DTIC ADA609109: Establish the Delta Military Operations Areas Environmental Assessment Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska

25.7 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

Establish the
Delta Military Operations Area
Environmental Assessment
January 2010
Report Documentation Page Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it

does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED
JAN 2010 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2010 to 00-00-2010
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Establish the Delta Military Operations Areas Environmental Assessment
5b. GRANT NUMBER
Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
611th Civil Engineer Squadron (CES/CEAO),10471 20th REPORT NUMBER
Street,Elmendorf AFB,AK,99506
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 407
unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
Acronyms and Abbreviations

° degree LFE Large Force Exercise
°F degree Fahrenheit L Maximum Sound Level
max
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter MEA Minimum Enroute Altitude
11 AF 11th Air Force MFE Major Flying Exercise
3 WG 3rd Wing MOA Military Operations Area
AFB Air Force Base MSL mean sea level
AFI Air Force Instruction MTR Military Training Route
AGIA Alaska Gasline Inducement Act NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGL above ground level NE Northern Edge
AK MOA EIS Alaska Military Operations Area NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Impact Statement NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
ALCAN Alaska-Canadian NM nautical mile
ARTCC Air Route Traffic Control Center NO nitrogen dioxide
2
ATC Air Traffic Control NOTAM Notice to Airmen
ATCAA Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace NRHP National Register of Historic Places
ATV All-terrain Vehicle NRIS National Register Information Service
AWACS Airborne Warning and Control System O ozone
3
BRAC Base Realignment and Closure P.L. Public Law
BLM Bureau of Land Management P/CG Pilot/Controller Glossary
CAA Clean Air Act Pb lead
CAS Close Air Support PM particulate matter less than 10 micrometers
10
CDNL C-weighted Day-Night Average Sound Level in diameter
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality PM particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers
2.5
CFR Code of Federal Regulations in diameter
CO carbon monoxide ppm parts per million
dB decibel PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Delta T-MOA Delta Temporary Military Operations Area psf pounds per square foot
DoD Department of Defense RF-A Red Flag-Alaska
DZ drop zone ROD Record of Decision
EA Environmental Assessment ROI Region of Influence
EIS Environmental Impact Statement RPC Resource Protection Council
EO Executive Order S&I safe & initiation
ESA Endangered Species Act SEL Sound Exposure Level
FAA Federal Aviation Administration SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
FBO Fixed-Base Operator SO sulfur dioxide
2
FL Flight Level SUA Special Use Airspace
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact SUAIS Special Use Airspace Information Service
HMMWV High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled U.S. United States
Vehicle USAF United States Air Force
IAP Instrument Approach Procedure USC United States Code
IDO Initial Defense Operations Capability USEPA United States Environmental Protection
IFR Instrument Flight Rule Agency
IICEP Interagency and Intergovernmental USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Coordination for Environmental Planning USGS United States Geological Survey
ILS Instrument Landing System VFR Visual Flight Rule
IR Instrument Route VR Visual Route
JASSM Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile
JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff
JDAM Joint Direct Attack Munition
JSOW Joint Standoff Weapon
KIAS Knots Indicated Airspeed
L Day-Night Average Sound Level
dn
L Onset Rate-Adjusted Monthly Day-Night
dnmr
Average Sound Level
Cover Sheet
ESTABLISH THE DELTA MOA, 11TH AIR FORCE, ELMENDORF AFB, ALASKA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
a. Responsible Agency: United States Air Force (USAF)
b. Proposals and Actions: This Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the potential environmental consequences of a proposal to improve
required training for Major Flying Exercises (MFEs) by establishing the Delta Military Operations Areas (MOAs) as part of the Yukon/Fox
Complex. The Yukon/Fox Complex consists of the Yukon, Fox, Eielson, Birch, and Buffalo MOAs; associated Air Traffic Control Assigned
Airspace (ATCAAs); ranges R-2202, R-2205, and R-2211; and the Delta ATCAA.
