Q and A for Solicitation RFQ W50SLF-22-Q-OQQD (9.9.2022).pdf

Questions and Answers Related To:

Project # KNMD220010 Boundary Survey of ANG Licensed Property at JBPHH-HI

Solicitation W50SLF-22-Q-OQQD

Dated 9-Sep-2022

Q1: Hazardous materials, artifacts, and other such related environmental items are a concern.

Could the Govt provide any type of environmental information to address these concerns.

A1: Attached is the Environmental Assessment done for the original beddown of the F-22 Aircraft. Within contains environmental information the contractors can use for their bidding purposes. We do not foresee the presence of any hazardous materials from this project. If hazardous materials are present during the execution of the work, this will be classified as an Unforeseen Condition.

Q2: Are there any geotechnical information for these sites to be surveyed that the Gov't can provide to show a representative of subsurface soils that may be present. These subsurface soils would impact disk/monument installation.

A2: Geotechnical information is not available for all sites to be surveyed. The intended locations for these disks/monuments have been previously disturbed. Pre-site survey or soil sampling/exploring to potentially facilitate contractor's means/methods of disk/monument installation will be at the contractor's discretion and not to be treated as an additive cost to the project.

Q3: Qualify the disk/monument locations.

A3: Disks/monuments shall be located at each corner and mid-span of curves. In an lineal footage measurement in an area with multiple corners and curves of 20-ft or less, 1 disk is required. The final plans shall include and show the location and survey data of all disks installed within the site. During disk installation, relocation of disks will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Q4: Is the contractor required to have a GIS Consultant on its team?

A4: A GIS Consultant on the contractor' team is not a requirement and, thus, at the contractor's discretion. The survey data is to conform with GIS requirements as stated within the SOW.

Use the attached Shapefile and CSV for Hickam's existing control points. Contractor is to convert all new data/metadata into the shapefile and submit to 154 CES.

Q5: Was there a soil study (to know any haz chemicals in the soil) done at the sites where the markers will be placed?

A5: We do not foresee the use of any hazardous materials.

Q6: Upon reading the documents, I understand that the primary job is to install the horizontal markers in accordance with the Survey Markers and Monumentation, Chapter 3, at the corners of the areas as indicated in parcel maps numbers 1 through 5. Is this correct?

A6: YES - The contractor shall place horizontal control monuments at all major corners of the boundary of the property, to establish and record the boundaries of said property, unless already marked or referenced by existing monuments or witness in close proximity to the corner.

Q7: Will all workers be required to have a DBIDS pass? If so, what level of clearance?

A7: DBIDS passes are required for the duration of the project.

Q8: Is the scope of the work for all the parcels (5) that were provided or will there be a new configuration(s)?

A8: The survey will cover the 5 parcels indicated in the provided drawings.

Q9: Depending on the response of the previous question, and if possible, we would like to know the specific areas that will be of interest for this project. We are assuming this will be related to the license agreement.

A9: The areas are indicated in the provided parcel maps numbers 1 through 5.

Q10: The scope states the work to be conducted shall be a NSPS survey. Is this referring to an ALTA survey or more of a perimeter survey where only the locations of features along the existing, new or proposed parcel lines are observed?

A10: Perimeter survey, establish the boundary lines of the properties by placing a monument at all major corners as indicated in the parcel maps.

September 2007

Replacement of F-15 Aircraft with F-22A Aircraft Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii

Environmental Assessment

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

SEP 2007 2. REPORT TYPE

3. DATES COVERED

00-00-2007 to 00-00-2007

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Replacement of F-15 Aircraft with F-22A Aircraft Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii Environmental Assessment

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

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)

154th Civil Engineer Squadron (154 CES/CEV),Hickam AFB,HI,96853

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

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 EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Potentially affected environmental resources were identified through public scoping, communication with local, state, and federal agencies, and review of past documentation. In addition, letters were sent to Native Hawaiian groups soliciting their input. Specific environmental resources with the potential for environmental consequences include airspace management, noise, safety, air quality, physical resources biological resources, cultural resources, land use and transportation, socioeconomics, and environmental justice.

