[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6181-6184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2831]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Record of Decision for Developing Home Port Facilities for Three 
NIMITZ-Class Aircraft Carriers in Support of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

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 home port 
facilities for NIMITZ-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers 
(``CVNs'') in the Pacific Fleet, announces its decision to: (1) 
construct facilities and infrastructure required to home port two 
additional CVNs at Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI), Coronado, 
CA; (2) upgrade existing CVN support facilities at Puget Sound Naval 
Shipyard (PSNS), Bremerton, WA; and (3) retain Naval Station (NAVSTA) 
Everett, WA, as a CVN home port.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the entire Record of Decision 
(ROD) is provided as follows:

Background

    Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. Section 4332(2)(c), the regulations of 
the Council on Environmental Quality that implement NEPA procedures, 40 
CFR Parts 1500-1508, and 40 CFR 93, the General Conformity Rule of the 
Clean Air Act, the Department of the Navy (DON) announces its decision 
regarding home port facilities and infrastructure for CVNs in support 
of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
    First, as conventionally-powered aircraft carriers (CVs) reach the 
end of their service life and are replaced by nuclear-powered carriers 
(CVNs), the Navy has a need to create the capacity to home port these 
new CVN assets. Compared to the CV, the CVN is a newer class of 
aircraft carrier that has a wider beam, a deeper draft, and different 
shore maintenance and support requirements. Consequently, a CVN home 
port requires different shore infrastructure than that provided for a 
CV. The U.S. Pacific Fleet is preparing for the replacement of two CVs 
assigned within the U.S. Pacific Fleet area of responsibility (AOR) 
with two CVNs. Therefore, there is a need to select locations within 
the Pacific Fleet AOR for the construction of facilities and 
infrastructure necessary to create the capacity to home port these 
CVNs.
    Second, changes in CVN home port pier, logistics support area, and 
utility infrastructure standards for CVN home ports created the need to 
decide whether to upgrade the existing CVN home port facilities at PSNS 
to meet those standards or maintain the existing facilities even though 
they did not meet current standards.
    Third, development of Planned Incremental Availability (PIA) 
maintenance for CVNs created the need to re-evaluate the viability of 
retaining NAVSTA Everette as a CVN home port to determine if the 
facilities and infrastructure could efficiently support a CVN while 
undergoing a PIA maintenance program without adversely affecting crew 
quality of life.
    The DON undertook the planning effort for these decisions on 
December 3, 1996, when it published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare 
an Environmental Impact Statement in the Federal Register. A public 
scoping meeting was held in each of the following locations: Bremerton, 
Washington; Everett, Washington; Pearl City, Hawaii; and Coronado, 
California. A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIS (DEIS) was 
published in the Federal Register on August 28, 1998. Public hearings 
were held on the DEIS in the same four locations as the scoping 
meetings and in San Diego, CA. Approximately 317 individuals, agencies, 
and organizations submitted comments on the DEIS during the 75 day 
public comment period. All oral and written comments were considered in 
the preparation of the Final EIS (FEIS). The NOA for the FEIS was 
published in the Federal Register on July 9, 1999. In addition, public 
notices and news releases noting the availability of the FEIS and draft 
Final Clean Air Act (CAA) Conformity Determination were published in 
local and regional newspapers beginning on July 10, 1999. The DON 
received approximately 60 public comment letters on the FEIS during a 
60-day public review period.

Alternatives

    Four areas within the Pacific Fleet AOR were considered as feasible 
locations for the development of CVN home port capacity. The four areas 
considered were: Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) Coronado, CA; 
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) Bremerton, WA; Naval Station (NAVSTA) 
Everett, WA; and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard (PHNSY) Pearl Harbor, HI. 
Using these four locations, six alternative configurations for creating 
the necessary CVN home port capacity, including a no construction 
alternative, were developed and analyzed. Each alternative was 
evaluated and compared against the

[[Page 6182]]

