[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1602-1607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-642]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of Naval Hospital
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. 4332(2)(C) (1994), 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 Hospital
Philadelphia, which is located in Philadelphia, PA.
Navy analyzed the impacts of the disposal and reuse of Naval
Hospital Philadelphia in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as
required by NEPA. The EIS analyzed three reuse alternatives and
identified the Philadelphia Naval Hospital Community Reuse Plan (Reuse
Plan), approved by the City of Philadelphia on June 17, 1999, and
described in the EIS as the Naval Hospital Reuse Plan Alternative, as
the Preferred Alternative.
The Preferred Alternative proposed to use the Naval Hospital
property for residential purposes and for commercial activities and to
develop public parks and recreational areas. The City of Philadelphia
is the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for the Naval Hospital.
Department of Defense Rule on Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and
Community Assistance (DoD Rule), 32 CFR 176.20(a).
Navy intends to dispose of Naval Hospital Philadelphia in a manner
that is consistent with the Reuse Plan. Navy has determined that the
proposed mixed land use will meet the goals of achieving local economic
redevelopment, creating new jobs, and providing additional housing,
while limiting adverse environmental impacts and ensuring land uses
that are compatible with adjacent property. This Record of Decision
does not mandate a specific mix of land uses. Rather, it leaves
selection of the particular means to achieve the proposed redevelopment
to the acquiring entity and the local zoning authority.
Background
Under the authority of the Defense Authorization Amendments and
Base Closure and Realignment Act, Public Law 100-526, 10 U.S.C. 2687
note (1994), the 1988 Defense Secretary's Commission on Base
Realignment and Closure recommended the closure of Naval Hospital
Philadelphia. This recommendation was approved by the Secretary of
Defense, Frank Carlucci, and accepted by the One Hundred First Congress
in 1989. The Naval Hospital closed on September 30, 1991.
Naval Hospital Philadelphia is situated on 49 acres in the southern
part of the City of Philadelphia. The property is oriented along the
east-west axis with a rectangular border. The property is bounded on
the north by Hartranft Street; on the east by Broad Street; on the
South by Pattison Avenue; and on the west by 20th Street. There are
residential neighborhoods north of the Naval Hospital property; a
sports stadium complex composed of Veterans Stadium, First Union
Spectrum, and First Union Center located east and southeast of the
hospital; Franklin D. Roosevelt Park located south and southwest of the
hospital; and former Navy family residences known as Capehart Housing
to the west of the hospital.
This Record of Decision addresses the disposal and reuse of the
entire Naval Hospital property, which is surplus to the needs of the
Federal Government. The surplus property, covering 49 acres, contains
56 buildings that provide about 687,000 square feet of space. The 15-
story main Hospital building (Building 1) and its wings (Buildings 2
and 3) were built in 1935 and account for about half of the Hospital's
floor space. Nearly all of the remaining 53 structures are one-story
buildings.
Navy published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on March
23, 1994, announcing that the Navy would prepare an EIS for the
disposal and reuse of Naval Hospital Philadelphia. On April 6, 1994,
Navy held a public scoping meeting at the Holy Spirit Roman Catholic
Church in Philadelphia, and the scoping period concluded on April 29,
1994. On July 8, 1994, Navy
[[Page 1603]]
reopened the scoping comment period for an additional 14 days.
Navy distributed the Draft EIS (DEIS) to Federal, State, and local
agencies, elected officials, interested parties, and the general public
on February 24, 1995, and commenced a 45-day public review and comment
period. During this period, Federal, State, and local agencies,
community groups and associations, and interested persons submitted
oral and written comments concerning the DEIS. On March 22, 1995, Navy
held a public hearing at Holy Spirit Church to receive comments on the
DEIS.
After the public comment period for the DEIS concluded, Navy
developed additional alternatives for the disposal and reuse of the
Navy Hospital and prepared a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (Supplemental DEIS). Navy distributed the Supplemental DEIS
to Federal, State, and local agencies, elected officials, interested
parties, and the general public on October 11, 1996, and commenced a
45-day public review and comment period. During this period, Federal,
State, and local agencies, community groups and associations, and
interested persons submitted oral and written comments concerning the
Supplemental DEIS.
Navy's responses to the public comments on the Supplemental DEIS
were incorporated in the Final EIS (FEIS), which was distributed to the
public on October 29, 1999, for a review period that concluded on
November 29, 1999. During the period between conclusion of the comment
period for the Supplemental DEIS and distribution of the FEIS, Navy
engaged in the consultations concerning cultural resources prescribed
by section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16
U.S.C. 470f (1994). Navy concluded these consultations in August 1999.
