[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 102 (Thursday, May 27, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28807-28810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13519]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Record of Decision for Increased Flight and Related Operations in 
the Patuxent River Complex, Patuxent River, MD

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy, after carefully considering the 
operational and environmental consequences, announces its decision to 
increase flight and related operations in test areas comprising the 
Patuxent River Complex, MD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Elleen Kane, NAS Patuxent River 
Public Affairs, 2268 Cedar Point Road, Bldg 409, Patuxent River, MD 
20670, telephone 301-342-7710.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the entire Record of Decision 
(ROD) is provided as follows:
    The Department of the Navy (DON), pursuant to Section 102(c) of the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. Section 
4331 et seq.) and regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality 
(CEQ) that implement NEPA procedures (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), hereby 
announces its decision to increase flight and related operations in 
test areas comprising the Patuxent River Complex, MD as set forth in 
Operational Workload III, which is identified as Preferred Alternative 
in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
    Operational Workload Alternative III provides for up to 24,400 
flight hours per year, including up to 21,100 annual flight hours for 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) activities and 
related support, and up to 3,300 annual flight hours of military 
training support. Non-flight and laboratory test activities will 
operate at levels proportional to the increase in flight operations. 
This level of future operations is based on foreseeable mission 
requirements and the complex's unique airfield, facility, and range 
capabilities. As a result, the complex will have the flexibility to 
accept new and variable workloads, thereby increasing efficiencies and 
lowering costs to users.
    The test areas involved are under the exclusive control and 
scheduling authority of the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division 
(NAWCAD). They include Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River (with all 
its flight and ground test facilities, runways, and associated 
airspace); Outlying Field (OLF) Webster Field (with its flight test 
facilities, runways, and associated airspace); and the Chesapeake Test 
Range (CTR) (including its restricted airspace, aerial and surface 
firing range, and Hooper, Hannibal, and Tangier Island targets). 
Combined, these test areas are identified as the Patuxent River 
Complex.
    Implementation of the action will be phased in as needed to support 
additional workloads beginning in mid-1999.

Process

    A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for increased flight and 
related operations in the Patuxent River Complex was published in the 
Federal Register on April 1, 1997, and in local and regional newspapers 
twice, one and three weeks prior to the scoping meetings. Five public 
scoping meetings were held between May 6 and May 15, of 1997 in Prince 
Frederick, MD; Leonardtown, MD; Burgess, VA; Crisfield, MD; and 
Cambridge, MD. Comments received during the public scoping meetings 
were considered in the preparation of the Draft EIS (DEIS).
    A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the DEIS was published in the 
Federal Register on May 15, 1998 and in local and regional newspapers 
twice, one and three weeks prior to the scheduled hearing dates. Public 
hearings were held June 10 through June 22 of 1998, in Lusby, MD; 
Cambridge, MD; Heathsville, VA; and Great Mills, MD. The DON received 
330 comments on the DEIS from 2 Congressmen, 4 federal agencies, 17 
state agencies, 2 regional agencies, 6 local governments, 11 non-
governmental organizations, and 93 private citizens. All verbal and 
written comments are addressed in Chapter 10 of the FEIS.
    The NOA for the FEIS was published in the Federal Register on 
December 18, 1998. Public notices and news releases noting the 
availability of the FEIS were published in local and regional 
newspapers the following week. Copies of the FEIS and DEIS are 
available for public review in 18 repositories around Chesapeake Bay 
and will continue to be available for 60 days following the signing of 
this Record of Decision. The DON received 29 public comments on the 
FEIS during the 30-day public comment period.

Alternatives Considered

    The three alternatives considered in this FEIS focus on the 
efficient use of existing facilities and personnel in the Patuxent 
River Complex and provide for the continuation of and increase in RDT&E 
flight operations and non-flight laboratory activities, and additional 
support for military training activities. The preferred alternative 
(Operational Workload Alternative III) could accommodate up to 24,400 
flight hours per year. Operational Workload Alternatives I and II could 
accommodate up to 20,700 and 22,600 flight hours per year, 
respectively. Implementation of any alternative will: (1) Maintain 
existing boundaries of the special use airspace and restricted surface 
areas in the CTR; (2) continue airfield daily operating hours at 
current, or slightly modified operating hours; (3) require no 
additional permanent and transient employees at NAS Patuxent River and 
OLF Webster Field or construction of major new facilities beyond those 
constructed as a result of previous Base

[[Page 28808]]

Realignment and Consolidation decisions.
    The Navy also evaluated a No Action Alternative that maintained 
flight and related operations at current levels of intensity (18,200 
annual flight hours). The No Action Alternative anticipated changes in 
the future mix of aircraft (i.e., both the addition of new aircraft/
aircraft systems that may be tested for Navy acquisition and the 
retirement and/or replacement of aging aircraft/aircraft systems).

