![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Record of Decision for the Renewal of Authorization to Use Pinecastle Range, Ocala National Forest, FL
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: April 10, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 17418-17420]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10ap02-56]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Record of Decision for the Renewal of Authorization to Use
Pinecastle Range, Ocala National Forest, FL
AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Navy announces its decision to continue
operations at Pinecastle Range, Ocala National Forest, Florida.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. Sections
4321 et seq., the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality
that implement NEPA procedures, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and Navy
regulations implementing NEPA procedures (32 CFR 775), the Department
of the Navy announces its decision to continue operations at the
Pinecastle Range in the Ocala National Forest for a 20-year period, if
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) renews the Interagency Agreement or
``special use permit'', as it is now called. This action will enable
the Navy to meet current and projected training requirements. The U.S.
Department of
[[Page 17419]]
Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) are cooperating
agencies in the preparation of this Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS).
Background And Issues: Pinecastle Range (the Range) has been in
continuous operation by Department of the Navy (Navy) since the early
1950s to train aircrews and support personnel in the delivery of
ordnance. The Range is located within the boundaries of the Ocala
National Forest, which is managed by the USDA and the USFS. The USFS,
as the controlling agency for National Forest land, is responsible for
issuing authorization for use of the land.
The Navy is currently authorized to operate and utilize the Range
under an Interagency Agreement (IA) with USFS. The IA was to expire in
December 1999, but was extended until July 2002, to allow for
completion of the NEPA process. The IA specifies USFS and Navy
responsibilities, defines terms of mutual agreement, and contains
exhibits depicting Range boundaries and defining explosive ordnance
restrictions.
Alternatives: A screening process, based upon criteria identified
in the EIS, was conducted to determine a reasonable range of
alternatives that would satisfy the Navy's purpose and need.
Recommendations received from the public during scoping were also taken
into consideration. The process used to identify feasible alternatives
was thoroughly discussed in Draft and Final EIS. Ultimately, two
alternatives were analyzed in detail in the EIS. The Preferred
Alternative for continued use of the Range (pending USFS's decision to
issue a special use permit) and No-Action alternative. The Preferred
Alternative would retain and continue use of the existing range assets
and restricted air space. Aircraft would continue to use the Range to
meet fleet air-to-ground strike warfare training requirements for
strafing, explosive ordnance delivery, and laser target designation.
Naval aircraft operating in the Jacksonville Fleet Concentration Area
would be the principal users of the Range; however, other military
aircraft hosted by the Navy would continue to use the Range. Operations
are projected at about 10,200 annually. If operations are exceeded by
10 percent, the Navy will prepare supplemental NEPA documentation.
With the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not pursue issuance
of a special use permit, and the existing IA would expire, returning
control of the Range to the USFS. The Navy would return control of the
Range pursuant to the 1994 IA, as extended. The Navy would provide
explosive ordnance disposal services if any bombs are found on or off
the Range.
Environmental Impacts: Potential environmental impacts of
continuing operations at the Range for a 20 year period are analyzed in
the FEIS. The analysis demonstrates that environmental impacts
associated with the continued use of the Range are less than
significant. While no significant impacts are projected, impacts to
resources of greatest concern to regulatory agencies and the public are
briefly discussed below.
There are potential impacts to groundwater. Groundwater could be
contaminated by the release of constituents and by-products of
explosives used in live ordnance, spotting charges, and by the release
of pollutants from bombing targets such as motor vehicles. While tests
of groundwater have not revealed the presence of contaminants above
established maximum regulatory levels, and the small size of the range
relative to the aquifer recharge area decrease the likelihood of
contamination, the Navy, in conjunction with the USFS, will develop and
implement a groundwater monitoring plan.