Navy received one letter commenting on the FEIS.
Alternatives
NEPA requires Navy to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives
for the disposal and reuse of this surplus Federal property. In the
FEIS, Navy analyzed the environmental impacts of three reuse
alternatives. Navy also evaluated a ``No Action'' alternative that
would leave the property in caretaker status with Navy maintaining the
physical condition of the property, providing a security force, and
making repairs essential to safety.
On August 10, 1993, the Mayor's Commission on Defense Conversion
adopted the Philadelphia Navy Hospital Community Reuse Plan. Navy
identified this initial reuse plan as the Preferred Alternative in the
DEIS dated February 1995 and in the Supplemental DEIS dated September
1996. In mid-1999, the City of Philadelphia modified the 1993 reuse
plan by changing the mix of proposed uses to provide for the
development of administrative and training facilities for the
Philadelphia Eagles, a professional football team, at the eastern end
of the property. To accommodate these facilities, the City eliminated
the 120-bed nursing home proposed in 1993 and reduced the amount of
property to be used for parks and recreational activities from 30 acres
to seven acres. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission approved
these modifications to the 1993 reuse plan on June 17, 1999.
The Reuse Plan approved in 1999 and identified in the FEIS as the
Preferred Alternative proposed a mix of land uses. The Preferred
Alternative would use about 15 acres for residential purposes; 27 acres
for the Eagles complex; and seven acres for parks and recreational
activities. It will be necessary to demolish nearly all of the
buildings, including the main Hospital building and its wings
(Buildings 1, 2, and 3), and to replace the property's utility
distribution systems to support the Reuse Plan's proposed redevelopment
of the site.
In the western half of the property, the Preferred Alternative
proposed to build a townhouse residential complex on 15 acres that
would provide about 150 new townhouses. On seven acres east of the
residential complex, this Alternative would develop a park and
recreational area to be incorporated in the adjacent Roosevelt Park and
build a parking lot with a capacity of 1,000 vehicles to serve
Roosevelt Park and the adjacent sports stadium complex.
In the eastern half of the property, the Preferred Alternative
would develop the Philadelphia Eagles administrative and training
complex on about 27 acres. This complex would consist of a building
with 104,000 square feet of space for administrative offices, training
activities, and a sports medicine and rehabilitation center; three
outdoor practice football fields; one indoor practice football field
covered by a fabric bubble; a maintenance garage; and a 200-vehicle
parking lot. A commercial medical care provider would manage the
rehabilitation facility in partnership with the Eagles, and the
facility would also be available for use by the public.
Navy analyzed a second ``action'' alternative, described in the
FEIS as the Main Building Reuse Alternative. This Alternative would
retain the main Hospital building and wings (Buildings 1, 2, and 3) and
demolish the other structures on the Naval Hospital property.
In the center of the property, the main Hospital building and its
two wings would be converted into a residential complex composed of
about 150 apartments. North of the Hospital wings, the Main Building
Reuse Alternative would build 100 townhouses on about ten acres.
On about 15 acres at the western end of the property, the Main
Building Reuse Alternative would develop parks and recreational areas
to be incorporated in Roosevelt Park. On about 11 acres at the eastern
end of the property, this Alternative would develop a parking area with
a capacity of 1,100 vehicles to serve Roosevelt Park and the adjacent
sports stadium complex.
Navy analyzed a third ``action'' alternative, described in the FEIS
as the Retail Alternative. Under this Alternative, all of the Naval
Hospital buildings would be demolished to permit the development of a
commercial retail center. This Alternative would also develop parks and
recreational areas similar in size and purpose to the Main Building
Reuse Alternative.
In the center of the property, the Retail Alternative proposed to
develop a retail complex covering 23 acres. This complex would consist
of two retail buildings that would each provide 100,000 square feet of
space; fast food restaurants with 10,000 square feet of space; and a
parking lot with a capacity of 750 vehicles to serve the retail stores.
On about 15 acres at the western end of the property, the Retail
Alternative would develop parks and recreational areas to be
incorporated in Roosevelt Park. On about 11 acres at the eastern end of
the property, this alternative would develop another parking area with
a capacity of 1,100 vehicles to serve Roosevelt Park and the adjacent
sports stadium complex.
Environmental Impacts
Navy analyzed the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the
disposal and reuse of this surplus Federal property. The EIS addressed
impacts of the Preferred Alternative, the Main Building Reuse
Alternative, the Retail Alternative, and the ``No Action'' Alternative
for each alternative's effects on land use and zoning, socioeconomics,
community facilities and services, transportation, air quality, noise,
infrastructure, cultural resources, natural resources, and petroleum
and hazardous substances. This Record of Decision focuses on the
impacts that would likely result from
[[Page 1604]]
implementation of the Reuse Plan, identified in the FEIS as the
Preferred Alternative.
