[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 73 (Friday, April 14, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20198-20200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9368]



[[Page 20198]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management


Record of Decision for the Proposed Fallon Range Training Complex 
Requirements at Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, Bureau of Land 
Management, Department of the Interior.

ACTION:  Notice of Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy and the Bureau of Land Management, 
after carefully weighing the environmental and socioeconomic 
implications, public input, and technical considerations of the 
alternative studied, announce their combined decisions to implement the 
preferred alternative, Alternative II, identified in the co-authored 
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Fallon Range 
Training Complex Requirements at Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada. This 
action consists of improvements to the Fallon Range Training Complex to 
meet Chief of Naval Operations-mandated training requirements; 
improvements will occur on existing Navy-administered lands and on BLM-
administered public lands.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center at 
Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada, Attn: Mr. John Smith, EIS Team 
Member, 4755 Pasture Road, Fallon, Nevada 89496-5000, telephone (775) 
426-2103/2101, fax (775) 426-2104, e-mail [email protected] or 
Bureau of Land Management Carson City Field Office, Attn: Ms. Terri 
Knutson EIS Project Manager, 5665 Morgan Mill Road, Carson City, Nevada 
89701, telephone (775) 885-6156, fax (775) 8885-6147, e-mail 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the entire Record of Decision is 
provided as follows:
    The Department of the Navy (Navy) and Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM), pursuant to section 102 (c) of the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. section 4331 et seq.) and the regulations 
of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that implement NEPA 
procedures (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), hereby announce their decision to 
implement changes necessary at the Fallon Range Training Complex to 
meet Chief of Naval Operations-mandated training requirements resulting 
from the real-world threat environment. These changes will allow Navy 
to update and consolidate Navy training on public and Navy-administered 
lands and update existing airspace parameters overlying these lands.
    Changes include: Developing new fixed and mobile Electronic Warfare 
(EW) sites; developing new Tracking Instrumentation Subsystem (TIS) 
sites; developing additional targets at B-17 and B-19; laying fiber 
optic cable to B-16 and B-19; utilizing Navy-administered lands in 
Dixie Valley for close air support training; performing Hellfire 
missile and high altitude weapons delivery training at B-17 and B-20; 
and proposing changes to special use airspace.

Process

    A Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) for the proposed Fallon Range Training Complex Requirements at 
the Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada was published in the Federal 
Register on December 21, 1998. Four public scoping meetings were held 
on January 20, 21, 27, and 28, 1999, in Eureka, Austin, Fallon, and 
Reno, Nevada, respectively.
    A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIS was published in 
the Federal Register on August 13, 1999. Public Hearings were held on 
September 8, 9, 21, 22, and 23, 1999, in Eureka, Austin, Gabbs, Fallon, 
and Reno, Nevada, respectively. Comments were received from 71 
agencies, organizations, and individuals during he 90-day public 
comment period on the Draft EIS. The Final EIS addressed all oral and 
written comments.
    The NOA for the Final EIS was published in the Federal Register on 
February 4, 2000. Newspaper advertisements noting the availability of 
the Final EIS were published in local and regional newspapers. Navy and 
BLM received 4 comment letters during the 30-day public comment period. 
All comments received were considered when preparing this ROD.
    This ROD documents Navy's and BLM's decisions based upon the 
analysis of the effects of the proposed action and alternatives in the 
EIS. The jointly prepared Navy/BLM EIS allowed BLM to ensure that Navy 
actions proposed on public lands meet the BLM mission of managing 
public lands for multiple use. This EIS satisfies NEPA requirements for 
Navy-administered lands and BLM issuance of rights-of-way for Navy 
actions on public lands.
    Airspace changes require rulemaking in accordance with Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 7400.2. Navy will submit a request 
to FAA for the airspace changes outlined in this ROD. The FAA will 
issue a separate ROD after its rulemaking process.

Background

    This EIS was based on the Fallon Range Training Complex 
Requirements Document (Training Requirements Document) prepared by the 
Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center (NSAWC) at NAS Fallon, Nevada, in 
November 1998. The Training Requirements Document assessed and reported 
current and future training needs and operational requirements for NAS 
Fallon. The Training Requirements Document outlined changes necessary 
to both update and consolidate Navy training on public and Navy-
administered lands and update existing airspace parameters overlying 
these lands. Alternatives were developed with input from federal, 
state, and local agencies, interested parties, Native American tribes, 
and an independent validation entity (Institute for Defense Analysis).