The proposed Delta MOA would allow aircrews to train as they fight. Current MFE training cannot be achieved at the combat mission level
with the existing ATCAA and MOA structure connecting the Yukon and Fox/Eielson Special Use Airspaces (SUAs). At present, MFE
training aircraft must transition the Delta corridor by either climbing above Flight Level (FL) 180 (18,000 feet above mean sea level [MSL]) into
the Delta ATCAA or funneling through the low altitude Birch or Buffalo MOAs. The abrupt and segmented changes in altitude artificially
constrain realistic threat-avoidance and attack run-in training precisely when pilots should be focused on combat conditions. The proposed
Delta MOA permits use of current technology and tactics and provides all angle surface attacks, threat reaction tactics, air-to-air combat
maneuvering, and joint air-ground operations in conjunction with ranges R-2202 and R-2205. The Delta MOA would overlie the Birch and
Buffalo MOAs, have a ceiling of FL180 at the existing Delta ATCAA, have a floor of 10,000 feet MSL from Eielson Air Force Base (AFB) to the
Birch MOA, and have a floor 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL) between the Birch and Buffalo MOAs.
The Delta MOA would be activated not more than 6 MFEs a year not to exceed 60 days per year with 1.5-2.5 hour periods twice a weekday.
A typical two-week exercise would have 3 hours between two daily usage periods. MFE annual schedules would be published and civil
aviation would be provided details at least 30 days in advance. MFEs would not be scheduled in January, 27 June to 11 July, September, or
December. Priority would be given to medevac, fire, and other emergency activities during MFEs. Visual Flight Rule (VFR) corridors in the
Birch and Buffalo MOAs support VFR traffic. V-444 would be available for Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) traffic for a minimum of 19 hours
each MFE day. V-444 would not be available for up to 300 hours, or 3.4 percent of the year. A corridor south of 63 degrees (°) latitude in the
Fox 3 ATCAA would support transit of commercial and other civil aircraft which could not otherwise deconflict schedules. Chaff and
defensive flares, as currently used in the Delta ATCAA and the Birch and Buffalo MOAs, would be used in the Delta MOA under existing
Alaskan altitude release restrictions. Existing supersonic activity above FL300 above the Delta MOA would continue. The Delta MOA would
support MFE training in accordance with the conditions and mitigations identified for the Delta Temporary MOA (Delta T-MOA) and the
Alaska Military Operations Areas Environmental Impact Statement (AK MOA EIS) Record of Decision (ROD) (1997). The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) is responsible for charting airspace and is a cooperating agency for this EA.
The No Action Alternative would not establish the proposed Delta MOA on aeronautical charts. The Birch and Buffalo MOAs and the Delta
ATCAA would continue to be used for MFE training. This results in continued low-quality MFE training and reduces the realism needed for
aircrews to experience combat situations before being deployed to the actual combat theater.
c. Comments and Inquiries: Written comments on this document should be directed to Mr. James W. Hostman, 611 CES/CEAO, 10471 20th St.,
Ste. 302, Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506. Telephone inquiries may be made to 907-552-4151.
d. Designation: Environmental Assessment
e. This EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Public and agency comments focused the
environmental analysis on airspace management, safety, socioeconomics, biological resources, and land use. Additional environmental
resources include noise, air quality, physical resources, cultural resources, and environmental justice. The Delta T-MOA provides substantial
information on the potential environmental effects from establishing the Delta MOA. VFR traffic would continue to use the established Delta
transit corridor. Medevac, fire survey, firefighting, or emergency flights would be given priority. An estimated one to two general aviation
IFR flights per MFE training day could be delayed by approximately one hour, primarily at Northway or Fairbanks, if V-444 was not
available. Civil aviation traffic would need to communicate through established radio communication systems to obtain MOA status. If no
other deconfliction scheduling was possible, one to two commercial flights per MFE day could be re-routed at altitude south of the 63°
corridor. Annual average noise levels below the Birch and Buffalo MOAs would be lower than baseline and annual average noise levels
between the Birch and Buffalo MOAs would noticeably increase from 41.0 to 45.2 Onset Rate-Adjusted Monthly Day-Night Average Sound
Level (L ). The change would not exceed the annual average of 55 Day-Night Average Sound Level (L ) identified by the United States
dnmr dn
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as the level to begin assessing the potential for environmental impacts. Experience with the Delta
T-MOA demonstrated that scheduling, communication, IFR access on V-444 a minimum of 19 hours an MFE day, VFR corridors, and priority
for emergency flights mitigated potential impacts. There would be no discernible impacts on air, soils, or water within the Tanana River
Valley or the Yukon-Tanana Upland. Extensive studies of chaff particles and defensive flares, as currently used in the Delta ATCAA and
Birch and Buffalo MOAs, have found no negative impacts of chaff or flare materials to biological resources. Alaska Native villages at Healy
