Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Item A
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: July 31, 2012 Division: Bulk Item: Yes _ No _ Department: Staff Contact Person/Phone #: AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Joint Workshop between the Monroe County the Board of County Commissioners, the Key West City Commission and the U.S. Navy regarding the Naval Air Station Key West Airfield Operations Draft Environmental Impact Study (NASKW DEIS). The Navy will present the Naval Air Station Key West Airfield Operations Draft Environmental Impact Statement (NASKW DEIS) and the proposed operational alternatives at Naval Air Station Key West (NASKW) which may impact the County and the City of Key West. ITEM BACKGROUND: On June 29, 2012, the Department of the Navy published a notice of availability of the NASKW DEIS in the Federal Register. The DEIS is available electronically at www.keywesteis.com. All comments on the DEIS must be postmarked or received online by August 28, 2012, to be considered in the Final EIS. The NASKW DEIS addresses the potential effects of future aircraft and airfield operations at NASKW. The Navy evaluated three action alternatives for new aircraft and future airfield operations at NASKW, and a No Action alternative in the Draft EIS as follows: No Action Alternative — Annual airfield operations would continue to occur at a level similar to present (approximately 47,500 annual operations), support of existing capabilities would continue, no new aircraft would be introduced, and no facilities would be altered to support next generation aircraft training operations. Alternative 1 — Annual airfield operations would continue to be maintained at a level similar to present (approximately 47,500 annual operations), plus legacy aircraft would gradually transition to next generation aircraft, and existing facilities would be altered to meet requirements for next generation aircraft. Alternative 2 — Same as Alternative 1, plus provides the flexibility to accommodate additional carrier air wing Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) training at NAS Key West when primary carrier air wing training locations around the U.S. are unavailable. Additional carrier air wing FCLP operations would vary annually based on availability of the primary training locations, but could total up to 4,500 additional annual operations (2,250 patterns). Total annual airfield operations could equal approximately 52,000 operations. Alternative 3 — Same as Alternative 2, plus provides added operational capacity and flexibility to effectively meet Navy training requirements under the Fleet Readiness Training Plan with an approximately 10 percent increase in other annual airfield operations. Total annual airfield operations could equal approximately 57,000 operations. Note, the Navy has not selected a Preferred Alternative at this time. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: N/A CONTRACT /AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: N/A TOTAL COST: INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes No DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS: REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes _ No AMOUNT PER MONTH Year APPROVED BY: County Atty — OMB/Purchasing Risk Management DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # _Ai 6D S Tq *F � ,7, , 1 1 j a r r ) (----1 . , 10)444:i'' \ „aces L° 1 NAVAL AIR STATION KEY WEST AIRFIELD OPERATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) Navy representatives are available to provide information and answer questions. 1 1 --).4.-11t,.. &, t x t vf -ze.....' ,, , , OA \,,, s t ti ; > ■ .1 :;! ... ' .111 ." i ' S '` N � w .{ pi -, f ,...4 . i ry 1 , 4 ,1 z t I. 4-* 1 Open House Meetings from 5:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. Date Location Wednesday, August 1 Doubletree Grand Key Resort Conference Room, Key West, FL Thursday, August 2 Tennessee Williams Theater at Florida Keys Community College 1 Key West (Stock Island), FL i For more information, please visit the project website at: www.keywesteis.com 0 F' R • r = I r ' : � . 1 R _ 'a z A i i W C IT4 .t:, _ y cfS C.) 7! }' • . cn .-,....::: f : 4 * "4: 3 3 w 3 m u r �� 3 v.. w w t+. C .144 u y O N }y u p 0 O .., w d t4 ,•L O O ' w " x v VI a z p . is U Q 8 d O 0 u M @ G. j ' Cu .4 b0 d to O C > .O p "- r S Ct q d .0 3 . E E 8 ' R' Ell ° c7— .1..a d i•• t b p V it, a; " 5 .8 e E ti . •. W 2 -] A U d to F..0 E .� e z • • • g .�- 2 W v [■ w H o E 0 w a v o w ■ w i = v C . fl ,. 1 1 1 ! 1110 () a ♦ so • m W� Y 4 t� O q I'7 . C t N A .o A >• LL O ° x O G 00 G O O O z G '''2j2,-`9, � fC R G V m A L �� "� O G 4..: .50- 2 Nova to A I.) > Qyc g wc E � Cr) �J (O Az 2M N N .r .� O , • Pd � E ? C O V ...-- w — v. O ?. i.n 0—=0-0—= 6i O A at N ° CZ ° a " A ° aA C ° o '.4' l N A yX ¢ A O A Gnr 3 3 z bo *4 RI g p p _J v L_ O tJ ; G OL O — O �' V • .4 W tl it N O v A W O y ca a .. CI ' • � , R O ¢ O — - , -/ ri p +.. z z g © v o� e' o _� yz_ 4, o �i v c 8, E g_ `= 0 3 Q ' 2 V v A A on .x co CG A w v ci A v w u ZQ C — �°° F, ° a O � O � a+ 7/ S, •x z z 0 0 ., •ti v� u z y a O �, •p.■ u '� a, ro Cn Ca O H CU CU O ' o el O W m I t ' ,.:1'',. ,, .: ..- d 5 N v > - z' y t O r-i c> C o w 2. Cl V _ � Q Q w 11 1111 0 rd eS F ] ' 1 r V 1 o w .}a j 3 �� 1 a 1 N s w /' 1 ty, W 1 i � > ., " R _ • u 0 x -o -o a 0 co w Z credo d a e o N e o V o w � e w � + + + o .. y .a y 4. pbzG - cn 75, d >, a g"ci b ho w lfI ea 0 -i y w 3 1 _ 1 i"1 N M U 7 � d N o m v m c ¢ < ■❑ z< ea CA Z m G fa g C v O •� .° 4- . o .M v o . o iii oo ci) ar t . 4 v ` g 1 FA °� i-1 o, o v, n ea U ea 0.,— A > -. co M p E '-, .• ,d 4.4 .� '� a 'G . v 0 Y i ' 3 r. O v v -4 GO cn • • • k.. V W bp Y y� a/ ' It 0 s MI L ti CO 1 I II v, o a v • 4 'o m a t o i o ea v W o o Zo V 2v o in • • • • > S :j1 3 caiV al I:4 6 4 t-g i E ci J, i , • u › s. R! a o i uflo g i 1 -- ,,, , , ,i. -si 0 9 _ _1 ry ya Q * 7 1y I. t vl N t •, * a • v g O r O a v CA N , , 44 -...' '''',•1-,,J t CA A , 1 , r ♦ !' 71 f y �A.♦ ° � ''.,!, pmi ,., . -..,, - ' 1 # , . .c.r1 0!... , 1140<‘ , t • it <� s• 1` O p A U 1, ate* ?Psis ■ :' • Il N v . »� \ ii l U . t�. a V i 4!:9 y X . N \ V ' '1•-,1 7111.11mme) ''' 1 '' ' ''' 0. • - '` 't1 " N I .. •ts y 0 • m Q r 44 z .i.■ a E y a A N H '• W ko 1 m 2 18 r as•ci 0 w N c a L' . Vr ti Z. E z O E, 6' a 4 }{ C> 7L 4.4 ;..4 0 d 5 l Q 1%0 STq 41„i...„. , • - w .,. ,. Field e d Car ri r e Practice P 0 y a-: ,: 1o) NAS Key West Boca Chica Field Approximate Boundary , - Flight Tracks 0 7 F 1 03F3 V 03F2 07F2_, - 03F1 07F3 4. j .., .. . .-Tql1rr:::.--- .' 41 4- Vot ' 0 ,, z . - - 1/4.„... , 1/4. . „...\. ,; 4 . _,: _ __,,,,,_-.......____ 7 " --- ...-.14,...414,:). .. t ic „. :". . t , 1 , i' a r t ''' r .: • ; 2 „- f { 1 13F2 ' ill . . . ,1 a N. '� .. �� 13F3 N A 0 1 1 Wm Aircraft touches down on simulated carrier deck and climbs back to pattern altitude I i — De scending turn i Climbs straight ahead, turns 90' ... L downwind at 600' AGL '440' AGL ~ , Do wnw ind 075 NM � 9 Aircraft slows to approach speed and decends to pattern altitude arcra 1.30 - 01.5 \ ii Y ` ., NM i \ 14/, thin So , 0 \ . Nway 800' AGL 0.75 NM -- _ — 800' AGL Above Ground Level NM Nautical Mile For more information, please visit the project website at: www.keyweste S E .O 1 O ` ' • • • V a .� 3 mss. • O - `x • et Q _ i ` ti • N r :t 0 • 4 V/ T �� • {`" •�1 cz • z O x X I o e y ., 3 a W o O ^1 /II1111 1 w 6 5 ry by (.9 4. * ',O.: 1 t W Y ye • N o� ' p L c r � a c a� ywp 413 IA - w v55 0 0 ' G • 1 ' : Au — CU = N ° 5 W t cu Z . b .--• a) E ow p m y O N c �, w E G N G Yom' b�: E ▪ a o a o v y s v _a A " Y b v .5 a. a a E N I a a, — t ob o p. .. E :: 6 a w v E • c. „ c = . 0. 1'a :: . °: u. 0 z E S U • • .. v v im . G o G O 8 Q a' d n 7 O O m = G a CU �; aJ c 00 li :: 0 8 Ho c a', 3 cJD a, c o v m V X v y y ° M 5 V .� b R -O W ^ , y ;� ' Cj S � co of .N' � . 7 ` i 4 .5 (!1 .5 G of a E . ° m ¢ v i au q 1 o o o b c+ t. a ° c m at, o V ..* 3 *4 5 + a &' E o a -o a v V / ' .o -. .a X w '$ A v - . ( ,' v A . 0 y "> • 1 c °' a s r o C 4 . 4 O t •o Ct a as o g S c co , v a, " o r y lg •° ° v H E a� $_ o ar • In > v 'r. c n .. c O d d 6 N .v + v E A a ca'a v t 2. 1 111 I -4 • ,, O o T < v Z° 1 00 1h _°, < 0 • • • • an • • a V- W P. zop 1 ww_� o vc.� o a o v . ,� ° o ° . o a y c ""-" t o o y a, E Oo = J a O< p a, . w " V m r. f, c °:b m .J ° v A 3 a .w c ° 'o E 2542 c> u .� : w 3 9.. p m `. t i. fi a c V c • • V r . u M N a a, M V y P, Z eD f Cr v v 8y a o w x N 3 L S 151 v m , .. A G A •., x an 00 cn :' � nI 1 Icc ccrabb ~ ro 'fl O° A. vy . C U M ". N p a,, v 6 E v o va "v� • • • g a4 R E J w N W �� rt 4 a, el a, Z 0 - 1 1 7; 4 K 7 w ...... A` t'" 7 N N N N v ti r. 1 /, T a r, ro R x w z CC V ' : 11,4 ,r,*S.At , em , C+ , ..0 00 ` ^ z a v ' . . s J r �' --� a i i c v) w Z. y + 0 C ,--, N M y 0 O G, N G 9 j 4 11 C i es ea g i 1! N E . E . E .- 1 ?711`11 s in a, e m d d d m r—I V o E I ; C v S N '0 { M •� w T U 1 an PO Q,) u., rn CA o (L) v t ` N � ..- m Lc' UN w (ID a ' w O t _ 3 a -�— '` 0 3 vl i- '1 II II CU et o, -• ,U o 0 o c CL) x w i- i a z E i Fo u em 00 � a s . 0 u '6 "O '6 .. _ V e,� w _ v r • c v 2y 0 0 � .. on C7 0 0 ` . o v " L el E 11 U _ ii b o ci. it v < z qq 71d si l I I 1 I ?1 � \ a Z i is . 9 f . ' 4 5 L * t 4 . - W C cct V. ". C A o v xW �� y Q ICI ii n ' v v s .� '•3 q = f . •m �.J o 4J y 0 N b g a. t� g, '7 ' ,..i ; y r ' 4- \ 't � P) w ��_ R ',-' 3 1 a > ° O N m t O . Gin q O °J H +r O v V ci W wj N Y ai R i� H•' � O 2, V ,4 -T3 w 4 ".n o ..4 4.1 CU MS Z 'C Q a a M y O ^ o ¢ '" - 0 O o } � • t o N N N " N N •.q .r a. k `• O q U N W £ y 0 v RI cu 4.) vW = N w ^' n o o 11 cc 4611 Y 3 � 6 > C _ G a N ^J ,Ii ..." • L l Z ‘p o a 3 Cam" th ! � / �N y '.r. R o f. V ' i v # I r. R . 6 ev v 1. 14 .4 q i CY . a Z O R" .4 E N ° . 3 0 0 `� 3 . ∎ , 0..-0 — w O q ,o a.a d . LT41 -5 5 �� o 0) > E. ■ ■ ■ P �� o 7 „...."--K `le.D STgr� T Is, py I/ r . All Naval Air Station Key West a Airfield Operations Environmental Impact Statement B -*-::::--,-,--;-. le 4 , 4,„..„...... ,,,,,,,,.. ,, . . Ir. # . 0 .. a �� fit i lk . i t [ ' + 4' } A Lf..�_. l • j r• - A S te* + _ } $ % / J \ Draft blie Meeting Informational Materials 4. 0'6' August 2012 r • 1 111 - witishabigiiiim AO II What's • Public Meeting Guide • Public Involvement Process • Information about NAS Key West • Project Schedule Inside: Comment Sheet • Proposed Action and Alternatives • • Findings of the Draft EIS 1 ` .QED * z o PUBLIC MEETI ok I 'oRCES co Welcome to the public meeting for the Naval Air Station (NAS) Key West Airfield Operations Draft Environmental Impact Statement (FPS). The Draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of new aircraft and future airfield operations at NAS Key West. This handout provides brief guidance on how you can participate in this public meeting. • This meeting follows an open -house format with no formal presentation by the Navy. v • Navy representatives are here to solicit your comments on the Draft EIS; we have several stations E and displays where you can get information and ask questions from members of the team _ Gm including naval aviators, planners, and experts in many relevant environmental fields. nt • While you may choose to visit stations /displays in any order, we have arranged them in an order ,,_, that facilitates understanding of the Draft EIS findings and the EIS process. v cc: Cli E Station 4 0 Accident Potential Zones 4J and Flight Paths E Station 3 Station 5 • 0 Noise Effects Environmental Effects ' ri of Alternatives w 4Pr- Open House Format 0 • : r r Station 6 ; Y our Involvement in Station 2 the EIS Proposed Action and la 0 Alternatives v Comment Table and ,,, Stenographer Station 1 Importance of NAS 1 a cn Welcome Key West and EIS (Sign In Table) CU 0 During the Draft EIS comment period, the public can provide input in various ways: j tt •Submit your comments today at the Public Meeting, •Electronically enter your comments at www.keywesteis.com, and •Write your comments and mail them to: j Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southeast > NAS Key West Air Operations EIS Project Manager J Z P.O. Box 30, Building 903 NAS Jacksonville, FL 32212 j To ensure your comments are considered in the EIS, please submit them by August 28, 2012. 