![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Record of Decision for Introduction of F/A-18 E/F (Super Hornet) Aircraft to the East Coast of the United States
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: September 10, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 53353-53359]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10se03-40]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Record of Decision for Introduction of F/A-18 E/F (Super Hornet)
Aircraft to the East Coast of the United States
AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.
ACTION: Notice of record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy announces its decision to homebase
8 fleet squadrons (96 aircraft) and the Fleet Replacement Squadron
(FRS) (24 aircraft) at Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana, Virginia, and 2
fleet squadrons (24 aircraft) at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Cherry
Point, North Carolina, and to construct an outlying landing field (OLF)
in Washington County, North Carolina.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Fred Pierson, Atlantic Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command (Code BD32FP), 6506 Hampton Blvd.,
Norfolk, Virginia 23508-1278, telephone (757) 322-4935.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the entire Record of Decision
(ROD) is provided as follows:
Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.; Council on Environmental
Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508); and Department of the Navy
regulations (32 CFR 775), the Department of the Navy announces its
decision to homebase 8 Super Hornet fleet squadrons (96 aircraft) and
the FRS (24 aircraft) at NAS Oceana, and 2 fleet squadrons (24
aircraft) at MCAS Cherry Point, and to construct an OLF in Washington
County. This decision implements one of the preferred homebasing
alternatives, Alternative (ALT) 6, and the preferred OLF siting
alternative, Site C, identified in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement for Introduction (FEIS) of F/A-18 E/F (Super Hornet) Aircraft
to the East Coast of the United States (July 2003). Introduction of the
Super Hornet squadrons in the Atlantic Fleet area of responsibility is
projected to begin in 2004 and be completed by 2010.
The Department of the Navy's proposed action is to provide
facilities and functions to support homebasing and operation of the
Super Hornet aircraft on the East Coast of the United States. These
aircraft are planned for assignment to the Atlantic Fleet to replace
the F-14 (Tomcat) and earlier model F/A-18 (Hornet) aircraft. The Navy
evaluated the environmental consequences associated with aircraft
operations, personnel transition, and
[[Page 53354]]
new construction or renovation of structures for a reasonable range of
alternatives to accommodate the introduction of the Super Hornet
aircraft to the East Coast.
Alternatives Considered: A screening process, based upon criteria
set out in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), was conducted to
identify a reasonable range of alternatives that would satisfy the
Navy's purpose and need for this action. Eight home basing alternatives
and a no-action alternative were analyzed in detail, as were six
alternative OLF sites.
ALT 1 proposed homebasing all 10 fleet squadrons and the FRS at NAS
Oceana. This alternative included use of Naval Auxiliary Landing Field
(NALF) Fentress and the addition of a new OLF to support the field
carrier landing practice (FCLP) operations of the Super Hornet
squadrons.
ALT 2 proposed homebasing all 10 fleet squadrons and the FRS at
MCAS Cherry Point. This alternative included a new OLF to support the
FCLP operations of the Super Hornet squadrons because the projected
number of FCLP operations of the 10 fleet squadrons and the FRS could
not be accommodated at MCAS Cherry Point.
ALT 3 proposed homebasing all 10 fleet squadrons and the FRS at
Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Beaufort, South Carolina. This
alternative included a new OLF to support the FCLP operations of the
Super Hornet squadrons because the projected number of FCLP operations
of the 10 fleet squadrons and the FRS could not be accommodated at MCAS
Beaufort. It also included the transfer of existing Marine Corps
aircraft assets at MCAS Beaufort to MCAS Cherry Point in order to
accommodate all of the Super Hornet squadrons at MCAS Beaufort.
ALT 4A proposed homebasing six fleet squadrons and the FRS at NAS
Oceana and the remaining four fleet squadrons at MCAS Cherry Point.
This alternative included continued use of NALF Fentress to support the
FCLP operations of the Super Hornet squadrons homebased at NAS Oceana
and the addition of a new OLF to support the FCLP operations of the
Super Hornet squadrons homebased at both MCAS Cherry Point and NAS
Oceana. An OLF located between the two air stations could be used by
squadrons at both homebases because of the proximity of the two air
stations.