Lake and Dot Lake, under the Buffalo MOA, would experience a discernible reduction in aircraft overflight noise when compared with No
Action. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) properties under the Delta ATCAA would experience an increase in average annual
noise levels from training above 3,000 feet AGL. There would be no disproportionately high or adverse impacts to minorities or low-income
communities and no disproportionate health or safety risks to children. There would be no expected impact to land use. Public scoping
concerns questioned socioeconomic effects on regional airports. Expanded radio and radar coverage and adopting the AK MOA EIS ROD
and Delta T-MOA mitigations could result in approximately one to two IFR general aviation aircraft being delayed by approximately one
hour during an MFE day. Such delays would not be expected to significantly affect transit or refueling of general aviation aircraft at
Northway. The availability of VFR corridors, and scheduling MFEs to have V-444 daily accessible to IFR traffic for 19 hours each MFE day,
would reduce the potential for any socioeconomic impacts to Northway and other local airports along the Delta corridor. A Fairbanks fixed-
base operator (FBO) stated that one cargo service decided to refuel in Anchorage in place of Fairbanks due to the uncertainty regarding the
Delta T-MOA. One or two commercial aircraft per day which could not deconflict during a Delta MOA activation period and were required
to transit south of the 63° corridor would each incur approximately 500 pounds of fuel and 7 minutes of additional flight time. The proposed
Delta MOA would not be expected to significantly impact regional socioeconomics, although some civil aviation pilots would be annoyed
and even limited delays could affect FBOs. No significant cumulative impacts are expected to any environmental resource within the Delta
corridor.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
NAME OF PROPOSED ACTION. Establish the Delta Military Operations Areas (MOAs),
Eielson Air Force Base (AFB), Alaska
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND NO ACTION ALTERNATIVES. The
United States Air Force (USAF) proposes to improve required training for Major Flying
Exercises (MFEs) by establishing the Delta MOAs consisting of four connected MOAs which
could be scheduled together or independently. The proposed action would establish
connecting airspace to provide a realistic setting for MFEs.
MFEs in Alaskan airspace provide aircrews with realistic simulated combat experience. The
expanded capability of aircraft establishes the need for contiguous airspace to meet MFE
training objectives. The Delta corridor separates the Yukon MOAs from ranges R-2202, R-2205,
and R-2211, and the Fox and Eielson MOAs. At present, training aircraft must transition the
Delta corridor by either climbing above Flight Level (FL) 180 (18,000 feet above mean sea level
[MSL]) into the Delta Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA) or funneling through the
low-level Birch or Buffalo MOAs. The abrupt and segmented changes in altitude associated
with the current MOA structure introduce pilot concerns about the boundary of the airspace
and artificially constrain realistic threat-avoidance and attack run-in training at exactly the time
pilots should be focused on combat conditions. The current airspace configuration requires
pilots to train using non-optimal tactics in restricted training regimens. This continually
reinforces negative habit patterns which can affect pilot survivability in combat. Current MFE
training requirements cannot be achieved at the combat mission level with the existing ATCAA
and MOA structure connecting the Yukon and Fox/Eielson Special Use Airspaces (SUAs).
The Delta MOAs (collectively termed the Delta MOA in this Environmental Assessment [EA])
would permit the north/south training environment required by today’s technology to meet
current MFE training. The proposed Delta MOA would have a ceiling of FL180 at the existing
Delta ATCAA and overlie the Birch and Buffalo MOAs. The proposed Delta MOA would have
a floor of 10,000 feet MSL from Eielson AFB to the Birch MOA to support aviation activity in the
vicinity of Eielson AFB, and have a floor of 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL) over Delta
Junction between the Birch and Buffalo MOAs. The 3,000 foot floor over Delta Junction, in
conjunction with the Birch MOA floor of 500 feet AGL and the Buffalo MOA floor of 300 feet
AGL create realistic varied altitude access across the Delta corridor. This altitude range to 3,000
feet in the proposed Delta MOA and below for the Birch and Buffalo MOAs permits training
with modern sensors and aircraft capabilities. Today’s training requires low to high
maneuvering to simulate combat conditions and to work with ground forces, follow through on
targets, accomplish supply missions, and perform other real-life training missions.
MFEs would activate the MOA up to 6 times a year for up to a maximum of 60 days per year.
Activation for an MFE would be 1.5-2.5 hour periods twice a weekday. The daily time blocks
would have 3 hours between exercises. MFE schedules would be publicized annually and
details provided at least 30 days prior to an exercise. MFEs would not be scheduled in January,
27 June to 11 July, September, or December. Chaff and defensive flares are currently used
above the Delta corridor in the Delta ATCAA and the Birch and Buffalo MOAs and would be
proposed for the Delta MOA.
