Adoption of Wyoming Army National Guard Environmental Assessment for Training and Maneuver Activities at Camp Guernsey, and Finding of No Significant Impact and Record of Decision for Establishment of Controlled Firing Areas, Guernsey, Wyoming, June 2020, 38002-38009 [2020-13571]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 122 (Wednesday, June 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38002-38009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13571]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Adoption of Wyoming Army National Guard Environmental Assessment 
for Training and Maneuver Activities at Camp Guernsey, and Finding of 
No Significant Impact and Record of Decision for Establishment of 
Controlled Firing Areas, Guernsey, Wyoming, June 2020

1.0 Introduction

    The Proposed Action is to establish three Controlled Firing Areas 
(CFA) at Camp Guernsey, Guernsey, Wyoming. Under the Proposed Action, 
the CFAs would be established for up to two years. CFAs provide a means 
to accommodate, without impact to aviation, certain hazardous 
activities, such as field-based artillery, that can be immediately 
suspended if a non-participating aircraft approaches the area.
    As the lead agency, the Wyoming Army National Guard (WYARNG) 
prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA), Training and Maneuver 
Activities at Camp Guernsey, Guernsey, Wyoming, in March 2020, and 
issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on March 16, 2020, in 
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 
WYARNG invited the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to participate 
as a cooperating agency on October 10, 2018 (40 CFR 1501.6). The FAA, 
having jurisdiction by law for approving special use airspace (SUA) 
under 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(3)(A), accepted the cooperating agency status 
on November 19, 2018. This is also in accordance with the October 2019 
Memorandum of Understanding between the FAA and Department of Defense 
(DoD) for Environmental Review of SUA Actions (FAA 7400.2M, Appendix 
7). As a cooperating agency, the FAA coordinated closely with the 
WYARNG, and actively participated in the preparation of the Draft and 
Final EA.
    In accordance with its applicable FAA Order 1050.1F, the FAA has 
conducted an independent evaluation and analysis of the WYARNG's EA and 
only adopts portions of the EA associated with the CFAs, all associated 
Appendices, as well as all materials identified in the EA and/or 
Appendices and incorporated by reference and made available to the 
public, for purposes of making its decision regarding the Proposed 
Action pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.3. As discussed below, based on the 
information in the EA, the FAA has determined that the Proposed Action 
will not have a significant effect on the human environment (40 CFR 
1508.13) and is issuing this FONSI/Record of Decision (ROD) for the 
Proposed Action (40 CFR 1505.2).

2.0 Background

    In the EA, the WYARNG's Proposed Action consists of both land-based 
activities (training and maneuver) and airspace activities that require 
SUA in the form of a CFA or Restricted Area (RA). Some of the proposed 
land-based activities use field artillery that requires the 
establishment of surface distance zones (SDZ) for safety reasons. These 
SDZs provide separation of the field artillery from aircraft (civilian 
and military traversing the airspace). The proposed CFAs and RAs would 
accommodate the SDZs. While the CFAs and RAs would prevent aircraft 
from being struck by errant artillery fired from Camp Guernsey, they 
would accomplish this in different ways, as described below.

Controlled Firing Areas

    A CFA is airspace designated to contain activities that, if not 
conducted in a controlled environment, would be hazardous to 
aircraft.\1\ CFAs provide a means to accommodate, without impact to 
aviation, certain hazardous activities that can be immediately 
suspended if a non-participating aircraft approaches the area. The 
distinguishing feature of a CFA, compared to other SUA (e.g., RA), is 
that CFA activities shall be suspended immediately when a non-
participating aircraft approaches the area. This responsibility lies 
completely with the CFA user--in this case, the WYARNG--to terminate 
activities so that there is no impact on aviation. Additionally, there 
are no required communications or Air Traffic Control separation 
associated with CFAs. Only those activities that can be immediately 
suspended on notice that a non-participating aircraft is approaching 
are appropriate for a CFA. Field artillery live-fire exercises would 
also be appropriate for CFAs, provided that they meet the criteria and 
comply with the safety precautions described in FAA Order 7400.2M, 
Chapter 27. CFAs are not intended to contain aircraft ordnance delivery 
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FAA Order 7400.2M, paragraphs 27-1-1 (definition) and 27-1-2 
(purpose).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Camp Guernsey existing airspace contains civilian and military 
aircraft that currently traverse the proposed CFA airspace. The 
existing military aircraft in the proposed airspace are not performing 
any military flight operations that require SUA. CFAs have no impact to 
aviation; therefore, existing aircraft would continue to traverse the 
proposed CFA airspace. CFAs are not depicted on aeronautical charts, 
and there is no requirement for non-participating aircraft to avoid the 
SUA.
    The role of the FAA in the establishment of the proposed CFAs is to 
authorize the proponent to conduct their operations (field-based 
artillery) based on FAA approved safety measures. Under the Proposed 
Action, the CFA would protect aircraft from potentially being struck by 
errant artillery, as the safety measures in place dictate that 
operations are suspended if any aircraft enters the CFA airspace.