1 s?. ,ieD S7-4? L i � o ABOUT NAS K P r �TFORCES c.. _.. .... 1._ NAS Key West Mission "We exist to support operational and readiness requirements for Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, National Guard, federal agencies, and allied orces. g Primary Users and Based Command 5 The primary users of NAS Key West, the Navy's fleet squadrons that visit NAS Key West for several ra weeks at a time to conduct aviation training, depend on the facilities and services provided by NAS Key West. These include the Key West Range Complex, Tactical Combat Training System (the premier air combat training system), a full- service airfield, and a visitor quarters complex. ca Sag NAS Key West is home base to 22 aircraft, and can support up to approximately 80 visiting aircraft and 1,200 visiting personnel at one time, as well as provide port operations for visiting ships. During the 12 -month period beginning April 2009 and ending March 2010, NAS Key West hosted about 100 0 units that traveled to NAS Key West with one or more aircraft for training. a E More than 30 tenant commands call NAS Key West home. These include the following : G • Fighter Squadron Composite (VFC) 111, which flies F -5 aircraft and is one of the Navy's three ,i4 adversary squadrons. > • Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 106 Detachment, an FA -18 Hornet and Super Hornet training W squadron m • Joint Interagency Task Force South ,0 • U.S. Coast Guard Sector Key West .6-• • U.S. Army Special Forces Underwater Operations School a) • Construction Battalion Mobile Unit 202 Q '' O Navy SEALs tg . Gulf of ~ Mexico .1r cn r A2 Janire W 174G j r91 � 7D a) W174A W174F LJ a 4y � O / Florida . W174B(A) Bay ca p R2916 .. r .F ^ .+ MOA US 02174 VJ 174E �� /..I ` W465A L rl W174C(A) W1a4= (B) /� �w174C(B) Tel et W174D Iw Z Atlantic Ocean N A Key West Range Complex 50 Min s , -c ED AT ABOUT NAS K m °aces c °`r�P t Population Inclusive of tenant organizations, the NAS Key West population is approximately 8,300. This includes 3,000 military and civilian personnel and 5,300 dependents. • .. This equates to approximately 26 percent of the total g ; r <, <_" population in the Lower Florida Keys. _•p••_ v . Properties . ; NAS Key West occupies approximately 6,250 acres h' across several properties in the Lower Florida Keys, � '. the largest of which is Boca Chica Field, at worassiiiisminimiummi approximately 4,700 acres. Others include: 1....1 • Truman Annex: port operations, housing, visitor isi 71 quarters, beach patio, and several tenant activities •ii-• • Trumbo Point and Peary Court Annexes: diverse operational uses and housing E a) • Sigsbee Park Annex: central hub for family housing, community support, and recreation facilities .. • Navy Branch Medical Center 0 •■ Economic Impact of NAS Key West g NAS Key West contributes directly to the local economy in three major ways: jobs, expenditures by W cn squadrons that visit the Air Station for training, and expenditures for ongoing operations and C improvement projects. There are additional indirect impacts as NAS Key West spending leads to Ilw et businesses hiring employees who also spend their money on various goods and services, creating a ripple effect as dollars are spent and re- spent. $ • Jobs: As the largest employer in the Lower Florida Keys, the Navy pays more than $100 million annually in salaries to the approximately 3,000 military and civilian personnel at NAS Key West. Most 't v employees have family members that fill a wide range of jobs in the local market. Military personnel 4 not accommodated at the Air Station are provided a housing allowance in addition to their base •,-I salary. Approximately 47 percent of NAS Key West employees rent in the local economy. en • Visiting Squadrons: The economic impact of military personnel that visit NAS Key West for training is best measured by man days, which is akin to the visitor days unit used to estimate the economic impact of the tourism industry. Between April 2009 and March 2010, there were approximately 90,000 1 a) man days associated with the 94 units that traveled to NAS Key West with one or more aircraft for training. Depending on the season and whether visiting personnel are housed on- or off- Station, an O 1 estimated $60 to $270 is spent per person per day by visiting squadron personnel. CZ • Operations and Improvement Projects: T he Navy spends approximately , 4•.• y p pp y $32 million annually in V) operations and maintenance funds to keep the Air Station facilities in good condition. Additional • roll spending occurs on a case -by -case basis for military construction projects. Additional socioeconomic .-, benefit is realized from mutual aid agreements for law enforcement, fire, and emergency services; Z e� continuing education support; environmental stewardship; and large -scale contingency capabilities such as hurricane recovery. For more information about NAS Key West, see: www.cnic.navy.mil /KeyWest 1 1 � srg '� A PROPOSED ACTION T, A FT tt ill FORCES COe What is the Proposed Action? itt The Navy proposes to support and conduct future training operations and capabilities at NAS Key West by maintaining existing training operations, supporting new aircraft, and modifying training as necessary in support of the Fleet Readiness Training Plan (FRTP). 0 Why is the Navy Proposing this Action? a E The primary mission of NAS Key West is to provide aviation training facilities, et services, and access to training ranges for tactical aviation squadrons. NAS Key h� , . � , � - West's favorable weather conditions E support year -round fleet training, and its location provides efficient access to the +-' nearby Key West Range Complex, a g a) premier training range complex regularly f Defense and other " .} ��` O used by Department of ;•.4 0 federal agency aircrews from around the r \ r: I ;y D country to fulfill operational and readiness '''- . .. W training requirements. The primary users` ' 1 ` y ''° { •/� of NAS Key West are the Navy — , " J V� 's fleet : s � 4 1 , . squa These squadrons detach to ', et et NAS Key West for several weeks at a time - ., 1 . Ini to conduct operations to fulfill certain 0 training requirements that cannot be v accommodated at the fleet squadron -.- .. homebases. NAS Key West provides and maintains facilities and services for these " t, transient squadrons. r' tn In order to maintain NAS Key West as an ideal military aviation training site, it is important to y identify potential impacts associated with future airfield operations, and identify ways to address those potential impacts. L. ett NAS Key West Boca Chica Field Statistics: L • Visual conditions favorable for flying 98% of the time � • One 10,000 foot runway and two 7,000 foot runways • Total annual operations (takeoffs and landings): 1 d • -In 2011: 37,000 et -10 -year average: -47,500 IA Z -Prior to conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan: -60,000 I Ir a \ SEO S7. ALTJj,.. , __._.__. —__ �ReES co .. ......_ _ ... Summary of Main Components of Alternatives No Action Component Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Annual Airfield Operations 47,500 47,500 Up to 52,000 Up to 57,000 (+ --10 %) (+ -20 %) os . . Transition to New Aircraft No Yes Yes Yes 4 i Alter the Interiors of Existing Facilities to 4� Meet New Aircraft Requirements No Yes Yes Yes E A Accommodate Increased Carrier Air Wing t1 Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) No No Yes Yes u Accommodate Increase in Other Airfield e Operations No No No Yes E Anticipated Peak Personnel 781 781 920 920 an ~ * There would be no increase in FCLPs under the No Action Alternative (Existing Condition) or Alternative 1. Under Alternatives 2 ,-.a et and 3, NAS Key West could serve as a backup location for up to an additional 2,250 F /A -18 or F -35 FCLP patterns annually. Annual am Z CU carrier air wing FCLP operations would vary annually. (Note: A flight operation is equivalent to one takeoff or one landing.) E g Tran to New Aircraft No change in types of airfield � .� . O of Most Importance to the Draft EIS Analysis opera flight operational "` D procedures, course rules, or noise W w abatement procedures. tn C -" • Runway 07/25 remains the primary :� � " runway. rz • Runways 13/31 and 03/21 remain .a CU FA -ISC /D hornet F -35C Joint Strike Fighter the crosswind runways. (Navy Variant) 0 ._ • Selection of which runway is to be I ' ' used at any given time is primarily C CU determined by the local winds. - MI+ NAS Key West Wind Rose 1 and Runway Orientation V) P -3 Orion P -8 Poseidon 1 H it tV '''' .11. ‘..*411 • li Q o ^,►�� 1 .. A / _ ..... 25 (Ts F -15 Eagle F-22 W • .. g F Raptor . I TAN 03 31 A eligi IIMIk '1411111111 etl '7 7 Y.w.: Ifl Kns lKtl Oft.. 113 R 1 F -16 Fighting Falcon F -35A Joint strike Fighter r NA :K.y WaetFunw,yz (Air Force Variant) 1 J � `l e.o sTg a V.- i ► ALTERNATIVES SUMM r ��r ° RCes c °` Airfield Operations by Airfield Type- Existing Condition and Alternatives Existing Aircraft Type Environment Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 FA -18C /D 8,464 0 0 0 F -35C 0 8,464 10,718 11,609 FA -18E /F 11,688 11,688 13,848 15,078 F -5N 12,714 12,714 12,714 14,092 P -3 4,007 0 0 0 P -8 0 4,007 4,007 4,441 g F -16 1,421 0 0 0 a1 F -35A 0 1,421 1,421 1,575 5 F -15 445 0 0 0 GU F -22 0 445 445 493 rd ++ AV -8 344 0 0 0 F -35B 0 344 344 381 C O EA -6 62 0 0 0 O EA -18G 0 62 62 69 E Transient Jet - Fighter/Trainer 1,310 1.310 1,310 1,452 ►� (e.g., T -45, Hunter, A -10, A -4, KF!R, T -38) '-' Transient Jet - Cargo/Passenger 1,003 1.011 1,003 1112 c'� 0 (e.g., C -21, C -560, Gulfstream, Learjet, y Beech, Saber) E Transient Jet - Medium Transport 540 540 040 599 i (e.g., C -9, C -40) 0 is Transient Jet - Large Transport & Refuel 181 181 181 201 "" (e.g., C -17, KC -10, C -5) Z Transient Prop - Small /Medium 2,209 2,209 2,209 2.440 (17 (e.g., E- 2/C -2 CASA, G -159, T -34, C -12, cn C -26, T -6, Beech -36, Beech -9, Mitsubishi -20) p Transient Prop - Large 1,211 1 211 1,281 1,420 (e.g., C -130) • ;- Rotary Wing 1,831 1.831 1.831 2.030 4J Various 0-4 Total 47,500 47,500 51,914 57,001 y Note: ' The Navy E -2Cs are being replaced with the E -2Ds Tul 4 80,000 -- • 70030 - 3 r N 60,000 ' C - - *OY *uegere•47 G1 4j 50,000 C arc --A a g c _ x O Q 40,007 ... -. , , , 3 { s 30.000 u:i 1 20 000 IIR £ 10,000 111 I rd 51,5531 59,240 1 58,102 172777_I 39 4; 46 82 44 4,13 6 { 37,650 1 30,114 1 3 6 47,500 1 47,500 1 51,914 1 57,001 0 e 00. 