others in terms of: operational, logistical, and personnel 
requirements; environmental impacts; and facility and infrastructure 
life cycle costs.
    The EIS contained a commitment on the part of the DON to carefully 
review information collected on crew quality of life (QOL) and 
maintenance during USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN's first PIA at PSNS. USS ABRAHAM 
LINCOLN's PIA was completed in October 1999. Information collected 
concerning QOL demonstrated that commuting from home port at NAVSTA 
Everett to PSNS did not significantly impact the crew of USS ABRAHAM 
LINCOLN. The results of this PIA revealed the quality of maintenance 
met expectations, the maintenance schedule was achieved, the increase 
in overall cost to perform the maintenance away from home port was 
acceptable, and the PERSTEMPO/OPTEMPO implications of maintaining 
NAVSTA Everett as a home port were acceptable.
    This additional information was not available at the time the FEIS 
was published, but was included in DON's evaluation of whether to keep 
existing home port facilities at NAVSTA Everett or develop home port 
facilities at PSNS. The availability of this new information does not 
generate a need for additional environmental analysis. The analysis of 
the six alternatives considered in the EIS process thoroughly addressed 
the environmental impacts associated with a CVN remaining at NAVSTA 
Everett and those associated with creating additional home port 
capacity at PSNS.
    Based upon my review of the comparative analysis of alternatives 
and public comments received during the NEPA process, I have selected 
Alternative Two, which was identified as the preferred Alternative in 
the DEIS and FEIS, as the DON action for developing CVN home port 
capacity. Alternative Two will create home port capacity for two 
additional CVNs at NASNI, bringing the total CVN home port capacity at 
NASNI to three. Under Alternative Two the CVN home port facilities at 
PSNS will be upgraded to meet current standards and NAVSTA Everett will 
remain a CVN home port.
    Implementation of Alternative Two at NASNI requires that existing 
Pier J/K be demolished and replaced by a wharf meeting the berthing 
requirements of a CVN. Approximately 582,000 cubic yards (cy) of 
sediment will be dredged to meet depth requirements. Most of the 
material will be deposited at an in-bay location south of the Naval 
Amphibious Base (NAB) to create an NAB Habitat Enhancement Area, and 
some of the material will be used as fill for the wharf. A 1.5 to 2.5 
acre intertidal habitat will be created from an upland site to 
compensate for intertidal/subtidal habitat filled as part of the wharf 
construction. Berthing for a second additional CVN will be along the 
section of the existing quay wall that currently serves as the 
transient berth for CVNs not homeported at NASNI. No dredging is 
required to convert the transient berth to a permanent berth for the 
second additional CVN. Utility upgrades are required, as is additional 
fencing.
    Implementation of Alternative Two at PSNS requires that Pier D be 
removed and replaced by a new pier that meets current berthing criteria 
for a CVN home port. Dredging of approximately 425,000 cy will be 
accomplished at Pier D and its turning basin and also at two other CVN 
maintenance berths and their associated turning basins. The dredged 
material determined to be suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal will 
be deposited at a site in Elliot Bay designated under the Puget Sound 
Dredge Disposal Analysis Program. Material unsuitable for unconfined 
aquatic disposal will be deposited at an appropriately permitted upland 
landfill or in one of three Confined Disposal Facilities/Confined 
Aquatic Disposal sites shown in the FEIS.
    Implementation of Alternative Two at NAVSTA Everett requires no 
action.
    Alternative Six (the no construction alternative) is the 
environmentally preferred alternative because it involves the least 
disturbance of the natural environment. While environmentally 
preferable, this alternative would overtax utility, logistical, and 
personnel support infrastructures at NASNI and PSNS. Consequently, 
Alternative Six places an unacceptable constraint on the mission 
capability of the U.S. Pacific Fleet from an operational, training, and 
personnel perspective.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation

    The DON analyzed the potential impacts of the selected action in 
fifteen environmental resource areas: geology; topography and soils; 
terrestrial hydrology and water quality; marine water quality; sediment 
quality; marine biology; transportation; air quality; noise; 
aesthetics; cultural resources; general services/access; health and 
safety; utilities; and environmental justice. This ROD summarizes the 
potentially significant, but mitigable, impacts associated with 
Alternative Two, the DON's selected alternative.
    Dredging and pier replacement at NASNI will cause the loss of 1.5 
acres of intertidal and subtidal habitat. Impacts to habitat will be 
mitigated by the construction of 1.5 to 2.5 acres of intertidal habitat 
at a nearby upland site, and creation of additional snowy plover 
nesting habitat. The potential loss of eelgrass will be monitored 
through surveys before and after construction. If the post-construction 
surveys determine that a loss of eelgrass has occurred, the Navy will 
provide mitigation for that loss. The amount of eel grass lost will be 
applied against the Navy's north-central eelgrass mitigation bank 
according to the 1992 Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy 
Guidelines, as amended.
    Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service led to the conclusion that dredging 
and pier construction at PSNS could impact threatened and endangered 
species of salmon during their out-migration season. In order to 
mitigate impacts on salmon migration, the Navy will avoid dredging and 
marine construction during established salmon migration windows. 
Impacts from construction of a confined disposal facility (CDF), if 
such a facility is required by the terms of the CWA Section 404 permit 
obtained for dredging and marine construction activities, will be 
offset by making the area occupied by the CDF a shallow water habitat 
area.
    Overall impacts on the coastal resources in California were 
addressed in the coastal consistency determination (CCD) submitted to 
the California Coastal Commission (CCC) by DON. On December 8, 1999, 
the California Coastal Commission unanimously concurred that the 
proposed development of home port capacity at NASNI was consistent to 
the maximum extent practicable with the California Coastal Management 
Program. In public hearings on the DON consistency determination held 
on the same day, DON agreed to continue discussions with the CCC staff 
about emergency planning issues, thermal discharges from CVNs, and Best 
Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater runoff control. DON agreed 
to discuss these three issues further with the CCC staff, and to 
present the results to the Commission at another public hearing on or 
before April 2000. DON also agreed that, if the DON Record of Decision 
for the development of CVN home port facilities required pier 
construction at NASNI, no construction work would begin at NASNI before 
presentation of these results to the Commission on or before April 
2000. All construction activities and the operation of facilities 
necessary to implement Alternative Two will be undertaken in a manner 
consistent with the terms and conditions of required permits.

