Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices 4733

All communications concerning this

Notice should be sent to Mr. Randy

Heald, Patent Attorney, Secretary of the

Air Force, Office of the General Counsel,

SAF/GCQ, 1501 Wilson Blvd., Suite

805, Arlington VA 22209–2403,

Telephone No: (703) 696–9037.

Carolyn A. Lunsford,

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–2451 Filed 1–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3910–01–P

Department of the Navy

Notice of Record of Decision To

Realign Marine Corps Air Station/

Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton,

CA

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy

has decided to realign Marine Corps Air

Station/Marine Corps Base (MCAS/

MCB) Camp Pendelton, California. This

decision is made upon careful

consideration of all comments on the

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

prepared for the realignment action. It

has been decided to implement the

realignment action using the alternative

B configuration, which was both the

preferred alternative and also the

environmentally preferred alternative.

DATES: This Record Of Decision

becomes effective January 27, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Additional information regarding this

Record Of Decision or the MCAS/MCB

Camp Pendleton realignment may be

obtained from Major Pat D. Pinkston at

(714) 726–4047.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of

the entire Record Of Decision is

provided as follows:

Table of Contents:

1. Introduction

2. Proposed Action

3. Purpose and Need

4. Background

5. Alternatives

6. Implementation of the Proposed Action

A. Addition of Aviation Assets

B. Changes to Aviation Operations

C. Construction of Facilities

7. Environmental Consequences

A. Residual Significant Impacts

B. Impacts Mitigated Below Threshold of

Significance

C. Impacts That Are Not Significant

8. Comments Received on the Final EIS

Public Review

9. Conclusions

10. Further Information

1. Introduction

The Department of the Navy (DoN)

has been studying a proposal to realign

Marine Corps Aviation assets

temporarily located at MCAS El Toro

and permanently assigned to MCAS

Tustin to other locations in Southern

California. The realignment would

include Marine Corps aircraft, their

dedicated personnel, equipment and

support. The realignment would be

undertaken in accordance with the

Defense Base Closure and Realignment

Act of 1990 (BRAC) (Public Law 101–

510). The DoN has conducted extensive

analysis of the proposal under Section

102(2) of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the

Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA

(40 CFR 1500–1508). The process used

for the analysis sought the views of the

public and those Federal, State and

local agencies with special expertise.

Public comments have been carefully

considered. Having reviewed the Final

Environmental Impact Statement, the

public comments, and pertinent parts of

the administrative record, the

Department of the Navy announces its

decision to proceed with the

realignment of Marine Corps Air Station

(MCAS)/Marine Corps Base (MCB)

Camp Pendleton, California.

2. Proposed Action

In compliance with the approved

recommendations of the 1991, 1993, and

1995 Defense Base Closure and

Realignment Commissions, the

proposed action involves the relocation

of selected aviation assets (along with

their dedicated personnel and

equipment) that are temporarily located

at MCAS El Toro and permanently

assigned to MCAS Tustin to MCAS

Camp Pendleton, changes in aviation

operations, and the construction of

facilities. The relocating assets include

approximately 800 personnel, four CH–

46E (medium-lift) helicopter squadrons

(48 aircraft) and one detachment of CH–

53E (heavy-lift) helicopters (four

aircraft). Upon full implementation of

the proposed action, MCAS Camp

Pendleton would support ten helicopter

squadrons and one detachment totaling

212 aircraft. Because one existing UH–

1/AH–1 (light attack/utility) helicopter

squadron (27 aircraft) and one CH–46

helicopter squadron (12 aircraft) will

normally be deployed, normal base

loading will consist of approximately

3,900 personnel and 173 rotary-wing

aircraft.

3. Purpose and Need

The purpose and need of the

proposed action is to comply with the

1991, 1993, and 1995 BRAC

Commissions’ recommendations for the

closure and realignment of MCAS

Tustin and relocation of MCAS Tustin

aircraft, along with their dedicated

personnel and equipment, in a manner

that is consistent with Marine Corps

operational requirements.

4. Background

This action was initiated following

the effective date of the 1993

recommendations of the Defense Base

Closure and Realignment Commission

established under the Defense Base

Closure and Realignment Act of 1990,

Public Law 101–510.

Pursuant to that law,

recommendations of the Commission

become final if the President sends them

to Congress and Congress does not reject

them within 45 legislative days. Once

recommendations become final, 10

U.S.C. sec. 2904 requires that the

closures and relocations must be

implemented within six years. The 1993

recommendations included a change to

the 1991 BRAC Commission’s

recommendations for MCAS Tustin,

which had named Marine Corps Air

Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC)

Twentynine Palms as one of the

receiving sites for helicopter assets

being realigned from MCAS Tustin. The

BRAC 93 Commission deleted MCAGCC

as a receiving site and directed

relocation to ‘‘NAS North Island, NAS

Miramar, or MCAS Camp Pendleton,

California.’’ In BRAC 95, the

Commission again altered the receiving

site for assets realigned from MCAS

Tustin by striking the three potential

sites listed in BRAC 93 and substituting

‘‘other air stations consistent with

operational requirements.’’ As a result,

aviation assets from MCAS Tustin are

being realigned to: MCAS New River,

North Carolina; MCB Hawaii; MCAS

Camp Pendleton, California; and MCAS

Miramar, California.

When the proposed action is

completed, four CH–46E helicopter

squadrons (48 aircraft) and one

detachment of CH–53E helicopters (four

aircraft) will be added to the existing

MCAS Camp Pendleton loading

(consisting of six squadrons totaling 160

aircraft. Because one existing UH–1/

AH–1 (light attack/utility) helicopter

squadron (27 aircraft) and one CH–43

helicopter squadron (12 aircraft) will

normally be deployed, normal base

loading will consist of approximately

3,900 personnel and 173 rotary-wing

aircraft. In an interim move after the

BRAC 1995 decision and unrelated to

selection of permanent relocation sites,

all of MCAS Tustin’s CH–46Es have

been relocated to MCAS El Toro, in

order to facilitate placing a significant

portion of MCAS Tustin in caretaker

status.

As independent actions implementing

the recommendations of the 1995 BRAC

Commission, two MCAS Tustin
4734 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices

squadrons have already been

permanently relocated: One to MCAS

New River and one to MCB Hawaii.

Separate NEPA documentation was

completed for the relocation of these

assets. Separate NEPA documentation

has been completed for the realignment

of NAS Miramar to MCAS Miramar,

California, which includes the

permanent relocation of the remainder

of the MCAS Tustin assets.

5. Alternatives

NEPA and the CEQ regulations

require the Department of the Navy to

study and evaluate a reasonable range of

alternatives for accomplishing the

purpose and need underlying the

proposed action. The underlying

purpose of BRAC, including the

recommendation to close MCAS Tustin

and realign its assets, is to reduce

infrastructure, costs, and personnel

requirements, while maintaining

operational capabilities. Because of this

overriding purpose, alternative sites that

did not contribute to such reductions

did not fall within the range of

reasonable alternatives and did not

warrant detailed, comparative analysis.

