[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66061-66065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32938]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY


Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of Naval Station 
Puget Sound at Sand Point, Seattle, Washington

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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), and the regulations of the Council on Environmental 
Quality that implement NEPA procedures, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, hereby 
announces its decision to dispose of Naval Station Puget Sound at Sand 
Point, Seattle, Washington, (Sand Point).
    Navy intends to dispose of the property in a manner that is 
consistent with the City of Seattle Community Preferred Reuse Plan for 
Sand Point (Reuse Plan) that was submitted in November 1993 by the City 
of Seattle, the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for the base, as 
modified by certain revisions endorsed by the City Council in June 1997 
and designated as Options to the City's 1993 Reuse Plan. The 1993 Reuse 
Plan and the 1997 Options are described in the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (FEIS) as the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred 
Alternative proposes a mixed land use consisting of educational 
facilities, community facilities, arts and cultural facilities, open 
space and recreational areas, residential areas, and institutional land 
uses.
    In deciding to dispose of Sand Point in a manner consistent with 
the Preferred Alternative, Navy has determined that this mixed land use 
will enhance community and cultural resources, provide housing for the 
homeless, limit adverse environmental impacts, and ensure land uses 
that are compatible with surrounding properties. This Record Of 
Decision (ROD) does not mandate a specific mix of land uses. Rather, it 
leaves selection of the particular means to achieve the mixed use 
redevelopment to the acquiring entity and the local zoning authority.

Background:

    Sand Point is located in King County, Washington, and lies within 
the limits of the City of Seattle. The base occupies 152 acres on the 
western shore of Lake Washington, about 6 miles northeast of downtown 
Seattle.
    Under the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and 
Realignment Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-526, the Defense Secretary's 
Commission on Base Realignment and Closure recommended ``closing the 
portion of Naval Station Puget Sound (Sand Point) whose mission is to 
serve fleet units at Naval Station Puget Sound (Everett).'' The 
Commission's recommendation was approved by the Secretary of Defense 
and accepted by the One Hundred First Congress in April 1989. In 1991, 
under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Pub. L. 
101-510, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission 
recommended the complete closure of Sand Point. This recommendation was 
approved by President Bush and accepted by the One Hundred Second 
Congress in September 1991. On September 28, 1995, Navy ceased 
operations at Sand Point and placed the property in caretaker status.
    Two Federal agencies, the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Department of the 
Interior's U.S. Geological Survey (Biological Resources Division) 
requested interagency transfers of base closure property at Sand Point. 
Navy will transfer to NOAA Building 27 and Building 409 and about 10 
acres of land in the northern part of the base adjacent to NOAA's Sand 
Point area facilities, as well as the access road that covers about 1.2 
acres. Navy will transfer Building 61 and about 5 acres of land at the 
southeast corner of the base to Interior for use as the National

[[Page 66062]]

Fisheries Research Center. Navy declared the remaining property surplus 
to the needs of the Federal Government in the Notice published in the 
Federal Register on October 11, 1995.
    Navy published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on 
November 19, 1993, announcing that Navy would prepare an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) that would analyze the impacts of disposal and 
reuse of the land, buildings, and infrastructure at Sand Point. Navy 
conducted the public scoping process between November 19, 1993 and 
January 14, 1994. A public scoping meeting was held at NOAA's Building 
9 Theater, adjacent to the base, on December 16, 1993.
    On November 8, 1996, Navy distributed a Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (DEIS) to Federal, State, and local agencies, elected 
officials, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and interested persons. Navy 
held a public hearing on December 2, 1996, at the Eckstein Middle 
School in Seattle. The forty-five day public comment period on the DEIS 
expired on December 23, 1996, but was extended to January 17, 1997, to 
permit submission of additional comments.
    Federal and State agencies, local governments, community groups and 
associations, and the general public submitted comments on the DEIS. 
The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe did not submit comments on the DEIS. These 
comments and Navy's responses were incorporated in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement, which was distributed to the public on 
October 24, 1997, for a review period that concluded on November 24, 
1997. Navy received two letter comments on the FEIS.

