[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 
(NO<INF>X</INF>), 298 tons per year of carbon monoxide (CO), 9 tons per 
year of sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) and 195 tons per year of 
particulate matter (PM<INF>10</INF>). 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 NO<INF>X</INF>) 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. As indicated in the FEIS, 
the NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from the proposed action conform to 
Virginia's State Implementation Plan. Calculations indicate the net 
increase in NO<INF>X</INF> 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