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

[[Page 22034]]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of the Charleston

Naval Base, North Charleston, SC

The Department of the Navy (Navy), pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321,

et seq., and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality

that implement NEPA procedures, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, hereby

announces its decision to dispose of the Charleston Naval Base in North

Charleston, South Carolina.

Navy intends to dispose of the Charleston Naval Base in a manner

that is consistent with Alternative Reuse Scenario 3, described in the

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) as the preferred

alternative. Alternative Reuse Scenario 3, composed of three

Development Concepts approved by the Local Redevelopment Authority

(LRA), the Charleston Naval Complex Redevelopment Authority, is

characterized by high density redevelopment of the entire 1,500-acre

Naval Base.

In deciding to dispose of the Naval Base property in a manner

consistent with Alternative Reuse Scenario 3, Navy has determined that

high density redevelopment of this Base bears the greatest potential

for achieving the goals of local economic redevelopment of the closed

military facility and creation of new jobs. This Record of Decision

does not mandate selection of any one Development Concept. Rather, it

leaves selection of the particular means to achieve high density

redevelopment to the acquiring entity and the local zoning authority.

In addition to the Naval Base property in North Charleston, the

Commander of the Naval Base at Charleston also exercised jurisdiction

over the Clouter Island Dredged Material Disposal Facility located

across the Cooper River from the Naval Base and over the Charleston

Naval Station Annex located five miles north of the Naval Base,

adjacent to the Charleston Air Force Base and the Charleston

International Airport. Neither of these properties is subject to this

Record of Decision.

The Department of the Army requested an interservice transfer of

the Clouter Island facility under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2571. Navy

will prepare appropriate NEPA documentation for this transfer.

The Department of the Air Force requested transfer of the Naval

Station Annex but later withdrew its request. In light of Air Force's

request, the initial 1993-1994 LRA for the Naval Base, known as

Trident's BEST (Building Economic Solutions Together) Committee,

established in 1993 by Executive Order of the Governor of South

Carolina and composed of representatives from the three concerned

counties of Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester, did not consider the

Annex available for reuse and did not plan for its redevelopment. The

Charleston Naval Complex Redevelopment Authority will develop a reuse

plan for the Naval Station Annex, and Navy will prepare a separate

environmental analysis under NEPA to address disposal and reuse of this

property.

Background

The 1993 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission

recommended closure of Naval Station Charleston and the Charleston

Naval Shipyard. This recommendation was then approved by President

Clinton and accepted by the One Hundred Third Congress in 1994.

Operations at the Naval station and the Shipyard ceased on April 1,

1996, and the property has been in caretaker status since that date.

The Charleston Naval Base is located within the City of North

Charleston and covers 1,575 acres of fee-owned land. The Naval Base is

composed of the Naval Station which covers 842 acres, the Naval

Shipyard which covers 505 acres, the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center

which covers 194 acres, the Fleet and Mine Warfare Training Center

which covers 10 acres, and the Chicora Tank Farm which covers 24 acres.

Collectively, these properties are designated in the FEIS as the Naval

Base.

Two other Federally owned parcels of land lie within the boundaries

of the Charleston Naval Base but are not part of the Base property: an

8.7 acre parcel owned by the Department of State and a four acre parcel

owned by the Department of Commerce for the use of the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration. The FEIS prepared by Navy did not

address the property held by State and Commerce, because the actions of

the 1993 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission did not affect

these parcels.

A Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on April

26, 1994, stating that Navy would prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement that analyzed the impacts of disposal and reuse of the land,

buildings, and infrastructure at the Base. A 90-day public scoping

period was established, and Navy held four scoping meetings. Two

meetings were held in the City of North Charleston on May 11, 1994, and

meetings were also held in the towns of Goose Creek and Summerville on

May 12, 1994.

On October 21, 1994, Navy distributed a Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (DEIS) to Federal, State, and local agencies, elected

officials, special interest groups, and interested persons. Navy held

two public hearings on November 28 and 29, 1994, at the Chicora

Community Center and at City Hall in North Charleston. Federal

agencies, South Carolina state agencies, local governments, and the

general public commented on the DEIS. These comments and Navy's

responses were incorporated in the FEIS, which was distributed to the

public on June 23, 1995, for a review period that concluded on July 24,

1995. Public comments on the FEIS were considered before preparation of

the Record of Decision.