0 0 1 ' 0 0'' 6? ,P dig 001 4§ 0 8' ` „o° e e e 'L ti ti 1 ti ti ti ti ti ti o ,, c a0, t c ,. e� P ��¢ P' e P>.¢ ‘ 0..0 STj . t �� FINDINGS OF .._____) The Draft EIS analyzed the potential environmental impacts of all alternatives on the following resources: • Noise • Safety I z "' • Land Use 5 • Air Quality a) • Cultural Resources f t • Transportation .la WI (,/) • Infrastructure ", Socioeconomics 1 t14 • Environmental Justice ' E • Protection of Children • Topography, Geology, and Soils 4.4 • Water Resources .` Z a) • Biological Resources E • Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Waste, Toxic Substances and Contaminated Sites abi 0 t~ 'y Key findings of the Draft EIS for the proposed action and alternatives, as well as the no -action W alternative, follows. Analysis of the No Action Alternative provides a benchmark that enables cn decision - makers to evaluate the environmental consequences of the proposed alternatives. National O Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations require that a No Action Alternative must be O evaluated. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no increase in air operations, and no et cu alterations to facilities to accommodate new aircraft. Therefore, baseline conditions would remain. PLI 0 Noise Modeling , rts SI ■• Noise modeling for the EIS used the best available data and models. lila Aircraft operational noise levels are measured in decibels (dB) using two common measurements: v Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL) • The average sound level exposure, measured in dB, over a 24 -hour period. so v • A 10 -dB penalty is added to noise events occurring between 10PM and 7AM. • Used to determine long term community response to environmental noise, particularly o Z aircraft noise. MI • Depicted as a continuous line around a noise source (contour line). tt Sound Exposure Level (SEL) we • Represents the total noise energy of a single event, such as a flyover, as if it occurred in one second. r" 1 Common Sounds and Noise Levels - (dB) at a Given Distance - Normal %aro:: A `N ti i Ni. o mn.a h on Ck amrr i - �1i� fl fll It N1 to la. kNmmer. Pam1u1W laud r Glum 11t 11f 0010 Z 0 10 20 30 40 50 6O 70 8 C` 9 100 `-11 120_1 130 �. 1 • Bird ( dl. Bight Ala Ck. Moivcrck Miban Fieh"r R k Drrn Am P111 ed Rock Maw IDi+4ri1 Frank Il fll RA PU Airo i50 i1i 14 A(11 1700 (H (I,RW fl) r hi lir 1 `eoST4 , AI • ∎s,, 2 CF FINDINGS OF THE EIS ,., P r �T F ORC ES CO . ; Noise Modeling Results: Comparison of Single Event Noise (in SEL) by Aircraft Type .. Legacy New Legacy New Other Altitude Aircraft Aircraft Aircraft Aircraft Aircraft Operation Type (ft AGL) FA -18C /D F -350 P -3 P-8 FA -18E /F F -5 .w+ Approach 1,000 109 102 84 87 113 92 41 Departure 1,000 117 119 91 96 115 108 Pattern 600 111 108 N/A N/A 119 N/A ri 1 rd AGL = Above Ground Level; N /A— Not Applicable Cn Off - Station Noise Exposure within NAS Key West 65 DNL an Greater Noise Contour it ccs No Action Alternative (Existing Environment): E '' 2,416 peop �-, • 1,273 housing units ett • 1,794 acres ;~ Alternative 1: 5 • + 13 people ( <1 %) H. 0 • + 14 housing unit (1 %) r 6. �O • + 12 acres (<1%) Alternative 2: i W • + 366 people (15 %) a to • + 184 housing units (14%) O • + 92 acres (5 %) Alternative 3: y • + 533 people (22 %) ¢' • + 271 housing units (21%) CD • + 154 acres (9 %) to Estimated Population within NAS Key West 65 DNL and Greater Noise Contour to 3,500 cn 3,000 ' S a) 2,500 • - c g 2,000 — • Existing Environment • rd ■ Alternative 1 CL 1,500 CA a L Alternative 2 L "" 1,000 • Alternative 3 500 IIII z _ 65 -70 DNL 70 -75 DNL 75 -80 DNL Total ____ _ a f. as -,,,„, ,-A ' FINDINGS O 7 or ._ ,. WA 1 • a ....\ \ WRy 1 - ' (�t4, r y / ____ z _ . .) ft T U _ � J_P /. N a�wegt . .? r / �;, • 41ii" 1 0- V t ' r' ``,��9 awF ald i • • OIC0.d F -•-•_, -. ... , ere Ct eri a) ,./ ...-. 7 .,........ - . 1 ... .. 0 • W am cn [oI NAS Key West Boca Chloe Field Approximate Boundary N NAS Key West Alternative Noise Contours (DNL) Alternative 1 A 0 = 60 e 65 re. elro rd = 70 in ;••I = 75 CU = 80 ea O eezma 85 ". NAS Key West Existing Condition Noise Contours (DNL) "• CO 70 -11 8 ..�. .. _ _. 171 �'�\+, I ` •.l eL _ CV 111 '''' t.. J'P ww N Ne We t . F r ... Bo f al • rl yi. ai 7 . ' - . - -\ . •' .... .. .• 1 „..,.„ - w.... , • i-I • • • /,, Alternatjve2 A 1 1 ,_ • FINDINGS OF THE EIS Fr � m CRCES� , „,..\\ ...... : ....... ...., ...... • . ...... , .. .... .. _•.. .. - _ ....,...,. „_..........•.„. . ..... ., ......„ . . is vim �' s .. (` , ". �I if.;' -- ,/ i cn • 4 l [ x V a v -. I got -: W t Ste k, ,t );4y • ,( 5 ' w' ! 1T z- c e .- s L hl uy Nf t " � ' � � �. Id � , �/ %� i . ... - • 0 1116 > W V) JJi NAS Key West Boca Chica Field Approximate Boundary N N 0 NAS Key West Alternative Noise Contours (DNL) .\ = 60 Alternative 3 _ _ , , •ry =-- 65 mi. .I■ 70 = 75 Cii) = 80 0 = 85 NAS Key West Existing Condition Noise Contours (DNL) 60 ry 65 Q 70 L 75 p.l 80 • 85 CL Total Acreage within 65 DNL and Greater Noise Contour 18,000 -- Qd 16,000 — t: g 14,000 12,000 ■Total Acreage ril 10,000 CA = = ;., 8,000 - - ■Total Land Acreage 6,000 _ (Excluding Water) cd 4,000 y RI 2,000 1 ! Z — Existing Environment Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 -D ST 7 , J 4• * * * S 0 f FINDINGS CJ ,c, �%0RCES CO��P -..... 1 Safety Accident Potential Zones (APZs) Would Not Change Under All Alternatives Although the likelihood of an aircraft mishap is remote, the Navy identifies areas of accident potential to assist in land use planning. APZs are not predictors of accidents. If an aircraft mishap were to occur, there is expected to be a higher probability of occurrence of the mishap within an APZ. These zones are delineated based on historical data and departure, arrival, and pattern flight tracks on and near airfield runways. Runways with fewer than 5,000 annual operations are assigned J Clear Zones, but not APZs I or II. The following types of APZs at NAS Key West are described and depicted in the figure below: • Clear Zone: the area where a mishap is most likely to occur, if one was to occur. J • APZ I: mishaps are less likely in APZ I than in the Clear Zone. • APZ II: mishaps are even less likely in APZ II than APZ I. r t , ' Implementation of Safety Programs Would Remain a Priority Under All Alternatives • All regulations and plans that pertain to runways, APZs, mishaps, Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH), and other flight safety considerations would continue to be followed. 1 Alternative - Specific Findings It is difficult to project safety /mishap rates of new aircraft that would be introduced under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3; however, the Department of Defense and Navy would continue to place a high priority on safety programs for introducing new aircraft including increased simulator training and increased safety features in the newer airframes. The slight increased risk of mishap associated with the increase in annual airfield operations under Alternatives 2 and 3 would remain below the historical mishap rates for NAS Key West. The slight increased risk of BASH potential associated with the potential increase in FCLP operations (which are conducted at a lower - altitude) would be • minimized through adherence to safety programs. r Q NAS Key West Boca Chloe Field Approximate Boundary ° � , >� ' Runways a } 1 Pnmary Surface APZs Clear Zone 1 - / ' X Accident Potential Zone J Accident Potential Zone 11 'APZ II (� ' f 1$ { wry' �iltl?" f' if !.. ' �. _ � ..: }+ t r; 4 '"t •• APZ II it, s 1 Q ; .'. z „ . � *1..� .i t 0'. .. . , r . y t t A PZ 1 ' 4 ,k •} S C Z Y .7 ' .. . C Z ?+ +•#'� : J ,....„-;,. j , ,,,_____ is ..... ..x: . e.:.• .,. _ ,.. • - . . .. : . %;:.: .. flit . c s �' +} , � • ] ' 1 ` . Q ED Sri,. J + * * FS FINDINGS OF .,,,,,,14,, ,,, F. 0 AO ° RC ES G° Land Use AO The land use analysis is focused on off - Station lands and the land area within the 65 DNL and greater noise zones and airfield safety zones. Within these zones, residential land use is not recommended. Land use compatibility was assessed from the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, AS which includes both existing and planned future land use patterns and includes "Residential Conservation" in addition to "Residential" land use. Residential Conservation lands are primarily for preservation/open space, with low- density residential use. r All Alternatives: • The Navy would continue to work with Monroe County elected officials, planners, and citizens to encourage compatible use adjacent to the Air Station. • Within the safety zones, 48 acres are designated as Residential and 61 acres are designated as Residential Conservation. No Action Alternative • 1,794 acres in areas of primarily compatible land uses • 238 acres in areas designated Residential and 299 acres in areas designated Residential Conservation The following changes in off - Station land use acreage would occur under the action alternatives • within Noise Zones 2 and 3 (65 DNL and greater). Alternative 1: • 12 -acre (1 %) increase in off- Off - Station Land Use Acreage and Residential Land Use Station land use acreage Acreage in 65 DNL and Greater Noise Contour • 2 -acre ( <1 %) increase in areas .. designated as Residential and 8 -acre (3 %) increase in areas designated as Residential No Action 537 acres Alternative 1,794 acres Conservation Alternative 2: • 92 -acre (5 %) increase in off- Station land use acreage 547 acres +1% 19% increase in areas Alternative 1 • 46 -acre ( ) 1,806 acres +1% designated as Residential and . 13 -acre (4 %) increase in areas designated as Residential 596 acres +11% Conservation Alternative 2 Ai Alternative 3: 1,886 acres +s% • 154 -acre (8 %) increase in off - Station land use acreage • 66 -acre (27 %) increase in areas 647 acres +20% Alternative 3 designated as Residential and 45- 1,948 acres + acre (15 %) increase in areas designated as Residential Monroe County Future Residential Land Use within 65+ DNL Conservation Total Lands within 65+ DNL \ eo s7 / y _ , ` �� ! FINDING ^ N / P Air Quality 1 • Negligible impacts associated with infrastructure upgrades. • Aircraft operational emissions would reduce existing mobile source emissions for all criteria • pollutants with the exception of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and oxides of sulfur (SOx). • cv, , • Continue to meet national ambient air quality standards. a. E • Negligible impacts to area air quality. ti Cultural Resources .. C!) • No adverse effects, including to the Geiger Key Hawk Missile Site, which is listed as eligible to be v included in the National Register of Historic Places and is located in close proximity to Boca ees Chica Field. E Transportation ,,,, Potential for minor localized increase in traffic under Alternatives 2 and 3 during peaks in ed deployment of personnel to NAS Key West for training that would not disrupt current ob transportation patterns or traffic safety. g Infrastructure •• 0 • Negligible impacts associated with minor overall increase in demand for transient billeting and '> utility services under Alternative 2 and 3. g W Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Protection of Children aft `n • No long -term changes to populations, employment, income, or housing trends. 