The EIS process initially identified

three alternatives: no action, the use of

other military installations, and

alternative site configurations at MCAS

Camp Pendleton. The alternative site

configurations primarily involve the

location of refueling facilities and are

described as Alternative A, Alternative

B, and Alternative C. The

environmentally preferred alternative is

Alternative B.

The no-action alternative (i.e., not

realigning MCAS Tustin aircraft) was

not evaluated in the EIS because the

Defense Base Closure and Realignment

Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–510)

exempts from consideration under

NEPA, among other things, the need for

closing a military installation and the

need for transferring functions to

selected receiving installations as

recommended by the Commission.

Five possible locations that fit the

final BRAC 95 recommendations were

identified within the West Coast region:

MCAS Camp Pendleton, NAS North

Island, NAS Miramar, Naval Air Facility

(NAF) El Centro, and March Air Reserve

Base (ARB). In compliance with the

decision of the 1995 BRAC, the ability

of these sites to meet Marine Corps

operational requirements efficiently was

a prime consideration.

The primary mission of CH–46 and

CH–53 helicopters is to provide tactical

lift of Marine Corps ground combat and

combat support elements. Camp

Pendleton is the center of the West

Coast training complex for the Marine

Corps, including ground combat

elements. Integrated air-ground training

is critical to the tactical proficiency and

readiness of Marine Corps units.

Therefore, regardless of where the CH–

46 and CH–53 assets are assigned,

significant helicopter operations and

training will occur at Camp Pendleton.

The review of alternative receiving

sites for helicopters revealed that

operational efficiencies arising from

collocating helicopters with ground

elements resulted in clear and

overwhelming military advantages.

Consequently, this allowed detailed

analysis to focus on alternative site

configurations at Camp Pendleton.

The overwhelming operational

advantages of the MCAS Camp

Pendleton alternative over the other

possible four alternatives are:

• It lies completely within the boundaries

of MCB Camp Pendleton, and allows for

collocation of Marine ground forces and a

significant portion of the counterpart rotarywing aviation support. This provides an

optimal transit time to primary training areas

and efficient use of limited manpower,

equipment and fiscal resources. The

collocation of ground and aviation units

provides a synergistic effect on training and

support, allowing more realistic and efficient

training of the Marine Corps air-ground team

in a ‘‘train as we will fight’’ environment.

• It provides immediate access to:

Adequate areas for both helicopter and overthe-beach amphibious assault training;

remote areas, suitable beaches, and

undeveloped airfield sites for advance

deployment training of air-ground teams;

helicopter landing sites to support air-ground

training and operations; and high elevation

confined area landing sites for training.

• It provides ready access to: established

logistics support; division training areas for

combined arms and assault helicopter joint

vertical training; restricted air space and

ordnance target complexes within 50 air

route miles of home base to train pilots and

gunners; helicopter-capable amphibious

shipping for ship-based training and

operations; and outlying landing sites within

50 air route miles of home base for

conducting syllabus training including field

carrier landing practice.

These advantages demonstrate that

relocation to MCAS Camp Pendleton

provides the best overall mission

capability for the concerned Marine

Corps assets and best supports

operational requirements. In fact, absent

other constraints, MCAS Camp

Pendleton would be the operationally

preferred site for the remaining USMC

rotary-wing squadrons subject to the

BRAC recommendations. Unfortunately,

MCAS Camp Pendleton is not a

reasonable alternative for those

additional squadrons because of severe

geographic limitations on the size of the

airfield. It cannot physically

accommodate the additional facilities

that would be required for basing all of

the west coast rotary-wing squadrons.

The Santa Margarita River bounds

MCAS to the east, north and west. Any

additions to the runways would entail

moving the Santa Margarita River.

Riparian areas associated with the Santa

Margarita River support nine federallylisted endangered species, including the

least Bell’s vireo and southwestern

willow flycatcher. Any substantial

modifications to the Santa Margarita

River in order to extend the runways

would eliminate their habitat and

significantly impact these endangered

species. An ancient Indian village is

present on the south bank of the Santa

Margarita River. Preliminary

archeological information obtained from

this site suggests the site had been

continuously inhabited for over 2,500

years, making it one of the most

important archeological resources in

southern California. Any runway

extensions would traverse this

archeological site.

The alternative site configurations

aboard MCAS Camp Pendleton included

Alternative A, Alternative B, and

Alternative C. Alternative B locates the

fuel pits to the northwestern end of the

air facility infrastructure and creates

mitigable impacts to biological

resources. Both Alternatives A and C

would locate the fuel pits at the

southeastern end of the air facility

infrastructure and would create

significant impacts to the historical/

cultural site located east of the air

facility infrastructure. After a systematic

and multi-disciplinary evaluation,

Alternative B was chosen to be the

Preferred Alternative, providing for

more efficient air operations with no

impacts to sensitive and unique cultural

(historical and archeological) resources.

For alternatives that were initially

identified but subsequently eliminated

from detailed study based on

operational requirements, Council on

Environmental Quality regulations

require the Department of the Navy only

to discuss briefly the reasons for their

having been eliminated.

For the reasons summarized below,

all of the potential sites except Camp

Pendleton were found to be

unreasonable alternatives and

consequently were eliminated in the EIS

process from detailed study and

analysis. Eliminating unreasonable

alternative sites allowed the Department

of the Navy to focus rigorously upon

reasonable alternatives at the Camp

Pendleton site.

Potential receiving sites for the assets

to be realigned from MCAS El Toro and

MCAS Tustin were initially screened on
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices 4735

the basis of several criteria: (1)

Realignment recommendations

approved by the President and accepted

by Congress in BRAC 91, 93, and 95; (2)

operational requirements; (3)

infrastructure required to support the

realigned assets; (4) personnel

requirements; and (5) military value.

Because of the mission of the squadrons

involved, considerable weight was

placed on the ability of a site to provide

aviation support of ground elements

while maximizing operational

efficiency.

To achieve the economies that were

basic to BRAC, Marine Corps force

structure relies on the location of

installations to form interdependent,

mutually supporting complexes on the

East Coast, West Coast, and in the

Pacific. In order to meet operational and

mission requirements, the selected

receiving site(s) should be in close

proximity to the established regional

complex. MCAS Tustin is located

within the West Coast regional complex.

Receiving sites for the realigned assets

therefore need to lie within the West

Coast region. The Marine Corps regional

complex on the West Coast is centered

around MCB Camp Pendleton, CA.

Since collocation of helicopters with the

ground elements that the helicopters

support maximizes operational and

training efficiencies, locating as many

helicopter squadrons at the center of the

regional complex (Camp Pendleton) is

optimum.