Airspace management and air traffic control includes changes in the fighter approach pattern to Hickam AFB to reduce the potential for noise effects. These changes would not significantly affect either the airspace or air traffic control. Military aircraft average daily operations represent approximately 5 to 6 percent of the total 880 daily flights to the joint use Honolulu International Airport/Hickam AFB. Military average daily operations would increase from 53 with the F-15 to 65 with the F-22A. Training in offshore airspace would have no effect on airspace management or air traffic control. Comparable take-off noise would occur with the F-15 (normally with afterburner) and the F-22A (with powerful engines that predominantly do not need afterburner). During landing, the proposed F-22A approach pattern would result in no discernible change to off-installation noise. In the overwater airspace, F-22A operations would produce more sonic booms than the F-15. The air-to-water interface attenuates sonic booms and rapidly reduces their intensity in the underwater environment. Design elements associated with infrastructure planning efforts should improve safety concerns. The F-22A would meet the Hawaii Air Defense requirements and operational training using live air-to-air munitions comparable to those used by the F-15. No F-22A air-to-ground munitions would be used in the Hawaiian Islands. The F-22A would use an estimated 2,318 fewer bundles of chaff and 784 fewer flares than are currently used by the F-15s during overwater training. The Honolulu area is in air quality attainment and no air quality impacts are projected. Natural resources findings demonstrate that no practicable alternative exists for construction of some HIANG facilities within the 100- year floodplain. F-22A chaff produces more pieces of residual plastic or mylar than F-15 chaff. F-22A training would increase residual materials from the current 0.25 -

5.8 pieces to 0.6 - 13 pieces per square mile per year under offshore training airspace. Although not significant, any deposition of plastic or mylar materials in the northern Pacific Ocean could contribute to the amount of such materials entering the marine food chain. Sonic booms do not transfer to the water at sound levels that could harm or harass marine

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

ABSTRACT

Same as

Report (SAR)

18. NUMBER

OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF

RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

c. THIS PAGE

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18

Our goal is to give you a reader-friendly document that provides an in-depth, accurate analysis of potential environmental consequences.

The organization of this Environmental Assessment, or EA, is shown below:

Cover Sheet Finding of No Significant Impact/Finding of No Practicable Alternative Executive Summary

Chapter 1.0 Purpose and Need for the Hawaii Air National Guard Replacement of F-15 Aircraft with F-22A Aircraft

1.1 Purpose of F-22A Replacement of F-15 Aircraft at Hickam AFB

1.2 Need to Replace the HIANG F-15 with F-22A Aircraft

1.3 Hickam AFB

1.4 Aircraft Characteristics

Chapter 2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative

2.1 Identification of Alternatives

2.2 Elements Affecting Hickam AFB

2.3 Elements Affecting Training Airspace

2.4 Environmental Impact Analysis Process

2.5 Regulatory Compliance

2.6 Environmental Comparison of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative

Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment on Hickam AFB and in Training Airspace

3.1 Airspace Management and Air Traffic Control

3.2 Noise

3.3 Safety

3.4 Air Quality

3.5 Natural Resources - Physical Resources

3.6 Natural Resources - Biological Resources

3.7 Cultural Resources

3.8 Land Use and Transportation

3.9 Socioeconomics

3.10 Environmental Justice

Chapter 4.0 Potential Environmental Consequences on Hickam AFB and in Training Airspace

4.1 Airspace Management

4.2 Noise

4.3 Safety

4.4 Air Quality

4.5 Natural Resources - Physical Resources

4.6 Natural Resources - Biological Resources

4.7 Cultural Resources

4.8 Land Use and Transportation

4.9 Socioeconomics

4.10 Environmental Justice

Chapter 5.0 Cumulative Impacts

5.1 Cumulative Effects Analysis

5.2 Other Environmental Considerations

Chapter 6.0 References Chapter 7.0 List of Preparers Appendices

How to Use This Document This EA is prepared to help the reader understand the potential environmental consequences of the Proposed Action.

Please review Chapter 1.0 and 2.0 to learn the purpose and details of the proposed replacement of F-15 aircraft with F-22A aircraft beginning in 2011.

Chapter 3.0 explains the affected environment of the Proposed Action at Hickam AFB and in the off shore airspace.

The No Action Alternative is also addressed.

Chapter 4.0 explains the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action at Hickam AFB and in the off shore airspace.

The No Action Alternative is also addressed.