ALT 4B proposed homebasing six fleet squadrons and the FRS at NAS
Oceana and the remaining four fleet squadrons at MCAS Beaufort. This
alternative included continued use of NALF Fentress and the addition of
a new OLF to support the FCLP operations of the Super Hornet squadrons
based at NAS Oceana. It also included a new OLF or parallel runway to
support the FCLP operations of the Super Hornet squadrons homebased at
MCAS Beaufort because the projected FCLP operations of the four fleet
squadrons could not be accommodated on the existing runway
configuration at MCAS Beaufort.
ALT 5A proposed homebasing six fleet squadrons and the FRS at MCAS
Cherry Point and the remaining four fleet squadrons at NAS Oceana. This
alternative included a new OLF to support the FCLP operations of Super
Hornet squadrons homebased at MCAS Cherry Point because the projected
number of FCLP operations of the six fleet squadrons and the FRS could
not be accommodated at MCAS Cherry Point.
ALT 5B proposed homebasing six fleet squadrons and the FRS at MCAS
Cherry Point and the remaining four fleet squadrons at MCAS Beaufort.
This alternative included a new OLF to support the FCLP operations of
the MCAS Cherry Point Super Hornet squadrons because the projected
number of FCLP operations of the six fleet squadrons and the FRS could
not be accommodated there. It also included a new OLF or parallel
runway at MCAS Beaufort to support the FCLP operations of the Super
Hornet squadrons homebased at MCAS Beaufort because the projected FCLP
operations of the four fleet squadrons could not be accommodated on the
existing runway configuration at MCAS Beaufort.
ALT 6 proposed homebasing eight fleet squadrons and the FRS at NAS
Oceana and the remaining two fleet squadrons at MCAS Cherry Point. This
alternative included continued use of NALF Fentress and the addition of
a new OLF to support the FCLP operations of the Super Hornet squadrons
homebased at both NAS Oceana and MCAS Cherry Point.
The Navy also conducted a thorough OLF siting study using the
criteria described in the EIS to identify potential OLF sites to
support Super Hornet homebasing. Six OLF site alternatives were
evaluated in the EIS. Each site consisted of approximately 30,000 acres
with a 2000-acre core area that would contain the runway and support
structures. The six alternatives were: Site A, in Perquimans County,
North Carolina; Site B, in Bertie County, North Carolina; Site C, in
Washington County, North Carolina; Site D, in Hyde County, North
Carolina; Site E, in Craven County, North Carolina; and Site F, in
Burke County, Georgia.
The no action alternative maintained the status quo at air stations
and OLF sites. No new or expanded facilities would be constructed, and
there would be no increase in functional capacity at any homebasing
site. While the no action alternative does not meet the purpose and
need of providing adequate facilities and functions to support the
introduction of the Super Hornet squadrons to the East Coast, it served
as the baseline for describing and quantifying the impacts associated
with the various siting alternatives analyzed in the EIS.
ALT 6, homebasing eight Super Hornet squadrons and the FRS at NAS
Oceana and two Super Hornet squadrons at MCAS Cherry Point, is the
environmentally preferred alternative. The primary environmental impact
associated with homebasing the Super Hornet squadrons are impacts
common to all of the homebasing alternatives: an increase in off-
station noise exposure. While emissions decrease under all alternatives
for NAS Oceana, and increase at other receiving bases, ALT 6 provides
additional emission reduction at NAS Oceana. Of the dual-siting
alternatives, ALT 6 also maximizes the investment in existing
facilities and limits the amount of new construction and construction-
related environmental impacts.
Site C was the environmentally preferred OLF site alternative. The
estimated population within the greater than 60 Day-night average sound
level (DNL) noise zone is lower at Site C than at Sites A, B, E, and F
and comparable to that of Site D. Construction of the OLF at Site C
will not impact wetlands, threatened and endangered species, or
cultural resources. While there would be some impacts to migratory
waterfowl, these impacts are mitigable and would be minor. Surrounding
land use is primarily agricultural and is considered compatible with
aircraft operations.
