[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 10, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17418-17420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-8652]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Record of Decision for the Renewal of Authorization to Use 
Pinecastle Range, Ocala National Forest, FL

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Navy announces its decision to continue 
operations at Pinecastle Range, Ocala National Forest, Florida.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. Sections 
4321 et seq., the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality 
that implement NEPA procedures, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and Navy 
regulations implementing NEPA procedures (32 CFR 775), the Department 
of the Navy announces its decision to continue operations at the 
Pinecastle Range in the Ocala National Forest for a 20-year period, if 
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) renews the Interagency Agreement or 
``special use permit'', as it is now called. This action will enable 
the Navy to meet current and projected training requirements. The U.S. 
Department of

[[Page 17419]]

Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) are cooperating 
agencies in the preparation of this Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS).
    Background And Issues: Pinecastle Range (the Range) has been in 
continuous operation by Department of the Navy (Navy) since the early 
1950s to train aircrews and support personnel in the delivery of 
ordnance. The Range is located within the boundaries of the Ocala 
National Forest, which is managed by the USDA and the USFS. The USFS, 
as the controlling agency for National Forest land, is responsible for 
issuing authorization for use of the land.
    The Navy is currently authorized to operate and utilize the Range 
under an Interagency Agreement (IA) with USFS. The IA was to expire in 
December 1999, but was extended until July 2002, to allow for 
completion of the NEPA process. The IA specifies USFS and Navy 
responsibilities, defines terms of mutual agreement, and contains 
exhibits depicting Range boundaries and defining explosive ordnance 
restrictions.
    Alternatives: A screening process, based upon criteria identified 
in the EIS, was conducted to determine a reasonable range of 
alternatives that would satisfy the Navy's purpose and need. 
Recommendations received from the public during scoping were also taken 
into consideration. The process used to identify feasible alternatives 
was thoroughly discussed in Draft and Final EIS. Ultimately, two 
alternatives were analyzed in detail in the EIS. The Preferred 
Alternative for continued use of the Range (pending USFS's decision to 
issue a special use permit) and No-Action alternative. The Preferred 
Alternative would retain and continue use of the existing range assets 
and restricted air space. Aircraft would continue to use the Range to 
meet fleet air-to-ground strike warfare training requirements for 
strafing, explosive ordnance delivery, and laser target designation. 
Naval aircraft operating in the Jacksonville Fleet Concentration Area 
would be the principal users of the Range; however, other military 
aircraft hosted by the Navy would continue to use the Range. Operations 
are projected at about 10,200 annually. If operations are exceeded by 
10 percent, the Navy will prepare supplemental NEPA documentation.
    With the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not pursue issuance 
of a special use permit, and the existing IA would expire, returning 
control of the Range to the USFS. The Navy would return control of the 
Range pursuant to the 1994 IA, as extended. The Navy would provide 
explosive ordnance disposal services if any bombs are found on or off 
the Range.
    Environmental Impacts: Potential environmental impacts of 
continuing operations at the Range for a 20 year period are analyzed in 
the FEIS. The analysis demonstrates that environmental impacts 
associated with the continued use of the Range are less than 
significant. While no significant impacts are projected, impacts to 
resources of greatest concern to regulatory agencies and the public are 
briefly discussed below.
    There are potential impacts to groundwater. Groundwater could be 
contaminated by the release of constituents and by-products of 
explosives used in live ordnance, spotting charges, and by the release 
of pollutants from bombing targets such as motor vehicles. While tests 
of groundwater have not revealed the presence of contaminants above 
established maximum regulatory levels, and the small size of the range 
relative to the aquifer recharge area decrease the likelihood of 
contamination, the Navy, in conjunction with the USFS, will develop and 
implement a groundwater monitoring plan.
    The potential presence of unexploded ordnance (UXO) on and off the 
Range was a matter of concern to the public. The potential for UXO to 
accumulate on the Live Target or in its vicinity is minimal because 
Range maintenance procedures do not allow UXO to remain in place for an 
