[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8205-8209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2535]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of Naval Station 
Brooklyn, New York

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 Station 
Brooklyn, which is located in Brooklyn, New York.
    Navy analyzed the impacts of the disposal and reuse of Naval 
Station Brooklyn in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as 
required by NEPA. The EIS analyzed four reuse alternatives and 
identified the Redevelopment Plan for Naval Station Brooklyn, New York, 
dated March 1, 1996 (Reuse Plan), prepared by the City of New York and 
described in the EIS as the Reuse Plan Alternative, as the Preferred 
Alternative.
    The Preferred Alternative proposed to use the Naval Station 
property for industrial, institutional, non-profit, and commercial 
activities and to develop open space and recreational areas. The 
Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation replaced the City of New 
York as the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for Naval Station 
Brooklyn on November 27, 2000. 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 Station Brooklyn 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 recreational 
resources, 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 Station 
Brooklyn. This recommendation was approved by the Secretary of Defense, 
Frank Carlucci, and accepted by the One Hundred First Congress in 1989. 
The Naval Station closed on March 23, 1993.
    Naval Station Brooklyn is situated on about 29 acres in the eastern 
part of the Borough of Brooklyn. The property is oriented along a 
north-south axis and has an irregular border.
    It is bounded on the north by the East River waterfront of the 
Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation's industrial park; on the 
east by the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (BQE); on the south by Flushing 
Avenue; and on the west by Washington Avenue and parts of the former 
Brooklyn Navy Yard. The Naval Station property is surrounded by 
industrial and commercial activities. Residential neighborhoods are 
located farther north, east and south of the base.
    This Record Of Decision addresses the disposal and reuse of the 
Naval Station property, which is surplus to the needs of the Federal 
Government. The surplus property covers about 29 acres and contains 36 
buildings and structures that provide about 629,000 square feet of 
space. Buildings 1 and 2, the largest buildings on the base, supply 
more than half of the floor space available for redevelopment.
    Navy published a Notice Of Intent in the Federal Register on 
January 31, 1997, announcing that Navy would prepare an EIS for the 
disposal and reuse of Naval Station Brooklyn. On February 13, 1997, 
Navy held public scoping meetings at New York City's Department of City 
Planning and at the Brooklyn Borough Hall. The scoping period concluded 
on March 14, 1997.
    Navy distributed the Draft EIS (DEIS) to Federal, State, and local 
agencies, elected officials, interested parties, and the general public 
on October 8, 1999, and commenced a 45-day public review and comment 
period. During this period, Federal, State, and local

[[Page 8206]]