[[Page 38003]]

Restricted Areas

    An RA is airspace established under 14 CFR part 73 provisions, 
within which the flight of aircraft, while not wholly prohibited, is 
subject to restriction. RAs are established when determined necessary 
to confine or segregate activities considered hazardous to non-
participating aircraft. RAs are depicted on aeronautical charts and 
there is a requirement for non-participating aircraft to avoid the SUA.
    The EA also analyzes the RAs to accommodate the SDZs associated 
with field artillery. The RAs would also permit hazardous military 
flight operations; however, non-participating aircraft (civilian or 
other military aircraft not associated with the operations or exercise) 
are not permitted to enter the RA airspace. This differs from the CFA, 
where military aircraft operations are not permitted.
    An RA allows for both ground-based hazards (artillery) and air-
based hazards, such as military flight operations, to occur within it. 
Unlike a CFA, an RA does not allow for the existing military and 
civilian aircraft to traverse the RA and, because of that, impacts to 
the National Airspace System (NAS) are realized.

3.0 FAA Proposed Action

    The FAA's Proposed Action for this FONSI/ROD is the establishment 
of three CFAs: CFA North, CFA West, and CFA South. The CFAs would be 
established, up to two years, and would be replaced by the permanent 
establishment of three RAs: R-7002A, R-7002C, and R-7002B, 
respectively. While the EA analyzed both CFAs and RAs, only the CFAs 
are ripe for a FAA decision at this time and are the subject of the 
FAA's FONSI/ROD.
    The WYARNG submitted an Aeronautical Proposal in May 2020 that 
includes the future RAs described above. During the two-year interim 
period following the establishment of the CFAs, the FAA will analyze, 
aeronautically, the permanent establishment of the RAs. FAA issuance of 
a CFA typically takes months, per FAA 7400.2M, and is only permitted 
for use for a maximum of two years per issuance. RAs are permanent, and 
the process to establish an RA may take years due to required 
rulemaking actions (14 CFR part 73). Given the temporary nature of 
CFAs, as well as the timeline for the establishment of the permanent 
RAs, the WYARNG is first pursuing the establishment of CFAs. The CFAs 
would permit usage of the proposed airspace for hazardous activities 
associated with field-based artillery for two years until the RA has 
been established. If the RA rulemaking process takes longer than two 
years or is not granted, additional CFA requests may be pursued.
    These CFAs are located in the airspace above the Camp Guernsey 
installation boundary in Platte County, Wyoming. The proposed CFA legal 
descriptions are depicted in Figure 1 and described below:

CFAs

Camp Guernsey, CFA North

    Altitudes: Surface up to and including 16,000 feet mean sea level 
(MSL).
    Time of Use: By Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). Approximately 20 days per 
year.
    Using Agency: WYARNG--Camp Guernsey.

Camp Guernsey, CFA South

    Altitudes: Surface up to and including 12,500 feet MSL.
    Time of Use: By NOTAM. Approximately 20 days per year.
    Using Agency: WYARNG--Camp Guernsey.

Camp Guernsey, CFA West

    Altitudes: Surface up to and including 17,500 feet MSL.
    Time of Use: By NOTAM. Approximately 20 days per year.
    Using Agency: WYARNG--Camp Guernsey.

[[Page 38004]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24JN20.000

4.0 Purpose and Need

    The FAA's Proposed Action establishes three CFAs that would provide 
separation of the field artillery SDZs from aircraft. The proposed CFAs 
area needed to prevent aircraft from being struck by errant artillery 
fired from Camp Guernsey. The implementation of the proposed CFAs would 
fulfill the FAA's requirements to ensure the safe and efficient use of 
navigable airspace pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 47101(a)(1), which describes 
the FAA's authority and regulatory responsibilities.

