[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 98 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27925-27930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13637]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Record of Decision and General Conformity Determination for
Realignment of F/A-18 Aircraft and Operational Functions From Naval Air
Station (NAS) Cecil Field, Florida, to Other East Coast Installations
AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.
ACTION: Notice of record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy, after carefully weighing the
operational, environmental, and cost implications of relocating F/A-18
aircraft from NAS Cecil Field to other Naval and Marine Corps
installations, announces its decision to realign two F/A-18 fleet
squadrons to Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Beaufort, South Carolina,
and nine F/A-18 fleet squadrons and the Fleet Replacement Squadron
(FRS) to Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana, Virginia.
[[Page 27926]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. J. Daniel Cecchini, Atlantic
Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command (Code 2032DC), 1510
Gilbert Street, Norfolk, VA 23511-2699, telephone (757) 322-4891.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the entire Record of Decision
(ROD) is provided as follows:
The Department of the Navy (DON), pursuant to the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687), Section 102(2)(c)
of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4331
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 realign two F/A-18 fleet squadrons (24
aircraft and 500 military personnel) to Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS)
Beaufort, South Carolina, and nine F/A-18 fleet squadrons and the Fleet
Replacement Squadron (FRS) (156 aircraft and 3,700 military and
civilian personnel) to Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana, Virginia. The
realignment will be accomplished as set out in Alternative Realignment
Scenario (ARS) 2, which is described in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS).
To support the additional personnel and operation and maintenance
of the aircraft, four construction projects are required at MCAS
Beaufort; 14 construction projects, primarily consisting of additions
to existing facilities, are required at NAS Oceana.
The realignment of the fleet squadrons to MCAS Beaufort will
increase aircraft operations at MCAS Beaufort, associated military
training areas along the coast of South Carolina and Georgia, and the
Townsend Bombing Range in Georgia. The realignment of the fleet
squadrons and FRS to NAS Oceana will increase aircraft operations at
NAS Oceana, Naval Auxiliary Landing Field (NALF) Fentress, Virginia,
and associated military training areas and target ranges located
primarily in eastern North Carolina. This includes the Brant Island
Shoal (BT-9), Piney Island (BT-11), and Dare County target ranges.
Pursuant to Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C.
7476(c)), the DON has determined that the realignment of F/A-18
aircraft to NAS Oceana under ARS 2 conforms to Virginia's State
Implementation Plan. The entire State of South Carolina is classified
as attainment for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, the air quality
effects of ARS 2 at MCAS Beaufort are exempt from the General
Conformity Rule.
Realignment of the F/A-18 aircraft and operational functions from
NAS Cecil Field will begin in 1998 and is expected to be completed in
1999.
Background
The 1993 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC)
recommended closure of NAS Cecil Field and realignment of all of its
aircraft and associated personnel to MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina;
MCAS Beaufort, South Carolina; and NAS Oceana, Virginia.
In 1995, the BRAC Commission revised its recommendations regarding
realignment of NAS Cecil Field assets by redirecting all aircraft and
associated personnel to ``* * * other naval air stations, primarily
[NAS] Oceana; [MCAS] Beaufort; [NAS] Jacksonville, Florida; [NAS]
Atlanta, Georgia; or other Navy or Marine Corps air stations with
necessary capacity and support infrastructure.'' In separate actions,
some of the NAS Cecil Field assets have been relocated to NAS
Jacksonville (six S-3 ASW squadrons) and NAS Atlanta (two reserve F/A-
18 squadrons). This ROD selects a receiving site for the NAS Cecil
Field active duty F/A-18 aircraft.
As the 1995 BRAC Commission did not recommend realignment to a
specific base, the DON conducted a multi-stage screening process to
identify reasonable and feasible alternatives for realignment of NAS
Cecil Field F/A-18 active duty aircraft to east/gulf coast Navy or
Marine Corps air station(s) with necessary capacity and support
infrastructure.