agencies, community groups and associations, and interested persons 
submitted oral and written comments concerning the DEIS. On October 21, 
1999, Navy held a public hearing at the Brooklyn Borough Hall to 
receive comments on the DEIS.
    Navy's responses to the public comments on the DEIS were 
incorporated in the Final EIS (FEIS), which was distributed to the 
public on August 11, 2000, for a review period that concluded on 
September 10, 2000. Navy received five letters 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 four 
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.
    The City of New York began to plan for reuse of the Naval Station 
in 1992. On March 1, 1996, the City of New York, acting as the Local 
Redevelopment Authority for the Naval Station, issued the Redevelopment 
Plan for Naval Station Brooklyn, New York.
    The Reuse Plan, identified in the FEIS as the Preferred 
Alternative, proposed a mix of land uses in four areas designated as 
the Northern Triangle, the BQE Frontage, the Western Industrial Sector, 
and the Hospital Campus. The Reuse Plan would take advantage of the 
property's industrial facilities and proximity to the former Brooklyn 
Navy Yard and minimize impacts on the historic campus of the Brooklyn 
Naval Hospital, which is located on the Naval Station property. It did 
not propose to build any new structures on the property.
    The Preferred Alternative would dedicate 2.2 acres in the Northern 
Triangle at the northern end of the Naval Station to light industrial 
activities and warehouses. It would assign two acres in the BQE 
Frontage area, located in the southeast corner of the property at the 
intersection of Flushing Avenue and Williamsburg Street (facing the 
elevated BQE Expressway), to light industrial activities and retail 
stores.
    The Preferred Alternative would dedicate 6.4 acres in the Western 
Industrial Sector at the southwest corner of the Naval Station to 
technology manufacturing, research, light industrial activities, and 
offices. It would integrate Buildings 1 and 2, the largest buildings on 
the base, and two smaller buildings with industrial activities in the 
former Brooklyn Navy Yard that is managed by the Brooklyn Navy Yard 
Development Corporation.
    The Preferred Alternative would dedicate 18.3 acres in the center 
of the base, designated as the Hospital campus, to institutional and 
non-profit activities and to open space and recreational activities. 
The Reuse Plan did not propose particular uses for the buildings 
comprising the Hospital Campus, but these facilities could be used for 
day care, health care, job training, educational, and other 
institutional purposes.
    The Naval Hospital Cemetery is located on about 1.7 acres in the 
eastern part of the base inside the Hospital Campus. During preparation 
of the Reuse Plan, Navy and the City believed that all of the burial 
remains had been relocated to another cemetery in 1926. Thereafter, 
Navy converted the Cemetery property to recreational athletic fields. 
After the Reuse Plan was issued in 1996, however, Navy discovered that 
the number of burials in the Cemetery exceeded the number that, 
according to records, had been relocated in 1926. As a result, Navy 
restored the Cemetery grounds, and this property will be preserved as a 
cemetery.
    Navy analyzed a second ``action'' alternative, described in the 
FEIS as the Residential Alternative. Under this Alternative, the land 
uses proposed for the Northern Triangle, the Western Industrial Sector 
and the BQE Frontage property would be the same as those proposed by 
the Preferred Alternative. However, the Hospital Campus facilities 
would be used for residential rather than institutional purposes. This 
Alternative would not build any new residential units but would convert 
and renovate the Bachelor Officers Quarters and the single-family homes 
into 94 multi-family homes.
    Navy analyzed a third ``action'' alternative, described in the FEIS 
as the Museum Alternative. Under this Alternative, the land uses 
proposed for the Northern Triangle and the Western Industrial Sector 
would be the same as those proposed by the Preferred Alternative, but 
the BQE Frontage and Hospital Campus facilities would be used for 
educational and cultural activities. This Alternative would not 
undertake any new construction.
    Navy analyzed a fourth ``action'' alternative, described in the 
FEIS as the As-of-Right Alternative. Under this Alternative, the 
property would be redeveloped to the maximum extent permitted by New 
York City's zoning ordinances. Four buildings, Buildings 1 and 2, 
Building R-1 (the Surgeon's House), and Building R-95 (the Naval 
Hospital), would be retained, but the other buildings would be 
demolished to allow maximum development of the property. The Cemetery 
would be retained as open space. This Alternative would develop about 
2.1 million square feet of space for retail stores, warehouses, and 
manufacturing activities.
    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 
Residential Alternative, the Museum Alternative, the As-of-Right 
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 implementation of the Reuse Plan, identified in the 
FEIS as the Preferred Alternative.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on 
land use and would result in land uses that are compatible with 
existing and planned uses in the surrounding area. The Reuse Plan would 
redevelop the Naval Station property for use in light industrial, 
institutional, community, commercial, and active and passive 
recreational activities. Under the Reuse Plan, the property's zoning 
would change to permit light industrial, commercial, and community 
activities but not residential uses.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have an impact on the 
socioeconomics of the surrounding area. The Reuse Plan would generate 
about 1,630 new direct jobs with annual earnings of about $45.7 
million. These new jobs would constitute about 0.03 percent of the jobs 
in the City of New York. The Reuse Plan would also generate about 870 
indirect jobs with annual earnings of about $24 million. It would 
produce about $8.3 million annually in state and local income taxes and 
sales taxes.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on 
community services. There will be no residential use of the property 
under the Reuse Plan, and no new workers will move into the area as a 
result of the Reuse Plan. Therefore, there will not be any new demands 
placed on local schools. The presence of additional workers on the 
property, however, would slightly increase the demands placed on the 
resources of the two nearby hospitals.

