F-22 AIRCRAFT FORCE DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION
AND WEAPONS SCHOOL BEDDOWN,
NELLIS AFB
Final
Environmental
Impact
Statement
OCTOBER 1999
COVER SHEET
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
COVERING THE PROPOSED F-22 AIRCRAFT FORCE DEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION AND WEAPONS SCHOOL BEDDOWN, NELLIS AIR FORCE
BASE
a.
Responsible Agency: U.S. Air Force
b. Cooperating Agencies: None
c. Proposals and Actions: This Environmental Impact Statement covers two alternatives to address the need to provide
for the beddown of Force Development Evaluation program and Weapons School for the F-22 Raptor, the U.S. Air
Force’s next-generation, air superiority fighter. The two alternatives consist of No-Action and the Proposed Action to
beddown (station) 17 F-22 aircraft and implement the F-22 program into the existing Operational Test and Evaluation
and Weapons School institutions at Nellis Air Force Base (AFB), Nevada. Under the No-Action Alternative, which is
the Air Force’s Environmentally
Preferred Alternative, the proposed beddown and its associated construction and
personnel actions would not occur at Nellis AFB. Likewise, the F-22 Force Development Evaluation programs and
Weapons School would not be implemented at the base. The Proposed Action, which is the Air Force’s Preferred
Alternative, would involve (1) basing 17 F-22 aircraft at Nellis AFB in three phases between 2002 and 2008,‘(2)
establishing the F-22 Force Development Evaluation program at the base in 2002 and the Weapons School in 2008,
(3) constructing or externally modifying eight on-base facilities and internally modifying two buildings to support the
F-22 program, a military construction program totaling approximately $25,000,000, (4) adding 367 personnel at Nellis
AFB, (5) conducting a maximum of 4,472 sorties from Nellis AFB, of which 4,300 would use the Nellis Range
Complex (NRC), and (6) conducting ordnance delivery activities using air-to-ground Joint Direct Attack Munitions,
and any other air-to-ground munitions capable of being employed by the F-22, on approved targets within the Nellis
Air Force Range and releasing chaff and flares in approved airspace.
&--?or additional information:
99th AWFC/Public Affairs, c/o Mike Estrada, 4370 North Washington Blvd., Suite
223, Nellis AFB, NV 8919 l-7078, (702) 652-6552 or Don Kellogg, HQ AFCEE/ECP, 3207 North Road, Brooks
AFB, TX 78235-5363, (210) 536-4183.
e. Designation:
Final Environmental Impact Statement
f. Abstract: This Environmental
Impact Statement has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act to analyze the potential environmental consequences of the proposed F-22 beddown at Nellis AFB and the
No-Action Alternative. The findings indicate the F-22 beddown would not adversely impact airspace management, air
quality, safety, hazardous materials and waste, earth and water resources, biological resources, cultural resources,
transportation, recreation and visual resources, socioeconomics, or land use. The F-22 beddown would result in
increased noise. The proposed F-22 beddown would increase the number of people affected by aircraft noise greater
than 65 DNL who live around Nellis AFB by about 6,250. An estimated 3,715 of these people are minorities and
2,665 are low income. Approximately 95 percent of these people live in areas zoned by Clark County for land uses
compatible with noise levels of 65 DNL or greater. Noise levels of 65 DNL or greater under the Proposed Action
would disproportionately
affect minority and low-income populations according to environmental justice guidelines
since the proportion of minority and low-income people within the affected area are higher than the proportion in the
county. The Air Force will continue to employ noise abatement procedures to reduce noise effects in the surrounding
communities and assist local officials who seek to establish or modify noise attenuation measures for residences. For
Nellis Air Force Range and the encompassing NRC, flight and ordnance delivery activities proposed for the F-22s
would have negligible changes to current conditions. There would be no perceptible change to subsonic noi,se levels.
Sonic booms would increase by 4 to 6 per month within the Elgin and Coyote Military Operations Areas in the NRC,
and by less than 1 per month in all other authorized airspace in the NRC. Supersonic activity would increase noise on
lands under the approved NRC airspace by 1 to 3 CDNL and overall noise by 1 DNL. Emissions of federally and
state-regulated criteria air pollutants would not adversely affect air quality in the Las Vegas Valley or under the NRC.
Clark County and the Las Vegas area are currently in nonattainment for carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter
(PM,,), so de minimis thresholds for these pollutants are 100 tons per year for CO and 70 tons per year for PM,,. The
F-22 beddown would not exceed these thresholds or exceed regional significance levels, generating a maximum of 89
tons per year of CO and 6 tons per year of PM,,. No conformity determination is required. There are no significant
cumulative impacts from the interaction of the F-22 Force Development Evaluation and Weapons School beddown
with other reasonably foreseeable actions.
w
TABLE OF CONTENTS
H-m
1.0
.. . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . 1.0-I
SUMMARY
1.1 Proposed Action/Preferred
1.2 Public
and Agency Involvement
1.3 Management
1.4 Decisions
2.0
and No-Action
Alternative
. .. .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. . .. . . .. 1 .O- 1
. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. .. . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. .. . 1.O-2
Actions to Reduce the Potential
for Environmental
Impacts
.. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. 1.O-4
to be Made . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . .. .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. .. . . .. . .. . . 1 .O-6
COMMENTS
AND
STATEMENT
.. . . .. . .. .. . .. . . . . .. .. .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. 2.0-l
2.1 Comments
RESPONSES
on the Draft Environmental
2.2 Responses to Comments
3.0
Alternative
ERRATA
3.1 Introduction
AND
ON THE
Impact
DRAFT
Statement
on the Draft Environmental
CLARIFICATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
.. . . .. .. .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . .. .;... 2. l- 1
Impact
Statement
......................
..........................................................................
.2.2-l
3.0-l
. .. . . .. . . .. . .. .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . .. .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. .. . . . .. V. .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . .. .. . .. . . . 3.0-l
3.2 Errata and Clarifications
Table . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . . .. . . . . .. .. .. . .. . . . .. . .. . .. . . .. 3.0-2
SUMMARY
.l.O
This Final Environmental
Impact Statement (Final EIS) describes the potential environmental
consequences
resulting from a U.S. Air Force (Air Force) proposal to base (beddown) F-22 aircraft and to implement Force
Development
Evaluation program (FDE) and Weapons School (WS) at Nellis Air Force Base (AFB),
Nevada. This Final EIS was prepared by Air Force Headquarters Air Combat Command (HQ ACC) in
accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental
Quality
(CEQ) regulations implementing
NEPA, and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-706 1 directing all Air Force
NEPA efforts. In conformance with these laws, regulations, and instructions, this Final EIS consists of:
A summary (Section 1.O) describing the Proposed Action and alternatives, including the Air Force’s
Preferred Alternative, the public comment period and comments on the Draft EIS, and management
actions designed to reduce potential environmental
effects.
l
Presentation of all oral and written comments received during the public comment period for the
Draft EIS (Section 2.1) and Air Force responses to substantive comments (Section 2.2).
l
o
Errata and clarifications (Section 3 .O) designed to rectify minor errors found in the Draft EIS or to
provide explanatory information that enhances understanding of the Draft EIS. Neither the errata
nor the clarifications alter the conclusions presented in the Draft EIS regarding environmental
impacts.
This Final EIS should be used in conjunction with the Draft EIS. All substantive descriptions, data, and
analyses presented in the Draft EIS are incorporated by reference into this Final EIS. The errata and
clarifications represent the only changes to the Draft EIS. As described in Section 3.0 of this volume, the
errata and clarifications are directly correlated to sections, pages, paragraphs, and lines in the Draft EIS.
1.1
PROPOSED
ACTION/PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
NO-ACTION
ALTERNATIVE
The EIS assessed two alternatives: the Proposed Action and No-Action.
Nellis Range Complex (NRC) were found to represent the only location
the purpose and need for the action.
AND
Nellis AFB and the associated
determined as reasonable to fulfill
PROPOSED ACTION/PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: The proposed beddown would allow for the development,
testing, and teaching of combat capabilities the F-22 would use in war. The Proposed Action, which is the
Air Force’s Preferred Alternative, would involve the following:
l
l
l
l
Summary
Basing 17 F-22 aircraft at Nellis AFB in three phases occurring in fiscal years (October through
September) 2002 (6 aircraft), 2003 (2 aircraft), and 2008 (9 aircraft);
Implementing
the F-22 FDE program at the base in 2002 and the WS in 2008;
Constructing or externally modifying
to support the F-22 programs;
Adding
367 personnel at Nellis
eight on-base facilities
and internally
modifying
two facilities
AFB;
1.0-l
F-22 Force Development Evaluation and Weapons ScJzooJBeddown, Neltis AFB
l
l
Conducting an additional 4,472 annual sorties from Nellis AFB by 2008, of which 4,300 would
use the NRC and 172 would occur at remote ranges; and
Testing ordnance delivery on approved targets and releasing chaff and flares in approved
airspace.
In compliance with CEQ regulations for implementing
NEPA, the Air Force has identified the Preferred
Alternative in this Final EIS. For the reasons outlined below, the Proposed Action is the Preferred
Alternative.
The proposed beddown would fulfill the defined purpose and need for the action. The Proposed
Action would comply with Federal law, as well as Department of Defense and Air Force policy, which
require the Air Force to conduct FDE testing of the F-22 aircraft and provide WS training for F-22 pilots.
Beddown of F-22 aircraft at Nellis AFB and use of the unique assets offered by the NRC for testing and
training meet the operational requirements of both the FDE program and WS. Nellis AFB and the NRC
provide the military airspace, secure training ranges, range instrumentation
and simulated threats,
professional expertise, and infrastructure needed to implement the FDE program and WS for the F-22:
NO-ACTIONALTERNATIV~ENVIRONMENTALLYPREFERREDALTER~~ATIVE:
UnderNEPA,‘No-Action”means
that the Proposed Action would not take place, and the resulting environmental
effects from taking no action
would be compared to those resulting from the Proposed Action. For this EIS, the No-Action Alternative
means that no F-22 beddown would occur at Nellis AFB, no on-base construction or personnel increases
associated with the F-22 would be implemented,
and the FDE program and WS for the F-22 would not use
the NRC. The No-Action Alternative is the Air Force’s Environmentally
Preferred Alternative because it
would result in no environmental
impacts beyond baseline conditions. In comparison to the Proposed
Action, the potential environmental
consequences of the NorAction Alternative would be less.
1.2
PUBLIC
AND AGENCY
INVOLVEMENT
PUBLICINVOLVEMENT:
AFI 32-7061 and CEQ regulations require an early and open process for identifying
significant issues related to a proposed action and obtaining input from the public prior to making a decision
that could significantly affect the environment.
These regulations specify public involvement at various
junctures in the development of an EIS, including public scoping prior to the preparation of a Draft EIS and
public review of the Draft EIS prior to preparing and publishing the Final EIS. A decision is made only after
completion of the Final EIS and following a 30-day waiting period.
Prior to the publication of the Draft EIS, the public involvement process included publishing the Notice Of
Intent in the FederaZ Register on August 11, 1997. After public notification in newspapers and through radio
stations, three scoping meetings, averaging 3 hours in duration, were held August 26 through August 28 at
the following southern Nevada locations: Tonopah, Las Vegas, and Caliente. A total of 22 people attended
the meetings. Of these 22, seven people provided oral input. By the end of the scoping period, September
30, 1997, 13 written comments had been received. The Draft EIS summarizes the issues raised during
scoping.
Following these scoping meetings, the Air Force prepared the Draft EIS and made it available to the public
and agencies for review and comment. Official public notification commenced with the publication of the
Notice of Availability
(NOA) on June 18, 1999 in the Federal Register and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Over 340 copies of the Draft EIS were sent to federal, state, and local agencies, Native American
organizations, special interest groups, and citizens. The document was sent to those in the public who
requested a copy and was made available at selected public facilities such as libraries and local government
LO-2
Summary
F-22 Force Development Evaluation and Weapons Sclzool Beddown, Nellis AFB
agencies within southern Nevada. The public review and comment period for the Draft EIS lasted 45 days.
During this time, hearings were held to provide an opportunity for the public to evaluate the proposal and the
analysis contained within the Draft EIS. Public hearings were held in three Nevada communities potentially
affected by the proposed action: Las Vegas, Caliente, and Tonopah from July 13 to July 15, 1999. The
public was notified of the hearings through newspaper advertisements placed in the following: Las Vegas
Review-Journal; ToBopah Times-Bonanza and Goldfield News; The Lincoln County Record (Caliente area);
and The St. George Spectrum (west/central Utah). Advertisements supplying the time, date, and location
were placed at least one week prior to the hearing dates to ensure proper public notification.
A court reporter officially recorded comments and transcribed all communication during the presentation and
public testimony at the hearings. Twenty-nine people attended the three hearings with nine people providing
oral testimony and three submitting comment sheets. The Air Force received ten written comments during
the public comment process. The closing date of the comment period was August 2, 1999.
Comments received at the public hearings and during the comment period are addressed in this Final EIS
(Section 2.1) and provided to the decisionmaker for consideration. The Final EIS also includes responses to
these comments (Section 2.2). After publication of the Final EIS and a minimum of 30 days of review, the
Air Force may publish a Record of Decision.
AGENCYCONSULTATION:Both NEPA and CEQ regulations require intergovernmental notifications prior to
any detailed statement of environmental impacts. Through the process of Interagency and Intergovernmental
Coordination for Environmental Planning, concerned federal, state, and local agencies (such as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service [USFWS], ,Bureau of Land Management [BLM], Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection, and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer [SHPO]) must be notified and allowed
sufficient time to evaluate potential environmental impacts of a proposed action. For the F-22 EIS, this was
accomplished in four ways: (1) agencies were contacted early in the EIS process via letters to solicit their
comments on the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative, (2) the Air Force conducted scoping meetings,
(3) the Air Force sent copies of the Draft EIS to federal, state, and local agencies, and (4) the Air Force held
three public hearings as described above. Comments from agencies on the Draft EIS are summarized below
and addressed in Section 2.2 of this Final EIS.
GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENTCONSULTATION:
Several laws and regulations address the requirement for
federal agencies to notify or consult with American Indian groups or otherwise consider their interests when
planning and implementing federal undertakings.
On April 29, 1994, the President issued tile Memorandum on Government-to-Government Relations with
Native American Tribal Governments, which specifies a commitment to developing more effective day-today working relationships with sovereign tribal governments. The intent of this memorandum has been
incorporated in the Department of Defense (DOD) American Indian and Alaska Native Policy and Executive
Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, which the Air Force is
following. The DOD American Indian and Alaska Native Policy supports tribal self-government and
government-to-government relations with the Federal government. It specifies that DOD will meet its trust
responsibilities to tribes and will address tribal concerns related to protected tribal resources, tribal rights,
and Indian lands. The policy also addressesprocedures for building stable and enduring relationships with
tribes.
As part of the NEPA process, 17 tribes and one organization with historical ties to the land in the NRC
vicinity were notified at the initiation of the EIS effort, sent copies of newsletters, fact sheets,and the Draft
Summary
1.03
*
F-22 Force Development
Evaluation
and Weapons School Beddown, Nellis AFB
EIS, and briefed at the Native American Interaction Program meeting in June 1999. Discussion of the F-22
is part of an ongoing government-to-government
consultation between Nellis AFB and these tribes. This ongoing consultation is directed through the Nellis AFB Native American Interaction Program.
SUM~WRYOFCOMMENTSRECEIVEDFROA~THEPUBLICONTHEDRAFT
EIS: Atotalof18
oralorwritten
comments were received from the public or organizations regarding the Draft EIS. Based on the review of
these comments, noise received the most interest. In Las Vegas, cornmentors raised the concern that
increased noise generated by the F-22 and established land use plans would be incompatible.
One
commentor also questioned the validity of the methods used for noise analysis and the treatment of
environmental justice in the Draft EIS. Comments were also made regarding safety and land use zoning, and
the possibility of further housing development within and near Nellis AFB. Other commentors simply stated
their support for the Proposed Action.
For the area under or near the NRC, cornmentors expressed concern about sonic booms and possible negative
impacts on their quality of life, as well as impacts to recreational and tourism opportunities.
A few other
comments raised questions as to how the F-22 would operate and the way in which it would fly within
current airspace. One comment concerned potential conflicts with commercial or private aviation activities
and reconfiguration
of airspace boundaries. A member of the Moapa Valley Paiutes and the Western
Shoshone National Council expressed concern that F-22 flight operations would impact cultural resources
and affect the quality of life for these groups of Native Americans.
SUMMARY OF AGENCY COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ED: Four federal, state, and local agencies commented on
the Draft EIS. Region IX of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency made comments on the adequacy of
the Draft EIS with regard to the alternative identification
process, noise analysis methodology,
a single
calculation for hazardous waste, treatment of environmental justice concerns, and the need to define
measures to reduce environmental
effects of the beddown around the base. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service briefly commented on where and how the F-22s would fly in relation to the Desert National Wildlife
Refuge. The Draft EIS was circulated for review among the State of Nevada’s Departments of Wildlife,
Transportation, Parks, Utilities, Environmental
Protection, Minerals, and Historic Preservation (also the
SHPO). The single comment from the State of Nevada consisted of a reminder to construct any public
drinking water systems on base according to state standards and codes. Clark County’s Department of
Comprehensive Planning merely requested data on projected noise contours to assist in planning around the
base should a decision be made to implement the Proposed Action.
1.3
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS TO REDUCE THE POTENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
FOR
Reduction of the potential for environmental
impacts represents an important part of NEPA. Nellis AFB
conducts several ongoing efforts designed to achieve reductions in the effect the base has on the community
and to work with groups or members of the community to address issues. All of these efforts, as highlighted
below, would continue to apply should the F-22 beddown occur. Nellis AFB also proposes to expand
existing efforts to inform and work with minority and low-income populations around the base. By
continuing these efforts and potentially expanding current community interaction, Nellis AFB would reduce
the potential impacts associated with the F-22 beddown.