Process
A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the transfer of up
to ten squadrons of F/A-18 aircraft from NAS Cecil Field to NAS Oceana
was published in the Federal Register on November 16, 1995. This notice
also indicated that separate NEPA documentation would be prepared for
the transfer of two operational (active duty) F/A-18 squadrons from NAS
Cecil Field to MCAS Beaufort. On August 23, 1996, in recognition of the
non-specific language contained in the 1995 BRAC Commission mandates,
the DON published an amended NOI in the Federal Register indicating its
intent to expand its alternatives analysis and to prepare a single
comprehensive document for realignment of all operational Atlantic
Fleet F/A-18 fleet aircraft and the FRS from NAS Cecil Field. The DON
reopened its scoping process and held two additional scoping meetings.
A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIS (DEIS) and a Draft
CAA Conformity Determination were published in the Federal Register on
September 19, 1997, and in local newspapers the following week. Seven
public hearings were held on the DEIS--one in South Carolina, four in
North Carolina, and two in Virginia--between October 20 and November
17, 1997. Approximately 275 individuals, agencies, and organizations
submitted comments. All verbal and written comments were addressed in
Appendix I of the FEIS.
An NOA of the FEIS and the Final CAA Conformity Determination were
published in the Federal Register on March 20, 1998, and announced in
local newspapers the preceding week. Approximately 440 letters were
received on the FEIS during the 30-day public review period;
substantive comments are addressed later in this ROD.
Alternatives Considered
The DON screened 20 Navy and Marine Corps air installations located
along the Atlantic Coast and the Gulf of Mexico using capacity, support
infrastructure, and operational criteria. Only three installations met
these criteria--NAS Oceana, MCAS Beaufort, and MCAS Cherry Point.
Because none of the three installations would be able to
accommodate all F/A-18 fleet and FRS aircraft without some expansion of
existing facilities or new construction, the DON developed alternative
realignment scenarios (ARSs) designed to make the best use of excess
capacity at each installation.
ARS 1 proposed realigning all 11 F/A-18 fleet squadrons and the FRS
at NAS Oceana. This was identified in the FEIS as an operationally
preferred alternative because single-siting the Atlantic Fleet F/A-18
Strike/Fighter Wing would provide the same configuration that currently
exists at NAS Cecil field. This alternative expands capacity at NAS
Oceana and requires 14 construction projects.
ARS 2 proposed realigning two F/A-18 fleet squadrons to MCAS
Beaufort and nine F/A-18 fleet squadrons and the FRS to NAS Oceana.
This was identified in the FEIS as an operationally acceptable
alternative because it would: result in the least degradation of
single-site benefits; fully utilize excess capacity at both NAS Oceana
and MCAS Beaufort; take advantage of the F/A-18 training facilities
that currently exist at MCAS Beaufort; and result in only slightly
higher construction and life-cycle costs than ARS 1. It requires some
construction at NAS Oceana, but is the lowest cost dual-site
alternative.
ARS 3 proposed realigning three F/A-18 fleet squadrons to MCAS
Cherry
[[Page 27927]]
Point and eight F/A-18 fleet squadrons and the FRS to NAS Oceana. This
alternative maximizes the use of existing hangar and apron capacity at
MCAS Cherry Point and sends the remaining assets to NAS Oceana. This
alternative requires some construction at NAS Oceana.
ARS 4 proposed realigning five F/A-18 fleet squadrons to MCAS
Beaufort and six F/A-18 fleet squadrons and the FRS to NAS Oceana. This
alternative expands capacity at MCAS Beaufort and requires some
construction at NAS Oceana. It utilizes all available capacity at NAS
Oceana and reduces noise and air quality impacts at NAS Oceana and NALF
Fentress.
ARS 5 proposed realigning five F/A-18 fleet squadrons to MCAS
Cherry Point and six F/A-18 fleet squadrons and the FRS to NAS Oceana.
This alternative expands capacity at MCAS Cherry Point and requires
some construction at NAS Oceana. It utilizes all available capacity at
NAS Oceana and reduces noise and air quality impacts at NAS Oceana and
NALF Fentress. ARS 5 is the environmentally preferred alternative.
Environmental Impacts
The DON analyzed the potential impacts of all ARSs on: airfield
operations; military training areas; target ranges; land use;
socioeconomics and community services; infrastructure and utilities;
transportation; noise; air quality; topography, geology and soils;
water resources; vegetation and wildlife; wetlands; cultural resources;
hazardous materials and waste management; and installation restoration
programs. The DON also considered the potential cumulative impacts of
the project and whether the proposed action would be consistent with
federal policies addressing environmental justice.