0 • No disproportionate high and adverse impacts to low- income and /or minority populations. et • No increased safety or health risks to children. fisi CU ta '' Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Waste, Toxic Substances, and Contaminated Sites vai • All regulations and plans that pertain to hazardous materials, hazardous waste, toxic substances, y and contaminated sites would continue to be followed. ' i 4 • Through material substitutions, new aircraft are expected to use less environmentally sensitive _ materials and heavy metals than the aircraft they are replacing. cn �p y� T -. ,,j 0 k , III ' Ill � y •,, � -*ter v' , ' � ' -..q U.S. NAVAL AIR S y KEY WEST FLORIDA M . L` - tt f r _ Q .,,,,,„ , z , a- um Fe t' s 1 "e74 111 smog - � � I E ,,,;.e.74. s -1 1 sst„ S k *q *7s a FINDINGS Cat P a � ' bRCES G° � Topography, Geology, and Soils , • No effect on topography or geology. « C• No:,f A • Continued adherence to state and federal guidelines would continue to address soil erosion a,; ' 9 ' J .„ - , ` r , . 44 and sedimentation con ILs .. 1 Water Resources .# ' ..- , - CU No impact to wetlands. v" t , .,r • Facility upgrades would be implemented in ' Cn accordance with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain _ et Management. ' '� E • S tate and federal guidelines would be followed to — . t �..� protect water quality. �. F ,, Biological Resources t ' 1 ;' ! ' l ., CO • No loss of marine and terrestrial communities or 'wig ti +.. ., t t .. CO 5 wildlife habitat. j - . _ '- ' ' r, 0 • T errestrial and marine wildlife would continue to A '2 ' ` j A � , •� be managed in accordance with the Installations L 17;'r- .I Z Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. r'` I , . .0 i W • No effect to federally listed silver rice rat, roseate i$ i ` -, ' ,• ', ; ,'. '{ `� Z Z,, tern, nesting green sea turtle, nesting hawksbill �. i, r' � ' '' ;. �/ ,2 sea turtle, nesting leatherback sea turtle, ' ° , "k , 1 . } � � ;..�✓'i A Vie;. b American crocodile, Eastern indigo snake, ar smalltooth sawfish, Schaus swallowtail butterfly, -°` .. 0 elkhorn coral, Staghorn coral, sperm whale, fin - whale, humpback whale, right whale, sei whale, :,2: a) Garber's spurge, and Blodgett's wild mercury , • (candidate species). I Q • May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect cn Lower Keys marsh rabbit, nesting loggerhead sea N> 3 turtles, and Florida manatees. The Navy is in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife \ '' at Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding these findings. 0 et In addition to preparation of this EIS, the Navy has U analyzed potential impacts of other current and proposed actions in areas near NAS Key West. These � studies include the December 2009 Final Environmental Assessment /Overseas Environmental • Assessment (EA /OEA) for Atlantic Fleet Training in the Key West Range Complex and the May 2012 74 Draft Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Environmental Impact Statement /Overseas et Environmental Impact Statement (EIS /OEIS). In both of these documents, the Navy analyzed Z potential effects to biological resources, including marine mammals, sea turtles, birds, and other marine species. The Navy consulted with USFWS and NMFS on the 2009 EA /OEA findings and is currently consulting with USFWS and NMFS on the 2012 Draft AFTT EIS /OEIS findings. t o D S74 lab '0 : PUBLICINV . , FT 4-0,i.cEsce i Public Involvement: An Essential Part of the National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is the national charter for promoting productive harmony between man and the environment and minimizing the impacts of federal actions. This law requires all federal agencies to consider potential environmental effects of their proposed actions v and reasonable alternatives in making decisions about those actions. Public involvement is an essential part of the process. With public involvement and environmental analysis, the NEPA cri process helps the Navy arrive at the best possible informed decision. � .. as Informed decisions are based on a candid and factual presentation of environmental effects. These a., facts come from collecting information on the areas and resources (for examples, threatened and E endangered species, air quality, socioeconomics, noise, and land use) affected by the proposal, and then identifying the type and extent of potential effects resulting from the proposal. aJ This information is then presented in the Draft EIS. Following public review of the Draft EIS, E comments are considered and addressed in the Final EIS. The Navy then makes a decision on O implementing the Proposed Action or alternatives based in part on the analysis provided in the Final • •� EIS. Z W cn ALL AGENCIES MUST CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ANY eft • O MAJOR PROPOSED PROJECT eiz Public Involvement and Comments on the Draft EIS CU O The Navy's responsibility is to keep communities informed and involved. To this end, we met with , community representatives in the potentially affected area to discuss our Proposed Action to y transition to next generation aircraft and conduct airfield `� i . = operations at NAS Key West. We are now obtaining public and ,- agency comments on the Draft EIS. We anticipate comments from 1 cn ' community members such as business and community leaders; _ federal, state, and local elected officials; environmental groups; and 1 v , interested citizens —to name just a few. OJ The official public comment period began with the Notice of G Availability of the Draft EIS, which was published in the Federal • Register on June 29, 2012. The comment period will last until m •+-' August 28, 2012. During this time period, two open -house public Cn meetings will be held in locations central to the affected areas to n ak ° " 1) provide a forum for public comment to be submitted and il recorded, 2) relay the information and analysis contained in the > Draft EIS, and 3) encourage comments on the Draft EIS. Z I INFORMED DECISIONS ARE BASED ON A CANDID AND FACTUAL PRESENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Jai f..o ST.q,� * * S . PROJECT SCHEDULE , z P • �rF O ft Es CO Notice of Intent (May 12, 2010) Public Meetings g °' E Public Scoping Period 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (May 12, 2010 - June 10, 2010) Wednesday, August 1, 2012 i 03 DoubleTree by Hilton Grand Key E Draft EIS (June 29, 2012) Resort, Conference Room e • •..1 South Roosevelt Boulev ,• g i,est, FL E Agency Review 60 -Day Public o and Comment Comment Perio • Thursday, August 2, 2012 '> MR Tennessee Williams Theater at g W Florida Keys Community College o Final EIS (Summer 2013) 901 College Road, Ke _t FL . a, . -a Waiting Period The public meetings use an open Summer 2013) house format to allow for informal _ interaction between Navy y representatives and the public. 1111111111 C > a ecar• o D ecision (Fa 20 _. ° 0 During the Draft EIS comment period, the public can provide input in various ways: O L --,,, •Submit your comments today at the Public Meeting, *Electronically enter your comments at www.keywesteis.com, and �, •Write your comments and mail them to: .r, L Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southeast y NAS Key West Air Operations EIS Project Manager et P.O. Box 30, Building 903 Z NAS Jacksonville, FL 32212 To ensure your comments are considered, please submit them by August 28, 2012. For more information, please visit the project website at: www.keywesteis.com `' s, .(eD s A?, 4 « A P COMME FO RCES G Thank you for providing your comments on the Naval Air Station Key West Airfield Operations Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Please provide us with your comments no later than August 28, 2012. Comments may be submitted at the public meeting, by visiting the project website at www.keywesteis.com, or via U.S. Postal Service to the address below. CU 1 V R1 1 M--I td .F+ a) z O en O 1 1 ** *Please Print — Additional space is provided on back * ** 'S 1. Name: a) 2. Address: en 3. Please check here if you would NOT like to be on the mailing list 1 v 4. Please check here if you would like your name /address kept private (i.e., not published in xi EIS documents) O 5. Would you like to receive a copy of the Final EIS? During the Draft EIS comment period, the public can provide input in various ways: •Submit your comments today at the Public Meeting, ,,., ■Electronically enter your comments at www.keywesteis.com, and •Write your comments and mail them to: ed t Z Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southeast NAS Key West Air Operations EIS Project Manager P.O. Box 30, Building 903 NAS Jacksonville, FL 32212 To ensure your comments are considered, please submit them by August 28, 2012. \ . c eo STgT , + x F y . f. —P COMMENT SH � �rF • eaces c °`r� , . ...., z E w ett .a.4 Cr) V rd E •-r cd g OJ E g O g W m g O czt a) go 0 a) • CU O .N CZ • Cn • CZ ezi Z , D ST41. J ¥ * * x S I i ,tc, Oft ES CO s NAS Key West Airfield Operations EIS Public Meeting Room Layout . Station 4 Ag e Accident Potential Zones and Flight Paths fa Station 3 Station 5 Environmental Effects Noise Effects of Alternatives ■ Open House • ' , Station 2 Format Station 6 4 Proposed Action and Your Involvement Alternatives ` in the EIS Ai r. Comment Table Station 1 • and Stenographer Importance of NAS Welcome Key West and EIS (Sign In Table) sr ea Also Notable: . Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing EIS /OEIS The Navy has also prepared a Draft Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) .` Environmental Impact Statement /Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS /OEIS) which is a separate effort from the NAS Key West Airfield Operations EIS presented here today. The Draft AFTT EIS /OEIS evaluates the potential environmental effects associated .. with military readiness training and research, development, test and evaluation activities ( "training and testing ") conducted within existing range complexes, operating areas and testing ranges. The AFTT study area encompasses the East Coast of the United States, the • Gulf of Mexico, and select Navy pierside locations, port transit channels and the lower Chesapeake Bay. s For more information on the Draft AFTT EIS /OEIS please visit the project website: www.AFTTEIS.com . BACKGROUND On June 29, 2012, the Department of the Navy published a notice of availability of the NASKW DEIS in the Federal Register. The DEIS is available electronically at www.keywesteis.com. Additionally, the Executive Summary of the NASKW DEIS is attached (Exhibit 1). The NASKW DEIS addresses the potential effects of future aircraft and airfield operations at NASKW. The Navy evaluated three action alternatives for new aircraft and future airfield operations at NASKW, and a No Action alternative in the Draft EIS as follows: No Action Alternative — Annual airfield operations would continue to occur at a level similar to present (approximately 47,500 annual operations), support of existing capabilities would continue, no new aircraft would be introduced, and no facilities would be altered to support next generation aircraft training operations. Alternative 1 — Annual airfield operations would continue to be maintained at a level similar to present (approximately 47,500 annual operations), plus legacy aircraft would gradually transition to next generation aircraft, and existing facilities would be altered to meet requirements for next generation