[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22033-22038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11889]



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

[[Page 22034]]


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy


Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of the Charleston 
Naval Base, North Charleston, SC

    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 the Charleston Naval Base in North 
Charleston, South Carolina.
    Navy intends to dispose of the Charleston Naval Base in a manner 
that is consistent with Alternative Reuse Scenario 3, described in the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) as the preferred 
alternative. Alternative Reuse Scenario 3, composed of three 
Development Concepts approved by the Local Redevelopment Authority 
(LRA), the Charleston Naval Complex Redevelopment Authority, is 
characterized by high density redevelopment of the entire 1,500-acre 
Naval Base.
    In deciding to dispose of the Naval Base property in a manner 
consistent with Alternative Reuse Scenario 3, Navy has determined that 
high density redevelopment of this Base bears the greatest potential 
for achieving the goals of local economic redevelopment of the closed 
military facility and creation of new jobs. This Record of Decision 
does not mandate selection of any one Development Concept. Rather, it 
leaves selection of the particular means to achieve high density 
redevelopment to the acquiring entity and the local zoning authority.
    In addition to the Naval Base property in North Charleston, the 
Commander of the Naval Base at Charleston also exercised jurisdiction 
over the Clouter Island Dredged Material Disposal Facility located 
across the Cooper River from the Naval Base and over the Charleston 
Naval Station Annex located five miles north of the Naval Base, 
adjacent to the Charleston Air Force Base and the Charleston 
International Airport. Neither of these properties is subject to this 
Record of Decision.
    The Department of the Army requested an interservice transfer of 
the Clouter Island facility under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2571. Navy 
will prepare appropriate NEPA documentation for this transfer.
    The Department of the Air Force requested transfer of the Naval 
Station Annex but later withdrew its request. In light of Air Force's 
request, the initial 1993-1994 LRA for the Naval Base, known as 
Trident's BEST (Building Economic Solutions Together) Committee, 
established in 1993 by Executive Order of the Governor of South 
Carolina and composed of representatives from the three concerned 
counties of Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester, did not consider the 
Annex available for reuse and did not plan for its redevelopment. The 
Charleston Naval Complex Redevelopment Authority will develop a reuse 
plan for the Naval Station Annex, and Navy will prepare a separate 
environmental analysis under NEPA to address disposal and reuse of this 
property.

Background

    The 1993 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission 
recommended closure of Naval Station Charleston and the Charleston 
Naval Shipyard. This recommendation was then approved by President 
Clinton and accepted by the One Hundred Third Congress in 1994. 
Operations at the Naval station and the Shipyard ceased on April 1, 
1996, and the property has been in caretaker status since that date.
    The Charleston Naval Base is located within the City of North 
Charleston and covers 1,575 acres of fee-owned land. The Naval Base is 
composed of the Naval Station which covers 842 acres, the Naval 
Shipyard which covers 505 acres, the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center 
which covers 194 acres, the Fleet and Mine Warfare Training Center 
which covers 10 acres, and the Chicora Tank Farm which covers 24 acres. 
Collectively, these properties are designated in the FEIS as the Naval 
Base.
    Two other Federally owned parcels of land lie within the boundaries 
of the Charleston Naval Base but are not part of the Base property: an 
8.7 acre parcel owned by the Department of State and a four acre parcel 
owned by the Department of Commerce for the use of the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration. The FEIS prepared by Navy did not 
address the property held by State and Commerce, because the actions of 
the 1993 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission did not affect 
these parcels.
    A Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on April 
26, 1994, stating that Navy would prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement that analyzed the impacts of disposal and reuse of the land, 
buildings, and infrastructure at the Base. A 90-day public scoping 
period was established, and Navy held four scoping meetings. Two 
meetings were held in the City of North Charleston on May 11, 1994, and 
meetings were also held in the towns of Goose Creek and Summerville on 
May 12, 1994.
    On October 21, 1994, Navy distributed a Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (DEIS) to Federal, State, and local agencies, elected 
officials, special interest groups, and interested persons. Navy held 
two public hearings on November 28 and 29, 1994, at the Chicora 
Community Center and at City Hall in North Charleston. Federal 
agencies, South Carolina state agencies, local governments, and the 
general public commented on the DEIS. These comments and Navy's 
responses were incorporated in the FEIS, which was distributed to the 
public on June 23, 1995, for a review period that concluded on July 24, 
1995. Public comments on the FEIS were considered before preparation of 
the Record of Decision.

