[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46785-46786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22639]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy


Notice of Availability of Supplemental Information Report for 
Realignment of Naval Air Station Miramar to Marine Corps Air Station, 
Miramar, CA

SUMMARY: DON has prepared a Supplemental Information Report (SIR) for 
realignment of Naval Air Station Miramar to Marine Corps Air Station, 
Miramar, California, which further explains matters presented in the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and solicits public 
participation and written comment on the SIR. The comment period will 
close on October 7, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO OBTAIN A COPY OF THE SIR: Contact 
Lieutenant Colonel George Martin at (619) 537-6678. Written comments 
should be sent to Timarie Seneca (Code 09M1.TS), Southwest Division, 
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1220 Pacific Highway, San Diego, 
CA 92132-5190, and must be received by 4:00 PM, October 7, 1996.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 102(2) of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA procedures 
(40 CFR 1500-1508), the Department of the Navy (DON) prepared and 
published a FEIS analyzing the impacts associated with the proposal to 
realign Naval Air Station (NAS) Miramar, in accordance with the Defense 
Base Closure and Realignment Act (BRAC) of 1990 (Public Law 101-510). 
This SIR has been prepared in response to comments received on the FEIS 
during the comment period, which began May 10, 1996 and ended June 10, 
1996, and to address the Biological Opinion issued by the U. S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service. The Department of the Navy is committed to 
working with the communities who support its national defense mission 
by hosting its bases. That commitment includes protection of the 
environment. The Department of the Navy received over 200 additional 
comments expressing community concerns after publication of the FEIS. 
As a result, the Department of the Navy decided to publish this 
Supplemental Information Report to provide more information on the 
factors it is considering as part of the decision-making process and to 
provide a more thorough discussion of matters of concern to the 
community. Although use of a Supplemental Information Report to address 
comments on the FEIS is neither required by NEPA nor directed by CEQ 
Regulations, the Department of the Navy determined that such a document 
would serve as a vehicle for a more thorough discussion of matters over 
which there remains public concern. The Supplemental Information Report 
and the public comments it generates will also provide the decision 
maker with more detailed analysis for consideration in coming to a 
final decision, thereby furthering the purposes of NEPA. As the SIR 
does not present new circumstances or new information relevant to 
significant environmental impacts of the proposed action or 
alternatives, it is not intended as a supplement to the FEIS, as 
defined in section 1502.9(c) of the CEQ Regulations.
    The majority of the information contained in this SIR is taken from 
reports, studies and analyses referenced in the FEIS, such as the 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act (BRAC), the BRAC Commission 
Reports for 1993 and 1995 and supporting analyses, and a biological 
opinion prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This 
SIR clarifies information concerning the alternatives analysis used in 
the FEIS, discusses issues raised in comments received on the FEIS that 
addressed specific environmental impacts, summarizes the USFWS 
Biological Opinion, and provides the public with the opportunity to 
review and comment on this information. It discusses the BRAC process, 
how that process led to the development of the purpose and need for the 
proposed

[[Page 46786]]

action, the bases for the criteria used to define the range of 
reasonable alternatives to be examined, the rationale for eliminating 
alternatives from detailed discussion, mitigation of noise impacts, and 
the biological opinion prepared by USFWS concerning endangered species. 
An outline of the issues addressed in this SIR is set out below .

Introduction

A. Effect of BRAC Recommendations

    1. The Relationship Between the Proposed Action and the Purpose of 
the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act (BRAC) of 1990 (Public Law 
101-510).
    2. Intent of BRAC.
    3. Recommendations of the 1993 BRAC Commission.
    4. Recommendations of the 1995 BRAC Commission.
    5. Implications of the Purpose of BRAC on the Reasonableness of 
Alternatives.

B. Screening Potential Sites

    1. Reasonableness of Alternative Sites.
    2. Selection and Screening of Reasonable Sites.
    a. Requirements of BRAC Recommendations.
    b. Criteria for Selection and Screening.
    (1) Operational Requirements.
    (2) Infrastructure.
    (3) Personnel Requirements.
    c. Military Air Installations Initially Considered.
    d. Application of the Criteria.
    (1) MCAS Camp Pendleton.
    (2) NAF El Centro.
    (3) NAS North Island.
    (4) March Air Reserve Base (ARB).
    (5) NAS Miramar.
    e. Summary of Comparative Costs, NAS Miramar and March ARB.
    (1) Comparison of the Costs of Construction of Infrastructure.
    (2) Comparison of Yearly Operating Costs.
    (3) Cost of Construction and Operating for 20 Years.

C. Operations, Noise, and Safety Considerations

    1. Operations at NAS Miramar.
    a. Navy Operations at NAS Miramar.
    (1) A History of Changing Operations.
    (2) Aircraft Loading at NAS Miramar.
    (3) Operational Tempo.
    b. USMC Units Being Relocated to Miramar.
    (1) Fixed-Wing Squadrons.
    (2) Rotary-Wing Squadrons.
    c. Existing F/A-18 Operations at Miramar.
    d. Projected Operational Tempo at MCAS Miramar.
    e. Analysis of Projected Operations.
    f. Effect on Navy Operations at Miramar.
    2. Noise Issues.
    a. Noise Measurement.
    b. Average Busy Day Versus Average Annual Day.
    c. Mitigation of Aircraft Noise.
    d. Continuing Community Involvement.
    3. Safety Issues.
    a. Combined Fixed- and Rotary-Wing Operations.
    b. Interface with Class B Aircraft Operations and Local Airfields.
    c. Community Involvement in Airspace Usage.
    D. Other Environmental Issues at Miramar.
    1. Endangered Species and Biological Resources.
    a. Information in Biological Opinion and Multi-Species Habitat 
Management Plan.
    b. Formal Consultation on Endangered Species.
    c. Information in the Biological Opinion.
    d. No Jeopardy Opinion.
    e. Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement.
    f. Reasonable and Prudent Measures.
    g. Enhanced Mitigation Measures.
    h. Additional Study of Effects of Noise on Gnatcatchers.
    2. Wildlife Management.
    3. Air Quality.
    a. Concerns about Emissions Budgets.
    b. Classification of Air Quality Regions for Non-Attainment.
    c. Accuracy of Estimates Used in State Implementation Plans.
    d. Accuracy of Data Used for Conformity Determination and Air 
Quality Analysis.
    e. Conformity Analysis for NAS Miramar.
    f. Differences Between Historical Emission Rates and Calculated 
Rates.
    4. Traffic Congestion.
    5. Ordnance Training Facility.
    Where to Comment or Obtain Further Information.

    Dated: August 30, 1996.
D. E. Koenig, Jr.
LCDR, JAGC, USN, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-22639 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P