Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 93 / Monday, May 13, 1996 / Notices 22033

Dated: May 6, 1996.

L. M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Office, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 96–11816 Filed 5–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–C
22034 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 93 / Monday, May 13, 1996 / Notices

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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 93 / Monday, May 13, 1996 / Notices 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 pilesupported 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
22036 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 93 / Monday, May 13, 1996 / Notices

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. § 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 93 / Monday, May 13, 1996 / Notices 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. § 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
22038 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 93 / Monday, May 13, 1996 / Notices

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Storage and Disposition of WeaponsUsable Fissile Materials Draft

Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of extension of public

comment period.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE) announced the availability of the

Storage and Disposition of WeaponsUsable Fissile Materials Draft

Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement (Storage and Disposition

Draft PEIS) (DOE/EIS–0229–D) for

public review and comment in the

March 8, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR

9443). The Department is announcing

that the public comment period which

began on March 8, 1996 and was to

close on May 7, 1996 has been extended

to June 7, 1996, for the Storage and

Disposition Draft PEIS.

DATES: The public is invited to submit

written and oral comments on any or all

portions of the Storage and Disposition

Draft PEIS during the extension of the

public comment period that began on

March 8, 1996 and now continues until

June 7, 1996. Comments postmarked

after that date will be considered to the

extent practicable. Comments submitted

during the original public comment

period do not have to be resubmitted.

DOE’s responses to comments received

during the public comment period will

be presented in the Storage and

Disposition Final PEIS. The Department

held eight public meetings to discuss

and receive comments on the Storage

and Disposition Draft PEIS during the

period from March 26, 1996 through

April 30, 1996.

ADDRESSES AND FURTHER INFORMATION:

Written comments on the Storage and

Disposition Draft PEIS should be mailed

to the following address: DOE-Office of

Fissile Materials Disposition, P.O. Box

23786, Washington, DC 20026–3786.

Comments may also be submitted orally

(to a recording machine) or by fax by

calling 1–800–820–5156, or to the Office

of Fissile Materials Disposition’s

INTERNET (World Wide Web) address

at URL=http://web.fie.com/htdoc/fed/

doe/fsl/pub/menu/any/index.htm.

Requests for further information

concerning the Storage and Disposition

Draft PEIS should be directed to: Office

of Fissile Materials Disposition (MD–4),

Attention: Storage and Disposition PEIS,

U.S. Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Ave., SW, Washington,

DC 20585; by calling 1–800–820–5134;

or by using the above INTERNET

address.

Information regarding the DOE

National Environmental Policy Act

process should be directed to: Carol M.

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA

Policy and Assistance (EH–42), U.S.

Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Ave., SW, Washington,

DC 20585, by calling (202) 586–4600 or

leaving a message at 1–800–472–2756.

DOE Public Reading Rooms

Copies of the draft Storage and

Disposition PEIS, as well as technical

data reports and other supporting

documents, are available for public

review at the following locations:

Albuquerque Operations Office

National Atomic Museum, 20358

Wyoming Boulevard, SE, Kirtland

AFB, NM 87117, 505–284–3243

Amarillo Area Office

U.S. Department of Energy, Amarillo

College, Lynn Library/Learning

Center, 2201 South Washington, P.O.

Box 447, Amarillo, TX 79178, 806–

371–5400

U.S. DOE Reading Room, Carson County

Library, 401 Main Street, P.O. Box

339, Panhandle, TX 79068, 806–537–

3742

Chicago Operations Office

Office of Planning, Communications

and EEO, U.S. Department of Energy,

9800 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Il

60439, 708–252–2013