[[Page 6183]]

Responses to Comments on the FEIS

    The DON received comments on the FEIS from elected officials, 
federal, state, and local government agencies, citizen's groups, and 
individuals. Most of the issues raised in the comments had already been 
addressed in the FEIS in response to comments received on the DEIS. New 
issues raised in comments received on the FEIS concerning those aspects 
of the proposed action at NASNI are addressed below. No new issues were 
raised in comments received concerning those aspects of the proposed 
action at PSNS, NAVSTA Everett or NAVSTA Pearl Harbor.
    Commentors noted that the FEIS did not discuss the potential for 
the proposed project to exacerbate water quality problems in San Diego 
Bay associated with areas identified under CWA, Section 303(d). Section 
303(d) requires states to list those areas for which water quality 
standards cannot be implemented. As none of the sites in San Diego Bay 
listed under Section 303(d) are near enough to the proposed pier and 
mitigation sites to be affected by short term construction and dredging 
activities, these activities will not further hinder the implementation 
of water quality standards at any of the sites listed under the CWA.
    Commentors noted that the cumulative impact section did not address 
traffic increases in the City of Coronado they anticipated would 
accompany the upgraded commissary and exchange facilities proposed for 
NASNI. The Navy does not anticipate that upgrading commissary and 
exchange facilities at NASNI will cause any appreciable increase in 
traffic. Commissary and exchange facilities are already present at 
NASNI. Changes to those facilities are not expected to attract new 
users. The pool of eligible patrons in the San Diego area is relatively 
stable. Patrons are expected to continue to shop at the larger, more 
conveniently located facilities at Naval Station San Diego, Marine 
Corps Air Station Miramar, and Camp Pendleton.
    Commentors stated that the FEIS failed to analyze the increased 
probability that invasive species would be introduced into San Diego 
Bay through ballast water discharges from CVNSs homeported at NASNI. 
Trim and list on CVNs are maintained through a closed system of 
freshwater tanks. Unlike conventionally-powered ships, no ballast water 
is taken from or discharged to surrounding waters. Therefore there is 
no avenue by which invasive species can be introduced into San Diego 
Bay from CVN ballast water.
    It was clear from some comments received on the FEIS that concern 
still exists about the Navy's adherence to the NEPA process, the marine 
environment in San Diego Bay, traffic within the City of Coronado, and 
nuclear propulsion aspects of the addition of more home port capacity 
for CVNs in the San Diego area. Even though these issues were 
specifically addressed in the FEIS and there is no requirement that the 
DON address them further in the ROD, a brief discussion is included 
here to demonstrate that these concerns have been carefully considered.
    Some commentors suggested that regulations implementing NEPA 
required Navy to reissue the DEIS due to changes included in the FEIS. 
The DON carefully reviewed the differences between the DEIS and FEIS 
and concluded that reissuing the DEIS was not required. The NEPA 
process is an iterative one, designed to produce an FEIS that reflects 
change, clarification, and refinement of the DEIS based upon comments 
received from the public. No changes included in the FEIS were so 
substantial as to require republication of the DEIS.
    Some commentors sought more information on the potential loss of 
eelgrass and soil contamination levels at the upland mitigation site on 
North Island. In the DEIS, the best available information was used to 
predict impacts to eelgrass and pollutant levels at the mitigation 
site. This information was subsequently validated by additional data 
collected and analyzed in conjunction with the DON's pending 
application for a CWA Section 404 permit.
    Some commentors sought a new discussion about copper leaching into 
San Diego Bay from anti-fouling paint on ship hulls. The Navy 
calculated the amount of copper expected to leach from anti-fouling 
paint on ship hulls and concluded in the FEIS that the net difference 
from replacement of CVs by CVNs will not be significant. Also, the 
number of Navy ships berthed in San Diego has decreased. Therefore, 
there would be no cumulative increase in the amount of copper leaching 
into the bay.
    The City of Coronado and a number of its citizens expressed concern 
that creating the home port capacity for three CVNs at NASNI will 
result in major increases in commuter traffic along Coronado streets. 
The DON took a hard look at the traffic impact associated with creating 
home port capacity for two additional CVNs. The best available 
historical data on the days spent in port by CVs homeported at NASNI 
was analyzed and future days in port by CVNs were projected based upon 
anticipated training and deployment requirements. These historical data 
and projections suggest that the decision to create home port capacity 
for two additional CVNs at NASNI will not cause significant traffic 
impacts.
    Historically, even when three aircraft carriers were assigned NASNI 
as a home port, all three of those aircraft carriers were present in 
port at the same time only an average of thirteen days per year. Based 
upon training requirements, maintenance schedules, and projected 
operational tempo, the implementation of Alternative Two is not 
expected to increase the average number of days a year three CVNs will 
be present at their NASNI home port. While traffic levels will increase 
for those brief periods when three CVNs assigned to NASNI are present, 
overall traffic impacts will be less than significant. Nevertheless, 
the DON will use mitigation measures to reduce the level of traffic 
during those infrequent periods when three CVNs assigned to NASNI are 
simultaneously in port. Mitigation may include measures such as 
staggering work hours, encouraging carpools and vanpools, and 
subsidizing the use of public transportation by military personnel and 
civilian employees. The DON will monitor the effectiveness of these 
traffic mitigation measures. If the mitigation measures are not 
successful and traffic associated with the presence of a third 
homeported CVN creates a significant adverse effect on traffic 
conditions in Coronado, DON will develop additional mitigation 
measures.
    Several commentors from the San Diego area expressed concern that 
nuclear propulsion issues such as reactor accident analysis, emergency 
planning, perimeter monitoring, distribution of potassium iodide, and 
notification of releases were not thoroughly considered in the FEIS 
process. The FEIS discusses, among other points, how NIMITZ Class 
reactor designs have received independent review by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 
and that the Navy has plans and procedures in place for all types of 
emergencies that could be associated with Naval Nuclear Propulsion 
Program (NNPP) operations. These plans and procedures contain 
classified and sensitive military information that cannot be released 
to the public. In recent meetings among DON, State, County, and local 
emergency response officials, the consensus was reached that existing 
DON, State, County, and local emergency plans are adequate in the 
highly unlikely event of a radiological emergency.

