. Information from that analysis is presented in subsection 
5.2.2.8.5 (Volume I) and Appendix I (Volume III) of the FEIS.

Hazardous and Toxic Materials Impact Mitigation Commitments

    No significant adverse impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation 
is required. The Army will continue existing environmental management 
programs that are designed to ensure that all such materials are 
managed properly. These ongoing management programs and plans include 
the FLW Hazardous Waste Minimization Program, Pollution Prevention 
Plan, Hazardous Waste Management Plan and the Installation Spill 
Prevention and Response Plan. In addition, the Army commits to the 
disposal of wastes generated by the CDTF in compliance with guidelines 
and criteria included in subsection 5.2.2.8.5.2, Volume I of the FEIS.

5.8  Munitions

    Implementation of the Army's Preferred Alternative at FLW will 
result in an increase in the type and quantity of live munitions, 
obscurants and signals used at the post. The FEIS concludes that no 
direct or indirect impacts on munitions storage or operational controls 
are expected to occur as a result of this increase. The impacts of 
additional munitions usage on the environment (such as impacts to 
threatened and endangered species, human health, etc.) were evaluated 
under the appropriate resource categories.

Munitions Impact Mitigation Commitments

    Because there are no adverse impacts, no mitigation actions are 
required under this evaluation category.

5.9  Permits and Regulatory Authority

    The FEIS concludes that implementation of the Army's Preferred 
Alternative will result in an increase in the number of permit 
applications required to conduct training and a directly related 
increase in the type and extent of compliance monitoring. This increase 
in permit activity will require programming of additional fiscal 
resources to prepare and manage all required permits. Compliance with 
all permit terms and conditions will ensure that significant adverse 
impacts to the environment do not occur.

Permits and Regulatory Authority Mitigation Commitments

    The Army commits to the preparation and maintenance of all permits, 
current or revised, required to implement and maintain the actions 
included as part of the Army's Preferred Alternative (as well as all 
ongoing mission permit requirements). Specific permits and regulatory 
procedures identified in the FEIS (and summarized in subsection ES.7 of 
the FEIS--Volume I) include: (1) MDNR Air Quality Permit #0695-010 for 
fog oil operations; (2) compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered 
Species Act; (3) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) Permit; (4) Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Materials 
License; (5) Land Disturbance Storm Water Permit; and (6) Nationwide 
Permit (NWP) in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(CWA).

5.10.a  Biological Resources (Federally-Listed Threatened and 
Endangered (T&E) Species)

    Federally listed Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species of concern 
at FLW include Indiana bats, gray bats, and bald eagles. The FEIS 
documents the results of studies conducted to evaluate impacts of 
implementing the proposed action at FLW on these species. The U.S. Fish 
& Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued a Biological Opinion (BO) on the 
Armys Preferred Alternative on February 4, 1997. The BO concluded that 
implementation of the Army's Preferred Alternative is likely to 
adversely affect Indiana bats, gray bats and bald eagles. These adverse 
effects are associated with obscurant training and planned construction 
projects. The nature and extent of these effects are based on 
conservative assumptions that over estimates risks and are fully 
documented in subsection 5.5.3.11 of the FEIS (Volume I) and in the 
referenced Biological Assessment (BA) and BO. The USFWS determined 
these effect are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
the Indiana bat, gray bat, or bald eagle. No critical habitat has been 
designated for these species in the action area, therefore, none will 
be affected by the action.

Federally-Listed T&E Species Impact Mitigation Commitments

    FLW will conserve T&E Species by: (1) Implementing all reasonable 
and prudent measures (RPMs) that have been specified by the USFWS to 
minimize take of Indiana bats, gray bats, and bald eagles; (2) adhering 
to ``project design features'' that are specified as part of the 
proposed action; (3) preparing and implementing an Endangered Species 
Management Plan; (4) developing and implementing a biomonitoring plan 
(as described in Appendix K, Volume III of the FEIS); (5) establishing 
bat management zones around Freeman Cave; and (6) establishing a 
Landscape-Scale Forest Management Policy for FLW. Compliance with RPMs 
will be documented as required by the terms and conditions specified in 
the BO.

5.10.b  Biological Resources (Other Protected Species)

    As defined in the FEIS for the proposed action, Other Protected 
Species (OPS) include statelisted birds, mammals, and amphibians as 
well as migratory birds including neotropical migrants (NTMs), raptors, 
and shorebirds. Studies conducted to evaluate impacts of the proposed 
action on representative species are described in subsection 5.2.2.11.B 
and other applicable sections of the FEIS. Coordination with the USFWS 
included consideration of NTMs. The FEIS concludes that implementation 
of the Army's Preferred Action at FLW is likely to result in minor 
adverse impacts to OPS. These impacts would be associated with direct 
mortality of OPS as a result of vehicle operations, training 
activities, and clearing associated with new construction. Impacts may 
also be caused by increased forest fragmentation, and increased 
disturbance to wildlife from training activities. Although these 
impacts are

[[Page 28683]]

identified in the FEIS as adverse, they are not considered to be 
significant as discussed in subsection 5.5.3.11.B.3 of the FEIS.