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 could result from disposal of the Sand Point 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. For its analysis, Navy relied upon the 
reuse and redevelopment plan proposed by the City of Seattle and a 
redevelopment plan proposed by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.
    The City of Seattle presented its Reuse Plan to the Department of 
the Navy in November 1993. In a letter to the Navy dated February 22, 
1996, the City set forth several revisions to the 1993 Reuse Plan. 
These changes, endorsed by the City Council in June 1997, were 
designated in the FEIS as Options to the City Plan.
    The 1993 Reuse Plan proposed a mixed use of the Sand Point property 
that divided the base into six activity areas: (1) A waterfront park in 
the northern part of the base known as the north shore recreation area; 
(2) the education and community activities area in the western part of 
the base composed of educational and community activity buildings, a 
firefighter training facility, and a commercial film studio; (3) the 
Magnuson Park Arts, Culture and Community Center in the eastern part of 
the base composed of an indoor community center and an outdoor 
amphitheater for community events; (4) the Magnuson Park open space/
recreation expansion area, composed of public parkland, athletic 
fields, pedestrian paths, bicycle paths and expanded bus routes in the 
southeastern part of the base adjacent to Magnuson Park, a new entrance 
to Magnuson Park at the intersection of Sand Point Way and Northeast 
65th Street, and wetland restoration at the former Mud Lake in the 
southeastern part of the base; (5) the residential area composed of 50 
low income housing units in a barracks building and 200 transitional 
housing units for the homeless in the southwestern part of the base; 
and (6) institutional uses reflected in the activities of the Federal 
agencies that will occupy property at Sand Point.
    The 1997 Options to the City Plan eliminated the 50 low income 
housing units and instead proposed to use the former barracks building 
for educational classrooms and school administrative spaces. The 
Options proposed to use other facilities to train City employees such 
as police officers and to provide an activity center for senior 
citizens. The Options also proposed expanding the boundaries of the 
north shore recreation area to include Buildings 2 and 67. The Options 
would eliminate the fire training center that the 1993 Reuse Plan 
intended for Building 67 and replace it with a cultural and community 
activities center. The Options would also eliminate the film studio 
initially planned for Building 2 and instead use the building as an 
indoor athletic facility.
    The Preferred Alternative in the FEIS is a combination of the 1993 
Reuse Plan and the 1997 Options to the City Plan. This alternative also 
reflects the 1997 discussions between the City of Seattle and the 
University of Washington that resulted in the LRA's proposal to use 
certain facilities at Sand Point for classrooms and administrative 
activities.
    In June 1993, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe submitted a draft plan 
to Navy proposing reuse of the entire 152-acre base. The FEIS refers to 
this proposal as the Muckleshoot Plan. In a letter dated July 26, 1993, 
the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 
submitted a request on behalf of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe under the 
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 40 U.S.C 471, 
seeking an interagency transfer of 85 acres of base closure property in 
the northern part of Sand Point. On September 7, 1995, BIA withdrew its 
request for transfer of the 85-acre Sand Point property. Nevertheless, 
Navy analyzed the Muckleshoot Plan in the FEIS as a reasonable 
alternative under NEPA.
    The Muckleshoot Plan proposed a mixed use of the Sand Point 
property that included: (1) a commercial marina in the northern part of 
the base that would accommodate tribal fishing vessels and activities, 
fishing net storage, fisheries research, and recreational activities; 
(2) light industrial and warehousing activities in the north central 
part of the base; (3) social services, including a drug and alcohol 
treatment facility, a health clinic, a senior citizens center, and a 
student counseling facility in the central part of the base; (4) a 
vocational technical school for 5,000 to 7,000 Native American students 
with housing for the school's staff and approximately 600 students in 
the south central part of the base; (5) commercial activities in the 
southern part of the base; and (6) a new entrance to Magnuson Park at 
the intersection of Sand Point Way and Northeast 65th Street.

Environmental Impacts

    Navy analyzed the potential impacts of the Preferred Alternative, 
the Muckleshoot Plan, and the ``No action'' alternative for each 
alternative's effects on land use, historic and cultural resources, 
socioeconomics (including demographics, housing, the local economy, 
social services, schools, and environmental justice), recreation, 
transportation, noise, public services and utilities, public health and 
safety, soils, biological resources and endangered species, water 
quality, and air quality. This Record Of Decision (ROD) focuses on the 
impacts that would likely result from implementing the Preferred 
Alternative.
    In the FEIS, Navy used existing land uses as a basis for assessing 
the impact of the land uses proposed by the Preferred Alternative, the 
Muckleshoot

[[Page 66063]]