NOISE ABATEMENTPROGRAM
residential areas surrounding
1.0-4
Nellis AFB’s noise abatement program focuses on reducing noise over
the base. By employing this program, Nellis AFB reduces noise effects on the
Summary
F-22 Force Development Evaluation and Weapons School Be&own, Nellis AFB
general population, as well as affected minority and low-income populations. Procedures used in the Noise
Abatement Program include:
l
l
l
Routing takeoffs to avoid residential areas as much as possible;
Controlling and scheduling missions to reduce noise levels, especially at night or early in the
morning;
Altering the speed, rate of climb, and turning radius of aircraft to reduce overall time over
residential areas and reduce time at low altitudes;
l
Minimizing the use of afterburners for takeoff;
l
Avoiding practice approaches early in the morning on weekends and holidays;
l
l
Conducting aircraft engine run-ups in a portion of the airfield designed to minimize the exposure of
surrounding residential areas to noise; and
Minimizing late-night engine run-ups.
All of these management actions have served to reduce noise and its effects on the population near Nellis
AFB. If the decision were made to beddown F-22s at Nellis AFB, the Air Force will continue to evaluate the
noise generated by the aircraft. Should further feasible noise abatement procedures be identified at the time
of the beddown, the Air Force would assessand potentially implement them.
AIR~NSTALLATION~OMPATIBLEUSEZONEPROGRAMTheAirCompatibleUseZoneProgram(AICUZ)isan
ongoing program for all Air Force airfields. It is designed to assist the adjacent community by
recommending land use planning that ensures safe aircraft operations and minimizes noise impacts to the
community. Elements of the AICUZ program include:
l
Maintaining a cooperative, open dialogue between the base and the community for land use
planning;
l
Offering assistanceto the community in planning for changes in aircraft operations and noise; and
l
Developing noise contours around a base that can be used by the community for zoning ordinances.
Nellis AFB has conducted the AICUZ program for almost two decades. The base continues to work with the
Clark County Planning Commission to recommend concepts for land use plans and zoning ordinances. The
county has adopted many of those recommendations to reduce the potential for conflicts between aircraft
operations at Nellis AFB and development in the nearby community.
PROPOS~MINORITYANDLOW-INCOMECOMMUNITYINTERACTION: Nellis AFB hasbeen apt-tofthe Las
Vegas metropolitan area community for more than 50 years. Like any major institution in a community,
being a good neighbor is a top priority. At Nellis AFB, this has resulted in a public outreach program
through such events as air shows and restoration advisory board meetings. To augment specific outreach
efforts, Nellis AFB proposes to expand its community interaction program to provide more emphasis on the
minority and low-income populations around the base. This effort would aid these segments of the
community in understanding the function and importance of Nellis AFB, as well as provide a focused
Summary
1.04
F-22 Force Development
Evaluation
and Weapons School Beddown, Nellis AFB
opportunity for minority and low-income
Noise from aircraft operations, including
populations to work with the base on issues concerning them.
those by F-22s, would likely be a principal topic of the program.
NATIVEAMERICANINTERACTIONPROGRAM Nellis AFB has a comprehensive
Native American Interaction
Program and conducts substantial government-to-government
relations with Native Americans affected by
activities at the base and in the NRC. This ongoing interaction program addressed the F-22 proposal and EIS
through:
l
Direct notification of the initiation of the EIS process to 17 tribes and one organization
historic or prehistoric ties to the land in the NRC vicinity;
to ensure that the 17 tribes and one organization
with
0
Communication
meetings;
were invited to scoping
o
Direct distribution of copies of the Draft EIS to the tribes to ensure their awareness of the
proposal and its potential effects, and to receive comments from them; and
o
Meeting with the tribes after receipt of comments
briefing of status and schedule of the F-22 NEPA
on the Draft EIS and providing
process and F-22 program.
Nellis AFB’s Native American Interaction Program and associated government-to-government
would continue should the F-22 beddown occur. Any future issues from the Native Americans
F-22 would be addressed through this program.
an Air Force
relations
regarding
the
CULTURALRESOURCES:As described in the Draft EIS, the proposed site for the Munitions
Maintenance and
Storage Facility has not been surveyed for cultural resources. To comply with regulatory requirements for
the protection of cultural resources, Nellis AFB would undertake the following management actions to
reduce potential effects:
l
Survey of the construction
l
Evaluate any cultural resources identified
l
Perform
l
area prior to ground disturbance
Section 106 consultation
(before January 2000);
as a result of the survey;
with the Nevada SHPO; and
If cultural resources deemed eligible for the National Register of Historic Places are identified,
either avoid them or mitigate the effects to insignificant
levels through data recovery.
1.4
DECISIONS
TO BE MADE
After considering the environmental
information presented in this EIS, as well as other factors relative to
national defense, the Air Force will decide whether to implement the Proposed Action or to select the NoAction Alternative.
A decision to proceed with the Proposed Action would result in basing the F-22 aircraft
for FDE and WS at Nellis AFB and implementing
associated supporting actions. If the No-Action
Alternative were selected, the F-22 aircraft beddown for the purpose of FDE and WS training would not
occur at Nellis AFB. Selection of the No-Action Alternative may affect the timing of F-22 integration into
the Air Force.
1.0-6
Summav
2.0
COMMENTS
AND RESPONSES ON THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
2.1
INTRODUCTION
This section contains comments on the Draft EIS and responses to those comments. Comments
were received from federal, state, and local agencies; American Indian governments; private
organizations; and the general public during three public hearings on the Draft EIS and in written
comments mailed to the Air Force. The comment period began on June 18, 1999 and closed on
August 2, 1999. In accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), public and
agency comments were reviewed and incorporated into the Final EIS. These public and agency
comments will be used by the decisionmaker
in determining whether or not to implement the
Proposed Action.
Comment and Response Process
Comments on the Draft EIS were generated through both written correspondence and oral
statements during the public comment period. The following process was used for reviewing
responding to these comments:
o
l
l
l
All comment
letters and testimony
were reviewed and assigned a unique number.
Within each comment letter or testimony, substantive comments were identified and
bracketed. These bracketed comments were then reviewed by appropriate staff or
resource specialists and provided an individual response. Three guidelines were used
for determining
substantive comments.
1.
The proposed action, alternatives,
questioned.
or other components
of the proposal were
2.
The methodology
3.
The use, adequacy, and/or accuracy of data were questioned.
of the analysis or results were questioned.
The individual bracketed comments were assigned a response code corresponding to
a specific response. These responses (and codes) were organized in numerical order.
The responses to comments appear in the Response section (2.2) of this Final EIS.
Due to their similarity,
some comments
were assigned the same response.
An alphabetical directory of commentor’s
names, with their associated comment,
generated and is provided following this introduction.
mm
h
and
Comments and Responses
was also
2.0-l
.-.----
F-22 Force Development
Evaluation
and Weapons School Beddown,
Nellis AFB
Locating Your Comment Letter or Oral Testimony
Locate your name in the directory of commentors alphabetized by last name. After locating your
name, note the number in the third column. This number was assigned to your comment letter
and is found on the upper right-hand corner of the letter. The comment letters are printed in
numerical order. Oral testimony is grouped by the location of the public hearing (Las Vegas,
Caliente, and Tonopah) and each commentor is also assigned a number and listed in numerical
order.
Locating
Responses to Comments
All comment letters were given a response number. Response numbers are printed next to one or
more bracketed areas in the left margin of the comment letters. Because of the limited number of
comments, responses were not grouped by resource area. However, they are generally ordered by
agencies, public written comments, and public oral comments. Responses are found in the
Response section (2.2) following the comments.
m-2
Comments and Responses
*
F-22 Force Development Evaluation and Weapons School Beddown, Nellis AFB
Directory
of Commentors
First Name
Last Name
Adams
HaW
Benezet
Louis
Brewster
Dennis
Corban
Keith
Comment
Letter #
000013/000016
000022
000014/000017
-
R
Department
of Comprehensive
000020
000005
Planning
Detraz
Marjorie
000019
Dolby
Trevor
000007
Grone
Joe
000008
Livreri
Patricia
00002 1
Martiny
Richard
000010
Meyers
Calvin
000015
Permenter
Robert
000018
Rural Alliance
for Military
000004
Accountability
Nevada State Clearinghouse
000003
Tortoise
000009
Group
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
U.S. Environmental
000002
Service
Protection
Agency
00000 1
Vanderveen
CWl
000023
Weaver
Phyllis
000011
Western Shoshone National
Comments and Responses
Council
000006
2.0-3
1
000001
000001
22 beddown, FDE, and WS sctivitles may cost more to implement at other locations. This goes to the
essence of NEPA: providing a range of options in a comparative form, and selecting the superior one
after considering the COSIS,banfirs. and environmental impacts. We recommend tharthe FElS contain au
~~~a~~~o~~~~~lys~
that, et a minimum, includes Holloman and Edwards within the range of
R-5
~-7
I
ararnatically over the past decade, however, the comparison betwee! current affected areas and affected
amas under the proposed action appear to use static population assumptions. Given such growth, the
affected population may be substantially understated since the proposed action will not be completed
until 2008. An analysis ofpopulation growth and encroachment iuound the base, and the impacts of the
proposed action on the population.in 208. &uld be included in the Final EIS. In turn, this should be
taken into consideration when comparing the costs, benefits, and impscts associated with each of the
I &em&es
previously suggested.
Noise Impacts and MLtigation
The Table on pages 249 through 2.51 summarize the noise impacts anticipated withthe
proposed action. With respect to noise. some impacts of nole for the residential areas Neal Nellis AFB
are:
Pvironmental
The DEIS is clear in its summary chat the increased noise impact “footprint” and the il nease in
populs~ion exposed to noise levels at and above 65 DNL will have a disproportionate impact on minority
and low-income communities. This conclusion is baaed on the fact that the anticipated tiected
population (From noise) will hnve a minority make-up that is 2 percent higher than the Region of
Comparison (XOC), and a low-income propoaion that Is 8 percent higher than the ROC. As the DEB
states, Executive Order 12898 was used to define areas of “‘disproportionate impact” where minority or
low-income population proportions exceeded those of the ROC. The anticipated impacts from the
proposed action raises a strong Environmental lustier (RI) concern. Section 4.12 discusses the El issues
with respect to noise impacts. There are two deficien&es in tbis Section.
I) Approximately 15,000 to 21.ooO acres of land have been exposed to noise levels greater than
65 DNL in the past. With F-22 beddowu, the area will be 23,01Xl acres exposed to more than 65 DNL.
2) Currem number of people exposed to 65 DNL or greater is 22.80(3; with F-22 beddown it -_
would be 37,750. an increase of@%. Tbe DEIS states that no area would experience au increase of
more than 2 dB.
3) Currently. there are six noise-sensitive receptors in areas 65 DNL and above; with theF-22
this would increase by 15 receptors, to a total of 21. Thesenoisesensitivereceptors
include elementary
and high scho&, churches, and parks.
First, the dialog in paragraph five and the information in Table 4.12-l is misleading and unclear
in describing the actual affected populations.’ The proposed project will add approximately 15900
people to the population that is exposed to 65 DNL and above. This is an overall increase of
approximately 60 percent (baseline is 22,800). The baseline minority population exposed to 65 DNL and
above is 5,900 people, or 26 percent of the total affe&d population of 22,800. When the anticipated
impacts are accounted for, the new “a&ted population” will he 37,750 people, with 10,050 n&&ties.
Thus, the minority eompooent of the total affected population will be appmxirnately 27 percent.
However, it is important to make clear that of the newly affecred population under the pmposed projat,
there will be an increase from 5.900 minorities to 10,050 minorities affected: art increase of 59 percent.
The non-minority increase in affected population will be similar. nearly 61 percent.
Clearly, the proposed action will have aconsiderable Impact withrespect to noise-affecled
population. In fact, page 4.2-9 state+ that “approximalely 5,603 people could be highly annoyed by noise
from the proposed beddown.” This is a near doubling of exposure in the range of “hlghIy annoyed”
people.
Page 4.2-11 stares that the Air Force has ^rerponsibilities for flight activities including the
following: flight safety, noise abatement, and participation in the land-use planning process.” The Air
Force proposes noise impact mltlgsdon measures for Sunrise Manor and Nonh Las Vegas, where the
majority of affected populations of people reside. These noise abatement praeedures would be 1) rapid
climb out to 6,ooO MSL for fighter aircraft. 2) 6Odegree right turn upon depsmtre, 3) depart to the north
before 9 am, and 4) practice approaches after 9 am. ou weekeods and holidays. Th&e are ihe same
prccedurer followed under the current operations at the base.
R-6
The DEIS states that “these poreduree would remain in effect under the proposed l&down.”
However, there is no discussion or analysis of improved or addiianal noise abatement techniques that
would possibly mitigate the increased noise footprint around Nellis AFR. The REIS does not indicate
that the increased noise impacts resulting horn the proposed action will be reduced or mitigateit by
current noise abatement procedures.. Rather. it is presumed that the proposed action will resnh in greater
noise impacts even with these practices in place. Therefore, an analysis of additional mitigation
mm~res is needed. PQ; example, given that the elevation of rhe area around N&s AFE (North Las
Vegas) is approximataly 2,200 MSL, aad one current noise abalement recbnique is a rapid climb out to
6,COOMSL. the actual distance horn the alrcraft to the ground would be only about 3,8W feet. Perhaps
climbdut to a greater altitude is desirable. More analysis and proposed actions for improved noise
abatement should be included in the Final EIS.
In addition, the DEIS does not include population growth projections in discussing potential
noise impacts: The DEIS states that Clark County is a fast growing area, and population has grown
Justice
R-8
:
Second, as writlen, paragraph 5 on page 4.12-l is inaccurate since it states that “...noise levels
sffect 26 percent of minority popuhlionsns (emphasis added).” Furthermore, the next sentence states that
under the proposed pmject, “...this would increase by 1percent to27 percent.” This statement could he
misinterpreted, *s tba actida increase (see above) is actually about 59 pent.
ht
is critical to
describe clearly in this section is the currant affected population; it’s ridntity sod non-minorily
components, as well as the low-income popuIations: and how the changes ia the noise impact will a)
increase overall number of people affected, and b) dlpropoflionately
burden minority and low-income
populations as there would aclnnlly ba an increase of nearly twice the number of minorities. and over
three-times the number of low-income people affe@ed if rhe prop@ heddown were to OCCUIat Nellis.
These are not only huge absoluteincreases in affezfectedpopulations, but also increases in the propodions
comprised of minorities and low-income people.
Hazardous Materials
and Solid Waste Management
Page 4.5-3 indicates that the increased waste streams for RCRA regulated hazardous waste will
increase hy 856 pounds per aircraft per year. Thus, by 2008 an additional 17 aircraft would generate en
extra 14,552 pounds. or more than 7 tons. ofRCRA hazardous waste to the Nellis AFB waste stream.
The DEIS, however, 5tak.s that the increased waste stream will grow by only 4,ooO pounds, representing
I
F-22 Force Development Evalaation and Weapons Schoot Beddown, Neliis AFB
Comments
UNITED STATES GNVIRONMENT~~ PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION lX
76 t&theme Street
SanFrandscqCA
84105
000001
Mr. William Myers
Chief
Environmental Plaunmg Division
HQ AFCEJYECA
3207 Nonh Road
Brooks AFB, TX 782355363
Dear Mr. Myers,
R-l
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) baa reviewed the U.S. Air Porte’s Draft
Enviroumental hupact Statement (DBIS) for&22 AIrcr@ Force Devclopmsnt Evaluation and
Weapons SchoolEeddmvn, Nellin APB. Comuwts are. provided under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), Section 309 of tbe Clean Air Act and the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ)
NEPA Jmplementhtg Regulations (40 CFR 15OO-lSO8).
Ille Air Force proposes to base a total of 17 F-22 Rap& aircraft at the Ncllis AFB in &me
phases beghmiug in 2002, with completiou in ZOO&for the purpose of Fume Development Evaluation
@DE) and Weapons School (WS) activities. The proposed action would also involve building or
externally modifying eight facilities on the base, as well as internally modifying two existing ones.
Additioual personnel would he added to the Nellis base population, au additional 4,472 air& sorties
would be conducted annually, and ordnance delivery activities (bombing run tests) and chaff and flare
deployment would be increased within approved airspace.
The DEIS examines two alternatives. The first is the prefened alternative of deploying the /7 P22 aircraft and implementing tbe FDEaad WS activities. The second is a No Action abema& under
which the proposed deployment would not take place. The DEJS refers to the possibility of using other
Air Force i?uallations to hare the F-22s. but does not fully analyze rhem as al&natives.
The preferred altem~tive would have considerable noise impacts to residential areas near Nellis
APB. Furthermore. these impacts would disproportionately affect minority populations, raising
Euviron$ental Justice issues. Tha DEIS does not analyze or describe how these noise impacts could be
effectively mitigated beyond curreatpractices. Incmsed hazasduus waste s&emus would also result
from the beddown and operations of 17 additional airccak The DEB presents questiooable data about
the total increase in RCKA regulated waste, and thus au accurate akessment of the hnpacts caunm be
made.
EPA is rating the DEIS “%2, Environmental Concerns, Insufficient Iuformalion”.
Please
refer to the euclosed Summary of Rating Definitions and Follow-Up Action for further information on
EPA’s rating syslem. We am extremely concerned that the DEIS fails to fully analyze aranga of
reasowdble alternatives pursuant lo 40 CFB 1502.14. Beca)lse of the limited analysis, the EPA (and be
public) is unable to evaluate the environmental aud other consequences of the proposal in comparative
foml. Furthermore, the anticipated environmental impacts associated with the preferred alternative, most
notably noise impacts, raise concerns that require more thorough analysis in the final document. Please
see the attached comments for a detailed discussion of EPA’s concerns.