Other Protected Species Impact Mitigation Commitments

    Although not required by regulation, FLW will prepare and implement 
a Biological Indicators Monitoring Plan as described in subsection 
K.4.5 of Appendix K, Volume IV of the FEIS to ensure significant 
adverse impacts do not occur to OPS as a result of the planned action. 
This Biological Indicators Monitoring Plan will be implemented at least 
1 year prior to the commencement of smoke training at FLW and will be 
conducted for a minimum of 2 years. Monitoring results will be jointly 
reviewed with the regulatory agencies and the determination made if 
additional monitoring is necessary using the Adaptive Management 
Strategy as defined in Appendix K of the FEIS. FLW will also continue 
to coordinate implementation of the planned action concerning measures 
that can be implemented to minimize impacts to NTMs.

5.10.c  Biological Resources (Wetlands)

    Implementation of the Army's Preferred Action is expected to cause 
minor adverse impacts to wetlands within FLW boundaries as a result of 
physical degradation of wetland vegetation at specified stream 
crossings and impacts to 0.14 acres of jurisdictional wetlands at the 
CDTF construction site. However, these impacts are not considered to be 
significant as discussed in subsections 5.5.3.11.D and 5.5.3.11.E of 
the FEIS.

Wetland Impact Mitigation Commitments

    FLW will continue to adhere to BMPs and other environmental 
controls designed to minimize soil erosion and protect surface waters, 
soils and aquatic resources and wetlands during training and 
construction (subsections 5.1.4 and 5.5.1.3 of the FEIS). In addition, 
the Army will comply with requirements of Section 404 of the Clean 
Water Act prior to initiation of the construction phase of the range 
road stream crossings and the proposed CDTF project.

5.10.d  Biological Resources (Other Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources)

    The FEIS concludes that implementation of the Army's Preferred 
Action may result in minor adverse impacts to other aquatic and 
terrestrial resources within FLW boundaries as a result of training and 
construction activities. However, these impacts are not considered to 
be significant as discussed in (subsections 5.5.3.11.D and 5.5.3.11.E 
of the FEIS).

Other Aquatic and Terrestrial Resource Impact Mitigation Commitments

    No significant impacts are expected to occur, and no specific 
mitigation actions are required. However, continued compliance with 
federal, state and local permits and regulations, including Missouri 
Clean Water Commission requirements will be maintained through the 
continued use of BMPs and other environmental controls as described in 
subsection 5.3.2.5.A of the FEIS. In addition, as previously stated in 
this ROD (section 5.5) the Army will also develop and implement a Soils 
and Vegetation Monitoring Plan to monitor if there is fog oil residue 
(total petroleum hydrocarbons or TPHs) remaining on soil and 
vegetation. Additional information regarding this monitoring 
requirement is provided in subsection K.4.2 of Appendix K, Volume III 
of the FEIS. This will provide added assurance that fog oil training 
does not result in any significant adverse impact to the general 
environment.

5.11  Cultural Resources

    Phase I archaeological surveys have been conducted at locations 
where BRAC-related training and construction activities will occur on 
FLW. The FEIS documents that implementation of the Army's Preferred 
Alternative will not result in the alteration, renovation, or 
demolition of any historic buildings or structures, and activities will 
not impact any known significant (National Register eligible) cultural 
resources. Coordination with the Missouri State Historic Preservation 
Officer resulted in a finding of no effect for planned construction 
activities.

Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Commitments

    Training activities will continue to be conducted in accordance 
with FLW Regulation 210-14, and the FLW Historic Preservation Plan. 
Therefore, if archaeological materials are identified during any future 
construction or training activity, the Army commits to stopping the 
activity, and contacting the FLW cultural resource specialist to 
determine an appropriate course of action consistent with all 
applicable cultural resource laws and regulations.

5.12  Sociological Environment

    The FEIS documents that the majority of direct sociological 
resource impacts will occur in Pulaski County, primarily in the St. 
Robert/Waynesville area. Anticipated growth and the associated increase 
in demands placed on the public service delivery systems in the area 
can be adequately accommodated by existing community resources and 
proper planning and programming for expansion. Impacts on school 
enrollment will primarily occur within the Waynesville R-VI District, 
which has made, or is in the process of making, plans to address the 
expanded enrollment anticipated to occur as a result of the planned 
action.

