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

F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessment
4.0 Environmental Consequences
would fly approximately 5,210 sorties per year from JBER-Elmendorf, an increase of
approximately 16.7 percent. The additional F-22s would employ supersonic flight as do the
existing F-22s. The augmented F-22 squadrons would continue to fly approximately 25 percent
of the time spent in approved MOAs and ATCAAs at supersonic speed. F-22 training would
result in an increased number of sonic booms per month under specific MOAs. Section 4.2
Noise provides details on aircraft noise associated with the proposed plus-up.
Moose, caribou, and Dall’s sheep are important game species in Alaska, and critical calving
grounds are located under the training airspace. Current flight restrictions over
calving/lambing grounds (Air Force 1995) restrict flights to above 5,000 feet AGL during the
lambing season. The F-22 does not fly below 500 feet and is above 5,000 feet 98 percent of the
training time. Given the current flight restrictions over calving/lambing grounds (Air Force
1995) and the relatively unchanged noise levels associated with the proposed F-22 training,
noise associated with the Proposed Action at JBER-Elmendorf would have similar impacts on
wildlife as exist under baseline conditions. Some animals may startle in response to a sonic
boom. However, most animals under the training airspace have been previously exposed to
sonic booms from F-22 and other training aircraft and are likely habituated to the sound.
Use of training chaff and flares is expected to continue with the additional F-22 aircraft training
in the airspace. Chaff and flare use would continue to be used in approved training airspace
and is projected to be used in the same manner as under current conditions. The augmented F-
22 squadrons would use an additional 2,855 chaff bundles and 3,791 flares annually. There
would be no change in the minimum altitude or seasonal restrictions on flare release. The
potential environmental consequences and characteristics of chaff and flares are consequences
of: (1) ingestion of chaff fibers or chaff or flare plastic, nylon, or paper materials; (2) inhalation
of chaff fibers; (3) physical external effects from chaff fibers, such as skin irritation, (4) effects on
water quality and forage quality; (5) increased fire potential; and (6) potential for being struck
by medium hailstone-sized flare debris.
There is no recorded incident of chaff or flare plastic, duct tape-type covering, or paper residual
materials being ingested. A study of packrat (notable collectors) nests in arid areas where chaff
and flares had been deployed for decades uncovered no residual chaff or flare materials (Air
Force 1997). Chaff fibers rapidly break down to silica and aluminum particles chemically
indistinguishable from normal dust particles. No effects from inhalation, ingestion, or skin
irritation would occur. Flare altitude and seasonal restrictions in Alaska result in little if any
potential for any flare-caused fire. There is very little potential of an animal being struck by a
medium hailstone-sized plastic S&I flare piece from F-22 training which produces an average
estimate of one piece per 1,500 acres per year (See also Appendices A, B, and F).
Chaff and flares are regularly used in approved Alaskan SUA. Therefore, no impacts to
biological resources would be expected with the continued use of training chaff and defensive
flares in the Alaska training airspace.
4.6.3 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no additional F-22 aircraft would be assigned to JBER and no
additional F-22 flight activities would occur near the base or in training airspace. Airspace
Page 4-15