Please send two copies of the Final Ekmmnental
Impact Statement to my attention (mail code
CMD-2) at the, letterhead address at the sama lime that it is sent to EPA’s Washington, D.C. office for
filing. Pleaseconiact me at (415) 744-1584 or Paul Carroll of my staffat (415) 744-1148 if you have
questions regarding our comm-ents.
Federal Activities
Attachments (2):
EPA Ratings Summary
Detailed Comments
Office
F-22 Force Development
2.1-4
Evaluation
and Weapons Sclzool Beddown,
Nellis AFB
Comments
000002
-oOOo&”
UnitedStates
Departmentof theInterior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Desett National Wildlife Retitge Complex
1500 North Decatur Boulevard
Las Vegas, Nevada 89108
Phone (702) 646-3401
Fax (70.2) 6463812
.
000002
June 28,1999
R-11 (
R-12 1
minimum elevation over the Sheep Range, which is ‘de facto’ wilderness and a public use
area. People visiting the area have an expectation of quiet and solitude. In addition, it is
one of the major areas used by desert bighorn sheep. The Service also strongly
encourages the Air Force to avoid flying near or around Hayford and Sheep peaks.
Page 4.7-3, paragraph 7:
The Service is encouraged to see that existing targ9t areas would be used, and that no new
roads, targets, or other facilities wouldbe built. Although the Air Porcemight acquire
primary jurisdiction of the target impact areas, Ihe Service would still maintain secondary
jurisdiction with a corresponding iutereel in any future ground disturbing activities.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the subject document. If you have questions, I can
be reached at 7026463401.
Mr. William A. Myers
Chief, Environmental Plannhrg Division
HQ AFCEE’ECA
3207 Notth Road
Brooks Ah Force Base.Texas 78235-5363
Dear Mr. Myers:
Subject:
R- 1
Project Leader
Draft Environmental ImpacI Statement for F-22 Aircraft Force
Development Evahuuiau and Weapons Beddown, Nellis Air Force Base,
Nevada
The following comments on rhe subject document are provided on behalf of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), Desert National Wildlife Range. As stated,in the document, the
NelUs Range Complex overlays a portion of this National Wildhie Refuge, and any Air Force
operations have the potential to impact refuge operations, mauagement aud wildiife.
Page 3.2-29, paragraph 3, line 3:
Desert National Wildlife Renge is managed as part of the National Wildlife &
System, not the National Wildlife ‘Range’ System.
R-10 1
,3.2&r, paragraph 2, iii 7:
The Service is concerned about the statement, “Aircraft operations are generally restricted
to a minimum of2.000 feet above ground level, except for special trahriog missions.” It
is the Service’s position that aircraft operations should be restricted tn flying above 2,000
feet, period, and not just ‘poerally’. Wii the use of P22s require an increme in the
number of special training missions? Wiii the useof F-22s require a change in training
routes? Will the use of P22s require a change in iogress to and egress Born the target
sites? The Air Force mnst consult, at least biannually, with the Service ou special
training mission needs, partlcubuly as they affect the eastern portion of Desert National
Wildlife Range.’ The Air Force is strongly encouraged to maintain the 2,@X-foot
.- -----
F-22 Force Developmenf Evaluation and Weapons School Beddown, NelIis AFB
2.1-6
.-
Comments
Comments
F-22 Force Development
Evaluation
and Weapons ScJzooJ Beddown, NelJis AFB
2.1-7
F-22 Force Development Evaluation and Weapons S’clzooIBeddown, Nellis AFB
000004
000004
musttakeinto accountall known factsand It mustgeneratepredictionsthatcanbe
verifiedby anyunprejudicedand neutral observer. Further,the adequacyof sucha
modelmustbe confimqi by determininghow well it fitsthe worid it examinesand
how well it canpredictaiterationsin thisworld,
R-31
‘&Air Forcenoise/annoyance
model hasdone rem&ably bad in all theseareas.The
DEISpresentsall noiseimpactsbasedon models.As a mitigationRAMA believesthe
Au Forceshouldplacestate-of-the-artnoisemonitorsthroughout theimpacted
minorityand low incomecommunitiesto determinetheactualnoiseimpacts.Noise
andysll mustbe conductedunder worst casescenario.Not on a Sundaywhen there
are fewoverflights.
noiseexposurelevelsfrom variti~ soundsousesis that there are,typically,large
differencesin soundexposurefor living and sleepingareasin a home fromaircraft
overflightnoisecomparedwith the soundexposurefromroad Mfic noise. Noise
froman aim& overflightvktuallysurroundsa home,enteringthe living and
sleepingareaethrough the roofand two or more sidesof the dwelling, while
streettrafficnoiseenterspredominai~tlythmugh only one or two sidesof the
dwelling. This differencein soundexposurewithin a homeis, typically,not
accountedfor,or discussed,in socialsurveyswhen researchersestimatethe noise
exposureof subjects.
Thankyou for the opportunityto comment.Pleasefeelfreeto callin you anyfurther
pStiOIU.
In sum,by 1989the Air Forceknew, basedon its own contract’sreport, thataircraft
noisewas moreannoyingto a communitythan otherkinds of noise and,asa rest&,
thata modelbasedon a combination of &craft and automobilenoisewould
miscalqula~e
communityannoyance.The Air Forcealsoknew that a modeling
techniqueexistedthat would allow it to moreaccuratelyPredictthis noisein anurban
setting.It alsoknew thatit shouldbe cone&g its urban annoyancecalculationsby at
least5 dB.Insteadofincorporatingthesefindingsin theDEIS,the Air F~IWdisregarded
R-32
I thisinformationand continuedto baseaircraftnoiseon theSchultzcurve.
R-33
GracePotorti
The DEISalsOfailedtore@gnirx?additional finding8by thereferencedAir Force
I researchers,
LawrencePinegold,C.StanleyHarris;and HenningE.vonGierke, These
Air Forceresearchers&o found thatair&t noisewasmore annoyingthanother
kindsof transportationnoise. Their report,publishedin 1994,and citedasoneof the
centralmodelsin theDEL!%,
includesa sectionlabeled‘4.A&aft NoiseVerausother
TransportationNoiseSources’thatcontainsthe following statements:
...since &hulk
publishedhis exposure-response
relation&p in 1978,amtroversy
hascontinuedoverwhether all typesof trkportation noiseshould be combined
under therubric of “generallrarkportalionnoise.”Many researchen,
seeevidence
thataircraftnoiseis ratedasbeing moreannoyingthanother typesof
transportationnoise,suchasrailroad and highwaynoise.
...Onereasonwhy it.is dffficultto comparepubllsheddataon humsnresponses.to
5
6
Department of Comprehensive Planning
500 S Grand Central Pky . ste 3012 * PO Box 551741 * Las Vegas NV 8816~1741
(702) 4554181
. Fax (702) WS94C
000006
Mr. DonKellone
F-22Aircraft&&own EIS
HQAPCBW@CP
3207NoahRoad
BrooksAFB,TX 78235-5363
DearMr. Kellogg:
R- 1 Thd youfortheopportuoity
toreviewtheDraftEIS:m
pand
Weappreciate
aadsupporttheneedto
maintaincombatsupe&ity andvalueNellisAPBasanintegralpartof ourcommuuity.
R-34
COMMENTSOFTHE
WESTERNSHOSHONENATIONAL
COUNCIL
ONTHE
THEF-22FORCEDEVBLOPMBNTEVALUATION
AND
WEAPONSSCHOOLEEDnOWN
NELLISAFEDEIS
Asstatedrepeatedly
iu thedocument,
theproposed
additionalairfieldoperations
wouldchange
theshapeandextenloftheareaafftiedby aircraftnoise amuadNellisAFB.Further,these
changes
areanticipated
to berelativelynegligibieeitherin termsof theareaa&ted or in the
magnitude
of thechange.
However,
shouldthisproposalbecauiodoutwe wouldwantto make
surethatwe haveiheinformation
necessary
tocvaluete
wbethextheCounty’sadoptedpolicies
andregulatious
mayneedto berevisedto assme
&atour laudusedecisions
arebasedon the
mostaco~e lnfonuationavatlahle.
SpecRierdly,
we wouldappreciate
havinga map,alongwith
BRelectronicfileof theassociated
data,of theprojected
noise(DNL)levels.lids wouldallow us
to comparetheprojectednoiselevelsagainstouradoptednoisezofies.
Enolosedforyourreference
is acopyoftherecentlyupdatkdSumiseManorLandUseffuide.
Thislatestupdate&her strengthens
landusecontrolssmrounding
N&s AFBtoassure
development
is compatible
withinthebase’sregionofintluence.
,
Shouldyouhaveanyquestions
pleasedo nothesitate
to contactmeat(702)455-4181,
Enclosures
JS/Jw/DK:kkb
L189
Monday,August2,1999
WesternSboshone
NationalCouncil
P.O.Box210
hidim Sprh~gs,
NV 89018-0210
NEWEsoGoEL4
.
000006
R- 1
000006
.
AUTEIORt’fY
WESTEItNSHOSHONE-UNITBD
STATESRELATIONS
TheWesternShoshoneNation
possesses
anexpress
reservation
ofpowerin tkedomof action.
Theexercise
ofthempowersexistsin theNationalCouncilof theWesternSboshone
Nation.The
onlyrightssurrendered
by theWesternShoshone
Nationto theUnitedStatescomebytheTreaty
of RubyV&y. II couldhavecomethroughtheTreatyof RubyValleythattheUnitedStatesmay
claima right.
TheWesternShoshone
Nationhasgoverned
underlawsoftheCreatorhistorically
handeddown
oratyfromonegeneration
to thenextsincetimeitmneanorial.
Thetontempratyblacksndwhite
print, 9s in itsvatiourcooventiorts,
resohrtions,
treaties,
procedures,
judicialdecisions,
and&art@
wm&ute additionat
authorities,
Oneof thetimdamemsl
lawsof theWestern
Shoahone
Nationis
thesovereignty
sndsupremacy
of theNationalCouncilsssembled.
NOcourtoflaw cold ever
strikedownaNationalcouncilsetasbeingunlawtul.TheNationalCouncilisdeemed
to hethe
besttnterpreter
oftheWesternShoshone
lew.
ThcWestemSboshontNafionwonformairtcognirionbytheUoitedStatesthrougbthe
negotiiionturdsigningof atreatyof ‘macemrd&&rI@’ seeumd
forthebeneStof the
Western&shone NationsndtheUnitedStates.TheTreatyofRubyVaky’ grantedspeeitk
rightato theUnitedStates.
AUothari~~,power,t~eedioterescwithintheexterior
boundsries
oftbeWestern
Shot&one
Territoryareresu-ved
bytheWestern
Shoshone
Nationfor
theuseandbe&it of sllWesternShot&one
citizens.
Thetreatyisio tidl forcesndet&t.’
R-35
ENVRONMENTALJUSTICE
Thela~~s~rtbcl~~te~hoti~oftheNationalcounciliarewgniredbyU~t~
Statestawandinternational
lswsasfollows:
“Theutmostgoldfath Ml ahqm beobserved
fowmdtheIt&q: theirfat&
consenr;
andin their
amlpropetty shall never be taken fronr km wIthout iheir
properrytighLFrmdliberlythey~hallNever~ior~r~~~e
Nor&wedTwritorirdOrdmance
of 1787,
‘~isConrf~‘~~mdknvs~ojrhpUSwkichshallbs~in~~tea~
mdall~~iesmade,orwhich~Lniarde,~ruEe~~~gftheUSshall
bethemprernelow offhekd mf fhejatdgm
in ewy s@eshallbebound
lhereby, a&zing in the Cons&don or hnvs ofw SW IO fhe conbay
noMMam%~“US
Constitioq Article VI, paragnrph
II.
"Spcinlcareshallb~"agai,rrr"~~~~~(a~~tlreI~)wlrlch
the UniredStotes h solen@ obliged themeelvesto resrram.”
Trestyof
Oundeloupe
Hidsigo1848,9Statute922.
“...Pro&ng lhaf nothing in this& wnfainedehall be conetrue to @air the
rights or proper@ nowpet/ainiog to tie Mane in said renffoty, eo long as such
tights shalt remain unexlingu~ti by ftWy behveen lhe ub’ and fhe h&n% ‘Act
of Cougte-ss
OrgankingtheTerritoryofNevada1861
’ 111
slat.699.
’ Fiadh@ dPad M) ‘Bogowmmnthmodaitrpdlhe
egooL”us“.Lbn, seplanlbw
15‘1986.
1863 lb@
oflfuby Vakyb/njW/j%m
end
TheUnitedStates
througha formatprocmsof treetynegotiions andenactment
hashnpliedly
gaveup cat&o dghtsto theWe&m Shoshone
Nation.Provisionforeconomkandsocialactivity
undertheTreatyof RubyVatteyaredulyreooguixed
nsb&g reserved
rightsto beregulatedby
theWesternShoshone
Nationandsrethebasisfortheimpliedconsent
of theUnitedStatesto be
I boundbythoseregulatioos
subjectto thejusticeble
processes
oftheNattonalCounoit.
R-36
TheF-22ForceDevelopment
BvshtatlonandWeaponsSchoolBeddown,NebisAFBDEB fails
to complywithBxeurtiveOrder12898.No*bse
istheonlyresponse
resourceconsidered
bythe
DEIS.A thoroughandindepthinvestigation
of thesitingprocessis essential
to ensure
compliance
of thePresident’s
nondkrimtnationdiie ifthatdirectiveis to havesnyrest
meaning.
Racialdisc&k&on in thestttt of federalfacitiiesandprogramssttesetection
process
cannotbeuncovered
with onlya facialreview.fkimtnation isrsrelyedmittedsndiso&en
rationakedundersomeotherguisemahingit difficultto ferretout.A morethorough
investigation
mustbeconducted
to &ennine whetherdiscrimination
playesa rolein thesite
seleotionproeeso
fortireF-22.TbeNationalCouncilbelieves
dkcrtnkattoodoesptaya
sig&ant role.
DISCRIMINATION
TheUnitedStatesAh Forcediswimbrates
bynot reqn%g ihe differences betweentheWestern
ShosboneNatioa
endtheUnhe.lStates.TheWesternSboshoneNation,
because
ofitslifestyle,
cultureandreligionsdi&ences,areimpacteddiierentlybytechnology
development
end
deployment
thsnthegeneral
non-Shoshone
population.Wbenthesediftkencessrermgtected
the
hazardsof or& development
andtes!ingwill notbeassessed
accurateiy,
envkonmentsl
protection
standards
wtltnotbeadquetefortribslprotectionendrem& technologies
maynotbe
appropriate
or prntectiieof WesternShoshone
interests.
TheWesternShoshone
Nationhashada
seriousproblemwithauthropologists
who havecomeintoWesternShoahooe
Territoryviewing
WesternShoshone
citizensasculturalresonroestudysubjects.
Theyhavecomeintoour
eommtmities
andmaidned powerbynotfullyexplainingtheirpurposeor theprojectsin which
theyareinvolved.
Theyhaveextraotdooufidentiai
imiumstionthengoneawayto evaluate
it with
tbetrownv&e system
andskewedthepublished
&uSngto meettheobjectives
of thecontmcttng
agency.Theresultisnon-recognition
of theWesternShoshone
Nation,itsNations!Couacitand
the~egitimnte
rightsof WesternShoshone citizens caminS con&ton anda morallyimpoverished
scientificresearch
product.A betterapproachwoutdhaveintegratedtbeindividualpieceswith en
j
ooofK%
000006
eyeto under818ndiig
theoverallinrpiurtto Western
Shoshone
qualityof fiferetherthantryingto
understand
thesumof weaponor weaponssystem
impactbylwhbtg atonedimension,
cultural.
R-37
Acundiig theF-22ForceDevelopment
Evaluation
endWeapons
SchoolBedd~wn,NcEisAPB
DEIS,theWI scopeof Western
Sboshone
society,
reIiglor&
frefxlom8,
Customs,
lrrW8,
tu&o%
*nomy, q&y ofI& ml 0th~lifewayscanonlyexistwhen8tudledwilhinthecontextof
&~ral ESOW~SW&S.‘Ihe‘I&Q ofRubyValleyisdlegardedaslaw andtheWestern
Shoshone
Nationasa lawtidnationaretrestedwith dehherete
inherence,replaced
byUehed
States
federally
chartered
corporations
created bytheIndknReorgenimdon
Actof 1934whiohIn
turnpiecesthesecoqnqtlonsundertheauthorityof theUnitedStatesSecretary
oftheInterior.
AnthodyundertheIndianReorganization
Aotislimitedto theexteriorboundary
of ak&rally
recognhdhdian t&e matedundertheht. TheIndimReorganization
Actisthebasisof
Uni&j St& rec.ogeition
ofMiens astribalentities,
nottheactudexistenceof thetribeor
netionesit eetcurlly
exists,ass&determbted
peoplebesedontheeeedsandmethods
they
de\emdne
fortheirtaelb&iency. lb, @ottme of fed& r~gulti~~ ad theitnplii UO&
recogdionbytheUnltedStatesoftheWestern
S&hone N&a isthstUnitedStates
laws
providetdoEttteprotection
ofwestern&shone peopleetchingoutafateofexkctionforthe
Western
Shoshone
Nation.
Further,thecreetionof avolatilecomplexoflh&utionsforthesupportof UnitedStatesA&
Forcemissiondiscdmhtetes
uponanahesdyvulnerable
WesternShoshone
population.
The
pmposedbeddownoftheF-22fighterontheNelllsRangeCotnpl%tXlow8thepettm of
locutlnghazardous
faditlesandweaponssystans
inthehesrtofWestern
Shoslume
Territory.
Previous
secretweapons
development
incltuJiignucleardevices,
U2spyplanes,
stealthfighter
maftandtie propo8edMXmissileweeponsystemhavehaddev88t&igimpacts
uponthe
Western
ShoshoneNation.