The Preferred Alternative would not have any significant impact on
land use and would result in land uses that are compatible with
existing and planned uses in the surrounding community. Indeed, the
Naval Hospital property is zoned to permit the proposed redevelopment.
The sports medicine and rehabilitation facility would be available
to the public. The proposed expansion of Roosevelt Park would serve
residents of the surrounding community by providing additional
recreational resources closer to their homes. The proposed parking lot
adjacent to Roosevelt Park would accommodate the parking requirements
generated by those visiting Roosevelt Park and the nearby sports
stadium complex.
The Preferred Alternative would not have any impact on the
socioeconomics of the surrounding area. It proposed to build 150 new
townhouses that would provide housing for 480 people. This additional
housing would increase the population projected to live in south
Philadelphia in the full buildout year, 2002, by about 0.3 percent.
The Preferred Alternative would not likely add a large number of
new jobs to the region, because the Philadelphia Eagles already
maintains administrative, training, and medical facilities in south
Philadelphia. The Eagles would, however, move 150 direct jobs
generating $70 million in direct payroll earnings to the proposed
facility on the eastern half of the property. By the year 2002, this
alternative would create about 10 direct jobs and 421 indirect jobs
that would generate about $0.4 million in direct payroll earnings and
$88 million in indirect earnings. The Preferred Alternative would
generate about $1.17 million annually in property tax revenue.
The Preferred Alternative would not have any significant impact on
community services. By the year 2002, the Preferred Alternative would
generate an increase of about 119 school-age children living in the
area. This would increase the projected number of school-age children
in south Philadelphia about 0.44 percent. Property tax revenues would
increase as property previously owned by the Federal Government became
taxable and these revenues could be used to support local schools.
The proposed redevelopment of Naval Hospital Philadelphia would not
increase the demand on fire, rescue, and police protection services in
south Philadelphia. By the year 2002, the population in this part of
the city will be five percent less than it was in the year 1990, and
this area already has adequate fire, rescue, and police protection
services. Additionally, implementation of the Preferred Alternative
would increase local government revenues by expanding the property tax
base. These revenues could be used to fund fire, rescue, and police
protection services.
Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would increase the
amount of parks and open space in south Philadelphia. Under this
alternative, the expansion of Roosevelt Park would provide additional
recreational resources for residents of south Philadelphia. It would
also provide additional parking for those visiting Roosevelt Park and
the adjacent sports stadium complex.
The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on
transportation. By the year 2002, this alternative would generate about
2,000 average daily trips, a decrease of 1,850 average daily trips from
the conditions that prevailed when the Naval Hospital was active. The
Naval Hospital property has not generated a substantial number of
average daily trips since it was placed in caretaker status in 1993.
Thus, compared with the ``No Action'' Alternative, the Preferred
Alternative would increase the amount of traffic in the area.
Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would cause a minor
delay at the intersection of Broad Street and Pattison Avenue. However,
this delay would not affect the operation of the intersection and would
not have a significant impact on transportation. There is adequate
public transportation in south Philadelphia to support the proposed
redevelopment of the Naval Hospital property.
The Preferred Alternative would not have any significant impact on
air quality. The Naval Hospital property is located in a severe
nonattainment area for ozone as regulated by the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C. 7401-7671q (1994). Ozone, commonly known as smog, is produced
when volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides react in the
atmosphere. The Naval Hospital property is in attainment for all other
common air pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act. However,
emissions of one common air pollutant, carbon monoxide (CO), would
increase under the Reuse Plan.
Carbon monoxide is produced by the burning of fossil fuels. As a
result of vehicular traffic moving to and from the property, the annual
emissions of CO would increase slightly under the Reuse Plan.
Nevertheless, there would not be any violation of the national
standards governing emissions of carbon monoxide.
The impact on air quality from sources of stationary emissions,
such as heating units, would depend upon the nature and extent of
activities conducted on the property. Developers of future facilities
will be responsible for obtaining the required air permits and for
complying with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations governing
air pollution. The temporary impacts on air quality resulting from
construction activities would not be significant.
Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506 (1994),
requires Federal agencies to review their proposed activities to ensure
that these activities do not hamper local efforts to control air
pollution. Section 176(c) prohibits Federal agencies from conducting
activities in air quality areas such as Philadelphia that do not meet
one or more of the national standards for ambient air quality, unless
the proposed activities conform to an approved implementation plan. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations implementing section
176(c) recognize certain categorically exempt activities. Conveyance of
title to real property and certain leases are categorically exempt
activities. 40 CFR 93.153(c)(2) (xiv) and (xix). Therefore, the
disposal of Naval Hospital Philadelphia will not require Navy to
conduct a conformity determination.