Alternatives

NEPA requires Navy to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives

for disposal and reuse of this Federal property. In the NEPA process,

Navy analyzed the environmental impacts of various proposed reuses that

could result from disposal of the Naval Base property. As the basis for

this analysis, Navy initially relied upon the reuse and redevelopment

alternatives identified by the BEST Committee, the first LRA that

prepared the Charleston Naval Complex Reuse Plan presented to the

Department of the Navy on June 9, 1994.

On June 30, 1994, the State of South Carolina authorized creation

of a redevelopment authority to oversee disposal of the Base property

and on September 30, 1994, the Governor of South Carolina established

the Charleston Naval Complex Redevelopment Authority, known a the RDA,

that succeeded the BEST Committee as the LRA. The LRA, as the Local

Redevelopment Authority, adopted the BEST Committee's reuse plan for

the Naval Base, characterized by high density redevelopment of the

entire Base. In April 1995, the State of South Carolina reorganized the

Charleston Naval Complex Redevelopment Authority and appointed new

members to succeed the RDA established in September 1994. In June 1995,

the new RDA, as the Local Redevelopment Authority for the Charleston

Naval Base, endorsed high density redevelopment of the Naval Base, with

two variations from the BEST Committee's reuse plan.

The BEST Committee considered three levels of reuse and

redevelopment. The first level proposed reuse and redevelopment of 500

acres of Naval Base property; the second level

[[Page 22035]]

proposed reuse and redevelopment of 1000 acres of Naval property; and

the third level proposed reuse and redevelopment of the entire 1500

acre Naval Base property. The BEST Committee adopted the third level,

reuse and redevelopment of the entire Naval Base, as its proposed reuse

plan for the property. This plan was treated in the FEIS as an element

of Alternative Reuse Scenario 3.

In the first two levels of redevelopment, the LRA did not propose

to develop the entire Naval Base property. Thus, in order to evaluate

the environmental impacts caused by disposing of the entire Naval Base

in light of these proposals, Navy projected and analyzed likely

categories of reuse for these areas of the Naval Base property that the

LRA did not propose to develop in its 500 and 1000 acre scenarios.

In the FEIS, Navy evaluated a ``no action'' alternative and three

``action'' alternatives for the entire Naval Base property. The first

alternative was the ``No Action'' alternative which would leave the

property in caretaker status with Navy maintaining the physical

condition of the property, providing a security force, and making

repairs essential to safety. The first ``action'' alternative,

Alternative Reuse Scenario 1, proposed mixed use of the property with

minimal infrastructure improvements and reflected the 500 acre

redevelopment scenario examined by the LRA. This alternative utilized

existing Naval Base administrative areas for office space, Naval

Shipyard property for an industrial park, and open space areas for

passive recreation. Alternative Reuse Scenario 2 proposed a more

intensive mixed use and reflected the 1000 acre redevelopment scenario

evaluated by the LRA. This alternative provided an industrial district

near the piers but also sought to attract tourism with a

``destination'' mixed use waterfront district, a commercial marina,

civic and office buildings, and large active recreation areas.

Alternative Reuse Scenario 3 proposed the most intensive redevelopment

and reflected the high density redevelopment scenario adopted by the

LRA as its proposed reuse plan. This alternative proposed a high level

of industrial and commercial redevelopment of the 1500 acre property

that could be achieved through several different approaches and is

described in the FEIS as the preferred alternative.

Alternative Reuse Scenario 3 is composed of three high density

redevelopment Concepts that Navy analyzed and designated as Development

Concepts 3, 3A, and 3B. Concept 3 reflected the BEST Committee's reuse

plan; Concept 3A reflected Navy's modification of Concept 3, to take

account of the environmental remediation planned for two sites on the

Base; and Concept 3B, added by the RDA in February 1995, reflected the

City of North Charleston's opposition to an intermodal cargo terminal

and its preference for maritime industrial development. Alternative

Reuse Scenario 3 with its variations is the proposed reuse plan

endorsed by the RDA in June 1995.

Development Concept 3, the plan advanced by the BEST Committee,

provided areas for civic and community use and proposed five major

employment centers: an office district, a shipyard district, a marine

industrial district, an intermodal cargo facility, and an industrial

park related to and located behind the intermodal facility. Part of the

proposed intermodal cargo terminal would be built on a pile-supported

platform over the Cooper River. An adjacent railroad yard would also be

constructed behind the terminal. Concept 3 emphasized government and

port-related activities.