Chapters 5.0 through 7.0 discuss cumulative impacts, contain references, and include a list of preparers.

In addition to the main text, a series of appendices describe chaff and flares, public involvement, air quality emissions, airspace operations, and noise analysis.

Public and Agency comments on the Draft EA are summarized in Table 2.4-3 and incorporated throughout this EA.

The box to the left summarizes the EA contents.

Acronyms and Abbreviations can be found on the inside back cover.

Replacement of F-15 Aircraft with F-22A Aircraft

Cover Sheet

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF F-15 AIRCRAFT WITH F-22A

AIRCRAFT AT HICKAM AIR FORCE BASE (AFB)

a. Responsible Agency: United States Air Force (Air Force)

b. Cooperating Agency: None

c. Proposals and Actions: This EA analyzes the potential environmental consequences of a proposal to replace F-15 aircraft with F-22A aircraft at Hickam AFB, Hawaii. Hickam AFB is: (1) an existing AFB with an F-15 air superiority mission, established support for fighter aircraft, access to adequate training airspace, support for varied training opportunities, and available infrastructure and communication links, (2) has the ability to integrate Air National Guard (ANG) experience with the capabilities of the active Air Force as part of the national mission in the ongoing Global War on Terrorism, and (3) locates advanced U.S. weapon systems on the Pacific Rim where they can rapidly respond to existing and projected national threats. The F-22A air-to-air and air-to-ground operations use low observability, increased situational awareness, and speed to overcome adversaries and ensure air dominance over any battlefield.

The proposed Air Force and Hawaii ANG (HIANG) initiative is to replace 15 Primary Aircraft Inventory (PAI), 2 Backup Aircraft Inventory (BAI), and 3 Reserve Aircraft Inventory F-15s (20 aircraft) with 18 PAI and 2 BAI F-22As (20 aircraft). Beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, F-22As would occupy the same HIANG location on the southern part of Hickam AFB currently occupied by the comparably sized F-15s. An estimated 20 facilities would be renovated and/or constructed over a 5-year period at a cost of approximately $146.4 million in FY 2007 dollars. F-22As would fly approximately 50 percent more missions than the F-15s in existing offshore airspaces currently used by the F-15s. As with the F-15s, the F-22As would conduct operations with defensive flares, chaff, and air-to-air munitions in approved overwater airspaces.

No Action at Hickam AFB means no replacement of the F-15 squadron by the F-22A squadron at this time.

d. For Additional Information: Contact HIANG Public Affairs, Captain Regina Berry, (808) 733-4258.

e. Designation: Environmental Assessment

f. Abstract: This EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Potentially affected environmental resources were identified through public scoping, communication with local, state, and federal agencies, and review of past documentation. In addition, letters were sent to Native Hawaiian groups soliciting their input. Specific environmental resources with the potential for environmental consequences include airspace management, noise, safety, air quality, physical resources, biological resources, cultural resources, land use and transportation, socioeconomics, and environmental justice.

Airspace management and air traffic control includes changes in the fighter approach pattern to Hickam AFB to reduce the potential for noise effects. These changes would not significantly affect either the airspace or air traffic control. Military aircraft average daily operations represent approximately 5 to 6 percent of the total 880 daily flights to the joint use Honolulu International Airport/Hickam AFB. Military average daily operations would increase from 53 with the F-15 to 65 with the F-22A. Training in offshore airspace would have no effect on airspace management or air traffic control.

Comparable take-off noise would occur with the F-15 (normally with afterburner) and the F-22A (with powerful engines that predominantly do not need afterburner). During landing, the proposed F-22A approach pattern would result in no discernible change to off-installation noise. In the overwater airspace, F-22A operations would produce more sonic booms than the F-15. The air-to-water interface attenuates sonic booms and rapidly reduces their intensity in the underwater environment. Design elements associated with infrastructure planning efforts should improve safety concerns. The F-22A would meet the Hawaii Air Defense requirements and operational training using live air-to-air munitions comparable to those used by the F-15. No F-22A air-to-ground munitions would be used in the Hawaiian Islands. The F-22A would use an estimated 2,318 fewer bundles of chaff and 784 fewer flares than are currently used by the F-15s during overwater training. The Honolulu area is in air quality attainment and no air quality impacts are projected.

