27930 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 98 /Thursday, May 21, 1998 / Notices

established as the baseline for which

adjustments to ARSs 2–5 were made.

The change is shown as item 4 on the

table below:

ARS 1

($M)

ARS 2

($M)

ARS 3

($M)

ARS 4

($M)

ARS 5

($M)

FEIS .......................................................................................................... 285.3 307.1 465.3 686.4 535.6

Item 1 ........................................................................................................ ¥9.2

Item 2 ........................................................................................................ ¥33.7 ¥33.3 ¥33.7 ¥33.7 ¥33.3

Item 3 ........................................................................................................ 5.1

Item 4 ........................................................................................................ ¥12.9 ¥7.8 ¥75.6 ¥13.1

Revised ..................................................................................................... 251.6 266.0 423.8 577.1 481.0

The overall effect of these changes is not

significant. (Note: Two commentors

suggested that the DON use a shorter

life-cycle cost analysis than the 30-year

analysis performed in the EIS. In

response, the DON conducted a 25 year

life-cycle analysis for each alternative.

The change was not significant.)

Outlying Fields

One commentor suggested that further

consideration should be given to the use

of outlying fields in addition to or in

lieu of NALF Fentress. There are no

other outlying airfields within 50 miles

of NAS Oceana that could accommodate

F/A–18 operations. Chapter 2 of the

FEIS discusses the operational and

fiscal reasons for establishing a 50-mile

limitation.

Seatack Elementary School

One commentor asked for clarification

of the location of Seatack Elementary

School relative to the new APZs. Under

ARS 2, APZ–2 bisects Seatack

Elementary school.

Chesapeake Bay Water Quality

EPA expressed concern about

potential impacts to the Chesapeake Bay

water quality from NOX emissions. As

indicated in the FEIS, the NOX

emissions from the proposed action

conform to Virginia’s State

Implementation Plan. Calculations

indicate the net increase in NOX

emissions over the Chesapeake Bay

watershed from implementing ARS 2

will be approximately 1 ton per day to

the regional airshed. This amount is

minor compared to the overall input to

the bay from all existing terrestrial and

atmospheric sources. Therefore, the

affect of the projected increase in air

traffic and the associated air emissions

over the Chesapeake Bay will be

minimal.

State Historic Preservation

Determination

Under Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act, the Virginia

State Historic Preservation Office and

the South Carolina Department of

Archives and History concurred with

the DON’s determination that

implementation of ARS 2 would have

‘‘no effect’’ on historic properties.

Conclusions

In deciding where to realign F/A–18

fleet and FRS aircraft from NAS Cecil

Field, I considered the following: 1995

BRAC Commission recommendations

concerning capacity and infrastructure;

F/A–18 operational requirements; costs

associated with construction of

facilities, operation and maintenance of

aircraft, and training of personnel;

environmental impacts; and comments

received during the DEIS and FEIS

public review periods.

I have analyzed and carefully weighed

all of these factors and have decided, on

behalf of the DON, to direct realignment

of two F/A–18 fleet squadrons (24

aircraft) to MCAS Beaufort, South

Carolina, and nine F/A–18 fleet

squadrons and the FRS (for a total of

156 aircraft) to NAS Oceana, Virginia.

ARS 2, which stations most of the

squadrons at NAS Oceana and

collocates two Navy squadrons with

their Marine Corps counterparts at

MCAS Beaufort, offers operational

benefits that are not realized under the

other alternatives: it establishes air wing

integrity at MCAS Beaufort for the joint

Navy-Marine Corps squadrons that

deploy together, while retaining air

wing integrity for the squadrons located

at NAS Oceana. It also reduces usage of

the North Carolina training ranges, and

environmental impacts are slightly less

than in ARS 1. While costs are slightly

greater than in ARS 1, ARS 2 is the least

expensive dual-siting alternative, it fully

uses excess capacity at MCAS Beaufort,

and it takes full advantage of existing

Marine Corps training and maintenance

facilities.

Implementation of ARS 2 will result

in significant land use and noise

impacts on the local communities

around MCAS Beaufort, NAS Oceana,

and NALF Fentress. In addition to the

specific mitigation measures identified

in this Record of Decision, the DON will

continue to review its operational

procedures at NAS Oceana, NALF

Fentress, and MCAS Beaufort to

determine if any additional mitigation is

feasible and practicable.

Dated: May 18, 1998.

Duncan Holaday,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy

(Installations and Facilities).

[FR Doc. 98–13637 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN

COMMISSION

Notice of Commission Meeting and

Public Hearing

Visit DRBC’s Web Site at http://

www.state.nj.us/drbc/drbc.htm

Notice is hereby given that the

Delaware River Basin Commission will

hold a public hearing on Wednesday,

May 27, 1998. The hearing will be part

of the Commission’s regular business

meeting which is open to the public and

scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. in the

Stroud Water Research Center at 970

Spencer Road, Avondale, Pennsylvania.

An informal conference among the

Commissioners and staff will be held at

10:00 a.m. at the same location and will

include a presentation and discussion

on implementation of the Christina

Basin strategy; discussion of DRBC

advisory committee functions and 1998

DRBC meeting schedule and locations.

In addition to the application listed

below which is scheduled for public

hearing, the Commission will also

address the following: Minutes of the

April 21, 1998 business meeting;

announcements; General Counsel’s

report; report on Basin hydrologic

conditions; status of compliance—

Evansburg Water Company; and public

dialogue.