Development Concept 3A is similar to Concept 3. It proposed the

same major employment centers but changed the locations of the

intermodal cargo terminal, the related railroad yard, and the marine

(or maritime) industrial district to avoid incompatibility with the

environmental remediation planned for two sites on the Naval Station,

i.e., Solid Waste Management Units (SWMU) 9 and 14. These changes

decreased the potential impact on wetlands by affecting only 9.3 acres

as compared with 20.5 acres under Concept 3 and also reduced the impact

on a vegetated buffer area along Shipyard Creek. Concept 3A would move

the intermodal cargo facility farther out into the Cooper River and

change its shape to retain the same area; it would not build any

facilities over the two SWMS's; it would move the related railroad yard

farther away from wetlands and the vegetated area along Shipyard Creek;

and it would change the shape of the maritime industrial district.

Development Concept 3B proposed the use and expansion of existing

Naval Shipyard and Naval Station facilities to develop an extensive

maritime industrial district. Under Concept 3B, the intermodal cargo

facility would not be built. Instead, the shipyard area would be

enlarged and the maritime industrial facilities would be expanded to

include the property where the cargo facility would be constructed

under Concepts 3 and 3A.

The maritime industrial district covers much of the Naval Station

property south of the Naval Shipyard that would be occupied by the

intermodal cargo facility proposed in Development Concepts 3 and 3A.

The proposal embodied in Concept 3B would avoid the impacts on

waterways caused by building the intermodal cargo terminal over the

Cooper River and the railway and elevated highway across Shipyard

Creek. Concept 3B would further reduce the potential impact on wetlands

by affecting only 4 acres as compared with 9.3 acres under Concept 3A

and 20.5 acres under Concept 3. Concept 3B would not develop the sites

at SWMU 9 and SWMU 14, instead leaving them as open space.

Additionally, the vegetated buffer area along Shipyard Creek would not

be developed. Concept 3B would also provide an office district, a

cultural park district, a community support district, and areas for

open space and recreation.

Environmental Impacts

The potential impacts of all three ``action'' Alternative Reuse

Scenarios were analyzed for their effects on adjacent land use, traffic

and transportation, noise, air quality, water quality, hazardous

materials, biological resources, historic and archaeological resources,

economics, environmental justice, aesthetics, and public services. Each

of these Alternative Reuse Scenarios has the potential for causing

impacts on the environment. This Record of Decision will focus on the

impacts associated with the preferred alternative, Alternative Reuse

Scenario 3, and its three Development Concepts. All three Concepts are

generally compatible with the use of adjacent lands.

Each of the three Development Concepts would cause adverse local

impacts on traffic. As a consequence of activity associated with the

intermodal cargo facility proposed in Concepts 3 and 3A, rail and truck

traffic in the area would increase. The traffic levels (composed of

trucks and automobiles) generated by Concepts 3 and 3A would likely

exceed by about 13 per cent those experienced during operation of the

Naval Base. To accommodate this increase in traffic, it would be

necessary for State and local governments to modify the transportation

infrastructure by realigning rail lines, building additional access to

Interstate Highway I-26, widening local roads, and modernizing local

intersections. These, or similar, actions should mitigate the effects

of the increased traffic.

The traffic associated with Concept 3B, which did not propose an

[[Page 22036]]

intermodal facility, would exceed by about 3 per cent the level

experienced during operation of the Naval Base. Concept 3B did not

propose any changes to the existing railroad or roadway networks, but

would upgrade certain roadways on the Base to accommodate commercial

vehicles.

Re-use under any of the three Development Concepts would not

significantly affect ambient noise levels. However, long term increases

in noise would occur on those local roadways that would experience

increases in traffic. Under Concepts 3 and 3A, vehicular noise would

increase in neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed I-26 highway

connection at the south end of the Base. The intermodal cargo facility

and related railroad yard that would be developed under Concepts 3 and

3A would also increase ambient noise levels, although not

significantly. Since Concept 3B did not propose an intermodal cargo

facility, the associated increase in noise would be less than that

associated with Concepts 3 and 3A. Under Concept 3B, traffic and

resultant noise would increase on local roads.

Re-use under any of the three Development Concepts would not

significantly affect air quality. The sources of air pollutants

associated with the proposed redevelopment would be motor vehicles,

demolition and construction, ships, trains, and industrial operations.

