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

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

(NOX), 298 tons per year of carbon monoxide (CO), 9 tons per

year of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 195 tons per year of

particulate matter (PM10). 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 NOX) 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 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