F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessment - Joint Base Elmendorf ...
F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessment - Joint Base Elmendorf ...
F-22 Plus-Up Environmental Assessment - Joint Base Elmendorf ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
<strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson, Alaska<br />
June 2011
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
<strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson, Alaska<br />
Our goal is to give you a reader-friendly document that provides an in-depth, accurate analysis of potential environmental consequences.<br />
The organization of this <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>, or EA, is shown below:<br />
Executive Summary<br />
Chapter 1.0 Purpose and Need for F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> at JBER<br />
1.1 Background<br />
1.2 Purpose of F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> at JBER<br />
1.3 Need for F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> at JBER<br />
Chapter 2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
2.1 Proposed Action Elements Affecting JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong><br />
2.2 Proposed Action Elements Affecting Alaskan Airspace<br />
2.3 Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward<br />
2.4 No Action Alternative<br />
2.5 <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Analysis Process<br />
2.6 Regulatory Compliance<br />
2.7 <strong>Environmental</strong> Comparison of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative<br />
Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment<br />
3.1 Airspace Management and Air Traffic Control<br />
3.2 Noise<br />
3.3 Safety<br />
3.4 Air Quality<br />
3.5 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management<br />
3.6 Biological Resources<br />
3.7 Cultural Resources<br />
3.8 Land Use, Transportation, and Recreation<br />
3.9 Socioeconomics<br />
3.10 <strong>Environmental</strong> Justice<br />
Chapter 4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
4.1 Airspace Management<br />
4.2 Noise<br />
4.3 Safety<br />
4.4 Air Quality<br />
4.5 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management<br />
4.6 Biological Resources<br />
4.7 Cultural Resources<br />
4.8 Land Use, Transportation, and Recreation<br />
4.9 Socioeconomics<br />
4.10 <strong>Environmental</strong> Justice<br />
Chapter 5.0 Cumulative Impacts<br />
5.1 Cumulative Effects Analysis<br />
5.2 Other <strong>Environmental</strong> Considerations<br />
References<br />
How to Use This Document<br />
This <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> (EA) is prepared to<br />
help the reader understand the environmental<br />
consequences of the Proposed Action to plus-up the<br />
two F-<strong>22</strong> squadrons at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>. Chapter 1.0<br />
and 2.0 present the purpose and details of the<br />
proposed beddown.<br />
Chapter 3.0 explains the affected environment of the<br />
proposed F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up at JBER and within the Alaskan<br />
training airspace. The No Action Alternative is also<br />
addressed.<br />
Chapter 4.0 explains the environmental consequences<br />
of the proposed F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up at JBER and training<br />
within the Alaskan training airspace. The No Action<br />
Alternative is also addressed.<br />
Public, Alaska Native, and Agency comments are<br />
incorporated into this EA.<br />
The box to the left summarizes the EA contents.<br />
Acronyms and Abbreviations can be found on the<br />
inside back cover.<br />
List of Preparers<br />
Appendices
Cover Sheet<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) FOR<br />
THE F-<strong>22</strong> PLUS-UP AT JOINT BASE ELMENDORF-RICHARDSON (JBER)<br />
a. Responsible Agency: United States Air Force (Air Force)<br />
b. Proposals and Actions: This EA analyzes the potential environmental consequences of a proposal to plus-up the existing F-<strong>22</strong><br />
operational wing at JBER with six primary and one backup aircraft. In 2007, following the 2006 decision to beddown the<br />
second F-<strong>22</strong> operational wing at <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB, 42 of the 60 F-15 primary aircraft assigned to then <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB were<br />
replaced by 36 F-<strong>22</strong> primary and four backup aircraft. Subsequently, the remaining F-15C squadron of 18 primary aircraft<br />
was reassigned from <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB, leaving what is now JBER with 36 F-<strong>22</strong> primary aircraft. The Proposed Action is to<br />
beddown six additional primary and one backup F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft; conduct flying sorties at the base with F-<strong>22</strong>s operating with<br />
approximately 25 percent of departures from the cross-wind runway; train in existing Alaskan airspace; and implement<br />
personnel changes to conform to the F-<strong>22</strong> Wing requirements. The additional F-<strong>22</strong>s would result in two squadrons each<br />
with 21 primary and two backup F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft, and one attrition reserve aircraft, for a total of 47 F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft. Personnel<br />
changes associated with the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up would result in an increase of 103 positions at the base. F-<strong>22</strong> training flights<br />
would take place on existing Alaskan Military Operations Areas (MOAs), Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAAs),<br />
and ranges. During training, F-<strong>22</strong>s would continue to train at supersonic speeds, employ defensive chaff and flare<br />
countermeasures in airspace authorized for their use, and deploy munitions on approved ranges. The No Action<br />
Alternative would not locate additional F-<strong>22</strong>s at JBER at this time.<br />
c. For Additional Information: 673d Air <strong>Base</strong> Wing Public Affairs, <strong>Environmental</strong> Community Affairs Coordinator, 10480 <strong>22</strong> nd<br />
St., Ste. 118, JBER AK, 99506. Telephone inquiries may be made to 907-552-5756.<br />
d. Designation: <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> (April 2011 draft).<br />
e. Abstract: This EA has been prepared in accordance with the National <strong>Environmental</strong> Policy Act (NEPA). The analysis<br />
focused on the following environmental resources: airspace management and air traffic control, noise, safety, air quality,<br />
hazardous materials and waste management, biological resources, cultural resources, land use, socioeconomics, and<br />
environmental justice.<br />
Airspace management would not be impacted by the additional six primary F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft. Additional portions of the Knik<br />
Arm, the Port of Anchorage, and land west of the Knik Arm would experience noise levels of 65 decibels (dB) Day-Night<br />
Average Sound Level (L dn) or greater, but this change is not projected to significantly impact any human or natural<br />
resources, including threatened or endangered species. On February <strong>22</strong>, 2011, the National Marine Fisheries Service<br />
evaluated the potential consequences and issued a finding of may affect but not likely to adversely affect Cook Inlet beluga<br />
whales. There would be no construction required. Hence, there would be no construction noise, no construction air<br />
emissions and no impacts to JBER cultural resources. Any hazardous materials associated with aircraft would be handled<br />
in the existing specialized F-<strong>22</strong> maintenance facility and controlled to protect air and water resources. An increase of 103<br />
base positions (less than one percent of base employment) is not expected to substantially affect commute times and would<br />
result in no measurable effect upon the regional economy. No on- or off-base residences are exposed to noise levels greater<br />
than 80 dB L dn. Workers on JBER are protected against possible noise impacts by adherence to DoD noise management<br />
guidelines. The 65 dB L dn noise contours would not extend off base over residential areas. Disadvantaged populations<br />
would not be disproportionately affected by the proposed plus-up, and there would be no health or safety impacts to<br />
children.<br />
The additional aircraft would not affect airspace management in existing Alaskan training airspace, including Special Use<br />
Airspace (SUA). The F-<strong>22</strong> pilot’s improved situational awareness and the F-<strong>22</strong> normal training altitude are expected to<br />
result in no safety impacts to civil aviation. F-<strong>22</strong> Class A mishap rates per 100,000 flight hours are expected to be<br />
comparable to those of the F-15. The increase in noise between baseline conditions and the Proposed Action would be 1 dB<br />
L dnmr or less in all training airspaces. The additional F-<strong>22</strong>s would result in one to three additional sonic booms per month<br />
under approved training airspaces. This is not expected to affect special-status or game species, although Alaska Natives or<br />
others who reside or spend extensive time under the airspace could experience increased annoyance. Air quality, land use,<br />
recreation, and cultural resources would not be affected by the additional six primary aircraft. Chaff and flare use and<br />
munitions training by the additional F-<strong>22</strong>s on approved ranges would be expected to increase proportionate to the<br />
additional F-<strong>22</strong> training, or approximately 16.7 percent from existing F-<strong>22</strong> use. No safety or biological consequences from<br />
continued chaff and flare or munitions use are anticipated.<br />
With the previous departure of the three F-15 squadrons from JBER, No Action would affect the Air Force consolidation of<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft to maximize aircraft for contingencies and would affect the enhancement of F-<strong>22</strong> operational flexibility.
This page intentionally left blank.
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong><br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
<strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson,<br />
Alaska<br />
June 2011
This page intentionally left blank.
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Table of Contents<br />
Table of Contents<br />
ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................. Inside Back Cover<br />
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. ES-1<br />
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR F-<strong>22</strong> PLUS-UP AT JBER ........................................................... 1-1<br />
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 1-1<br />
1.1.1 Aircraft Characteristics of the F-<strong>22</strong>.......................................................................... 1-3<br />
1.1.2 <strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson (JBER)............................................................... 1-5<br />
1.2 Purpose of F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> at JBER ......................................................................................... 1-5<br />
1.3 Need for the F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> at JBER ...................................................................................... 1-6<br />
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ............................ 2-1<br />
2.1 Proposed Action Elements Affecting JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> ......................................................... 2-2<br />
2.1.1 JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> Flight Activities ........................................................................... 2-2<br />
2.1.2 JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> Facilities ...................................................................................... 2-3<br />
2.1.3 JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> Personnel ..................................................................................... 2-5<br />
2.2 Proposed Action Elements Affecting Alaskan Airspace ............................................................ 2-5<br />
2.2.1 F-<strong>22</strong> Training Flights Within Alaskan Airspace .................................................... 2-12<br />
2.2.2 Air-to-Ground Training .......................................................................................... 2-14<br />
2.2.3 Defensive Countermeasures ................................................................................... 2-14<br />
2.3 Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward ............................................................. 2-16<br />
2.3.1 Alternative Locations ............................................................................................. 2-16<br />
2.3.2 Alternative Flight Operations at JBER .................................................................. 2-16<br />
2.4 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 2-16<br />
2.5 <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Analysis Process ............................................................................. 2-17<br />
2.5.1 EA Organization .................................................................................................... 2-17<br />
2.5.2 Scope of Resource Analysis ................................................................................... 2-18<br />
2.5.3 Public and Agency Input ........................................................................................ 2-18<br />
2.6 Regulatory Compliance ....................................................................................................... 2-19<br />
2.6.1 National <strong>Environmental</strong> Policy Act ....................................................................... 2-19<br />
2.6.2 Endangered Species Act ......................................................................................... 2-19<br />
2.6.3 Cultural Resources Regulatory Requirements ....................................................... 2-20<br />
2.6.4 Clean Air Act ......................................................................................................... 2-20<br />
2.6.5 Other Regulatory Requirements ............................................................................. 2-21<br />
2.7 <strong>Environmental</strong> Comparison of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative ............... 2-21<br />
3.0 BASE AND TRAINING AIRSPACE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................... 3-1<br />
3.1 Airspace Management and Air Traffic Control .................................................................... 3-1<br />
3.1.1 <strong>Base</strong> Airfield and Vicinity Existing Conditions ....................................................... 3-1<br />
3.1.2 Training Airspace Existing Conditions .................................................................... 3-2<br />
3.2 Noise ..................................................................................................................................... 3-6<br />
3.2.1 Noise Characteristics and Measures......................................................................... 3-6<br />
3.2.2 <strong>Base</strong> Existing Conditions ......................................................................................... 3-9<br />
3.2.3 Training Airspace Existing Conditions .................................................................. 3-14<br />
3.3 Safety .................................................................................................................................. 3-17<br />
3.3.1 <strong>Base</strong> Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 3-17<br />
3.3.2 Training Airspace Existing Conditions .................................................................. 3-<strong>22</strong><br />
3.4 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 3-26<br />
3.4.1 <strong>Base</strong> Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 3-28<br />
3.4.2 Training Airspace Air Quality Existing Conditions ............................................... 3-30<br />
Page i
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Table of Contents<br />
3.5 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management .................................................................... 3-31<br />
3.5.1 <strong>Base</strong> Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 3-31<br />
3.5.2 Training Airspace Existing Conditions .................................................................. 3-32<br />
3.6 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................... 3-32<br />
3.6.1 <strong>Base</strong> and Vicinity Existing Conditions .................................................................. 3-33<br />
3.6.2 Training Airspace Existing Conditions .................................................................. 3-35<br />
3.7 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 3-37<br />
3.7.1 <strong>Base</strong> Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 3-37<br />
3.7.2 Training Airspace Existing Conditions .................................................................. 3-39<br />
3.8 Land Use, Transportation, and Recreation .......................................................................... 3-43<br />
3.8.1 <strong>Base</strong> Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 3-44<br />
3.8.2 Training Airspace Existing Conditions .................................................................. 3-47<br />
3.9 Socioeconomics .................................................................................................................. 3-53<br />
3.9.1 <strong>Base</strong> Socioeconomic Existing Conditions ............................................................. 3-55<br />
3.9.2 Training Airspace Socioeconomic Existing Conditions ........................................ 3-56<br />
3.10 <strong>Environmental</strong> Justice ......................................................................................................... 3-58<br />
3.10.1 <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> Justice Existing Conditions .................................................. 3-59<br />
3.10.2 Training Airspace <strong>Environmental</strong> Justice Existing Conditions ............................... 3-59<br />
4.0 BASE AND TRAINING AIRSPACE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................... 4-1<br />
4.1 Airspace Management ........................................................................................................... 4-1<br />
4.1.1 <strong>Base</strong> Airspace Management <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences .................................... 4-1<br />
4.1.2 Training Airspace <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences .................................................... 4-1<br />
4.1.3 No Action ................................................................................................................. 4-2<br />
4.2 Noise ..................................................................................................................................... 4-2<br />
4.2.1 <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences ......................................................................... 4-2<br />
4.2.2 Training Airspace <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences .................................................... 4-7<br />
4.2.3 No Action ................................................................................................................. 4-9<br />
4.3 Safety .................................................................................................................................... 4-9<br />
4.3.1 <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences ......................................................................... 4-9<br />
4.3.2 Training Airspace <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences .................................................. 4-10<br />
4.3.3 No Action ............................................................................................................... 4-11<br />
4.4 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 4-11<br />
4.4.1 <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences ....................................................................... 4-11<br />
4.4.2 Training Airspace Air Quality <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences ............................... 4-12<br />
4.4.3 No Action ............................................................................................................... 4-12<br />
4.5 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management .................................................................... 4-12<br />
4.5.1 <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences ....................................................................... 4-12<br />
4.5.2 Training Airspace <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences .................................................. 4-13<br />
4.5.3 No Action ............................................................................................................... 4-13<br />
4.6 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................... 4-13<br />
4.6.1 <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences ....................................................................... 4-13<br />
4.6.2 Training Airspace <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences .................................................. 4-14<br />
4.6.3 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 4-15<br />
4.7 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 4-16<br />
4.7.1 <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences ....................................................................... 4-16<br />
4.7.2 Training Airspace <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences .................................................. 4-16<br />
4.7.3 No Action ............................................................................................................... 4-18<br />
Page ii
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Table of Contents<br />
4.8 Land Use, Transportation, and Recreation .......................................................................... 4-18<br />
4.8.1 <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences ....................................................................... 4-18<br />
4.8.2 Training Airspace <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences .................................................. 4-19<br />
4.8.3 No Action ............................................................................................................... 4-20<br />
4.9 Socioeconomics .................................................................................................................. 4-20<br />
4.9.1 <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences ....................................................................... 4-20<br />
4.9.2 Training Airspace <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences .................................................. 4-20<br />
4.9.3 No Action ............................................................................................................... 4-21<br />
4.10 <strong>Environmental</strong> Justice ......................................................................................................... 4-21<br />
4.10.1 <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences ....................................................................... 4-21<br />
4.10.2 Training Airspace <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences .................................................. 4-<strong>22</strong><br />
4.10.3 No Action ............................................................................................................... 4-<strong>22</strong><br />
5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .......................................................................................................... 5-1<br />
5.1 Cumulative Effects Analysis ................................................................................................. 5-1<br />
5.1.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ................................................ 5-1<br />
5.1.2 Cumulative Effects Analysis .................................................................................... 5-2<br />
5.2 Other <strong>Environmental</strong> Considerations .................................................................................. 5-10<br />
5.2.1 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity ................. 5-10<br />
5.2.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...................................... 5-10<br />
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 1<br />
LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................................................................................. 9<br />
List of Figures<br />
1.0-1 Airfield Area of <strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson Referred to in this EA<br />
as JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> ............................................................................................................. 1-2<br />
1.1-1 Training Special Use Airspace .......................................................................................... 1-4<br />
2.1-1 Location of F-<strong>22</strong> Facilities .................................................................................................. 2-4<br />
2.2-1 Types of Training Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-6<br />
2.2-2 Alaska Training Special Use Airspace ............................................................................ 2-7<br />
2.2-3 MOAs, Restricted Areas, and Air-to-Ground Ranges .................................................. 2-8<br />
3.2-1 Land Use in Relation to <strong>Base</strong>line Noise Contours ....................................................... 3-11<br />
3.3-1 JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones .................................... 3-19<br />
3.3-2 F-15 Cumulative Class A Mishap Rates ........................................................................ 3-20<br />
3.7-1 Historic Districts within the JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> Project Area ....................................... 3-38<br />
3.7-2 Alaska Native Villages in the Airspace Environment ................................................ 3-40<br />
3.8-1 JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> Existing Land Use .............................................................................. 3-46<br />
3.8-2 JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> Roads .................................................................................................... 3-48<br />
3.8-3 Special Use Areas Underlying Special Use Airspace .................................................. 3-49<br />
3.8-4 Special Use Areas Underlying Restricted Areas and MOAs ..................................... 3-54<br />
4.2-1 <strong>Base</strong>line and Proposed Action Noise Contours ............................................................. 4-4<br />
4.2-2 Land Use and Noise Contours Under <strong>Base</strong>line Conditions and the<br />
Proposed Action ................................................................................................................. 4-5<br />
Page iii
List of Tables<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Table of Contents<br />
2.1-1 <strong>Base</strong>line and Proposed Primary Aircraft Assigned to JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> .................... 2-3<br />
2.1-2 JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> Airfield Annual Operations ................................................................ 2-3<br />
2.1-3 Manpower Requirements.................................................................................................. 2-5<br />
2.2-1 Current and Projected F-<strong>22</strong> Training Activities (Page 1 of 2) .................................... 2-10<br />
2.2-1 Current and Projected F-<strong>22</strong> Training Activities (Page 2 of 2) .................................... 2-11<br />
2.2-2 Current and Projected F-<strong>22</strong> Altitude Use...................................................................... 2-12<br />
2.2-3 <strong>Base</strong>line and Projected Annual Sortie-Operations in Regional MOAs ..................... 2-13<br />
2.2-4 Current and Projected Annual Training Munitions .................................................... 2-14<br />
2.2-5 Existing and Proposed F-<strong>22</strong> Annual Chaff and Flare Use .......................................... 2-15<br />
2.7-1 Summary of Impacts by Resource (Page 1 of 3) ........................................................... 2-<strong>22</strong><br />
2.7-1 Summary of Impacts by Resource (Page 2 of 3) ........................................................... 2-23<br />
2.7-1 Summary of Impacts by Resource (Page 3 of 3) ........................................................... 2-24<br />
3.1-1 Description of MOAs ......................................................................................................... 3-4<br />
3.1-2 Description of Restricted Airspace .................................................................................. 3-6<br />
3.2–1 Relation Between Annoyance and L dn ............................................................................ 3-9<br />
3.2-2 Land Area Noise Exposures Under <strong>Base</strong>line Conditions ........................................... 3-10<br />
3.2-3 Acres on JBER in Several Land Use Categories Impacted by Noise<br />
Greater Than 65 L dn .......................................................................................................... 3-12<br />
3.2-4 Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) Under the Flight Track for Aircraft at<br />
Various Altitudes in the Primary Airspace 1 ................................................................. 3-15<br />
3.2-5 Sound Exposure Level (SEL) under the Flight Track for Aircraft at<br />
Various Altitudes in the Primary Airspace 1 ................................................................. 3-15<br />
3.2-6 <strong>Base</strong>line Noise Levels Beneath Training Airspace Units ............................................ 3-15<br />
3.2-7 Sonic Boom Peak Overpressures (psf) for F-15 and F-<strong>22</strong>A Aircraft at<br />
Mach 1.2 Level Flight 1 ..................................................................................................... 3-16<br />
3.3-1 Airfield Waivers and Exemptions ................................................................................. 3-18<br />
3-4-1 Alaska Ambient Air Quality Standards (18 AAC 50.010) .......................................... 3-27<br />
3.4-2 GHG Emissions & Percentages by ADEC Source Category ...................................... 3-29<br />
3.4-3 JBER Estimated Emissions Summary (2010) ................................................................ 3-29<br />
3.4-4 Regional Emissions for Greater Anchorage Area ........................................................ 3-30<br />
3.4-5 Annual Emissions Associated with Six Primary F-<strong>22</strong>s ............................................... 3-30<br />
3.6-1 The Occurrence of Special-Status Species at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> and<br />
Environs ............................................................................................................................. 3-36<br />
3.8-1 Special Use Areas within F-<strong>22</strong> Airspace (Page 1 of 3) ................................................. 3-50<br />
3.9-1 Demographic Characteristics of Affected Regions (2000) .......................................... 3-57<br />
3.9-2 Economic Characteristics of Regions (2000)................................................................. 3-58<br />
3.10-1 Minority and Low-Income Populations by Area (2000) ............................................. 3-60<br />
4.2-1 Areas Exposed to Noise Intervals Under <strong>Base</strong>line Conditions and the<br />
Proposed Action ................................................................................................................. 4-3<br />
4.2-2 Acres on JBER in Several Land Use Categories Impacted by Noise<br />
Greater Than 65 L dn ............................................................................................................ 4-6<br />
4.2-3 Noise Levels Under <strong>Base</strong>line Conditions and the Proposed Action ........................... 4-8<br />
5.1-1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Military Projects (Page 1 of 2) ................ 5-3<br />
5.1-1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Military Projects (Page 2 of 2) ................ 5-4<br />
5.1-2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Civil Projects ............................................ 5-5<br />
Page iv
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Table of Contents<br />
A<br />
B<br />
C<br />
D<br />
E<br />
F<br />
Characteristics of Chaff<br />
Appendices<br />
Characteristics and Analysis of Flares<br />
Public and Agency Outreach<br />
Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operations<br />
Sec 7 (ESA) Compliance Wildlife Analysis for F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong> UP <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>,<br />
<strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson (JBER), Alaska<br />
Review of Effects of Aircraft Noise, Chaff, and Flares on Biological Resources<br />
Page v
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Table of Contents<br />
This page intentionally left blank.<br />
Page vi
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Executive Summary<br />
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY<br />
The United States (U.S.) Congress has approved the next-generation F-<strong>22</strong> air dominance fighter<br />
to replace and supplement the increasingly vulnerable F-15C and F-15E aircraft fleets. In 2006<br />
the United States Air Force (Air Force) relocated one squadron of F-15C and one squadron of F-<br />
15E aircraft from <strong>Elmendorf</strong> Air Force <strong>Base</strong> (AFB) and established the Second F-<strong>22</strong> Operational<br />
Wing at what is now <strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson (JBER), Alaska. On July 29, 2010, the<br />
Department of the Air Force announced actions to consolidate the F-<strong>22</strong> fleet by redistributing<br />
aircraft from Holloman AFB, New Mexico, to existing F-<strong>22</strong> units, including the 3rd Wing (3<br />
WG) at JBER. This <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> (EA) analyzes the Air Force proposal to augment<br />
the F-<strong>22</strong> Operational Wing at JBER by consolidating six primary and one backup F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft to<br />
JBER from Holloman AFB.<br />
The proposal is to plus-up the existing F-<strong>22</strong> Operational Wing at JBER with six primary aircraft<br />
and one backup aircraft; conduct flying sorties at the base and in existing Alaskan airspace for<br />
training and deployment; and implement personnel changes to conform to the F-<strong>22</strong> Wing<br />
requirements. The plus-up aircraft would result in two JBER squadrons, each with 21 primary<br />
and two backup F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft, plus one attrition reserve aircraft, for a total of 47 F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft.<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> training flights would continue to take place on Alaskan Military Operations Areas<br />
(MOAs), Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA), and Restricted Areas (R-). During<br />
training, F-<strong>22</strong>s would continue to employ defensive chaff and flare countermeasures in airspace<br />
authorized for their use and deploy munitions on approved ranges under Restricted Airspace.<br />
This EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) have been prepared in accordance with<br />
the National <strong>Environmental</strong> Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations. This EA and<br />
draft FONSI were issued for a 30-day public and agency review and comment period.<br />
Comments on the EA and draft FONSI, in addition to the EA analyses, were considered in<br />
decision-making regarding the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up proposal.<br />
PURPOSE AND NEED<br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> is a 21st century fighter designed to replace and supplement F-15C and F-15E aircraft<br />
which can be targeted by enemy air defenses at increasingly greater distances. The F-<strong>22</strong> has the<br />
low-visibility, speed, and maneuverability to overcome adversaries and ensure air dominance<br />
over any battlefield. In 2007, following the 2006 decision to beddown the second F-<strong>22</strong><br />
operational wing at <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB, 42 of the 60 F-15 primary aircraft assigned to then<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB were replaced by 36 F-<strong>22</strong> primary and four backup aircraft. Subsequently, the<br />
remaining F-15C squadron of 18 primary aircraft was reassigned from <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB, leaving<br />
what is now JBER with 36 F-<strong>22</strong> primary aircraft. The proposed beddown would add six<br />
primary aircraft and one backup aircraft to JBER to meet Air Force mission requirements. The<br />
purpose of augmenting the JBER F-<strong>22</strong> operational wing is to locate more combat aircraft where<br />
they would be available for contingencies and enhance F-<strong>22</strong> operational flexibility.<br />
Page ES-1
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Executive Summary<br />
PROPOSED ACTION AND NO ACTION ALTERNATIVES<br />
The Proposed Action is to augment the existing F-<strong>22</strong> operational wing at JBER, composed of 36<br />
primary and three backup aircraft, and one attrition reserve aircraft to result in two squadrons<br />
each with 21 primary and two backup F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft, plus one attrition reserve aircraft, for a total<br />
of 47 F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft. The additional F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft would conduct operations at JBER comparable to<br />
the existing F-<strong>22</strong> operations, with approximately 75 percent of the departures and all landings<br />
on the main runway and approximately 25 percent of departures on the cross-wind runway.<br />
The additional F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft would train in existing Alaska training airspace and ranges<br />
comparable to training of existing F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft. Augmentation of the existing F-<strong>22</strong> operational<br />
wing at JBER is proposed to take place over a period of approximately one year. An additional<br />
103 personnel would be added to JBER. No new buildings would be needed to support the<br />
additional aircraft.<br />
The No Action Alternative would not beddown an additional six F-<strong>22</strong> primary aircraft at JBER<br />
at this time. The consolidation of F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft for contingencies and to enhance F-<strong>22</strong> operational<br />
flexibility would not occur. Existing F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft would continue to train at supersonic speeds<br />
and use defensive countermeasures in approved airspace and deploy munitions at approved<br />
ranges in Alaska.<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES<br />
The focused analysis is on the following environmental resources:<br />
airspace management and air traffic control (including airport traffic),<br />
noise, safety, air quality, hazardous materials, biological resources,<br />
cultural resources, land use, socioeconomics, and environmental justice.<br />
Airspace Management and Air Traffic Control<br />
Please refer to Figure 2.1-1<br />
for a map of JBER-<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong> and Figure 2.2-2<br />
for a map of Alaskan<br />
airspace.<br />
<strong>Base</strong>. The additional six primary F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft would use the base runways and fly in the base<br />
environs as the existing F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft do today. The Proposed Action would add an average of<br />
approximately five F-<strong>22</strong> sorties per day to base operations. Anchorage Alaska Terminal Area<br />
(AATA) management of airspace regional would not be impacted by this increase.<br />
Airspace. The additional six primary F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft would use the same Alaska airspace<br />
currently used for F-<strong>22</strong> training. The additional aircraft would not affect regional airspace<br />
management. The usage of the airspace would not change to the extent that civil aviation<br />
would be affected. The time spent at higher MOA and ATCAA altitudes by the F-<strong>22</strong>, should<br />
have minimal or no effect upon civil aviation, including general aviation that normally flies at<br />
lower altitudes.<br />
Noise<br />
<strong>Base</strong>. Noise in military airspace is quantified by metrics called the Day-Night Average Sound<br />
Level (L dn) and the Onset-Rate Adjusted Monthly Day-Night Average Sound Level (L dnmr). No<br />
on- or off-base residences are exposed to noise levels greater than 80 dB L dnmr and, therefore,<br />
hearing loss risk for on- or off-installation residents is relatively low. Structures in the flightline<br />
Page ES-2
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Executive Summary<br />
exposed to noise at greater than 80 dB L dn would increase slightly from 52 to 63. Workers on<br />
JBER are protected against possible noise impacts by adherence to DoD noise management<br />
guidelines.<br />
Additional off-base areas expected to be within the 65 dB L dn noise contour are 6.6 acres over<br />
the Port of Anchorage, 410.7 acres over water of the Knik Arm, and 0.2 acre of land west of the<br />
Knik Arm. The 65 dB L dn noise contours would not extend into residential areas off-base. The<br />
increased noise areas are not projected to impact human or natural resources in the area. Noise<br />
effects on biological resources are described below under biology.<br />
Airspace. No discernible difference in subsonic noise is projected in MOAs used for training.<br />
The change in L dnmr between baseline conditions and the Proposed Action under MOAs used for<br />
training would be 1 dB or less. F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft currently train at supersonic speed approximately<br />
25 percent of a typical air-to-air engagement. The plus-up would result in a noticeable increase<br />
in sonic booms, from 18.1 to an estimated 21.5 per month under the Stony MOAs/ATCAAs.<br />
Other MOAs/ATCAAs approved for supersonic training would have increases in sonic booms<br />
from one to three per month depending on the airspace. Currently there are from 10 to 26 sonic<br />
booms per month under the approved MOAs/ATCAAs. Sonic booms would not pose a health<br />
or other risk but could increase annoyance.<br />
Safety<br />
<strong>Base</strong>. There would be no substantial change regarding airfield safety conditions, Bird-Aircraft<br />
Strike Hazard (BASH), munitions, or personnel safety. The number of aircraft at the base<br />
would be fewer than had been in 2006. JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> aircraft ground safety would<br />
essentially remain the same with an F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up.<br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> is a new aircraft which has an approximate Class A mishap rate after eight years of test<br />
and operations nearly identical to the twin-engine F-15 mishap rate of 6.35 per 100,000 flight<br />
hours after eight years of test and operations. As experience with the F-<strong>22</strong> grows, the F-<strong>22</strong> is<br />
expected to have approximately the same long-term Class A mishap rate of 2.46 per 100,000<br />
flight hours as the F-15.<br />
Explosive safety includes the management and use of ordnance or munitions associated with<br />
airbase operations and training activities. The amount of munitions associated with the two<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> squadrons, with the plus-up, would be lower than munitions use of the historic F-15<br />
squadrons. The use of chaff and flares would be below historic F-15 levels but would increase<br />
proportionally to the number of F-<strong>22</strong>s training in the airspace (an approximate 16.7 percent<br />
increase). JBER has the personnel and facilities to handle the proposed levels of munitions,<br />
chaff, and flares associated with the additional aircraft.<br />
Airspace. Within the training airspace, aircraft safety and bird-aircraft strikes with the<br />
additional six primary F-<strong>22</strong>s would be proportioned to the 36 primary aircraft already assigned<br />
to the base. All safety actions that are in place for existing F-<strong>22</strong> training would continue to be in<br />
place for the additional aircraft. The F-<strong>22</strong> pilot’s improved situational awareness and the F-<strong>22</strong><br />
normal training altitude is expected to result in no safety impacts to civil aviation within the<br />
airspace.<br />
Page ES-3
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Executive Summary<br />
Additional F-<strong>22</strong>s training in the airspace would increase chaff or flare use proportionately (an<br />
estimated 16.7 percent) over baseline F-<strong>22</strong> use. After deployment of each chaff bundle, four 1-<br />
inch by 1/2-inch plastic or nylon pieces and six 2-inch by 3-inch pieces of paper fall to the<br />
ground. After deployment of each flare, three plastic pieces of up to 2 inches by 2 inches and<br />
one 1-inch by 1-inch to 4-inch by 15-inch aluminum-coated duct tape-type mylar wrapping fall<br />
to the ground. These nylon, paper, or other pieces would not affect safety for human or<br />
biological resources under the airspace. No safety consequences from continued chaff and flare<br />
use are anticipated.<br />
Air Quality<br />
<strong>Base</strong>. The Anchorage area is in air quality attainment for all criteria pollutants and anticipated<br />
emission resulting from the Proposed Action would not cause or contribute to a new National<br />
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) violation. No conformity determination is required as<br />
the emissions for all pollutants are below the de minimis threshold established by the U.S.<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Protection Agency (USEPA) in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 93.153.<br />
Airfield flight operation emissions are projected to be minimally higher than at present, yet<br />
should result in no change in air quality within the Anchorage area. No additional global<br />
Green House Gases (GHG) would be emitted by transferring six F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft from New Mexico<br />
to Alaska. Regional GHG would increase less than one percent of the regional military GHG<br />
emissions.<br />
Airspace. Areas under the training airspace are within air quality attainment. Emissions from<br />
the increase above current F-<strong>22</strong> operations would be transitory and dispersed over the extensive<br />
Alaskan Special Use Airspace (SUA). More than 99.5 percent of F-<strong>22</strong> flight operations occur at<br />
altitudes above the mixing height of pollutants. Residents and visitors to Alaska Native villages<br />
and traditional subsistence areas underlying this airspace would not experience any change in<br />
emissions associated with the Proposed Action.<br />
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management<br />
<strong>Base</strong>. There would be no significant impacts on hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, or the<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Restoration Program (ERP). Existing procedures are adequate to handle the<br />
changes anticipated with the expected approximate 16.7 percent increase in use of F-<strong>22</strong><br />
hazardous materials associated with the plus-up.<br />
Airspace. The F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up would not substantially change airspace use or training. The F-<strong>22</strong><br />
does not discharge hazardous wastes in the Alaskan airspace. Various hazardous materials and<br />
fluids are contained in the aircraft but are not released in the training airspace. No significant<br />
impacts on hazardous materials or wastes in the training airspace are expected.<br />
Biological Resources<br />
<strong>Base</strong>. No impacts would occur to vegetation and no wildlife habitat would be lost within the<br />
base environs Region of Influence (ROI) at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>. Concerns for biological resources<br />
include potential impacts on threatened or endangered species, and noise associated with F-<strong>22</strong><br />
operations.<br />
Page ES-4
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Executive Summary<br />
Although there are no federally listed threatened or endangered species that inhabit JBER-<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong>, noise contours associated with the proposed increased operation of F-<strong>22</strong>s extend<br />
into the Knik Arm of Cook Inlet, where Cook Inlet beluga whales (CIBW) occur. Potential<br />
effects to the CIBW include behavioral response to the overflight of F-<strong>22</strong>s over the Knik Arm.<br />
Overflight patterns and noise contours were quantified over the Knik Arm. The quantifications<br />
demonstrate that approximately 0.04 individuals per year (four individuals in 100 years) would<br />
be expected to adjust behavior as a result of the noise generated by the proposed additional F-<strong>22</strong><br />
flying operations. On February <strong>22</strong>, 2011, the National Marine Fisheries Service determined that<br />
this level of behavior response would mean the plus-up may affect but is unlikely to adversely<br />
affect the CIBW. On February 8, 2011, the USFWS indicated that no federally listed or proposed<br />
species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat for which the USFWS is responsible are<br />
within the action area of the project. The additional F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft operating from JBER would not<br />
be expected to have a significant environmental effect upon any biological species, including<br />
listed or candidate species.<br />
Airspace. No discernible difference in subsonic noise is projected in MOAs used for training.<br />
There would be no change in effects to wildlife. Increases in sonic booms under some airspace<br />
units may startle some individual animals, although wildlife under the training airspaces have<br />
previously experienced sonic booms and are likely habituated. An approximate 16.7 percent<br />
increase in F-<strong>22</strong> chaff and flare use would not be expected to adversely impact biological<br />
resources.<br />
Cultural Resources<br />
<strong>Base</strong>. No new construction would be necessary to accommodate the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up. Thus, no<br />
direct impacts to cultural resources are anticipated. The personnel increase of less than one<br />
percent of the JBER population is not expected to result in any indirect impacts to cultural<br />
resources.<br />
Airspace. There would be no impacts to historic properties under the airspace. The increase in<br />
sonic booms may be detected and could annoy some Alaska Native users of land but would not<br />
be expected to affect subsistence hunting or other activities.<br />
Land Use, Transportation, and Recreation<br />
<strong>Base</strong>. No changes in land use or transportation on base would be expected. There would be<br />
some extension of the 65 dB L dn noise contour over a portion of the Knik Arm, and over<br />
compatible land uses in the Port of Anchorage area. The noise increase from additional F-<strong>22</strong><br />
operations should not result in changes to land use or land ownership. The 65 dB L dn contour<br />
extending over an additional 0.2 acre of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough-owned peninsula tip<br />
across the Knik Arm is not projected to affect land uses in the area. Noise contours of 65 dB L dn<br />
would not extend off-base into residential areas. There would be no changes to the safety<br />
zones.<br />
A less than one percent increase in on-base employment could slightly increase vehicle trips in<br />
the long term. The negligible increase in traffic is not expected to substantially affect commute<br />
times.<br />
Page ES-5
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Executive Summary<br />
Airspace. An increase in average sonic booms by an estimated one to three booms per month<br />
would occur under MOAs used for training. Alaska Natives who live under or spend extensive<br />
time subsistence hunting and fishing under these MOAs could discern the additional sonic<br />
booms. The increased frequency of sonic booms would not be expected to affect land use or<br />
land use patterns, ownership, or management, but the increase has the potential to cause<br />
additional annoyance to residents and long-term users of the lands under the affected airspace.<br />
Socioeconomics<br />
<strong>Base</strong>. The addition of 103 Air Force personnel to support the additional six F-<strong>22</strong> primary<br />
aircraft represents less than one percent of JBER employment. The potential population,<br />
employment, income, and output associated with an addition of less than one percent of the<br />
personnel and no new construction would be expected to result in no measurable effect upon<br />
the regional economy. The Anchorage housing market with approximately 6,700 vacant units<br />
and a 6.0 percent vacancy rate would be expected to easily absorb the additional personnel.<br />
Airspace. There would be no discernible effects on social or economic conditions under the<br />
airspace. The projected increase in sonic booms may annoy individuals participating in<br />
subsistence or recreational hunting or fishing. This would not be expected to significantly affect<br />
activities under the airspace or local economies that rely on subsistence resources. The Air<br />
Force has established procedures for any damage claims associated with sonic booms that begin<br />
by contacting the JBER Public Affairs Office.<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Justice<br />
<strong>Base</strong>. Federal agencies are required by law to address potential impacts of their actions on<br />
environmental and human health conditions in minority and low-income communities.<br />
Furthermore, they must identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that may<br />
disproportionately affect children. The low-income communities and the minority and youth<br />
population near JBER were evaluated. The off-base community of Mountain View has a<br />
concentration of minority and low-income population. The proportion and type of JBER flight<br />
operations from the main and cross-wind runways are performed to avoid the extension of 65<br />
dB L dn noise contours into the Mountain View community. No off-base significant noise<br />
impacts are expected to minority or low-income communities. There would be no health and<br />
safety risks to children.<br />
Airspace. High proportions of Alaska Natives who live under the airspace are representative of<br />
rural populations throughout the state. Persons living under the airspace, particularly the<br />
Stony MOAs, could notice or be annoyed by increased sonic booms. This change in sonic<br />
booms by an additional one to three per month would not be expected to damage health or<br />
other environmental resources. No disproportionately high or adverse impacts to minority or<br />
low-income communities would result from increased F-<strong>22</strong> training. There would be no health<br />
and safety risks to children.<br />
Page ES-6
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Executive Summary<br />
Cumulative Consequences<br />
Cumulative effects analysis considers the potential environmental consequences resulting from<br />
“the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably<br />
foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal of non-federal) or person<br />
undertakes such actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Multiple federal and non-federal projects near the<br />
base and airspace were identified and evaluated to see whether cumulative impacts could<br />
occur.<br />
<strong>Base</strong>. The relocation of three F-15 aircraft squadrons, the beddown of C-17 aircraft, <strong>Base</strong><br />
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) decisions regarding C-130 aircraft, proposed transportation<br />
projects, and other projects were cumulatively evaluated. As JBER combines administrative,<br />
air, and ground activities over the next few years, there could be a desire to assess such<br />
combined efforts in a future environmental analysis. Such a future analysis, should it occur,<br />
would include all JBER activities and would not be connected to the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up. The F-<strong>22</strong><br />
plus-up would not be expected to have adverse cumulative effects in combination with past,<br />
present, or reasonably foreseeable cumulative actions.<br />
Airspace. The airspace analysis in this EA includes all expected aircraft operations in existing<br />
Alaska training airspace. Potential airspace enhancements to the <strong>Joint</strong> Pacific-Alaskan Range<br />
Complex (JPARC) are currently under study. Any potential JPARC impacts to airspace<br />
management will be addressed in separate environmental documentation. The cumulative<br />
replacement of three squadrons operating a total of 60 primary twin-engine fighter aircraft with<br />
42 (36 plus 6) similarly-sized twin-engine fighter aircraft would not be expected to have an<br />
adverse cumulative effect in combination with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable<br />
cumulative actions.<br />
Page ES-7
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Executive Summary<br />
This page is intentionally left blank.<br />
Page ES-8
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
1.0 Purpose and Need for F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> at JBER<br />
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR F-<strong>22</strong> PLUS-UP<br />
AT JBER<br />
In 1985, Congress determined that a need existed to provide the United States Air Force (USAF)<br />
with a next-generation fighter to replace and supplement the aging F-15C and newer F-15E<br />
fleet, and to ensure air dominance well into the 21 st century. Congress determined that the F-<strong>22</strong><br />
would meet this need. In 2006 the Air Force selected what is now <strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-<br />
Richardson (JBER), Alaska as the location for the second F-<strong>22</strong> operational wing (F-<strong>22</strong> Beddown<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> [EA], <strong>Elmendorf</strong>, Alaska, and Finding of No Significant Impact [FONSI],<br />
2006). Figure 1.0-1 illustrates the airfield area.<br />
On July 29, 2010, the Department of the Air Force announced proposed actions to consolidate<br />
the F-<strong>22</strong> fleet. The Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force determined<br />
that the most effective basing for the F-<strong>22</strong> requires redistributing aircraft from an F-<strong>22</strong> squadron<br />
at Holloman Air Force <strong>Base</strong> (AFB), New Mexico to existing F-<strong>22</strong> units at JBER, Langley AFB<br />
(Virginia), and Nellis AFB (Nevada). A second F-<strong>22</strong> squadron at Holloman AFB would be<br />
relocated to Tyndall AFB (Florida), also an existing F-<strong>22</strong> base.<br />
The purpose of the proposed F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up at JBER is to consolidate F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft to maximize<br />
combat aircraft and squadrons available for contingencies, and enhance F-<strong>22</strong> operational<br />
flexibility (Air Force 2010a). The F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up at JBER is needed for improved combat<br />
effectiveness of existing F-<strong>22</strong> operational squadrons.<br />
1.1 Background<br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> is a 21 st century fighter designed to replace and<br />
supplement F-15C and F-15E aircraft, both of which can be<br />
targeted by enemy air defenses at increasingly greater<br />
distances. The F-<strong>22</strong> has the low visibility, speed, and<br />
maneuverability to overcome adversaries and ensure air<br />
dominance over any battlefield. The purpose of<br />
augmenting the JBER F-<strong>22</strong> operational wing is to locate<br />
more of these advanced assets in the westernmost United<br />
States.<br />
JBER is home to the second operational wing of<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> fighter aircraft.<br />
The Proposed Action is to plus-up the F-<strong>22</strong><br />
squadrons in Alaska by adding seven aircraft to<br />
the F-<strong>22</strong> operational wing.<br />
In 2006, the Air Force completed an EA and FONSI for the<br />
beddown of 36 primary aircraft F-<strong>22</strong>s at <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB (Air<br />
Force 2006). In 2007, 36 of the 54 F-15 primary aircraft plus six<br />
backup aircraft assigned to <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB were replaced by<br />
36 F-<strong>22</strong> primary aircraft and four F-<strong>22</strong> backup aircraft.<br />
Subsequently, the remaining F-15C primary aircraft were<br />
reassigned from <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB, leaving only the 36 F-<strong>22</strong><br />
primary aircraft. The proposed plus-up would add six<br />
additional primary aircraft and one backup aircraft to JBER to<br />
meet Air Force mission requirements.<br />
Page 1-1
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
1.0 Purpose and Need for F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> at JBER`<br />
Figure 1.0-1. Airfield Area of <strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson Referred to in this EA<br />
Page 1-2
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
1.0 Purpose and Need for F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> at JBER<br />
The proposal is to beddown six primary and one back up F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft, conduct flying sorties at<br />
the base for training and deployment, and implement personnel changes to conform to the F-<strong>22</strong><br />
Wing requirements. Primary aircraft are aircraft authorized to a unit for performance of its<br />
operational mission. The primary authorization forms the basis for the allocation of operating<br />
resources to include manpower, support equipment, and flying-hour funds. Backup aircraft are<br />
aircraft assigned to a base to support the operational mission when a primary aircraft is<br />
unavailable to fly for any reason. Attrition reserve aircraft serve to replace any aircraft lost<br />
through Class A mishaps.<br />
Training flights of the additional F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft would take place in Alaskan Military Operations<br />
Areas (MOAs), Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA), and Restricted Areas where F-<br />
<strong>22</strong> aircraft currently train at subsonic and supersonic speeds (Figure 1.1-1).<br />
During training, F-<strong>22</strong>s employ defensive chaff and flare countermeasures in airspace authorized for<br />
their use. Air-to-ground munitions continue to be deployed by F-<strong>22</strong> fighters on approved ranges.<br />
This EA addresses the potential environmental consequences associated with the F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong>,<br />
according to the requirements of the National <strong>Environmental</strong> Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United States<br />
Code [U.S.C.] 4321 et seq.), Council on <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of<br />
Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500–1508), and The <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Analysis Process<br />
(32 CFR 989 et seq.). NEPA is the basic national charter for identifying environmental<br />
consequences of major federal actions. NEPA ensures that environmental information is available<br />
to the public, agencies, and decision makers before decisions are made and actions are taken.<br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> Raptors based at JBER are designed to ensure that America’s armed forces retain air<br />
dominance. This means complete control of the airspace over an area of conflict, thereby allowing<br />
freedom to attack and freedom from attack at all times and places within the full spectrum of<br />
military operations. Air dominance provides the ability to defend American and Allied forces<br />
from enemy attack, and to attack air and ground adversary forces without hindrance from enemy<br />
aircraft. During the initial phases of deployment into an area of conflict, the first aircraft to arrive<br />
are the most vulnerable because they face the entire<br />
warfighting capability of an adversary. The F-<strong>22</strong>’s state-of-theart<br />
technology, advanced tactics, and skilled aircrew will<br />
ensure air dominance from the outset of such situations. The<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> has the low-visibility, speed, and maneuverability to<br />
overcome adversary improvements in air defenses, and ensure<br />
air dominance over any battlefield.<br />
1.1.1 Aircraft Characteristics of the F-<strong>22</strong><br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> has enhanced low visibilty, speed,<br />
maneuverability, electronics, and maintainability.<br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> Raptor is a single-seat, all-weather, multipurpose fighter capable of both air-to-air and<br />
air-to-ground missions. Powered by two 35,000-pound thrust-class engines, the F-<strong>22</strong> routinely<br />
operates at high altitudes (above 30,000 feet mean sea level [MSL]). The F-<strong>22</strong> can achieve speeds<br />
needed for air-to-air combat while using relatively low power settings. F-<strong>22</strong> characteristics<br />
make the aircraft able to launch sophisticated weapons at high speeds and from greater<br />
distances than possible with other aircraft. The F-<strong>22</strong> is approximately 62 feet long, with a<br />
wingspan of 44 feet, and a height of more than 16 feet.<br />
Page 1-3
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
1.0 Purpose and Need for F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> at JBER`<br />
Figure 1.1-1. Training Special Use Airspace<br />
Page 1-4
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
1.0 Purpose and Need for F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> at JBER<br />
JBER F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft can carry air-to-air missiles and a variety of conventional and Long Range<br />
Standoff Weapons (LRSOW) for air-to-ground ordnance delivery. The F-<strong>22</strong> has a 20-millimeter<br />
multi-barrel cannon. Training in Alaskan airspace simulates air-to-air missiles by aircraft<br />
exercising all aspects of the weapon system without actually launching an air-to-air missile.<br />
Air-to-ground training with LRSOW would include flying to launch profiles and speeds at high<br />
altitude with simulated launches. Existing Alaska conventional ranges would be used for<br />
munitions training. Release profiles, altitudes, and speeds are now, and would continue to be,<br />
limited to keep weapon safety footprints within established Alaskan ranges.<br />
1.1.2 <strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson (JBER)<br />
JBER, located near Anchorage, Alaska, is the home of the Air Force’s Alaskan Command, 11 th<br />
Air Force, Alaskan North American Air Defense region, and the 673d Air <strong>Base</strong> Wing, as well as<br />
U.S. Army Alaska. The F-<strong>22</strong> 3rd Wing (3 WG) is comprised of two squadrons of F-<strong>22</strong>s (36<br />
primary aircraft). JBER also is home to C-17 transports,<br />
C-12 and E-3 aircraft, and CH-47 Chinook and UH-60<br />
Blackhawk helicopters, all of which have been regularly<br />
deployed to combat areas. JBER covers 84,000 acres,<br />
including a 10,000-foot main runway and a 7,500-foot<br />
cross-runway. Figure 1.0-1 presents JBER’s airfield and<br />
operational area; the airfield and operational area is<br />
referred to as JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>. The Proposed Action<br />
would include 103 additional personnel to support the<br />
additional F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft.<br />
JBER has had multiple squadrons at different times<br />
during its history.<br />
JBER has extensive airspace for training (Figure 1.1-1), including overland MOAs and ATCAAs<br />
which provide regular training airspace for the F-<strong>22</strong>s, other aircraft, and larger two-week<br />
scheduled Major Flying Exercises (MFEs). Many of these airspaces permit supersonic flight and<br />
allow the use of chaff and flares for defensive training. Existing Army Training Ranges provide<br />
for local air-to-ground training for F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft. No airspace modifications are proposed for the<br />
additional F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft; Chapter 2.0 of this EA describes the F-<strong>22</strong> missions and training.<br />
1.2 Purpose of F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> at JBER<br />
The purpose of the proposed plus-up of F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft at JBER is to provide additional Air Force<br />
capabilities at a strategic location to meet mission responsibilities for worldwide deployment.<br />
This consolidation of F-<strong>22</strong> operational aircraft would be designed to maximize combat aircraft<br />
and squadrons available for contingencies. The plus-up of six F-<strong>22</strong> primary aircraft and one<br />
backup aircraft would fill out the existing JBER F-<strong>22</strong> squadrons and provide enhanced<br />
capabilities while efficiently using JBER facilities designed and constructed for the existing F-<strong>22</strong><br />
operational wing.<br />
Page 1-5
1.3 Need for the F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> at JBER<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
1.0 Purpose and Need for F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> at JBER`<br />
Two squadrons of F-15C air superiority aircraft and one<br />
squadron of F-15E air-to-ground aircraft were relocated<br />
from JBER between 2005 and 2010. Since World War II,<br />
JBER has provided an advanced location on U.S. soil for<br />
projection of U.S. global interests. Additional F-<strong>22</strong><br />
aircraft are needed at JBER to provide expanded U.S.<br />
Air Force capability to respond efficiently to national<br />
objectives, be available for contingencies, and enhance<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> operational flexibility.<br />
JBER capabilities with multi-role F-<strong>22</strong> operational<br />
squadrons would be enhanced by the addition of six<br />
operational F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft.<br />
Page 1-6
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED<br />
ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES<br />
The Proposed Action is to augment the existing F-<strong>22</strong> operational wing at JBER with six primary<br />
aircraft and one backup aircraft. This chapter describes the Proposed Action and the No Action<br />
Alternative. The No Action Alternative would not beddown the additional F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft at JBER<br />
at this time.<br />
Augmentation of the existing F-<strong>22</strong> operational wing at JBER is<br />
proposed to take place over a period of approximately one year.<br />
An additional 103 personnel would be added to JBER. No new<br />
buildings would be needed to support the aircraft. Training<br />
would occur in existing Alaska military use airspace.<br />
The existing F-<strong>22</strong> operational wing at JBER consists of two<br />
squadrons of 18 primary aircraft each, plus a total of three<br />
backup aircraft. With the proposed plus-up, each of the two F-<br />
<strong>22</strong> squadrons at JBER would be composed of 21 primary aircraft plus two backup aircraft. The<br />
two-squadron F-<strong>22</strong> operational wing would include 42 primary aircraft, four backup aircraft,<br />
and one attrition reserve aircraft for a total of 47 aircraft. Primary aircraft consists of the aircraft<br />
authorized and assigned to perform the squadron’s missions in training, deployment, and<br />
combat. Backup aircraft are additional aircraft that are used as substitutes for primary aircraft<br />
during, for example, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance and modifications. Attrition<br />
reserve aircraft serve to replace any aircraft lost through Class A mishaps.<br />
Activities Affecting JBER<br />
• Beddown six additional primary and one backup F-<strong>22</strong><br />
aircraft over a period of approximately one year.<br />
• Conduct flying sorties at the base for training and<br />
deployment.<br />
• Implement the personnel changes at the base to<br />
conform to the expanded F-<strong>22</strong> wing’s requirements.<br />
Elements Affecting Alaskan Airspace<br />
• Conduct subsonic and supersonic F-<strong>22</strong> training flights<br />
in MOAs, Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace<br />
(ATCAA), and Restricted Areas.<br />
• Employ defensive countermeasures (chaff and flares)<br />
in airspace authorized for their use.<br />
• Train for air-to-air and air-to-ground missions.<br />
The existing F-<strong>22</strong> operational wing<br />
capabilities at JBER would be enhanced by<br />
the additional aircraft.<br />
The <strong>Base</strong> Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Act of<br />
2005 directed that one of the two squadrons of F-15C<br />
aircraft and the single F-15E squadron be relocated<br />
from what is now JBER. This relocation was<br />
completed in 2007. Subsequent to the BRAC action,<br />
the remaining squadron of F-15C aircraft was<br />
relocated from <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB by September 2010.<br />
The plus-up of six primary F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft to the<br />
existing operational wing would retain Air Force<br />
mission capabilities at JBER.<br />
The proposed plus-up of the F-<strong>22</strong> operational wing<br />
would involve activities at the base and in the<br />
associated training airspace. This chapter presents<br />
proposed activities at the base, training use of Special Use Airspace (SUA) and other training<br />
airspace, use of air-to-ground ranges, and personnel associated with a plus-up of six primary F-<br />
<strong>22</strong> aircraft at JBER. The No Action Alternative is described in conformance with the CEQ<br />
regulations [40 CFR 1502.14(d)] in Section 2.4.<br />
Page 2-1
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
2.1 Proposed Action Elements Affecting JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong><br />
JBER is used in this EA to refer to the entire <strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson. JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong><br />
refers to the F-<strong>22</strong> activities and operations at, and in the vicinity of, the airfield. The proposed<br />
plus-up of the F-<strong>22</strong> operational wing at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> could affect two aspects of the base:<br />
1. The beddown and flight activity of six primary aircraft could affect the base and its<br />
environs. This section describes existing and proposed flight activities near the base.<br />
2. The beddown would affect the numbers and responsibilities of base personnel. The<br />
proposed personnel change is described in this section.<br />
2.1.1 JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> Flight Activities<br />
The additional six F-<strong>22</strong> primary aircraft would use the base runways, and fly in the base<br />
environs, similarly to how the existing 36 F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft do currently. This includes take-off and<br />
landings, training, and deployment.<br />
The Air Force anticipates that, by completion of the plus-up beddown, the<br />
JBER F-<strong>22</strong> operational wing would fly approximately 5,210 sorties per year<br />
from JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>. The Air Force would continue occasional use of<br />
other Alaskan locations at the same levels currently used by F-<strong>22</strong> training<br />
aircraft.<br />
A sortie is the flight of<br />
a single aircraft from<br />
takeoff to landing.<br />
JBER F-<strong>22</strong>s would continue to fly the same percentage (30 percent) of sorties after dark (i.e.,<br />
about one hour after sunset) as required under the Air Force’s initiative to increase readiness.<br />
Aircrews operating from JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> can normally fulfill the annual night flying<br />
requirements during winter months without flying after 10:00 p.m. or before 7:00 a.m. to be<br />
consistent with the JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> noise abatement program.<br />
The drawdown of the third F-15C squadron has reduced total fighter aircraft based at JBER-<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong> by 24 primary aircraft. The proposed addition of six F-<strong>22</strong> primary aircraft would<br />
partially backfill the number of aircraft assigned to JBER. The<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> operational wing at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> would be<br />
comprised of two squadrons of 21 primary aircraft each. The<br />
number of F-<strong>22</strong> sorties would be as described above.<br />
Table 2.1-1 presents the type and number of fixed-wing<br />
aircraft currently assigned to and proposed for JBER-<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong>. Additional aircraft assigned to JBER include<br />
helicopters. This table permits a comparison of current<br />
aircraft assignments and proposed F-<strong>22</strong> beddown<br />
assignments.<br />
Due to long hours of darkness during the winter<br />
months, aircrews operating from JBER can<br />
fulfill night-flying requirements without flying<br />
during environmental night (after 10:00 p.m. to<br />
7:00 a.m.).<br />
JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> flight operations occur on the main runway (06/24) and the cross-wind<br />
runway (16/34). The existing and plus-up F-<strong>22</strong> operations would consist of approximately 25<br />
percent of departures on Runway 16/34 and all landings and second approaches on Runway<br />
06/24. The main runway would be the primary runway used by F-<strong>22</strong> and other JBER-based<br />
Page 2-2
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
and transient aircraft except in the case of national emergencies, major flying exercises, runway<br />
or taxiway maintenance, or limited programs to evaluate alternative flight operations. Other<br />
than in these cases, F-<strong>22</strong> launches, existing and projected with the plus-up, would be<br />
approximately 25 percent on Runway 34 (northbound crosswind) and no launches would be<br />
expected to occur on Runway 16 (southbound crosswind). Figure 2.1-1 identifies the runways.<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> landings would continue to occur almost exclusively on Runway 06/24. C-17 flight<br />
operations will continue to use primarily Runway 06/24 with limited use of Runway 16/34.<br />
Many of the C-17 approaches to Runway 16 are not followed by a departure from Runway 16 to<br />
complete a standard closed pattern. Rather, these approaches are often followed by a departure<br />
from Runway 06/24 and then maneuvering for another approach to Runway 16.<br />
Table 2.1-1. <strong>Base</strong>line and Proposed Primary Aircraft Assigned<br />
to JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong><br />
Aircraft Type<br />
Number Assigned<br />
<strong>Base</strong>line<br />
Proposed<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> 36 42<br />
C-17 8 8<br />
C-130 16 16<br />
C-12 2 2<br />
E-3A 2 2<br />
JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> also supports a range of transient users. On an annual basis, the installation has<br />
supported the levels of aviation operations shown in Table 2.1-2. An operation can be a take-off<br />
or departure, a landing or arrival, or a touch-and-go within a closed pattern around the airfield.<br />
Table 2.1-2. JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> Airfield Annual Operations<br />
Fiscal Year (FY) Number of Operations<br />
2005 41,340<br />
2006 59,567<br />
2007 42,346<br />
2008 40,354<br />
2009 44,561<br />
2010 47,315<br />
Operations conducted in recent years have been affected<br />
by many factors, including beddown of C-17 and C-130<br />
aircraft, drawdown of F-15C aircraft, and frequent<br />
deployment of assigned units overseas. While annual<br />
traffic has been highly variable, annual operations<br />
conducted in fiscal years (FYs) 2009 and 2010 provide an<br />
approximation of the installation’s expected annual<br />
demand.<br />
2.1.2 JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> Facilities<br />
JBER existing weather shelters, Hangar 15, and<br />
other facilities provide adequate space for the F-<strong>22</strong><br />
plus-up without the need for new buildings.<br />
Facilities constructed for the initial F-<strong>22</strong> operational wing beddown (Figure 2.1-1) would be able<br />
to accommodate the proposed additional six primary and one backup F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft. Thus, no<br />
new construction would be necessary.<br />
Page 2-3
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
Figure 2.1-1. Location of F-<strong>22</strong> Facilities<br />
Page 2-4
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
2.1.3 JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> Personnel<br />
The addition of six primary and one backup F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft at<br />
JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> would require additional personnel to<br />
operate and maintain the aircraft and to provide necessary<br />
support services. F-<strong>22</strong> personnel would increase by an<br />
estimated 103 positions from the personnel numbers<br />
associated with the current F-<strong>22</strong> squadrons. Table 2.1-3<br />
details the manpower requirements to support the plus-up<br />
of the F-<strong>22</strong> wing.<br />
Multiple personnel and skills are needed to support<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> operational aircraft.<br />
Table 2.1-3. Manpower Requirements<br />
Manpower Requirements<br />
Officer Enlisted Civilian Total<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> 1 92 661 193 946<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> 2 102 734 213 1,049<br />
Notes:<br />
1. Existing two squadrons of 18 primary aircraft.<br />
2. Requirements for two squadrons of 21 primary aircraft.<br />
2.2 Proposed Action Elements Affecting Alaskan Airspace<br />
F-<strong>22</strong>s at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> conduct similar missions and training programs as performed with the<br />
F-15Cs and F-15Es previously located at what is now JBER. The Air Force expects that the<br />
additional F-<strong>22</strong>s would use the training airspace associated with JBER in a manner similar to the<br />
F-<strong>22</strong>s currently based there. All F-<strong>22</strong> flight activities would use existing Alaskan airspace.<br />
Figure 2.2-1 displays the five types of Alaskan training airspace. Four of those airspace types<br />
are used by F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft for training. Airspace managed by JBER associated with the proposed<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up includes MOAs, ATCAAs, Warning Areas, and Restricted Areas. Restricted Areas<br />
and the ground ranges supporting air-to-ground training are provided by joint use ranges at<br />
Stuart Creek Range (R-<strong>22</strong>05) and the Oklahoma Impact Area of R-<strong>22</strong>02 (Figures 2.2-2 and 2.2-3).<br />
The Army’s Blair Lakes Range (R-<strong>22</strong>11) is exclusively used by the Air Force.<br />
Operational requirements and performance characteristics<br />
of the F-<strong>22</strong> dictate that most training would occur in MOAs<br />
and ATCAAs. MOAs are established by the Federal<br />
Aviation Administration (FAA) to separate military training<br />
aircraft from non-participating aircraft (those not using the<br />
MOA for training). Nonparticipating military and civil<br />
aircraft flying under visual flight rules may transit an active<br />
MOA by employing see-and-avoid procedures. When<br />
flying under instrument rules, nonparticipating aircraft<br />
must obtain an air traffic control clearance to enter an active<br />
MOA.<br />
The additional F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft would train in existing<br />
Alaskan airspace where the two squadrons of JBER<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft now train.<br />
Page 2-5
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
Figure 2.2-1. Types of Training Airspace<br />
Page 2-6
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
Figure 2.2-2. Alaska Training Special Use Airspace<br />
Page 2-7
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
Figure 2.2-3. MOAs, Restricted Areas, and Air-to-Ground Ranges<br />
Page 2-8
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
An ATCAA is airspace, often overlying a MOA, extending from 18,000 feet MSL to the altitude<br />
assigned by the FAA. Assigned on an as-needed basis and established by a letter of agreement<br />
between a military unit and the local FAA Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC), each<br />
ATCAA provides additional airspace for training. ATCAAs are released to military users by<br />
the FAA only for the time they are to be used, allowing maximum access to the airspace by<br />
civilian aviation.<br />
Currently, military training routes (MTR) are not utilized by the F-<strong>22</strong>s at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> and<br />
are not expected to be used under the proposed plus-up. MTRs are flight corridors used to<br />
practice high-speed, low-altitude training, generally below 10,000 feet MSL. They are described<br />
by a centerline, with defined horizontal limits on either side of the centerline and vertical limits<br />
expressed as minimum and maximum altitudes along the flight track.<br />
Table 2.2-1 describes the current and projected F-<strong>22</strong> air<br />
superiority missions and training. The F-<strong>22</strong>s typically fly one<br />
and one-half to two hour long missions, including takeoff,<br />
transit to and from the training airspace, training activities, and<br />
landing. Depending upon the distance and type of training<br />
activity, the F-<strong>22</strong> spends between 20 to 60 minutes in a training<br />
airspace. On occasion during an exercise, the F-<strong>22</strong> spends up to<br />
90 minutes in one or a set of airspace units. The additional F-<br />
<strong>22</strong>s would train just as the existing F-<strong>22</strong>s currently train. On<br />
average, the additional F-<strong>22</strong>s would fly the same percentage of<br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> spends 70 percent of training time<br />
above 30,000 feet MSL.<br />
time after dark (30 percent) as do the F-<strong>22</strong>s currently using the airspaces. Barring a national<br />
emergency or a large scale exercise, after-dark sorties are not expected to occur during<br />
environmental night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).<br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> could use the full, authorized capabilities of the airspace units from 500 feet above<br />
ground level (AGL) to above 60,000 feet MSL. The F-<strong>22</strong> would rarely (5 percent or less) fly<br />
below 10,000 feet MSL and consistently operates from 10,000 feet MSL to well above 30,000 feet<br />
MSL (see Table 2.2-2.) Actual flight altitudes in a specific airspace would depend upon the<br />
lower and upper limits of specific airspace units.<br />
More than 99 percent of supersonic<br />
flight would be conducted above<br />
10,000 feet MSL, with approximately<br />
75 percent occurring above 30,000 feet<br />
MSL. In authorized airspace, less<br />
than one percent of supersonic flight<br />
would occur below 10,000 feet MSL.<br />
Notes:<br />
AGL = above ground level; MSL = mean sea level;<br />
Page 2-9
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
Table 2.2-1. Current and Projected F-<strong>22</strong> Training Activities (Page 1 of 2)<br />
Activity<br />
Aircraft<br />
Handling<br />
Characteristics<br />
Basic Fighter<br />
Maneuvers<br />
Air Combat<br />
Maneuvers<br />
Low-Altitude<br />
Training<br />
Tactical<br />
Intercepts<br />
Night<br />
Operations<br />
Description<br />
Training for proficiency in use and exploitation of<br />
the aircraft’s flight capabilities (consistent with<br />
operational and safety constraints), including, but<br />
not limited to, high/maximum angle of attack<br />
maneuvering, energy management, minimum time<br />
turns, maximum/optimum acceleration and<br />
deceleration techniques, and confidence<br />
maneuvers.<br />
Training designed to apply aircraft (1 versus 1)<br />
handling skills to gain proficiency in recognizing<br />
and solving range, closure, aspect, angle, and<br />
turning room problems in relation to another<br />
aircraft, to either attain a position from which<br />
weapons may be launched, or defeat weapons<br />
employed by an adversary.<br />
Training designed to achieve proficiency in<br />
formation (2 versus 1 or 2 versus 1+1)<br />
maneuvering, and the coordinated application of<br />
Basic Fighter Maneuvers to achieve a simulated kill<br />
or effectively defend against one or more aircraft<br />
from a pre-planned starting position, including the<br />
use of defensive countermeasures (chaff, flares).<br />
Air Combat Maneuvers may be accomplished from<br />
a visual formation, or short-range to beyond visual<br />
range.<br />
Aircraft offensive and defensive operations at low<br />
altitude, G-force awareness at low altitude, aircraft<br />
handling, turns, tactical formations, navigation,<br />
threat awareness, defensive response, defensive<br />
countermeasures (chaff/flares), low-to-high and<br />
high-to-low altitude intercepts, missile defense, and<br />
combat air patrol against low/medium altitude<br />
adversaries.<br />
Training (1 versus 1 up to 4 versus multiple<br />
adversaries) designed to achieve proficiency in<br />
formation tactics, radar employment, identification,<br />
weapons employment, defensive response,<br />
electronic countermeasures, and electronic counter<br />
countermeasures.<br />
Aircraft intercepts (1 versus 1 up to 4 versus<br />
multiple adversaries) flown between the hours of<br />
sunset and sunrise, including tactical intercepts,<br />
weapons employment, offensive and defensive<br />
maneuvering, chaff/flare, and electronic<br />
countermeasures.<br />
Airspace<br />
Type<br />
MOA<br />
and<br />
ATCAA<br />
MOA<br />
and<br />
ATCAA<br />
MOA<br />
and<br />
ATCAA<br />
MOA<br />
MOA<br />
and<br />
ATCAA<br />
Warning<br />
Area,<br />
MOA,<br />
and<br />
ATCAA<br />
Altitude<br />
(feet)<br />
5,000<br />
AGL to<br />
60,000<br />
MSL<br />
5,000<br />
AGL to<br />
30,000<br />
MSL<br />
5,000<br />
AGL to<br />
60,000<br />
MSL<br />
500 AGL<br />
to 5,000<br />
AGL<br />
500 AGL<br />
to 60,000<br />
MSL<br />
2,000<br />
AGL to<br />
60,000<br />
MSL<br />
Time in<br />
Airspace<br />
0.5 to 1.0<br />
hour<br />
0.5 to 1.0<br />
hour<br />
0.5 to 1.0<br />
hour<br />
0.5 to 1.0<br />
hour<br />
0.5 to 1.0<br />
hour<br />
0.75 to<br />
1.5 hour<br />
Page 2-10
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
Activity<br />
(Dissimilar)<br />
Air Combat<br />
Tactics<br />
Basic Surface<br />
Attack<br />
Tactical<br />
Weapons<br />
Delivery<br />
Table 2.2-1. Current and Projected F-<strong>22</strong> Training Activities (Page 2 of 2)<br />
Surface Attack<br />
Tactics<br />
LRSOW<br />
Delivery<br />
Suppression of<br />
Enemy Air<br />
Defenses<br />
Major Flying<br />
Exercises /<br />
Mission<br />
Employment<br />
(60 days per<br />
year)<br />
Description<br />
Multi-aircraft and multi-adversary (2 versus<br />
multiple to larger force exercises) conducting<br />
offensive and defensive operations, combat air<br />
patrol, defense of airspace sector from composite<br />
force attack, intercept and simulate and destroy<br />
bomber aircraft, destroy/avoid adversary ground<br />
and air threats with simulated munitions and<br />
defensive countermeasures, strike-force<br />
rendezvous and protection.<br />
Air-to-ground simulated delivery of ordnance on a<br />
range.<br />
More challenging multiple attack headings and<br />
profiles; pilot is exposed to varying visual cues,<br />
shadow patterns, and the overall configuration and<br />
appearance of the target. Supersonic speeds that<br />
can include target acquisition are added to the<br />
challenge.<br />
Practiced in a block of airspace such as a MOA or<br />
Restricted Area that provides room to maneuver up<br />
to supersonic speeds. Defensive countermeasures<br />
may be deployed. Precise timing during the<br />
ingress to the target is practiced, as is target<br />
acquisition. Training includes egress from the<br />
target area and reforming into a tactical formation.<br />
Practiced in a MOA or ATCAA that provides for<br />
maneuvering room and supersonic speeds. Precise<br />
timing for speed, altitude, and launch parameters is<br />
practiced at high altitudes without release. Use of<br />
inert munitions in low altitude drops to evaluate<br />
timing and aircraft performance. Remote training<br />
using LRSOW at authorized ranges outside Alaska.<br />
Highly specialized mission requiring specific<br />
ordnance and avionics and can include supersonic<br />
speeds and defensive countermeasures. The<br />
objective of this mission is to simulate neutralizing<br />
or destroying ground-based anti-aircraft systems.<br />
Multi-aircraft and multi-adversary composite strike<br />
force exercise (day or night), air refueling, strikeforce<br />
rendezvous, conducting air-to-ground strikes,<br />
strike force defense and escort, air intercepts,<br />
electronic countermeasures, electronic countercounter<br />
measures, combat air patrol, defense<br />
against composite force, bomber intercepts,<br />
destroy/disrupt/avoid adversary fighters,<br />
defensive countermeasure (chaff/flare) use.<br />
Airspace<br />
Type<br />
MOA<br />
and<br />
ATCAA<br />
MOA, R-<br />
ATCAA,<br />
MOA, R-<br />
ATCAA,<br />
MOA, R-<br />
ATCAA,<br />
MOA, R-<br />
ATCAA,<br />
MOA, R-<br />
ATCAA,<br />
MOA,<br />
and R-<br />
Altitude<br />
(feet)<br />
500 AGL<br />
to 60,000<br />
MSL<br />
Surface<br />
to 60,000<br />
MSL<br />
Surface<br />
to 60,000<br />
MSL<br />
Surface<br />
to 60,000<br />
MSL<br />
Surface<br />
to 60,000<br />
MSL<br />
Surface<br />
to 60,000<br />
MSL<br />
Surface<br />
to 60,000<br />
MSL<br />
Time in<br />
Airspace<br />
0.5 to 1.0<br />
hour<br />
0.5 to 1.0<br />
hour<br />
0.5 to 1.0<br />
hour<br />
0.5 to 1.0<br />
hour<br />
0.5 to 1.0<br />
hour<br />
0.5 to 1.0<br />
hour<br />
0.5 to 1.0<br />
hour<br />
Notes:<br />
MOA = Military Operations Area; ATCAA = Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace; R- = Restricted Area; AGL =<br />
above ground level; MSL = mean sea level; LRSOW = Long-Range Standoff Weapon<br />
Page 2-11
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
Table 2.2-2. Current and Projected F-<strong>22</strong> Altitude Use<br />
Altitude (feet) Percent of Flight Hours: F-<strong>22</strong><br />
>30,000 MSL 70%<br />
10,000-30,000 MSL 25%<br />
5,000-10,000 MSL 3%<br />
2,000-5,000 AGL 1.5%<br />
1,000-2,000 AGL .25%<br />
500-1000 AGL 0.25%<br />
Additional F-<strong>22</strong> operational aircraft would fly training flights in one or more of the Alaskan<br />
training airspaces, as do the existing F-<strong>22</strong>s. Activities in the training airspace are termed sortieoperations.<br />
A sortie-operation is defined as the use of one airspace unit by one aircraft. Each<br />
time a single aircraft flies in a different airspace unit, one sortie-operation is counted for that<br />
unit. Thus, a single aircraft can generate several sortie-operations in the course of a mission.<br />
The JBER affected airspace units consist of MOAs and ATCAAs currently used by the F-<strong>22</strong>s for<br />
routine training. Figure 2.2-2 presents these airspaces. ATCAAs overlie nearly all of the MOAs.<br />
Figure 2.2-3 presents a closer view of Restricted Areas with the air-to-ground ranges currently<br />
used for F-<strong>22</strong> air-to-ground missions.<br />
The additional F-<strong>22</strong>s would employ supersonic flight to train with the full capabilities of the<br />
aircraft as do the existing F-<strong>22</strong>s. All supersonic flight would occur at altitudes and within<br />
airspace already authorized for such activities. The augmented F-<strong>22</strong> squadrons would continue<br />
to fly approximately 25 percent of the time spent in MOAs and ATCAAs at supersonic speed.<br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> has greater performance capabilities than either the F-15C or F-15E, and pilots must<br />
train to use those capabilities.<br />
2.2.1 F-<strong>22</strong> Training Flights Within Alaskan Airspace<br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> has the potential to use missiles or a gun in air-to-air engagements. Training for the<br />
use of these weapons is predominantly simulated. Simulating air-to-air attacks uses all the<br />
radar and targeting systems available on the F-<strong>22</strong>, but nothing is fired in Alaskan airspace. F-<strong>22</strong><br />
live-fire air-to-air training would continue to occur during specialized training or exercises at<br />
ranges authorized for these activities.<br />
The current sortie-operations in JBER MOAs within Alaska are<br />
presented in Table 2.2-3. The existing 36 F-<strong>22</strong>s use the Fox,<br />
Stony, and Susitna MOAs and associated ATCAAs for 65<br />
percent of their training sortie-operations. Table 2.2-4 compares<br />
existing MOA training of JBER-based F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft with the<br />
proposed training activity of the augmented squadrons of F-<strong>22</strong><br />
aircraft.<br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft do not train in MTRs, and they are not<br />
projected to do so with current missions. F-<strong>22</strong> training does<br />
include incidental training in the Blying Sound Warning Area<br />
(W-612) (see Figure 2.2-2). A Warning Area is an over-water<br />
airspace similar to range airspace over land.<br />
Operational pilots must continually train to<br />
maintain skills essential for combat. Existing<br />
Alaskan airspace would meet the training<br />
needs of F-<strong>22</strong> pilots based at JBER.<br />
Page 2-12
Page 2-13<br />
Table 2.2-3. <strong>Base</strong>line and Projected Annual Sortie-Operations in Regional MOAs<br />
Airspace Unit<br />
Floor<br />
Ceiling 1<br />
FY 2009 Use Current Year Use - BASELINE 2 Proposed Use 2<br />
