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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessment Executive Summary Additional F-22s training in the airspace would increase chaff or flare use proportionately (an estimated 16.7 percent) over baseline F-22 use. After deployment of each chaff bundle, four 1- inch by 1/2-inch plastic or nylon pieces and six 2-inch by 3-inch pieces of paper fall to the ground. After deployment of each flare, three plastic pieces of up to 2 inches by 2 inches and one 1-inch by 1-inch to 4-inch by 15-inch aluminum-coated duct tape-type mylar wrapping fall to the ground. These nylon, paper, or other pieces would not affect safety for human or biological resources under the airspace. No safety consequences from continued chaff and flare use are anticipated. Air Quality Base. The Anchorage area is in air quality attainment for all criteria pollutants and anticipated emission resulting from the Proposed Action would not cause or contribute to a new National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) violation. No conformity determination is required as the emissions for all pollutants are below the de minimis threshold established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 93.153. Airfield flight operation emissions are projected to be minimally higher than at present, yet should result in no change in air quality within the Anchorage area. No additional global Green House Gases (GHG) would be emitted by transferring six F-22 aircraft from New Mexico to Alaska. Regional GHG would increase less than one percent of the regional military GHG emissions. Airspace. Areas under the training airspace are within air quality attainment. Emissions from the increase above current F-22 operations would be transitory and dispersed over the extensive Alaskan Special Use Airspace (SUA). More than 99.5 percent of F-22 flight operations occur at altitudes above the mixing height of pollutants. Residents and visitors to Alaska Native villages and traditional subsistence areas underlying this airspace would not experience any change in emissions associated with the Proposed Action. Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Base. There would be no significant impacts on hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, or the Environmental Restoration Program (ERP). Existing procedures are adequate to handle the changes anticipated with the expected approximate 16.7 percent increase in use of F-22 hazardous materials associated with the plus-up. Airspace. The F-22 plus-up would not substantially change airspace use or training. The F-22 does not discharge hazardous wastes in the Alaskan airspace. Various hazardous materials and fluids are contained in the aircraft but are not released in the training airspace. No significant impacts on hazardous materials or wastes in the training airspace are expected. Biological Resources Base. No impacts would occur to vegetation and no wildlife habitat would be lost within the base environs Region of Influence (ROI) at JBER-Elmendorf. Concerns for biological resources include potential impacts on threatened or endangered species, and noise associated with F-22 operations. Page ES-4
F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessment Executive Summary Although there are no federally listed threatened or endangered species that inhabit JBER- Elmendorf, noise contours associated with the proposed increased operation of F-22s extend into the Knik Arm of Cook Inlet, where Cook Inlet beluga whales (CIBW) occur. Potential effects to the CIBW include behavioral response to the overflight of F-22s over the Knik Arm. Overflight patterns and noise contours were quantified over the Knik Arm. The quantifications demonstrate that approximately 0.04 individuals per year (four individuals in 100 years) would be expected to adjust behavior as a result of the noise generated by the proposed additional F-22 flying operations. On February 22, 2011, the National Marine Fisheries Service determined that this level of behavior response would mean the plus-up may affect but is unlikely to adversely affect the CIBW. On February 8, 2011, the USFWS indicated that no federally listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat for which the USFWS is responsible are within the action area of the project. The additional F-22 aircraft operating from JBER would not be expected to have a significant environmental effect upon any biological species, including listed or candidate species. Airspace. No discernible difference in subsonic noise is projected in MOAs used for training. There would be no change in effects to wildlife. Increases in sonic booms under some airspace units may startle some individual animals, although wildlife under the training airspaces have previously experienced sonic booms and are likely habituated. An approximate 16.7 percent increase in F-22 chaff and flare use would not be expected to adversely impact biological resources. Cultural Resources Base. No new construction would be necessary to accommodate the F-22 plus-up. Thus, no direct impacts to cultural resources are anticipated. The personnel increase of less than one percent of the JBER population is not expected to result in any indirect impacts to cultural resources. Airspace. There would be no impacts to historic properties under the airspace. The increase in sonic booms may be detected and could annoy some Alaska Native users of land but would not be expected to affect subsistence hunting or other activities. Land Use, Transportation, and Recreation Base. No changes in land use or transportation on base would be expected. There would be some extension of the 65 dB L dn noise contour over a portion of the Knik Arm, and over compatible land uses in the Port of Anchorage area. The noise increase from additional F-22 operations should not result in changes to land use or land ownership. The 65 dB L dn contour extending over an additional 0.2 acre of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough-owned peninsula tip across the Knik Arm is not projected to affect land uses in the area. Noise contours of 65 dB L dn would not extend off-base into residential areas. There would be no changes to the safety zones. A less than one percent increase in on-base employment could slightly increase vehicle trips in the long term. The negligible increase in traffic is not expected to substantially affect commute times. Page ES-5
Page 1 and 2: F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessme
Page 3 and 4: Cover Sheet ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEN
Page 17: F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessme
Page 41 and 42: Page 2-13 Table 2.2-3. Baseline and
Page 69 and 70:
F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessme
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 3-51 Table 3.8-1. Special Use
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
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 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?