Since the DON has decided to implement ARS 2, this ROD focuses on
the major impacts of ARS 2 at MCAS Beaufort and NAS Oceana. ARS 2
creates significant land use and noise impacts at MCAS Beaufort and NAS
Oceana. Impacts on all other resources or functions analyzed in the
FEIS were less than significant.
Land Use
Increases in airfield operations at MCAS Beaufort and NAS Oceana
will result in the expansion of aircraft noise zones and the expansion
and reconfiguration of accident potential zones (APZs). The expansion
of APZs and noise zones has the potential to adversely affect use of
land underlying the APZs and noise zones. Certain land uses, such as
residential development, are considered incompatible with noise zone
III where the day-night average noise level (Ldn) is greater than
75dB(A). High-density residential and commercial development is also
considered incompatible land use in APZs.
Impacts to future private development actions may occur as a result
of implementing ARS 2 because additional area may be subject to
development restrictions in local airfield encroachment zones. The City
of Beaufort has in place an ordinance that requires disclosure when
selling property within the Beaufort noise zones. The City of Virginia
Beach's airfield noise attenuation and safety ordinance places
additional requirements (i.e., noise attenuation) on private
development in high aircraft noise areas within the 1978 Air
Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) noise zones. Although the
ARS 2 footprint is larger than the 1978 AICUZ footprint at NAS Oceana,
1 landowners would be able to continue development based on existing
property zoning and applicable sound attenuation requirements.
In addition, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) restrict the availability of
mortgage loans for existing and new homes in noise zones II (i.e. 65-75
dB(A) Ldn) and III (i.e. greater than 75 dB(A) Ldn) and the APZs
nearest the runways (i.e. the clear zones).
APZs will expand by 1,894 acres around MCAS Beaufort compared to
the 1994 AICUZ. Thirteen percent of this area is residential. APZ
expansion at MCAS Beaufort is driven by an increase in the number and
type of operations flown by Navy F/A-18 aircraft.
Changes in APZs around NAS Oceana are a result of two different
factors. Changes between 1978 APZs and 1997 APZs at NAS Oceana are due
in large part to a change in the criteria used by the DON to develop
APZs. The result of this change is that APZs will expand by 2,759 and
3,473 acres around NAS Oceana and NALF Fentress, respectively, compared
to the 1978 AICUZ. Changes in APZs from 1997 to 1999 reflect the
addition of Navy F/A-18 operations as a result of this ROD causing a
1,751 acre APZ increase around NAS Oceana. There would be no change in
the size of the APZ around NALF Fentress from addition of the F/A-18
aircraft. Forty-one percent of the total projected NAS Oceana APZ area
and five percent of the total projected NALF Fentress APZ areas are
residential.
Individuals living or working within an APZ are slightly more at
risk from an aircraft accident, in the unlikely event that one occurs,
than others living or working near NAS Oceana, NALF Fentress, or MCAS
Beaufort outside designated APZs.
Noise
Expansion of noise zones under ARS 2 also has the potential to
adversely affect public health and safety. Compared to the 1997 MCAS
Beaufort AICUZ, this action will expose 1,659 new people to the 65 to
75 dB(A) Ldn noise zone and 644 new people to the 75+dB(A) Ldn noise
zone.
Compared to the 1978 NAS Oceana and NALF Fentress AICUZ, this
action will expose 18,486 new people to the 65 to 75 dB(A) Ldn noise
zone and 14,668 new people to the 75+dB(A) Ldn noise zone. Compared to
the 1997 noise contours and APZs prepared as part of the EIS process,
this action will expose 45,852 new people to the 65 to 75 dB(A) Ldn
noise zone and 46,781 new people to the 75+dB(A) Ldn noise zone.
Individuals living in 65+dB(A) noise zones may be annoyed and
experience interference with daily activities such as sleep,
conversation, television viewing, and outdoor recreation. Homeowners
may incur costs to ensure that sufficient sound attenuation exists
within their dwellings to achieve the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) desired interior noise level goal of 45 dB(A) Ldn. There is very
little probability that long term physical affects, such as hearing
loss, will result from exposure to the projected noise levels. A recent
study suggests, however, some individuals, particularly children, may
temporarily experience stress or elevated blood pressure.