(feet AGL) (feet MSL) F-<strong>22</strong> 3 F-15C Other Total F-<strong>22</strong> 3 F-15C Other Total F-<strong>22</strong> 4 Other 5 Total<br />
Birch 500 5,000 0 0 2,149 2,149 0 0 2,149 2,149 0 2,149 2,149<br />
Buffalo 300 7,000 0 0 2,150 2,150 0 0 2,150 2,150 0 2,150 2,150<br />
Delta 6 3,000 18,000 378 360 2,377 3,115 378 171 2,377 2,926 456 2,548 3,004<br />
Eielson 100 18,000 1,284 1,145 4,613 7,042 1,284 503 4,613 6,400 1,550 5,116 6,666<br />
Fox 1 5,000 18,000 1,284 1,145 4,613 7,042 1,284 503 4,613 6,400 1,550 5,116 6,666<br />
Fox 2 5,000 18,000 1,284 1,145 4,613 7,042 1,284 503 4,613 6,400 1,550 5,116 6,666<br />
Fox 3 5,000 18,000 1,307 1,204 3,854 6,365 1,307 551 3,854 5,712 1,577 4,405 5,982<br />
Galena 1,000 18,000 16 200 40 256 16 192 40 248 19 232 251<br />
Naknek 1/2 3,000 18,000 95 205 10 310 95 158 10 263 115 168 282<br />
Stony A/B 100 18,000 1,565 1,321 8 2,894 1,565 539 8 2,112 1,889 547 2,435<br />
Susitna<br />
5,000 AGL or 10,000<br />
18,000 1,202 901 15 2,118 1,202 300 15 1,517 1,451<br />
MSL, whichever is higher<br />
315<br />
1,766<br />
Viper 500 18,000 392 384 3,999 4,775 392 188 3,999 4,579 473 4,187 4,660<br />
Yukon 1 100 18,000 392 384 3,999 4,775 392 188 3,999 4,579 473 4,187 4,660<br />
Yukon 2 100 18,000 392 382 3,026 3,800 392 186 3,026 3,604 473 3,212 3,685<br />
Yukon 3 A/B 7 100 18,000 392 382 2,636 3,410 392 186 2,636 3,214 473 2,8<strong>22</strong> 3,295<br />
Yukon 4 100 18,000 392 382 2,582 3,356 392 186 2,582 3,160 473 2,768 3,241<br />
Yukon 5 8 5,000 18,000 386 372 2,447 3,205 386 179 2,447 3,012 466 2,626 3,092<br />
Notes:<br />
1. ATCAAs overlie all MOAs in the table.<br />
2. Current and future year use expected to be same as FY 2009 use except for reduction in F-15C operations resulting from 19th Fighter Squadron (19 FS)<br />
relocation from JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> completed in FY10. The number of sortie operations conducted by 19 FS is assumed to be approximately equal to the<br />
sorties conducted by a single F-<strong>22</strong> squadron. Each of the two F-<strong>22</strong> squadrons at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> was assumed to fly 1/2 of the FY09 F-<strong>22</strong> sortie-operations.<br />
Therefore, current year F-15C sortie operations by transient aircraft were estimated to be the number of F-15C operations in FY09 minus half the FY09<br />
number of F-<strong>22</strong> operations.<br />
3. Numbers in this column are for 2 F-<strong>22</strong> squadrons (36 primary aircraft).<br />
4. Numbers in this column are for 2 plus-up F-<strong>22</strong> squadrons (42 primary aircraft).<br />
5. ‘Other’ aircraft include F-15C aircraft as well as other transient aircraft types<br />
6. Delta MOA sortie-operations are derived from historic use of the Delta T-MOA.<br />
7. Consists of Yukon 3A (100 AGL-10,000 MSL); Yukon 3B (2,000 AGL-18,000 MSL).<br />
8. Used for MFE only.<br />
AGL = above ground level; MSL = mean sea level; ATCAA = Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace; MOA = Military Operations Area.<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
Table 2.2-4. Current and Projected Annual Training Munitions<br />
Training Munition Class Current F-<strong>22</strong> Projected F-<strong>22</strong><br />
Ammunition<br />
20 mm 26,659 31,102<br />
Air to Ground<br />
250 pound 200 200<br />
1,000 pound 50-60 60-70<br />
2.2.2 Air-to-Ground Training<br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> has an air-to-ground mission. F-<strong>22</strong> pilots spend approximately 80 percent of their<br />
training in air-to-air missions and 20 percent of their training in air-to-ground missions.<br />
Most air-to-ground training would be simulated, where no munitions would be released from<br />
the aircraft. The F-<strong>22</strong>s use avionics to simulate ordnance delivery on a target. This type of<br />
training could be conducted in any of the airspace units and would not require an air-to-ground<br />
range.<br />
Air-to-ground training also includes ordnance delivery training. All ordnance delivery training<br />
would continue to adhere to the requirements and restrictions of the ranges. Table 2.2-4<br />
presents the current and projected F-<strong>22</strong> air-to-ground munitions used in training. The primary<br />
air-to-ground ordnance carried by the F-<strong>22</strong> is the Guided Bomb Unit (GBU)-32, and will also<br />
include the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) (GBU-39/B). The GBU-32 is a 1,000 pound equivalent<br />
variant of the <strong>Joint</strong> Direct Attack Munition (JDAM). JDAMs are guided to the target by an<br />
attached Global Positioning System receiver. SDBs are guided 250 pound equivalent munitions.<br />
Training with these weapons in Alaskan airspace could include accelerating to launch speed,<br />
altitude, and delivery profile prior to opening the weapons bay. JDAMs or SDBs can only be<br />
deployed at approved air-to-ground ranges.<br />
Actual live ordnance delivery training at approved delivery profiles occurs during the times<br />
when F-<strong>22</strong> squadrons are deployed to locations where levels of munitions training are<br />
authorized. Such locations include the Nellis Range Complex in Nevada, the Utah Test and<br />
Training Range, and the approved ranges associated with Eglin AFB. The negligible level of<br />
use of these remote ranges and the current level of use by others suggest that projected F-<strong>22</strong> use<br />
does not warrant additional detailed environmental analysis for these ranges.<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> training with inert munitions comparable in size to a<br />
JDAM or an SDB could occur on approved Alaskan<br />
Ranges. F-<strong>22</strong> flight profiles, altitudes, and speed would<br />
be restricted to ensure that such munitions meet<br />
approved range weapon safety footprints.<br />
2.2.3 Defensive Countermeasures<br />
Chaff and flares are the principal defensive<br />
countermeasures dispensed by military aircraft to avoid<br />
detection or attack by enemy air defense systems.<br />
Ground personnel are trained in handling munitions<br />
and chaff and flares to ensure the F-<strong>22</strong> operational<br />
wing is combat ready.<br />
Page 2-14
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
Although the F-<strong>22</strong>’s low visibility features reduce its detectability, pilots must still train to<br />
employ defensive countermeasures. The additional F-<strong>22</strong>s would use RR-180/AL chaff and<br />
MJU-10/B flares in approved Alaskan airspace as the existing F-<strong>22</strong>s do. Defensive chaff and<br />
flares are used to keep aircraft from being successfully targeted by weapons such as surface-toair<br />
missiles, anti-aircraft artillery, or other aircraft. Appendix A describes the characteristics of<br />
chaff, and Appendix B describes the characteristics of flares used in defensive training.<br />
Effective use of chaff and flares in combat requires frequent training by aircrews to master the<br />
timing of deployment and the capabilities of the defensive countermeasure, and by ground<br />
crews to ensure safe and efficient handling of chaff and flares. Defensive countermeasures<br />
deployment in JBER-authorized airspace is governed by a series of regulations based on safety,<br />
environmental considerations, and defensive countermeasures limitations. These regulations<br />
establish procedures governing the use of chaff and flares over ranges, other governmentowned<br />
and controlled lands, and nongovernment-owned or controlled areas. Chaff and flares<br />
would continue to be used in approved training airspace. Table 2.2-5 presents the existing and<br />
proposed F-<strong>22</strong> chaff and flare use.<br />
A bundle of chaff consists of approximately 0.5 to 5.6 million fibers, each thinner than a human<br />
hair, that are cut to reflect radar signals and, when dispensed from aircraft, form a brief<br />
electronic “cloud” that breaks the radar signal and temporarily hides the maneuvering aircraft<br />
from radar detection. With each F-<strong>22</strong> chaff bundle, approximately 3.5 ounces of chaff fibers are<br />
widely dispersed along with four 1-inch by ½-inch by 1/8-inch pieces of plastic or nylon and six<br />
approximately 2-inch by 3-inch pieces of parchment paper which fall to the ground.<br />
Table 2.2-5. Existing and Proposed F-<strong>22</strong> Annual Chaff and Flare Use<br />
Aircraft Existing Proposed Change<br />
Chaff Bundles 17,132 19,987 +2,855<br />
Flares <strong>22</strong>,747 26,538 +3,791<br />
Source:<br />
1. FY 2009 Usage<br />
Flares ejected from aircraft provide high-temperature heat sources that mislead heat-sensitive or<br />
heat-seeking targeting systems. Flares burn for less than five seconds at a temperature of<br />
approximately 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit to simulate jet exhaust. During the burn, a flare<br />
descends approximately 400 feet. The burning magnesium flare pellet is completely consumed<br />
and two ¼ inch by 2-inch by 2-inch pieces of plastic or nylon, one 2-inch by 1-inch by ½-inch<br />
plastic Safety and Initiation (S & I) device, and an up to 4-inch by 15-inch piece of aluminumcoated<br />
duct tape-type mylar wrapping material fall to the ground. Restrictions for flare use in<br />
Alaskan MOAs are described below.<br />
• Flares may only be deployed above 5,000 feet AGL from June 1 through September 30 to<br />
reduce the potential for fires.<br />
• For the remainder of the year, the minimum altitude for flare use is 2,000 feet AGL, well<br />
above the safety standards set by the Department of Defense (DoD).<br />
Page 2-15
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
2.3 Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward<br />
On July 31, 2010, the Air Force Secretariat, after review of the basing of the Air Force’s F-<strong>22</strong><br />
aircraft, determined the most effective basing for the F-<strong>22</strong>. This requires relocating one<br />
Holloman F-<strong>22</strong> Squadron to an existing F-<strong>22</strong> base, Tyndall AFB, Florida, and redistributing the<br />
second Holloman AFB F-<strong>22</strong> squadron aircraft to units at three existing F-<strong>22</strong> bases. The F-<strong>22</strong>s<br />
would be redistributed as follows: JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>, Alaska, would receive six additional<br />
primary aircraft; Langley AFB, Virginia, would receive six additional primary aircraft; and<br />
Nellis AFB, Nevada, would receive two additional primary aircraft.<br />
2.3.1 Alternative Locations<br />
The Air Force Secretariat reviewed F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft bases and operational requirements and<br />
determined that the proposed redistribution of existing squadrons and aircraft would maximize<br />
combat aircraft and squadrons available for operational contingencies. Consolidating aircraft at<br />
existing F-<strong>22</strong> bases, including JBER, enhances F-<strong>22</strong> operational flexibility.<br />
Redistributing the six primary and one back-up F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft designated for JBER to other<br />
locations would not be consistent with achieving combat readiness. Different distributions or<br />
locations of aircraft represent alternatives considered but not carried forward for analysis in this<br />
EA.<br />
2.3.2 Alternative Flight Operations at JBER<br />
Alternative percentage distributions of flight operations for the JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> main runway<br />
(06/24) and the cross-wind runway (16/34) were evaluated for F-<strong>22</strong> and C-17 aircraft<br />
operations. A range of F-<strong>22</strong> flight operations from 45 percent to 100 percent on the main<br />
runway were evaluated to determine operational and noise effects. C-17 flight operations were<br />
also evaluated for short-field cross-wind runway operations during the day and night.<br />
Potential alternatives which exceeded approximately 25 percent of F-<strong>22</strong> launches or some C-17<br />
closed pattern operations on the cross-wind runway were estimated to produce off-base noise<br />
impacts south of the base. Operations on the cross-wind runway above the approximate 25<br />
percent use described in the proposed action were determined to be alternatives considered but<br />
not carried forward.<br />
2.4 No Action Alternative<br />
No Action for this EA means no beddown of an additional six F-<strong>22</strong> primary aircraft would<br />
occur at JBER at this time. Analysis of the No Action Alternative provides a benchmark for<br />
environmental analysis. Section 1502.14(d) of NEPA requires an EA to analyze the No Action<br />
Alternative. The No Action Alternative would result in no additional F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft being<br />
assigned to JBER, no F-<strong>22</strong> related personnel changes, and no additional F-<strong>22</strong> flight activities near<br />
the base or in training airspace.<br />
For this EA, No Action is the baseline condition, with two squadrons of F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft based at<br />
JBER. Table 2.2-3 presents the airspace training associated with existing F-<strong>22</strong> squadrons. This<br />
airspace training would be expected to continue under No Action. Taking no action would<br />
Page 2-16
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
negatively affect the overall consolidation of F-<strong>22</strong> combat aircraft and Air Force operational<br />
flexibility (see Section 1.0).<br />
2.5 <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Analysis Process<br />
The <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Analysis Process, in compliance with NEPA guidance, includes<br />
public and agency review of information pertinent to the Proposed Action, and provides a full<br />
and fair discussion of potential consequences to the natural and human environment. A Notice<br />
of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EA was published in the Anchorage Daily News, the Mat-Su<br />
Valley Frontiersman, and the Eagle River Star December 19 to 27, 2010. Public and agency<br />
inputs to the environmental analysis of the proposed F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up were requested. Interagency<br />
and Intergovernmental Coordination for<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Planning (IICEP) letters were sent and<br />
responses received through January 2011.<br />
Government-to-government communication with<br />
potentially affected Alaska Native groups were<br />
conducted between December 2010 and February 2011.<br />
2.5.1 EA Organization<br />
This EA is organized into the following chapters and<br />
appendices. Chapter 1.0 describes the purpose and<br />
need of the proposal to beddown the additional six<br />
primary and one backup F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft at JBER. A<br />
description of the Proposed Action and the No Action<br />
Alternative is provided in Chapter 2.0. Finally, Chapter<br />
2.0 provides a comparative summary of the effects of<br />
the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative with<br />
respect to the various environmental resources.<br />
Chapter 3.0 describes the existing conditions both at<br />
JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> and within the Alaskan training<br />
airspace. Chapter 4.0 overlays the Chapter 2 Proposed<br />
Action on the Chapter 3 baseline conditions to produce<br />
the environmental consequences at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong><br />
and within the Alaskan training airspace. Chapter 5.0<br />
presents a cumulative analysis, considers the<br />
relationship between short-term uses and long-term<br />
productivity identified for the resources affected, and<br />
summarizes the irreversible and irretrievable<br />
commitment of resources if the Proposed Action were<br />
implemented. References cited in the EA, lists of<br />
individuals and organizations contacted during the<br />
preparation of the EA, and a list of the document<br />
preparers is included after Chapter 5.0.<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> EA<br />
Executive Summary<br />
Chapter 1.0 Purpose and Need for F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<br />
<strong>Up</strong> at JBER<br />
1.1 Background<br />
1.2 Purpose of F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> at JBER<br />
1.3 Need for F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> at JBER<br />
Chapter 2.0 Description of Proposed Action<br />
and Alternatives<br />
2.1 Proposed Action Elements Affecting<br />
JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong><br />
2.2 Proposed Action Elements Affecting<br />
Alaskan Airspace<br />
2.3 Alternatives Considered But Not Carried<br />
Forward<br />
2.4 No Action Alternative<br />
2.5 <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Analysis Process<br />
2.6 Regulatory Compliance<br />
2.7 <strong>Environmental</strong> Comparison of the<br />
Proposed Action No Action Alternative<br />
Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment<br />
3.1 Airspace Management and Air Traffic<br />
Control<br />
3.2 Noise<br />
3.3 Safety<br />
3.4 Air Quality<br />
3.5 Hazardous Materials and Waste<br />
Management<br />
3.6 Biological Resources<br />
3.7 Cultural Resources<br />
3.8 Land Use, Transportation, and<br />
Recreation<br />
3.9 Socioeconomics<br />
3.10 <strong>Environmental</strong> Justice<br />
Chapter 4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
4.1 Airspace Management<br />
4.2 Noise<br />
4.3 Safety<br />
4.4 Air Quality<br />
4.5 Hazardous Materials and Waste<br />
Management<br />
4.6 Biological Resources<br />
4.7 Cultural Resources<br />
4.8 Land Use, Transportation, and<br />
Recreation<br />
4.9 Socioeconomics<br />
4.10 <strong>Environmental</strong> Justice<br />
Chapter 5.0 Cumulative Impacts<br />
5.1 Cumulative Effects Analysis<br />
5.2 Other <strong>Environmental</strong> Considerations<br />
References<br />
List of Preparers<br />
Appendices<br />
Page 2-17
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
In addition to the main text, the following appendices are included in this document: Appendix<br />
A, Characteristics of Chaff; Appendix B, Characteristics and Analysis of Flares; Appendix C,<br />
Agency Coordination; Appendix D, Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operations;<br />
Appendix E, Section 7 (Endangered Species Act) Compliance Wildlife Analysis for F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong> <strong>Up</strong><br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>; Appendix F, Review of Effects of Aircraft Noise, Chaff, and Flares<br />
on Biological Resources.<br />
2.5.2 Scope of Resource Analysis<br />
The Proposed Action has the potential to affect certain environmental resources. These<br />
potentially affected resources have been identified through communications with state and<br />
federal agencies and Alaska Natives, review of past environmental documentation, and public<br />
input. Specific environmental resources with the potential for environmental consequences<br />
include airspace management and air traffic control (including airport traffic), noise, safety, air<br />
quality, biological resources, cultural resources, land use (including recreation and<br />
transportation), socioeconomics, and environmental justice. Since there would be no<br />
construction associated with the Proposed Action, there would be no expected environmental<br />
consequences to certain resources, such as water and earth resources. Therefore, these resources<br />
are not included in this EA.<br />
2.5.3 Public and Agency Input<br />
The Air Force initiated early public and agency<br />
involvement in the environmental analysis of the proposed<br />
plus-up of the additional six primary and one backup F-<strong>22</strong><br />
aircraft. The Air Force distributed IICEP letters and<br />
published notices of the intent to prepare this EA in the<br />
Anchorage Daily News, the Mat Su Valley Frontiersman, and<br />
the Eagle River Alaska Start. These announcements solicited<br />
public and agency input on the proposal. The IICEP<br />
Distribution List and Agency Coordination are presented in<br />
Appendix C.<br />
JBER F-<strong>22</strong> pilots are residents of Alaska and listen<br />
to the concerns of agencies and the public to be<br />
good neighbors during operational training.<br />
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) response to the IICEP letter included their<br />
statement that there are no federally listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed<br />
critical habitat for which they are responsible within the action area of the project (USFWS<br />
2011). The National Marine Fisheries Service determined that the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up may affect but is<br />
unlikely to adversely affect the Cook Inlet beluga whale (CIBW) (Appendix C).<br />
Notices of the intent to prepare this EA with enclosed stamped return postcards were sent to 35<br />
Alaska Native villages and Tribal government entities. Nine Alaska Native villages returned the<br />
response postcards. No specific comments on the proposed action from any Alaska Native<br />
village or Tribal government entity were received during or after the scoping period (Appendix<br />
C). Information from previous consultation with Alaska Natives has been included in this EA.<br />
No written comments were received from the public in response to the notices of the intent to<br />
prepare this EA published in the local newspapers.<br />
Page 2-18
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
This EA and draft FONSI were issued for a 30-day public and agency review and comment<br />
period. Public and Agency comments received during the entire environmental impact analysis<br />
process have been incorporated into this EA.<br />
2.6 Regulatory Compliance<br />
This EA analyzes the potential environmental consequences associated with the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up<br />
according to the requirements of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500–<br />
1508), and The <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Analysis Process (32 CFR 989 et seq.). NEPA is the basic<br />
national charter for identifying environmental consequences of major federal actions. NEPA<br />
ensures that environmental information is available to the public, agencies, and the decision<br />
makers before decisions are made and before actions are taken.<br />
2.6.1 National <strong>Environmental</strong> Policy Act<br />
In accordance with NEPA of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), CEQ Regulations for Implementing the<br />
Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR §§ 1500-1508), and 32 CFR 989, et seq., <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Impact Analysis Process (EIAP) (formerly promulgated as AFI 32-7061), the Air Force is preparing<br />
this EA to consider the potential consequences to the human and natural environment that may<br />
result from implementation of this proposal.<br />
NEPA requires federal agencies to take into consideration the potential environmental<br />
consequences of proposed actions in their decision-making process. The intent of NEPA is to<br />
protect, restore, and enhance the environment through well-informed federal decisions. The<br />
CEQ was established under NEPA to implement and oversee federal policy in this process. The<br />
CEQ subsequently issued the Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the<br />
NEPA (40 CFR Sections 1500–1508) (CEQ 1978).<br />
The activities addressed within this document constitute a federal action and therefore must be<br />
assessed in accordance with NEPA. To comply with NEPA, as well as other pertinent<br />
environmental requirements, the decision-making process for the Proposed Action includes the<br />
development of the EA to address the environmental issues related to the proposed activities.<br />
The Air Force implementing procedures for NEPA are contained in 32 CFR 989 et seq., EIAP.<br />
2.6.2 Endangered Species Act<br />
The ESA of 1973 (16 USC §§ 1531–1544, as amended) established measures for the protection of<br />
plant and animal species that are federally listed as threatened and endangered, and for the<br />
conservation of habitats that are critical to the continued existence of those species. Compliance<br />
with the ESA requires communication with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and<br />
the USFWS in cases where a federal action could affect listed threatened or endangered species,<br />
species proposed for listing, or candidates for listing. Federal agencies must evaluate the effects<br />
of their proposed actions through a set of defined procedures, which can include the<br />
preparation of a Biological <strong>Assessment</strong> and can require formal consultation with USFWS under<br />
Section 7 of the Act. The primary focus of this consultation is to request a determination of<br />
whether any of these species occur in the proposal area. If any of these species is present, a<br />
determination is made of any potential adverse effects on the species. The appropriate USFWS<br />
Page 2-19
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
and NMFS offices as well as state agencies were contacted to inform them of the proposal and<br />
to request data regarding applicable protected species. The USFWS replied on February 8, 2011<br />
that there are no federally listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical<br />
habitat for which they are responsible within the action area of the project. The NMFS replied on<br />
February <strong>22</strong>, 2011 with their determination that the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up may affect but is unlikely to<br />
adversely affect the CIBW. Appendix C includes copies of relevant coordination letters, and<br />
Appendix E is the wildlife study used in informal consultation with the NMFS under Section 7<br />
of the ESA.<br />
2.6.3 Cultural Resources Regulatory Requirements<br />
The NHPA of 1966 (16 USC § 470) established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)<br />
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) outlining procedures for the<br />
management of cultural resources on federal property.<br />
Cultural resources can include archaeological remains, architectural structures, and traditional<br />
cultural properties such as ancestral settlements, historic trails, and places where significant<br />
historic events occurred. NHPA requires federal agencies to consider potential impacts to<br />
cultural resources that are listed, nominated to, or eligible for listing on the NRHP; designated a<br />
National Historic Landmark; or valued by modern Alaska Natives for maintaining their<br />
traditional culture. Section 106 of NHPA (as amended) requires federal agencies to take into<br />
account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Protection of Historic and Cultural<br />
Properties (36 CFR 800 [1986]) provides an explicit set of procedures for federal agencies to meet<br />
their obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA, which includes inventorying of resources and<br />
consultation with State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs).<br />
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) (42 USC § 1996) established federal<br />
policy to protect and preserve the rights of Native Americans to believe, express, and exercise<br />
their traditional religions, including providing access to sacred sites.<br />
AFI 32-7065, Cultural Resources Management (2004) establishes guidelines for managing and<br />
protecting cultural resources on property affected by Air Force operations in the U.S. and U.S.<br />
territories and possessions.<br />
The preservation of Alaska Native cultural resources is coordinated by the SHPO, as mandated<br />
by the NHPA and its implementing regulations. Letters were sent to potentially affected Alaska<br />
Native communities informing them of the proposal (Appendix C). Further communication is<br />
included as part of this EA review process.<br />
2.6.4 Clean Air Act<br />
The Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 USC §§ 7401–7671q, as amended) provided the authority for the<br />
United States <strong>Environmental</strong> Protection Agency (USEPA) to establish nationwide air quality<br />
standards to protect public health and welfare. Federal standards, known as the National<br />
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), were developed for six criteria pollutants: ozone<br />
(O 3), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), both coarse and fine<br />
inhalable particulate matter (less than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter [PM 10], and<br />
particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter [PM 2.5]), and lead (Pb). The<br />
Page 2-20
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
Act also requires that each state prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for maintaining and<br />
improving air quality and eliminating violations of the NAAQS. In nonattainment and<br />
maintenance areas, the CAA requires federal agencies to determine whether their proposed<br />
actions conform with the applicable SIP and demonstrate that their actions will not (1) cause or<br />
contribute to a new violation of the NAAQS, (2) increase the frequency or severity of any<br />
existing violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any standard, emission reduction, or<br />
milestone contained in the SIP. JBER is in attainment for all criteria pollutants and therefore an<br />
Air Conformity Review under the CAA Amendments is not required as emissions for air<br />
pollutants are below the de minimis threshold.<br />
2.6.5 Other Regulatory Requirements<br />
Additional regulatory legislation that potentially applies to the implementation of this proposal<br />
includes guidelines promulgated by Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, to ensure that<br />
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on citizens in either<br />
of these categories are identified and addressed, as appropriate. Additionally, potential health<br />
and safety impacts that could disproportionately affect children are considered under the<br />
guidelines established by EO 13045, Protection of Children from <strong>Environmental</strong> Health Risks and<br />
Safety Risks.<br />
2.7 <strong>Environmental</strong> Comparison of the Proposed Action<br />
and No Action Alternative<br />
Table 2.7-1 summarizes the consequences at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> and the<br />
training airspace of implementing the Proposed Action, and includes<br />
the No Action Alternative. This summary is derived from the detailed<br />
analyses presented in Chapter 4.0. Chapter 5.0 addresses cumulative<br />
consequences and finds that there are no significant cumulative<br />
environmental consequences resulting from an F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-up decision<br />
when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future<br />
federal and non-federal actions.<br />
The Proposed Action is to<br />
beddown six additional primary<br />
and one backup F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft.<br />
Page 2-21
Airspace<br />
Management and<br />
Air Traffic Control<br />
Noise<br />
Safety<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
Table 2.7-1. Summary of Impacts by Resource (Page 1 of 3)<br />
Resource Proposed Action Options No Action<br />
<strong>Base</strong>. AATA management of airspace would not<br />
be impacted by additional F-<strong>22</strong> sorties.<br />
Airspace. The additional aircraft would not affect<br />
regional airspace management, and usage of the<br />
airspace would not change to the extent that civil<br />
aviation could be affected.<br />
<strong>Base</strong>. Portions of JBER would experience<br />
increased noise levels. No JBER residences would<br />
be exposed to noise levels greater than 80 L dn.<br />
Structures in the flightline would continue to be<br />
exposed to noise at greater than 80 dB L dn.<br />
Workers on JBER are protected against possible<br />
noise impacts by adherence to DoD noise<br />
management guidelines.<br />
Off-base areas expected to be within the 65 dB L dn<br />
noise contour are part of the Port of Anchorage, a<br />
portion of the Knik Arm, and a small area of land<br />
across the Knik Arm. The slightly increased area<br />
would not be expected to impact human or<br />
natural resources in off-base areas.<br />
Airspace. The change between baseline conditions<br />
and the Proposed Action would be 1 dB L dnmr or<br />
less in all training airspaces. Sonic booms under<br />
training MOAs would increase by between 1 and<br />
3 per month from the existing 10 to 26 per month.<br />
Sonic booms would not pose a health or other<br />
risk, but could increase annoyance.<br />
<strong>Base</strong>. No change in off-base safety conditions or in<br />
Bird-Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH), munitions, or<br />
personnel safety. F-<strong>22</strong> Class A mishap rate<br />
expected to be comparable to F-15.<br />
Airspace. No substantive change in or impacts to<br />
flight, ground, or other safety aspects. F-<strong>22</strong> flight<br />
altitudes and situational awareness is expected to<br />
result in no safety impacts within the airspace.<br />
No safety impacts from chaff and flare use. Flare<br />
use would continue to adhere to altitude and<br />
seasonal restrictions.<br />
Existing terminal airspace,<br />
MOA, range, and other<br />
airspace usage would not<br />
change; F-<strong>22</strong>s would<br />
continue to train from<br />
JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> and<br />
continue to train in the<br />
airspace as they do today.<br />
Noise contours and<br />
conditions at JBER would<br />
remain the same as<br />
baseline conditions.<br />
Continuation of current<br />
noise levels from subsonic<br />
and supersonic flight in<br />
training airspace. No<br />
change in sonic booms in<br />
any MOAs.<br />
Continuation of current<br />
safety conditions at JBER-<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong>.<br />
No change from existing<br />
training by F-<strong>22</strong>s in<br />
airspace. Continued use<br />
of chaff and flares in<br />
training airspace.<br />
Page 2-<strong>22</strong>
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
Table 2.7-1. Summary of Impacts by Resource (Page 2 of 3)<br />
Resource Proposed Action Options No Action<br />
Air Quality<br />
<strong>Base</strong>. <strong>Plus</strong>-up of six primary F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft would<br />
not affect air quality. JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> is in<br />
attainment for all criteria pollutants. Anticipated<br />
emission resulting from the Proposed Action<br />
would not cause or contribute to a new NAAQS<br />
violation. Green House Gas emissions would not<br />
change globally by a transfer of aircraft from one<br />
base to another.<br />
Aircraft operations at the<br />
base or in the airspace<br />
would not change from<br />
current F-<strong>22</strong> training<br />
activity. There would be<br />
no change to the current<br />
air quality.<br />
Hazardous Materials<br />
and Waste<br />
Management<br />
Biological Resources<br />
Airspace. Because the F-<strong>22</strong> flight altitude is above<br />
the mixing height, along with the large area of<br />
training airspace, the approximate 16.7 percent<br />
increase in training sorties would not affect air<br />
quality.<br />
<strong>Base</strong>. No significant effect on hazardous<br />
materials, hazardous wastes, or the<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Restoration Program (ERP).<br />
Existing hazardous waste accumulation sites and<br />
procedures are adequate to handle the changes<br />
anticipated with the expected six additional<br />
primary aircraft.<br />
Airspace. No significant effect on hazardous<br />
materials or hazardous wastes in training<br />
airspace.<br />
<strong>Base</strong>. Potential effects to CIBW include slight<br />
potential for behavioral response to the overflight<br />
of F-<strong>22</strong>s over the Knik Arm. Approximately 0.04<br />
CIBW individuals are projected to be behaviorally<br />
harassed annually resulting from the noise<br />
generated by the proposed additional F-<strong>22</strong> flying<br />
operations (an estimated four whales in 100<br />
years). NMFS determined that the plus-up may<br />
affect, but is unlikely to adversely affect, the<br />
CIBW. No sensitive species, including threatened<br />
or endangered species, are expected to be<br />
impacted by the additional F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft.<br />
Airspace. Slight increase in subsonic noise from<br />
current conditions with no change in effects to<br />
wildlife. Increase in sonic booms may startle some<br />
individual animals. However, regional wildlife in<br />
the affected MOAs has previously experienced<br />
sonic booms and is likely habituated. Increase in<br />
paper, plastic, and other residual pieces from<br />
chaff and flare use would not be expected to affect<br />
biological resources.<br />
No change from existing<br />
use of hazardous<br />
materials and generation<br />
of hazardous waste.<br />
Biological resources<br />
would not change from<br />
existing conditions.<br />
No change from existing<br />
conditions with military<br />
training overflights and<br />
sonic booms. Continued<br />
sonic booms with the<br />
potential to startle<br />
wildlife. Continued chaff<br />
and flare usage.<br />
Page 2-23
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives<br />
Table 2.7-1. Summary of Impacts by Resource (Page 3 of 3)<br />
Resource Proposed Action Options No Action<br />
Cultural Resources <strong>Base</strong>. No construction and no impacts to historic No change from existing<br />
properties at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>.<br />
conditions.<br />
Land Use/<br />
Transportation/<br />
Recreation<br />
Socioeconomics<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Justice<br />
Airspace. No impacts to historic properties under<br />
the airspace.<br />
Increase in sonic booms, when discernible, may<br />
annoy users of land, but would not be expected to<br />
affect Alaska Native subsistence hunting.<br />
<strong>Base</strong>. No change in land use or transportation on<br />
base. Some extension of the 65 dB L dn noise<br />
contour over 6.6 acres of compatible land uses in<br />
the Port of Anchorage, 410.7 acres over water of<br />
the Knik Arm, and over a 0.2 acre area across the<br />
Knik Arm. Industrial land uses would be<br />
compatible with existing and projected noise<br />
levels.<br />
Airspace. No affect to land use or land use<br />
patterns under the airspace. Recreationists,<br />
hunters, and fishermen may discern an increase in<br />
sonic booms.<br />
<strong>Base</strong>. No measurable effect upon the regional<br />
economy with an addition of less than one percent<br />
of the personnel and no new construction.<br />
Airspace. No discernible effects on social or<br />
economic conditions under the airspace. Increase<br />
in sonic booms, where discernible, may annoy<br />
some individuals participating in subsistence or<br />
recreational hunting and/or fishing. Any<br />
disturbance would not be expected to affect<br />
activities under the airspace or local economies<br />
that rely on subsistence resources.<br />
<strong>Base</strong>. No disproportionate off-base impacts are<br />
anticipated on disadvantaged populations. There<br />
would be no health or safety risks to children.<br />
This includes no 65 dB L dn noise contours off-base<br />
to the community of Mountain View.<br />
Airspace. Distributions of Alaska Natives under<br />
the airspace are representative of rural<br />
populations throughout the state. No<br />
disproportionate impact to minority and lowincome<br />
populations anticipated. No health and<br />
safety effect to children under the airspace.<br />
No change to the noise<br />
environment on the base<br />
or off the base.<br />
No F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up change in<br />
base personnel.<br />
No change from existing<br />
airspace use conditions.<br />
Continued presence of<br />
military aircraft and sonic<br />
booms under training<br />
airspace.<br />
No F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up induced<br />
change in base personnel.<br />
No change from existing<br />
airspace use conditions.<br />
No increase in sonic<br />
booms.<br />
No change to existing<br />
base or airspace<br />
conditions. Continued<br />
military training in<br />
airspace over rural<br />
populations.<br />
Page 2-24
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
3.0 BASE AND TRAINING AIRSPACE<br />
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT<br />
This chapter contains the environment potentially affected by the Proposed Action. The NEPA<br />
requires that the analysis address those areas and components of the environment with the<br />
potential to be affected; locations and resources with no potential to be affected need not be<br />
analyzed.<br />
Each environmental resource discussion begins with an explanation of the potential geographic<br />
scope of any potential consequences, the Region of Influence (ROI). For most resources in this<br />
chapter, the ROI is defined as the vicinity of the airfield where F-<strong>22</strong>s are located or the existing<br />
military training airspace where F-<strong>22</strong>s train. In this EA, the airfield and its vicinity are termed<br />
JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>. For some resources (such as Noise, Air Quality, and Socioeconomics), the ROI<br />
extends over a larger jurisdiction unique to the resource.<br />
The Existing Condition of each relevant environmental resource is described to give the public<br />
and agency decision-makers a meaningful point from which they can compare potential future<br />
environmental, social, and economic effects. The baseline conditions described in this chapter<br />
constitute conditions under the No Action Alternative.<br />
3.1 Airspace Management and Air Traffic Control<br />
The affected environment or ROI for F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft operations at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> includes the<br />
airfield, airspace surrounding the airfield, and airspace designated for military training in<br />
Alaska. Airspace management and Air Traffic Control (ATC) is defined as the direction,<br />
control, and handling of flight operations in the “navigable airspace” that overlies the<br />
geopolitical borders of the U.S. and its territories. “Navigable airspace” is airspace above the<br />
minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by regulations under USC Title 49, Subtitle VII, Part A,<br />
and includes airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft, as defined<br />
in FAA Order 7400.2E (49 USC). This navigable airspace is a limited natural resource that<br />
Congress has charged the FAA to administer in the public interest as necessary to ensure the<br />
safety of aircraft and its efficient use (FAA Order 7400.2E 2000).<br />
3.1.1 <strong>Base</strong> Airfield and Vicinity Existing Conditions<br />
JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> manages airspace in accordance with processes and procedures detailed in AFI<br />
13-201, Air Force Airspace Management (Air Force 2001b; 2009). AFI 13-201 implements Air Force<br />
Planning Document 13-2, Air Traffic Control, Airspace, Airfield, and Range Management, and DoD<br />
Directive 5030.19, DoD Responsibilities on Federal Aviation and National Airspace System Matters.<br />
This AFI addresses the aeronautical matters governing the efficient planning, acquisition, use,<br />
and management of airspace required to support Air Force flight operations (Air Force 2001b).<br />
Airspace supporting operations at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> are within the Anchorage Alaska Terminal<br />
Area (AATA). The AATA is divided into six segments: the International Segment; the Seward<br />
Highway Segment; the Lake Hood Segment; the Merrill Segment; the <strong>Elmendorf</strong> Segment; and,<br />
the Bryant Segment (3 WG 2004).<br />
Page 3-1
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Class D controlled airspace has been established around the JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> airfield. This<br />
controlled airspace abuts the Class C controlled airspace around Anchorage International<br />
Airport to the southwest, and the Restricted Area R-<strong>22</strong>03 over JBER-Fort Richardson to the<br />
northeast. While the base control tower manages arrivals and departures at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>,<br />
Anchorage Approach Control has overall responsibility for traffic management within the<br />
AATA. Detailed processes, procedures, and altitude separation requirements that must be<br />
followed by military and civilian pilots operating within the AATA are published in<br />
aeronautical charts.<br />
Aircraft at the base have flown in this airspace for more than<br />
60 years without conflict with civil aviation. While the<br />
AATA is congested, continued coordination between base<br />
ATC and Anchorage Approach Control minimizes conflicts.<br />
The existing conditions include approximately 40,000 to<br />
60,000 operations per year at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> (see table 2.1-<br />
2). The base control tower coordinates closely with the<br />
AATA to support military and civil aviation in the region.<br />
3.1.2 Training Airspace Existing Conditions<br />
JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> actively supports AATA<br />
management of the regional airspace. That<br />
support includes transient military aircraft<br />
such as this C-5.<br />
Navigable airspace is a national resource administered by the FAA. FAA has charted and<br />
published SUA for military and other governmental activities. Management of SUA considers<br />
how airspace is designated, used, and administered to best accommodate the individual and<br />
common needs of civil and military aviation. The FAA considers multiple and sometimes<br />
competing demands for aviation airspace in relation to airport operations, Federal Airways, Jet<br />
Routes, military flight training activities, and other special needs to determine how the National<br />
Airspace System can best be structured to address all user requirements.<br />
The FAA has designated four types of airspace within the U.S.: Controlled, Special Use, Other,<br />
and Uncontrolled airspace. Controlled airspace is airspace of defined dimensions within which<br />
ATC service is provided to Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) flights and to Visual Flight Rule (VFR)<br />
flights in accordance with the airspace classification (Pilot/Controller Glossary [P/CG] 2004).<br />
Controlled airspace is categorized into five separate classes: Classes A through E. These classes<br />
identify airspace that is controlled, airspace supporting airport operations, and designated<br />
airways affording en route transit from place-to-place. The classes also dictate pilot<br />
qualification requirements, rules of flight that must be followed, and the type of equipment<br />
necessary to operate within that airspace. <strong>Elmendorf</strong> aircrews fly under FAA rules when not in<br />
training airspace.<br />
SUA is designated airspace within which flight activities are conducted that require<br />
confinement of participating aircraft, or place operating limitations on non-participating<br />
aircraft. Restricted Areas and MOAs depicted on Figure 2.2-2 are examples of SUA.<br />
Other airspace consists of advisory areas, areas that have specific flight limitations or<br />
designated prohibitions, areas designated for parachute jump operations, MTRs, and Aerial<br />
Refueling Tracks (ARs). This category also includes ATCAAs. When not required for other<br />
Page 3-2
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
needs, ATCAA is airspace authorized for military use by the managing ARTCC, usually to<br />
extend the vertical boundary of SUA. ATCAAs overlie the MOAs depicted in Figure 2.2-2.<br />
Uncontrolled airspace is designated Class G airspace and has no specific prohibitions associated<br />
with its use.<br />
Military training airspace currently used by F-<strong>22</strong> aircrews at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> includes MOAs,<br />
ATCAAs, and Restricted Areas. The F-<strong>22</strong>s do not train on MTRs. Use of training airspace units<br />
is normally scheduled by the owning/using agency, and is managed by the military or the<br />
applicable ARTCC.<br />
The following sections discuss the existing SUA that supports F-<strong>22</strong> training activity. Refer to<br />
Figure 2.2-1 for a depiction of airspace types. Alaskan SUA is managed by the 11 th Air Force<br />
Commander.<br />
3.1.2.1 Military Operations Area<br />
MOAs are airspace of defined vertical and lateral<br />
limits to separate and segregate certain nonhazardous<br />
military activities from IFR traffic and<br />
to identify for VFR traffic where these activities<br />
are conducted (P/CG 2004). MOAs are outside<br />
Class A airspace. Class A airspace covers limited<br />
parts of Alaska, including the airspace overlying<br />
the water within 12 nautical miles (NM) of the<br />
coast. Class A airspace extends from 18,000 feet<br />
MSL up to and including 60,000 feet MSL (P/CG<br />
2004).<br />
MOAs are considered “joint use” airspace. Nonparticipating<br />
aircraft operating under VFR are<br />
permitted to enter a MOA, even when the MOA<br />
is active for military use. Aircraft operating<br />
under IFR must remain clear of an active MOA<br />
Aviation and Airspace Use Terminology<br />
Above Ground Level (AGL): Altitude expressed in feet measured<br />
above the ground surface.<br />
Mean Sea Level (MSL): Altitude expressed in feet measured above<br />
average (mean) sea level.<br />
Flight Level (FL): Manner in which altitudes at 18,000 feet MSL and<br />
above are expressed, as measured by a standard altimeter setting of<br />
29.92.<br />
Visual Flight Rules (VFR): A standard set of rules that all pilots, both<br />
civilian and military, must follow when not operating under IFRs and in<br />
visual meteorological conditions. These rules require that pilots remain<br />
clear of clouds and avoid other aircraft.<br />
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR): A standard set of rules that all pilots,<br />
civilian and military, must follow when operating under flight conditions<br />
that are more stringent than visual flight rules. These conditions<br />
include operating an aircraft in clouds, operating above certain<br />
altitudes prescribed by FAA regulations, and operating in some<br />
locations such as major civilian airports. Air Traffic Control (ATC)<br />
agencies ensure separation of all aircraft operating under IFR.<br />
Source: FAA 2004<br />
unless approved by the responsible ARTCC. Flight in a MOA by both training military and<br />
VFR aircraft is conducted under the “see-and-avoid” concept, which stipulates that “when<br />
weather conditions permit, pilots operating IFR or VFR are required to observe and maneuver<br />
to avoid other aircraft. Right-of-way rules are contained in CFR Part 91” (P/CG 2004). The<br />
responsible ARTCC provides separation service for aircraft operating under IFR and MOA<br />
participants. The see-and-avoid procedures mean that if a MOA were active during inclement<br />
weather, the general aviation pilot could not safely access the MOA airspace.<br />
Table 3.1-1 describes the MOAs used by JBER and other Alaskan military users for flight<br />
training.<br />
Page 3-3
Table 3.1-1. Description of MOAs<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
MOA<br />
Altitudes Hours of Use 1 Controlling<br />
Minimum Maximum 2 From To ARTCC<br />
Birch<br />
500 AGL<br />
<strong>Up</strong> to and<br />
including 8:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
5,000 MSL<br />
Buffalo 300 AGL 7,000 MSL 8:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
Delta 3,000 AGL FL 180 3 Only During Major Flying<br />
Exercise<br />
Anchorage<br />
Eielson 100 AGL FL 180 8:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
Fox 1 5,000 AGL FL 180 8:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
Fox 2 7,000 MSL FL 180 8:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
Fox 3 5,000 AGL FL 180 8:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
Galena 1,000 AGL FL 180 8:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
Naknek 1 3,000 AGL FL 180 10:00 a.m. 3:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
Naknek 2 3,000 AGL FL 180 10:00 a.m. 3:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
Stony A 100 AGL FL 180 8:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
Stony B 2,000 AGL FL 180 8:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
Susitna<br />
10,000 MSL or 5,000<br />
AGL (whichever is FL 180 8:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
higher)<br />
Yukon 1 100 AGL FL 180 8:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
Yukon 2 100 AGL FL 180 8:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
Yukon 3 High 10,000 MSL FL 180 10:00 a.m. 3:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
Yukon 3A Low 100 AGL 10,000 MSL<br />
10:00 a.m. 11:30 a.m.<br />
1:30 p.m. 3:00 p.m.<br />
Anchorage<br />
Yukon 3B 2,000 AGL FL 180<br />
Only During Major Flying<br />
Exercise<br />
Anchorage<br />
Yukon 4 100 AGL FL 180 10:00 a.m. 3:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
Yukon 5 5,000 AGL FL 180<br />
Only During Major Flying<br />
Exercise<br />
Anchorage<br />
Viper 4 500 AGL FL 180 7:00 a.m. 10:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
Notes:<br />
1. Days of use are Monday through Friday. All times are local times as normally scheduled.<br />
2. Maximum is up to, but not including unless otherwise noted.<br />
3. Described in terms of hundreds of feet MSL using a standard altimeter setting. Thus, FL180 is approximately<br />
18,000 feet MSL.<br />
4. Viper A/B are divided at 10,000 feet MSL.<br />
FL = Flight Level; AGL = above ground level; MSL = mean sea level<br />
Source: FAA 2009<br />
3.1.2.2 Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace<br />
An ATCAA is airspace of defined vertical and lateral limits, assigned by ATC, for the purpose<br />
of providing air traffic segregation between the specified activities being conducted within the<br />
assigned airspace and other IFR air traffic (P/CG 2004). This airspace, if not required for other<br />
purposes, may be made available for military use. ATCAAs are often structured and used to<br />
extend the horizontal and/or vertical boundaries of SUA such as MOAs and Restricted Areas.<br />
Page 3-4
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
With the exception of the Buffalo MOA and the Birch MOA, all of the MOAs currently used by<br />
JBER aircrews have associated ATCAAs, and ATCAAs not over the MOAs can also be used for<br />
training as approved by the FAA. Through letters of agreement with the FAA, ATCAAs may<br />
extend up to and above 60,000 feet MSL. Several of the airspace units used by JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong><br />
aircrews are “capped” at lower altitudes by the managing ARTCC to allow unimpeded transit<br />
by civil and commercial aircraft traffic.<br />
3.1.2.3 Military Training Route<br />
MTRs are flight corridors developed and used by the DoD to practice high-speed, low-altitude<br />
flight, generally below 10,000 feet MSL. No F-<strong>22</strong> use of MTRs is proposed. MTRs are airspace of<br />
defined vertical and lateral dimensions established for conducting military flight training at<br />
airspeeds in excess of 250 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS) (P/CG 2004). MTRs are developed in<br />
accordance with criteria specified in FAA Order 7610.4 (DoD 2004). They are described by a<br />
centerline, with defined horizontal limits on either side of the centerline, and vertical limits<br />
expressed as minimum and maximum altitudes along the flight track. MTRs are identified as<br />
Visual Routes (VRs) or Instrument Routes (IRs).<br />
3.1.2.4 Restricted Area<br />
A Restricted Area is designated airspace that supports ground or flight activities that could be<br />
hazardous to non-participating aircraft. A Restricted Area is designated under 14 CFR Part 73,<br />
within which the flight of non-participating aircraft, while not wholly prohibited, is subject to<br />
restriction. Most Restricted Areas are designated “joint-use” and IFR/VFR operations in the<br />
area may be authorized by the controlling ATC facility when the airspace is not being utilized<br />
by the using agency. The Restricted Areas, R-<strong>22</strong>02, R-<strong>22</strong>03, and R-<strong>22</strong>05, are Army ranges used<br />
by the Air Force for training. R-<strong>22</strong>06 is not a flying range (see Figure 2.2-3). R-<strong>22</strong>11 is Air Forcemanaged<br />
airspace to support training activities. According to FAA Order 7400.8M, R-<strong>22</strong>02C is<br />
between 10,000 and 29,000 feet MSL and R-<strong>22</strong>02D is 31,000 feet MSL to unlimited. These<br />
airspaces are described in Table 3.1-2.<br />
Range management involves the development and implementation of those processes and<br />
procedures required by AFI 13-212, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, to ensure that Air Force ranges are<br />
planned, operated, and managed in a safe manner; that all required equipment and facilities are<br />
available to support range use; and that proper security for range assets is present. Specific<br />
direction on different range activities is contained in AFI 13-212, Volume 1, Range Planning and<br />
Operations, Volume 2, Range Construction and Maintenance, and Volume 3, SAFE-RANGE Program<br />
Methodology (Air Force 2001c, 2001d, 2001e). The focus of range management is on ensuring the<br />
safe, effective, and efficient operation of Air Force ranges. The overall purpose of range<br />
management is to balance the military’s need to accomplish realistic testing and training with<br />
the need to minimize potential impacts of such activities on the environment and surrounding<br />
communities (Air Force 2001c, 2001d, 2001e).<br />
Page 3-5
Table 3.1-2. Description of Restricted Airspace<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Restricted<br />
Altitudes Hours of Use 1 Controlling<br />
Area Minimum Maximum From To<br />
ARTCC<br />
R-<strong>22</strong>02A Surface 9,999 MSL 2 6:00 a.m. 5:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
R-<strong>22</strong>02B Surface 9,999 MSL 6:00 a.m. 5:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
R-<strong>22</strong>02C/D 10,000 MSL Unlimited<br />
By Notice to Scheduled by<br />
Airmen Agreement<br />
Anchorage<br />
R-<strong>22</strong>03A 3 Surface 11,000 MSL 5:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
R-<strong>22</strong>03B 3 Surface 11,000 MSL 5:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
R-<strong>22</strong>03C 3 Surface 5,000 MSL 5:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
R-<strong>22</strong>05 Surface 20,000 MSL 6:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m.<br />
Fairbanks<br />
Approach<br />
R-<strong>22</strong>06 4 Surface 8,800 MSL Continuous Continuous Anchorage<br />
R-<strong>22</strong>11 Surface 18,000 MSL 7:00 a.m. 5:00 p.m. Anchorage<br />
Notes:<br />
1. Days of use are Monday through Friday. All times are local times as normally scheduled.<br />
2. MSL = Feet above mean sea level.<br />
3. Ranges are not expected to be used by the F-<strong>22</strong>.<br />
4. Not used for flight training.<br />
3.2 Noise<br />
This section describes existing conditions in the area immediately surrounding JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong><br />
(as identified by the 65 dB Day-Night Average Sound Levels [L dn]noise contour) and in military<br />
training airspace units that would be used by the additional F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft.<br />
Noise is considered to be unwanted sound that interferes with normal activities or otherwise<br />
diminishes the quality of the environment. The noise may be intermittent or continuous,<br />
stationary or transient. Stationary sources are normally related to specific land uses, e.g.,<br />
housing tracts or industrial plants. Transient noise sources move through the environment,<br />
either along established paths (e.g., highways, railroads), or randomly (e.g., an aircraft flying in<br />
a block of training airspace such as a MOA). Noise may be steady, increasing and decreasing<br />
gradually, or impulsive, increasing and decreasing suddenly (e.g., clapping or banging such as<br />
thunder or sonic booms). There is wide diversity in responses to noise that not only vary<br />
according to the type of noise and the characteristics of the sound source, but also according to<br />
the sensitivity and expectations of the receptor, the time of day, and the distance between the<br />
noise source (e.g., an aircraft) and the receptor (e.g., a person or animal).<br />
3.2.1 Noise Characteristics and Measures<br />
The physical characteristics of noise, or sound, include its intensity, frequency, and duration.<br />
Sound is created by acoustic energy, which produces minute pressure waves that travel through<br />
a medium, like air, and are sensed by the eardrum. This may be likened to the ripples in water<br />
that would be produced when a stone is dropped into it. As the acoustic energy increases, the<br />
intensity or amplitude of these pressure waves increase, and the ear senses louder noise. Sound<br />
intensity varies widely (such as from a soft whisper to a jet engine) and is measured on a<br />
logarithmic scale to accommodate this wide range. The use of logarithms is nothing more than<br />
a mathematical tool that simplifies dealing with very large and very small numbers. For<br />
Page 3-6
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
example, the logarithm of the number 1,000,000 is 6, and the logarithm of the number 0.000001<br />
is -6 (minus 6). Obviously, as more zeros are added before or after the decimal point,<br />
converting these numbers to their logarithms greatly simplifies calculations that use these<br />
numbers.<br />
Sound intensity in air is expressed slightly differently than sound intensity underwater. Sound<br />
intensity relates to the ratio of the pressure level that is the sound to a reference pressure level.<br />
By convention, the sound levels in air are referenced to 20 µPa (re 20 µPa) and sound levels in<br />
water are referenced to 1 µPa. In this EA, all sound levels in air can be assumed to be re 20 µPa<br />
and sound levels in water can be assumed to be re 1 µPa.<br />
The frequency of sound is measured in cycles per second, or hertz (Hz). This measurement<br />
reflects the number of times per second the air vibrates from the acoustic energy. Low<br />
frequency sounds are heard as rumbles or roars, and high frequency sounds are heard as<br />
screeches. Sound measurement is further refined through the use of “A-weighting.” The<br />
normal human ear can detect sounds that range in frequency from about 20 Hz to 15,000 Hz.<br />
However, all sounds throughout this range are not heard equally well. Therefore, through<br />
internal electronic circuitry, some sound meters are calibrated to emphasize frequencies in the<br />
1,000 to 4,000 Hz range. The human ear is most sensitive to frequencies in this range, and<br />
sounds measured with these instruments are termed “A-weighted,” and are shown in terms of<br />
A-weighted decibels. “C-weighting” is a frequency-weighting scale which does not deemphasize<br />
low-frequency sounds as much as the A-weighting scale. C-weighting is typically<br />
used to describe impulsive sounds such as clapping, thunder, or sonic booms that are felt as<br />
well as heard. Un-weighted sound levels are typically used when the responsiveness of the<br />
noise receptor to noise is variable or not well understood. For example, un-weighted sound<br />
levels are used when assessing noise impacts on marine mammals.<br />
The duration of a noise event, and the number of times noise events occur are also important<br />
considerations in assessing noise impacts.<br />
The word “metric” is used to describe a standard of measurement. As used in environmental<br />
noise analysis, there are many different types of noise metrics. Each metric has a different<br />
physical meaning or interpretation and each metric was developed by researchers attempting to<br />
represent the effects of environmental noise. The metrics that support the assessment of noise<br />
from aircraft operations associated with the proposal include the maximum sound level (L max),<br />
the Sound Exposure Level (SEL), L dn, and the Sound Pressure Level (SPL). These metrics are<br />
discussed briefly below and in greater detail in Appendix D.<br />
3.2.1.1 Maximum Sound Level<br />
L max defines peak noise levels. L max is the highest sound level measured during a single noise<br />
event (e.g., an aircraft overflight), and is the sound actually heard by a person on the ground.<br />
For an observer, the noise level starts at the ambient noise level, rises up to the maximum level<br />
as the aircraft flies closest to the observer, and returns to the ambient level as the aircraft recedes<br />
into the distance. In this EA, Lmax is always A-weighted, stated re 20 µPa, and used to describe<br />
sound levels in air.<br />
Page 3-7
3.2.1.2 Sound Exposure Level<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
L max alone may not represent how intrusive an aircraft noise event is because it does not<br />
consider the length of time that the noise persists. The SEL metric combines both of these<br />
characteristics into a single measure. It is important to note, however, that SEL does not<br />
directly represent the sound level heard at any given time, but rather provides a measure of the<br />
total exposure of the entire event. Its value represents all of the acoustic energy associated with<br />
the event, as though it were present for one second. Therefore, for sound events that last longer<br />
than one second, the SEL value will be higher than the L max value. The SEL value is important<br />
because it is the value used to calculate other time-averaged noise metrics. In this EA, all stated<br />
SEL values are A-weighted, stated re 20 µPa, and used to describe sound levels in air.<br />
3.2.1.3 Sound Pressure Level<br />
The SPL metric, which is used to assess impacts to aquatic animals, simply states the unweighted<br />
sound intensity at a particular time. In this EA, SPL levels are used to describe peak<br />
noise level in water (re 1 µPa) associated with aircraft overflights and ambient noise levels<br />
underwater.<br />
3.2.1.4 Time-Averaged Cumulative Day-Night Average Noise Metrics<br />
The number of times aircraft noise events occur during given periods is also an important<br />
consideration in assessing noise impacts. The “cumulative” noise metrics that support the<br />
analysis of multiple time-varying aircraft events are L dn and the Onset-Rate Adjusted Monthly<br />
Day-Night Average Sound Level (L dnmr).<br />
These metrics sum the individual noise events and average the resulting level over a specified<br />
length of time. Thus, L dn and L dnmr are composite metrics representing the maximum noise<br />
levels, the duration of the events, the number of events that occur, and the time of day during<br />
which they occur. These metrics add a ten decibel (dB) penalty to those events that occur<br />
between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to account for the increased intrusiveness of noise events that<br />
occur at night when ambient noise levels are normally lower than during the daytime. L dnmr<br />
adds to the L dn metric the startle effects of an aircraft flying low and fast where the sound can<br />
rise to its maximum very quickly. Because the tempo of operations is so variable in airspace<br />
units, L dnmr is calculated based on the average number of operations per day in the busiest<br />
month of the year.<br />
L dn and L dnmr may be thought of as the continuous or cumulative A-weighted sound level which<br />
would be present if all of the variations in sound level which occur over the given period were<br />
smoothed out so as to contain the same total sound energy. These cumulative metrics do not<br />
represent the variations in the sound level heard. For example, an L dn of 65 dB could result<br />
from a very few noisy events, or a large number of less noisy events. Nevertheless, they do<br />
provide an excellent measure for comparing environmental noise exposures when there are<br />
multiple noise events to be considered.<br />
Studies of community annoyance caused by numerous types of environmental noise show that<br />
L dn/L dnmr correlates well with effects, and Schultz (1978) showed a consistent relationship<br />
between noise levels and annoyance (Table 3.2-1). A more recent study reaffirmed and updated<br />
Page 3-8
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
this relationship (Fidell et al. 1991). The updated relationship, which does not differ<br />
substantially from the original, is the current preferred form (see Appendix D). The correlation<br />
between L dn/L dnmr is weaker for the annoyance of individuals. This is not surprising<br />
considering the varying personal factors that influence the manner in which individuals react to<br />
noise. The inherent variability between individuals makes it impossible to predict accurately<br />
how any individual will react to a given noise event. Nevertheless, findings substantiate that<br />
community annoyance to aircraft noise is represented quite reliably using L dn. Use of the L dn<br />
metric to predict human annoyance to noise has been endorsed by the scientific community and<br />
governmental agencies (American National Standards Institute 1980, 1988; USEPA 1974; Federal<br />
Interagency Commission on Urban Noise 1980; Federal Interagency Commission on Noise<br />
1992).<br />
Table 3.2–1. Relation Between Annoyance and L dn<br />
L dn (dB) CDNL(dB) Average Percentage of Highly Annoyed Population<br />
55 52 3.3<br />
60 57 6.5<br />
65 61 12.3<br />
70 65 <strong>22</strong>.1<br />
75 69 36.5<br />
Source: Fidell et al. 1991, Committee on Hearing Bioacoustics and Biomechanics 1981; Schultz 1978, Stusnick et al.<br />
1992.<br />
Community effects from sonic booms, in the form of annoyance, correlates well with the C-<br />
weighted Day-Night Average Noise Level (CDNL) (see Table 3.2-1). CDNL is similar to L dn, but<br />
uses C-weighting to account for the low frequency impulsive nature of sonic booms.<br />
Interpretation of CDNL uses a slightly different relation than interpretation of L dn, with a given<br />
numeric value of CDNL generally representing more annoyance than the same numeric value<br />
of L dn. In this EA, L dn noise levels can be assumed to be A-weighted unless specifically<br />
designated as being C-weighted.<br />
3.2.2 <strong>Base</strong> Existing Conditions<br />
This section describes existing noise conditions in land areas near JBER as well as in the Knik<br />
Arm, which is located to the west and north of the installation. The CIBW has recently been<br />
listed as endangered under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. This section will provide<br />
description of the baseline noise environment in the Knik Arm to facilitate assessment of noise<br />
impacts to the CIBW and other wildlife in the Knik Arm associated with the Proposed Action.<br />
Additional discussion of baseline and proposed noise levels on biological resources in the Knik<br />
Arm can be found in section 3.6 and 4.6 (Biological Resources).<br />
3.2.2.1 Land Areas<br />
JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> has supported a variety of aircraft and operations since its inception in the<br />
early 1940s. Aircraft and associated missions have ranged from World War II bombers and<br />
cargo aircraft to the current suite of F-<strong>22</strong>, C-17, E-3, C-12, and C-130 aircraft. The variety of<br />
missions and aircraft over the years has formed the shape and extent of areas affected by<br />
aircraft operations and associated noise.<br />
Page 3-9
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
<strong>Base</strong>line noise levels, expressed as L dn, were modeled based on aircraft types, runway use<br />
patterns, engine power settings, altitude profiles, flight track locations, airspeed, and other<br />
factors. To identify the areas affected by noise levels around the base, the Air Force’s<br />
NOISEMAP program was used. Noise levels were calculated for the average operational day.<br />
Under the average operational day concept, annual flying operations are averaged over the<br />
number of days which the unit actually operates. Then, the Air Force’s NMPlot program is used<br />
to graphically plot these contours on a background map in 5 dB increments from 65 L dn to 85<br />
L dn. In keeping with JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> noise abatement programs, no sorties by fighter aircraft<br />
are assumed to occur between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. for normal training activity. The baseline<br />
noise contours depicted in Figure 3.2-1 reflect aircraft operations data collected by the Air Force<br />
Center for Engineering and the Environment through unit interviews held in August 2009. F-<strong>22</strong><br />
and C-17 flying operations data were updated based on pilot interviews held in December 2010<br />
and March 2011.<br />
Noise levels of 65 L dn or greater mostly affect lands on JBER. Off-base areas affected by noise<br />
levels of 65 L dn or higher occur over the Knik Arm and, to a small degree, the industrial Port of<br />
Anchorage, and to a smaller degree land west of the Knik Arm. Table 3.2-2 details the extent of<br />
these areas exposed to elevated noise levels. Section 4.8 describes the land use implications of<br />
these noise levels.<br />
Table 3.2-2. Land Area Noise Exposures Under <strong>Base</strong>line Conditions<br />
Area (In Acres) Exposed to<br />
Location<br />
Indicated Noise Levels (In L dn)<br />
65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 >85 Total<br />
JBER 5,534.7 2,374.2 1,009.7 496.4 457.0 9,872.0<br />
Knik Arm/Cook Inlet<br />
(Water)<br />
3,062.5 465.6 47.0 0.0 0.0 3,575.1<br />
Port of Anchorage 42.2 11.8 4.6 0.0 0.0 58.6<br />
Land West of Knik Arm 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5<br />
Total 8,639.9 2,842.6 1,061.3 496.4 457.0 13,506.2<br />
Figure 3.2-1 shows land uses on JBER in relation to baseline noise contours. Land uses are<br />
generalized as administrative/industrial, community support, and residential, which are<br />
relatively noise-sensitive land uses. Other land uses on JBER, such as open land, range areas,<br />
and airfield pavements, are not as noise-sensitive and are not shown on the map. Total acreage<br />
affected by greater than 65 L dn in administrative/industrial, community support, and<br />
residential land use categories is listed in Table 3.2-3. In relatively rare instances where a<br />
particular parcel of land had two designated land uses (e.g., residential and community<br />
support), the land area was counted towards the total acreage for both categories. This<br />
approach avoids under representing impacts to relatively noise sensitive land uses. The effects<br />
of aircraft noise at residences are of particular concern, because background noise levels are<br />
often low and because sleep, relaxation, and other activities common in a residential<br />
environment are easily disturbed by noise. Under baseline conditions, 157 residential structures<br />
on JBER are exposed to noise greater than 65 L dn.<br />
Page 3-10
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Figure 3.2-1. Land Use in Relation to <strong>Base</strong>line Noise Contours<br />
Page 3-11
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Table 3.2-3. Acres on JBER in Several Land Use Categories Impacted by Noise<br />
Greater Than 65 L dn<br />
Land Use Category<br />
Acres ≥ 65 dB L dn<br />
Administrative/ Industrial 2,040<br />
Community Support 817<br />
Residential (Accompanied and Unaccompanied) 199<br />
Due to climactic conditions in Alaska, structures on JBER are designed to avoid any<br />
unnecessary heat loss. Measures taken to avoid heat loss (e.g., thicker insulation, double-paned<br />
windows, etc.) also result in improved exterior-to-interior noise attenuation. The average<br />
exterior-to-interior noise level reduction provided by a typical American home located in a cold<br />
climate is 27 dB, if the windows are closed and 17 dB if the windows are open (USEPA 1974).<br />
Noise attenuation provided by non-residential structures on JBER varies widely based on<br />
structure type. However, most structures on JBER that are frequently occupied are also<br />
designed with energy-efficient construction elements and therefore high levels of structural<br />
noise attenuation. As a result of structural noise attenuation, persons indoors experience<br />
substantially lower noise levels than persons outdoors, and the likelihood of noise-related<br />
annoyance is commensurately lower.<br />
While some persons on JBER would be expected to be annoyed by aircraft noise, the percentage<br />
of the affected persons annoyed would probably not be as high as predicted using the<br />
relationship between L dn and annoyance described in Table 3.2-1. Noise is a highly subjective<br />
phenomenon, and the likelihood of annoyance is strongly linked to characteristics of the<br />
listener, including the attitude of the listener towards the noise source. As most of the persons<br />
on base are either directly or indirectly employed by the military, their attitude towards the<br />
military is generally assumed to be positive.<br />
There are situations where noise in certain locations on JBER may exceed levels at which longterm<br />
noise-induced hearing loss is possible. At JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>, the hearing conservation<br />
program is conducted in accordance with Air Force Occupational Safety and Health (AFOSH)<br />
Standard 48-20, Occupational Noise and Hearing Conservation Program, DoD Instruction 6055.12,<br />
DoD Hearing Conservation Program, and 29 Code of Federal Register 1910.95, Occupational Noise<br />
Exposure. The DoD, U.S. Air Force, and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and<br />
Health (NIOSH) have all established occupational noise exposure damage risk criteria (or<br />
“standards”) for hearing loss so as to not exceed 85 dB as an 8-hour time weighted average,<br />
with a 3 dB exchange rate in a work environment. The exchange rate is an increment of decibels<br />
that requires the halving of exposure time, or a decrement of decibels that requires the doubling<br />
of exposure time. For example, a 3 dB exchange rate requires that noise exposure time be<br />
halved for each 3 dB increase in noise level. Therefore, an individual would achieve the limit<br />
for risk criteria at 88 dB, for a time period of four hours, and at 91 dB, for a time period of two<br />
hours. The standard assumes “quiet” (where an individual remains in an environment with<br />
noise levels less than 72 dB) for the balance of the 24-hour period. Also, Air Force and<br />
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) occupational standards prohibit any<br />
unprotected worker exposure to continuous (i.e., of a duration greater than one second) noise<br />
exceeding a 115 dB sound level. OSHA established this additional standard to reduce the risk<br />
of workers developing noise-induced hearing loss.<br />
Page 3-12
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
The Hearing Conservation Program at JBER is administered by the Bioenvironmental<br />
Engineering Office. As per the requirements of AFOSH Standard 48-20, representatives from<br />
the Bioenvironmental Engineering Office visit facilities in which workers could potentially be<br />
expected to be exposed to noise levels exceeding noise exposure thresholds. A health risk<br />
assessment is conducted in those facilities and, as part of the assessment, a representative<br />
sample of employees are instructed to carry noise dosimeters for a specified period of time. If<br />
noise exposure exceeds established thresholds, then an audiometric monitoring program is<br />
initiated. Workers in known high noise exposure locations may be required to wear hearing<br />
protection devices including but not limited to ear plugs and ear muffs. If noise exposure<br />
thresholds are not exceeded, then a schedule is established for return visits to the facility to<br />
repeat testing to confirm that conditions have not changed.<br />
DoD policy for assessing hearing loss risk pursuant to NEPA is to use the 80 L dn noise contour<br />
to identify populations at the most risk of potential hearing loss (Undersecretary of Defense for<br />
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics 2009). Fifty-two structures, which are all located on JBER<br />
near the flightline, are currently within the 80 L dn contour. The majority of the structures are<br />
manned and, as such, employees working in these buildings are subject to occupational noise<br />
exposure laws and regulations as described above. The JBER Bioenvironmental Engineering<br />
Office considers several factors, including structural noise attenuation and the amount of time<br />
workers spend outside when deciding on the appropriate course of action with regards to<br />
implementation of the Hearing Conservation Program.<br />
Aircraft at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> generally operate according to established flight paths and overfly<br />
the same areas surrounding the base. Military aircraft are designed for performance, and the<br />
engines are noisy. JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> employs a quiet-hours program in which, barring a national<br />
emergency or a major exercise, fighter aircraft operations (takeoff and landing patterns as well<br />
as engine run-ups) are avoided after 10:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m. every day of the week. At<br />
JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>, noise exposure from airfield operations typically occurs beneath approach and<br />
departure corridors along both the main and crosswind runways and in areas immediately<br />
adjacent to parking ramps and aircraft staging areas.<br />
3.2.2.2 Noise Levels in the Knik Arm<br />
Ambient noise levels in the Knik Arm are relatively high due to noise generated in the Port of<br />
Anchorage and other anthropogenic noise sources and may meet or exceed the basement<br />
threshold for behavioral harassment of beluga whales as published by NMFS (120 dB re 1 µPa<br />
for non-impulse sound). High measured noise levels in the Knik Arm are attributed primarily<br />
to strong tidal flow, intense wind and wave action, and sounds generated in the Port of<br />
Anchorage. In a paper published in 2002, Blackwell and Greene reported in-water noise levels<br />
averaging 119 dB SPL adjacent to <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB while no overflights were taking place. The<br />
same paper reported measured ambient noise of 124 dB re 1 µPa at the nearby Point Possession<br />
during a changing tide. More recently, KABATA et al. (2010) summarized a variety of existing<br />
noise studies conducted within the Knik Arm and concluded that measured background levels<br />
rarely are below 125 dB re 1 μPa, except in conditions of no wind and slack tide. Ambient noise<br />
energy in the Knik Arm is typically concentrated at frequencies below 10 Kilohertz (kHz)<br />
(Blackwell and Greene 2002). Beluga hearing is not thought to be particularly acute at<br />
frequencies at or below 10 kHz (Richardson et al. 1995).<br />
Page 3-13
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
During F-<strong>22</strong> overflight, calculated noise levels in the Knik Arm increase from ambient levels to<br />
up to 137 dB SPL in limited areas during the brief period of overflight. As a point of reference,<br />
maximum estimated F-<strong>22</strong> noise levels are slightly higher than measured F-15 overflight inwater<br />
noise levels of 134 dB SPL measured by Blackwell and Greene. These noise levels are<br />
well below the threshold for physical harm, but exceed the basement threshold for behavioral<br />
harassment.<br />
A detailed analysis was conducted on potential effects of F-<strong>22</strong> flying operations noise on the<br />
CIBW. The analysis, which is discussed in greater detail in Section 4.6 (Biological Resources)<br />
and Appendix E, Section 7 (Endangered Species Act) Compliance Wildlife Analysis for F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong> <strong>Up</strong><br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>, took into account the following factors, including:<br />
• Area affected by several noise level intervals with potential to negatively affect the<br />
CIBW associated with each F-<strong>22</strong> flight profile type;<br />
• Estimated average number of CIBW individuals per unit area;<br />
• The probability of behavioral harassment associated with each noise level;<br />
• The frequency of events; and,<br />
• The duration of events.<br />
While noise levels generated during F-<strong>22</strong> overflight do have the potential to result in CIBW<br />
behavioral harassment, the probability of behavioral harassment at these noise levels is low.<br />
<strong>Base</strong>d on the factors listed above, it was found that behavioral harassment events associated<br />
with the proposed additional F-<strong>22</strong> overflights are expected to be relatively rare (approximately<br />
0.04 behavioral harassment events per year).<br />
3.2.3 Training Airspace Existing Conditions<br />
This section describes noise levels associated with subsonic and supersonic aircraft operations<br />
in the training airspace.<br />
3.2.3.1 Subsonic Flight<br />
Within MOAs and overlying ATCAAs, subsonic training flights are dispersed and distributed<br />
throughout the training airspace. The Air Force has developed the MR_NMAP (MOA-Range<br />
NOISEMAP) computer program (Lucas and Calamia 1996) to calculate subsonic aircraft noise in<br />
these areas. This computer program calculates estimated noise levels based on aircraft type,<br />
flight characteristics, meteorological conditions, and training activities. The model results are<br />
supported by measurements in several military airspaces (Lucas et al. 1995). The L dnmr noise<br />
level has been computed for each of the primary airspace units potentially affected by the<br />
Proposed Action. As discussed in Section 3.2.1.4, time-averaged cumulative noise metrics, such<br />
as L dnmr represent the most widely accepted method of quantifying noise impact. However,<br />
they do not provide an intuitive description of the noise environment and people often desire to<br />
know what the loudness of an individual aircraft will be. MR_NMAP and its supporting<br />
programs can provide L max (Table 3.2-4) and SEL (Table 3.2-5) at various distances and altitudes.<br />
Page 3-14
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Table 3.2-4. Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) Under the Flight Track for Aircraft at<br />
Various Altitudes in the Primary Airspace 1<br />
Aircraft<br />
Power 300 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000<br />
Airspeed<br />
Type<br />
Setting 2 AGL AGL AGL AGL AGL AGL AGL<br />
F-15C 520 81% NC 119 114 107 99 86 74 57<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> 450 70% ETR 120 115 108 100 88 78 66<br />
F-16A 450 87% NC 112 108 101 93 80 67 50<br />
F-18A 500 92% NC 120 116 108 99 85 71 54<br />
B-1B 550 101% RPM 117 112 106 98 86 75 61<br />
Notes:<br />
1. Level flight, steady, high-speed conditions.<br />
2. Engine power setting while in a MOA. The type of engine and aircraft determines the power setting:<br />
3. RPM = rotations per minute, NC = percent core RPM, and ETR = engine thrust request.<br />
AGL = above ground level<br />
Table 3.2-5. Sound Exposure Level (SEL) under the Flight Track for Aircraft at<br />
Various Altitudes in the Primary Airspace 1<br />
Aircraft<br />
500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000<br />
Airspeed 300 AGL<br />
Type<br />
AGL AGL AGL AGL AGL AGL<br />
F-15C 520 116 112 107 101 91 80 65<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> 450 120 116 111 105 95 86 76<br />
F-16A 450 110 107 101 95 85 74 59<br />
F-18A 500 118 114 108 101 89 77 62<br />
B-1B 550 116 112 107 101 92 82 70<br />
Notes:<br />
1. Level flight, steady, high-speed conditions.<br />
2. AGL = above ground level<br />
Table 3.2-6 shows the baseline noise levels beneath the training airspace units. Cumulative<br />
noise levels in all airspace units are 58 L dnmr or less. Noise levels below 45 L dnmr are presumed to<br />
be approximately at ambient levels and are shown in Table 3.2-6 as “
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Supersonic flight for fighter aircraft is primarily associated with air combat training. Supersonic<br />
activity is authorized in the MOAs under specific altitude restrictions. Supersonic flight<br />
produces an air pressure wave that may reach the ground as a sonic boom. The amplitude of an<br />
individual sonic boom is measured by its peak overpressure (PSF), in pounds per square foot<br />
(psf) and depends on an aircraft’s size, weight, geometry, Mach number, and flight altitude.<br />
Table 3.2-7 shows sonic boom overpressures for the F-15, F-16, and F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft in level flight at<br />
various conditions. The biggest single condition affecting overpressure is altitude. Maneuvers<br />
can also affect boom PSFs, increasing or decreasing overpressures from those shown in Table<br />
3.2-7. A focus boom may result when maneuvers at supersonic speeds focus the peak<br />
overpressure. Appendix D explains the different types of supersonic events.<br />
Table 3.2-7. Sonic Boom Peak Overpressures (psf) for F-15 and F-<strong>22</strong>A Aircraft at<br />
Mach 1.2 Level Flight 1<br />
Aircraft<br />
Altitude (feet)<br />
10,000 20,000 30,000<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> 6.2 3.2 2.1<br />
F-16 4.9 2.5 1.6<br />
F-15 6.4 3.3 2.2<br />
Note:<br />
Calculated using CABOOM; Focusing can result in overpressures increased by two to five times the steady state<br />
boom levels; Boom levels diminish toward 0.1 psf as the lateral distance increases<br />
Aircraft exceeding Mach 1 always create a sonic boom, although not all supersonic flight<br />
activities will cause a boom at the ground. As altitude increases, air temperature decreases, and<br />
the resulting layers of temperature change causing booms to be turned upward as they travel<br />
toward the ground. Depending on the altitude of the aircraft and the Mach number, many<br />
sonic booms are bent upward sufficiently that they never reach the ground. This same<br />
phenomenon, referred to as “cutoff,” also acts to limit the width (area covered) of the sonic<br />
booms that reach the ground (Plotkin et al. 1989).<br />
When a sonic boom reaches the ground, it impacts an area which is referred to as a “footprint”<br />
or (for sustained supersonic flight) a “carpet.” The size of the footprint depends on the<br />
supersonic flight path and on atmospheric conditions. Sonic booms are loudest near the center<br />
of the footprint, with a sharp “bang-bang” sound. Near the edges, they are weak and have a<br />
rumbling sound like distant thunder.<br />
Sonic booms from air combat training activity tend to be concentrated within elliptical<br />
boundaries fitting within the MOA/ATCAA. Aircraft will set up at positions up to 100 nautical<br />
miles apart before proceeding toward each other for an engagement. The airspace used tends to<br />
be aligned, connecting the setup points in an elliptical shape. Aircraft will fly supersonic at<br />
various times during an engagement exercise. Supersonic events can occur as the aircraft<br />
accelerate toward each other, during dives in the engagement itself, and during disengagement.<br />
The long-term average sonic boom patterns also tend to be elliptical and this is reflected by the<br />
spatial distribution of CDNL noise levels.<br />
Long-term sonic boom measurement projects have been conducted in four airspaces: White<br />
Sands, New Mexico (Plotkin et al. 1989); the eastern portion of the Goldwater Range, Arizona<br />
(Plotkin et al. 1992); the Elgin MOA at Nellis AFB, Nevada (Frampton et al. 1993); and the<br />
western portion of the Goldwater Range (Page et al. 1994). These studies included analysis of<br />
Page 3-16
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
schedule and air combat maneuvering instrumentation data, and they supported development<br />
of the 1992 BOOMAP model (Plotkin et al. 1992). The current version of BOOMAP (Frampton et<br />
al. 1993; Plotkin 1996) incorporates results from all four studies. Because BOOMAP is directly<br />
based on long-term measurements, it implicitly accounts for maneuvers, statistical variations in<br />
operations, atmospheric effects and other factors.<br />
A variety of aircraft conducting training perform flight activities that include supersonic events.<br />
For most fighter aircraft, these events occur during air-to-air combat, often at high altitudes.<br />
Table 3.2-5 shows baseline supersonic noise levels (CDNL) as generated using BOOMAP. Table<br />
3.2-5 also provides the estimated number of supersonic flight events, and the number of sonic<br />
booms that effect any given location on the ground near the center of each airspace unit.<br />
Individual sonic boom footprints could affect areas from about 10 square miles to 100 square<br />
miles.<br />
Training F-<strong>22</strong>s are estimated to be training at supersonic speeds more than three times as much<br />
as aircraft such as the F-15C. This means that the F-<strong>22</strong> is supersonic approximately 25 percent of<br />
an engagement versus 7.5 percent for an F-15C (see Section 2.2). For example, during a typical<br />
14 minute air-to-air engagement, the F-<strong>22</strong> could be supersonic approximately 3 to 6 minutes,<br />
while the F-15C could be supersonic approximately 1 to 2 minutes. Depending on altitude and<br />
meteorological conditions, an existing F-<strong>22</strong> supersonic flight can create a carpet boom which<br />
travels with the aircraft and is experienced under the training airspace. Individual focus booms<br />
with higher overpressures can be created during supersonic maneuvers. Appendix D explains<br />
the carpet and focus booms associated with supersonic training. A carpet boom extends over a<br />
broad area, although it does not continuously affect any specific location. So the number of<br />
booms experienced on the ground at any location would be based on the duration of supersonic<br />
flight, not whether the supersonic flight occurred in a series of supersonic dashes from an F-16<br />
or F-15 or from an F-<strong>22</strong> flying at supersonic speed for a longer period of time. Focus boom<br />
concern is somewhat reduced due to the typical population density of less than 0.1 person per<br />
square mile under the Alaskan training airspace.<br />
3.3 Safety<br />
The ground, flight, and explosive safety ROI includes activities and operations conducted on<br />
the base itself, as well as training conducted in Alaskan military training airspace. Ground<br />
safety considers issues associated with operations and maintenance activities that support base<br />
operations, including fire response. Flight safety considers aircraft flight risks. Explosive safety<br />
discusses the management and use of ordnance or munitions associated with airbase operations<br />
and training activities conducted in various elements of training airspace.<br />
3.3.1 <strong>Base</strong> Existing Conditions<br />
3.3.1.1 Ground Safety<br />
Ongoing F-<strong>22</strong> operations and maintenance activities conducted by the 3 WG are performed in<br />
accordance with applicable Air Force safety regulations, published Air Force Technical Orders,<br />
and standards prescribed by Air Force Occupational Safety and Health requirements. The 3<br />
WG fire department provides fire and crash response at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>. The unit has a<br />
sufficient number of trained and qualified personnel, and the unit possesses all equipment<br />
Page 3-17
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
necessary to respond to aircraft accidents and structure fires. There are no response-equipment<br />
shortfalls.<br />
Clear Zones (CZs), Accident Potential Zones (APZs), and safety zones have been established<br />
around the airfield to minimize the results of a potential accident involving aircraft operating<br />
from JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>. These zones are shown in Figure 3.3-1 from the 2005 <strong>Base</strong> General Plan.<br />
The CZ is an area 3,000 feet wide by 3,000 feet long and is located at the immediate end of the<br />
runway. The accident potential in this area is so high that no building is allowed. APZ I is a<br />
3,000-foot wide by 5,000 foot-long area located just beyond the CZ with a high potential for<br />
accidents. A portion of the Mountain View community is within APZ 1. Land uses that<br />
concentrate people in small areas are not compatible with APZ I (Air Force Civil Engineer<br />
Support Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], and Naval Facilities Engineering<br />
Command 2001). APZ II is an area 3,000 feet wide by 7,000 feet long beyond APZ I, and high<br />
density functions such as multistory buildings, places of assembly (e.g., theaters, schools,<br />
churches and restaurants) and high density office uses are not considered compatible with APZ<br />
II (Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency, USACE, and Naval Facilities Engineering<br />
Command 2001). Unified Facilities Criteria 3-260-01 also specifies encroachment-free standards<br />
along and on either side of the runway (Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency, USACE, and<br />
Naval Facilities Engineering Command 2001).<br />
As of 2006, the JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> runways were operating under waivers and exemptions to<br />
these criteria (see Table 3.3-1).<br />
Table 3.3-1. Airfield Waivers and Exemptions<br />
Type<br />
Clear Zone<br />
Number For Specified Types<br />
Accident Potential Zone Other<br />
Waivers 5 1 60<br />
Exemptions 4 -- 25<br />
Deviation -- -- 24<br />
Source: Personal communication, Dougan 2011<br />
3.3.1.2 Flight Safety<br />
The typical public concern with regard to flight safety is the potential for aircraft accidents.<br />
Such mishaps may occur as a result of weather-related accidents, mechanical failure, pilot error,<br />
mid-air collisions, collisions with manmade structures or terrain, or bird-aircraft collisions.<br />
Flight risks apply to all aircraft; they are not limited to the military.<br />
The Air Force defines four major categories of aircraft mishaps: Classes A, B, C, and E. Class A<br />
mishaps result in a loss of life, permanent total disability, a total cost in excess of $2 million, or<br />
destruction of an aircraft. Class B mishaps result in total costs of more than $500,000 but less<br />
than $2 million, permanent partial disability, or inpatient hospitalization of three or more<br />
personnel. Class C mishaps involve reportable damage of more than $50,000, but less than<br />
$500,000; an injury resulting in any loss of time from work beyond the day or shift on which it<br />
occurred, or occupational illness that causes loss of time from work at any time; or an<br />
occupational injury or illness resulting in permanent change of job. Class E mishaps are minor,<br />
up to less than $50,000 (Air Force Safety, Health, and <strong>Environmental</strong> Standard A2 (Air Force<br />
2010c). This EA will focus on Class A mishaps because of their potentially catastrophic results.<br />
Page 3-18
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Figure 3.3-1. JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones<br />
Page 3-19
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
<strong>Base</strong>d on historical data on mishaps at all installations, and under all conditions of flight, the<br />
