99-26170. Record of Decision for the Adoption of the Colorado Airspace Initiative Prepared by the Air National Guard  

  • [Federal Register Volume 64, Number 194 (Thursday, October 7, 1999)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 54721-54724]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 99-26170]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    
    Federal Aviation Administration
    
    
    Record of Decision for the Adoption of the Colorado Airspace 
    Initiative Prepared by the Air National Guard
    
    AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration.
    
    ACTION: Record of decision.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), after carefully 
    reviewing the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared by 
    the Air National Guard (ANG), announces its decision to adopt the ANG 
    FEIS and implement the requested Special Use Airspace changes to the 
    National Airspace System in and around the state of Colorado. This 
    airspace initiative is known as the Colorado Airspace Initiative (CAI).
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Graffin, Environmental 
    Specialist, Environmental Programs Division (ATA-300), Office of Air 
    Traffic Airspace Management, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
    Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591 (202) 267-3075.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As provided in 40 CFR 1506.3 and FAA Order 
    1050.1D, ``Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental 
    Impacts,'' the FEIS of another Federal Agency may be adopted in 
    accordance with the procedures in 40 CFR 1506.3. Under 40 CFR 
    1506.3(b), if the actions covered by an EIS and the actions proposed by 
    another Federal agency are substantially the same, the agency adopting 
    another agency's statement is not required to recirculate it except as 
    a final statement. The FAA has determined that the proposed action of 
    modifying existing and establishing new military training airspace 
    areas over the State of Colorado is substantially the same as the 
    actions considered in the ANG's FEIS. FAA staff has independently 
    reviewed the ANG FEIS and has determined that it is current and that 
    the FAA NEPA procedures have been satisfied. FAA has determined that 
    the FEIS adequately assesses and discloses the potential environmental 
    impacts of the proposed action. FAA staff concluded that, after 
    mitigation measures are taken into consideration, the existing airspace 
    can be modified and new military training airspace can be established 
    with no significant impacts on environmental resources.
        The ANG has requested this action to respond to changers in 
    readiness training requirements. The requirements
    
    [[Page 54722]]
    
    are reflected in specific United States Air Force regulations for 
    military aircraft and personnel operating in the affected airspace. 
    Additionally, this action responds to the changes in commercial 
    aircraft arrival and departure corridors required for operation of the 
    Denver International Airport.
        The Text of the entire Record of Decision is provided as follows:
    
    I. Introduction
    
        This document serves as the Record of Decision (ROD) for the 
    Federal Aviation Administration's adoption of the Air National Guard's 
    (AGN) Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and ROD for the 
    proposal known as the ``Colorado Air Initiative'' (CAI).
        Pursuant to Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act 
    of 1969 (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 
    regulations implementing NEPA procedures (40 CFR Section 1500-1508), 
    the ANG prepared and published a FEIS that analyzed the potential 
    environmental impacts associated with modification of existing airspace 
    and the establishment of new military training airspace in and around 
    the state of Colorado. The document also considered changes in airspace 
    utilization by military flying units.
        The FEIS considered three alternatives, the ``Preferred 
    Alternative'', the ``Original Proposal'' and the ``No Action 
    Alternative'' as required by the CEQ regulations. Five other 
    alternatives has been identified but were eliminated from further 
    consideration.
        The ANG has submitted the FEIS along with the supporting 
    aeronautical proposals to the FAA for consideration and adoption 
    pursuant to CEQ regulation 40 CFR Part 1506.3. The proposal submitted 
    by the ANG to the FAA for consideration is the alternative designated 
    by the ANG as the Preferred Alternative. This alternative is also the 
    environmentally preferred alternative. The Preferred Alternative 
    proposes the modification of three existing Military Operating Areas 
    (MOA) and four Military Training Routes (MTR), the deletion of one MTR 
    and a portion of one other, as well as the establishment of one MOA and 
    three MTRs. One MOA would remain unchanged.
        The following is a discussion of the proposal submitted to the FAA, 
    a brief discussion of the other alternatives considered, environmental 
    impacts and additional mitigation measures mandated by the FAA as well 
    as the decision of the FAA.
    