All havebeenmetwhhpmtestandorganizedopposition
bythe
Western
Shoshonegovemment.
‘Iher&a~ed de&&on of Western
t&shoneTerritoryforthe
locationof F-22ForceDevelopment
Evahtatloa
andWcepons
SchoolBeddownislo subject
the
Western
Shoshone
peopletodisctimination
because
oftit& raceendidlity IO&&ely
enforcelawsdesigned
fix theirprotection.
GENOCIDE
TheWestern
Shoshone
Nationhasinheritedanongoinglegacyof victimWon by the United
States.TheNationalCouucgoftheWesternShoshone
Nationha3heldlongdebate8
andjudged
thatUnitedStems
isin vloIetIort
of theTreatyof RubyValley.Morerecentdelibemtlon
has
focused
uponactsof genocide
committed
bytheU&d slatesAir ForceundertheguiseoP,
protocol“cultu~u~ trbage.‘* The process
wascreatedbyDr.RichardStoffle,who was
subsequently
contracted
bytbeIJnltetIStatesAir Forceto conducta similarculturalresource
programon theNellis RangeComplex.
~-3 8
Thecuhumlresource
studymethodusedattheNevada
TestSiteto obtelninfonnation
about
WesternShoshone
cuitumlre8ourcee
is substantially
thesamefortheF-22ForceDevelopmeet
E~ahmtio~
andWeapons
SchoolB&down,Nellis&II. By utllg theConsolidated
Groupof
TribesandOrgenlzations
tbeUnited!&es Ah Forceseeksto circumeevIgate
a tmeapplicetion
of WesternSboshone
customin orderto meetwropllanccof NatlonslHistoricPreservation
Act,
tbeArcbeologlcel
Rosourco
ProtectionAct,theNativeAnterIcan
GravesProtectionand
Repatriation
Act;andtheAnterksnIndianReligiousFreedomAct.
TheNationalCouncilastbevoiceofhumanhy,
stamptheseects,andtheideaswhichengendered
them,asbarbarous
andcriminal.The actsviolateWesternShoshone
custom,Intmatiod I,ew
underibe UnitedNationsConvention
onPrevention
endPunIsbment
of theCrjtneof Genocide,’
andUnitedStateslaw undertheU&d State.8
Qenocide
Im$mentatlonAct.8
FRAUD
Withtheforegolngs$temerrt
of author& audjurIsdlotIon
of theNationalCouncilh ceuonlybe
8&unedthatabsenta claimof rightor eutborityby‘tie UnitedStatesmadepursuentto theTreaty
of RubyValley,thata sigebicent
ElegitiiatebenetitIsaccruedto theUnitedStatesAh Forceby
theUSC
of theN&s RangeCorn&. An intentionaldeception
bybnbviduals,
partners,
or other
entitywhichS&S to udv.&& deprivetheWesternShosbone
Nationof something
of valueend
to %curefnrtheU&d SteksAir Forcea benet%,
privilege,allowatcc,or comideretion
for
whichthereisno entitlement
constitutec
tkud.
RESOLUTION
The WesternShoshone
Nationfaces many lawsuitsandlegalproceed& (civillitigation),which
challenge
it8adion sodpoliciesThepressure of thesemanycasesplacesrtnInter-generetional
burdenupontheWeeternSboshone
peoplewhichbindersthes&determinationandpolid~
freedom
of theWe&n ShoshoneNation.
TheNetlonalCouncilmustdefenditscitizeos htter~ts
bywituhg thesecasesor settlingourdiRkeuce8
throughnegotiations.
‘Ihemethodof
negotiations
is preferred
andhe8beeno&cd since19&tby theNationelComd. It Isthefailure
of theUnitedSteteswhichha0ledtothefailureof thiscourseandfocuseditsetrentionlustadon
protractedlitigation.
“...hlwd~&hgslgn@cat~t adtural resourceqotentially ajected by [Air Force] action,
dekrminhg !.heeffect ftha~ action. und lmphmetdhtg nremres to awid, reduce, or otherwise
mifigatethosee#ects.
’ Thesyetematle
proccssused
in tbestudyandpreviously
developed
througha adturdresource
studybytheUnltedStates
Depsitmeet
ofEnergycobtedthestudy
4stOl%, RilW
Ohled
end&m.
klivt
AI~I.z&~ Chiral
cmbaaDE-AC%glNvtO576
(I+ KS).
‘oeoarat
Assew Rgolution2kn(rmkmher 9,194~.
‘F-22Force
Evatnatton
endWeetmns
L&t Esd&wa,
NellisAt%,4.8-t
%lhwmi~ Act,IO2Star.
3045,Novemter
5,198s.
RCSOUW at Yucca Mountin, SAIC WE
f
r
20 Jt.llyPO
.’
CONCLUSION
lngdon
A. Kellogg
HQAFCEUECP
3207NorthRoad
Brooks
AFBTX782355363
2105364183
000006
TheWe&m ShoshwagOVH#lmtId
understands
thatmatters
basedup011
tbeUnitedslates
Cmitutioq Watern
Shoshone
NationalCustom,andtreaties
arepoi&icalissues
uponwhich
militaryofficersmustremainneutral,rm&kss, theU&a States
Air Forcemusttakedue
notice of thefnctaandx+diGps
in thereMionship
batwePn
theUnitedStates
andtheWestern
SboshoaeNadon
toputintooperation
superior
p6wer
to protectthehealth,rights,libezdea,
freedoms.
and
mvironmeot
of theWeatem
Sboshone
peoplefromankreasingtyaggressive
Amekanbureawmcy.
TheUnitedStataAir Ponxhasanobligation
incidenttomilitaryservi~
dutywhenwithinWestern St10sho0+TenitwyEarthe,bettennmt
of We&anSha&onequalityof
lifein thec4mduct
of militmyoperations
otherthanwar.
R11
‘i
000007
IIhinkthatbasing
theF-22at Nellisisa goodIdea.
Severalyearsagocitizensup in northernandcentralNevada
(FallonNavalAir Trainingbase)wereclaiming
that militaryjets
overheadweremakingtheircowsneurotic. I don’thavelhe
information
thattheyor youhaveon effectsontheenvironment,
butI don’tneedit to offermyopinion
thatI havenoobjections.
I live in Amargosa
Valley. Wi haveA-10trainoverheadwith
someregularity
(lowlevelflight)andwe see& heartankers(C140sI think)circlethousands
of feetover headlessfrequently.
WhenwedrivetoVegastogetgroceries
etc.wedrivethroughhe
Indiansprings
AFBandbombing
range445(nearby)andseeall
manorofAir ForceaircraftIn theair. SoI knowwhatI aminviting
whenI encourage
youtohandustheF-22squadron.
P.S. theoneairshowIattended
at Nelliswasgreat,letsdothat
agalnI
TrevorB.Dolby
Box478-CRoute68
AmQOSa
valley,NV88020
7753721214
E-Mail; tbdolby@juno.com
000008
i&:
To:
IBubja&
R.. 1
lhe Organbation for the Protection of Nevada’sResident Tort&es,
Inc.
F-11 EIS k?+T
I--
Sunday, June 27,1898 4:4$?M
mike.~kadaeneUis.af~~
COMMENT
This may not be the appropriate addrasa for cmm~nts, but, just in case it is the
correct address, we want you to know that this is om family that wants the Air
Force to establish F-22 aircraft at Nallis.
000004
When we hear those jets I when we sea those jals - it makesusfeel not only
proud, but rmfident that our Air Force Is not only present, but that it’s training
pilots, and housing jets, for our sacurity through AIR POWER..
Ma.Bet&L. Burge
BRING
89119
Tel. and FAX (702) 739.8043
e-malt: lonoiscnr~~~e4,att.net
ON THOSE
5157 Poncho Cite
LnsVegaqNv
JETS!I!IIlIII!I!II
M2 William Myers
Environmental Planning
Division
HQ@(XEiECP
3207 NorthRoad
BrooksAFE$TX 782354363
DearSiri
R-39
Pleaseremoveournamefromihe yourmailinglid. Thankyou.
Betty i. Burge, Chatmao
June 17,1999
000010
27 June,
1999
Mt. Langdon A. Kellogg
HQ AFCEE/ECP
3207 North
Road
Brooks
AFB , TX. 78235-5363
000011
Dear Sir,
R-l
As a former Air Force man (circa
1950’s) I welcome the news of future
stationing
of F-22’s at Nellis.
It is a beatiful
aircraft
and one
that our nation needs.
The wide-open area of Nevada will suffice
the
requirements
of such an advanced plane.
Sincerely.
Richard
5455 Ario
Las Vegas,
Martiny
Road
J
NV. 89122
d
TELEPHONE:
(Oplional)
self ()
REPRESENTING:
Organization&
Other ()
if you would liketo receive a copy of the F-22 Beddown
no
i)i,4.j$
If you would like to comment,please use inside
F-22 Force Devkopment Evaluation and Weapons School Beddown, NelIis AFB
2.1-16
L”,,.w,k?efzLJ
F
.
J
‘.*‘i.‘:,,
.,
REPRESENTING: self w
Organization
lease indicate if you would like to receive
I)
Other (
a copy of the F-22 Beddown
If you would like to comment,
pleas~‘ti&\/&;Sde
@
F-22 Force Development Evaluation and Weapons School Beddown, Neilis AFB
Comments
POBLICHEARING
,
7/13/99
2
PROCEEDINGS
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
gentlemen, it’s
5
HEARINGOFFICER:
Good evening, ladies and
about time we get started.
5
have anybody else out in the hallway,
6
6
in.
7
I
8
I’m Colonel
8
presiding
9
9
public
10
11
PUBLICHEARINGNEBTING
10
the first
11
Force proposal to locate F-22 aircraft
12
Force Base.
13
Held at the Sunrise Library
5400 Harris Avenue
,Las Vegas, Nevada
14
15
On Tuesday, July 13, 1999
At 7:OOp.m.
16
11
Presiding:
Colonel Michael B. McShane,
Hearing Officer
or hearing officer,
hearing this evening.
fulfill
send them on
be the
for this
This public hearing is
in a series of three hearings on the Air
This public
13
14
officer,
If we
Mike McShane, and I’ll
ENVIRONNRRTAL
IMPACTSTATENENT
12
.‘,
PUBLIC HEARING
l/13/99
the requirements
at Nellis
hearing this evening serves to
under the National
15
Environmental Policy Act, and we may refer
16
NSPA during the course of the evening, and its
11
implementing regulations.
To be clearer,
to that as
our sole
18
reason for being here tonight is to receive the
19
19
public’s
20
20
draft environmental
21
21
cannaonly referred
22
\
23
DEIS.
18
22
23
24
25
Reported by: Robert D. Stanley, RPR
CCRNo. 330
Air
comments, that is, your comments on the
impact statement, which is
to as a draft RIS, ‘or just as the
Before moving forward with an overview
24
briefing,
25
proceeding this
I would like to explain my role in this
evening
to help you better understand
-
PUBLICBSABING
1
7/n/99
this process.
2
I am an Air Force officer, obviously,
but I am also an attorney currently assiqned at
3
Bolling Air
4
As
5
Force, my usual duties involve supervising 20 Air
6
Force military
7
8
over Air Force criminal trials,
9
Force
the chief trial
Base in the District .of Columbia.
judges, and also involve presiding
or courta-martial,
10
either Nellis Air Force Base, or air combat coammnd,
11
12
the proponents of the draft BIS we will be
considering tonight. Also, I have had no involvement
13
in the development of this draft EIS, and am not here
14
15
to serve as a legal advisor to the Air Force or the
proponents of this proposal. I tell you this so that
16
17
you will understand that my role as hearing officer
18
is simply to ensure that we have a fait, orderly, and
impartial hearing, and that all who desire to be
19
heard have an opportunity to speak. In sum, I serve
20
as an impartial moderator of this hsarinq.
The hearing will be conducted in three
22
parts.
First, Major Torba will make a presentation
23
on the proposed action.
24
provide an overview of the National Environmental
25
Policy
Act,
??ext, Mr. Jim Campewill
as well a6 a summaryof the potential
4
environmental impacts of the proposal.
2
part of this hearing, after we take a break, will be
3
your opportunity to provide, for the record, comments
on the draft EIS. We do it this way, briefings first
5
.
l/13/99
1
4
judge of the United States Air
occurring at Air Force bases anywhere in the world.
I amnot assigned to, and have no connection with,
21
PUBLIC HEARING
3
The third
6
and then comments, so you may be better informed as
you offer your remarks. The 45 day public comment
I
period for this proposal began June Uth,
8
runs through August 2nd, 1999, based on inputs the
Air Force receivea during this period, either in
9
1999 and
10
11
12
writing, or from the’public hearings such as
tonight’s, additional analyees will be conducted,
evaluated and/or performed, and changes will be made
13
to the draft BIS, where appropriate.
14
15
draft EIS has already been shaped by public comments
submitted during the scoping process.
16
Throughout this hearing, I ask you to keep
in mind that this public hearing is not designed to
17
1e
be a debate, nor is it a popularity
In fact, the
vote on the draft
1s
BIs, nor is it primarily
designed as a
.
2c
21
question-and-answer session, although clarifying
questions asked as part of your comment time may be
22
appropriate.
22
24
aside for you to use your commenttime to personally
attack those whose views may be different from your
2:
OWn.
This hearing is also not a time set
I
I
PUBLIC BEARING
l/13/99
This
1
2
adequacy
3
environmental
4
Concerns
is primarily
of the environmental
impacts
raised
6
to the record,
at this
associated
hearing.
I
others
to provide
8
impact
statement
about
analysis
They will
and may limit
not add anything
three
11
you saw as you registered,
12
like
13
comment orally
14
tonight,
or you can comment directly
15
reporter
following
16
People wanting
17
should
have noted
18
little
card you filled
On comment sheets,
out your
during
19
you came in this
20
card for
environmental
hearing
like
for
those
this
comments by hand,
the public
the general
to make oral
that
comment session.
comments this
that
wanted
to speak but now wi6h to speak this
please
fill
out a card
For those
24
the Air
Force about
25
comments should
in when
If you did not fill
22
during
wishing
the
out a
you
evening,
the break.
to comment in writing
the proposal,
your
be sent to the address
written
shown on this
to
7/ 13199
slide.
And that
Also,
if
written
detailed
comments tonight,
that
6
sheet,
which
I
table,
Written
8
address
through
9
is important
orally
or submitted
12
consideration.
evening
15
will
Major
18
Office
19
presentation
Air
will
characteristics
21
proposing
to station
22
I’ll
a brief
2:
action.
give
multi-mission
Major
my name is
Superiority
Base.
My portion
why the Air
Force
the F-22 at Nellis,
description
superiority
of the
some general
of the F-22,
air
representative,
Good evening,
The F-22 is the next
2!
2!
equal
in the Airplane
Force
address
20
Force
It
made
tonight,
be given
his presentation.
I work year
at Langley
will
the Air
MPJOR TOBBA:
Torba.
17
2nd, 1999.
in writing
later,
give
at this
coTLPnents, either
or provided
time
verbal
comment
at the sign-in
August
all
more
your
be accepted
until
that
in writing
Torba,
Major
Torba ,
to submit
is on this
is located
the mail
At this
14
address
conrments will
to note
this
like
on the comment
comments to supplement
as I said,
11
is also
you would
6
10
6
address
4
16
evening
card,
or did not indicate
2
sheet.
13
to the court
out when you signed
evening.
You can
comment period
on the attendance
some reason,
in one of
one that
of you who would
21
23
of
analysis.
10
to write
not be
the opportunities
You can comment at this
ways:
should
comments on the draft
next
3
the proposal.
issues
1
the
and the
with
non-environmental
5
9
3d
5-L
I
hearing
about
PUBLIC HEARING
5
is
and then
of the proposed
generation,
fighter,
supplementing
PUBLIC HEARING
the aging
l/13/99
F-1X/D
requirements
ability
7
fleet.
well
Designed
into
4
providing
our air,
:
freedom
to conduct
f
forces.
i
characteristics,
E
without
5
maneuverability
control
afterburner,
have stealth
fly
at supersonic
possess
Over any current
It will
also be capable
11
of the art
fighter
weaponry.
The Air
Force proposes
beddown,
14
development
15
Nellis
the F-22 aircraft
evaluation
Air Force
16
development
11
combat tactics
18
ensures
19
operational
those
for
tactics
units
advanced
21
command is responsible
22
program
23
represents
24
test
25
training
offered
requirSments
7
envisioned
for
increased
8
test
9
state
force
at
and develop
implementing
Nellis
Air
base components
that
11
successful
new aircraft,
12
development
13
beddown
activities.
14
Air
15
complex
are the only
16
providing
the specific
17
F-22
38
major
FDE program
changes
21
Nellis
Air
Force Base
22
2008.
367 personnel
23
installation
and weapons
25
Force
proposes
capable
needed
Force
of 17 F-22
Base between
between
will
activities
This
and range
truly
for
of
the
without
land resources,
The Air
a total
to
Base.
airspace
sites
for
school
Force
requirements
and
proposes
to base,
aircraft
at
the years
2002 and
be added to the
fiscal
The proposed
ConStruCtion
Force
to the airspace,
phases,
24
to develop
Force
Air
associated
Air
the
to provide
and the weapons school,
the F-22 PDB
range and
to those
the F-22,
and weapons
at Nellis
base and its
base infrastructure.
combat
like
The Air
aircraft
in three
Air
50 years
similar
by law and policy
F-22 WE program
Force
more than
exercises
war combat capabilities
this
The
the p-22.
is required
the aircraft's
operate.
has been used
for
training
19
the
meets the
the F-22 FDE program
Force
10
will
complex
by the military
Par all
Air
the F-22
range
20
completing
the only ACC base with major
for
speeds
by the school.
for
and weapons schools.
facility
flying
and the weapons school
the pilots
Force
continuously
The force
will
Air
to conduct
are passed on to the
through
20
Nellis
and weapons school
missions
the F-22,
4
to base, or
Base in Nevada.
evaluation
the
in the back of the room
the area where
6
of carrying
8
The display
depicts
5
and to implement
program
2
3
or projected
aircraft.
