DTIC ADA611275: Final Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment Joint Strile Fighter System Development and Demonstration Developmental Test Program

34.9 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/
OVERSEAS ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION
DEVELOPMENTAL TEST PROGRAM

J 2007
ANUARY
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 2007 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2007 to 00-00-2007
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Final Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment
5b. GRANT NUMBER
Joint Strile Fighter System Development and Demonstration
Developmental Test Program 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
Joint Strike Fighter Program Office,200 12th Street South, Suite REPORT NUMBER
600,Arlington,VA,22202-4304
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
This Environmental Assessment (EA)/Overseas EA (OEA) identifies and evaluates the potential effects
from conducting the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Development Test (DT) Program, the Proposed Action.
Proposed DT activities of the three F-35 aircraft variants will be conducted over a six to seven year period
at Department of Defense facilities and ranges uniquely equipped with assets and experienced expertise to
support tests and evaluations of military strike aircraft weapon systems. The EA/OEA evaluates two
alternatives in addition to the No Action Alternative: Alternative One- Conducting the full spectrum of the
JSF DT Program at an East Coast Primary Test Location [Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River and
Virginia Capes Operating Area of the Atlantic Warning Area], a West Coast Primary Test Location
[Edwards Air Force Base (AFB), to include using the airspace and ranges of Naval Air Weapons Center,
Weapons Division China Lake; Naval Air Weapons Center, Weapons Point Mugu; White Sands Missile
Range; and Nevada Test and Training Range, Nellis AFB] and Other Ancillary Test Locations [Eglin AFB
Air Armament Center; Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst and Lockheed Martin Aeronautics (LM
Aero)]; and Alternative Two- Conducting the full spectrum of the JSF DT Program at the proposed test
locations reflected in Alternative One, but splitting proposed hover tests of the Short Takeoff Vertical
Landing variant of the F-35 between NAS Patuxent River and LM Aero. No significant impacts or harm to
the environmental resources analyzed in detail (air quality, noise, biologicaVnatural resources
socioeconomics, and coastal zone resources) in this EA/OEA are expected from implementing the Proposed
Action under either alternative.
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 549
unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND NO SIGNIFICANT HARM TO THE ENVIRONMENT
STATEMENT FOR THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION, DEVELOPMENTAL TEST PROGRAM
Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations § 1500–1508)
implementing procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Executive Order (EO)
12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, the Program Executive Officer (PEO) for the Joint
Strike Fighter (JSF) Program Office (JPO) gives notice that an Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental
Assessment (EA/OEA), and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and a No Significant Harm to the
Environment Statement have been prepared for the JSF Developmental Test (DT) Program.
Introduction: The JPO proposes to conduct DT of the JSF (or F-35) at Department of Defense (DoD) facilities and
ranges uniquely equipped with the personnel and assets needed to support various DT activities. The F-35 is being
designed as the next-generation, strike aircraft weapon system to fulfill the multi-service, multi-role requirements of
the United States (U.S.) Air Force (USAF), U.S. Navy (USN), U.S. Marine Corps, and it allies, e.g., the United
Kingdom Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. The proposed JSF DT Program is needed to verify the performance and
effectiveness of the F-35 for its intended missions.
Proposed Action: The proposed JSF DT Program will span six to seven years (approximately 2007 through 2013).
Fifteen instrumented F-35 test aircraft and various support aircraft are proposed to generate approximately 16,500
flights within 33,000 flight hours to certify three F-35 variants. Flight tests would be conducted five days per week
with most of the flights occurring during the day. Later in the test program, less than 1% of the total proposed
flights would occur at night. Support aircraft would serve in various capacities—such as photography, in-flight
inspection, targets, and/or in-flight refueling support. Stores (e.g., missile, bomb, flare, and gun systems), drones,
and other test assets, including the use of various ground support equipment, would be used as part of proposed JSF
DT activities.
Alternatives Considered: Based on screening criteria, the following USN, USAF, U.S. Army, contractor locations,
and associated airspaces have been identified for the two alternatives analyzed in the EA/OEA:
• East Coast Primary Test Locations: Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River, Maryland/Virginia Capes
(VACAPES OPAREA) of the Atlantic Warning Area (AWA).
• West Coast Primary Test Locations: Edwards Air Force Base (AFB), California, using the airspace and
ranges of Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD) China Lake, and Naval Air Warfare
Center Weapons (NAWCWPNS) Point Mugu, California; White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), New Mexico;
and Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR), Nellis AFB, Nevada.