Natural resources findings demonstrate that no practicable alternative exists for construction of some HIANG facilities within the 100-year floodplain. F-22A chaff produces more pieces of residual plastic or mylar than F-15 chaff. F-22A training would increase residual materials from the current 0.25 - 5.8 pieces to 0.6 - 13 pieces per square mile per year under offshore training airspace. Although not significant, any deposition of plastic or mylar materials in the northern Pacific Ocean could contribute to the amount of such materials entering the marine food chain. Sonic booms do not transfer to the water at sound levels that could harm or harass marine species.

None of the base buildings proposed for renovation or demolition meets the designation as an historic structure. The Fort Kamehameha historic district would not be affected by renovation or demolition of buildings in the HIANG area. No known Native Hawaiian traditional cultural sites or historic properties are projected to be impacted by HIANG facilities construction or F-22A operations.

Noise to off-installation land uses would not change with the proposed F-22A approach pattern being coordinated by the HIANG and FAA. There would not be any noticeable change in HIANG personnel levels within the Honolulu economy. HIANG aircraft replacement would not have a disproportionate impact on minority or low-income populations. There would be no impact upon children. There are no significant cumulative impacts from the F-22A replacement when considered with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)

AND

FINDING OF NO PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE (FONPA)

FOR

REPLACEMENT OF HA WAil AIR NATIONAL GUARD

F-15 AIRCRAFT WITH F-22A AIRCRAFT

AT HICKAM AIR FORCE BASE, HA WAil

PURPOSE: The purpose of the proposed action to replace Hawaii Air National Guard

(HIANG) F-15s with F-22As is to have national security assets positioned to rapidly respond to the directives of the President and Secretary of Defense and to provide the United States Air

Force (Air Force) with the capability to rapidly deploy to anywhere in the Pacific Rinl. For over two decades there has been a HIANG F-15 squadron at Hickam Air Force Base (AFB) with the organizational structure and infrastructure to support air superiority fighter aircraft. The

HIANG has an air superiority mission, has operational air superiority experience, and has extensive over-water training airspace to meet the needs for an F-22A operational squadron.

PROPOSED ACTION: The Air Force and Air National Guard (ANG) propose to replace the

HIANG F-15 aircraft with F-22A aircraft at Hickam AFB beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011. The proposal is to replace the 15 Primary Aircraft Inventory (PAl) F-15s, 2 Backup Aircraft

Inventory (BAl) F-15s, and 3 Reserve Aircraft Inventory F-15s (20 total aircraft) with 18 PAl

F-22As and 2 BAl F-22As (20 total aircraft). The replacement F-22A aircraft would occupy the same HlANG location on the southern part of Hickam AFB currently occupied by the comparably-sized F-15 aircraft. The F-22A squadron would need renovation and/or construction of an estimated 20 facilities to support the F-22A aircraft. Renovation and construction would be projected to occur over a 5-year period at a cost of approximately $146.4 million in Military Construction (MlLCON) and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) dollars.

Additional PAl F-22A aircraft and the projected improved maintenance capabilities of the F-22A mean that the F-22A would fly approximately 50 percent more missions from Hickam AFB than are currently flown by the F-15.

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE: No Action at Hickam AFB means no replacement of the F-15 squadron with an F-22A squadron at this time. No Action could affect future mission capabilities of the Pacific Air Forces (PACAF). No Action is equivalent to baseline conditions at

Hickam AFB, which include the HIANG operational F-15 squadron and F-15 aircraft training in the offshore Warning Areas and Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspaces (ATCAAs) north and south of Oahu.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:

Potentially affected environmental resources have been identified through public scoping meetings, communications with state and federal agencies, and review of past environmental documentation. In addition, letters were sent to Native Hawaiian groups soliciting input.

Specific environmental resources with the potential for environmental consequences include airspace management and air traffic control (including airport traffic), noise, safety, air quality, physical (including water) resources, biological resources, cultural resources, land use

(including recreation and transportation), socioeconomics, and environmental justice.

Hickam AFB is a joint use facility with Honolulu International Airport. The airport supports approximately 880 daily flights, of which approximately 5 to 6 percent are military flights.

