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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of Naval Base

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. 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 Naval Base

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Naval Base property is composed of

Naval Station Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard.

Navy intends to dispose of the property in a manner that is

consistent with the Community Reuse Plan for the Philadelphia Naval

Base and Shipyard (``Reuse Plan'') submitted on November 22, 1994, by

the City of Philadelphia, the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for

the Naval Base. The Reuse Plan proposes a mix of industrial,

commercial, educational, research and development, residential,

warehousing, intermodal transportation and open space uses of the

property.

In its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Navy evaluated

a ``No action'' alternative and three ``action'' alternatives: the

Reuse Plan, described in the FEIS as the preferred alternative; the

Mustin Field Retail Alternative; and the Mustin Field Natural Area

Alternative.

In deciding to dispose of the Naval Base, Navy has determined that

the Reuse Plan will meet the goals of achieving local economic

redevelopment of the closing facilities and creating new jobs, while

limiting adverse environmental impacts and ensuring land uses that are

compatible with adjacent property. This Record Of Decision leaves

selection of the particular means to achieve the proposed redevelopment

to the acquiring entity and the local zoning authority.

BACKGROUND: The 1991 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission

recommended closure of the Naval Station and the Capehart Housing that

was associated with the Naval Base. The 1991 Commission also

recommended closure and preservation of the Naval Shipyard for emergent

requirements and retention of the Naval Foundry and Propeller Center,

the Naval Inactive Ships Maintenance Facility, and the Naval Surface

Warfare Center's (Carderock Division) Ship Systems Engineering Station.

Theses recommendations were approved by President Bush and accepted by

the One Hundred Second Congress in 1991.

The 1995 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission modified

the 1991 Commission's recommendation by eliminating the direction to

preserve the Naval Shipyard for emergent requirements. The 1995

Commission's recommendation was approved by President Clinton and

accepted by the One Hundred Fourth Congress in 1995.

Navy will also retain at the Naval Base certain other support

activities, including a Detachment of Public Works Center Norfolk, the

League Island Branch Clinic of National Naval Medical Center Bethesda,

and a Detachment of the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center Norfolk. The

designated Naval activities closed in September 1996, and the property

has been in caretaker status since that date.

The Naval Base is located at the confluence of the Delaware and

Schuylkill Rivers on League Island, four miles south of the central

business district of the City of Philadelphia. All of the Naval Base

properties are situated on League Island except the Capehart Housing,

which is located one mile northwest of the Naval Base.

The Naval Base occupies about 1,500 acres on League Island, and the

nearby Capehart Housing is situated on about 28 acres of land. There

are approximately 545 structures containing more than 11 million square

feet of floor space at the Naval Base. The western half of the Base is

more developed and contains facilities associated with the maintenance

and production operations of the Naval Shipyard as well as five

drydocks. The eastern half is less developed and contains the inactive

Mustin Field that served the former Naval Aircraft Factory.

Administrative and support facilities, the Bachelor Enlisted

Quarters and Officers' and the Reserve Basin where inactive Naval

vessels are moored occupy the center of the Base. The property north of

the Reserve Basin contains warehouses, the brig, industrial support

facilities, the fire fighting school, and open storage areas. Senior

Officers' houses are located along the Delaware River waterfront east

of the pier area.

Navy published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on

December 28, 1994, announcing that Navy would prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement that would analyze the impacts of disposal and reuse

of the land, buildings and infrastructure at the Naval Base. A thirty-

day public scoping period was established, and Navy held a public

scoping meeting on January 11, 1995, at the South Philadelphia

Community Center.

On January 30, 1996, Navy distributed a Draft Environmental Impact

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

parties and the general public. Navy held a public hearing at the South

Philadelphia Community Center on February 15, 1996, to discuss the

DEIS. During the forty-five day review period after publication of the

DEIS, Federal, State, and local agencies submitted written comments

concerning the DEIS. These comments and Navy's responses were

incorporated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, which was

distributed to the public on June 21, 1996, for a thirty-day review

period that concluded on July 22, 1996. Navy received comments on the

FEIS from the Department of the Interior, two Pennsylvania State

agencies, Health Alternatives International, Inc., the Philadelphia

International Development Group, and one individual.

