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

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