Military average daily operations, including based and transient aircraft, would increase from

53 with the F-15 to 65 with the establishment of the F-22A squadron. The HIANG and the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) continue to coordinate and identify workable solutions for the F-22A as they have done for the F-15. The HIANG will leverage the experiences from the F-15 approved practices that minimize noise consequences surrounding communities when developing procedures in conjunction with the FAA for the F-22A aircraft. Airspace management for the airfield and the airspace would not have a significant impact.

F-22A engines are more powerful and louder than F-15 engines. Noise in the environs of

Hickam AFB and Honolulu International Airport is dominated by commercial traffic, which represents 94 to 95 percent of the daily aircraft operations. The HIANG is currently working with the FAA to propose a landing approach which avoids the straight-in pattern and increases approach altitudes. With these revised patterns, application of recognized noise models demonstrates essentially no discernible change in off-base noise associated with the replacement of F-15s with F-22As.

Existing offshore training airspace would be used for F-22A training. In the overwater airspace, there would be an increased number of sonic booms. The altitude of F-22A training, which in general is higher than that for the existing F-15s, would result in many of these sonic booms being detected as distant thunder. The air-to-water interface attenuates booms and rapidly reduces their intensity to the underwater environment. Recreational areas near the HlANG and overwater recreational activities could experience increased sonic boom effects, but would not be significantly impacted by replacing the F-15 aircraft with F-22A aircraft.

The F-22A would fly with live air-to-air munitions comparable to those used by the air defense requirements and training. The F-22A would have increased on-base safety arcs over those of the F-15 and the Explosive Safety Plan for Hickam AFB would require an update in accordance with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 91-201. No significant impacts are expected to safe on-base operations. New and improved HIANG facilities would permit incorporation of current safety technology. This includes safety setback locations and improved maintenance facilities. This is projected to have no noticeable change in bird aircraft strike hazards risk.

The Honolulu area is in air quality attainment for all criteria pollutants. Temporary construction emissions could produce localized short-term, elevated emissions. Some construction and renovation would replace older equipment with new, lower emission equipment. Local air quality or visibility would not be significantly affected from construction or operations. No change is projected to air quality within the Honolulu area, and no conformity determination is required.

On-base renovation and construction would occur at several previously disturbed locations within the HIANG area on Hickam AFB. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) storm water permits and the site specific Storm Water Pollution Control Plan

(SWPCP) (also referred to as Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan [SWPPP]) would be updated with best management practices (BMPs). Improvements to handle storm water surges would be designed into new facilities. New environmentally controlled facilities would be constructed to support maintenance of low-observability coatings on F-22A aircraft. No significant effects would occur to earth or water resources, hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, or the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) (also known as Environmental Restoration

Program [ERP]). Effects to marine resources under the airspace would be comparable to those currently existing with F-15 training. The different F-22A chaff, sizes of the airspace, and the amount of chaff and flare use would result in 0.6 to 13 pieces of plastic or Mylar material being deposited annually per square mile of ocean under the training airspace. Although this is more than the current 0.25 to 5.8 pieces per square mile under the training airspace with the F-15 training, no significant impact is expected from this change.

Demolition or construction of facilities would occur on previously disturbed HIANG areas.

Construction and base aircraft operations would not be expected to impact sensitive biological resources. Sonic booms in the airspace would not be expected to transfer from the air to the water at sound levels that could result in harm or harassment to marine mammals or other marine species. Plastic or Mylar pieces of debris from chaff or flares are inert and are currently randomly distributed under the airspace. Although not significant, any deposition of plastic or

Mylar materials in the northern Pacific Ocean could increase the amount of such materials entering the marine food chain.

None of the base buildings proposed for renovation or demolition meets the designation as an historic structure. Portions of historic Fort Kamehameha are located within and immediately adjacent to the HIANG area on Hickam AFB. None of these historic facilities would be directly affected by construction activity. In compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act (NHPA), Hickam AFB has completed consultation with State Historic

Preservation Division (SHPD) regarding the Proposed Action. SHPD has concurred that the

Proposed Action has no adverse affect to historic resources. HIANG has contacted the Office of

Hawaiian Affairs regarding the Proposed Action. If a human burial were to be encountered during project construction, it would be managed in compliance with the Memorandum of

Agreement (Burial Treatment Plan) among the Air Force, the Office of the Hawaiian Affairs, Hui Malama I Na Kupuna '0 Hawai'i Nei, and the Oahu Island Burial Council. Therefore, impacts to traditional resources would be expected to be negligible. On-base renovation and construction is consistent with the Base General Plan.