ALTERNATIVES: NEPA requires Navy to evaluate a reasonable range of

alternatives for the disposal and reuse of this Federal property. In

the NEPA process, Navy analyzed the environmental impacts of various

proposed land uses that would result from disposal of the Naval Base

property. Navy also evaluated a ``No action'' alternative that would

leave the property in a caretaker status with Navy maintaining the

physical condition of the property, providing a security force and

making repairs essential to safety.

Navy relied upon the land uses described in the Reuse Plan as the

basis

[[Page 36786]]

for its analysis of the preferred ``action'' alternative, which

proposed a medium intensity development of the Base. Navy developed and

analyzed two other ``action'' alternatives characterized by high and

low intensity development scenarios.

The first ``action'' alternative, the Reuse Plan, divides the Naval

Base property into five areas. First, the Shipyard, located in the

western part of the Naval Base, would serve as the core area for

manufacturing and heavy industrial activities. The western end of the

Shipyard, containing Drydocks 3, 4, and 5 and associated buildings,

would be redeveloped as a private shipyard with controlled public

access. The eastern end of the Shipyard, containing Drydocks 1 and 2,

would be redeveloped to permit those industrial activities that require

contact with the public.

Second, the League Island Center, located east of the Shipyard area

between Broad Street and Mustin Field, would support a mix of land uses

including administrative and educational, research and development,

commercial and recreational and light industrial activities. The uses

in this area would include administrative and professional offices,

educational institutions, light industrial activities associated with

research, bed and breakfast lodging, and restaurants.

Third, the Girard Point Industrial Park, located in the

northwestern part of the Naval Base, would support the property's

industrial activities by providing facilities for storage and large

scale distribution of materials.

Fourth, the East End Commerce Park, located at the eastern end of

the Naval Base on the former Mustin Field, would support a mix of land

uses including transportation, light and heavy industrial operations,

research and development, and recreational activities. These uses could

include an intermodal railyard, warehousing, a waterfront esplanade,

and passive recreation spaces.

Fifth, the 400-unit Capehart Housing property, located about one

mile northwest of the Naval Base, would be converted to private, market

rate housing. After redevelopment, these houses would be sold. The net

proceeds from the sale would be used to capitalize a Rental Assistance

Endowment Fund that would provide rental assistance and other support

services to the City's homeless assistance providers.

The second ``action'' alternative, the Mustin Field Retail

Alternative, proposed a high intensity reuse of the Naval Base.

Redevelopment of the Shipyard, League Island Center, Girard Point

Industrial Park and Capehart Housing would proceed as proposed in the

Reuse Plan, but the eastern end of the Naval Base would be redeveloped

differently. A commercial services zone featuring a regional shopping

complex would be developed on about 300 acres at Mustin Field. This

complex would be composed of a retail mall with approximately two

million square feet of space, specialty stores and restaurants, an

entertainment complex, warehouses, and centrally located parking and

access facilities.

The third ``action'' alternative, the Mustin Field Natural Area

Alternative, proposed a lower intensity reuse of the Naval Base. As in

the second alternative, redevelopment of the Shipyard, League Island

Center, Girard Point Industrial Park and Capehart Housing would proceed

as proposed in the Reuse Plan, but the eastern end of the Naval Base

would remain undeveloped. The concrete runways of Mustin Field would be

allowed to deteriorate naturally, and existing vegetation would be

permitted to grow with little or no maintenance. The enlisted family

housing along the Delaware River at the eastern end of the Naval Base

would be demolished. The Mustin Field Natural Area Alternative also

proposed a recreational zone consisting of a waterfront visitors'

center and esplanade along the Delaware River. This Natural Area would

be fenced to prevent illegal dumping and other inappropriate uses.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Navy analyzed the potential impacts of the ``No

action'' and three ``action'' alternatives for their effects on land

use compatibility, socioeconomics, public services, transportation, air

quality, noise, cultural resources, natural resources, and generation

of hazardous materials. This Record Of Decision focuses on the impacts

that would likely result from implementation of the Reuse Plan.

