[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 110 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28751-28753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14102]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 7
RIN 1024-AC29
Cape Lookout National Seashore, Airstrip Closure
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) is publishing this final rule
to close the Portsmouth Village Airstrip at Cape Lookout National
Seashore, North Carolina, to the operation of aircraft. The special
regulation is necessary for the operation of the airstrip. Removal of
the special regulation will effectively close the airstrip as a
violation of 36 CFR 2.17. This action is necessary to prevent aircraft
accidents and eliminate a use that is incompatible with preserving the
historic scene in Portsmouth Village, a historic district listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. This rule will protect the flying
public by closing an airstrip that does not comply with Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and North Carolina Department of
Transportation safety standards. Closure of the airstrip will also
eliminate the potential for an aircraft accident that could destroy one
or more irreplaceable historic structures, eliminate the anachronistic
intrusion of aircraft in a historic village and provide for the safety
of park visitors who cross the airstrip runway as they walk from
Portsmouth Village to the beach.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes effective on July 8, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. James Zahradka, Supervisory Park
Ranger, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 131 Charles Street, Harkers
Island, NC. 28531. Telephone 919-728-2250.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Portsmouth Village Airstrip (Airstrip) is located on the northeast
corner of Portsmouth Village (Village). The Village is geographically
remote because of its location on a part of the outer banks (Core
Banks) not connected to the mainland by bridge. The origins of
Portsmouth Village can be traced back to 1752, when it was authorized
by the Colonial Legislature of North Carolina. There are no permanent
residents in this well-preserved ``ghost town,'' although over 2,000
people visit annually. The historical significance of the Village is
underscored by its listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Long-term residents of the Village area report that the unpaved
Airstrip was constructed by private individuals for recreational use
shortly after World War II. In this earlier period, the Airstrip was
not as long as it is today, but was leveled and extended to its present
approximate length of 1640 feet in 1959.
The NPS began managing the Airstrip after the State of North
Carolina ceded Core Banks to the Federal Government to establish Cape
Lookout National Seashore (Seashore) in 1976. Operating or using
aircraft on lands and waters managed by the NPS is prohibited (36 CFR
2.17(a)(1)) other than at locations designated pursuant to special
regulations. In 1984, the NPS promulgated a special regulation (36 CFR
7.98(a)) legalizing aircraft operations on the Airstrip. Seashore
management continued to maintain the grass surface and trimmed back
encroaching woody vegetation to the extent that limited funding
allowed.
Recently, the NPS became concerned about potential hazards related
to aircraft operations on the Airstrip. These concerns stem from a
report by an inspector of the North Carolina
[[Page 28752]]
Department of Transportation, Division of Aviation, that the Airstrip
does not meet the following FAA recommended runway standards:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAR, Part 77........................................... Each end of the runway should have a 20 to 4 approach
slope. (Obstacles should not exceed more than one foot
of rise for every 20-foot increment of horizontal
distance from the end of a runway).
FAA AC 150/5300-1300................................... Each side of the runway centerline should be clear of
obstacles by at least 125 feet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, brush and small trees up to 12 feet tall grow on the south
end of the Airstrip. Dense brush and trees growing on the Airstrip
edges narrow the area clear of obstacles from the centerline to an
average of only 59 feet, less than half the recommended width.
Although several accidents have occurred to aircraft landing on or
taking off from the Airstrip, only three accidents are officially
documented with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). A
review of these NTSB reports indicates that the Airstrip is considered
``unsuitable terrain'' because it has a soft spot at its center and has
``high obstructions'' (dense brush and trees up to 20 feet tall) lining
the runway.
Protecting irreplaceable historic structures and preserving the
historic scene are also very important concerns related to aircraft
use. One of the most important historic structures in the Village, the
Portsmouth Life Saving Station (Station), is only 101 feet east of the
airstrip centerline. A detached kitchen for the Station is only 78 feet
east of the centerline and the Station stable is only 89 feet west of
the centerline. The possibility of aircraft eventually colliding with
structures so close to the center line is considered high with
continued use of this narrow Airstrip. It would be necessary to move
the Station and nearby associated structures to bring the Airstrip into
compliance with FAA standards. Moving historic structures from their
original locations seriously degrades their historical integrity and
may affect their status on the National Register of Historic Places.