Environmental Impacts

    The Department of the Navy analyzed the impacts of the alternative 
proposals, considering the following factors: land use and coastal zone 
management; socioeconomics; community facilities and services; 
transportation; infrastructure; air quality; noise; ordnance, hazardous 
materials management, and radio frequency sources; topography, geology, 
and soils; vegetation and wetlands; terrestrial and aquatic wildlife; 
water and sediment quality; and aircraft operations and safety. 
Potential cumulative impacts of the proposed action and consistency of 
the proposed action with federal policies addressing environmental 
justice and environmental health risks to children were also 
considered. Based upon these analyses the Department of the Navy finds 
that no significant impacts will result from implementation of the 
preferred alternative (Operational Workload Alternative III).

Mitigation

    Even though no significant impacts would result from implementation 
of the preferred alternative, public comments outlined concerns with 
several operational issues. As a result, the Navy is implementing a 
series of measures in response to public complaints about aircraft 
noise disturbances, supersonic events, sufficiency of pilot awareness 
briefs, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) operations in the CTR, and the 
operation of an open-air aircraft engine test cell at NAS Patuxent 
River.

Aircraft Noise Disturbances

    NAS Patuxent River will establish formal procedures to ensure 
proper handling of and response to noise/aircraft disturbance reports. 
The procedures will include the compilation of a centralized database 
of noise disturbance reports, and a monthly review of these reports by 
the NAS Patuxent River Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) 
officer. When appropriate, corrective action to minimize future noise 
disturbances will be taken.

Supersonic Events

    The Navy will undertake two measures with respect to supersonic 
flight testing. First, supersonic flights below 30,000 ft in the CTR 
will be restricted to supersonic test flights for weapons separation. 
Supersonic flights above 30,000 ft will be in response to mission-
critical needs only. Second, a sonic boom monitoring system will be 
installed in the CTR. Data records from the monitoring system, when 
used in combination with noise/aircraft disturbance reports, will 
identify the need for corrective action to be taken, or to suggest 
operational or procedural modifications that will minimize sonic boom 
impacts.

Pilot Awareness Briefs

    The Navy will expand existing briefings on aircraft operations 
procedures to all users of the CTR to ensure an understanding of proper 
procedures and mitigation measures adapted as a result of this study.

UAV Operations in the CTR

    The operation of UAVs in a constricted area of the CTR over the 
Northern Neck of Virginia has resulted in overflights of the same 
location numerous times during each mission. These overflights subject 
residents of the Northern Neck to a low level of noise during daylight 
hours of the work week. To mitigate this situation, the Navy will 
increase the flight area within the CTR that UAVs use for routine 
training purposes. These alternative UAV operating areas are being 
identified by the Navy using detailed demographic and land use data to 
avoid overflights of densely populated areas. This expansion of 
prescribed airspace will greatly reduce UAV presence and noise at any 
one location.

Operations at the Open-Air Aircraft Engine Test Cell

    At various times during the first and second quarters of 1998, the 
enclosed engine maintenance test cell was temporarily unavailable. This 
situation caused the tempo and type of operations at the open-air 
aircraft engine test facility at NAS Patuxent River to increase. A 
continuing need exists to conduct critical engine tests at this 
facility. However, the Navy will minimize use of the open-air aircraft 
engine test facility by eliminating aircraft turbofan and turbojet 
engine maintenance runs, except for mission-critical situations where 
the enclosed engine maintenance test cell is unavailable for an 
extended period of time and approval of the Commanding Officer of NAS 
Patuxent River has been obtained. In addition, the Navy will 
investigate: (1) Feasible technical solutions to reduce the noise 
associated with operations at the open-air aircraft engine test 
facility and (2) the technical feasibility of developing an alternative 
back-up site for the enclosed engine maintenance test cell to further 
reduce the likelihood that the open-air aircraft engine test facility 
will be required for aircraft jet engine maintenance runs.

