[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36785-36789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-17901]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of Naval Base
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
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. 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 Base
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Naval Base property is composed of
Naval Station Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard.
Navy intends to dispose of the property in a manner that is
consistent with the Community Reuse Plan for the Philadelphia Naval
Base and Shipyard (``Reuse Plan'') submitted on November 22, 1994, by
the City of Philadelphia, the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for
the Naval Base. The Reuse Plan proposes a mix of industrial,
commercial, educational, research and development, residential,
warehousing, intermodal transportation and open space uses of the
property.
In its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Navy evaluated
a ``No action'' alternative and three ``action'' alternatives: the
Reuse Plan, described in the FEIS as the preferred alternative; the
Mustin Field Retail Alternative; and the Mustin Field Natural Area
Alternative.
In deciding to dispose of the Naval Base, Navy has determined that
the Reuse Plan will meet the goals of achieving local economic
redevelopment of the closing facilities and creating new jobs, while
limiting adverse environmental impacts and ensuring land uses that are
compatible with adjacent property. This Record Of Decision leaves
selection of the particular means to achieve the proposed redevelopment
to the acquiring entity and the local zoning authority.
BACKGROUND: The 1991 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
recommended closure of the Naval Station and the Capehart Housing that
was associated with the Naval Base. The 1991 Commission also
recommended closure and preservation of the Naval Shipyard for emergent
requirements and retention of the Naval Foundry and Propeller Center,
the Naval Inactive Ships Maintenance Facility, and the Naval Surface
Warfare Center's (Carderock Division) Ship Systems Engineering Station.
Theses recommendations were approved by President Bush and accepted by
the One Hundred Second Congress in 1991.
The 1995 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission modified
the 1991 Commission's recommendation by eliminating the direction to
preserve the Naval Shipyard for emergent requirements. The 1995
Commission's recommendation was approved by President Clinton and
accepted by the One Hundred Fourth Congress in 1995.
Navy will also retain at the Naval Base certain other support
activities, including a Detachment of Public Works Center Norfolk, the
League Island Branch Clinic of National Naval Medical Center Bethesda,
and a Detachment of the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center Norfolk. The
designated Naval activities closed in September 1996, and the property
has been in caretaker status since that date.
The Naval Base is located at the confluence of the Delaware and
Schuylkill Rivers on League Island, four miles south of the central
business district of the City of Philadelphia. All of the Naval Base
properties are situated on League Island except the Capehart Housing,
which is located one mile northwest of the Naval Base.
The Naval Base occupies about 1,500 acres on League Island, and the
nearby Capehart Housing is situated on about 28 acres of land. There
are approximately 545 structures containing more than 11 million square
feet of floor space at the Naval Base. The western half of the Base is
more developed and contains facilities associated with the maintenance
and production operations of the Naval Shipyard as well as five
drydocks. The eastern half is less developed and contains the inactive
Mustin Field that served the former Naval Aircraft Factory.
Administrative and support facilities, the Bachelor Enlisted
Quarters and Officers' and the Reserve Basin where inactive Naval
vessels are moored occupy the center of the Base. The property north of
the Reserve Basin contains warehouses, the brig, industrial support
facilities, the fire fighting school, and open storage areas. Senior
Officers' houses are located along the Delaware River waterfront east
of the pier area.
Navy published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on
December 28, 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 the Naval Base. A thirty-
day public scoping period was established, and Navy held a public
scoping meeting on January 11, 1995, at the South Philadelphia
Community Center.
On January 30, 1996, Navy distributed a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) to Federal, State and local agencies, interested
parties and the general public. Navy held a public hearing at the South
Philadelphia Community Center on February 15, 1996, to discuss the
DEIS. During the forty-five day review period after publication of the
DEIS, Federal, State, and local agencies submitted written comments
concerning the DEIS. These comments and Navy's responses were
incorporated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, which was
distributed to the public on June 21, 1996, for a thirty-day review
period that concluded on July 22, 1996. Navy received comments on the
FEIS from the Department of the Interior, two Pennsylvania State
agencies, Health Alternatives International, Inc., the Philadelphia
International Development Group, and one individual.
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 would result from disposal of the Naval Base
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.
Navy relied upon the land uses described in the Reuse Plan as the
basis
[[Page 36786]]
for its analysis of the preferred ``action'' alternative, which
proposed a medium intensity development of the Base. Navy developed and
analyzed two other ``action'' alternatives characterized by high and
low intensity development scenarios.