However, with the exception of Nitrogen Oxides from diesel locomotives

associated with the intermodal railroad yard in Concepts 3 and 3A, the

emissions that would arise out of the proposed redevelopment are not

likely to generate a net increase over those present when the Base was

operating.

Under Concept 3B, the level of emissions would be determined by the

nature and extent of industrial activity conducted on the property. It

would be necessary, of course, for those conducting such activities to

obtain appropriate permits from the South Carolina Department of Health

and Environmental Control.

The Base is located in a region that is in attainment with National

Ambient Air Quality Standards. Therefore, an analysis under the Clean

Air Act Conformity Rule is not required.

All three Development Concepts would cause adverse impacts on

wetlands, surface waters, and aquatic habitats. The construction of new

facilities under Development Concepts 3, 3A and 3B would remove,

respectively, 20.5, 9.3 and 4 acres of wetlands. The stringent

requirements of Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33

U.S.C. 1252, et seq., however, should provide adequate mitigation for

the loss of wetlands. Under CWA, wetland replacement may be required

when wetlands are filled as envisioned in Alternative Reuse Scenario 3.

Development of the intermodal cargo facility under Concepts 3 and

3A would require construction of a pile-supported platform over,

respectively, 80 and 130 acres of the Cooper River and construction of

a railway and an elevated highway across Shipyard Creek. The pile-

supported cargo terminal would likely alter the flow characteristics of

the Cooper River and cause a gradual buildup of sediments under the

platform similar in effect to that of the existing Navy piers. Concept

3B would have no similar impact on hydrology because it did not propose

to build the intermodal cargo terminal.

Before building the intermodal cargo facility, the acquiring entity

would be required to obtain permits under Section 404 of CWA and the

Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. 401, (which together control

construction of facilities over navigable waters) for any construction

that affects the Cooper River or Shipyard Creek. These permits are

reviewed and approved by several Federal and State environmental

agencies through public processes, and the agencies may require

substantial environmental mitigation as a condition of approving the

proposed construction.

Under all three Development Concepts, the impact on surface water

quality caused by stormwater runoff would be regulated by the South

Carolina Stormwater Management and Sediment Reduction Act, 48 S.C. Code

Ann. Sec. 48-14-10, et seq. This statute requires the acquiring entity

to submit a sediment and erosion control plan to the State for

approval, and the State may impose mitigation measures on the developer

to minimize adverse effects from stormwater runoff. Future development

will be subject to the prescriptions of CWA and the South Carolina

statute, which require management of stormwater runoff into surface

waters such as the Cooper River, Shipyard Creek, and Noisette Creek.

Because of the construction required for the intermodal cargo

terminal, implementation of Development Concepts 3 and 3A would also

have an impact on several State-designated species of concern that

currently or historically have existed at the Base. Sea purslane, a

plant species classified as a State species of concern, would likely be

eliminated from the site of the marine industrial park if Concept 3

were implemented. Least terns, a threatened species under South

Carolina law, nest on the roofs of buildings that would be demolished

if the intermodal facility proposed in Concepts 3 and 3A were built.

Thus, demolition should be coordinated with the South Carolina

Department of Natural Resources. Two bat species that have been listed

as candidates for the Federal endangered species list are present in

the Charleston Harbor area, may roost in some buildings on the Base,

and could also be affected by the demolition of buildings. Thus, the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may request that the acquiring entity

conduct surveys of Base buildings before demolition in order to avoid

causing harm to the least terns and bats.

Development Concept 3B would not have an impact on the least terns

and would have less impact on the bats, because the proposed shipyard

and maritime industrial complex would not require the extent of

building demolition that would be necessary if the intermodal cargo

facility were built. Redevelopment under all three Development Concepts

would affect, by removal or alteration, more than half of the wooded

areas on the Base.

Navy is evaluating the extent of existing contamination on the

Base. Navy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the South Carolina

Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) will review and

approve the risk assessments developed to ascertain the potential

impacts of existing contamination on human health and the environment

before Navy remediates the contaminated sites and conveys the property.

There are three historic districts (Naval Shipyard, Naval Hospital

and Officer Housing), one archeological site (a prehistoric site near

Quarters L), and three individually eligible structures (Navy Chapel,

Marine Barracks, and Coast Guard Air Station Bachelor Officers

Quarters) on the Base. Navy, the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation, and the State Historic Preservation Officer entered into

a Programmatic Agreement on July 10, 1995. Under this Agreement, Navy

will encourage adaptive reuse of the historic structures and maintain

and preserve the buildings and the archeological site until a decision

is made concerning their ultimate disposal. Additionally, Navy will

include protective covenants in the deeds for parcels that contain

historic structures and the archeological site.