The EIS used public schools as representative sensitive noise
receptors to predict impacts. While the discussion of impacts in the
FEIS focused on public schools, the impacts discussed in the FEIS could
be experienced at private schools and other sensitive receptors as
well.
No public schools are located within the 65 dB(A) Ldn or greater
noise zone around MCAS Beaufort. Twenty-one public schools in the
vicinity of NAS Oceana and NALF Fentress will be within the 65 dB(A)
Ldn or greater noise zone with the implementation of ARS 2. Six of
these schools are in the 75 dB(A) Ldn or greater noise contour. The
projected increases in noise at these schools vary, ranging from an 8
to 20 dB(A) Ldn increase over existing (1997) conditions.
[[Page 27928]]
Studies conducted by Cornell University researchers have shown that
learning ability and comprehension may be impaired in children exposed
to high noise levels. Local school authorities may incur costs to
ensure that sufficient sound attenuation exists within the schools to
achieve the EPA desired interior noise level goal of 45 dB(A) Ldn.
Exposure to high levels of noise while outdoors in schoolyards cannot
be mitigated through sound attenuation.
Schools and Housing
Realignment of two squadrons to MCAS Beaufort involves the transfer
of 500 military personnel and 600 dependents to the area. Realignment
of nine squadrons and the FRS to NAS Oceana involves the transfer of
3,700 military and civilian personnel and 4,600 dependents to the
Hampton Roads area. Most of the relocating families will live off-base
due to the lack of on-base housing. Sufficient housing vacancies and
school capacity exists in the local community to accommodate this
influx of personnel. Therefore, local community services and
infrastructure are not expected to be significantly impacted at either
MCAS Beaufort or NAS Oceana.
Traffic
Traffic will increase in the vicinity of MCAS Beaufort by 1999 due
to the proposed realignment and regional growth exclusive of the
realignment. Two roadways in the vicinity of MCAS Beaufort are
projected to operate at Level of Service (LOS) F in 1999. However, the
projected LOS is attributed to regional growth exclusive of the
realignment and the island geography of the region. Traffic volume
associated with the realignment is less than 2% of the projected 1999
traffic volume for local roadways.
Regional roadways in the vicinity of NAS Oceana will experience an
increase in daily traffic as a result of the personnel increase under
ARS 2. In most cases, projected LOS on these roadways will be C or
better upon completion of roadway improvements already planned by local
governments independent of this action. Some roadway segments along
First Colonial Road and Virginia Beach Boulevard will continue to
operate at LOS D, E, or F, with or without the realignment. The delay
in traffic flow associated with LOS D, E, and F is a result of
projected regional growth, not traffic increases associated with ARS 2.
Air Quality
Air emissions at NAS Oceana and NALF Fentress will have a net
emission increase of approximately 2 tons per year of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), 349 tons per year of nitrogen oxides
(NOX), 298 tons per year of carbon monoxide (CO), 9 tons per
year of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 195 tons per year of
particulate matter (PM10). The DON completed a conformity
determination under Section 176(c) of the CAA and EPA's implementing
regulations demonstrating that the projected increases in emissions of
ozone precursors (VOC and NOX) conform to the allowable
emissions in the recently revised Commonwealth of Virginia's State
Implementation Plan (SIP).
In revising its SIP, Virginia expressly included emission levels
associated with the realignment of F/A-18 aircraft from NAS Cecil
Field. As part of this realignment decision, I approve the Final CAA
Conformity Determination included as Appendix E in the FEIS.
Mitigation
Noise
In response to public comment the DON will request congressional
authorization to increase the priority of funding to accelerate the
construction schedule of an already planned $12 million aircraft
acoustical enclosure (``hush house'') at NAS Oceana to reduce noise
emissions associated with the high-power, in-aircraft engine
maintenance tests.
Land Use
In response to public comment, the DON will also move some local
flight pattern operations from runway 5R to runway 5L at NAS Oceana.