The Preferred Alternative would not have any significant impact on
noise. No substantial change in ambient noise levels would occur as a
result of the increased vehicular traffic. In fact, at none of the six
sites analyzed would the increase in noise be perceptible to the human
ear, i.e., greater than three decibels. The existing noise levels in
the vicinity of the Naval Hospital are typical of an urban neighborhood
and are already high.
The Preferred Alternative would not have any significant impact on
the capacity of the region's utility systems. The Reuse Plan's
projected daily demand for potable water would amount to less than one
percent of the City's excess water supply; therefore, there would not
be any significant impact on the supply of potable water.
The proposed redevelopment of the Naval Hospital property would not
have a significant impact on the City's wastewater treatment capacity.
The Reuse Plan would require about 0.047 million gallons per day of
treatment capacity, which is substantially less
[[Page 1605]]
than the City's excess capacity of about 12 million gallons per day.
The Preferred Alternative would generate less solid waste than Navy
did when the Naval Hospital was operational. Since the City has
adequate disposal capacity, no significant impact is likely to occur
from the disposal of solid waste.
Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in
demolition of most of the buildings on the property. As a result, it
would be necessary to build new utility distribution systems to serve
the new facilities.
The Preferred Alternative would have a significant impact on
cultural resources. Pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470f (1994), Navy conducted
a cultural resource survey and determined that the Naval Hospital
property is eligible for listing as a historic district on the National
Register of Historic Places. In a letter dated February 28, 1994, the
Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) affirmed the
SHPO's previous determination of the Naval Hospital's eligibility in
1987. Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in
demolition of all structures on the property with the consequent
adverse effect on the historic district.
In accordance with section 106 of NHPA, Navy initiated consultation
with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in August
1997, to determine the appropriate mitigation for loss of the historic
district. Despite substantial efforts, Navy and the ACHP did not reach
agreement on ways to reduce or avoid adverse effects on the historic
district. Thus, Navy concluded that further consultation under section
106 would not be productive. In a letter dated April 2, 1999, Navy
informed the ACHP of its intent to terminate the section 106
consultation process.
In a letter dated July 9, 1999, the ACHP provided its final
comments to the Secretary of the Navy and made three recommendations.
First, the ACHP recommended that Navy convey the property to the City
of Philadelphia on the condition that the City issue a request for
proposals to redevelop the property in a way that would preserve the
main Hospital buildings. Second, the ACHP recommended that Navy
complete recordation of the Naval Hospital property before conveying
it. Third, the ACHP recommended that Navy reevaluate its policy that
discourages conveying historic base closure property with a restrictive
preservation covenant when that restriction would conflict with local
redevelopment plans for the property.
The Secretary of the Navy responded to the ACHP's recommendations
in a letter dated August 6, 1999, stating that Navy will not convey the
property with a preservation covenant but will complete recordation of
the Naval Hospital property before conveying it. The Secretary also
stated that Navy's policy concerning disposal of historic base closure
property seeks to strike a balance between historic preservation
concerns and local redevelopment and zoning considerations. With this
letter, Navy concluded the Section 106 process.
The Preferred Alternative would not have any significant impact on
upland vegetation and wildlife. The existing vegetation on the property
consists largely of maintained lawns and ornamental and naturally
occurring trees and shrubs. The proposed redevelopment would preserve
many of the mature trees.
Navy determined that there were no Federally-listed threatened or
endangered species, as defined by the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 (1994), on the Naval Hospital property. Therefore,
the disposal and reuse of Naval Hospital Philadelphia would not have
any adverse effect on Federally-listed threatened or endangered
species. In a letter dated September 28, 1995, the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service concurred in Navy's determination.
Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would reduce the amount
of impervious surface on the property from 34 acres to 15 acres. As a
result, the amount of stormwater runoff would also decrease. Stormwater
must be managed in accordance with Federal, State, and local laws and
regulations, and the acquiring entity will be responsible for building
adequate drainage facilities.
Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not have any
impact on floodplains. The Naval Hospital property does not lie within
100-year or 500-year floodplains.
The Preferred Alternative would not have any significant impact on
the environment as a result of the use of petroleum products or the use
or generation of hazardous substances by the acquiring entity.
Hazardous materials used and hazardous wastes generated by the Reuse
Plan will be managed in accordance with Federal and State laws and
regulations.
Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not have any
impact on existing environmental contamination at the Naval Hospital.