NAS Miramar

After careful consideration, the

Department of the Navy has decided to

realign/convert NAS Miramar, located

approximately 35 air route miles south

of MCAS/MCB Camp Pendleton, to

MCAS Miramar. Pursuant to this

decision, MCAS Miramar will support a

mix of fixed-wing and rotary-wing

aircraft. Medium and heavy lift

helicopters based at Miramar can not

train with the troops, equipment, and

attack helicopters already at Camp

Pendleton as effectively as they could if

located at Camp Pendleton. Moreover,

the Department of the Navy has

responded to community concerns at

Miramar by committing to implement a

series of measures to mitigate the noise

impacts that will occur from rotary-wing

aircraft that will be based at MCAS

Miramar. Adding 52 more helicopters to

MCAS Miramar, when there are other,

operationally preferable sites, would

frustrate these mitigation measures and

is not reasonable.

NAF El Centro

The purpose of NAF El Centro is to

support transient Department of the

Navy aircraft that come to the region to

use the unique and varied training

ranges in Southern California and

Western Arizona. The high tempo of

existing operations, and the condition,

availability, and quantity of its

infrastructure make it an unreasonable

alternative. Medium and heavy lift

helicopters based at El Centro cannot

train with troops, equipment, and attack

helicopter already at Camp Pendleton as

effectively as they could if located at

Camp Pendleton. The distance to MCB

Camp Pendleton is 108 air route miles,

which is over twice the normal combat/

training range for CH–46 helicopters.

The extended transits between El Centro

and Camp Pendleton would provide

significantly less opportunity for

training as part of an air-ground team,

and would increase operation and

maintenance associated with these

aircraft. The base was constructed in

1943, and over half of its buildings (by

square foot of footprint) are temporary

or semi-permanent in character, many of

which are deteriorated. There are a

limited number of hangars and even

many of those are currently categorized

as being in a substandard facilities

condition. The maintenance facilities

are also insufficient for Marine Corps

requirements.

NAS North Island

NAS North Island, located

approximately 40 air route miles from

Camp Pendleton, is not a feasible

alternative because it does not maximize

operational efficiencies or meet

operational requirements. Medium and

heavy lift helicopters based at NAS

North Island cannot train with the

troops, equipment, and attack

helicopters already at Camp Pendleton

as effectively as they could if located at

Camp Pendleton. Also, NAS North

Island cannot accommodate Marine

Corps rotary-wing operational

requirements due to its location,

existing tempo of operations, and nature

of the surrounding property. NAS North

Island is located approximately one

mile from Lindbergh Field (the major

commercial airport in San Diego) and is

adjacent to downtown San Diego and

the City of Coronado. Repetitive training

events such as Touch and Go, and

Ground Control Approach (GCA) could

not be efficiently conducted due to

proximity of the civilian development.

Computer vehicle traffic, which is

already congested in the City of

Coronado, would be further impacted by

the addition of personnel assigned to

off-base housing.

March ARB

Relocating Marine Corps rotary-wing

assets from MCAS Tustin to March

ARB, an Air Force reserve facility

approximately 35 air route miles from

Camp Pendleton, would not maximize

operational efficiency. Medium and

heavy lift helicopters based at March

cannot train with the troops, equipment,

and attack helicopters already at Camp

Pendleton as effectively as they could if

located at Camp Pendleton. Also, as the

active duty component at March ARB,

the Marine Corps would become the

host activity, a status which would

require additional USMC personnel to

perform base functions.

6. Implementation of the Proposed

Action

Implementation of the proposed

action at Camp Pendleton includes the

addition of selected aviation assets,

changes to aviation operations, and the

construction of necessary facilities to

support Marine Corps operations.

A. Addition of Aviation Assets

When the proposed action is

complete, four CH–46E helicopter

squadrons (48 aircraft) and one

detachment of CH–53E helicopters (four

aircraft) will be added to the existing

MCAS Camp Pendleton loading

(consisting of six squadrons totaling 160

aircraft). Since one of the existing UH–

1/AH–1 (27 light attack/utility aircraft)

squadrons and one CH–46 (12 medium

lift helicopters) squadron are normally

deployed, the loading supported by

MCAS Camp Pendleton upon

completion of this action is projected to

be approximately 173 rotary-wing

aircraft and approximately 3,900

personnel.

B. Changes to Aviation Operations

Implementation of the proposed

action will involve changes in the

aviation operations at Camp Pendleton.

These changes will include: increased

use of the primary runway, decreased

use of the ‘‘right grass’’ for skidconfigured helicopters, increased use

(within established restrictions) of

Temporary Alternate Landing Area

(TALA), and increased use of Red Beach

VSTOL and LHA pads.

C. Construction of Facilities

Implementation of the proposed

action will result in MCAS Camp

Pendleton being configured to

accommodate three of the four assigned

CH–46 (medium lift) squadrons at any

time, with the fourth on deployment.

Implementation of the proposed action

will involve a reconfiguration and

expansion of existing aircraft aprons
4736 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices

and pavements, flightline facilities, and

associated support facilities to meet

USMC requirements. The potential for

expansion to simultaneously

accommodate all four CH–46 squadrons

on a long-term basis has been identified

as a possibility in the future. Any

proposal to routinely house and operate

four CH–46 squadrons simultaneously

will be subjected to further NEPA

analysis.

The action now under consideration

would include the following

construction and reconfiguration of

assets at the MCAS:

• Expansion of aircraft parking apron

to within 500 feet of the runway

centerline.

• Relocation and consolidation of

aircraft fueling operations northwest of

the runway with eight refueling points

and one stacking lane to accommodate

waiting aircraft.

• Construction of a compass

calibration pad, water well, crash crew

‘‘hot spot’’ facility, and connecting

taxiways to replace the facilities

displaced by runway apron expansion.

• Partial elimination of the existing

‘‘right grass’’ area, currently being

utilized for helicopter training, due to

construction of new facilities in that

area.

• Construction of a concrete pad for

siting of Marine Air Control Squadron

(MACS–1, Det A) expeditionary radar

gear.

• Construction of maintenance

hangars and centralized hazardous

material support facilities along the

southeast side of the flightline to

support the relocating squadrons.

• Expansion of the existing Marine

Aviation Logistics Squadron (MALS)

aircraft maintenance complex in order

to accommodate CH–46E helicopters.

• Expansion of supply functions,

including construction of a warehouse

and concrete pads with supporting

utilities for 35 maintenance vans.

• Relocation and expansion of the

aircraft bulk fuel storage facility as well

as the fuel truck parking/loading area

and fill stand southwest of the runway.

• Expansion of administration and

training-related facilities to

accommodate the additional personnel.

• Modification to the engine test cell

and expansion of the armory.

• Construction and modification of

roads, parking lots, utilities and support

buildings.

In addition to the facilities proposed

at the MCAS, the proposed action

would require new construction in Area

24 on MCB Camp Pendleton, including

Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (BEQ’s) with

administrative spaces, and a physical

fitness building in order to

accommodate additional on-base

enlisted personnel. The proposed action

would also require the construction of a

Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN)

facility in Area 32 on MCB Camp

Pendleton, adjacent to Building 32942.