5.0 Alternatives

    The EA evaluated the WYARNG's Proposed Action and the No Action 
Alternative.
    Existing conditions provide a baseline and also represent the No 
Action Alternative conditions. Under the No Action Alternative, the 
proposed CFAs would not be established. The existing conditions 
consists of aircraft (civilian and military) traversing the proposing 
CFA. Under the No Action Alternative, existing aircraft would continue 
to occupy the CFA airspace.
    The SUA at Camp Guernsey would continue to be limited to the 
existing R-7001. The implementation of the No Action Alternative would 
continue to limit the WYARNG's full training potential. The No Action 
Alternative is not considered a reasonable alternative because it does 
not meet the purpose of, and need for, the WYARNG's Proposed Action or 
the FAA's Proposed Action. However, as required under Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1502.14[d]), the No 
Action Alternative does provide a description of the conditions against 
which the impacts of the FAA's Proposed Action can be compared.
    The EA also evaluated the Proposed Action, which is the temporary 
establishment, up to two years, of three CFAs: CFA North, CFA West, and 
CFA South.

6.0 Environmental Impacts

    The following summarizes the results of the FAA's independent 
evaluation of the EA regarding its Proposed Action and the potential 
environmental impacts associated with the establishment of the CFAs.

[[Page 38005]]

    Given the nature of the Proposed Action, the FAA's only involvement 
in establishing a CFA is to authorize the proponent to conduct their 
operations based on FAA approved safety measures. Under the Proposed 
Action, the CFA protects aircraft from potentially being struck by 
errant artillery as the operations are halted if any aircraft enters 
the CFA airspace. There is no charting or removal of airspace from the 
NAS and, for this reason, CFAs have no impact to the NAS. In other 
words, all aircraft can traverse a CFA without impact.
    The FAA's Proposed Action would not involve land acquisition, 
physical disturbance, construction activities, any changes flight 
operations, nor impact the NAS; therefore, the effects of the Proposed 
Action on the FAA's impact categories are minimal or nonexistent.
    The following NEPA impact categories were assessed:

Air Quality

    The FAA impact category of Air Quality is incorporated into the Air 
Quality section of the EA. FAA Order 1050.1F provides the FAA's 
significance threshold for air quality: Potentially significant air 
quality impacts associated with an FAA project or action would be 
demonstrated by the project or action exceeding one or more of the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for any of the time 
periods analyzed. The Clean Air Act (CAA) established NAAQS for six 
criteria pollutants. The six criteria pollutants are carbon monoxide 
(CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter 
(PM-10 and PM-2.5), and sulfur dioxide (SO2).
    Section 176(c) of the CAA, as articulated in the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) General Conformity Rule, states that a federal 
agency cannot issue a permit for, or support, an activity unless the 
agency determines that it will conform to the most recent EPA-approved 
State Implementation Plan. This means that projects using federal funds 
or requiring federal approval must not: (1) Cause or contribute to any 
new violation of a NAAQS; (2) increase the frequency or severity of any 
existing violation; or (3) delay the timely attainment of any standard, 
interim emission reduction, or other milestone.
    The General Conformity Rule applies to NAAQS in federal non-
attainment areas. Since the air basin in the Region of Interest (ROI) 
is in attainment of all NAAQS for all criteria pollutants, the General 
Conformity Rule would not apply to the FAA's Proposed Action. The 
establishment of CFAs would not result in the generation of air 
emissions. Therefore, the FAA has determined that its Proposed Action 
will not result in significant impacts on air quality when compared to 
the No Action Alternative.

Biological Resources (Including Fish, Wildlife, and Plants)

    The FAA impact category of Biological Resources (including fish, 
wildlife, and plants) is incorporated into the Biological Resources 
section of the EA. The FAA's Proposed Action would not result in any 
construction, ground disturbance, change in aircraft operations, or 
affect the NAS in any way.
Plants
    The FAA's Proposed Action would be limited to airspace 
establishment. It would not affect ground-based training activities 
and, therefore, would not result in any physical development that would 
require clearing of native vegetation at Camp Guernsey or the 
surrounding vicinity.
Fish and Wildlife
    The establishment of the CFA would not result in any physical 
development with the potential to affect fish and wildlife.
Endangered Species Action Consultation
    The WYARNG downloaded an official U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(USFWS) species list for Camp Guernsey on December 27, 2019, from the 
USFWS's Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) system website 
(https://ecos.fws.gov.ipac/). The USFWS Official Species List for Camp 
Guernsey listed the following species as federally protected: Preble's 
meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei); Ute ladies'-tresses 
(Spiranthes diluvialis); and Platte River Species including least tern 
(Sterna antillarum), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), whooping crane 
(Grus americanus), pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), and western 
prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara). The USFWS has not 
designated any critical habitat on Camp Guernsey.
    An Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 review and effects 
determination for the federally listed species was completed by the 
WYARNG. A no effect determination was made for all the species listed 
above.
    The northern long-eared bat was federally listed as threatened in 
2015. The current USFWS range map does not include Platte County within 
the range of the northern long-eared bat; therefore, it is not on the 
USFWS species list for Camp Guernsey. However, neighboring Goshen 
County is within this species' range. No maternity roost trees, 
hibernacula, or swarming sites for the northern long-eared bat have 
been identified on Camp Guernsey.
    Acoustic surveys conducted on Camp Guernsey in the summer of 2019 
recorded bat calls that, when analyzed using USFWS accepted acoustic 
survey protocols, were classified as northern long-eared bat. However, 
other Myotis spp. with similar acoustic are known to be present on Camp 
Guernsey and classification of Myotis spp. can be difficult using 
acoustic methods alone. Northern long-eared bats have never been 
captured during mist nest sampling; however, capture efforts through 
mist netting has been low on Camp Guernsey. Through conversations with 
the USFWS, the WYARNG has decided to analyze the Proposed Action as if 
the northern long-eared bat is present.
    While no northern long-eared bats or habitat have been identified 
on Camp Guernsey, long-eared bats could potentially occur on the land 
below the proposed CFAs; however, the FAA's Proposed Action does not 
have the potential to effect the long-eared bat.
    Therefore, the FAA has determined that its Proposed Action will not 
result in significant impacts on biological resources when compared to 
the No Action Alternative.