extended period of time. Spotters observe all aircraft approaches and 
weapons deliveries involving live ordnance. All unexploded ordnance on-
range is rendered safe by contractor UXO personnel. Any bombs dropped 
``off-range'' will be rendered safe by the Navy. Since the inception of 
the current spotter program in 1992, no live ordnance has been dropped 
outside of the Range boundary.
    The scrub habitat on the Range supports several threatened or 
endangered species. This type of vegetative habitat would mature and 
decrease without the cooperation of the USFS's and Navy's Range 
activities. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in a Biological 
Opinion prepared in conjunction with the EIS, determined that the 
continuation of military operations on the Range for 20 years would not 
likely adversely affect the wood stork, Florida bonamia, scrub 
buckwheat, and scrub milkwort.
    With regard to the Florida scrub-jay, Eastern indigo snake, and 
sand skink, the USFWS determined that although there is a possibility 
that the use of the target areas may result in the incidental take of 
these three species, the level of anticipated takes is not likely to 
result in jeopardizing the continued existence of those species. The 
USFWS did recommend the Navy adopt specific ``reasonable and prudent 
measures'' for the Florida scrub-jay, the sand skink, and the Eastern 
indigo snake. These measures include a monitoring program conducted by 
the Forest Service for all three listed species on the Range.
    There would be no significant impacts on public safety associated 
with continued use of the Range. There are no permanent residents in 
areas considered incompatible for residential use within Range safety 
zones. Although impacts on public safety are not significant, the Navy 
has incorporated measures into the operations of the Range to mitigate 
safety issues. The physical layout of the Range isolates the training 
activities and limits potential impacts to the public and natural 
environments; the airspace ingress and egress routes to the airspace is 
laid out to avoid population centers and recreational areas; Range 
safety zone boundaries will be marked by signs where possible; and USFS 
will post detailed locational information about safety zones to ensure 
that the public will avoid the zones during military training 
activities.
    While USFS is expected to continue to allow hunting and hiking 
activities in areas near the Range boundary, the mitigation in place is 
sufficient to prevent significant safety risks. No injuries or 
fatalities to Government employees or members of the public have 
occurred as a result of Range activities since the Navy began using the 
Range over 50 years ago.
    The Navy developed noise contours associated with aircraft 
operations at the Range. No incompatible land uses were identified in 
any of the modeled noise contours. While there are no incompatible land 
uses relative to the noise contours associated with continued operation 
of the Range, people in the surrounding areas will continue to hear 
noise from aircraft and occasional impulse noise from the explosion of 
ordnance. The Naval Air Station Jacksonville Public Affairs Office will 
continue to contact local newspapers and broadcast media prior to the 
use of explosive ordnance on the Range. The Navy and USFS will inform 
campers and recreational users who may not have access to the local 
newspapers or broadcast announcements.
    Comments Received on the EIS: The Navy received comments from 
Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 (EPA), Florida Department of 
Environmental Protection (FDEP) and a

[[Page 17420]]

private citizen. EPA stated that its concerns had been adequately 
addressed in the FEIS. FDEP requested additional information regarding 
development of the groundwater monitoring plan. The Navy will continue 
to partner with FDEP and will keep the agency informed as the plan is 
developed. The private citizen supported Navy's continued training on 
the Range.
    Conclusion: After considering the analysis contained in the EIS, 
the final Range Air Installation Compatible Use Zone study, and the 
comments received from Federal, state, and local agencies, non-
governmental organizations, and individual members of the public; I 
have concluded that continuing operations at Pinecastle Range meets the 
Navy's purpose and need to maintain fully trained aircrews and support 
personnel to meet training requirements, and to achieve an acceptable 
level of readiness prior to deploying independently or as part of a 
Carrier Battle Group. Although this alternative will result in 
prominent, but insignificant noise impacts to the surrounding 
populations, it will not result in potentially significant adverse 
impacts to endangered species due to maturation and ultimate loss of 
the scrub habitat. It is therefore considered the environmentally 
preferable alternative.

    Dated: March 29, 2002.
Donald R. Schregardus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Environment).
[FR Doc. 02-8652 Filed 4-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P