aircraft. Alternative 2 — Same as Alternative 1, plus provides the flexibility to accommodate additional carrier air wing Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) training at NAS Key West when primary carrier air wing training locations around the U.S. are unavailable. Additional carrier air wing FCLP operations would vary annually based on availability of the primary training locations, but could total up to 4,500 additional annual operations (2,250 patterns). Total annual airfield operations could equal approximately 52,000 operations. Alternative 3 — Same as Alternative 2, plus provides added operational capacity and flexibility to effectively meet Navy training requirements under the Fleet Readiness Training Plan with an approximately 10 percent increase in other annual airfield operations. Total annual airfield operations could equal approximately 57,000 operations. Note, the Navy has not selected a Preferred Alternative at this time. COMMENTS Written comments may be provided to following addresses: 1) www.keywesteis.com or 2) Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southeast NAS Key West Airfield Operations EIS Project Manager P.O. Box 30, Building 903 NAS Jacksonville, FL 32212 All comments on the DEIS must be postmarked or received online by August 28, 2012, to be considered in the Final EIS. Exhibit 1 NAS Key West Airfield Operations Draft Environmental Impact Statement EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The United States (U.S.) Department of the Navy (DoN or Navy) has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to identify and evaluate the potential environmental effects that may result from airfield training operations at Naval Air Station (NAS) Key West. This DEIS has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500 - 1508); and DoN's procedures for implementing NEPA (32 CFR 775). The Navy is the lead agency for the proposed action; there is no cooperating agency (per 40 CFR 1501.6) for the DEIS. NAS Key West provides aviation training facilities, services, and access to training ranges for tactical (i.e., jet aircraft with fighter or attack missions) aviation squadrons. NAS Key West's weather /climate supports year -round fleet training, and its location provides quick and efficient access to the nearby Key West Range Complex (Figure ES -1), a key training venue regularly used by Department of Defense (DoD) and U.S. federal agency aircrews from around the country to fulfill operational and air -to -air combat readiness training requirements. The Navy proposes to support and conduct aircraft training operations at NAS Key West by maintaining existing airfield operations, supporting airfield operations by new types of aircraft, and modifying airfield operations as necessary in support of the Fleet Readiness Training Plan. The Navy's ability to rapidly deploy trained naval battle forces in addition to those currently deployed (surge capability) is an essential element of readiness particularly since September 11, 2001. In order to address future needs, the U.S. Navy has undertaken a program called the Fleet Response Plan, which institutionalizes an enhanced naval surge capability. Adopted in 2003, the Fleet Response Plan calls for six of the U.S. Navy's 11 aircraft carriers and associated air wings to be available for deployment within 30 days, and a seventh carrier to be available within 90 days. Achieving this higher level of surge capability with a reduced force is a difficult task requiring Navy ships and Sailors to maintain an appropriate level of training (or readiness) for longer periods of time, while continuing to achieve ship maintenance and Sailor quality of life standards. Carrier air wing training is essential to maintaining these higher levels of readiness. This DEIS addresses the following alternatives: • No Action Alternative — Annual airfield operations would continue to occur at a level similar to present (approximately 47,500 annual operations), support of existing capabilities would continue, no new aircraft would be introduced, and no facilities would be altered to support next generation aircraft training operations. • Alternative 1 — Annual airfield operations would continue to be maintained at a level similar to present (approximately 47,500 annual operations), plus legacy aircraft would gradually transition to next generation aircraft, and existing facilities would be altered to meet requirements for next generation aircraft. Executive Summary ES -1 June 2012 > N ,r.11 to O E N E w 3 C p VI z W a C cu 1p . Lo U "aµ ZQ o � W C N. 41 's an = O ' t X 01 Y O y 3 "%e• • J In A 2 `` N `\ \ oft tto 4 WZ ` i � _ \ ... d Y O. a ,. 3 U o . d ic.� _ I-- a •Y O tn .0 O a O 0 .- a o o � ' = w R , W r 3 m,n _ v 8_ m n m CO m o Gl L C O ; ca. L.. ° r q N ; 3 m 1, a m¢ v O1 E Z m 8 Z' m "- « m ' m v 8 W rO C7= , — '--7- Q N J t y O E a y N a m (n v , N ` m 3 o r n u \ 3 a a 0 IN Ell ; m z E m 9 .- m g 4., aY af a as C C) *f .� o Q. ; i f, E m = p I" __ a w 3 z r ro 0 c M y t0 T 0 Zr) z 8 a o w - 415 a 3 > 74 _ Q Cr, < ¢ m m . i+ Z Z Z LL N n N Q N Z W NAS Key West Airfield Operations Draft Environmental Impact Statement • Alternative 2 — Same as Alternative 1, plus provides the flexibility to accommodate additional carrier air wing Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) training at NAS Key West when primary carrier air wing training locations around the U.S. are unavailable. Additional carrier air wing FCLP operations would vary annually based on availability of the primary training locations, but could total up to 4,500 additional annual operations (2,250 patterns). Total annual airfield operations could equal approximately 52,000 operations. • Alternative 3 — Same as Alternative 2, plus provides added operational capacity and flexibility to effectively meet Navy training requirements under the Fleet Readiness Training Plan with an approximately 10 percent increase in other annual airfield operations. Total annual airfield operations could equal approximately 57,000 operations. The Navy has not selected a preferred alternative at this time. Table ES -1 provides a summary of the main components of these alternatives in comparative format. ES -1 Summary of Main Components of Alternatives Component No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Annual Airfield Operations 47 500 47 500 52,000 57,000 (+ ( + ~20 %) Transition to No Yes Yes Yes Next Generation Aircraft Alter Existing Facilities to Meet Next Generation No Yes Yes Yes Aircraft Requirements Accommodate Increased No No Yes Yes Carrier Air Wing FCLPs Accommodate Increase in No No No Yes Other Airfield Operations Note: 1 Alternatives 2 and 3 include the increased ability to use NAS Key West as an additional carrier air wing FCLP training location when primarily training locations around the U.S. are not available. For purposes of analysis and per the Commander Naval Air Forces Atlantic (CNAL) requirements letter (see Appendix A), annual carrier air wing FCLP operations would vary annually and could total up to 4,500 additional operations (2,250 patterns). The existing condition /No Action Alternative assumes up to 500 annual tactical aircraft FCLP operations. ES.1 Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed action is to sustain fleet training conducted at and associated with NAS Key West airfield for Navy tactical aviation and use by other DoD and federal agencies, while introducing new aircraft. The proposed action is needed in order to maintain the level of readiness mandated in Title 10 United States Code (USC) Part 5062. The Department of the Navy needs to continue use of NAS Key West to accomplish Navy and Marine Corps required aviation training. The Navy and DoD need to maintain the long -term viability of NAS Key West as a fleet training station for tactical aviation squadrons and for airfield operations and associated training in the Key West Range Complex by other DoD and federal agencies. Specifically, use of NAS Key West is necessary so that the Navy can: • achieve and sustain required aviation training, thereby supporting the timely deployment of naval units; Executive Summary ES -3 June 2012 NAS Key West Airfield Operations Draft Environmental Impact Statement • achieve and sustain readiness of squadrons to quickly surge significant combat power in the event of a national crisis or contingency operation consistent with the Fleet Response Training Plan; and • support required flight operations of other federal agencies. ES.2 Proposed Action and Alternatives The Navy's proposed action is to support and conduct aircraft training operations at NAS Key West by maintaining current /existing airfield operations, supporting airfield operations by new types of aircraft, and modifying airfield operations as necessary in support of the Fleet Readiness Training Plan. The Fleet Readiness Training Plan implements the Navy's Fleet Response Plan at the U.S. Navy Fleet Forces Command level and is essential to the readiness of U.S Naval forces. In addition, this DEIS analyzes the No Action Alternative. The following sections describe the components of the alternatives, including proposed annual airfield operations, aircraft mix, types of airfield operations, runway and flight track utilization, pre - flight and maintenance engine run -up operations, annual detachments, and airfield infrastructure improvements. Analysis of the No Action Alternative provides a benchmark that enables decision - makers to evaluate the environmental consequences of the proposed alternatives. CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.14[d]) require that a No Action Alternative must be evaluated. No action means that the proposed action would not be implemented and that existing conditions would remain unchanged. The No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action but is carried forward as a baseline from which to compare the potential impacts of the proposed action (i.e., Alternatives 1, 2, and 3). ES.2.1 Annual Airfield Operations and Typical Aircraft Mix Under the No Action Alternative, annual airfield operations would continue to occur at a level similar to present (approximately 47,500 annual operations), and no new aircraft would be introduced. Under the three action alternatives evaluated in detail in this EIS, certain legacy aircraft would be replaced with next generation aircraft as follows: • The Navy F -35C, Joint Strike Fighter carrier variant, is scheduled to begin to replace the Navy FA -18 C/D beginning in 2016 with the transition to be completed by 2029; however, the end date for the transition may shift depending on the Navy's procurement budget. • The Navy P -8 Poseidon will replace the P -3 Orion beginning in 2012 with the transition to be completed by 2019 (DoN 2008). • The Marine Corps F -35B (short takeoff and vertical landing variant), and F -35C (aircraft carrier variant) Joint Strike Fighter are scheduled to begin to replace Marine Corps AV -8B and FA -18 C/D and aircraft between 2012 and 2023. • Some Air Force F -35A (Joint Strike Fighter conventional takeoff and landing variant) are scheduled to begin to replace the F -16 beginning with the transition of the Air Combat Command operational aircraft in 2013; transition to be completed 2017. ES -4 Executive Summary June 2012 NAS Key West Airfield Operations Draft Environmental Impact