The first ``action'' alternative, the Reuse Plan, divides the Naval
Base property into five areas. First, the Shipyard, located in the
western part of the Naval Base, would serve as the core area for
manufacturing and heavy industrial activities. The western end of the
Shipyard, containing Drydocks 3, 4, and 5 and associated buildings,
would be redeveloped as a private shipyard with controlled public
access. The eastern end of the Shipyard, containing Drydocks 1 and 2,
would be redeveloped to permit those industrial activities that require
contact with the public.
Second, the League Island Center, located east of the Shipyard area
between Broad Street and Mustin Field, would support a mix of land uses
including administrative and educational, research and development,
commercial and recreational and light industrial activities. The uses
in this area would include administrative and professional offices,
educational institutions, light industrial activities associated with
research, bed and breakfast lodging, and restaurants.
Third, the Girard Point Industrial Park, located in the
northwestern part of the Naval Base, would support the property's
industrial activities by providing facilities for storage and large
scale distribution of materials.
Fourth, the East End Commerce Park, located at the eastern end of
the Naval Base on the former Mustin Field, would support a mix of land
uses including transportation, light and heavy industrial operations,
research and development, and recreational activities. These uses could
include an intermodal railyard, warehousing, a waterfront esplanade,
and passive recreation spaces.
Fifth, the 400-unit Capehart Housing property, located about one
mile northwest of the Naval Base, would be converted to private, market
rate housing. After redevelopment, these houses would be sold. The net
proceeds from the sale would be used to capitalize a Rental Assistance
Endowment Fund that would provide rental assistance and other support
services to the City's homeless assistance providers.
The second ``action'' alternative, the Mustin Field Retail
Alternative, proposed a high intensity reuse of the Naval Base.
Redevelopment of the Shipyard, League Island Center, Girard Point
Industrial Park and Capehart Housing would proceed as proposed in the
Reuse Plan, but the eastern end of the Naval Base would be redeveloped
differently. A commercial services zone featuring a regional shopping
complex would be developed on about 300 acres at Mustin Field. This
complex would be composed of a retail mall with approximately two
million square feet of space, specialty stores and restaurants, an
entertainment complex, warehouses, and centrally located parking and
access facilities.
The third ``action'' alternative, the Mustin Field Natural Area
Alternative, proposed a lower intensity reuse of the Naval Base. As in
the second alternative, redevelopment of the Shipyard, League Island
Center, Girard Point Industrial Park and Capehart Housing would proceed
as proposed in the Reuse Plan, but the eastern end of the Naval Base
would remain undeveloped. The concrete runways of Mustin Field would be
allowed to deteriorate naturally, and existing vegetation would be
permitted to grow with little or no maintenance. The enlisted family
housing along the Delaware River at the eastern end of the Naval Base
would be demolished. The Mustin Field Natural Area Alternative also
proposed a recreational zone consisting of a waterfront visitors'
center and esplanade along the Delaware River. This Natural Area would
be fenced to prevent illegal dumping and other inappropriate uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Navy analyzed the potential impacts of the ``No
action'' and three ``action'' alternatives for their effects on land
use compatibility, socioeconomics, public services, transportation, air
quality, noise, cultural resources, natural resources, and generation
of hazardous materials. This Record Of Decision focuses on the impacts
that would likely result from implementation of the Reuse Plan.
The Reuse Plan's proposed use of land would be consistent and
compatible with the existing uses of adjacent land in South
Philadelphia, because the area around the Naval base contains primarily
industrial activities. The Reuse Plan's proposal for redevelopment of
the Capehart Housing would not have any adverse impact, because this
property would continue to be used for housing.
The Reuse Plan would not result in any significant adverse
socioeconomic impacts. Indeed, the Plan forecasts new direct employment
opportunities in the range of 15,700 jobs and secondary employment of
more than 20,000 jobs. The Reuse Plan projects that, at full build-out,
the property will generate wage tax revenues of about $21.5 million and
real property tax revenues of about $19.2 million.
Under the Reuse Plan, the City will sell the Capehart Housing on
the open market. The release of these housing units could have an
adverse impact on real estate property values in South Philadelphia.
Thus, to mitigate this impact, the City will develop a phased marketing
plan that would not cause a decrease in property values in the
surrounding neighborhoods.
The Reuse Plan would not cause any significant adverse impact on
community services. It will be necessary to expand the service area for
South Philadelphia emergency and medical service providers, but the
response times will remain within five to ten minutes.
Implementation of the Reuse Plan would generate an increase in
traffic. There would be 10,395 more peak morning trips and 12,417 more
peak afternoon trips than would be expected under the ``No action''
alternative. Additionally, the Plan would have various impacts on
traffic in the surrounding roadway network during commuting periods.