A TACAN is primarily a military shortrange (200 mile) navigational aid, which

would house ultra high frequency (UHF)

transmitting equipment. A TACAN

provides omni-directional azimuth and

distance information to aircraft in flight.

7. Environmental Consequences

Environmental impacts on the

following resources were analyzed in

the EIS: Geology and soils, air quality,

hydrology and water quality, biological

resources, cultural resources, visual

resources, land use, public health and

safety, hazardous materials and wastes,

aircraft operations, noise, transportation

and circulation, socio-economics, and

community services and utilities. The

impacts analyzed in the EIS are grouped

according to their degree of significance:

residual significant impacts (those

which cannot be mitigated below the

threshold of significance); impacts

mitigated below the threshold of

significance; and impacts that are not

significant. As discussed below, the

Marine Corps will implement a number

of mitigative measures to avoid or

minimize environmental harm from the

proposed action.

A. Residual Significant Impacts

There will be no significant

environmental impacts after the

mitigation measures described in the

FEIS are implemented.

B. Impacts Mitigated Below Threshold

of Significance

Geology and Soils

As discussed in the FEIS, the

proposed action will include

incorporating appropriate erosion

control measures and proper excavation

techniques to ensure protection of soil

resources. The proposed action will not

affect geologic resources as the facilities

will be designed to reduce the potential

for land slides and other adverse

geologic activities. No significant

impacts to soil will occur as a result of

implementing the proposed action.

Hydrology

The MCAS facilities associated with

the proposed action would be situated

within the 100-year flood plain of the

Santa Margarita River with the

exception of the Area 24 and 32

construction. Although a temporary

levee exists along the northern

boundary of the MCAS, the air station

is inadequately protected from flood

hazards and impacts due to flooding

would be significant. To reduce the

potential for flooding at the Air Station,

a construction project has been

proposed for fiscal year 1998. The

project will construct a levee along the

northern boundary of the MCAS to

protect facilities from a 100-year flood.

Separate NEPA documentation is being

prepared for this project. The proposed

levee project is needed regardless of the

proposed realignment action, and is

functionally independent of the

proposed realignment action. Under the

proposed realignment action, the bulk

fuel farm and the hazardous material

facility will be elevated by constructing

them on fill material to reduce their

susceptibility to impacts from flooding.

The proposed realignment of helicopter

squadrons has been reviewed in

accordance with Executive Order 11988

and has been found to be the only

practicable alternative for meeting

mission requirements. The proposed

action and other planned construction

have incorporated accepted flood

protection measures to the extent

practicable.

Water Quality

Surface waters with in the Santa

Margarita River and its coastal estuary

have been designated by the San Diego

Regional Water Quality Control Board

(SDRWQCB [1995]) as having beneficial

uses, which include municipal and

domestic supply, agricultural and

industrial supply, contact and noncontact recreation, warm and cold fresh

water habitats, wildlife habitat and

preservation of rare and endangered

species. The proposed action would

result in increased pavement and storm

water runoff. Construction-related

activities such as clearing, grading, and

excavation often result in the potential

for fuels, oil, grease, and sediment to be

carried in storm water runoff to nearby

surface waters. In addition, operation of

aircraft and other equipment, as well as

fueling procedures such as those

associated with the proposed facilities,

typically result in the release of fuels,

oils and solvents, and other compounds

onto paved surfaces.

The potential release of these

materials into the adjacent Santa

Margarita River, either directly during a

large spill, or indirectly from small

releases via storm water runoff,

represents a potentially significant

impact on water quality. Discharge of

contaminated surface water to the Santa

Margarita River can potentially impact

groundwater quality via recharge of

groundwater through the highly

permeable river alluvium. To reduce

impacts on surface water quality from
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices 4737

construction-related and operational

activities to an acceptable level, the

Marine Corps will: (1) Obtain coverage

under the State of California General

Construction Activity Storm Water

Permit to identify the sources of

sediment and other pollutants that affect

the quality of storm water discharges

and to identify the measures to reduce

sediment and other pollutants in storm

water discharges; (2) implement

standard construction best management

practices including use of silt barriers

and vegetative cover to provide erosion

control; (3) locate all hazardous material

and waste storage areas within

containment structures; (4) design

pavement areas to prevent fuel spills or

runoff from directly entering natural

drainage features; (5) direct storm water

discharge to concrete channels or swales

that provide a single point of discharge

for non-point source storm water runoff

from the developed portions of the air

station. Oil/water separators will be

constructed to remove the ‘‘first flush’’

(approximately the first 20 minutes of a

storm event) of petroleum, oil and

lubricant residue from the storm water

prior to release into the Santa Margarita

River watershed; (6) connect hangar

trench drains to four 30,000 gallon

holding tanks for containment of the

emergency Aqueous Film Forming

Foam (AFFF) fire suppression system

discharges; (7) ensure all discharges to

natural drainages will comply with

Section 402 of the Clean Water Act,

requirements for storm water

discharges; and (8) update the MCAS/

MCB Camp Pendleton Oil and

Hazardous Substances Spill

Contingency Plan, as well as the Spill

Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) and the Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as

required under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

and the Clean Water Act, to provide for

specific measures in the event of a spill.

The EPA, in a comment on the FEIS,

requested corroboration from the

Regional Water Quality Control Board

(RWQCB) that proposed mitigation

measures were adequate to ensure

compliance with the Clean Water Act.

While the RWQCB did not provide

comments on the FEIS, the RWQCB has

reviewed the mitigation measures as

part of the state water quality

certification process under section 401

of Clean Water Act. (The certification

process under Section 401 is part of the

permit process under Section 404 of the

Clean Water Act.) Conditions identified

in the water quality certificate will be

included in the 404 permit issued under

the Clean Water Act. The Marine Corps

will comply with those conditions.

As discussed in the FEIS, appropriate

measures will be implemented to ensure

that the potential for release of fuels is

minimized. The installation spill

response plan will be updated to cover

the new facilities. No significant

impacts to water quality will occur as a

result of implementing the proposed

action with the proposed mitigation

measures in place.

The proposed action will result in

additional withdrawals of groundwater

from the San Margarita groundwater

basin because of an increase in military

personnel and operational facilities. The

historical and current pumping rate of

this groundwater basin totals

approximately 6,065 acre-feet per year

(AFY). Safe yield for the Santa Margarita

groundwater basin is estimated to be

7,650 AFY. Implementation of the

proposed action could result in an

overdraft of the aquifer, which would be

a significant impact. To reduce

significant impacts on groundwater

supply to an acceptable level, the

Marine Corps will: (1) Limit

groundwater withdrawals from the

aquifer contained within the Santa

Margarita River watershed to

established safe yield (7,650 AFY); (2)

continue to implement water

conservation measures; and (3) continue

groundwater monitoring in all drainages

where groundwater is extracted.