13
with
l/13/99
schools.
thus
opposing
will
and will
1
have the
ir arena,
against
1C
12
will
the
operations
will
it
I
and sea forces
ground,
The aircraft
to meet combat
the. future
to effectively
PUBLIC HEABImG
year
action
on,Nellis
2001 and 2007.
entails
facility
Air Force
Base over
PUBLIC HEARING
7/s/99
1
about a six-year
2
2000.
3
dormitory,
4
detailed
starting
and an aircraft
constructed
posters
or improved
It
aircraft
parts
and evaluation
squadron
eight
and the remaining
10
school
program
12
tracks
to and from the base and operations
13
Air Force
14
existing
11
or more above ground
range complex will
speeds.
19
approximately
20
end of 2002, 8 sorties
21
the Nellis
24
The 4300 sorties
25
sortie
operations.
range
that
primarily
for
but is also
requirement
for
trainers.
DOD test
its
meet all
such as the F-15.
14
weapons
of the flights
15
appropriate
16
support
over the
at 10,000
or missions
feet
air
fly
per day by the
year
per day from 2008 on.
testing
would represent
would be in
and training.
approximately
operations
25,800
would
17
integrated
18
existing
19
criteria,
20
for
Other
bases,
facility
school.
Nellis
No other
22
or organizational
23
unique
24
weapons
25
and airspace
school.
Nellis
Air
exidt
suitable
against
Force
this
solution
school.
the specific
necessary
of the F-22
already
an
logical
and weapons
offers
infrastructure
requirements
and
When measured
base
simulation,
exercises,
the only
the F-22 FDE program
21
and
include
space environment,
provided
but none
threat
training
infrastructure.
Air
the FDE program
These requirements
force
a
have major
Base;
for
large
having
including
base components,
instrumentation,
support
users
such as blloman
Force
range
battle
base is a
evaluation
to all
of the requirements
for
’
and
capabilities,
13
to the
the
under
facility
operated,
available
and test
Y
under
contribution
and test
is sized,
range
over the
per day between fiscal
F-22 sortie
a
mission,
valid
asset
La
Flight
AGL, at subsonic
range complex for
maintained
9
and a 3 percent
Base and Edwards Air
By 2008 4300 annual sorties
23
I
to the total
operations
scenario.
A major
6
sortie
Force
2003 and 2007, and 17 sorties
22
scenario,
national
contribution
complex
11
the F-22 will
6 sorties
a 13 percent
10
be conducted
level,
We anticipate
nine would
10
military
be similar
operations,
test
l/13/99
range
5
Air Force weapons
Air Force Base.
The vast majority
Nellis
ia
States
range complex will
16
the high-use
to the operational
to the United
fighter
low-use
of the
11
15
3
4
More
on the display
be assigned
at Nellis
Nellis
in the DEIG.
that
would be assigned
represent
2
to be
is presented
is anticipated
1
a
warehouse.
in detail
PUBLIC BBAEING
year
a hangar,
on the facilities
and discussed
I
in fiscal
would include
information
6
9
period,
New facilities
5
a
9
FDE program
physical
to support
and
Base and its
and meet the F-22
ranges
testing
PUBLICHEARING
l/13/99
PUBLIC BEARING
11
l/13/99
12
7
1
and training
2
also offers the synergy of interaction
‘3
current Air Force FDE program and weapons school.
4
1
The draft EIS is made available
2
3
period and the final EIS will incorporate changes to
the document and address public comments. we have
4
also contacted many local,
program needs. Nellis Air Farce Base
Now I will
with the
turn the microphone over to Jim
for a 45 day comment
state, federal,
5
Campe, who will
discuss the environmental process.
5
agencies during the process and will
6
MR. CANPE: Thank you. I’ll highlight
three areas of this process for you tonight: The
6
with them while completing our work.
7
7
8
National Environmental Policy Act, a summaryof the
0
9
potential
NEPA also requires that agencies analyze a
no-action alternative.
The no-action alternative in
this case means the F-22 aircraft beddown and its
environmental impacts that may result from
9
10
10
the proposed action, and the schedule of upcoming
11
events.
11
12
12
13
NBPA IS the federal governmentis
declaration of the United Statea environmental policy
13
14
and requires us to consider the environmental
14
15
consequences of major federal actions.
Our role is
continue to work
associated actions would not occur at Nellis Air
Force Base. Flying activities
and supporting
missions currently taking place at the installation
and Nellis
levels.
15
range complex would continue at existing
To summarize the earlier
discussions,
16
to inform the public and Air Force decision makers of
16
17
potential
environmental impacts that may result from
17
Nellis:
10
his or her decisions. This is a well-defined
process, and this slide shows some of the ways we are
10
19
19
seven-year period starting
personnel by approximately
20
fulfilling
ERPArequirements.
20
improvements over several years starting
A notice of intent to take this EIS was
21
21
and tribal
Air Force proposes to take the following
Station and separate 17
12 resource categories
and in various newspapers in the region. Public
involvement includes scoping meetings in ‘97 as well
23
installation
and surrounding
range complex.
as the public hearings we are holding this month.
25
published in the federal register
23
24
25
in August of ‘97
24
aircraft
over a
in 2002, increase
370, and make facility
in 2000.
The draft EIS has analyzed impacts to the
22
22
F-22
the
actions at
shown on the slide.
For the
community-and Nellis
The no-action’alternative
would not alter
PWLIC
1
HEARING
current
operations
2
the
Nellis
3
any
changes
4
would
5
not
current
would
the
not
environmental
environment
in
2
and
3
increase
over
4
exceed
2 decibels
5
in
6
areas
use
7
approximately
the
8
level
or
result
the
resource
Public
potential
0
around
Nellis
9
Nellis
range
base
11
of
scoping
impacts
and
Air
subsonic
Force
complex,
Base,
is
following
takeoff8
and
15
base
when
16
installation
in
17
approximately
18
base.
19
between
booms
around
the
occur
This
13 percent
base.
in
Each
used
11
Projected
12
recommendations
land
13
annually
from
14
regulations.
15
restrict
the
be at the
represents
an increase
current
levels
at
of
2(
275
23
10:00
of
7:OO
the
p.m.
2;
of
a.m.
and
flight8
and
7:00
is
compared
2<
current
study.
against
condition8
The F-22
flights
would
1O:OO p.m.,
each
The noise
21
F-22
17
the
year
with
occur
approximately
occurring
between
a.m.
levels
the
due
to the
actual
noise
as measured
during
operations
in
the
F-22
beddown
levels
of
a 1997
Nellis
noise
airfield
16
uses
These
18
F-22
19
speeds
approximately
20
flying
air
combat
21
would
occur
within
22
at
23
supersonic
altitudes
proposed
action,
within
the
the
areas
base
noise
land
use.
acceptable
and
County
have
in
noise
kere
to
within
in
open
zoning
been
enacted
affected
since
to
by
1996
and
are
study.
would
operate
at
10 percent
of
maneuvers.
the
the
time
All
supersonic
air
range
Nelli
locations
supersonic
already
while
activity
complex
authorized
and
for
flight.
24
25
and
be
Clark
the
noise
live
commercial
the
use
occur
currently
regulations
regulations
around
The
Overall
range
would
not
generally
impacts
industrial,
to
would
be
zoning
potential
according
increased
The
However,
County
for
noise
the
would
65 decibels.
levels
on a 1992
and
people
Under
residential
aircraft
‘based
cases
people
Clark
in
conditions
22,800
determining
noise
or 9,000
.t
The majority
from
9
10
findings.
most
37,750
result
conditions.
baseline
in
above
to
current
65 decibels.
the
the
to
About
zones
for
expected
current
above
contours
be
relative
lands.
flights,
will
over
the
with
the
the
F-22
aircraft
2008.
in
addressed
would
17 of
land
associated
4500
landings,
all
sonic
summarize
Approximately
13
and
thoroughly
slides
about
noise
justice
concerns
The
concerns
air’quality
environmental
these
EIS.
of
raised
would
levels
open
14
7/n/99
noise
conditions
as I go through
HEARING
1
base
categories.
10
2r
for
so it
be addressed
7
14
infrastructure
complex,
to
6
12
or
range
PUBLIC
13
l/13/99
complex
would
average
increase
noise
by
levels
1 decibel
in
the
or
Nellis
less
to
PUBLIC HERRING
15
7113199
1
a maximumdaylight average of 60 decibels.
2
would be a small increase in the
There
3
sonic booms in the Elgin and Coyote Military.
4
5
PUBLICHEARING
7/13/B
16
I
Currently,
2
percent of the total population
3
Under the proposed action, the percentage of
Operating Area, or MOA. The average number of sonic
4
minorities
booms would increase from apProxim&ely 20 sonic
5
6
booms per month to approximately 24 per month in the
6
Similarly, the low-income population affected is 11
percent and would increase to 19 percent. Minority
7
Elgin MOA and from about four sonic booms per month
7
populations
8
to approximately 10 per month in the Coyote region.
8
9
Emissions of air pollutants into the area
encompassing Nellis Air Force Base would increase
and low-income population would become
disproportionally
impacted.
10
average
number
of
9
the minority population
affected is 26
above 65 decibels.
affected would increase to 27 percent.
are
already disproportionally
I’ve just highlighted
10
impacted
some of the more
under implementation of the proposed action, but
would not cause a significant impact to air quality.
11
important environmental issues for you tonight.
12
12
Additional
13
The carbon monoxide and other emissions produced by
13
14
14
for the
15
the F-22 aircraft, associated support equipment,
construction activities,
and increased personnel,
15
Register on June l&h,
16
would not result in
16
17
the air quality
public commentperiod that will close on August 2nd.
1999. We will prepare and distribute a final EIS in
18
increase the amount of carbon monoxide and PM10 dust
18
I¶
contributed by Nellis Air Force Base activities
19
October of ‘99. After a 30 day waiting period, the
Air Force will make a de&ion on whether or not to
20
the area by approximately one-tenth of 1 percent.
20
proceed with the proposed
11
or
contribute
standards.
to
exceedences of
The F-22 beddown would
to
17
analysis is contained in the draft EIS.
F-22
A notice of availability
of the draft ELS
beddown was published in the Federal
1999. This started a 45 day
action.
I am confident
21
that the comments we hear tonight and throughout the
of the proposal, the air affected by noise levels of
65 decibels or greater would increase around the
22
comment period will
23
24
base. The county averages of minority end low income
24
Force leadership to consider environmental issues in
their decision making,
25
populations
25
As stated before, with the implementation
21
22
23
are 25 and 11 percent respectively.
continue to help us assist Air
That concludes my portion
of the I
PUBLIC BRARIN5
1
presentation.
Thank you for
a
3
your
presentations,
major
Before
5
proceed
6
public
1
the ground
8
FiJiit,
3
comment card like
with
a brief
the main portion
rules
your
10
11
everybody?
that
this?
record
14
said.
15
part
16
This will
allow
17
and your
inputs
word for
The verbatim
of the final
reporter
the preparers
as they were stated
19
addressed
in the environmental
21
tonight’s
hearings
22
First,
you and please
24
have a written
25
up here next
address
is
statement,
to the view
or both,
that
5
please
6
name,
the court
you appear.
8
you are a public
10
11
will
help
12
of the hearing.
the court
Third,
16
present
so they can make
17
general
18
order
19
minute
20
spokespersons,
the ground
rules
in
for
I recognize
to me.
it
If you
just
right
or you may read it
themselves,
22
23
quickly
next
observe
finish
minutes
or elected
you know,
in on.
to public
reached
officials
your
for
allotted
allow
before
The five
and
speaking
I will
thoughts
you to
we move to the
speaker.
Fourth,
out oE respect
I
upon in a random
as individuals
but
limits.
to speak.
officials
you signed
applies
This
by members of the
be called
that
up your
the time
five
followed
as well
let
you are expressing
prepare
When you have
I’ll
whether
the transcript
who will
limit
state
reporter
the cards
time
your
in which
citizen.
first,
public,
from
time,
24
or if
be allowed
to speak
with
so
And
as an interested
please
will
down.
a designated
on any government
21
25
views
and slowly
starting
you should
of a group,
personal
clearly
and the capacity
official,
representative
the record
With that
first,
from,
For example,
your
call
speak
limitations
can get everything
yourself
you’re
7
as the time
please
reporter
identify
where
18
as long
Second,
4
will
you may leave
graph,
observed,
1.5
become
and completely
remarks
loud,
are
13
statement.
speak only after
your
out
2
9
are followed.
please
1
14
will
process.
help me in ensuring
7/13/99
Each person
to review
comments are accurately
please
that
impact
sure your
mind,
please
here tonight
he produces
environmental
in a
Have we got
word everything
15
20
turned
Speak
get you one.
record
your
to explain
If you have not,
We do have a court
who will
like
comment period.
wants to
PUBLIC HEARING
3
and then
of the hearing,
hand and we will
12
break
EIS, I’d
the public
for
has everyone
Thank you for your
Torba and Mr. Camp@.
we take
comments on the draft
raise
23
attention.
THE EEARIEG OFFICER:
4
13
17
7/n/99
for
others
who want
PUBLICHERRING
7113199
19
PUBLIC REARING
1
to be heard, please honor any requests that I make of
2
3
If
you to stop speaking after your allotted
time.
you judge that you have more coimnents than you can
4
present in five minutes, please take time now to
5
6
prioritize
them so that the most important comments
are spoken first.
If you later decide you have more
5
I
commentsfollowing
8
7/13/99
\\
1
2
Please leave any extra copies of your remarks with
him, with the correct
spelling
of any names or places
3
which you may mention.
4
proceedings will
hearing and will
The
transcripts
of the
become part of the record of this
be included in the final
6
7
environmental impact statement.
considerations you wish to have addressed, you can
8
and understanding
9
10
and should provide them in writing, either at
tonight’s hearing or by mail. If we have time, we
9
slowly and clearly
10
the room to hear.
11
maybe able to come back. to you and let you finish up
11
12
remarks if I have to cut you off.
12
break, but I don’t think it will
13
long
to get the cards
14
in.
And why don’t we take a couple minutes break
this meeting or have additional
Fifth, please do not speak while any other
13
14
person is speaking.
15
recognized
16
only one person will
be
at a time,
And, finally,
I’d like to remind you to
purpose of this public commentperiod.
18
19
to suggest that you avoid repeating what another
19
26
21
speaker has just said.
20
22
but repeating the
23
24
others from making their comments.
The court reporter, as I said, will
25
inappropriate
about agreeing with the other speakers,
first,
from
take me nearly that
the folks who took them
here that I should call on
and then I’11 shuffle the cards and call on
We’ll take a break.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken
at 7:26 p.m. to 7:35 p.m.1
THE HEARINGOFFICER: Okay. If I could
21
22
get the folks to start
23
24
to
be
recording everything verbatim that is said tonight.
25
Let
same
thing unnecessarily delays
Now, we’re scheduled for about a 10 minute
folks randomly.
limit your coaments to the draft EIS, as that is the
nothing
and loud enough for each person in
here while I get those cards and figure out if we
18
be
what you say. So please speak
have any public officials
17
There’s certainly
will
15
16
17
I would like
The reporter
able to make a complete record only if he can hear
to their seats, I would like
6tart
up again. I got a grand total of three
cards from folks indicating they wanted to speak.
me start
out
by calling
on Calvin
Meyers.
20
PUBLIC
HSARING
l/13/99
000015
R-l
:
Meyers.
MR. MEYRRS:
I’m
'1
1%
4
comments
L
minutes
6
look
at your
7
time.
I’m
8
the
else
talk,
R-42
things
12
us.
less
So,
they
14
we pick,
15
them.
16
out
17
part
18
understand
read
that’s
tribe.
some
My
not
think
and
--
sites
to
But
impact
6
enough
there
pine
will
nuts
that
come out
will
of
affect
And
I know
your
planes
us.
And
you
today.
as
what
12
these
13
you
15
is
16
R-l
don’t
And
20
to be construed
a1
can
to
my comments
tonight
as a check
the
22
haven’t.
When
23
you
to
24
that
the
And
Moapa
you
the
Valley
speak
tribal
law
--
on
and
mark
I do not
to saying
Piutes,
to
the
their
I really
that
because
Moapa
council.
want
Valley
They
are
you
like
R-40
some help
I guess
have
years
look
to
impact
the
only
EIS
or
are
at
do not
books
my mind
to
with
write
some
and
down
at
it
.us for
draft
least
have
EIS
two
the
comment
our
had
one,
write
this
and
read
it,
years
to
come.
that
to
is
three
manpower
on them
my last
to
out
This
there
more.
you
and
and
And
do to
these
we
read
things
that
throats.
you.
THE HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
Harry
Adams _
000016m. ADAMS: I
from
the
19
Fox
Business
20
would
local
Congress
Piutes,
community.
News
like
F-22.
people
get
in
I want
conrment,
to
shove
22
people
And
to me.
may
days
There
21
the
to
going
a tribe
you
lands.
don’t
them
another
people
Thank
17
is
that.
And
about.
told
is
14
come
that
people
not
10
that
talk
was
I want
you
it
11
on
of
up,
We have
yat
to
grow
out
can
people.
that
is
talk
are
that
be spread
that
to
from
is
I
kind
stuff
book.
culturally
out
the
going
there
what
to
anybody
I’m
me what
other
an hour
that’s
book.
to
fuel
of who we are.
make
Piutes.
us five
a half
sorry,
the
going
diesel
The fumes
speak
our
give
I don’t
telling
a
petroglyphs
talk
for
you
about
cultural
your
On them,
I’m
talking
are
are
call
Valley
HEARING
Calvin
is
’
you
There
Moapa
than
smart.