[[Page 6184]]

    I thoroughly reviewed the entire discussion of nuclear propulsion 
radiologcal issues in the EIS, including classified information not 
releasable to the public. I am convinced that there are no significant 
radiological impacts associated with creating and utilizing home port 
capacity at any of the three locations affected by this decision. As 
there are no significant radiological impacts, mitigation measures such 
as installation of a perimeter monitoring system or disputing of 
potassium iodide are not warranted.

Conclusion

    On behalf of the Department of Navy, I have decided to implement 
Alternative Two, as set out in the FEIS, for development of home port 
capacity for CVNs within the U.S. Pacific Fleet AOR.
    In selecting where to create home port capacity for the two CVNs 
programmed to replace existing CV assets within the U.S. Pacific Fleet, 
I considered how the development of home port capacity as set out in 
each alternative analyzed in the EIS would affect: (1) Operations and 
training, crew quality of life, and the CVN maintenance program; (2) 
the environment; and (3) facility and infrastructure life cycle costs. 
I took a hard look at the environmental impacts analyzed in the EIS and 
gave careful consideration to the comments received on the DEIS and 
FEIS.
    After weighing all of these factors, I have determined that 
Alternative Two, the preferred alternative in the FEIS, best serves the 
interests of the DON while keeping environmental impacts at a less than 
significant level. Alternative Two satisfies the operational, training, 
and maintenance requirements of the Pacific Fleet, provides acceptable 
quality of life for Navy sailors and their families, causes no 
significant environmental impacts, and entails manageable facility and 
infrastructure costs.

    Dated: January 28, 2000.
Duncan Holaday,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Facilities).
[FR Doc. 00-2831 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M