EIS Implementation Plan

    The Navy has prepared an EIS Implementation Plan that has been 
approved by NAS Patuxent River and the NAWCAD Atlantic Ranges and 
Facilities Department. This plan provides policy and direction that 
will ensure that the operational mitigation and monitoring specified in 
this Record of Decision will be executed. The NAS Operational 
Environmental Planning (OEP) Office is responsible for data 
administration. The NAS Public Affairs Office (PAO) will provide public 
interface support.

Response to Comments Received Regarding the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement

    The DON received 29 comments on the FEIS from 1 federal agency, 4 
state agencies, 3 local governments, and 2 private citizens. Some 
comments received were editorial in nature, had been addressed in the 
FEIS and thereby required no further discussion, or, simply disagreed 
with conclusions of the FEIS but did not present new or additional 
information that substantially affected the FEIS analysis. Substantive 
comments organized by subject matter are addressed below.

Aircraft Noise

    The Calvert County Board of Commissioners questioned the population 
data used in the computer noise models and the conclusions reached from 
the modeling results. The noise modeling analyses are based on standard 
procedures widely used for commercial and military airfields. These 
procedures have been validated and are sufficient to predict the 
resultant noise levels in the CTR from the additional aircraft 
operations. To maintain consistency in the noise analysis conducted for 
the CTR, US Census 1990 data were used to characterize the existing and 
future population. These are the only data that provide population 
statistics on a census tract basis. Only a very small portion of the 
population of southern Calvert County

[[Page 28809]]

(i.e., the southernmost tip of Drum Point) would be impacted by 
airfield-related noise levels of 65 to 70 dB DNL. In addition, in 
response to comments on the DEIS, text was added to FEIS Subchapter 4.1 
(page 4.1-2) to acknowledge the significant current and future growth 
in the Solomons area that is changing in character from a rural 
residential area to a more densely-populated suburban community.

Water and Sediment Quality

    The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) Tidewater 
Regional Office requested clarification on the amount of lead that 
would be released into the Chesapeake Bay in the form of lead bullets. 
The FEIS states on page 4.13-5 that an estimated 1.0 cu ft of lead 
(about 0.5 cu ft of lead more than identified under the No Action 
Alternative) could be released annually into the Bay under the 
preferred alternative (Operational Workload Alternative III).
    The VDEQ Tidewater Regional Office also requested additional 
analysis on the potential water quality impacts of continued use of 
target areas in Chesapeake Bay. The existing Environmental Monitoring 
and Assessment Program (EMAP) sampling data for Chesapeake Bay were 
performed by the Environmental Protection Agency. However, the DON did 
undertake sediment and water sampling (Sirrine study) in 1991 at 
several water range and target locations in North Carolina that have 
been impacted by about 40 years of military bombing activities. The 
results of the Sirrine study showed no significant differences in water 
and sediment quality between the range areas and non-range areas and 
support the conclusion of the FEIS that the surface water impacts of 
either the No Action Alternative or the preferred alternative will not 
adversely affect water or sediment quality in the Bay. The Department 
of Navy has decided, therefore, that narrowly focused sampling in the 
vicinity of the targets would only be required as a result of changes 
in ordnance volume or type or some indication of significant water or 
sediment quality degradation.
    Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency's EMAP metals data 
for Station VA 91-303 (FEIS page 4.13-3) are for sediment samples. 
These data are not directly comparable to Maryland State Water Quality 
Standards because those standards are not applicable to measuring solid 
phase contaminants. Instead, these data were more appropriately 
compared to the Effects Range Median (ER-M) criterion, which is the 
concentration of a contaminant that will result in ecological effects 
approximately 50 percent of the time based on scientific literature 
studies. The data for EMAP Station VA 91-303 do not exceed the ER-M 
threshold for any metal. When EMAP data are examined for other stations 
in proximity to the target areas, particularly Hannibal target where 
most lead bullets are likely to be found, no pattern of elevated metals 
can be discerned. Therefore, the DON reaffirms the conclusion stated in 
the FEIS that the presence of elevated metals at EMAP Station VA 91-303 
is not related to Navy use of the target areas.