The Reuse Plan's proposed use of land would be consistent and

compatible with the existing uses of adjacent land in South

Philadelphia, because the area around the Naval base contains primarily

industrial activities. The Reuse Plan's proposal for redevelopment of

the Capehart Housing would not have any adverse impact, because this

property would continue to be used for housing.

The Reuse Plan would not result in any significant adverse

socioeconomic impacts. Indeed, the Plan forecasts new direct employment

opportunities in the range of 15,700 jobs and secondary employment of

more than 20,000 jobs. The Reuse Plan projects that, at full build-out,

the property will generate wage tax revenues of about $21.5 million and

real property tax revenues of about $19.2 million.

Under the Reuse Plan, the City will sell the Capehart Housing on

the open market. The release of these housing units could have an

adverse impact on real estate property values in South Philadelphia.

Thus, to mitigate this impact, the City will develop a phased marketing

plan that would not cause a decrease in property values in the

surrounding neighborhoods.

The Reuse Plan would not cause any significant adverse impact on

community services. It will be necessary to expand the service area for

South Philadelphia emergency and medical service providers, but the

response times will remain within five to ten minutes.

Implementation of the Reuse Plan would generate an increase in

traffic. There would be 10,395 more peak morning trips and 12,417 more

peak afternoon trips than would be expected under the ``No action''

alternative. Additionally, the Plan would have various impacts on

traffic in the surrounding roadway network during commuting periods.

In response, the City has proposed to change traffic patterns for

the following intersections: Interstate Highway 95 (North) at Broad

Street; Interstate Highway 95 (South) as Broad Street; and Penrose

Avenue at 26th Street. The City has also proposed to build two new

access points to the Naval Base at Christopher Columbus Boulevard and

at Darien Street. Nevertheless, the intersection of Interstate Highway

95 and Broad Street and the intersection of Packer Avenue and Darien

Street would experience significant increased traffic that will require

roadway improvements beyond those already identified by the City.

The Reuse Plan would not result in any significant impacts to air

quality. As a result of the projected increase in traffic, carbon

monoxide levels would be higher from activities in the Reuse Plan that

in the ``No action'' alternative. There would not, however, be any

violations of the one-hour and eight-hour National Ambient Air Quality

Standards for carbon monoxide.

There would not be any significant impacts from noise. The existing

noise levels on the property are dominated by industrial activities.

The existing noise levels in nearby residential and recreational areas

are high and typical of urban neighborhoods. While the Reuse Plan would

slightly increase noise levels along Pattison Avenue at

[[Page 36787]]

Roosevelt Park and along parts of Broad Street during peak traffic

hours, most areas would experience noise increases that would be barely

perceptible. Measured against the levels identified as acceptable in

Section 10-400 of the Philadelphia Municipal Code, the noise levels

generated by the Reuse Plan are not significant.

There are two historic districts that are eligible for listing on

the National Register of Historic places. These two districts are

located in the western part of the Naval Base. The Reuse Plan would

adversely affect buildings in this historic districts. Accordingly, on

March 23, 1997, Navy, the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation

Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation entered into

a Programmatic Agreement (PA) concerning these structures. The PA

establishes a framework for applying restrictive covenants that require

consultation between the owner of the Naval Base property and the

Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer before demolition or

alteration of historic buildings and structures and before alteration

of the historic districts. The City of Philadelphia concurred with this

Agreement on April 8, 1997.