military services calculate Class A mishap rates per 100,000 flying hours for each type of aircraft<br />
in the inventory. These mishap rates do not consider combat losses due to enemy action.<br />
Mishap rates are only statistically predictive. The actual causes of mishaps are due to many<br />
factors, not simply the amount of flying time of the aircraft.<br />
Considering all operations at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> in more than 25 years, there have been five Class A<br />
mishaps in the vicinity of the installation. Four were flight-related and one was non-flightrelated.<br />
In 1995, an E-3 aircraft encountered a large flight of birds during takeoff. Birds were<br />
ingested into all engines resulting in a complete loss of power, and the aircraft crashed. In 2000,<br />
an aero club Cessna 152 departed controlled flight during a closed pattern, and crashed. In 1998,<br />
during engine shut down, a foreign object was ingested into the left engine of an F-15C while on<br />
the parking ramp. The aircraft did not crash although the dollar value of damages resulting from<br />
this incident required classification as a Class A mishap. In 2010 a C-17 preparing for an airshow<br />
crashed. Also in 2010 an F-<strong>22</strong> crashed during a training mission in the Fox MOAs.<br />
Mishap rates are statistically assessed as an occurrence rate per 100,000 flying hours. Figure<br />
3.3-2 reflects the cumulative annual Class A mishap rates of a twin-engine air superiority<br />
fighter, the F-15, between 1972 and 2004. As the aircraft, the pilots who fly it, and the<br />
technicians who maintain it mature over time, mishap rates are reduced and maintain a<br />
relatively constant level. After eight years of flight, the F-<strong>22</strong> approximate mishap rate is 6.35 for<br />
nearly 100,000 flight hours (Air Force Safety Center [AFSC] 2011b). This is almost exactly the<br />
same as the F-15 after eight years of flight, as depicted on Figure 3.3.2. The F-<strong>22</strong> is a new aircraft<br />
and would be expected to have a long-term Class A mishap rate comparable to the F-15 mishap<br />
rate of 2.46 per 100,000 flight hours.<br />
Source: Air Force Safety Center 2006.<br />
Figure 3.3-2. F-15 Cumulative Class A Mishap Rates<br />
Page 3-20
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
3.3.1.3 Wildlife Strike Hazard<br />
Bird-aircraft strikes or wildlife strikes on a runway constitute a safety concern because they can<br />
result in damage to aircraft, or injury to aircrews or local human populations if an aircraft<br />
crashes. Aircraft may encounter birds at altitudes up to 30,000 feet MSL or higher. However,<br />
most birds fly close to the ground. More than 97 percent of reported bird strikes occur below<br />
3,000 feet AGL. Approximately 30 percent of bird strikes happen in the airport environment,<br />
and almost 55 percent occur during low-altitude flight training (AFSC 2011a).<br />
Migratory waterfowl (e.g., ducks, geese, and swans) are the most hazardous birds to low-flying<br />
aircraft because of their size and their propensity for migrating in large flocks at a variety of<br />
elevations and times of day. Waterfowl vary considerably in size, from 1 to 2 pounds for ducks,<br />
5 to 8 pounds for geese, and up to 20 pounds for most swans. There are two normal migratory<br />
seasons, fall and spring. Waterfowl are usually only a hazard during migratory seasons. These<br />
birds typically migrate at night and generally fly between 1,000 to 2,500 feet AGL during<br />
migration.<br />
In addition to waterfowl, raptors, shorebirds, gulls, songbirds, and other birds also pose a<br />
hazard. In considering severity, the results of bird-aircraft strikes in restricted areas show that<br />
strikes involving raptors result in the majority of nationwide Class A and Class B mishaps<br />
related to bird-aircraft strikes. Raptors of greatest concern in the ROI are eagles and hawks. In<br />
Alaska, peak migration periods for waterfowl and raptors are from August to October and from<br />
April to May. A few bald eagles winter on JBER. In general, flights above 1,500 feet AGL<br />
would be above most migrating and wintering raptors.<br />
Songbirds are small birds, usually less than one pound. During nocturnal migration periods,<br />
they navigate along major rivers, typically between 500 to 3,000 feet AGL. The potential for<br />
bird-aircraft strikes is greatest in areas used as migration corridors (flyways) or where birds<br />
congregate for foraging or resting (e.g., open water bodies, rivers, and wetlands).<br />
While any bird-aircraft strike has the potential to be serious, many result in little or no damage<br />
to the aircraft, and only approximately 0.04 percent of all reported bird-aircraft strikes result in<br />
a Class A mishap (AFSC 2011a).<br />
The 3 WG has developed aggressive procedures designed to minimize the occurrence of birdaircraft<br />
strikes. The unit has documented detailed procedures to monitor and react to<br />
heightened risk of bird-strikes (<strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB 2003), and when risk increases, limits are placed<br />
on low altitude flight and some types of training (e.g., multiple approaches, closed pattern<br />
work, etc.) in the airport environment. Special briefings are provided to pilots whenever the<br />
potential exists for greater bird-strike sightings within the airspace. Training and signs in open<br />
areas emphasize individual responsibilities and actions. Bird hazards exist at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong><br />
year-round. Risk increases during spring and fall migration periods. Species of particular<br />
concern include Canada geese, swans, other waterfowl, sandhill cranes, gulls, raptors, and owls<br />
(<strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB 2003). 3 WG aircraft have experienced approximately five bird-strikes per year<br />
in the airfield environment (personal communication, Caristi 2011).<br />
Other wildlife of concern to flying operations at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> includes moose, wolves,<br />
coyotes, fox, bears, and smaller mammals (<strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB 2003). Aggressive habitat<br />
Page 3-21
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
management, fencing, active and passive dispersal techniques, and effective warning<br />
techniques serve to reduce the wildlife strike hazard at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> (<strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB 2003).<br />
For example, security fencing around the airfield excludes most large mammals.<br />
3.3.1.4 Explosives Safety<br />
All activities associated with the receipt, processing, transportation, storage maintenance, and<br />
loading of munitions items is accomplished by qualified technicians in accordance with DoD<br />
and Air Force technical procedures. The 3 WG has sufficient storage facilities and space for the<br />
storage and processing of mission-required ordnance items (personal communication, Norby<br />
2005).<br />
There are three “hot cargo” pads on the installation, which are sufficient for handling explosive<br />
cargo. The primary pad is located near the eastern end of Runway 06/24. Additionally, there<br />
are two secondary pads. One is located toward the western end of Runway 06/24; the other is<br />
located off the extreme eastern end of Runway 06/24. All of the pads are situated north of the<br />
runway.<br />
If required, support for explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) is provided by an active duty Air<br />
Force unit stationed at JBER. Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 describe existing F-<strong>22</strong> munitions and chaff<br />
and flare use as well as proposed use with an additional six F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft. Adequate capacity<br />
exists at JBER to safely handle munitions currently used and the level of proposed use with the<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up.<br />
3.3.2 Training Airspace Existing Conditions<br />
Flight training within the Alaskan airspace is conducted in a manner that protects other users of<br />
the area, as well as military pilots. JBER has existing programs and guidance to support safe<br />
operations and reduce risks associated with training in Alaskan airspace (Air Force 1995;<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB 2003; 3 WG 2004). This section addresses flight, ground, explosive, and other<br />
safety issues associated with 3 WG aircrew use of the regional military training airspace and its<br />
supporting assets and facilities.<br />
3.3.2.1 Flight Safety<br />
One JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> F-<strong>22</strong> Class A mishap in November 2010 resulted in the loss of the pilot<br />
and destruction of the aircraft. It is impossible to predict the precise location of an aircraft<br />
accident. Major considerations in any accident are loss of life and damage to property. The<br />
aircrew’s ability to exit from a malfunctioning aircraft is dependent on the type of malfunction<br />
encountered. The probability of an aircraft crashing into a populated area is extremely low, but<br />
it cannot be totally discounted. Several factors are relevant in the ROI: the training areas have<br />
low population densities, typically less than 0.1 person per square mile; F-<strong>22</strong>s train less than 0.5<br />
percent of the time below 2,000 feet AGL; and the aircraft are over any specific geographic area<br />
for a very limited amount of time. There is very low probability that a disabled aircraft would<br />
impact a populated area.<br />
Secondary effects of an aircraft crash include the potential for fire or environmental<br />
contamination. At a crash site, every effort is made to prevent access by unauthorized personnel.<br />
Page 3-<strong>22</strong>
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
The extent of secondary effects is situation dependent, and announcements may be made to<br />
exclude unauthorized personnel until experts can determine the cause of the accident and collect<br />
all materials needed for the investigation and to ensure public safety.<br />
The terrain overflown in the ROI is diverse. For example, should a mishap occur in highly<br />
vegetated areas during a hot, dry summer, there would be a higher risk of fire than would a<br />
mishap in more barren and rocky areas during winter. An aircraft crash may release<br />
hydrocarbons. Those petroleums, oils, and lubricants not consumed in a fire could contaminate<br />
soil and water. The potential for contamination is dependent on several factors. For example,<br />
the porosity of the surface soils will determine how rapidly contaminants are absorbed, while<br />
the specific geologic structure in the region will determine the extent and direction of the<br />
contamination plume. The locations and characteristics of surface and groundwater in the area<br />
will also affect the extent of contamination to those resources.<br />
<strong>Base</strong>d on historical data on mishaps at all installations, and under all conditions of flight, the<br />
military services calculate Class A mishap rates per 100,000 flying hours for each type of aircraft<br />
in the inventory. These mishap rates do not consider combat losses due to enemy action.<br />
In the case of MOAs, for each specific aircraft using the airspace, an estimated average sortie<br />
duration may be used to estimate annual flight hours in the airspace. Then, the Class A mishap<br />
rate per 100,000 flying hours can be used to compute a statistical projection of anticipated time<br />
between Class A mishaps in each applicable element of airspace. In evaluating this information,<br />
it should be emphasized that those data presented are only statistically predictive. The actual<br />
causes of mishaps are due to many factors, not simply the amount of flying time of the aircraft.<br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> is a new aircraft and has nearly accumulated the 100,000 flight hours to produce a<br />
valid Class A mishap rate. Proportioning the F-<strong>22</strong> Class A mishaps and flight hours as of the<br />
end of FY 10 produces an approximate Class A mishap rate of 6.35 per 100,000 flight hours for<br />
eight years of testing and operations. F-15 aircraft, which have been flown since 1972, have<br />
accumulated more than 4,998,100 flight hours, and the F-15 has a Class A mishap rate of 2.46<br />
per 100,000 flight hours (see Figure 3.3-2). Since mishap rates are statistically assessed as an<br />
occurrence rate per 100,000 flying hours, low use levels substantially influence the mishap rate.<br />
In its first eight years of flight testing and operations, the F-15 had an almost identical Class A<br />
mishap rate as the F-<strong>22</strong> (see Figure 3.3-2). It is reasonable to expect that, as the F-<strong>22</strong> weapon<br />
system matures, its rates will be as low as or lower than the historic F-15 rate.<br />
The 3 WG maintains detailed emergency and mishap response plans to react to an aircraft<br />
accident. These plans assign agency responsibilities and prescribe functional activities necessary<br />
to react to major mishaps, whether on or off base. Response would normally occur in two phases.<br />
The initial response focuses on search and rescue, evacuation, fire suppression, safety, elimination<br />
of explosive devices, ensuring security of the area, and other actions immediately necessary to<br />
prevent loss of life or further property damage. Subsequently, the second, or investigation phase<br />
is accomplished. After all required actions on the site are complete, the aircraft will be removed<br />
and the site cleaned up. Depending on the extent of damage resulting from a Class A mishap,<br />
nearly all damaged parts are located and removed from a crash site.<br />
First response to a crash scene is often provided by local emergency services nearest the scene.<br />
At the same time, the Air Force rapidly mobilizes a response team. The initial response element<br />
Page 3-23
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
consists of those personnel and agencies primarily responsible for the initial phase. This<br />
element will include the Fire Chief, who will normally be the first On-Scene Commander, firefighting<br />
and crash rescue personnel, medical personnel, security police, and crash recovery<br />
personnel. A subsequent response team will be comprised of an array of organizations whose<br />
participation will be governed by the circumstances associated with the mishap and actions<br />
required to be performed.<br />
The Air Force has no specific rights or jurisdiction just because a military aircraft is involved.<br />
Regardless of the agency initially responding to the accident, efforts are directed at stabilizing the<br />
situation and minimizing further damage. If the accident has occurred on non-DoD property, and<br />
depending on the nature of the accident, the owning or management agency or individual<br />
responsible for the property would be notified, a National Defense Area would be established<br />
around the accident scene, and the site would be secured for the investigation phase.<br />
Flight safety includes the potential for interaction between civil aviation and high performance<br />
military aircraft. Actions have been implemented by JBER to avoid Major Flying Exercises in<br />
MOAs during the September hunting season to reduce the potential for military aircraft being in a<br />
MOA while general aviation aircraft are ferrying hunters or fisherman. Past discussions with<br />
pilots, hunters, fishermen, and recreationists flying to use the land under the MOAs revealed that,<br />
although they occasionally sighted a military aircraft, they generally flew at lower altitudes than<br />
the military aircraft and both pilots practiced see-and-avoid measures (Air Force 2006). JBER<br />
pilots have been able to successfully train while being joint users of Alaskan airspace.<br />
Flight safety also includes the potential for bird-aircraft strikes in the MOAs. In the case of the<br />
F-<strong>22</strong>, this risk is negligible because the F-<strong>22</strong>s normally fly at altitudes above the zone (0 to 3,000<br />
feet AGL) where 95 percent of bird-aircraft strikes occur. Section 2.2 includes the flight altitude<br />
by percent of time for the F-<strong>22</strong>.<br />
3.3.2.2 Ground and Explosive Safety<br />
Aircrews from JBER train on air-to-ground ranges. Air-to-ground expenditure of munitions<br />
during training is limited to ranges within Restricted Airspace. Munitions use is presented in<br />
Table 2.2-4. Air Force safety standards require safeguards on weapons systems and ordnance to<br />
ensure against inadvertent releases. All munitions mounted on an aircraft, as well as the guns,<br />
are equipped with mechanisms that preclude release or firing without activation of an<br />
electronic arming circuit.<br />
When live (high-explosive) ordnance impacts a target, it detonates, and the effects of this<br />
detonation are blast and overpressure in the immediate vicinity of the target. When a training<br />
(inert) air-to-ground weapon impacts on or near the target, it may skid, bounce, or burrow<br />
under the ground for some distance from the point of impact, coming to rest at some distance<br />
from that point. The military services have analyzed extensive historic data on ordnance and<br />
incorporated those data into a computer program (called SAFE-RANGE). SAFE-RANGE<br />
considers the type of ordnance, the aircraft, the delivery profile, the target type, as well as other<br />
data such as the demonstrated accuracy of the aircraft’s bombing and navigation system. The<br />
program then calculates an area around the target within which either effects from live<br />
ordnance will spread, or the specific training or inert ordnance under consideration will come to<br />
rest. This area has dimensions in front of, behind, and on either side of the target. The results<br />
Page 3-24
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
reflect (at a 95 percent confidence level) the geographic area which will contain 99.99 percent of<br />
the specific weapon’s deliveries and their effects (Air Force 2001e).<br />
Operations conducted by 3 WG aircrews have been subjected to these analyses. Detailed<br />
operating procedures published by the air-to-ground ranges that support 3 WG training ensure<br />
that all safety standards are met for the type of ordnance delivered, and the delivery profile<br />
associated with that ordnance delivery.<br />
3.3.2.3 Chaff and Flare Use<br />
Chaff and defensive flares are managed as ordnance. Chaff and flares are authorized for use by<br />
3 WG crews. Use is governed by detailed operating procedures to ensure safety. Chaff and<br />
flare use are presented in Table 2.2-5.<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> RR-180/AL chaff, which is ejected from an aircraft to reflect radar signals, consists of fibers<br />
thinner than a human hair comprised of aluminum-coated silica packed into approximately<br />
4-ounce bundles. When ejected, chaff forms a brief electronic “cloud” that temporarily masks<br />
the aircraft from radar detection. Although the chaff may be ejected from the aircraft using a<br />
small pyrotechnic charge, the chaff itself is not explosive (Air Force 1997). During FY 2009, 3<br />
WG aircrews expended 17,132 bundles of chaff. Four 1-inch by 1/2-inch by 1/8-inch pieces of<br />
plastic and six 2-inch by 3-inch pieces of parchment paper fall to the ground along with the<br />
chaff fibers with each released chaff bundle. Appendix A provides an expanded discussion of<br />
chaff.<br />
Defensive training flares consist of pellets of highly flammable material that burn rapidly at<br />
extremely high temperatures. Their purpose is to provide a heat source other than the aircraft’s<br />
engine exhaust to mislead heat-sensitive or heat-seeking targeting systems and decoy them<br />
away from the aircraft. The flare, essentially a pellet of magnesium, ignites upon ejection from<br />
the aircraft and burns completely within approximately 3.5 to 5 seconds, or approximately 400<br />
feet from its release point (Air Force 1997). The existing use of flares by F-<strong>22</strong>s as defensive<br />
countermeasures typically results in two 2-inch by 2-inch by ½ inch plastic pieces, one up to<br />
4-inch by 15-inch piece of aluminum-coated mylar, and one 1-inch by 1/2-inch by 2-inch plastic<br />
S&I device falling to the ground. As discussed in Appendix B, Characteristics of Flares, and<br />
Appendix E, Review of Effects of Aircraft Noise, Chaff, and Flares on Biological Resources, flare<br />
residual materials are generally light with a high surface to weight ratio. This results in<br />
essentially no likelihood of a flare end cap, piston, or wrapper causing injury in the highly<br />
unlikely event such residual material from a flare struck a person or an animal. The only<br />
exception is the S&I device, which falls with the force of a medium-sized hailstone.<br />
Calculations of the likelihood of an S&I device striking an individual take into consideration the<br />
population density under the airspace, the number of flares deployed, and the amount of time<br />
the population was outside and unprotected, even by a hat.<br />
If, for example, a population has an average density of 0.2 persons per square mile and is<br />
exposed 50 percent of the time under an airspace the size of the Stony MOA, and if 4,000 flares<br />
were deployed annually in the airspace, the expected strikes to a person would be one in 20,000<br />
years. In other words, it is extremely unlikely that anyone would be struck with the force of a<br />
medium-sized hailstone as a result of Air Force training with flares in the airspace. A dud flare<br />
is an unburned flare which falls to the ground. Experiences at military training ranges which<br />
Page 3-25
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
have extensive flare use over decades demonstrate the dud flare rates to be an estimated 0.01<br />
percent of flares deployed. A dud flare is extremely unlikely to be found on the ground.<br />
Finding a dud flare would be even less likely, and a person being seriously injured by a falling<br />
dud flare is so unlikely as to be nearly impossible (see Appendix B).<br />
Concerns have also been expressed that a flare has the potential to start a fire if a flare were still<br />
burning when it hit the ground. As described in Chapter 2.0, flares burn out in approximately<br />
400 feet. Air Force altitude restrictions for flare use in Alaskan MOA airspace (above 5,000 feet<br />
AGL June – September and above 2,000 feet AGL for the rest of the year) substantially reduce<br />
any risk of a fire from training with defensive flares.<br />
3.4 Air Quality<br />
This section discusses air quality considerations and conditions in the area around JBER near<br />
Anchorage, Alaska. It addresses air quality standards, describes current air quality conditions<br />
in the region, and presents the environmental consequences to JBER.<br />
Air quality is determined by the type and concentration of pollutants in the atmosphere, the<br />
size and topography of the air basin, and local and regional meteorological influences. The<br />
significance of a pollutant concentration in a region or geographical area is determined by<br />
comparing it to federal and/or state ambient air quality standards. Under the authority of the<br />
CAA, USEPA has established nationwide air quality standards to protect public health and<br />
welfare, with an adequate margin of safety.<br />
These federal standards, known as NAAQS, represent the maximum allowable atmospheric<br />
concentrations and were developed for six “criteria” pollutants: O 3, NO 2, CO, respirable<br />
particulate matter less than or equal to PM 10, SO 2, and Pb. The NAAQS are defined in terms of<br />
concentration (e.g., parts per million [ppm] or micrograms per cubic meter [µg/m 3 ]) determined<br />
over various periods of time (averaging periods). Short-term standards (1-hour, 8-hour, or<br />
24-hour periods) were established for pollutants with acute health effects and may not be<br />
exceeded more than once a year. Long-term standards (annual periods) were established for<br />
pollutants with chronic health effects and may never be exceeded.<br />
<strong>Base</strong>d on measured ambient criteria pollutant data, the USEPA designates areas of the U.S. as<br />
having air quality equal to or better than the NAAQS (attainment) or worse than the NAAQS<br />
(nonattainment). <strong>Up</strong>on achieving attainment, areas are considered to be in maintenance status<br />
for a period of ten or more years. Areas are designated as unclassifiable for a pollutant when<br />
there is insufficient ambient air quality data for the USEPA to form a basis of attainment status.<br />
For the purpose of applying air quality regulations, unclassifiable areas are treated similar to<br />
areas that are in attainment of the NAAQS.<br />
Under the CAA, state and local agencies may establish ambient air quality standards and<br />
regulations of their own, provided that these are at least as stringent as the federal<br />
requirements. The State of Alaska air quality standards are presented in Table 3-4-1.<br />
For non-attainment regions, the states are required to develop a SIP designed to eliminate or<br />
reduce the severity and number of NAAQS violations, with an underlying goal to bring state air<br />
quality conditions into (and maintain) compliance with the NAAQS by specific deadlines. The<br />
Page 3-26
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
SIP is the primary means for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the<br />
measures needed to attain and maintain the NAAQS in each state.<br />
Table 3-4-1. Alaska Ambient Air Quality Standards (18 AAC 50.010)<br />
Parameter<br />
1-hour 3-hour 8-hour 24-hour Quarterly Annual<br />
(mg/m 3 ) (ppm) (mg/m 3 ) (ppm) (mg/m 3 ) (ppm) (mg/m 3 ) (ppm) (mg/m 3 ) (mg/m 3 ) (ppm)<br />
Ammonia (NH 3) 2.1 3.0<br />
Carbon Monoxide<br />
(CO) 2<br />
40 35 10 9.0<br />
Nitrogen Dioxide<br />
(NO 2)<br />
0.100 0.053<br />
4 th high 3-yr<br />
Ozone (O 3)<br />
annual avg.<br />
0.041 0.041<br />
Sulfur Dioxide<br />
(SO 2)<br />
196 0.02 1.300 0.497 0.365 0.139 0.080 0.031<br />
(mg/m 3 )<br />
3-year 98%<br />
(mg/m 3 ) (mg/m 3 )<br />
Lead (Pb) 1.5*<br />
PM 10 150<br />
PM 25 35 15<br />
Notes:<br />
1. PPM and 24 hour not applicable after August 23, 2011<br />
2. National Standards<br />
Source: Alaska State Air Quality Control Plan Amendments Volume II August 20, 2010 (ADEC 2010)<br />
CAA Section 169A established the additional goal of prevention of further visibility impairment<br />
in Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I areas. Visibility impairment is defined<br />
as a reduction in the visual range, and atmospheric discoloration. Determination of the<br />
significance of an activity on visibility in a PSD Class I area can be associated with stationary or<br />
mobile source contributions.<br />
Emission levels are used to qualitatively assess potential impairment to visibility in PSD Class I<br />
areas. Decreased visibility may potentially result from elevated concentrations of PM 10 and SO 2<br />
in the lower atmosphere.<br />
CAA Section 176(c), General Conformity, established certain statutory requirements for federal<br />
agencies with proposed federal activities to demonstrate conformity of the proposed activities<br />
with each state’s SIP for attainment of the NAAQS.<br />
General conformity applies only to nonattainment and maintenance areas. If the emissions<br />
from a federal action proposed in a nonattainment area exceed annual thresholds identified in<br />
the rule, a conformity determination is required of that action. The thresholds become more<br />
restrictive as the severity of the nonattainment status of the region increases.<br />
In Alaska, the Alaska Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Conservation has primary jurisdiction over<br />
air quality and stationary source emissions at JBER. Title V of the CAA Amendments of 1990<br />
requires states to issue Federal Operating Permits for major stationary sources. A major<br />
stationary source in an attainment or maintenance area is a facility (i.e., plant, base, or activity)<br />
that emits more than 100 tons per year (TPY) of any one criteria air pollutant, 10 TPY of a<br />
hazardous air pollutant, or 25 TPY of any combination of hazardous air pollutants. Thresholds<br />
are lower for pollutants for which a region is in nonattainment status. The purpose of the<br />
Page 3-27
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
permitting rule is to establish regulatory control over large, industrial activities and to monitor<br />
their impact upon air quality.<br />
3.4.1 <strong>Base</strong> Existing Conditions<br />
Regional Air Quality. Federal regulations at 40 CFR 81 delineate certain air quality control<br />
regions (AQCRs), which were originally designated based on population and topographic<br />
criteria closely approximating each air basin. The potential influence of emissions on regional<br />
air quality would typically be confined to the air basin in which the emissions occur. JBER is<br />
located on the outskirts of Anchorage within the Cook Inlet Intrastate AQCR (AQCR 8), which<br />
encompasses 44,000 square miles including the Municipality of Anchorage, the Kenai Peninsula<br />
Borough, and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (40 CFR 81).<br />
Attainment Status. A review of federally published attainment status for Alaska indicated that<br />
Anchorage is in attainment of NAAQS for all criteria pollutants. The community of Eagle River,<br />
located north of JBER, was designated in attainment for PM 10 by USEPA in 2010. A portion of<br />
Anchorage was in nonattainment for CO in 2001 and has been in attainment since then. JBER is<br />
located adjacent to the northern boundary of this portion of Anchorage.<br />
PSD Class I Areas. No mandatory federal PSD Class I areas are located within the ROI. The<br />
nearest PSD Class I area is Denali National Park, which is 100 miles north-northwest of JBER.<br />
Climate. JBER is located in the maritime zone of south-central Alaska, with mean annual<br />
precipitation of approximately 16 inches, and snowfall averaging around 80 inches per year.<br />
Summertime highs average in the low to mid-60s and wintertime lows average in the low to<br />
mid-single digits Fahrenheit. Prevailing winds in Anchorage are generally light and from the<br />
north to northeast during September through April and from the south to southwest from May<br />
to August. Seasonal mixing heights for Anchorage, which is the upper limit of the atmosphere<br />
in which ground-based emissions are expected to affect air quality, average around 2,000 feet<br />
and may reach 1,000 feet during winter months.<br />
Greenhouse Gases. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere.<br />
These emissions are generated by both natural processes and human activities. The<br />
accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature.<br />
GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and several<br />
hydrocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons. Each GHG has an estimated global warming potential<br />
(GWP), which is a function of its atmospheric lifetime and its ability to absorb and radiate<br />
infrared energy emitted from the Earth’s surface. The GWP of a particular gas provides a<br />
relative basis for calculating its carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2e) or the amount of carbon<br />
dioxide that emissions of that gas would be equal to. Carbon dioxide has a GWP of 1, and is,<br />
therefore, the standard by which all other GHGs are measured.<br />
Table 3.4-2 presents the estimated GHG emissions and percentages of emissions as estimated<br />
for the State of Alaska for each Alaska Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Conservation (ADEC)<br />
source category.<br />
Page 3-28
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Table 3.4-2. GHG Emissions & Percentages by ADEC Source Category<br />
ADEC Source Category Total GHG Emissions (MMT CO 2e) % of Total GHG Emissions<br />
Electricity Production 2.18 11%<br />
Military 0.97 5%<br />
Mining 0.017 1%<br />
Municipal 0.012 1%<br />
Oil & Gas 15.26 73%<br />
Other 1.76 8%<br />
Seafood 0.16 1%<br />
Totals 20.63 100%<br />
Notes: MMT=Million metric tons<br />
Source: Draft Summary Report of Improvements to the Alaska GHG Emission Inventory, ADEC, January 2008<br />
(ADEC 2008).<br />
Current Emissions. Air emissions at JBER result from stationary and mobile sources.<br />
Stationary sources include boilers, emergency generators, and aircraft maintenance operations.<br />
Mobile sources include ground-based vehicles and aircraft. JBER is considered to be a major<br />
source of air emissions. For permitting purposes, JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> was divided into nine<br />
different facilities based on their industrial classifications, rather than on their collective<br />
ownership and control by the base. Only two of eight facilities, the hospital and the flightline,<br />
have potential criteria pollutant emissions large enough to require federal Title V operating<br />
permits. JBER also holds Owner Requested Limits, not included in the Title V permits, for Fire<br />
Protection Pumps and Road Painting. A 2010 summary of potential emissions is presented in<br />
Table 3.4-3.<br />
Table 3.4-3. JBER Estimated Emissions Summary (2010)<br />
JBER Stationary Source Group<br />
Criteria Pollutant PTE (tons/year)<br />
NOx CO PM VOCs SOx<br />
45 – Transportation By Air (Flight Line) 249.426 137.711 18.669 15.426 6.692<br />
48 – Communications 14.598 3.589 1.064 1.133 0.824<br />
58 – Eating and Drinking Places 20.501 9.112 1.650 1.256 0.256<br />
65 – Real Estate 60.862 32.388 4.916 3.557 0.388<br />
70 – Hotels, Rooming Houses, Camps & Other<br />
Lodging<br />
99.410 51.616 7.808 5.650 0.616<br />
72 – Laundry and Garment Services 5.212 5.628 1.399 2.206 0.139<br />
78 – Motion Pictures 2.830 1.138 0.234 0.169 0.018<br />
79 – Amusement and Recreation Services 20.846 8.711 1.717 1.243 0.136<br />
80 – Health Services 31.038 24.850 2.361 1.736 0.243<br />
82 – Educational Services 10.975 5.443 0.891 0.645 0.070<br />
83 – Social Services 10.812 5.090 0.882 0.638 0.070<br />
86 – Membership Organizations 1.092 0.439 0.090 0.065 0.007<br />
87 – Engineering, Accounting, Research, &<br />
Management<br />
84.176 34.758 6.559 4.872 1.707<br />
92 – Justice, Public Order, and Safety 9.338 4.920 0.731 0.578 0.157<br />
97 – National Security 80.543 34.364 6.060 4.708 2.380<br />
JBER Total Emissions 701.659 359.757 55.029 43.883 13.704<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong> Draft Operating Permit 1-11-10 (PTE) 264.7 152.7 25.0 34.5 93.8<br />
Fort Richardson Operating Permit 12-31-08 (PTE) 1183.2 1059.3 100.4 60 0.2<br />
JBER PTE 1447.9 1212.0 125.4 94.5 94.0<br />
Sources: 1. Fort Richardson Natural Gas Fired Emissions PTE Emissions Inventory<br />
2. Alaska Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Conservation Permit No. AQ0886TVP02<br />
3. Alaska Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Conservation Permit No. 237TVP01<br />
Page 3-29
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
The joint base does not have a combined emissions permit as of January 2011. The Air Force has<br />
a draft permit dated January 11, 2010. JBER-Richardson has disaggregated the 2008 stationary<br />
source permit into 14 stationary sources as allowed by USEPA. This provides for the<br />
privatization of electric, gas, and sanitary services on JBER-Richardson. As of December <strong>22</strong>,<br />
2010, JBER-Richardson has multiple Air Quality Control Minor Permits. The best available<br />
estimates of the Potential to Emit (PTE) on Table 3.4-3 are from the totals of JBER-Richardson’s<br />
2003 through 2008 and 2010 operating permits.<br />
Regional Air Emissions. The previous section lists on-base emissions for JBER. The NEPA<br />
process also considers indirect emissions from stationary and mobile sources related to the<br />
project, some of which (for example, commuting of new employees to and from the facility)<br />
occur outside of the installation. For comparison purposes, Table 3.4-4 lists emissions for<br />
Greater Anchorage Area, and for Cook Inlet AQCR (AQCR 8, which includes the borough).<br />
Table 3.4-4. Regional Emissions for Greater Anchorage Area<br />
Region<br />
Pollutants (In Tons per Year)<br />
NO x CO PM 10 SO 2 VOC<br />
Greater Anchorage Area 10,740 123,883 19,856 920 5,764<br />
Total Cook Inlet AQCR 28,203 332,021 67,013 1,780 56,708<br />
Notes:<br />
NO x = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM 10 = particulate matter less than or equal to 10<br />
micrometers in diameter; SO 2 = sulfur dioxide; VOC = volatile organic compound<br />
Source: USEPA 2005.<br />
The emissions from aircraft operations at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> including landings and takeoffs,<br />
touch-and-goes, and low approaches, would increase with the six additional F-<strong>22</strong>s. Table 3.4-5<br />
presents the estimated operational emissions associated with the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up and compares the<br />
emissions to existing JBER emissions. The Holloman AFB estimated CO 2e emissions associated<br />
with 36 F-<strong>22</strong> operational aircraft is calculated at 55,545 tons per year. This calculates to 9,257<br />
tons per year of CO 2e for six operational aircraft.<br />
Table 3.4-5. Annual Emissions Associated with Six Primary F-<strong>22</strong>s<br />
Source<br />
Emissions in Tons Per Year<br />
NO x CO PM 10 VOC SO x<br />
JBER PTE 1 1447.9 1212.0 125.0 94.5 94.0<br />
JBER Estimated Total Emissions 2 701.66 359.76 55.03 43.88 13.70<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> Operations (6 Primary Aircraft) 3 81.87 59.56 10.86 9.64 9.42<br />
Sources 1. Table 3.4-3<br />
2. Fort Richardson Natural Gas Fired Emissions PTE Emissions Inventory<br />
3. Air Force emission estimates at Holloman AFB<br />
3.4.2 Training Airspace Air Quality Existing Conditions<br />
Section 162 of the CAA established the goal of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of<br />
air quality in Class I areas. PSD Class I areas are areas where any appreciable deterioration of<br />
air quality is considered significant.<br />
The likelihood for air quality impacts associated with an additional six F-<strong>22</strong> training aircraft was<br />
evaluated based on the floor height of the primary MOAs relative to the mixing height for<br />
Page 3-30
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
pollutants. For the area of the primary MOAs, the mixing height is 3,000 feet. As noted in Table<br />
2.2-2, the existing F-<strong>22</strong> altitude use below the average mixing height would be less than 0.5<br />
percent of flight hours. Such low levels of training activity, distributed throughout the training<br />
airspace, would not contribute measurably to overall emissions.<br />
3.5 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management<br />
3.5.1 <strong>Base</strong> Existing Conditions<br />
Hazardous Materials. The majority of hazardous materials used by Air Force and contractor<br />
personnel at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> are controlled through an Air Force pollution prevention process<br />
called Hazardous Materials Pharmacy (HAZMART). This process provides centralized<br />
management of the procurement, handling, storage, and issuing of hazardous materials and<br />
turn-in, recovery, reuse, or recycling of hazardous materials. The HAZMART process includes<br />
review and approval by Air Force personnel to ensure users are aware of exposure and safety<br />
risks. Pollution prevention measures are likely to minimize chemical exposure to employees,<br />
reduce potential environmental impacts, and reduce costs for material purchasing and waste<br />
disposal.<br />
Hazardous Waste Management. JBER is a large-quantity hazardous waste generator.<br />
Hazardous wastes generated during operations and maintenance activities include combustible<br />
solvents from parts washers, inorganic paint chips from lead abatement projects, fuel filters,<br />
metal-contaminated spent acids from aircraft corrosion control, painting wastes, battery acid,<br />
spent x-ray fixer, corrosive liquids from boiler operations, toxic sludge from wash racks,<br />
aviation fuel from tank cleanouts, and pesticides.<br />
Hazardous wastes are managed in accordance with the JBER Plan 19-3. Hazardous wastes are<br />
initially stored at approximately 219 satellite accumulation areas. Satellite accumulation areas<br />
allow for the accumulation of up to 55 gallons of hazardous waste (or one quart of an acute<br />
hazardous waste) to be stored at or near the point of waste generation. There are two 90-day<br />
waste accumulation sites on JBER located at 4314 Kenney Avenue and 11735 Vandenberg<br />
Avenue. The base is identified by USEPA identification number AK8570028649. In FY 2009,<br />
67,911 pounds of hazardous waste were removed from JBER and disposed of in off-base<br />
permitted disposal facilities.<br />
The JBER Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan addresses on-base storage<br />
locations and proper handling procedures of all hazardous materials to minimize potential<br />
spills and releases. The plan further outlines activities to be undertaken to minimize the<br />
adverse effects of a spill, including notification, containment, decontamination, and cleanup of<br />
spilled materials.<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Restoration Program (ERP). The DoD developed the ERP to identify,<br />
investigate, and remediate potentially hazardous material disposal sites on DoD property. In<br />
August 1990, <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB was placed on the National Priorities List bringing it under the<br />
federal facility provisions of Comprehensive <strong>Environmental</strong> Response, Compensation, and<br />
Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 120. Currently JBER has identified 269 contaminated sites from<br />
operations. These sites have been placed into three groups: CERCLA sources (166 sites),<br />
Page 3-31
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Compliance Restoration Program sites (67 sites) and Military Munitions Response Program<br />
Sites (36 sites) (personal communication, Caristi 2011).<br />
3.5.2 Training Airspace Existing Conditions<br />
Hazardous materials used by F-<strong>22</strong>s in the Alaskan airspace consist of various components and<br />
fluids of the aircraft itself. The plastic and other residual parts of chaff and flares after<br />
deployment are inert and non-hazardous. Under normal use, there would be no hazardous<br />
materials or waste management requirements associated with the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up under the<br />
airspace. See also Section 3.3.2 Airspace Safety.<br />
3.6 Biological Resources<br />
Biological resources in this discussion refer to plants and animals and the habitats in which they<br />
occur on and within the environs of JBER. Assemblages of plant and animal species within a<br />
defined area that are linked by ecological processes are referred to as natural communities. The<br />
existence and preservation of these resources are intrinsically valuable; they also provide<br />
aesthetic, recreational, and socioeconomic values to society. This section focuses on plant and<br />
animal species or vegetation types associated with JBER that typify or are important to the<br />
function of the ecosystem, are of special societal importance, or are protected under federal or<br />
state law or statute. For purposes of the analysis, JBER and neighboring biological resources<br />
will be organized into three major categories: (1) vegetation and habitat, including wetlands; (2)<br />
fish and wildlife; and (3) special-status species. In this section the ROI for biological resources is<br />
JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> and its immediate vicinity.<br />
Federal laws and regulations that apply to biological resources include: Fish and Wildlife<br />
Coordination Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), CWA, NEPA, Federal Land Policy and<br />
Management Act, ESA, Sikes Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), state hunting<br />
regulations, and state laws protecting plants and nongame wildlife.<br />
Vegetation includes all existing terrestrial plant communities and does not include specialstatus<br />
plants, which are discussed under special-status species below. The composition of plant<br />
species within a given area defines ecological communities and determines the types of wildlife<br />
that may be present. Wetlands are a special category of sensitive habitats and are subject to<br />
regulatory authority under Section 404 of the CWA, EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands, and EO<br />
19988 Floodplain Management. The USACE administers the CWA, and has jurisdiction over all<br />
waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Jurisdictional wetlands are those areas that meet all the<br />
criteria defined in the USACE’s Wetlands Delineation Manual (<strong>Environmental</strong> Laboratory 1987).<br />
Fish and wildlife includes all vertebrate animals, with the exception of special-status species,<br />
which are discussed separately below. Typical animals include vertebrate groups such as fish,<br />
amphibians, songbirds, waterfowl, hoofed animals, carnivores, bats, rodents and other small<br />
mammals. The attributes and quality of available habitats determine the composition, diversity,<br />
and abundance patterns of wildlife species assemblages, or communities. Each species has its<br />
own set of habitat requirements and interspecific interactions driving its observed distribution<br />
and abundance. Community structure is derived from the net effect of the diverse resource and<br />
habitat requirements of each species within a geographic setting. For this reason, an assessment<br />
Page 3-32
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
of habitat types and area affected by the Proposed Action can serve as an overriding<br />
determinant in the assessment of impacts for wildlife populations.<br />
Special-status species are defined as those plant and animal species listed as threatened,<br />
endangered, candidate, or species of concern by the USFWS or the National Marine Fisheries<br />
Service, as well as those species with special-status designations by the State of Alaska. The<br />
ESA protects federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species. Candidate<br />
species are species that USFWS is considering for listing as threatened or endangered but for<br />
which a proposed rule has not yet been developed. Candidates do not benefit from legal<br />
protection under the ESA. In some instances, candidate species may be emergency listed if<br />
USFWS determines that the species population is at risk due to a potential or imminent impact.<br />
The USFWS encourages federal agencies to consider candidate species in their planning process<br />
because they may be listed in the future and, more importantly, because current actions may<br />
prevent future listing. Additionally, the USFWS maintains a list of Birds of Conservation<br />
Concern (USFWS 2008), which has a goal of accurately identifying the migratory and nonmigratory<br />
bird species (beyond those already federally designated as threatened or<br />
endangered) that represent the USFWS’ highest conservation priorities. The Alaska<br />
Department of Fish and Game also maintains a list of endangered species and species of special<br />
concern.<br />
3.6.1 <strong>Base</strong> and Vicinity Existing Conditions<br />
Vegetation. JBER is situated across rolling upland plains near the head of Cook Inlet (Knik<br />
Arm) in south central Alaska within the Coastal Trough Humid Taiga Province (Bailey 1995).<br />
The area is characterized by spruce-hardwood forests, bottomlands of spruce-poplar forests<br />
along major drainages, and dense stands of alder and willow along riparian corridors. Wet<br />
tundra communities bracket the coast.<br />
The proposed F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up of six primary aircraft would take place and operate from the<br />
portion of JBER formerly known as <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB. The biological discussion focuses on that<br />
portion of JBER referred to as JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>. Approximately 4,038 acres of JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>’s<br />
13,455 acres are classified as improved (buildings, runways, pavement, lawns) and 1,118 acres<br />
are classified as semi-improved (open fields around flightline, roads, munitions areas, and<br />
antenna fields) areas used for base facilities (Air Force 2007a). No plant species that are listed or<br />
have been proposed as candidates for federal listing as threatened or endangered are known to<br />
occur at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> (Air Force 2007a).<br />
There are 1,534 acres of wetlands at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> (Air Force 2007a). Wetland types are<br />
varied and range from palustrine scrub-shrub and forested wetlands to lacustrine and estuarine<br />
wetlands.<br />
Fish and Wildlife. JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> supports a diverse array of wildlife species, including large<br />
and small mammals, raptors, waterfowl, songbirds, and fish. Due to the northerly latitude of<br />
the base, no reptiles occur, while the wood frog (Rana sylvatica) is the only amphibian species.<br />
Moose (Alces alces), black bears (Ursus americanus), brown bears (U. arctos), and wolves (Canis<br />
lupus) are prevalent on the base and are typical residents of the Alaskan environment. These<br />
species have large home ranges that include JBER and Chugach State Park. Between 20 and 70<br />
Page 3-33
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
moose are estimated by Alaska Fish and Game to live on JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>, depending on the<br />
time of year, as portions of the herd migrate off-base in fall and winter. Twelve to 24 black<br />
bears occur in summer, while 6 to 12 of these will spend the winter in dens on JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>.<br />
Three to six brown bears inhabit JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> in summer. Two wolf packs roam the lands<br />
of JBER (Air Force 2000). Coyotes (Canis latrans) are also common. Lynx (Lynx canadensis) and<br />
red fox (Vulpes vulpes) also occur.<br />
Beluga whales are seasonally present in Cook Inlet adjacent to the air base, and frequently seen<br />
in the summer at the mouth of Six-Mile Creek. Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), harbor porpoises<br />
(Phocoena phocena), and orca or killer whales (Orcinus orca) are uncommon in upper Cook Inlet,<br />
but are sighted occasionally. These species are all protected under the MMPA, and the CIBW is<br />
federally listed as an endangered species (73 FR 62919).<br />
At least 112 bird species are known to occur or have the potential to occur at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong><br />
(Air Force 2000). Waterfowl and shorebirds use the base’s ponds, bogs, wetlands, and coastal<br />
marshes in summer and on spring and fall migration. Raptors include osprey (Pandion<br />
haliaetus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), rough-legged hawk (B. lagopus), sharp-shinned<br />
hawk (Accipiter striatus), northern goshawk (A. gentils), merlin (Falco columbarius), northern<br />
harrier (Circus cyaneus), northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadius), boreal owl (A. funereus), and<br />
great horned owl (Bubo virginianus). Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), a formerly federally<br />
listed threatened species, also reside on the base. Common breeding birds include alder<br />
flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum), boreal chickadee (Poecile hudsonica), black-capped chickadee (P.<br />
atricapillus), gray jay (Perisoreus Canadensis), Swainson’s thrush (Catharus ustulatus), myrtle<br />
warbler (Dendroica coronata), American robin (Turdus migraterius), slate-colored junco (Junco<br />
hyemalis), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), and white-winged crossbill (Loxia<br />
leucoptera).<br />
Ten fish species occur at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> including five Pacific salmon species (Air Force 2000).<br />
Ship Creek, Six-Mile Creek, and Eagle River are the main spawning creeks for these<br />
anadromous fish on JBER.<br />
Special-Status Species. There are no federally listed threatened or endangered species that<br />
inhabit JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> (Table 3.6-1). The CIBW (Delphinapterus leucas), which is federally<br />
listed as endangered and an Alaska Species of Special Concern (AK SSC), inhabits the waters of<br />
Knik Arm adjacent to JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>. This area is located to the east and north of JBER-<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong> runways and is overflown by existing F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft on established approach,<br />
departure, and reentry patterns. The bald eagle, a former federally listed threatened species, is<br />
common locally with at least four pairs nesting on or adjacent to JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> lands. This<br />
species received protection under both federal (Bald Eagle Protection Act) and state law (Air<br />
Force 2007a). AK SSC that may occur on or near the base include the olive-sided flycatcher<br />
(Contopus borealis), blackpoll warbler (Dendroica striata), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), graycheeked<br />
thrush (Catharus minimus), Townsend’s warbler (Dendroica townsendi), and the<br />
aforementioned CIBW (Delphinapterus leucas).<br />
The olive-sided flycatcher and blackpoll warbler are known nesting species on the base (Air<br />
Force 2000). Both species are found in coniferous forests, with the flycatcher preferring more<br />
open forests (Ehrlich et al. 1988).<br />
Page 3-34
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Peregrine falcon and gray-cheeked thrush migrate through the area and may be occasionally<br />
observed (Air Force 2000). Peregrine falcons nest on cliffs, generally over water, but these<br />
features do not occur at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>. Peregrines may, however, use riparian and wetland<br />
areas on the base to hunt for prey, such as waterfowl. The gray-cheeked thrush breeds in moist<br />
coniferous forests and woodlands, arctic tundra, and riparian thickets. It is a habitat generalist<br />
on migration (Ehrlich et al. 1988), and therefore could occur in various habitats at JBER-<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong>. Townsend’s warbler, another coniferous forest inhabitant, may also occur on base.<br />
The rusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus), a Bird Species of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008),<br />
also breeds on JBER (personal communication, Koenen 2011) where it uses wet woodlands and<br />
swamps. A variety of shorebirds categorized as Bird Species of Conservation Concern (USFWS<br />
2008) migrate through JBER. These include lesser yellowlegs, solitary sandpiper, whimbrel,<br />
bristle-thighed curlew, and Hudsonian godwit (personal communication, Koenen 2011).<br />
3.6.2 Training Airspace Existing Conditions<br />
Biological resources under the existing F-<strong>22</strong> training airspace include vegetation and habitat,<br />
wetlands, fish and wildlife, and special-status species. Section 3.6.1 describes these resources<br />
and lists the species occurring on JBER. The ROI for training airspace in Alaska includes all<br />
lands under the MOAs, ATCAAs, Restricted Areas, and Warning Areas currently used by the F-<br />
<strong>22</strong>s at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>.<br />
Existing training airspace used by F-<strong>22</strong>s at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> occurs primarily in MOAs and<br />
ATCAAs. Depending on the MOA and overlying ATCAA, training may currently be<br />
authorized from 500 feet AGL to above 60,000 feet MSL. The F-<strong>22</strong> rarely (2 percent or less) flies<br />
below 5,000 feet AGL. In some MOAs, supersonic flight is authorized and occurs about 25<br />
percent of the F-<strong>22</strong> training time. The F-<strong>22</strong> operates between 10,000 and 30,000 feet MSL 25<br />
percent of the time and greater than 30,000 feet MSL 70 percent of the time (see Table 2.2-2). W-<br />
612 is infrequently used for F-<strong>22</strong> training. MTRs are not used for F-<strong>22</strong> training.<br />
Vegetation. The existing training airspace overlies the <strong>Up</strong>land Tundra and Boreal Forest<br />
ecoregions (Bailey 1995). Predominant land cover types are forests (60 percent), fields (17<br />
percent), and tundra (15 percent) (Air Force 2001a). Forest types are largely evergreen and<br />
mixed conifer/deciduous. Over 8.1 million acres of special use areas occur under these MOAs.<br />
This includes National Wildlife Refuges under the Galena and Yukon 2, 4, and 5 MOAs and<br />
Denali National Park and Preserve under portions of the Susitna MOA, which are discussed in<br />
Section 3.8, Land Use.<br />
In Alaska, wetlands cover over 43 percent of the state’s land, in contrast with the lower 48<br />
states, where they occupy 5.2 percent. About 1,952,000 acres of aquatic habitats and wetlands<br />
occur under the existing training airspace (Air Force 2001a). Wetland types under the airspace<br />
are largely deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forest wetlands.<br />
Page 3-35
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Table 3.6-1. The Occurrence of Special-Status Species at<br />
JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> and Environs<br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Common Name Scientific Name Status Occurrence at JBER<br />
Aleutian shield fern Polystichum aleuticum FE No<br />
Chinook salmon (Fall stock from<br />
Snake River)<br />
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha FT, AK SSC No<br />
Steelhead (Snake River Basin) Onchorhynchus mykiss FT No<br />
Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea FE No<br />
Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas FT No<br />
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta FT No<br />
Short-tailed albatross Phoebastria albatrus FE, AKE No<br />
Kittlitz’s murrelet Brachyramphus brevirostris FC No<br />
Eskimo curlew Numenius borealis FE, AKE No<br />
Spectacled eider Somateria fisheri FT, AK SSC No<br />
Stellar’s eider (AK breeding<br />
population)<br />
Polysticta stelleri FT, AK SSC No<br />
Aleutian Canada goose Branta canadensis leucopareia AK SSC No<br />
Arctic peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus AK SSC Potential Migrant<br />
Northern goshawk (southeast AK<br />
population)<br />
Accipiter gentilis laingi AK SSC No<br />
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi AK SSC Yes<br />
Gray-cheeked thrush Catharus minimus AK SSC Migrant<br />
Townsend’s warbler Dendroica townsendi AK SSC Potential<br />
Blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata AK SSC Yes<br />
Yellow-billed Loon Gavia adamsii Candidate No<br />
Kittliz’s murrelet Brachyramphus brevirostris Candidate Yes<br />
Brown bear (Kenai Peninsula<br />
population)<br />
Ursus arctos horribilis AK SSC No<br />
Sea otter (southwest Alaska<br />
distinct population segment)<br />
Enhydra lutris kenyoni FT, AK SSC No<br />
Harbor seal Phoca vitulina AK SSC No<br />
Steller sea-lion<br />
Eumetopias jubatus<br />
FT=eastern<br />
population,<br />
FE=western<br />
No<br />
population AK<br />
SSC<br />
Bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus FE, AKE No<br />
Finback whale Balaenoptera physalus FE No<br />
Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae FE, AKE No<br />
Right whale Eubalaena glacialis FE, AKE No<br />
Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus FE, AKE No<br />
Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis FE No<br />
Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus FE No<br />
Cook Inlet Beluga Whale (CIBW)<br />
(population)<br />
Delphinapterus leucas<br />
FE, AK SSC<br />
No, but occur in adjacent<br />
waters of the Knik Arm,<br />
which would be<br />
overflown by F-<strong>22</strong>s.<br />
Notes:<br />
FE = Federal Endangered; FT = Federal Threatened; FC = Federal Candidate; AKE = State of Alaska Endangered;<br />
AK SSC = State of Alaska Species of Special Concern.<br />
Sources: Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2011a and 2011b, USFWS 2005.<br />
Page 3-36
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Fish and Wildlife. Common fish and wildlife species under the existing airspace are generally<br />
as described in Section 3.6.1. Regionally important game species include moose, caribou<br />
(Rangifer tarandus), Dall’s sheep (Ovis dalli), bears, and various species of waterfowl. Moose,<br />
caribou, and Dall’s sheep have critical lambing/calving, wintering, and rutting areas<br />
underneath the training airspace. The Air Force has existing airspace restrictions that prevent<br />
potential overflight effects on these and other wildlife species (Air Force 1995).<br />
Special-Status Species. Special-status species include species designated as threatened,<br />
endangered, or candidate species by state or federal agencies. No federally listed species occur<br />
on lands under the existing training airspace. Five Alaska species of special concern likely<br />
occur under the training airspace. These are peregrine falcon, olive-sided flycatcher, graycheeked<br />
thrush, blackpoll warbler, and Townsend’s warbler. Habitat requirements of these<br />
species are discussed in Section 3.6.1.<br />
3.7 Cultural Resources<br />
Cultural resources are any prehistoric or historic district, site, or building, structure, or object<br />
considered important to a culture or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or other<br />
purposes. They include archaeological resources, historic architectural resources, and<br />
traditional resources. Archaeological resources are locations where prehistoric or historic<br />
activity measurably altered the earth or produced deposits of physical remains (e.g.,<br />
arrowheads, bottles). Historic architectural resources include standing buildings and other<br />
structures of historic or aesthetic significance. Architectural resources generally must be more<br />
than 50 years old to be considered for inclusion in the NRHP, although resources dating to<br />
defined periods of historical significance, such as the Cold War era (1945-1989) may also be<br />
considered eligible. Traditional resources are associated with cultural practices and beliefs of a<br />
living community that are rooted in its history and are important in maintaining the continuing<br />
cultural identity of the community. Historic properties (as defined in 36 CFR 60.4) are<br />
significant archaeological, architectural, or traditional resources that are either eligible for<br />
listing, or listed on, the NRHP. Both historic properties and significant traditional resources<br />
identified by Alaska Natives are evaluated for potential adverse impacts from an action.<br />
For the Proposed Action, the ROI for cultural resources is defined as JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> and its<br />
environs.<br />
3.7.1 <strong>Base</strong> Existing Conditions<br />
3.7.1.1 Archaeological Resources<br />
Since the beginning of cultural resource investigations at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> in 1978, most survey<br />
work has been concentrated along the northwest border of the base property. Through these<br />
survey efforts 27 archaeological sites have been located at JBER. Twenty sites are recommended<br />
as ineligible for the NRHP, five are unevaluated, and two are considered eligible (Air Force<br />
2008; <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB 2010). No NRHP-listed archaeological resources have been located in the<br />
project area (Air Force 2008; National Register Information Service [NRIS] 2011).<br />
3.7.1.2 Architectural Resources<br />
There are 54 NRHP eligible buildings or structures on JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>, most of which are located<br />
in one of three historic districts: the Flightline Historic District adjacent to the runway; the Alaska<br />
Air Depot Historic District west of the main cantonment area; and the Generals’ Quad Historic<br />
District (Figure 3.7-1). Other historic structures at JBER outside the three historic districts include<br />
12 Cold War-era facilities (Air Force 2010a).<br />
Page 3-37
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Figure 3.7-1. Historic Districts within the JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> Project Area<br />
Page 3-38
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
3.7.1.3 Traditional Cultural Properties and Alaska Native Concerns<br />
Although no traditional cultural properties have yet been identified on JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>,<br />
neighboring Alaska Natives have raised concerns regarding the possibility of Alaska Native<br />
burials located on JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> property (Air Force 2008b). Ongoing consultation between<br />
the Air Force and Alaska Natives on this and other issues is conducted on a<br />
government-to-government basis. The federally recognized tribes in the nearby area are the<br />
Eklutna and Knik Tribes (Air Force 2008a).<br />
3.7.2 Training Airspace Existing Conditions<br />
Archaeological sites under training airspace include native burial grounds, village and<br />
settlement sites, and historic mining sites (Air Force 2006). Architectural resources under the<br />
proposed MOAs include structures relating to gold mining, trapping, or the railroad (Air Force<br />
2006). In addition to NRHP-listed sites, there are likely to be additional cultural resources that<br />
are either eligible or potentially eligible for NRHP listing under airspace. Federally recognized<br />
Alaska Native villages under or near the airspace discussed below are illustrated in Figure 3.7-2.<br />
3.7.2.1 Galena MOA<br />
There are no NRHP-listed cultural sites under the Galena MOA (National Register Information<br />
Service [NRIS] 2011). However, connecting trails of the Iditarod National Historic Trail are<br />
located under the MOA. The Iditarod Trail is a network of more than 2,300 trails which takes its<br />
name from an Athabascan Indian village. Trails used by the Ingalik and Tanaina Indians and<br />
Russian fur traders were improved by miners in the early 1900s. The trails were heavily used<br />
by miners until 1924 when airplanes came into use (Bureau of Land Management [BLM] 2000).<br />
In 1925, dog teams and drivers gained national attention when they delivered diptheria serum<br />
from Nenana to Nome in 127 hours along the trail. The annual Iditarod race retraces the route.<br />
3.7.2.2 Stony A/B MOA<br />
The Stony A and B MOAs lie above the Kolicachuk, <strong>Up</strong>per Kuskokwim and Deg Hit’An<br />
language regions (Alaska Native Knowledge Network 2000). There is one NRHP-listed<br />
resource under the Stony A,B MOAs. The Kolmakov Redoubt Site is in the Sleetmute area<br />
under Stony B (NRIS 2011).<br />
Federally recognized Alaska Native villages under or near the airspace are: Crooked Creek,<br />
Georgetown, Lime Village, Red Devil, Sleetmute, and Stony River (Bureau of Indian Affairs 2000).<br />
Crooked Creek was reported by a Russian explorer in 1844 as “Kvikchapak” in Yup’ik and<br />
“Khottylno” in Ingalik (Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development [DCED]<br />
2000). At that time the site was used as a summer fish camp for the Kwigiumpainukamuit<br />
villagers. A permanent settlement was established there in 1909 as a way-station for the Flat<br />
and Iditarod gold camps. A trading post was founded in the upper village (upriver from the<br />
creek mouth) in 1914, and a post office and school were built in the late 1920s. The lower village<br />
was settled by Eskimo and Ingalik people. Native lifestyle is based on subsistence activities<br />
including salmon, moose, caribou, and waterfowl (Alaska DCED 2000). Both parts of the<br />
village remain today.<br />
Page 3-39
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Figure 3.7-2. Alaska Native Villages in the Airspace Environment<br />
Page 3-40
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Georgetown is on the north bank of the upper Kuskokwim River in the Kilbuck-Kuskokwim<br />
Mountains. Europeans first entered the middle Kuskokwim area in 1844 when the Russian<br />
explorer Zagoskin sailed upriver to McGrath. At that time, Georgetown was a summer fish<br />
camp for residents of Kwigiumpainukamuit and was known as Keledzhichagat (Alaska DCED<br />
2000). Gold was found along the George River in 1909 and the mining settlement of<br />
Georgetown was named for three traders.<br />
The town grew to about 200 cabins and several stores. By 1953, only one large structure from<br />
the mining era remained: a two-story cabin that belonged to George Fredericks. The present<br />
settlement developed in the 1950s. A state school was established in 1965 and remained until<br />
1970. Georgetown is presently used as a seasonal fishing camp. It has no year-round residents<br />
(Alaska DCED 2000).<br />
Lime Village is on the south bank of the Stony River south of McGrath. It is a Dena’ina<br />
Athabascan Indian settlement that was settled by Europeans in 1907. Residents of nearby Lake<br />
Clark used the location as a summer fishing camp (Alaska DCED 2000). The 1939 U.S. Census<br />
called the settlement Hungry Village. Sts. Constantine and Helen, a Russian Orthodox chapel<br />
was built there in 1960 and a state school constructed in 1974 (Alaska DCED 2000). Presently,<br />
subsistence is based on hunting and gathering with some seasonal work in fire fighting and<br />
trapping.<br />
Red Devil is located on both banks of the Kuskokwim River at the mouth of Red Devil Creek.<br />
The village was named after the Red Devil mercury mine established in 1921. The mine<br />
continued to operate until 1971 (Alaska DCED 2000). The village is a mix of Eskimo,<br />
Athabascan, and non-native inhabitants who supplement their income with subsistence<br />
activities.<br />
Sleetmute is on the east bank of the Kuskokwim River. It is an Ingalik Indian village that has<br />
also been known as Sikkiut, Steelmut, and Steitmute (Alaska DCED 2000). A Russian trading<br />
post was built at the nearby Holitna River junction 1.5 miles away, but was moved farther<br />
downriver in 1841. Another trading post was started at Sleetmute in 1906. A school and post<br />
office opened in the 1920s and a Russian Orthodox church was built in 1931 (Alaska DCED<br />
2000).<br />
Stony River, also known as Moose Village and Moose Creek, is on the north bank of the<br />
Kuskokwim River near its junction with the Stony River. It began as a trading post and<br />
riverboat landing supplying mining operations to the north (Alaska DCED 2000). The first<br />
trading post and post office were opened during the 1930s, and area natives established<br />
residency there in the 1960s. The village is a mix of Athabascan and Eskimo people who<br />
depend heavily on a subsistence economy.<br />
3.7.2.3 Susitna MOA<br />
No NRHP-listed cultural resources are under this MOA (NRIS 2011). No federally recognized<br />
Alaska Native villages are located under Susitna airspace (Bureau of Indian Affairs 2000).<br />
Page 3-41
3.7.2.4 Naknek 1/2 MOAs<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
There are no NRHP-listed resources under the Naknek MOAs (NRIS 2011). One federally<br />
recognized Alaska Native village, Koliganek, lies under the edge of Naknek 1 airspace (Bureau<br />
of Indian Affairs 2000).<br />
Koliganek is on the Nushagak River north of Dillingham. First contact with Europeans occurred<br />
in the early 19 th century when Russian fur traders entered the area. Prior to its present location,<br />
the village was on Tikchik Lake near the headwaters of the Nuyakuk River (Bristol Bay Native<br />
Association 2000). Archaeological excavations indicate the site was occupied from about 1820<br />
until the turn of the 19 th century by people who practiced a coastal Bering Sea Eskimo lifeway,<br />
hunting sea mammals, fishing, and trapping on land (Bristol Bay Native Association 2000). After<br />
a flu epidemic, residents moved to the confluence of the Nuyakuk and Nushagak Rivers (Old<br />
Koliganek). A Russian Orthodox church, St. Yako, was established in the village in 1870. The<br />
residents moved to another site in 1938 (Middle Koliganek) because of a decreasing supply of<br />
firewood near the village. The present site was established in 1964. Residents depend on the<br />
Bristol Bay commercial salmon fishery and fur trapping. The Koliganek Traditional Council is the<br />
governing body for the Native residents of Koliganek (Bristol Bay Native Association 2000).<br />
3.7.2.5 Fox MOAs<br />
Although there are no Alaska Native Villages within this area, there are scattered remote<br />
residences and BLM-managed recreation areas. The area is frequently used for subsistence and<br />
recreational hunting (BLM 2006). Additionally, the NRHP-listed Tangle Lakes Archaeological<br />
district is located on lands underlying the Fox MOA. The district contains more than 400<br />
recorded archaeological sites spanning 10,000 years of human presence in the region (BLM<br />
2006).<br />
3.7.2.6 Birch, Buffalo, Eielson, and Viper MOAs<br />
No federally recognized Alaska Native villages are located under these MOAs. Rapids<br />
Roadhouse, also known as Black Rapids Roadhouse, in Delta, underlies Buffalo MOA and is the<br />
only NRHP-listed cultural resource under these MOAs (NRIS 2011).<br />
3.7.2.7 Delta MOA<br />
There are three NRHP-listed properties under the Delta MOA, all of which are architectural<br />
resources. They are the Big Delta Historic District (also known as Big Delta State Historical<br />
Park), Delta Junction; Rika’s Landing Roadhouse (also known as Rika’s Landing Site), Big Delta;<br />
and Sullivan Roadhouse, Delta Junction (NRIS 2011).<br />
3.7.2.8 Yukon MOAs<br />
The Yukon MOAs overlie a large area to the north and east of Fairbanks.<br />
villages occur in this area, as well as 11 NRHP-listed resources (NRIS 2011).<br />
Several native<br />
Page 3-42
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
The small village of Healy Lake, 29 miles east of Delta Junction, is under the Yukon 1 MOA.<br />
Healy Lake is home to the federally recognized Healy Lake Village Council. Predominant<br />
activity in the area is the recreational use of Healy Lake during summer months.<br />
The village of Circle underlies Yukon 2 MOA, on the south bank of the Yukon River at the edge<br />
of the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge, about 160 miles northeast of Fairbanks. The<br />
federally recognized Circle Native Community is predominantly Athabaskan. Circle, or Circle<br />
City, was established in 1893 as a supply point for goods shipped up the Yukon River and then<br />
to the gold mining camps. By 1896, Circle was the largest mining town on the Yukon, with a<br />
population of 700. Residents, some of whom are part-time, now number approximately 100.<br />
The Coal Creek Historic Mining District is among the 11 properties listed on the NRHP.<br />
The federally recognized Alaska Native Village of Eagle underlies Yukon 3 MOA, six miles west<br />
of the Alaska Canadian border. It is located on the Taylor Highway, on the left bank of the<br />
Yukon River at the mouth of Mission Creek. The area has been the historical home to Han<br />
Kutchin Indians, and was once known by non-Native Alaskans as “Johnny’s,” after a leader<br />
named John. The adjacent community of Eagle saw its beginnings around 1874 as a log house<br />
trading station. Named “Belle Isle,” the station continued to provide supplies and trade goods<br />
for prospectors who worked the upper Yukon and its tributaries until Eagle City was founded<br />
at the site in 1897. Fort Egbert was established adjacent to Eagle in 1899; a major<br />
accomplishment was construction of part of the Washington-Alaska Military Cable and<br />
Telegraph System in 1903. Eagle was incorporated in 1901, becoming the first incorporated city<br />
in the Interior. Several NRHP properties occur in or near Eagle, including the Eagle Historic<br />
District, Woodchopper Roadhouse, the Frank Slaven Roadhouse, the Steele Creek Roadhouse,<br />
the George McGregor Cabin and the Ed Beiderman Fish Camp (NRIS 2010). Eagle is listed in<br />
the NRIS as the location of the Chicken Historic District, but it is 66 miles south of Eagle on the<br />
Taylor Highway.<br />
The Alaska Native Village Chalkyitsik underlies Yukon 5 MOA. Archaeological excavations<br />
indicate this region may have been first used as early as 12,000 years ago. This village on the<br />
Black River has traditionally been an important seasonal fishing site for the Gwich’in. Village<br />
elders remember a highly nomadic way of life where from autumn into the spring they lived at<br />
the headwaters of the Black River, and fished downriver in the summer. Contact with early<br />
explorers was limited, and the Black River Gwich’in receive scant mention in early records. The<br />
location of the village at its present site is due in part to low water in the Black River in the<br />
1930s. A boat carrying materials intended for a school to be built in Salmon Village had to be<br />
unloaded at the Chalkyitsik seasonal fishing camp that then consisted of four cabins. Rather<br />
than reload the construction materials, the school was built at Chalkyitsik, and the Black River<br />
people began to settle around the school.<br />
3.8 Land Use, Transportation, and Recreation<br />
The attributes of JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> and nearby land use addressed in this analysis include<br />
general land use patterns, land ownership, land management plans, and applicable plans and<br />
ordinances. General land use patterns characterize the types of uses within a particular area<br />
including human land uses, such as agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial,<br />
institutional, and recreational, or natural land uses, such as forests, refuges, and other open<br />
Page 3-43
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
spaces. Land ownership is a categorization of land according to type of owner; the major land<br />
ownership categories associated with JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> include federal and state with nearby<br />
private and Alaska Native properties. Land use plans and ordinances, policies, and guidelines<br />
establish appropriate goals for future use, or regulate allowed uses.<br />
The major land ownership categories under the SUA include state, federal, Alaska Native<br />
corporations, and other private landowners. Federal lands are described by the managing<br />
agency, which may include the USFWS, the U.S. Forest Service, BLM, or DoD. State of Alaska<br />
land under the study area is typically managed by the Departments of Fish and Game or<br />
Natural Resources. The land management plans include those documents prepared by agencies<br />
to establish appropriate goals for future use and development. As part of this process, sensitive<br />
land use areas are often identified by agencies as being worthy of more rigorous management.<br />
As noted in Section 3.1, FAA administers all navigable national airspace.<br />
Recreation resources consider outdoor recreational activities that take place away from the<br />
residences of participants. This includes natural resources and man-made facilities that are<br />
designated or available for public recreational use in remote areas. As part of the mitigations<br />
identified for the MOA <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Statement (EIS) Record of Decision (ROD), the<br />
Air Force participates in the Resource Protection Council to work with agencies, Alaska<br />
Natives, and others in the identification and mitigation of potential consequences to<br />
environmental resources (Air Force 1995).<br />
Transportation resources include the infrastructure required for the movement of people,<br />
materials, and goods. For this analysis, transportation resources include JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> roads<br />
and the railway.<br />
The ROI for land use and recreation consists of JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> and all the lands under the<br />
existing training airspace used for JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> F-<strong>22</strong> training.<br />
3.8.1 <strong>Base</strong> Existing Conditions<br />
JBER is located at the head of Cook Inlet within the Municipality of Anchorage. JBER-<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong> comprises 13,455 acres of JBER’s total 84,000 acres of federal land directly north of<br />
the Municipality of Anchorage in the south-central portion of the State of Alaska.<br />
3.8.1.1 JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> Land Use<br />
Figure 3.8-1 depicts existing land uses for JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>. The<br />
airfield and related operation function are located in the center<br />
and southern part of the base. A variety of other land uses may<br />
be found along the southern portion of the base. A large<br />
industrial area forms a boundary between the central mixed-use<br />
core of the base and the housing and services area in the base’s<br />
southwest corner. Medical facilities are located in the southeast<br />
corner, along with some housing and recreational areas. Large<br />
The southwest corner of the base has<br />
housing developments, community<br />
services, and offices.<br />
recreational and open space areas are also located north of the airfield (Air Force 2005).<br />
Restricted Use Areas have been designated to prohibit construction of manned facilities in areas<br />
that were previously contaminated.<br />
Page 3-44
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> is bordered to the east by the Fort Richardson portion of JBER. There are<br />
various training ranges within the military installations, including maneuver areas, impact<br />
areas, and training areas. To the west of JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> are the Port of Anchorage and Cook<br />
Inlet/Knik Arm. The city of Anchorage borders the base to the south. Privately held lands in<br />
the vicinity of the base are located primarily south and southeast of the base (Air Force 2001a).<br />
This includes a residential neighborhood known as Mountain View. Mountain View<br />
Elementary School is located on the north side of McPhee Avenue that runs along the southern<br />
boundary of JBER.<br />
The base adopted a General Plan in April 2005 that presents a comprehensive planning strategy to<br />
support military missions assigned to the installation and guide future installation development<br />
decisions. With a 50 year horizon, the plan presents a summary of existing conditions and<br />
provides a framework for programming, design and construction, as well as resource<br />
management. The plan’s Fighter Town East (FTE) Focus Area is on the east side of the northsouth<br />
runway (Runway 16/34). This area enabled development of all the necessary facilities and<br />
infrastructure associated with the beddown of the F-<strong>22</strong> fighter aircraft begun in 2006.<br />
<strong>Base</strong> plans and studies present factors affecting both on- and off-base land use and include<br />
recommendations to assist on-base officials and local community leaders in ensuring<br />
compatible development in the vicinity of the base. In general, land use recommendations are<br />
made for areas affected by both the potential for aircraft accidents (refer to Section 3.3, Safety)<br />
and aircraft noise (refer to Section 3.2, Noise). There are safety zones defined for each end of the<br />
runway based on the analysis of historic mishap data that defines where most aircraft accidents<br />
occur. Incompatible residential uses in the community of Mountain View exist within the safety<br />
zones at the end of Runway 16/34 (see Figure 3.3-1).<br />
Noise contours in these plans are generated by the modeling program NOISEMAP. These noise<br />
contours are used to describe noise exposure around the base and support compatible land use<br />
recommendations. Noise is one of the major factors used in determining appropriate land uses<br />
since elevated sound levels are incompatible with certain land uses. When noise levels exceed<br />
an L dn of 65 dB, residential land uses are normally considered incompatible (see Appendix D).<br />
Noise exposure (depicted with contours) from existing operations at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> are shown<br />
in Figure 3.2-1. These contours provide the baseline against which to measure the projected<br />
change should the additional six primary and one backup F-<strong>22</strong><br />
be based at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>.<br />
3.8.1.2 JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> Transportation<br />
JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> is accessed by Davis Highway from JBER-<br />
Richardson and Glenn Highway from the south. Vandenberg<br />
Avenue extends northward from the main gate (Boniface Gate)<br />
about 1.5 miles before intersecting Davis Highway which<br />
extends eastward to JBER-Richardson.<br />
The JBER Transportation system includes<br />
an extensive road network as well as<br />
winter opportunities for recreation.<br />
Page 3-45
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Figure 3.8-1. JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> Existing Land Use<br />
Page 3-46
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Roads on JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> form a network independent from vicinity roads (refer to Figure<br />
3.8-2). Access on and off the base occur through four gates on the south side (Boniface,<br />
Muldoon, Post Road, and Government Hill), as well as access from JBER-Richardson. Vehicular<br />
traffic is permitted on most base streets; restricted access may occur for operational or security<br />
reasons.<br />
Primary roadways on JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> include Davis Highway and Post Road. The former<br />
serves the eastern portion of the base and provides primary access to JBER-Richardson.<br />
Provider Drive, which connects to the Glenn Highway, also provides important access to the<br />
southeast corner of the base including the hospital. Secondary roadways include Airlifter<br />
Drive, Fighter Drive, and Arctic Warrior Drive.<br />
The latter provides access from the west side of the base to the FTE area, which supports the<br />
existing two squadrons of F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft. The FTE area is also accessed by Vandenberg Avenue<br />
and the Davis Highway.<br />
The rail line is located in the south and east portions of JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> (refer to Figure 3.8-2).<br />
The tracks have been relocated to the east to avoid security and safety hazards. The tracks are<br />
within the right of way and belong to the Alaska Railroad Company. All other tracks on the<br />
base are owned by the Air Force (Air Force 2004).<br />
3.8.2 Training Airspace Existing Conditions<br />
The general land use patterns underlying this airspace may be characterized as very rural. There<br />
are large public land areas as well as some agricultural forested areas. There are also a number of<br />
small towns and villages throughout the area that occur along roads and highways, as well as in<br />
remote areas accessible only by waterways or small planes. Within populated areas, a variety of<br />
land use types occur, including residential, commercial, industrial, and public lands.<br />
Special use areas provide recreational activities (trails and parks), hunting, fishing, and/or<br />
solitude or wilderness experience (parks, forests, and wilderness areas). Table 3.8-1 identifies<br />
special use areas under the airspace units. Figures 3.8-3 and 3.8-4 present these special use<br />
areas under or near training airspace. This broad grouping of special use areas includes large<br />
public land areas such as state or national parks, forests, and reserves which may include<br />
individual campgrounds, trails, and visitor centers. This broad definition of special use areas<br />
also includes large private land areas under the airspace.<br />
3.8.2.1 Galena and Susitna MOAs<br />
Special use areas of note underlying the Alaskan airspace include designated wildlife areas,<br />
trails, and parks. The Nowitna National Wildlife Refuge under the Galena MOA is managed by<br />
the USFWS. This refuge encompasses forested lowlands, hills, lakes, marshes, ponds, and<br />
streams and the nationally designated Nowitna River. The refuge was established to protect<br />
waterfowl and their habitat. Hunting, fishing, and river floating are recreational activities<br />
within the refuge.<br />
Page 3-47
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Figure 3.8-2. JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> Roads<br />
Page 3-48
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Figure 3.8-3. Special Use Areas Underlying Special Use Airspace<br />
Page 3-49
Page 3-50<br />
Table 3.8-1. Special Use Areas within F-<strong>22</strong> Airspace (Page 1 of 3)<br />
Airspace Special Use Area Designation<br />
Total Area<br />
of Airspace<br />
(acres)<br />
Total Area of<br />
Special Use Area<br />
(acres)<br />
Special Use<br />
Area Within<br />
Airspace<br />
(acres)<br />
% of Special<br />
Use Area<br />
Within<br />
Airspace<br />
% of Airspace<br />
Which is<br />
Special Use<br />
Area<br />
Birch MOA<br />
Birch Lake State<br />
Recreation Site<br />
State Recreation Area 359,488 204 204 100.00 0.06<br />
Birch MOA Doyon Alaska Native Regional Corp. 359,488 127,831,010 359,488 0.28 100.00<br />
Buffalo MOA Doyon Alaska Native Regional Corp. 1,398,549 127,831,010 1,289,746 1.01 92.<strong>22</strong><br />
Buffalo MOA Healy Lake<br />
Alaska Native Village Statistical<br />
Area<br />
1,398,549 109,933 108,803 98.97 7.78<br />
Delta MOA 1 Doyon Alaska Native Regional Corp. 956,008 127,831,010 692,156 0.54 72.40<br />
Eielson MOA Doyon Alaska Native Regional Corp. 611,159 127,831,010 611,159 0.48 100.00<br />
Fox 1 MOA Doyon Alaska Native Regional Corp. 968,360 127,831,010 968,360 0.76 100.00<br />
Fox 2 MOA Doyon Alaska Native Regional Corp. 79,544 127,831,010 79,544 0.06 100.00<br />
Fox 3 MOA Ahtna Alaska Native Regional Corp. 3,142,055 18,407,946 861,045 4.68 27.40<br />
Fox 3 MOA Cook Inlet Alaska Native Regional Corp. 3,142,055 21,308,085 896,648 4.21 28.54<br />
Fox 3 MOA Doyon Alaska Native Regional Corp. 3,142,055 127,831,010 1,384,361 1.08 44.06<br />
Fox 3 MOA<br />
Gulkana Wild & Scenic<br />
River<br />
Wild and Scenic River 3,142,055 105,257 5,414 5.14 0.17<br />
Galena MOA Doyon Alaska Native Regional Corp. 3,314,834 127,831,010 3,314,836 2.59 100.00<br />
Galena MOA<br />
Nowitna National<br />
Wildlife Refuge<br />
National Wildlife Refuge 3,314,834 2,019,411 612,935 30.35 18.49<br />
Naknek 1 MOA Bristol Bay Alaska Native Regional Corp. 3,294,<strong>22</strong>5 26,195,347 3,251,606 12.41 98.71<br />
Naknek 1 MOA Koliganek<br />
Alaska Native Village Statistical<br />
Area<br />
3,294,<strong>22</strong>5 62,162 44,179 71.07 1.34<br />
Naknek 1 MOA Wood-Tilchik State Park State Park 3,294,<strong>22</strong>5 515,427 395,979 76.83 12.02<br />
Naknek 2 MOA Bristol Bay Alaska Native Regional Corp. 2,339,458 26,195,347 1,832,356 6.99 78.32<br />
Naknek 2 MOA Cook Inlet Alaska Native Regional Corp. 2,339,458 21,308,085 505,018 2.37 21.59<br />
Stony A MOA Calista Alaska Native Regional Corp. 3,430,001 33,099,981 1,939,436 5.86 56.54<br />
Stony A MOA Cook Inlet Alaska Native Regional Corp. 3,430,001 21,308,085 552,642 2.59 16.11<br />
Stony A MOA Doyon Alaska Native Regional Corp. 3,430,001 127,831,010 908,096 0.71 26.48<br />
Stony A MOA Lime Village<br />
Alaska Native Village Statistical<br />
Area<br />
3,430,001 34,186 33,007 96.55 0.96<br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>
Page 3-51<br />
Table 3.8-1. Special Use Areas within F-<strong>22</strong> Airspace (Page 2 of 3)<br />
Airspace Special Use Area Designation<br />
Total Area<br />
of Airspace<br />
(acres)<br />
Total Area of<br />
Special Use Area<br />
(acres)<br />
Special Use<br />
Area Within<br />
Airspace<br />
(acres)<br />
% of Special<br />
Use Area<br />
Within<br />
Airspace<br />
% of Airspace<br />
Which is<br />
Special Use<br />
Area<br />
Stony A MOA Stony River<br />
Alaska Native Village Statistical<br />
Area<br />
3,430,001 13,018 3,019 23.19 0.09<br />
Stony B MOA Calista Alaska Native Regional Corp. 2,016,837 33,099,981 1,441,097 4.35 71.45<br />
Stony B MOA Crooked Creek<br />
Alaska Native Village Statistical<br />
Area<br />
2,016,837 27,906 15,159 54.32 0.75<br />
Stony B MOA Doyon Alaska Native Regional Corp. 2,016,837 127,831,010 499,096 0.39 24.75<br />
Stony B MOA Georgetown<br />
Alaska Native Village Statistical<br />
Area<br />
2,016,837 16,659 16,659 100.00 0.83<br />
Stony B MOA Red Devil<br />
Alaska Native Village Statistical<br />
Area<br />
2,016,837 16,275 16,275 100.00 0.81<br />
Stony B MOA Sleetmute<br />
Alaska Native Village Statistical<br />
Area<br />
2,016,837 18,945 18,945 100.00 0.94<br />
Stony B MOA Stony River<br />
Alaska Native Village Statistical<br />
Area<br />
2,016,837 13,018 9,999 76.81 0.50<br />
Susitna MOA Cook Inlet Alaska Native Regional Corp. 2,098,465 21,308,085 1,716,651 8.06 81.81<br />
Susitna MOA<br />
Denali National Park & National Park<br />
553,989 9.19 26.4<br />
2,098,465 6,029,385<br />
Preserve<br />
National Preserve<br />
391,748 6.5 18.67<br />
Susitna MOA Denali State Park State Park 2,098,465 324,242 50,985 15.72 2.43<br />
Susitna MOA Doyon Alaska Native Regional Corp. 2,098,465 127,831,010 381,175 0.30 18.16<br />
Yukon 1 MOA<br />
Chena River State Rec<br />
Area<br />
State Recreation Area 3,198,318 303,481.281 256,708.482 84.59 8.03<br />
Yukon 1 MOA Doyon Alaska Native Regional Corp. 3,198,318 127,831,010 3,198,318 2.50 100.00<br />
Yukon 1 MOA<br />
Fortymile Wild & Scenic<br />
River<br />
Wild and Scenic River 3,198,318 <strong>22</strong>6,745 673 0.30 0.02<br />
Yukon 1 MOA Healy Lake<br />
Alaska Native Village Statistical<br />
Area<br />
3,198,318 109,933 1 0.00 0.00<br />
Yukon 1 MOA<br />
Yukon-Charley Rivers<br />
National Preserve<br />
National Preserve 3,198,318 2,521,315 499,384 19.81 15.61<br />
Yukon 2 MOA<br />
Birch Creek Wild &<br />
Scenic River<br />
Wild and Scenic River 4,180,238 68,867 68,867 100.00 1.65<br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>
Page 3-52<br />
Table 3.8-1. Special Use Areas within F-<strong>22</strong> Airspace (Page 3 of 3)<br />
Airspace Special Use Area Designation<br />
Yukon 2 MOA<br />
Restricted Area<br />
<strong>22</strong>05<br />
Chena River State Rec<br />
Area<br />
Total Area<br />
of Airspace<br />
(acres)<br />
Total Area of<br />
Special Use Area<br />
(acres)<br />
Special Use<br />
Area Within<br />
Airspace<br />
(acres)<br />
% of Special<br />
Use Area<br />
Within<br />
Airspace<br />
% of Airspace<br />
Which is<br />
Special Use<br />
Area<br />
State Recreation Area 4,180,238 303481.281 46087.982 15.19 1.10<br />
Yukon 2 MOA Circle<br />
Alaska Native Village Statistical<br />
Area<br />
4,180,238 3,643 3,643 100.00 0.09<br />
Yukon 2 MOA Doyon Alaska Native Regional Corp. 4,180,238 127,831,010 4,176,595 3.27 99.91<br />
Yukon 2 MOA<br />
Steese National<br />
Conservation Area<br />
National Conservation Area 4,180,238 1,154,018 785,042 68.03 18.78<br />
Yukon 2 MOA<br />
Yukon Flats National<br />
Wildlife Refuge<br />
National Wildlife Refuge 4,180,238 11,172,807 654,752 5.86 15.66<br />
Yukon 2 MOA<br />
Yukon-Charley Rivers<br />
National Preserve<br />
National Preserve 4,180,238 2,521,315 592,117 23.48 14.16<br />
Yukon 3 MOA Doyon Alaska Native Regional Corp. 3,207,858 127,831,010 3,194,193 2.50 99.57<br />
Yukon 3 MOA Eagle<br />
Alaska Native Village Statistical<br />
Area<br />
3,207,858 23,353 13,665 58.52 0.43<br />
Yukon 3 MOA<br />
Fortymile Wild & Scenic<br />
River<br />
Wild and Scenic River 3,207,858 247,049 <strong>22</strong>3,607 90.51 6.97<br />
Yukon 3 MOA<br />
Yukon-Charley Rivers<br />
National Preserve<br />
National Preserve 3,207,858 2,521,315 375,752 14.90 11.71<br />
Yukon 4 MOA Doyon Alaska Native Regional Corp. 2,846,455 127,831,010 2,846,455 2.23 100.00<br />
Yukon 4 MOA<br />
Yukon Flats National<br />
Wildlife Refuge<br />
National Wildlife Refuge 2,846,455 11,172,807 149,644 1.34 5.26<br />
Yukon 4 MOA<br />
Yukon-Charley Rivers<br />
National Preserve<br />
National Preserve 2,846,455 2,521,315 998,833 39.62 35.09<br />
Yukon 5 MOA Chalkyitsik<br />
Alaska Native Village Statistical<br />
Area<br />
2,285,414 1,546 1,546 100.00 0.07<br />
Yukon 5 MOA Doyon Alaska Native Regional Corp. 2,285,414 127,831,010 2,283,868 1.79 99.93<br />
Yukon 5 MOA<br />
Yukon Flats National<br />
Wildlife Refuge<br />
National Wildlife Refuge 2,285,414 11,172,807 1,469,990 13.16 64.32<br />
Viper MOA Doyon Alaska Native Regional Corp. 68,181 127,831,010 68,181 0.05 100.00<br />
Notes: 1 – Includes only the portions of Delta MOA west of Birch MOA and between the Birch and Buffalo MOAs MOA = Military Operations Area<br />
Source: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 2005<br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Segments of the Iditarod National Historic Trail underlie the Galena and Susitna MOAs (Air<br />
Force 1995). The Iditarod Trail is a network of more than 2,300 trails that takes its name from an<br />
Athabascan Indian village.<br />
A portion of Denali State Park, about 550,000 acres of Denali National Park, and about 400,000<br />
acres of Denali National Preserve also underlie the northern portion of the Susitna MOA.<br />
Denali National Park, managed by the National Park Service, was established in 1917 as Mount<br />
McKinley National Park. In 1980, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act<br />
expanded the boundary by four million acres and renamed it Denali National Park and<br />
Preserve. Denali is currently six million acres in size. There are three distinct units that make<br />
up Denali National Park and Preserve: Denali Wilderness, Denali National Preserve, and<br />
Denali National Park. The Susitna MOA does not overlie the Denali Wilderness.<br />
3.8.2.2 Fox and Stony MOAs<br />
Lands underlying the Fox MOA include the Tangle Lakes, Tangle River, Delta River, Gulkana<br />
River, components of the National Wild and Scenic River System, Tangle Lakes Archaeological<br />
District, and Nelchina Public Use Area. Although there are no communities within this area,<br />
there are scattered remote residences. The Fox MOA overlies areas frequently used for<br />
recreational hunting, including BLM-managed recreation areas.<br />
Stony A and B MOAs overlie a number of small communities including Georgetown, Crooked<br />
Creek, Red Devil, Sleetmute, and Stony River.<br />
3.8.2.3 Yukon and Viper MOAs<br />
The Yukon MOAs overlie remote residences or parcels along the Salcha River, as well as the<br />
communities of Circle, Central, Circle Hot Springs, Chena Hot Springs, Eagle, Chicken, Eagle<br />
Village, Boundary, and Chalkyitsik. Some of the special use areas within this area include the<br />
Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve, Charley National Wild River, and Fortymile National<br />
Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River. Notices along these rivers, such as the Birch Creek Wild<br />
and Scenic River, explain the SUA and the use of the airspace to recreationists.<br />
3.8.2.3 Restricted Areas<br />
With the exception of the Chena River State Recreation Area, no special land use areas occur<br />
under Restricted Areas. A small portion of the southern boundary of the Chena River State<br />
Recreation Area underlies R-<strong>22</strong>05 (see Figure 3.8-4).<br />
3.9 Socioeconomics<br />
Socioeconomic factors are defined as the basic attributes and resources associated with the<br />