Sociological Environmental Impact Mitigation Commitments

    No significant adverse impacts are excepted to occur under this 
evaluation category, and therefore, no Army mitigation actions are 
required. However, mitigation of minor adverse impacts will be 
partially accomplished through the phased implementation of the planned 
action. The construction program is scheduled to occur over a two year 
period, and the BRAC-related population will be relocated to FLW in 
phases over a 6-9 month period. In addition, the time between the 
announcement of the action to the public, and implementation of the 
initial phases of the action is sufficient to provide the opportunity 
for infrastructure and land use planning and programming. Planning 
assistance, in the form of grant funding under the auspices and 
assistance of the DoD Office of Economic Adjustment, will also be 
available to the local communities that are potentially impacted by the 
planned BRAC action at FLW.

5.13  Economic Development

    The FEIS documents the significant beneficial economic impacts of 
implementing the Army's Preferred Alternative that will occur within 
the nine-county economic Region of Influence (ROI) surrounding FLW. 
Economic impacts described in the FEIS relate to incureased income, 
employment and business volume. Other major indirect impacts include 
expected increases in the area's real property tax base and local tax 
revenues. The majority of the direct economic impacts are expected to 
occur locally in Pulaski County, primarily in the St. Robert/
Waynesville area.

Economic Development Impact Mitigation Commitments

    No adverse economic impacts are expected to occur, and therefore, 
no Army mitigation actions are required.

[[Page 28684]]

5.14  Quality of Life/Human Health

    Implementation of the Army's Preferred Alternative will result in 
an increase in the type and amount of military training activities to 
occur within the existing training range areas at FLW, which will 
result in increased use of those areas. These increased use levels are 
expected to result in an adverse impact by imposing additional 
limitations on the recreational use (e.g., hunting, fishing and other 
activities) of these areas while training occurs
    Elements of the Army action identified in the FEIS that may result 
in direct or indirect effects to human health include: (1) Fog oil 
obscurant training; (2) training with toxic agents at the CFTF; and (3) 
Flame Field Expedient training. The FEIS, and supporting documentation, 
provides extensive analysis and consideration of the potential effects 
of fog oil obscurant training on military trainers, students, and the 
general population within the FLW cantonment area and beyond the 
installation boundaries. Based on these analyses, the FEIS concludes 
that trainers and fog oil training students will not be adversely 
affected because they follow standard Army operating procedures while 
conducting training exercises, including the use of protective masks 
when exposed to relatively high concentrations of fog oil (in excess of 
5 mg/m\3\). The FEIS concludes that human health effects are not 
anticipated for the general population within the cantonment area, or 
for those individuals beyond the facility boundary. This conclusion is 
based on consideration of maximum potential exposure of those 
populations as predicted by highly conservative fog oil dispersion 
modeling. Also, conditions in the MDNR issued Air Quality Permit #0695-
010 for fog oil obscurant training are specifically designed to reduce 
the potential for exposure to the general public. In the unlikely event 
that the surrounding public is inadvertently exposed to fog oil, the 
exposures are anticipated to be infrequent and of short duration, 
thereby avoiding any potential for significant adverse impacts.
    At the time the FEIS was published, the National Academy of 
Sciences (NAS) Subcommittee on Military Smokes and Oscurants of the 
Committee on Toxicology (``Committee'') had not completed their 
evaluation of the human health effects of fog oil. The NAS Committee 
report was, however, released before the completion of this ROD. A 
careful review of the Committee report reveals that their conclusions 
regarding the health effects of fog oil were very similar to those 
describe in the FEIS. The committee developed an 8 hours per day, 5 
days per week, Permissible Exposure Guidance Level (PEGL) of 5 mg/m\3\ 
for soldiers involved in training. The report noted that this level is 
often exceeded around the generators when soldiers train, and therefore 
recommended careful adherence to the Army's existing respiratory 
protection policy.
    The Committee recommended a Permissible Public Exposure Guidance 
Level (PPEGL) of 0.5 mg/m\3\ (exposure for 8 hours per day, 5 days per 
week), which is considered to be safe for sensitive individuals in the 
general public. Extensive air modeling using deconservative assumptions 
was completed during the preparation of the application for the air 
permit for fog oil training at FLW. Modeling results demonstrated that 
fog oil concentrations at the boundary of FLW and at the boundary of 
the cantonment area will not exceed short-term and long-term exposure 
standards developed by the Committee for the general public. Field and 
scientific studies document that of fog oil from smoke training onto 
vegetation is minute. As concluded in the FEIS, and supported by 
conclusions of the NAS Committee on toxicology, adverse health effects 
to the general public are not anticipated to occur to those living or 
working within the FLW cantonment area, or those living outside the FLW 
boundaries.
    Adverse health impacts to the general public as a result of toxic 
agent training at the CDTF are not anticipated. As documented in the 
FEIS, this training activity is rigidly controlled to protect human 
health and safety of the instructors, soldiers that are trained, and 
the general public. The FEIS notes that this training activity has been 
accomplished for the last 10 years at Fort McClellan without an 
incident that threatened the health of any individual either inside or 
outside of the CDTF facility.