Climate

    The FAA impact category of Climate is incorporated into the Climate 
Change/Greenhouse Gases section of the EA. Significant increases in the 
emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and associated climate change 
impacts could occur if the Proposed Action would result in GHG 
emissions equal to or greater than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide 
equivalent (CO2e) annually. In draft guidance released on December 24, 
2014, the CEQ recommended that emissions equal to or greater than 
25,000 metric tons of CO2e annually should be included in NEPA 
assessments (CEQ 2014). On August 1, 2016, the CEQ released final 
guidance; however, pursuant to Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy 
Independence and Economic Growth, the CEQ has withdrawn its final 
guidance for federal agencies on how to consider GHG emissions and the 
effects of climate change in NEPA reviews. FAA Order 1050.1F, 
Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, requires an assessment 
of GHG emissions as they relate to climate. However, the FAA has not 
established significance criteria for

[[Page 38006]]

GHG emissions or impacts to climate. Therefore, given the nature of the 
FAA's Proposed Action and the uncertainty around long-term training 
schedules, GHG emissions are discussed qualitatively below.
    Under the FAA's Proposed Action, there would be no new aircraft 
operations that would have an effect on the acceleration of global 
climate change. The Proposed Action does not permit military aircraft 
operations and, therefore, there would be no change from the No Action 
Alterative.
    Therefore, the FAA has determined that its Proposed Action will not 
result in significant impacts on climate when compared to the No Action 
Alternative.

Coastal Resources

    There are no coastal resources in the study area; therefore, this 
resource was eliminated from further consideration.

Compatible Land Use

    The FAA Compatible Land Use impact category is incorporated into 
the Land Use and Cover section of the EA. The FAA has not established a 
significance threshold for land use. The compatibility of existing and 
planned land uses with an aeronautical proposal is usually associated 
with noise impacts, disruption of communities, relocation, and induced 
socioeconomic impacts. The determination that significant impacts exist 
usually depends on whether the Proposed Action would result in other 
impacts exceeding thresholds of significance that have land use 
ramifications. The FAA's Proposed Action would be entirely airspace-
based and would not involve construction, physical improvements, 
modifications, or flight operations. As a result, there would be no 
shifts in patterns of population movement and growth, public service 
demands, or changes in business and economic activity resulting from 
the Proposed Action.
    Camp Guernsey is located in Platte County, Wyoming, and is composed 
of a northern and southern training area. The cantonment area contains 
an airstrip/airfield (Camp Guernsey Joint-Use Airport) and is located 
between the two training areas. The Proposed Action occurs in the 
northern training area of Camp Guernsey. Land use under the proposed 
CFAs is primarily vacant and undeveloped. Adjacent land use that is not 
under the proposed CFAs is used for ranching and a few dozen 
residences. The largest nearby town is Guernsey, with a population of 
1,147 in 2010.
    The proposed CFAs would occupy airspace located above Camp 
Guernsey, within the installation boundaries. All of the land under the 
proposed SUA is either owned or managed by the WYARNG under a variety 
of different permits and memorandums of understanding.
    All land within the installation boundary of Camp Guernsey is 
considered Federal Property, and the public is not permitted on 
installation property without permission or except during known 
designated public access periods. A small portion of the Guernsey State 
Park is located under the proposed CFA, within the installation 
boundaries. Public access to this portion of the Guernsey State Park is 
restricted except for the limited activities described below during 
specified time periods. The main portion of Guernsey State Park is 
located directly south of the installation boundary and contains a 
reservoir.
    Under existing conditions (No Action Alternative), the public is 
not permitted on installation property unless permitted for specific 
activities. Under existing conditions, little to no public recreation 
is allowed during the summer months when military training activities 
are being conducted. However, the WYARNG does allow hunting, fishing, 
trapping, firewood gathering, and holiday tree cutting during the fall 
and winter months. Under the WYARNG's Proposed Action, Camp Guernsey 
would remain closed to recreational activities during the summer when 
military training activities are being conducted. The use of the CFAs 
would occur approximately 20 days per year. However, recreational 
activities would continue during the fall and winter months. Increases 
in the frequency of brigade-level training exercises would be limited 
to the summer months and would not affect recreational activities 
during the fall and winter months. The establishment of the CFAs would 
not restrict recreational activities on Camp Guernsey, beyond the 
closures during training and maneuver activities, as previously 
described, that are already occurring as part of the No Action 
Alternative.
    The FAA's Proposed Action does not involve any change to flight 
operations and, therefore, the nearby land uses that may be sensitive 
to noise and visual effects (Guernsey State Park located on the 
installation, Guernsey State Park located off the installation, and 
residences) would not be affected.
    Since the FAA's Proposed Action would not involve land acquisition, 
physical disturbance, construction activities, or flight operations, 
there would be no potential that any of the FAA impact areas would 
affect compatible land use.
    Therefore, the FAA has determined that its Proposed Action will not 
result in significant impacts on land use when compared to the No 
Action Alternative.