Alternatives

    NEPA requires Navy to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives 
for disposal and reuse of this Federal property. In the NEPA process, 
Navy analyzed the environmental impacts of various proposed reuses that 
could result from disposal of the Naval Base property. As the basis for 
this analysis, Navy initially relied upon the reuse and redevelopment 
alternatives identified by the BEST Committee, the first LRA that 
prepared the Charleston Naval Complex Reuse Plan presented to the 
Department of the Navy on June 9, 1994.
    On June 30, 1994, the State of South Carolina authorized creation 
of a redevelopment authority to oversee disposal of the Base property 
and on September 30, 1994, the Governor of South Carolina established 
the Charleston Naval Complex Redevelopment Authority, known a the RDA, 
that succeeded the BEST Committee as the LRA. The LRA, as the Local 
Redevelopment Authority, adopted the BEST Committee's reuse plan for 
the Naval Base, characterized by high density redevelopment of the 
entire Base. In April 1995, the State of South Carolina reorganized the 
Charleston Naval Complex Redevelopment Authority and appointed new 
members to succeed the RDA established in September 1994. In June 1995, 
the new RDA, as the Local Redevelopment Authority for the Charleston 
Naval Base, endorsed high density redevelopment of the Naval Base, with 
two variations from the BEST Committee's reuse plan.
    The BEST Committee considered three levels of reuse and 
redevelopment. The first level proposed reuse and redevelopment of 500 
acres of Naval Base property; the second level

[[Page 22035]]

proposed reuse and redevelopment of 1000 acres of Naval property; and 
the third level proposed reuse and redevelopment of the entire 1500 
acre Naval Base property. The BEST Committee adopted the third level, 
reuse and redevelopment of the entire Naval Base, as its proposed reuse 
plan for the property. This plan was treated in the FEIS as an element 
of Alternative Reuse Scenario 3.
    In the first two levels of redevelopment, the LRA did not propose 
to develop the entire Naval Base property. Thus, in order to evaluate 
the environmental impacts caused by disposing of the entire Naval Base 
in light of these proposals, Navy projected and analyzed likely 
categories of reuse for these areas of the Naval Base property that the 
LRA did not propose to develop in its 500 and 1000 acre scenarios.
    In the FEIS, Navy evaluated a ``no action'' alternative and three 
``action'' alternatives for the entire Naval Base property. The first 
alternative was the ``No Action'' alternative which 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. The first ``action'' alternative, 
Alternative Reuse Scenario 1, proposed mixed use of the property with 
minimal infrastructure improvements and reflected the 500 acre 
redevelopment scenario examined by the LRA. This alternative utilized 
existing Naval Base administrative areas for office space, Naval 
Shipyard property for an industrial park, and open space areas for 
passive recreation. Alternative Reuse Scenario 2 proposed a more 
intensive mixed use and reflected the 1000 acre redevelopment scenario 
evaluated by the LRA. This alternative provided an industrial district 
near the piers but also sought to attract tourism with a 
``destination'' mixed use waterfront district, a commercial marina, 
civic and office buildings, and large active recreation areas. 
Alternative Reuse Scenario 3 proposed the most intensive redevelopment 
and reflected the high density redevelopment scenario adopted by the 
LRA as its proposed reuse plan. This alternative proposed a high level 
of industrial and commercial redevelopment of the 1500 acre property 
that could be achieved through several different approaches and is 
described in the FEIS as the preferred alternative.
    Alternative Reuse Scenario 3 is composed of three high density 
redevelopment Concepts that Navy analyzed and designated as Development 
Concepts 3, 3A, and 3B. Concept 3 reflected the BEST Committee's reuse 
plan; Concept 3A reflected Navy's modification of Concept 3, to take 
account of the environmental remediation planned for two sites on the 
Base; and Concept 3B, added by the RDA in February 1995, reflected the 
City of North Charleston's opposition to an intermodal cargo terminal 
and its preference for maritime industrial development. Alternative 
Reuse Scenario 3 with its variations is the proposed reuse plan 
endorsed by the RDA in June 1995.
    Development Concept 3, the plan advanced by the BEST Committee, 
provided areas for civic and community use and proposed five major 
employment centers: an office district, a shipyard district, a marine 
industrial district, an intermodal cargo facility, and an industrial 
park related to and located behind the intermodal facility. Part of the 
proposed intermodal cargo terminal would be built on a pile-supported 
platform over the Cooper River. An adjacent railroad yard would also be 
constructed behind the terminal. Concept 3 emphasized government and 
port-related activities.
    Development Concept 3A is similar to Concept 3. It proposed the 
same major employment centers but changed the locations of the 
intermodal cargo terminal, the related railroad yard, and the marine 
(or maritime) industrial district to avoid incompatibility with the 
environmental remediation planned for two sites on the Naval Station, 
i.e., Solid Waste Management Units (SWMU) 9 and 14. These changes 
decreased the potential impact on wetlands by affecting only 9.3 acres 
as compared with 20.5 acres under Concept 3 and also reduced the impact 
on a vegetated buffer area along Shipyard Creek. Concept 3A would move 
the intermodal cargo facility farther out into the Cooper River and 
change its shape to retain the same area; it would not build any 
facilities over the two SWMS's; it would move the related railroad yard 
farther away from wetlands and the vegetated area along Shipyard Creek; 
and it would change the shape of the maritime industrial district.
    Development Concept 3B proposed the use and expansion of existing 
Naval Shipyard and Naval Station facilities to develop an extensive 
maritime industrial district. Under Concept 3B, the intermodal cargo 
facility would not be built. Instead, the shipyard area would be 
enlarged and the maritime industrial facilities would be expanded to 
include the property where the cargo facility would be constructed 
under Concepts 3 and 3A.
    The maritime industrial district covers much of the Naval Station 
property south of the Naval Shipyard that would be occupied by the 
intermodal cargo facility proposed in Development Concepts 3 and 3A. 
The proposal embodied in Concept 3B would avoid the impacts on 
waterways caused by building the intermodal cargo terminal over the 
Cooper River and the railway and elevated highway across Shipyard 
Creek. Concept 3B would further reduce the potential impact on wetlands 
by affecting only 4 acres as compared with 9.3 acres under Concept 3A 
and 20.5 acres under Concept 3. Concept 3B would not develop the sites 
at SWMU 9 and SWMU 14, instead leaving them as open space. 
Additionally, the vegetated buffer area along Shipyard Creek would not 
be developed. Concept 3B would also provide an office district, a 
cultural park district, a community support district, and areas for 
open space and recreation.