This mitigation measure will remove the City of Virginia Beach's
Brookwood and Plaza Elementary Schools from APZ-2, and decrease the
number of people living in the 75 dB Ldn and greater noise zone by 322
individuals.
Response to Comments Received Regarding the Final Environmental
Impact Statement
The DON received comments on the FEIS from 1 federal agency, 10
members of Congress and elected state officials, 10 state agencies, 2
local governments, and numerous citizen groups and private individuals.
Many of the comments received simply stated support for or opposition
to the proposed realignment.
Several commentors suggested that a supplemental EIS was necessary
to address additional alternatives. The comments received on the FEIS
did not present new or additional information that substantially
affected the analysis of environmental impacts in the FEIS. The range
of alternatives analyzed in the EIS is based upon the BRAC-directed
realignment, provides a logical basis for analysis of environmental
impacts and, permits a reasoned choice by the decision-maker. I have
reviewed the comments and the range of alternatives and have determined
that a supplemental EIS is not warranted.
Other substantive comments received are addressed below by subject
matter.
Noise
Sound Attenuation--Many commentors, including EPA, were critical of
the lack of discussion of the cost of sound attenuation as mitigation
for noise impacts. As indicated in the FEIS, the DON does not have
legal authority to expend federal funds on improvements to state,
local, or private property. Specific Congressional authorization and
appropriation would be required to obtain funds for this purpose. The
DON does not intend to request such authority.
In addition, the decision to implement sound attenuation for
buildings and homes surrounding the airfields is an individual choice
made by local governments, school boards, and individual homeowners.
Therefore, any attempt to determine these costs would be speculative in
nature.
The FEIS discusses potential sound attenuation such as air
conditioning and insulation, and, as requested, the DON will work with
local officials to help them conduct detailed engineering evaluations
at those schools of particular concern. Upon request, the DON will also
provide technical information on sound mitigation to any affected
entity in the MCAS Beaufort or NAS Oceana/NALF Fentress regions.
Noise Impacts on Children--Citizens Concerned About Jet Noise noted
that the FEIS discussion of impacts on children did not include
reference to a study entitled Noise: A Hazard for the Fetus and Newborn
(RE9728). In response to that comment, the DON reviewed the study and
found it to be not relevant to discussion of noise impacts related to
aircraft overflight. The study focused on the type of continuous noise
found in the workplace and used a very narrow range of subjects (i.e.
those in neonatal intensive care units). The constant workplace noise
the study focused on does not correlate to intermittent aircraft noise
or the discrete noise events generally associated with an airfield
environment. A Cornell University study, Chronic Noise Exposure and
Reading Deficits: The Mediating Effects of Language Acquisition (Evans
1997),
[[Page 27929]]
which specifically addressed health effects from aircraft noise on
children, was used in analyzing impacts associated with aircraft noise
in the FEIS.
Property Values
Several commentors criticized the FEIS for not addressing changes
in property values due to noise impacts. As discussed in the FEIS,
property values are dynamic, vary over time and reflect factors
including neighborhood characteristics and individual housing
characteristics. Any discussion of changes in property value would,
therefore, be too speculative for inclusion in the EIS.
Aircraft Maintenance
Commentors from the State of North Carolina suggested that life
cycle costs for facilities at MCAS Cherry Point in ARS 3 and ARS 5 were
overstated because they included construction of facilities for, and
outfitting of, an F/A-18 Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Department
(AIMD). These commentors suggested that intermediate maintenance work
at MCAS Cherry Point in ARS 3 and ARS 5 could be accomplished for a
substantially lower cost by using Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP) Cherry
Point. In light of these comments, the DON, examined using the NADEP in
lieu of a stand-alone AIMD. My evaluation of this issue included a
thorough review of Navy AIMD requirements and procedures, a point-by-
point analysis of the assertions made regarding NADEP capabilities, and
a visit to the NADEP on May 11, 1998. This evaluation confirmed the
conclusion that it would be necessary to establish an AIMD at MCAS
Cherry Point. The NADEP does not have the excess capacity needed to
take on the intermediate maintenance requirement, does not have the
capabilities needed to perform AIMD functions, and the additional
workload could not be assigned without significant expansion of the
facilities, equipment, and workforce at the NADEP. Additionally, the
intermediate maintenance workload in support of tactical aircraft needs
to be performed by military personnel to ensure maintenance proficiency
while deployed and to support sea/shore rotation, technical
advancement, and career progression. I also noted that intermediate
maintenance on Marine Corps aircraft assigned to Cherry Point is
performed by Marine Aircraft Logistical Squadron (MALS), not the NADEP.
