Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of Naval Hospital Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

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