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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 3 of 3) Resource Proposed Action Options No Action Cultural Resources Base. No construction and no impacts to historic No change from existing properties at JBER-Elmendorf. conditions. Land Use/ Transportation/ Recreation Socioeconomics Environmental Justice Airspace. No impacts to historic properties under the airspace. Increase in sonic booms, when discernible, may annoy users of land, but would not be expected to affect Alaska Native subsistence hunting. Base. No change in land use or transportation on base. Some extension of the 65 dB L dn noise contour over 6.6 acres of compatible land uses in the Port of Anchorage, 410.7 acres over water of the Knik Arm, and over a 0.2 acre area across the Knik Arm. Industrial land uses would be compatible with existing and projected noise levels. Airspace. No affect to land use or land use patterns under the airspace. Recreationists, hunters, and fishermen may discern an increase in sonic booms. Base. No measurable effect upon the regional economy with an addition of less than one percent of the personnel and no new construction. Airspace. No discernible effects on social or economic conditions under the airspace. Increase in sonic booms, where discernible, may annoy some individuals participating in subsistence or recreational hunting and/or fishing. Any disturbance would not be expected to affect activities under the airspace or local economies that rely on subsistence resources. Base. No disproportionate off-base impacts are anticipated on disadvantaged populations. There would be no health or safety risks to children. This includes no 65 dB L dn noise contours off-base to the community of Mountain View. Airspace. Distributions of Alaska Natives under the airspace are representative of rural populations throughout the state. No disproportionate impact to minority and lowincome populations anticipated. No health and safety effect to children under the airspace. No change to the noise environment on the base or off the base. No F-22 plus-up change in base personnel. No change from existing airspace use conditions. Continued presence of military aircraft and sonic booms under training airspace. No F-22 plus-up induced change in base personnel. No change from existing airspace use conditions. No increase in sonic booms. No change to existing base or airspace conditions. Continued military training in airspace over rural populations. Page 2-24
F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment 3.0 BASE AND TRAINING AIRSPACE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This chapter contains the environment potentially affected by the Proposed Action. The NEPA requires that the analysis address those areas and components of the environment with the potential to be affected; locations and resources with no potential to be affected need not be analyzed. Each environmental resource discussion begins with an explanation of the potential geographic scope of any potential consequences, the Region of Influence (ROI). For most resources in this chapter, the ROI is defined as the vicinity of the airfield where F-22s are located or the existing military training airspace where F-22s train. In this EA, the airfield and its vicinity are termed JBER-Elmendorf. For some resources (such as Noise, Air Quality, and Socioeconomics), the ROI extends over a larger jurisdiction unique to the resource. The Existing Condition of each relevant environmental resource is described to give the public and agency decision-makers a meaningful point from which they can compare potential future environmental, social, and economic effects. The baseline conditions described in this chapter constitute conditions under the No Action Alternative. 3.1 Airspace Management and Air Traffic Control The affected environment or ROI for F-22 aircraft operations at JBER-Elmendorf includes the airfield, airspace surrounding the airfield, and airspace designated for military training in Alaska. Airspace management and Air Traffic Control (ATC) is defined as the direction, control, and handling of flight operations in the “navigable airspace” that overlies the geopolitical borders of the U.S. and its territories. “Navigable airspace” is airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by regulations under USC Title 49, Subtitle VII, Part A, and includes airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft, as defined in FAA Order 7400.2E (49 USC). This navigable airspace is a limited natural resource that Congress has charged the FAA to administer in the public interest as necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and its efficient use (FAA Order 7400.2E 2000). 3.1.1 Base Airfield and Vicinity Existing Conditions JBER-Elmendorf manages airspace in accordance with processes and procedures detailed in AFI 13-201, Air Force Airspace Management (Air Force 2001b; 2009). AFI 13-201 implements Air Force Planning Document 13-2, Air Traffic Control, Airspace, Airfield, and Range Management, and DoD Directive 5030.19, DoD Responsibilities on Federal Aviation and National Airspace System Matters. This AFI addresses the aeronautical matters governing the efficient planning, acquisition, use, and management of airspace required to support Air Force flight operations (Air Force 2001b). Airspace supporting operations at JBER-Elmendorf are within the Anchorage Alaska Terminal Area (AATA). The AATA is divided into six segments: the International Segment; the Seward Highway Segment; the Lake Hood Segment; the Merrill Segment; the Elmendorf Segment; and, the Bryant Segment (3 WG 2004). Page 3-1
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 51: F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessme
Page 103 and 104:
Page 3-51 Table 3.8-1. Special Use
Page 105 and 106:
F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessme
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?