Environmental Impacts
The EIS evaluated the potential environmental consequences for each
of the homebasing alternatives and the OLF sites. Potential significant
impacts that could result from ALT 6, including construction of a new
OLF at Site C in Washington County are discussed below:
There may be significant impacts related to noise from aircraft
operations. Noise levels will increase in the vicinity of NAS Oceana,
MCAS Cherry Point, and OLF Site C. Approximately 97,560 people will be
within the greater than 65 DNL noise zone around the NAS
[[Page 53355]]
Oceana/NALF Fentress complex compared to 87,529 people under the
modeled 2000 noise zone--an 11% increase over existing conditions. The
DNL and noise equivalent sound level (Leq) for schools
within the greater than 65 DNL noise zone will increase between 0 and 4
decibels (dB), depending on location, over existing conditions. The
total land area within the greater than 65 DNL noise zone around the
NAS Oceana/NALF Fentress complex will increase by only 1%. While the
total increase in affected land is only 1%, there will be a 17%
increase in residential areas within the greater than 65 DNL noise zone
in the City of Virginia Beach and a 40% decrease in residential areas
within the greater than 65 DNL noise zone in the City of Chesapeake.
Approximately 8,915 people will be within the greater than 65 DNL
noise zone around MCAS Cherry Point if the 2 fleet squadrons train at
the new OLF, compared to 8,713 under the modeled 2000 noise zone--a 2%
increase over existing conditions. The DNL and Leq for
schools within the greater than 65 DNL noise zone will increase between
0 and 2 dB over existing conditions. The total land area within the
greater than 65 DNL noise zone around MCAS Cherry Point will increase
22%, but includes only an 11% increase in residential areas within the
greater than 65 DNL noise zone.
Generally, individuals living in the greater than 65 DNL noise zone
may be annoyed and may experience interference with daily activities
such as sleep, conversation, television viewing, and outdoor
recreation. Homeowners living in the greater than 65 DNL noise zones
associated with operations at NAS Oceana, NALF Fentress, and MCAS
Cherry Point may incur costs to ensure that sufficient sound
attenuation exists within their dwellings to achieve the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) interior noise level goal of 45
dB. There is very little probability that these homeowners will
experience long-term physical effects, such as hearing loss, from
exposure to the projected noise levels. Recent studies suggest,
however, that some individuals, particularly children, may temporarily
experience stress or elevated blood pressure from exposure to noise.
Two schools near NAS Oceana and two schools near MCAS Cherry Point
are located within the greater than 75 DNL noise zone. Research on the
impacts of aircraft noise, and noise in general, on the cognitive
abilities of school-aged children suggests that chronic exposure to
noise can result in reading deficits, impaired speech perception, and
difficulty in solving cognitive problems. Local school authorities may
incur costs to ensure that sufficient sound attenuation exists within
the schools to achieve the USEPA-recommended interior noise level goal
of 45 dB and the American National Standards Institute, Inc., design
guideline that background noise levels within most classrooms should
not exceed 40 dB for more than 10% of the busiest hour.
At OLF Site C in Washington County, an estimated 141 persons reside
within the area encompassed by the 60 DNL noise zone. Normally, noise
zones are not depicted below 65 DNL because land uses are generally
compatible with aircraft operations below 65 DNL. However, due to the
rural nature and low ambient noise level of the OLF site, the projected
noise exposure for OLF sites was analyzed for the 60 DNL and greater
noise contours. No schools or churches are located within the greater
than 60 DNL noise zone at Site C. Aircraft will reach a cruising
altitude of 15,000 to 25,000 feet above ground level (AGL) at 5 to 8
miles beyond the OLF. At cruising altitude, sensitive ecological
resources or population centers on the ground will not be affected by
aircraft operations or noise.
The Navy will acquire approximately 30,000 acres at Site C in
Washington County to mitigate noise-related impacts and promote
compatible development and land uses in the vicinity of the OLF.
Residences within the greater than 60 DNL noise zone will be acquired
based on the appraised fair market value of the property at the time
the purchase offer is made. While social and family connections to the
land may be disrupted, the Navy will consider means for allowing
property owners continued use of the land acquired for the OLF, where
such use will not interfere with the mission and the safe and efficient
operation of the OLF. New commercial or residential development on
lands owned by the Navy will be precluded.
Local and state jurisdictions also will be impacted by the loss of
tax revenue on property acquired by the Navy for the OLF. Although
lands purchased by the Navy will be removed from the local property tax
rolls, agricultural lands that are purchased by the Navy will be out-
leased where consistent with the mission of the OLF and continue in
productive use for these purposes. These agricultural leasehold
interests are taxable in North Carolina.