The potential presence of unexploded ordnance (UXO) on and off the
Range was a matter of concern to the public. The potential for UXO to
accumulate on the Live Target or in its vicinity is minimal because
Range maintenance procedures do not allow UXO to remain in place for an
extended period of time. Spotters observe all aircraft approaches and
weapons deliveries involving live ordnance. All unexploded ordnance on-
range is rendered safe by contractor UXO personnel. Any bombs dropped
``off-range'' will be rendered safe by the Navy. Since the inception of
the current spotter program in 1992, no live ordnance has been dropped
outside of the Range boundary.
The scrub habitat on the Range supports several threatened or
endangered species. This type of vegetative habitat would mature and
decrease without the cooperation of the USFS's and Navy's Range
activities. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in a Biological
Opinion prepared in conjunction with the EIS, determined that the
continuation of military operations on the Range for 20 years would not
likely adversely affect the wood stork, Florida bonamia, scrub
buckwheat, and scrub milkwort.
With regard to the Florida scrub-jay, Eastern indigo snake, and
sand skink, the USFWS determined that although there is a possibility
that the use of the target areas may result in the incidental take of
these three species, the level of anticipated takes is not likely to
result in jeopardizing the continued existence of those species. The
USFWS did recommend the Navy adopt specific ``reasonable and prudent
measures'' for the Florida scrub-jay, the sand skink, and the Eastern
indigo snake. These measures include a monitoring program conducted by
the Forest Service for all three listed species on the Range.
There would be no significant impacts on public safety associated
with continued use of the Range. There are no permanent residents in
areas considered incompatible for residential use within Range safety
zones. Although impacts on public safety are not significant, the Navy
has incorporated measures into the operations of the Range to mitigate
safety issues. The physical layout of the Range isolates the training
activities and limits potential impacts to the public and natural
environments; the airspace ingress and egress routes to the airspace is
laid out to avoid population centers and recreational areas; Range
safety zone boundaries will be marked by signs where possible; and USFS
will post detailed locational information about safety zones to ensure
that the public will avoid the zones during military training
activities.
While USFS is expected to continue to allow hunting and hiking
activities in areas near the Range boundary, the mitigation in place is
sufficient to prevent significant safety risks. No injuries or
fatalities to Government employees or members of the public have
occurred as a result of Range activities since the Navy began using the
Range over 50 years ago.
The Navy developed noise contours associated with aircraft
operations at the Range. No incompatible land uses were identified in
any of the modeled noise contours. While there are no incompatible land
uses relative to the noise contours associated with continued operation
of the Range, people in the surrounding areas will continue to hear
noise from aircraft and occasional impulse noise from the explosion of
ordnance. The Naval Air Station Jacksonville Public Affairs Office will
continue to contact local newspapers and broadcast media prior to the
use of explosive ordnance on the Range. The Navy and USFS will inform
campers and recreational users who may not have access to the local
newspapers or broadcast announcements.
Comments Received on the EIS: The Navy received comments from
Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 (EPA), Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) and a
[[Page 17420]]
private citizen. EPA stated that its concerns had been adequately
addressed in the FEIS. FDEP requested additional information regarding
development of the groundwater monitoring plan. The Navy will continue
to partner with FDEP and will keep the agency informed as the plan is
developed. The private citizen supported Navy's continued training on
the Range.
Conclusion: After considering the analysis contained in the EIS,
the final Range Air Installation Compatible Use Zone study, and the
comments received from Federal, state, and local agencies, non-
governmental organizations, and individual members of the public; I
have concluded that continuing operations at Pinecastle Range meets the
Navy's purpose and need to maintain fully trained aircrews and support
personnel to meet training requirements, and to achieve an acceptable
level of readiness prior to deploying independently or as part of a
Carrier Battle Group. Although this alternative will result in
prominent, but insignificant noise impacts to the surrounding
populations, it will not result in potentially significant adverse
impacts to endangered species due to maturation and ultimate loss of
the scrub habitat. It is therefore considered the environmentally
preferable alternative.
Dated: March 29, 2002.
Donald R. Schregardus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Environment).
[FR Doc. 02-8652 Filed 4-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P