    II. Background
    
        The ANG prepared the CAI FEIS in support of its request for 
    modification to the National Airspace System administered by the FAA. 
    The ANG requested these modifications to address new military airspace 
    training requirements in part related to the modernization of their 
    aircraft and weapons systems. The ANG is also seeking these 
    modifications in response to changes in commercial aircraft arrival and 
    departure corridors dictated by the FAA for the operations of the 
    Denver International Airport.
        The ANG issued the CAI FEIS in August 1997 and executed its ROD in 
    October 1997. In the spring of 1998, the ANG submitted these documents 
    to the FAA for adoption pursuant to CEQ guidelines. Thereafter, the ANG 
    submitted its aeronautical proposals to the FAA, formally requesting 
    that the FAA make the requisite changes to the National Airspace 
    System.
        The FAA held six informal airspace meetings. In response to many of 
    the comments received as well as to incorporate safety and efficiency 
    requirements, the FAA mandated the additional mitigation measures that 
    are outlined in this document.
    
    III. Proposal
    
        The ANG FEIS analyzed three alternatives, the Preferred 
    Alternative, the Original Proposal, and the No Action Alternative. 
    Implementation of either the Preferred Alternative or the Original 
    proposal would result in a reduction in the number of operations 
    compared to the No Action Alternative (existing conditions). Five other 
    alternatives were originally identified but were not carried forth for 
    consideration. The ANG in its ROD dated October 28, 1997, selected the 
    Preferred Alternative. This alternative was also the environmentally 
    preferred alternative. The following is a discussion of the 
    alternatives considered.
    
    Preferred Alternative
    
        The Preferred Alternative was developed in response to issues and 
    concerns raised during the ANG scoping process. This Alternative took 
    into account comments made by the CAI Working Group and recommendations 
    from former Governor Romer's Office.
        The Preferred Alternative proposes the modification of three 
    existing MOAs and four MTRs, the deletion of one MTR and a portion of 
    one other. It also proposes the establishment of one MOA and three 
    MTRs. One MOA would remain unchanged. The proposal considered in the 
    FEIS is as follows:
    
         Modify Kit Carson A/B MOAs and rename them Cheyenne 
    High and Low MOAs. Minimum altitude would be raised from 100 feet to 
    300 feet Above Ground Level (AGL).
         Modify Pinon Canyon MOA. The eastern border would be 
    moved approximately 1 nautical mile (NM) to provide FAA clearance 
    criteria for a north-south airway.
         Utilize La Veta MOA. This MOA would remain unchanged.
         Modify Fremont MOA and rename Airburst MOA. The 
    southeastern corner would be extended east and south to connect with 
    the La Veta MOA. The modified airspace would be renamed Airburst A, 
    B and C would form contiguous airspace with the La Veta MOA and the 
    Airburst range. This would exclude an area over Canon City, Colorado 
    and Penrose, Colorado. The bottom elevation of Airburst B and C 
    would be 500 feet AGL.
         Establish Two Buttes MOA. This MOA would be established 
    east of the adjoining Pinon Canyon MOA. The MOA would be divided 
    into low and high areas. The elevation for low would be 300 AGL to 
    10,000 mean Sea Level (MSL). The elevation for high would be 10,000 
    MSL but not higher than Flight Level (FL) 180.
         Modify IR-409. The bottom elevation of this MOA would 
    be raised from surface to 300 feet AGL for the two final segments 
    and raised from surface to 500 feet AGL for the remainder of the 
    route. The route width would be reduced from 16 NM to 10 NM along 
    two segments, from 22 NM to 8 NM along one segment and from 16 NM to 
    6NM for the remainder.
         Delete VR-412.
         Modify VR 413. The floor would be raised from surface 
    to 500 feet AGL. The route width would be reduced to 6 NM. The 
    southwestern most turning point would be 12 NM along the centerline 
    to eliminate flights over the Great Sands Dune Natonal Monument. 
    Restrictions would be added to the route so that aircraft would 
    remain 2000 feet AGL to the maximum extend possible when they cross 
    the Sangre de Cristo wilderness areas between Highways 50 and 285.
         Modify IR-414. The minimum altitude would be raised 
    from the surface to 300 feet AGL. The width would be reduced from 28 
    NM to 6 NM. An existing maneuver area would also be eliminated.
         Establish XIR-424. Create a new MTR that would follow 
    the reverse ground path of IR-414 and then follow the existing 
    ground path of IR-409 to the Airburst Range. The bottom altitude of 
    XIR-424 would be 500 feet AGL from Cottonwood to Airburst Range.
         Modify IR-415. This IR would be modified so that it 
    would join IR-409 at Cedarwood and continue to the Airburst Range. 
    The minimum altitude for this route would be raised from the surface 
    to 300 AGL beginning at Point E near Cedarwood and raised from the 
    surface to 500 feet AGL from Point E to Airburst Range. The width 
    would be reduced from 21 NM to 10 NM and from 33 NM to 10 NM.
         Modify IR-416. The southern portion of this route from 
    Point G to Point L would be deleted. The altitude for the remaining 
    route
    