The Proposed Action would generate an estimated 700 construction jobs and $37.0 million in direct earnings. The Honolulu City and County area have an adequate workforce to supply needed construction workers. The replacement of F-15 with F-22A aircraft would not noticeably change personnel levels from those currently supporting the F-15 squadron at

Hickam AFB. The relatively small effects of HIANG aircraft replacement would not have a disproportionate impact on minority or low-income populations within the City or County of

Honolulu. There would be no expected significant impact upon children.

Construction within the HIANG area would occur within the 100-year return flood hazard zone. Because nearly the entire installation is located within this zone, there are no practicable alternatives to construction of new facilities within the HIANG lease area at Hickam AFB. It would not be practicable to relocate the entire HIANG installation from its current site. The

HIANG, in coordination with the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program, Office of

Planning, will execute a consistency determination process to ensure Coastal Zone Management concurrence. It is anticipated that the Proposed Action will qualify for a Negative

Determination due to the types and locations of proposed facilities, and because no activities will occur within the shoreline setback area. Construction activities will be monitored by a qualified professional archaeologist (Base Historic Preservation Office [BHPO]) during earthmoving activities near these sites. If archaeological resources are encountered, work would stop at that location and the discovery would be reported to the security forces and the

BHPO.

FINDING OF NO PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE: Pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management; the authority delegated in HQ USAF I A7C Memorandum on Re delegation of Environmental Authorities for Air Force Installations of 9 December 2004; and taking the above information into consideration, I find that there is no practicable alternative to this action and that the action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to the existing environment. The HIANG Environmental Management Office (EMO) provided a 30-day public review period and sent notices to appropriate government organizations including the Hawaii

Coastal Zone Management Program Office and the Honolulu district of the United States Army

Corps of Engineers (USACE).

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI): Based on my review of the facts and analysis in the Environmental Assessment, I conclude that the Proposed Action will not have a significant impact either by itself or considering cumulative impacts. Accordingly, the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental

Quality (CEQ), and 32 CFR 989, et seq. have been fulfilled, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not necessary and will not be prepared.

PETERS. PAWLING

Brigadier General, USAF Commander, 154th Wing

~I ~(o 0(

Date

2lL;~-

WILLIAM M. CORS

Colonel, USAF Director, Installations and Mission Support Pacific Air Forces

Date

REPLACEMENT OF F-15 AIRCRAFT WITH

F-22A AIRCRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

September 2007

Replacement of F-15 Aircraft with F-22A Aircraft Environmental Assessment Table of Contents Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................... INSIDE BACK COVER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................ES-1

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE HAWAII AIR NATIONAL GUARD REPLACEMENT

OF F-15 AIRCRAFT WITH F-22A AIRCRAFT .................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Purpose of F-22A Replacement of F-15 Aircraft at Hickam AFB ........................................ 1-2

1.2 Need to Replace the HIANG F-15 with F-22A Aircraft ........................................................ 1-2

1.3 Hickam AFB................................................................................................................................ 1-4

1.4 Aircraft Characteristics.............................................................................................................. 1-6

1.4.1 Aircraft Characteristics of the F-15 ............................................................................ 1-8

1.4.2 Aircraft Characteristics of the F-22A .......................................................................... 1-8

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ............ 2-1

2.1 Identification of Alternatives.................................................................................................... 2-2

2.1.1 Identification of Siting Criteria .................................................................................. 2-2

2.1.2 Review of Candidate Basing Locations .................................................................... 2-6

2.1.3 Alternatives Carried Forward: Facility Locations on Hickam AFB..................... 2-6

2.1.4 Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward................................................ 2-6

2.2 Elements Affecting Hickam AFB ............................................................................................. 2-7

2.2.1 Proposed Base Operations.......................................................................................... 2-7

2.2.2 Proposed HIANG Facilities ........................................................................................ 2-8

2.2.3 Proposed HIANG Personnel .....................................................................................2-14

2.2.4 No Action Alternative at Hickam AFB ....................................................................2-14

2.3 Elements Affecting Training Airspace ...................................................................................2-14