Visual Flight Rule (VFR) corridors in the Birch and Buffalo MOAs and the floor altitude of the
proposed Delta MOA would support VFR traffic. V-444 would be available for Instrument
1
Flight Rule (IFR) traffic a minimum of 19 hours per MFE day. During the up to 300 hours of
annual MFE activation (3.4 percent of the year), V-444 would not be available for IFR traffic. A
corridor south of 63 degrees (°) latitude between FL320 and FL350 in the Fox 3 ATCAA would
support transit of commercial and other high performance civil aircraft which could not
otherwise deconflict through scheduling. Life flight, fire, and other emergency activities in the
proposed Delta MOA during MFEs would be accommodated by temporarily raising the floor of
the MOA or otherwise altering the MFE to meet emergency requirements. Medevac
requirements would include a lifeguard flight returning to its station. The USAF has worked
with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to schedule a Delta Temporary MOA (Delta
T-MOA) to support MFEs during 2007-2008. The proposed Delta MOA would be in accordance
with the conditions and mitigations identified for the Delta T-MOA and the Alaska MOA
Environmental Impact Statement (AK MOA EIS) Record of Decision (ROD) dated 1997.
The No Action Alternative would not establish the Delta MOA on aeronautical charts used by
civil aviation. The Birch and Buffalo MOAs and the Delta ATCAA would continue to be used
for MFE training. The USAF would continue to request a Delta T-MOA to support realistic
MFE training. MFEs without a Delta MOA result in continued low-quality MFE training and
reduce the realism needed for aircrews to experience combat situations before being deployed
to the actual combat theater.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. This Delta MOA EA addresses the
potential environmental consequences from implementing the Proposed Action and includes
the No Action Alternative. Public and agency comments during scoping focused the
environmental analysis on airspace management, safety, socioeconomics, biological resources,
and land use. Public comments on the Draft EA emphasized airspace, safety, and
socioeconomics. Additional environmental resources considered in the EA include noise, air
quality, physical resources, cultural resources, environmental justice, and cumulative effects.
The EA demonstrates that the proposed Delta MOA, including schedule and other mitigations
developed through experience with the Delta T-MOA and the AK MOA EIS ROD (1997), would
not result in significant environmental impacts to any environmental resources area.
Potential environmental consequences may be summarized as follows. The proposed Delta
MOA would have minimal effect upon VFR traffic which would continue to use established
VFR corridors. Other than communication, there would be no or minimal effect on medevac,
fire survey, firefighting, or emergency flights, which would be given priority. An estimated one
to two general aviation IFR flights per MFE training day could be delayed primarily at
Northway or Fairbanks approximately one hour if IFR circumstances prevailed and V-444 was
not available for IFR traffic. Civil aviation traffic operating from improved or unimproved
airfields along the Delta corridor between Northway and Fairbanks would need to
communicate through established radio systems to obtain MOA status. If no other
deconfliction scheduling was possible, one to two commercial or other high altitude civil flights
per MFE day could be re-routed south of the 63° corridor. Annual average noise levels below
the Birch and Buffalo MOAs would be lower than projected baseline conditions. Noise levels
between the Birch and Buffalo MOAs in the proposed Delta MOA are projected to increase from
an annual average of 41.0 to an annual average of 45.2 Onset Rate-Adjusted Monthly Day-Night
Average Sound Level (L ). The noticeable increase in noise levels would not exceed the
dnmr
annual average of 55 Day-Night Average Sound Level (L ) identified by the United States
dn
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as the level to begin assessing the potential for
2
environmental impacts. Supersonic flights would continue to be limited to above FL300 in the
existing Delta ATCAA and would not occur in the proposed Delta MOA. Sonic booms are
currently experienced and would be expected to continue under supersonic overflight areas of
the Yukon/Fox Complex.
Experience with the Delta T-MOA has demonstrated that implementation of scheduling,
improved communication, priority for medevac, fire, and other emergencies, and continued
recognition of the VFR corridors have mitigated the potential for safety impacts. Some
commenters on the Draft EA expressed the opinion that any interruption or delay in a general
aviation pilot’s intent to fly through the Delta corridor could impact, and result in annoyance to,
the pilot. Defensive flare use would adhere to existing restrictions on flare use in the Alaskan
airspace to above 5,000 feet AGL from June to September and above 2,000 feet AGL for the
remainder of the year. No impacts to air quality would occur because the proposed Delta MOA
altitude floor is above the mixing level for air emissions.