• Other Ancillary Test Locations: Naval Air Engineering Station (NAES) Lakehurst, New Jersey; Eglin AFB,
Florida; and Lockheed Martin Aeronautics (LM Aero), Ft. Worth, Texas.
These proposed test locations satisfy the technical specifications, climate and land-based features, operating criteria,
and unique Service mission requirements to meet the purpose and need of the Proposed Action.
Alternative One. Among the proposed East Coast, West Coast, and Other Ancillary Test Locations, approximately
47% of the proposed JSF DT Program would be conducted at the East Coast Primary Test Locations (approximately
35% of the DT activities would occur at NAS Patuxent River and 12% within the VACAPES OPAREA) while
approximately 51% of the proposed JSF DT would occur at the West Coast Primary Test Locations; 38% of the DT
activities occurring at Edwards AFB and the remaining 13% at the other West Coast locations. The remaining 2%
of the entire proposed JSF DT Program would occur at the Other Ancillary Test Locations.
Alternative Two. This would be comprised of Alternative One, but would split proposed Short Takeoff Vertical
Landing (STOVL) tests between NAS Patuxent River and LM Aero. Approximately 90% of planned STOVL tests
would occur at NAS Patuxent River and approximately 10% at LM Aero.
Summary of Environmental Consequences: The EA/OEA focused on resources potentially affected by the
Proposed Action: air quality, noise, biological/natural, socioeconomics, and coastal zone management. Alternatives
One and Two are not expected to significantly affect or harm the natural or human environment at any of the
proposed JSF DT locations, as summarized below. No loss or change of land use will occur, nor will significant
degradation occur to air quality, the noise environment, biological/coastal zone resources, or quality of life for the
surrounding communities at these proposed test locations. No significant direct, indirect, or harmful cumulative
impacts are expected from the Proposed Action.
Air Quality
A formal Conformity Determination for either Proposed Action alternative is not required, as project-related
emission levels are below the applicable de minimis thresholds, and the annual project-related emissions do not
make up 10% or more of the nonattainment area’s total emissions budget.
Noise
All proposed F-35 flight operations will be conducted in accordance with existing procedures approved within Air
Installation Compatible Use Zone programs. Minimal to negligible impacts from noise are expected at Eglin AFB,
NAWCWD China Lake, NAWCWPNS Point Mugu, WSMR, NTTR Nellis AFB, and VACAPES OPAREA.
Specific noise analysis findings for Edwards AFB, NAS Patuxent River, NAES Lakehurst, and LM Aero are as
follows:
• Edwards AFB: On-base areas potentially impacted by the 65 decibel (dB) and greater Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour (applicable to the State of California) increase by approximately 1,405
acres (approximately 12.2%), from approximately 11,472 to 12,877 acres. There are no off-base areas impacted
by the 65 dB and greater CNEL noise contour.
• NAS Patuxent River: On-installation areas potentially impacted by the 65 dB and greater DNL noise contour
increase by about 36 acres, from approximately 5,442 to 5,478 acres (less than 1%). Off-installation areas
potentially impacted by the 65 dB and greater Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise contour decrease
by approximately 34 acres (approximately 4%), from 808 to 774 acres, of land outside of NAS Patuxent River’s
installation boundary.
• NAES Lakehurst: On-installation areas potentially impacted by the 65 dB and greater DNL noise contour
increase by approximately 889 acres (approximately 106%), from 835 to 1,724 acres. Off-installation areas
potentially impacted by the 65 dB and greater DNL noise contour increase by approximately 150 acres
(approximately 197%), from 76 to 226 acres.
• LM Aero: On-base areas potentially impacted by the 65 dB and greater DNL noise contour increase by
approximately 5 acres, from 1,566 to 1,571 acres (less than 1%). Off-base areas potentially impacted by the 65
dB and greater DNL noise contour increase by approximately 54 acres (less than 1%), from 9,649 to 9,703
acres.
None of the non-residential noise sensitive receptors identified will experience a 1.5 dB or 3.0 dB increase in noise
as a result of the Proposed Action alternatives. There are no discernable residential or incompatible land uses
located within the 65 db or greater CNEL and DNL noise contours.
Biological/Natural Resources
Potential impacts to biological/natural resources include noise-induced effects from aircraft overflights, ground-
based testing at NAES Lakehurst, and weapons separation tests. Existing biological species are expected to be
acclimated to the noise generated from aircraft activities. While some proposed JSF DT flights will occur below
3,000 feet, most of those flights are of short duration, and above the 550-foot zone that has been shown to account
for most wildlife reaction. Minimal to negligible impacts to biological/ natural resources are expected at Eglin AFB,
NAWCWD China Lake, NAWCWPNS Point Mugu, WSMR, NTTR Nellis AFB, and VACAPES OPAREA.