Biology

The Department of the Navy has

carefully studied the potential impacts

of the proposed action on endangered

species and wetlands and in

consultation with the requisite agencies,

has developed and will implement

appropriate measures to protect these

sensitive resources. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS) has been

formally consulted during the

preparation of the EIS. Based upon

consultation with the USFWS, three

federally-listed endangered/threatened

species were identified as present on

MCAS Camp Pendleton. The

endangered species that are included

are the California gnatcatcher

(gnatcatcher), the least Bell’s vireo, and

the southwestern willow flycatcher. The

Department of the Navy prepared a

Biological Assessment on these three

species and other biological resources.

Information provided to USFWS in the

Biological Assessment is summarized in

the DEIS and the FEIS. Specifically, the

DEIS and the FEIS discussed the

existing condition of these threatened

and endangered species as well as other

sensitive species and their habitat in

considerable detail. The DEIS and FEIS

identified the impacts associated with

the proposed action and discussed

mitigation measures that would reduce

the potential for adverse impacts on the

threatened and endangered species and

their habitat.

The results of this consultation are

provided in the USFWS Biological

Opinion 1–6–95–F–02, Programmatic

Activities and conservation Plans in

Riparian and Estuarine/Beach

Ecosystems on Marine Corps Base Camp

Pendleton, dated October 30, 1995. The

Biological Opinion states that the

proposed action will not jeopardize the

existence of listed species. The Marine

Corps will comply with all terms and

conditions of the Biological Opinion.

The Biological Opinion includes an

Incidental Take Statement with

reasonable and prudent measures to

minimize impacts on the species of

concern. The Marine Corps will comply

with these measures.

As a result of the environmental

review conducted in conjunction with

the Marine Corps’ application for a

permit under section 404 of the Clean

Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (ACOE) has said that it will

place conditions on dredge and fill

aspects of the proposed action. Those

conditions resulted in a slight decrease

in the amount of wetlands that would be

impacted. Under the conditions

imposed in the Clean Water Act permit,

the proposed action will result in

permanent loss of approximately 9.5

acres of wetlands. Additionally,

approximately 5.0 acres of wetlands and

waters would be temporarily impacted

by implementation of a 100 foot wide

edge effect around the fuel points. The

Marine Corps has determined that the

proposed project would indirectly

impact approximately 15 acres of

endangered species habitat through

development, construction, and habitat

fragmentation. An undetermined

amount of additional wetlands and

waters adjacent to the proposed project

site would be indirectly impacted by

noise, helicopter downwash, and

human activity at the fueling point.

These direct and indirect impacts may

be significant if unmitigated.

Consistent with the Department of the

Navy’s policy for ‘‘no net loss’’ of

wetlands functions and values, as part

of the Clean Water Act Section 404

Permit process, the Marine Corps will

mitigate direct impacts to wetlands and

waters of the U.S. by carrying-out

restoration. Also, the Marine Corps will

conduct exotic weed control as part of

its mitigation for indirect impacts. This

mitigation measure was subject to

public review, and approval by the

ACOE as part of the Clean Water Act
4738 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices

permitting process. No construction

activities will occur in wetland areas

until the permit from the ACOE is

received. The Marine Corps will comply

with all the terms and conditions of the

permit.

As set forth in the Biological Opinion,

the Marine Corps will minimize impacts

to existing wetlands during construction

by implementing the following

measures: (1) Delineating wetland

boundaries on contractor drawings and

flagging the site to prevent impacts to

habitat outside project boundaries; (2)

taking erosion and sediment transport

control measures (e.g. sediments basins,

hay bales, silt fences, etc.); (3) staging

construction equipment at least 100 feet

from wetlands; (4) minimization of dust

from construction activities; (5)

revegetation of temporarily impacted

areas; and (6) education of construction

workers with regard to wetland habitats

and their sensitivity. Biological

monitoring during construction shall

occur in areas adjacent to the Santa

Margarita River Basin.

The federally endangered least Bell’s

vireo and southwestern willow

flycatcher occupy the wetland habitats

of the Santa Margarita River that

surround the Air Station on two sides.

The federally threatened California

gnatcatcher occupy coastal sage scrub

habitat in the vicinity of the Santa

Margarita River. Annual surveys at the

MCAS indicate that the presence of

helicopter activity has not precluded a

substantial increase in the least Bell’s

vireo population within the Santa

Margarita River drainage since 1981

(USFWS 1995 Biological Opinion 1–6–

95–F–02). Nesting has occurred in

habitat adjacent to the Air Station every

year since survey data has been

collected. Annual survey maps indicate

that the heaviest concentration of the

nesting least Bell’s vireo appear to be

influenced by the quality of riparian

habitat rather than distance to the

MCAS. The proposed action may result

in indirect noise impacts on these

species. The Marine Corps is conducting

on-going monitoring of the effects of

helicopter flights between 300 and 500

ft AGL in the adjacent habitat.

Mitigation measures described in the

Terms & Conditions of the Biological

Opinion are designed to reduce impacts

to an acceptable level.

No mitigation for biological impacts

are required in Areas 24 and 32. Area

24 is a ‘‘disturbed’’ area, and Area 32,

an Upland Area, was surveyed for the

Pocket Mouse and the California

gnatcatcher, and found to be devoid of

those species.

Cultural Resources

In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800,

regulations implementing Section 106 of

the National Historic Preservation Act,

three cultural sites were evaluated for

eligibility for inclusion in the National

Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Only

one site, CA–SDi–10156/12599/H, was

determined to be eligible. The State

Historic Preservation Officer agrees with

this determination. Similarly, the State

Historic Preservation Officer has

concurred in the determination that the

proposed action will not affect this or

any other historic properties. Therefore,

due to avoidance, the proposed

realignment of MCAS Camp Pendleton

will not significantly impact cultural

resources listed or determined eligible

for listing on the National Register of

Historic Places.

As there are no cultural resources

recorded within the limits of

construction for the proposed action, no

direct impacts to known cultural

resources will occur. However, one

extensive archaeological site, CA–SDi–

10156/12599/H, is located near the

limits of the proposed action and is

associated with the Santa Margarita

Ranch House complex, a site listed on

the National Register of Historic Places.

Therefore, significant indirect impacts

form the proposed action could occur if

measures to protect the site during

construction are not implemented. To

reduce potentially significant indirect

impacts on cultural resources to below

the threshold of significance, the Marine

Corps will: (1) Prior to commencement

of construction activities, protect (by

fencing or other means) portions of site

CA–SDi–10156/12599/H outside of the

project area from potential incidental

construction-related impacts; and (2)

pursuant to 36 CFR 800.11, if any

archaeological resources are discovered

during project grading or construction,

halt all activities in that particular

location until an archaeologist is

notified and the resources assessed. The

archaeologist will establish procedures

for redirecting or halting work to permit

the sampling, identification and

evaluation of previously unidentified

archaeological resources.