    [[Page 54723]]
    
    would be raised from the surface to 300 feet AGL.
         Establish XIR-426. This new MTR would follow the 
    reverse ground path of the current IR-416 from Point L to Point G. 
    The minimum altitude of this route would be 300 feet AGL.
         Establish XVR-427. This visual route would begin 
    approximately 7 NM south of the northern border of Cheyenne MOA. The 
    route would proceed southwest then north and terminate at Airburst 
    Range. The new VR would conform to the existing IR-409 route widths 
    and altitudes beginning at Point F. The minimum altitudes prior to 
    Point F would be 300 feet AGL.
    
    Original Proposal
    
        This Alternative had been identified by the ANG during its scoping 
    process and was retained for further consideration within the FEIS. 
    Under this Alternative, four existing MOAs and MTRs would be modified, 
    one MTR and a portion of another would be deleted, and one new MOA and 
    three new MTRs would be established. After considering public input 
    received during the scoping process, the ANG determined that the 
    Preferred Alternative was more responsive to the public while ensuring 
    that their training requirements could be accomplished.
    
    No-Action Alternative
    
        Under the No-Action Alternative, existing airspace would continue 
    to be utilized. No modifications to training airspace configuration 
    would occur. However, the operations at the Denver International 
    Airport, since its opening, have placed limitations on the ANG's use of 
    existing airspace. In addition, new modern warfare training 
    requirements mandated by the Air Force necessitated modification to the 
    existing airspace. The ANG determined that the existing airspace would 
    not enable its pilots to accomplish their training requirements in a 
    manner that would adequately prepare them for wartime taskings. 
    Therefore, this alternative was not considered a viable alternative.
    
    Alternatives Identified But Not Carried Forward For Further Detailed 
    Study
    
        Five other alternatives were originally identified by the ANG but 
    were eliminated from further detailed study. They are as follows: (1) 
    Continued use of the existing MOAs and MTRs aside from those addressed 
    previously and the creation of one MOA and five MTRs. The new MOAs and 
    MTRs were eliminated because they did not meet criteria established for 
    meeting aircrew proficiency requirements or were dismissed by the FAA. 
    (2) Establishment of 6 new MOAs. Each MOA was eliminated from further 
    consideration because it did not meet training or distance from home 
    station requirements. (3) The elimination of the 140th Wing of the 
    COANG. The ANG eliminated this alternative because its evaluations 
    demonstrated economic and logistical advantages associated with 
    individual state ANG units including the 140th Wing. (4) Elimination of 
    military training airspace in the state of Colorado. This alternative 
    would have impaired the ability of pilots stationed in Colorado from 
    accomplishing the required level of training. (5) Replacement of all 
    military aircraft training with simulator assisted training. Although 
    simulator training does assist aircrews in obtaining certain type of 
    training it does not provide the opportunity to obtain the most 
    important aspect of aircrew proficiency training, which is the 
    requirement to conduct actual military training flights.
    
    Modification to the Initial Proposal Submitted to the FAA
    
        In addition to the proposals considered in the FEIS and considered 
    as part of the Preferred Alternative, the ANG ROD detailed minor 
    modifications of five MTRs. These modifications had been requested by 
    the FAA stemming from the FAA's on going aeronautical review. They are 
    as follows:
    
         IR-409. Corridor width narrowed along several legs.
         IR-414. Corridor width narrowed under Cheyenne MOA.
         XIR-424. Corridor width narrowed under Cheyenne MOA.
         IR-416. Corridor width narrowed under Cougar MOA. 
    Southern half of the route would not be eliminated.
         XIR-426. Proposal withdrawn (adoption of the no action 
    alternative)
    
    IV. Environmental Consequences
    
        The ANG, in its FEIS, considered the potential environmental 
    impacts associated with all three of the alternatives carried forth for 
    analysis. The analysis for each piece of airspace was conducted as if 
    the maximum possible numbers of sorties were to be performed in that 
    airspace. The ANG FEIS considered the potential environmental 
    consequences on the following: Noise, Airspace Management/Air Traffic, 
    Land Uses and Resources, Safety. Visual Resources and Aesthetics, 
    Biological Resources (Vegetation, Wildlife and Domestic Animals and 
    Threatened and Endangered Species), Cultural Resources, Air Quality, 
    Socioeconomic Resources, Earth Resources, Water Resources, Hazardous 
    Material Release, Human Health Effects and Natural Quiet. The EIS also 
    considered the cumulative impacts of the proposal.
        The ANG ROD concluded the following:
    