Direct impact is not the only concern of the NPS. The Airstrip and
the Village lie in a mixed brush/maritime forest. Dense vegetation of
this plant community grows inside the Village. Fire from an aircraft
accident in the vicinity of the Airstrip could easily spread from the
brush/forest into the Village and destroy many structures. Because of
the isolated character of the Village, fire suppression services are
minimal. The foot and vehicle trail from the Village to the beach
crosses the Airstrip at the old Lifesaving Station. As a result,
visitors potentially are exposed to aircraft takeoffs and landings
without prior warning. Visitors also desire a quiet, historic scene
when visiting the Village. Aircraft noise and visual intrusions are not
conducive to preserving such a setting.
Approximately 300 of the 2,000+ people visiting the Village
annually arrive by aircraft. (This estimate is based on approximately
75 aircraft landings recorded by staff annually, with an average of
four visitors per aircraft.) An alternate airport, Ocracoke Island
Airport, is just 6 miles from the Airstrip. NPS-authorized ferry boat
services provide transportation between Ocracoke and the Village for
$15 to $20 per person. At least one of these services offers free
ground transportation between Ocracoke Island Airport and the ferry
dock for groups that prefer landing at Ocracoke Island Airport rather
than the Airstrip.
The anticipated costs, approximately $40,000, of clearing
vegetation from the Airstrip centerline and repairing the runway
surface (levelling and resodding) are prohibitive under present funding
levels for the Seashore. The estimated annual cost for maintaining the
grass surface of the Airstrip is $3,000, also prohibitive under present
fiscal constraints.
Summary of Comments Received
On July 12, 1995, the NPS published proposed regulations that would
close Portsmouth Village Airstrip to Aircraft use (60 FR 35887) and
public comment was invited. The comment period closed August 12, 1995.
During the public comment period, the NPS received two written
responses regarding the proposed rule. One responder opposed the
closure. The other sought clarification of the proposed closure.
1. Issue: After affect of closure. One responder was concerned that
government agencies/entities would still use the Airstrip after the
closure and wanted to know if the NPS was planning to post the Airstrip
with signs such as ``Closed to the Recreational Users.'' This responder
was also concerned as to whether the NPS would allow the Airstrip to
revert to a natural state.
Response: The Airstrip will be closed to all aircraft use. The
Airstrip has been removed from the 1996 North Carolina and National
Aeronautical Charts and has been physically marked with an ``X'' at
both ends. At present, the park mows the Airstrip at least once a week
during the grass growing season. This frequency will not be necessary
after the official closure of the airstrip.
The NPS intends to reduce the threat of fire to the historic
district by brushing the undergrowth to bring the area back to its
approximate appearance of the early 1900's. Portions of the present
Airstrip will be maintained as open space.
2. Issue: No reference to a visitor visiting the Village by an
ultra-light aircraft or seaplane.
Response: There is no documented history of the airstrip being used
by an ultra-light aircraft. Seaplanes are prohibited under 36 CFR 2.17.
36 CFR 7.98(a) was promulgated to allow aircraft use of the Airstrip.
3. Issue: Safety and the likelihood of damage to the historical
structures at the end of the airstrip. One responder questioned safety
as a justification for the closure and that the FAA standards cited do
not apply to this Airstrip. The responder felt that the history of
minor damage to planes as a result of the soft runway is not
justification for closure and that most pilots are proficient enough to
prevent becoming stuck.
Response: On August 25, 1989, an Aviation Planner/Inspector with
the North Carolina Department of Transportation visited the Airstrip to
gather information for the FAA Airport Safety Data Program.
At that time, the NPS learned that the Airstrip was in violation of
the ``recommended safety standards''. With the lack of fire and rescue
protection at Portsmouth and, knowing that the airstrip is sub-
standard, the NPS chooses not to add to the risk of the visiting public
nor to increase the risk of damage to the historical structures. No
funds are planned to be allocated in the future to maintain the
Airstrip in a safe and operational condition. With each passing year,
the Airstrip will continue to deteriorate and foot traffic in the area
will increase.
4. Issue: Historical use and significance. One responder commented
on the history of the Airstrip and the
[[Page 28753]]
role aviation played in making Portsmouth more accessible.
