[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