Quality of Life/Human Health Impact Mitigation Commitments

    No significant adverse impacts are expected to occur under the 
``Quality of Life'' evaluation category and therefore, no mitigation is 
required for the Quality of Life component of this evaluation category.
    No significant adverse impacts are expected to occur to human 
health as a result of implementation of the Army's Preferred 
Alternative. However, in response to comments received from review 
agencies and the general public on the Draft EIS, the FEIS identifies a 
number of measures that will be implemented by the Army to ensure that 
significant adverse impacts do not occur. The Army commits to 
constructing and operating the CDTF and flame field expedient training 
facilities in full compliance with the protective measures described as 
part of the Army's Preferred Alternative. An impervious liner will be 
constructed under the flame range area to ensure that groundwater 
supplies are not adversely impacted by this training activity.
    With regard to fog oil obscurant training, the Army commits to the 
full development, coordination and implementation of the Human Health 
Monitoring Plan as summarized in subsection 5.2.2.15.A and 5.2.2.15.B 
of the FEIS. The Army commits to additional sampling, mutagenicity 
testing and chemical analysis of fog oil smoke to confirm that no 
significant chemical transformations occur. The methodology used for 
testing and analysis may be modified with concurrence of USEPA if it is 
determined that other methodologies are more suitable and will produce 
more accurate data. The referenced testing and analysis is not expected 
to further assist in making an informed choice among the training 
alternatives analyzed in the FEIS. However, the results of this 
additional testing will be used and evaluated in accordance with the 
adaptive management strategy procedure described as part of the Human 
Health Monitoring Plan (see reference above). As stated in subsection 
5.2.2.15.B.1 of Volume 1 of the FEIS (top of Page 5-138) the Army 
commits to completing this additional testing and analysis prior to 
implementation of fog oil training at FLW.
    If the results of the testing described above result in exceedance 
of any established health criteria, the Army commits to developing and 
implementing a supplemental air monitoring plan (beyond the 
requirements of the Air Monitoring Plan to be implemented in accordance 
with the MDNR Air Quality Permit #0695010 for fog oil training) for any 
chemical constituents of concern.
    The Army will develop a Public Awareness Program to inform the 
public in the surrounding community and those living at, working at, or 
visiting FLW about fog oil obscurant training, and the potential health 
risks associated with exposures to fog oil. Appendix L has been 
included as part of Volume III of the FEIS to describe the intent and 
general scope of the Public Awareness Program. As stated in Appendix L, 
the Public Awareness Program will be implemented a minimum of three

[[Page 28685]]

months prior the initiation of fog oil training at FLW.

5.15  Installation Agreements

    The FEIS concludes that implementation of the Army's Preferred 
Alternative will result in a requirement to develop new Intraservice 
and Interservice Support Agreements among the various components to 
conduct operations at FLW. No adverse impacts are anticipated, since 
these agreements are designed to ensure that all parties are aware of, 
and comply with all applicable procedures governing ongoing operations 
at FLW.

Installation Agreement Impact Mitigation Commitments

    No adverse impacts are expected, and therefore, no mitigation is 
required.

5.16  Operational Efficiency

    The collocation and consolidation of the U.S. Army Engineer School 
(existing at FLW) with the relocated Chemical School and Military 
Police School as specified in the Army's Preferred Alternative provides 
for the maximum amount of interaction among the school staff and 
students. This increased positive interaction will substantially 
improve the synergism (operational efficiency and effectiveness) as 
described in applicable sections of the FEIS.

Operational Efficiency Impact Mitigation Commitments

    No adverse impacts are expected, and therefore, no mitigation is 
required.

6. Conclusions

    On behalf of the department of the Army, I have decided to proceed 
with actions required to relocate the U.S. Army Chemical School and the 
U.S. Army Military police School to FLW. I have carefully considered 
the FEIS, supporting studies, all comments provided during formal 
comment and waiting periods throughout the EIS process, and the NAS 
Committee report. Based on this review, I have determined that the 
Army's Preferred Action (including implementation of the Optimum 
Training Method Alternative, the Army's Proposed Land Use and Facility 
Plan (Combined Headquarters and Instruction), and the Phased Move 
Alternative) strikes the proper balance between the necessary 
protection of the environment, and the national defense interest of 
maintaining the ability of the Chemical School and Military Police 
School to complete mission essential training activities. Furthermore, 
I have determined that the Army has identified and adopted all 
practicable means to avoid or minimize harm to the environment that may 
be cased by implementation of the planned action.

    Dated: May 15, 1997.
Robert M. Walker,
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, Logistics & 
Environment).
[FR Doc. 97-13802 Filed 5-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M