human environment. Data for the socioeconomic analysis in this EA were obtained from a<br />
variety of sources, including the Air Force, the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the U.S. Bureau of<br />
Economic Analysis, the Alaska Departments of Commerce and Labor, and the Municipality of<br />
Anchorage.<br />
Page 3-53
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Page 3-54<br />
Figure 3.8-4. Special Use Areas Underlying Restricted Areas and MOAs
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
3.9.1 <strong>Base</strong> Socioeconomic Existing Conditions<br />
JBER is situated in south-central Alaska, just north of Anchorage. Socioeconomic activities<br />
associated with the base are concentrated in the Municipality of Anchorage, which comprises<br />
the ROI for this analysis. Available socioeconomic characteristics are addressed for the base<br />
population and for the Municipality of Anchorage.<br />
3.9.1.1 Population and Housing<br />
The combination of <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB with Fort Richardson as JBER has resulted in one<br />
installation with approximately 12,000 military and 4,000 civilian and non-appropriated funds<br />
employees (JBER 2009). There are approximately 30,000 dependents associated with JBER<br />
personnel. Approximately 10,000 residents, military personnel, and their family members are<br />
on base in military housing, including privatized housing. The majority of military personnel,<br />
civilian personnel, and their families reside off-base within the Municipality of Anchorage,<br />
including the communities of Chugiak and Eagle River.<br />
The 2009 population of the Municipality of Anchorage was 287,460 persons. This is an increase<br />
from 2000 to 2009 at an average annual rate of 1.0 percent. Population in the municipality is<br />
projected to increase at an average annual rate of 0.7 percent to 297,416 persons by the year 2014<br />
(Department of Commerce 2010). Anchorage is the largest city in Alaska, accounting for<br />
approximately 45 percent of the state population. The average household size in the<br />
municipality is 2.75 persons. Almost 94 percent of the 111,136 housing units are occupied,<br />
yielding a vacancy rate of 6.0 percent or approximately 6,700 vacant units. By comparison, the<br />
vacancy rate statewide is 15 percent, primarily due to seasonal occupancy.<br />
3.9.1.2 Economic Activity<br />
Anchorage is the center of commerce for the state of Alaska, an economy driven by four major<br />
sectors: oil/gas, military, transportation, and tourism. These sectors have provided a level of<br />
stability to the region during the national economic downturn experienced during the end of<br />
the last decade. A number of industries are headquartered in Anchorage, including oil and gas<br />
enterprises, finance and real estate, transportation, communications, and government agencies.<br />
JBER is an important contributor to the Anchorage economy through employment of military<br />
and civilian personnel and expenditures for goods and services. The value of goods and<br />
services contracts was approximately $811 million in 2009 with approximately $85 million spent<br />
annually on consumable goods (JBER 2009).<br />
In the Municipality of Anchorage, total full- and part-time employment was 144,307 jobs in<br />
third quarter 2010. The largest employment sectors have been government (21.6 percent), retail<br />
trade (11.3 percent), and health care and social services (10.6 percent) (U.S. Bureau of Economic<br />
Analysis 2005). Military and military-related civilian employment, including the National<br />
Guard, account for approximately 18,000 jobs in Anchorage, representing approximately 12<br />
percent of total employment.<br />
At the end of 2010 the unemployment rate in Anchorage was 6.7 percent. There are seasonal<br />
fluctuations related to resource usage, including commercial fishing and processing activities.<br />
Page 3-55
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Average unemployment in Anchorage was 5.7 percent in 2003, and unemployment fluctuated<br />
between 4.1 percent and 7.4 percent during the decade from 1990-2000.<br />
3.9.1.3 Public Services<br />
Daily operation of JBER and furnishing of services and support to base personnel and family<br />
members is the responsibility of the 673d Air <strong>Base</strong> Wing, the base host unit. Off-base public<br />
services are provided by a number of public and private entities. Police and fire protection<br />
services are provided by the Anchorage Police and Fire Departments, respectively. Anchorage<br />
Regional Hospital and various medical care providers offer health services in the area. The 673 d<br />
Medical Group, in collaboration with the Veterans Administration, provides JBER hospital and<br />
medical care. There are approximately 20,000 military retirees in the region.<br />
The Anchorage school district serves the JBER population, including three elementary schools,<br />
one middle school, and one high school. JBER provides youth programs, teen centers, and<br />
childcare services for military families residing and working on base.<br />
3.9.2 Training Airspace Socioeconomic Existing Conditions<br />
Socioeconomic resources evaluated include areas around JBER as well as geographic areas<br />
under or proximate to the training airspace. The nine geographic areas identified on Figure 1.1-<br />
1 are:<br />
• Anchorage Municipality – not under training airspace;<br />
• Bethel Census Area – partially under Stony MOAs;<br />
• Dillingham Census Area – partially under Naknek MOAs;<br />
• Fairbanks Northstar Borough – rural portions partially under Yukon MOAs and Viper<br />
A/B MOA;<br />
• Lake and Peninsula Borough – partially under Naknek 2 MOA;<br />
• Matanuska-Susitna Borough – rural portions partially under Susitna and Fox MOAs;<br />
• Southeast Fairbanks Census Area – partially under Yukon, Birch, and Buffalo MOAs;<br />
• Valdez-Cordova Census Area – not under training airspace; and<br />
• Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area – partially under Galena and Stony MOAs.<br />
3.9.2.1 Population and Housing<br />
Lands under training airspace are very rural in nature, with sparsely scattered populations.<br />
Population data from the 2000 census provide for a consistent comparison among geographic<br />
areas. The 2010 census data are not expected to be available before summer 2011.<br />
With the exception of Anchorage Municipality, Fairbanks North Star, and the Matanuska-<br />
Susitna Borough, rural lands comprise two-thirds of the region. Rural population density is 0.4<br />
to less than 0.1 persons per square mile (see Table 3.9-1). The population centers are included<br />
for reference although they are not directly affected by training airspace. The average<br />
Page 3-56
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
household size in the regions ranges from 2.80 persons per household in the southeast<br />
Fairbanks census area to 3.73 persons per household in the Bethel census area. By comparison,<br />
the state and Anchorage average household sizes are 2.74 and 2.62 persons per household,<br />
respectively. Housing vacancy rates range from a low of 18.5 percent in Bethel to a high of 62.2<br />
percent in Lake and Peninsula Borough. The vacancy rates are primarily due to seasonal<br />
occupancy.<br />
Table 3.9-1. Demographic Characteristics of Affected Regions (2000)<br />
Affected Region<br />
Total<br />
Population<br />
Percent<br />
Rural<br />
Population<br />
Density<br />
Average<br />
Household<br />
Size<br />
Housing<br />
Vacancy<br />
Rate<br />
State of Alaska 626,932 34.4 1.1 2.74 15.1<br />
Anchorage Municipality 260,283 3.9 153.4 2.67 5.5<br />
Bethel Census Area 16,006 72.3 0.4 3.73 18.5<br />
Dillingham Census Area 4,9<strong>22</strong> 100.0 0.3 3.20 34.4<br />
Fairbanks North Star Borough 82,840 30.4 11.2 2.68 10.6<br />
Lake and Peninsula Borough 1,823 100.0 0.1 3.10 62.2<br />
Matanuska-Susitna Borough 59,3<strong>22</strong> 64.5 2.4 2.84 24.8<br />
Southeast Fairbanks Census<br />
Area<br />
6,174 100.0 0.2 2.80 34.9<br />
Valdez-Cordova Census Area 10,195 100.0 0.3 2.58 24.6<br />
Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area 6,551 100.0
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Table 3.9-2. Economic Characteristics of Regions (2000)<br />
Regions<br />
Total<br />
Employment<br />
Percent<br />
Unemployment<br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
Median<br />
Household<br />
Income<br />
Per Capita<br />
Personal<br />
Income<br />
State of Alaska 281,532 6.1 $51,571 $<strong>22</strong>,660<br />
Anchorage Municipality 125,737 4.7 $55,546 $25,287<br />
Bethel Census Area 5,481 9.1 $35,701 $12,603<br />
Dillingham Census Area 1,765 7.2 $43,079 $16,021<br />
Fairbanks North Star Borough 35,258 5.8 $49,076 $21,553<br />
Lake and Peninsula Borough 581 7.9 $36,442 $15,361<br />
Matanuska-Susitna Borough 24,981 6.7 $51,<strong>22</strong>1 $21,105<br />
Southeast Fairbanks Census Area 1,932 9.5 $38,776 $16,679<br />
Valdez-Cordova Census Area 4,463 6.3 $48,734 $23,046<br />
Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area 2,276 12.5 $28,666 $13,720<br />
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 2000b.<br />
3.9.2.3 Public Services<br />
A review of Figure 2.2-2 demonstrates the rural nature of areas under training airspace. In<br />
many cases the only access to these areas is by boat or aircraft. Public services are either<br />
available locally or may be obtained through air transport. In some areas practically everything<br />
from groceries to medical services are provided by Alaska civil aviation. The Internet has<br />
successfully connected residents in many remote areas to Alaska education and other public<br />
services.<br />
3.10 <strong>Environmental</strong> Justice<br />
EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address <strong>Environmental</strong> Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income<br />
Populations, directs federal agencies to address environmental and human health conditions in<br />
minority and low-income communities. In addition to environmental justice issues are<br />
concerns pursuant to EO 13045, Protection of Children from <strong>Environmental</strong> Health Risks and Safety<br />
Risks, which directs federal agencies to identify and assess environmental health and safety<br />
risks that may disproportionately affect children.<br />
For purposes of this analysis, minority, low-income and youth populations are defined as follows:<br />
• Minority Population: Alaska Natives, persons of Hispanic origin of any race, Blacks,<br />
American Indians, Asians, or Pacific Islanders.<br />
• Low-Income Population: Persons living below the poverty level.<br />
• Youth Population: Children under the age of 18 years.<br />
Estimates of these three population categories were developed based on data from the U.S.<br />
Bureau of the Census. The census does not report minority population, per se, but reports<br />
population by race and by ethnic origin. These data were used to estimate minority<br />
populations potentially affected by implementation of the Proposed Action. Low-income and<br />
youth population figures also were drawn from the Census 2000 Profile of General<br />
Demographic Characteristics.<br />
Page 3-58
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
3.10.1 <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> Justice Existing Conditions<br />
JBER is situated in south-central Alaska, just north of Anchorage. Land situated outside the<br />
JBER boundaries but within the 65 L dn or greater noise contour consists of two affected<br />
geographic areas with a total of 59.1 acres. This area is compatible industrial with a small (0.5<br />
acre) rural piece of land across the Knik Arm. The community of Mountain View, south of the<br />
JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> airfield and comprised primarily of minority and low-income residents, is<br />
outside the 65 dB L dn noise contour.<br />
Ethnicity and poverty status in the vicinity of JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> were examined and compared to<br />
state and national data. Minority persons represent 30.1 percent of the Municipality of<br />
Anchorage population (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2000a). Alaska Natives represent 7.0 percent<br />
of the Anchorage population and 23.4 percent of the minority population. By comparison,<br />
minority persons represent 32.4 percent of the state population, with Alaska Native accounting<br />
for 47.5 percent of the state minority population.<br />
The incidence of persons and families in the Municipality of Anchorage with incomes below the<br />
poverty level was comparable to state levels. In Anchorage during 2000, 7.3 percent of persons<br />
were living below the poverty level, compared to 9.4 percent of persons in the state and 12.4<br />
percent of persons in the nation (U.S. Census 2005).<br />
The number of children under age 18 was determined for the vicinity of JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> and<br />
compared to state and national levels. In 2000, there were 75,742 children age 17 and under<br />
residing in Anchorage, comprising 29.1 percent of the population. This compares to 30.4<br />
percent for the State of Alaska and 25.7 percent for the nation.<br />
The community of Mountain View is located south of JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> (see Figure 3.8-1). The<br />
minority population of Mountain View is a greater share of the total population than in the<br />
Municipality of Anchorage (68 percent vs. 30 percent). The ratio of low-income individuals<br />
residing in Mountain View is greater than city and state levels. The median annual household<br />
income for Mountain View was $42,469 in 2008 as compared with $75,637 for Anchorage as a<br />
whole. An estimated 23.5 percent of the Mountain View population is below the poverty level<br />
as compared with 7.3 percent of Anchorage. The Mountain View Elementary School has an<br />
enrollment of 339 students, of whom 88 percent are considered economically disadvantaged.<br />
3.10.2 Training Airspace <strong>Environmental</strong> Justice Existing Conditions<br />
As with socioeconomic resources, evaluation of environmental justice evaluates nine<br />
geographic areas that include areas under the affected airspace and large municipalities near<br />
the airspace:<br />
• Anchorage Municipality – not under training airspace;<br />
• Bethel Census Area – partially under Stony MOAs;<br />
• Dillingham Census Area – partially under Naknek MOAs;<br />
• Fairbanks Northstar Borough – rural portions partially under Yukon MOAs and Viper<br />
A/B MOA;<br />
Page 3-59
• Lake and Peninsula Borough – partially under Naknek 2 MOA;<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
• Matanuska-Susitna Borough – rural portions partially under Susitna and Fox MOAs;<br />
• Southeast Fairbanks Census Area – partially under Yukon, Birch, and Buffalo MOAs;<br />
• Valdez-Cordova Census Area – not under training airspace; and<br />
• Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area – partially under Galena and Stony MOAs.<br />
Alaska Natives live on many land areas under the affected airspace. Specific communities are<br />
identified under specific airspace units in Figure 3.7-2. Federally recognized Alaska Natives<br />
under the airspace include Crooked Creek, settled by Eskimo and Ingalik people; Georgetown,<br />
a seasonal fishing village; Lime village, a Dena’ina Athabascan Indian settlement; Red Devil, a<br />
village populated by a mix of Eskimo, Athabascan, and non-native inhabitants; Sleetmute,<br />
founded by Ingalik Indians; Stony River, a mix of Indian and Eskimo people; and Koliganek<br />
(U.S. Bureau of the Census 2000a). Other federally recognized Alaska Native populations in the<br />
area include Eagle, Circle, Chalkyitsik, Dot Lake, and Healy Lake. Native lifestyle in many of<br />
these villages is based on, or supplemented by, subsistence activities. Alaska Native<br />
Corporations in the region are Cook Inlet, Calista, Doyon, and Bristol Bay. Additional baseline<br />
data on minority, low-income, and youth populations in areas under the airspace are presented<br />
in Table 3.10-1.<br />
<strong>Base</strong>d on 2000 Census data, the incidence of persons and families in the rural areas with<br />
incomes below the poverty level generally exceeded Anchorage-dominated state levels (see<br />
Table 3.10-1). Poverty rates in the affected regions under the training airspace ranged from a<br />
low of 18.9 percent in Lake and Peninsula and southeast Fairbanks to a high of 23.8 percent in<br />
Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area, compared to 7.3 percent of persons in Anchorage and 9.5 percent<br />
of persons in the Anchorage-dominated state totals.<br />
Table 3.10-1. Minority and Low-Income Populations by Area (2000)<br />
Area<br />
Total<br />
Population<br />
Percent<br />
Low-<br />
Income<br />
Percent<br />
Minority<br />
Percent<br />
Alaska<br />
Native<br />
Percent<br />
Youth<br />
State of Alaska 626,932 9.4 32.4 15.4 30.4<br />
Anchorage Municipality 260,283 7.3 30.1 7.0 29.1<br />
Bethel Census Area 16,006 20.6 87.8 81.6 39.8<br />
Dillingham Census Area 4,9<strong>22</strong> 21.4 79.1 69.4 38.1<br />
Fairbanks North Star Borough 82,840 7.8 24.0 6.8 30.1<br />
Lake and Peninsula Borough 1,823 18.9 81.2 73.0 37.8<br />
Matanuska-Susitna Borough 59,3<strong>22</strong> 11.0 13.7 5.3 32.2<br />
Southeast Fairbanks Census Area 6,174 18.9 <strong>22</strong>.6 12.6 32.8<br />
Valdez-Cordova Census Area 10,195 9.8 25.3 13.0 29.6<br />
Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area 6,551 23.8 76.0 70.4 35.0<br />
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 2000a, 2005.<br />
Minority persons represent between <strong>22</strong>.6 percent and 87.8 percent of the population under the<br />
training airspace. Alaska Natives are by far the largest minority group, accounting for nearly<br />
the entire minority population and comprising over two-thirds of the total population in some<br />
areas under the training airspace. By comparison, minority persons represent 32.4 percent of<br />
the state population, with Alaska Natives accounting for 15.4 percent of the state total<br />
Page 3-60
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
population and 47.5 percent of the state minority population. Youths under the age of 18<br />
comprise between 32.8 percent and 39.8 percent of the population under the airspace, compared<br />
to 30.4 percent at the state level and 29.1 percent in Anchorage.<br />
Page 3-61
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
3.0 Affected Environment<br />
This page intentionally left blank.<br />
Page 3-62
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
4.0 BASE AND TRAINING AIRSPACE<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES<br />
This chapter analyzes potential environmental consequences<br />
from the proposed plus-up of the F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft inventory at<br />
JBER. As in Chapter 3.0, the expected geographic scope of<br />
potential environmental consequences is identified as the ROI.<br />
This chapter considers the direct and indirect effects of the<br />
Proposed Action and No Action Alternative described in<br />
Chapter 2.0. The Existing Conditions (refer to Chapter 3.0) of<br />
each relevant environmental resource is described to give the public and agency decision<br />
makers a meaningful point from which they can compare potential future environmental,<br />
social, and economic effects. Cumulative effects are discussed in Chapter 5.0.<br />
4.1 Airspace Management<br />
Airspace management environmental consequences could occur in or around the base or in the<br />
training airspace.<br />
4.1.1 <strong>Base</strong> Airspace Management <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
The addition of six primary F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft to JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> would not impact air traffic control<br />
within the AATA. The Anchorage Approach Control has overall management responsibility<br />
within the ATCAA. Anchorage Approach Control has managed the airspace when there were<br />
substantially more fighter aircraft operating from JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> than would be with the<br />
proposed F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up. No consequences would be expected to airspace management with the<br />
additional six primary F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft.<br />
4.1.2 Training Airspace <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
For the purpose of this EA, the term<br />
JBER refers to the entire combined<br />
base. The term JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> refers<br />
to the historic <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB which is<br />
primarily affected by the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up.<br />
JBER- Richardson refers to the historic<br />
Fort Richardson portion of JBER.<br />
Table 2.2-3 in Chapter 2.0 describes the existing and projected MOA usage associated with<br />
baseline F-<strong>22</strong> and the proposed increase of six primary aircraft. F-<strong>22</strong> training in the MOAs<br />
would be similar to the existing use by F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft. The additional aircraft would not affect<br />
regional airspace management. The usage of the airspace would not change to the extent that<br />
civil aviation could be affected. The time spent at higher altitudes by the F-<strong>22</strong>, including in the<br />
ATCAAs, should have a minimal effect upon general aviation that normally flies at lower<br />
altitudes.<br />
Range use by the F-<strong>22</strong> is substantially less than historic use by such aircraft as the F-15E. The F-<br />
<strong>22</strong> is designed to carry smart munitions with long range stand-off capabilities. Most air-toground<br />
training in the airspace would be performed by flying specific training profiles and<br />
practicing the release of munitions under launch conditions without actually releasing any<br />
munitions. Practice munitions use could occur on Alaskan training ranges and would be<br />
performed at lower altitudes to experience the handling characteristics of the aircraft under<br />
deployment conditions. Table 2.2-4 presents the existing and projected F-<strong>22</strong> training munitions<br />
Page 4-1
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
use. None of the training activities within Alaskan SUA would be expected to result in any<br />
changes to airspace management from those existing for the F-<strong>22</strong> training. The mitigations in<br />
the 1995 MOA EIS ROD still apply (Air Force 1995). During studies conducted as part of the<br />
MOA EIS, it was found that dissemination of information is an important element in explaining<br />
airspace management and use.<br />
Alaska residents, including Alaska Natives, have expressed concerns that military aircraft<br />
training could potentially conflict with small aircraft serving communities under special use<br />
airspace. Enhanced F-<strong>22</strong> electronics and situational awareness reduce risks of conflicts with<br />
general aviation. Existing awareness and avoidance procedures implemented by the Air Force,<br />
and standard FAA flight rules are designed to prevent airspace conflicts. These FAA rules<br />
require that all pilots are responsible to apply “see and avoid” techniques when operating an<br />
aircraft. To reduce the potential for airspace conflicts, JBER continues to schedule MFEs in<br />
training airspace to avoid the high recreation period from the 27 th of June to the 11 th of July.<br />
MFEs are also not scheduled during January, September, or December.<br />
4.1.3 No Action<br />
Existing terminal airspace, MOA, range, and other airspace usage would not change with the<br />
No Action. F-<strong>22</strong>s would continue to train from JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> and continue to train in the<br />
airspace as they do today.<br />
4.2 Noise<br />
This section describes noise impacts associated with the proposed F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up in the area near<br />
JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> and in military training airspace units. Impacts are assessed by comparing<br />
noise conditions under the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative to baseline<br />
conditions.<br />
4.2.1 <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
Noise levels near JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> were calculated using the<br />
established and tested noise program, NOISEMAP. Under the<br />
Proposed Action, all operational procedures currently in effect,<br />
including noise-related operational restrictions, runway usage<br />
patterns, and approach and departure procedures, would remain<br />
in effect. These procedures include use of Runway 34<br />
(northbound crosswind runway) for approximately 25 percent of<br />
The increase of F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft with the<br />
plus-up results in 16.7 percent more<br />
F-<strong>22</strong>s being based at JBER-<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong>. The additional personnel<br />
capability at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> would<br />
be expected to proportionately<br />
increase the F-<strong>22</strong> sorties.<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> departures. The runway typically used for F-<strong>22</strong> arrivals is runway 06 (eastbound main<br />
runway). To represent F-<strong>22</strong> operations under the Proposed Action for the purposes of noise<br />
modeling, current F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft operations were increased by the proportion of additional F-<strong>22</strong><br />
plus-up aircraft. This would result in an average of approximately five additional daily F-<strong>22</strong><br />
sorties.<br />
Page 4-2
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
4.2.1.1 Land Areas<br />
Table 4.2-1 compares the total area, in acres, exposed to each noise contour interval under<br />
baseline and proposed conditions. Figure 4.2-1 shows the noise contours under the Proposed<br />
Action and baseline conditions.<br />
The total land and water area exposed to 65 dB L dn or more would be projected to increase from<br />
13,506 acres under current conditions to 14,386 acres under the proposed plus-up. The increase<br />
of approximately 880 acres represents a 6.5 percent increase.<br />
Table 4.2-1. Areas Exposed to Noise Intervals Under <strong>Base</strong>line Conditions and the<br />
Proposed Action<br />
Location Condition<br />
Area (In Acres) Exposed to Indicated Noise Levels (In L dn)<br />
65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 >85 Total<br />
<strong>Base</strong>line 5,534.7 2,374.2 1,009.7 496.4 457.0 9,872.0<br />
JBER Proposed 5,665.8 2,580.1 1,065.7 532.6 489.8 10,334.0<br />
Change 131.1 205.9 56.0 36.2 32.8 462.0<br />
Knik Arm/ <strong>Base</strong>line 3,062.5 465.6 47.0 0.0 0.0 3,575.1<br />
Cook Inlet Proposed 3,352.4 580.1 53.3 0.0 0.0 3,985.8<br />
(Water) Change 289.9 114.5 6.3 0.0 0.0 410.7<br />
<strong>Base</strong>line 42.2 11.8 4.6 0.0 0.0 58.6<br />
Port of<br />
Proposed 47.0 13.3 4.9 0.0 0.0 65.2<br />
Anchorage<br />
Change 4.8 1.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 6.6<br />
Land West <strong>Base</strong>line 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5<br />
of Knik Proposed 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7<br />
Arm Change 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2<br />
<strong>Base</strong>line 8,639.9 2,842.6 1,061.3 496.4 457.0 13,506.2<br />
Total Proposed 9,065.9 3,173.5 1,123.9 532.6 489.8 14,385.7<br />
Change 426.0 321.9 62.6 36.2 32.8 879.5<br />
Source: Wasmer and Maunsell 2005.<br />
Of the approximately 880 additional acres that would be affected by noise levels greater than 65<br />
dB L dn under the Proposed Action, 462 acres would occur on JBER. The remainder of the area<br />
newly affected by noise levels greater than 65 dB L dn would occur on the Knik Arm, in the Port<br />
of Anchorage, and in land west of the Knik Arm. Noise levels exceeding 65 dB L dn would not<br />
extend beyond base boundaries to the south of the installation under the Proposed Action. DoD<br />
and FAA have determined that residential use is normally compatible with noise levels less<br />
than 65 dB L dn. Satellite imagery demonstrates that the additional 6.6 acres affected by noise<br />
exceeding 65 dB L dn in the Port of Anchorage area are vacant or in industrial uses. The Port of<br />
Anchorage is a compatible land use under the projected noise contours. A very small amount of<br />
land west of the Knik Arm (approximately 0.7 acre or 0.2 additional acre) would be affected by<br />
noise levels greater than 65 dB L dn. Satellite imagery shows this area to be vacant shoreline.<br />
Areas of relatively sensitive land uses on JBER (administrative/industrial, community support,<br />
and residential) are shown in Figure 4.2-2 in relation to baseline and Proposed Action noise<br />
contours. The total acreage in each of these land use categories affected by greater than 65 L dn is<br />
listed in Table 4.2-2.<br />
Page 4-3
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
Figure 4.2-1. <strong>Base</strong>line and Proposed Action Noise Contours<br />
Page 4-4
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
Figure 4.2-2. Land Use and Noise Contours Under <strong>Base</strong>line Conditions and the Proposed Action<br />
Page 4-5
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
Under the Proposed Action, the number of on-base residential structures exposed to noise<br />
greater than 65 L dn would increase by 24 from 157 to 184. Increases in noise levels would be<br />
expected to result in minor increases in the prevalence of annoyance in affected persons on<br />
JBER. However, structural attenuation would reduce the level of impacts to persons indoors.<br />
Furthermore, annoyance generated by aircraft noise may be somewhat less likely on a military<br />
reservation than in other locations due to the affected population generally viewing military<br />
training as being necessary and important.<br />
Table 4.2-2. Acres on JBER in Several Land Use Categories Impacted by Noise<br />
Greater Than 65 L dn<br />
Land Use Category<br />
<strong>Base</strong>line Proposed Change<br />
Acres ≥ 65 dB L dn<br />
Administrative/ Industrial 2,040 2,120 80<br />
Community Support 817 878 60<br />
Residential (Accompanied and Unaccompanied) 199 202 3<br />
As per a DoD policy memorandum published in 2009, populations exposed to noise greater<br />
than 80 dB L dnmr are at the greatest risk of population hearing loss (Undersecretary of Defense<br />
for Acquisition Technology and Logistics 2009). No on- or off-base residences are exposed to<br />
noise levels greater than 80 dB L dnmr and, therefore, hearing loss risk for on- or off-installation<br />
residents is relatively low. Noise levels in the JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> flightline exceed 80 dB L dnmr<br />
under baseline conditions and would continue to exceed 80 dB L dn under the Proposed Action.<br />
Under the Proposed Action, noise generated by the six additional F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft would cause the<br />
80 L dn contour line to shift outwards from the runway by 50- to 100 feet. This shift would cause<br />
11 buildings previously exposed to slightly less than 80 L dn to be exposed to slightly greater<br />
than 80 L dn, increasing the total buildings on JBER exposed to greater than 80 L dn from 52 to 63.<br />
The 11 buildings newly within the 80 L dn contour include five buildings directly related to<br />
aircraft operations, two storage buildings, a chapel, and three administrative buildings.<br />
In accordance with existing policies and regulatory guidance, the JBER Bioenvironmental<br />
Engineering Office assesses expected potential for occupational hearing loss risk and conducts<br />
health risk assessment, as described in Section 3.2.2.1, where it is deemed necessary. The JBER<br />
Bioenvironmental Engineering Office considers several factors, including structural noise<br />
attenuation and the amount of time workers spend outside when deciding on the appropriate<br />
course of action. Hearing protection devices used to protect worker’s hearing would be the<br />
same (e.g., earmuffs, earplugs) as are used currently on JBER to protect workers in known high<br />
noise environments. The potential hearing loss risk among workers on JBER would be managed<br />
according to DoD guidelines. Workers on JBER are protected against possible noise impacts by<br />
adherence to DoD noise management guidelines. The JBER Bioenvironmental Engineering<br />
Office will review conditions of the additional 11 buildings exposed to greater than 80 L dn, and<br />
will implement all protective measures required by Air Force occupational safety regulations.<br />
4.2.1.2 Knik Arm<br />
Underwater noise levels in the Knik Arm associated with individual aircraft overflights would<br />
not increase under the Proposed Action, as existing F-<strong>22</strong> flight procedures would not change.<br />
However, the frequency of occurrence of these events would increase and this increase could<br />
Page 4-6
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
potentially have negative consequences for animals living in the Knik Arm. Of particular<br />
concern would be any impacts to the CIBW, which was recently listed as endangered under<br />
Section 7 of the ESA. An in-depth analysis was conducted to assess risk to the CIBW resulting<br />
from additional F-<strong>22</strong> flying operations. This analysis is described in Section 3.2, and in greater<br />
detail in Section 4.6, (Biological Resources) and Appendix E, Section 7 (Endangered Species Act)<br />
Compliance Wildlife Analysis for F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong> <strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>. The analysis found that<br />
implementation of the Proposed Action has the potential to increase the number of CIBW<br />
behavioral harassments by approximately 0.04 events annually. As discussed in Section 4.6, the<br />
NMFS has determined this increase may affect but is unlikely to adversely affect the CIBW.<br />
Overall, noise impacts in the base vicinity associated with implementation of the Proposed<br />
Action would not be expected to be perceived as significant.<br />
4.2.2 Training Airspace <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
The program MR_NMAP was used to calculate subsonic L dnmr in the training airspace units<br />
under baseline conditions and the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft<br />
would not fly in any airspace units that are not being used by the F-<strong>22</strong> currently. Furthermore,<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft would conduct training in the same altitude bands used currently, and sortieoperations<br />
conducted after 10:00 p.m. would continue to be rare. The only change expected to<br />
occur relative to baseline conditions would be an increase in the annual number of F-<strong>22</strong> sortie<br />
operations proportionate to the number of plus-up aircraft. <strong>Base</strong>line conditions reflect the<br />
relocation of the Kulis ANG to JBER and the recent departure of the 19 FS, which had operated<br />
F-15C aircraft.<br />
The change in L dnmr between baseline conditions and the Proposed Action would be 1 dB or less<br />
(Table 4.2-3). To put this degree of change in perspective, changes in instantaneous noise levels<br />
of less than 3 dB are typically not noticeable in non-laboratory conditions. Under the Proposed<br />
Action, noise levels beneath all training airspace units except Eielson and Viper MOAs would<br />
be below 55 dB L dnmr, the USEPA-identified threshold below which impacts to human health<br />
and welfare are not expected to occur (USEPA 1974). Noise levels beneath Eielson and Viper<br />
MOAs would increase by 1 dB to 59 and 57 dB L dnmr, respectively. This increase would not be<br />
discernible to residents or visitors to the area.<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft training in the MOAs and ATCAAs would fly supersonic at the same altitudes, the<br />
same number of times per sortie, and for the same length of time per sortie as current F-<strong>22</strong><br />
sortie-operations in the training airspace. As F-<strong>22</strong> operations would increase, the number of F-<br />
<strong>22</strong> supersonic events would also increase by approximately the same percentage. Data on the<br />
current and proposed flying operations of the F-<strong>22</strong> and other supersonic-capable aircraft using<br />
the training airspace were entered into the program BOOMAP to generate CDNL beneath each<br />
airspace unit. Increases in CDNL would be 1 dB or less and would be 54 dB L dnmr or less (Table<br />
4.2-3).<br />
The enhanced supersonic performance of the F-<strong>22</strong>, which contributes to its success in combat,<br />
means that F-<strong>22</strong> sortie-operations result in more sonic booms on average than sortie-operations<br />
conducted by fourth generation fighter aircraft currently operating in the training airspace (e.g.,<br />
F-16 Aggressor aircraft flying from Eielson AFB). Recordings made during multiple air-to-air<br />
Page 4-7
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
sortie-operations indicate that approximately 7.5 percent of F-15C aircraft sortie-operations<br />
involve supersonic flight, with approximately one supersonic flight segment per sortie<br />
operation on average (Plotkin et al.1989, Plotkin et al. 1992, Frampton et al 1993, Page et al. 1994).<br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> is estimated to fly supersonic during approximately 25 percent of sortie operations,<br />
with one supersonic flight segment per sortie operation on average. While every aircraft flying<br />
at supersonic speeds generates a sonic boom, not all sonic booms reach the ground. In the<br />
training airspace, an average of approximately 42 percent of supersonic events would result in a<br />
sonic boom being experienced on the ground. Under the Proposed Action, the average number<br />
of supersonic flight events and sonic booms experienced per month at any given location on the<br />
ground near the center of the airspace units would increase by one to three additional sonic<br />
booms per month (Table 4.2-3).<br />
Table 4.2-3. Noise Levels Under <strong>Base</strong>line Conditions and the Proposed Action<br />
<strong>Base</strong>line<br />
Projected<br />
MOA/<br />
ATCAA L dnmr CDNL<br />
Supersonic<br />
Events/<br />
Month<br />
Booms/<br />
Month<br />
(at ground)<br />
L dnmr CDNL<br />
Supersonic<br />
Events/<br />
Month<br />
Booms/<br />
Month<br />
(at ground)<br />
Delta
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
most of their lifetimes. If the increase were to be perceived by a resident or long-term visitor<br />
under the airspace, it could cause annoyance.<br />
The number of sonic booms near the center of Eielson MOA and Fox 1 and 2 MOAs would<br />
increase from 27 per month to 29 per month. Near the center of Fox 3 MOA, the number of<br />
booms per month would be calculated to increase from 25 to 28. Near the center of Yukon 1<br />
MOA, the average number of booms per month would increase from 15 to 16, and the number<br />
experienced per month near the center of Yukon 2 MOA would increase from 12 to 13. Near the<br />
center of Yukon 3 and 4 MOAs, the average monthly number of sonic booms experienced<br />
would increase from 11 to 12, and near the center of Yukon 5 MOA, the number would increase<br />
from 10 to 11. If perceived, the increase may be considered annoying.<br />
This change could be discernible to Alaska Natives or others residing under or using the land<br />
under the airspace for an extended period of time. For any damage claims associated with sonic<br />
booms, the Air Force has established procedures that begin with contacting the JBER Public<br />
Affairs Office.<br />
Overall, sub- and supersonic noise impacts in the military training airspace associated with<br />
implementation of the Proposed Action would not be expected to be perceived as significant.<br />
4.2.3 No Action<br />
Under the No Action Alternative, the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up would not occur. Noise levels around the<br />
airfield (on land and in the Knik Arm) and in the military training airspace would remain as<br />
discussed in Section 3.2.<br />
4.3 Safety<br />
This section addresses potential environmental consequences to ground, flight, and explosive<br />
safety that could occur at or in the vicinity of JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> or within the training airspace.<br />
4.3.1 <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
Six additional primary F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft would essentially function<br />
as the existing F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft that have been flying at JBER-<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong> for the past four years. JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> aircraft<br />
ground safety conditions would not change as a result of the F-<br />
<strong>22</strong> plus-up.<br />
Historically, when new military aircraft first enter the<br />
inventory, the flight safety mishap rate is higher. Safety data<br />
are limited for the F-<strong>22</strong> because it is a new aircraft with<br />
multiple complex systems. These systems are undergoing<br />
JBER has an active BASH program to<br />
reduce the potential for bird and wildlife<br />
strikes and enhance airfield safety.<br />
refinement as the F-<strong>22</strong> accumulates flight hours as an operational system. Class A mishaps are<br />
calculated on a basis of 100,000 flight hours. The F-<strong>22</strong> has nearly achieved 100,000 flight hours<br />
needed for a Class A impact calculation. During test activities and weapons system<br />
Page 4-9
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
development, the F-<strong>22</strong> had two Class A mishaps; there have been two Class A mishaps during<br />
the time the aircraft has been operational, one of which was in Alaska in 2010.<br />
As the F-<strong>22</strong> becomes operationally mature, the overall F-<strong>22</strong> mishap rate is expected to become<br />
comparable to that of the F-15, a similarly sized aircraft with a similar mission. The long-term<br />
F-15 Class A mishap rate is 2.46 per 100,000 flight hours. Historical trends show that mishaps of<br />
all types decrease the longer an aircraft is operational, as operations and maintenance personnel<br />
learn more about the aircraft’s capabilities and limitations. Some of this experience has already<br />
been gained for the F-<strong>22</strong>. Experience gained with F-<strong>22</strong> test programs, training, and operations<br />
would continue to provide substantial knowledge about the F-<strong>22</strong>. Safety factors such as<br />
computer self checks and computer-enhanced maintenance will permit the F-<strong>22</strong> to operate as<br />
safely as, if not more safely than, the F-15 (see Figure 3.3-2). As noted in Section 3.3.1.2, the<br />
estimated F-<strong>22</strong> Class A mishap rate of 6.35 per 100,000 flight hours over eight years of test and<br />
operations is nearly identical to the F-15 Class A mishap rate over the F-15’s first eight years of<br />
test and operations.<br />
Since the additional F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft would operate in the same airfield environment as existing F-<br />
<strong>22</strong>s, the overall potential for bird-aircraft or wildlife strikes would essentially be proportional to<br />
the aircraft assigned. The F-<strong>22</strong> rapidly attains altitudes above where the majority of the strikes<br />
occur. Aircraft safety and bird-aircraft strikes are not expected to measurably differ from<br />
baseline conditions.<br />
The amount of munitions associated with two F-<strong>22</strong> squadrons with the plus-up is lower than<br />
that associated with the three F-15 squadrons which were relocated from JBER in 2006 and 2010.<br />
JBER has the personnel and facilities to handle the level of munitions, chaff, and flares<br />
associated with the additional aircraft.<br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> low visibility requirements do not include such items as a fuel dump valve that could<br />
provide a radar signature. The F-<strong>22</strong> does not have the ability to dump fuel either in the vicinity<br />
of the airfield or in the training airspace.<br />
4.3.2 Training Airspace <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
Within the training airspace, aircraft safety and bird-aircraft strikes with the additional six<br />
primary F-<strong>22</strong>s would not measurably differ from baseline conditions. All safety actions that are<br />
in place for existing F-<strong>22</strong> training would continue to be in place for the additional aircraft.<br />
These actions include briefings during periods of heavy bird migration, scheduling to avoid, to<br />
the extent possible, high general aviation use of MOA airspace, and altitude restrictions on flare<br />
use. The F-<strong>22</strong> pilot’s improved situational awareness is expected to result in no safety impacts<br />
within the airspace. There would be no expected change in safety under the training airspace.<br />
With the distribution of population under the airspace and the frequency of chaff and flare use,<br />
there would be nearly zero risk of a person being struck by a large hailstone-sized plastic S&I<br />
piece. There would be even less of a risk that a dud flare could strike a person or animal, with<br />
serious injury. An extremely rare dud flare is treated as ordinance if found on a training range.<br />
Should such an object be found, the location should be marked and JBER Public Affairs Office<br />
should be notified (see Appendix B).<br />
Page 4-10
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
Additional F-<strong>22</strong>s training in the airspace would increase chaff or flare use by an estimated 16.7<br />
percent over baseline F-<strong>22</strong> use. Each chaff bundle used for F-<strong>22</strong> training disperses chaff fibers<br />
thinner than a human hair, six 2-inch by 3-inch paper strips, and four plastic or nylon pieces.<br />
The chaff plastic pieces are inert. The parchment paper is expected to disintegrate over an<br />
Alaskan season. Chaff fibers are primarily silicon and aluminum, which are the most common<br />
elements of soil. Each flare has residual materials consisting of two plastic 2-inch by 2-inch<br />
pieces, one 2-inch by 1-inch by 1/2 –inch plastic S&I device, and an aluminum-coated mylar<br />
duct tape-type material from 1-inch by 1-inch up to 4-inches by 15- inches. No cases of animals<br />
ingesting chaff or flare materials have been recorded (Air Force 1997). No safety consequences<br />
from continued chaff and flare use are anticipated (see Appendix F).<br />
4.3.3 No Action<br />
Under the No Action Alternative, additional F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft would not be assigned to JBER. F-<strong>22</strong><br />
aircraft would continue to fly from JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> and train in Alaskan airspace using chaff<br />
and flares.<br />
4.4 Air Quality<br />
Air emissions resulting from the proposed F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up were evaluated in accordance with<br />
federal, state, and local air pollution standards and regulations. Air quality impacts from a<br />
proposed activity or action would be significant if they:<br />
• Increase ambient air pollution concentrations above any NAAQS;<br />
• Contribute to an existing violation of any NAAQS;<br />
• Interfere with or delay timely attainment of NAAQS; or<br />
• Impair visibility within any federally mandated federal Class I area.<br />
4.4.1 <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
According to USEPA’s General Conformity Rule in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart W, any proposed<br />
federal action that has the potential to cause violations in a NAAQS nonattainment or<br />
maintenance area must undergo a conformity analysis. Since JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> is in attainment<br />
for all criteria pollutants, the anticipated emissions resulting from the Proposed Action have<br />
been analyzed, and it has been determined that the emissions would not cause or contribute to<br />
any new NAAQS violation (see Section 3.4.1). Furthermore, a conformity determination is not<br />
required, as the emissions for all pollutants are below the de minimis threshold established by<br />
the USEPA in 40 CFR 93.153.<br />
PSD regulations protect the air quality in regions that already meet the NAAQS. The nearest<br />
PSD Class I area is approximately 100 miles from the region potentially affected by the<br />
Proposed Action. Therefore, the Proposed Action would be unlikely to have a significant<br />
impact on any PSD Class I areas.<br />
The total Alaska military GHG emissions are 0.97 MMT CO 2e and represent five percent of the<br />
state total GHG emissions. The F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up aircraft generate an estimated regional total of<br />
Page 4-11
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
9,257 tons per year of CO 2e. This would not be an addition to the global total of GHG because<br />
the F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft would be contributing the same global amount if they were flying in New<br />
Mexico airspace. There would be no global GHG change and an estimated 0.95 percent increase<br />
in the military contribution to Alaska regional GHG emissions (see Section 3.4.1). The F-<strong>22</strong><br />
plus-up GHG regional contribution would not have a significant impact upon GHG emissions.<br />
4.4.2 Training Airspace Air Quality <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
Table 2.2-3 describes the baseline and projected usage of the military training airspace under the<br />
Proposed Action. The projected change in aircraft operations represents an approximate 16.7<br />
percent increase from the current use of F-<strong>22</strong>s. Emissions from aircraft operations would be<br />
transitory and dispersed over the extensive Alaskan SUA. No additional emissions would be<br />
detectible or measurable. Residents and visitors to Alaska Native villages and traditional<br />
subsistence areas underlying this airspace would not be able to detect any change in emissions<br />
associated with the Proposed Action.<br />
Because more than 99.5 percent of F-<strong>22</strong> flight operations occur at altitudes above the 3,000 foot<br />
mixing height of pollutants and training airspace covers a large area, training would not affect<br />
air quality. Ambient air pollution concentrations would not approach NAAQs nor impair<br />
visibility within any Class 1 area. The F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> would not result in any long-term impacts<br />
on the regional air quality.<br />
4.4.3 No Action<br />
Under the No Action Alternative, aircraft operations at the base or in the airspace would not<br />
change from current F-<strong>22</strong> training activity. Therefore, there would be no change to the current<br />
air quality.<br />
4.5 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management<br />
4.5.1 <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
Hazardous Materials. Existing procedures for the centralized management of the procurement,<br />
handling, storage, and issuing of hazardous materials through the HAZMART are adequate to<br />
handle the changes anticipated with the addition of six primary and one backup F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft<br />
but would be expanded to meet the increased use. The expected approximate 16.7 percent<br />
increase in use of hazardous materials would not cause adverse impacts.<br />
Hazardous Waste. JBER would continue to generate hazardous wastes during various<br />
operations and maintenance activities. Hazardous waste disposal procedures, including offbase<br />
disposal procedures, are adequate to handle changes in quantity and would remain the<br />
same. The base’s OPlan 19-3 would be updated to reflect any changes of hazardous waste<br />
generators and waste accumulation point monitors, and there would be no adverse impacts.<br />
The low observability coatings of the F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft based at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> require special<br />
treatment. Existing low observability composite repair facilities at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> provide<br />
engineering and environmental controls whereby any hazardous materials associated with the<br />
Page 4-12
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
composite materials used by the F-<strong>22</strong> can be isolated from the air and water environments for<br />
safe disposition.<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Restoration Program. Since there is no new construction or renovation of<br />
existing facilities associated with the proposed plus-up, no contaminated sites would be<br />
disturbed or affected in any way.<br />
4.5.2 Training Airspace <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
No hazardous materials are discharged by F-<strong>22</strong>s in the Alaskan airspace. Various materials and<br />
fluids are contained in the aircraft but are not released in the training airspace. Potential<br />
environmental consequences of use of chaff and flares are discussed in Section 4.3.2, Airspace<br />
Safety <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences.<br />
4.5.3 No Action<br />
Under the No Action Alternative, additional F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft would not be assigned to JBER.<br />
Aircraft maintenance activities generating hazardous waste would continue to support the<br />
existing F-<strong>22</strong> squadrons and the other aircraft stationed at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>. Chaff and flare use<br />
would continue under the training airspace.<br />
4.6 Biological Resources<br />
Four areas of consideration are used to identify the potential environmental consequences to<br />
wildlife and habitat. These areas are: (1) the importance (i.e., legal, commercial, recreational,<br />
ecological, or scientific) of the resource; (2) the proportion of the resource that would be affected<br />
relative to its occurrence in the region; (3) the sensitivity of the resource to proposed activities;<br />
and (4) the duration of any ecological ramifications. Impacts to resources would be considered<br />
significant if special-status species or habitats are adversely affected over relatively large areas<br />
or disturbances cause significant reductions in population size or distribution of a special-status<br />
species (40 CFR 1508.2).<br />
4.6.1 <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
The Proposed Action requires no new construction of facilities or ground disturbance.<br />
Therefore, no impacts would occur to vegetation and no wildlife habitat would be lost within<br />
the base environs ROI at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>.<br />
Noise contours associated with the proposed operation of the F-<strong>22</strong>s at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> are<br />
projected to be similar to current conditions (see Section 4.2 Noise). On-base species are<br />
regularly exposed to noise and human activity including F-<strong>22</strong> operations. The additional F-<strong>22</strong>s<br />
associated with the proposed plus-up would contribute an approximately 16.7 percent increase<br />
in F-<strong>22</strong> sorties from JBER. F-<strong>22</strong> approaches, departures, and landing patterns for these sorties<br />
are established and defined based on patterns currently in use. These flight patterns overfly<br />
portions of the Knik Arm located to the west and north of JBER runways. The noise contours<br />
extend into the Knik Arm of Cook Inlet, where CIBW can occur. As such, CIBW could be<br />
exposed to noise associated with the F-<strong>22</strong> overflights while at the surface or while submerged.<br />
Page 4-13
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
Appendix E, Section 7 (Endangered Species Act) Compliance Wildlife Analysis for F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong> <strong>Up</strong><br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>, discusses the CIBW and other wildlife species which could occur on<br />
or near JBER. .<br />
Impacts on marine mammals are regulated under the MMPA. The MMPA prohibits the<br />
unauthorized take or harassment of marine mammals. In the context of military aircraft noise<br />
examined here, the MMPA defines harassment as “any act that injures or has the significant<br />
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A<br />
harassment]”, or “any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine<br />
mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but<br />
not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where<br />
such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered” (16 USC 1362(18). In addition,<br />
the ESA also prohibits the unpermitted take of listed species, thereby providing additional legal<br />
protection to the CIBW. The ESA’s definition of take includes actions that would harass, harm,<br />
or kill a listed species.<br />
Potential effects to CIBW include behavioral response to the overflight of F-<strong>22</strong>s. Animals may<br />
react to the sound of the jet aircraft or the visual stimulus of the aircraft being overhead by<br />
avoiding the area or altering their natural behavior patterns, which could constitute behavioral<br />
harassment. Exposure to the F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft noise would be brief (seconds) as an aircraft passes<br />
overhead. The F-<strong>22</strong>’s closest approach to the water surface ranges from 653 to 4,295 feet MSL,<br />
depending on the flight procedure being conducted. Because of the F-<strong>22</strong>’s altitude and small<br />
size, as well as the rapidity of its overflight, adverse visual behavioral reactions by beluga<br />
whales in the Knik Arm cannot be predicted.<br />
A noise impact assessment for potential behavior effects of CIBW associated with the proposed<br />
increase in F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft operations at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> is presented in Appendix E. This<br />
Appendix demonstrates that approximately 0.04 CIBW individuals per year (four individuals in<br />
100 years) would be behaviorally harassed annually from proposed additional F-<strong>22</strong> flying<br />
operations. The National Marine Fisheries Service determined that this level of behavior response<br />
would mean that the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up may affect but is unlikely to adversely affect the CIBW (NMFS<br />
2011; see Appendix C). Additionally, the USFWS has indicated that there are no federally listed<br />
or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat for which the USFWS is<br />
responsible within the action area of the project (USFWS 2011; see Appendix C). No further<br />
action is required regarding the ESA. The plus-up of F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft would not be expected to have<br />
a significant effect upon the CIBW or any federally listed or proposed species and/or designated<br />
or proposed critical habitat.<br />
4.6.2 Training Airspace <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
There would be no construction or ground-disturbing activities and no consequences associated<br />
with the training airspace for the Proposed Action. Therefore, no impacts would occur to<br />
vegetation and no wildlife habitat would be impacted under the training airspace.<br />
No changes to the existing training airspace would occur under the Proposed Action. The<br />
additional F-<strong>22</strong>s would use the training airspace associated with JBER in a manner similar to the<br />
F-<strong>22</strong>s currently based there. By completion of the plus-up, the JBER F-<strong>22</strong> operational wing<br />
Page 4-14
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
would fly approximately 5,210 sorties per year from JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>, an increase of<br />
approximately 16.7 percent. The additional F-<strong>22</strong>s would employ supersonic flight as do the<br />
existing F-<strong>22</strong>s. The augmented F-<strong>22</strong> squadrons would continue to fly approximately 25 percent<br />
of the time spent in approved MOAs and ATCAAs at supersonic speed. F-<strong>22</strong> training would<br />
result in an increased number of sonic booms per month under specific MOAs. Section 4.2<br />
Noise provides details on aircraft noise associated with the proposed plus-up.<br />
Moose, caribou, and Dall’s sheep are important game species in Alaska, and critical calving<br />
grounds are located under the training airspace. Current flight restrictions over<br />
calving/lambing grounds (Air Force 1995) restrict flights to above 5,000 feet AGL during the<br />
lambing season. The F-<strong>22</strong> does not fly below 500 feet and is above 5,000 feet 98 percent of the<br />
training time. Given the current flight restrictions over calving/lambing grounds (Air Force<br />
1995) and the relatively unchanged noise levels associated with the proposed F-<strong>22</strong> training,<br />
noise associated with the Proposed Action at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> would have similar impacts on<br />
wildlife as exist under baseline conditions. Some animals may startle in response to a sonic<br />
boom. However, most animals under the training airspace have been previously exposed to<br />
sonic booms from F-<strong>22</strong> and other training aircraft and are likely habituated to the sound.<br />
Use of training chaff and flares is expected to continue with the additional F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft training<br />
in the airspace. Chaff and flare use would continue to be used in approved training airspace<br />
and is projected to be used in the same manner as under current conditions. The augmented F-<br />
<strong>22</strong> squadrons would use an additional 2,855 chaff bundles and 3,791 flares annually. There<br />
would be no change in the minimum altitude or seasonal restrictions on flare release. The<br />
potential environmental consequences and characteristics of chaff and flares are consequences<br />
of: (1) ingestion of chaff fibers or chaff or flare plastic, nylon, or paper materials; (2) inhalation<br />
of chaff fibers; (3) physical external effects from chaff fibers, such as skin irritation, (4) effects on<br />
water quality and forage quality; (5) increased fire potential; and (6) potential for being struck<br />
by medium hailstone-sized flare debris.<br />
There is no recorded incident of chaff or flare plastic, duct tape-type covering, or paper residual<br />
materials being ingested. A study of packrat (notable collectors) nests in arid areas where chaff<br />
and flares had been deployed for decades uncovered no residual chaff or flare materials (Air<br />
Force 1997). Chaff fibers rapidly break down to silica and aluminum particles chemically<br />
indistinguishable from normal dust particles. No effects from inhalation, ingestion, or skin<br />
irritation would occur. Flare altitude and seasonal restrictions in Alaska result in little if any<br />
potential for any flare-caused fire. There is very little potential of an animal being struck by a<br />
medium hailstone-sized plastic S&I flare piece from F-<strong>22</strong> training which produces an average<br />
estimate of one piece per 1,500 acres per year (See also Appendices A, B, and F).<br />
Chaff and flares are regularly used in approved Alaskan SUA. Therefore, no impacts to<br />
biological resources would be expected with the continued use of training chaff and defensive<br />
flares in the Alaska training airspace.<br />
4.6.3 No Action Alternative<br />
Under the No Action Alternative, no additional F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft would be assigned to JBER and no<br />
additional F-<strong>22</strong> flight activities would occur near the base or in training airspace. Airspace<br />
Page 4-15
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
training would remain the same as under current conditions. The existing F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft would<br />
continue to train in the airspace at subsonic and supersonic speeds and use chaff and defensive<br />
flares. Biological resources would not change from existing conditions.<br />
4.7 Cultural Resources<br />
A number of federal regulations and guidelines have been established for the management of<br />
cultural resources. Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, requires federal agencies to take into<br />
account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Historic properties are cultural<br />
resources that are listed in, or eligible for listing in, the NRHP. Eligibility evaluation is the<br />
process by which resources are assessed relative to NRHP significance criteria for scientific or<br />
historic research, for the general public, and for traditional cultural groups. Under federal law,<br />
impacts to cultural resources may be considered adverse if the resources have been determined<br />
eligible for listing in the NRHP or have been identified as important to Alaska Natives as<br />
outlined in the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and EO 13007, Indian Sacred Sites. DoD<br />
Alaska Native Policy (1999) provides guidance for working with federally-recognized Alaska<br />
Native governments. DoD policy requires that installations provide timely notice to, and<br />
consult with, tribal governments prior to taking any actions that may have the potential to<br />
significantly affect protected Alaska Native resources, rights, or lands.<br />
Analysis of potential impacts to cultural resources considers direct impacts that may occur by<br />
physically altering, damaging, or destroying all or part of a resource; altering characteristics of<br />
the surrounding environment that contribute to the resource’s significance; introducing visual<br />
or audible elements that are out of character with the property or alter its setting; or neglecting<br />
the resource to the extent that it deteriorates or is destroyed. Direct impacts can be assessed by<br />
identifying the types and locations of proposed activity and determining the exact location of<br />
cultural resources that could be affected. Indirect impacts occur later in time or farther from the<br />
Proposed Action. Indirect impacts to cultural resources generally result from the effects of<br />
project-induced population increases, such as the need to develop new housing areas, utility<br />
services, and other support functions to accommodate population growth.<br />
4.7.1 <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
No new construction would be necessary to accommodate the proposed additional six primary<br />
and one backup F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft. Thus, no direct impacts to cultural resources are anticipated.<br />
Impacts to historic buildings are not expected to result from the small increase in noise<br />
associated with the plus-up since their NRHP eligibility is based, in part, on their association<br />
with an active Air Force installation at which jet aircraft routinely operate, resulting in an<br />
elevated noise environment. The Proposed Action involves adding 103 Air Force personnel to<br />
support the additional six F-<strong>22</strong> primary aircraft. This represents less than one percent of JBER<br />
population and is not expected to result in any indirect impacts to cultural resources.<br />
4.7.2 Training Airspace <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
Table 2.2-3 in Chapter 2.0 describes the existing and projected MOA and ATCAA usage<br />
associated with baseline F-<strong>22</strong> and the proposed increase of six primary aircraft. F-<strong>22</strong> training in<br />
the MOAs would be similar to the existing use by F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft. A summary of federal<br />
Page 4-16
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
regulations and guidelines established for the management of cultural resources is presented in<br />
Section 2.6.<br />
No impacts to historic properties under the airspace are expected as a result of the proposed<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up. The additional six F-<strong>22</strong> primary aircraft would conduct similar missions and<br />
training programs to those conducted by the existing 36 F-<strong>22</strong>s currently located at JBER-<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong>. The increase in plastic, paper, or duct-tape type wrapping material pieces<br />
associated with F-<strong>22</strong> flare or chaff use is not projected to impact historic properties. All F-<strong>22</strong><br />
activities would take place in the same airspace currently used by the base. The modest<br />
increase in use of air-to-ground munitions on approved Army ranges is not expected to impact<br />
historic properties.<br />
4.7.2.1 Traditional Cultural Properties and Alaska Native Concerns<br />
A number of Alaska Native villages and traditional subsistence areas underlie Alaskan SUA<br />
(see Figure 3.7-2). The figure also includes the boundaries of the private Native Alaska regional<br />
corporations. This EA analysis considers the Alaska Native villages and their local economies<br />
based primarily on subsistence hunting and resource extraction for marketable products.<br />
Although no comments were received on the proposed plus-up, historically Alaska Natives<br />
have expressed concern that existing and projected noise levels and sonic booms could affect<br />
game in traditional hunting areas and potentially impact the local economy dependent on these<br />
resources (Air Force 2006). No traditional cultural properties have been specifically identified<br />
underneath the airspace. However, this does not mean that none are present.<br />
The annual average noise levels under the MOAs are not expected to noticeably change as a<br />
result of increased F-<strong>22</strong> training. As described in Section 4.2.2, the change in L dnmr between<br />
baseline conditions and the Proposed Action would be 1 dB or less (Table 4.2-3). Changes in<br />
instantaneous noise levels of less than 3 dB are typically not noticeable in non-laboratory<br />
conditions. Under the Proposed Action, noise levels beneath all training airspace units except<br />
Eielson and Viper MOAs would be below 55 dB L dnmr, the USEPA-identified threshold below<br />
which impacts to human health and welfare are not expected to occur (USEPA 1974). Noise<br />
levels beneath Eielson and Viper MOAs would increase by 1 dB to 59 and 57 dB L dnmr,<br />
respectively.<br />
The number of supersonic events is expected to increase as a result of the increased number of<br />
F-<strong>22</strong>s training at supersonic speeds. As noted in Section 4.2.2, these additional one to three<br />
booms per month could annoy residents or users of resources under the MOAs. This change<br />
could be discernible to Alaska Natives or others residing under or using the land under the<br />
airspace for an extended period of time. As noted in Section 4.6.2, game and other subsistence<br />
species have previously experienced sonic booms and are likely habituated to them. The<br />
increased number of sonic booms as a result of additional F-<strong>22</strong> training is not expected to<br />
significantly affect cultural resources or Alaska Native activities. In the unlikely event of any<br />
damage claims, the Air Force has established procedures that begin with contacting the JBER<br />
Public Affairs Office. Air Force airspace managers currently identify and mitigate, where<br />
possible, use of specific airspaces during hunting seasons, especially during Major Flying<br />
Exercises, to avoid significant impacts to Alaska Native resources. This practice would continue<br />
for the proposed F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up. No significant impacts to traditional cultural properties or<br />
Alaska Native activities are anticipated to result from the proposed F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up.<br />
Page 4-17
4.7.3 No Action<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
Under the No Action Alternative, existing military flight training would continue, and cultural<br />
resources would continue to be managed in compliance with federal law and Air Force<br />
regulations.<br />
4.8 Land Use, Transportation, and Recreation<br />
Land uses are established on JBER and on the periphery of JBER. The Municipality of<br />
Anchorage is south and west of the base, waters of the Knik Arm of the Cook Inlet are located<br />
west and north of the base and private and state lands are to the east and south east. In most<br />
areas, off-base land use is not affected by activities at JBER. As described in Chapter 2.0, the key<br />
elements of the proposal are flight activities and personnel changes. Established and<br />
recognized noise models have been applied to estimate the off-base and on-base noise<br />
conditions. These models are described in Appendix D. For the land use and transportation<br />
resources, consequences are associated with increases in noise due to an increase in sorties.<br />
Potential effects to land use plans, land use patterns and circulation due to personnel increases<br />
are considered.<br />
4.8.1 <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
Under the Proposed Action, the total geographic area exposed to 65 dB L dn or more is presented<br />
on Figure 4.2-2 and quantified in Table 4.2-1. The off-base area consists of an additional 6.6<br />
acres over the Port of Anchorage, 410.7 acres over water of the Knik Arm, and 0.2 acre of land<br />
west of the Knik Arm. Some areas on base would also experience higher noise levels. These<br />
changes in the noise environment would not result in changes to land management, land use, or<br />
land ownership, nor would there be any changes to the safety zones.<br />
The DoD and FAA adopted the concept of land use compatibility as an accepted measure of<br />
aircraft noise effect. USEPA has reaffirmed these concepts (see Appendix D). The FAA has<br />
guidelines that establish the best means for determining noise impact in airport communities.<br />
Industrial land uses, such as ports, are compatible within the 65 dB L dn noise contours.<br />
The JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> noise abatement program precludes flight operations between 10 p.m. and<br />
7 a.m., except for national emergency or infrequent large scale exercises. This program reduces<br />
the potential for noise impacts upon land uses and helps define the 65 dB L dn contours.<br />
Although the additional F-<strong>22</strong> operations would produce an increase in noise exposure within<br />
the base boundaries and over compatible land uses, that increase should not result in changes to<br />
land use or land ownership.<br />
A less than one percent increase in on-base employment is likely to slightly increase vehicle<br />
trips in the long term. The negligible increase in traffic is not likely to substantially affect<br />
commute times.<br />
Recreational activities on JBER are extensive and seasonally variable. On-base recreation<br />
reflects the off-base recreation available to residents of Anchorage and neighboring<br />
Page 4-18
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
communities. The plus-up of six F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft with the corresponding increase in base<br />
employment would not impact base or off-base recreational opportunities.<br />
4.8.2 Training Airspace <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> training in Alaska airspace with the proposed increase of six primary aircraft would be<br />
similar to the existing use by F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft. An approximate 16.7 percent increase in sortieoperations<br />
is anticipated under the Proposed Action. There would be no reason to believe that<br />
such an increase of F-<strong>22</strong> training would affect land use or recreation beneath the training<br />
airspace. The potential to affect land use or recreation under the airspace is slight.<br />
Under the Proposed Action, subsonic noise would increase slightly over baseline conditions<br />
(refer to Section 4.2.2). Most annual average noise levels are expected to remain below 45 dB<br />
L dn. Where noise levels are higher than 45 dB L dn, they are expected to increase by 1 dB or less<br />
(Table 4.2-3) under the Proposed Action over existing conditions. The USEPA has identified an<br />
annual average noise level of 55 dB L dn as a level to begin assessing the potential for noise<br />
impacts. Under the Proposed Action, noise levels beneath all training airspace units except<br />
Eielson and Viper MOAs would be below 55 dB L dn. Noise levels beneath Eielson and Viper<br />
MOAs would increase by 1 dB to 59 dB L dn and 57 dB L dn, respectively. Noise level changes of 1<br />
dB are effectively indiscernible. With noise levels below 55 dB L dn, or minimally changed<br />
throughout, there would be no anticipated effect on land use patterns, ownership, or<br />
management practices under military training airspace.<br />
Under the center of Stony A/B MOAs, Section 4.2.2 shows that the number of sonic booms<br />
would increase from 18.1 sonic booms per month (one boom per 1.7 days) to 21.5 sonic booms<br />
per month (one boom per 1.4 days). Under the Naknek MOAs, the number of sonic booms<br />
would increase from an average of 1.5 per month (one boom per 20 days) to an average of 1.7<br />
per month (one boom per 17 days) (see Table 4.2-2). Residents or long-term visitors could<br />
experience more sonic booms as a result of the increase in supersonic activities. The increase in<br />
supersonic activity could be perceived in isolated areas as an unwanted intrusion, and persons<br />
could be annoyed. The increased number of sonic booms would not be expected to impact<br />
management goals for special use areas under the MOAs.<br />
Detected sonic booms have the potential to cause increased disturbance in recreational, hunting,<br />
or fishing areas. Under most airspaces, it is unlikely that any occasional visitor or hunter would<br />
discern the difference between the current number of sonic booms and the increased number<br />
associated with an F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up. Individuals who spend extensive time subsistence hunting<br />
and fishing under some MOAs could discern an increase. The increased frequency of sonic<br />
booms would not be expected to affect land use or land use patterns, ownership, or<br />
management, but the increase could result in personal annoyance.<br />
A number of Alaska Native villages and traditional subsistence areas underlie Alaskan SUA.<br />
Alaska Natives have expressed concern that existing and projected noise levels and sonic booms<br />
could affect recreational uses, as well as traditional hunting activity. In addition to being<br />
important social and cultural activities, the local economy is often dependent on subsistence<br />
activities. As noted above, average noise level increases under the MOAs are not expected to be<br />
Page 4-19
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
discernable, and a detectible increase in sonic booms could result in annoyance, but would not<br />
be expected to affect land used for subsistence activities.<br />
4.8.3 No Action<br />
Under the No Action Alternative the Air Force would continue to fly F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft at JBER-<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong> and train in existing Alaska SUA. As with the proposed action, no consequences<br />
associated with aircraft overflights and aircraft noise to special land use or recreational areas<br />
would be anticipated.<br />
4.9 Socioeconomics<br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up would require personnel to operate and maintain the additional six primary<br />
aircraft and provide necessary support services.<br />
4.9.1 <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
Existing population and employment characteristics in Anchorage were analyzed to assess the<br />
potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed beddown, as presented in Section 3.9.2. The<br />
Proposed Action involves adding 103 Air Force personnel to support the additional six F-<strong>22</strong><br />
primary aircraft. This represents less than one percent of JBER employment. The addition of<br />
any personnel is a positive element to the regional economy although the relative change in<br />
JBER employment would not discernibly affect the regional economy.<br />
Socioeconomic impacts would occur if changes associated with the plus-up substantially<br />
affected demand for housing or community services, such as schools, or substantially affected<br />
economic stability in the region. The potential population, employment, income, and output<br />
associated with an addition of less than one percent of base personnel and no new construction<br />
would have no measurable effect upon services, schools, or the regional economy.<br />
The Air Force makes on-base housing available for military personnel. No additional on-base<br />
housing would be available for the increase of 103 personnel and their dependents. The<br />
Anchorage housing market with approximately 6,700 vacant units and a 6.0 percent vacancy<br />
rate would be expected to easily absorb the additional 103 personnel.<br />
4.9.2 Training Airspace <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
A number of Alaska Native villages and traditional subsistence areas underlie Alaskan SUA.<br />
The local economy in many of these villages is stimulated by subsistence activities. The<br />
proposed increase in training operations from six additional F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft would increase the<br />
number of F-<strong>22</strong> overflights, although the total fighter activity would have somewhat fewer<br />
overflights as occurred prior to the relocation of the F-15C aircraft in 2010. The additional F-<strong>22</strong><br />
training would not be expected to discernibly affect annual average noise levels under the<br />
training airspace.<br />
The single exception is in the area of sonic booms. Training F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft fly at supersonic speed<br />
an estimated 25 to 30 percent of its training mission. Although the F-<strong>22</strong> flies at high altitude and<br />
Page 4-20
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
thus the energy from sonic booms is likely to dissipate, a detectible increase in sonic booms<br />
would be anticipated as presented in Table 3.2-4. This increase could be noticeable to<br />
individuals spending extended time under the airspace. The nature of sonic booms is such that<br />
they can be heard, often as a rolling thunder sound, in areas on the edge of the airspace<br />
boundaries. Sonic booms, or the increase in sonic booms, are not expected to significantly affect<br />
subsistence, recreational hunting or fishing, on the local economy. However, sonic booms could<br />
be viewed as unwelcome intrusions to activities in remote areas. For any damage claims<br />
associated with sonic booms, the Air Force has established procedures that begin with<br />
contacting the JBER Public Affairs Office.<br />
The economy of Alaska Native villages and traditional subsistence areas that underlie Alaskan<br />
SUA is often based on subsistence activities. Some Alaska Natives have historically expressed<br />
concerns that sonic booms could affect game in traditional hunting areas or military flights<br />
could affect the use of private aircraft to access hunting or fishing locations.<br />
The change in sonic booms may be discernible to Alaska Natives or others residing under or<br />
using the land under the airspace for an extended period of time. Increases in sonic booms<br />
would not be expected to substantially affect subsistence or guided hunting or fishing. JBER<br />
airspace management has an established scheduling of airspace use particularly during Major<br />
Flying Exercises to avoid, to the extent possible, training in airspace over areas at the beginning<br />
of hunting season. This reduces potential conflicts with subsistence and recreational hunting<br />
activities.<br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> improves pilot awareness of other aircraft, and the F-<strong>22</strong> flight profiles are primarily at<br />
high altitudes. The F-<strong>22</strong> training aircraft would not be expected to impact general air aviation<br />
throughout the airspace. The local economy dependent on traditional resources and on private<br />
aircraft would not be expected to be impacted by the proposed six additional primary F-<strong>22</strong><br />
aircraft.<br />
4.9.3 No Action<br />
Under the No Action Alternative, no beddown of the additional F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft would occur at<br />
JBER at this time. The personnel changes would not take place, and no socioeconomic effects<br />
associated with the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up would occur. No changes in flight activity, facilities, or<br />
personnel are anticipated. Annual average noise levels and supersonic training events would<br />
continue as at present.<br />
4.10 <strong>Environmental</strong> Justice<br />
The objectives of EO 12898 include identification of disproportionately high and adverse health<br />
and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that could be caused by a<br />
federal action.<br />
4.10.1 <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
Disadvantaged groups within the general vicinity of JBER, specifically the community of<br />
Mountain View, include minority, low-income and youth populations, which represent a<br />
Page 4-21
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
disproportionate segment of the population. The F-<strong>22</strong> and C-17 flight operations explained in<br />
Section 2.1.1 have specific main and cross-wind runway flight operations which insure that 65<br />
dB L dn noise contours do not extend into the community of Mountain View.<br />
The flight activity and personnel changes associated with the Proposed Action options are not<br />
expected to create significant adverse environmental or health effects on base. No impact<br />
would be anticipated to disadvantaged populations. There would be no health or safety effects<br />
upon children.<br />
4.10.2 Training Airspace <strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences<br />
Alaska Natives are primary users of the natural resources under the training airspace. For<br />
many residents, subsistence fishing and hunting contribute substantially to people’s diets and<br />
provide much-needed supplementary income. Individuals from these groups have expressed<br />
concerns related to aircraft noise impacts on their villages and on subsistence hunting under the<br />
airspace. Under the Proposed Action, subsonic noise levels within the MOAs would be<br />
approximately the same or slightly more than currently occurs under the airspace. Additional<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> training would increase the number of sonic booms under training MOAs. Alaska Natives<br />
regularly hunting or fishing under these airspaces could detect an increase in sonic booms that<br />
could annoy some individuals who discerned the change.<br />
The random nature and intensity of sonic booms throughout the area under an airspace make it<br />
impossible to avoid a specific community. Sonic boom intensity can vary from the rolling<br />
sound of distant thunder to a sharp double crack. Although the number of sonic events would<br />
be expected to increase under specific MOAs, the booms would not be expected to<br />
disproportionately affect communities. The increase of one to three sonic booms per month<br />
would not be expected to have a health or safety effect upon children.<br />
The JBER airspace managers seek to take into consideration the hunting season while<br />
scheduling airspace use for training. Continued attention to airspace scheduling, hunting<br />
season, and Alaska Native concerns in airspace management, especially during a Major Flying<br />
Exercise, reduces the potential for environmental consequences from aircraft training<br />
operations.<br />
The large rural Alaska Native population distributed throughout the state of Alaska, as well as<br />
under the existing airspace, results in no disproportionate impacts expected to occur to any area<br />
of minority populations.<br />
4.10.3 No Action<br />
Under the No Action alternative, no changes in flight activity, noise contours, facilities, or<br />
personnel are anticipated. No impacts to disadvantaged or youth populations would occur.<br />
Supersonic training by F-<strong>22</strong> and other aircraft would continue within the airspaces.<br />
Page 4-<strong>22</strong>
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
5.0 Cumulative Impacts<br />
5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS<br />
5.1 Cumulative Effects Analysis<br />
The CEQ regulations stipulate that the cumulative effects analysis in an EA considers the<br />
potential environmental consequences resulting from “the incremental impact of the action when<br />
added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency<br />
(federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Chapter 3.0<br />
discusses the baseline conditions for environmental resources at JBER and in the F-<strong>22</strong> training<br />
airspace. Chapter 4.0 discusses potential consequences at the base and under the training airspace<br />
associated with the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up. Chapter 5.0 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable<br />
projects that could cumulatively affect environmental resources in conjunction with the F-<strong>22</strong> plusup<br />
at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> and use of Alaskan military training airspace.<br />
Assessing cumulative effects begins with defining the scope of other project actions and their<br />
potential interrelationship with the Proposed Action (CEQ 1997). The scope must consider<br />
other projects that coincide with the location and timetable of the Proposed Action and other<br />
actions. Cumulative effects analyses evaluate the interactions of multiple actions.<br />
The CEQ (1997) identified and defined eight ways in which effects can accumulate: time<br />
crowding; time lag; space crowding; cross boundary; fragmentation; compounding effects;<br />
indirect effects; and triggers and thresholds. Furthermore, cumulative effects can arise from<br />
single or multiple actions, and through additive or interactive processes (CEQ 1997).<br />
Actions not part of the proposal, but that could be considered as actions connected in time or<br />
space (40 CFR 1508.25) (CEQ 1997) may include projects that affect areas on or near JBER and<br />
projects underlying the affected training airspace. This EA analysis addresses three questions to<br />
identify cumulative effects:<br />
1. Does a relationship exist such that elements of the project alternatives might interact<br />
with elements of past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions?<br />
2. If one or more of the elements of the alternatives and another action could be expected<br />
to interact, would the alternative affect or be affected by impacts of the other action?<br />
3. If such a relationship exists, does an assessment reveal any potentially significant<br />
impacts not identified when the alternative is considered alone?<br />
An effort has been made to identify major actions that have occurred, are being implemented, or<br />
are in the planning phase at this time. To the extent that details regarding such actions exist and<br />
the actions have a potential to interact with the proposal, these actions are included in this<br />
cumulative analysis. This approach enables decision-makers to have the most current information<br />
available so that they can evaluate the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action.<br />
5.1.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions<br />
This EA provides decision-makers with the cumulative effects of the Proposed Action as well as<br />
the incremental contribution of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Recent past<br />
Page 5-1
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
5.0 Cumulative Impacts<br />
and ongoing military action in the region were considered as part of the baseline or existing<br />
condition in Chapter 3.<br />
5.1.1.1 <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB, Fort Richardson, Other Military Actions, and the<br />
Establishment of JBER<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB and Fort Richardson, separately and jointly, were active military installations<br />
that experienced continuous and rapid evolution of mission and training requirements. This<br />
process of change is consistent with the U.S. defense policy that the United States Military<br />
Forces must be ready to respond to threats to American interest throughout the world. The two<br />
bases were combined into JBER in 2010 and will continue to experience changes in mission and<br />
training requirements.<br />
The combined base, like other major military installations, regularly requires new construction,<br />
facility improvements, and infrastructure upgrades. In addition, Table 5.1-1 lists past, present,<br />
and potential future major military projects occurring in the region. Each project was reviewed<br />
to consider the implication of each action and its synergy with the proposed F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up. Of<br />
particular interest were potential overlap in affected area and project timing. The projects listed<br />
on Table 5.1-1 have the potential to interact in time or location with the proposed F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up.<br />
The relocation of three F-15 aircraft squadrons, the beddown of C-17 aircraft, BRAC decisions<br />
regarding C-130 aircraft, proposed transportation projects, and other regional projects were<br />
cumulatively evaluated. As JBER combines administrative, air, and ground activities over the<br />
next few years, there could be a desire to assess such combined efforts in a future<br />
environmental analysis. Such a future analysis, should it occur, would address all JBER<br />
activities. No significant environmental consequences would cumulatively result from<br />
preparation of an undefined separate environmental analysis not directly related or connected<br />
with the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up EA.<br />
5.1.1.2 Non-Federal Actions<br />
Non-federal actions include major public and private projects within the ROI. The Municipality<br />
of Anchorage is a large urban area with multiple construction projects occurring, especially in<br />
the summer months. Specific major actions within the vicinity of JBER are summarized in Table<br />
5.1-2. The projects listed on Table 5.1-2 have the potential to interact in time or location with the<br />
proposed F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up.<br />
5.1.2 Cumulative Effects Analysis<br />
5.1.2.1 Airspace Management and Air Traffic Control<br />
This EA addresses the JBER cumulative airspace effects by incorporating all existing and plus-up<br />
F-<strong>22</strong>s, C-17s, C-130s, helicopters, and other aircraft at JBER along with the outgoing F-15s. The net<br />
effect is an estimated overall reduction in JBER flight operations by jet fighters over the past five<br />
years. The change in flight operations does not substantially change JBER tower responsibility.<br />
These actions do not substantially affect the AATA management of Anchorage airspace.<br />
Page 5-2
Table 5.1-1. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Military Projects (Page 1 of 2)<br />
Action Document Description<br />
C-17 Beddown <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB EA 2004<br />
(Air Force 2004)<br />
Transformation of<br />
US Army Alaska<br />
U.S. Army EIS 2004<br />
(U.S. Army 2004)<br />
C-17 Beddown <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB EA 2004<br />
(Air Force 2004c)<br />
The C-17 aircraft brought the Air Force Alaska airlift capabilities to state-of-the-art standards and<br />
increased its capacity. Routine aircraft operations (both mission- and training-related), and the<br />
construction and use of support facilities were part of the C-17 beddown. <strong>Joint</strong> training with Army<br />
forces as well as low-level training are part of C-17 operations.<br />
This action included accommodation for 4,000 more soldiers relocating from installations worldwide,<br />
as well as activation of a new airborne brigade. The action transformed the 172 nd Infantry Brigade<br />
into a Stryker Brigade Combat Team. This included changes to force structure and modification of<br />
ranges, facilities, and infrastructure designed to meet the objectives of Army transformation in<br />
Alaska. Locations for changes in force structure and stationing include Fort Wainwright and Fort<br />
Richardson. Activity changes occurred within the Fort Wainwright cantonment area, Tanana Flats<br />
Training Area, Yukon Training Area, and Donnelly Training Area.<br />
C-17 operations in Alaskan SUA include upgrading Runway 06/24 at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>, use of the<br />
runway as a C-17 assault landing zone, and frequent use of five existing drop zones for C-17 training.<br />
5.0 Cumulative Impacts<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Modification of<br />
MTR<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB EA 2007<br />
(Air Force 2007c)<br />
The Air Force modified existing MTRs within the State of Alaska to better connect the MTRs with<br />
existing special use airspace. These changed MTRs are used by aircraft with low level navigation<br />
missions. The F-<strong>22</strong> does not use MTRs for training.<br />
Two F-<strong>22</strong> squadrons with a total of 36 primary aircraft replaced two (later three) F-15C and F-15E<br />
squadrons (total of 60 aircraft) at <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB. Facilities were constructed and/or remodeled for<br />
the beddown of the two F-<strong>22</strong> squadrons. Beddown included operations from <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB and<br />
training in existing Alaska airspace where the F-15s had trained.<br />
This project established an F-16 Aggressor Squadron at Eielson AFB. The Aggressors support<br />
training of F-<strong>22</strong> pilots and other military personnel as well as supporting Large Force Exercises and<br />
Major Flying Exercises in existing Alaska airspace. The F-16s are fourth generation fighter aircraft.<br />
The Delta MOA connects the Fox and Yukon MOA complexes during Major Flying Exercises not to<br />
exceed 60 days per year with advance scheduled hours of use and avoidance of specified recreation<br />
and other times. Use of the Delta MOA substantially enhances realism for training.<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> Beddown<br />
Replacing F-15s<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB EA 2006<br />
(Air Force 2006)<br />
Eielson Aggressor<br />
Squadron<br />
Eielson AFB EA 2007<br />
(Eielson 2007)<br />
Establishing Delta<br />
MOA<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB EA 2010<br />
(Air Force 2010b)<br />
Page 5-3<br />
Kulis ANG<br />
Relocation<br />
Alaska National Guard<br />
EA 2007 (Air Force<br />
2007b)<br />
This project relocated the 176 th Air National Guard Wing with up to 12 C-130H, 3 HC-130N, and 5<br />
HH-60 aircraft and expeditionary combat support from Kulis AGS to <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB. Relocating Air<br />
National Guard C-130s replaced the C-130 aircraft moved from <strong>Elmendorf</strong> during the C-17 beddown.