Navy also analyzed the impacts on low income and minority

populations pursuant to Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in Minority

[[Page 22037]]

Populations and Low-Income Populations'' and found that there will be

no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects on minority and low income populations. Any impacts related to

reuse of the Base will be experienced equally by all groups within the

regional population.

Mitigation

No mitigation measures are required to implement Navy's decision to

dispose of the Naval Base property. Navy's FEIS identified and

discussed the actions that would be necessary to mitigate the impacts

associated with reuse and redevelopment. The acquiring entity, under

the direction of Federal, State and local agencies with regulatory

authority over protected resources, will be responsible for

implementing these mitigation measures.

Absent statutory authority, Navy cannot impose restrictions on the

future use of this surplus Federal property. Navy will, however,

include appropriate notifications in the deeds for any parcels that

contain wetlands, lie within floodplains or are inhabited by threatened

or endangered species protected under Federal and State laws.

Comments Received on the FEIS

Navy received nine comment letters from regulatory agencies, a

citizens group, and individual citizens. These comments did not raise

new issues concerning potential problems with implementation of the

reuse plan or propose mitigation measures other than those addressed in

the FEIS. While some expressed concern that there was insufficient

detail describing implementation of the reuse plan, these concerns may

be addressed by the entity that acquires the Naval Base as it develops

its implementation plan.

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control's

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) requested that

Navy either develop a Basewide stormwater management plan or require

the acquiring entity to develop such a plan as a condition of

conveyance. Navy will instead rely upon the applicability of the South

Carolina Stormwater Management and Sediment Reduction Act, 48 S.C. Code

Ann. Sec. 48-14-10, et seq., and local ordinances that require the

acquiring entity to submit a stormwater management plan to OCRM for

approval.

Regulations Governing the Disposal Decision

Since the proposed action contemplates a disposal action under the

Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (DBCRA), Public Law

101-510, 10 U.S.C. 2687 note, selection of Alternative Reuse Scenario 3

as the preferred alternative was based upon the environmental analysis

in the FEIS and application of the standards set forth in DBCRA, the

Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR), 41 CFR Part 101-47, and

the Department of Defense Rule on Revitalizing Base Closure Communities

and Community Assistance (DOD Rule), 32 CFR Parts 90 and 91.

Section 101-47.303-1 of the FPMR requires that the disposal of

Federal property benefit the Federal government and constitute the

highest and best use of the property. The FPMR defines the ``highest

and best use'' as that use to which a property can be put that produces

the highest monetary return from the property, promotes its maximum

value, or serves a public or institutional purpose. The ``highest and

best use'' determination must be based upon the property's economic

potential, qualitative values, and utilization factors such as zoning,

physical characteristics, other private and public uses in the

vicinity, former Government uses, access, roads, location and

environmental considerations.

After Federal property has been conveyed to non-Federal entities,

the property is subject to local land use regulations, including zoning

and subdivision regulations and building codes. Unless expressly

authorized by statute, the disposing Federal agency cannot restrict the

future use of surplus Government property. As a result, the local

community exercises substantial control over future use of the

property. For this reason, local land use plans and zoning affect

determination of the highest and best use of surplus Government

property.

The DBCRA directed the Administrator of the General Services

Administration (GSA) to delegate to the Secretary of Defense authority

to transfer and dispose of base closure property. Section 2905(b) of

DBCRA directs the Secretary of Defense to exercise this authority in

accordance with GSA's property disposal regulations, set forth at

Sections 101-47.1 through 101-47.8 of the FPMR. By letter dated

December 20, 1991, the Secretary of Defense delegated the authority to

transfer and dispose of base closure property closed under DBCRA to the

Secretaries of the Military Departments. Under this delegation of

authority, the Secretary of the Navy must follow FPMR procedures for

screening and disposing of real property when implementing base

closures. Only where Congress has expressly provided additional

authority for disposing of base closure property, e.g., the economic

development conveyance authority established in 1993 by Section

2905(b)(4) of DBCRA, may Navy apply disposal procedures other than the

FPMR's prescriptions.