Specific findings for Edwards AFB, NAS Patuxent River, NAES Lakehurst, and LM Aero are as follows:
• Edwards AFB: The proposed JSF DT activities may change the existing noise impact areas slightly, but the
species present in the newly-affected area are believed to be transient in nature and accustomed to the regularly
occurring flight noise associated with on-going actions at Edwards AFB. Potential impacts to biological
resources, while possible, are not expected since all weapon releases will be conducted in established
ranges/impact areas, which in many instances lack available suitable habitat.
BiologicaVNatural Resources (Continued)
• NAS Patuxent River: The potential impacts to sensitive biological resource areas from noise are minimal to
negligible. The proposed weapons separation & integration tests in the Chesapeake Test Range (CTR) are not
likely impact the marine environment, including marine mammals and sea turtles. Similarly, no changes to
water quality or other resources needed to support fish habitats are expected.
• J'olAES Lakehurst: The change in vacant Land area will increase with the proposed JSF DT (from 307 acres to
1,073 acres; and introduce noise to the southwest of the runway, where it does not exist currently). The area
potentially impacted provides important habitat for threatened and endangered grassland bird species. These
species, as well as other biological resources, may already be accustomed to aircraft noise, and these species
would be expected to be minimally impacted with no permanent behavioral or physiological changes. Only
about I% of the total acres in the Manchester Fish and Wildlife Management Area would fall within the
projected noise contours, and there would be no changes to its use. Therefore, no significant impacts are
expected to the environment.
• LM Aero: No impacts to biologicaVnatural resources are anticipated as no sensitive receptors would be present
within the proposed JSF DT noise impact area.
The proposed JSF DT activities will not produce any significant impacts to biological/natural resources, including
Federally-and state-listed endangered or threatened species or essential fish habitat. No consultation is required
since affects to protected species are not anticipated.
Socioeconomics/Environmental Justice
The addition of personnel to support the proposed JSF DT Program at Edwards AFB and AS Patuxent River, and
the temporary relocation of personnel to NAES Lakehurst, have the potential to impact the immediate, surrounding
areas. No new personnel are required to support the Proposed Action at other proposed test locations. The gradual
influx of personnel will result in small positive benefits to the economic region. Considering there are no
discemable noise impacts to sensitive receptors or populations, no disproportionately high or adverse human health
and environmental effects are expected to environmental justice populations or children.
Coastal Zones Resources
o impacts to the coastal zone resources of California, Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware are expected from
implementing the Proposed Action alternatives at NAW CWPNS Point Mugu, NAS Patuxent River, and the
VA CAPES OPAREA, based on the results of the air quality and noise analyses. Similarly, minimal impacts are
expected to biologicaVnatural resources, including marine species. The JPO PEO has determined the Proposed
Action would be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies and objectives of the
California, Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware Coastal Zone Management Programs. A Negative Coastal
Consistency Determination has been completed by the JPO.
Conclusion: The Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in significant impacts or harm to environmental
resources of the U.S. and within the global commons, based on the EA/OEA findings. As a result, an
Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement was not prepared. Close coordination
by the JPO with appropriate representatives at all of the proposed test locations further assures protection of
environmental resources throughout the proposed JSF DT. Therefore, pursuant to NEPA and EO 12114
respectively, the JPO PEO concludes with a FONSI and a No Significant Harm to the Environment Statement for
the Proposed Action. This Statement and the EA/OEA may be obtained from the JPO, 200 12th Street South, Suite
600, Arlington, VA 22202-4304.