Environmental Impacts

    The potential impacts of all three ``action'' Alternative Reuse 
Scenarios were analyzed for their effects on adjacent land use, traffic 
and transportation, noise, air quality, water quality, hazardous 
materials, biological resources, historic and archaeological resources, 
economics, environmental justice, aesthetics, and public services. Each 
of these Alternative Reuse Scenarios has the potential for causing 
impacts on the environment. This Record of Decision will focus on the 
impacts associated with the preferred alternative, Alternative Reuse 
Scenario 3, and its three Development Concepts. All three Concepts are 
generally compatible with the use of adjacent lands.
    Each of the three Development Concepts would cause adverse local 
impacts on traffic. As a consequence of activity associated with the 
intermodal cargo facility proposed in Concepts 3 and 3A, rail and truck 
traffic in the area would increase. The traffic levels (composed of 
trucks and automobiles) generated by Concepts 3 and 3A would likely 
exceed by about 13 per cent those experienced during operation of the 
Naval Base. To accommodate this increase in traffic, it would be 
necessary for State and local governments to modify the transportation 
infrastructure by realigning rail lines, building additional access to 
Interstate Highway I-26, widening local roads, and modernizing local 
intersections. These, or similar, actions should mitigate the effects 
of the increased traffic.
    The traffic associated with Concept 3B, which did not propose an

[[Page 22036]]