No significant impact on biological resources would result from the

Reuse Plan. The Naval Base has been fully developed, and few natural

features remain. While some vegetative areas would be lost in the

redevelopment, the habitat loss is not unique to the Naval Base and can

readily be found elsewhere along the Delaware River.

There are two endangered species that are listed on the Federal

endangered species list and present at the Naval Base. A pair of

peregrine falcons nest in the Interstate Highway 95 bridge that crosses

the Naval Base, and the shortnose sturgeon has been observed in the

Delaware River. Navy has informally consulted with the United States

Fish & Wildlife Service and will place a Notice in the conveyance

document that describes actions recommended by the Department of the

Interior to minimize impacts to the nesting falcons. Similarly, Navy

will place a Notice in the conveyance document that the shortnose

sturgeon may be present in the Delaware River.

The eastern end of the Naval Base contains about 26 acres of

freshwater wetlands. The Reuse Plan's proposed construction of an

intermodal railyard, industrial facilities, and warehouses may disturb

or eliminate these wetlands. Thus, the acquiring entity will be

required to obtain permits from the United States Army Corps of

Engineers and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

in accordance with Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act (FWPCA), 33 U.S.C. 1344, and from the Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection in accordance with the Regulations Governing

Dam Safety and Water Management, 25 Pa. Code Section 105 et seq. The

stringent requirements of these laws should provide adequate mitigation

for the loss of wetlands.

About 90 percent of the Naval Base property lies within the 100-

year floodplain. The remaining 10 percent lies between the 100-year and

500-year floodplains. Therefore, any construction arising out of

implementation of the Reuse Plan would likely affect the floodplain.

Much of the Naval Base is already developed with waterfront industrial

uses that have been active for more than 100 years. Nevertheless, in

accordance with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, dated May

24, 1977, Navy will place a Notice in the conveyance document that

describes those uses that are restricted under Federal, State, and

local floodplain regulations.

Implementation of the Reuse Plan would not result in any

significant impacts on surface waters. All new construction and any

alteration of land must conform to the treatment and runoff control

requirements of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

as set forth at 25 Pa. Code Section 102.4. Additionally, under FWPCA,

33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., any new source of wastewater discharge would be

required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System Program.

Historically, large quantities of hazardous waste were generated at

the Naval Base. As a consequence, fifteen Installation Restoration

sites have been established and are undergoing study or cleanup. Navy

is responsible for remediating these sites. Other hazardous waste

cleanup and remediation actions, including the closure or removal of

underground storage tanks, abatement of friable and accessible

asbestos, and removal of PCB transformers, are also underway throughout

the Naval Base.

No significant adverse impacts would be caused by the hazardous

materials and hazardous waste that may be generated by the Reuse Plan.

Those Navy activities that will remain on the Naval Base will generate

less hazardous substances than when the Shipyard was fully operational.

The nature and amount of hazardous waste that would result from

implementation of the Reuse Plan depends upon the nature and extent of

future redevelopment at the Naval Base. Those whose use hazardous

materials will be subject to inspection by the Philadelphia Fire

Department in accordance with the Worker and Community Right-to-Know

Act. 35 P.S. Section 7312, and will be required to submit information

concerning their use of hazardous materials by the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection's regulations, set forth at 34

Pa. Code Section 301 et seq.

Navy also analyzed the impacts on low-income and minority

populations pursuant to Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations, reprinted in 42 U.S.C. 4321 note. There would be no

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects on minority and low income populations. All groups would

experience equally any impact related to reuse of the Navy Base

property within the regional population.

MITIGATION: Implementation of Navy's decision to dispose of the Naval

Base does not require Navy to perform any mitigation measures. The FEIS

identified and discussed the actions that would be necessary to

mitigate 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 necessary mitigation measures. The historic property will

be protected by the use of restrictive covenants in the deed conveying

the property.

COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE FEIS: In response to the FEIS, Navy received

comments from the United States Department of the Interior, the

Pennsylvania Game Commission, the Pennsylvania Human Relations

Commission, Health Alternatives International, Inc., the Philadelphia

International Development Group, and one private citizen.

The Department of the Interior expressed concern about the

protection of wetlands, loss of habitat, and public access for

recreational use of the Naval Base. Interior also favored the Mustin

Field Natural Area Alternative, Navy will place a Notice in the

conveyance document identifying the location and extent of wetlands

that exist on the Naval Base.

The Pennsylvania Game Commission expressed concern about the

potential effect on the peregrine falcon arising out of reuse of the

Naval Base. Navy will place a Notice in the conveyance

[[Page 36788]]

document describing the Department of the Interior's recommendations

for minimizing impacts on the nesting falcons.

In its comment on the DEIS, the Pennsylvania Human Relations

Commission asked Navy to address methods of monitoring compliance with

civil rights laws in the future marketing of the Capehart Housing. The

Commission's comment on the FEIS stated that Navy had adequately

addressed this issue.

Health Alternatives International, Inc. asked that the acquiring

entity convert a building for use as a center for volunteers who would

coordinate educational outreach to the community. It also requested

continued operation of the child care center and recreational

facilities. Navy has provided these requests to the Local Redevelopment

Authority for its consideration.

A private entity, the Philadelphia International Development Group

(PIDG), suggested that the eastern part of the Base should be

redeveloped as a mixed use property that would provide commercial,

retail, entertainment and manufacturing activities similar in nature,

extent, and impact to the Mustin Field Retail Alternative. Navy also

provided PIDG's proposal to the LRA for its consideration.

One private citizen expressed concern about the effects of reuse

and redevelopment on community and emergency services in South

Philadelphia. This citizen was also concerned about the traffic

congestion that could occur during a ``triple event'', described as

simultaneous public events at three nearly athletic facilities, i.e.,

Veterans Stadium, the Spectrum, and the Core States Center. Navy

concluded that there is sufficient response time and that there are

adequate facilities for reasonably foreseeable emergencies.

Additionally, the City regards the possibility of ``triple event''

traffic congestion as unlikely.

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, Navy's decision 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. 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 historical 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 effect

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, identifies several mechanisms

for disposing of surplus base closure property: by public benefit

conveyance (FPMR Sec. 110-47.303-2); by negotiated sale (FPMR Sec. 101-

47.304-8); 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 committed by law to agency discretion. Selecting

a method of disposal implicates a broad range of factors and

[[Page 36789]]

rests solely within the Secretary of the Navy's discretion.

CONCLUSION: The Reuse Plan prepared by the City of Philadelphia is

consistent with the prescriptions of the FPMR and Section 90.4 of the

DoD Rule. The LRA has determined in its Reuse Plan that the property

should be used for several purposes including light and heavy

industrial, manufacturing, administrative, research and development,

educational, intermodal transportation, and waterfront commercial and

industrial activities. The property's location, physical

characteristics, and existing infrastructure, as well as the current

uses of adjacent property, make it appropriate for the proposed uses.

The Reuse Plan responds to local and regional economic conditions,

promotes rapid economic recovery from the impact of the Base's 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 new jobs

as the means to revitalize these communities. 32 CFR Parts 90 and 91,

59 FR 16123 (1994). 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.

Although the ``No action'' alternative has less potential for

causing adverse environmental impacts, that alternative would not

alleviate the economic hardship that Congress expressly recognized as

accompanying base closures. It would not foster local economic

redevelopment of the Naval Base property and would not create new jobs.

Additionally, it would not take advantage of the property's location,

physical characteristics, and infrastructure or the current uses of

adjacent property.

Accordingly, Navy will dispose of Naval Base Philadelphia in a

manner that is consistent with the City of Philadelphia's Reuse Plan

for the property.

Dated: June 26, 1997.

William J. Cassidy, Jr.,

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

[FR Doc. 97-17901 Filed 7-8-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M