2.3.1 F-22A Training Flights Within Hawaiian Airspace................................................2-19

2.3.2 Defensive Countermeasures......................................................................................2-20

2.3.3 No Action Alternative Within the Hawaiian Airspace..........................................2-22

2.4 Environmental Impact Analysis Process ...............................................................................2-22

2.4.1 Environmental Assessment Process.........................................................................2-22

2.4.2 EA Organization .........................................................................................................2-22

2.4.3 Scope of Resource Analysis .......................................................................................2-23

2.4.4 Public and Agency Input ...........................................................................................2-23

2.5 Regulatory Compliance.............................................................................................................2-24

2.6 Environmental Comparison of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative ...........2-34

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ON HICKAM AIR FORCE BASE AND IN MILITARY OR

OFFSHORE TRAINING AIRSPACE .................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Airspace Management and Air Traffic Control ..................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Definition of Resource................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.2 Hickam AFB and Honolulu International Airport.................................................. 3-1

3.1.3 Hawaii Operations Areas ........................................................................................... 3-2

3.2 Noise ............................................................................................................................................ 3-4

3.2.1 Definition of Resource................................................................................................. 3-4

3.2.2 Hickam AFB and Honolulu International Airport.................................................. 3-8

3.2.3 Military Training Airspace ........................................................................................3-12

3.2.3.1 Subsonic Flight ........................................................................................3-12

3.2.3.2 Supersonic Flight ....................................................................................3-13

3.3 Safety...........................................................................................................................................3-14

3.3.1 Definition of Resource................................................................................................3-14

3.3.2 Hickam AFB ................................................................................................................3-14

3.3.2.1 Ground Safety .........................................................................................3-14

Page ii Table of Contents

3.3.3 Hickam AFB and Regional Military Training Airspace ........................................3-15

3.3.3.1 Flight Safety .............................................................................................3-15

3.3.3.2 Chaff, Flares, and Explosives Safety.....................................................3-17

3.4 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................3-18

3.4.1 Definition of Resource................................................................................................3-18

3.4.2 Regional Air Quality ..................................................................................................3-20

3.5 Natural Resources - Physical Resources ................................................................................3-21

3.5.1 Definition of Resource................................................................................................3-21

3.5.2 Hickam AFB ................................................................................................................3-22

3.5.2.1 Earth Resources.......................................................................................3-22

3.5.2.2 Water Resources......................................................................................3-22

3.5.2.3 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management ..................................3-25

3.5.3 Military Training Airspace ........................................................................................3-28

3.5.3.1 Marine Resources Under Airspace.......................................................3-28

3.6 Natural Resources - Biological Resources..............................................................................3-28

3.6.1 Definition of Resource................................................................................................3-28

3.6.2 Hickam AFB ................................................................................................................3-30

3.6.3 Military Training Airspace ........................................................................................3-32

3.7 Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................3-34

3.7.1 Definition of Resource................................................................................................3-34

3.7.2 Hickam AFB ................................................................................................................3-34

3.7.2.1 Historical Setting.....................................................................................3-34

3.7.2.2 Identified Cultural Resources ...............................................................3-36

3.8 Land Use and Transportation..................................................................................................3-39

3.8.1 Definition of Resource................................................................................................3-39

3.8.2 Hickam AFB ................................................................................................................3-39

3.8.2.1 Land Use ..................................................................................................3-39

3.8.2.2 Transportation on Hickam AFB and Environs ...................................3-44

3.8.2.3 Recreation on Base and Under Military Training Airspace ..............3-44

3.9 Socioeconomics..........................................................................................................................3-45

3.9.1 Definition of Resource................................................................................................3-45

3.9.2 Hickam AFB and Environs........................................................................................3-45

3.9.2.1 Population and Housing........................................................................3-45

3.9.2.2 Economic Activity...................................................................................3-46

3.9.2.3 Public Services.........................................................................................3-46

3.10 Environmental Justice...............................................................................................................3-47

3.10.1 Definition of Resource................................................................................................3-47

3.10.2 Hickam AFB and Environs........................................................................................3-47

4.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ON HICKAM AIR FORCE BASE

AND IN TRAINING AIRSPACE......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Airspace Management............................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Proposed Action........................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................. 4-2