There may be significant impacts from the loss of prime farmland.
Approximately 1,700 acres of the core area of Site C is mapped as prime
farmland soils. Based on the evaluation of the site using the site
assessment criteria from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farmland
Conservation Impact Rating Form, removal of these soils for
construction of an OLF represents a significant loss of prime farmland
in Washington County. Where consistent with the mission of the OLF, the
Navy will out-lease unused agricultural acreage surrounding the OLF
core area to continue productive use for these purposes.
There may be significant impacts on airspace in the area around OLF
Site C. Aircraft operations at Site C may affect commercial and private
users of airspace in the vicinity of the Plymouth Municipal Airport in
Plymouth, North Carolina. Aircraft will not be able to utilize visual
flight rules (VFR) when transiting airspace in the area of Site C.
Additionally, the Navy will purchase a private airfield and provide
relocation assistance to the owner.
There may be disproportionately high and adverse impacts on
minority and low-income populations. The greater than 60 DNL noise zone
for Site C extends over two census tracts that contain a higher
percentage of minority and low-income populations than the respective
county of comparison. Based upon this census tract data, the EIS
concluded that selection of Site C for an OLF could result in
disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income
populations. Use of census tract data produces a conservative
estimation of impacts because it assumes a uniform dispersion of the
population throughout any given census tract.
Mitigation
The Navy will prepare a site plan for construction of the runway at
Site C, with a designated flight operations plan. This will be
submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for a final
aeronautical review/approval of Site C. Deconfliction of military and
civilian air traffic will be accomplished through the establishment of
Class D airspace in conjunction with an air traffic control tower at
Site C. Air traffic flying in Class D airspace at altitudes of 2,500
feet or below will be required to contact the control tower in
accordance with FAA regulations. Air traffic control personnel at the
tower will facilitate the sequencing of aircraft inbound to the OLF and
provide other air traffic with advisories regarding OLF operations.
The Navy will prepare/update and implement an Air Installations
Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) plan for NAS Oceana, MCAS Cherry Point,
and OLF Site C. This will ensure that the local communities understand
the
[[Page 53356]]
Navy's operational mission and will assist the local communities in
land use planning decisions.
The Navy will develop and implement a Bird/Animal Strike Hazard
(BASH) reduction plan for the OLF similar to those that are effectively
utilized at various East Coast Navy installations to manage the bird-
aircraft collision risk. Use of bird detection radar to evaluate bird
movements prior to scheduled FCLP operations will be considered. A BASH
reduction plan will be prepared in conjunction with an Integrated
Natural Resource Management Plan for the undeveloped portions of Site
C.
The Navy will work with Washington and Beaufort counties to
minimize the impact of the potential loss of property tax revenue to
the greatest extent possible. The Navy will explore strategies for
contracting with the local jurisdictions for the provision of necessary
services such as utility support and/or maintenance. The Navy will also
consider development of mutually beneficial partnerships with
Washington and Beaufort counties to enhance the provision of mutually
required utility services.
Response to Comments Received Regarding the Final Environmental Impact
Statement
The Navy received comments on the FEIS from 3 Federal agencies, 2
members of Congress and elected state officials, 11 state agencies, 6
local governments, and numerous citizen groups and private citizens.
Many of these comments simply stated support for or opposition to the
preferred home basing alternatives and the preferred OLF site. Others
reiterated comments that were received on the DEIS and responded to in
the FEIS. Comments of general support or opposition and comments not
raising new substantive issues are not addressed in the ROD. New issues
raised in comments received during the 30-day public review period are
addressed below.
Several commentators suggested that a supplemental EIS was
necessary to address new home basing alternatives and new sites for a
new OLF, or to address perceived changes in the scope of the proposed
action. The range of home basing alternatives and alternative sites for
a new OLF that were analyzed in the EIS represented a reasonable range
of alternatives as required by NEPA, allowed the Navy to take the
requisite hard look at environmental impacts, and provided a logical
basis for a reasoned decision. The purpose and need for the proposed
action remained constant--provide facilities and functions to support
homebasing and operation of Super Hornet aircraft assigned to the
Atlantic Fleet. Therefore, supplemental analysis is unnecessary.
