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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Airspace Management and Air Traffic Control Noise Safety F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessment 2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2.7-1. Summary of Impacts by Resource (Page 1 of 3) Resource Proposed Action Options No Action Base. AATA management of airspace would not be impacted by additional F-22 sorties. Airspace. The additional aircraft would not affect regional airspace management, and usage of the airspace would not change to the extent that civil aviation could be affected. Base. Portions of JBER would experience increased noise levels. No JBER residences would be exposed to noise levels greater than 80 L dn. Structures in the flightline would continue to be exposed to noise at greater than 80 dB L dn. Workers on JBER are protected against possible noise impacts by adherence to DoD noise management guidelines. Off-base areas expected to be within the 65 dB L dn noise contour are part of the Port of Anchorage, a portion of the Knik Arm, and a small area of land across the Knik Arm. The slightly increased area would not be expected to impact human or natural resources in off-base areas. Airspace. The change between baseline conditions and the Proposed Action would be 1 dB L dnmr or less in all training airspaces. Sonic booms under training MOAs would increase by between 1 and 3 per month from the existing 10 to 26 per month. Sonic booms would not pose a health or other risk, but could increase annoyance. Base. No change in off-base safety conditions or in Bird-Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH), munitions, or personnel safety. F-22 Class A mishap rate expected to be comparable to F-15. Airspace. No substantive change in or impacts to flight, ground, or other safety aspects. F-22 flight altitudes and situational awareness is expected to result in no safety impacts within the airspace. No safety impacts from chaff and flare use. Flare use would continue to adhere to altitude and seasonal restrictions. Existing terminal airspace, MOA, range, and other airspace usage would not change; F-22s would continue to train from JBER-Elmendorf and continue to train in the airspace as they do today. Noise contours and conditions at JBER would remain the same as baseline conditions. Continuation of current noise levels from subsonic and supersonic flight in training airspace. No change in sonic booms in any MOAs. Continuation of current safety conditions at JBER- Elmendorf. No change from existing training by F-22s in airspace. Continued use of chaff and flares in training airspace. Page 2-22
F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessment 2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2.7-1. Summary of Impacts by Resource (Page 2 of 3) Resource Proposed Action Options No Action Air Quality Base. Plus-up of six primary F-22 aircraft would not affect air quality. JBER-Elmendorf is in attainment for all criteria pollutants. Anticipated emission resulting from the Proposed Action would not cause or contribute to a new NAAQS violation. Green House Gas emissions would not change globally by a transfer of aircraft from one base to another. Aircraft operations at the base or in the airspace would not change from current F-22 training activity. There would be no change to the current air quality. Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Biological Resources Airspace. Because the F-22 flight altitude is above the mixing height, along with the large area of training airspace, the approximate 16.7 percent increase in training sorties would not affect air quality. Base. No significant effect on hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, or the Environmental Restoration Program (ERP). Existing hazardous waste accumulation sites and procedures are adequate to handle the changes anticipated with the expected six additional primary aircraft. Airspace. No significant effect on hazardous materials or hazardous wastes in training airspace. Base. Potential effects to CIBW include slight potential for behavioral response to the overflight of F-22s over the Knik Arm. Approximately 0.04 CIBW individuals are projected to be behaviorally harassed annually resulting from the noise generated by the proposed additional F-22 flying operations (an estimated four whales in 100 years). NMFS determined that the plus-up may affect, but is unlikely to adversely affect, the CIBW. No sensitive species, including threatened or endangered species, are expected to be impacted by the additional F-22 aircraft. Airspace. Slight increase in subsonic noise from current conditions with no change in effects to wildlife. Increase in sonic booms may startle some individual animals. However, regional wildlife in the affected MOAs has previously experienced sonic booms and is likely habituated. Increase in paper, plastic, and other residual pieces from chaff and flare use would not be expected to affect biological resources. No change from existing use of hazardous materials and generation of hazardous waste. Biological resources would not change from existing conditions. No change from existing conditions with military training overflights and sonic booms. Continued sonic booms with the potential to startle wildlife. Continued chaff and flare usage. Page 2-23
Page 1 and 2: F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessme
Page 3 and 4: Cover Sheet ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEN
Page 41 and 42: Page 2-13 Table 2.2-3. Baseline and
Page 49: F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessme
Page 101 and 102:
F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessme
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?