Statement • The Air Force F -15 Eagles are being replaced with the F -22 Raptors, with the transition already underway. • The Navy EA -6B Prowlers are being replaced with the EA -18G Growlers, with the transition already underway. • The Navy E -2C Hawkeyes are being replaced with the E -2D Advanced Hawkeye, with the transition already underway. The current /existing airfield operations are defined as approximately 47,500 annual airfield operations, where each takeoff and each landing are considered individual operations. Because there are year -to- year fluctuations, a 10 -year average (2000 -2009) was used to represent the existing condition from which to compare the potential impacts of the action alternatives. Under Alternative 1, annual airfield operations would continue to be maintained at a level similar to present (approximately 47,500 annual operations), plus legacy aircraft would gradually transition to next generation aircraft. Under Alternative 2, the exact annual increase in flight operations is not known and would vary annually based on the availability of primary training locations around the country. Under this alternative, NAS Key West may experience up to 4,500 additional annual FCLPs operations (2,250 patterns, as each FCLP pattern consists of 2 flight operations [a take -off and a landing] this equates to up to 4,500 flight operations). To ensure all potential environmental concerns are well understood prior to a decision, this alternative evaluates the largest potential scenario of up to 4,500 additional tactical aircraft FCLP flight operations annually. Under Alternative 3, approximately 57,000 annual airfield training operations would occur at NAS Key West for the foreseeable future. Alternative 3 includes the same carrier air wing FCLP operations up to an additional approximately 4,500 annual operations as with Alternative 2 (see Section 2.5.2.1). The additional approximately 10 percent increase in other airfield operations under Alternative 3 would be across all other types of aircraft and airfield operations. A summary of annual airfield operations by aircraft type under the existing environment and proposed action alternatives is listed in Table ES -2. Executive Summary ES -5 June 2012 NAS Key West Airfield Operations Draft Environmental Impact Statement Table ES -2 Comparison of Annual Airfield Operations by Aircraft Type _ Under the Existing Environment (No Action Alternative) and Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Existing/ Aircraft Type No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 FA -18 C/D 8,464 0 0 0 F -35C 0 8,464 10,718 11,609 FA -18 E/F 11,688 11,688 13,848 15,078 F -5N 12,714 12,714 12,714 14,092 P -3 4,007 0 0 0 P -8 0 4,007 4,007 4,441 F -16 1,421 0 0 0 F -35A 0 1,421 1,421 1,575 F -15E 445 0 0 0 F -22 0 445 445 493 AV -8 344 0 0 0 F -35B 0 344 344 381 EA -6 62 0 0 0 EA -18G 0 62 62 69 Transient Jet - Fighter /Trainer 1,310 1,310 1,310 1,452 (e.g., T -45, Hunter, A -10, A -4, T -38) Transient Jet - Cargo /Passenger 1,003 1,003 1,003 1,112 (e.g., C -21, C -560, Gulfstream, Learjet, Beech, Saber) Transient Jet - Medium Transport 540 540 540 599 (e.g, C -9, C -40) Transient Jet - Large Transport & Refuel 181 181 181 201 (e.g., C -17, KC -10, C -5) Transient Prop - Small /Medium 2,209 2,209 2,209 2,449 (e.g., E- 2/C -2', CASA, G -159, T -34, C -12, C- 26, T -6, Beech -36, Beech -9, Mitsubishi -20) Transient Prop - Large 1,281 1,281 1,281 1,420 (e.g., C -130) Rotary Wing 1,831 1,831 1,831 2,030 Various Total 47,500 47,500 51,914 57,001 Note: 1 The Navy E - 2Cs are being replaced with the E - 2Ds.. ES -6 Executive Summary June 2012 NAS Key West Airfield Operations Draft Environmental Impact Statement ES.2.2 Flight Operational Procedures, Course Rules, and Noise Abatement Measures In the interest of the surrounding community, under all alternatives, military aircraft flying within the airspace controlled by NAS Key West operate according to the course rules and procedures that reduce community noise exposure. For example, certain types of flight operations are prohibited and pilots are instructed avoid overflight of more densely populated areas. In addition, existing noise abatement measures in place at NAS Key West to reduce community noise exposure would continue, including typical 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily hours of operation, performing the majority of engine maintenance run - ups at a location interior to the station, and noise complaint procedures. E5.2.3 Runway and Flight Track Utilization Table ES -4 presents the existing runway utilization for arrival and departure operations at NAS Key West. Runway utilization rates are dependent upon wind, aircraft type, operation type, and time of day. Overall, Runway 07 is the primary runway. Under Alternative 1, there would be no change to runway and flight track utilization. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the runway and flight track utilization would remain largely unchanged from the existing environment. However, carrier air wing FCLP operations would result in an increased use of the FLCP flight tracks and an approximately 3 percent increase in overall utilization of Runways 03 and 13 relative to the other four runways. Runways 03 and 13 are the primary runways used to conduct FCLP operations. Table ES -4 Runway Utilization Runway Number Existing Utilization ( %) 03 11 07 58 13 16 21 3 25 9 31 3 ES.2.4 Engine Maintenance Run -Up Operations Existing engine maintenance run -up operations that occur at NAS Key West are associated with the scheduled maintenance activities of the NAS Key West based units. Other aircraft that perform detachment training operations at NAS Key West normally perform scheduled maintenance at their home bases. Table ES -5 summarizes the change in engine maintenance under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Under all action alternatives, there would be a gradual one - for -one change in the type of aircraft performing these operations as the F -35C begins to replace the FA -18C /D in the Fleet. The change would be gradual as new aircraft begin to train at NAS Key West and legacy aircraft are retired from the DoD inventory. In addition, under Alternatives 2 and 3, engine maintenance run -up operations would increase proportional to the potential increase in airfield operations under these alternatives. Executive Summary ES -7 June 2012 NAS Key West Airfield Operations Draft Environmental Impact Statement Table ES -5 Annual Engine Maintenance Run -Up Events Under the Existing Environment (No Action Alternative) and Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Aircraft Type Existing /No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 FA -18C /D 454 - - - FA-18E/F 333 333 395 430 F -5N 661 661 661 733 F -35C 0 454 575 623 Total 1,448 1,448 1,631 1,786 ES.2.5 Annual Detachments Under existing conditions, the primary and most regular units detached to NAS Key West for training are the FA -18 Navy active duty and reserve squadrons stationed at NAS Oceana, Virginia and NAS Lemoore, California. Marine Corps and Air Force squadrons are detached to NAS Key West on a less frequent basis. During the 12 -month period beginning April 2009 and ending March 2010, NAS Key West hosted about 100 units that traveled to NAS Key West with one or more aircraft for training. These detachments varied in number of personnel and length of stay; however, the total number of man days (total personnel times the number of days in each detachment) associated with these detachments equaled approximately 90,000. Man day estimates are used throughout this EIS with respect to the annual detachments; they are akin to the use of visitor days commonly used for transient populations in various planning analyses. During this 12 -month period, the peak consisted of 781 personnel and approximately 50 aircraft detached to NAS Key West at one time (in March 2010). No changes to annual detachments are expected as a result of implementation of Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, there could be an increase in annual detachments to NAS Key West with the expanded flexibility to host carrier air wing detachment training events. Each carrier air wing would consist of 4 squadrons; each squadron would have 8 aircraft and 230 people detaching for 8 to 10 days. The potential number of man days (total personnel times the number of days in each detachment) associated with Alternative 2 would increase by an estimated 18,400 to approximately 108,400 total man days annually. The peak would increase by approximately 139 personnel detached to NAS Key West at one time to approximately 920 during carrier air wing training detachment events. For Alternative 3, the potential number of man days (total personnel times the number of days in each detachment) is estimated to increase by approximately 28,300 (total personnel times the number of days in each detachment) to approximately 118,300 total man days annually. ES.2.6 Airfield Infrastructure Improvements Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, infrastructure improvements required for introduction of training with next generation aircraft at NAS Key West would be minimal. There would be minor upgrades to the interiors of existing facilities in the West Ramp area of the airfield in order to meet secured space and associated utility requirements of the F -35. ES.3 Preferred Alternative The Navy has not identified a preferred alternative at this time. ES -8 Executive Summary June 2012 NAS Key West Airfield Operations Draft Environmental Impact Statement ES.4 Environmental Consequences This section provides a summary of potential impacts related to the No Action Alternative (maintain status quo), Alternative 1 (transition to next generation aircraft), Alternative 2 (transition to next generation aircraft while increasing aircraft operations by potentially 10 percent), and Alternative 3 (transition to next generation aircraft while increasing aircraft operations by potentially 20 percent). While some minor potential for cumulative effects are addressed in Chapter 5, no significant cumulative impacts were identified. ES.4.1 Noise Under existing conditions (No Action Alternative), an estimated total of 2,416 people off - Station are exposed to noise levels greater than or equal to 65 decibels (dB) using the standard noise exposure metric of Day -Night Average noise (DNL). Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, the estimated number of off - Station people exposed to noise levels 65 DNL and greater would increase by 13, 366, and 533 people, respectively. Under the No Action Alternative, an estimated 1,273 housing units would be within the 65 DNL and greater noise zone. Under Alternative 1, 2, and 3 the estimated housing units within the 65 DNL and greater noise zone would increase by 14, 184, and 271, respectively. Under the No Action Alternative, off - Station lands (excluding water) within the 65 DNL or greater zone is estimated at 1,794 acres. Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, the off - Station areas within the 65 DNL or greater zone would increase by 12, 92, and 154 acres, respectively. Under all the action alternatives, the on- Station acreage within the 65 DNL and greater noise zone would remain at 3,920 acres. Changes in average noise levels, single event noise, speech interference, and sleep disturbance at representative receptors were estimated for all alternatives. Under Alternative 1, the level of change would not likely to be perceptible; under Alternative 2, the level of change would be imperceptible to slight; and under Alternative 3, the level of change would be slight. Under all alternatives, there would continue to be no population at risk for long -term hearing loss as no population occurs within the 80 DNL and greater noise zone and occupational noise exposure at NAS Key West would continue to be managed with hearing protection and monitoring in accordance with all applicable regulations. ES.4.2 Air Quality Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no increase in air operations, and no alterations to facilities to accommodate next generation aircraft. Therefore, air quality conditions would remain as they are under existing conditions. Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, there would be negligible air emissions associated with the minor infrastructure upgrades, and no effect to air quality is expected. The transition from legacy aircraft under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would result in a reduction in VOCs, CO, and particulate matter emissions, and small increases in NO and SO emissions under Alternative 1 and modest increase in NO„ and SO emissions under Alternatives 2 and 3. The net change in NO. and SO emissions would not approach the Executive Summary ES -9 June 2012 NAS Key West Airfield Operations Draft Environmental Impact Statement Mobile Source Comparative Threshold, and emissions from aircraft operations under all alternatives would result in negligible impacts to area air quality. ES.4.3 Safety Under the No Action Alternative, operations at NAS Key West would continue at current levels and all regulations and plans that pertain to runways, Accident Potential Zones (APZs), mishaps, Bird /Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH), and other flight safety considerations would continue to be followed. These same regulations, plans, and flight safety protocols would continue to apply equally to the action alternatives. Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, there would be no changes to existing runways or APZs, and no unique construction risks. It is difficult to project future safety /mishap rates for any new aircraft. There is some uncertainty about what mishap rates are to be expected as a number of legacy aircraft being replaced over time by newer aircraft under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. However, the DoD and Navy would continue to place a high priority on safety programs for introducing new aircraft including increased simulator training and increased safety features in the newer airframes. The increased annual airfield operation levels under Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in the potential for slight increased risk of mishap, but would remain below historical mishap rates for NAS Key West. The slight increased risk of BASH potential associated with the increase in annual airfield operations at lower altitudes under Alternatives 2 and 3 would be minimized through adherence to the Air Station's BASH program, flight operations standard operating procedures, etc. ES.4.4 Land Use Under the No Action Alternative, off - Station noise exposure within the 65 DNL and greater noise contour would continue to impact 1,794 acres (excluding water) of primarily compatible land uses. Based on existing off - Station land use patterns, there would continue to be an estimated 146 acres of incompatible residential land use within the existing noise zones and 13 acres of incompatible residential land use within the existing airfield APZs. Future land use incompatibilities could increase based on the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, which includes: • Approximately 48 acres designated as Residential and 61 acres are designated as Residential Conservation (primarily for preservation /open space, with low- density residential) in the safety zones; and • Approximately 238 acres is designated Residential and 299 acres is designated Residential Conservation within the Noise Zones 2 and 3. Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, there would be no change to safety zones, so the land use impact would be the same as the No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, there would be a 11 -acre increase in off - Station lands within the 65 DNL and greater noise zone. Based on the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, areas within Noise Zones 2 and 3 designated as Residential would increase by 2 acres ( a less than 1 percent increase from No Action Alternative) and areas designated as Residential Conservation would increase by 8 acres (a 3 percent increase from No Action Alternative). ES -10 Executive Summary June 2012 NAS Key West Airfield Operations Draft Environmental Impact Statement Under Alternative 2, there would be a 90 -acre increase in off - Station lands within the 65 DNL and greater noise contour. Based on the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, areas within Noise Zones 2 and 3 designated as Residential would increase by 46 acres (a 19 percent increase from No Action Alternative) and areas designated as Residential Conservation would increase by 13 acres (a 4 percent increase from No Action Alternative). Under Alternative 3, there would be a 152 -acre increase in off - Station lands within the 65 dB DNL and greater noise contour. Based on the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, areas within Noise Zones 2 and 3 designated as Residential would increase by 66 acres (a 27 percent increase from No Action Alternative) and areas designated as Residential Conservation would increase by 45 acres (a 15 percent increase from No Action Alternative). Under all alternatives, the Navy would continue to work with Monroe County elected officials, planners, and citizens to encourage compatible use adjacent to the Air Station consistent with the Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Program. On- Station incompatible land uses within the noise and safety zones would continue until addressed through implementation of the NAS Key West Master Plan. ES.4.5 Transportation Under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, no changes to the average daily trips associated with transient personnel would occur and the peak number of personnel detached to NAS Key West at one time would remain at 781 people. Under Alternative 2, there would be an estimated annual increase of 18,400 man days associated with transient personnel and under Alternative 3, there would be an estimated annual increase of 28,300 man days associated with transient personnel. However, under both Alternatives 2 and 3, the peak number of personnel that would detach to NAS Key West at any one time would be during carrier air wing detachment events with potentially 920 personnel for up to 10 days twice per year. Thus, the increase in personnel at any one time would occur during peak times, which would result in an additional 139 people detached to NAS Key West. Although the minor increases in personnel during peak times would result in more in -bound and out -bound vehicular traffic to NAS Key West properties, the potential impacts could be reduced with carpooling and other traffic management measures, as needed. For example, a detachment, on average, will not rent more than 25 rental vehicles, and approximately 7 government vehicles from NAS Key West may be used while the detachment is at Key West (Hagan 2012). It is not expected that transient military vehicular traffic to NAS Key West properties would result in disruption to current transportation patterns nor would it change existing levels of traffic safety. Therefore, negligible impacts to transportation under Alternatives 2 and 3 would occur. Construction traffic under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would be negligible given the scale of infrastructure improvements proposed under the action alternatives. Under all alternatives, collaboration would continue with local and regional transportation planning consistent with Executive Order (EO) 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance. ES.4.6 Infrastructure Under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, operations at NAS Key West would continue at current levels and the demand for public works infrastructure at NAS Key West would remain similar to baseline conditions. Executive Summary ES -11 June 2012 NAS Key West Airfield Operations Draft Environmental Impact Statement Under Alternative 2, there would be an estimated annual increase of 18,400 man days associated with transient personnel and under Alternative 3, there would be an estimated annual increase of 28,300 man days associated with transient personnel. However, under both Alternatives 2 and 3, the peak number of personnel that would detach to NAS Key West at any one time would be during carrier air wing detachment events with potentially 920 personnel for up to 10 days twice per year. Thus, the increase in personnel at any one time would occur during peak times, which would result in an additional 139 people detached to NAS Key West. Therefore, Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase the overall demand for transient billeting and utility services. Public works systems are all currently operating well below capacity and can support the additional demand; thus, negligible impacts to public works infrastructure are expected from implementation of Alternatives 2 or 3. The minor infrastructure upgrades proposed under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would comply with EO 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, and EO 13524, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance. ES.4.7 Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Protection of Children Under the No Action Alternative, existing socioeconomic conditions, including those described for minority and low- income populations and environmental health and safety risks to children, would continue at current levels. Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, no long -term changes to long -term populations, employment, income, or housing trends would occur. The minor facility upgrades that would occur under all three alternatives are not expected to result in noticeable regional socioeconomic impacts. However, direct and indirect beneficial local economic impacts associated with the additional 18,400 and 28,300 man days by transient personnel under Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively, could occur at a level that would not result in changes to long -term population, employment, income, or housing trends. No disproportionately high and adverse impacts to low- income and /or minority populations would occur and no increased safety or health risks impact to children would occur with implementation of any of the action alternatives. ES.4.8 Cultural Resources Noise modeling results indicate that under all alternatives, noise exposure in the area surrounding the NRHP - eligible Geiger Key Hawk Missile Site (the only cultural resource site identified as potentially affected by noise exposure associated with NAS Key West airfield operations) would remain within the 70 to 75 DNL noise contour, increasing from an estimated 71 DNL under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 to an estimated 74 DNL under Alternatives 2 and 3. Such a level of change in DNL would be barely perceptible and would not adversely affect the significance or integrity of the NRHP - eligible Geiger Key Hawk Missile Site. No NRHP - listed properties are located at Boca Chica Key and no impact would occur under the No Action Alternative or Alternatives 1, 2, or 3. In addition, no traditional cultural properties have been identified, and no known impact on traditional cultural properties is expected to occur under the No Action Alternative or Alternatives 1, 2, or 3. ES -12 Executive Summary June 2012 NAS Key West Airfield Operations Draft Environmental Impact Statement ES.4.9 Topography, Geology, and Soils Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed action would not be implemented and no impacts to geology, topography, and soils would occur. Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, there would be no effect on topography or geology. Under all three alternatives, minor, short -term impacts to soils from construction are possible. State and federal guidelines would be strictly followed and standard erosion and sedimentation control procedures would be implemented to ensure water quality was protected from possible soil erosion and sedimentation. Therefore, only temporary, minor impacts on soils are expected. ES.4.10 Water Resources Under the No Action Alternative, existing conditions for water resources, including ongoing stormwater management at the airfield, would continue. Under Alternative 1, there would be no impact to wetlands and groundwater supplies. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, there would be no impacts to wetlands, and the minor increases in potable and industrial water use associated with an increase in transient personnel would have a negligible impact on groundwater supplies. Facility upgrade activities (primarily interior renovations to existing structures) are not anticipated to impact surface water or stormwater due to the implementation of standard erosion and sedimentation controls, spill prevention plans, and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans. As the Air Station is located entirely within a floodplain, there is no practicable alternative to avoid occupancy or development within a floodplain; facility upgrades (primarily interior renovations to existing structures) would be implemented in accordance with EO 11988, Floodplain Management. In addition, the installation's INRMP addresses minimization of impacts to floodplains from ongoing activities at Boca Chica Field, including improvements to drainage efficiency. ES.4.11 Biological Resources Under the No Action Alternative, existing conditions would remain unchanged. All marine and terrestrial communities, wildlife, migratory birds, and threatened and endangered species on the installation would continue to be managed pursuant to the NAS Key West 2007 INRMP and subsequent annual updates, and per agreements negotiated with USFWS, NMFS, and FWC. The facility upgrades proposed under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 (mostly interior renovations) would occur along the flight line within developed areas of the Air Station. No loss of marine and terrestrial communities or wildlife habitat would occur and no effect is anticipated. While it is possible that migrating birds could react to construction noise, any reaction would likely be slight and temporary as research suggests migratory birds acclimate to noise and visual disturbance. Other potential sources of impacts to wildlife would be from increases in aircraft noise exposure levels under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 as compared to existing conditions. Resident species within terrestrial habitats near the airfield would likely have acclimated to the noise and visual disturbance generated by overflying aircraft and maintenance run -up activities. No significant impacts on terrestrial wildlife would occur from airfield operations as the in -air noise would be temporary, short in duration, and dissipate quickly once the airfield operation is completed. NAS Key West would continue to manage wildlife in Executive Summary ES -13 June 2012 NAS Key West Airfield Operations Draft Environmental Impact Statement accordance with the NAS Key West INRMP. Further, while it is possible that migrating birds could react to aircraft noise, any reaction is likely to be slight and temporary. Therefore, no significant impacts from aircraft noise under Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 are expected. NAS Key West would continue to manage migratory birds in accordance with the installation's INRMP and BASH program. Marine wildlife at the surface or submerged could experience exposure to aircraft noise. However, aircraft sound is refracted upon transmission into water because sound waves move faster through water than through air. Therefore, Eller and Cavanagh (2000) determined that it is difficult to construct cases (for any aircraft at any altitude in any propagation environment) for which the underwater sound is sufficiently intense and long lasting to cause harm to any form of marine life. In addition, in -air noise from aircraft operations would be temporary, short in duration, and dissipate quickly once the airfield operation is completed. Furthermore, the sound exposure levels would be relatively low to marine wildlife that spend the majority of their time underwater, constantly move, and are presently exposed to aircraft noise under existing conditions. Based on research available, it is not likely that marine mammals exposed to aircraft overflights under Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 would abandon or alter natural behavioral patterns, and no significant impacts are expected. Additionally, aircraft overflights are not expected to result in Level A or Level B harassment of any marine mammal as defined by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Due to their lack of presence (i.e., no recent occurrence records, extralimital occurrence)at Boca Chica Field, no effect is anticipated for the following federally - listed threatened or endangered species: endangered silver rice rat, threatened roseate tern, nesting endangered green sea turtle, nesting endangered hawksbill sea turtle, nesting endangered leatherback sea turtle, endangered American crocodile, threatened Eastern indigo snake, endangered smalltooth sawfish, endangered Schaus swallowtail butterfly, threatened elkhorn coral, threatened Staghorn coral, endangered sperm whale, endangered fin whale, endangered humpback whale, endangered right whale, and endangered sei whale. In addition, the candidate Blodgett's wild mercury is located outside the potential affected area, and there would be no effect to this species. Within the airfield, the threatened Garber's spurge has been found near the tower and in the rockland hammock habitat along the road leading to the weapons depot. No clearing of vegetation would occur as part of the proposed action and no effect to this species would occur. The would be no effect on the remaining three threatened and endangered species (endangered Lower Keys marsh rabbit [LKMR], Florida manatee, and threatened loggerhead sea turtle) from the proposed minor infrastructure improvements. The LKMR, nesting loggerhead sea turtle, and Florida manatee are already subject to aircraft noise under existing conditions. Recent surveys indicate a healthy LKMR population exists at Boca Chica Field and nesting loggerhead sea turtles successfully nested in 2011. Research indicates that nesting loggerhead sea turtles use non - acoustic cues for nesting. Florida manatees are only occasional visitors, particularly in the winter months, to the extreme western Lower Keys. Although little scientific information is available on the effects of aircraft overflight on the West Indian manatee, some research indicates manatees did not react to a fixed -wing aircraft at an altitude of 525 feet, but did react to a helicopter flying at an altitude below approximately 328 feet (Rathbun 1988). For potential exposure of Florida ES -14 Executive Summary June 2012 NAS Key West Airfield Operations Draft Environmental Impact Statement manatees to in -water sound, Eller and Cavanagh (2000) concluded that it is difficult to construct cases (for any aircraft at any altitude in any propagation environment) for which the underwater sound is sufficiently intense and long lasting to cause harm to any form of marine life. Therefore, based on research available regarding reactions to aircraft overflights, implementation of Alternatives 1, 2, 3, may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect LKMRs, nesting loggerhead sea turtles, or Florida manatees. Designated critical habitat for federally listed species does not occur within the area of potential biological resource effect; therefore, the implementation of Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 would have no effect on critical habitat. NAS Key West would continue to manage threatened and endangered species in accordance with the installation's INRMP. ES.4.12 Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Waste, Toxic Substances, and Contaminated Sites Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no increase in air operations, no introduction of new airframes supported at NAS Key West, and no construction or building modifications in response to increased or new aircraft service. All regulations and plans that pertain to hazardous material, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and contaminated sites would continue to be followed. Prior to infrastructure upgrades proposed under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, surveys would be conducted for the presence of asbestos containing materials and lead -based paint. As applicable, these hazardous materials would be removed or managed in accordance with all federal and state regulations. Established procedures for the management of hazardous materials and waste would continue to be followed during facility upgrades, airfield operations, and aircraft maintenance. Through material substitutions, next generation aircraft (i.e., F -35 and P -8) are expected to use less environmentally sensitive materials and heavy metals than their respective legacy aircraft. No impacts to known contaminated sites would occur from implementation of Alternatives 1, 2, or 3. ES.5 Public Comment on the EIS The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register for this DEIS. The DEIS is being circulated for review and comment to government agencies, local organizations, Native American tribes, and interested private citizens for 45 days. The DEIS is also available for general review in public libraries in the communities affected by the action and online at www.keywesteis.com. Public meetings will be conducted near NAS Key West during the review period. All public comments received will be reviewed, considered, and addressed appropriately in the Final EIS. Executive Summary ES -15 June 2012 NAS Key West Airfield Operations Draft Environmental Impact Statement This page intentionally left blank. ES -16 Executive Summary June 2012