[[Page 8207]]

The Preferred Alternative would not have a direct impact on local 
police, fire, emergency, and other community services.
    The Preferred Alternative would substantially increase the amount 
of open space and make the Hospital Campus available to the public. 
About 11.2 acres of active recreational space and 8.8 acres of passive 
recreational space, including the 1.7-acre Naval Cemetery, would be 
available to the public.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on 
transportation. By the year 2002, the Preferred Alternative would 
generate about 11,200 average daily trips to and from the property. The 
Naval Station property has not generated a substantial number of 
average daily trips since it was placed in caretaker status in 1993. 
Consequently, this Alternative would increase the amount of traffic in 
the area and cause traffic delays at the intersections of Flushing 
Avenue and Williamsburg Street, Flushing Avenue and Classon Avenue, and 
Flushing Avenue and Clinton Avenue. The traffic flow at these 
intersections could be improved by modifying the traffic signals. There 
is adequate public transportation to support the proposed redevelopment 
of the Naval Station property.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on 
air quality. The Naval Station property is located in a severe 
nonattainment area for ozone and a moderate nonattainment area for 
carbon monoxide (CO), 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 Station property is in attainment for all other common air 
pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act.
    Carbon monoxide is produced by the burning of fossil fuels. As a 
result of traffic moving to and from the property, the annual emissions 
of CO would increase 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 stationary sources of emissions, 
such as heating units, would depend upon the nature and extent of 
activities conducted on the property. Developers of these 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 
renovation 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 the City of New York 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 United States 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 Station Brooklyn will not require Navy 
to conduct a conformity determination.
    The Preferred Alternative would have a significant noise impact on 
Steuben Playground, which is located across Flushing Avenue from the 
Naval Station property. Those who use this playground during the 
morning peak traffic period would experience noise levels in excess of 
65 decibels arising out of the increased traffic at this time of day. 
This constitutes a 3.2 decibel increase in the ambient noise level, and 
an increase in noise in excess of three decibels with a total noise 
impact above 65 decibels constitutes a significant impact under New 
York City standards. There were insignificant impacts at the other nine 
sites analyzed for noise, because the increases in ambient noise levels 
were less than three decibels. Generally, a person cannot perceive a 
change in noise levels that are less than three decibels.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on 
the capacity of the City of New York's utility systems. The City's 
water system can supply the Reuse Plan's projected daily demand of 
about 55,000 gallons of potable water. The proposed redevelopment of 
the Naval Station property would not have a significant impact on the 
City's wastewater treatment capacity. The City's Newtown Creek Water 
Pollution Control Plant can provide the Reuse Plan's daily requirement 
to treat 55,000 gallons of wastewater. The City also has adequate solid 
waste disposal capacity, and no significant impact is likely to result 
from the disposal of solid waste generated by the Reuse Plan.
    Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in 
renovation of most of the buildings on the property. Only a few 
deteriorated structures would be demolished. However, it would be 
necessary to upgrade and renovate the utility distribution systems to 
provide adequate services.
    The Preferred Alternative would not 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 resources survey and determined that parts of the Naval 
Station property are eligible for listing on the National Register of 
Historic Places as two separate historic districts. The Brooklyn Navy 
Yard Historic District encompasses most of the buildings in the 
Northern Triangle, the Western Industrial Sector, and the BQE Frontage 
area. These were built during the World War II expansion of the Navy 
Yard. The United States Naval Hospital Historic District contains 
historically significant Nineteenth and Twentieth Century 
institutional, residential, and industrial buildings as well as the 
Naval Hospital Cemetery.
    In a letter dated November 18, 1994, the New York State Historic 
Preservation Officer concurred in Navy's determination that the Naval 
Station was eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 
Places. In addition, the Naval Hospital, built in 1838, and the 
Surgeon's House, built in 1864, have been designated as New York City 
Landmark Buildings by the City of New York's Landmarks Preservation 
Commission.
    The Naval Hospital Cemetery, located on the Hospital Campus, served 
as the Naval Hospital's burial ground from 1824 to 1910. In 1926, Navy 
removed 987 burial remains from the Cemetery and interred them at 
Cypress Hills National Cemetery in Brooklyn. During the 1930s and 
1940s, believing that all of the burial remains had been relocated, 
Navy converted the Cemetery property to recreational athletic fields.
    During 1996 and 1997, Navy conducted documentary research and field 
tests and concluded that there were no records confirming the removal 
of about 517 burial remains. Thus, in 1999, Navy removed the 
recreational equipment and altered the landscape of the site to restore 
it as a cemetery. The Reuse Plan would preserve the Cemetery in 
accordance with a protective covenant that Navy will place in the deed 
for the Cemetery property.
    Future alterations of buildings and structures in the historic 
districts must be conducted in accordance with the Secretary of the 
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and in accordance with the 
terms of the Programmatic Agreement executed by Navy, the