Many of the comments received suggested that an OLF at Site C in
Washington County would be damaging to the environment. To the
contrary, Federal ownership and management of up to 30,000 acres of
land that is currently an agricultural monoculture will create
significant opportunities to enhance the environment in and around Site
C. The FEIS clearly lays out all anticipated environmental impacts from
construction and operation of an OLF.
Several of the comments received suggested that the FEIS
understated impacts on wildlife at Site C, including impacts on the
nearby Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Specific concerns
raised in comments included impacts from the exclusion of animals/birds
on the approximately 30,000-acre area the Navy would acquire, impacts
on foraging and roosting waterfowl from aircraft overflights/noise, and
overall impacts on the Pocosin Lakes NWR. While these issues were fully
addressed in the FEIS, they are summarized here to help ensure the
public has a better understanding of the issues.
Because Site C is located in a non-urbanized area within the
Atlantic Flyway, the site will have an elevated BASH risk level during
the fall and winter months. However, the BASH risk level will be
similar to that which is currently being effectively managed at other
East Coast military installations.
Significant concentrations of migratory waterfowl occur within five
miles of Site C in the vicinity of the Pungo Unit of Pocosin Lakes NWR.
The results of a bird radar survey completed at the site indicate that
periods of time exist during which a significant number of bird species
move through the airspace that will be used by aircraft operating at
Site C. However, the overall amount of time when bird concentrations
will cause an elevated bird/aircraft strike risk is minimal in
comparison to low-risk periods. In addition, the radar survey indicated
that daily peaks in bird movements and hourly trends in bird
concentrations were easily detectable. Based on these factors, the use
of bird detection radar at Site C will greatly reduce the risk posed by
birds.
A relatively small portion of the low-level flight tracks at Site
C, where flight altitudes will range from 2,000 to 2,500 feet AGL, will
be located above or adjacent to significant snow goose and tundra swan
loafing and foraging areas located outside of the Pocosin Lakes NWR
boundary. Although flight altitudes along this portion of the flight
tracks indicate that the BASH risk will not be considered severe,
overflights down to 2,000 feet AGL may cause snow geese to flush more
frequently from their loafing and feeding sites. The Navy will work
with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and state
resource agencies to evaluate site-specific mitigation measures to
reduce potential impacts to snow goose populations.
There is a misconception that the Navy would attempt to manipulate
land use to discourage waterfowl foraging, loafing, nesting and
roosting within all of the approximately 30,000-acre area proposed for
acquisition. The Navy has no such intent. As stated in the FEIS, the
Navy plans to out-lease significant portions of the land at Site C to
allow for continued agricultural production. As clearly evidenced by
such use at other military air stations, farming activities are
compatible with aircraft operations. The FEIS states that management
activities to discourage bird/animal foraging, loafing, nesting and
roosting would be implemented in areas immediately adjacent to the
airfield and not on the entire 30,000 acres. It is anticipated that the
majority of the land acquired at Site C will be out-leased and that
there will be no restrictions on the types of crops that can be grown.
There are 215,000 acres of agricultural foraging habitat potentially
available to waterfowl within 15 miles of the Pocosin Lakes NWR. The
construction and operation of an OLF at Site C will directly impact
less than 5% of available foraging habitat within 15 miles of the
Pocosin Lakes NWR.
The Navy would develop an Integrated Natural Resources Management
Plan (INRMP) for Site C. Preparation of the INRMP requires coordination
with the USFWS and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC). The INRMP will outline the overall natural resource management
objectives of the OLF and ensure that these objectives are designed to
protect and preserve the mission of the OLF and all on-station natural
resources such as wetlands, water quality and plant and animal species.
Cooperation between the USFWS, NCWRC, the Navy and other resource
agencies will help to ensure effective management of wildlife and other
natural resources at Site C. The INRMP would serve as a guide to
maximize natural resources management opportunities consistent with the
OLF mission. INRMPs have proven to be effective natural resources
management
[[Page 53357]]
tools on other naval installations and military bases around the
country.
There will be no low-level over-flight of the Pocosin Lakes NWR and
noise levels there are expected to be near ambient levels. The FEIS and
the supporting noise study provide a comprehensive analysis of noise
impacts from operation of an OLF at Site C. Site-specific noise
modeling was conducted at the Pocosin Lakes NWR and DNL noise
information was augmented with sound exposure level data to ensure an
adequate assessment of noise impacts was provided.