Charles R. Davis, Brig Gen, USAF Date
Program Executive Officer
Joint Strike Fighter Program Office

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/
OVERSEAS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION
DEVELOPMENTAL TEST PROGRAM
JANUARY 2007
P LE OFFICIAL:
. 7/~01-
Approved By: ~~~~~~~~~~~~-------
Charles R. Davis, Brig Gen, USAF Date
Program Executive Officer
Joint Strike Fighter Program Office
200 12th Street South, Suite 600
Arlington, VA 22202-4304
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Jean Hawkins or Kathy Crawford
Naval Aviation Depot Joint Strike Fighter Program Office
620 I Cargo Hold A venue 200 12th Street South, Suite 600
Cecil Commerce Center Arlington, VA 22202-4304
Jacksonville, Fl 32221-8112 [phone]
[phone] [phone] (FAX)
[email protected] Kathy.Crawford @jsf. mi I
ABSTRACT
This Environmental Assessment (EA)/Overseas EA (OEA) identifies and evaluates the potential effects from
conducting the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Development Test (DT) Program, the Proposed Action. Proposed DT
activities of the three F-35 aircraft variants will be conducted over a six to seven year period at Department of
Defense facilities and ranges uniquely equipped with assets and experienced expertise to support tests and
evaluations of military strike aircraft weapon systems. The EA/OEA evaluates two alternatives in addition to the
No Action Alternative: Alternative One-Conducting the full spectrum of the JSF DT Program at an East Coast
Primary Test Location [Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River and Virginia Capes Operating Area of the
Atlantic Warning Area], a West Coast Primary Test Location [Edwards Air Force Base (AFB), to include using
the airspace and ranges of Naval Air Weapons Center, Weapons Division China Lake; Naval Air Weapons
Center, Weapons Point Mugu; White Sands Missile Range; and Nevada Test and Training Range, Nellis AFB]
and Other Ancillary Test Locations [Eglin AFB Air Armament Center; Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst,
and Lockheed Martin Aeronautics (LM Aero)]; and Alternative Two-Conducting the full spectrum of the JSF
DT Program at the proposed test locations reflected in Alternative One, but splitting proposed hover tests of the
Short Takeoff Vertical Landing variant of the F-35 between NAS Patuxent River and LM Aero. No significant
impacts or harm to the environmental resources analyzed in detail (air quality, noise, biologicaVnatural resources,
socioeconomics, and coastal zone resources) in this EA/OEA are expected from implementing the Proposed
Action under either alternative.

FINAL EA/OEA JSF SDD DT JANUARY 2007

Executive Summary

Introduction
The United States (U.S.) must preserve a core force structure that is organized, equipped, trained, and
supported to meet an extensive range of military operational requirements. The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
(hereafter referred to as F-35 Air System or F-35) has been identified as the potential aircraft for
preserving the core force structure while meeting each military service’s unique operating requirements
and mission concepts. The JSF Program is a joint Department of Defense (DoD) Major Defense
Acquisition Program led by the U.S. Air Force (USAF), U.S. Navy (USN), and U.S. Marine Corps
(USMC), responsible for developing an affordable, next generation, strike aircraft weapon system capable
of meeting an advanced threat while improving lethality, survivability, and supportability. The proposed
F-35 Air System is being designed to fulfill the multi-service, multi-role requirements of the USAF, USN,
and the USMC, as well as the United Kingdom (UK) Royal Navy (RN) and Royal Air Force (RAF).
Additional international partners include Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway,
and Turkey.
The JSF Program Office (JPO) has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA)/Overseas EA (OEA) to
analyze potential environmental effects of the JSF Developmental Test (DT) during System Development
and Demonstration (SDD), the Proposed Action. The decision to be made under this EA/OEA is where
and how to conduct the Proposed Action. The JPO Program Executive Officer (PEO) is the final decision
authority for the Proposed Action.
Timeframe
The entire JSF SDD Test Program will be conducted over a six to seven year period, both within and
outside U.S. territory.
Purpose and Need
The purpose and need of the proposed JSF DT is twofold: (1) to satisfy the DoD’s system acquisition
development requirements pursuant to DoD Directive 5000.1 and DoD Instruction 5000.2 policies, and
(2) to evaluate the effectiveness, compatibility, and performance of the three F-35 variants under a wide
spectrum of environmental conditions, ensuring the aircraft would be properly equipped for, and capable
of, combat missions. The proposed JSF DT is needed for final air system effectiveness verification and to
support the decision of whether or not to proceed with JSF Operational Test and Low Rate Initial
Production.
Proposed Action
The JPO has established the JSF Verification and Test (V&T) Team for the planning and execution of the
proposed JSF DT. Fifteen instrumented F-35 test aircraft and various support aircraft are proposed to
generate approximately 16,500 flights in 33,000 flight hours to certify the three variants. Flight tests
would be conducted five days per week with most of the flights occurring during the day in compliance
with airspace operating procedures. Later in the test program schedule (i.e., Test Years 3 through 6), less
than 1% of the total proposed flights would occur at night. Support aircraft would be required to serve in
various capacities, such as chase aircraft (photography and in-flight inspection), targets, and/or in-flight
refueling support. Stores [such as missiles, bombs, fuel tanks, refueling or electronic countermeasure
pods, countermeasures (flares), guns, etc.], tankers, drones, and other test and evaluation (T&E) assets
would be used as part of proposed JSF DT activities. Stores will be internally or externally mounted on
the F-35 or support aircraft suspension and release equipment, and may or may not be released (or
ES-1