In response, the City has proposed to change traffic patterns for
the following intersections: Interstate Highway 95 (North) at Broad
Street; Interstate Highway 95 (South) as Broad Street; and Penrose
Avenue at 26th Street. The City has also proposed to build two new
access points to the Naval Base at Christopher Columbus Boulevard and
at Darien Street. Nevertheless, the intersection of Interstate Highway
95 and Broad Street and the intersection of Packer Avenue and Darien
Street would experience significant increased traffic that will require
roadway improvements beyond those already identified by the City.
The Reuse Plan would not result in any significant impacts to air
quality. As a result of the projected increase in traffic, carbon
monoxide levels would be higher from activities in the Reuse Plan that
in the ``No action'' alternative. There would not, however, be any
violations of the one-hour and eight-hour National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for carbon monoxide.
There would not be any significant impacts from noise. The existing
noise levels on the property are dominated by industrial activities.
The existing noise levels in nearby residential and recreational areas
are high and typical of urban neighborhoods. While the Reuse Plan would
slightly increase noise levels along Pattison Avenue at
[[Page 36787]]
Roosevelt Park and along parts of Broad Street during peak traffic
hours, most areas would experience noise increases that would be barely
perceptible. Measured against the levels identified as acceptable in
Section 10-400 of the Philadelphia Municipal Code, the noise levels
generated by the Reuse Plan are not significant.
There are two historic districts that are eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic places. These two districts are
located in the western part of the Naval Base. The Reuse Plan would
adversely affect buildings in this historic districts. Accordingly, on
March 23, 1997, Navy, the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation
Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation entered into
a Programmatic Agreement (PA) concerning these structures. The PA
establishes a framework for applying restrictive covenants that require
consultation between the owner of the Naval Base property and the
Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer before demolition or
alteration of historic buildings and structures and before alteration
of the historic districts. The City of Philadelphia concurred with this
Agreement on April 8, 1997.
No significant impact on biological resources would result from the
Reuse Plan. The Naval Base has been fully developed, and few natural
features remain. While some vegetative areas would be lost in the
redevelopment, the habitat loss is not unique to the Naval Base and can
readily be found elsewhere along the Delaware River.
There are two endangered species that are listed on the Federal
endangered species list and present at the Naval Base. A pair of
peregrine falcons nest in the Interstate Highway 95 bridge that crosses
the Naval Base, and the shortnose sturgeon has been observed in the
Delaware River. Navy has informally consulted with the United States
Fish & Wildlife Service and will place a Notice in the conveyance
document that describes actions recommended by the Department of the
Interior to minimize impacts to the nesting falcons. Similarly, Navy
will place a Notice in the conveyance document that the shortnose
sturgeon may be present in the Delaware River.
The eastern end of the Naval Base contains about 26 acres of
freshwater wetlands. The Reuse Plan's proposed construction of an
intermodal railyard, industrial facilities, and warehouses may disturb
or eliminate these wetlands. Thus, the acquiring entity will be
required to obtain permits from the United States Army Corps of
Engineers and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
in accordance with Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (FWPCA), 33 U.S.C. 1344, and from the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection in accordance with the Regulations Governing
Dam Safety and Water Management, 25 Pa. Code Section 105 et seq. The
stringent requirements of these laws should provide adequate mitigation
for the loss of wetlands.
About 90 percent of the Naval Base property lies within the 100-
year floodplain. The remaining 10 percent lies between the 100-year and
500-year floodplains. Therefore, any construction arising out of
implementation of the Reuse Plan would likely affect the floodplain.
Much of the Naval Base is already developed with waterfront industrial
uses that have been active for more than 100 years. Nevertheless, in
accordance with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, dated May
24, 1977, Navy will place a Notice in the conveyance document that
describes those uses that are restricted under Federal, State, and
local floodplain regulations.
Implementation of the Reuse Plan would not result in any
significant impacts on surface waters. All new construction and any
alteration of land must conform to the treatment and runoff control
requirements of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
as set forth at 25 Pa. Code Section 102.4. Additionally, under FWPCA,
33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., any new source of wastewater discharge would be
required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Program.
Historically, large quantities of hazardous waste were generated at
the Naval Base. As a consequence, fifteen Installation Restoration
sites have been established and are undergoing study or cleanup. Navy
is responsible for remediating these sites. Other hazardous waste
cleanup and remediation actions, including the closure or removal of
underground storage tanks, abatement of friable and accessible
asbestos, and removal of PCB transformers, are also underway throughout
the Naval Base.