Air Quality

    The VDEQ Office of Air Data Analysis recommended that the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) address air pollutant dispersion 
(short-term effects) in the CTR area, especially under flight paths as 
a result of public complaints about ``low-flying aircraft and dwellings 
laden with aircraft exhaust/fuel.'' The emissions analysis contained in 
the FEIS was conducted pursuant to the Clean Air Act General Conformity 
Rule (40 CFR 51 and 93). The results of this analysis show that air 
emissions resulting from implementation of the preferred alternative 
would be well within the budgeted limits of Delaware, Maryland, and 
Virginia and not significant. Also, as noted on FEIS page 4.9-3, 
emergency fuel dumping is extremely rare in the CTR. DON policy 
prohibits fuel dumping below 6,000 feet above ground level unless 
necessary to save the pilot and/or the aircraft. Above 6,000 feet, the 
fuel has sufficient time to completely vaporize and dissipate before 
reaching the ground. Thus, any fuel dumping that occurs has less than 
significant impacts at ground level.

Coastal Zone Management

    Worcester County, MD commented that implementation of the preferred 
alternative would be consistent with their plans, programs, and 
objectives provided increases in flight and related operations would 
not have a negative impact on the use and enjoyment of the county's 
ocean beaches and coastal bays. As the CTR does not include any portion 
of Worcester County, implementation of the preferred alternative would 
be consistent with the county's plans, programs, and objectives.

Aircraft Operations and Safety

    One commentor expressed concern that the FEIS did not provide a 
``probabilistic risk analysis'' of an aircraft crashing into the 
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Station. First, it should be noted that 
the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Station is located outside of the 
boundaries of the CTR. Second, the critical structures at the power 
station (i.e., nuclear systems containment buildings) have been 
designed and constructed to withstand earthquakes, hurricanes, 
tornadoes, and the impact of a fully laden, fully fueled Boeing 707 
without damage to the systems inside. Additionally, Baltimore Gas & 
Electric (BG&E), owner of the power station, concluded in its August 
1997 Individual Plant Examination of External Events (a study required 
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC]) that the probability of an 
aircraft crashing into the power station, including aircraft from NAS 
Patuxent River is very low (a probability of about 1.1  x  
10-6 crashes per year). Only about 25 percent of this risk 
is assignable to aircraft from NAS Patuxent River. In another report to 
the NRC (Region 1 Inspection Report Nos. 50-317/97-06), BG&E concluded 
that there was no significant safety hazard represented by NAS Patuxent 
River aircraft. Lastly, BG&E is consulting with the NAS Patuxent River 
as it currently prepares its EIS to support an application to the NRC 
for re-licensing of the power plant. The risk of an aircraft operating 
in the CTR crashing into the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Station is 
not significant and the DON has determined that a probabilistic risk 
analysis is not required.

Impacts to Calvert Cliffs State Park

    The Calvert County Board of Commissioners expressed concern that 
increased flight and related operations in the Patuxent River Complex 
would impact the designation of Calvert Cliffs State Park as a ``State 
Wildlands.'' This designation provides protection and benefits to the 
park's water quality, wilderness research, and preservation of unique 
ecological communities and primitive recreation.
    The park is located on the northern boundary of the CTR. Aircraft 
flight tracks for approaches and departures to NAS Patuxent River 
overfly the Drum Point peninsula to the south of the park and the 
results of the noise analysis show noise levels at the park to be less 
than 45 dB DNL, which is consistent with existing noise levels at the 
park. Consequently, implementation of the preferred alternative would 
not impact water quality, wilderness research, or the preservation of 
unique ecological communities and primitive recreation that may be 
conducted at Calvert Cliffs State Park.

[[Page 28810]]

Conclusions

    Based on the analysis contained in the EIS, the administrative 
record, and the factors discussed above, I identify Operational 
Workload Alternative III (Preferred Alternative) as the course of 
action the Navy will implement at the Patuxent River Complex. 
Operational Workload Alternative III will best allow the Navy to meet 
current and future global defense challenges posed by a post-Cold War 
environment. It provides the Navy with the necessary flexibility to 
efficiently enhance use of Patuxent River Complex facilities and reduce 
costs to users. Use of the CTR and related laboratories and test 
support facilities for both manned and unmanned flight testing can be 
optimized without increasing construction or the number of personnel 
needed to complete the mission. Navy operational air assets will be 
able to conduct effective training and pilot evaluation exercises using 
the technological, visual, and measurement assets that are integral to 
the instrumented airspace of the CTR. The flexibility in asset 
management and asset use that is achievable under Operational Workload 
Alternative III will create no significant impacts to the surrounding 
environment. The Navy will respond to public concerns involving 
aircraft and engine testing noise, supersonic events, and UAV 
operations through the mitigation measures described above.

    Dated: May 17, 1999.
Elsie L. Munsell,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Environment and Safety).
[FR Doc. 99-13519 Filed 5-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-01-P