Plan, and the ``No action'' alternative. Navy also considered the 
compatibility of the proposed land uses with the current uses of 
property adjacent to Sand Point.
    The Preferred Alternative would result in a substantial increase in 
recreational and educational activity on the Sand Point property and a 
decrease in administrative and commercial activity as compared with the 
activities that Navy conducted on the base. These increased 
recreational and educational uses would not likely have a significant 
impact on the property or on the surrounding neighborhoods.
    While the Preferred Alternative would result in an increase in 
residential use of the Sand Point property, this land use is similar in 
nature to the single family and multifamily residential community 
adjacent to Sand Point. The increase would not likely have an adverse 
impact on the surrounding area.
    Several structures at Sand Point are eligible for listing on the 
National Register of Historic Places. Since the Preferred Alternative 
proposes to use these buildings for purposes similar to Navy's use of 
the buildings, their historic integrity will be maintained, as will 
that of the proposed historic district on the base. Although Navy did 
not discover any surface archeological resources at Sand Point, those 
resources could be present in undisturbed areas under the surface. If 
discovered, they will be protected by restrictions incorporated in 
documents conveying the property.
    The Preferred Alternative proposes to consider demolition and 
modification of certain buildings within the proposed education and 
community activities area, if renovation and reuse are not feasible 
within 10 years. Either of these could have an adverse impact on 
buildings within the historic district. Thus, Navy entered into a 
Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the State Historic Preservation 
Officer (SHPO) on October 29, 1997, that was accepted by the Advisory 
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) on November 20, 1997. This PA 
would protect the historic district and its constituent elements after 
conveyance of the Sand Point property. The PA requires the 
incorporation of restrictive covenants in the conveyance documents to 
ensure protection of the historic properties and any subsurface 
archeological resources that may be discovered after conveyance.
    Navy's consideration of the socioeconomic impacts of disposal and 
reuse examined the potential effects on demographics, housing, the 
local economy, social services, schools, and environmental justice. The 
Preferred Alternative would cause an increase in population in the Sand 
Point area of about 2 percent and an increase in homeless assistance 
housing units of about 2 percent. It would not have a significant 
impact on employment or social services in the region.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on 
the regional economy. Navy's appraisal of its impact on property 
values, set forth in Appendix G of the FEIS (the Property Value Study), 
concluded that reuse of the southwestern part of the base along Sand 
Point Way for transitional multifamily housing should not result in a 
diminution in the value of nearby properties.
    Children living in the transitional housing would continue to 
attend the same schools that they attended before occupying this 
housing, using transportation provided by the Seattle School District. 
Thus, the Preferred Alternative would not have an impact on schools in 
the Sand Point area.
    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. The Preferred 
Alternative would, in fact, benefit minority and low-income populations 
by providing increased housing, social services and educational 
opportunities.
    The Preferred Alternative would increase the amount of property 
available for recreational use by 160 percent, from 30 acres to 78 
acres. This increase would be reflected in additional indoor and 
outdoor recreational facilities.
    Navy's evaluation of the impacts on transportation considered 
current traffic conditions and transportation systems, transit routes, 
high occupancy vehicle routes, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, traffic 
volumes, traffic safety, and parking. The Preferred Alternative would 
generate about 9,050 average daily trips, compared with 7,600 such 
trips when the base was active in 1993. Although not a significant 
impact, the Preferred Alternative's housing and educational uses would 
result in an increase in bus ridership. Similarly, because it increases 
access to the property, this alternative would also result in an 
increase in the use of existing bicycle and pedestrian routes. In light 
of the availability of space on the base, parking and construction-
related traffic would not likely cause adverse impacts in the Sand 
Point area.
    The noise associated with the Preferred Alternative would emanate 
from four sources: (1) Traffic (both on and off site); (2) 
construction; (3) heating, ventilating, and other mechanical equipment; 
and (4) other sources (people, activities, and equipment). With the 
exception of noise generated by outdoor music concerts at the proposed 
amphitheater, the Preferred Alternative would not cause any significant 
impact. The noise generated by these concerts, however, could cause a 
significant impact on the surrounding area.
    The Preferred Alternative would not cause any significant impact on 
public services (i.e., water, wastewater and sanitary sewer, stormwater 
and solid waste) and utilities. Similarly, it would not have a 
significant impact on public health and safety (i.e., crime and law 
enforcement, fire protection, emergency and medical services, and 
environmental health) in the Sand Point area.
    The environmental remediation required by the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 
U.S.C. 9601, et seq. (CERCLA), and Washington's Model Toxics Control 
Act, RCW 70.105D, WAC 173-340 (MTCA), has been completed. Those areas 
on the base that still contain contaminants are not likely to cause an 
impact if left undisturbed. The Washington State Department of Ecology 
concurs that with proper notification to future users of the property 
and deed restrictions limiting use of the property, no further action 
is necessary. However, unless adequately mitigated, the disturbance of 
asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint during demolition 
and remodeling could have an impact on human health.
    The Preferred Alternative would not cause any significant impact on 
soils, geology, and topography. This alternative would have only 
minimal and insignificant impacts on vegetation, wildlife, endangered 
species, and wetlands. It would increase the amount of wetlands by 
restoring a wetland habitat at the former Mud Lake.
    Bald eagles, which are on the Federal and State lists of threatened 
species, are present in the vicinity of Lake Washington and Sand Point. 
Peregrine falcons, which are on the Federal and State lists of 
endangered species, are also present in this area. The Preferred 
Alternative would not affect either the bald eagle or the peregrine 
falcon because it would not affect their critical