Navy will inform future property owners about the environmental
condition of the property and may, when appropriate, include
restrictions, notifications, or covenants in deeds to ensure the
protection of human health and the environment in light of the intended
use of the property.
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 3 CFR 859
(1995), requires that Navy determine whether any low-income and
minority populations will experience disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects from the proposed action.
Navy analyzed the impacts on low-income and minority populations
pursuant to Executive Order 12898. The FEIS addressed the potential
environmental, social, and economic impacts associated with the
disposal of Naval Hospital Philadelphia and reuse of the property under
the various proposed alternatives. Minority and low-income populations
residing within the region would not be disproportionately affected.
Indeed, the indirect employment opportunities, housing, and
recreational resources generated by the Reuse Plan would have
beneficial effects.
Navy also analyzed the impacts on children pursuant to Executive
Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks, 3 CFR 198 (1998). Under the Preferred Alternative, the
largest concentration of children would be present in the residential
and recreational areas. The Preferred Alternative would not pose any
disproportionate environmental health or safety risks to children.
Mitigation
Implementation of Navy's decision to dispose of Naval Hospital
Philadelphia does not require Navy to implement any mitigation measures
beyond those discussed here. Navy will take certain other actions to
implement existing agreements and regulations. These actions were
treated in the FEIS as agreements or regulatory requirements rather
than as mitigation. Before conveying any property at Naval Hospital
Philadelphia, Navy will complete recordation of the property to
mitigate adverse impacts to the Naval Hospital historic district.
The FEIS identified and discussed those actions that will be
necessary to mitigate impacts associated with reuse and redevelopment
of the Navy Hospital property. The acquiring entity, under the
direction of Federal, State, and local agencies with regulatory
authority over protected resources, will be responsible
[[Page 1606]]
for implementing necessary mitigation measures.
Comments Received on the FEIS
Navy received comments on the FEIS from one private citizen. These
comments concerned issues already discussed in the FEIS and do not
require further clarification.
Regulations Governing the Disposal Decision
Since the proposed action contemplates a disposal under the Defense
Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (DBCRA), Public Law 101-510,
10 U.S.C. 2687 note (1994), Navy's decision was based upon the
environmental analysis in the FEIS and application of the standards set
forth in the 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 174 and 175.
Section 101-47.303-1 of the FPMR requires that disposals 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 historic 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
the DBCRA directs the Secretary of Defense to exercise this authority
in accordance with GSA's property disposal regulations, set forth in
part 101-47 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 the 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 the DBCRA, may Navy apply
disposal procedures other than those in the FPMR.
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 the 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 174.4 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 LRA's reuse plan and encourage
job creation. As a part of this cooperative approach, the base closure
community's interests, as 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
175.7(d)(3) of the DoD of the DoD Rule provides that the LRA'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 (1994), as implemented by the FPMR, identifies several
mechanisms for disposing of surplus base closure property: by public
benefit conveyance (FPMR Sec. 101-47.303-2); by negotiated sale (FPMR
Sec. 101-47.304-9); and by competitive sale (FPMR 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 left to the Federal agency's
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 LRA's proposed reuse of Naval Hospital Philadelphia, reflected
in the Reuse Plan, is consistent with the requirements of the FPMR and
Section 174.4 of the DoD Rule. The LRA has determined in its Reuse Plan
that the property should be used for various purposes including
residential, commercial, park and recreational. The property's location
and physical characteristics as well as the current uses of adjacent
property make it appropriate for the proposed uses.
The Reuse Plan responds to local economic conditions, promotes
economic recovery from the impact of the closure of the Naval Hospital,
and is consistent with President Clinton's Five-Part Plan for
Revitalizing Base Closure Communities, which emphasizes local economic
redevelopment and creation of new jobs as the means to revitalize these
communities. 32 CFR Parts 174 and 175, 59 FR 16,123 (1994).
Although the ``No Action'' Alternative has less potential for
causing adverse environmental impacts, this Alternative would not take
advantage of the property's location and physical characteristics or
the current uses of adjacent property. Additionally, it would not
foster local economic redevelopment of the Naval Hospital property.
The acquiring entity, under the direction of Federal, State, and
local
[[Page 1607]]
agencies with regulatory authority over protected resources, will be
responsible for adopting practicable means to avoid or minimize
environmental harm that may result from implementing the Reuse Plan.
Accordingly, Navy will dispose of Naval Hospital Philadelphia in a
manner that is consistent with the City of Philadelphia's Reuse Plan
for the property.
Dated: December 21, 1999.
William J. Cassidy, Jr.,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Conversion and Redevelopment).
[FR Doc. 00-642 Filed 1-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M