Transportation
EPA commented that a peak hour LOS analysis needed to be completed
for the roadways around NAS Oceana. NAS Oceana gate count traffic data
indicate peak LOS times do not correlate with regional peak traffic
flow. Therefore, a peak analysis would not have contributed to the
analysis of impacts of the proposed action.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Hot Spot Analysis
Another commentor suggested that a CO hot spot analysis should have
been conducted at heavily used intersections. As discussed in the FEIS,
degradation in the LOS would occur on only one on-base roadway segment.
No off-base roadway segments would experience degradation of LOS on a
long-term basis as a result of the proposed action. Therefore, there is
no need to conduct a CO hot spot analysis since the Hampton Roads
Planning District Commission traffic study indicated that LOS would not
deteriorate due to the planned roadway improvements on roadways that
surround the base.
Fuel Handling
EPA asked for more information about potential fuel spills. NAS
Oceana has been pro-active in improving its fuel spill prevention,
control, and countermeasures in the past few years. Spill response
procedures have been and continue to be adequate to handle any spill
encountered or expected.
Fuel Dumping
EPA commented on emergency fuel dumping. As noted on pages 4.3-8
and B-1-18 in the FEIS, emergency fuel dumping is extremely rare. DON
policy directs that it not occur below 6,000 feet above ground level
unless necessary to save the pilot and/or aircraft. In the event of an
engine failure on a dual engine fighter, like the F/A-18, the pilot
should be able to operate with the remaining engine or climb above
6,000 feet before dumping fuel, thus minimizing the impacts associated
with the release of the fuel. (Above 6,000, the fuel has enough time to
completely vaporize and dissipate before reaching the ground, and thus
has a negligible effect at ground level.) Therefore, any impact from
fuel dumping would not be significant.
Sediment and Water Quality Sampling at BT-9/11
EPA recommended gathering more information about sediment quality
in target locations. The 1991 Sirrene Study test results for BT-9 which
analyzed sediments impacted by approximately 40 years of military
bombing activities showed no significant differences in water and
sediment quality between the range areas and non-range areas. As a
direct result of this study, as indicated in their letter of May 28,
1992, to the Marine Corps, the State of North Carolina determined that
continuous monitoring was not required, and future, narrowly focused
sampling would only be required as a result of changes in ordnance
volume or type, or some indication of significant water or sediment
quality degradation.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Red Wolf Re-introduction Program
EPA expressed concern about potential impacts to the Red Wolf.
USFWS's only concern has been their continued access to the range to
monitor Red Wolf populations. In our response to USFWS comments, set
out in Appendix I of the FEIS, the DON agreed to continue to make the
range accessible to the USFWS consistent with DON operational use of
the range.
Water Supply Issue
One commentor asked for clarification on the water supply sources
available to NAS Oceana. In the event of a regional drought, the Navy
would rely on an existing Norfolk/Suffolk well pumping contract to
assure water for our bases.
Family Housing Costs
The State of North Carolina questioned the family housing costs
under ARS 5. Subsequently, the DON conducted a detailed review of all
housing costs and other expense items and has identified the following
necessary revisions:
1. In ARS 5, the DON inadvertently used the Variable Housing
Allowance (VHA) rate for Beaufort, South Carolina, instead of Havelock,
North Carolina, to determine family housing costs for five squadrons at
MCAS Cherry Point. The change is shown as item 1 in the table below.
2. In all five ARSs, an incorrect number of enlisted bachelor
loading was used. The change is shown as item 2 in the table below.
3. In ARS 2, the NAS Oceana off-base bachelor officers housing
component was inadvertently omitted. The change is shown as item 3 in
the table below.