[[Page 66064]]

habitats or the species upon which they prey.
    The Preferred Alternative would result in a decrease of 30 acres in 
the amount of paved surface on the property. This decrease would occur 
largely at the southeastern end of the base where the Mud Lake wetlands 
and grassy recreational areas would be restored. The conversion of 
impervious surface to wetlands and grassy fields, however, would not 
have an adverse impact on surface water in Lake Washington and may 
result in less pollutants draining into the lake.
    There would not be any impact on air quality from implementation of 
the Preferred Alternative. This alternative, however, could result in 
the temporary and intermittent release of pollutants during demolition 
and construction activities. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control 
Agency (PSAPCA) regulations governing demolition and construction 
activities (Washington Clean Air Act RCW T. 70 Ch. 94) will ensure 
consistency with applicable air quality standards. The increases in 
carbon monoxide that would result from the increased traffic would not 
exceed applicable regional standards.
    Section 176 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506, as amended, 
requires Federal agencies to review their activities to ensure that 
they do not hamper local efforts to control air pollution. This statute 
prevents Federal agencies from conducting activities that do not 
conform to an approved implementation plan but recognizes certain 
categorically exempt activities. The conveyance of real property, 
regardless of the method, is such a categorically exempt activity. 
Accordingly, disposal of the Sand Point property does not require Navy 
to conduct a conformity analysis.

Mitigation

    Implementation of the decision to dispose of Sand Point does not 
require Navy to perform any mitigation measures beyond those discussed 
here. Navy will include appropriate restrictive covenants in the deeds 
for any parcels where hazardous substances remain and for the historic 
properties in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws.
    These restrictive covenants will limit the use of certain property 
and notify future users of the property's condition. In accordance with 
the Programmatic Agreement that Navy entered into with the SHPO and the 
Advisory Council, restrictive covenants in the deed conveying the 
property will protect both historic and archeological resources and 
establish a process for preserving the historic district and its 
constituent elements.
    Navy's FEIS identified and discussed those actions that would be 
necessary to mitigate impacts associated with the reuse and 
redevelopment of Sand Point. 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 fact that the Preferred Alternative conforms to the City of 
Seattle's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and Physical Development 
Management Plan provides assurance that the property will be 
redeveloped in a controlled manner. Additionally, the City of Seattle 
is developing a Transportation Management Program and a Construction 
Management Program for Sand Point that will mitigate the effects caused 
by increased traffic volumes and construction activities. The City's 
Design Guidelines will be applied to control Sand Point's reuse and 
preserve the property's unique and historic character.

Comments Received on the FEIS

    Navy received comments from a community group and an individual. 
They expressed concern about the proposed reuse of certain Sand Point 
facilities by the University of Washington for educational activities. 
Their comments did not raise any new issues or problems concerning 
implementation of the Reuse Plan or propose any mitigation measures.
    Navy's consideration in the FEIS of the impacts arising out of the 
City's educational proposal was sufficient to ascertain the impacts of 
the particular uses advanced by the University of Washington and 
proposed by the LRA after conclusion of the FEIS. Navy determined that 
the educational uses advanced by the University of Washington fall 
within the scope of impacts analyzed in the FEIS and that no further 
consideration is required.

Regulations Governing the Disposal Decision

    Since the proposed action contemplates a disposal action under the 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (DBCRA), Pub. L. 101-
510, 10 U.S.C. 2687 note, selection of the City of Seattle's 1993 Reuse 
Plan and 1997 Options 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. 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 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

[[Page 66065]]

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 Pub. L. 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. 101-47.303-2); by negotiated sale (FPMR Sec. 101-
47.304-9); and by competitive sale (FPMR Sec. 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 rests solely within the Secretary of the Navy's discretion.

Conclusion

    The City of Seattle's proposed reuse of the Sand Point property, 
which consists of the City's 1993 Reuse Plan and its 1997 Options and 
is embodied in the Preferred Alternative, 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 educational and community facilities, arts 
and cultural facilities, open space and recreational areas, residential 
areas, and institutional land uses. 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.
    Although the ``No action'' alternative has less potential for 
causing adverse environmental impacts, this alternative would not take 
advantage of the property's location, physical characteristics and 
infrastructure or the current uses of adjacent property. Additionally, 
it would not foster local redevelopment of the Sand Point property.
    The acquiring entity, under the direction of Federal, State and 
local agencies with regulatory authority over protected resources, will 
be responsible for implementing necessary mitigation measures.
    Accordingly, Navy will dispose of Naval Station Puget Sound at Sand 
Point in a manner that is consistent with the City of Seattle's 1993 
and 1997 plans for the property.

    Dated: December 8, 1997.
William J. Cassidy, Jr.,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Conversion And Redevelopment).
[FR Doc. 97-32938 Filed 12-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P