[[Page 8208]]

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the State Historic 
Preservation Officer on June 16, 2000. As a result, there will not be 
any adverse effects on cultural resources. In addition, because the 
Naval Hospital and the Surgeon's House are City of New York landmarks, 
any alterations to these buildings must be reviewed and permitted by 
the City of New York's Landmarks Preservation Commission.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on 
upland vegetation wildlife. The existing vegetation on the property 
consists largely of maintained lawns and ornamental and naturally 
occurring trees and shrubs. Since the Reuse Plan would not build any 
new structures on the property, the existing vegetation will remain 
undisturbed.
    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 Station property. Therefore, 
the disposal and reuse of Naval Station Brooklyn would not have an 
adverse effect on Federally-listed threatened or endangered species.
    Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not significantly 
alter the amount of impervious surface on the property. As a result, 
the amount of stormwater runoff would not increase. Stormwater must be 
managed in accordance with Federal, State, and local laws and 
regulations, and the acquiring entity will be responsible for restoring 
and building adequate drainage facilities.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have an impact on floodplains. 
About one acre in the northeastern part of the Naval Station lies 
between the 100-year and 500-year floodplains, but the Preferred 
Alternative does not plan to develop this area. Consequently, there 
would be not be an impact here.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have a 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 an 
impact on public health and safety at the Naval Station. 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 Station Brooklyn 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 direct and indirect employment opportunities and increased 
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, 
children would only be present as visitors to the property. 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 
Station Brooklyn does not require Navy to implement any mitigation 
measures. 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.
    The FEIS identified and discussed those actions that will be 
necessary to mitigate impacts associated with reuse of the Naval 
Station property. The acquiring entity, under the direction of Federal, 
State, and local agencies with regulatory authority over protected 
resources, will be responsible for implementing necessary mitigation 
measures.
    Comments Received on the FEIS: Navy received comments on the FEIS 
from the United States Environmental Protection Agency; the New York 
State Department of Environmental Conservation; the City of New York's 
Landmarks Preservation Commission; the Fort Greene Association; and 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 ``highes 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 sand dispose of base closure property closed under the DBCRA 
to the

[[Page 8209]]

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 FRMR.
    In Section 2901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1994, Public Law 103-160, Congress recognized the economic 
hardship occasioned by based 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 interest, 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 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 (1944), 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 Station Brooklyn, 
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 industrial, institutional, commercial, open space and 
recreational activities. 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 Station, 
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 16123 (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 Station property.
    The acquiring entity, under the direction of Federal, State, and 
local 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 Station Brooklyn in a 
manner that is consistent with the City of New York's Reuse Plan for 
the property.

    Dated: January 12, 2001.
William J. Cassidy, Jr.,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, (Conversion And Redevelopment).
[FR Doc. 01-2535 Filed 1-29-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M