Department of Transportation Act: Section 4(f)

    Per FAA Order 1050.1F, Change 1, Appendix A, Section 6, this EA 
does not provide a Section 4(f) analysis. The designation of airspace 
for military flight operations is exempt from Section 4(f) of the 
Department of Transportation Act. The DoD reauthorization in 1997 
provided that ``[n]o military flight operations (including a military 
training flight), or designation of airspace for such an operation, may 
be treated as a transportation program or project for purposes of 
Section 303(c) of Title 49, U.S. Code (Pub. L. 105-85).'' Per FAA Order 
1050.1F, SUA actions are exempt from the requirements of Section 4(f) 
and, therefore, this resource was eliminated from further 
consideration.

Farmlands

    The Proposed Action would be limited to the establishment of 
airspace only and would not include any project components that would 
directly disturb soils. Therefore, geological resources, including 
farmland soils, were eliminated from further consideration.

Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and Pollution Prevention

    No ground-disturbing activities would occur as a part of the FAA's 
Proposed Action. Therefore, this resource was eliminated from further 
consideration.

Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources

    The FAA impact category of Historical, Architectural, 
Archeological, and Cultural Resources is incorporated into the Cultural 
Resources section of the EA. The National Historic Preservation Act 
(NHPA) Section 106 (Section 106) regulations direct federal agencies to 
make reasonable and good faith efforts to identify historic properties 
in regards to a Proposed Action (36 CFR 800.4(b)(1)). Federal agencies 
are to take into account the nature and extent of potential effects on 
historic properties, and the likely nature and location of historic 
properties within areas that may be affected. Compliance with Section 
106 requires consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer 
(SHPO) and/or the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) if there 
is a potential adverse effect to historic properties within the Area of 
Potential Effect (APE) that are on, or eligible for listing on, the 
National Register of Historic Places.

[[Page 38007]]

    The FAA's Proposed Action does not include any project components 
that would directly or indirectly affect the ground surface. Cultural 
resources within the APE would not be disturbed since there would be no 
ground-disturbing activities (e.g., construction or demolition) 
associated with the FAA's Proposed Action. Additionally, the potential 
for effects on cultural resources underlying the proposed CFA would not 
occur as there are no changes to aircraft operations associated with 
the Proposed Action. No noise or visual impacts would occur under the 
Proposed Action.
    The FAA's Proposed Action does not have the potential to effect 
cultural resources.
    Therefore, the FAA has determined that its Proposed Action will not 
result in significant impacts on Historical, Architectural, 
Archeological, and Cultural Resources when compared to the No Action 
Alternative.

Natural Resource and Energy Supply

    The Proposed Action would not involve extractive activities or 
changes in the energy supply. Therefore, this resource was eliminated 
from further consideration.

