[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
