F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessment - Joint Base Elmendorf ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessment 4.0 Environmental Consequences Under the Proposed Action, the number of on-base residential structures exposed to noise greater than 65 L dn would increase by 24 from 157 to 184. Increases in noise levels would be expected to result in minor increases in the prevalence of annoyance in affected persons on JBER. However, structural attenuation would reduce the level of impacts to persons indoors. Furthermore, annoyance generated by aircraft noise may be somewhat less likely on a military reservation than in other locations due to the affected population generally viewing military training as being necessary and important. Table 4.2-2. Acres on JBER in Several Land Use Categories Impacted by Noise Greater Than 65 L dn Land Use Category Baseline Proposed Change Acres ≥ 65 dB L dn Administrative/ Industrial 2,040 2,120 80 Community Support 817 878 60 Residential (Accompanied and Unaccompanied) 199 202 3 As per a DoD policy memorandum published in 2009, populations exposed to noise greater than 80 dB L dnmr are at the greatest risk of population hearing loss (Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics 2009). No on- or off-base residences are exposed to noise levels greater than 80 dB L dnmr and, therefore, hearing loss risk for on- or off-installation residents is relatively low. Noise levels in the JBER-Elmendorf flightline exceed 80 dB L dnmr under baseline conditions and would continue to exceed 80 dB L dn under the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, noise generated by the six additional F-22 aircraft would cause the 80 L dn contour line to shift outwards from the runway by 50- to 100 feet. This shift would cause 11 buildings previously exposed to slightly less than 80 L dn to be exposed to slightly greater than 80 L dn, increasing the total buildings on JBER exposed to greater than 80 L dn from 52 to 63. The 11 buildings newly within the 80 L dn contour include five buildings directly related to aircraft operations, two storage buildings, a chapel, and three administrative buildings. In accordance with existing policies and regulatory guidance, the JBER Bioenvironmental Engineering Office assesses expected potential for occupational hearing loss risk and conducts health risk assessment, as described in Section 3.2.2.1, where it is deemed necessary. The JBER Bioenvironmental Engineering Office considers several factors, including structural noise attenuation and the amount of time workers spend outside when deciding on the appropriate course of action. Hearing protection devices used to protect worker’s hearing would be the same (e.g., earmuffs, earplugs) as are used currently on JBER to protect workers in known high noise environments. The potential hearing loss risk among workers on JBER would be managed according to DoD guidelines. Workers on JBER are protected against possible noise impacts by adherence to DoD noise management guidelines. The JBER Bioenvironmental Engineering Office will review conditions of the additional 11 buildings exposed to greater than 80 L dn, and will implement all protective measures required by Air Force occupational safety regulations. 4.2.1.2 Knik Arm Underwater noise levels in the Knik Arm associated with individual aircraft overflights would not increase under the Proposed Action, as existing F-22 flight procedures would not change. However, the frequency of occurrence of these events would increase and this increase could Page 4-6
F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessment 4.0 Environmental Consequences potentially have negative consequences for animals living in the Knik Arm. Of particular concern would be any impacts to the CIBW, which was recently listed as endangered under Section 7 of the ESA. An in-depth analysis was conducted to assess risk to the CIBW resulting from additional F-22 flying operations. This analysis is described in Section 3.2, and in greater detail in Section 4.6, (Biological Resources) and Appendix E, Section 7 (Endangered Species Act) Compliance Wildlife Analysis for F-22 Plus Up Environmental Assessment. The analysis found that implementation of the Proposed Action has the potential to increase the number of CIBW behavioral harassments by approximately 0.04 events annually. As discussed in Section 4.6, the NMFS has determined this increase may affect but is unlikely to adversely affect the CIBW. Overall, noise impacts in the base vicinity associated with implementation of the Proposed Action would not be expected to be perceived as significant. 