I haven’t
that
13
25
I have
that
neither,
19
R-43
though
You’re
because
the
even
book.
not
My name
coordinator
that
to
is
11
of
environmental
9
10
Hi.
a member
are
PUBLIC
21
to
have
this
23
on
25
say
that.
Maybe
something,
one
or
of
maybe
Harry
at
on
cancel
the
5 o’clock,
OFFICER:
the
it’s
Adams,
my source
comment
to
THE HEARING
24.
morning
your
was planning
am Dr.
I heard
their
and
I
the
I can’t
is
that
comment
able
is
I’m
that
for
representatives
something
the
comment
funding
Sir,
and
is
best
to
PUBLIC
1
2
HEARING
7/13/99
addressed
in
5
MAJOR
not
aware
first
that
August
8
period,
and
9
final.
So if
2nd
we can
are
going
not
to
know
cancel
that.
it.
Iti6
CAMPE:
by
Basically
the
the
final
time
end
comes
put
they
of
we start
anything
certainly
Dennis
MR.
it
in
have
the
program.
17
live
18
that,
the
20
21
back
22
Force
23
the
24
in
25
come
the
eject
24
safely
desert.
and
not
Sometimes
Equipment
it
failures
impact
any
happens.
homes,
Accidents
do happen.
It’s
do
part
of
4
the
That’s
I
else
on
the
B
to
now
and
9
you
didn’t
else
that
then,
all
I have.
THE HEARING
6
until
change
add
their
any
OFFICER:
mind
comments
take
and
decide
the
record?
to
five
Thank
minutes,
that
you.
they
And,
and
Anybody
do
Mr.
certainly
want
Meyers,
with
the
10
document.
OFFICER:
all
I’m
I have
Okay.
We want
almost
in
sir.
representing
the
right
Yes,
are
And
11
Dennis
more
My name
myself.
on
program
the
to
Nellis’s
And
positive
come to
back
R-1
is
you
want
to
add
tonight,
the
15
I
16
Nellis.
door.
So I enjoy
buffer
zone
where
Nellis
work
with
back
there
the
around
an
and
is
Clark
go
to
right
ahead.
like
to
see
the
19
THE HRARING
MR.
Air
21
bought
a house
Commission
to
stop
22
live
there
so there’s
a buffer
23
about
noise,
24
don’t
even
25
nothing,
accident
can’t
where
make
an aircraft
it
back
has
to
the
to
the
start
to make
of
the
Could
OFFICER:
PERMENTER:
20
is
at
like
Robert
a
meeting.
I have
your
Permenter,
P-e-r-m-e-n-t-e-r.
right
raise
back
MR.
17
I’d
here
THE NEARING
County
back
it
like
development
I would
homes
is
I would
there
is.
development
case
concern
that
PEPMENTER:
I wasn’t
14
the
for
MR.
13
18
The only
the
and
just
comment
working
up between
BREWSTER:
Brewster.
16
l/13/99
12
f)0ot#17
comments
landing
3
I am
Brewster.
15
2
HEARING
'5
before
19
R-41
I did
THE .HEARING
13
14
TORBA:
they
MR.
11
R-l
1
impact
I heard,
I
12
environmental
R-41
6
10
final
statement.
3
4
the
PDBLIC
23
in
the
right
same
night
down
all
Thank
f moved
place.
and
hear
OFFICER:
PERMENTER:
the
And
that
street
if
other
in
here
people
kind
you.
here
in
were
of
things,
‘78,
1981,
worrying
I
them,
and
day
or
otherwise.
So it’s
maybe
I
1
PUBLIC HEARING
7/13/99
25
PUBLIC
HEARING
26
l/13/99
1
because I spent 27 years in the Air Force. But this
1
that date.
2
is the only -- the only place where they test and do
2
for a short time here, as long a6 there is sufficient
3
this type of activities
3
interest,
4
Well, what’s this going to do to my house
5
hearing,
6
7
going to do anything.
it living
or things like this?
I’ve
or
4
my
5
6
And I don’t see it’s.-
been abIe to live through
I
out here.
a
9
out here, and people say,
IIn
in the least.
69 years old, but It doesn’t worry ma
a
And some of the young folks that
9
10
bought houses over here, all they got to do is
11
around, they can see what Nellis is because there’s
11
12
planes flying
12
13
a house and they’re worrying about the area or
14
whether they’re going to have a buffer zone between
14
15
it makes the decision when they sign the paper.
15
16
I don’t work for a real estate company either.
10
look
24 hours a day. And anybody who builds
(13
And
16
11
Anyway, that!s all I got to say,
17
18
THE HEARIWGOFFICER:
18
Thank you. Anybody
19
else?
19
20
20
21
Well, ladies and gentlemen, if nobody
wants to comment, that will conclude the public
22
hearing for tonight.
22
23
participation.
24
comment period will
25
1999
*
I want to thank you for your
Please remember that the public
extend through August 2nd of
Commentsnay be submitted in writing
through
21
23
24
25
Air Force officials
will
remain available
to answer your questions.
I want to thank you.
hearing is adjourned
at 7:41 p.m.
Good
night.
This
PUBLIC
BEARING
l/13/99
REPORTER’s
1
2
STATE OF NEVADA
3
4
COLINTY OF CLARK
I,
5
6
Reporter,
Stenotype
8
before-entitled
all
9
indicated
10
were
11
direction
12
transcript
13
record
3
)
4
Stanley,
the
that
into
the
hand
16
County
and
a,dday
State
of
had
in
Shorthand
5
down
6
the
place
8
and
said
shorthand
at and under
that
the
true
in
7
time
a full,
AIR
of Nevada,
F-22
BNVIRONMEXTAL
PUBLIC
Held
inmy
this
, 1999.
office
at
the
11
AIR
IMPM.2
HEARING
STATEMENT
NEETING
Caliente
Highway
Caliente,
Youth
93 North
Nevada
On Wednesday,
July
14,
At 7:00 p.m.
set
in
my
Facility
the
1999
14
15
16
11
Presiding:
Colonel
Hearing
Michael
officer
E. McShane,
18
19
20
a1
22
24
Reported
24
2s
25
FORCE BASE
12
accurate
hereunto
BEDDOWN AT NELLIS
16
23
1
10
my
foregoing
and
I have
seal
W-14-99
ORIGINAL
13
WHEREOF,
FORCE BASE MTG.
9
notes
had.
my official
of Clark,
the
and
proceedings
affixed
I took
typewriting
supervision
IN WITNBSS
15
at
thereafter
constitutes
of
that
proceedings
matter
and
Certified
certify
transcribed
14
17
)sfi
Robert
NELLIS
1
2
of
and
CERTIFICATE
F-22
)
do hereby
7
1
27
by:
Janie
L. Olsen,
CCR No. 406
RPR
F-22 BELLIS AIR FORCE BASE MTG.
07-14-99
F-22
NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE MTG.
07-14-99
3
1
PROCEBDINGS
HEARING OFFICBR:
gentlemen.
hearing
I’m Colonel
officer
evening.
for
this
This public
series
of three
locate
F-22
hearings
aircraft
that
Policy
regulations.
being
comments;
that
environmental
referred
I’ve
is,
briefing
22
some of us
implementing
the
for
public’s
which is cormnonly
EIS, or just
It’s
as the DEIS.
about
evening
24
am an Air
25
attorney
currently
the District
2
3
involve
4
also
an inch
and a
my role
forward
with
of that
document,
or courte-martial
6
anywhere
officer,
understand
7
have no connection
8
Base,
or Air
9
draft
EIS we will
development
12
serve
13
proponents
14
you will
of thia
obviously,
assigned
at Bolling
but I’m also
Air Force
15
is simply
to ensure
16
impartial
hearing,
17
heard
have
.18
serve
as an impartial
23
an
24
a summary
Base
25
the proposal.
will
Air
Force
of the
that
we have
all
you this
a fair,
be conducted
show over
Jim Campe will
Environmental
of the potential
The third,part
orderly,
and
to be
In summary,
of this
make a presentation
Mr.
so that
officer
who desire
to speak.
to
or the
as hearing
moderator
will
in the
Force
I tell
my role
got a slide
and
and am not here
that
The hearing
I
EIS,
and that
and you’ve
Next,
to,
tonight.
to the Air
an opportunity
Torba
bases
Force
Nellis
and
trials
the proponents
of the proposal.
of the National
I
draft
advisor
understand
action.
judges
assigned
either
duties
criminal
I have had no involvement
as a legal
Major
Force
at Air
Command,
trial
my usual
military
Air
be considering
Also,
11
Force,
I am not
with,
Combat
22
the process. I
Force
over
occurring
21
I would
20 Air
in the world.
parts,
this
Air
presiding
5
As the chief
States
SUperViSing
involve
20
an overview
in the proceeding
of Columbia.
of the United
19
moving
to help you better
Force
in
judge
10
comments on the draft
of the contents
to explain
23
I
to
thick.
Before
like
serves
our sole purpose
statement,
to as a draft
evening
and you may hear
and lte
your
to
Base.
the National
is to receive
impact
proposal
Force
this
under
got a copy of it here.
quarter
Air
To be clearer,
here tonight
this
is the second in a
hearing
Act,
and
be the
oa the Air Force
NSPA tonight,
ladies
I’11
hearing
at Nellis
the requirements
Environmental
call
public
hearing
This public
fulfill
Good evening,
Mike McShane;
1
I
hearing.
in three
here.
First,
on the proposed
provide
Policy
environmental
of the
Act,
an overview
as well
impacts
hearing,
as
of
after
I
F-22
BELLIS
1
wa take
2
staff
3
the
4
way,
5
better
AIR
a very
here,
record,
comments
and
informed
8
August
9
receives
znd,
10
from
11
additional
la
and/or
13
draft
14
has
15
during
the
1999,
public
hearings
and
where
already
the
scoping
in
mind
to be a debate,
19
draft
and
21
asked
22
This
23
use
whose
EIS,
answer
is
as part
your
of
is
comment
views
it
a popularity
primarily
your
time
to personally
different
hearing
from
is
primarily
set
15
the
you
16
session.
designed
17
evening
18
you
19
looks
attack
your
those
to
the
the
to
one
table
court
People
should
out
like
this
20
21
out
a card
for
22
you
wanted
to
23
let
us know
if
you
and
For
the
Air
you
Force
this
your
the
want
or
or you
the
wanting
to
noted
when
you
and
you
wanted
some
speak
came
had
to
reason
you
we’ll
get
those
wishing
about
the
directly
you
proposal,
comment
you
not
card
It
you
did
could
not
indicate
your
up to
to
this
evening.
where
changed
to
attendance
If
did
a
comments
this
a place
or
but
them
oral
speak.
over
your
period
on the
in
of
who
YOU
one
make
general
make
that
one
you
comment
make
following
have
get
You can
could
of
by hand.
can
public
in
those
you
one.
the
of
hearing
for
be
EIS
coimnents
door
during
indicate
25
draft
sheets,
not
add ,anything
on the
out
on,
not
comments
comment.at
proposal.
should
opportunities
write
if
will
the
the
the
reporter
filled
with
issues
They
comment
orally
and
may limit
up at
later
24
own.
about
you
‘an
like
pick
14
on the
for
would
can
little
questions
aside
10
11
associated
hearing.
and
ways:
at
may be appropriate.
a time
this
5
analysis
nonenvironmental
You can
three
07-14-99
environmental
to provide
cement
as a question
clarifying
comment
not
vote
others
analysis.
12
that
not
designed
although
also
is
at
record
the
13
BIS
submitted
I ask
hearing
raised
to
9
the
draft
comments
hearing,
public
is
it
may be
This
to
the
4
6
the
impacts
5
7
FORCE BASE NTG.
about
8
or
evaluated
fact,
by public
this
session,
hearing
environmental
Force
be made
In
of
Concerns
as tonight’s,
will
adequacy
2
this
writing,
be conducted,
this
nor
nor
in
AIR
3
through
Air
1
NBLLIS
this
process.
that
18
the
F-22
for
may be
for
runs
either
changes
Throughout
keep
on inputs
shaped
you
period
and
appropriate.
been
the
remarks.
comment
such
from
We do it
so that
1999,
will
performed,
EIS,
EIS.
your
period,
analyses
16
25
offer
based
this
cards
to provide,
comments,
l&h,
during
the
draft
public
June
4
opportunity
then
as you
began
07-14-99
to get
on the
The 45day
proposal
24
moment
be your
briefings
7
20
brief
will
6
17
FORCE BASE WTG.
fill
that
mind
just
speak.
comment
in
your
written
writing
to
F-22 EELLIS AIR FORCEBASEMTG. 07-14-99
6
F-22 BELLIS AIR FORCEBASE MTG. 07-14-99
7
1
commentsshould be sent to the address which is shown
1
2
on this slide.
2
the aging F-UC/D fleet. Designed to meet the combat
requirements
well into the future, it will have the
3
ability
4
providing our air, ground, and sea forces with the
S
detailed written commentsto supplement any verbal
commentsyou make tonight, the address for doing that
5
freedom to conduct operatiohs against opposing
6
is located on that written commentsheet that you
6
forces.
I
either got or can pick up over at the table.
Written
7
be accepted at that address through the
0
9
characteristics,
will fly at supersonic speeds
without afterburner, and will possess increased
Also, if you would like to submit more
3
4
0
commentswill
9
mail until August Znd, 1999. 11: is important to note
10
that all comments, whether you make them orally
10
11
tonight or provide them in writing
11
12
13
14
At this
Major
the Air Force representative,
time
Torba, will give his presentation.
Wajor Torba.
WAJORTORBA:
16
Major Gregory Torba.
Good evening. Wy name is ~
I work in the Air Security
18
Office at Langley Air Force Base. my portion of the
19
presentation
will address some general
2a
characterietics
21
proposing to station the F-22 at Nellis, and then
22
I’ll
23
25
of the F-22, why the Air Force is
give a brief description of the proposed
action,
24
The F-22 is the next generation,
multi-mission
air
superiority
fighter,
The aircraft
maneuverability
aircraft
state-of-the-art
supplementing
control the air arena, thus
will
have stealth
over any current or projected
. It will
also be capable of carrying
fighter
weaponry.
The Air Force proposes to base, or beddown
12
on are given equal consideration.
15
11
tonight or later
to effectively
13
14
the F-22 aircraft and to implement force development
evaluation, FDB, program and weepons school at Nellis
15
16
Air
Force Base in Nevada. The force development
evaluation missions will
for the F-22,
test and develop combat
the weapons school ensures
17
tactics
18
19
20
those
21
22
responsible for implementing the F-22 force
development evaluation program and weapons schools.
23
Nellis Air Force Base represents the only ACCbaae
24
with
major
range and test facility
25
that
meets
the requirements for the F-22 force
tactics
are
and
passed on to the operational
units
through the pilots completing the advanced training
offered by the school. Air Combat Commandis
base components
F-22 WELLISAIR FORCEBASEMTG. 07-14-99
1
development evaluation program and weapons schools.
The display in the front of the room on my
2
3
F-22 NELLIS AIR FORCEBASE WIG. 07-14-99
8
right depicts the area where the F-22 will
operate.
1
about a six-year period starting
2
2000. New facilities
3
dormitory,
9
in fiscal
year
would include a hangar, a
and an aircraft
parts warehouse.
More
4
The Nellis Air Force range complex has been used
4
5
6
continuously by the military
5
detailed information on the facilities
to be
constructed or improved is presented on one of the
to conduct flying training
6
displays up here in the front and is discussed in
I
ones envisioned for the F-22.
7
detail
8
9
for more than 50 years 1
exercises similar to the
For all new aircraft,
like the F-22, the
8
aircraft
in the draft environmental impact statement,
It is anticFpated that eight of the
would be assigned to the operational
teat
Air Force is required by law and policy to develop
the aircraft’s war combat capabilities to provide for
9
10
and evaluation squadron and the remaining nine would
11
successful F-22 force development evaluation program
11
be assigned to the United States Air
12
and weapons school development activities.
School program at Nellis Air Force Base. Plight
13
Force proposes to beddown this aircraft
la
13
14
Force Base. This Air Force base and its associated
14
Air Force range complex will be similar
10
The Air
at Nellis Air
15
airspace and range complex are the only Air Force
15
16
17
sites truly capable of pioviding the specific
requirements needed for the F-22 FDEprogram and
16
17
Bellis
18
weapons school without major changes to the airspace,
I.8
or more above ground level,
19
land resources, and base infrastructure.
20
Force proposes to base in three phases, a total of 17
21
F-22 aircraft
at Nellfs Air Force Base between the
Weapons
tracks to and from the base and operations over the
existing
The Air
Force
to the
fighter operations such as the F-15.
The vast majority of the flights over the
range complex will
be conducted at 10,000 feet
AGL, at subsonic air
19
speeds, We anticipate
20
21
approximately 6 sorties or missions per day by the
the F-22 will
fly
2003 and 2007, and 17 sorties per day from 2005 on.
end of 2002, 5 sorties per day between fiscal
year
22
years 2002 and 2008. 367 personnel would be added to
22
23
the installation
23
24
Ey 2008 4300 annual sorties would be in
the Nellis range complex for testing and training.
25
The 4300 sorties would represent approximately 25,800
24
25
between fiscal year 2001 and 2007.
The proposed action entails facility
construction
activities
on Nellis Air Force Base over
F-22
NELLIS
AIR
FORCE BASE Ml’G.
NELLIS
F-22
07-14-99
AIR
FORCE
BASE
MTG.
07-14-99
11
I
I
7
1
sortie
2
represent
3
Nellis
4
low-use
a 13 percent
range
the
5
F-22
operations.
sortie
and
high-use
A major
national
8
maintained
asset
10
valid
11
military
but
range
that
is
is
also
Base
13
range
and
14
meet
15
development
all
total
2
Force
3
and
4
needs.