intermodal facility, would exceed by about 3 per cent the level 
experienced during operation of the Naval Base. Concept 3B did not 
propose any changes to the existing railroad or roadway networks, but 
would upgrade certain roadways on the Base to accommodate commercial 
vehicles.
    Re-use under any of the three Development Concepts would not 
significantly affect ambient noise levels. However, long term increases 
in noise would occur on those local roadways that would experience 
increases in traffic. Under Concepts 3 and 3A, vehicular noise would 
increase in neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed I-26 highway 
connection at the south end of the Base. The intermodal cargo facility 
and related railroad yard that would be developed under Concepts 3 and 
3A would also increase ambient noise levels, although not 
significantly. Since Concept 3B did not propose an intermodal cargo 
facility, the associated increase in noise would be less than that 
associated with Concepts 3 and 3A. Under Concept 3B, traffic and 
resultant noise would increase on local roads.
    Re-use under any of the three Development Concepts would not 
significantly affect air quality. The sources of air pollutants 
associated with the proposed redevelopment would be motor vehicles, 
demolition and construction, ships, trains, and industrial operations. 
However, with the exception of Nitrogen Oxides from diesel locomotives 
associated with the intermodal railroad yard in Concepts 3 and 3A, the 
emissions that would arise out of the proposed redevelopment are not 
likely to generate a net increase over those present when the Base was 
operating.
    Under Concept 3B, the level of emissions would be determined by the 
nature and extent of industrial activity conducted on the property. It 
would be necessary, of course, for those conducting such activities to 
obtain appropriate permits from the South Carolina Department of Health 
and Environmental Control.
    The Base is located in a region that is in attainment with National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards. Therefore, an analysis under the Clean 
Air Act Conformity Rule is not required.
    All three Development Concepts would cause adverse impacts on 
wetlands, surface waters, and aquatic habitats. The construction of new 
facilities under Development Concepts 3, 3A and 3B would remove, 
respectively, 20.5, 9.3 and 4 acres of wetlands. The stringent 
requirements of Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 
U.S.C. 1252, et seq., however, should provide adequate mitigation for 
the loss of wetlands. Under CWA, wetland replacement may be required 
when wetlands are filled as envisioned in Alternative Reuse Scenario 3.
    Development of the intermodal cargo facility under Concepts 3 and 
3A would require construction of a pile-supported platform over, 
respectively, 80 and 130 acres of the Cooper River and construction of 
a railway and an elevated highway across Shipyard Creek. The pile-
supported cargo terminal would likely alter the flow characteristics of 
the Cooper River and cause a gradual buildup of sediments under the 
platform similar in effect to that of the existing Navy piers. Concept 
3B would have no similar impact on hydrology because it did not propose 
to build the intermodal cargo terminal.
    Before building the intermodal cargo facility, the acquiring entity 
would be required to obtain permits under Section 404 of CWA and the 
Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. 401, (which together control 
construction of facilities over navigable waters) for any construction 
that affects the Cooper River or Shipyard Creek. These permits are 
reviewed and approved by several Federal and State environmental 
agencies through public processes, and the agencies may require 
substantial environmental mitigation as a condition of approving the 
proposed construction.
    Under all three Development Concepts, the impact on surface water 
quality caused by stormwater runoff would be regulated by the South 
Carolina Stormwater Management and Sediment Reduction Act, 48 S.C. Code 
Ann. Sec. 48-14-10, et seq. This statute requires the acquiring entity 
to submit a sediment and erosion control plan to the State for 
approval, and the State may impose mitigation measures on the developer 
to minimize adverse effects from stormwater runoff. Future development 
will be subject to the prescriptions of CWA and the South Carolina 
statute, which require management of stormwater runoff into surface 
waters such as the Cooper River, Shipyard Creek, and Noisette Creek.
    Because of the construction required for the intermodal cargo 
terminal, implementation of Development Concepts 3 and 3A would also 
have an impact on several State-designated species of concern that 
currently or historically have existed at the Base. Sea purslane, a 
plant species classified as a State species of concern, would likely be 
eliminated from the site of the marine industrial park if Concept 3 
were implemented. Least terns, a threatened species under South 
Carolina law, nest on the roofs of buildings that would be demolished 
if the intermodal facility proposed in Concepts 3 and 3A were built. 
Thus, demolition should be coordinated with the South Carolina 
Department of Natural Resources. Two bat species that have been listed 
as candidates for the Federal endangered species list are present in 
the Charleston Harbor area, may roost in some buildings on the Base, 
and could also be affected by the demolition of buildings. Thus, the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may request that the acquiring entity 
conduct surveys of Base buildings before demolition in order to avoid 
causing harm to the least terns and bats.
    Development Concept 3B would not have an impact on the least terns 
and would have less impact on the bats, because the proposed shipyard 
and maritime industrial complex would not require the extent of 
building demolition that would be necessary if the intermodal cargo 
facility were built. Redevelopment under all three Development Concepts 
would affect, by removal or alteration, more than half of the wooded 
areas on the Base.
    Navy is evaluating the extent of existing contamination on the 
Base. Navy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the South Carolina 
Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) will review and 
approve the risk assessments developed to ascertain the potential 
impacts of existing contamination on human health and the environment 
before Navy remediates the contaminated sites and conveys the property.
    There are three historic districts (Naval Shipyard, Naval Hospital 
and Officer Housing), one archeological site (a prehistoric site near 
Quarters L), and three individually eligible structures (Navy Chapel, 
Marine Barracks, and Coast Guard Air Station Bachelor Officers 
Quarters) on the Base. Navy, the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation, and the State Historic Preservation Officer entered into 
a Programmatic Agreement on July 10, 1995. Under this Agreement, Navy 
will encourage adaptive reuse of the historic structures and maintain 
and preserve the buildings and the archeological site until a decision 
is made concerning their ultimate disposal. Additionally, Navy will 
include protective covenants in the deeds for parcels that contain 
historic structures and the archeological site.
    Navy also analyzed the impacts on low income and minority 
populations pursuant to Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to 
Address Environmental Justice in Minority