        Based on the analyses conducted for the EIS, neither the 
    Preferred Alternative, the Original Proposal, nor the No-Action 
    Alternative result in significant environmental impacts. Any impacts 
    which may occur can be minimized through the use of mitigation 
    measures.'' (ANG ROD pg. 8)
    
    V. Mitigation
    
        After the publication of the ANG ROD, the FAA held six informal 
    airspace meetings. From the input received from the public, as well as 
    to assist the FAA in disseminating real time information relating to 
    military training flights to the General Aviation population, the FAA 
    determined that additional mitigation measures were necessary. In 
    addition to the mitigation measures the ANG set forth in its ROD, the 
    FAA mandated the following modifications:
    
         No operations to occur between the hours of 10:00 P.M. 
    and 7:00 A.M.
         In addition to renaming the Kit Carson A/B, Cheynne, 
    the western boundary would be relocated 10 NM to the east.
         Reduction of Pinon Canyon MOA. The eastern boundary 
    would be modified to coincide with the eastern edge of VR-109 and 
    the western boundary of Two Buttes MOA.
         Airburst A modified. The eastern, southern and western 
    boundaries would be the same as the existing Fremont MOA. The 
    southern boundary would be moved north to avoid Canon City and the 
    Fremont Airport. Altitude would remain the same, i.e., 1500 feet AGL 
    but not higher than FL 180.
         Airburst B modified. The southern boundary of the 
    existing Freemont MOA would be moved east along the southern 
    boundary of the Fort Carson R-2601. The altitude would be 500 feet 
    AGL but no higher than FL 180.
         Airburst C MOA modified. The southern boundary would be 
    extended south of the Airburst B MOA to highway 50, then west along 
    highway 50 to a point south of Airburst B MOA then north to the 
    southwest corner of the Airburst B MOA. The altitude would be 500 
    feet AGL, but not higher than 8,500 feet MSL.
         IR-409 modified. Point E would be deleted as an 
    alternative entry/exit point. The existing segment between Point H 
    and Point I would become VR-410/411.
         Creation of VR-410 and VR-411. These MTRs were created 
    in lieu of the expansion of the Airburst MOA extending from R-2601 
    to the La Veta MOA. VR-410 and VR-411 would be 6 NM wide and would 
    utilize the same centerline as the existing VR-409. VR-410 would be 
    the northbound route and VR-411 the southbound route. The Special 
    Operating Procedures (SOP) for both routes would require that all 
    operations conducted south of U.S. Highway 50 occur at or above 
    8,500 feet MSL.
         VR-413 narrowed in the vicinity of the town of Moffat. 
    Route restrictions and
    
    [[Page 54724]]
    
    reporting requirements added to the route SOP.
         La Veta MOA modified. The northwest tip of this MOA 
    would be removed to accommodate Global Position System (GPS) 
    approach procedures and airspace to the Fremont County Airport.
         Elimination of the Cougar MOA.
    
        The environmental analysis contained within the FEIS was reviewed 
    by the FAA and a determination made that any potential environmental 
    impacts associated with the modifications made to the airspace 
    proposals would be consistent with those already disclosed in the FEIS.
    
    VI. Public Involvement Process
    
    Informal Aeronautical Meetings
    
        In response to public interest in this proposal, the FAA held six 
    informal aeronautical public meetings in 1998. Meetings were held in 
    Saguache, Westcliffe, Penrose, Englewood, Colorado Springs and La 
    Junta, Colorado.
        421 comments were received during these informal meetings and many 
    more were submitted in writing after the meetings. The comments were 
    read and characterized. The major issues identified by the public 
    during this process and responses thereto were compiled in a document 
    entitled ``Summary of Major Environmental Comments During FAA 
    Aeronautical Review.'' This summary was mailed along with the FAA's 
    Federal Register Notice dated April 27, 1999 declaring the Agency's 
    intent to adopt the ANG FEIS to those individuals who had expressed 
    concern about the initiative or who had attended an aeronautical 
    meeting.
    