Aircraft Operations

Aircraft operations for the proposed

action would result in a significant

increase in the use of runways,

established military airspace, and

military flight tracks. The Marine Corps

will mitigate these impacts to an

acceptable level by using as necessary

the following measures: (1) Scheduling

training other than during morning peak

times, (2) scheduling block training

times, (3) utilizing the Red Beach area,

and (4) utilizing the Temporary

Alternate Landing Area (TALA).

C. Impacts That Are Not Significant

Air Quality

The San Diego Air Basin is federally

classified as a serious ozone nonattainment area and a moderate carbon

monoxide (CO) non-attainment area.

Pursuant to Section 176(c) of the Clean

Air Act, US EPA promulgated a final

rule ‘‘Determining Conformity of

General Federal Actions to State or

Federal Implementation Plans’’ (General

Conformity rule), 58 Fed. Reg. 63214

(Nov 30, 1993) (40 C.F.R. Parts 51 and

93). A conformity applicability analysis

of the air emissions associated with the

proposed action was conducted. The

conformity applicability analysis

determined that air emissions associated

with the proposed action (reduced by

the amount of emissions associated with

the departing Marine Corps aircraft) are:

(1) Below de minimis levels (i.e., the net

changes in emissions of criteria

pollutants do not exceed threshold

levels established in the General

Conformity Rule); and, (2) not regionally

significant (they do not exceed 10% of

the San Diego Air Basin’s total

emissions inventory for any applicable

criteria pollutant). Consequently, the

proposed action is not subject to the

General Conformity Rule. (FEIS, § 4.2

and FEIS Appendix B)

In conducting a conformity

applicability analysis for the proposed

action, the Department of the Navy

selected 1990 as the most appropriate

year to reflect Marine Corps aircraft

operations and activities at MCAS Camp

Pendleton as a fully operational Air

Station in normal circumstances. As

such, 1990 was used as a basis to

calculate emissions increases and

decreases caused by the proposed

action; i.e., the ‘‘net’’ emissions

considering all incoming and outgoing

direct and indirect emissions. The

‘‘netting’’ of emissions in this manner

appropriately accounts for the total

direct and indirect emissions associated

with the proposed action and is in

accordance with provisions of the

General Conformity Rule. The

Department of the Navy’s use of 1990 to

analyze net emissions is also consistent

with the San Diego Air Pollution

Control District’s (APCD) use of 1990 for

determining emissions inventories.

Even though total operations dropped in

1990 from previous years’ totals due to

deployments for Operation Desert

Shield and Storm, a comparison of

yearly level of operations for years when

the OV–10 aircraft was still operational
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices 4739

reveals that 1990 is a representative year

for calculating pre-BRAC operations and

emissions.

I took a hard look at the Department

of the Navy’s method for estimating air

emissions and the supporting data. The

Department of the Navy’s method for

calculating aircraft emissions applies

the following elements: number of

aircraft operations; type or mode of

operation (power setting); number and

type of aircraft engines per aircraft; time

in mode; and, corresponding emission

factors. The emission factors were

obtained from studies conducted by the

Navy Aircraft Environmental Support

Office (AESO) that are referenced in the

EPA ‘‘Compilation of Air Pollutant

Emission Factors (AP–42).’’

In summary, the Department of the

Navy has conducted a thorough review

of the data and methods used to analyze

whether the requirement for a

conformity determination applies to this

proposed action. My review of the

record indicates that the proposed

realignment of MCAS Camp Pendleton

represents a net decrease in the total

emissions of those air pollutants for

which the San Diego area is in

nonattainment. During the most recent

review done in preparation for making

this Record of Decision, however, the

Department of the Navy has accounted

for a number of changed circumstances.

Some of these changes, such as shifts in

projected construction schedules and

delays in the migration of the realigning

aircraft, resulted from delays in the EIS

process. As a result, some of the data

and dates in the conformity

applicability analysis as summarized in

the FEIS have changed. The Marine

Corps carefully recalculated its emission

estimates for the proposed action’s

conformity applicability analysis to

reflect these changes and other

refinements of data. These

recalculations demonstrate that the net

emissions from the proposed action

remain below de minimis levels. Some

of the changes of note in the

applicability analysis include using an

on-site batch concrete plant at MCAS

Camp Pendleton during construction

and defering the construction of the hot

refueling pits from 1997 to 1998. Data

refinements included correcting some

emission factors and hours of operations

for equipment and aircraft. These

changes and refinements indicate that

emissions from the proposed action will

remain below de minimis levels, as

shown in the table below.

Annual net emissions (as compared to 1990)

Emission rates (tons per year)

NOX CO ROG/HC

1997 Net Emissions ................................................................................................................................. 38 ¥619 ¥18

1998 Net Emissions ................................................................................................................................. ¥27 ¥695 ¥28

1999 Net Emissions ................................................................................................................................. 13 ¥243 20

2000 Net Emissions ................................................................................................................................. 10 ¥287 17

De minimis threshold level ....................................................................................................................... 50 100 50

Visual Resources

As discussed in the FEIS, the

proposed action will not have any

significant impacts on the visual

resources.

Land Use

As discussed in the FEIS, the

proposed action will not result in the

change of any off-base land use

designation, and therefore will not have

any significant impacts on the land use

of developed areas.

Public Health and Safety

As discussed in the FEIS, the

proposed action will not have any

significant impacts on the local or

regional public health and safety.

Hazardous Material and Wastes

As discussed in the FEIS, the

proposed action will not have any

significant impacts on the life cycle

(procurement, storage, use, through

disposal) of hazardous materials or

wastes.

Socioeconomics

As discussed in the FEIS, the

proposed action will not have any

significant impacts on the local or

regional socio-economics. In

compliance with Executive Order

12898, an analysis was conducted to

determine if minority or low-income

populations would suffer

disproportionate environmental impacts

as a result of the proposed action. It was

determined that these populations

would not suffer disproportionate

impacts.

Noise

The FEIS carefully analyzed the issue

of noise, recognizing that some members

of the public are concerned about noise

that would be generated by additional

helicopter operations at MCAS Camp

Pendleton.

Noise impacts were assessed using the

State of California’s standard, the

Community Noise Equivalent Level

(CNEL), expressed in units of decibel

(dB). The State of California’s Title 21,

Subchapter 6, Section 5006 states: ‘‘The

level of noise acceptable to a reasonable

person residing in the vicinity of an

airport is established as a community

noise equivalent level (CNEL) value of

65 dB for purposes of these regulations.