The subject of the hearing will be as

follows:

Application for Approval of the

Following Project Pursuant to Article

10.3, Article 11 and/or Section 3.8 of the

Compact

1. Camden-Wyoming Sewer and

Water Authority D–97–30 CP. An
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 98 /Thursday, May 21, 1998 / Notices 27931

application for approval of a ground

water withdrawal project to supply up

to 21 million gallons (mg)/30 days of

water to the applicant’s distribution

system from existing Well Nos. 2 and 4,

and to limit the withdrawal from all

wells to 21 mg/30 days. The project is

located in Camden-Wyoming, Kent

County, Delaware.

Documents relating to this item may

be examined at the Commission’s

offices. A preliminary docket is

available upon request. Please contact

Thomas L. Brand at (609) 883–9500 ext.

221 concerning docket-related

questions. Persons wishing to testify at

this hearing are requested to register

with the Secretary at (609) 883–9500

ext. 203 prior to the hearing.

Dated: May 12, 1998.

Susan M. Weisman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–13572 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6360–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Notice of Floodplain and Wetlands

Involvement of Bayou Choctaw

Pipeline Extension to Placid Refinery,

Iberville and West Baton Rouge

Parishes, Louisiana

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE) hereby provides notice that the

proposed construction of an

approximately 16-mile crude oil

pipeline segment to connect the existing

DOE-owned Bayou Choctaw pipeline in

Iberville Parish, Louisiana, to the Placid

Oil Refinery in Port Allen, West Baton

Rouge Parish, Louisiana, would occur in

a 100-year floodplain and would

involve wetlands. Pursuant to 10 CFR

Part 1022, DOE will prepare a

floodplain and wetlands assessment

which will be incorporated in an

environmental assessment (EA) being

prepared in accordance with the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA).

DATES: Written comments should be

postmarked or transmitted

electronically or by facsimile by June 5,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments,

questions about the proposed action,

and requests to review the draft EA

should be directed to Mr. Hal Delaplane,

Strategic Petroleum Reserve (FE–42),

U.S. Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585, Telephone (202)

586–4730, Fax (202) 586–7919, E-mail =

hal.delaplane@hq.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON GENERAL

DOE FLOODPLAIN AND WETLANDS

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS,

CONTACT: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director,

Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance

(EH–42), U.S. Department of Energy,

1000 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585, Telephone (202)

586–4600 or (800) 472–2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain

Management, and 10 CFR Part 1022,

Compliance with Floodplain-Wetlands

Environmental Review Requirements

(http://tis-nt.eh.doe.gov/nepa/tools/

regulate/nepalreg/1022/1022.htm),

notice is given that DOE is considering

a request from Shell Pipe Line

Corporation (Shell) to amend Shell’s

lease of DOE’s Bayou Choctaw crude oil

pipeline. Shell has asked for the change

to enable it to construct its own 16-mile

pipeline from a tie-in to the DOE

pipeline at the Strategic Petroleum

Reserve Bayou Choctaw Facility in

Iberville Parish, Louisiana, to the Placid

Oil Refinery near Port Allen, West Baton

Rouge Parish, Louisiana. This project

would not occur within the Coastal

Zone of Louisiana but would be within

a 100-year floodplain and would

involve wetlands.

Before it approves Shell’s request,

DOE will prepare an EA of the

construction and operation of the

extended Bayou Choctaw pipeline to

Placid Refinery pursuant to 10 CFR Part

1021, DOE NEPA Implementing

Procedures (http://tis-nt.eh.doe.gov/

nepa/tools/regulate/nepalreg /1021

/nepa1021.htm). Shell has also applied

to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE), New Orleans District, for a

construction permit pursuant to Section

404 of the Clean Water Act. DOE is

coordinating its NEPA compliance

process with the USACE permit process

(33 CFR Parts 320–330, http://

ceres.ca.gov/wetlands/permitting/404/

corpslpermitlregulations.html).

The 24-inch steel pipeline would be

constructed in existing pipeline and

utility corridors for all but about 2 miles

of its length. As shown in the map

below, about 7.7 miles of the proposed

route is within the 100-year floodplain.

The pipeline would cross sugarcane

fields and about 8.5 miles of forested

wetlands. About 86 acres of bottomland

hardwoods would be impacted.

Push-site construction would be used

in wetland areas. The pipeline would be

directionally drilled under the

Intracoastal Waterway and Interstate 10.

Eight additional road crossings and two

railroad crossings would be by slick

bore or directional drill. Crossings of

Bayou Bourbeaux and six drainage

canals would be by open cut trench or

directional drill.

In accordance with DOE regulations

for compliance with floodplain and

wetlands environmental review

requirements (10 CFR Part 1022), DOE

will prepare a floodplain and wetlands

assessment for this proposed action. The

assessment will be incorporated in the

EA being prepared for the proposed

project in accordance with NEPA. DOE

expects to have a draft of the EA

available for public review in June 1998.

Copies may be requested by telephone,

facsimile, or e-mail from the address

given above. A floodplain statement of

findings will be included in any finding

of no significant impact that is issued

following completion of the EA or may

be issued separately.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 1, 1998.

Robert S. Keipowing,

Acting, Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy.

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P