4.2 Noise ............................................................................................................................................ 4-3

4.2.1 Proposed Action........................................................................................................... 4-3

4.2.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................4-10

4.3 Safety...........................................................................................................................................4-10

4.3.1 Proposed Action..........................................................................................................4-11

4.3.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................4-12

4.4 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................4-12

4.4.1 Proposed Action..........................................................................................................4-13

Table of Contents Page iii

4.4.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................4-15

4.5 Natural Resources - Physical Resources ................................................................................4-15

4.5.1 Proposed Action..........................................................................................................4-15

4.5.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................4-19

4.6 Natural Resources - Biological Resources..............................................................................4-19

4.6.1 Proposed Action..........................................................................................................4-19

4.6.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................4-20

4.7 Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................4-22

4.7.1 Proposed Action..........................................................................................................4-22

4.7.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................4-24

4.8 Land Use and Transportation..................................................................................................4-26

4.8.1 Proposed Action..........................................................................................................4-26

4.8.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................4-27

4.9 Socioeconomics..........................................................................................................................4-28

4.9.1 Proposed Action..........................................................................................................4-28

4.9.1.1 Construction-Related Consequences....................................................4-28

4.9.1.2 Operations-Related Consequences.......................................................4-28

4.9.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................4-29

4.10 Environmental Justice...............................................................................................................4-29

4.10.1 Proposed Action..........................................................................................................4-29

4.10.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................4-29

5.0 CUMULATIVE CONSEQUENCES ..................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Cumulative Effects Analysis..................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions................................................ 5-2

5.1.1.1 Hickam AFB and Other Military Actions............................................. 5-2

5.1.1.2 Non-Federal Actions ............................................................................... 5-2

5.1.2 Cumulative Effects Analysis ...................................................................................... 5-2

5.2 Other Environmental Considerations ..................................................................................... 5-8

5.2.1 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity................ 5-8

5.2.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources...................................... 5-8

6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 6-1

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................................................ 7-1

APPENDIX A CHARACTERISTICS OF CHAFF

APPENDIX B CHARACTERISTICS AND ANALYSIS OF FLARES

APPENDIX C AGENCY COORDINATION

APPENDIX D AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT

APPENDIX E AIRCRAFT NOISE ANALYSIS

APPENDIX F AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS EMISSIONS DATA

Page iv Table of Contents

TABLES

2.1-1 Summary of Selection Criteria to Beddown an F-22A Operational Squadron ................................ 2-3 2.1-2 Application of Siting Criteria.................................................................................................................. 2-4 2.2-1 Proposed Facility Actions to Support F-22A Aircraft.........................................................................2-11 2.2-2 Baseline and Proposed Aircraft (PAI) Assigned to Hickam AFB .....................................................2-12 2.2-3 Hickam AFB/Honolulu Airfield Annual Operations ........................................................................2-12 2.2-4 HIANG Annual Facility Expenditure (in FY 2006 dollars)................................................................2-12 2.3-1 Projected F-22A Training Activities Similar to F-15 Training ...........................................................2-17 2.3-2 Projected F-22A Simulated Air-to-Ground Training Activities ........................................................2-18 2.3-3 Projected Comparable F-15 and F-22A Altitude Use.........................................................................2-19 2.3-4 Baseline F-15 and Projected F-22A Annual Sortie-Operations in Warning Areas..........................2-20 2.3-5 Existing and Proposed Chaff Use (Annually in bundles of chaff)....................................................2-21 2.3-6 Existing and Proposed Flare Use (Annually in number of flares)....................................................2-22 2.4-1 Community Outreach Scoping Meeting ..............................................................................................2-23 2.4-2 Summary of Public Comments and Notes from Scoping/Community Outreach .........................2-25 2.4-3 Draft EA Public and Agency Comments..............................................................................................2-26 2.6-1 Summary of Potential Consequences by Resource.............................................................................2-35 3.1-1 Annual Operations................................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.1-2 Description of Warning Areas ................................................................................................................ 3-4 3.2-1 Representative Maximum Sound Levels .............................................................................................. 3-6 3.2-2 Representative Sound Exposure Levels ................................................................................................ 3-7 3.2-3 Percentage of Population Highly Annoyed By Elevated Noise Levels ............................................