Several of the comments received suggested that an OLF at Site C
would result in adverse impacts to the bald eagle and red wolf, both
federally listed threatened or endangered species. The Navy, with the
assistance of the USFWS, identified endangered animal and plant species
that could be affected by the construction and operation of an OLF at
all proposed OLF locations, including Site C. The bald eagle is known
to occur in the general vicinity of Site C. Site C does not contain
nesting, roosting, or perching habitat for the bald eagle; therefore,
the presence of bald eagles at Site C will be limited to incidental
occurrences by individuals traveling over the site during migration or
those that travel greater than average distances from nest sites to
forage. Based on the absence of suitable nesting, roosting, or perching
habitat, and studies suggesting that noise has a minimal effect on bald
eagles, the Navy determined that an OLF at Site C was not likely to
adversely affect the bald eagle.
Site C is located in an area important to the growth and recovery
of the wild red wolf population. Wild red wolves could potentially
occur in Pocosin Lakes NWR, approximately five miles east of the site.
Based on a lack of reproductive and shelter habitat, wild red wolves
would be considered only transient at Site C, if present. As previously
discussed, no low-level flight tracks will be located above Pocosin
Lakes NWR, and noise levels in the refuge will increase by an
insignificant amount because of aircraft operations at Site C.
Therefore, the Navy determined that an OLF at Site C was not likely to
adversely affect red wolves occurring in Pocosin Lakes NWR.
Pursuant to the requirements of section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act, the Navy consulted with the USFWS on potential impacts to the
endangered species present at Site C. The USFWS concurred with the
Navy's determination that construction and operations of an OLF in
Washington County is not likely to adversely impact endangered species.
One of the comments received criticized the Navy for failing to
consider the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). As
discussed in the EIS, construction and operation of an OLF at Site C
will not result in the intentional taking of any migratory birds. The
Navy is instituting a BASH program in order to minimize any incidental
effects from military readiness activities on birds found in the
vicinity of Site C, including migratory birds.
Some of the comments received expressed concern that the FEIS did
not discuss the exact number of buildings at the OLF site and how much
land would be fenced, the future expansion possibilities, and exactly
how the Navy plans to manage the OLF site. Specific OLF construction
plans will be dictated by the unique characteristics of the site.
Although the Navy does not know at this time the exact number of
buildings or structures that will be constructed at the OLF or the
extent of the area of the OLF that will be enclosed by a fence, the
FEIS estimates that about 500 acres of the core area will be directly
impacted by construction activities. The Navy took this approach in the
FEIS to allow for flexibility in the design and construction of the OLF
to ensure minimization of the environmental impacts. The level of
analysis in the FEIS is sufficient to allow the Navy to make an
informed decision. Management of the OLF site will similarly depend on
the characteristics of the site chosen. A fence will enclose the core
area. There currently are no plans to construct a fence around the
entire 30,000-acre acquisition area. Future expansion of the OLF site
currently is not contemplated. However, should the Navy in the future
contemplate either expansion of the OLF and/or a significant change in
operations at the OLF, preparation of additional analysis under NEPA
would be completed prior to any decision to implement such changes.
Many of the comments received suggested that the Navy's BASH
analysis was incomplete and inaccurate. The Navy recognized the
importance of BASH early in the EIS process and met with FWS and other
interested parties on many occasions. The Navy used the Bird Avoidance
Model (BAM) to assist in the screening of OLF alternative sites. The
Draft and Final EIS included a detailed BASH analysis of all OLF sites
and recognized that BASH was a serious concern for some of the sites
under consideration. Because of concerns identified with Site C during
the EIS process, the Navy conducted several additional site visits
between December 2002 and February 2003 and also performed a bird radar
survey towards the end of the wintering waterfowl season. The bird
radar survey at Site C was one data point relied on in the overall BASH
assessment of all OLF sites prepared by an independent contractor with
significant BASH program management experience. Additional BASH
analysis included an evaluation by the Naval Safety Center's BASH
Program Manager and by individuals currently working BASH issues at
other naval air facilities. The Navy determined that a comprehensive
BASH prevention program can be implemented at Site C and that the
proposed flight operations can be conducted there in a safe manner. The
BASH analysis process is discussed in detail in Section 12 of the FEIS.
