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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessment Executive Summary Airspace. An increase in average sonic booms by an estimated one to three booms per month would occur under MOAs used for training. Alaska Natives who live under or spend extensive time subsistence hunting and fishing under these MOAs could discern the additional sonic booms. The increased frequency of sonic booms would not be expected to affect land use or land use patterns, ownership, or management, but the increase has the potential to cause additional annoyance to residents and long-term users of the lands under the affected airspace. Socioeconomics Base. The addition of 103 Air Force personnel to support the additional six F-22 primary aircraft represents less than one percent of JBER employment. The potential population, employment, income, and output associated with an addition of less than one percent of the personnel and no new construction would be expected to result in no measurable effect upon the regional economy. The Anchorage housing market with approximately 6,700 vacant units and a 6.0 percent vacancy rate would be expected to easily absorb the additional personnel. Airspace. There would be no discernible effects on social or economic conditions under the airspace. The projected increase in sonic booms may annoy individuals participating in subsistence or recreational hunting or fishing. This would not be expected to significantly affect activities under the airspace or local economies that rely on subsistence resources. The Air Force has established procedures for any damage claims associated with sonic booms that begin by contacting the JBER Public Affairs Office. Environmental Justice Base. Federal agencies are required by law to address potential impacts of their actions on environmental and human health conditions in minority and low-income communities. Furthermore, they must identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. The low-income communities and the minority and youth population near JBER were evaluated. The off-base community of Mountain View has a concentration of minority and low-income population. The proportion and type of JBER flight operations from the main and cross-wind runways are performed to avoid the extension of 65 dB L dn noise contours into the Mountain View community. No off-base significant noise impacts are expected to minority or low-income communities. There would be no health and safety risks to children. Airspace. High proportions of Alaska Natives who live under the airspace are representative of rural populations throughout the state. Persons living under the airspace, particularly the Stony MOAs, could notice or be annoyed by increased sonic booms. This change in sonic booms by an additional one to three per month would not be expected to damage health or other environmental resources. No disproportionately high or adverse impacts to minority or low-income communities would result from increased F-22 training. There would be no health and safety risks to children. Page ES-6
F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessment Executive Summary Cumulative Consequences Cumulative effects analysis considers the potential environmental consequences resulting from “the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal of non-federal) or person undertakes such actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Multiple federal and non-federal projects near the base and airspace were identified and evaluated to see whether cumulative impacts could occur. Base. The relocation of three F-15 aircraft squadrons, the beddown of C-17 aircraft, Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) decisions regarding C-130 aircraft, proposed transportation projects, and other projects were cumulatively evaluated. As JBER combines administrative, air, and ground activities over the next few years, there could be a desire to assess such combined efforts in a future environmental analysis. Such a future analysis, should it occur, would include all JBER activities and would not be connected to the F-22 plus-up. The F-22 plus-up would not be expected to have adverse cumulative effects in combination with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable cumulative actions. Airspace. The airspace analysis in this EA includes all expected aircraft operations in existing Alaska training airspace. Potential airspace enhancements to the Joint Pacific-Alaskan Range Complex (JPARC) are currently under study. Any potential JPARC impacts to airspace management will be addressed in separate environmental documentation. The cumulative replacement of three squadrons operating a total of 60 primary twin-engine fighter aircraft with 42 (36 plus 6) similarly-sized twin-engine fighter aircraft would not be expected to have an adverse cumulative effect in combination with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable cumulative actions. Page ES-7
Page 1 and 2: F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessme
Page 3 and 4: Cover Sheet ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEN
Page 19: F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessme
Page 41 and 42: Page 2-13 Table 2.2-3. Baseline and
Page 71 and 72:
F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessme
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 ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?