Noise

    The FAA Noise impact category is incorporated into the Noise 
section of the EA. As mentioned previously, the EA analyzed the 
WYARNG's Proposed Action, which consists of both land-based activities 
(training and maneuver) and airspace activities (CFA). Some of the 
proposed land-based activities require the establishment of SDZs for 
safety reasons. These SDZs provide separation of artillery from non-
participating aircraft. The proposed CFAs would accommodate the SDZs. 
The FAA's Proposed Action, the establishment of the CFAs, simply 
ensures that the proponent's safety measures protect aircraft and does 
not change any existing flight operations. Given the nature of the 
FAA's Proposed Action, there is no potential to affect noise.
    The FAA's significance criteria for noise and compatible land use 
would not be met; therefore, the Proposed Action would not result in 
significant impacts when compared to the No Action Alternative.

Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Children's Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    The FAA Socioeconomic, Environmental Justice, and Children's 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks impact category is incorporated 
into the Socioeconomics and Infrastructure sections, as well as the 
Protection of Children and Environmental Justice sections of the EA. 
The FAA has not established a significance threshold for these impacts. 
However, the determination that significant impacts exists can be 
determined by whether an alternative would substantially alter the 
location and distribution of the human population, cause the population 
to exceed historical growth rates, or substantially affect the local 
housing market and vacancy rates, or create a need for new or increased 
fire or police protection or medical services, beyond the current 
capability of the local community. An alternative that involves 
substantial acquisition of real estate, relocation of residents or 
community businesses, disruption of local traffic patterns, a 
substantial loss in the community tax base, or changes to the fabric of 
the community could also result in a significant effect.
    The FAA's Proposed Action does not involve any activities that 
would cause noise or visual effects as there are no changes to flight 
operations as part of the CFA establishment. The small portion of 
Guernsey State Park that is located within the installation boundary is 
in the southernmost portion of Camp Guernsey and, as previously stated, 
the park is already closed and will continue to be closed to the public 
during summer exercises, so there should be no impact from the FAA's 
Proposed Action. Since the park has already been closed for summer 
exercises, continuing to have the park closed when the proposed CFA is 
established would not have an impact on recreational user access.
    The proposed CFAs would occur entirely in the airspace above the 
existing boundaries of Camp Guernsey and they would not affect nearby 
airspaces (e.g., Class D airspace in the vicinity of Camp Guernsey 
Joint-Use Airport). Similarly, the proposed CFAs would not intersect 
with or otherwise affect the two Victor Airways or the Jet Route in the 
immediate vicinity of the FAA's Proposed Action. Additionally, the 
airspace in the vicinity of Camp Guernsey and the Camp Guernsey Joint-
Use Airport is most commonly used by military aircraft associated with 
training activities, while civilian flight movements only accounted for 
15% of all 2018 flight movements. Given the adjacency to the existing 
RA, R-7001, the proposed CFAs would not impact general aviation or 
commercial air traffic, as air traffic would be allowed to continue 
through the CFAs. Also, WYARNG training activities would be required to 
cease if a non-participating aircraft approaches the area.
    The FAA has not established a significance threshold for 
Environmental Justice or for Children's Environmental Health and Safety 
Risks. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, and the 
accompanying Presidential Memorandum, and Order DOT 5610.2, 
Environmental Justice, require the FAA to provide for meaningful public 
involvement by minority and low-income populations, and analysis that 
identifies and addresses potential impacts to these populations that 
may be disproportionately high and adverse.
    Camp Guernsey does not have any residential structures that house 
employees and their families within the installation boundary. 
Additionally, Camp Guernsey does not have any school or hospital uses 
within the boundaries of the installation. The proposed CFAs would 
occur in airspace above and within the boundaries of Camp Guernsey and 
not in close proximity to any children. No CFAs would cross the 
installation's boundary and into close proximity to any children.
    As identified in Table 3.8-1 of the EA, the ROI and surrounding 
communities do not have a disproportionately high minority or low-
income population. Also, there are no significant impacts on the human 
environment resulting from the implementation of the FAA's Proposed 
Action that would affect an environmental justice population in a way 
that is unique or significant to that population. In addition, there 
are no specific impacts on the general health or quality of life that 
would adversely or disproportionately impact the ROI population, 
including no increased environmental health risks or safety risks to 
children.
    The CEQ defines minority populations as members of the following 
population groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific 
Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic. Minority 
populations are identified where either: (1) The minority population of 
the affected area exceeds 50%, or (2) the minority population 
percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the 
minority population percentage in the general population or other 
appropriate unit of geographic analysis. The FAA's Proposed Action 
occurs in airspace located above and within the boundaries of Camp 
Guernsey. Based on the EPA's Environmental Justice Mapping and 
Screening Tool

[[Page 38008]]

(EJSCREEN) (2019b), no minority population or low-income populations 
that meet the CEQ definition are located within or immediately adjacent 
to Camp Guernsey (i.e., EJSCREEN reports local minority population as 
28% in the Town of Guernsey).
    Therefore, the FAA's Proposed Action would not have the potential 
to result in any significant impacts to minority or low-income 
communities as none exist within or immediately adjacent to Camp 
Guernsey. Similarly, there are no potential impacts to Children's 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks or Environmental Justice as there 
are no child, minority, or low-income communities present.
    Therefore, the Proposed Action would have no significant impacts on 
Socioeconomics, Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risks, or 
Environmental Justice when compared with the No Action Alternative.