This criterion level has been chosen for

reasonable persons residing in urban

residential areas where houses are of

typical California construction and may

have windows partially open. It has

been selected with reference to speech,

sleep and community reaction.’’ Section

5014 describes the land use that are

incompatible within the noise impact

boundaries. It provides that noise

exposure levels less than 65 dB are

generally compatible for noise sensitive

land uses, including residential areas

and schools. The aircraft operationsrelated noise analysis is based on data

presented in the ‘‘Aircraft Noise Study

for Marine Corps Air Station, Camp

Pendleton, CA’’ (NAVFACENGCOM

1995). The aircraft noise study utilized

aircraft operations data from the Naval

Aviation Simulation Model (NASMOD)

report. Noise contours defining the areas

of impact in 5 dB increment were

developed using the NOISEMAP model

and projected operational tempo data.

The analysis considered the existing six

squadrons, with one deployed, and the

addition of four squadrons and the

detachment of four helicopters.

Although the standard for significance

is 65 dB, the noise contours as low as

60 dB CNEL associated with the

proposed action will remain entirely

contained within the base boundaries of

MCB Camp Pendleton. The average

annual day 60–65 dB CNEL noise

contour would increase by

approximately 564 acres, while the total

acreage increase within the 65–70 dB

CNEL noise contour would be 141 acres.

No additional on-base sensitive noise

receptors will be contained within the

new 65–70 dB noise contour. Most

notable is the increase in area of the 60–

65 dB CNEL noise contour by about 42
4740 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices

percent (or from 1,339 to 1,903 acres).

This increase is attributed to the large

increase in Ground Control Approach

(GCA) pattern operations, the use of the

pattern during evening and nighttime

hours (when larger weighting factors are

used to compensate for quieter

background noise, resulting in larger

noise contours than would be created by

daytime flights), and a significant

increase in arrivals using the North

initial approach route. Similarly, there

is a major projected increase in aircraft

departures and arrivals, causing the 60–

65 dB CNEL noise contour to extend

farther southwest. The remaining

increase in the 60–65 noise contour is

consistent with increased operations for

most departures, arrivals, and pattern

operations.

In addition, two off-base locations,

located in the town of Fallbrook, were

identified as potential noise sensitive

receptors (the intersection of Mission

Road and Industrial Way, and the

Fallbrook Union High School). Under

the proposed action, the intersection of

Mission Road and Industrial Way

(currently 46 dB CNEL), and the

Fallbrook Union High School (currently

38 dB CNEL) will be exposed to sound

level increases of 5 dB at the

intersection, and 6 dB at the High

School, during an average annual day.

These increases and resulting noise

levels are compatible with the

established noise impact standards

contained within the State of California

Regulations (Title 21) for these land

uses.

The Marine Corps will continue to

examine operations for ways to further

reduce noise impacts on communities

subject to routine overflight of MCAS

Camp Pendleton aircraft. The MCB

Camp Pendleton Community Plans and

Liaison (CP&L) Office will continue to

coordinate efforts with the local

community by working with community

leaders, local elected officials and

professional staffs through established

community relations and local

government processes, e.g., the

Fallbrook Ad Hoc Committee, to ensure

that the concerns of local communities

regarding Marine Corps operations will

be taken into consideration.

Construction noise associated with

the proposed action would raise

ambient noise levels in the vicinity of

individual construction sites. Noise

levels produced by typical construction

equipment (e.g. heavy trucks, loaders,

backhoes, cranes, and assorted

pneumatic and diesel equipment) are of

the same intensity as the 75–80 db

CNEL noise contour created by aircraft

operations. Impacts due to noise

produced by construction equipment

will be temporary, and although audible

in the immediate vicinity, will not occur

outside of the MCAS/MCB area of

construction and will not increase noise

levels beyond the MCAS/MCB

boundaries. Traffic generated by

construction activity is estimated to be

approximately 30 to 50 constructiontype vehicles per day. The increase in

traffic noise would be approximately 0.5

dB and is not significant.

Transportation and Circulation

Traffic-related impacts to either the

on- or off-base circulation system, due

to both construction and operation of

the proposed action, would not be

significant. Construction volumes

would represent a small and temporary

portion of daily traffic volumes on area

roadways, carrying materials and heavy

equipment to the site. Heavy

construction equipment and vehicles

would comprise a small portion of offbase traffic, since the vehicles would be

driven to the site, and then kept on-site

for the duration of the construction. It

is estimated that construction traffic

would range from 150 to 200 vehicles

per day (including personal vehicles of

construction employees), depending on

the timing of construction of each

facility. It is also assumed that traffic

would approach the project sites equally

from the Main Gate near 1–5, and the

San Luis Rey Gate, near Oceanside, with

the concentration of heavy construction

vehicles using the Main Gate. Service

contractors (equipment suppliers,

maintenance, fuel trucks, etc) would

comprise approximately 50 trips to and

from the facilities each day.

The proposed action is expected to

generate a total of approximately 1,485

vehicles on off-base roadways during

the weekdays. The Level of Service

(LOS) and capacity on primary off-base

roadways in the vicinity of MCB Camp

Pendelton would not be lowered.

Project-related traffic would represent a

negligible increase to off-base major

intersections, which would not result in

lowering the LOS with the addition of

project-related traffic.

Community Services and Utilities

Of the projected approximately 800

personnel associated with the proposed

action, approximately 43 would be

civilians who would be housed off-base,

independent of the military personnel.

School-aged dependents of civilian

personnel would be absorbed into the

local community. It is estimated that

363 school-aged military dependents

will be introduced into the Oceanside,

Fallbrook and Capistrano School

Districts upon implementation of the

proposed action. The additional families

and their school-aged children would be

disbursed throughout the existing

housing stocks on base and in adjacent

communities in San Diego and Orange

Counties, and would not significantly

impact school districts.

8. Comments Received on the Final EIS

Public Review

Twelve comment letters were

received following publication of the

FEIS. With the exception of an issue

with cumulative impacts addressed

below, the comments received were

addressed in the sections corresponding

to the issues of concern.

The EPA expressed a concern that the

FEIS should contain an explanation as

to why several projects identified in the

Draft EIS cumulative impacts analysis

appear to be in support of the proposed

action, but are analyzed under separate

NEPA documentation. The projects

identified in the cumulative impacts

portion of the FEIS, both at MCB and

MCAS Camp Pendleton (e.g., sewage

treatment upgrades and construction of

an outlying landing field) do not

directly support the proposed BRAC

action, and would be undertaken

irrespective of the realignment of MCAS

Tustin assets to Camp Pendleton. Many

of the actions identified in the

cumulative impacts section are only in

the conceptual planning stage. The FEIS

Cumulative Impacts section was

expanded to address potential impacts

for each project to the extent known;

however, the available information was

limited since many of these projects are

only in the early stage of planning. The

impacts associated with each of these

projects would be mitigated at the

project-specific level to ensure the

continued protection of the natural and

cultural resources, including the Santa

Margarita River Basin.

9. Conclusion

On behalf of the Department of the

Navy, I have decided to realign selected

aviation assets (four twelve-aircraft

squadrons of mediun-lift CH–46E

helicopters and one four-aircraft

detachment of heavy-lift CH–53E

helicopters), along with their dedicated

personnel, equipment, and support,

from MCAS El Toro and MCAS Tustin

to MCAS Camp Pendleton, which is

located within MCB Camp Pendleton.