No significant adverse impacts would be caused by the hazardous
materials and hazardous waste that may be generated by the Reuse Plan.
Those Navy activities that will remain on the Naval Base will generate
less hazardous substances than when the Shipyard was fully operational.
The nature and amount of hazardous waste that would result from
implementation of the Reuse Plan depends upon the nature and extent of
future redevelopment at the Naval Base. Those whose use hazardous
materials will be subject to inspection by the Philadelphia Fire
Department in accordance with the Worker and Community Right-to-Know
Act. 35 P.S. Section 7312, and will be required to submit information
concerning their use of hazardous materials by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection's regulations, set forth at 34
Pa. Code Section 301 et seq.
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. All groups would
experience equally any impact related to reuse of the Navy Base
property within the regional population.
MITIGATION: Implementation of Navy's decision to dispose of the Naval
Base does not require Navy to perform any mitigation measures. The FEIS
identified and discussed the actions that would be necessary to
mitigate 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. The historic property will
be protected by the use of restrictive covenants in the deed conveying
the property.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE FEIS: In response to the FEIS, Navy received
comments from the United States Department of the Interior, the
Pennsylvania Game Commission, the Pennsylvania Human Relations
Commission, Health Alternatives International, Inc., the Philadelphia
International Development Group, and one private citizen.
The Department of the Interior expressed concern about the
protection of wetlands, loss of habitat, and public access for
recreational use of the Naval Base. Interior also favored the Mustin
Field Natural Area Alternative, Navy will place a Notice in the
conveyance document identifying the location and extent of wetlands
that exist on the Naval Base.
The Pennsylvania Game Commission expressed concern about the
potential effect on the peregrine falcon arising out of reuse of the
Naval Base. Navy will place a Notice in the conveyance
[[Page 36788]]
document describing the Department of the Interior's recommendations
for minimizing impacts on the nesting falcons.
In its comment on the DEIS, the Pennsylvania Human Relations
Commission asked Navy to address methods of monitoring compliance with
civil rights laws in the future marketing of the Capehart Housing. The
Commission's comment on the FEIS stated that Navy had adequately
addressed this issue.
Health Alternatives International, Inc. asked that the acquiring
entity convert a building for use as a center for volunteers who would
coordinate educational outreach to the community. It also requested
continued operation of the child care center and recreational
facilities. Navy has provided these requests to the Local Redevelopment
Authority for its consideration.
A private entity, the Philadelphia International Development Group
(PIDG), suggested that the eastern part of the Base should be
redeveloped as a mixed use property that would provide commercial,
retail, entertainment and manufacturing activities similar in nature,
extent, and impact to the Mustin Field Retail Alternative. Navy also
provided PIDG's proposal to the LRA for its consideration.
One private citizen expressed concern about the effects of reuse
and redevelopment on community and emergency services in South
Philadelphia. This citizen was also concerned about the traffic
congestion that could occur during a ``triple event'', described as
simultaneous public events at three nearly athletic facilities, i.e.,
Veterans Stadium, the Spectrum, and the Core States Center. Navy
concluded that there is sufficient response time and that there are
adequate facilities for reasonably foreseeable emergencies.
Additionally, the City regards the possibility of ``triple event''
traffic congestion as unlikely.
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, Navy's decision 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 effect
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 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. 110-47.303-2); by negotiated sale (FPMR Sec. 101-
47.304-8); and by competitive sale (FPMR 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
[[Page 36789]]
rests solely within the Secretary of the Navy's discretion.
CONCLUSION: The Reuse Plan prepared by the City of Philadelphia 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 light and heavy
industrial, manufacturing, administrative, research and development,
educational, intermodal transportation, and waterfront commercial and
industrial activities. 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.
The Reuse Plan responds to local and regional economic conditions,
promotes rapid economic recovery from the impact of the Base'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 FR 16123 (1994). 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.
Although the ``No action'' alternative has less potential for
causing adverse environmental impacts, that alternative would not
alleviate the economic hardship that Congress expressly recognized as
accompanying base closures. It would not foster local economic
redevelopment of the Naval Base property and would not create new jobs.
Additionally, it would not take advantage of the property's location,
physical characteristics, and infrastructure or the current uses of
adjacent property.
Accordingly, Navy will dispose of Naval Base Philadelphia in a
manner that is consistent with the City of Philadelphia's Reuse Plan
for the property.
Dated: June 26, 1997.
William J. Cassidy, Jr.,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Conversion and Redevelopment).
[FR Doc. 97-17901 Filed 7-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M