4.2.2 Training Airspace Environmental Consequences The program MR_NMAP was used to calculate subsonic L dnmr in the training airspace units under baseline conditions and the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, F-22 aircraft would not fly in any airspace units that are not being used by the F-22 currently. Furthermore, F-22 aircraft would conduct training in the same altitude bands used currently, and sortieoperations conducted after 10:00 p.m. would continue to be rare. The only change expected to occur relative to baseline conditions would be an increase in the annual number of F-22 sortie operations proportionate to the number of plus-up aircraft. Baseline conditions reflect the relocation of the Kulis ANG to JBER and the recent departure of the 19 FS, which had operated F-15C aircraft. The change in L dnmr between baseline conditions and the Proposed Action would be 1 dB or less (Table 4.2-3). To put this degree of change in perspective, changes in instantaneous noise levels of less than 3 dB are typically not noticeable in non-laboratory conditions. Under the Proposed Action, noise levels beneath all training airspace units except Eielson and Viper MOAs would be below 55 dB L dnmr, the USEPA-identified threshold below which impacts to human health and welfare are not expected to occur (USEPA 1974). Noise levels beneath Eielson and Viper MOAs would increase by 1 dB to 59 and 57 dB L dnmr, respectively. This increase would not be discernible to residents or visitors to the area. F-22 aircraft training in the MOAs and ATCAAs would fly supersonic at the same altitudes, the same number of times per sortie, and for the same length of time per sortie as current F-22 sortie-operations in the training airspace. As F-22 operations would increase, the number of F- 22 supersonic events would also increase by approximately the same percentage. Data on the current and proposed flying operations of the F-22 and other supersonic-capable aircraft using the training airspace were entered into the program BOOMAP to generate CDNL beneath each airspace unit. Increases in CDNL would be 1 dB or less and would be 54 dB L dnmr or less (Table 4.2-3). The enhanced supersonic performance of the F-22, which contributes to its success in combat, means that F-22 sortie-operations result in more sonic booms on average than sortie-operations conducted by fourth generation fighter aircraft currently operating in the training airspace (e.g., F-16 Aggressor aircraft flying from Eielson AFB). Recordings made during multiple air-to-air Page 4-7
Page 1 and 2:
F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessme
Page 3 and 4:
Cover Sheet ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEN
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 2-13 Table 2.2-3. Baseline and
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70: F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessme
Page 103 and 104: Page 3-51 Table 3.8-1. Special Use
Page 119: F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessme
Page 139 and 140: Table 5.1-1. Past, Present, and Rea
Page 141 and 142: Table 5.1-2. Past, Present, and Rea
Page 157 and 158: Appendix A Characteristics of Chaff
Page 159 and 160: APPENDIX A CHARACTERISTICS OF CHAFF
Page 161 and 162: Table 2. Characteristics of RR-188
Page 163 and 164: they demonstrate ejection of 98 per
Page 165 and 166: Appendix B Characteristics and Anal
Page 167 and 168: APPENDIX B CHARACTERISTICS AND ANAL
Page 169 and 170: Figure 1. MJU-10/B Flare F-22 Plus-
Page 171 and 172:
Flare failure would occur if the fl
Page 173 and 174:
4.2 Flare Strike Risk Residual flar
Page 175 and 176:
and velocity. A slug is defined as
Page 177 and 178:
The S&I device maximum momentum wou
Page 179 and 180:
Appendix C Public and Agency Outrea
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184:
Senator Lisa Murkowski ATTN: Karen
Page 187:
New Koliganek Village Council ATTN:
Page 211 and 212:
Alaska Department of Natural Resour
Page 213 and 214:
Eklutna Native Village ATTN: Doroth
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Village of Stony River ATTN: Mary W
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Village of Stony River ATTN: Mary W
Page 229 and 230:
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Appendix E Sec 7 (ESA) Compliance W
Page 263 and 264:
SECTION 7 (ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT)
Page 265 and 266:
not require additional construction
Page 267 and 268:
Other diet items include cod, pollo
Page 269 and 270:
1.5.6 Northern Sea Otter—Southwes
Page 271 and 272:
Most sound is actually transmitted
Page 273 and 274:
The visual experience of an F-22 ov
Page 275 and 276:
Figure 2. Water Surface Area Below
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
approached by projected sound level
Page 285 and 286:
whale are considered to be possible
Page 287 and 288:
_____. 2010c. Proposed Critical Hab
Page 289 and 290:
APPENDIX 1. NOISE IMPACTS ASSESSMEN
Page 291 and 292:
important in determining whether an
Page 293 and 294:
SPL (dB) Frequency (Hz) Figure 2. U
Page 295 and 296:
e 1 µPa, 125-130 dB re 1 µPa, and
Page 297 and 298:
1.18 Appendix 1 References Blackwel
Page 299 and 300:
APPENDIX 2. INFORMATION ON BELUGA W
Page 301 and 302:
Delphinapterus leucas, after exposu
Page 310 and 311:
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
F2.1 Ungulates Wild ungulates appea
Page 316 and 317:
F2.2 Waterfowl and Other Waterbirds
Page 318 and 319:
leaving an aircraft during training
Page 320 and 321:
Cavedo, A. M., K. S. Latimer, H. L.
Page 322 and 323:
Perry, E. A., D. J. Boness, and S.
Page 324 and 325:
show all

F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessment - Joint Base Elmendorf ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?