After reviewing the FEIS, supporting

documents, and comments and

information received during the

environmental review process, I have

decided to implement this action using

Camp Pendleton Site Alternative B (fuel

pits to Northwest of existing airfield

infrastructure), which was both the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices 4741

Preferred Alternative and also the

Environmentally Preferred Alternative.

10. Where to Obtain Further

Information

For further information, contact Major

Pat D. Pinkston at (714) 726–4047.

Dated: January 27, 1997.

Duncan Holaday,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Installations and

Facilities.

[FR Doc. 97–2349 Filed 1–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–M

Department of the Navy, DoD

Record of Decision for the Disposal

and Reuse of Naval Civil Engineering

Laboratory, Port Hueneme, California

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy

(Navy), pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of

the National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.,

and the regulations of the Council on

Environmental Quality that implement

NEPA procedures, 40 CFR Parts 1500–

1508, hereby announces its decision to

dispose of Naval Civil Engineering

Laboratory, Port Hueneme, California

(NCEL).

Navy intends to dispose of the

property in a manner that is consistent

with the NCEL Community Reuse Plan

(Reuse Plan) submitted by the Port

Hueneme Surplus Property Authority

(SPA), the Local Redevelopment

Authority (LRA) for NCEL. The City of

Port Hueneme established SPA to plan

future uses of the closing facilities. The

Reuse Plan is general in nature and

proposes maritime and related uses

rather than particular reuse projects.

In its Final Environmental Impact

Statement (FEIS), Navy evaluated a ‘‘No

action’’ alternative and three ‘‘action’’

alternatives: port and coastal activities

(‘‘Port/Coastal’’), described in the FEIS

as the preferred alternative; port and

related industrial activities (‘‘Port/

Industrial’’); and port, aquaculture,

retail and commercial activities (‘‘Mixed

Use’’). In a Resolution dated August 7,

1996, SPA determined that the Port/

Industrial alternative’s emphasis on port

activities would be consistent with the

Reuse Plan and endorsed the land uses

proposed in that alternative.

In deciding to dispose of NCEL Port

Hueneme, Navy has determined that

both the Port/Coastal alternative and the

Port/Industrial alternative will meet the

goals of achieving local economic

redevelopment of the closing facility

and creating new jobs, while limiting

adverse environmental impacts and

ensuring land uses that are compatible

with adjacent property. This Record Of

Decision leaves selection of the

particular means to achieve the

proposed redevelopment to the

acquiring entity and the local zoning

authority.

Background

The 1993 Defense Base Closure and

Realignment Commission recommended

closure of NCEL Port Hueneme. This

recommendation was approved by

President Clinton and accepted by the

One Hundred Third Congress in 1993.

NCEL Port Hueneme closed in April

1996, and the property has been in

caretaker status since that date.

The NCEL property occupies 33.1

acres along the Pacific Ocean in the City

of Port Hueneme, which is located in

Ventura County, California. NCEL lies

adjacent to the Oxnard Harbor District’s

Port of Hueneme, about 60 miles

northwest of Los Angeles and 40 miles

southeast of Santa Barbara, California.

The property contains 53 structures that

were used for Naval research and

development.

Navy published a Notice of Intent in

the Federal Register on March 8, 1995,

announcing that Navy would prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement that

would analyze the impacts of disposal

and reuse of the land, buildings, and

infrastructure at NCEL Port Hueneme. A

30-day public scoping period was

established, and Navy held a public

scoping meeting on March 23, 1995, at

the Port Hueneme City Hall.

On February 13, 1996, Navy

distributed a Draft Environmental

Impact Statement (DEIS) to Federal,

State, and local agencies, elected

officials, special interest groups, and

interested persons. Navy held a public

hearing in the Port Hueneme City

Council chambers on March 12, 1996, to

discuss the DEIS. During the forty-five

day review period after publication of

the DEIS, Federal, State, and local

agencies submitted written comments

concerning the DEIS. These comments

and Navy’s responses were incorporated

in the Final Environmental Impact

Statement (FEIS), which was distributed

to the public on July 19, 1996, for a 30-

day review period that concluded on

August 18, 1996. Navy received three

letters commenting on and supportive of

the FEIS.

Alternatives

NEPA requires Navy to evaluate a

reasonable range of alternatives for the

disposal and reuse of this Federal

property. In the NEPA process, Navy

analyzed the environmental impacts of

various proposed land uses that could

result from disposal of the NCEL

property. Navy also evaluated a ‘‘No

action’’ alternative that would leave the

property in a caretaker status with Navy

maintaining the physical condition of

the property, providing a security force,

and making repairs essential to safety.

As the basis for its analysis of the

‘‘action’’ alternatives, Navy relied upon

SPA’s proposals for maritime and

related uses that were set forth in the

Reuse Plan. SPA considered various

activities that the NCEL property could

support, prepared the Reuse Plan, and

submitted it to Navy in August 1995.

The first ‘‘action’’ alternative, the

Port/Coastal alternative, proposed a

moderate expansion of the Oxnard

Harbor District’s port facilities by using

5.5 acres on the NCEL property as

additional area for wharfside activities

such as the handling and storage of

cargo. Another part of the property, 6.1

acres, would be dedicated to recreation

and public access, and the remainder,

21.5 acres, would be set aside for coastal

activities such as fish processing,

aquaculture, and maritime training and

other educational uses.

The second ‘‘action’’ alternative, the

Port/Industrial alternative, proposed

greater expansion of the Oxnard Harbor

District’s port facilities on to the NCEL

property, with 27 of NCEL’s 33 acres

dedicated to cargo handling, storage,

and distribution. As in the Port/Coastal

alternative, 6.1 acres at NCEL would be

dedicated to recreation and public

access.

The third ‘‘action’’ alternative, the

Mixed Use alternative, proposed the use

of 5.5 acres at NCEL for expansion of the

Oxnard Harbor District’s port facilities,

9.2 acres for use in aquaculture and

commercial activities, and 12.3 acres for

retail stores, offices and maritime

education. As in the Fort/Coastal and

Port/Industrial alternatives, 6.1 acres

would be dedicated to recreation and

public access.

Environmental Impacts

Navy analyzed the potential impacts

of the ‘‘No action’’ and three ‘‘action’’

alternatives for their effects on land use,

socioeconomics, public services,

cultural resources, biological resources,

water resources, geology and soils,

traffic and circulation, air quality, noise,

utilities, hazardous materials and

hazardous waste. In light of SPA’s

endorsement of the Port/Industrial

alternative, this Record Of Decision will

focus on the impacts that could result

from implementing that proposal.

No significant adverse impacts on

land use would arise out of the Port/

Industrial alternative. This proposal is

compatible with the existing and

projected uses of adjacent property and

is consistent with the existing land use