    Informal Public Comment Period
    
        In a Federal Register Notice dated April 27, 1999, (FR Vol. 64, pg. 
    22670) the FAA announced that it was recirculating the ANG FEIS in 
    compliance with CEQ regulation 40 CFR Part 1506.3, and that it intended 
    to adopt the FEIS. The Federal Register Notice stated that FAA would 
    receive public comments for 30 days or until May 28, 1999. By letter 
    dated May 3, 1999, the FAA notified interested members of the public of 
    its intent to adopt the ANG FEIS. Also included in the mailing was a 
    copy of the summary of major environmental concerns discussed above.
        The public comment period was extended an additional 30 days to 
    provide the public the opportunity to submit their comment on the 
    references made by the FAA to the ANG aeronautical proposal. (FR dated 
    May 20, 1999, Vol. 64, pg. 27612) In a letter dated May 19, 1999, the 
    FAA mailed a summary of those refinements to the public and extended 
    the period during which the FAA would receive public comments until 
    June 21, 1999.
        At the request of members of the public, the period during which 
    the FAA would accept comment was extended one final time. By Federal 
    Register Notice dated June 11, 1999, the FAA extended the informal 
    public comment period to August 2, 1999. (FR Vol 64, pp. 31676-31677)
        In excess of 400 comment letters were received by the FAA in 
    response to the Federal Register Notices announcing its intent to adopt 
    the ANG's FEIS. The letters were carefully read and considered. Major 
    areas of concern were identified and a general response was sent to 
    concerned citizens by letter dated August 11, 1999. All letters have 
    become part of the administrative record and have been considered by 
    the federal decision-maker.
    
    Summary of Issues of Concern to the Public
    
        Informal aeronautical meetings were held by the FAA to obtain 
    aeronautical comments related to the proposed modification to the 
    National Airspace System. However, the vast majority of comments made 
    by the public during the FAA's six informal meetings were related to 
    concerns about the potential for environmental impacts and the 
    sufficiency of the environmental analysis performed by the ANG. The 
    primary concern was noise and the potential impact to quality of life 
    for those who live under the proposed airspace. Below is a list of the 
    major environmental concerns identified during the informal meetings in 
    addition to those raised by the public during the informal public 
    comment period. The ANG FEIS and ROD were reviewed and a determination 
    made that the issues identified below were adequately analyzed within 
    the FEIS and ROD.
    Issues of Concern
        (1) Risk of aircraft accidents and the inability of local fire 
    and rescue to respond to an accident.
        (2) Concern about overflights over Route 17.
        (3) Noise impacts to the Moffat School.
        (4) Potential disproportionate effects on low income and 
    minority populations. (Environmental Justice concerns).
        (5) Risk of collisions with other airspace users.
        (6) Potential impacts on children's health and safety.
        (7) Noise and compatible land use, including startle effect on 
    horses and other livestock and sleep disturbance.
        (8) Potential impacts to tourism and property values.
        (9) Inability to obtain ``natural quiet'' over National Park 
    Service Parks.
        (10) Potential Impacts to migratory birds and other wildlife.
        (11) Accountability of the military pilots.
    
    VII. Decision
    
        After careful and thorough review of the ANG's FEIS, the FAA has 
    determined that the FEIS complies with the National Environmental 
    Policy Act of 1969, (42 U.S.C. Section 4371 et seq.), the CEQ's 
    implementing regulations (40 CFR Sections 1500-1508), and FAA's order 
    entitled ``Policies and Procedures For Considering Environmental 
    Impacts'' (1050 1d). The FAA has considered the contents of the ANG 
    FEIS, and the ANG ROD.
        Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator of the 
    Federal Aviation Administration, I have decided to adopt the ANG FEIS 
    pursuant to CEQ regulation 40 CFR 1506.3. Moreover, having considered 
    the environmental and aeronautical comments received from the public, 
    the FAA deems it necessary to undertake the additional mitigation 
    measures identified above.
    
        Dated September 28, 1999.
    William J. Marx,
    Manager, Environmental Programs Division, Air Traffic Management 
    Program.
    
    Right of Appeal
    
        This decision is taken pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Section 40101 et seq. 
    and 49 U.S.C. Section 47101 and constitutes an order of the 
    Administrator, which is subject to review by the Court of Appeals of 
    the United States in accordance with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 
    Section 46110.
    
    Federal Aviation Administration, Environmental Programs Division, Air 
    Traffic Airspace Management Program, Attn.: Elizabeth Gaffin, rm. 422, 
    800 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    
        Issued in Washington, DC, on October 1, 1999.
    William J. Marx,
    Manager, Environmental Programs Division.
    [FR Doc. 99-26170 Filed 10-6-99; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
10/07/1999
Department:
Federal Aviation Administration
Entry Type:
Notice
Action:
Record of decision.
Document Number:
99-26170
Pages:
54721-54724 (4 pages)
PDF File:
99-26170.pdf