Page 5-4<br />
Table 5.1-1. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Military Projects (Page 2 of 2)<br />
Action Document Description<br />
Fort Richardson/<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB<br />
<strong>Joint</strong> Basing<br />
Station and Train a<br />
New Aviation Unit<br />
in Alaska<br />
Reassignment of F-<br />
15C fighter aircraft<br />
squadron<br />
Resumption of<br />
Year-Round Firing<br />
Opportunities<br />
Military Housing<br />
Privatization, <strong>Joint</strong><br />
<strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-<br />
Richardson<br />
JPARC<br />
Cherry Hill Gravel<br />
Site<br />
BRAC 2005 <strong>Joint</strong> Basing<br />
Road Map Study 2010<br />
U.S. Army EIS 2010 (U.S.<br />
Army 2010)<br />
U.S. Army Fort<br />
Richardson Final EIS in<br />
process 2010<br />
(U.S. Army 2010)<br />
JBER EA 2011<br />
ALCOM studies<br />
underway 2011<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB EA 2005<br />
The <strong>Joint</strong> Basing Implementation Roadmap Study called for three pilot studies investigating more<br />
efficient use of installations that are adjacent to one another but managed by different services (e.g.<br />
Army/Air Force, Navy/Air Force). <strong>Elmendorf</strong> and Fort Richardson implemented the <strong>Joint</strong> Basing<br />
Concept in 2010. Activities include combined organizations and shared community service facilities.<br />
The proposed expansion of U.S. Army Alaska’s aviation assets and capabilities would support both<br />
integrated training and deployment abroad and would continue the process of Army transformation<br />
in Alaska. Aviation units would include various helicopter types and additional soldiers distributed<br />
between JBER and Fort Wainwright. The aviation unit would enhance integrated training to achieve<br />
proficiency in the execution of combined-arms, joint, and coalition operations under realistic training.<br />
The last squadron of 27 F-15C aircraft was reassigned from JBER in 2010.<br />
The Proposed Action would restore year-round live-fire training capabilities at Fort Richardson, AK,<br />
in order to allow active units to achieve and maintain combat readiness, reduce deployment<br />
hardships on Soldiers and their Families, and reduce annual expenditures associated with travel to<br />
distant facilities to conduct training. The EIS evaluates No Action Alternative (use of Eagle River<br />
Flats Impact Area under a winter only firing regimen), year-round use of Eagle River Flats Impact<br />
Area (USARAK’s preferred alternative), and development of a new impact area on Fort Richardson.<br />
The Air Force proposes to transfer responsibility for housing and support facilities to a private<br />
developer. Over the ten-year initial development period, the private developer would renovate 272<br />
units, demolish 584 units, and construct 582 units. As a result of these actions, JBER-Richardson<br />
would have a family housing inventory of 1,240 units.<br />
The Alaska <strong>Joint</strong> Command proposes a series of airspace and range actions to enhance individual unit<br />
and <strong>Joint</strong> training in response to technological changes, lessons learned, and anticipated threats over<br />
the next 20 years. These enhancements propose extending and establishing MOAs and Restricted<br />
Airspace.<br />
The Cherry Hill Borrow Site is located on <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB. Anticipated work at Cherry Hill is<br />
expected from 2006 through 2010. The FONSI/FONPA was signed by the PACAF/CE on 1 March<br />
2006.<br />
5.0 Cumulative Impacts<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>
Table 5.1-2. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Civil Projects<br />
Action Document Description<br />
Port of Anchorage<br />
Expansion<br />
Port of Anchorage<br />
Development<br />
Port MacKenzie<br />
Development<br />
Knik Arm<br />
Crossing Project<br />
Cook Inlet Oil and<br />
Gas Exploration<br />
Cook Inlet Tidal<br />
Energy Project<br />
Natural Gas<br />
Pipeline<br />
Marine Terminal<br />
Redevelopment EA<br />
2005<br />
U.S. Department of<br />
Transportation EA 2005<br />
Mat Su Borough NMFS<br />
identified cumulative<br />
impacts, 2006<br />
The Federal Highway<br />
Administration<br />
(FHWA) Final EIS 2007<br />
(FHWA 2007)<br />
Conoco Phillips and<br />
Union Oil Company<br />
NMES 2007 permit<br />
Federal Energy<br />
Regulatory<br />
Commission feasibility<br />
studies ongoing<br />
Federal and state<br />
agency ongoing<br />
discussion<br />
The Port of Anchorage is located in close proximity to JBER. There are stages to the expansion<br />
project that are expected to span from 2006 to 2013. The construction in the area is expected to<br />
increase through all three phases of the project.<br />
The Marine Terminal Redevelopment port expansion project will rebuild and enlarge docking<br />
facilities, improve loading/unloading facilities, provide additional working space to handle<br />
shipped fuel, freight and other materials, and improve access by road and rail transportation<br />
serving the port. Enlarged docking facilities could be used by cruise ships.<br />
Port MacKenzie development in the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat Su) Borough is proposed to<br />
provide an additional transportation connection to Anchorage and would include associated<br />
railroad connections, highway connections, and Cook Inlet Ferry system.<br />
Proposal to construct access between the Municipality of Anchorage and the Mat Su Borough<br />
with a bridge crossing of Knik Arm, including connections to the roadway network. The<br />
proposed access routes cross portions of JBER.<br />
Conducted seismic investigations offshore Cook Inlet to evaluate subsurface geology for<br />
potential oil and gas deposits.<br />
Evaluation of potential energy generation through use of Cook Inlet tidal flows. Of two<br />
locations, the NMFS recommended to not use the location adjacent to Cairn Point in Knik Arm<br />
to reduce the potential for marine mammal impacts.<br />
Alaska is pursuing the construction of a natural gas pipeline. This possible project is still in the<br />
early stages and has not yet received approval. Part of the construction staging and possibly a<br />
pipeline extension could occur in the Anchorage area.<br />
5.0 Cumulative Impacts<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Page 5-5
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
5.0 Cumulative Impacts<br />
The cumulative effect of the plus-up would not be expected to change airspace management<br />
within the Alaskan training airspace. The airspace analysis in this EA includes all expected<br />
aircraft operations in existing Alaska military training airspace and ranges. Potential airspace<br />
enhancements to the <strong>Joint</strong> Pacific-Alaskan Range Complex (JPARC) are currently under study.<br />
Any potential JPARC impacts to airspace management or to other environmental resources will<br />
be addressed in separate environmental documentation.<br />
Replacing three squadrons operating a total of 60 primary twin-engine F-15C and F-15E fighter<br />
aircraft with 42 (36 plus the proposed 6) similarly-sized primary twin-engine F-<strong>22</strong> fighter<br />
aircraft would not be expected to have any adverse cumulative effect in conjunction with other<br />
past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions.<br />
5.1.2.2 Noise<br />
JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> noise conditions addressed for the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up in Section 4.2 take into<br />
consideration the F-<strong>22</strong> beddown, C-17 beddown, Kulis C-130 relocation, and F-15 changes. The<br />
noise analysis for the F-<strong>22</strong> presented in Section 4.2 is effectively a cumulative analysis (see<br />
Figure 4.2-1). The cumulative noise effects are those identified in Section 4.2. Noise effects<br />
under the airspace also reflect implementation of the cumulative actions from changes in F-15,<br />
F-<strong>22</strong>, C-130, C-17, and training exercises.<br />
Noise under the training airspace also represents cumulative activity from aircraft beddowns<br />
and reductions at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong>. There would be no substantial cumulative effect to airspace<br />
noise from the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up in conjunction with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable<br />
projects.<br />
5.1.2.3 Safety<br />
Flight, ground, and explosives safety associated with the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up are not expected to have<br />
any cumulative effects in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable<br />
actions. None of these cumulative actions except the potential bridge access routes could affect<br />
safety on the base or in base environs. The Air Force is working with the Knik Arm Bridge and<br />
Toll Authority to protect base safety and security.<br />
5.1.2.4 Air Quality<br />
No new construction projects are scheduled in conjunction with the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up. Operational<br />
emissions would increase as aircraft and personnel are added to the base, but cumulative<br />
emissions, which include the departure of the F-15s, would result in lower overall JBER-<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong> base-generated total emissions.<br />
Implementation of other cumulative projects would add to the total air emissions in the region.<br />
The Knik Arm Crossing has the potential for growth with associated increases in regional<br />
vehicle emissions as it would open the way for further development in areas that are currently<br />
undeveloped. Further development and other civilian and military projects could contribute to<br />
a net increase in overall emissions.<br />
Page 5-6
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
5.0 Cumulative Impacts<br />
The C-17 beddown and initial F-<strong>22</strong> beddown resulted in temporary increases in construction<br />
emissions. The construction occurred in a phased approach, and emissions were spread over time.<br />
The transformation of U.S. Army Alaska increased personnel on what is now JBER by 4,000<br />
soldiers. This population increase results in an accompanying increase of payroll, secondary<br />
employment, and vehicular air emissions. The JPARC modification of MOAs could result in an<br />
increase in low-altitude emissions from Aggressor aircraft, although altitude and dispersion<br />
should result in no airspace cumulative impacts.<br />
JBER is in attainment for all of the criteria pollutants regulated by the CAA. The installation is<br />
located adjacent to Anchorage, which has CO air quality issues during winter months, and Eagle<br />
River, which is in attainment status for all criteria pollutants except PM 10. The majority of the PM 10<br />
affecting Eagle River is associated with fugitive dust generated from travel on unpaved roads.<br />
Cleared areas, volcanoes, glacial silt, and forest fires are identified as other PM 10 sources.<br />
Approximately 10 percent of the PM 10 is attributable to automobile exhaust, wood-burning stoves,<br />
and industrial sources. The addition of criteria pollutants associated with the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up is so<br />
slight that it would not affect changes to air quality attainment status, even in combination with<br />
other local activities.<br />
Cumulative projects would result in both direct and indirect emission of GHGs. Construction<br />
vehicles, personal vehicles, aircraft, transport trucks, buses, and military vehicles would directly<br />
produce GHGs. CO 2 resulting from vehicle engines would be the primary source of GHGs. GHG<br />
emissions are expected to be minimal and not significant. Indirect emissions of GHGs would<br />
result from fossil fuels being produced and transported to support regional projects.<br />
Quantification of such indirect effects is nearly impossible.<br />
5.1.2.5 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management<br />
Cumulative regional construction could result in increased construction wastes. No construction<br />
would occur with the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up. Separate environmental analyses address project specific<br />
hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Best management practices for regional construction<br />
would reduce the potential cumulative impacts.<br />
No hazardous materials would be anticipated under the airspace. Chaff and flare effects would be<br />
as described in Section 4.5.2.<br />
5.1.2.6 Biological Resources<br />
The primary biological resource which could be affected by cumulative projects is the CIBW.<br />
Several past, present, and planned projects result in increased noise from construction and other<br />
sources within the Knik Arm.<br />
Cumulative direct impacts would come from regional development, including coastal zone<br />
construction and effects on intertidal and subtidal marine habitats. Indirect effects could come<br />
from human activities, including increased recreational boating and increased storm water runoff<br />
into the beluga habitat. The Knik Arm Crossing EIS identifies the main effects to CIBW to be<br />
increased commercial and residential growth in the area resulting in additional marine vessel<br />
traffic at the Port MacKenzie Dock, greater Cook Inlet Ferry use, increased vessel noise and traffic,<br />
more accidental fuel spills, increased noise from operations, and increased turbidity resulting from<br />
Page 5-7
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
5.0 Cumulative Impacts<br />
re-suspension of mud substrate by propeller scour. Construction impacts on belugas could include<br />
avoidance of the construction zone, changes in resting or feeding cycles, displacement from<br />
habitat, masking of sounds and changes in vocal behavior, changes in swimming or diving<br />
behavior, altered direction of movement, and physical injury (FHWA 2007).<br />
Resumption of year-round live-fire training at Eagle River Flats Impact Area could result in local<br />
effects on beluga whales unless mitigated by establishing training protocols that prohibit firing<br />
explosive munitions at Eagle River Flats Impact Area when beluga whales are present in Eagle<br />
River. Minor impacts would be expected on CIBW because 160 dB noise contours for the 105-mm<br />
and 120-mm weapons systems extend into Eagle Bay. Studies have shown that underwater noise<br />
can cause whales and other marine mammals to exhibit avoidance behavior which is classified as a<br />
“Class B take.” Neither the 60-mm nor the 81-mm mortars would generate noise within either<br />
Eagle River or Eagle Bay at levels greater than 160 dB at frequencies within the hearing range of a<br />
beluga whale (40Hz or higher). Any impacts, even minor, could contribute to the overall<br />
cumulative effects on the beluga whale. The Knik Arm Crossing EIS indicated that cumulative<br />
impacts to the beluga whale could be substantial due to the importance of Knik Arm and <strong>Up</strong>per<br />
Cook Inlet as habitat for whales. The reasons for the decline in the beluga whale population are<br />
unknown, and increased human interaction undoubtedly plays a part.<br />
The cumulative effect of overflight from fighter aircraft based at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> would be<br />
expected to be less than had been experienced in 2008 before the replacement of 60 F-15s by 36 plus<br />
the proposed six similarly-sized F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft. The F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up, with the potential for 0.04 whales<br />
per year to display avoidance behavior, is not projected to contribute significantly to the<br />
cumulative impacts upon the beluga population.<br />
No biological adverse cumulative impacts would be expected in conjunction with the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up<br />
either at the base or under the training airspace.<br />
5.1.2.7 Cultural Resources<br />
There would be no construction associated with the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up. Thus, historic buildings and<br />
archaeological sites would not be impacted. Previous aircraft beddown projects resulted in onbase<br />
construction, some of which affected historic architectural resources at JBER. Consultations<br />
and adopted mitigations reduced impacts to acceptable levels.<br />
Civil projects with potential to contribute to cumulative impacts to area cultural resources<br />
include the Knik Arm Crossing and bridge access routes. Such projects potentially impact the<br />
viewshed and traffic use patterns within the NRHP-eligible historic districts as well as result in<br />
direct impacts to archaeological resources. The State of Alaska is pursuing the construction of a<br />
natural gas pipeline that could include construction in the Anchorage area that would have the<br />
potential to impact cultural resources, contributing to area cumulative impacts.<br />
Any federal-related projects would be subject to compliance with NEPA and Section 106 of the<br />
NHPA with the result that adverse effects would be mitigated, reducing cumulative impacts<br />
that could occur.<br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up would not be expected to result in incremental significant or adverse cumulative<br />
effects to NRHP-eligible buildings, archaeological sites, or traditional resources in the region in<br />
conjunction with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects.<br />
Page 5-8
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
5.0 Cumulative Impacts<br />
5.1.2.8 Land Use, Transportation, and Recreation<br />
<strong>Base</strong> flight activity and personnel changes would be consistent with existing land use plans and<br />
would not be expected to substantially affect land use patterns or traffic circulation in the ROI.<br />
Implementation of certain foreseeable future actions however, is likely to generate land use and<br />
transportation effects in the vicinity of JBER. The Knik Arm Crossing is proposed to alter<br />
circulation by linking the Municipality of Anchorage and the Mat-Su Borough, potentially<br />
affecting development patterns in the region. In addition, proposed bridge access routes would<br />
traverse JBER. Proposed expansion at the Port of Anchorage, just west of JBER, could alter land<br />
use and land ownership patterns, and increase traffic congestion. Construction of these and<br />
other reasonably foreseeable projects could increase pressure on regional infrastructure and<br />
construction resources.<br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up would not be expected to result in incremental significant or adverse<br />
cumulative effects to land use, transportation, or recreation in the region in conjunction with<br />
past or reasonably foreseeable projects.<br />
5.1.2.9 Socioeconomics<br />
Proposed personnel changes and airspace activities associated with the proposed F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up<br />
are not expected to generate discernible impacts to populations or economic activity in the ROI.<br />
Regional cumulative socioeconomic effects are driven by energy development and overall<br />
economic activity. Economic pursuits in the region, including those related to Alaska Native<br />
subsistence activities, are not expected to experience any major limitations or negative effects<br />
under implementation of the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up separately or in conjunction with relevant past,<br />
present and reasonably foreseeable future actions.<br />
A number of military and non-military projects would increase the demand for construction<br />
employment and activity in the region. Although the increase in economic activity associated<br />
with a specific project would be temporary, lasting only for the duration of the construction<br />
period, the cumulative effects of the construction projects create employment for the foreseeable<br />
future. Net JBER increases with the transformation of U.S. Army, which involves an influx of<br />
approximately 4,000 personnel to the region, result in regional employment and population<br />
effects which are perceived as positive to the community.<br />
Incremental effects of the F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up, in combination with past and reasonably foreseeable<br />
future actions, would not be expected to create any significant or adverse cumulative effect to<br />
socioeconomic resources in the region.<br />
5.1.2.10 <strong>Environmental</strong> Justice<br />
Nearly all the cumulative projects identified in Tables 5.1-1 and 5.1-2 affect the larger<br />
population of Municipality of Anchorage in a way that does not disproportionately impact<br />
minority, low-income, or youth populations. Changes in access to areas, changes in on-base<br />
projects, and changes in airspace affect all users and/or residents under the airspace which<br />
include non-minority and minority populations. No disproportionate effects would be<br />
expected to minority or disadvantaged populations, and there would be no expected health or<br />
safety effects to children.<br />
Page 5-9
5.2 Other <strong>Environmental</strong> Considerations<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
5.0 Cumulative Impacts<br />
5.2.1 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term<br />
Productivity<br />
CEQ regulations (Section 1502.16) specify that environmental analysis must address “…the<br />
relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and<br />
enhancement of long-term productivity.” Special attention should be given to impacts that<br />
narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment in the long-term or pose a long-term risk<br />
to human health or safety. This section evaluates the short-term benefits of the proposal<br />
compared to the long-term productivity derived from not pursuing the proposal.<br />
Short-term effects to the environment are generally defined as a direct consequence of a project<br />
in its immediate vicinity. Short-term effects could include localized disruptions and higher<br />
noise levels in some areas. Five additional F-<strong>22</strong> daily sorties are proposed to be flown at JBER-<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong>. Off-base noise levels would increase over the Knik Arm and portions of industrial<br />
lands near the base. This would not be expected to affect local land use and would not impact<br />
the environmental long-term productivity of the region.<br />
The military training that occurs in the airspace results in noise effects that are transitory in<br />
nature. Such noise effects would be short term and would not be expected to result in<br />
permanent or long-term changes in wildlife or habitat use. Under the F-<strong>22</strong> proposed plus-up,<br />
these short-term changes would have a negligible long-term effect.<br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> proposal involving 103 more Air Force personnel and six additional primary aircraft<br />
would not significantly impact the long-term productivity of the land. Continued use of chaff<br />
and flares could be an annoyance to an individual finding and identifying residual chaff or flare<br />
materials, but would not negatively affect the long-term productivity of the region’s land, air, or<br />
water.<br />
5.2.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources<br />
Irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments are related to the use of nonrenewable<br />
resources and the effects that the uses of these resources have on future generations.<br />
Irreversible effects primarily result from the use or destruction of a specific resource (e.g.,<br />
energy and minerals) that cannot be replaced within a reasonable time frame. Irretrievable<br />
resource commitments involve the loss in value of an affected resource that cannot be restored<br />
as a result of the action.<br />
For JBER, most impacts are short-term and temporary (such as air emissions from operations) or<br />
longer lasting (such as noise). Air Force aircraft and personnel would use fuel, oil, and<br />
lubricants in normal activities.<br />
Training operations would involve irreversible consumption of nonrenewable resources, such<br />
as gasoline used in vehicles and jet fuel used in aircraft. Training would also involve<br />
commitment of chaff and flares. None of these activities would be expected to significantly<br />
decrease the availability of minerals or petroleum resources.<br />
Page 5-10
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
References<br />
REFERENCES<br />
3 rd Wing (3 WG). 2004. Wing Instruction 13-203. Airfield and Air Traffic Control Procedures. 1<br />
March.<br />
Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and Naval<br />
Facilities Engineering Command. 2001. Unified Facilities Criteria 3-260-01, Airfield and<br />
Heliport Planning and Design Criteria. November.<br />
_____ . 2006. Aircraft Class A Mishap Rates, Selected Statistics. Downloaded January 2006.<br />
http://afsafety.af.mil/<br />
_____ . 2011a. Air Force Safety Center BASH Statistics. Downloaded March 2011.<br />
http://www.afsc.af.mil/organizations/bash/statistics.asp<br />
_____ . 2011b. Air Force Safety Center Aircraft Statistics. Downloaded March 2011.<br />
http://www.afsc.af.mil/organizations/aviation/aircraftstatistics/index.asp<br />
Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED). 2000. Alaska<br />
Community Database.<br />
http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_COMDB.htm<br />
_____ . 2011a. State of Alaska Endangered Species List. Website accessed on January 20, 2011.<br />
http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/special/esa/esa_home.php<br />
_____ . 2011b. State of Alaska Species of Special Concern. Website accessed on January 20,<br />
2011. http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/special/esa/species_concern.php<br />
Alaska Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Conservation (ADEC). 2008. Draft Summary Report of<br />
Improvements to the Alaska GHG Emission Inventory, January 2008.<br />
_____ 2010. Amendments to State Air Quality Control Plan; Volume II; Adopted August 20,<br />
2010.<br />
Alaska Native Knowledge Network. 2005. Language Locations. Website accessed in December<br />
2005. www.ankn.uaf.edu/anl.html<br />
American National Standards Institute. 1980. Sound Level Descriptors for Determination of<br />
Compatible Land Use. American National Standards Institute Standard ANSI S3.23-<br />
1980.<br />
_____ . 1988. Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Sound, Part 1. American National Standards Institute Standard ANSI S12.9-1988.<br />
Bailey, R.G. 1995. Descriptions of the Ecoregions of the United States. Second Edition. U.S.<br />
Forest Service Miscellaneous Publication Number 1391.<br />
Page 1
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
References<br />
Bristol Bay Native Association. 2000 Koliganek, Village Snapshot. Website accessed in January<br />
2006. http://www.bbna.com/EarlyLearning/Koliganek/<br />
Bureau of Indian Affairs. 2000. Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the<br />
United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Federal Register Vol. 65. March 13.<br />
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2000. Iditarod National Historic Trail History.<br />
www.sciencecenter.ak.blm.gov<br />
_____ . 2006. Trail Map and Guide to the Tangle Lakes National Register District for off-road<br />
vehicles, mountain bikes, and hikes. Alaska Bureau of Land management, Glennallen<br />
Field Office, Glennallen, Alaska. Website accessed on 16 February 2006.<br />
http://www.ak.blm.gov/gdo/tangle.html<br />
Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics (CHABA), 1981. <strong>Assessment</strong> of<br />
Community Noise Response to High-Energy Impulsive Sounds. Report of Working<br />
Group 84, Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics, Assembly of<br />
Behavioral and Social Sciences. National Research Council, National Academy of<br />
Sciences. Washington, DC.<br />
Council on <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality (CEQ). 1978. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural<br />
Provisions of NEPA. 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508.<br />
_____ . 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National <strong>Environmental</strong> Policy Act.<br />
January 1997.<br />
Department of Commerce, Division of Policy, Research & Strategic Planning. 2010. Anchorage<br />
Municipality (AK) County Profile; North Carolina, December 2010.<br />
Department of Defense (DoD). 2004. AP/1A DoD Flight Information Publication, Area<br />
Planning, Special Use Airspace North and South America, 25 November.<br />
Eielson AFB. 2007. Eielson AFB Infrastructure Development in Support of Red Flag Alaska EA,<br />
July.<br />
Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder’s Handbook: A Field Guide to the<br />
Natural History of North American Birds. Simon and Schuster, New York, New York.<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong> Air Force <strong>Base</strong> (AFB). 2003. Wing Instruction 91-212. Bird and Wildlife Aircraft<br />
Strike Hazard (BASH) Program. 30 September.<br />
_____ . 2005. Airfield/Airspace Criteria Violation Report. PACAF Form 48, 19990601. 24<br />
August.<br />
_____ . 2010. Archaeological Site Evaluation, Phase II, <strong>Elmendorf</strong> Air Force <strong>Base</strong>. <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Conservation Program, Final. March.<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.<br />
Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1, Vicksburg, Mississippi.<br />
Page 2
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
References<br />
Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) Sectional Aeronautical Charts for Anchorage, Dawson,<br />
Fairbanks, and McGrath; 85th Edition, 19 November 2009.<br />
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2007. Knik Arm Crossing Final <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation, Knik Arm Bridge and Toll<br />
Authority, Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities. Anchorage,<br />
December 18, 2007.<br />
Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport<br />
Noise Analysis Issues. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. August.<br />
Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise. 1980. Guidelines for Considering Noise in<br />
Land-Use Planning and Control. Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise. June.<br />
Fidell, S., D.S. Barger, and Schultz, T.J. 1991. <strong>Up</strong>dating a Dosage-Effect Relationship for the<br />
Prevalence of Annoyance Due to General Transportation Noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 89,<br />
<strong>22</strong>1-233. January 1991.<br />
Frampton, K., M. Lucas, and B. Cook. 1993. Modeling the Sonic Boom Noise Environment in<br />
Military Operating Areas. AIAA Paper 93-4432.<br />
<strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson (JBER). 2009. Units Combine to Streamline Contracting Process.<br />
Website accessed in December 2010.<br />
http://www.jber.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123167156<br />
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. 2005. Digital Aeronautical Flight Information File.<br />
<strong>Up</strong>dated Quarterly. http://164.214.2.62/products/digitalaero/index.cfm<br />
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2011. Letter of concurrence with “may affect, but is<br />
not likely to adversely affect” federally listed threatened, endangered, or proposed<br />
species under NMFS’ jurisdiction including the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale and Western<br />
Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Steller Sea Lion. Letter from J. W. Balsiger, Ph.D.,<br />
Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, Juneau, Alaska to Ellen Godden, JBER, dated <strong>22</strong><br />
February 2011.<br />
National Register Information System (NRIS). 2000. National Register of Historic Places.<br />
http://www.nr.nps.gov<br />
_____ . 2011. National Register of Historic Places. http://www.nr.nps.gov<br />
Page, J.A., B.D. Schantz, R. Brown, K.J. Plotkin, and C.L. Moulton. 1994. Measurements of<br />
Sonic Booms Due to ACM Training in R2301 W of the Barry Goldwater Air Force Range.<br />
Wyle Research Report WR 94-11.<br />
Pilot/Controller Glossary (P/CG) 2004. Addendum to Aeronautical Information Manual.<br />
FAA Order 7110.10, Flight Services, and FAA Order 7110.65, Air Traffic Control.<br />
http://www.faa.gov/Atpubs/PCG.htm Downloaded September 10 2004.<br />
Page 3
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
References<br />
Plotkin, K.J., V.R. Desai, C.L. Moulton, M.J. Lucas, and R. Brown. 1989. Measurements of Sonic<br />
Booms due to ACM Training at White Sands Missile Range. Wyle Research Report WR<br />
89-18.<br />
Plotkin, K.J., C.L. Moulton, V.R. Desai, and M.J. Lucas. 1992. Sonic Boom Environment under a<br />
Supersonic Military Operations Area. Journal of Aircraft 29(6): 1069-1072.<br />
Schultz, T.J. 1978. Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise Annoyance. Journal of the Acoustical<br />
Society of America, Vol. 64, pp. 377-405. August 1978.<br />
Stusnick, E., D. A. Bradley, J. A. Molino, and G. DeMiranda, 1992. The Effect of Onset Rate on<br />
Aircraft Noise Annoyance. Volume 2: Rented Own-Home Experiment. Wyle<br />
Laboratories Research Report WR 92-3. March 1992.<br />
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics. 2009. Memorandum on<br />
Methodology for Assessing Hearing Loss Risk and Impacts in DoD <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact<br />
Analysis.<br />
United States Air Force (Air Force). 1995. Final <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Statement, Alaska<br />
Military Operation Areas. 11 th Air Force, <strong>Elmendorf</strong> Air Force <strong>Base</strong>, Alaska.<br />
_____ . 1997. <strong>Environmental</strong> Effects of Self Protection Chaff and Flares. Final Report. August.<br />
_____ . 2000. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for <strong>Elmendorf</strong> Air Force <strong>Base</strong><br />
2000–2005: 3 rd Wing U.S. Air Force. June 2000. CEMML TPS 00-10.<br />
_____ . 2001a. Initial F-<strong>22</strong> Operational Wing Beddown Final EIS. November.<br />
_____ . 2001b. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 13-201. Space, Missile, Command and Control. Air<br />
Force Airspace Management. 20 September.<br />
_____ . 2001c. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 13-212, Volume 1. Space, Missile, Command, and<br />
Control; Range Planning and Operations. 7 August.<br />
_____ . 2001d. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 13-212, Volume 2. Space, Missile, Command, and<br />
Control; Range Construction and Maintenance. 7 August.<br />
_____ . 2001e. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 13-212, Volume 3. Space, Missile, Command, and<br />
Control; SAFE-RANGE Program Methodology. 7 August; updated in 2007.<br />
_____ . 2004. Final EA C-17 Beddown, <strong>Elmendorf</strong> Air Force <strong>Base</strong>, Alaska. September 2004.<br />
_____ . 2005. General Plan, <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB.<br />
_____ . 2006. F-<strong>22</strong>A <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>, <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB, Alaska. June.<br />
_____ . 2007a. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for <strong>Elmendorf</strong> Air Force <strong>Base</strong><br />
2006 Revision: 3 rd Wing U.S. Air Force. June 2007. CEMML.<br />
Page 4
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
References<br />
_____ . 2007b. Final EA Relocation of the Air National Guard 176th Wing to <strong>Elmendorf</strong> Air<br />
Force <strong>Base</strong>, Alaska, <strong>Elmendorf</strong> Air Force <strong>Base</strong>, Alaska, September.<br />
. 2007c. Alaska Military Training Routes <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>. <strong>Elmendorf</strong> Air<br />
Force <strong>Base</strong>, Alaska. Eielson EA 2007.<br />
_____ . 2008a. Five-Year Review. Five-Year Review Report. United States Air Force<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong> Air Force <strong>Base</strong>. November<br />
_____ . 2008b. Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan for <strong>Elmendorf</strong> Air Force <strong>Base</strong><br />
2008–2012: 3 rd Wing U.S. Air Force. September 2008.<br />
_____ . 2009. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 13-201. Space, Missile, Command and Control. Air<br />
Force Airspace Management. 20 September.<br />
_____ . 2010a. Air Force Officials Release Preferred Aircraft Basing Alternatives. Website<br />
accessed December 16, 2010. http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123215794.<br />
_____ . 2010b. Area <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Establishing the Delta Military Operations.<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong> Air Force <strong>Base</strong>, Alaska. January 2010<br />
_____ . 2010c. Air Force Safety, Health, and <strong>Environmental</strong> Standard A2 dated 7-16-2010.<br />
U.S. Army (Army) 2004. Transformation of U.S. Army Alaska – Final <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact<br />
Statement. Prepared by the Center for <strong>Environmental</strong> Management of Military Lands,<br />
Colorado State University. Fort Collins, Colorado.<br />
_____ . 2010. Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Statement for Resumption of Year-Round Firing<br />
Opportunities at Fort Richardson, Alaska. January 2010.<br />
United States Bureau of the Census. 2000a. American FactFinder. Census 2000 Summary File<br />
1, demographic and economic data sets for Alaska state, boroughs, and municipalities.<br />
Website accessed December 28, 2005. http://factfinder.census.gov<br />
_____ . 2000b. Census 2000 Summary File 3. Table DP-3 Profile of Selected Economic<br />
Characteristics: 2000. Website accessed January 3, 2006. http://factfinder.census.gov<br />
_____ . 2005. State & County QuickFacts from the U.S. Census Bureau. Census data for<br />
Alaska state, boroughs, and municipalities. Website accessed December 26, 2005.<br />
http://quickfacts.census.gov<br />
United States Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2005. Regional Economic Information System.<br />
Table CA25N Total full-time and part-time employment by industry for Alaska State<br />
and Anchorage Municipality. April 2005.<br />
United States <strong>Environmental</strong> Protection Agency (USEPA). 1974. Information on Levels of<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Noise Requisite to Protect the Public Health and Welfare with an<br />
Adequate Margin of Safety. U.S. <strong>Environmental</strong> Protection Agency Report 550/9-74-<br />
004. March.<br />
Page 5
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
_____ . 2005. 1999 National Emission Inventory. Website last updated in 1999.<br />
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/1999inventory.html<br />
References<br />
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Threatened and Endangered Species<br />
System (TESS). Listings by state and territory as of 12/21/2005 – Alaska. Website<br />
accessed on December 21, 2005.<br />
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/servlet/gov.doi.tess_public.servlets.UsaLists?state=AK<br />
_____ . 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United StatesDepartment of Interior, Fish<br />
and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85<br />
pp. [Online version available at ]<br />
_____ . 2011. Response to Letter from JBER 673 CES/CC regarding F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong><br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> requesting information on federally listed threatened,<br />
endangered, proposed, and candidate species that may occur in the potentially affected<br />
area. Response from Kimberly Klein, Endangered Species Biologist transmitted to Ellen<br />
Godden 673 CES/CEAO JBER. FWS Log No. 2011-SL-0064. February 8.<br />
Wasmer, F. and F. Maunsell 2005. NMPlot Computer Program. Wasmer Consulting.<br />
Persons and Agencies Contacted<br />
Aide, Don. 2011. <strong>Environmental</strong> Restoration Project Manager, 673 CES/CEANR, JBER AK<br />
Banker, Maj Jeffrey. 2011. Assistant Director of Operations, 517th Airlift Squadron, JBER AK<br />
Bates, Clay. 2011. Hazardous Waste Program Manager, 673 CES/CEANQ, JBER AK<br />
Bernardin, MSgt Melissa. 2011. Bioenvironmental, 673 AMDS/SGPB, JBER AK<br />
Campbell, Maj Jeff. 2010. Maintenance Operations Officer, 3 AMXS/MXA, JBER AK<br />
Caristi, Capt Anthony. 2011. Safety, 3 WG/SE, JBER AK<br />
Coyle, Capt Nathan. 2011. Airfield Operations Flight Commander, 3 OSS/OSA, JBER AK<br />
Dickens, Rosanna. 2011. Water Quality Program Manager, 673 CES/CEANV, JBER AK<br />
Dougan, Mary. 2011. Community Planner and Air Installation Compatible Use Zone/Land<br />
Use, 673 CES/CEAOP, JBER AK<br />
Eberlan, Maj Jon. 2011. Commander, 3rd Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, 3 AMXS/CC, JBER<br />
AK<br />
Fink, Gary. 2011. Chief, <strong>Environmental</strong> Restoration, 673 CES/CEANR, JBER AK<br />
Fowler, Paula. 2011. Air Quality Program Manager, 673 CES/CEANQ, JBER AK<br />
Page 6
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
References<br />
Freeman, Bernard. 2011. 3rd Equipment Maintenance Squadron Transient Alert, 3<br />
EMS/MXMT, JBER AK<br />
Gamache, 2d Lt Andrew. 2011. Section Commander, 3rd Maintenance Group, 3 MXG/CCE,<br />
JBER AK<br />
Garner, Chris. 2011. Wildlife Biologist, 673 CES/CEANC, JBER AK<br />
Greenlee, Lt Col Paul. 2011. Director of operations, 3rd Operations Support Squadron, 3<br />
OSS/DO, JBER AK<br />
Griese, Herman. 2011. Wildlife Biologists, 673 CES/CEANC, JBER AK<br />
Haas, Don. 2011. Water Quality Program Manager, 673 CES/CEANQ, JBER AK<br />
Jenkins, Keith. 2011. Marine Mammal Biologist, SPAWARSYSCEN-Pacific<br />
Jensen, Lt Col Lars. 2011. 3rd Operations Group Standardization/Evaluation, 3 OG/OGV,<br />
JBER AK<br />
Johnson, CMSgt David. 2011. Chief Enlisted Manager, 3rd Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, 3<br />
AMXS/MXA, JBER AK<br />
Keiser, Laura. 2011. Real Property Officer, 673 CES/CEACR, JBER AK<br />
Kendrick, Stephanie. 2011. Real Property Officer, 673 CES/CEACR, JBER AK<br />
Koenen, Brent. 2011. Chief, Cultural and Natural Resources, 673d Civil Engineer Squadron,<br />
673 CES/CEANC, JBER AK<br />
Layton, Wes. 2011. Legal Counsel, 673 ABW/JA, JBER AK<br />
Leon, Lt Col Rene. 2011. Deputy, 3rd Maintenance Group, 3 MXG/CD, JBER AK<br />
Letourneau, Mike. 2011. Director, <strong>Environmental</strong> Program, National Marine Mammal<br />
Foundation, San Francisco, CA<br />
Mabie, Nancy. 2011. Noise Analyst, AFCEE/TBDS, San Antonio, TX<br />
Makela, MSgt Matthew. 2011. 3rd Aircraft Maintenance Squadron Production Superintendent,<br />
3 AMXS/MXAS, JBER AK<br />
McKee, Chris. 2011. Wildlife Biologist, 673 CES/CEANC, JBER AK<br />
Montague, Jerome, 2010. Native Affairs and Natural Resources Advisor Alaskan Command,<br />
ALCOM/J2, JBER AK<br />
Morey, Scott. 2011. Hazardous Waste Program Manager, 673 CES/CEANQ, JBER AK<br />
Page 7
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Olszewski, Jon. 2011. Storm Water Program Manager, 673 CES,CEANV, JBER AK<br />
References<br />
Payne, Valerie. 2011. Chief, Natural Resources Management and Air Installation Compatible<br />
Use Zone/Land Use, 673 CES/CEAN, JBER AK<br />
Scudder, Jon. 2011. Cultural Resources Program Manager, 673 CES/CEANC, JBER AK<br />
Sledge, Mark. 2011. Chief, Conservation Enforcement, 673 CES/CEANC, JBER AK<br />
Snowden, Lt Col Mark. 2011. Director of Operations 90th Fighter Squadron, 90FS/DO, JBER<br />
AK<br />
Urban, Maj Brian. 2011. 3rd Operations Group Standardization/Evaluation, 3 OG/OGV, JBER<br />
AK<br />
Wright, Renee. 2011. Public Affairs Officer, 673 ABW/PA, JBER AK<br />
Yunis, Hazim. 2011. Civil Engineer, 673 CES/CEPM, JBER AK<br />
Page 8
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
List of Preparers<br />
LIST OF PREPARERS<br />
John K. Austin, Noise Analyst, SAIC<br />
B.A., Biology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 1999<br />
Years of Experience: 11<br />
Wesley D. Birch, Document Specialist; SAIC<br />
A.A., Media Arts, Santa Barbara City College, 2008<br />
Years of Experience: 1<br />
Cay FitzGerald, Technical Illustrator; SAIC<br />
A.A. Santa Barbara City College Fine Arts, 1984<br />
Years of Experience: 30<br />
Ellen Godden, 673 CES/ CEAO, NEPA Project Manager<br />
M.S., <strong>Environmental</strong> Science, University of Alaska, Anchorage, 2001<br />
Years of Experience: 12<br />
Catrina D. Gomez, <strong>Environmental</strong> Scientist; Biological Resources; SAIC<br />
B.A. Biological Sciences and Psychology, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1998<br />
M.E.S.M. <strong>Environmental</strong> Science and Management, U.C. Santa Barbara, 2003<br />
Years of Experience: 8<br />
Heather Gordon, <strong>Environmental</strong> Analyst (GIS), SAIC<br />
B.A., <strong>Environmental</strong> Studies and Planning, 1996<br />
M.S., Geography, 2007<br />
Years of Experience: 12<br />
Joseph A. Jimenez, Deputy Project Manager; Cultural Resources, Hazardous Materials and<br />
Waste, Land Use; SAIC<br />
B.A., Anthropology, Idaho State University, 1984<br />
M.A., Anthropology, Idaho State University, 1986<br />
Years of Experience: 26<br />
Claudia Laughlin, Graphics ; SAIC<br />
Years of Experience: 16<br />
Kristi Regotti, <strong>Environmental</strong> Specialist<br />
B.S., Political Science, Boise State University, 2001<br />
M.P.A., <strong>Environmental</strong> and Natural Resource Policy, Boise State University, 2003<br />
M.H.S., <strong>Environmental</strong> Health, Boise State University, 2008<br />
Years of Experience: 9<br />
Deborah L. LaSalle, Public Involvement Specialist, SAIC<br />
Juris Doctorate, University of Utah, 1997<br />
B.S., Chemistry, University of Idaho, 1992<br />
Years of Experience: 14<br />
Page 9
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
List of Preparers<br />
Thomas W. Mulroy Ph.D., Senior Biologist; Wildlife <strong>Assessment</strong>, Biological Resources; SAIC.<br />
B.A. Zoology, Pomona College, Claremont, CA, 1968<br />
M.S. Biology, University of Arizona, 1971<br />
Ph.D. Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, 1976<br />
Years of experience: 35<br />
Ellyn Lloyd Schwaiger, Production Coordinator; SAIC<br />
B.A., Advertising, Pepperdine University, 2009<br />
Years of Experience: 2<br />
Bernice Tannenbaum, Wildlife Biologist, Endangered Species, SAIC<br />
B.S., Zoology, University of Maryland, 1969<br />
Ph.D., Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University, 1975<br />
Years of Experience: 35<br />
Robert E. Van Tassel, Project Manager; Airspace Management, Air Quality, Safety,<br />
Socioeconomics, <strong>Environmental</strong> Justice; SAIC<br />
B.A., Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1970<br />
M.A., Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1972<br />
Years of Experience: 39<br />
Gregory Wadsworth, Production Manager; SAIC<br />
B.A., Music Composition, Westmont College, 2006<br />
Years of Experience: 6<br />
Page 10
Appendix A<br />
Characteristics of Chaff
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX A CHARACTERISTICS OF CHAFF<br />
Chaff is currently authorized for use in the existing Alaska training airspace and, under the<br />
Proposed Action, chaff would continue to be employed in the airspace. Chaff consists of<br />
extremely small strands (or dipoles) of an aluminum-coated crystalline silica core. When<br />
released from an aircraft, chaff initially forms a momentary electronic cloud and then disperses in<br />
the air and eventually drifts to the ground. The chaff effectively reflects radar signals in various<br />
bands (depending on the length of the chaff fibers) and forms an electronic image of reflected<br />
signals on a radar screen. Immediately after deploying chaff, the aircraft is obscured from radar<br />
detection by the cloud which momentarily breaks the radar lock. The aircraft can then safely<br />
maneuver or leave an area.<br />
Chaff is made as small and light as possible so that it will remain in the air long enough to<br />
confuse enemy radar. Each chaff fiber is approximately 25.4 microns in diameter (thinner than a<br />
human hair) and ranges in length from 0.3 to over 1 inch. The weight of chaff material in the RR-<br />
170 or RR-188 cartridge is approximately 95 grams or 3.35 ounces (United States Air Force [Air<br />
Force] 1997). Since chaff can obstruct radar, its use is coordinated with the Federal Aviation<br />
Administration (FAA). RR-170-type combat chaff has been used by F-15C and F-15E training<br />
aircraft and similar chaff is used by F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft currently training in Alaska airspace. This chaff<br />
is the same size and the cartridge is the same size as RR-188 chaff in Figure 1. RR-188 chaff has D<br />
and E band dipoles removed to avoid interference with FAA radar. RR-170 chaff dipoles are cut<br />
to disguise the aircraft and produce a more realistic training experience in threat avoidance.<br />
A1<br />
Chaff Composition<br />
Chaff is comprised of silica, aluminum, and stearic acid, which are generally prevalent in the<br />
environment. Silica (silicon dioxide) belongs to the most common mineral group, silicate<br />
minerals. Silica is inert in the environment and does not present an environmental concern with<br />
respect to soil chemistry. Aluminum is the third most abundant element in the earth’s crust,<br />
forming some of the most common minerals, such as feldspars, micas, and clays. Natural soil<br />
concentrations of aluminum ranging from 10,000 to 300,000 parts per million have been<br />
documented (Lindsay 1979). These levels vary depending on numerous environmental factors,<br />
including climate, parent rock materials from which the soils were formed, vegetation, and soil<br />
moisture alkalinity/acidity. The solubility of aluminum is greater in acidic and highly alkaline<br />
soils than in neutral pH conditions. Aluminum eventually oxidizes to Al 2 O 3 (aluminum oxide)<br />
over time, depending on its size and form and the environmental conditions.<br />
The chaff fibers have an anti-clumping agent (Neofat – 90 percent stearic acid and 10 percent<br />
palmitic acid) to assist with rapid dispersal of the fibers during deployment (Air Force 1997).<br />
Stearic acid is an animal fat that degrades when exposed to light and air.<br />
A single bundle of chaff consists of the filaments in an 8-inch long rectangular tube or cartridge, a<br />
plastic piston, a cushioned spacer, and two plastic pieces, each 1/8-inch thick by 1-inch by 1-inch.<br />
The chaff dispenser remains in the aircraft. The plastic end caps and spacer fall to the ground<br />
when chaff is dispensed. Spacers are spongy material (felt) designed to absorb the force of<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix A Characteristics of Chaff Page A-1
elease. Figure 1 illustrates the components of a chaff cartridge. Table 1 lists the components of<br />
the silica core and the aluminum coating. Table 2 presents the characteristics of RR-188 or RR-170<br />
chaff.<br />
Figure 1. RR-188 or RR-170A/AL is a single cartridge containing 400,000 chaff dipoles, each in<br />
8 cuts, a plastic end cap, piston, and felt pad.<br />
Table 1. Components of RR-188 or RR-170 Chaff<br />
Chemical<br />
Symbol<br />
Percent (by<br />
weight)<br />
Element<br />
Silica Core<br />
Silicon dioxide SiO 2 52-56<br />
Alumina Al 2 O 3 12-16<br />
Calcium Oxide and Magnesium Oxide CaO and MgO 16-25<br />
Boron Oxide B 2 O 3 8-13<br />
Sodium Oxide and Potassium Oxide Na 2 O and K 2 O 1-4<br />
Iron Oxide Fe 2 O 3 1 or less<br />
Aluminum Coating (Typically Alloy 1145)<br />
Aluminum Al 99.45 minimum<br />
Silicon and Iron Si and Fe 0.55 maximum<br />
Copper Cu 0.05 maximum<br />
Manganese Mn 0.05 maximum<br />
Magnesium Mg 0.05 maximum<br />
Zinc Zn 0.05 maximum<br />
Vanadium V 0.05 maximum<br />
Titanium Ti 0.03 maximum<br />
Others<br />
0.03 maximum<br />
Source: Air Force 1997<br />
Page A-2<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix A Characteristics of Chaff
Table 2. Characteristics of RR-188 or RR-170 Chaff<br />
Attribute<br />
Aircraft<br />
Composition<br />
Ejection Mode<br />
Configuration<br />
Size<br />
Number of Dipoles<br />
Dipole Size (crosssection)<br />
Impulse Cartridge<br />
Other Comments<br />
Source: Air Force 1997<br />
RR-188<br />
F-15C, F-15E, F-<strong>22</strong>A<br />
Aluminum coated silica<br />
Pyrotechnic<br />
Rectangular tube cartridge<br />
8 x 1 x 1 inches<br />
(8 cubic inches)<br />
5.46 million<br />
1 mil<br />
(diameter)<br />
BBU-35/B<br />
Cartridge stays in aircraft; less interference<br />
with FAA radar (no D and E bands)<br />
RR-170 A/AL chaff is similar to RR-188 except that RR-170 A/AL is combat coded chaff to reflect<br />
tracking radar. RR-170 A/AL has approximately 400,000 dipoles, each in 8 cuts. Other than the<br />
cut of the dipoles, RR-170 A/AL chaff is essentially the same as RR-188 chaff in materials and<br />
cartridge design. A felt spacer, 1-inch x 1-inch x 1/8-inch end cap, a 1-inch x 1-inch x 1/4-inch<br />
piston, and the chaff dipoles are dispersed when the chaff bundle is deployed.<br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> uses the same chaff material in a slightly different chaff cartridge to expedite clean<br />
ejection of the chaff. The chaff cartridge design is less likely to leave debris of any kind in the<br />
dispenser bay yet still provides robust chaff dispensing. Figure 2 is a photograph of an F-<strong>22</strong> chaff<br />
cartridge. The RR-180/AL for F-<strong>22</strong> use has chaff packaged in soft packs that have a somewhat<br />
fewer number of dipoles per cut when compared with RR-170 chaff.<br />
RR-180/AL chaff is similar to the RR-170 A/AL chaff cartridge with the primary exception that<br />
RR-180/AL chaff is contained in a dual chaff cartridge (see Figure 2). The dual chaff cartridge is a<br />
1-inch x 1-inch x 8-inch cartridge with a plastic separator, or I-beam, dividing two hyperfine (0.7<br />
millimeter diameter) chaff cartridges. The I-beam separator uses some space and the RR-180/AL<br />
chaff has approximately 340,000 dipoles each. Figure 2 presents the RR-180/AL chaff plastic<br />
cartridge, two pistons with attached felt spacers, and two end caps also with attached felt spacers,<br />
and the chaff dipoles before dispersion. Each of the two end caps and pistons is an approximately<br />
1/2-inch x 1/4-inch x 1-inch plastic or nylon piece with attached felt spacer which falls to the<br />
surface when each chaff bundle is deployed. There are three parchment paper wrappers<br />
measuring approximately two inches by three inches in each of the dual chaff cartridge tubes.<br />
This parchment paper wrapping prevents the premature deployment of chaff too near the F-<strong>22</strong><br />
chaff distribution rack (Air Force 2008).<br />
A2<br />
Chaff Ejection<br />
Chaff is ejected from aircraft pyrotechnically using a BBU-35/B impulse cartridge. Pyrotechnic<br />
ejection uses hot gases generated by an explosive impulse charge. The gases push the small<br />
piston down the chaff-filled tube. In the case of F-<strong>22</strong> chaff, six paper pieces, two small plastic end<br />
cap, and two small plastic or nylon pistons are ejected along with the chaff fibers. The plastic<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix A Characteristics of Chaff Page A-3
tube remains within the aircraft. Residual materials from chaff deployment consist of four 2 by 3<br />
inch pieces of paper, four ½ by 1 by 1/8 inch pieces of plastic or nylon, and the chaff. Table 3 lists<br />
the characteristics of BBU-35/B impulse cartridges used to pyrotechnically eject chaff.<br />
Figure 2. RR-180/AL chaff is a dual chaff cartridge with unconstrained hyperfine (.7 millimeter<br />
diameter) chaff, 340,000 dipoles per cut, in an I-beam reinforced cartridge.<br />
Table 3. BBU-35/B Impulse Charges Used to Eject Chaff<br />
Component<br />
BBU-35/B<br />
Overall Size<br />
0.625 inches x 0.530 inches<br />
Overall Volume 0.163 inches 3<br />
Total Explosive Volume 0.034 inches 3<br />
Bridgewire<br />
Trophet A<br />
0.0025 inches x 0.15 inches<br />
Initiation Charge 0.008 cubic inches<br />
130 mg<br />
7,650 psi<br />
boron 20%<br />
potassium perchlorate 80% *<br />
Booster Charge 0.008 cubic inches<br />
105 mg<br />
7030 psi<br />
boron 18%<br />
potassium nitrate 82%<br />
Main Charge<br />
0.017 cubic inches<br />
250 mg<br />
loose fill<br />
RDX ** pellets 38.2%<br />
potassium perchlorate 30.5%<br />
boron 3.9%<br />
potassium nitrate 15.3%<br />
super floss 4.6%<br />
Viton A 7.6%<br />
Source: Air Force 1997<br />
<strong>Up</strong>on release from an aircraft, chaff forms a cloud approximately 30 meters in diameter in less<br />
than one second under normal conditions. Quality standards for chaff cartridges require that<br />
Page A-4<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix A Characteristics of Chaff
they demonstrate ejection of 98 percent of the chaff in undamaged condition, with a reliability of<br />
95 percent at a 95 percent confidence level. They must also be able to withstand a variety of<br />
environmental conditions that might be encountered during storage, shipment, and operation.<br />
Table 4 lists performance requirements for chaff. To achieve the performance standards<br />
and not be rejected, chaff is typically manufactured to a reliability of 99 percent or<br />
greater.<br />
Table 4. Performance Requirements for Chaff<br />
Condition<br />
Performance Requirement<br />
High Temperature<br />
Low Temperature<br />
Temperature Shock<br />
<strong>Up</strong> to +165 degrees Fahrenheit<br />
Down to –65 o F<br />
Shock from –70 o F to +165 o F<br />
Temperature Altitude Combined temperature altitude conditions up to 70,000<br />
feet<br />
Humidity<br />
Sand and Dust<br />
<strong>Up</strong> to 95 percent relative humidity<br />
Sand and dust encountered in desert regions subject to<br />
high sand dust conditions and blowing sand and dust<br />
particles<br />
Accelerations/Axis G-Level Time (minute)<br />
Transverse-Left (X) 9.0 1<br />
Transverse-Right (-X) 3.0 1<br />
Transverse (Z) 4.5 1<br />
Transverse (-Z) 13.5 1<br />
Lateral-Aft (-Y) 6.0 1<br />
Lateral-Forward (Y) 6.0 1<br />
Shock (Transmit)<br />
Vibration<br />
Shock encountered during aircraft flight<br />
Vibration encountered during aircraft flight<br />
Free Fall Drop<br />
Shock encountered during unpackaged item drop<br />
Vibration (Repetitive) Vibration encountered during rough handling of<br />
packaged item<br />
Three Foot Drop<br />
Shock encountered during rough handling of packaged<br />
item<br />
Note: Cartridge must be capable of total ejection of chaff from the cartridge liner under<br />
these conditions.<br />
Source: Air Force 1997<br />
A3<br />
Policies and Regulations on Chaff Use<br />
Current Air Force policy on use of chaff and flares was established by the Airspace Subgroup of<br />
Headquarter Air Force Flight Standards Agency in 1993. It requires units to obtain frequency<br />
clearance from the Air Force Frequency Management Center and the FAA prior to using chaff to<br />
ensure that training with chaff is conducted on a non-interference basis. This ensures<br />
electromagnetic compatibility between the FAA, the Federal Communications Commission, and<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix A Characteristics of Chaff Page A-5
Department of Defense (DoD) agencies. The Air Force does not place any restrictions on the use<br />
of chaff provided those conditions are met (Air Force 1997).<br />
Air Force Instruction (AFI) 13-201, U.S. Air Force Airspace Management, November 2007. This<br />
guidance establishes practices to decrease disturbance from flight operations that might cause<br />
adverse public reaction. It emphasizes the Air Force’s responsibility to ensure that the public is<br />
protected to the maximum extent practicable from hazards and effects associated with flight<br />
operations.<br />
AFI 11-214 Aircrew and Weapons Director and Terminal Attack Controller Procedures for Air<br />
Operations, December 2005. This instruction delineates procedures for chaff and flare use. It<br />
prohibits use unless in an approved area.<br />
A4<br />
References<br />
Air Force. 1997. <strong>Environmental</strong> Effects of Self-Protection Chaff and Flares. Prepared for<br />
Headquarters Air Combat Command, Langley Air Force <strong>Base</strong>, Virginia.<br />
_____. 1999. Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives (DOPAA) for the Expansion of<br />
the Use of Self-Protection Chaff and Flares at the Utah Test and Training Range, Hill Air<br />
Force <strong>Base</strong>, Utah. Prepared for Headquarters Air Force Reserve Command<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Division, Robins AFB, Georgia.<br />
_____. 2008. <strong>Environmental</strong> Effects of Defensive Countermeasures: An <strong>Up</strong>date. Prepared for:<br />
Headquarters U.S. Air Forces Pacific Air Forces Command, Hickam AFB, Hawaii.<br />
Page A-6<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix A Characteristics of Chaff
Appendix B<br />
Characteristics and Analysis of Flares
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX B CHARACTERISTICS AND<br />
ANALYSIS OF FLARES<br />
B1<br />
Introduction<br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> uses MJU-10/B self-protection flares in approved airspace over parts of Alaska. The F-<br />
15E and F-15C historically deployed MJU-7 A/B and MJU-10/B self-protection flares The Selfprotection<br />
flares are magnesium pellets that, when ignited, burn for 3.5 to 5 seconds at 2,000<br />
degrees Fahrenheit. The burn temperature is hotter than the exhaust of an aircraft, and<br />
therefore attracts and decoys heat-seeking weapons targeted on the aircraft. Flares are used in<br />
pilot training to develop the near instinctive reactions to a threat that are critical to combat<br />
survival. This appendix describes flare composition, ejection, risks, and associated regulations.<br />
B2<br />
Flare Composition<br />
Self-protection flares are primarily mixtures of magnesium and Teflon (polytetrafluoroethylene)<br />
molded into rectangular shapes (United States Air Force [Air Force] 1997). Longitudinal<br />
grooves provide space for materials that aid in ignition such as:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
First fire materials: potassium perchlorate, boron powder, magnesium powder, barium<br />
chromate, Viton A, or Fluorel binder.<br />
Immediate fire materials: magnesium powder, Teflon, Viton A, or Fluorel<br />
Dip coat: magnesium powder, Teflon, Viton A or Fluorel<br />
Typically, flares are wrapped with an aluminum-coated mylar or filament-reinforced tape<br />
(wrapping) and inserted into an aluminum (0.03 inches thick) case that is closed with a felt<br />
spacer and a small plastic end cap (Air Force 1997). The top of the case has a pyrotechnic<br />
impulse cartridge that is activated electrically to produce hot gases that push a piston, the flare<br />
material, and the end cap out of the aircraft into the airstream. Table 1 provides a description of<br />
MJU-10/B and MJU-7 A/B flare components. Typical flare composition and debris are<br />
summarized in Table 2. Figure 1 is an illustration of an MJU-10/B flare, Figure 2 an illustration<br />
of an MJU-7 A/B flare. The MJU-7 (T-1) flare simulator is the same size as described for the<br />
MJU-7 A/B flare.<br />
Table 1. Description of MJU-10/B and MJU-7 A/B Flares<br />
Attribute MJU-10/B MJU-7 A/B<br />
Aircraft F-15, F-<strong>22</strong> F-15<br />
Mode Semi-Parasitic Semi-Parasitic<br />
Configuration Rectangle Rectangle<br />
Size<br />
2 x 2 x 8 inches<br />
(32 cubic inches)<br />
1 x 2 x 8 inches<br />
(16 cubic inches)<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix B Characteristics and Analysis of Flares Page B-1
Attribute MJU-10/B MJU-7 A/B<br />
Impulse Cartridge BBU-36/B BBU-36/B<br />
Safe and Initiation Device<br />
Slider Assembly<br />
Slider Assembly<br />
(S&I)<br />
Weight (nominal) 40 ounces 13 ounces<br />
Table 2. Typical Composition of MJU-10/B and MJU-7 A/B Self-Protection Flares<br />
Part<br />
Flare Pellet<br />
First Fire Mixture<br />
Immediate Fire/<br />
Dip Coat<br />
Aluminum Wrap<br />
End Cap<br />
Felt Spacers<br />
Safe & Initiation (S&I)<br />
Device (MJU-7 A/B only)<br />
Piston<br />
Source: Air Force 1997<br />
3.0 Flare Ejection<br />
Components<br />
Combustible<br />
Polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) (-[C 2 F 4 ] n – n=20,000<br />
units)<br />
Magnesium (Mg)<br />
Fluoroelastomer (Viton, Fluorel, Hytemp)<br />
Boron (B)<br />
Magnesium (Mg)<br />
Potassium perchlorate (KClO 4 )<br />
Barium chromate (BaCrO 4 )<br />
Fluoroelastomer<br />
Polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) (-[C 2 F 4 ] n – n=20,000<br />
units)<br />
Magnesium (Mg)<br />
Fluoroelastomer<br />
Assemblage (Residual Components)<br />
Mylar or filament tape bonded to aluminum tape<br />
Plastic (nylon)<br />
Felt pads (0.25 inches by cross section of flare)<br />
Plastic (nylon, tefzel, zytel)<br />
Plastic (nylon, tefzel, zytel)<br />
The MJU-10/B and the MJU-7 A/B are semi-parasitic type flares that use a BBU-36/B impulse<br />
cartridge. In these flares, a slider assembly incorporates an initiation pellet (640 milligrams of<br />
magnesium, Teflon, and Viton A or Fluorel binder). This pellet is ignited by the impulse<br />
cartridge, and hot gases reach the flare as the slider exits the case, exposing a fire passage from<br />
the initiation pellet to the first fire mixture on top of the flare pellet. Table 3 describes the<br />
components of BBU-36/B impulse charges.<br />
Flares are tested to ensure they meet performance requirements in terms of ejection, ignition,<br />
and effective radiant intensity. If the number of failures exceeds the upper control quality<br />
assurance acceptance level, the flares are returned to the manufacturer. A statistical sample is<br />
taken to ensure that approximately 99 percent must be judged reliable for ejection, ignition, and<br />
intensity.<br />
Page B-2<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix B Characteristics and Analysis of Flares
Figure 1. MJU-10/B Flare<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix B Characteristics and Analysis of Flares Page B-3
Figure 2. MJU-7 A/B Flare<br />
Page B-4<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix B Characteristics and Analysis of Flares
Flare failure would occur if the flare failed to eject, did not burn properly, or failed to ignite<br />
upon ejection. For training use within the airspace, a dud flare would be one that successfully<br />
ejected but failed to ignite. That probability is projected to be 0.01 percent based upon dud<br />
flares located during military range cleanup.<br />
B4<br />
Risks Associated with Flare Use<br />
Risks associated with the use of flares fall within two main categories: the risk of fire from a<br />
flare and the risk of being struck by a residual flare component.<br />
B4.1 Fire Risk<br />
Fire risk associated with flares stems from an unlikely, but possible scenario which results in the<br />
flare reaching the ground or vegetation while still burning. The altitude from which flares are<br />
dropped is strictly regulated by the airspace manager, and is based on a number of factors<br />
including flare burn-out rate. The flare burn-out rate is shown in Table 4. Defensive flares<br />
typically burn out in 3.5 to 5 seconds, during which time the flare will have fallen between 200<br />
and 400 feet. Specific defensive flare burn-out rates are classified. Table 4 is based on<br />
conditions that assume zero aerodynamic drag and a constant acceleration rate of 32.2 feet per<br />
second per second.<br />
D = (V o * T) +( 0.5 * (A * T 2 ))<br />
Where:<br />
D = Distance<br />
Vo = Initial Velocity = 0<br />
T = Time (in Seconds)<br />
A = Acceleration<br />
Table 3. Components of BBU-36/B Impulse Charges<br />
Component<br />
BBU-36/B<br />
Overall Size<br />
Overall Volume<br />
Total Explosive<br />
Volume<br />
Bridgewire<br />
Closure Disk<br />
0.740 x 0.550 inches<br />
0.236 cubic inches<br />
0.081 cubic inches<br />
Trophet A<br />
Scribed disc, washer<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix B Characteristics and Analysis of Flares Page B-5
Component<br />
Volume<br />
Weight<br />
Compaction<br />
Initiation Charge<br />
0.01 cubic inches<br />
100 mg<br />
6,200 psi<br />
BBU-36/B<br />
Composition 42.5% boron<br />
52.5 % potassium perchlorate<br />
5.0% Viton A<br />
Booster Charge<br />
Volume 0.01 cubic inches<br />
Weight 150 mg<br />
Compaction 5,100 psi<br />
Composition 20% boron<br />
80% potassium nitrate<br />
Main Charge<br />
Volume 0.061 cubic inches<br />
Weight 655 mg<br />
Compaction Loose fill<br />
Composition Hercules #2400 smokeless powder<br />
(50-77% nitrocellulose, 15-43%<br />
nitroglycerine)<br />
Source: Air Force 1997<br />
Table 4. Flare Burn-out Rates<br />
Time (in Sec)<br />
Acceleration<br />
Distance<br />
(in feet)<br />
0.5 32.2 4.025<br />
1.0 32.2 16.100<br />
1.5 32.2 36.<strong>22</strong>5<br />
2.0 32.2 64.400<br />
2.5 32.2 100.625<br />
3.0 32.2 144.900<br />
3.5 32.2 197.<strong>22</strong>5<br />
4.0 32.2 257.600<br />
4.5 32.2 326.025<br />
5.0 32.2 402.500<br />
5.5 32.2 487.025<br />
6.0 32.2 579.600<br />
6.5 32.2 680.<strong>22</strong>5<br />
7.0 32.2 788.900<br />
7.5 32.2 905.625<br />
8.0 32.2 1030.400<br />
8.5 32.2 1163.<strong>22</strong>5<br />
9.0 32.2 1304.100<br />
9.5 32.2 1453.025<br />
10.0 32.2 1610.000<br />
Note: Initial velocity is assumed to be zero.<br />
Page B-6<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix B Characteristics and Analysis of Flares
4.2 Flare Strike Risk<br />
Residual flare materials are those that are not completely consumed during ignition and fall to<br />
the ground, creating the risk of striking a person or property. Residual material from the MJU-<br />
10/B and the MJU-7 A/B consists of an end cap, an initiation assembly (safe and initiation<br />
device [S&I]), a piston, one or two felt spacers, and an aluminum-coated mylar wrapper (Table<br />
5). For both flare types, the wrapper may be partially consumed during ignition, so the<br />
wrapping residual material could range in size from the smallest size, 1 inch by 1 inch, to the<br />
largest size, 4 inches by 13 inches. The size of the residual wrapping material would depend<br />
upon the amount of combustion that occurred as the flare was deployed.<br />
Table 5. Residual Material from MJU-10/B and MJU-7 A/B Flares<br />
Component<br />
Weight<br />
MJU-10/B<br />
End cap<br />
0.0144 pounds<br />
Safe & Initiation (S&I) device 0.0453 pounds<br />
Piston<br />
0.0144 pounds<br />
Felt spacer<br />
0.0025 pounds<br />
Wrapper (4 inches x 13 inches) 0.0430 pounds<br />
MJU-7 A/B<br />
End cap<br />
0.0072 pounds<br />
Safe & Initiation (S&I) device 0.0453 pounds<br />
Piston<br />
0.0072 pounds<br />
Felt spacer<br />
0.0011 pounds<br />
Wrapper (3 inches x 13 inches) 0.03<strong>22</strong> pounds<br />
After ignition, as described in section 3.0, most residual components of the MJU-10/B and the<br />
MJU-7 A/B flare have high surface to mass ratios and are not judged capable of damage or<br />
injury when they impact the surface. One component of the MJU-10/B and the MJU-7 A/B<br />
flare, referred to as the S&I device, has a weight of approximately 0.725 ounces (0.0453 pounds).<br />
It is sized and shaped such that it is capable of achieving a terminal velocity that could cause<br />
injury if it struck a person.<br />
The following discussion addresses the likelihood of an S&I device striking a person and the<br />
effect if such a strike were to occur.<br />
B4.2.1<br />
Technical Approach<br />
<strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson (JBER) aircraft training flights are distributed randomly and<br />
uniformly within the Military Operations Areas (MOAs). Avoidance areas that are designated<br />
for low altitude flight need not be avoided for higher altitude flight. Flare component release<br />
altitudes and angles of release are sufficiently random that ground impact locations of flare<br />
materials are also assumed to be uniformly distributed under the MOAs.<br />
For any particular residual component of a released flare, the conditional probability that it<br />
strikes a particular object is equal to the ratio of the object area to the total area of the MOA. For<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix B Characteristics and Analysis of Flares Page B-7
multiple objects (i.e., people, structures, vehicles), the probability of striking any one object is<br />
the ratio of the sum of object areas to the MOA. The frequency of a residual component striking<br />
one of many objects is the frequency of releasing residual components times the conditional<br />
probability of striking one of the many objects per given release.<br />
In equation form, this relationship is:<br />
Strike frequency<br />
component drop frequencyin MOA<br />
areaof object numberof objects in MOA<br />
MOA area<br />
<br />
<br />
The potential consequences of a residual component with high velocity and momentum striking<br />
particular objects are postulated as follows:<br />
Striking the head of an unprotected individual: possible concussion<br />
Striking the body of an unprotected individual: possible injury<br />
Striking a private structure: possible damage<br />
Striking a private vehicle: possible damage (potential injury if vehicle moving)<br />
The effect of the impact of a residual MJU-7 A/B or MJU-10/B component from Table 6 is<br />
judged by computing the component’s terminal velocity and momentum.<br />
Terminal velocity (V T ) is calculated by the equation:<br />
V<br />
T<br />
2 W<br />
<br />
<br />
A<br />
C<br />
d<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
0.5<br />
W<br />
<br />
29<br />
<br />
A <br />
0.5<br />
Where: V T = Terminal Velocity (in Feet/Second)<br />
= Nominal Air Density (2.378 X 10 -3 lbs-sec 2 /feet 4 )<br />
W = Weight (in Pounds)<br />
A = Surface Area Facing the Air stream (in feet 2 )<br />
C d = Drag Coefficient = 1.0<br />
Drag coefficients are approximately 1.0 over a wide range of velocities and Reynolds numbers<br />
(Re) for irregular objects (e.g., non-spherical). Using this drag coefficient, the computed<br />
terminal velocities (Table 7) produce Re values within this range (Re < 2×10 5 ), which justifies<br />
the use of the drag coefficient.<br />
The weights and geometries of major flare components are approximately as listed in Table 6.<br />
Terminal velocity momentums of these components are computed based on maximum (two<br />
square inches) and minimum (one square inch) areas and are listed in Table 7. Actual values<br />
would be between these extremes. The momentum values are the product of mass (in slugs)<br />
Page B-8<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix B Characteristics and Analysis of Flares
and velocity. A slug is defined as the mass that, when acted upon by a 1-pound force, is given<br />
an acceleration of 1.0 feet/sec 2 .<br />
Table 6. MJU-10/B and MJU-7 A/B Flare Major Component Properties<br />
Component Geometry Dimensions (inches) Weight (Pounds)<br />
MJU-10/B<br />
S&I device Rectangular solid 2 x 0.825 x 0.5 0.0453<br />
Piston Rectangular open 2 × 2 × 0.25 0.0144<br />
End Caps Rectangular plate 2 × 2 × 0.125 0.0144<br />
MJU-7 A/B<br />
S&I device Rectangular solid 2 × 0.825 × 0.5 0.0453<br />
Piston Rectangular open 2 × 0.825 × 0.5 0.0072<br />
End Caps Rectangular plate 1 × 2 × 0.125 0.0072<br />
Table 7. MJU-10/B and MJU-7 A/B Flare Component Hazard <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Maximum Surface Area<br />
Terminal<br />
Velocity<br />
(ft/sec)<br />
Minimum Surface Area<br />
Terminal<br />
Velocity<br />
(ft/sec)<br />
Momentum<br />
Component Area (in 2 )<br />
(lb-sec) Area (in 2 )<br />
MJU-10/B<br />
S&I device 1.65 58 0.08 0.41 115 0.16<br />
Piston 4.0 21 0.009 0.50 59 0.03<br />
End Cap 4.0 21 0.009 0.25 84 0.04<br />
MJU-7 A/B<br />
S&I device 1.65 58 0.08 0.41 115 0.16<br />
Piston 1.65 23 0.005 0.41 46 0.01<br />
End Caps 2.0 21 0.005 0.13 84 0.02<br />
Momentum<br />
(lb-sec)<br />
The focus of this analysis will be the S&I device. Other flare components are not calculated to<br />
achieve a momentum that could cause damage.<br />
The maximum momentum of the S&I device would vary between 0.08 and 0.16 pound-seconds<br />
depending upon orientation. In this momentum range, an injury is postulated that could be<br />
equivalent to a bruise from a large hailstone. Approximately 20 percent of any strikes could be<br />
to the head. A potentially more serious injury could be expected if the head were struck.<br />
As a basis of comparison, laboratory experimentation in accident pathology indicates that there<br />
is a 90 percent probability that brain concussions would result from an impulse of 0.70 poundseconds<br />
to the head, and less than a 1 percent probability from impulses less than 0.10 poundseconds<br />
(Air Force 1997). The only MJU-7 A/B or MJU-10/B component with momentum<br />
values near 0.10 pound-seconds is the S&I device with a momentum between 0.08 and 0.16<br />
pound-seconds. A strike of an S&I device to the head has approximately a 1 percent probability<br />
of causing a concussion.<br />
What would be the likelihood of a hailstone sized S&I device striking an individual? People at<br />
risk of being struck by a dropped S&I device are assumed to be standing outdoors under a<br />
MOA (people in structures or vehicles are assumed protected). The dimensions of an average<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix B Characteristics and Analysis of Flares Page B-9
person are approximately 5 feet 6 inches high by 2 feet wide by 1 foot deep (men 5 feet 10<br />
inches; women 5 feet 4 inches; children varied). The S&I device is expected to strike ground<br />
objects at an angle of 80 degrees or greater to the ground, assuming 80 degrees to the ground<br />
allows for possible wind or other drift effects. With the flare component falling at 80 degrees to<br />
the ground, a person’s body (5.5 × 2 × 1 feet) projects an area of 3.9 feet 2 normal to the path of<br />
the dropped component. In a normal case, a person would be outdoors and unprotected 10<br />
percent of the time based on Department of Energy and <strong>Environmental</strong> Protection Agency<br />
national studies (Tennessee Valley Authority 2003; Klepeis et al. 2001). In the case of hunting or<br />
fishing, a person is assumed to be out of doors and unprotected 2/3 of the day (although a<br />
person would probably be wearing a hat or other head covering during such activity).<br />
The frequencies of a strike to an unprotected person can be computed based on the data and<br />
assumptions presented above. Flight maneuvers to deploy flares are assumed to be randomly<br />
distributed throughout the training airspace.<br />
A personnel injury could occur if an S&I device struck an unprotected person. The frequency of<br />
striking a person is:<br />
body area pop.<br />
density Fract unprot MOAarea<br />
Injury frequency comp drop freq <br />
MOA area<br />
Under the Stony MOAs, this calculates to approximately:<br />
2<br />
2<br />
8<br />
2<br />
Injury frequency 10,000 / year 3.9 ft / pers 0.1 pers / mi 0.67 3.5910<br />
mi / ft<br />
= 0.00009 injuries/year<br />
This means that in a representative Alaskan rural area beneath a MOA used extensively for<br />
pilot training (see Table 2.2-4), the annual expected person strike frequency would be less than<br />
one person in every 10,000 years.<br />
The maximum momentum of the S&I device, either from an MJU-7 A/B or an MJU-10/B flare,<br />
would vary between 0.08 and 0.16 pound-seconds depending upon orientation of the falling<br />
S&I device. In this momentum range, an injury is postulated that could be equivalent to a<br />
bruise from a large hailstone. Approximately 20 percent of any strikes could be to the head.<br />
As a basis of comparison, laboratory experimentation in accident pathology indicates that there<br />
is a less than a 1 percent probability of a brain concussion from an impulse of less than 0.10<br />
pound-seconds to the head, and a 90 percent probability that brain concussions would result<br />
from an impulse of 0.70 pound-seconds to the head (Air Force 1997). The only MJU-7 A/B or<br />
MJU-10/B component with momentum values near 0.10 pound-seconds is the S&I device with<br />
a momentum between 0.08 and 0.16 pound-seconds. A strike of an S&I device to the head has<br />
approximately a 1 percent probability of causing a concussion.<br />
This means that there would be an approximately 1 in 100 chance of a concussion in 10,000<br />
years of flare use over the Stony MOAs. This level of risk is negligible.<br />
<br />
<br />
2<br />
Page B-10<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix B Characteristics and Analysis of Flares
The S&I device maximum momentum would vary between 0.08 and 0.16 pound-seconds<br />
depending upon orientation. A strike to a vehicle could cause a cosmetic dent similar to a<br />
hailstone impact. Although not numerically estimated, a strike to a moving vehicle could result<br />
in a vehicle accident.<br />
B5<br />
Policies and Regulations Addressing Flare Use<br />
Air Force policy on flare use was established by the Airspace Subgroup of Headquarters Air<br />
Force Flight Standards Agency in 1993 (Memorandum from John R. Williams, 28 June 1993)<br />
(Air Force 1997). This policy permits flare drops over military-owned or controlled land and in<br />
Warning Areas. Flare drops are permitted in MOAs and Military Training Routes (MTRs) only<br />
when an environmental analysis has been completed. Minimum altitudes must be adhered to.<br />
Flare drops must also comply with established written range regulations and procedures.<br />
Air Force Instruction (AFI) 11-214 prohibits using flare systems except in approved areas with<br />
intent to dispense, and sets certain conditions for employment of flares. Flares are authorized<br />
over government-owned and controlled property and over-water Warning Areas with no<br />
minimum altitude restrictions when there is no fire hazard. If a fire hazard exists, minimum<br />
altitudes will be maintained in accordance with the applicable directive or range order. An Air<br />
Combat Command supplement to AFI 11-214 (15 October 2003) prescribes a minimum flare<br />
employment altitude of 2,000 feet above ground level (AGL) over non-government owned or<br />
controlled property (Air Force 1997).<br />
JBER has a more stringent policy regarding flare use than that outlined in AFI 11-214. Within<br />
JBER airspaces approved for flare use, flares may only be deployed above 5,000 feet AGL from<br />
June 1 through September 30. For the remainder of the year, the minimum altitude for flare use<br />
is 2,000 feet AGL.<br />
B6<br />
References<br />
Klepeis, Neil E., William C. Nelson, Wayne R. Ott, John P. Robinson, Andy M. Tsang, Paul<br />
Switzer, Joeseph V. Behar, Stephen C. Hern, and William H. Engelmann. The National<br />
Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS) a resource for assessing exposure to<br />
environmental pollutants. http://exposurescience.org/research.shtml#NHAPS<br />
Science Applications International Corporation. 2006. Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> Effects of Defensive<br />
Countermeasures: An <strong>Up</strong>date. Prepared for U.S. Air Force Air Combat Command.<br />
Tennessee Valley Authority. 2003. On the Air, Technical Notes on Important Air Quality<br />
Issues, Outdoor Ozone Monitors Over-Estimate Actual Human Ozone Exposure.<br />
http://www.tva.gov/environment/air/ontheair/pdf/outdoor.pdf<br />
United States Air Force (Air Force). 1997. <strong>Environmental</strong> Effects of Self Protection Chaff and<br />
Flares. Final Report. August.<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix B Characteristics and Analysis of Flares Page B-11
United States Bureau of the Census. 2000. Table DP-1 Profile of General Demographic<br />
Characteristics. Census 2000 SF-1. Available on-line at http://factfinder.census.gov.<br />
Page B-12<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix B Characteristics and Analysis of Flares
Appendix C<br />
Public and Agency Outreach
This page intentionally left blank.