One of the comments received questioned why the cost of a BASH
program was not included in the FEIS. Because a BASH plan would be
specific to a particular OLF site, the Navy did not attempt to develop
cost estimates for BASH efforts at each of the OLF sites. A BASH plan
would be developed as part of an overall INRMP for the facility. The
Navy recognizes that there will be a cost to implement an INRMP at the
OLF site and that those costs would include a comprehensive BASH
program.
One of the comments received suggested that two large permanent
conservation easements would be impacted by construction and operation
of the OLF. The Navy, working with the local Natural Resource
Conservation Service office, identified all permanent conservation
easements in the vicinity of the OLF site. Although there are
conservation easements bordering the noise contours associated with the
OLF, there are no known conservation easements in the core area where
construction would occur.
One of the comments received suggested that the environmental costs
of building an OLF at Site E (Craven County, North Carolina) are
grossly overstated, the wetlands at Site E are of marginal value, and
that the presence of wetlands on the site should not be used as an
excuse for eliminating it from serious consideration. As outlined in
the FEIS, approximately 500 acres of wetlands would be filled if an OLF
were constructed at Site E. The Navy concurs that wetlands at Site E
may be of marginal value and that wetland mitigation opportunities are
available at Site E that would result in a significant positive gain to
wetland functions and values. For those very reasons Site E
[[Page 53358]]
was not eliminated from serious consideration as an OLF site.
Some of the comments received suggested that the Navy failed to
meet its obligations under Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations.
Executive Order 12898 requires that disproportionately high and adverse
impacts to minority and low-income populations be clearly identified
and considered by Federal agencies as they propose and execute actions.
The Navy did identify and consider environmental justice issues as
required by Executive Order 12898. The Navy used data from census
tracts and compared race and income data for the entire census tract
against regional information in an effort to present a conservative
analysis of impacts to minority and low-income populations.
Some of the comments received suggested that the cumulative impacts
analysis in the EIS is flawed because the cumulative effects section
did not include the environmental impacts on several bombing ranges,
such as Piney Island, Brant Island Shoal, Dare County, and Tyrell
County, and on airspace designated as a Military Operating Area (MOA).
The FEIS analyzed whether the basing of the Super Hornets would change
the existing use of those ranges. The conclusion reached in the FEIS
was that use of these ranges would remain approximately the same or
decrease. Similarly, the Navy does not anticipate any increase in the
use of the MOAs because of Super Hornet home basing or a new OLF.
Therefore it was not necessary to include those impacts in the
cumulative effects analysis.
One of the comments received suggested that an OLF at Site C is
inconsistent with the North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Plan. The
enforceable policies of the Washington County Coastal Area Management
Plan were analyzed in the EIS. The Navy concluded that construction and
operation of an OLF at Site C was consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the enforceable policies of the North Carolina Coastal
Zone Management Plan. The North Carolina Department of Environmental
and Natural Resources concurred with the Navy's determination.
Conclusions
In determining where to base F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft on the
East Coast in support of the Atlantic Fleet and where to site an OLF, I
considered the following: Operational and readiness requirements; costs
associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of
aircraft and facilities; manpower requirements and costs; the analysis
of environmental and socioeconomic effects contained in the EIS;
relevant federal and state statutes and regulations; and the comments
received on the EIS from federal, state, and local agencies,
nongovernmental organizations, and individual members of the public.
After carefully weighing all of these factors, I have determined that
ALT 6, dual-siting Super Hornet aircraft at NAS Oceana (eight fleet
squadrons and the FRS) and MCAS Cherry Point (two fleet squadrons) with
a new OLF sited in Washington County will best meet the needs of the
Navy while minimizing the environmental impacts associated with basing
the Super Hornet.
Dual-siting the Super Hornet squadrons between NAS Oceana and MCAS
Cherry Point effectively uses the Navy's infrastructure at NAS Oceana,
taking advantage of and using the capacity created with the
transitioning of the Tomcat and older Hornet aircraft currently
stationed there. The geographic proximity of aircraft at NAS Oceana and
MCAS Cherry Point allows for the most efficient use of training ranges
and OLF capacity by all the Super Hornet squadrons, as well as other
aircraft based at both NAS Oceana and MCAS Cherry Point.