Proposed Action and Alternatives

    The proposed action in this EIS included developing four 5.7-acre 
fixed EW sites on public lands in Edwards Creek Valley, Gabbs Valley, 
Smith Creek Valley, and Big Smoky Valley, three fixed EW sites on Navy-
administered land in north Dixie Valley, at B-19, and at B-20, and up 
to 15 mobile sites on Navy-administered lands in the Dixie Valley; 
developing four 16-foot by 16-foot TIS sites on BLM-administered lands; 
developing live mortar ranges and helicopter ordnance and gunnery 
targets at B-17 and a rough terrain helicopter gunnery target at B-19; 
running fiber optic cable from NAS Fallon to the B-16 and B-19 training 
ranges; performing close air support training, including laser 
spotting, on Navy-administered lands in the Dixie Valley; performing 
Hellfire missile training and high altitude weapons delivery training 
at the B-17 and B-20 training ranges (new restricted area airspace will 
be needed above existing restricted area airspace to 35,000 feet above 
mean sea level (flight level (FL) 350) to accommodate high altitude 
weapons delivery training; and making adjustments to special use 
airspace to change the use times of the Reno MOA from 10 AM to 6 PM, 
Tuesday through Saturday, to 8 AM to 6 PM, Monday through Friday.
    Alternative I included the same actions described for the proposed 
action except that the fixed EW sites on public lands will be reduced 
in size and the smaller fixed EW sites in the eastern

[[Page 20199]]

valleys will be supplemented with four or five mobile EW sites up to 
one-third acre per site in each valley for a total of 18 mobile sites.
    Alternative II included the same actions described for the proposed 
action except that only two 5.7-acre fixed site will be developed on 
public lands in Edwards Creek Valley and Gabbs Valley, and no fixed EW 
sites will be developed in Smith Creek Valley and Big Smoky Valley. To 
compensate for the lack of fixed EW sites in these two valleys, fixed 
communication relay towers on one-tenth acre of land will be developed. 
Five mobile EW sites will be developed in each of the four valleys for 
a total of 20 mobile sites.
    Alternative III included the same actions described for the 
proposed action except that no new fixed EW sites will be developed on 
public lands. To compensate for the lack of fixed EW sites in the four 
eastern valleys, one fixed communication hub on one-tenth acre of land 
will be developed in Smith Creek Valley, three combination fixed 
communication hubs/mobile EW sites will be developed in the other 
valleys (one site per valley), and 19 mobile EW sites will be developed 
(up to five sites per valley). Also under Alternative III, the Navy 
will request a lower ceiling (FL 300 ) for new restricted area 
airspace.
    Under the No Action Alternative, no new EW sites, TIS sites, B-17 
and B-19 target improvements, or fiber optic cable routes will be 
developed. Airspace changes, Hellfire missile training, and high 
altitude weapons delivery training (above 18,000 feet MSL) will not 
occur. Present training activities will continue under existing 
conditions.
    Measures were incorporated into the Proposed Action and 
Alternatives to reduce the level of impact to the environment. These 
measures consist of operating procedures Navy routinely applies to 
similar activities on its lands and that are required by the BLM for 
actions taken on public lands. These standard operating procedures 
include: Conducting biological and cultural resource surveys prior to 
surface disturbance; reducing visual effects by painting, shielding, or 
netting structures; reducing effects to roads; complying with all 
federal, state, and local government rules, regulations, and guidelines 
governing hazardous material use, storage, and transport; conducting 
laser operations in a manner to avoid human and environmental hazards; 
implementing noxious weed control measures and reclamation of abandoned 
sites; and continuing to coordinate aircraft activities with the FAA.
    The environmentally preferred alternative is generally one that 
avoids or minimizes environmental impacts or results in a net 
beneficial environmental effect. In this case, the No Action 
Alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative because it 
will not result in any additional ground disturbance or changes in 
visual resources, although it will not allow for the increased flight 
altitude and corresponding reduction in noise levels that will be 
achieved in some of the other alternatives. The environmentally 
preferred alternative was not selected because it will be substantially 
less effective in meeting tactical and training mission requirements as 
set out in the Training Requirements Document. Alternative III is also 
environmentally preferable to the selected alternative, and will be as, 
or more, effective in meeting tactical and training requirements. 
Alternative III was not selected because communication technology is 
not yet sufficiently advanced or readily available to allow Navy to 
implement an all-mobile alternative at this time. Navy does not have 
the mobile EW equipment necessary to implement an all-mobile 
alternative, and developing and procuring the equipment necessary for 
the all-mobile alternative will be cost prohibitive. Navy will continue 
to monitor advances in communications technology and will consider 
whether to propose an all-mobile alternative in the future. If an all-
mobile alternative becomes practical, Navy and BLM will determine, 
what, if any, additional environmental analysis is required before 
implementing such a proposal.
    Based upon our review of the analysis of alternatives and public 
comments receiving during the NEPA process, Navy and BLM have selected 
Alternative II (the identified preferred alternative) with some 
modification to the two fixed EW sites on BLM-administered lands. 
Alternative II included two fixed 5.7-acre EW sites on public lands in 
Edwards Creek and Gabbs Valleys. The size of these two sites will be 
reduced to 3.0 acres each to decrease the area of surface disturbance 
on public lands. One fixed communications relay tower site in each of 
the Big Smoky and Smith Creek Valleys, and five mobile EW sites in each 
of the four valleys will be installed. Alternative II will also develop 
three fixed EW sites on Navy-administered land in North Dixie Valley, 
at B-19, and at B-20, up to 15 mobile EW sites on Navy administered 
lands in the Dixie Valley, four TIS sites on BLM-administered lands, 
live mortar ranges and helicopter ordnance and gunnery targets at B-17, 
and a rough terrain helicopter gunnery target at B-19. Other actions 
included in Alternative II that will be implemented are: Running fiber 
optic cable from NAS Fallon to the B-16 and B-19 training ranges, 
performing close air support training, including laser spotting on 
Navy-administered lands in the Dixie Valley, performing Hellfire 
missile training and high altitude weapons delivery training at B-17 
and B-20 training ranges, developing new vertical restricted airspace 
up to 35,000 feet MSL above existing restricted airspace in order to 
accommodate high altitude weapons delivery training, and making 
adjustments to special use airspace to change the use times of the Reno 
MOA from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Tuesday through Saturday, to 8:00 AM to 
6:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Alternative II addresses concerns 
voiced during the public review period on the greater sensitivity of 
Smith Creek Valley and Big Smoky Valley as well as meets Navy's 
training requirements.