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
<strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson, Alaska<br />
Agency Coordination<br />
EA Memorandum Distribution List<br />
Federal Aviation Administration, Alaska Region<br />
ATTN: Bob Lewis<br />
<strong>22</strong>2 West 7th Ave. #14<br />
Anchorage, AK 99513<br />
U.S. Department of Agriculture<br />
ATTN: Robert Jones<br />
Natural Resources Conservation Service<br />
800 W. Evergreen Ave., Suite 100<br />
Palmer, AK 99545-6539<br />
U.S. Department of Interior<br />
ATTN: Pamela Bergmann<br />
Office of <strong>Environmental</strong> Policy<br />
1689 C Street, Rm. 119<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
U.S. Department of Transportation<br />
ATTN: David Miller<br />
Federal Highway Administration<br />
P.O. Box 21648<br />
Juneau, AK 99802-1648<br />
U.S. Department of Transportation<br />
ATTN: Robert Bouchard<br />
Maritime Administration<br />
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE (mar-510,#w21-<strong>22</strong>4<br />
Washington, DC 20590<br />
U.S. Department of Interior<br />
ATTN: Edward Parisian<br />
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Alaska Regional Office<br />
P.O. Box 25520<br />
Juneau, AK 99802<br />
U.S. Department of Transportation<br />
ATTN: Richard Krochalis<br />
Federal Transit Administration, Regional 10<br />
915 Second Ave., Ste. 3142<br />
Seattle, WA 98174-1002<br />
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service<br />
ATTN: Ann Rappoport<br />
Anchorage Fish & Wildlife Field Office<br />
605 4th Ave., Rm. G-61<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
United States Coast Guard<br />
ATTN: CAPT Jason Fosdick<br />
Sector Anchorage<br />
510 L Street, Ste. 100<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
National Marine Fisheries Service<br />
ATTN: Brad Smith<br />
Protected Resources Div/Habitat Consrv<br />
<strong>22</strong>2 W. 7th Avenue, Rm. 517<br />
Anchorage, AK 99513<br />
National Park Service<br />
ATTN: Sue Masica<br />
Alaska Regional Office<br />
240 W 5th Avenue, Room 114<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Bureau of Land Management<br />
ATTN: Gary Reimer<br />
Anchorage District Office<br />
4700 BLM Rd.<br />
Anchorage, AK 99507<br />
U.S. <strong>Environmental</strong> Protection Agency, Region 10<br />
ATTN: Jacques Gusmano<br />
<strong>22</strong>2 West 7th Ave.<br />
Room 537<br />
Anchorage, AK 99513-7588<br />
Alaska Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Conservation<br />
ATTN: Deb Caillouet<br />
555 Cordova<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Alaska Department of Fish and Game<br />
ATTN: Mark Burch<br />
Division of Wildlife Conservation<br />
333 Raspberry Rd.<br />
Anchorage, AK 99518-1599<br />
Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs<br />
ATTN: MAJ GEN Thomas Katkus<br />
PO Box 5800<br />
Camp Denali<br />
JBER, AK 99505<br />
Alaska Department of Natural Resources<br />
ATTN: Thomas Irwin<br />
Office of the Commissioner<br />
550 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 1400<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Alaska Department of Natural Resources<br />
ATTN: Judith Bittner<br />
Office of History and Archaeology<br />
1
550 W 7th Avenue, Ste. 1310<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Alaska Department of Natural Resources<br />
ATTN: James King<br />
Parks and Outdoor Recreation<br />
550 W. 7th Ave., Ste 1380<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501-3561<br />
Alaska Department of Transportation<br />
ATTN: Lance Wilbur, AICP<br />
Central Region<br />
4111 Aviation Ave.<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Alaska Railroad Corporation<br />
ATTN: Christopher Aadnesen<br />
P.O. Box 107500<br />
Anchorage, AK 99510<br />
Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport<br />
ATTN: John Parrot<br />
PO Box 196960<br />
Anchorage, AK 99519<br />
Anchorage Assembly<br />
ATTN: Barbara Gruenstein<br />
P.O. Box 196650<br />
Anchorage, AK 99519<br />
Municipality of Anchorage<br />
ATTN: Debbie Sedwick<br />
Anchorage Community Development Authority<br />
245 W. 5th Ave., Ste. 1<strong>22</strong><br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Municipality of Anchorage<br />
ATTN: Greg Jones<br />
Community Planning & Development<br />
4700 Elmore Road<br />
Anchorage, AK 99507<br />
Port MacKenzie<br />
ATTN: Marc VanDongen<br />
Matanuska-Susitna Borough<br />
350 East Dahlia Ave<br />
Palmer, AK 99645<br />
Port of Anchorage<br />
ATTN: William Sheffield<br />
2000 Anchorage Port Rd.<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Eagle River Community Council<br />
ATTN: Michael Foster<br />
13135 Old Glenn Hwy<br />
Ste 200<br />
Eagle River, AK 99577<br />
Fairview Community Council<br />
ATTN: Sharon Chamard<br />
1121 E. 10th Ave.<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Government Hill Community Council<br />
ATTN: Bob French<br />
P. O. Box 101677<br />
Anchorage, AK 99510<br />
Mountain View Community Council<br />
ATTN: Don Crandall<br />
P.O. Box 142824<br />
Anchorage, AK 99514<br />
Northeast Community Council<br />
ATTN: Kevin Smestad<br />
7600 Boundary Ave<br />
Anchorage, AK 99504<br />
Municipality of Anchorage<br />
ATTN: Dan Sullivan<br />
632 W. Sixth Ave.<br />
Suite 840<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Congressman Don Young<br />
ATTN: Michael Anderson<br />
2111 Rayburn House Office Building<br />
Washington, DC 20515-0201<br />
Congressman Don Young<br />
ATTN: Chad Padgett<br />
510 L Street<br />
Suite 580<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Senator Mark Begich<br />
ATTN: Susanne Fleek<br />
510 L Street<br />
Suite 750<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Senator Mark Begich<br />
ATTN: David Ramseur<br />
144 Russell Senate Office Building<br />
Washington, DC 20510<br />
2
Senator Lisa Murkowski<br />
ATTN: Karen Knutson<br />
709 Hart Senate Office Building<br />
Washington, DC 20510-0202<br />
Senator Lisa Murkowski<br />
ATTN: Kevin Sweeney<br />
510 L Street<br />
Suite 550<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
State of Alaska<br />
ATTN: Sean Parnell<br />
PO Box 110001<br />
Juneau, AK 99811-0001<br />
Tanana Community and School Library<br />
P.O. Box 109<br />
Tanana, AK 99777<br />
University of Alaska Fairbanks<br />
Elmer E. Rasmuson Library<br />
P.O. Box 756811<br />
Fairbanks, AK 99775<br />
Wasilla Public Library<br />
391 N. Main St.<br />
Wasilla, AK 99654<br />
Alaska Resources Library and Information Services<br />
3211 Providence Dr.<br />
Suite 111<br />
Anchorage, AK 99508<br />
Alaska State Court Law Library<br />
303 K Street<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Alaska State Library<br />
P.O. Box 110571<br />
Juneau, AK 99811<br />
Delta Community Library<br />
<strong>22</strong>91 Deborah St.<br />
Delta Junction, AK 99737<br />
Eagle Public Library<br />
P.O. Box 45<br />
Eagle, AK 99738<br />
Fairbanks North Star Borough<br />
Noel Wien Library<br />
1215 Cowles St.<br />
Fairbanks, AK 99701<br />
<strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong> Richardson Library<br />
123 Chilkoot Ave.<br />
JBER, AK 99505<br />
Lime Village School Library<br />
P.O. Box LVD, Lime Village VIA<br />
McGrath, AK, AK 99627<br />
Martin Monsen Regional Library<br />
P.O. Box 147<br />
Naknek, AK 99633<br />
3
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
<strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson, Alaska<br />
Alaska Native Villages<br />
EA Memorandum Distribution List<br />
Native Village of Cantwell<br />
ATTN: Veronica Nicholas<br />
P.O. Box 94<br />
Cantwell, AK 99729<br />
Chalkyitsik Village<br />
ATTN: William Salmon, Jr.<br />
PO Box 57<br />
Chalkyitsik, AK 99788<br />
ATTN: Gary Harrison<br />
Chickaloon Native Village<br />
PO Box 1105<br />
Chickaloon, AK 99647<br />
Circle Native Community (IRA)<br />
ATTN: Larry Nathaniel<br />
PO Box 89<br />
Circle, AK 99733<br />
Native Village of Crooked Creek<br />
ATTN: Evelyn Thomas<br />
P.O. Box 69<br />
Crooked Creek, AK 99575<br />
Village of Dot Lake<br />
ATTN: William Miller<br />
PO Box <strong>22</strong>79<br />
Dot Lake, AK 99737<br />
Native Village of Eagle (IRA)<br />
ATTN: Conan Goebel<br />
PO Box 19<br />
Eagle, AK 99738<br />
Eklutna Native Village<br />
ATTN: Dorothy Cook<br />
26339 Eklutna Village Road<br />
Chugiak, AK 99567<br />
Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich'in Tribal Govt. (Native<br />
Village of Fort Yukon (IRA))<br />
ATTN: Michael Peter<br />
P.O. Box 126<br />
Fort Yukon, AK 99740-0126<br />
Healy Lake Village<br />
ATTN: JoAnn Polston<br />
PO Box 74090<br />
Fairbanks, AK 99706<br />
Igiugig Village<br />
ATTN: AlexAnna Salmon<br />
P.O. Box 4008<br />
Igiugig, AK 99613-4008<br />
Village of Iliamna<br />
ATTN: Harvey Anelon<br />
P.O. Box 286<br />
Iliamna, AK 99606<br />
Kaltag Tribal Council<br />
ATTN: Donna Esmailka<br />
P.O. Box 129<br />
Kaltag, AK 99748<br />
King Salmon Tribe<br />
ATTN: Ralph Angasan, Sr<br />
P.O. Box 68<br />
King Salmon, AK 99613-0068<br />
Knik Village<br />
ATTN: Debra Call<br />
PO Box 871565<br />
Wasilla, AK 99687<br />
Kokhanok Village<br />
ATTN: John Nelson<br />
P.O. Box 1007<br />
Kokhanok, AK 99606<br />
Lime Village Traditional Council<br />
ATTN: Jennifer John<br />
P.O. Box LVD, Lime Village VIA<br />
McGrath, AK, AK 99627<br />
Louden Tribal Council<br />
ATTN: Chris Sommer<br />
100 Tiger Hwy.<br />
Galena, AK 99741<br />
McGrath Native Village Council<br />
ATTN: Carolyn Vanderpool<br />
P.O. Box 134<br />
McGrath, AK 99627<br />
Naknek Native Village<br />
ATTN: Patrick Peterson, Jr.<br />
P.O. Box 106<br />
Naknek, AK 99633<br />
Nenana Native Association<br />
ATTN: William Lord<br />
P.O. Box 356<br />
Nenana, AK 99760<br />
1
New Koliganek Village Council<br />
ATTN: Herman Nelson, Sr.<br />
P.O. Box 5057<br />
Koliganek, AK 99576<br />
New Stuyahok Village<br />
ATTN: Evan Wonhda<br />
P.O. Box 49<br />
New Stuyahok, AK 99636<br />
Newhalen Village<br />
ATTN: Raymond Wassillie<br />
P.O. Box 207<br />
Newhalen, AK 99606<br />
Native Village of Tyonek<br />
ATTN: Angela Sandstol<br />
PO Box 82009<br />
Tyonek, AK 99682<br />
Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government (IRA)<br />
ATTN: Julian Roberts<br />
P.O. Box 81080<br />
Venetie, AK 99781<br />
Venetie Village Council<br />
ATTN: Mary Gamboa<br />
P.O. Box 81119<br />
Venetie, AK 99781<br />
Nondalton Village<br />
ATTN: Jack Hobson<br />
P.O. Box 49<br />
Nondalton, AK 99640<br />
Pedro Bay Village Council<br />
ATTN: Keith Jensen<br />
P.O. Box 47020<br />
Pedro Bay, AK 99647<br />
Red Devil Traditional Council<br />
ATTN: Mary Willis<br />
P.O. Box 61<br />
Red Devil, AK 99656<br />
Ruby Tribal Council<br />
ATTN: Patrick McCarty<br />
P.O. Box 210<br />
Ruby, AK 99768<br />
Sleetmute Traditional Council<br />
ATTN: Pete Mellick<br />
P.O. Box 109<br />
Sleetmute, AK 99668<br />
Village of Stony River<br />
ATTN: Mary Willis<br />
P.O. Box SRV<br />
Stony River, AK 99557<br />
Tanacross Village Council<br />
ATTN: Roy Danny<br />
P.O. Box 76009<br />
Tanacross, AK 99776<br />
Native Village of Tanana (IRA)<br />
ATTN: Julia Roberts-Hyslop<br />
P.O. Box 130<br />
Tanana, AK 99777<br />
2
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
<strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson, Alaska<br />
Agency Coordination<br />
EA Memorandum Distribution List<br />
Federal Aviation Administration, Alaska Region<br />
ATTN: Bob Lewis<br />
<strong>22</strong>2 West 7th Ave. #14<br />
Anchorage, AK 99513<br />
U.S. Department of Agriculture<br />
ATTN: Robert Jones<br />
Natural Resources Conservation Service<br />
800 W. Evergreen Ave., Suite 100<br />
Palmer, AK 99545-6539<br />
U.S. Department of Interior<br />
ATTN: Pamela Bergmann<br />
Office of <strong>Environmental</strong> Policy<br />
1689 C Street, Rm. 119<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
U.S. Department of Transportation<br />
ATTN: David Miller<br />
Federal Highway Administration<br />
P.O. Box 21648<br />
Juneau, AK 99802-1648<br />
U.S. Department of Transportation<br />
ATTN: Robert Bouchard<br />
Maritime Administration<br />
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE (mar-510,#w21-<strong>22</strong>4<br />
Washington, DC 20590<br />
U.S. Department of Interior<br />
ATTN: Edward Parisian<br />
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Alaska Regional Office<br />
P.O. Box 25520<br />
Juneau, AK 99802<br />
U.S. Department of Transportation<br />
ATTN: Richard Krochalis<br />
Federal Transit Administration, Regional 10<br />
915 Second Ave., Ste. 3142<br />
Seattle, WA 98174-1002<br />
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service<br />
ATTN: Ann Rappoport<br />
Anchorage Fish & Wildlife Field Office<br />
605 4th Ave., Rm. G-61<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
United States Coast Guard<br />
ATTN: CAPT Jason Fosdick<br />
Sector Anchorage<br />
510 L Street, Ste. 100<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
National Marine Fisheries Service<br />
ATTN: Brad Smith<br />
Protected Resources Div/Habitat Consrv<br />
<strong>22</strong>2 W. 7th Avenue, Rm. 517<br />
Anchorage, AK 99513<br />
National Park Service<br />
ATTN: Sue Masica<br />
Alaska Regional Office<br />
240 W 5th Avenue, Room 114<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Bureau of Land Management<br />
ATTN: Gary Reimer<br />
Anchorage District Office<br />
4700 BLM Rd.<br />
Anchorage, AK 99507<br />
U.S. <strong>Environmental</strong> Protection Agency, Region 10<br />
ATTN: Jacques Gusmano<br />
<strong>22</strong>2 West 7th Ave.<br />
Room 537<br />
Anchorage, AK 99513-7588<br />
Alaska Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Conservation<br />
ATTN: Deb Caillouet<br />
555 Cordova<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Alaska Department of Fish and Game<br />
ATTN: Mark Burch<br />
Division of Wildlife Conservation<br />
333 Raspberry Rd.<br />
Anchorage, AK 99518-1599<br />
Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs<br />
ATTN: MAJ GEN Thomas Katkus<br />
PO Box 5800<br />
Camp Denali<br />
JBER, AK 99505<br />
Alaska Department of Natural Resources<br />
ATTN: Thomas Irwin<br />
Office of the Commissioner<br />
550 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 1400<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
1
Alaska Department of Natural Resources<br />
ATTN: Judith Bittner<br />
Office of History and Archaeology<br />
550 W 7th Avenue, Ste. 1310<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Alaska Department of Natural Resources<br />
ATTN: James King<br />
Parks and Outdoor Recreation<br />
550 W. 7th Ave., Ste 1380<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501-3561<br />
Alaska Department of Transportation<br />
ATTN: Lance Wilbur, AICP<br />
Central Region<br />
4111 Aviation Ave.<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Alaska Railroad Corporation<br />
ATTN: Christopher Aadnesen<br />
P.O. Box 107500<br />
Anchorage, AK 99510<br />
Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport<br />
ATTN: John Parrot<br />
PO Box 196960<br />
Anchorage, AK 99519<br />
Anchorage Assembly<br />
ATTN: Barbara Gruenstein<br />
P.O. Box 196650<br />
Anchorage, AK 99519<br />
Municipality of Anchorage<br />
ATTN: Debbie Sedwick<br />
Anchorage Community Development Authority<br />
245 W. 5th Ave., Ste. 1<strong>22</strong><br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Municipality of Anchorage<br />
ATTN: Greg Jones<br />
Community Planning & Development<br />
4700 Elmore Road<br />
Anchorage, AK 99507<br />
Port MacKenzie<br />
ATTN: Marc VanDongen<br />
Matanuska-Susitna Borough<br />
350 East Dahlia Ave<br />
Palmer, AK 99645<br />
Port of Anchorage<br />
ATTN: William Sheffield<br />
2000 Anchorage Port Rd.<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Eagle River Community Council<br />
ATTN: Michael Foster<br />
13135 Old Glenn Hwy<br />
Ste 200<br />
Eagle River, AK 99577<br />
Fairview Community Council<br />
ATTN: Sharon Chamard<br />
1121 E. 10th Ave.<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Government Hill Community Council<br />
ATTN: Bob French<br />
P. O. Box 101677<br />
Anchorage, AK 99510<br />
Mountain View Community Council<br />
ATTN: Don Crandall<br />
P.O. Box 142824<br />
Anchorage, AK 99514<br />
Northeast Community Council<br />
ATTN: Kevin Smestad<br />
7600 Boundary Ave<br />
Anchorage, AK 99504<br />
Municipality of Anchorage<br />
ATTN: Dan Sullivan<br />
632 W. Sixth Ave.<br />
Suite 840<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Congressman Don Young<br />
ATTN: Michael Anderson<br />
2111 Rayburn House Office Building<br />
Washington, DC 20515-0201<br />
Congressman Don Young<br />
ATTN: Chad Padgett<br />
510 L Street<br />
Suite 580<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Senator Mark Begich<br />
ATTN: Susanne Fleek<br />
510 L Street<br />
Suite 750<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Senator Mark Begich<br />
ATTN: David Ramseur<br />
144 Russell Senate Office Building<br />
Washington, DC 20510<br />
2
Senator Lisa Murkowski<br />
ATTN: Karen Knutson<br />
709 Hart Senate Office Building<br />
Washington, DC 20510-0202<br />
Senator Lisa Murkowski<br />
ATTN: Kevin Sweeney<br />
510 L Street<br />
Suite 550<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
State of Alaska<br />
ATTN: Sean Parnell<br />
PO Box 110001<br />
Juneau, AK 99811-0001<br />
Alaska Resources Library and Information Services<br />
3211 Providence Dr.<br />
Suite 111<br />
Anchorage, AK 99508<br />
Alaska State Court Law Library<br />
303 K Street<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Alaska State Library<br />
P.O. Box 110571<br />
Juneau, AK 99811<br />
Delta Community Library<br />
<strong>22</strong>91 Deborah St.<br />
Delta Junction, AK 99737<br />
Eagle Public Library<br />
P.O. Box 45<br />
Eagle, AK 99738<br />
Fairbanks North Star Borough<br />
Noel Wien Library<br />
1215 Cowles St.<br />
Fairbanks, AK 99701<br />
<strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong> Richardson Library<br />
123 Chilkoot Ave.<br />
JBER, AK 99505<br />
Lime Village School Library<br />
P.O. Box LVD, Lime Village VIA<br />
McGrath, AK, AK 99627<br />
Martin Monsen Regional Library<br />
P.O. Box 147<br />
Naknek, AK 99633<br />
Tanana Community and School Library<br />
P.O. Box 109<br />
Tanana, AK 99777<br />
University of Alaska Fairbanks<br />
Elmer E. Rasmuson Library<br />
P.O. Box 756811<br />
Fairbanks, AK 99775<br />
Wasilla Public Library<br />
391 N. Main St.<br />
Wasilla, AK 99654<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
<strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson, Alaska<br />
Alaska Native Villages<br />
EA Memorandum Distribution List<br />
Native Village of Cantwell<br />
ATTN: Veronica Nicholas<br />
P.O. Box 94<br />
Cantwell, AK 99729<br />
Chalkyitsik Village<br />
ATTN: William Salmon, Jr.<br />
PO Box 57<br />
Chalkyitsik, AK 99788<br />
ATTN: Gary Harrison<br />
Chickaloon Native Village<br />
PO Box 1105<br />
Chickaloon, AK 99647<br />
Circle Native Community (IRA)<br />
ATTN: Larry Nathaniel<br />
PO Box 89<br />
Circle, AK 99733<br />
Native Village of Crooked Creek<br />
ATTN: Evelyn Thomas<br />
P.O. Box 69<br />
Crooked Creek, AK 99575<br />
Village of Dot Lake<br />
ATTN: William Miller<br />
PO Box <strong>22</strong>79<br />
Dot Lake, AK 99737<br />
Native Village of Eagle (IRA)<br />
ATTN: Conan Goebel<br />
PO Box 19<br />
Eagle, AK 99738<br />
3
Eklutna Native Village<br />
ATTN: Dorothy Cook<br />
26339 Eklutna Village Road<br />
Chugiak, AK 99567<br />
Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich'in Tribal Govt. (Native<br />
Village of Fort Yukon (IRA))<br />
ATTN: Michael Peter<br />
P.O. Box 126<br />
Fort Yukon, AK 99740-0126<br />
Healy Lake Village<br />
ATTN: JoAnn Polston<br />
PO Box 74090<br />
Fairbanks, AK 99706<br />
Igiugig Village<br />
ATTN: AlexAnna Salmon<br />
P.O. Box 4008<br />
Igiugig, AK 99613-4008<br />
Village of Iliamna<br />
ATTN: Harvey Anelon<br />
P.O. Box 286<br />
Iliamna, AK 99606<br />
Kaltag Tribal Council<br />
ATTN: Donna Esmailka<br />
P.O. Box 129<br />
Kaltag, AK 99748<br />
King Salmon Tribe<br />
ATTN: Ralph Angasan, Sr<br />
P.O. Box 68<br />
King Salmon, AK 99613-0068<br />
Knik Village<br />
ATTN: Debra Call<br />
PO Box 871565<br />
Wasilla, AK 99687<br />
Kokhanok Village<br />
ATTN: John Nelson<br />
P.O. Box 1007<br />
Kokhanok, AK 99606<br />
Lime Village Traditional Council<br />
ATTN: Jennifer John<br />
P.O. Box LVD, Lime Village VIA<br />
McGrath, AK, AK 99627<br />
Louden Tribal Council<br />
ATTN: Chris Sommer<br />
100 Tiger Hwy.<br />
Galena, AK 99741<br />
McGrath Native Village Council<br />
ATTN: Carolyn Vanderpool<br />
P.O. Box 134<br />
McGrath, AK 99627<br />
Naknek Native Village<br />
ATTN: Patrick Peterson, Jr.<br />
P.O. Box 106<br />
Naknek, AK 99633<br />
Nenana Native Association<br />
ATTN: William Lord<br />
P.O. Box 356<br />
Nenana, AK 99760<br />
New Koliganek Village Council<br />
ATTN: Herman Nelson, Sr.<br />
P.O. Box 5057<br />
Koliganek, AK 99576<br />
New Stuyahok Village<br />
ATTN: Evan Wonhda<br />
P.O. Box 49<br />
New Stuyahok, AK 99636<br />
Newhalen Village<br />
ATTN: Raymond Wassillie<br />
P.O. Box 207<br />
Newhalen, AK 99606<br />
Nondalton Village<br />
ATTN: Jack Hobson<br />
P.O. Box 49<br />
Nondalton, AK 99640<br />
Pedro Bay Village Council<br />
ATTN: Keith Jensen<br />
P.O. Box 47020<br />
Pedro Bay, AK 99647<br />
Red Devil Traditional Council<br />
ATTN: Mary Willis<br />
P.O. Box 61<br />
Red Devil, AK 99656<br />
Ruby Tribal Council<br />
ATTN: Patrick McCarty<br />
P.O. Box 210<br />
Ruby, AK 99768<br />
Sleetmute Traditional Council<br />
ATTN: Pete Mellick<br />
P.O. Box 109<br />
Sleetmute, AK 99668<br />
4
Village of Stony River<br />
ATTN: Mary Willis<br />
P.O. Box SRV<br />
Stony River, AK 99557<br />
Tanacross Village Council<br />
ATTN: Roy Danny<br />
P.O. Box 76009<br />
Tanacross, AK 99776<br />
Native Village of Tanana (IRA)<br />
ATTN: Julia Roberts-Hyslop<br />
P.O. Box 130<br />
Tanana, AK 99777<br />
Native Village of Tyonek<br />
ATTN: Angela Sandstol<br />
PO Box 82009<br />
Tyonek, AK 99682<br />
Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government (IRA)<br />
ATTN: Julian Roberts<br />
P.O. Box 81080<br />
Venetie, AK 99781<br />
Venetie Village Council<br />
ATTN: Mary Gamboa<br />
P.O. Box 81119<br />
Venetie, AK 99781<br />
5
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
<strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson, Alaska<br />
Agency Coordination<br />
EA Memorandum Distribution List<br />
Federal Aviation Administration, Alaska Region<br />
ATTN: Bob Lewis<br />
<strong>22</strong>2 West 7th Ave. #14<br />
Anchorage, AK 99513<br />
U.S. Department of Agriculture<br />
ATTN: Robert Jones<br />
Natural Resources Conservation Service<br />
800 W. Evergreen Ave., Suite 100<br />
Palmer, AK 99545-6539<br />
U.S. Department of Interior<br />
ATTN: Pamela Bergmann<br />
Office of <strong>Environmental</strong> Policy<br />
1689 C Street, Rm. 119<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
U.S. Department of Transportation<br />
ATTN: David Miller<br />
Federal Highway Administration<br />
P.O. Box 21648<br />
Juneau, AK 99802-1648<br />
U.S. Department of Transportation<br />
ATTN: Robert Bouchard<br />
Maritime Administration<br />
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE (mar-510,#w21-<strong>22</strong>4<br />
Washington, DC 20590<br />
U.S. Department of Interior<br />
ATTN: Edward Parisian<br />
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Alaska Regional Office<br />
P.O. Box 25520<br />
Juneau, AK 99802<br />
U.S. Department of Transportation<br />
ATTN: Richard Krochalis<br />
Federal Transit Administration, Regional 10<br />
915 Second Ave., Ste. 3142<br />
Seattle, WA 98174-1002<br />
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service<br />
ATTN: Ann Rappoport<br />
Anchorage Fish & Wildlife Field Office<br />
605 4th Ave., Rm. G-61<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
United States Coast Guard<br />
ATTN: CAPT Jason Fosdick<br />
Sector Anchorage<br />
510 L Street, Ste. 100<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
National Marine Fisheries Service<br />
ATTN: Brad Smith<br />
Protected Resources Div/Habitat Consrv<br />
<strong>22</strong>2 W. 7th Avenue, Rm. 517<br />
Anchorage, AK 99513<br />
National Park Service<br />
ATTN: Sue Masica<br />
Alaska Regional Office<br />
240 W 5th Avenue, Room 114<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Bureau of Land Management<br />
ATTN: Gary Reimer<br />
Anchorage District Office<br />
4700 BLM Rd.<br />
Anchorage, AK 99507<br />
U.S. <strong>Environmental</strong> Protection Agency, Region 10<br />
ATTN: Jacques Gusmano<br />
<strong>22</strong>2 West 7th Ave.<br />
Room 537<br />
Anchorage, AK 99513-7588<br />
Alaska Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Conservation<br />
ATTN: Deb Caillouet<br />
555 Cordova<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Alaska Department of Fish and Game<br />
ATTN: Mark Burch<br />
Division of Wildlife Conservation<br />
333 Raspberry Rd.<br />
Anchorage, AK 99518-1599<br />
Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs<br />
ATTN: MAJ GEN Thomas Katkus<br />
PO Box 5800<br />
Camp Denali<br />
JBER, AK 99505<br />
Alaska Department of Natural Resources<br />
ATTN: Thomas Irwin<br />
Office of the Commissioner<br />
550 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 1400<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
1
Alaska Department of Natural Resources<br />
ATTN: Judith Bittner<br />
Office of History and Archaeology<br />
550 W 7th Avenue, Ste. 1310<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Alaska Department of Natural Resources<br />
ATTN: James King<br />
Parks and Outdoor Recreation<br />
550 W. 7th Ave., Ste 1380<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501-3561<br />
Alaska Department of Transportation<br />
ATTN: Lance Wilbur, AICP<br />
Central Region<br />
4111 Aviation Ave.<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Alaska Railroad Corporation<br />
ATTN: Christopher Aadnesen<br />
P.O. Box 107500<br />
Anchorage, AK 99510<br />
Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport<br />
ATTN: John Parrot<br />
PO Box 196960<br />
Anchorage, AK 99519<br />
Anchorage Assembly<br />
ATTN: Barbara Gruenstein<br />
P.O. Box 196650<br />
Anchorage, AK 99519<br />
Municipality of Anchorage<br />
ATTN: Debbie Sedwick<br />
Anchorage Community Development Authority<br />
245 W. 5th Ave., Ste. 1<strong>22</strong><br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Municipality of Anchorage<br />
ATTN: Greg Jones<br />
Community Planning & Development<br />
4700 Elmore Road<br />
Anchorage, AK 99507<br />
Port MacKenzie<br />
ATTN: Marc VanDongen<br />
Matanuska-Susitna Borough<br />
350 East Dahlia Ave<br />
Palmer, AK 99645<br />
Port of Anchorage<br />
ATTN: William Sheffield<br />
2000 Anchorage Port Rd.<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Eagle River Community Council<br />
ATTN: Michael Foster<br />
13135 Old Glenn Hwy<br />
Ste 200<br />
Eagle River, AK 99577<br />
Fairview Community Council<br />
ATTN: Sharon Chamard<br />
1121 E. 10th Ave.<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Government Hill Community Council<br />
ATTN: Bob French<br />
P. O. Box 101677<br />
Anchorage, AK 99510<br />
Mountain View Community Council<br />
ATTN: Don Crandall<br />
P.O. Box 142824<br />
Anchorage, AK 99514<br />
Northeast Community Council<br />
ATTN: Kevin Smestad<br />
7600 Boundary Ave<br />
Anchorage, AK 99504<br />
Municipality of Anchorage<br />
ATTN: Dan Sullivan<br />
632 W. Sixth Ave.<br />
Suite 840<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Congressman Don Young<br />
ATTN: Michael Anderson<br />
2111 Rayburn House Office Building<br />
Washington, DC 20515-0201<br />
Congressman Don Young<br />
ATTN: Chad Padgett<br />
510 L Street<br />
Suite 580<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Senator Mark Begich<br />
ATTN: Susanne Fleek<br />
510 L Street<br />
Suite 750<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Senator Mark Begich<br />
ATTN: David Ramseur<br />
144 Russell Senate Office Building<br />
Washington, DC 20510<br />
2
Senator Lisa Murkowski<br />
ATTN: Karen Knutson<br />
709 Hart Senate Office Building<br />
Washington, DC 20510-0202<br />
Senator Lisa Murkowski<br />
ATTN: Kevin Sweeney<br />
510 L Street<br />
Suite 550<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
State of Alaska<br />
ATTN: Sean Parnell<br />
PO Box 110001<br />
Juneau, AK 99811-0001<br />
Alaska Resources Library and Information Services<br />
3211 Providence Dr.<br />
Suite 111<br />
Anchorage, AK 99508<br />
Alaska State Court Law Library<br />
303 K Street<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Alaska State Library<br />
P.O. Box 110571<br />
Juneau, AK 99811<br />
Delta Community Library<br />
<strong>22</strong>91 Deborah St.<br />
Delta Junction, AK 99737<br />
Eagle Public Library<br />
P.O. Box 45<br />
Eagle, AK 99738<br />
Fairbanks North Star Borough<br />
Noel Wien Library<br />
1215 Cowles St.<br />
Fairbanks, AK 99701<br />
<strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong> Richardson Library<br />
123 Chilkoot Ave.<br />
JBER, AK 99505<br />
Lime Village School Library<br />
P.O. Box LVD, Lime Village VIA<br />
McGrath, AK, AK 99627<br />
Martin Monsen Regional Library<br />
P.O. Box 147<br />
Naknek, AK 99633<br />
Tanana Community and School Library<br />
P.O. Box 109<br />
Tanana, AK 99777<br />
University of Alaska Fairbanks<br />
Elmer E. Rasmuson Library<br />
P.O. Box 756811<br />
Fairbanks, AK 99775<br />
Wasilla Public Library<br />
391 N. Main St.<br />
Wasilla, AK 99654<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
<strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson, Alaska<br />
Alaska Native Villages<br />
EA Memorandum Distribution List<br />
Native Village of Cantwell<br />
ATTN: Veronica Nicholas<br />
P.O. Box 94<br />
Cantwell, AK 99729<br />
Chalkyitsik Village<br />
ATTN: William Salmon, Jr.<br />
PO Box 57<br />
Chalkyitsik, AK 99788<br />
ATTN: Gary Harrison<br />
Chickaloon Native Village<br />
PO Box 1105<br />
Chickaloon, AK 99647<br />
Circle Native Community (IRA)<br />
ATTN: Larry Nathaniel<br />
PO Box 89<br />
Circle, AK 99733<br />
Native Village of Crooked Creek<br />
ATTN: Evelyn Thomas<br />
P.O. Box 69<br />
Crooked Creek, AK 99575<br />
Village of Dot Lake<br />
ATTN: William Miller<br />
PO Box <strong>22</strong>79<br />
Dot Lake, AK 99737<br />
Native Village of Eagle (IRA)<br />
ATTN: Conan Goebel<br />
PO Box 19<br />
Eagle, AK 99738<br />
3
Eklutna Native Village<br />
ATTN: Dorothy Cook<br />
26339 Eklutna Village Road<br />
Chugiak, AK 99567<br />
Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich'in Tribal Govt. (Native<br />
Village of Fort Yukon (IRA))<br />
ATTN: Michael Peter<br />
P.O. Box 126<br />
Fort Yukon, AK 99740-0126<br />
Healy Lake Village<br />
ATTN: JoAnn Polston<br />
PO Box 74090<br />
Fairbanks, AK 99706<br />
Igiugig Village<br />
ATTN: AlexAnna Salmon<br />
P.O. Box 4008<br />
Igiugig, AK 99613-4008<br />
Village of Iliamna<br />
ATTN: Harvey Anelon<br />
P.O. Box 286<br />
Iliamna, AK 99606<br />
Kaltag Tribal Council<br />
ATTN: Donna Esmailka<br />
P.O. Box 129<br />
Kaltag, AK 99748<br />
King Salmon Tribe<br />
ATTN: Ralph Angasan, Sr<br />
P.O. Box 68<br />
King Salmon, AK 99613-0068<br />
Knik Village<br />
ATTN: Debra Call<br />
PO Box 871565<br />
Wasilla, AK 99687<br />
Kokhanok Village<br />
ATTN: John Nelson<br />
P.O. Box 1007<br />
Kokhanok, AK 99606<br />
Lime Village Traditional Council<br />
ATTN: Jennifer John<br />
P.O. Box LVD, Lime Village VIA<br />
McGrath, AK, AK 99627<br />
Louden Tribal Council<br />
ATTN: Chris Sommer<br />
100 Tiger Hwy.<br />
Galena, AK 99741<br />
McGrath Native Village Council<br />
ATTN: Carolyn Vanderpool<br />
P.O. Box 134<br />
McGrath, AK 99627<br />
Naknek Native Village<br />
ATTN: Patrick Peterson, Jr.<br />
P.O. Box 106<br />
Naknek, AK 99633<br />
Nenana Native Association<br />
ATTN: William Lord<br />
P.O. Box 356<br />
Nenana, AK 99760<br />
New Koliganek Village Council<br />
ATTN: Herman Nelson, Sr.<br />
P.O. Box 5057<br />
Koliganek, AK 99576<br />
New Stuyahok Village<br />
ATTN: Evan Wonhda<br />
P.O. Box 49<br />
New Stuyahok, AK 99636<br />
Newhalen Village<br />
ATTN: Raymond Wassillie<br />
P.O. Box 207<br />
Newhalen, AK 99606<br />
Nondalton Village<br />
ATTN: Jack Hobson<br />
P.O. Box 49<br />
Nondalton, AK 99640<br />
Pedro Bay Village Council<br />
ATTN: Keith Jensen<br />
P.O. Box 47020<br />
Pedro Bay, AK 99647<br />
Red Devil Traditional Council<br />
ATTN: Mary Willis<br />
P.O. Box 61<br />
Red Devil, AK 99656<br />
Ruby Tribal Council<br />
ATTN: Patrick McCarty<br />
P.O. Box 210<br />
Ruby, AK 99768<br />
Sleetmute Traditional Council<br />
ATTN: Pete Mellick<br />
P.O. Box 109<br />
Sleetmute, AK 99668<br />
4
Village of Stony River<br />
ATTN: Mary Willis<br />
P.O. Box SRV<br />
Stony River, AK 99557<br />
Tanacross Village Council<br />
ATTN: Roy Danny<br />
P.O. Box 76009<br />
Tanacross, AK 99776<br />
Native Village of Tanana (IRA)<br />
ATTN: Julia Roberts-Hyslop<br />
P.O. Box 130<br />
Tanana, AK 99777<br />
Native Village of Tyonek<br />
ATTN: Angela Sandstol<br />
PO Box 82009<br />
Tyonek, AK 99682<br />
Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government (IRA)<br />
ATTN: Julian Roberts<br />
P.O. Box 81080<br />
Venetie, AK 99781<br />
Venetie Village Council<br />
ATTN: Mary Gamboa<br />
P.O. Box 81119<br />
Venetie, AK 99781<br />
5
From:<br />
Godden, Elizabeth E Civ USAF PACAF 673 CES/CEANR<br />
To: Jimenez, Joseph A.; Van Tassel, Robert E.<br />
Subject:<br />
FW: F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> JBER EA<br />
Date:<br />
Monday, April 11, 2011 12:42:09 PM<br />
FYI<br />
-----Original Message-----<br />
From: Howard, Louis R (DEC) [mailto:louis.howard@alaska.gov]<br />
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 12:36 PM<br />
To: Godden, Elizabeth E Civ USAF PACAF 673 CES/CEANR<br />
Cc: gusmano.jacques@epa.gov<br />
Subject: F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> JBER EA<br />
ADEC has no comments nor any objections to the Proposed Action to<br />
augment the existing F-<strong>22</strong> operational wing at JBER with six primary<br />
aircraft and one backup aircraft; to conduct flying sorties at the base<br />
and in existing Alaskan airspace for training and deployment; and<br />
implement personnel changes to conform to the F-<strong>22</strong> Wing requirements.<br />
Louis Howard<br />
State of Alaska<br />
Dept. of <strong>Environmental</strong> Conservation<br />
Contaminated Sites Program<br />
Federal Facilities <strong>Environmental</strong> Restoration<br />
555 Cordova St 2nd fl.<br />
Anchorage AK 99501-2617<br />
Phone: (907) 269-7552<br />
Facsimile: (907) 269-7649<br />
louis.howard@alaska.gov
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
<strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson, Alaska<br />
Agency Coordination<br />
EA Memorandum Distribution List<br />
Federal Aviation Administration, Alaska Region<br />
ATTN: Bob Lewis<br />
<strong>22</strong>2 West 7th Ave. #14<br />
Anchorage, AK 99513<br />
U.S. Department of Agriculture<br />
ATTN: Robert Jones<br />
Natural Resources Conservation Service<br />
800 W. Evergreen Ave., Suite 100<br />
Palmer, AK 99545-6539<br />
U.S. Department of Interior<br />
ATTN: Pamela Bergmann<br />
Office of <strong>Environmental</strong> Policy<br />
1689 C Street, Rm. 119<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
U.S. Department of Transportation<br />
ATTN: David Miller<br />
Federal Highway Administration<br />
P.O. Box 21648<br />
Juneau, AK 99802-1648<br />
U.S. Department of Transportation<br />
ATTN: Robert Bouchard<br />
Maritime Administration<br />
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE (mar-510,#w21-<strong>22</strong>4<br />
Washington, DC 20590<br />
U.S. Department of Interior<br />
ATTN: Edward Parisian<br />
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Alaska Regional Office<br />
P.O. Box 25520<br />
Juneau, AK 99802<br />
U.S. Department of Transportation<br />
ATTN: Richard Krochalis<br />
Federal Transit Administration, Regional 10<br />
915 Second Ave., Ste. 3142<br />
Seattle, WA 98174-1002<br />
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service<br />
ATTN: Ann Rappoport<br />
Anchorage Fish & Wildlife Field Office<br />
605 4th Ave., Rm. G-61<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
United States Coast Guard<br />
ATTN: CAPT Jason Fosdick<br />
Sector Anchorage<br />
510 L Street, Ste. 100<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
National Marine Fisheries Service<br />
ATTN: Brad Smith<br />
Protected Resources Div/Habitat Consrv<br />
<strong>22</strong>2 W. 7th Avenue, Rm. 517<br />
Anchorage, AK 99513<br />
National Park Service<br />
ATTN: Sue Masica<br />
Alaska Regional Office<br />
240 W 5th Avenue, Room 114<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Bureau of Land Management<br />
ATTN: Gary Reimer<br />
Anchorage District Office<br />
4700 BLM Rd.<br />
Anchorage, AK 99507<br />
U.S. <strong>Environmental</strong> Protection Agency, Region 10<br />
ATTN: Jacques Gusmano<br />
<strong>22</strong>2 West 7th Ave.<br />
Room 537<br />
Anchorage, AK 99513-7588<br />
Alaska Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Conservation<br />
ATTN: Deb Caillouet<br />
555 Cordova<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Alaska Department of Fish and Game<br />
ATTN: Mark Burch<br />
Division of Wildlife Conservation<br />
333 Raspberry Rd.<br />
Anchorage, AK 99518-1599<br />
Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs<br />
ATTN: MAJ GEN Thomas Katkus<br />
PO Box 5800<br />
Camp Denali<br />
JBER, AK 99505<br />
Alaska Department of Natural Resources<br />
ATTN: Thomas Irwin<br />
Office of the Commissioner<br />
550 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 1400<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
1
Alaska Department of Natural Resources<br />
ATTN: Judith Bittner<br />
Office of History and Archaeology<br />
550 W 7th Avenue, Ste. 1310<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Alaska Department of Natural Resources<br />
ATTN: James King<br />
Parks and Outdoor Recreation<br />
550 W. 7th Ave., Ste 1380<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501-3561<br />
Alaska Department of Transportation<br />
ATTN: Lance Wilbur, AICP<br />
Central Region<br />
4111 Aviation Ave.<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Alaska Railroad Corporation<br />
ATTN: Christopher Aadnesen<br />
P.O. Box 107500<br />
Anchorage, AK 99510<br />
Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport<br />
ATTN: John Parrot<br />
PO Box 196960<br />
Anchorage, AK 99519<br />
Anchorage Assembly<br />
ATTN: Barbara Gruenstein<br />
P.O. Box 196650<br />
Anchorage, AK 99519<br />
Municipality of Anchorage<br />
ATTN: Debbie Sedwick<br />
Anchorage Community Development Authority<br />
245 W. 5th Ave., Ste. 1<strong>22</strong><br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Municipality of Anchorage<br />
ATTN: Greg Jones<br />
Community Planning & Development<br />
4700 Elmore Road<br />
Anchorage, AK 99507<br />
Port MacKenzie<br />
ATTN: Marc VanDongen<br />
Matanuska-Susitna Borough<br />
350 East Dahlia Ave<br />
Palmer, AK 99645<br />
Port of Anchorage<br />
ATTN: William Sheffield<br />
2000 Anchorage Port Rd.<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Eagle River Community Council<br />
ATTN: Michael Foster<br />
13135 Old Glenn Hwy<br />
Ste 200<br />
Eagle River, AK 99577<br />
Fairview Community Council<br />
ATTN: Sharon Chamard<br />
1121 E. 10th Ave.<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Government Hill Community Council<br />
ATTN: Bob French<br />
P. O. Box 101677<br />
Anchorage, AK 99510<br />
Mountain View Community Council<br />
ATTN: Don Crandall<br />
P.O. Box 142824<br />
Anchorage, AK 99514<br />
Northeast Community Council<br />
ATTN: Kevin Smestad<br />
7600 Boundary Ave<br />
Anchorage, AK 99504<br />
Municipality of Anchorage<br />
ATTN: Dan Sullivan<br />
632 W. Sixth Ave.<br />
Suite 840<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Congressman Don Young<br />
ATTN: Michael Anderson<br />
2111 Rayburn House Office Building<br />
Washington, DC 20515-0201<br />
Congressman Don Young<br />
ATTN: Chad Padgett<br />
510 L Street<br />
Suite 580<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Senator Mark Begich<br />
ATTN: Susanne Fleek<br />
510 L Street<br />
Suite 750<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Senator Mark Begich<br />
ATTN: David Ramseur<br />
144 Russell Senate Office Building<br />
Washington, DC 20510<br />
2
Senator Lisa Murkowski<br />
ATTN: Karen Knutson<br />
709 Hart Senate Office Building<br />
Washington, DC 20510-0202<br />
Senator Lisa Murkowski<br />
ATTN: Kevin Sweeney<br />
510 L Street<br />
Suite 550<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
State of Alaska<br />
ATTN: Sean Parnell<br />
PO Box 110001<br />
Juneau, AK 99811-0001<br />
Alaska Resources Library and Information Services<br />
3211 Providence Dr.<br />
Suite 111<br />
Anchorage, AK 99508<br />
Alaska State Court Law Library<br />
303 K Street<br />
Anchorage, AK 99501<br />
Alaska State Library<br />
P.O. Box 110571<br />
Juneau, AK 99811<br />
Delta Community Library<br />
<strong>22</strong>91 Deborah St.<br />
Delta Junction, AK 99737<br />
Eagle Public Library<br />
P.O. Box 45<br />
Eagle, AK 99738<br />
Fairbanks North Star Borough<br />
Noel Wien Library<br />
1215 Cowles St.<br />
Fairbanks, AK 99701<br />
<strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong> Richardson Library<br />
123 Chilkoot Ave.<br />
JBER, AK 99505<br />
Lime Village School Library<br />
P.O. Box LVD, Lime Village VIA<br />
McGrath, AK, AK 99627<br />
Martin Monsen Regional Library<br />
P.O. Box 147<br />
Naknek, AK 99633<br />
Tanana Community and School Library<br />
P.O. Box 109<br />
Tanana, AK 99777<br />
University of Alaska Fairbanks<br />
Elmer E. Rasmuson Library<br />
P.O. Box 756811<br />
Fairbanks, AK 99775<br />
Wasilla Public Library<br />
391 N. Main St.<br />
Wasilla, AK 99654<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
<strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson, Alaska<br />
Alaska Native Villages<br />
EA Memorandum Distribution List<br />
Native Village of Cantwell<br />
ATTN: Veronica Nicholas<br />
P.O. Box 94<br />
Cantwell, AK 99729<br />
Chalkyitsik Village<br />
ATTN: William Salmon, Jr.<br />
PO Box 57<br />
Chalkyitsik, AK 99788<br />
ATTN: Gary Harrison<br />
Chickaloon Native Village<br />
PO Box 1105<br />
Chickaloon, AK 99647<br />
Circle Native Community (IRA)<br />
ATTN: Larry Nathaniel<br />
PO Box 89<br />
Circle, AK 99733<br />
Native Village of Crooked Creek<br />
ATTN: Evelyn Thomas<br />
P.O. Box 69<br />
Crooked Creek, AK 99575<br />
Village of Dot Lake<br />
ATTN: William Miller<br />
PO Box <strong>22</strong>79<br />
Dot Lake, AK 99737<br />
Native Village of Eagle (IRA)<br />
ATTN: Conan Goebel<br />
PO Box 19<br />
Eagle, AK 99738<br />
3
Eklutna Native Village<br />
ATTN: Dorothy Cook<br />
26339 Eklutna Village Road<br />
Chugiak, AK 99567<br />
Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich'in Tribal Govt. (Native<br />
Village of Fort Yukon (IRA))<br />
ATTN: Michael Peter<br />
P.O. Box 126<br />
Fort Yukon, AK 99740-0126<br />
Healy Lake Village<br />
ATTN: JoAnn Polston<br />
PO Box 74090<br />
Fairbanks, AK 99706<br />
Igiugig Village<br />
ATTN: AlexAnna Salmon<br />
P.O. Box 4008<br />
Igiugig, AK 99613-4008<br />
Village of Iliamna<br />
ATTN: Harvey Anelon<br />
P.O. Box 286<br />
Iliamna, AK 99606<br />
Kaltag Tribal Council<br />
ATTN: Donna Esmailka<br />
P.O. Box 129<br />
Kaltag, AK 99748<br />
King Salmon Tribe<br />
ATTN: Ralph Angasan, Sr<br />
P.O. Box 68<br />
King Salmon, AK 99613-0068<br />
Knik Village<br />
ATTN: Debra Call<br />
PO Box 871565<br />
Wasilla, AK 99687<br />
Kokhanok Village<br />
ATTN: John Nelson<br />
P.O. Box 1007<br />
Kokhanok, AK 99606<br />
Lime Village Traditional Council<br />
ATTN: Jennifer John<br />
P.O. Box LVD, Lime Village VIA<br />
McGrath, AK, AK 99627<br />
Louden Tribal Council<br />
ATTN: Chris Sommer<br />
100 Tiger Hwy.<br />
Galena, AK 99741<br />
McGrath Native Village Council<br />
ATTN: Carolyn Vanderpool<br />
P.O. Box 134<br />
McGrath, AK 99627<br />
Naknek Native Village<br />
ATTN: Patrick Peterson, Jr.<br />
P.O. Box 106<br />
Naknek, AK 99633<br />
Nenana Native Association<br />
ATTN: William Lord<br />
P.O. Box 356<br />
Nenana, AK 99760<br />
New Koliganek Village Council<br />
ATTN: Herman Nelson, Sr.<br />
P.O. Box 5057<br />
Koliganek, AK 99576<br />
New Stuyahok Village<br />
ATTN: Evan Wonhda<br />
P.O. Box 49<br />
New Stuyahok, AK 99636<br />
Newhalen Village<br />
ATTN: Raymond Wassillie<br />
P.O. Box 207<br />
Newhalen, AK 99606<br />
Nondalton Village<br />
ATTN: Jack Hobson<br />
P.O. Box 49<br />
Nondalton, AK 99640<br />
Pedro Bay Village Council<br />
ATTN: Keith Jensen<br />
P.O. Box 47020<br />
Pedro Bay, AK 99647<br />
Red Devil Traditional Council<br />
ATTN: Mary Willis<br />
P.O. Box 61<br />
Red Devil, AK 99656<br />
Ruby Tribal Council<br />
ATTN: Patrick McCarty<br />
P.O. Box 210<br />
Ruby, AK 99768<br />
Sleetmute Traditional Council<br />
ATTN: Pete Mellick<br />
P.O. Box 109<br />
Sleetmute, AK 99668<br />
4
Village of Stony River<br />
ATTN: Mary Willis<br />
P.O. Box SRV<br />
Stony River, AK 99557<br />
Tanacross Village Council<br />
ATTN: Roy Danny<br />
P.O. Box 76009<br />
Tanacross, AK 99776<br />
Native Village of Tanana (IRA)<br />
ATTN: Julia Roberts-Hyslop<br />
P.O. Box 130<br />
Tanana, AK 99777<br />
Native Village of Tyonek<br />
ATTN: Angela Sandstol<br />
PO Box 82009<br />
Tyonek, AK 99682<br />
Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government (IRA)<br />
ATTN: Julian Roberts<br />
P.O. Box 81080<br />
Venetie, AK 99781<br />
Venetie Village Council<br />
ATTN: Mary Gamboa<br />
P.O. Box 81119<br />
Venetie, AK 99781<br />
5
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> and signed Finding of No Significant Impact Distribution<br />
The F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>, <strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson, Alaska and signed Finding of<br />
No Significant Impact were distributed in July 2011 to the same agencies and organizations that received the 12<br />
April 2011 <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact.
Appendix D<br />
Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operations
This page intentionally left blank.