ALT 6 will maximize use of existing facilities and limit capital
investment requirements at both NAS Oceana and MCAS Cherry Point.
Construction at NAS Oceana will involve installation of a Flight Line
Electrical Distribution System (FLEDS) on the existing parking apron,
reconfiguration of Building 240, and internal renovations to 3 hangars.
Construction at MCAS Cherry Point will include installation of a FLEDS,
internal renovations to two hangars, and a new training facility,
ordnance magazine, and combined medical/dental clinic. ALT 6 provides
the lowest one-time construction costs and 30-year life cycle costs of
any of the dual-siting alternatives considered.
Implementation of ALT 6 provides some mitigation of noise impacts
at NAS Oceana and NALF Fentress. The net impact of aircraft inventory
reductions and dual-siting is a 29% reduction in the number of aircraft
stationed at NAS Oceana (91 fewer aircraft) compared to baseline year
2000 conditions. The number of aircraft operations at NAS Oceana is
projected to decrease by 37%, and the number of operations at Naval
Auxiliary Landing Field (NALF) Fentress is projected to decrease by
58%. While homebasing two Super Hornet fleet squadrons at MCAS Cherry
Point will increase the number of aircraft stationed at MCAS Cherry
Point by 16% (24 additional aircraft) over baseline year 2000
conditions, the number of operations is projected to increase by only
6%.
A new OLF in Washington County is essential not only for support of
the Super Hornet operations under ALT 6 but also for surge conditions
and future operational needs. As a result of Carrier Strike Group and
Expeditionary Strike Group operational requirements generated during
operations Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Iraqi Freedom, we now
understand the critical need for surge capacity for training of
multiple carrier air wings. The capacity at NALF Fentress is
insufficient to accommodate FCLP requirements of more than one carrier
air wing and an FRS simultaneously. The new OLF will enhance the
fidelity and quality of carrier landing training under all
circumstances and ensure that the Navy's Fleet Response Plan, developed
to institutionalize a continuous surge capability of up to six to eight
carriers in reaction to world events, can be fully carried out.
The new OLF will accommodate the FCLP operations of the Super
Hornet squadrons homebased at both NAS Oceana and MCAS Cherry Point. An
estimated 31,650 FCLP operations will be conducted at the new OLF
annually. None of the Super Hornet squadrons or personnel will be
stationed at the OLF. The facility will be operated primarily through
contract personnel. Navy will acquire approximately 23,000 acres in
Washington County and 7,000 acres in Beaufort County for construction
and operation of a new OLF. An 8,000-foot runway and ancillary
facilities will be constructed within a core area. Land surrounding the
core area will be owned and controlled by the Navy and managed to
promote development and land uses that are compatible with airfield
operations. Any resident or business required to relocate will receive
relocation assistance as provided for by Federal law and regulations.
By acquiring the property, the Navy will be able to ensure that FCLP
training can take place in an environment free from limitations due to
surrounding populations, thereby providing superior training for Navy
aircrews. This is in contrast to the pressure from residential
encroachment around NALF Fentress that has resulted in deviations from
standard FCLP training. While FCLP training will continue to be
conducted at NALF Fentress, encroachment pressures are going to
increase, as evidenced by the 44% growth in population within a 5-
[[Page 53359]]
mile radius of NALF Fentress between 1990 and 2000.
An OLF located at Site C in Washington County--an area of low
population density with compatible surrounding land uses, minimal
environmental impacts, and centrally located between MCAS Cherry Point
and NAS Oceana--will give the Navy critical operational flexibility and
enhanced responsiveness to meet emergent threats to national security
and provide the greatest potential as a valuable training asset for
current and future years.
ALT 6 maximizes the use of existing infrastructure at both NAS
Oceana and MCAS Cherry Point, achieves economies of scale in support,
maintenance, training, and personnel requirements, optimizes effective
FCLP training, and reduces or minimizes environmental impacts at all
affected locations. It provides the best solution for the Navy, the
affected communities, and the taxpayer.
Dated: September 3, 2003.
Hansford T. Johnson,
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment).
[FR Doc. 03-22938 Filed 9-9-03; 8:45 am]