why is the navy doing this eis? they want to bring in new types of aircraft o f-35 joint strike...
TRANSCRIPT
Why is the Navy doing this EIS? • They want to bring in new types of aircraft
o F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, F-22 Raptor, etc.
• They want the flexibility to do a lot more Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) - as a backup location
o Up to 4500 additional operations (above the baseline of 500 FCLP operations)
0
3
0
7
1
3
NASKW Airfield Operations EIS Schedule
June 29, 2012 Navy released Draft EIS for public commentAugust 15, 2012 Monroe County provided comments to Navy (41 comments):
o Revise the baseline to exclude the Super Horneto Clarify maximum number of operations (& maximum noise)o Provide validation of noise modelingo Provide mitigation for affected residents
August 2, 2013 Navy issued Final EIS:o Didn’t exclude the Super Hornet from baselineo Partially clarified maximum number of operationso Didn’t provide validation of noise modelingo Didn’t provide mitigation for affected residents
Sept. 1, 2013 30-day waiting period endsAfter Sept. 1, 2013 Navy may sign the Record of Decision (ROD)
The EIS evaluated four alternatives
No Action: • Existing/baseline – keep flying existing aircraft with the same number of
operations
Alternative 1: • Introduce next-generation aircraft (F-35 et al)
Alternative 2 (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE): • Introduce next-generation aircraft (F-35 et al)• An additional 4500 Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) operations.
This is approximately a 10% increase in overall operations, but using the loudest aircraft
Alternative 3: • Same as Alternative 2, but with an additional 10% increase in overall
operations
Navy’s Preferred Alternative
F-5N Freedom Fighter/Tiger12,714 ops/yr24%
FA-18E/F Super Hornet13,848 ops/yr27%
FA-18C/D Hornet, F-16 Fighting Falcon,
AV-8B Harrier
P-3 Orion
F-35
P-8 Poseidon
F-15 Eagle F-22 Raptor
The Super Hornet is one of the loudest aircraft, yet it has not been properly
evaluated as a new aircraft. It should
have been evaluated as a new aircraft in
this EIS.
The Super Hornet is one of the loudest aircraft, yet it has not been properly
evaluated as a new aircraft. It should
have been evaluated as a new aircraft in
this EIS.
Keep flying these:
Introduces next generation aircraft:
Navy’s Preferred Alternative• Increases Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP)
o Additional 4,500 operations/yr (500 + 4,500 = 5,000)
•Uses FA-18E/F Super Hornet (13,848 ops/yr) and F-35 (10,718 ops/yr)
•Uses Runway 07/25 67% of the time
0
3
0
7
1
3
• Total annual operations = 51,914 (about 10% increase in overall operations, but using the loudest aircraft)
Noise Impacts (ignoring the Super Hornet as a new aircraft)
More Population >65 DNL
No Action
Alt 1 (new jets)
Alt 2 (+FCLP)
Alt 3 (+10%)
2,416 people +13 +366 +533 +1% +15% +22%
• The number of residents exposed to >65 DNL could increase 15% from 2,416 to 2,782 (an additional 366 residents)
• No residents would be exposed to >80 DNL
• Indoor speech interference and indoor sleep disturbance could increase
• The number of residents exposed to >65 DNL could increase 15% from 2,416 to 2,782 (an additional 366 residents)
• No residents would be exposed to >80 DNL
• Indoor speech interference and indoor sleep disturbance could increase
Concern #1•The Navy has brought in the Super Hornet, one of the loudest aircraft, without a proper NEPA assessment. •If the Super Hornet were treated as a new aircraft, the changes in noise impacts would be much worse.•The County request that the Navy remove the Super Hornet from the baseline and treat it as a new aircraft.
BaselineWithoutSuper Hornet
Navy’sBaseline
with Super Hornet
Preferred Alternati
ve
Nois
e
Concern #2•The FEIS is not entirely clear on the maximum limits on the types and number of operations.
o The FEIS repeatedly uses language like: “up to approximately 52,000”.o This wording is not clear and should not appear in the ROD.
•The County request that the ROD clearly specify that exceeding any one of the following conditions would trigger a re-evaluation under NEPA:
o A single year above 51,914 total annual airfield operations (per FEIS Table 2.8-1, page 2-27).
o A single year above 5000 FCLP operations (per FEIS Section 2.3, page 2-4).
o A single year of >12% FCLP operations at night (10 pm to 7 am) (per Navy response to comment M-01-CC).
Concern #3
All noise assessments were done using modeling – no actual measurements. The modeling was done using NOISEMAP; newer tools are available including the Advanced Acoustic Model (AAM).
The County request that the Navy contract with an independent consultant to collect actual noise measurements.
• Could determine whether or not the Navy’s noise modeling is accurate.
• Could establish a baseline noise level.
Concern #4
The Navy did not propose any mitigation (other than continuing to use BMPs and SOPs), despite the increased noise levels. Further, there has been no mitigation for the introduction of the Super Hornet.
The County request that the Navy mitigate fully for the impacts from the F-35, the increased number of FCLPs, and the introduction of the Super Hornet.
Mitigation might include:
• Soundproofing• Greater use of the alternate runways
(13/31 and 03/21)• Modification of operational
procedures and full enforcement of course rules (e.g., altitudes, flight paths)
0
3
0
7
1
3
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael L. Davis, Vice President of Keith and Schnars [email protected] • (954) 776-1616
Mayté Santamaria, Monroe County Growth Management
[email protected] • (305) 289-2500