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operations<br />
APPENDIX D AIRCRAFT NOISE ANALYSIS<br />
AND AIRSPACE OPERATIONS<br />
Noise is generally described as unwanted sound. Unwanted sound can be based on objective<br />
effects (such as hearing loss or damage to structures) or subjective judgments (community<br />
annoyance). Noise analysis thus requires a combination of physical measurement of sound,<br />
physical and physiological effects, plus psycho- and socio-acoustic effects.<br />
Section 1.0 of this appendix describes how sound is measured and summarizes noise impact in<br />
terms of community acceptability and land use compatibility. Section 2.0 gives detailed<br />
descriptions of the effects of noise that lead to the impact guidelines presented in section 1.<br />
Section 3.0 provides a description of the specific methods used to predict aircraft noise,<br />
including a detailed description of sonic booms.<br />
D1<br />
Noise Descriptors and Impact<br />
Aircraft operating in the Military Operations Areas (MOAs) and Warning Areas generate two<br />
types of sound. One is “subsonic” noise, which is continuous sound generated by the aircraft’s<br />
engines and also by air flowing over the aircraft itself. The other is sonic booms (only in MOAs<br />
and Warning Areas authorized for supersonic), which are transient impulsive sounds generated<br />
during supersonic flight. These are quantified in different ways.<br />
Section 1.1 describes the characteristics which are used to describe sound. Section 1.2 describes<br />
the specific noise metrics used for noise impact analysis. Section 1.3 describes how<br />
environmental impact and land use compatibility are judged in terms of these quantities.<br />
D1.1 Quantifying Sound<br />
Measurement and perception of sound involve two basic physical characteristics: amplitude<br />
and frequency. Amplitude is a measure of the strength of the sound and is directly measured in<br />
terms of the pressure of a sound wave. Because sound pressure varies in time, various types of<br />
pressure averages are usually used. Frequency, commonly perceived as pitch, is the number of<br />
times per second the sound causes air molecules to oscillate. Frequency is measured in units of<br />
cycles per second, or hertz (Hz).<br />
Amplitude. The loudest sounds the human ear can comfortably hear have acoustic energy one<br />
trillion times the acoustic energy of sounds the ear can barely detect. Because of this vast range,<br />
attempts to represent sound amplitude by pressure are generally unwieldy. Sound is, therefore,<br />
usually represented on a logarithmic scale with a unit called the decibel (dB). Sound on the<br />
decibel scale is referred to as a sound level. The threshold of human hearing is approximately 0<br />
dB, and the threshold of discomfort or pain is around 120 dB.<br />
Because of the logarithmic nature of the decibel scale, sounds levels do not add and subtract<br />
directly and are somewhat cumbersome to handle mathematically. However, some simple<br />
Page D-1
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operation<br />
rules of thumb are useful in dealing with sound levels. First, if a sound’s intensity is doubled,<br />
the sound level increases by 3 dB, regardless of the initial sound level. Thus, for example:<br />
60 dB + 60 dB = 63 dB, and<br />
80 dB + 80 dB = 83 dB.<br />
The total sound level produced by two sounds of different levels is usually only slightly more<br />
than the higher of the two. For example:<br />
60.0 dB + 70.0 dB = 70.4 dB.<br />
Because the addition of sound levels behaves differently than that of ordinary numbers, such<br />
addition is often referred to as “decibel addition” or “energy addition.” The latter term arises<br />
from the fact that combination of decibel values consists of first converting each decibel value to<br />
its corresponding acoustic energy, then adding the energies using the normal rules of addition,<br />
and finally converting the total energy back to its decibel equivalent.<br />
The difference in dB between two sounds represents the ratio of the amplitudes of those two<br />
sounds. Because human senses tend to be proportional (i.e., detect whether one sound is twice<br />
as big as another) rather than absolute (i.e., detect whether one sound is a given number of<br />
pressure units bigger than another), the decibel scale correlates well with human response.<br />
Under laboratory conditions, differences in sound level of 1 dB can be detected by the human<br />
ear. In the community, the smallest change in average noise level that can be detected is about 3<br />
dB. A change in sound level of about 10 dB is usually perceived by the average person as a<br />
doubling (or halving) of the sound’s loudness, and this relation holds true for loud sounds and<br />
for quieter sounds. A decrease in sound level of 10 dB actually represents a 90 percent decrease<br />
in sound intensity but only a 50 percent decrease in perceived loudness because of the nonlinear<br />
response of the human ear (similar to most human senses).<br />
The one exception to the exclusive use of levels, rather than physical pressure units, to quantify<br />
sound is in the case of sonic booms. As described in Section 3, sonic booms are coherent waves<br />
with specific characteristics. There is a long-standing tradition of describing individual sonic<br />
booms by the amplitude of the shock waves, in pounds per square foot (psf). This is<br />
particularly relevant when assessing structural effects as opposed to loudness or cumulative<br />
community response. In this study, sonic booms are quantified by either dB or psf, as<br />
appropriate for the particular impact being assessed.<br />
Frequency. The normal human ear can hear frequencies from about 20 Hz to about 20,000 Hz.<br />
It is most sensitive to sounds in the 1,000 to 4,000 Hz range. When measuring community<br />
response to noise, it is common to adjust the frequency content of the measured sound to<br />
correspond to the frequency sensitivity of the human ear. This adjustment is called<br />
A-weighting (American National Standards Institute 1988). Sound levels that have been so<br />
adjusted are referred to as A-weighted sound levels.<br />
The spectral content of the F-<strong>22</strong>A is somewhat different than other aircraft, including(at high<br />
throttle settings) the characteristic nonlinear crackle of high thrust engines. The spectral<br />
Page D-2
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operations<br />
characteristics of various noises are accounted for by A-weighting, which approximates the<br />
response of the human ear. There are other, more detailed, weighting factors that have been<br />
applied to sounds. In the 1950s and 1960s, when noise from civilian jet aircraft became an issue,<br />
substantial research was performed to determine what characteristics of jet noise were a<br />
problem. The metrics Perceived Noise Level and Effective Perceived Noise Level were<br />
developed. These accounted for nonlinear behavior of hearing and the importance of low<br />
frequencies at high levels, and for many years airport/airbase noise contours were presented in<br />
terms of Noise Exposure Forecast, which was based on Perceived Noise Level and Effective<br />
Perceived Noise Level. In the 1970s, however, it was realized that the primary intrusive aspect<br />
of aircraft noise was the high noise level, a factor which is well represented by A-weighted<br />
levels and L dn . The refinement of Perceived Noise Level, Effective Perceived Noise Level, and<br />
Noise Exposure Forecast was not significant in protecting the public from noise.<br />
There has been continuing research on noise metrics and the importance of sound quality,<br />
sponsored by the Department of Defense (DoD) for military aircraft noise and by the Federal<br />
Aviation Administration (FAA) for civil aircraft noise. The metric L dnmr , which accounts for the<br />
increased annoyance of rapid onset rate of sound, is a product of this long-term research. DoD<br />
is sponsoring the development of NoiseRunner, which will calculate noise in a more<br />
sophisticated manner than done by NOISEMAP and MR_NMAP. At the present time,<br />
however, NOISEMAP and MR_NMAP, and the metrics L dn and L dnmr , represent the best current<br />
science for analysis of military aircraft.<br />
The amplitude of A-weighted sound levels is measured in dB. It is common for some noise<br />
analysts to denote the unit of A-weighted sounds by dBA. As long as the use of A-weighting is<br />
understood, there is no difference between dB or dBA: it is only important that the use of A-<br />
weighting be made clear. In this <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> (EA), sound levels are reported in<br />
dB and are A-weighted unless otherwise specified.<br />
A-weighting is appropriate for continuous sounds, which are perceived by the ear. Impulsive<br />
sounds, such as sonic booms, are perceived by more than just the ear. When experienced<br />
indoors, there can be secondary noise from rattling of the building. Vibrations may also be felt.<br />
C-weighting (American National Standards Institute 1988) is applied to such sounds. This is a<br />
frequency weighting that is flat over the range of human hearing (about 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz)<br />
and rolls off above and below that range. In this study, C-weighted sound levels are used for<br />
the assessment of sonic booms and other impulsive sounds. As with A-weighting, the unit is<br />
dB, but dBC is sometimes used for clarity. In this study, sound levels are reported in dB, and C-<br />
weighting is specified as necessary.<br />
Time Averaging. Sound pressure of a continuous sound varies greatly with time, so it is<br />
customary to deal with sound levels that represent averages over time. Levels presented as<br />
instantaneous (i.e., as might be read from the dial of a sound level meter) are based on averages<br />
of sound energy over either 1/8 second (fast) or 1 second (slow). The formal definitions of fast<br />
and slow levels are somewhat complex, with details that are important to the makers and users<br />
of instrumentation. They may, however, be thought of as levels corresponding to the<br />
root-mean-square sound pressure measured over the 1/8-second or 1-second periods.<br />
Page D-3
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operation<br />
The most common uses of the fast or slow sound level in environmental analysis is in the<br />
discussion of the maximum sound level that occurs from the action, and in discussions of<br />
typical sound levels. Figure D-1 is a chart of A-weighted sound levels from typical sounds.<br />
Some (air conditioner, vacuum cleaner) are continuous sounds whose levels are constant for<br />
some time. Some (automobile, heavy truck) are the maximum sound during a vehicle passby.<br />
Some (urban daytime, urban nighttime) are averages over some extended period. A variety of<br />
noise metrics have been developed to describe noise over different time periods. These are<br />
described in section 1.2.<br />
D1.1 Noise Metrics<br />
D1.1.1<br />
Maximum Sound Level<br />
The highest A-weighted sound level measured during a single event in which the sound level<br />
changes value as time goes on (e.g., an aircraft overflight) is called the maximum A-weighted<br />
sound level or maximum sound level, for short. It is usually abbreviated by ALM, L max , or L Amax .<br />
The maximum sound level is important in judging the interference caused by a noise event with<br />
conversation, TV or radio listening, sleeping, or other common activities.<br />
D1.1.2<br />
Peak Sound Level<br />
For impulsive sounds, the true instantaneous sound pressure is of interest. For sonic booms,<br />
this is the peak pressure of the shock wave, as described in section 3.2 of this appendix. This<br />
pressure is usually presented in physical units of pounds per square foot. Sometimes it is<br />
represented on the decibel scale, with symbol L pk . Peak sound levels do not use either A or C<br />
weighting.<br />
D1.1.3<br />
Sound Exposure Level<br />
Individual time-varying noise events have two main characteristics: a sound level that changes<br />
throughout the event and a period of time during which the event is heard. Although the<br />
maximum sound level, described above, provides some measure of the intrusiveness of the<br />
event, it alone does not completely describe the total event. The period of time during which<br />
the sound is heard is also significant. The Sound Exposure Level (abbreviated SEL or L AE for<br />
A-weighted sounds) combines both of these characteristics into a single metric.<br />
SEL is a composite metric that represents both the intensity of a sound and its duration.<br />
Mathematically, the mean square sound pressure is computed over the duration of the event,<br />
then multiplied by the duration in seconds, and the resultant product is turned into a sound<br />
level. It does not directly represent the sound level heard at any given time, but rather provides<br />
a measure of the net impact of the entire acoustic event. It has been well established in the<br />
scientific community that SEL measures this impact much more reliably than just the maximum<br />
sound level.<br />
Because the SEL and the maximum sound level are both used to describe single events, there is<br />
sometimes confusion between the two, so the specific metric used should be clearly stated.<br />
Page D-4
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operations<br />
COMMON SOUND LEVEL LOUDNESS<br />
SOUNDS dB – Compared to 70 dB –<br />
— 130<br />
Oxygen Torch — 120 UNCOMFORTABLE —— 32 Times as Loud<br />
Discotheque — 110 —— 16 Times as Loud<br />
Textile Mill — 100 VERY LOUD<br />
Heavy Truck at 50 Feet — 90 —— 4 Times as Loud<br />
Garbage Disposal — 80<br />
Vacuum Cleaner at 10 Feet — 70<br />
Automobile at 100 Feet<br />
Air Conditioner at 100 Feet — 60<br />
MODERATE<br />
•<br />
Quiet Urban Daytime — 50 —— 1/4 as Loud<br />
QUIET<br />
Quiet Urban Nighttime — 40<br />
Bedroom at Night — 30 —— 1/16 as Loud<br />
Recording Studio<br />
— 20<br />
— 10 JUST AUDIBLE<br />
Threshold of Hearing — 0<br />
Source: Handbook of Noise Control, C.M. Harris, Editor, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1979, and FICON 1992.<br />
Figure D-1. Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels of Common Sounds<br />
D1.1.4<br />
Equivalent Sound Level<br />
SEL can be computed for C-weighted levels (appropriate for impulsive sounds), and the results<br />
denoted CSEL or L CE . SEL for A-weighted sound is sometimes denoted ASEL. Within this<br />
study, SEL is used for A-weighted sounds and CSEL for C-weighted.<br />
For longer periods of time, total sound is represented by the equivalent continuous sound<br />
pressure level (L eq ). L eq is the average sound level over some time period (often an hour or a<br />
day, but any explicit time span can be specified), with the averaging being done on the same<br />
Page D-5
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operation<br />
energy basis as used for SEL. SEL and L eq are closely related, differing by (a) whether they are<br />
applied over a specific time period or over an event, and (b) whether the duration of the event is<br />
included or divided out.<br />
Just as SEL has proven to be a good measure of the noise impact of a single event, L eq has been<br />
established to be a good measure of the impact of a series of events during a given time period.<br />
Also, while Leq is defined as an average, it is effectively a sum over that time period and is, thus,<br />
a measure of the cumulative impact of noise.<br />
D1.1.5<br />
Day-Night Average Sound Level<br />
Noise tends to be more intrusive at night than during the day. This effect is accounted for by<br />
applying a 10-dB penalty to events that occur after 10 pm and before 7 am. If L eq is computed<br />
over a 24-hour period with this nighttime penalty applied, the result is the day-night average<br />
sound level (L dn ).<br />
L dn is the community noise metric recommended by the USEPA (United States <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Protection Agency [USEPA] 1974) and has been adopted by most federal agencies (Federal<br />
Interagency Committee on Noise 1992). It has been well established that L dn correlates well<br />
with community response to noise (Schultz 1978; Finegold et al. 1994). This correlation is<br />
presented in Section 1.3 of this appendix. While L dn carries the nomenclature “average,” it<br />
incorporates all of the noise at a given location. For this reason, L dn is often referred to as a<br />
“cumulative” metric. It accounts for the total, or cumulative, noise impact.<br />
It was noted earlier that, for impulsive sounds, C-weighting is more appropriate than<br />
A-weighting. The day-night average sound level can be computed for C-weighted noise and is<br />
denoted CDNL or L Cdn . This procedure has been standardized, and impact interpretive criteria<br />
similar to those for L dn have been developed (Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and<br />
Biomechanics 1981).<br />
D1.1.6<br />
Onset-Adjusted Monthly Day-Night Average Sound Level<br />
Aircraft operations in military airspace, such as MOAs and Warning Areas, generate a noise<br />
environment somewhat different from other community noise environments. Overflights are<br />
sporadic, occurring at random times and varying from day to day and week to week. This<br />
situation differs from most community noise environments, in which noise tends to be<br />
continuous or patterned. Individual military overflight events also differ from typical<br />
community noise events in that noise from a low-altitude, high-airspeed flyover can have a<br />
rather sudden onset.<br />
To represent these differences, the conventional L dn metric is adjusted to account for the<br />
“surprise” effect of the sudden onset of aircraft noise events on humans (Plotkin et al. 1987;<br />
Stusnick et al. 1992; Stusnick et al. 1993). For aircraft exhibiting a rate of increase in sound level<br />
(called onset rate) of from 15 to 150 dB per second, an adjustment or penalty ranging from 0 to<br />
11 dB is added to the normal SEL. Onset rates above 150 dB per second require an 11 dB<br />
penalty, while onset rates below 15 dB per second require no adjustment. The L dn is then<br />
determined in the same manner as for conventional aircraft noise events and is designated as<br />
Onset-Rate Adjusted Day-Night Average Sound Level (abbreviated L dnmr ). Because of the<br />
Page D-6
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operations<br />
irregular occurrences of aircraft operations, the number of average daily operations is<br />
determined by using the calendar month with the highest number of operations. The monthly<br />
average is denoted L dnmr . Noise levels are calculated the same way for both L dn and L dnmr . L dnmr<br />
is interpreted by the same criteria as used for L dn .<br />
D1.2 Noise Impact<br />
D1.2.1<br />
Community Reaction<br />
Studies of community annoyance to numerous types of environmental noise show that L dn<br />
correlates well with impact. Schultz (1978) showed a consistent relationship between L dn and<br />
annoyance. Shultz’s original curve fit (Figure D-2) shows that there is a remarkable consistency<br />
in results of attitudinal surveys which relate the percentages of groups of people who express<br />
various degrees of annoyance when exposed to different L dn .<br />
Figure D-2. Community Surveys of Noise Annoyance<br />
(Source: Schultz 1978)<br />
A more recent study has reaffirmed this relationship (Fidell et al. 1991). Figure D-3 (Federal<br />
Interagency Committee on Noise 1992) shows an updated form of the curve fit (Finegold et al.<br />
1994) in comparison with the original. The updated fit, which does not differ substantially from<br />
the original, is the current preferred form. In general, correlation coefficients of 0.85 to 0.95 are<br />
Page D-7
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operation<br />
found between the percentages of groups of people highly annoyed and the level of average<br />
noise exposure. The correlation coefficients for the annoyance of individuals are relatively low,<br />
however, on the order of 0.5 or less. This is not surprising, considering the varying personal<br />
factors that influence the manner in which individuals react to noise. Nevertheless, findings<br />
substantiate that community annoyance to aircraft noise is represented quite reliably using L dn .<br />
Figure D-3. Response of Communities to Noise; Comparison of Original (Schultz 1978) and<br />
Current (Finegold et al. 1994) Curve Fits.<br />
As noted earlier for SEL, L dn does not represent the sound level heard at any particular time, but<br />
rather represents the total sound exposure. L dn accounts for the sound level of individual noise<br />
events, the duration of those events, and the number of events. Its use is endorsed by the<br />
scientific community (American National Standards Institute 1980, 1988; USEPA 1974; Federal<br />
Interagency Committee on Urban Noise 1980; Federal Interagency Committee on Noise 1992).<br />
While L dn is the best metric for quantitatively assessing cumulative noise impact, it does not<br />
lend itself to intuitive interpretation by non-experts. Accordingly, it is common for<br />
environmental noise analyses to include other metrics for illustrative purposes. A general<br />
indication of the noise environment can be presented by noting the maximum sound levels<br />
which can occur and the number of times per day noise events will be loud enough to be heard.<br />
Use of other metrics as supplements to L dn has been endorsed by federal agencies (Federal<br />
Interagency Committee on Noise 1992).<br />
Page D-8
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operations<br />
The Schultz curve is generally applied to annual average L dn . In Section 1.2, L dnmr was described<br />
and presented as being appropriate for quantifying noise in military airspace. In the current<br />
study, the Schultz curve is used with L dnmr as the noise metric. L dnmr is always equal to or<br />
greater than L dn , so impact is generally higher than would have been predicted if the onset rate<br />
and busiest-month adjustments were not accounted for.<br />
There are several points of interest in the noise-annoyance relation. The first is L dn of 65 dB.<br />
This is a level most commonly used for noise planning purposes and represents a compromise<br />
between community impact and the need for activities like aviation which do cause noise.<br />
Areas exposed to L dn above 65 dB are generally not considered suitable for residential use. The<br />
second is L dn of 55 dB, which was identified by USEPA as a level “...requisite to protect the<br />
public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety,” (USEPA 1974) which is<br />
essentially a level below which adverse impact is not expected.<br />
The third is L dn of 75 dB. This is the lowest level at which adverse health effects could be<br />
credible (USEPA 1974). The very high annoyance levels correlated with L dn of 75 dB make such<br />
areas unsuitable for residential land use.<br />
Sonic boom exposure is measured by C-weighting, with the corresponding cumulative metric<br />
being CDNL. Correlation between CDNL and annoyance has been established, based on<br />
community reaction to impulsive sounds (Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and<br />
Biomechanics 1981). Values of the C-weighted equivalent to the Schultz curve are different than<br />
that of the Schultz curve itself. Table D-1 shows the relation between annoyance, L dn , and<br />
CDNL.<br />
Table D-1. Relation Between Annoyance, L dn and CDNL<br />
CDNL % Highly Annoyed L dn<br />
48 2 50<br />
52 4 55<br />
57 8 60<br />
61 14 65<br />
65 23 70<br />
69 35 75<br />
Interpretation of CDNL from impulsive noise is accomplished by using the CDNL versus<br />
annoyance values in Table D-1. CDNL can be interpreted in terms of an “equivalent<br />
annoyance” L dn . For example, CDNL of 52, 61, and 69 dB are equivalent to L dn of 55, 65, and 75<br />
dB, respectively. If both continuous and impulsive noise occurs in the same area, impacts are<br />
assessed separately for each.<br />
D1.2.2<br />
Land Use Compatibility<br />
As noted above, the inherent variability between individuals makes it impossible to predict<br />
accurately how any individual will react to a given noise event. Nevertheless, when a<br />
community is considered as a whole, its overall reaction to noise can be represented with a high<br />
degree of confidence. As described above, the best noise exposure metric for this correlation is<br />
Page D-9
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operation<br />
the L dn or L dnmr for military overflights. Impulsive noise can be assessed by relating CDNL to an<br />
“equivalent annoyance” L dn , as outlined in Section 1.3.1.<br />
In June 1980, an ad hoc Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise published guidelines<br />
(Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise 1980) relating L dn to compatible land uses.<br />
This committee was composed of representatives from DoD, Transportation, and Housing and<br />
Urban Development; USEPA; and the Veterans Administration. Since the issuance of these<br />
guidelines, federal agencies have generally adopted these guidelines for their noise analyses.<br />
Following the lead of the committee, DoD and FAA adopted the concept of land-use<br />
compatibility as the accepted measure of aircraft noise effect. The FAA included the<br />
committee’s guidelines in the Federal Aviation Regulations (United States Department of<br />
Transportation 1984).<br />
These guidelines are reprinted in Table D-2, along with the explanatory notes included in the<br />
regulation. Although these guidelines are not mandatory (note the footnote “*” in the table),<br />
they provide the best means for determining noise impact in airport communities. In general,<br />
residential land uses normally are not compatible with outdoor L dn values above 65 dB, and the<br />
extent of land areas and populations exposed to L dn of 65 dB and higher provides the best means<br />
for assessing the noise impacts of alternative aircraft actions. In some cases, where noise change<br />
exceeds 3 dB, the 1992 Federal Interagency Committee on Noise indicates the 60 dB L dn may be<br />
a more appropriate incompatibility level for densely populated areas.<br />
D2<br />
Noise Effects<br />
The discussion in Section 1.3 presents the global effect of noise on communities. The following<br />
sections describe particular noise effects.<br />
D2.1 Hearing Loss<br />
There are situations where noise in and around airbases may exceed levels at which long-term<br />
noise-induced hearing loss is possible.<br />
The first of these is a result of exposure to occupational noise by individuals working in known<br />
high noise exposure locations such as jet engine maintenance facilities or aircraft maintenance<br />
hangers. In this case, exposure of workers inside the base boundary area should be considered<br />
occupational, which is excluded from the DoD Noise Program by DoD Instruction 4715.13, and<br />
should be evaluated using the appropriate DoD component regulations for occupational noise<br />
exposure. The DoD, U.S. Air Force, and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and<br />
Health (NIOSH) have all established occupational noise exposure damage risk criteria (or<br />
“standard”) for hearing loss so as to not exceed 85 dB as an 8-hour time weighted average, with<br />
a 3 dB exchange rate in a work environment.<br />
Page D-10
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operations<br />
Table D-2. Land-Use Compatibility With Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Levels<br />
Land Use<br />
Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (L dn ) in dB<br />
Below 65 65–70 70–75 75–80 80–85 Over 85<br />
Residential<br />
Residential, other than mobile homes and transient lodgings Y N(1) N(1) N N N<br />
Mobile home parks Y N N N N N<br />
Transient lodgings Y N(1) N(1) N(1) N N<br />
Public Use<br />
Schools Y N(1) N(1) N N N<br />
Hospitals and nursing homes Y 25 30 N N N<br />
Churches, auditoria, and concert halls Y 25 30 N N N<br />
Government services Y Y 25 30 N N<br />
Transportation Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(4)<br />
Parking Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N<br />
Commercial Use<br />
Offices, business and professional Y Y 25 30 N N<br />
Wholesale and retail—building materials, hardware, and farm<br />
equipment<br />
Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N<br />
Retail trade—general Y Y 25 30 N N<br />
Utilities Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N<br />
Communication Y Y 25 30 N N<br />
Manufacturing and Production<br />
Manufacturing, general Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4 ) N<br />
Photographic and optical Y Y 25 30 N N<br />
Agriculture (except livestock) and forestry Y Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) Y(8) Y(8)<br />
Livestock farming and breeding Y Y(6) Y(7) N N N<br />
Mining and fishing, resource production and extraction Y Y Y Y Y Y<br />
Recreational<br />
Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports Y Y(5) Y(5) N N N<br />
Outdoor music shells, amphitheaters Y N N N N N<br />
Nature exhibits and zoos Y Y N N N N<br />
Amusements, parks, resorts, and camps Y Y Y N N N<br />
Golf courses, riding stables, and water recreation Y Y 25 30 N N<br />
Numbers in parentheses refer to notes.<br />
* The designations contained in this table do not constitute a federal determination that any use of land covered by the<br />
program is acceptable or unacceptable under federal, state, or local law. The responsibility for determining the acceptable<br />
and permissible land uses and the relationship between specific properties and specific noise contours rests with the local<br />
authorities. FAA determinations under Part 150 are not intended to substitute federally determined land uses for those<br />
determined to be appropriate by local authorities in response to locally determined needs and values in achieving noisecompatible<br />
land uses.<br />
KEY TO TABLE D-2<br />
Y (YES) = Land Use and related structures compatible without restrictions.<br />
N (No) = Land Use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited.<br />
NLR = Noise Level Reduction (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into the design<br />
and construction of the structure.<br />
25, 30, or 35 = Land Use and related structures generally compatible; measures to achieve NLR of 25, 30, or 35 dB must be<br />
incorporated into design and construction of structures.<br />
NOTES FOR TABLE D-2<br />
1. Where the community determines that residential or school uses must be allowed, measures to achieve outdoor-to-indoor<br />
Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at least 25 dB and 30 dB should be incorporated into building codes and be considered in<br />
individual approvals. Normal residential construction can be expected to provide an NLR of 20 dB; thus the reduction<br />
requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or 15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation and<br />
closed windows year-round. However, the use of NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems.<br />
2 Measures to achieve NLR 25 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where<br />
the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low.<br />
3 Measures to achieve NLR 30 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where<br />
the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low.<br />
4 Measures to achieve NLR 35 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where<br />
the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low.<br />
5 Land-use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed.<br />
6 Residential buildings require an NLR of 25.<br />
7 Residential buildings require an NLR of 30.<br />
8 Residential buildings not permitted.<br />
Page D-11
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operation<br />
The exchange rate is an increment of decibels that requires the halving of exposure time, or a<br />
decrement of decibels that requires the doubling of exposure time. For example, a 3 dB<br />
exchange rate requires that noise exposure time be halved for each 3 dB increase in noise level.<br />
Therefore, an individual would achieve the limit for risk criteria at 88 dB, for a time period of 4<br />
hours, and at 91 dB, for a time period of 2 hours.) (The standard assumes “quiet” (where an<br />
individual remains in an environment with noise levels less than 72 dB) for the balance of the<br />
24-hour period. Also, Air Force and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)<br />
occupational standards prohibit any unprotected worker exposure to continuous (i.e., of a<br />
duration greater than one second) noise exceeding a 115 dB sound level. OSHA established this<br />
additional standard to reduce the risk of workers developing noise-induced hearing loss.<br />
The second situation where individuals may be exposed to high noise levels is when noise<br />
contours resulting from flight operations in and around the installation reach or exceed 80 dB<br />
L dn both on- and off-base. To access the potential impacts of this situation, the DoD published a<br />
policy for assessing hearing loss risk (Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology<br />
and Logistics 2009). The policy defines the conditions under which assessments are required,<br />
references the methodology from a 1982 USEPA report, and describes how the assessments are<br />
to be calculated. The policy reads as follows:<br />
“Current and future high performance aircraft create a noise environment in which the current<br />
impact analysis based primarily on annoyance may be insufficient to capture the full range of<br />
impacts on humans. As part of the noise analysis in all future environmental impact statements,<br />
DoD components will use the 80 Day-Night A-Weighted (L dn ) noise contour to identify<br />
populations at the most risk of potential hearing loss. DoD components will use as part of the<br />
analysis, as appropriate, a calculation of the Potential Hearing Loss (PHL) of the at risk<br />
population. The PHL (sometimes referred to as Population Hearing Loss) methodology is<br />
defined in USEPA Report No. 550/9-82-105, Guidelines for Noise Impact Analysis” (1982).<br />
The USEPA Guidelines for Noise Impact Analysis (hereafter referred to as “USEPA Guidelines”)<br />
specifically addresses the criteria and procedures for assessing the noise-induced hearing loss in<br />
terms of the Noise-Induced Permanent Threshold Shift (NIPTS), a quantity that defines the<br />
permanent change in hearing level, or threshold, caused by exposure to noise (USEPA 1982).<br />
Numerically, the NIPTS is the change in threshold averaged over the frequencies 0.5, 1, 2, and 4<br />
kilohertz (kHz) that can be expected from daily exposure to noise over a normal working<br />
lifetime of 40 years, with the exposure beginning at an age of 20 years. A grand average of the<br />
NIPTS over time (40 years) and hearing sensitivity (10 to 90 percentiles of the exposed<br />
population) is termed the Average NIPTS. The Average NIPTS attributable to noise exposure<br />
for ranges of noise level in terms of L dn is given in Table D-3.<br />
Page D-12
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operations<br />
Table D-3. Average NIPTS and 10th Percentile NIPTS as a Function of L dn *<br />
L dn Average NIPTS (dB)** 10 th Percentile NIPTS (dB)**<br />
80-81 3.0 7.0<br />
81-82 3.5 8.0<br />
82-83 4.0 9.0<br />
83-84 4.5 10.0<br />
84-85 5.5 11.0<br />
85-86 6.0 12.0<br />
86-87 7.0 13.5<br />
87-88 7.5 15.0<br />
88-89 8.5 16.5<br />
89-90 9.5 18.0<br />
dB = decibels; L dn = Day-night Average Sound Level; NIPTS = Noise-induced Permanent<br />
Threshold Shift<br />
*Relationships between L dn and NIPTS were derived from CHABA 1977.<br />
**NIPTS values rounded to the nearest 0.5 dB.<br />
Thus, for a noise exposure within the 80-81 Ldn contour band, the expected lifetime average<br />
value of NIPTS (hearing loss) is 3.0 dB. The Average NIPTS is estimated as an average over all<br />
people included in the at risk population. The actual value of NIPTS for any given person will<br />
depend on their physical sensitivity to noise − some will experience more loss of hearing than<br />
others. The USEPA Guidelines provide information on this variation in sensitivity in the form of<br />
the NIPTS exceeded by 10 percent of the population, which is included in Table D-3 in the “10th<br />
Percentile NIPTS” column. As in the example above, for individuals within the 80-81 Ldn<br />
contour band, the most sensitive of the population, would be expected to show no more<br />
degradation to their hearing than experiencing a 7.0 dB Average NIPTS hearing loss. And<br />
while the DoD policy requires that hearing loss risk be estimated for the population exposed to<br />
80 dB Ldn or greater, this does not preclude populations outside the 80 Ldn contour, i.e. at<br />
lower exposure levels, from being at some degree of risk of hearing loss.<br />
The actual noise exposure for any person living in the at-risk area is determined by the time that<br />
person is outdoors and directly exposed to the noise. Many of the people living within the<br />
applicable L dn contour will not be present during the daytime hours − they may be at work, at<br />
school, or involved in other activities outside the at-risk area. Many will be inside their homes<br />
and thereby exposed to lower noise levels, benefitting from the noise attenuation provided by<br />
the house structure. The actual activity profile is usually impossible to generalize. For the<br />
purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that residents are fully exposed to the L dn level of<br />
noise appropriate for their residence location and the Average NIPTS taken from Table D-3. 3.<br />
The quantity to be reported is the number of people living within each 1 dB contour band inside<br />
the 80 dB L dn contour who are at risk for hearing loss given by the Average NIPTS for that band.<br />
The average nature of Average NIPTS means that it underestimates the magnitude of the<br />
potential hearing loss for the population most sensitive to noise. Therefore, in the interest of<br />
disclosure, the information to be reported includes both the Average NIPTS and the 10th<br />
percentile NIPTS Table D-3. 3) for each 1 dB contour band inside the 80 L dn contour.<br />
According to the USEPA documents titled Information on Levels of <strong>Environmental</strong> Noise<br />
Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, and Public<br />
Health and Welfare Criteria for Noise, changes in hearing levels of less than 5 dB are generally<br />
Page D-13
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operation<br />
not considered noticeable or significant. There is no known evidence that an NIPTS of less than<br />
5 dB is perceptible or has any practical significance for the individual. Furthermore, the<br />
variability in audiometric testing is generally assumed to be ± 5 dB. The preponderance of<br />
available information on hearing loss risk is from the workplace with continuous exposure<br />
throughout the day for many years. Clearly, this data is applicable to the adult working<br />
population. According to a report by Ludlow and Sixsmith, there were no significant<br />
differences in audiometric test results between military personnel, who as children had lived in<br />
or near stations where jet operations were based, and a similar group who had no such<br />
exposure as children (Ludlow and Sixsmith 1999). Hence, for the purposes of PHL analysis, it<br />
can be assumed that the limited data on hearing loss is applicable to the general population,<br />
including children, and provides a conservative estimate of hearing loss.<br />
D2.2 Nonauditory Health Effects<br />
Nonauditory health effects of long-term noise exposure, where noise may act as a risk factor,<br />
have not been found to occur at levels below those protective against noise-induced hearing<br />
loss, described above. Most studies attempting to clarify such health effects have found that<br />
noise exposure levels established for hearing protection will also protect against any potential<br />
nonauditory health effects, at least in workplace conditions. The best scientific summary of<br />
these findings is contained in the lead paper at the National Institutes of Health Conference on<br />
Noise and Hearing Loss, held on January <strong>22</strong>–24, in Washington, D.C., which states, “The<br />
nonauditory effects of chronic noise exposure, when noise is suspected to act as one of the risk<br />
factors in the development of hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and other nervous<br />
disorders, have never been proven to occur as chronic manifestations at levels below these<br />
criteria (an average of 75 dBA for complete protection against hearing loss for an eight-hour<br />
day)” (von Gierke 1990; parenthetical wording added for clarification). At the International<br />
Congress (1988) on Noise as a Public Health Problem, most studies attempting to clarify such<br />
health effects did not find them at levels below the criteria protective of noise-induced hearing<br />
loss; and even above these criteria, results regarding such health effects were ambiguous.<br />
Consequently, it can be concluded that establishing and enforcing exposure levels protecting<br />
against noise-induced hearing loss would not only solve the noise-induced hearing loss<br />
problem but also any potential nonauditory health effects in the work place.<br />
Although these findings were directed specifically at noise effects in the work place, they are<br />
equally applicable to aircraft noise effects in the community environment. Research studies<br />
regarding the nonauditory health effects of aircraft noise are ambiguous, at best, and often<br />
contradictory. Yet, even those studies which purport to find such health effects use<br />
time-average noise levels of 75 dB and higher for their research.<br />
For example, in an often-quoted paper, two University of California at Los Angeles researchers<br />
found a relation between aircraft noise levels under the approach path to Los Angeles<br />
International Airport and increased mortality rates among the exposed residents by using an<br />
average noise exposure level greater than 75 dB for the “noise-exposed” population (Meecham<br />
and Shaw 1979). Nevertheless, three other University of California at Los Angeles professors<br />
analyzed those same data and found no relation between noise exposure and mortality rates<br />
(Frerichs et al. 1980).<br />
Page D-14
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operations<br />
As a second example, two other University of California at Los Angeles researchers used this<br />
same population near Los Angeles International Airport to show a higher rate of birth defects<br />
during the period of 1970 to 1972 when compared with a control group residing away from the<br />
airport (Jones and Tauscher 1978). <strong>Base</strong>d on this report, a separate group at the United States<br />
Centers for Disease Control performed a more thorough study of populations near Atlanta’s<br />
Hartsfield International Airport for 1970 to 1972 and found no relation in their study of 17<br />
identified categories of birth defects to aircraft noise levels above 65 dB (Edmonds 1979).<br />
A recent review of health effects, prepared by a Committee of the Health Council of The<br />
Netherlands (Committee of the Health Council of the Netherlands 1996), analyzed currently<br />
available published information on this topic. The committee concluded that the threshold for<br />
possible long-term health effects was a 16-hour (6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) L eq of 70 dB. Projecting<br />
this to 24 hours and applying the 10 dB nighttime penalty used with L dn , this corresponds to L dn<br />
of about 75 dB. The study also affirmed the risk threshold for hearing loss, as discussed earlier.<br />
In summary, there is no scientific basis for a claim that potential health effects exist for aircraft<br />
time-average sound levels below 75 dB.<br />
D2.3 Annoyance<br />
The primary effect of aircraft noise on exposed communities is one of annoyance. Noise<br />
annoyance is defined by the USEPA as any negative subjective reaction on the part of an<br />
individual or group (USEPA 1974). As noted in the discussion of L dn above, community<br />
annoyance is best measured by that metric.<br />
Because the USEPA Levels Document (USEPA 1974) identified L dn of 55 dB as “. . . requisite to<br />
protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety,” it is commonly assumed<br />
that 55 dB should be adopted as a criterion for community noise analysis. From a noise<br />
exposure perspective, that would be an ideal selection. However, financial and technical<br />
resources are generally not available to achieve that goal. Most agencies have identified L dn of<br />
65 dB as a criterion which protects those most impacted by noise, and which can often be<br />
achieved on a practical basis (Federal Interagency Committee on Noise 1992). This corresponds<br />
to about 13 percent of the exposed population being highly annoyed.<br />
Although L dn of 65 dB is widely used as a benchmark for significant noise impact, and is often<br />
an acceptable compromise, it is not a statutory limit, and it is appropriate to consider other<br />
thresholds in particular cases.<br />
In this Draft EA, no specific threshold is used. The noise in the affected environment is<br />
evaluated on the basis of the information presented in this appendix and in the body of the<br />
Draft EA.<br />
Community annoyance from sonic booms is based on CDNL, as discussed in Section 1.3. These<br />
effects are implicitly included in the “equivalent annoyance” CDNL values in Table D-1, since<br />
those were developed from actual community noise impact.<br />
Page D-15
D2.4 Speech Interference<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operation<br />
Speech interference associated with aircraft noise is a primary cause of annoyance to<br />
individuals on the ground. The disruption of routine activities in the home, such as radio or<br />
television listening, telephone use, or family conversation, gives rise to frustration and<br />
irritation. The quality of speech communication is also important in classrooms, offices, and<br />
industrial settings and can cause fatigue and vocal strain in those who attempt to communicate<br />
over the noise. Research has shown that the use of the SEL metric will measure speech<br />
interference successfully, and that a SEL exceeding 65 dB will begin to interfere with speech<br />
communication.<br />
D2.5 Sleep Interference<br />
Sleep interference is another source of annoyance associated with aircraft noise. This is<br />
especially true because of the intermittent nature and content of aircraft noise, which is more<br />
disturbing than continuous noise of equal energy and neutral meaning.<br />
Sleep interference may be measured in either of two ways. “Arousal” represents actual<br />
awakening from sleep, while a change in “sleep stage” represents a shift from one of four sleep<br />
stages to another stage of lighter sleep without actual awakening. In general, arousal requires a<br />
somewhat higher noise level than does a change in sleep stage.<br />
An analysis sponsored by the Air Force summarized 21 published studies concerning the effects<br />
of noise on sleep (Pearsons et al. 1989). The analysis concluded that a lack of reliable in-home<br />
studies, combined with large differences among the results from the various laboratory studies,<br />
did not permit development of an acceptably accurate assessment procedure. The noise events<br />
used in the laboratory studies and in contrived in-home studies were presented at much higher<br />
rates of occurrence than would normally be experienced. None of the laboratory studies were<br />
of sufficiently long duration to determine any effects of habituation, such as that which would<br />
occur under normal community conditions. A recent extensive study of sleep interference in<br />
people’s own homes (Ollerhead 1992) showed very little disturbance from aircraft noise.<br />
There is some controversy associated with the recent studies, so a conservative approach should<br />
be taken in judging sleep interference. <strong>Base</strong>d on older data, the USEPA identified an indoor L dn<br />
of 45 dB as necessary to protect against sleep interference (USEPA 1974). Assuming a very<br />
conservative structural noise insulation of 20 dB for typical dwelling units, this corresponds to<br />
an outdoor L dn of 65 dB as minimizing sleep interference.<br />
A 1984 publication reviewed the probability of arousal or behavioral awakening in terms of SEL<br />
(Kryter 1984). Figure D-4, extracted from Figure 10.37 of Kryter (1984), indicates that an indoor<br />
SEL of 65 dB or lower should awaken less than 5 percent of those exposed. These results do not<br />
include any habituation over time by sleeping subjects. Nevertheless, this provides a<br />
reasonable guideline for assessing sleep interference and corresponds to similar guidance for<br />
speech interference, as noted above.<br />
Page D-16
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operations<br />
Figure D-4. Probability of Arousal or Behavioral Awakening in Terms of Sound Exposure<br />
Level<br />
D2.6 Noise Effects on Domestic Animals and Wildlife<br />
Animal species differ greatly in their responses to noise. Each species has adapted, physically<br />
and behaviorally, to fill its ecological role in nature, and its hearing ability usually reflects that<br />
role. Animals rely on their hearing to avoid predators, obtain food, and communicate with and<br />
attract other members of their species. Aircraft noise may mask or interfere with these<br />
Page D-17
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operation<br />
functions. Secondary effects may include nonauditory effects similar to those exhibited by<br />
humans: stress, hypertension, and other nervous disorders. Tertiary effects may include<br />
interference with mating and resultant population declines.<br />
D2.7 Noise Effects on Structures<br />
D2.7.1<br />
Subsonic Aircraft Noise<br />
Normally, the most sensitive components of a structure to airborne noise are the windows and,<br />
infrequently, the plastered walls and ceilings. An evaluation of the peak sound pressures<br />
impinging on the structure is normally sufficient to determine the possibility of damage. In<br />
general, at sound levels above 130 dB, there is the possibility of the excitation of structural<br />
component resonance. While certain frequencies (such as 30 Hz for window breakage) may be<br />
of more concern than other frequencies, conservatively, only sounds lasting more than one<br />
second above a sound level of 130 dB are potentially damaging to structural components<br />
(National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences 1977).<br />
A study directed specifically at low-altitude, high-speed aircraft showed that there is little<br />
probability of structural damage from such operations (Sutherland 1989). One finding in that<br />
study is that sound levels at damaging frequencies (e.g., 30 Hz for window breakage or 15 to 25<br />
Hz for whole-house response) are rarely above 130 dB.<br />
Noise-induced structural vibration may also cause annoyance to dwelling occupants because of<br />
induced secondary vibrations, or “rattle,” of objects within the dwelling, such as hanging<br />
pictures, dishes, plaques, and bric-a-brac. Window panes may also vibrate noticeably when<br />
exposed to high levels of airborne noise, causing homeowners to fear breakage. In general, such<br />
noise-induced vibrations occur at sound levels above those considered normally incompatible<br />
with residential land use. Thus assessments of noise exposure levels for compatible land use<br />
should also be protective of noise-induced secondary vibrations.<br />
D2.7.2<br />
Sonic Booms<br />
Sonic booms are commonly associated with structural damage. Most damage claims are for<br />
brittle objects, such as glass and plaster. Table D-4 summarizes the threshold of damage that<br />
might be expected at various overpressures. There is a large degree of variability in damage<br />
experience, and much damage depends on the pre-existing condition of a structure. Breakage<br />
data for glass, for example, spans a range of two to three orders of magnitude at a given<br />
overpressure. At 1 psf, the probability of a window breaking ranges from one in a billion<br />
(Sutherland 1990) to one in a million (Hershey and Higgins 1976). These damage rates are<br />
associated with a combination of boom load and glass condition. At 10 psf, the probability of<br />
breakage is between one in a hundred and one in a thousand. Laboratory tests of glass (White<br />
1972) have shown that properly installed window glass will not break at overpressures below<br />
10 psf, even when subjected to repeated booms, but in the real world glass is not in pristine<br />
condition.<br />
Page D-18
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operations<br />
Table D-4. Possible Damage to Structures From Sonic Booms<br />
Sonic Boom<br />
Overpressure<br />
Nominal (psf) Item Affected Type of Damage<br />
0.5 - 2 Plaster<br />
Fine cracks; extension of existing cracks; more in ceilings;<br />
over door frames; between some plaster boards.<br />
Glass<br />
Rarely shattered; either partial or extension of existing<br />
cracks.<br />
Roof<br />
Slippage of existing loose tiles/slates; sometimes new<br />
cracking of old slates at nail hole.<br />
Damage to outside<br />
walls<br />
Existing cracks in stucco extended.<br />
Bric-a-brac<br />
Those carefully balanced or on edges can fall; fine glass,<br />
such as large goblets, can fall and break.<br />
Other<br />
Dust falls in chimneys.<br />
2 - 4<br />
4 - 10 Glass<br />
Greater than 10<br />
Glass, plaster, roofs,<br />
ceilings<br />
Plaster<br />
Roofs<br />
Walls (out)<br />
Walls (in)<br />
Glass<br />
Plaster<br />
Ceilings<br />
Roofs<br />
Walls<br />
Bric-a-brac<br />
Source: Haber and Nakaki 1989<br />
For elements nominally in good condition, failures show<br />
that would have been difficult to forecast in terms of their<br />
existing localized condition.<br />
Regular failures within a population of well-installed glass;<br />
industrial as well as domestic greenhouses.<br />
Partial ceiling collapse of good plaster; complete collapse<br />
of very new, incompletely cured, or very old plaster.<br />
High probability rate of failure in slurry wash in nominally<br />
good state; some chance of failures in tiles on modern<br />
roofs; light roofs (bungalow) or large area can move<br />
bodily.<br />
Old, free standing, in fairly good condition can collapse.<br />
Internal (“party”) walls known to move at 10 psf.<br />
Some good window glass will fail when exposed to regular<br />
sonic booms from the same direction. Glass with existing<br />
faults could shatter and fly. Large window frames move.<br />
Most plaster affected.<br />
Plaster boards displaced by nail popping.<br />
Most slate/slurry roofs affected, some badly; large roofs<br />
having good tile can be affected; some roofs bodily<br />
displaced causing gale-end and wall-plate cracks; domestic<br />
chimneys dislodged if not in good condition.<br />
Internal party walls can move even if carrying fittings such<br />
as hand basins or taps; secondary damage due to water<br />
leakage.<br />
Some nominally secure items can fall; e.g., large pictures,<br />
especially if fixed to party walls.<br />
Some degree of damage to glass and plaster should thus be expected whenever there are sonic<br />
booms, but usually at the low rates noted above. In general, structural damage from sonic<br />
booms should be expected only for overpressures above 10 psf.<br />
Page D-19
D2.8 Noise Effects on Terrain<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operation<br />
D2.8.1<br />
Subsonic Aircraft Noise<br />
Members of the public often believe that noise from low-flying aircraft can cause avalanches or<br />
landslides by disturbing fragile soil or snow structures in mountainous areas. There are no<br />
known instances of such effects, and it is considered improbable that such effects will result<br />
from routine, subsonic aircraft operations.<br />
D2.8.2<br />
Sonic Booms<br />
In contrast to subsonic noise, sonic booms are considered to be a potential trigger for snow<br />
avalanches. Avalanches are highly dependent on the physical status of the snow, and do occur<br />
spontaneously. They can be triggered by minor disturbances, and there are documented<br />
accounts of sonic booms triggering avalanches. Switzerland routinely restricts supersonic flight<br />
during avalanche season.<br />
Landslides are not an issue for sonic booms. There was one anecdotal report of a minor<br />
landslide from a sonic boom generated by the Space Shuttle during landing, but there is no<br />
credible mechanism or consistent pattern of reports.<br />
D2.9 Noise Effects on Historical and Archaeological Sites<br />
Because of the potential for increased fragility of structural components of historical buildings<br />
and other historical sites, aircraft noise may affect such sites more severely than newer, modern<br />
structures. Again, there are few scientific studies of such effects to provide guidance for their<br />
assessment.<br />
One study involved the measurements of sound levels and structural vibration levels in a<br />
superbly restored plantation house, originally built in 1795, and now situated approximately<br />
1,500 feet from the centerline at the departure end of Runway 19L at Washington Dulles<br />
International Airport. These measurements were made in connection with the proposed<br />
scheduled operation of the supersonic Concorde airplane at Dulles (Wesler 1977). There was<br />
special concern for the building’s windows, since roughly half of the 324 panes were original.<br />
No instances of structural damage were found. Interestingly, despite the high levels of noise<br />
during Concorde takeoffs, the induced structural vibration levels were actually less than those<br />
induced by touring groups and vacuum cleaning within the building itself.<br />
As noted above for the noise effects of noise-induced vibrations on normal structures,<br />
assessments of noise exposure levels for normally compatible land uses should also be<br />
protective of historic and archaeological sites.<br />
D3<br />
Noise Modeling<br />
D3.1 Subsonic Aircraft Noise<br />
An aircraft in subsonic flight generally emits noise from two sources: the engines and flow<br />
noise around the airframe. Noise generation mechanisms are complex and, in practical models,<br />
Page D-20
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operations<br />
the noise sources must be based on measured data. The Air Force has developed a series of<br />
computer models and aircraft noise databases for this purpose. The models include<br />
NOISEMAP (Moulton 1992) for noise around airbases, ROUTEMAP (Lucas and Plotkin 1988)<br />
for noise associated with low-level training routes, and MR_NMAP (Lucas and Calamia 1996)<br />
for use in MOAs and ranges. These models use the NOISEFILE database developed by the Air<br />
Force. NOISEFILE data includes SEL and L Amax as a function of speed and power setting for<br />
aircraft in straight flight.<br />
Noise from an individual aircraft is a time-varying continuous sound. It is first audible as the<br />
aircraft approaches, increases to a maximum when the aircraft is near its closest point, then<br />
diminishes as it departs. The noise depends on the speed and power setting of the aircraft and<br />
its trajectory. The models noted above divide the trajectory into segments whose noise can be<br />
computed from the data in NOISEFILE. The contributions from these segments are summed.<br />
MR_NMAP was used to compute noise levels in the airspace. The primary noise metric<br />
computed by MR_NMAP was L dnmr averaged over each airspace. Supporting routines from<br />
NOISEMAP were used to calculate SEL and L Amax for various flight altitudes and lateral offsets<br />
from a ground receiver position.<br />
D3.2 Sonic Booms<br />
When an aircraft moves through the air, it pushes the air out of its way. At subsonic speeds, the<br />
displaced air forms a pressure wave that disperses rapidly. At supersonic speeds, the aircraft is<br />
moving too quickly for the wave to disperse, so it remains as a coherent wave. This wave is a<br />
sonic boom. When heard at the ground, a sonic boom consists of two shock waves (one<br />
associated with the forward part of the aircraft, the other with the rear part) of approximately<br />
equal strength and (for fighter aircraft) separated by 100 to 200 milliseconds. When plotted, this<br />
pair of shock waves and the expanding flow between them have the appearance of a capital<br />
letter “N,” so a sonic boom pressure wave is usually called an “N-wave.” An N-wave has a<br />
characteristic "bang-bang" sound that can be startling. Figure D-5 shows the generation and<br />
evolution of a sonic boom N-wave under the aircraft. Figure D-6 shows the sonic boom pattern<br />
for an aircraft in steady supersonic flight. The boom forms a cone that is said to sweep out a<br />
“carpet” under the flight track.<br />
The complete ground pattern of a sonic boom depends on the size, shape, speed, and trajectory<br />
of the aircraft. Even for a nominally steady mission, the aircraft must accelerate to supersonic<br />
speed at the start, decelerate back to subsonic speed at the end, and usually change altitude.<br />
Figure D-7 illustrates the complexity of a nominal full mission.<br />
Page D-21
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operation<br />
Figure D-5. Sonic Boom Generation, and Evolution to N-wave<br />
Figure D-6. Sonic Boom Carpet in Steady Flight<br />
Page D-<strong>22</strong>
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operations<br />
Figure D-7. Complex Sonic Boom Pattern for Full Mission<br />
The Air Force’s PCBoom4 computer program (Plotkin and Grandi 2002) can be used to compute<br />
the complete sonic boom footprint for a given single event, accounting for details of a particular<br />
maneuver.<br />
Supersonic operations for the proposed action and alternatives are, however, associated with air<br />
combat training, which cannot be described in the deterministic manner that PCBoom4<br />
requires. Supersonic events occur as aircraft approach an engagement, break at the end, and<br />
maneuver for advantage during the engagement. Long time cumulative sonic boom exposure,<br />
CDNL, is meaningful for this kind of environment.<br />
Long-term sonic boom measurement projects have been conducted in four supersonic air<br />
combat training airspaces: White Sands, New Mexico (Plotkin et al. 1989); the eastern portion of<br />
the Goldwater Range, Arizona (Plotkin et al. 1992); the Elgin MOA at Nellis AFB, Nevada<br />
(Frampton et al. 1993); and the western portion of the Goldwater Range (Page et al. 1994). These<br />
studies included analysis of schedule and air combat maneuvering instrumentation data and<br />
supported development of the 1992 BOOMAP model (Plotkin et al. 1992). The current version of<br />
BOOMAP (Frampton et al. 1993; Plotkin 1996) incorporates results from all four studies.<br />
Because BOOMAP is directly based on long-term measurements, it implicitly accounts for such<br />
variables as maneuvers, statistical variations in operations, atmosphere effects, and other<br />
factors.<br />
Figure D-8 shows a sample of supersonic flight tracks measured in the air combat training<br />
airspace at White Sands (Plotkin et al. 1989). The tracks fall into an elliptical pattern aligned<br />
with preferred engagement directions in the airspace. Figure D-9 shows the CDNL contours<br />
that were fit to six months of measured booms in that airspace. The subsequent measurement<br />
programs refined the fit, and demonstrated that the elliptical maneuver area is related to the<br />
size and shape of the airspace (Frampton et al. 1993). BOOMAP quantifies the size and shape of<br />
Page D-23
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operation<br />
CDNL contours, and also numbers of booms per day, in air combat training airspaces. That<br />
model was used for prediction of cumulative sonic boom exposure in the study area.<br />
Figure D-8. Supersonic Flight Tracks in Supersonic Air Combat Training Airspace<br />
Figure D-9. Elliptical CDNL Contours in Supersonic Air Combat Training Airspace<br />
Page D-24
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operations<br />
D4 Summary of Operational Parameters Used in Noise<br />
Modeling at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong><br />
Operational parameters used in modeling of noise in the vicinity of JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> are<br />
summarized below. Parameters presented are representative of current operations at JBER-<br />
Elemendorf as reported during operator interviews held in August 2009. Operations of F-<strong>22</strong><br />
and C-17 aircraft have the greatest potential to affect off-installation noise sensitive areas.<br />
Operations data for these two aircraft were updated and revised in December 2010 and March<br />
2011. Runway usage and the number of events per average busy day are critical factors<br />
affecting time-averaged noise levels. Table D-5 presents the percent of total arrivals,<br />
departures, and closed patterns that use each runway as well as the number of each type of<br />
event that occurs per average busy day. Increased usage of the crosswind runway (16/34) has<br />
the potential to increase noise levels in residential areas south of JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong> to greater<br />
than 65 L dn<br />
Table D-5. Summary of Operational Parameters Used at JBER-<strong>Elmendorf</strong><br />
Aircraft<br />
C-12<br />
C-130<br />
C-17<br />
E-3<br />
F-<strong>22</strong><br />
Aeroclub<br />
UC-35<br />
Operation # per Average<br />
% Runway Usage<br />
Type Busy Day 6 16 24 34<br />
Arrival 2.65 76 1 15 8<br />
Closed 1.33 97 0 0 3<br />
Departure 2.65 26 9 65 0<br />
Interfacility 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a<br />
Arrival 8.98 71 12 17 0<br />
Closed 7.60 69 31 0 0<br />
Departure 8.98 80 0 20 0<br />
Interfacility 5.90 64 0 0 36<br />
Arrival 3.01 95 4 1 0<br />
Closed 9.69 83 7 8 1<br />
Departure 3.01 85 0 15 0<br />
Interfacility 8.78 76 0 24 0<br />
Arrival 1.00 73 0 27 0<br />
Closed 3.11 76 0 24 0<br />
Departure 1.00 60 0 40 0<br />
Interfacility 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a<br />
Arrival 19.05 100 0 0 0<br />
Closed 2.73 100 0 0 0<br />
Departure 19.05 75 25 0 0<br />
Interfacility 0.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a<br />
Arrival 5.38 90 2 5 3<br />
Closed 0.97 90 2 5 3<br />
Departure 5.38 90 2 5 3<br />
Interfacility 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a<br />
Arrival 2.04 85 2 10 3<br />
Closed 0.07 90 3 4 3<br />
Departure 2.04 95 1 2 2<br />
Interfacility 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a<br />
Page D-25
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operation<br />
D5<br />
References<br />
American National Standards Institute. 1980. Sound Level Descriptors for Determination of<br />
Compatible Land Use. American National Standards Institute Standard ANSI S3.23-<br />
1980.<br />
. 1988. Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Sound, Part 1. American National Standards Institute Standard ANSI S12.9-1988.<br />
Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics. 1981. <strong>Assessment</strong> of Community<br />
Noise Response to High-Energy Impulsive Sounds. Report of Working Group 84,<br />
Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics, Assembly of Behavioral and<br />
Social Sciences. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.<br />
Washington, DC.<br />
Committee of the Health Council of the Netherlands. 1996. Effects of Noise on Health.<br />
Noise/News International 4. September.<br />
Edmonds, L.D., P.M. Layde, and J.D. Erickson. 1979. Airport Noise and Teratogenesis. Archives<br />
of <strong>Environmental</strong> Health, 243-247. July/August.<br />
Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport<br />
Noise Analysis Issues. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. August.<br />
Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise. 1980. Guidelines for Considering Noise in<br />
Land-Use Planning and Control. Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise. June.<br />
Fidell, S., D.S. Barger, and T.J. Schultz. 1991. <strong>Up</strong>dating a Dosage-Effect Relationship for the<br />
Prevalence of Annoyance Due to General Transportation Noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 89,<br />
<strong>22</strong>1-233. January.<br />
Finegold, L.S., C.S. Harris, and H.E. von Gierke. 1994. Community Annoyance and Sleep<br />
Disturbance: <strong>Up</strong>dated Criteria for Assessing the Impacts of General Transportation<br />
Noise on People. In Noise Control Engineering Journal, Volume 42, Number 1. pp. 25-30.<br />
January-February.<br />
Frampton, K.D., M.J. Lucas, and B. Cook. 1993. Modeling the Sonic Boom Noise Environment<br />
in Military Operating Areas. AIAA Paper 93-4432.<br />
Frerichs, R.R., B.L. Beeman, and A.H. Coulson. 1980. Los Angeles Airport Noise and Mortality:<br />
Faulty Analysis and Public Policy. Am. J. Public Health, 357-362. April.<br />
Haber, J. and D. Nakaki. 1989. Sonic Boom Damage to Conventional Structures. HSD-TR-89-<br />
001. April.<br />
Harris, C.M. (editor). 1979. Handbook of Noise Control. McGraw-Hill.<br />
Page D-26
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operations<br />
Hershey, R.L. and T.H. Higgins. 1976, "Statistical Model of Sonic Boom Structural Damage,"<br />
FAA-RD-76-87, July 1976<br />
Jones, F.N. and J. Tauscher. 1978. Residence Under an Airport Landing Pattern as a Factor in<br />
Teratism. Archives of <strong>Environmental</strong> Health, 10-12. January/February.<br />
Kryter, K.D. 1984. Physiological, Psychological, and Social Effects of Noise. NASA Reference<br />
Publication 1115, 446. July.<br />
Lucas, M.J. and P.T. Calamia. 1996. Military Operations Area and Range Noise Model:<br />
NRNMAP User’s Manual. Final. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: AAMRL. A1/OE-MN-<br />
1996-0001.<br />
Lucas, M.J. and K. Plotkin. 1988. ROUTEMAP Model for Predicting Noise Exposure From<br />
Aircraft Operations on Military Training Routes. Final, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.<br />
AAMRL. AAMRL-TR-88-060.<br />
Ludlow and Sixsmith, 1999. Long Term Effects of Military Jet Aircraft Noise Exposure During<br />
Childhood on Hearing Threshold Levels. Noise and Health (5) 33-39.<br />
Meecham, W.C. and N. Shaw. 1979. Effects of Jet Noise on Mortality Rates. British J. Audiology,<br />
77-80. August.<br />
Moulton, C.L. 1992. Air Force Procedure for Predicting Noise Around Airbases: Noise<br />
Exposure Model (NOISEMAP). Technical Report AL-TR-1992-59.<br />
National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences. 1977. Guidelines for Preparing<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Statements on Noise. Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and<br />
Biomechanics.<br />
Ollerhead, J.B., C.J. Jones, R.E. Cadoux, A. Woodley, B.J. Atkinson, J.A. Horne, F. Pankhurst, L.<br />
Reyner, K.I. Hume, F. Van, A. Watson, I.D. Diamond, P. Egger, D. Holmes, and J.<br />
McKean. 1992. Report of a Field Study of Aircraft Noise and Sleep Disturbance. The<br />
Department of Transport, Department of Safety Environment and Engineering. Civil<br />
Aviation Authority, London. December.<br />
Page, J.A., B.D. Schantz, R. Brown, K.J. Plotkin, and C.L. Moulton. 1994. “Measurements of<br />
Sonic Booms Due to ACM Training in R2301 W of the Barry Goldwater Air Force<br />
Range,” Wyle Research Report WR 94-11.<br />
Pearsons, K.S., D.S. Barber, and B.G. Tabachick. 1989. Analyses of the Predictability of Noise-<br />
Induced Sleep Disturbance. USAF Report HSD-TR-89-029. October.<br />
Plotkin, K.J., V.R. Desai, C.L. Moulton, M.J. Lucas, and R. Brown. 1989. “Measurements of Sonic<br />
Booms due to ACM Training at White Sands Missile Range,” Wyle Research Report WR<br />
89-18.<br />
Page D-27
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operation<br />
Plotkin, K.J., C.L. Moulton, V.R. Desai, and M.J. Lucas. 1992. “Sonic Boom Environment under a<br />
Supersonic Military Operations Area,” Journal of Aircraft 29(6): 1069-1072.<br />
Plotkin, K.J., 1996. PCBoom3 Sonic Boom Prediction Model: Version 1.0c. Wyle Research<br />
Report WR 95-<strong>22</strong>C. May.<br />
Plotkin, K.J. and F. Grandi, 2002. "Computer Models for Sonic Boom Analysis: PCBoom4,<br />
CABoom, BooMap, CORBoom," Wyle Research Report WR 02-11, June 2002.<br />
Plotkin, K.J., L.C. Sutherland, and J.A. Molino. 1987. <strong>Environmental</strong> Noise <strong>Assessment</strong> for<br />
Military Aircraft Training Routes, Volume II: Recommended Noise Metric. Wyle<br />
Research Report WR 86-21. January.<br />
Schultz, T.J. 1978. Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise Annoyance. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 64, 377-<br />
405. August.<br />
Stusnick, E., K.A. Bradley, J.A. Molino, and G. DeMiranda. 1992. The Effect of Onset Rate on<br />
Aircraft Noise Annoyance. Volume 2: Rented Own-Home Experiment. Wyle<br />
Laboratories Research Report WR 92-3. March.<br />
Stusnick, E., K.A. Bradley, M.A. Bossi, and D.G. Rickert. 1993. The Effect of Onset Rate on<br />
Aircraft Noise Annoyance. Volume 3: Hybrid Own-Home Experiment. Wyle<br />
Laboratories Research Report WR 93-<strong>22</strong>. December.<br />
Sutherland, L. 1989. <strong>Assessment</strong> of Potential Structural Damage from Low Altitude Subsonic<br />
Aircraft. Wyle Laboratories Research Report WR 89-16. El Segundo, CA.<br />
Sutherland, L.C. 1990. "Effects of Sonic Boom on Structures," Lecture 3 of Sonic Boom: Prediction<br />
and Effects, AIAA Short Course, October 1990.<br />
U.S. Department of Transportation. 1984. Airport Noise Compatibility Planning; Development<br />
of Submission of Airport Operator’s Noise Exposure Map and Noise Compatibility<br />
Program; Final Rule and Request for Comments. 14 CFR Parts 11 and 150, Federal<br />
Register 49(244): 18 December.<br />
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. 2009. Methodology for<br />
Assessing Hearing Loss Risk and Impacts in DoD <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Analysis. June<br />
16.<br />
United States <strong>Environmental</strong> Protection Agency (USEPA). 1974. Information on Levels of<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Noise Requisite to Protect the Public Health and Welfare With an<br />
Adequate Margin of Safety. U.S. <strong>Environmental</strong> Protection Agency Report 550/9-74-<br />
004. March.<br />
U.S. <strong>Environmental</strong> Protection Agency (USEPA), 1982.<br />
Report No. 550/9-82-105. April 1982.<br />
Guidelines for Noise Impact Analysis.<br />
Page D-28
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operations<br />
von Gierke, H.R. 1990. The Noise-Induced Hearing Loss Problem. NIH Consensus<br />
Development Conference on Noise and Hearing Loss. Washington, D.C. <strong>22</strong>-24 January.<br />
Wesler, J.E. 1977. Concorde Operations At Dulles International Airport. NOISEXPO ‘77,<br />
Chicago, IL. March.<br />
White, R. 1972. Effects of Repetitive Sonic Booms on Glass Breakage. FAA Report FAA-RD-72-<br />
43. April.<br />
Page D-29
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix D Aircraft Noise Analysis and Airspace Operation<br />
This page intentionally left blank.<br />
Page D-30
Appendix E<br />
Sec 7 (ESA) Compliance Wildlife Analysis for F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong> UP <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>,<br />
<strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson (JBER), Alaska
This page intentionally left blank.
SECTION 7 (ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT) COMPLIANCE<br />
WILDLIFE ANALYSIS FOR F-<strong>22</strong> PLUS-UP ENVIRONMENTAL<br />
ASSESSMENT<br />
JOINT BASE ELMENDORF-RICHARDSON (JBER), ALASKA<br />
February 2011
SECTION 7 (ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT)<br />
COMPLIANCE WILDLIFE ANALYSIS FOR F-<strong>22</strong> PLUS-<br />
UP ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, JOINT BASE<br />
ELMENDORF-RICHARDSON (JBER), ALASKA<br />
1.1 Introduction<br />
The United States Air Force (Air Force) is preparing an F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
<strong>Assessment</strong> (EA) to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of the proposal to add<br />
six primary and one back-up F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft to the <strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson (JBER) F-<strong>22</strong><br />
inventory, an increase in primary aircraft of approximately 17 percent.<br />
1.2 Purpose and Need for F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> at JBER<br />
In 2006 the Air Force selected <strong>Elmendorf</strong> Air Force <strong>Base</strong> (AFB), Alaska, as the location for the<br />
Second F-<strong>22</strong> Operational Wing [F-<strong>22</strong> Beddown <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> (EA), <strong>Elmendorf</strong>,<br />
Alaska, and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), date 2006].<br />
1.2.1 Purpose for F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> at JBER<br />
On July 29, 2010, the Department of the Air Force announced actions to consolidate the F-<strong>22</strong><br />
fleet. The Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force determined that the<br />
most effective basing for the F-<strong>22</strong> requires redistributing aircraft from one Holloman AFB, New<br />
Mexico F-<strong>22</strong> squadron to existing F-<strong>22</strong> units at JBER; Langley AFB, Virginia; and Nellis AFB,<br />
Nevada. The second Holloman AFB F-<strong>22</strong> squadron would be relocated to Tyndall AFB, Florida,<br />
an existing F-<strong>22</strong> base. This consolidation would maximize combat aircraft and squadrons<br />
available for contingencies, and enhance F-<strong>22</strong> operational flexibility (Air Force 2010). The<br />
purpose of the proposed plus-up of F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft at JBER is to provide additional Air Force<br />
capabilities at a strategic location to meet mission responsibilities for worldwide deployment.<br />
1.2.2 Need for F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> at JBER<br />
Two squadrons of F-15C aircraft and one squadron of F-15E aircraft were relocated from JBER<br />
between 2005 and 2010. Since World War II, JBER has provided an advanced location on U.S.<br />
soil for projection of U.S. global interests. Additional F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft are needed at JBER to<br />
provide U.S. Air Force capability to respond efficiently to national objectives, be available for<br />
contingencies, and enhance F-<strong>22</strong> operational flexibility.<br />
1.3 Project Description<br />
The Proposed Action is to augment the existing F-<strong>22</strong> Operational Wing at JBER with six primary<br />
aircraft and one backup aircraft. This augmentation, when added to the existing JBER 36<br />
primary and three back-up F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft, would result in two F-<strong>22</strong> squadrons with 21 primary<br />
and two back-up aircraft each. Addition of the six primary and one back-up F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft would<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-1
not require additional construction or physical modification of habitat, and no changes would<br />
occur to JBER Water Resources, Hazardous Materials/Waste, Cultural Resources, and Geology<br />
and Soils. No changes to current F-<strong>22</strong> flight paths or approach and departure patterns would<br />
occur. With the addition of the six operational aircraft to the existing inventory, an increase in<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> sorties of approximately 21 percent is expected to result. The "no action" alternative<br />
considered in the EA would not add seven aircraft to the inventory.<br />
1.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species to be<br />
Evaluated<br />
Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Identified by<br />
USFWS (2010a) or NOAA-NMFS (2010) Suspected or Recorded in<br />
<strong>Up</strong>per Cook Inlet Project Area<br />
Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status Location Description<br />
Occupies Cook Inlet waters<br />
Beluga Whale<br />
including Knik Arm and waters<br />
(Cook Inlet Distinct<br />
Delphinapterus leucas Endangered<br />
of North Gulf of Alaska (NMFS<br />
Population Segment [DPS])<br />
2008a)<br />
Steller Sea Lion*<br />
(Western AK DPS)<br />
Eumetopias jubatus<br />
Endangered<br />
Steller's Eider* Polysticta stelleri Threatened<br />
Yellow-billed Loon* Gavia adamsii Candidate<br />
Kittlitz’s Murrelet*<br />
Northern Sea Otter<br />
Southwest Alaska DPS*<br />
Chinook salmon*:<br />
Lower Columbia River<br />
(spring)<br />
Puget Sound<br />
Snake River<br />
(spring/summer)<br />
Snake River (fall)<br />
<strong>Up</strong>per Columbia River<br />
(spring)<br />
Brachyramphus<br />
brevirostris<br />
Enhydra lutris kenyoni<br />
Onchorhynchus<br />
tshawytshca<br />
Candidate<br />
Threatened<br />
Threatened<br />
Threatened<br />
Threatened<br />
Threatened<br />
Endangered<br />
Threatened<br />
Includes sea lions born on<br />
rookeries from Prince William<br />
Sound westward (NMFS<br />
2008b).<br />
Occurs in northern and western<br />
Alaska (USDI 2007).<br />
Nest near freshwater lakes in<br />
the arctic tundra and winter<br />
along the Alaskan coast to the<br />
Puget Sound (USDI 2009a).<br />
Nest near glaciers in rocky<br />
slopes near Gulf of Alaska<br />
waters, winters off shore in Gulf<br />
of Alaska (USDI 2010b)<br />
Alaska Peninsula to the western<br />
Aleutian Islands. The nearest<br />
Management Unit [Kodiak,<br />
Kamishak Alaska Peninsula<br />
(KKAP)] includes the western<br />
shore of the lower Cook Inlet<br />
south of the project area USFWS<br />
2010c).<br />
These stock range throughout<br />
the North Pacific. However, the<br />
specific occurrence of listed<br />
salmonids within close<br />
proximity to <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB is<br />
highly unlikely (NMFS 2010).<br />
Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-2<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>
Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Identified by<br />
USFWS (2010a) or NOAA-NMFS (2010) Suspected or Recorded in<br />
<strong>Up</strong>per Cook Inlet Project Area<br />
Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status Location Description<br />
<strong>Up</strong>per Willamette River<br />
Steelhead*:<br />
Lower Columbia River<br />
Middle Columbia River<br />
Snake River Basin<br />
<strong>Up</strong>per Columbia River<br />
<strong>Up</strong>per Willamette River<br />
Onchorhynchus mykiss<br />
Threatened<br />
Threatened<br />
Threatened<br />
Endangered<br />
Threatened<br />
These stock range throughout<br />
the North Pacific. However, the<br />
specific occurrence of listed<br />
salmonids within close<br />
proximity to <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB is<br />
highly unlikely (NMFS 2010).<br />
Note:<br />
* May potentially move on or within close proximity to base, but occur so infrequently that projects are expected<br />
to have no effect on them (USFWS 2010a, NMFS 2010).<br />
1.5 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species<br />
Recorded in Anchorage/<strong>Up</strong>per Cook Inlet Area<br />
1.5.1 Beluga Whale, Cook Inlet Distinct Population Segment (DPS)<br />
Biology: See “National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008a. Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet<br />
beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas). National Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau, Alaska. 1<strong>22</strong><br />
pages.”<br />
Status: Endangered (Dec 2008) (73 FR 62919)<br />
Critical Habitat: Proposed (74 FR 63080) December 2, 2009 but no final rule as of December 20,<br />
2010. Area 1 of the proposed CH includes Knik Arm.<br />
The primary constituent elements identified in the Proposed Critical Habitat Rule as “essential<br />
to the conservation of Cook Inlet beluga whales” are:<br />
• Intertidal and subtidal waters of Cook Inlet with depths
Other diet items include cod, pollock, and sole. In Knik Arm, belugas transit between locations<br />
such as stream mouths (NMFS 2010c) where behaviors including milling, feeding, and<br />
socializing by belugas have been identified (Stewart 2010). In the project area these areas<br />
include Six Mile Creek, North Eagle Bay, Eagle River, and near Point McKenzie, with transit of<br />
belugas primarily along the east side of the Lower Knik Arm (Stewart 2010). Most beluga<br />
activity in Knik Arm is noted during August, September, and October, coinciding with the<br />
Coho salmon run (NMFS 2010b). Within Knik Arm, beluga abundance is highly variable.<br />
Fourteen years of aerial surveys conducted during the first weeks of June by NMFS show<br />
beluga abundance in Knik Arm ranging from <strong>22</strong>4 (in 1997) to 0 whales (in 1994 and 2004)<br />
(NMFS 2008a). Beluga abundance in the Knik Arm is highest during the months of August<br />
through November, which account for 90 percent of observations of whales in the Knik Arm<br />
made by land and boat-based observations between July 2004 and July 2005 (NMFS 2010b).<br />
Surveys conducted by boat during August through October 2004 reported variable abundance<br />
counts in Knik Arm with 5-130 whales in August, 0-70 whales in September, and 0-105 whales<br />
in October (Funk et al. 2005). (Single observation totals of up to 71 whales during daily visits<br />
were recorded during summer 2009 in Eagle Bay at the mouth of Eagle River on JBER-<br />
Richardson (C. McKee, personal communication, USARG-DPW). Average daily visits to Eagle<br />
Bay were 9 whales (McKee and Garner 2010). These animals are expected to pass by JBER<br />
shorelines. Public observations suggest occasional feeding activity near mouth of Six Mile<br />
Creek, which is supported by studies conducted by Funk et al. (2005) and Stewart (2010.) The<br />
waters of Knik Arm are extremely turbid and subject to wide tidal fluctuations, with a mean<br />
diurnal range of 30 feet in Anchorage resulting in currents ranging from about 3 knots to 12<br />
knots locally (Blackwell and Greene 2002). Belugas ascend to upper Knik Arm on the flooding<br />
tide and often retreat to lower portions of the Arm during low tides. In the narrows of the lower<br />
reaches of Knik Arm they tend to follow the tide within 1 km of either shoreline. Above the<br />
narrows, they may travel up the east side of the Knik Arm following the channel along Eagle<br />
Bay on incoming tides and belugas are observed to hug the western shoreline when moving out<br />
of the Knik Arm (NMFS 2010b); however, from vantage points on the east side of the Arm<br />
above the narrows, many of the same individuals observed swimming up on the east side are<br />
also observed to swim down on the same side (Garner, personal communication 2011).<br />
1.5.2 Steller Sea Lion, Western DPS<br />
Biology: See “National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Recovery Plan for the Steller Sea Lion<br />
(Eumetopias jubatus). Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 325 pages.”<br />
Status: Endangered (1997) (62 FR 24345, 62 FR 30772).<br />
Critical Habitat: Designated August 27, 1993 (58 FR 45269) – none in <strong>Up</strong>per Cook Inlet.<br />
Local Records: Steller sea lions have been observed in Knik Arm on rare occasions – most<br />
recently a single male was observed during summer of 2009 near the mouth of Eagle River,<br />
adjacent to Eagle River Flats (C. McKee, personal communication, JBER USARG-DPW). NMFS<br />
(2010b) indicates that there is little likelihood that the species would enter the Knik Arm in the<br />
vicinity of JBER in the future.<br />
Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-4<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>
1.5.3 Steller’s Eider, Alaska Breeding Population<br />
Biology: See “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Steller’s Eider Recovery Plan. Fairbanks,<br />
Alaska. 29 pages.”<br />
Status: Threatened (1997) (62 FR 31748 31757).<br />
Critical Habitat: Designated 2001 (66 FR 8849 8884) – none in <strong>Up</strong>per Cook Inlet.<br />
Local Records: Steller’s eider noted as a casual visitor to Anchorage area in Anchorage<br />
Audubon bird checklist suggesting less than 10 total records. USFWS (2010d) indicates the<br />
distribution during winter and migration includes the shorelines of Cook Inlet, below Knik<br />
Arm.<br />
1.5.4 Yellow-billed Loon<br />
Biology: See “USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife<br />
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Yellow-Billed Loon as Threatened or<br />
Endangered. 150 pp.”<br />
Status: Candidate –Priority 8 (2009) (74 FR 57803 57878).<br />
Critical Habitat: None designated.<br />
Local Records: Unsubstantiated observation on Green Lake, JBER during 2001 by A.<br />
Richmond. Not listed on Anchorage Audubon Bird Checklist.<br />
1.5.5 Kittlitz’s Murrelet<br />
Biology: See “Alaska Seabird Information Series. 2006 Available at<br />
http://alaska.fws.gov/mbsp/mbm/seabirds/pdf/kimu.pdf. Also: “Draft Spotlight Species<br />
Action Plan” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. August 4, 2009 Available at:<br />
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/pdf/kittlitzs_murrelet_draft_plan.pdf<br />
http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candforms_pdf/r7/B0AP_V01.pdf and: Birdlife International Fact<br />
Sheet. Available at: http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=3310<br />
Status: Candidate–Listing Priority 2 (2008) (74 FR 57803 57878).<br />
Critical Habitat: None designated.<br />
Local Records: Most of Cook Inlet, including Knik Arm, is outside areas identified as nesting<br />
areas, non-breeding concentrations, and breeding concentrations (U.S. Fish And Wildlife<br />
Service Species <strong>Assessment</strong> And Listing Priority Assignment Form. May 2010. Available<br />
at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candforms_pdf/r7/B0AP_V01.pdf, information current as of<br />
May 2010).<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-5
1.5.6 Northern Sea Otter—Southwest Alaska DPS<br />
Biology: See Southwest Alaska DPS of the Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Draft<br />
Recovery Plan (August 2010) available at http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/seaotters/<br />
pdf/draft_sea_otter_recovery_plan_small_file.pdf<br />
Status: Threatened.<br />
Critical Habitat: Designated critical habitat exists in the west side of the lower Cook Inlet<br />
(outside the project area): (http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/seaotters/pdf%5<br />
CSeaOtterCriticalHabitatMaps.pdf)<br />
Local Records: This species is not known to occur in the <strong>Up</strong>per Cook Inlet including Knik Arm<br />
(USFWS 2004). The project area is outside designated Critical Habitat for the Northern Sea<br />
Otter southwest Alaska DPS. Unit 5 (Kodiak, Kamishak, Alaska Peninsula) of Designated<br />
Critical Habitat is present on the western side of the lower Cook Inlet as far north as Redoubt<br />
Point, which is well to the south of Knik Arm. (http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/<br />
mmm/seaotters/pdf%5CSeaOtterCriticalHabitatMaps.pdf).<br />
1.6 Effects Analysis<br />
1.6.1 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale<br />
Potential effects to Cook Inlet beluga whales include potential behavioral responses to the<br />
overflight of F-<strong>22</strong>s. Animals may react to the sound of the jet aircraft or the visual stimulus of<br />
the aircraft being overhead by avoiding the area or altering their natural behavior patterns,<br />
which could constitute behavioral harassment. Beluga whales are known for the variety of their<br />
vocalizations and have good hearing sensitivity at medium to high frequencies (see Appendix<br />
2). The following analysis and discussion focuses on the potential effects on belugas from<br />
overflight by F-<strong>22</strong>s.<br />
The additional F-<strong>22</strong>s associated with the proposed <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> would contribute an approximate 21<br />
percent increase in F-<strong>22</strong> sorties from JBER. Approaches and departures would follow<br />
previously established and defined approach and departure patterns from JBER that are<br />
currently in use by F-<strong>22</strong>s. The action area for this analysis encompasses portions of the Knik<br />
Arm that are overflown by F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft on established approach, departure, and reentry<br />
patterns. These portions of Knik Arm are located to the west and north of JBER runways.<br />
Figures 2 through 8, presented in Section 1.6.1.2 below, encompass the Action Area. A detailed<br />
analysis of noise associated with F-<strong>22</strong> sorties following these patterns has been conducted for<br />
this assessment and is presented in Appendix 1. Some background information and a summary<br />
of the analysis are provided here.<br />
1.6.1.1 Aircraft Overflight Noise Background<br />
Sound is transmitted from an airborne source to a receptor underwater by four principal means:<br />
(1) Direct path, refracted upon passing through the air-water interface;<br />
Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-6<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>
(2) Direct-refracted paths reflected from the bottom in shallow water;<br />
(3) Lateral (evanescent) transmission through the interface from the airborne sound field<br />
directly above; and<br />
(4) Scattering from interface roughness due to wave motion.<br />
Aircraft noise is chiefly transmitted from air into the water within a narrow band centered on<br />
the flight path. A large portion of the acoustic energy is reflected from the air-water interface<br />
during transmission of sound from air to water. For an overhead sound source such as an<br />
aircraft much of the sound at angles greater than 13 degrees from the vertical is reflected and<br />
does not penetrate the water. The area of maximum transmission can therefore be visualized as<br />
a 13-degree cone (26-degree aperture) with the aircraft at its apex (see Figure 1). Aircraft will be<br />
audible for longer as they climb and the base of the cone increases, however the acoustic energy<br />
reaching the water surface diminishes with increasing altitude of the aircraft. Outside the<br />
conical area of maximum transmission, sound may be reflected back into the air or transmitted<br />
shallowly into the water where it stays near the surface, but could be heard by an animal on or<br />
near the surface outside the cone.<br />
Figure 1. Aircraft noise transmission into water<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-7
Most sound is actually transmitted to water within the 13-degree “cone”, especially in calm<br />
conditions. Outside the cone most sound is reflected except where appropriately oriented faces<br />
of waves and chop enable some sound to be transmitted across the air-water interface. The<br />
sound that penetrates outside the cone does not penetrate deeply. The analysis conducted for<br />
this project described in Appendix 1 and below treats the area ensonified as if the cone didn’t<br />
exist. This simplifying assumption results in an overstatement of the amount of noise<br />
transmitted into the water from the air-water interface and results in an overestimation of the<br />
area affected by elevated noise levels in the water.<br />
Exposures to elevated noise levels from aircraft overflight would be brief in duration (seconds)<br />
as the aircraft passes overhead and would diminish rapidly due to the speed of the aircraft. For<br />
example, Blackwell and Greene, in their study of underwater noise in the Cook Inlet near<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB (2002, Figure 3C), found that a landing F-15 passing directly overhead only<br />
generated underwater noise levels exceeding the ambient noise level for approximately three<br />
seconds. The exposed animal would need to be nearly directly underneath the overflight in<br />
order to be exposed to elevated noise levels from an aircraft overflight due to lack of or greatly<br />
diminished transmission of sound into water at angles greater than 13 degrees from the vertical.<br />
Furthermore, a noise would generally need to be louder than ambient (background) noise levels<br />
in order to be perceived by the animal.<br />
Blackwell and Greene (2002) also measured high ambient noise levels in the Knik Arm. They<br />
found a 119 dB re 1 µPa average in-water reading adjacent to <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB while no<br />
overflights were taking place. The same investigators measured ambient noise of 124 dB re 1<br />
µPa at Point Possession (a nearby locality south of Anchorage) during a changing tide. An EA<br />
for the Port of Anchorage reported noise levels on shipping days averaged 134–143 dB re 1 µPa<br />
and the Knik Arm Bridge EIS (Underwater Measurements of Pile-Driving Sound) reported<br />
background levels of 115–133 dB re 1 µPa. Additionally, KABATA et al. (2010) summarized a<br />
variety of existing noise studies conducted within the Knik Arm and concluded that measured<br />
background levels rarely are below 125 dB re 1 μPa, except in conditions of no wind and slack<br />
tide. Ambient noise energy in the Knik Arm is typically concentrated at frequencies below 10<br />
kHz (Blackwell and Greene 2002).<br />
Of F-15 aircraft overflights measured in air and in water while on approach for landing at<br />
<strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB by Blackwell and Greene (2002), the sounds of overflight were detectable in<br />
water in only two of the eleven overflights, one at 90 degrees (i.e., directly overhead) and one at<br />
80 degrees overhead. The peak in-water noise measured was 134dB re 1 μPa for the F-15<br />
landing straight overhead; the second measured overflight (at 80 degrees overhead) was 1<strong>22</strong> dB<br />
re 1 μPa. The sounds from the remainder of the overflights could not be detected in the water.<br />
The authors attributed this to two factors, angles exceeding 13 degrees from vertical, which<br />
reduces penetration of sound energy into the water, and high ambient in-water noise. For those<br />
events where aircraft noise was detectable in the water, it was only detectable for approximately<br />
3 seconds.<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft have been based at JBER since 2007, when F-<strong>22</strong>s replaced the F-15E and one of the<br />
F-15C squadrons that had been based at JBER. In 2010, the last remaining F-15 squadron<br />
departed JBER, leaving the F-<strong>22</strong> as the only fighter aircraft based at JBER. F-<strong>22</strong> engines are more<br />
powerful than those used in F-15 aircraft, and have the potential to be louder than engines of<br />
Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-8<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>
F-15C or F-15E aircraft that had been present at <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB at the time the measurements<br />
by Blackwell and Greene (2002) described above were made. However, two operational factors<br />
reduce the differences in noise levels between the two aircraft types with regard to overflight of<br />
the Knik Arm under normal circumstances. These are: (1) faster rate of climb of the F-<strong>22</strong>,<br />
causing it to be at higher altitude when it overflies the Knik Arm during departures and (2)<br />
lower power settings required by the F-<strong>22</strong> than for the F-15 on approach and when landing. It is<br />
interesting to note that in-water F-15 noise levels reported in the Blackwell and Greene study<br />
are only slightly less than estimated in-water F-<strong>22</strong> noise levels predicted in this analysis (see<br />
Appendix 1). This result fits expectations given the characteristics of the two aircraft. Jet<br />
aircraft noise, which is generated primarily by turbulent mixing of air, is concentrated in<br />
relatively low frequency bands, primarily below 4,000 Hz (= 4 kHz – Wyle Labs 2001, see also<br />
Appendix 1, Figure 2). Spectral characteristics of F-<strong>22</strong> noise in water have not been measured,<br />
but are expected to be similar to dominant ambient noise sources in the Knik Arm.<br />
1.6.1.2 Potential Overflight Effects<br />
The additional F-<strong>22</strong> overflights would produce airborne noise and some of this energy would be<br />
transmitted into the water. Cook Inlet beluga whales could be exposed to noise associated with<br />
the additional F-<strong>22</strong> overflights while at the surface or while submerged. In addition to sound,<br />
marine mammals could react to the shadow of a low-flying aircraft.<br />
Exposure to F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft noise would be brief (seconds) as an aircraft quickly passes overhead.<br />
Most observations of cetacean responses to aircraft overflights [(e.g., diving, slapping the water<br />
with flukes, swimming away from track of low-flying survey aircraft (Richardson et al. 1995)]<br />
are from aerial scientific surveys that involve aircraft flying at relatively low altitudes<br />
(frequently below 200 ft. MSL) and low airspeeds, often with repeated passes or circling. It<br />
should be noted that most of the aircraft overflight exposures analyzed in the studies reviewed<br />
by Richardson et al. (1995) are different than F-<strong>22</strong> overflights. Compared to F-<strong>22</strong>s overflying the<br />
Knik Arm while approaching or departing from JBER, survey and whale watching aircraft are<br />
expected to fly at lower altitudes and exposure durations would be longer for aircraft intending<br />
to observe or follow an animal or group of animals.<br />
The visual aspect of an F-<strong>22</strong> overflight over the Knik Arm would be minimal, because of its<br />
altitude, small size, and rapidity of the overflight. The F-<strong>22</strong>’s closest approach to the water<br />
surface ranges from 653 to 4295 feet MSL, depending on the flight procedure being conducted<br />
(data in Appendix 1, Table 1). <strong>Base</strong>d on the annual use of the different flight paths, the<br />
weighted average of closest approach to water is 2,250 feet MSL for all flight paths.<br />
As reported by F-<strong>22</strong> pilots during interviews, airspeeds when crossing the Knik Arm range<br />