5
of
6
development
under
the
under
for
and
the
Force
Base,
for
program
having
have
the
major
none
but
force
and weapons
National
12
potential
13
the
14
events.
These
requirements
11
instrumentation,
include
threat
18
force
training
19
environment,
20
When measured
21
the
22
development
only
appropriate
exercises,
and
logical
24
or organizational
25
unique
existing
this
for
program
base
offers
infrastructure
for
11
and
18
consequences
19
to
20
the
21
from
space
infrastructure.
Nellis
the
F-22
and
the
provided
force
weapons
23
physical
to
of
the
F-22
force
I
,
inform
program
and
weapons
I would
the
Policy
is
the
the
to
major
introduce
you
tonight:
highlight
The
a summary
of
the
may result
schedule
of
from
upcoming
government’s
States
consider
Jim
process.
that
federal
united
us
school.
to
I’ll
Act,
synergy
force
you.
impacts
the
the
environmental
for
and
offers
like
Thank
process
of
the
environmental
the
his
fulfilling
and
I
Air
environmental
or
and
her
policy
environmental
this
NEPA
in
actions.
Force
that
This
slide
shows
Our
role
is
decision-makers
impacts
decisions.
is
some
of
may result
a well-defined
of
the
ways
in
August
we are
requirements.
A notice
was published
federal
public
potential
24
development
I
'
support
25
requirements
requires
process,
22
school.
specific
necessary
Force
action,
of
also
large
battle
criteria,
solution
evaluation
No other
23
an integrated
suitable
against
support
Air
NEPA
range
simulation,
Base
environmental
declaration
already
program
current
Environmental
exist
airspace
training
our
this
Air
and
Force
time
Nellie
and
with
discuss
proposed
school.
Air
CAMPE:
of
15
school.
ranges
testing
this
will
areas
11
16
16
who
three
weapons
evaluation
MR.
10
Air
its
Eellis
Campe
and
F-22
interaction
9
a
as Holloman
components,
requirements
evaluation
users
such
and
the
At
8
support
including
bases,
base
a
Base
meet
I
evaluation
capabilities
Air
is
and
to all
Other
facility
base
operated,
DOD test
its
Edwards
test
of
sized,
facility
program
1
contribution
test
available
trainers..
Force
and
for
requirement
12
the
operations
a 9 percent
primarily
mission
9
to
evaluation
would
scenario.
6
I
operations
contribution
complex
scenario,
sortie
of
the
intent
Federal
to
undertake
Register
this
EIS
of
F-22
EELLfS
AIR FORCE BASE MTG.
1
‘97
and in
2
involvement
3
as the
various
The draft
5
comment
EIS
6
changes
to the
I
tie have
also
8
and
9
continue
with
for
public
process
them.;hile
1
2
12 resource
3
installation
4
range
public
comments.
and will
I.3
this
means
case
associated
Force
missions
the
F-22
and the
Flying
Nellis
agencies
aircraft
would
not
occur
range
place
complex
in
and
its
at Nellis
would
Air
/
supporting
at the
installation
continue
at
TO summarize
20 ~
discussion,
21
following
22
P-22
the
23
2002,
24
make facility
25
starting
Air
actions
aircraft
Force
personnel
Torba’s
proposes
current
I
the
Nellis
8
eny
changes
to take
period
by approximately
over
several
surrounding
impacts
slide
to the
for
community
the
and Nellis
operations
would
alternative
or
range
infrastructure
complex,
would
the
not
environmental
be addressed
not
for
so it
to current
not
would
alter
base
or
result
in
conditions
as I go through
the
and
resource
categories.
.
Public
12
potential
13
around
Nellis
14
Nellis
range
15
base
16
of
11
61s.
scoping
impacts
and
of
Air
raised
subsonic
Force
complex,
these
concerns
is
Approximately
and
20
base
21
initallation
when
22
approximately
23
base.
24
between
25
275
the
booms
the
with
base.
addressed
F-22
occur
aircraft
in
the
the
use
in
the
summarize
would
17 of
land
associated
around
4500
landings,
all
sonic
thoroughly
slides
about
and
quality
justice
The following
concerns
noise
Baae,
air
environmental
takeoffs
19
earlier
Station
a seven-year
improvements
in
Major
at Nellis:
over
increase
on the
18
levels.
19
analyzed
shown
13
complex.
11
a
alternative
and
taking
analyze
beddown
activities
currently
existing
that
The no-action
actions
Base.
requires
EIS has
categories
and
6
$
our
07-14-99
The draft
The no-action
10
NEPA also
FORCE BASE MTG.
5
federal,
completing
AIR
as well
incorporate
fitate,
NELLIS
Public
month.
a 45-day
EIS will
the
1997
F-22
work.
alternative.
17 ~
I
18
during
to work
no-action
16
this
many local,
agencies
12
15
holding
and address
contacted
11
14
in
final
document
region.
meetings
we are
and the
12
the
is made available
period,
tribal
in
scoping
hearings
4
10
newspapers
includes
public
07-14-99
the
findings.
flights,
or
annually
from
would
the
Each
be at
9,000
the
the
the
and operate
starting
370,
years
17
in
and
in
2008.
13 percent
The majority
of
This
7:00
the
a.m.
flights
of
and
each
over
represents
current
F-22
flights
10:00
p.m.,
year
an increase
levels
would
with
occurring
at
of
the
occur
approximately
between
2000.
L
1
F-22 NELLIS AIR FORCEBASEMTG. 07-14-99
I
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
The noise levels due to the F-22 beddown
2
1
would occur within the Nellis
2
and at altitudes
supersonic flight.
15
range complex airspace
and locations
already authorized
for
3
is compared against the actual noise levels of
3
4
current conditions as measured during a 1997 noise
4
5
study. The F-22 operations in the Nellis airfield
5
Nellis range complex would increase by 1 decibel or
6
environment would be expected to result in increased
6
less to a
I
noise levels relative to current conditions, The
increase over current baseline conditions would not
7
There would be a small increase in the average number
8
of sonic booms in the Elgin and Coyote Military
exceed 2 decibels in most cases and generally would
occur in open lands. About 22,800 people currently
live in areaoabove 65 decibels, Under the proposed
9
10
Operating Area, or MOA. The average number of sonic
booms would increase from approximately 20 sonic
11
booms per month to approximately 24 per month in the
12
action, approximately 37,750 people would be within
12
Blgin MOAand from about 4 sonic booms per month to
13
noise zones above 65 decibels.
However, the noise
13
approximately 10 per month in the Coyote MOA.
14
contours from Clark County zoning regulations were
14
Emissions of air pollutants
15
used for determining potential
impacts to land use.
15
encompassing Nellis Air Force Base would increase
16
Projected noise levels would be within acceptable
recommendations for industrial,
commercial and open
16
11
under the implementation of the proposed action but
would not cause a significant impact to local air
18
land uses according to the Clark County zoning
1s
quality.
19
regulations.
19
produced by the F-22 aircraft,
20
restrict
20
equipment, construction
21
aircraft noise around the base since 1996 and are
based on a 1992 noise study.
8
9
10
11
11
22
These regulations
residential
have been enacted to
use in areas affected by
The F-22 would operate at supersonic
Overall combined noise levels in the
maximum
daylight average of 60 decibels.
into the area
The carbon monoxide and other emissions
associated support
activities,
21
personnel, would not result
22
exceedences of air quality
and increased
in or contribute
standards.
to
The F-22
23
beddown would increase the amount of carbon monoxide
24
speeds approximately 10 percent of the time while
24
and PM10 dust contributed
25
flying air Combat maneuvers. All supersonic activity
25
activities
23
L
F-22 EBLLIS AIR FORCEBASE MTG. 07-14-99
14
by Nellis
Air Force Base
to the area by approximately one-tenth of
F-22 NBLLTSAIR FORCEBASEWTG. 07-14-99
I
F-22 NELLIS AIR FORCBBASE MTG. 07-14-99
16
I
1 percent.
1
1
for the F-22 beddown was published
AS stated before, with the implementation
2
Register on June lath, 1999. This started a 45day
of the proposal, the air affected by noise levels of
3
public comment period that will
65 decibels or greater would increase around the
4
1999. We will
base. The county averages of minority and low income
5
October of ‘99.
population6 are 25 and 11 percent respectively.
6
Currently, the minority population affected is 26
1
8
Air Force will make a decision on whether or not to
proceed with the proposed action. I am confident
that the comments we hear tonight and throughout the
3
comment period will
percent of the total population above 65 decibels.
Under the proposed action, the percentage of
.
Force leadership
their decision-making.
12
percent and would increase to 19 percent. Minority
12
13
14
populations are already disproportionally
and low-income population would become
15
disproportionally
13
I
14
15 1
16
Nellis Air Force Base currently employs *
noise abatement procedure6 around the base, include
16
17
EIS is the next portion
18
do have a court reporter
19
an expedited climb outs for all aircraft and
restrictions on the time and direction of flight
20
activity.
19
20
21
flying activities,
17
18
22
These procedures, would also apply to F22
I’ve highlighted someof the more
EIs in
period,
the
continue to help us assist Air
11
impacted.
a final
After a 30-day waiting
10
impacted
close on August Znd,
prepare and distribute
minorities affected would increase to 27 percent.
Similarly, the low-income population affected is 11
10
11
in the Federal
to consider environmental issues in
That concludes my portion
of the
presentation.
Thank you for your attention.
TBE BEARINGOFFICER: Thank you Major
Torba and Mr. Campe.
Folks, the public comments on the draft
of
this evening’s events.
here who will
We
record word
21
for word everything that is said. This verbatim
record will become a part of the final EIS. This
will allow the preparers to review the record and
22
your inputs as they were stated so they can make sure
23
important environmental issues for you tonight.
23
24
Additional analysis is contained in the draft EIS.
24
your comments are accur&ely and completely addressed
,,
in the environmental process. With that in mind,
25
please help me in ensuring the ground rules for
25
A notice of availability
of
the draft EIS
F-22 WELLIS AIR FORCE BASE Wl’G.
1
tonight’s
hearing
2
please
3
you and please
address
4
have a written
statement,
5
on the chair
or you may read
I
next
and please
9
your
your
remarks
name, where you’re
10
which you appear.
11
whether
12
representative
13
your
personal
14
will
help the court
15
of the hearing.
you are a public
of a group,
views
We don’t
to the subject
here
comments relative
do not speak while
and speaking.
another
Only one person
person
will
be
comments to the draft
25
this
like
to remind
EIS as that
comment period.
you to limit
I would
suggest
nothing
inappropriate
about
but
the
delays
others
a
for
the court
reporter,
9
that.
It
help
that
will
you read
.:’
from making
become part
13
included
you might
of the
in the
to make a complete
15
understand
16
slowly
17
can hear
EIS.
enough
19
20
Mr.
Paul Donahue
21
is a Lincoln
Authority
24
only
if
will
and will
will
speak
everybody
be
be able
she can hear
So please
so that
Let me call
on anybody
a3
proceedings
and
clearly
and’
in the room
you.
call
of
of
mention,
The reporter
record
it
appreciate
spelling
of the hearing
what you say.
and loud
to leave
correct
of these
record
final
14
and want
I know she would
The transcripts
12
25
repeating
copy of any written
from
her get the
any names or places
wanted
for
now.
I understand
here who is from
commissioner
from Lincoln
is here
the cards
to speak,
County
I’ve
they
just
speakers
If you have an extra
Kilpatrick,
you
may have
certainly
presentation
22
that
speaker
comments.
your
is the purpose
19
the other
unnecessarily
la
at a time.
24
public
but I
tonight.
And I’d
23
of a time limit,
so Ilm
07-14-99
another
7
10
This
what
with
11
crowd tonight
19
recognized
state
the transcript
prepare
you keep any of your
22
in
reporter
would ask that
is recognized
with
citizen.
18
Please
and slowly
as an interested
to set any kind
21
their
a designated
not going
20
5
you should
17
There’s
same thing
or if you are expressing
have a large
said.
agreeing
4
starting
official,
2
3
I guess
it,
and the capacity
For example,
repeating
6
first,
from,
avoid
If you
to me.
speak clearly
yourself
WELLIS AIR FORCE BASE MTG.
I recognize
out loud or both.
identify
16
after
you may leave
please
F-22
1
speak only
to the podium would be a good place
it
Second,
a
18
are followed.
First,
6
07-14-99
County
Before
I
we have
Lincoln
County.
and Mrs.
Victoria
Regional
He
Development
as well.
got three
to speak
so far
folks
who have indicated
and one maybe.
Let
me
F-22 BBLLIS AIR PORCB BASE MTG.
R-l
1
call
2
close
on Marjorie
Detraz.
to right.
Detras?
W-14-99
I hope I pronounced
Detrsz,
resident
of Alamo in the Pabranagat
6
a native
Lincoln
Countyite,
7
Nevadan.
This
was the very
8
happen that
3
it.
MS. DBTBAZ:
D-e-t,
I’m just
10
husband
11
Air
12
present
33
otherwise
My neie
speaking
he would
I married
7
strong
8
lead in the lsbor
3
the glow of a stainless
but so be
tonight.
that
I admired
and loved
17
him about
said,
Did you like
say, boy,
so much that
and about
the military;
they
20
said
21
opportunities,
22
one of them.
23
that
24
and ten percent
for
25
from Nellia
Force
couldnlt
to me the military
I helieve
Air
is fit
13
terrible
14
standards
If
skill.
Got to be true
11
master
-- got to be true
1:
and master
in him
I used to ask
the military,
to get out.
that
22 years.
Base.
he, knowing
and his
of every
him as I do,
country
In fact,
Hs
of
to take advantage
Force
and I
and you know moat
wait
gave me a lot
and I tried
he gave the Air
live
12
he was retired,
16
people
11
a hundred
he retired
’
for
your
the grueling
strife.
of right
life
To
That came from
Yesterday
ideal
and to
of a tuned
sound of aircraft
of course
over
2:
sonic
2
I wafi in my pajamas,
2,
porch,
2
beautiful.
by those
of
to the laws of God
the Baltimore
Sun.
I was awakened
Pahranagat
was the airplanes,
booms yesterday.
and
by
to the laws of
morning
2
‘neath
and will.
I!
21
and
in a way that
test
as well.as
of soul
and I looked
high.
Got to be measured
II
it
in the
of self
best hour
to a high
and to fashion
Got
sky,
At the
ParkinsonI’s
I saw 80 many characteristics
of a purpose
Got to be true
in body
to toil
of life’s
10
me here tonight.
after
and clean
in the will
maybe
To Self.
of the day.
Got to be captain
from the
in tha Air Rorce.
with
Hy
I thought
Duty
work
thing
I hoped wouldn’t
21
Got to be fit
the,great
and fine
you know,
19
for
way.
but,
18
and soul
to be tit
my husband
Force
4
I’m also
called
Got to be fit.
3
a
It’s
mightiest
15
the Air
poem that
a little
be appropriate.
6
He’s retired
be with
I found
might
5
extemporaneously
22 years
07-14-99
and I am a native
military.
spent
I.
I%
Valley.
NELLIS AIR BORCZ BASE MTG.
1
Marjorie
as in zebra.
time he has been diagnosed
14
is
be number one to speak,
is retired
Force,
YW3.
as in Tom, r-a-s,
I’d
that
F-22
a
1
4
5
()00019
20
’
Valley,
and thank
by the
and I knew
goodness
But I jumped out of bed,
no
and
and I went out on my front
up at the sky,
There was the blue
and it
was so
sky and the white
-
22 NELLIS
AIR
FORCE BASB MTG.
07-14-99
22
F-22
1
clouds
and
2
I could
the
sun
shining
through
now
and
then,
not
locate
NELLIS
AIR
FORCE
3
them
4
blue,
at
the
aircraft,
but
I could
2
all.
And
finally.out
of,
Ild
I
say
out
of
And
as I looked
song,
and
5
up
6
patriotic
there
1
taught
8
but
9
came
two
I have
to
people
that
from
anyway,
blue
sky
aircraft
tell
you
you’ve
ever
the
day
the
1%
seen
the
clouds
one
in
of
your
born
up in
white
about
I was
as I looked
and
flying.
aircraft
come
11
bright
sunlight,
12
I have
to
13
over.
out.
And
itwae
tell
you
like
sky
the
that
I just
This
4
I hail
I love
15
country
is
16
an apathy
17
registering
18
constitution
19
people
that
20
people
in
21
to
22
I don’t
23
flag
or
24
all
other
25
immigrate
look
in
this
and
5
or
west.
6
all
of
I
and
deep
8
Glory
serious
got
among
to
our
people
vote.
out
into
the
bullets,
goose
right,now.
this
this
at
that
country
and
bumps
all
flag
and
another
country.
great
realize
of Us would
love
that
is
America.
as
the
of
the
that
such
even
for
because
Why do we have
They
about
concerned
I believe
This
I see
voting,
I think
And
our
now.
very
is
country.
one
here?
about
And
believe
lands.
right
I feel
all
my
remarks
heard
with
this
it.
my
country.
north
or
What
aouth
or
difference
from
if
the
east
My
heart
is
I
these.
filled
only
with
know
I
love
swell
for
with
pride
our
we need
what
it
stands
trade
it
for
a land
choice
so many
people
within
my
breast
I
thrill
to
see
Old
is
my
the
these
I believe
trouble
is
I was
against
of
silver
country.
close
you’ve
from
in
land
of
10
grandest
11
allegiance,
12
country
for.
another
above
the
my
Lord
1.5
is
to
for
16
deeply
here
This
America
the
have
and
hand
upon
my
the
are
country,
land
of
my
19
country,
hear
my
proud
20
my
allegiance,
21
my
country
a3
to
24
TEE
25
Next
I
heart
have
thank
I
which
thank
soul
I
you
to
very
all
I
is
routed
for
This
This
voice.
the
the
stand
States.
and
this
For
My
choice,
America
to
And
opportunity
United
my
for
land.
on
17
country
thee
gates.