In Section 2901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 1994, Public Law 103-160, Congress recognized the economic

hardship occasioned by base closures, the Federal interest in

facilitating economic recovery of base closure communities, and the

need to identify and implement reuse and redevelopment of property at

closing installations. In Section 2903(c) of Public Law 103-160,

Congress directed the Military Departments to consider each base

closure community's economic needs and priorities in the property

disposal process. Under Section 2905(b)(2)(E) of DBCRA, Navy must

consult with local communities before it disposes of base closure

property and must consider local plans developed for reuse and

redevelopment of the surplus Federal property.

The Department of Defense's goal, as set forth in Section 90.4 of

the DOD Rule, is to help base closure communities achieve rapid

economic recovery through expeditious reuse and redevelopment of the

assets at closing bases, taking into consideration local market

conditions and locally developed reuse plans. Thus, the Department has

adopted a consultative approach with each community to ensure that

property disposal decisions consider the Local Redevelopment

Authority's reuse plan and encourage job creation. As a part of this

cooperative approach, the base closure community's interests, e.g.,

reflected in its zoning for the area, play a significant role in

determining the range of alternatives considered in the environmental

analysis for property disposal. Furthermore, Section 91.7(d)(3) of the

DOD Rule provides that the Local Redevelopment Authority's plan

generally will be used as the basis for the proposed disposal action.

The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 40

U.S.C. 484, as implemented by the FPMR and DBCRA, identifies several

mechanisms for disposing of surplus base closure property: By public

benefit conveyance (FPMR Sec. 101-47.303-2); by economic development

conveyance (DBCRA Sec. 2905(b)(4)); by negotiated sale (FPMR Sec. 101-

47.304-8); and by competitive sale (FPMR Sec. 101-47.304-7). The

selection of any

[[Page 22038]]

particular method of conveyance merely implements the Federal agency's

decision to dispose of the property. Decisions concerning whether to

undertake a public benefit conveyance or an economic development

conveyance, or to sell property by negotiation or by competitive bid

are committed by law to agency discretion. Selecting a method of

disposal implicates a broad range of factors and rests solely within

the Secretary of the Navy's discretion.

Conclusion

Alternative Reuse Scenario 3 with its three Development Concepts

presents the highest and best use of the Charleston Naval Base. The

local community, represented by the Charleston Naval Complex

Redevelopment Authority, has determined in its reuse plan that the

property should be used for a high density mix of commercial,

industrial and recreational activities. The property's physical

characteristics and past use and the current use of adjacent lands make

it appropriate for this high density mix of redevelopment.

Additionally, utilizing the existing infrastructure on the Base to the

maximum extent, this redevelopment would produce an environment most

likely to create jobs.

Alternative Reuse Scenario 3 responds to local economic conditions,

promotes rapid economic recovery from the impact of base closure, and

is consistent with President Clinton's Five-Part Plan for revitalizing

base closure communities, which emphasizes local economic redevelopment

of the closing military facility and creation of jobs as the means to

revitalize these communities. 32 CFR Parts 90 and 91, 59 FR 16,123

(1994). The resultant environmental impacts can be mitigated by the

acquiring entity under the direction of Federal, State and local

regulatory authorities.

If only environmental considerations were determinative, the

proposal with the least potential for causing adverse environmental

impacts would be Alternative Reuse Scenario 1. This alternative,

however, does not constitute the highest and best use of the Base

property. While Alternative Reuse Scenario 1 presents a reasonable use

which could benefit residents of the local community, this alternative

does not take full advantage of the property's physical characteristics

and past use, does not make maximum use of the existing infrastructure

to support redevelopment, and does not have as high a potential for job

creation.

Additionally, Alternative Reuse Scenario 1 does not provide the

level of activity sought in the LRA's reuse plan and would not foster

rapid economic recovery for this base closure community through

redevelopment of the closed Base and job creation. Consequently,

Alternative Reuse Scenario 1 does not constitute the highest and best

use of the property. Similarly, Alternative Reuse Scenario 2 does not

take full advantage of the potential for redevelopment of the Base

property and is not as likely to achieve economic redevelopment of the

Base as is Alternative Reuse Scenario 3.

Accordingly, Navy will dispose of the Charleston Naval Base in a

manner that is consistent with the Charleston Naval Complex

Redevelopment Authority's proposed reuse plan for the property.

Dated: May 7, 1996.

William J. Cassidy, Jr.,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Conversion And Redevelopment).

[FR Doc. 96-11889 Filed 5-10-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M