No impacts to the soils or water within the Tanana River Valley or the Yukon-Tanana Upland
would occur. Chaff and flares are currently used and residual materials are currently deposited
under the Delta ATCAA and Birch and Buffalo MOAs. Extensive studies of chaff particles and
defensive flare constituents have found no negative impacts to biological resources. The
proposed Delta MOA adopts the AK MOA EIS ROD biological mitigations, including the
minimum overflight altitude of 3,000 feet AGL above the Delta Caribou Herd calving areas
from May 15 to June 15, a minimum overflight altitude of 5,000 feet AGL over Dall sheep
lambing areas from May 15 to June 15, and a minimum overflight altitude of 5,000 feet AGL
over Dall sheep rutting areas from November 15 to December 15 (no MFEs in December). The
change in annual average noise levels associated with MFE training in the proposed Delta MOA
would not be at a level or altitude to affect wildlife.
Alaska Native villages at Healy Lake and Dot Lake under the Buffalo MOA are estimated to
experience a discernible reduction in aircraft overflight noise below baseline conditions. There
would be no disproportionately high or adverse impacts to minorities or low-income
communities, and there would be no disproportionate health or safety risks to children.
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) properties under the Delta ATCAA would
experience an increase in annual average noise levels associated with MFE training above 3,000
feet AGL. This training and associated noise level would not be expected to affect historic
structures or historic properties. Areas under the proposed Delta MOA between the Buffalo
and Birch MOAs would have a discernible increase in average noise level but would not be
expected to impact land use under the airspace. Supersonic flights would not occur in the
proposed Delta MOA although existing sonic booms from supersonic flights above FL300
would continue. Continued use of chaff and defensive flares could result in a hunter,
fisherman, or other individual finding a piece of chaff or flare wrapping material or plastic from
a deployed chaff or defensive flare and being annoyed.
Public scoping and comments on the Draft EA questioned socioeconomic effects on the region
and regional airports, particularly Northway and Fairbanks. Many commenters on the Draft
EA incorrectly interpreted that the USAF was proposing to permanently close V-444. The USAF
proposal has always been to have V-444 accessible to civilian IFR traffic for 305 days per year
and a minimum of 19 hours each of the remaining 60 days of MFE training. During each MFE
day, scheduling and publication of MOA activation could still result in approximately one to
two general aviation aircraft seeking to fly IFR through the Delta corridor being delayed by
3
approximately one hour. USAF radio and radar expanded coverage in the region would reduce
delays to a minimum. The availability of VFR corridors, combined with the scheduling of MFE
activity, would reduce potential for socioeconomic impacts at Northway or other Delta corridor
airports. A Fairbanks Fixed-Base Operator (FBO) stated that one cargo service decided to
schedule refueling in Anchorage in place of Fairbanks due to the uncertainty regarding the
Delta T-MOA.
One to two commercial flights per MFE day, which could not deconflict scheduling and were
required to transit south of the 63° corridor, would each incur approximately 500 pounds of
additional fuel and 7 minutes of additional flight time arriving at Fairbanks_. Comments on the
Draft EA by one commercial carrier noted that commercial aircraft were required to fly a total of
over 1,000 additional miles during the 40 days of Delta T-MOA activation during 2008. This is
consistent with the effects estimated in the Delta MOA EA. The proposed Delta MOA would
not be expected to significantly impact regional socioeconomics, although specific civil aviation
operations could incur some delays or inconveniences. The estimate of one to two general
aviation flights delayed by approximately one hour per MFE day includes estimated cumulative
effects of increased civil aviation use of the Delta corridor for oil, gas, rail, and other
development activities in the northern parts of Alaska. No significant cumulative impacts are
expected on any environmental resource within the Delta corridor.
CONCLUSION. Based on the findings of the EA conducted in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) regulations, and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7061, and after careful review of
the potential impacts, I conclude that implementation of the Proposed Action would not result
in significant impacts to tl1e quality of the human or the natural environment. Therefore, a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is warranted, and an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is not required for this action.
Zl J/trJ IO
SCOTT L. PLEUS, Colonel, USAF Date
Commander, 611 Air and Space Operations Center
11 AF, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska
4
Establish the Delta Military
Operations Area
Environmental Assessment
Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska

January 2010