Response: The NPS's decision to preserve an area of historical
importance is based on the criteria of its uniqueness and national
significance. It was determined that Portsmouth would preserve American
life in the early 1900's. Aviation history may be interpreted as part
of Portsmouth's history, but preservation of an active airstrip is not
necessary to interpret the area and is incompatible with the early
1900's scene. In recent history, with access to Portsmouth via private
and public vessels and one vehicle ferry, the number of persons
visiting Portsmouth will not be significantly affected by the closure
of the Airstrip.
5. Issue: Delay in concern for hazards. One responder asked why it
took the NPS 11 years to register a concern for the hazards if the
Airstrip was in violation of safety regulations. Specifically, was a
cut in the NPS budget a cause in the delay?
Response: The NPS became aware and concerned about the hazards as a
result of the inspection by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation on August 25, 1989. The NPS then developed cost
estimates for meeting and maintaining the recommended safety standards.
With a decline in use of the Airstrip, the already existing
incompatibility concern, and the high cost of maintaining the Airstrip
to standards, the NPS decided that the Airstrip should be closed. An
``X'' was placed on both ends of the Airstrip and persons who inquired
were advised of the safety conditions. The budget was a factor in the
decision to close the Airstrip, but it was not the only factor.
6. Issue: Recent use statistics. One responder inquired that there
was no mention of historical use of the Airstrip. The responder used
the example of ``1984 landings and takeoff's vs. 1994 landings and
takeoffs.''
Response: No record has been maintained on the amount of use for
the Airstrip other than the 74 flights per year, a figure derived in
the late 1980's. Local observation is that there has been a decline in
aircraft landings annually.
7. Issue: Noise and visual intrusions including military
operations. One responder questioned the noise and visual intrusions,
based on the number of aircraft landings and takeoffs, as not being
significant enough to justify closure. The responder added that
military air operations in the area pose a far greater intrusion to the
quiet setting of Portsmouth Village.
Response: The NPS agrees that the noise level of military jets
overhead presents an intrusion, but this intrusion is for a short
duration measured in seconds. The NPS has a Memorandum of Understanding
with the United States Marine Corps stating that air operations will be
no closer than 2 miles to the south of the Village and at an altitude
of not less than 500 feet.
Summary and Conclusion
The Airstrip does not comply with FAA safety standards and the
flying public should not be exposed to the potential hazards associated
with operating aircraft from a substandard airstrip. The taxpayer
should not risk liability for an aircraft accident resulting from a
defect in the Airstrip. Derogating the historical significance of
nearby National Register structures to accommodate aircraft operations
is not justifiable. Even if funding levels allowed compliance with
safety standards, low visitor use and availability of a nearby
alternate airport with connecting transportation services suggest that
such an expenditure is neither cost-effective nor justifiable. For
these reasons, the NPS is closing Portsmouth Village Airstrip by
deleting Section 7.98(a) of Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations.
Drafting Information
The primary authors of this rule are Felix Revello, Chief Ranger,
Fort Larned National Historic Site, Charles Harris, Chief of
Operations, Cape Lookout National Seashore, and Dennis Burnett,
Washington Office of Ranger Activities, National Park Service.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule does not contain collections of information
requiring approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Compliance With Other Laws
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review
under Executive Order 12866. The Department of the Interior determined
that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq). The economic effects of this rulemaking are
local in nature and negligible in scope.
The NPS has determined that this final rule will not have a
significant effect on the quality of human environment, health, and
safety because it is not expected to:
(a) Increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature
and character of the area or causing physical damage to it;
(b) Introduce non-compatible uses which compromise the nature and
characteristics of the area or cause physical damage to it;
(c) Conflict with adjacent ownerships or land uses; or
(d) Cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants.
Based on this determination, this rule is categorically excluded
from the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) by Departmental regulations in 516 DM 6, (49 FR 21438). As
such, neither an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) nor an
Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7
National parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 36 CFR Chapter I is amended as
follows:
PART 7--SPECIAL REGULATIONS, AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for part 7 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 462(q), 462(k); Sec. 7.96 also
issued under D.C. Code 8-137 (1981) and D.C. Code 40-721 (1981).
Sec. 7.98 [Removed]
2. Section 7.98 is removed.
Dated: May 29, 1996.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 96-14102 Filed 6-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P