from 160 to 350 knots. Reported airspeeds were used to calculate time spent over Knik Arm in<br />
configurations that generate >120 dB SPL. The total time per flight event in flight<br />
configurations that result in underwater noise levels >120 dB SPL over the Knik Arm is between<br />
26 and 163 seconds with the number of seconds depending on the flight procedure being<br />
conducted. Due to the F-<strong>22</strong>’s airspeed, at any given point within the overflown portion of Knik<br />
Arm, exposures to underwater noise levels >120 dB SPL would be very brief—in the<br />
neighborhood of 2-5 seconds. Consecutive overflights (e.g., “two-ship” departures) could cause<br />
the period of exposure to noise level >120 dB SPL to be longer (e.g., up to about 10 seconds).<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-9
The visual experience of an F-<strong>22</strong> overflight would be similar to that of an F-15 overflight. The<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> is 62 ft long with a 44-foot wingspan and is similar in size to an F-15C or F-15E. Altitude<br />
profiles for the two aircraft are similar during arrival operations. During departure operations,<br />
the F-<strong>22</strong> climbs more quickly than the F-15, resulting in the F-<strong>22</strong> being at higher altitudes while<br />
overflying the Knik Arm. Airspeeds in the runway vicinity are similar for the two aircraft<br />
meaning that the duration of the visual experience is similar. Because of its altitude, small size,<br />
and rapidity of the overflight, adverse visual behavioral response to F-<strong>22</strong> overflight on<br />
established flight tracks over Knik Arm is not expected.<br />
A variety of effects may result from exposure to sound-producing activities. The severity of<br />
these effects can vary greatly between minor effects that have no realizable cost to the animal, to<br />
more severe effects that may have lasting consequences. Potential acoustic effects to marine<br />
mammals fall into five major categories: 1) Direct Trauma; 2) Auditory Fatigue; 3) Auditory<br />
Masking; 4) Stress Response; and 5) Behavioral Reactions.<br />
Direct trauma refers to injury to organs or tissues of an animal as a direct result of an intense<br />
sound wave or shock wave impinging upon or passing through their body. This has only been<br />
shown with close proximity to very intense sources such as explosions. Auditory fatigue may<br />
result from overstimulation of the delicate hair cells and tissues within the auditory system. The<br />
maximum sound pressure level predicted within the water is 137dB re 1 μPa for a duration of a<br />
few seconds (see noise modeling calculations below and in Appendix 1). A temporary hearing<br />
loss (temporary threshold shift [TTS]) threshold of 195 dB re 1 μPa 2 -s is primarily based on the<br />
cetacean TTS data from Schlundt et al. (2000) and corroborated by the short-duration tone data<br />
of Finneran et al. (2001, 2003, 2005) and the long-duration sound data from Nachtigall et al.<br />
(2003a, b). This is the best threshold to predict temporary hearing loss for non-impulsive sound,<br />
which is the lowest order direct physiological effect (with the exception of stress). An animal<br />
would need to be exposed to 137 dB re μPa continuously for about 175 hours to reach the 195 dB<br />
re 1 μPa 2 -s sound exposure level threshold. Therefore direct trauma and auditory fatigue as a<br />
result of F-<strong>22</strong> overflights are not predicted.<br />
Auditory masking occurs when the perception of a sound is interfered with by a second sound<br />
and the probability of masking increases as the two sounds increase in similarity and the<br />
masking sound increases in level. The maximum predicted in-water sound from F-<strong>22</strong><br />
overflights is 137 dB re 1 µPa for a duration of a few seconds; during most flight operations and<br />
in most places under the flight path the maximum noise levels would be significantly less. As<br />
described above, ambient noise levels in the northern Cook Inlet and Knik Arm normally<br />
exceed 120 dB re 1 µPa. Therefore, since predicted F-<strong>22</strong> overflight noise levels are often very<br />
close to ambient noise levels, and the noise would only be heard for a few seconds at any given<br />
point within the water, masking is not predicted.<br />
Physiological stress and behavioral reactions may occur at the predicted in-water sound levels.<br />
The data to predict physiological stress based on specific sound levels do not exist for marine<br />
mammals. Therefore, the following analysis examines the possibility that F-<strong>22</strong> overflights will<br />
cause a behavioral reaction (and possible physiological stress response) in Cook Inlet beluga<br />
whales. An analytical model was used to quantify potential behavioral disturbances based on<br />
predicted sound levels; thresholds derived from reactions of animals to similar intermittent,<br />
non-impulsive sounds; and Cook Inlet beluga whale density estimates. The most appropriate<br />
Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-10<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>
acoustic threshold is currently the odontocete risk function which assesses the probability of a<br />
behavioral reaction from 120 dB SPL to 195 dB SPL for non-pulse sound as described in<br />
Appendix 1. The results of this model were studied and a number of contextual factors were<br />
considered to ascertain the potential effects of F-<strong>22</strong> overflights on the beluga whales.<br />
As described in Appendix 1, all established flight profiles used by F-<strong>22</strong>s at JBER were modeled,<br />
taking into account engine power settings, altitudes, and maneuvers at points along each flight<br />
track. These parameters were verified with F-<strong>22</strong> pilots at JBER through interviews and followup<br />
questions during the week of 6 December 2010. Each of the flight profiles consists of<br />
multiple segments (i.e., initial approach to the airfield, circling to land, etc.). Each flight profile<br />
segment that overflies the Knik Arm was assessed for potential to impact beluga whales. Noise<br />
levels in air were calculated at increments along each flight path. Appropriate conversions<br />
were made to account for the transmission of sound across the air/water interface as described<br />
in Appendix 1 and the maximum in-water sound pressure levels associated with overflights<br />
were calculated. As stated above, maximum modeled in-water sound pressure levels (SPL)<br />
associated with F-<strong>22</strong> overflight of the Knik Arm do not exceed 137 dB re 1 µPa (Appendix 1).<br />
The threshold for potential effects was then established using the odontocete risk function, an<br />
“S”-shaped curve which assesses the probability of a behavioral reaction in the interval between<br />
120 dB SPL to 195 dB SPL for non-pulse sound (see Appendix 1, page 2, and Appendix 1, Figure<br />
1). The odontocete risk function as applied in this analysis was designed based on findings of<br />
several studies, including numerous individuals, and therefore takes into account variation<br />
among individuals in sensitivity to stimulus. Highly sensitive individuals (or groups) would<br />
have a slightly higher likelihood of behavioral response than indicated by the odontocete risk<br />
curve at a given received level and unusually insensitive individuals would have a slightly<br />
lower likelihood of behavioral response than indicated by the odontocete risk curve. Given this<br />
threshold range, all areas in which modeled in-water SPL exceeds 120 dB re 1 µPa at the loudest<br />
point were delineated and broken down into subareas or “bins” within which in-water SPLs<br />
ranged from 120-125 dB; 125-130 dB; and above 130 dB re 1 µPa, respectively. These were<br />
mapped for each type of flight path and their areas determined using GIS. The affected area was<br />
then multiplied by a value estimating beluga population density. We considered two density<br />
values, 0.08 beluga whales/km 2 and 0.12 beluga whales/km 2 , and ultimately used the higher<br />
density in our calculations because it would yield a higher estimate of effect. The smaller value<br />
(0.08 beluga whales/km 2 ) was the maximum monthly density of belugas calculated for the Knik<br />
Arm near JBER based on several monitoring studies (KABATA et al. 2010, Table 8). The larger<br />
density value was based on the current (2010) estimated Cook Inlet beluga whale population of<br />
340 individuals (NMFS 2010b) divided by 2,800 km 2 , the area estimated to represent 95 percent<br />
of the occupied Cook Inlet beluga whale range (Rugh et al. 2010), thus yielding a density<br />
estimate of 0.12 beluga whales/km 2 .<br />
The results are shown in Figures 2 through 8, which portray all flight profiles in which in-water<br />
SPLs were calculated to equal or exceed 120 dB. The F-<strong>22</strong> flight profiles depicted in Figures 2<br />
through 8 are named according to five character codes which are sometimes followed by a<br />
number (e.g. RAPTR, EEEGL2, and MATSU5) or according to the type of pattern being<br />
conducted (e.g., IFR approach, VFR re-entry). The legend of each figure contains the probability<br />
of behavioral effect, determined for the highest SPL in the range (e.g., 125 dB for the range 120-<br />
125 dB). For areas exceeding 130 dB SPL, the maximum probability of behavioral reaction from<br />
the odontocete risk function for the probability associated with 137 dB SPL was used. This was<br />
the highest modeled exposure for any flight path.<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-11
Figure 2. Water Surface Area Below Which Modeled Instantaneous In-Water<br />
Sound Pressure Levels Are 120 dB or Greater Resulting From F-<strong>22</strong> Overflight on<br />
RAPTR Transition to Runway 06, Flight Lead (Track 06AT1), Initial Approach to<br />
Runway.<br />
Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-12<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>
Figure 3. Water Surface Area Below Which Modeled Instantaneous In-Water<br />
Sound Pressure Levels Are 120 dB or Greater Resulting From F-<strong>22</strong> Overflight on<br />
RAPTR Transition to Runway 06, Wingman (Track 06AT2), Initial Approach to<br />
Runway.<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-13
Figure 4. Water Surface Area Below Which Modeled Instantaneous In-Water<br />
Sound Pressure Levels Are 120 dB or Greater Resulting From F-<strong>22</strong> Overflight on<br />
IFR Approach to Runway 06 (Track 06AT3), Arrival or Closed Pattern.<br />
Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-14<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>
Figure 5. Water Surface Area Below Which Modeled Instantaneous In-Water<br />
Sound Pressure Levels Are 120 dB or Greater Resulting From F-<strong>22</strong> Overflight on<br />
VFR Re-entry Pattern to Runway 06 (Track 06CR), Initial Approach to Runway.<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-15
Figure 6. Water Surface Area Below Which Modeled Instantaneous In-Water<br />
Sound Pressure Levels Are 120 dB or Greater Resulting From F-<strong>22</strong> Overflight on<br />
EEEGL2 Departure from Runway 24 (Track 24D2), Military or Afterburner<br />
Departure.<br />
Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-16<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>
Figure 7. Water Surface Area Below Which Modeled Instantaneous In-Water<br />
Sound Pressure Levels Are 120 dB or Greater Resulting From F-<strong>22</strong> Overflight on<br />
EEEGL2 Departure from Runway 34 (Track 34D1), Military Departure.<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-17
Figure 8. Water Surface Area Below Which Modeled Instantaneous In-Water<br />
Sound Pressure Levels Are 120 dB or Greater Resulting From F-<strong>22</strong> Overflight on<br />
Overhead Pitch or Visual Closed Pattern to Runway 06 (Track 06C2).<br />
Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-18<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>
As detailed in Appendix 1, the analysis was again conservative (i.e., overestimates effects),<br />
calculating the largest possible footprint of sound levels exceeding 120 dB. Much of the noise<br />
energy generated by jet aircraft is at low frequencies (below 10 kHz), which is below the best<br />
hearing range of belugas (30-80kHz). Overflights generally occur over portions of the lower<br />
Knik Arm where beluga whales are generally transiting when present (KABATA et al., 2010).<br />
The probability and consequences of altering a transiting animal's behavior are unknown,<br />
however biologically significant effects would be less likely than those associated with<br />
disturbing feeding or mating behavior. However, modeled noise levels of 120-125 dB<br />
associated with some flight tracks are predicted in the vicinity of the mouth of Six Mile Creek<br />
(Figures 5-7) and Eagle Bay (Figure 7), areas where belugas are known to feed and congregate.<br />
Given the regular occurrence of overflight of belugas by jet aircraft at Stevens International<br />
Airport and JBER, the brief duration of the exposure to elevated in-water noise (seconds, as<br />
described above), and the absence of direct physical harm or injury to belugas from overflight,<br />
there is potential for diminution of any behavioral response to overflight over time<br />
(habituation). Blackwell and Greene (2002) indicated this appears to be the case with belugas,<br />
which are thought to habituate and become tolerant of the vessels, when exposed to substantial<br />
boat traffic. Additionally, for animals to detect and respond to a noise it needs to be louder<br />
than background by greater than a value known as the critical ratio. Odontocete critical ratios<br />
are typically between 10 and 20 dB, with the actual value varying by frequency and species<br />
(Richardson et al. 1995). Given that measured in-water noise levels in the Knik Arm near JBER<br />
are frequently in the neighborhood of 120-125 dB re 1 µPa or more (NMFS 2010b; Blackwell and<br />
Greene 2002), it is possible that elevated in-water noise from overflights would not be perceived<br />
as a distinct noise source by the belugas because of the high levels of ambient in-water noise.<br />
The high levels of ambient noise are not accounted for in the analytical approach employed in<br />
this document (see Appendix 1) and this is another factor that may result in overestimation of<br />
the likelihood of behavioral reaction to overflights.<br />
The resulting estimated number of behavioral reactions associated with the proposed action are<br />
less than 0.04 individuals per year (Appendix 1). Because the likelihood of behavioral reaction<br />
is essentially zero, it is so low as to be discountable and it is therefore concluded that the project<br />
may affect but is unlikely to adversely affect the Cook Inlet beluga whale.<br />
The potential for project effects on the proposed critical habitat for Cook Inlet beluga whale was<br />
evaluated as summarized below with respect to the five Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs)<br />
in the proposed critical habitat (74 FR 63095, December 2, 2009). The PCEs are listed above in<br />
Section 1.5.1 of this report.<br />
(1) Because there would be no onshore or in-water construction, earth moving, or<br />
vegetation removal associated with the proposed F-<strong>22</strong> plus-up, there would be no effects<br />
on the water quality or hydrology of waters of the Knik Arm or its tributaries.<br />
(2) Overflights by additional F-<strong>22</strong>s, including elevated sound levels, are not expected to<br />
affect prey species consumed by Cook Inlet beluga whales. In the Knik Arm project<br />
area, these primarily include four salmon species and Pacific eulachon; however Pacific<br />
cod, walleye pollock, saffron cod, and yellowfin sole are also taken. Salmon and most<br />
marine fish are hearing generalists with their best hearing sensitivity at low frequencies<br />
(below 300 Hz) where they can detect particle motion induced by low frequency sound<br />
at high intensities (Amoser and Ladich 2005; Popper and Hastings 2009), not<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-19
approached by projected sound levels associated with F-<strong>22</strong> overflight. Studies of<br />
Atlantic salmon conclude that they are unlikely to detect sounds originating in air<br />
(Hawkins and Johnstone 1978). It is unlikely that the fish species listed as beluga prey<br />
would detect the noise from any jet overflights. If overflight sounds were detected by<br />
fish species, any effects would be short-term and minor, given the low projected sound<br />
pressure levels (maximum of 137 dB re 1 µPa), short duration, and intermittent nature of<br />
elevated in-water sound associated with F-<strong>22</strong> overflight.<br />
(3) There would be no introduction of toxins or other agents of a type or amount harmful to<br />
beluga whales.<br />
(4) The project would not affect passage of beluga whales within or between critical habitat<br />
areas.<br />
(5) <strong>Base</strong>d on the analysis in this report, there would be “absence of in-water noise at levels<br />
resulting in the abandonment of habitat by Cook Inlet beluga whales.”<br />
Therefore the project is not expected to result in adverse modification of the proposed critical<br />
habitat for the Cook Inlet beluga whale.<br />
In conclusion, although Cook Inlet beluga whales are likely to be present during some of the<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> overflights, analysis of modeled underwater noise levels shows that exposure to projected<br />
in-water noise levels exceeding 120 dB re 1 µPa would be exceedingly unlikely to result in<br />
behavioral harassment. Therefore this proposal will have no indirect, cumulative or<br />
interdependent/interrelated effects in regards to Cook Inlet Beluga whale and would have no<br />
effect on its proposed critical habitat.<br />
Determination: May affect not likely to adversely affect Cook Inlet Beluga Whale. No effect on<br />
Cook Inlet Beluga Whale proposed Critical Habitat, or its prey species.<br />
1.7 Steller Sea Lion<br />
(1) This species is not expected to occur in the project area (NMFS 2010b) and the combined<br />
likelihood of its occurrence in the project area and being in the area of elevated noise<br />
levels from F-<strong>22</strong> overflight is so low as to be discountable.<br />
(2) Therefore, this proposal will have no direct, indirect, cumulative or effect in regards to<br />
Western population of Steller sea lion or its habitat.<br />
(3) Determination: May affect not likely to adversely affect Steller sea lion.<br />
1.8 Steller’s Eider<br />
(1) This species is not expected to occur in the project area and the combined likelihood of<br />
its occurrence in the project area and being in the area of elevated noise levels from F-<strong>22</strong><br />
overflight is so low as to be discountable.<br />
(2) Therefore, this proposal will have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects in regards to<br />
the Alaska breeding population of Steller’s eider.<br />
(3) Determination: May affect not likely to adversely affect Steller’s eider.<br />
Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-20<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>
1.9 Yellow-billed Loon<br />
(1) This species is not expected to occur in the project area and the combined likelihood of<br />
its occurrence in the project area and being in the area of elevated noise levels from F-<strong>22</strong><br />
overflight is so low as to be discountable.<br />
(2) Therefore, this proposal will have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects in regards to<br />
the yellow-billed loon.<br />
(3) Determination: May affect not likely to adversely affect the yellow-billed loon.<br />
1.10 Kittlitz’s Murrelet<br />
(1) This species is not expected to occur in the project area and the combined likelihood of<br />
its occurrence in the project area and being in the area of elevated noise levels from F-<strong>22</strong><br />
overflight is so low as to be discountable.<br />
(2) Therefore, this proposal will have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects in regards to<br />
Kittlitz’s murrelet.<br />
(3) Determination: May affect but not likely to adversely affect Kittlitz’s murrelet.<br />
1.11 Northern Sea Otter, Southwest Alaska DPS<br />
(1) This species is not expected to occur in the project area and the combined likelihood of<br />
its occurrence in the project area and being in the area of elevated noise levels from F-<strong>22</strong><br />
overflight is so low as to be discountable.<br />
(2) Therefore, this proposal will have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects in regards<br />
Southwest Alaska DPS of the Northern Sea Otter.<br />
(3) Determination: May affect but not likely to adversely affect the Southwest Alaska DPS<br />
of the Northern Sea Otter.<br />
1.12 Conclusion<br />
A determination of “may affect not likely to adversely affect” is found for all species analyzed;<br />
therefore, no Sec 7 consultation is required for this project.<br />
1.13 Additional Considerations<br />
1.13.1 Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)<br />
All marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Because<br />
behavioral reactions by beluga whales are not predicted (< 1 behavioral reaction per year) there<br />
would be no harassment of this species under MMPA. Other marine mammal species<br />
occasionally documented in the Knik Arm Project Area include Steller’s sea lion (discussed<br />
above), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and killer whale<br />
(Orcinus orca). Their occurrences are infrequent and in much lower abundance in the Knik Arm<br />
than the Cook Inlet beluga whales. Potential project effects identified above for the beluga<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-21
whale are considered to be possible, but even less likely given the very low abundance of these<br />
species in the Knik Arm. Adverse effects associated with the proposed <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong>, including<br />
behavioral reactions to overflight, are not expected to occur for any marine mammal.<br />
1.13.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)<br />
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (amended in 1936 and 1972) prohibits the taking of<br />
migratory birds, unless authorized by the Secretary of Interior. Executive Order 13186<br />
(Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds) provides for the conservation<br />
of migratory birds and their habitats, and requires the evaluation of the effects of Federal<br />
actions on migratory birds, with an emphasis on species of concern. Federal agencies are<br />
required to support the intent of the migratory bird conventions by integrating bird<br />
conservation principles, measures, and practices into agency activities and by avoiding or<br />
minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory birds when conducting<br />
agency actions. The DoD has an exemption of the MBTA for training for military readiness.<br />
Although not directly for this project, a permit for take exists and is maintained in the Bird<br />
Exclusion Zone on JBER.<br />
1.13.3 National <strong>Environmental</strong> Policy Act (NEPA)<br />
This wildlife analysis has been prepared in conjunction with an F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
<strong>Assessment</strong> (EA) being prepared by the United States Air Force (Air Force) to evaluate the<br />
potential environmental consequences of the proposal to add six primary and one back-up F-<strong>22</strong><br />
aircraft to the <strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson (JBER) F-<strong>22</strong> inventory, an increase in primary<br />
aircraft of approximately 17 percent.<br />
1.14 Literature Cited<br />
Alaska Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Conservation. 2010. Construction General Permit for<br />
Stormwater. Available at: http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wnpspc/stormwater/<br />
sw_construction.htm.<br />
Amoser, S. and F. Ladich. 2005. Are hearing sensitivities adapted to the ambient noise in their<br />
habitats? J. Experimental Biology 208:3533-3542.<br />
Blackwell, S. B. and C. R. Greene, Jr. Acoustic Measurements in Cook Inlet, Alaska, During<br />
August 2001. Prepared by Greeneridge Sciences for National Marine Fisheries Service,<br />
Protected Resources Division, Anchorage AK. 12 August.<br />
Eller, A. I. and R. C. Cavanagh. 2000. Subsonic Aircraft Noise At and Beneath the Ocean<br />
Surface: Estimation of Risk for Effects on Marine Mammals. Prepared by Science<br />
Applications International Corporation for United States Air Force Research Laboratory.<br />
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH. AFRL-HE-WP-TR-2000-0156.<br />
Funk, D.W., T.M. Markowitz, and R. Rodrigues (eds.) 2005. <strong>Base</strong>line studies of beluga whale<br />
habitat use in Knik Arm, <strong>Up</strong>per Cook Inlet, Alaska, July 2004-July 2005. Rep. from LGL<br />
Alaska Research Associates, Inc., Anchorage, AK, in association with HDR Alaska, Inc.,<br />
Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-<strong>22</strong><br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>
Anchorage, AK, for Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority, Anchorage, AK, Department<br />
of Transportation and Public Facilities, Anchorage, AK, and Federal Highway<br />
Administration, Juneau, AK.<br />
Hawkins, A. D. and A. D. F. Johnstone. 1978. The hearing of the Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar. J.<br />
Fish Biol. 13:655-673.<br />
KABATA (Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority) et al. 2010. Request for Letter of Authorization<br />
under Section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act Incidental to Construction<br />
of the Knik Arm Crossing Project in <strong>Up</strong>per Cook Inlet, Alaska. Submitted to Office of<br />
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Silver Spring, MD<br />
20910-3<strong>22</strong>6 Submitted by: Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority, Anchorage, Alaska<br />
99501; Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Anchorage, Alaska<br />
99501 and Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska 99802. Biological<br />
Consultant: HDR Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. August 18.<br />
McKee, C. and C. Garner. 2010. Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Monitoring Eagle Bay, Fort<br />
Richardson, Alaska 2008-2009. Presented 12 October 2010. In Cook Inlet Beluga Whale<br />
Science Conference, hosted by National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region,<br />
Anchorage Downtown Marriott, Alaska, October 11 & 12, 2010. Available at:<br />
http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/whales/beluga/workshop/<br />
presentations/17_cib_monitoring_eaglebay.pdf<br />
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS = NOAA Fisheries). 2008a. Conservation Plan for the<br />
Cook Inlet Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas). National Marine Fisheries Service,<br />
Juneau, Alaska. 128 pp. Available at:<br />
http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/whales/beluga/mmpa/final<br />
/cp2008.pdf<br />
_____. 2008b. Recovery Plan for the Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus). Revision. National<br />
Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 325 pp. Available at:<br />
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/stellers/recovery/sslrpfinalrev030408.<br />
pdf<br />
_____. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Species: Designation of Critical Habitat for Cook<br />
Inlet Beluga Whale. Proposed Rule. 50 CFR Part <strong>22</strong>6. Federal Register 74(230): 63080-<br />
63095. Available at: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/prules/74fr63080.pdf<br />
_____. 2010a. Letter dated January 5, 2010 - Threatened and Endangered Species Associated<br />
with <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB and Cook Inlet . United States Department of Commerce, National<br />
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau,<br />
AK. 2 pp.<br />
_____. 2010b. Biological Opinion, Endangered Species Act: Section 7 Consultation Biological<br />
Opinion. Knik Arm Crossing, Anchorage, Alaska. November 30, 2010. United States<br />
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National<br />
Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau, AK. 86 pp.<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-23
_____. 2010c. Proposed Critical Habitat for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whales. Presentation made<br />
at Public Hearings February, 2010. Available at:<br />
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/whales/beluga/chabitat/phearingppt0<br />
210.pdf<br />
Popper, A. N., and Hastings, M. C. (2009). The effects on fish of human-generated<br />
(anthropogenic) sound. Integrative Zool. 4:43-52.<br />
Rugh, D.J., Shelden, K.W., Hobbs, R.C. 2010. Range Contraction in a Beluga Whale Population.<br />
Endangered Species Research. Vol 12: 69-75<br />
Stewart, Brent S. 2010. Interactions between beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) and boats in<br />
Lower Knik Arm, Alaska: Behavior and Bioacoustics (1 August-14 September 2008.<br />
Presented 12 October 2010. In Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Science Conference, hosted by<br />
National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region, Anchorage Downtown Marriott,<br />
Alaska, October 11 & 12, 2010. Available at:<br />
http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/whales/beluga/workshop/<br />
presentations/19_stewart_cib_bioacoustics.pdf<br />
United States Air Force (Air Force). 2000. Explosives Safety Standards. Available at:<br />
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/aircraft/afman91-201.pdf. 213 pp.<br />
_____. 2004. Integrated Natural Resources Management. Available at: http://www.epublishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI32-7064.pdf.<br />
84 pp.<br />
_____. 2006. F-<strong>22</strong>A Beddown <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>, <strong>Elmendorf</strong> AFB, Alaska. June 2006.<br />
United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS). 2003. Steller’s Eider<br />
Recovery Plan. Fairbanks, Alaska. Available at: http://alaska.fws.gov/<br />
fisheries/endangered/pdf/Steller%27s%20Eider%20Recovery%20Plan.pdf 29 pp.<br />
_____. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Southwest Alaska<br />
Distinct Population Segment of the Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) as<br />
Threatened. Federal Register 69:6600-6621.<br />
_____. 2007. The Steller’s eider. Available at:<br />
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/listing.htm. 2 pp.<br />
_____. 2009a. Yellow-billed loon (Gavia adamsii). March 2009. Available at:<br />
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/pdf/ybl_factsheet.pdf.<br />
_____. 2009b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition<br />
to List the Yellow-Billed Loon as Threatened or Endangered. Available at:<br />
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/pdf/2009-06012_PI.pdf 150 pp.<br />
_____. 2010a. Letter dated January 13, 2010 – <strong>Elmendorf</strong>/Fort Richardson Renewal of<br />
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan. United States Department of the<br />
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. 1 pp.<br />
Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-24<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>
_____. 2010b. Species profile: Kittlitz Murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris). Available at:<br />
http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0AP<br />
_____. 2010c. Southwest Alaska Distinct Population Segment of the Northern Sea Otter<br />
(Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Draft Recovery Plan. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/r<br />
ecovery_plan/101012.pdf<br />
_____. 2010d. ESA Listed Species Consultation Guide—Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field<br />
Office. Consulted December 20, 2010. Available at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries<br />
/endangered/pdf/Consultation_guide_31010.pdf<br />
Wyle Laboratories. 2001. Wyle Report 01-21 Status of Low-Frequency Aircraft Noise Research<br />
and Mitigation. September<br />
Adapted from Wildlife Analysis Prepared by: Matthew Moran, GS-12, Wildlife Biologist, 611 th<br />
CES/CEAN, JBER, AK, Herman Griese, YD-02, Wildlife Biologist, 673 CES/CEANC, JBER, AK,<br />
Brent A. Koenen, YF-02, Chief, Conservation & Planning, 673 CES/CEANC, JBER, AK, and<br />
Elizabeth E. Godden, YD-02, NEPA Coordinator, 673 CES/CEAO, JBER, AK, on 17 November<br />
2010.<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page 1-25
APPENDIX 1. NOISE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT<br />
METHODOLOGY AND QUANTITATIVE<br />
RESULTS<br />
1.15 Introduction<br />
This appendix describes a methodology for estimation of potential behavioral effects of Cook<br />
Inlet beluga whales (CIBW) associated with proposed increase in F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft operations at<br />
<strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong> Richardson (JBER), AK associated with the addition of six primary aircraft<br />
and summarizes results of the analysis.<br />
1.16 Methodology<br />
The steps involved in predicting potential behavioral reactions are described below:<br />
Step 1: Calculate Maximum in-air noise level associated with overflights. F-<strong>22</strong> pilot<br />
interviews were held during the week of 6 December 2010 for the purpose of collecting detailed<br />
data on aircraft operations (i.e., engine power settings, altitudes, and airspeed at several points<br />
along each flight track). During the interviews, several flight profiles were developed which are<br />
representative of F-<strong>22</strong> flying patterns at JBER. Each of the flight profiles consists of multiple<br />
segments (i.e., initial approach to the airfield, circling to land, etc.). Each flight profile segment<br />
that overflies the Knik Arm was assessed for potential to impact beluga whales. Event types<br />
were aggregated when the flight profile segment of two events were identical over the Knik<br />
Arm. For example, afterburner and non-afterburner departures are identical over the Knik<br />
Arm. Pilots turn off afterburner prior to reaching water and the altitude/power setting profiles<br />
and flight tracks describing these two event types are the same from that point onward.<br />
Maximum A-weighted noise level reference 20 µPa (LA max re 20 µPa) at sea level associated with<br />
each F-<strong>22</strong> flight profile segment was calculated at the location over the Knik Arm where aircraft<br />
altitude is lowest. Calculations were made using the program SEL_CALC under median<br />
atmospheric noise propagation conditions at JBER (59° F and 71% R.H.). Variable weather<br />
conditions (e.g., wind direction, wind intensity, temperature profile, relative humidity) have a<br />
limited affect on received aircraft noise levels. For example, monthly average atmospheric<br />
sound absorption coefficients at JBER vary from median value by less than 1.3 dB per 1,000 feet.<br />
The term ‘A-weighted’ denotes adjustment of component frequency band sound pressure levels<br />
to reflect human hearing. Decibels are a way of expressing sound levels that involves the ratio<br />
of a sound pressure against a reference pressure level. By convention, sound levels in air are<br />
stated as referenced to 20 µPa.<br />
Step 2: Calculate Maximum in-water noise level associated with overflights. The A-<br />
weighted noise levels re 20 µPa reported by SEL_CALC were converted to estimated unweighted<br />
sound pressure levels (SPL) re 1 µPa. A-weighted and un-weighted F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft noise<br />
levels from the NOISEMAP NOISEFILE database were compared for several F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft<br />
configurations, and it was found that un-weighted noise levels were consistently 2.9 to 3.1 dB<br />
higher than A-weighted noise levels. Three dB were added to A-weighted noise levels to<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page A1-1
estimated un-weighted SPL. It should be noted that odontocete hearing is not strong at low<br />
frequencies (Southall et al 2007). Much of the noise energy generated by jet aircraft is at low<br />
frequencies, and use of un-weighted SPL yields conservative estimates of noise impacts to<br />
belugas. Transmission of sound from a moving airborne source to a receptor underwater is<br />
influenced by numerous factors and has been studied extensively (Richardson et al. 1995, Young<br />
1973, Urick 1972). In this wildlife analysis, twenty-six dB were added to SPL re 20 µPa to<br />
convert to SPL re 1 µPa and, an additional 6 dB are added to account for doubling of sound<br />
pressure as the sound rays cross the interface between air and water. Taking into account<br />
sound metric conversion and the reflectance of noise energy at the air-water interface, noise<br />
levels in water (SPL re 1 µPa) were calculated as being 35 dB higher than noise levels in air just<br />
above the water’s surface (LA max re 20 µPa). Additional discussion on transmission of aircraft<br />
noise into water is located in ‘Step 4: Establish area exposed to noise exceeding thresholds’.<br />
Step 3: Establish threshold for potential effects. Calculated noise levels generated by F-<strong>22</strong><br />
aircraft in the Knik Arm do not exceed 137 dB SPL re 1 µPa, well below the threshold for<br />
temporary hearing loss (195 dB re 1 µPa 2 -s) and permanent hearing loss (215 dB re 1 µPa 2 -s) for<br />
non-pulse sound. However, such noise levels do have some probability of causing a behavioral<br />
reaction such as area avoidance or alteration of natural behaviors.<br />
The most appropriate acoustic threshold is currently the odontocete risk function, which<br />
assesses the probability of a behavioral reaction from 120 dB SPL to 195 dB SPL for non-pulse<br />
sound (U.S. Navy 2008). The risk function was derived by the U.S. Navy and NMFS to<br />
determine effects from mid-frequency sonar. However, the odontocete risk function is currently<br />
the best available science for predicting behavioral effects from intermittent, non-impulsive<br />
(non-pulse) sound.<br />
The risk function is used to estimate the percentage of an exposed population that is likely to<br />
exhibit behaviors at a given received level of sound (NOAA 2009, NMFS 2009). For example, at<br />
165 dB SPL (dB re: 1 μPa rms), the risk (or probability) of harassment is 50 percent, and NMFS<br />
applies that 50 percent of the individuals exposed at that received level are likely to respond by<br />
exhibiting behavior that NMFS would classify as behavioral harassment (NOAA 2009, NMFS<br />
2009).<br />
The values used in the odontocete risk function are based on three sources of data: Temporary<br />
threshold shift (TTS) experiments conducted at Space and Warfare Systems Center (SSC) and<br />
documented in Finneran, et al. (2001, 2003, and 2005; Finneran and Schlundt 2004);<br />
reconstruction of sound fields produced by the USS SHOUP associated with the behavioral<br />
responses of killer whales observed in Haro Strait and documented in NMFS (2005), DoN<br />
(2004), and Fromm (2004a, 2004b); and observations of the behavioral response of North<br />
Atlantic right whales exposed to alert stimuli containing mid-frequency components<br />
documented in Nowacek et al. (2004).<br />
The risk function represents a general relationship between acoustic exposures and behavioral<br />
responses. The risk function, as currently derived, treats the received level as the only variable<br />
that is relevant to a marine mammal’s behavioral response. However, we know that many other<br />
variables—the marine mammal’s gender, age, and prior experience; the activity it is engaged in<br />
during an exposure event, its distance from a sound source, the number of sound sources, and<br />
whether the sound sources are approaching or moving away from the animal—can be critically<br />
Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page A1-2<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>
important in determining whether and how a marine mammal will respond to a sound source<br />
(Southall et al. 2007). The data that are currently available do not allow for incorporation of<br />
these other variables in the current risk functions; however, the risk function represents the best<br />
use of the data that are available (NOAA 2009).<br />
The odontocete risk function curve was adapted from Feller 1968 (Figure 3)<br />
Where: R = risk (0 – 1.0);<br />
L = Received Level (RL) in dB;<br />
B = <strong>Base</strong>ment RL (i.e. lowest RL at which behavioral reaction possible) in dB;<br />
K = the RL increment above basement in dB at which there is 50 percent risk;<br />
A = Risk transition sharpness parameter<br />
Feller function parameter values used in this analysis were selected in keeping with values used<br />
to predict behavioral reaction from non-impulsive noise to odontocetes in the U.S. Navy<br />
Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training (AFAST) <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Statement (EIS) (U.S. Navy<br />
2008). The values published in the AFAST EIS (A=10, K=45 dB SPL, and B = 120 dB SPL) were<br />
selected based on extensive research and coordination with NMFS.<br />
Establishment of a risk modeling basement threshold (e.g. lowest noise level at which impacts<br />
could potentially occur) of 130 dB re 1 µPa was considered and eventually rejected. Average<br />
measured ambient noise levels in the portion of the Knik Arm due west of the JBER runway<br />
have been reported as being 119 dB re 1 µPa and 125 dB re 1 µPa (Blackwell and Greene 2002,<br />
KABATA et al. 2010). Sounds that are louder than ambient noise levels by less than the “critical<br />
ratio” and that are in the same frequency band as ambient noise sources, would not typically be<br />
perceived by the animal as a distinct noise source, and would not be expected to generate any<br />
direct behavioral reaction (Richardson et al. 1995). Odontocete critical ratios are typically<br />
between 10 and 20 dB at the lower frequencies concerned here, with the actual value varying by<br />
frequency and species (Richardson et al. 1995). Figure 1 shows F-<strong>22</strong> noise energy in frequency<br />
bands between 10 and 10,000 Hz in several aircraft configurations, as taken from the<br />
NOISEFILE database. Jet noise is most intense in low frequency bands (e.g.,
esults (i.e. over-estimation of potential effects), 120 dB re 1 µPa was adopted as the basement<br />
threshold for impacts.<br />
Probability of Harassment<br />
1<br />
0.9<br />
0.8<br />
0.7<br />
0.6<br />
0.5<br />
0.4<br />
0.3<br />
0.2<br />
0.1<br />
0<br />
110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200<br />
Received Level (dB)<br />
Figure 1. Risk Function Curve for Odontocetes<br />
Source: U.S. Navy 2008<br />
Step 4: Establish area exposed to noise exceeding thresholds. For each F-<strong>22</strong> event type for<br />
which SPL exceeds 120 dB re 1 µPa at the loudest point, SEL_CALC was used to calculate the<br />
slant range at which noise level drops below 120, 125, and 130 dB re 1 µPa. Along each<br />
representative aircraft flight track, the aircraft altitude at several increments was calculated<br />
based on data reported by F-<strong>22</strong> pilots. At each distance increment, the lateral distance from the<br />
flight track at which the critical slant range would be exceeded was calculated (see Figure 2). At<br />
a certain distance from the airfield, aircraft altitude is high enough that noise levels at the<br />
water’s surface would not exceed 120 dB SPL re 1 µPa even directly beneath the flight track.<br />
Flight tracks and lateral distance to threshold noise level were plotted using ESRI Geographic<br />
Information System software and compared to shoreline to allow calculation of water area<br />
affected at 120-125 dB re 1 µPa, 125-130 dB re 1 µPa, and greater than 130 dB re 1 µPa.<br />
According to Snell's Law, noise energy that intersects the water’s surface at more than 13<br />
degrees from vertical is almost entirely reflected. The area of maximum transmission can<br />
therefore be visualized as a 13-degree cone (26 degree aperture) with the aircraft at its apex.<br />
Outside of this area, only the upper few meters of the water column would typically be affected<br />
by elevated noise levels during an overflight. Because sound waves would have decreased to<br />
below threshold noise levels prior to reaching the bottom at any but the shallowest water<br />
depths, reflected sound energy from the bottom was not considered as part of this study.<br />
Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page A1-4<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>
SPL (dB)<br />
Frequency (Hz)<br />
Figure 2. Un-weighted SPL re 20 µPa (In-Air) at 10-10,000 Hz Generated by F-<strong>22</strong><br />
Overflight at 1,000 AGL in Several Aircraft Configurations<br />
When the sea surface is rough, a common condition in the Knik Arm, reflectance of noise<br />
energy is highly variable, depending on the angle at which incoming sound waves impact<br />
individual wave surfaces. In general, when the wave face is close to perpendicular to inbound<br />
sound rays, more energy enters the water. When sound rays happen to impact a wave face that<br />
is oblique to the direction of the ray, more energy is reflected from the water’s surface. This<br />
variable transmission can lead to isolated volumes of water being very briefly exposed to higher<br />
noise levels than would occur under calm sea conditions. The location and extent of this<br />
phenomenon depends heavily on specific sea conditions. For simplicity, this analysis assumed<br />
equal transmission of sound waves across the air-water interface for anywhere the basement<br />
threshold of 120dB re 1 µPa is exceeded at the water's surface. Snell's law dictates sound<br />
wavesare only directly transmitted into the water at 13 degrees or less from the vertical. By<br />
ignoring Snell's law in the model, different sea states causing sound to enter the water in<br />
multiple transmission paths and evanescent surface scattering can be conservatively accounted<br />
for by calculating the largest possible footprint. It is also assumed for the analysis that the<br />
footprint extends from the surface to the bottom, even for areas outside of the 13-degree cone<br />
(26-degree aperture) dictated by Snell's law that would limit sound energy to the first few<br />
meters of the water column. Animals at depth would also experience lower sound levels than at<br />
the surface due to transmission loss in the water column.<br />
Step 5: Determine the density of Cook Inlet beluga whales in Knik Arm. Surveys conducted<br />
as part of the Knik Arm Crossing Project, indicate that average beluga density during the month<br />
of September was 0.08 individuals per square kilometer (KABATA et al. 2010). September was<br />
the month during which the highest density of belugas was observed. However, to ensure<br />
conservative analysis results, a larger density value was used. The larger density value was<br />
based on the current (2010) estimated CIBW population of 340 individuals (NMFS 2010) divided<br />
by 2,800 km 2 , the area estimated to represent 95 percent of the occupied CIBW range (Rugh et<br />
al. 2010), thus yielding a density estimate of 0.12 beluga whales/km 2 .<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page A1-5
Figure 3. Calculation of Lateral Distance From Aircraft Flight Track At Which<br />
Surface Water Ensonified at >120, >125, and >130 dB SPL<br />
Step 6: Calculate potential behavioral reactions. The number of times per average busy flying<br />
day (i.e., non-holiday weekday with reasonably good weather) that the proposed additional<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> aircraft would conduct each event type was multiplied by the total number of average<br />
busy flying days per year.<br />
The footprint bins (120-125dB; 125-130dB; and 130-137dB re 1 µPa) for each type of event<br />
(calculated above in step 4) were multiplied by the annual number of events to calculate total<br />
annual footprints per type of overflight. The number of animals exposed to levels in each<br />
footprint bin were then calculated by multiplying the highest Cook Inlet beluga whale density<br />
derived in any given month (see step 5 above) by the area of each of the annual footprints.<br />
Then, within each footprint bin, the number of animals that would likely exhibit a behavioral<br />
response was predicted by multiplying the number of animals exposed annually, by the<br />
probability of behavioral response at the highest sound level within that footprint bin according<br />
to the odontocete risk function (see step 3 above for an explanation of the odontocete risk<br />
function). To yield conservative impact estimates, the entire noise footprint area (i.e., 120-125 dB<br />
Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page A1-6<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>
e 1 µPa, 125-130 dB re 1 µPa, and greater than 130 dB re 1 µPa) was treated as if it were affected<br />
by the highest noise level in that range. The probability corresponding to 125dB re 1 µPa was<br />
used for the 120-125 dB re 1 µPa footprint; 130dB re 1 µPa for 125-130 dB re 1 µPa; and 137dB re<br />
1 µPa for the 130-137 dB re 1 µPa footprint. For each overflight type, the predicted behavioral<br />
reactions in each footprint bin are added to yield the predicted annual behavioral responses for<br />
that type of overflight. The number of animals predicted to exhibit a behavioral response<br />
annually for each type of event is then added together to yield the annual total number of<br />
predicted behavioral responses for all proposed F-<strong>22</strong> overflight events.<br />
1.17 Results<br />
<strong>Base</strong>d on application of the methodology described above, approximately 0.04 belugas would<br />
be behaviorally harassed annually resulting from proposed additional F-<strong>22</strong> flying operations<br />
(Table 1).<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page A1-7
Table 1. Estimated Annual Beluga Behavioral Responses Resulting From Proposed Additional F-<strong>22</strong> Flying Operations<br />
Aircraft<br />
Configuration<br />
Noise Levels<br />
Events<br />
Per<br />
Year<br />
Number of Belugas in Affected<br />
Area<br />
Risk of Behavioral Responses<br />
EEEGL 2 Departure on<br />
RW 24 (military and<br />
A/B power departures<br />
identical at overwater<br />
segment)<br />
EEEGL 2 Departure on<br />
RW 34<br />
IFR Approach (IFR<br />
arrival and IFR closed<br />
pattern are idetical in<br />
overwater segment)<br />
MATSU Transition<br />
(initial approach)<br />
RAPTR Transition<br />
(initial approach)<br />
ALL VFR approaches<br />
(overhead break) AND<br />
visual closed patterns<br />
Re-entry Pattern (initial<br />
approach)<br />
Lowest Altitude Over<br />
Water (MSL)<br />
Power (% ETR)<br />
LAmax Just Above Surface<br />
(dB re 20 µPa)<br />
SPL Just Below Surface<br />
(dB re 1 µPa)<br />
Additional Events Per<br />
Year (Proposed Action)<br />
Area Affected at 120-125<br />
dB SPL (sq km)<br />
Area Affected at 125-130<br />
dB SPL (sq km)<br />
Area Affected at >130 dB<br />
SPL (sq km)<br />
Approx. Beluga Density<br />
(Animals per km 2 )<br />
Prob. of Behavioral<br />
Response at Highest Level<br />
Within 120-125 dB SPL<br />
Prob. of Behavioral<br />
Response At Highest Level<br />
Within 125-130 dB SPL<br />
Response at Highest Level<br />
>130 dB SPL (0 if max SPL<br />
1.18 Appendix 1 References<br />
Blackwell, S. B. and C. R. Greene, Jr. 2002. Acoustic Measurements in Cook Inlet, Alaska,<br />
During August 2001. Prepared by Greeneridge Sciences for National Marine Fisheries<br />
Service, Protected Resources Division, Anchorage AK. 12 August.Department of the<br />
Navy (DoN). 2004. Report on the Results of the Inquiry into Allegations of Marine<br />
Mammal Impacts Surrounding the Use of Active Sonar by USS SHOUP (DDG 86) in the<br />
Haro Strait on or about 5 May 2003.<br />
Feller, W. 1968. Introduction to Probability Theory and its Application. Vol. 1. 3rd ed John<br />
Wilay & Sons, NY, NY.<br />
Finneran, J.J., and C.E. Schlundt. 2004. Effects of intense pure tones on the behavior of trained<br />
odontocetes. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego, Technical Document.<br />
September.<br />
Finneran, J.J., D.A. Carder, and S.H. Ridgway. 2001. Temporary threshold shift (TTS) in<br />
bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus exposed to tonal signals. Journal of the Acoustical<br />
Society of America. 1105:2749(A), 142nd Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America,<br />
Fort Lauderdale, FL. December.<br />
_____. 2003. Temporary threshold shift measurements in bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus,<br />
belugas Delphinapterus leucas, and California sea lions Zalophus californianus.<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Consequences of Underwater Sound (ECOUS) Symposium, San Antonio,<br />
TX, 12-16 May 2003.<br />
Finneran, J.J., D.A. Carder, C.E. Schlundt and S.H. Ridgway. 2005. Temporary threshold shift in<br />
bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to mid-frequency tones. Journal of<br />
Acoustical Society of America. 118:2696-2705.<br />
Fromm, D. 2004a. Acoustic Modeling Results of the Haro Strait For 5 May 2003. Naval Research<br />
Laboratory Report, Office of Naval Research, 30 January 2004.<br />
_____. 2004b. EEEL Analysis of U.S.S. SHOUP Transmissions in the Haro Strait on 5 May 2003.<br />
Naval Research Laboratory briefing of 2 September 2004.<br />
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009. Taking and Importing<br />
Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy Training in the Hawaii Range Complex. NMFS, Final Rule,<br />
Federal Register 74, No. 7, 1465-1491, 12 January.<br />
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2005. <strong>Assessment</strong> of Acoustic Exposures on Marine<br />
Mammals in Conjunction with USS Shoup Active Sonar Transmissions in the Eastern<br />
Strait of Juan de Fuca and Haro Strait, Washington. 5 May 2003. National Marine<br />
Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources. Silver Spring, MD 20910.<br />
_____. 2009. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation, Biological Opinion, Proposed<br />
regulations to authorize the U.S. Navy to "take" marine mammals incidental to the<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page A1-9
conduct of training exercises in the Southern California Range Complex January 2009 to<br />
January 2014. NMFS, Silver Spring, MD, dated 14 Jan 2009, 293 pages.<br />
_____. 2010. Biological Opinion, Endangered Species Act: Section 7 Consultation Biological<br />
Opinion. Knik Arm Crossing, Anchorage, Alaska. November 30, 2010. United States<br />
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National<br />
Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau, AK. 86 pp.<br />
Nowacek, D.P., M.P. Johnson, and P.L. Tyack. 2004. North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena<br />
glacialis) ignore ships but respond to alerting stimuli. Proceedings of the Royal Society of<br />
London, Part B 271:<strong>22</strong>7-231.<br />
KABATA (Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority) et al. 2010. Request for Letter of Authorization<br />
under Section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act Incidental to Construction<br />
of the Knik Arm Crossing Project in <strong>Up</strong>per Cook Inlet, Alaska. Submitted to Office of<br />
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Silver Spring, MD<br />
20910-3<strong>22</strong>6 Submitted by: Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority, Anchorage, Alaska<br />
99501; Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Anchorage, Alaska<br />
99501 and Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska 99802. Biological<br />
Consultant: HDR Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. August 18.<br />
Richardson, W.J., Greene, C.R., Malme, C.I., Thomson, D.H. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise.<br />
Academic Press Inc.<br />
Rugh, D.J., Shelden, K.W., Hobbs, R.C. 2010. Range Contraction in a Beluga Whale Population.<br />
Endangered Species Research. Vol 12: 69-75<br />
Southall, B.L., Bowles, A.E., Ellison, W.T., Finneran, J.J., Gentry, R.L., Greene, C.R., Kastak, D,<br />
Ketten, D.R., Miller, J.H., Natchigall, P.E., Rchardson, W.J., Thomas, J.A., Tyack, P.L.<br />
2007. Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: Initial Scientific Recommendations.<br />
Aquatic Mammals, Volume 33, Number 4. ISSN 0167-5427.<br />
U.S. Navy. 2008. Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Statement/<br />
Overseas <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Statement. December 12.<br />
Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page A1-10<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>
APPENDIX 2. INFORMATION ON BELUGA<br />
WHALE HEARING AND VOCALIZATIONS*<br />
*Provided by Keith Jenkins, SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 71510 [keith.a.jenkins@navy.mil]<br />
Beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) in-water vocalizations include whistles, squeals, bleats,<br />
yelps, bangs, chirps, trills, hums, peeps, yelps, blares, rasps, squawks, bangs, and growls, and<br />
clicks and creaks associated with echolocation (Fish and Mowbray, 1962; Anderson, 1974; Ford,<br />
1975; Sjare, 1986; Thompson and Richardson, 1995). Beluga whales have also been reported to<br />
produce high pitched screams and a variety of squeaks and squeals above the water surface<br />
(Ford, 1975). Ford (1975) reported frequencies for beluga whale in-water social vocalizations to<br />
range 0.80–29 kHz with out-of-water vocalizations that ranged 0.95–20 kHz. Flat contour,<br />
upsweep, and variable contour sounds were recorded from a beluga whale calf that ranged in<br />
frequency from 400 Hz to 15.1 kHz (Parijs et al., 2003). Belikov and Bel’kovich (2007) identified<br />
16 whistle types of beluga whales that had average values of maximum fundamental frequency<br />
between 1.4–4.5 kHz. Beluga whale echolocation vocalization frequencies have been reported to<br />
range 1.0–120 kHz (Ford, 1975, Au et al., 1985).<br />
Measuring short-latent auditory evoked potentials (SAEP) of two male beluga whales with their<br />
heads above the water’s surface, Popov and Supin (1987) reported their range of hearing to be<br />
limited to 110 kHz with a maximum sensitivity at 60–70 kHz. Using evoked potential methods,<br />
Klishin et al. (2000) also tested a captive beluga whale in a pool with its head out-of-water and<br />
reported a broader range of maximum sensitivities (32–108 kHz).<br />
Results from behavioral tests conducted underwater in a concrete pool for two beluga whales<br />
indicated upper frequency limits around 1<strong>22</strong> kHz with maximum sensitivity around 30 kHz<br />
(White et al., 1978). Awbrey et al. (1988) measured the hearing sensitivity of a captive adult male,<br />
adult female and juvenile male beluga whale tested in a concrete pool using underwater<br />
behavioral techniques at test frequencies between 125 Hz and 8 kHz and reported an average<br />
threshold of 65 dB re 1 µPa at 8 kHz. The juvenile male was slightly more sensitive to low<br />
frequencies than either of the adults. Ridgway et al. (2001) reported behavioral hearing<br />
thresholds for two beluga whales at depths of 5, 100, 200 and 300 m in the open ocean at<br />
frequencies between 0.5 kHz to 100 kHz with maximum sensitivities between 8 and 24 kHz. In<br />
underwater behavioral tests conducted in San Diego Bay closer to the surface (i.e., 1.5 m),<br />
Finneran et al. (2002) reported that two captive beluga whales were able to detect 0.4 kHz tones<br />
at 117±1.6 dB re 1 µPa. Finneran et al. (2005) obtained underwater hearing thresholds for two<br />
other beluga whales housed and tested behaviorally in an indoor facility. Test frequencies that<br />
ranged 2.0–130 kHz. Best sensitivities for one subject ranged from approximately 40 to 50 dB re<br />
1 µPa at 50–80 kHz with functional hearing above 100 kHz. The second subject had best<br />
sensitivity that ranged 40 to 50 dB re 1 µPa at 30–35 kHz and an upper frequency cutoff of about<br />
50 kHz. The high-frequency hearing loss in the latter subject was attributed to the treatment<br />
with the aminoglycoside antibiotic amikacin which is toxic to hair cells in the cochlea of the ear.<br />
Schlundt et al. (2000) reported temporary threshold shifts in the masked hearing thresholds<br />
(MTTS) of two beluga whales exposed to 1-s pure tones at 0.4, 3, 10, and 20 kHz. One of the<br />
subjects experienced a 12-dB MTTS in response to a 3-kHz tone of 195 dB re 1 µPa. The other<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page A2-1
subject experienced a 7-dB MTTS after exposure to a 10-kHz tone of 192 dB re 1 µPa. Both<br />
subjects had MTTSs of 6–12 dB following 20-kHz tones at levels between 197 to 201 dB re 1 µPa.<br />
Neither subject experienced an MTTS after exposure to 0.4 kHz tones up to 193 dB re 1 µPa.<br />
Deviations in the whales’ trained behaviors were observed following exposures that ranged<br />
from 180-196 dB re 1 µPa at all four exposure frequencies.<br />
Appendix 2 References<br />
Anderson W.B. (1974) Acoustic signature of the beluga whale. Journal of the Acoustical Society<br />
of America 55.<br />
Au W.W.L., Carder C.A., Penner R.H., Scronce B.L. 1985. Demonstration of adaptation in beluga<br />
whale echolocation signals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 77:726-730.<br />
Awbrey F.T., Thomas J.A., Kastelein R.A. 1988. Low-frequency underwater hearing sensitivity<br />
in belugas, Delphinapterus leucas. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 84:<strong>22</strong>73-<br />
<strong>22</strong>75.<br />
Belikov R.A., Bel’kovich V.M. 2007. Whistles of beluga whales in the reproductive gathering off<br />
Solovetskii Island in the White Sea. Acoustical Physics 53:528–534.<br />
Finneran J.J., Carder D.A., Ridgway S.H. 2002. Low-frequency acoustic pressure, velocity, and<br />
intensity thresholds in a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and white whale<br />
(Delphinapterus leucas). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111:447-456.<br />
Finneran J.J., Dear R., Carder D.A., Belting T., McBain J., Dalton L., Ridgway S.H. 2005. Pure<br />
tone audiograms and possible aminoglycoside-induced hearing loss in belugas<br />
(Delphinapterus leucas). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117:3936-3943.<br />
Fish M.P., Mowbray W.H. 1962. Production of underwater sound by the White Whale or<br />
Beluga, Delphinapterus leucas (Pallus). Journal of Marine Research 20:149-161.<br />
Ford J. 1975. Sound Production by the Beluga Whale, Delphinapterus leucas, in captivity.<br />
Klishin V.O., Popov V.V., Supin A.Y. 2000. Hearing capabilities of a beluga whale,<br />
Delphinapterus leucas. Aquatic Mammals 26:212-<strong>22</strong>8.<br />
Popov V.V., Supin A.Y. 1987. Characteristics of hearing in the beluga Delphinapterus leucas.<br />
Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 294:1255-1258.<br />
Ridgway S.H., Carder D.A., Kamolnick T., Smith R.R., Schlundt C.E., Elsberry W.R. 2001.<br />
Hearing and whistling in the deep sea: depth influences whistle spectra but does not<br />
attenuate hearing by white whales (Delphinapterus leucas) (Odontoceti, Cetacea). The<br />
Journal of Experimental Biology 204:3829-3841.<br />
Schlundt C.E., Finneran J.J., Carder D.A., Ridgway S.H. 2000. Temporary shift in masked<br />
hearing thresholds of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, and white whales,<br />
Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page A2-2<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>
Delphinapterus leucas, after exposure to intense tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of<br />
America 107:3496-3508.<br />
Sjare B.L., Smith T.G. 1986a. The vocal repertoire of white whales, Delphinapterus leucas,<br />
summering in Cunningham Inlet, Northwest Territories. Canadian Journal of Zoology<br />
64:407-415.<br />
_____.1986b. The relationship between behavioral activity and underwater vocalizations of the<br />
white whale, Delphinapterus leucus. Canadian Journal of Zoology 64:2824-2831.<br />
Thomson D.H., Richardson W.J. 1995. Marine mammal sounds, in: W. J. Richardson, et al.<br />
(Eds.), Marine Mammals and Noise, Academic Press, San Diego, CA. pp. 159-204.<br />
Van Parijs S.M., Lydersen C., Kovacs K.M. 2003. Sounds produced by individual white whales,<br />
Delphinapterus leucas, from Svalbard during capture (L). Journal of the Acoustical Society<br />
of America 113:57-60.<br />
White M.J., Norris J., Ljungblad D.K., Baron K., di Sciara G.N. 1978. Auditory thresholds of two<br />
beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas), Hubbs Sea World Research Institute, San Diego.<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Wildlife Analysis<br />
Page A2-3
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix F<br />
Review of Effects of Aircraft Noise, Chaff, and Flares on Biological Resources
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX F REVIEW OF EFFECTS OF<br />
AIRCRAFT NOISE, CHAFF, AND FLARES ON<br />
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES<br />
F1<br />
Introduction<br />
This biological resources appendix addresses the effects of aircraft noise, including sonic booms,<br />
on wildlife and domestic animals. This appendix also considers the effects of training chaff and<br />
flares on biological resources under the training airspaces used by the <strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-<br />
Richardson (JBER) F-<strong>22</strong>s and the transient F-15Cs.<br />
F2<br />
Aircraft Noise<br />
The review of the noise effects literature shows that the most documented reaction of animals<br />
newly or infrequently exposed to low-altitude aircraft and sonic booms is the “startle effect.”<br />
Although an observer’s interpretation of the startle effect is behavioral (e.g., the animal runs in<br />
response to the sound or flinches and remains in place), it does have a physiological basis. The<br />
startle effect is a reflex; it is an autonomic reaction to loud, sudden noise (Westman and Walters<br />
1981, Harrington and Veitch 1991). Increased heart rate and muscle flexion are the typical<br />
physiological responses.<br />
The literature indicates that the type of noise that can stimulate the startle reflex is highly<br />
variable among animal species (Manci et al. 1988). In general, studies have indicated that close,<br />
loud, and sudden noises that are combined with a visual stimulus produce the most intense<br />
reactions. Rotary wing aircraft (helicopters) generally induce the startle effect more frequently<br />
than fixed wing aircraft (Gladwin et al. 1988, Ward et al. 1999). Similarly the “crack-crack” of a<br />
nearby sonic boom has a higher potential to startle an animal compared to the thunder-like<br />
sound from a distant sonic boom. External physical variables, such as landscape structure and<br />
wind, can also lessen the animal’s perception of and response to aircraft noise (Ward et al.<br />
1999).<br />
Animals can habituate to fixed wing aircraft noise as demonstrated under controlled conditions<br />
(e.g., Conomy et al. 1998, Krausman et al. 1998) and by observations reported by biologists<br />
working in parks and wildlife refuges (Gladwin et al. 1988). Brown et al. (1999) defined<br />
habituation as “… an active learning process that permits individuals to discard a response to a<br />
recurring stimulus for which constant response is biologically inappropriate without<br />
impairment of their ability to respond to other stimuli.” However, species can differ in their<br />
ability to habituate to aircraft noise, particularly the sporadic noise associated with military<br />
aircraft training (e.g., Conomy et al. 1998). Furthermore, there are no studies that have<br />
investigated the potential for adverse effects to wildlife due to long-term exposure to aircraft<br />
noise.<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix F Aircraft Noise, Chaff, and Flares Page F-1
F2.1 Ungulates<br />
Wild ungulates appear to vary in sensitivity to aircraft noise. Responses reported in the<br />
literature varied from no effect and habituation to panic reactions followed by stampeding<br />
(Weisenberger et al. 1996; see reviews in Manci et al. 1988). Aircraft noise has the potential to be<br />
most detrimental during periods of stress, especially winter, gestation, and calving (DeForge<br />
1981). Krausman et al. (1998) studied the response of wild bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) in a<br />
790-acre enclosure to frequent F-16 overflight at 395 feet AGL. Heart rate increased above<br />
preflight level during 7 percent of the overflights but returned to normal within 120 seconds.<br />
No behavioral response by the bighorn sheep was observed during the overflights.<br />
Wild ungulates typically have little to no response to sonic booms. Workman et al. (1992)<br />
studied the physiological and behavioral responses of pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), elk<br />
(Cervus elaphus), and bighorn sheep to sonic booms. All three species exhibited an increase in<br />
heart rate lasting from 30 seconds to 1 ½ minutes in response to their first exposure to a sonic<br />
boom. After successive sonic booms, this response decreased greatly, indicating habituation.<br />
A recent study in Alaska documented only mild short-term reactions of caribou (Rangifer<br />
tarandus) to military overflights in the Yukon Military Operations Areas (MOAs) (Lawler et al.<br />
2005). A large portion of the Fortymile Caribou Herd calves underneath the Yukon MOAs. The<br />
authors concluded that military overflights did not cause any calf deaths, nor did cow-calf pairs<br />
exhibit increased movement in response to the overflights. Because daily movements increase<br />
with calf age, the authors controlled for calf age in their analysis. Lawler et al. (2005) generally<br />
only observed higher-level reactions, such as rising quickly from a bedded position or extended<br />
running, when the faster F-15 and F-16s were within 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL). They<br />
also noted considerable variation in responses due to speed, slant distance, group size and<br />
activity, and even individual variation with groups.<br />
In contrast, a study of the Delta Caribou Herd in interior Alaska found that female caribou with<br />
calves exposed to low-altitude overflights moved about 2.5 kilometers more per day than those<br />
not exposed (Maier et al. 1998). The authors, however, stated that this distance was of low<br />
energetic cost. Furthermore, this study did not consider calf age in their analyses (Lawler et al.<br />
2005), which may bias results. Harrington and Veitch (1991) expressed concern for survival and<br />
health of woodland caribou calves in Labrador, where military training flights are allowed<br />
within 100 feet AGL.<br />
Few studies of the effects of low-altitude overflights have been conducted on moose (Alces alces)<br />
or Dall’s sheep (Ovis dalli). Andersen et al. (1996) observed that moose responded more<br />
adversely to human stimuli than mechanical stimuli. Beckstead (2004) reported on a study of<br />
the effects of military jet overflights on Dall’s sheep under the Yukon 1 and 2 MOAs in Alaska.<br />
He could find no difference in population trends, productivity, survival rates, behavior, or<br />
habitat use between areas mitigated and not mitigated for low-level military aircraft by the<br />
Alaska MOAs <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Statement (EIS) (United States Air Force [Air Force] 1995).<br />
In the mitigated area, flights are restricted to above 5,000 feet AGL during the lambing season,<br />
while the unmitigated area could experience flights as low as 100 feet AGL. Similarly, largeforce<br />
Major Flying Exercises did not adversely affect Dall’s sheep.<br />
Page F-2<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix F Aircraft Noise, Chaff, and Flares
F2.2 Marine Mammals<br />
The effects of noise on marine mammals, such as dolphins and whales, have been relatively<br />
well studied. A detailed analysis of noise properties in water and the potential effects on marine<br />
mammals are presented in Append E.<br />
F2.2 Small Mammals<br />
A few researchers have studied the potential affects of aircraft noise on small mammals.<br />
Chesser et al. (1975) found that house mice (Mus musculus) trapped near an airport runway had<br />
larger adrenal glands than those trapped 2 kilometers from the airport. In the lab, naïve mice<br />
subjected to simulated aircraft noise also developed larger adrenal glands than a control group.<br />
However, the implications of enlarged adrenals for small mammals with a relatively short life<br />
span are undetermined. The burrows of some small mammals may reduce their exposure to<br />
aircraft noise. Francine et al. (1995) found that kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis) with twisting tunnels<br />
leading to deeper burrows experienced less noise than kangaroo rats (Dipodomys merriami) with<br />
shallow burrows. McClenaghan and Bowles (1995) studied the effects of aircraft overflights on<br />
small mammals and were unable to distinguish potential long-term effects due to aircraft noise<br />
compared to other environmental factors.<br />
F2.2 Raptors<br />
Most studies have found few negative effects of aircraft noise on raptors. Ellis et al. (1991)<br />
examined behavioral and reproductive responses of several raptor species to low-level flights.<br />
No incidents of reproductive failure were observed and site re-occupancy rates were high (95<br />
percent) the following year. Several researchers found that ground-based activities, such as<br />
operating chainsaws or an intruding human, were more disturbing than aircraft (White and<br />
Thurow 1985, Grubb and King 1991, Delaney et al. 1997). Red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis)<br />
and osprey (Pandion haliaetus) appeared to readily habituate to regular aircraft overflights<br />
(Andersen et al. 1989, Trimper et al. 1998). Mexican spotted owls (Strix occidentalis lucida) did<br />
not flush from a nest or perch unless a helicopter was as close as 330 feet (Delaney et al. 1997).<br />
Nest attendance, time-activity budgets, and provisioning rates of nesting peregrine falcons<br />
(Falco peregrinus) in Alaska were found not to be significantly affected by jet aircraft overflights<br />
(Palmer et al. 2003). On the other hand, Andersen et al. (1990) observed a shift in home ranges of<br />
four raptor species away from new military helicopter activity, which supports other reports<br />
that wild species are more sensitive to rotary wing aircraft than fixed-wing aircraft.<br />
The effects of aircraft noise on the bald eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus) have been studied<br />
relatively well, compared to most wildlife species. Overall, there have been no reports of<br />
reduced reproductive success or physiological risks to bald eagles exposed to aircraft<br />
overflights or other types of military noise (Fraser et al. 1985, Stalmaster and Kaiser 1997, Brown<br />
et al. 1999; see review in Buehler 2000). Most researchers have documented that pedestrians and<br />
helicopters were more disturbing to bald eagles than fixed-wing aircraft, including military jets<br />
(Fraser et al. 1985, Grubb and King 1991, Grubb and Bowerman 1997). However, bald eagles<br />
can be disturbed by fixed-wing aircraft. Recorded reactions to disturbance ranged from an alert<br />
posture to flushing from a nest or perch. Grubb and King (1991) reported that 19 percent of<br />
breeding eagles were disturbed when an aircraft was within 625 meters (2,050 feet).<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix F Aircraft Noise, Chaff, and Flares Page F-3
F2.2 Waterfowl and Other Waterbirds<br />
In their review, Manci et al. (1988) noted that aircraft can be particularly disturbing to<br />
waterfowl. Conomy et al. (1998) suggested, though, that responses were species-specific. They<br />
found that black ducks (Anas rubripes) were able to habituate to aircraft noise, while wood<br />
ducks (Aix sponsa) did not. Black ducks exhibited a significant decrease in startle response to<br />
actual and simulated jet aircraft noise over a 17-day period, but wood duck response did not<br />
decrease uniformly following initial exposure. Some bird species appear to be more sensitive to<br />
aircraft noise at different times of the year. Snow geese (Chen caerulescens) were more easily<br />
disturbed by aircraft prior to fall migration than at the beginning of the nesting season<br />
(Belanger and Bedard 1989). On an autumn staging ground in Alaska (i.e., prior to fall<br />
migration), 75 percent of brant (Branta bernicla) and only 9 percent of Canada geese (Branta<br />
canadensis) flew in response to aircraft overflights (Ward et al. 1999). There tended to be a<br />
greater response to aircraft at 1,000 to 2,500 feet AGL than at lower or higher altitudes. In<br />
contrast, Kushlan (1979) did not observe any negative effects to wading bird colonies (i.e.,<br />
rookeries) when fixed-wing aircraft conducted surveys within 200 feet AGL; 90 percent of the<br />
observations indicated no reactions from the birds. Nesting California least terns (Sterna<br />
albifrons browni) did not respond negatively to a nearby missile launch (Henningson, Durham,<br />
and Richardson 1981).<br />
Previous research also shows varied responses of waterbirds to sonic booms. Burger (1981)<br />
found that herring gulls (Larus argentatus) responded intensively to sonic booms and many eggs<br />
were broken as adults flushed from nests. One study discussed by Manci et al. (1988) described<br />
the reproductive failure of a colony of sooty terns (Sterna fuscata) on the Dry Tortugas<br />
reportedly due to sonic booms. However, based on laboratory and numerical models, Ting et al.<br />
(2002) concluded that sonic boom overpressures from military operations of existing aircraft are<br />
unlikely to damage avian eggs.<br />
F2.2 Domestic Animals<br />
As with wildlife, the startle reflex is the most commonly documented effect on domestic<br />
animals. Results of the startle reflex are typically minor (e.g., increase in heart rate or<br />
nervousness) and do not result in injury. Espmark et al. (1974) did not observe any adverse<br />
effects due to minor behavioral reactions to low-altitude flights with noise levels of 95 to 101 A-<br />
weighted decibels (dBA). They noted only minimal reactions of cattle and sheep to sonic<br />
booms, such as muscle and tail twitching and walking or running short distances (up to 65 feet).<br />
More severe reactions may occur when animals are crowded in small enclosures, where loud,<br />
sudden noise may cause a widespread panic reaction (Air Force 1993). Such negative impacts<br />
were typically only observed when aircraft were less than 330 feet AGL (United States Forest<br />
Service 1992). Several studies have found little direct evidence of decreased milk production,<br />
weight loss, or lower reproductive success in response to aircraft noise or sonic booms. For<br />
example, Head et al. (1993) did not find any reductions in milk yields with aircraft Sound<br />
Exposure Levels (SEL) levels of 105 to 112 dBA. Many studies documented that domestic<br />
animals habituate to aircraft noise (see reviews in Manci et al. 1998; Head et al. 1993).<br />
There is little direct evidence that aircraft noise or sonic booms can cause domestic chicken eggs<br />
to crack or result in lower hatching rates. Stadelman (1958) did not observe a decrease in<br />
Page F-4<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix F Aircraft Noise, Chaff, and Flares
hatchability when domestic chicken eggs were exposed to loud noises measured at 96 dB inside<br />
incubators and 120 dB outside. Bowles and Seddon (1994) found no difference in the hatch rate<br />
of four groups of chicken eggs exposed to 1) no sonic booms (control group), 2) sonic booms of<br />
3 pounds per square foot (psf), 3) sonic booms of 20 psf, and 4) sonic booms of 30 psf. No eggs<br />
were cracked by the sonic booms and all chicks hatched were normal.<br />
F3<br />
Training Chaff and Flares<br />
Specific issues and potential impacts of training chaff and flares on biological resources are<br />
discussed below. These issues have been identified by Department of Defense (DoD) research<br />
(Air Force 1997, Cook 2001), General Accounting Office review (United States General<br />
Accounting Office 1998), independent review (Spargo 1999), resource agency instruction, and<br />
public concern and perception. No reports to date have documented negative impacts of<br />
training chaff and flares to biological resources. These studies are reviewed below.<br />
Concerns for biological resources are related to the residual materials of training chaff and flares<br />
that fall to the ground or dud flares. Residual materials are several flare components, including<br />
plastic end caps, felt spacers, aluminum-coated wrapping material, plastic retaining devices,<br />
and plastic pistons. Specific issues are (1) ingestion of chaff fibers or flare residual materials; (2)<br />
inhalation of chaff fibers; (3) physical external effects from chaff fibers, such as skin irritation; (4)<br />
effects on water quality and forage quality; (5) increased fire potential; and (6) potential for<br />
being struck by large flare debris (the plastic Safe and Initiation [S&I] device of the MJU-7 A/B<br />
flare).<br />
Because of the low rate of application and dispersal of training chaff fibers and flare residues<br />
during defensive training, wildlife and domestic animals would have little opportunity to<br />
ingest, inhale, or otherwise come in contact with these residual materials. Although some<br />
chemical components of chaff are toxic at high levels, such levels could only be reached through<br />
the ingestion of many chaff bundles or billions of chaff fibers. Barrett and MacKay (1972)<br />
documented that cattle avoided consuming clumps of chaff in their feed. When calves were fed<br />
chaff thoroughly mixed with molasses in their feed, no adverse physiological effects were<br />
observed pre- or post-mortem.<br />
Chaff fibers are too large for inhalation, although chaff particles can degrade to small pieces.<br />
However, the number of degraded or fragmented particles is insufficient to result in disease<br />
(Spargo 1999). Chaff is similar in form and softness to very fine human hair, and is unlikely to<br />
cause negative reactions if animals were to inadvertently come in contact with it.<br />
Chaff fibers could accumulate on the ground or in water bodies. Studies have shown that chaff<br />
breaks down quickly in humid environments and acidic soil conditions (Air Force 1997). In<br />
water, only under very high or low pH could the aluminum in chaff become soluble and toxic<br />
(Air Force 1997). Few organisms would be present in water bodies with such extreme pH<br />
levels. Given the small amount of diffuse or aggregate chaff material that could possibly reach<br />
water bodies, water chemistry would not be expected to be affected. Similarly, the magnesium<br />
in flares can be toxic at extremely high levels, a situation that could occur only under repeated<br />
and concentrated use in localized areas. Flare ash would disperse over wide areas; thus, no<br />
impact is expected from the magnesium in flare ash. The probability of an intact dud flare<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix F Aircraft Noise, Chaff, and Flares Page F-5
leaving an aircraft during training and falling to the ground outside of a military base is<br />
estimated to be 0.01 percent (Air Force 2001). Since toxic levels would require several dud flares<br />
to fall in one confined water body, no effect of flares on water quality would be expected.<br />
Furthermore, uptake by plants would not be expected to occur.<br />
The expected frequency of an S&I device from an MJU-7 A/B or MJU-10/B flare striking an<br />
exposed animal depends on the number of flares used and the size and population density of<br />
the exposed animals. Calculations of potential strikes to a human-sized animal with a density<br />
of 50 animals per square mile, where 8,000 flares were used annually, was one strike in 200<br />
years. An animal 1/100 th the size of a human with a density of 500 animals per square mile<br />
exposed 100 percent of the time (i.e., animals not protected by burrows or dense vegetation)<br />
would also have an expected strike rate of one in 200 years. The S&I device strikes with the<br />
force of a medium-sized hailstone. Such a strike to a bird, small mammal, or reptile could<br />
produce a mortality. The very small likelihood of such a strike, especially when compared with<br />
more immediate threats such as highways, would not be expected to have any effect on<br />
populations of small species. Strikes to larger species, such as wild ungulates or farm animals<br />
could produce a bruise and a startle reaction. Such a strike from an S&I device would not be<br />
expected to seriously injure or otherwise significantly affect natural or domestic species.<br />
Flare debris also includes aluminum-coated mylar wrapping and lighter plastic parts. The<br />
plastic parts, such as end caps, are inert and are not expected to be used by or consumed by any<br />
species. The aluminum coated wrapping, as it degrades, could produce fibrous materials<br />
similar to naturally occurring nesting materials. There is no known case of such materials being<br />
used in nest construction. In a study of pack rats (Neotoma spp.), a notorious collector of odd<br />
materials, no chaff or flare materials were found in nests on military ranges subject to decades<br />
of dispensing chaff and flares (Air Force 1997). Although lighter flare debris could be used by<br />
species under the airspace, such use would be expected to be infrequent and incidental.<br />
Bovine hardware disease is of concern for domestic cattle. Hardware disease, or traumatic<br />
reticuloperitonitis, is a relatively common disease in cattle. The disease results when a cow<br />
ingests a foreign object, typically metallic. The object can become lodged in the wall of the<br />
stomach and can penetrate into the diaphragm and heart, resulting in pain and infection; in<br />
severe cases animals can die without treatment. Treatment consists of antibiotics and/or<br />
surgery. Statistics are not readily available, but one study documented that 55-75 percent of<br />
cattle slaughtered in the eastern United States (U.S.) had metallic objects in their stomachs, but<br />
the objects did not result in damage (Moseley 2003). Dairy cattle are typically more vulnerable<br />
to hardware disease due to the confined nature of diary operations. Many livestock managers<br />
rely on magnets inserted into the cow’s stomach to prevent and treat hardware disease. The<br />
magnet attracts metallic objects, thereby preventing them from traveling to the stomach wall.<br />
The culprit of bovine hardware disease is often a nail or piece of wire greater than 1 inch in<br />
length, such as that used to bale hay (Cavedo et al. 2004). If livestock ingested residual<br />
materials of the M-206, MJU-7 A/B, and MJU-10/B flares, the plastic materials of the end cap<br />
and slider and the flexible aluminum wrapping would be less likely to result in injury than a<br />
metallic object.<br />
Flares used for training by F-<strong>22</strong> and F-15 aircraft are designed to burn out within approximately<br />
400 feet of the release altitude. Given the minimum allowable release altitudes for flares, this<br />
Page F-6<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix F Aircraft Noise, Chaff, and Flares
leaves an extensive safety margin to prevent any burning materials from reaching the ground<br />
(Air Force 2001). In the Alaska training airspace, flares must be released above 5,000 feet AGL<br />
from June 1 to September 30 to reduce any potential of a flare-caused fire. For the remainder of<br />
the year when soils and vegetation are moist or snow covered, flares can be released above<br />
2,000 feet AGL. Plastic and aluminum coated wrapping materials from flares that do reach the<br />
ground would be inert. The percentage of flares that malfunction is small (
Cavedo, A. M., K. S. Latimer, H. L. Tarpley, and P. J. Bain. 2004. Traumatic Reticulopertonitis<br />
(Hardware Disease) in Cattle. Class of 2004 and Department of Pathology, College of<br />
Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Available at<br />
http://www.vet.uga.edu/vpp/clerk/cavedo. Accessed 6/23/2005.<br />
Chesser, R.K., R.S. Caldwell, and M.J. Harvey. 1975. Effects of Noise on Feral Populations of<br />
Mus musculus. Physiological Zoology 48(4):323-325.<br />
Conomy, J.T., J.A. Dubovsky, J.A. Collazo, and W.J. Fleming. 1998. Do Black Ducks and Wood<br />
Ducks Habituate to Aircraft Disturbance? Journal of Wildlife Management 62(3):1135-<br />
1142.<br />
Cook, B.C. 2001. Investigation of Abrasion, Fragmentation and Re-suspension of Chaff.<br />
Master’s Thesis. Christopher Newport University.<br />
DeForge, J.R. 1981. Stress: Changing Environments and the Effects on Desert Bighorn Sheep.<br />
Desert Bighorn Council 1981 Transactions.<br />
Delaney, D.K., T.G. Grubb, and L.L. Pater. 1997. Effects of Helicopter Noise on Nesting<br />
Mexican Spotted Owls. Project Order No. DE P.O. 95-4, U.S. Air Force, Holloman Air<br />
Force <strong>Base</strong>, New Mexico.<br />
Ellis, D.H., C.H. Ellis, and D.P. Mindell. 1991. Raptor Responses to Low-Level Jet Aircraft and<br />
Sonic Booms. <strong>Environmental</strong> Pollution 74:53-83.<br />
Erbe, C., and D. M. Farmer. 2000. Zones of Impact around Icebreakers Affecting Beluga Whales<br />
in the Beaufort Sea. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 108(3):1332-1340.<br />
Espmark, Y., L. Falt, and B. Falt. 1974. Behavioral Responses in Cattle and Sheep Exposed to<br />
Sonic Booms and Low-altitude Subsonic Flight Noise. The Veterinary Record 94:106-<br />
113.<br />
Francine, J.K., J.S. Yaeger, and A.E. Bowles. 1995. Sound from Low-Altitude Jet Overflights in<br />
Burrows of the Merriam’s Kangaroo Rat, Dipodomys merriami, and the Kit Fox, Vulpes<br />
macrotis. In R. J. Bernhard and J. S. Bolton. Proceedings of Inter-Noise 95: The 1995<br />
International Congress on Noise Control Engineering. Volume II. Pages 991-994.<br />
Fraser, J.D., L.D. Frenzel, and J.E. Mathisen. 1985. The Impact of Human Activity on Breeding<br />
Bald Eagles in North-Central Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 49(3):585-592.<br />
Gladwin, D.N., D.A. Asherin, and K.M. Manci. 1988. Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Booms<br />
on Fish and Wildlife. Results of a Survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered<br />
Species and Ecological Services Field Offices, Refuges, Hatcheries, and Research Centers.<br />
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center, Fort Collins,<br />
Colorado.<br />
Grubb, T.G. and R.M. King. 1991. Assessing Human Disturbance of Breeding Bald Eagles with<br />
Classification Tree Models. Journal of Wildlife Management 55(3):500-511.<br />
Page F-8<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix F Aircraft Noise, Chaff, and Flares
Grubb, T.G. and W.W. Bowerman. 1997. Variations in Breeding Bald Eagle Responses to Jets,<br />
Light Planes and Helicopters. Journal of Raptor Research 31(3):213-<strong>22</strong>2.<br />
Harrington, F.H., and A.M. Veitch. 1991. Short-term Impacts of Low-level Jet Fighter Training<br />
on Caribou in Labrador. Arctic 44(4):318-327.<br />
Head, H. H., R. C. Kull, Jr., M. S. Campos, K. C. Bachman, C. J. Wilcox, L. L. Cline, and M. J.<br />
Hayen. 1993. Milk Yield, Milk Composition, and Behavior of Holstein Cows in<br />
Response to Jet Aircraft Noise before Milking. Journal of Dairy Science 76:1558-1567.<br />
Henningson, Durham and Richardson. 1981. Effects of Minuteman Launch on California Least<br />
Tern Nesting Activity, Vandenberg AFB, California. Prepared for U.S. Air Force,<br />
Ballistic Missile Office, Norton Air Force <strong>Base</strong>, California.<br />
Krausman, P.R., M.C. Wallace, K.L. Hayes, and D.W. DeYoung. 1998. Effects of Jet Aircraft on<br />
Mountain Sheep. Journal of Wildlife Management 62(4):1246-1254.<br />
Kushlan, J. A. 1979. Effects of Helicopter Censuses on Wading Bird Colonies. Journal of<br />
Wildlife Management 43(3):756-760.<br />
Lawler, J. P., A. J. Magoun, C. T. Seaton, C. L. Gardner, R. D. Bobertje, J. M. Ver Hoef, and P. A.<br />
Del Vecchio. 2005. Short-term Impacts of Military Overflights on Caribou during<br />
Calving Season. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(3):1133-1146.<br />
Maier, J. A. K., S. M. Murphy, R. G. White, and M. D. Smith. 1998. Responses of Caribou to<br />
Overflights by Low-Altitude Jet Aircraft. Journal of Wildlife Management 62(2):752-766.<br />
Manci, K.M., D.N. Gladwin, R. Villella, and M. Cavendish. 1988. Effects of Aircraft Noise and<br />
Sonic Booms on Domestic Animals and Wildlife: a Literature Synthesis. U.S. Fish and<br />
Wildlife Service National Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, CO. NERC-88/29.<br />
McClenaghan, L, and A.E. Bowles. 1995. Effects of Low-Altitude Overflights on Populations of<br />
Small Mammals on the Barry M. Goldwater Range. In R. J. Bernhard and J. S. Bolton.<br />
Proceedings of Inter-Noise 95: The 1995 International Congress on Noise Control<br />
Engineering. Volume II. Pages 985-990.<br />
Moore, S. E., and J. T. Clarke. 2002. Potential Impact of Offshore Human Activities on Gray<br />
Whales (Eschrichtius robustus). Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 4(1):19-<br />
25.<br />
Moseley, B. L. 2003. Hardware Disease in Cattle. University of Missouri, MU Extension.<br />
Available at http://muextension.missouri.edu/explore/agguides/pests/g07700.htm.<br />
Accessed 7/26/2005.<br />
Palmer, A.G., D.L. Nordmeyer, and D.D. Roby. 2003. Effects of Jet Aircraft Overflights on<br />
Parental Care of Peregrine Falcons. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(2):499-509.<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix F Aircraft Noise, Chaff, and Flares Page F-9
Perry, E. A., D. J. Boness, and S. J. Insley. 2002. Effects of Sonic Booms on Breeding Gray Seals<br />
and Harbor Seals on Sable Island, Canada. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America<br />
111(1):599-609.<br />
Spargo, B.J. 1999. <strong>Environmental</strong> Effects of RF Chaff: a Select Panel Report to the<br />
Undersecretary of Defense for <strong>Environmental</strong> Security. NRL/PU/6100—99-389,<br />
Washington, D.C.<br />
Stadelman, W.J. 1958. The effect of sounds of varying intensity on hatchability of chicken eggs.<br />
Poultry Sciences 37:166-169.<br />
Stalmaster, M.V. and J.L. Kaiser. 1997. Flushing Responses of Wintering Bald Eagles to Military<br />
Activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(4):1307-1313.<br />
Stocker, M. 2002. Fish, Mollusks and other Sea Animals, and the Impact of Anthropogenic<br />
Noise in the Marine Acoustical Environment. Michael Stocker Associates, For Earth<br />
Island Institute.<br />
Ting, C., J. Garrelick, and A. Bowles. 2002. An Analysis of the Response of Sooty Tern Eggs to<br />
Sonic Boom Overpressures. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111(1):562-<br />
568.<br />
Trimper, P.G., N.M. Standen, L.M. Lye, D. Lemon, T.E. Chubbs, and G.W. Humphries. 1998.<br />
Effects of Low-level Jet Aircraft Noise on the Behaviour of Nesting Osprey. Journal of<br />
Applied Ecology 35:1<strong>22</strong>-130.<br />
United States Air Force (Air Force). 1993. The Impact of Low Altitude Flights on Livestock and<br />
Poultry. AF Handbook #-#, Volume 8.<br />
United States Air Force (Air Force). 1997. <strong>Environmental</strong> Effects of Self Protection Chaff and<br />
Flares. Final Report. August.<br />
_____ . 2001. Final <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> for the Defensive Training Initiative, Cannon<br />
Air Force <strong>Base</strong>, New Mexico. Prepared for Air Combat Command, Langley Air Force<br />
<strong>Base</strong>, Virginia.<br />
United States Forest Service. 1992. Report to Congress: Potential Impacts of Aircraft<br />
Overflights of National Forest System Wilderness. Prepared pursuant to Public Law<br />
100-91, The National Parks Overflights Act of 1987.<br />
United States General Accounting Office. 1998. DoD Management Issues Related to Chaff:<br />
Report to the Honorable Harry Reid, U.S. Senate.<br />
Ward, D.H., R.A. Stehn, W.P. Erickson, and D.V. Derksen. 1999. Response of Fall-Staging Brant<br />
and Canada Geese to Aircraft Overflights in Southwestern Alaska. Journal of Wildlife<br />
Management 63(1):373-381.<br />
Page F-10<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix F Aircraft Noise, Chaff, and Flares
Weisenberger, M.E., P.R. Krausman, M.C. Wallace, and D.W. De Young, and O.E. Maughan.<br />
1996. Effects of Simulated Jet Aircraft Noise on Heart Rate and Behavior of Desert<br />
Ungulates. Journal of Wildlife Management 60(1):52-61.<br />
Westman, J.C., and J.R. Walters. 1981. Noise and Stress: a Comprehensive Approach.<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Health Perspectives 41:291-309.<br />
White, C.M., and T.L. Thurow. 1985. Reproduction of Ferruginous Hawks Exposed to<br />
Controlled Disturbance. Condor 87:14-<strong>22</strong>.<br />
Workman, G.W., T.D. Bunch, L.S. Neilson, E.M. Rawlings, J.W. Call, R.C. Evans, N.R. Lundberg,<br />
W.T. Maughan, and J.E. Braithwaite. 1992. Sonic Boom/Animal Disturbance Studies on<br />
Pronghorn Antelope, Rocky Mountain Elk, and Bighorn Sheep. Utah State University.<br />
Contract number F42650-87-0349. Submitted to U.S. Air Force, Hill Air Force <strong>Base</strong>, Utah.<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix F Aircraft Noise, Chaff, and Flares Page F-11
This page intentionally left blank.<br />
Page F-12<br />
F-<strong>22</strong> <strong>Plus</strong>-<strong>Up</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
Appendix F Aircraft Noise, Chaff, and Flares
Acronyms<br />
µg Microgram<br />
3 WG 3 rd Wing<br />
AATA Anchorage Alaska Terminal Area<br />
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation<br />
ADEC Alaska Department of <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Conservation<br />
AFB Air Force <strong>Base</strong><br />
AFI Air Force Instruction<br />
AFOSH Air Force Occupational Safety and Health<br />
AGL Above Ground Level<br />
AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act<br />
AK SCC Alaska Species of Special Concern<br />
APZ Accident Potential Zones<br />
AQCR Air Quality Control Regions<br />
AR Aerial Refueling Tracks<br />
ARTCC Air Route Traffic Control Center<br />
ATC Air Traffic Control<br />
ATCAA Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace<br />
BASH Bird-Aircraft Strike Hazard<br />
BLM Bureau of Land Management<br />
BRAC <strong>Base</strong> Realignment and Closure<br />
CAA Clean Air Act<br />
CDNL C-weighted Day-Night Average Noise Level<br />
CEQ Council on <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality<br />
CERCLA Comprehensive <strong>Environmental</strong> Response,<br />
Compensation, and Liability Act<br />
CFR Code of Federal Regulations<br />
CIBW Cook Inlet beluga whale<br />
CO Carbon Monoxide<br />
CO 2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent<br />
CZ Clear Zones<br />
dB Decibel<br />
DoD Department of Defense<br />
EA <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
EIAP <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Analysis Process<br />
EIS <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Statement<br />
EO Executive Order<br />
EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal<br />
ERP <strong>Environmental</strong> Restoration Program<br />
ESA Endangered Species Act<br />
FAA Federal Aviation Administration<br />
FHWA Federal Highway Administration<br />
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact<br />
FTE Fighter Town East<br />
FY Fiscal Year<br />
GBU Guided Bomb Unit<br />
GHG Greenhouse Gases<br />
GWP Global Warming Potential<br />
HAZMART Hazardous Materials Pharmacy<br />
Hz Hertz<br />
IFR Instrument Flight Rule<br />
IICEP Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination<br />
for <strong>Environmental</strong> Planning<br />
IR Instrument Route<br />
JBER <strong>Joint</strong> <strong>Base</strong> <strong>Elmendorf</strong>-Richardson<br />
JDAM <strong>Joint</strong> Direct Attack Munition<br />
JPARC <strong>Joint</strong> Pacific Alaska Range Complex<br />
kHz Kilohertz<br />
KIAS Knots Indicated Airspeed<br />
L dn Day-Night Average Sound Level<br />
L dnmr Onset-Rate Adjusted Monthly Day-Night<br />
Average Sound Level<br />
L max Maximum Sound Level<br />
LRSOW Long Range Standoff Weapons<br />
m 3 Cubic meter<br />
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act<br />
MFE Major Flying Exercises<br />
MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act<br />
MMT Million Metric Tons<br />
MOA Military Operations Areas<br />
MR_NMAP MOA-Range NOISEMAP<br />
MSL Mean Sea Level<br />
MTR Military Training Routes<br />
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards<br />
NEPA National <strong>Environmental</strong> Policy Act<br />
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act<br />
NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and<br />
Health<br />
NM Nautical Miles<br />
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service<br />
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide<br />
NOI Notice of Intent<br />
NRHP National Register of Historic Places<br />
NRIS National Register Information System<br />
O 3 Ozone<br />
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration<br />
Pb Lead<br />
PM10 Less Than or Equal to 10 Micrometers in<br />
Diameter<br />
PM2.5 Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns in<br />
diameter<br />
PPM Parts per million<br />
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration<br />
PSF Sonic Boom Peak Overpressures<br />
PTE Potential to Emit<br />
R- Restricted Areas<br />
ROD Record of Decision<br />
ROI Region of Influence<br />
S & I Safety and Initiation<br />
SDB Small Diameter Bomb<br />
SEL Sound Exposure Level<br />
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer<br />
SIP State Implementation Plan<br />
SO 2 Sulfur Dioxide<br />
SPL Sound Pressure Level<br />
SUA Special Use Airspace<br />
TPY Tons Per Year<br />
U.S. United States<br />
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers<br />
USAF United States Air Force<br />
USC United States Code<br />
USEPA United States <strong>Environmental</strong> Protection Agency<br />
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service<br />
VFR Visual Flight Rule<br />
VR Visual Route