Visual Effects (Including Light Emissions)

    The FAA impact category of Visual Effects (including light 
emissions) is incorporated into the Aesthetics and Visual Resources 
section of the EA. The FAA has not established a significance threshold 
for visual effects. The FAA's Proposed Action would not result in any 
physical development that would alter the visual character of Camp 
Guernsey and the surrounding vicinity since there are no flight 
operations permitted in the CFA. There is no potential to affect visual 
resources.
    Therefore, the Proposed Action would have no significant impacts on 
Visual Effects (including light emissions) when compared with the No 
Action Alternative.

Water Resources (Including Wetlands, Floodplains, Surface Waters, 
Groundwater, and Wild and Scenic Rivers)

    No construction activities or other ground-based activities would 
occur under the FAA's Proposed Action, and its implementation would not 
cause any disturbance of water resources; therefore, this resource was 
eliminated from further consideration.

Cumulative Impacts

    Cumulative impacts result from incremental impacts of an action 
when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 
future actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts can result from 
individually minor but collectively significant actions over a period 
of time (CEQ, 1997). Cumulative impacts would occur if incremental 
impacts of the Proposed Action, added to the environmental impacts of 
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result 
in an adverse effect to resources in the region.
    The cumulative impacts analysis focuses on those resource areas 
that may be significantly impacted by the FAA's Proposed Action, and/or 
those resource areas currently in poor or declining health or at risk, 
even if the Proposed Action impacts would be relatively small.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Helicopter Aerial Gunnery Range--Foreseeable Future Action
    A potential future action is the construction and operation of a 
new U.S. Air Force Helicopter Aerial Gunnery Range in the northern 
training area. This Proposed Action would not require an action by the 
FAA for the establishment or modification of any SUA, as it would use 
the existing SUA and/or the newly proposed SUA that is part of the 
subject Proposed Action. The WYARNG would conduct a separate NEPA 
analysis for this action in the future. This action has not been 
determined to be an immediate need for the WYARNG and, therefore, is 
not ripe for analysis.
Restricted Areas--R-7002A, R-7002B, and R-7002C--Foreseeable Future 
Action
    The WYARNG submitted an Aeronautical Proposal in May 2020 that 
includes future RAs (R-7002A, R-7002B, and R-7002C). During the two-
year interim period following the establishment of the CFAs, the FAA 
will analyze, aeronautically, the permanent establishment of the RAs 
that would replace the temporary CFAs that are the subject of this 
FONSI/ROD. FAA issuance of a CFA typically takes months, per FAA 
7400.2M, and is only permitted for use for a maximum of two years per 
issuance. RAs are permanent, and the process to establish an RA may 
take years due to required rulemaking actions (14 CFR part 73). Given 
the temporary nature of CFAs, as well as the timeline for the 
establishment of the permanent RAs, the WYARNG is first pursuing the 
establishment of CFAs. The CFAs would permit usage of the proposed 
airspace for hazardous activities for two years, until the RA has been 
established. If the RA rulemaking process takes longer than two years, 
additional CFA requests may be pursued.
    The EA analyzed the RAs to accommodate the SDZs associated with 
field artillery. The RAs would also permit hazardous military flight 
operations; however, different from the CFAs, non-participating 
aircraft (civilian or other military aircraft not associated with the 
operations or exercise) would not be permitted to enter the RA 
airspace. The RA would allow for both ground-based hazards (artillery) 
and air-based hazards, such as military flight operations, to occur 
within it. Unlike a CFA, an RA does not allow for the existing military 
and civilian aircraft to traverse the RA and, because of that, impacts 
to the NAS are realized.
    In addition to containing the SDZs associated with artillery, the 
proposed RAs would also facilitate unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) 
operations and support laser targeting operations. The WYARNG 
anticipates that, along with the proposed establishment of the RAs, 
total aircraft operations in Camp Guernsey (including existing R-7001 
and using UAS operations) would increase by approximately 15% relative 
to current levels.
    As previously stated, the establishment of these RAs is not ripe 
for an FAA decision as the process of aeronautically analyzing the 
WYARNG's aeronautical proposal is not far enough along for a decision. 
However, the EA analyzed the potential impact of the establishment of 
the RAs for the 14 FAA impact areas. The analysis in the EA revealed 
that the Proposed Action of establishing the RAs would not result in 
significant impacts when compared to the No Action Alternative. Given 
the analysis to date, pending any changes to the proposal during the 
aeronautical process, there would be limited impacts from the proposed 
establishment of the RAs when combined with past, present, and other 
reasonably foreseeable projects.
R-7001D--Foreseeable Future Action
    Another potential future action is raising the altitude of an 
existing RA, R-7001, by creating a new subsection, R-7001D. This 
Proposed Action would require an action by the FAA to raise the 
altitude of the existing R-7001. The WYARNG submitted an Aeronautical 
Proposal in May 2020 that includes R-7001D and is currently preparing a 
Supplemental EA for this action, as it was determined that this 
additional airspace would be needed in the future. At which time the 
Supplemental EA is presented to the FAA for review, impacts from the 
establishment of R-7001D would be assessed along with the aeronautical 
analysis.
    The FAA's Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts 
to any