[[Page 22037]]

Populations and Low-Income Populations'' and found that there will be 
no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority and low income populations. Any impacts related to 
reuse of the Base will be experienced equally by all groups within the 
regional population.

Mitigation

    No mitigation measures are required to implement Navy's decision to 
dispose of the Naval Base property. Navy's FEIS identified and 
discussed the actions that would be necessary to mitigate the impacts 
associated with reuse and redevelopment. The acquiring entity, under 
the direction of Federal, State and local agencies with regulatory 
authority over protected resources, will be responsible for 
implementing these mitigation measures.
    Absent statutory authority, Navy cannot impose restrictions on the 
future use of this surplus Federal property. Navy will, however, 
include appropriate notifications in the deeds for any parcels that 
contain wetlands, lie within floodplains or are inhabited by threatened 
or endangered species protected under Federal and State laws.

Comments Received on the FEIS

    Navy received nine comment letters from regulatory agencies, a 
citizens group, and individual citizens. These comments did not raise 
new issues concerning potential problems with implementation of the 
reuse plan or propose mitigation measures other than those addressed in 
the FEIS. While some expressed concern that there was insufficient 
detail describing implementation of the reuse plan, these concerns may 
be addressed by the entity that acquires the Naval Base as it develops 
its implementation plan.
    The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control's 
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) requested that 
Navy either develop a Basewide stormwater management plan or require 
the acquiring entity to develop such a plan as a condition of 
conveyance. Navy will instead rely upon the applicability of the South 
Carolina Stormwater Management and Sediment Reduction Act, 48 S.C. Code 
Ann. Sec. 48-14-10, et seq., and local ordinances that require the 
acquiring entity to submit a stormwater management plan to OCRM for 
approval.

Regulations Governing the Disposal Decision

    Since the proposed action contemplates a disposal action under the 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (DBCRA), Public Law 
101-510, 10 U.S.C. 2687 note, selection of Alternative Reuse Scenario 3 
as the preferred alternative was based upon the environmental analysis 
in the FEIS and application of the standards set forth in DBCRA, the 
Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR), 41 CFR Part 101-47, and 
the Department of Defense Rule on Revitalizing Base Closure Communities 
and Community Assistance (DOD Rule), 32 CFR Parts 90 and 91.
    Section 101-47.303-1 of the FPMR requires that the disposal of 
Federal property benefit the Federal government and constitute the 
highest and best use of the property. 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, and utilization factors such as zoning, 
physical characteristics, other private and public uses in the 
vicinity, former Government uses, access, roads, location and 
environmental considerations.
    After Federal property has been conveyed to non-Federal entities, 
the property is subject to local land use regulations, including zoning 
and subdivision regulations and building codes. Unless expressly 
authorized by statute, the disposing Federal agency cannot restrict the 
future use of surplus Government property. As a result, the local 
community exercises substantial control over future use of the 
property. For this reason, local land use plans and zoning affect 
determination of the highest and best use of surplus Government 
property.
    The DBCRA directed the Administrator of the General Services 
Administration (GSA) to delegate to the Secretary of Defense authority 
to transfer and dispose of base closure property. Section 2905(b) of 
DBCRA directs the Secretary of Defense to exercise this authority in 
accordance with GSA's property disposal regulations, set forth at 
Sections 101-47.1 through 101-47.8 of the FPMR. By letter dated 
December 20, 1991, the Secretary of Defense delegated the authority to 
transfer and dispose of base closure property closed under DBCRA to the 
Secretaries of the Military Departments. Under this delegation of 
authority, the Secretary of the Navy must follow FPMR procedures for 
screening and disposing of real property when implementing base 
closures. Only where Congress has expressly provided additional 
authority for disposing of base closure property, e.g., the economic 
development conveyance authority established in 1993 by Section 
2905(b)(4) of DBCRA, may Navy apply disposal procedures other than the 
FPMR's prescriptions.
    In Section 2901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1994, Public Law 103-160, Congress recognized the economic 
hardship occasioned by base closures, the Federal interest in 
facilitating economic recovery of base closure communities, and the 
need to identify and implement reuse and redevelopment of property at 
closing installations. In Section 2903(c) of Public Law 103-160, 
Congress directed the Military Departments to consider each base 
closure community's economic needs and priorities in the property 
disposal process. Under Section 2905(b)(2)(E) of DBCRA, Navy must 
consult with local communities before it disposes of base closure 
property and must consider local plans developed for reuse and 
redevelopment of the surplus Federal property.
    The Department of Defense's goal, as set forth in Section 90.4 of 
the DOD Rule, is to help base closure communities achieve rapid 
economic recovery through expeditious reuse and redevelopment of the 
assets at closing bases, taking into consideration local market 
conditions and locally developed reuse plans. Thus, the Department has 
adopted a consultative approach with each community to ensure that 
property disposal decisions consider the Local Redevelopment 
Authority's reuse plan and encourage job creation. As a part of this 
cooperative approach, the base closure 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 and DBCRA, identifies several 
mechanisms for disposing of surplus base closure property: By public 
benefit conveyance (FPMR Sec. 101-47.303-2); by economic development 
conveyance (DBCRA Sec. 2905(b)(4)); by negotiated sale (FPMR Sec. 101-
47.304-8); and by competitive sale (FPMR Sec. 101-47.304-7). The 
selection of any