Environmental Impacts

    In the EIS, Navy and BLM analyzed direct, indirect, and cumulative 
effects to land use, airspace use, biological resources, geology, 
soils, and mineral resources, water resources, cultural resources, 
Native American religious concerns, visual resources, environmental 
justice and socioeconomic, recreation, grazing and wild horse and burro 
management, air quality, noise, public safety, and hazardous materials. 
There were no significant environmental impacts associated with the 
selected alternative; however, Navy and BLM will implement the standard 
operating procedures described both above and in the EIS, to reduce 
even further the impacts of the actions being taken. With the adoption 
of these standard operating procedures, Navy and BLM have exercised all 
practicable means to avoid or minimize harm from the alternative 
selected. Nevertheless, Navy and BLM will meet annually to review 
implementation of the selected alternative.

Response to Comments Received Regarding the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement

    Navy and BLM received 4 comment letters on the Final EIS: one from 
a state agency, one from a special interest group, and two from 
individuals. The comments from the state agency and the special 
interest group were previously addressed in the Final EIS. One 
individual's comments were outside of

[[Page 20200]]

the scope of this EIS and require no further response. The other 
individual's comments misinterpreted the information presented in the 
EIS regarding the proposed change in the airspace ceiling. As discussed 
in Section 4.2 of the Final EIS, the proposed new airspace ceiling will 
be created on top of existing restricted airspace that overlies Navy's 
bombing ranges. This proposed change will not be applied throughout the 
FRTC MOA.

Conclusions

    In formulating combined decisions on implementing changes to update 
and consolidate training at the Fallon Range Training Complex, 
including changes on existing Navy-administered lands and on public 
lands administered by the BLM, Navy and BLM have considered the 
environmental and socioeconomic effects of the proposed action and 
alternatives and public input received on the Draft and final EISs.
    After careful deliberation, we have determined that the preferred 
alternative, with reduced EW site size, provides the best combination 
of effectively meeting the training requirements of NAS Fallon, 
responding to the public concerns, and minimizing environmental 
effects.
    Therefore, the Department of the Navy and the Bureau of Land 
Management have decided to implement the actions identified in the 
preferred alternative, as modified. Actions requiring FAA approval will 
be proposed for FAA rulemaking and will only be implemented if 
approved.
    Although this EIS has been jointly prepared and has resulted in 
combined decisions, each agency's decision has been made pursuant to 
its individual responsibilities and authorities and each agency shall 
be responsible for its implementation.

BLM Appeals Process

    If a party other than the Navy is aggrieved by the approval of this 
EIS, the decision regarding use of public lands may be appealed to the 
Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of the Secretary, in accordance 
with the regulations contained in 43 CFR, part 4 and Form 1842-1. If an 
appeal is made, a notice of appeal must be filed at the Bureau of Land 
Management, Nevada State Office, 850 Harvard Way, PO Box 12000, Reno, 
Nevada 89520-0006 within 30 days after the date this decision has been 
issued. The appellant has the burden of showing that the decision being 
appealed is in error. A statement of reasons and any arguments the 
appellant wishes to present to justify reversal or modification of this 
decision should be filed at the same time as the appeal.
    If the appellant wishes to file a petition (request), pursuant to 
43 CFR 4.21, for a stay (suspension) of the effectiveness of this 
decision during the time that the appeal is being reviewed by the 
Board, the petition for a stay must accompany the notice of appeal. A 
petition for a stay is required to show sufficient justification based 
on the standards for obtaining a stay. Copies of the notice of appeal 
and petition for a stay must also be submitted to the appropriate 
Office of the Solicitor (see 43 CFR 4.413) at the same time the 
original documents are filed with this office. If the appellant 
requests a stay, the appellant has the burden of proof to demonstrate 
that a stay should be granted.

Standards for Obtaining a Stay

    Except as otherwise provided by law or pertinent regulation, a 
petition for a stay of a decision pending appeal shall show sufficient 
justification based on the following standards: (1) The relative harm 
to the parties if the stay is granted or denied, (2) the likelihood of 
the appellant's success on the merits, (3) the likelihood of immediate 
and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted and (4) whether the 
public interest favors granting the stay.

    Dated: April 10, 2000.
Elsie Munsell,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Environment and Safety).
    Dated: April 4, 2000
John Singlaub,
Manager, Carson City Field Office.
[FR Doc. 00-9368 Filed 4-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M