[[Page 38009]]

of the impact categories assessed in this FONSI/ROD. Incremental 
effects from implementation of the FAA's Proposed Action, when combined 
with other actions, would result in a less than significant cumulative 
impact to the impact categories assessed in this FONSI/ROD. Based on 
its independent review of the FAA's Proposed Action, the FAA has 
determined there would be no significant cumulative impacts as a result 
of the establishment of the FAA's Proposed Action.

7.0 Public Involvement

NEPA

    As part of the NEPA process, the Draft EA was provided for public 
review from February 25-March 11, 2020, and one comment was received 
from the Bureau of Reclamation indicating an incorrect date of the Free 
Use Permit. The date has since been corrected in the EA.
    The EA was finalized in March 2020, and the WYARNG signed its FONSI 
on March 16, 2020. The FONSI is the WYARNG's decision to implement the 
preferred alternative identified in the EA as the Proposed Action.

8.0 Decisions and Orders

    The WYARNG has requested airspace changes in the form of the 
Proposed Action; namely, to establish the proposed CFAs.

Adoption

    In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F and CEQ regulation 40 CFR 
1506.3, the FAA has conducted an independent review and evaluation of 
the WYARNG's EA for the proposed CFAs. Based on its independent review, 
the FAA has determined that the sections of the EA pertaining to CFAs, 
and its supporting documentation, as incorporated by reference, 
adequately assess and disclose the environmental impacts of the FAA's 
Proposed Action and that the adoption of the EA by the FAA is 
authorized under 40 CFR 1506.3 and FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 8-2.
    Accordingly, the FAA adopts the sections of the EA pertaining to 
the CFAs, appendices, and all information identified therein, 
incorporated by reference, and made publicly available.

Decision and Approval

    After careful and thorough consideration of the adopted EA and the 
facts contained herein, the undersigned finds that the FAA's Proposed 
Action is consistent with existing national environmental policies and 
objectives as set forth in Section 101 of NEPA and other applicable 
environmental requirements, and will not significantly affect the 
quality of the human environment or otherwise include any condition 
requiring consultation pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA. 
Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared.
    The undersigned has carefully considered the FAA's statutory 
mandate under 49 U.S.C. 40103 to ensure the safe and efficient use of 
the NAS and the other aeronautical goals and objectives discussed in 
the EA. The undersigned finds that the FAA's Proposed Action provides 
the best airspace combination for meeting the needs stipulated in the 
EA and that all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental 
harm from that alternative have been adopted.
    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to the undersigned by 
the Administrator of the FAA, the undersigned approves and authorizes 
all necessary Agency action to establish the CFAs, as described in the 
FAA's Proposed Action.
    This decision signifies that applicable federal environmental 
requirements relating to the Proposed Action have been met.

Shawn M. Kozica,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, AJV-W2.

Right of Appeal

    This FONSI/ROD constitutes a final order of the FAA Administrator 
and is subject to exclusive judicial review under 49 U.S.C. 46110 by 
the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or the 
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the person 
contesting the decision resides or has its principal place of business. 
Any party having substantial interest in this order may apply for 
review of the decision by filing a petition for review in the 
appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals no later than 60 days after the order 
is issued in accordance with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 46110. Any 
party seeking to stay implementation of the FONSI/ROD must file an 
application with the FAA prior to seeking judicial relief as provided 
in Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
[FR Doc. 2020-13571 Filed 6-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P