[[Page 22038]]

particular method of conveyance merely implements the Federal agency's 
decision to dispose of the property. Decisions concerning whether to 
undertake a public benefit conveyance or an economic development 
conveyance, or to sell property by negotiation or by competitive bid 
are committed by law to agency discretion. Selecting a method of 
disposal implicates a broad range of factors and rests solely within 
the Secretary of the Navy's discretion.

Conclusion

    Alternative Reuse Scenario 3 with its three Development Concepts 
presents the highest and best use of the Charleston Naval Base. The 
local community, represented by the Charleston Naval Complex 
Redevelopment Authority, has determined in its reuse plan that the 
property should be used for a high density mix of commercial, 
industrial and recreational activities. The property's physical 
characteristics and past use and the current use of adjacent lands make 
it appropriate for this high density mix of redevelopment. 
Additionally, utilizing the existing infrastructure on the Base to the 
maximum extent, this redevelopment would produce an environment most 
likely to create jobs.
    Alternative Reuse Scenario 3 responds to local economic conditions, 
promotes rapid economic recovery from the impact of base 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 jobs as the means to 
revitalize these communities. 32 CFR Parts 90 and 91, 59 FR 16,123 
(1994). The resultant environmental impacts can be mitigated by the 
acquiring entity under the direction of Federal, State and local 
regulatory authorities.
    If only environmental considerations were determinative, the 
proposal with the least potential for causing adverse environmental 
impacts would be Alternative Reuse Scenario 1. This alternative, 
however, does not constitute the highest and best use of the Base 
property. While Alternative Reuse Scenario 1 presents a reasonable use 
which could benefit residents of the local community, this alternative 
does not take full advantage of the property's physical characteristics 
and past use, does not make maximum use of the existing infrastructure 
to support redevelopment, and does not have as high a potential for job 
creation.
    Additionally, Alternative Reuse Scenario 1 does not provide the 
level of activity sought in the LRA's reuse plan and would not foster 
rapid economic recovery for this base closure community through 
redevelopment of the closed Base and job creation. Consequently, 
Alternative Reuse Scenario 1 does not constitute the highest and best 
use of the property. Similarly, Alternative Reuse Scenario 2 does not 
take full advantage of the potential for redevelopment of the Base 
property and is not as likely to achieve economic redevelopment of the 
Base as is Alternative Reuse Scenario 3.
    Accordingly, Navy will dispose of the Charleston Naval Base in a 
manner that is consistent with the Charleston Naval Complex 
Redevelopment Authority's proposed reuse plan for the property.

    Dated: May 7, 1996.
William J. Cassidy, Jr.,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Conversion And Redevelopment).
[FR Doc. 96-11889 Filed 5-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M