4. In all five ARSs, Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) was not
included since it remains fixed across varying economies. However,
since the mix of housing in each ARS varies between on-base and off-
base, adding BAQ to the life-cycle cost analysis would improve the
accuracy of our analysis. The resulting increase in ARS 1 was
[[Page 27930]]
established as the baseline for which adjustments to ARSs 2-5 were
made. The change is shown as item 4 on the table below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS 1 ($M) ARS 2 ($M) ARS 3 ($M) ARS 4 ($M) ARS 5 ($M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEIS........................................... 285.3 307.1 465.3 686.4 535.6
Item 1......................................... -9.2
Item 2......................................... -33.7 -33.3 -33.7 -33.7 -33.3
Item 3......................................... 5.1
Item 4......................................... -12.9 -7.8 -75.6 -13.1
Revised........................................ 251.6 266.0 423.8 577.1 481.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overall effect of these changes is not significant. (Note: Two
commentors suggested that the DON use a shorter life-cycle cost
analysis than the 30-year analysis performed in the EIS. In response,
the DON conducted a 25 year life-cycle analysis for each alternative.
The change was not significant.)
Outlying Fields
One commentor suggested that further consideration should be given
to the use of outlying fields in addition to or in lieu of NALF
Fentress. There are no other outlying airfields within 50 miles of NAS
Oceana that could accommodate F/A-18 operations. Chapter 2 of the FEIS
discusses the operational and fiscal reasons for establishing a 50-mile
limitation.
Seatack Elementary School
One commentor asked for clarification of the location of Seatack
Elementary School relative to the new APZs. Under ARS 2, APZ-2 bisects
Seatack Elementary school.
Chesapeake Bay Water Quality
EPA expressed concern about potential impacts to the Chesapeake Bay
water quality from NOX emissions. As indicated in the FEIS,
the NOX emissions from the proposed action conform to
Virginia's State Implementation Plan. Calculations indicate the net
increase in NOX emissions over the Chesapeake Bay watershed
from implementing ARS 2 will be approximately 1 ton per day to the
regional airshed. This amount is minor compared to the overall input to
the bay from all existing terrestrial and atmospheric sources.
Therefore, the affect of the projected increase in air traffic and the
associated air emissions over the Chesapeake Bay will be minimal.
State Historic Preservation Determination
Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the
Virginia State Historic Preservation Office and the South Carolina
Department of Archives and History concurred with the DON's
determination that implementation of ARS 2 would have ``no effect'' on
historic properties.
Conclusions
In deciding where to realign F/A-18 fleet and FRS aircraft from NAS
Cecil Field, I considered the following: 1995 BRAC Commission
recommendations concerning capacity and infrastructure; F/A-18
operational requirements; costs associated with construction of
facilities, operation and maintenance of aircraft, and training of
personnel; environmental impacts; and comments received during the DEIS
and FEIS public review periods.
I have analyzed and carefully weighed all of these factors and have
decided, on behalf of the DON, to direct realignment of two F/A-18
fleet squadrons (24 aircraft) to MCAS Beaufort, South Carolina, and
nine F/A-18 fleet squadrons and the FRS (for a total of 156 aircraft)
to NAS Oceana, Virginia. ARS 2, which stations most of the squadrons at
NAS Oceana and collocates two Navy squadrons with their Marine Corps
counterparts at MCAS Beaufort, offers operational benefits that are not
realized under the other alternatives: it establishes air wing
integrity at MCAS Beaufort for the joint Navy-Marine Corps squadrons
that deploy together, while retaining air wing integrity for the
squadrons located at NAS Oceana. It also reduces usage of the North
Carolina training ranges, and environmental impacts are slightly less
than in ARS 1. While costs are slightly greater than in ARS 1, ARS 2 is
the least expensive dual-siting alternative, it fully uses excess
capacity at MCAS Beaufort, and it takes full advantage of existing
Marine Corps training and maintenance facilities.
Implementation of ARS 2 will result in significant land use and
noise impacts on the local communities around MCAS Beaufort, NAS
Oceana, and NALF Fentress. In addition to the specific mitigation
measures identified in this Record of Decision, the DON will continue
to review its operational procedures at NAS Oceana, NALF Fentress, and
MCAS Beaufort to determine if any additional mitigation is feasible and
practicable.
Dated: May 18, 1998.
Duncan Holaday,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Facilities).
[FR Doc. 98-13637 Filed 5-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