18
22
own
my
country,
hold.
my
native
soil
my
bold,
to
her
my
is
I pledge
this
mine
is
earth.
within
in
This
birth.
With
14
breeze.
on
13
14
sure
most
life;
two
flew
two
23
by my parents,
I $aw
as they
to
07-14-99
the
9
10
like
would
I’m
3
here
Ml’G.
and
1
hear
BASE
I
bold,
is
is
for
this
speak.
HEARING
call
Thank
OFFICER:
on
Keith
Corban.
my
thee
this
hold.
much
these
my
pledge
for
love
you.
ie
F-22
ERLLIS
AIR FORCE BASE MTG.
F-22
07-14-99
BELLIS
AIR
FORCE BASE
MTG.
‘07-14-99
25
24
I
R-l
1
2
3
000020
MR. CORBAN:
Keith
Corban.
R-44
I live
near
myself
representing
5
and
specifically
6
present
I
numerous
0
Force
9
restricted
10
however,
11
far
12
help
13
here.
is
Mr.
their
14
cooperation
15
better
I live
I’ve
in
for
more
16
Thank
you
17
THE REARING
18
gext
and Wr.
the
issues
1’11
and
to
involved
receive
that
trustworthy,
very
Campe
evening
2
wouldn’t
3
air
R-l
19
20
.21
000021
be
6
airplanes
7
80 whatever
0
the
L-i-v-r-e-r-i.
Thank
YOU got
That
22
question.
23
amount
24
won’t
25
flying
myself.
When
you
of planes
restrict
said
the
it
air
like
it.
It’s
Patricia
Because
as it
going
to
is
now is
it
will
we have
There
restrict
the
not
is
going
right
simulate
to
change,
now.
The
as we currently
the
same
it’s
fly.
going
to
be in
future,
MS. LNRERI:
increase
11
can’t
u6e
the
I.2
restrictions
now is
the
planes
you
and
land
or
_” so there
added
to
what
MR.
right
And
you
CAMPE:
what
MS. LIVRERI
16
MR.
CAMPE:
air
epace
going
:
won’t
restrict
we can’t
also
won’t
be
already
That’s
we’re
15
restricted
like
--
we
any
have?
correct.
As it
is
to do.
Just
it,
a lot
Just
or
18
MS. LIVREEU:
19
MR. CANPE:
2c
THE HEARING
to increase
the
noise,
for
like
the
noise.
make
it
MS.
23
TEE HEARING
24
MS.
small
of people
that
more
noise.
No more
-Restricted
land
Restricted
ORFICBR:
use.
land
use,
correct.
Carla
Ward
was
the
maybe.
22
2!
crafts?
are
you
I’m
to ask a
you’re
going
\
will
increase
space
fly.
wouldn’t
ft’s
apace
you.
was easier,
I would
and
air
where
21
representing
the
10
much.
:
they
you
MR. CAMFE:
5
14
that
problems,
Livreri.
MS. LIVRERI
Livreri,
be any
planes
I guess.
OFFICER:
Patti
homemade
space?
affect
17
is
their
13
more
they’ll
have
9
to thank,
this
that
Force
Air
and
Torba
Air
the
like
information
future
the
by the
in
1
4
witnessed
noise
I would
understand
the
from.the
citizens
I’m
noise
beentold
Major
me the
aircraft
and I’ve
and
better
I hope
and
In my opinion,
in.
Estrada
giving
me to
booms.
own criteria
area
with
is
of what
their
My name is
Springs,
unacceptable,
violations
are
Crystal
concern
sonic
level
evening.
tonight.
My chief
4
Good
expect
so
WARD:
No comment.
WARD:
I wanted
OFFICER:
No.
to
reserve
Decided
I didn’t
my right
know
to
not
what
get
to?
to
my two
3
F-22 NELLIS AIR FORCE BASB MTG.
07-14-99
F-22
26
BELLIS AIR FORCE BASE MTG.
07-14-99
I
1
the use of chaff
cents
in.
cards
I have here nobody
2
3
THE HERRING OFFICER;
4
speak,
5
would like
6
welcome to do so at this
but if you now seeing
8
9
ooooa
10
area around
11
perhaps
12
about
13
a little
aircraft
noise
14
R-45
1s
around
16
elevation,
11
we frequently
18
streaming
I9
Could I have your
Pioche
I’m also
concerned
and the impacts
that
is pretty
20
21
the morning
allowed
25
in certain
that
if
it
it
planes
to a certain
15
that
which
occur in certain
to fly
supersonic
accidental
in areas
1s
not allowed,
We get used to it
19
disturbance
areas
not,
sonic
20
lands
21
personal
and also
and also about
R-47
I don’t
--
connected
with
mitigation
perhaps
you have
I haven’t
has
I
for
something
seen the whole
should
Force
the Nevada
space over
where
supersonic
and these
negotiate
test
site
public
aa an
lands
and
injury
in
the Nellis
greater
25
it
I
Air
Force
commitment
comes to enforcing
about,
as I said,
occur
in Lincoln
operations
are
the
County
supposedly
have been a serious
to residents
I think
::
concerned
booms that
and have resulted
22
where they’re
County
that
air
also
sonic
17
the noise,
believe
the Air
to using
come right
of
and
space over
I’m
16
hours
has been -- which
towns.
you know,
in Lincoln
areas where they’re
alternative
Caselton.
intense.
about
::
in
fires
which
I believe
use of the air
R-46
14
around
but
resulted
these
and I suppose
documents
thing,
11
and it
or public
have
lands.
anything
the impacts,
flares
to suppress
therefore,
heard
in your
the area
happens in the early
can be pretty
haven’t
I
on
flights.
much restricted
IIn concerned
22
24
of over
over the houses where we live,
but especially
Benezet.
about primarily
where we are,
dieturbing.
name.
Corban was talking
I think
get low-flying
efforts
I am not convinced
an environmental
in the past,
major
I,
in the
to carry
over what Mr.
which can be pretty
blasts
like
bit
but around
23
just
fires
caused
damaged grazing
Fly name is Louis
I’d
I noticed
range
certainly
Mine which is near Caselton
Pioche.
because
you’re
point.
MR. BENEZET:
at Prince
either
which
I know that
what we do here and
Come on up, sir.
live
do not represent
of the
they wanted to
to make nome comments,
7
R-l
The rest
indicated
and flares,
and those
in both
who use the public
property
damage and
the past.
increased
range
use of air
should
on the part
supersonic
space outside
be acCompanied
of the Air
Force
by a
when
use restrictions.
I
F-22 NBLLIS AIR FORCEBASEMTG. 07-14-99
1
Thank you very much.
2
THE HEARINGOFFICER:
3
4
else? Anybodyat all?
5
can’t get anybody else to talk.
6
wrap up.
Thank you. Anybody
Thie is your hearing, your
opportunity to tell us what you think.
participation.
a
Okay. If I
We’ll go ahead and
3
4
5
for your
Please remember that the public
29
REPORTER’SCERTIFICATR
1
2
STATE OF NEVADA)
1 ss
COONTYOF CLARK)
I, Janie L. Olsen, Certified
6
I want to thank you first
1
F-22 NELLIS AIR FORCEBASE MTG. 07-14-99
28
Shorthand
7
Reporter, do hereby certify
0
9
Stenotype all of the proceedings had in the
before-entitled
matter at the time end place
that I took down in
9
ia
commentperiod will extend through August 2nd ot
1999, and you may submit additional commentsor youz
10
11
12
first
11
indicated and that thereafter said shorthand notes
were transcribed into typewriting at and under my
12
direction
13
14
for a little
13
14
transcript constitutes a full,
record of the proceedings had.
15
16
11
commentsin writing through that date.
Air Force officials will remain available
while yet tonight’if
you have further
questions you wanted to put to them.
Thank you. Good night. This hearing is
15
adjourned.
16
hand in my office i
17
18
Nevada, this
(Thereupon, the hearing
adjourned at 7:40 p.m.)
10
19
and supervision and that the foregoing
k-/d
the County of Clark, State of
day oftiT&
21
22
23
22
23
24
24
2s
25
I
and accurate
IN WITNESSWHEREOF,
I have hereunto set my
19
20
20
21
true
CCRNo. 406, RPR
1999.
..
E
B
$4
z
Comments
E*
3*
l
F-22 Force Development
d’
B’
i
Evaluation
and Weapons School Beddown,
Nellis AFB
2.1-47
F-22 Force Development
Evaluation
and Weapons ScIzooi Beddown,
Nellis AFB
Comments
PUBLIC
1
HEARING
on the
proposed
2
action.
Next,
3
overview
4
well
5
impacts
of
of
7
opportunity
8
Draft
the
comments
11
offer
National
proposal.
The
third
the
your
of
for
an
Policy
Act
as
environmental
the
the
hearing
record
will
this
so that
you
way
--
may be better
&-day
began
June
public
lath,
1999,
and
runs
on inputs
16
during
this
17
public
hearings,
such
will
be conducted,
analyses
performed
period,
and
either
the
Air
for
this
through
in
writing
Force
as tonight’s.
changes
from
the
and/or
be made
to the
Draft
EIS
appropriate.
In
shaped
fact,
by public
the
comments
Throughout
in
mind
Draft
that
has
submitted
this
this
BIS
public
hearing
hearing
already
during
I ask
is
been
the
that
not
EIS,
4
questions
5
appropriate.
you
to
use
whose
adequacy
11
environmental
should
14
add
15
opportunities
hearing
hearing
ia
also
not
1s
those
19
comments
20
period,
21
the
of
record
the
of
who
comment
three
comment
People
evening
24
you
filled
should
out
If
the
proposal.
issues
not
the
Draft
on
out
the
court
EIS
comment
to w-rite
the
will
comments.
on the
during
at
this
sheets
for
your
public
comment
reporter
following
session.
wanting
have
noted
when
you
you
the
the
limit
provide
like’
to
own.
They
may
ways:
orally
directly
general
to
would
your
and
hearing.
and
aside
attack
about
with
this
others
one
set
non-environmental
to
can
from
aseociated
may be
personally
analysis
about
You
to
primarily
environmental
by hand,
or
23
is
at
you
time
time
a time
different
hearing
of
in
clarifying
comment
comment
on the
as a
your
be raised
anything
17
designed
although
may be
the
vote
of
impacts
not
a popularity
primarily
Concerns
13
it
as part
views
of
12
25
it
your
This
10
is
sessik,
This
9
designed
is
asked
22
you
nor
nor
16
additional
evaluated,
will
receives
or
question-and-answer
those
2nd.
Based
3
a
as you
period
Draft
for
then
T-15-99
2
I
and
KeARING
to be a debate,
on the
informed
comment
’
6
comments
briefings
1
be your
remarks.
15
keep
provide
potential
part
We do it
me
where
will
Environmental
of
the
--
12
August
Campe
EIS.
10
14
Jim
to provide
9
proposal
5
Mr.
as a summary
6
13
PUBLIC
7-M-99
did
not
to
make
that
came
fill
oral
on the
in
this
out
comments
this
attendance
card
evening.
a card
for
some
PUBLIC
WEARINQ
1
reason
2
you
3
!WlOW.
or
7-15-99
did
not
now wish
to speak
For
4
the Air
6
comments
7
slide.
proposal,
be sent
to the
if
you’d
detailed
written
IO
comments
tonight,
the
11
written
comment
sheet
12
there
13
Written
comments
will
14
through
the
until
9
are
It
15
16
that
are
17
evening
16
in
19
consideration.
made,
writing
later
August
important
on,
at this
writing
will
be given
Torba,
this
will
time
give
the
his
23
Major
24
office
(iregory
Torba.
at Langley
Wy portion
25
1
Force
is
3
NelliS,
4
proposed
Air
and
6
multi-mission
7
the
aging
into
12
conduct
address
13
this
or submitted
equal
.
Qood
I work
Air
Air
Force
of
FOrCe representative,
in
evening.
the
air
My name
superiority
Base.
the’presentation
will
is
to
I’fl
a brief
give
The F-22
is
air
superiority
F-1X/D
the
table.
comments
ground,
it
15
without
16
maneuverability
17
aircraft
ia
state-of-the-art
and
sea
why
at
of
the
air
will
to
fly
21
program
and
22
in
ability
arena,
thus
with
at
any
current
well
to
providing
freedom
our
to
forces,
stealth
supersonic
will
speeds
paesess
increased
or projected
be capable
of
carrying
weaponry.
Force
weapons
the
have
and
also
implement
requirements
opposiny
fighter
aircraft
supplementing
the
will
over
It
have
aircraft
afterburner,
q
generation
combat
forces
will
20
proposes
a force
school
to base
development
at Nellis
F-22
evaluation
Air
Force
Ease
Nevada.
The
23
and
P-22
description
next
against
The Air
25
the
fighter,
will
the
operations
characteristics,
the
to meet
control
14
will
station
F-22,
the
fleet.
future,
The
24
of
proposing
Designed
air,
all
then
characteristics
action.
11
and
presentation.
MAJoRToRBAz
22
the
effectively
hearing
toniyht
2
10
1999.
that
general
9
on that
this
some
a
verbal
sign-in
at
2nd,
on the
more
your
7-15-99
address
5
earlier,
the
to note
orally
in
showu
provided
at
to
written
I mentioned
out
us
HEARING
1
19
At
Wajor
that
is
and
in writing
to submit
address
either
let
address
be accepted
or provided
20
21
is
please
to supplement
of that
mail
to speak
your
like
comments
copies
wish
to comment
the
Also,
8
you
evening,
wishing
about
should
that
this
those
Force
5
PUBLIC
indicate
test
the
and
weapons
force
development
develop
combat
school
ensures
evaluation
tactics
those
for
tactics
missions
the
F-22,
are
8
PUBLIC
IWiRING
7-15-99
1
passed
on to
the
2
pilots
completing
3
the
PUBLIC
operational
the
unita
advanced
throughout
training
the
offered
9
by
school.
Air
4
5
implementing
6
prcgram
combat
the
and
F-22
weapons
8
air
combat
9
facility
10
for
the
11
weapons
Air
command
base
force
Force
base
force
13
depicts
the
14
Nellia
15
continuously
16
to
11
envisioned
Air
19
Air
Force
that
20
the
aircraft’s
21
successful
22
and
the
range
meet
the
Force
Range
complex
and
only
test
the
requirements
evaluation
program
and
F-22.
For
all
new aircraft,
by law
combat
force
school
has
Air
associated
used
airspace
to those
the
policy
F-22,
the
to develop
to
provide
evaluation
program
2
providing
3
F-22
4
school
5
resources,
the
force
phases,
8
Force
9
peraonnel
development
Base.
to beddown
This
and range
Air
for
evaluation
major
a total
changes
Base
would
year
the
construction
13
about
and
14
2000.
I.5
dormitory,
19
in
the
IWIS.
period
this
23
be
Force
24
school
complex
2s
starting
would
display
It
is
would
evaluation
in
to
program
Plight
at Nellis
tracks
Force
and
a
warehouse.
on the
eight
the
is
presented
the
of
detail
the
test
remaining
nine
Air
weapons
Force
and
in
operational
States
to
over
year
and discussed
to
Air
Base
a hangar,
that
be assigned
United
facility
improved
anticipated
the
367
between
fiscal
include
posters
squadron,
assigned
three
Air
2008.
Air
to be constructed’or
20
and
entails
information
of the
and
action
detailed
one
in
installation
More
on
22
to the
parts
16
aircraft
2002
an aircraft
facilities
land
at Nellis
and
17
the
and weapons
to base,
on Nellie
New facilities
16
10
2007.
activities
a six-year
for
aircraft
years
The proposed
12
needed
program
proposes
be added
2001
of
to airspace,
17 F-22
between
capabIe
infrastructure.
Force
of
truly
requirements
and base
fiscal
sites
specific
without
7
10
Force
The Air
21
activities.
proposes
Force
50 years
similar
capabilities
development
The
than
like
development
Force
been
more
and
room
operate.
exercises
the
war
of the
will
for
for
at Nellis
its
military
required
back
F-22
training
The Air
23
the
where
F-22
weapons
and
in
area
is
Air
only
11
flying
18
base
evaluatim
represents
major
development
by the
conduct
25
Base
with
The display
aircraft
development
for
school.
12
24
responsible
7-15-99
the
are
6
components
F-22
is
school.
Nellis
1
command
XEAIUW
1
from
Force
would
Base.
the
base
and
mm
WING
7-15-99
1
operations
over
2
similar
to existing
3
F-15E,
C, and D.
4
PUBLIC
the Air
fire
The vast
5
Nellis
6
more
range
above
approximately
will
9
end of 2002,
10
year
11
Otl.
2003
and
13
the
Nellie
14
Tha 4300
15
sortie
the
sorties
such
as the
flights
will
17 sorties
4300
control
for
would
represent
per
feet
or
day by the
fiscal
day from 2008
sorties
would
testing
be in
and trafaing.
approximately
25,800
F-22
17
13 percent
18
control
19
and
20
ecensrio.
sortie
operations
contribution
sortie
22
national
asset
23
maintained
a4
and evaluation
25
to all
under
the
Other
3
Base
and
4
test
facility
5
requirements
6
weapons
that
support
having
low-use
base
and test
is seized,
for
facility
9
large
force
10
space
environment,
11
infrastructure.
12
Nellis
provided
13
force
development
14
school.
operated,
Department
missions
a valid
scenario
18
evaluation
and
of Defense
but
requirement
is
aiso
for
test
available
its
a
Air
have
but
Force
major
none
development
requirements
range
meet
and
all
evaluation
the
and
training
simulation,
exercises,
and
the
organizational
this
solution
for
offers
infrastructure
program
Nellis
of
and
weapons
Torte
and
already
exist
21
training
program
needs.
22
offers
the
23
Force
force
24
weapons
of
development
and
the
criteria,
the
specific
force
F-22
weapons
necessary
F-22
Air
airspace
synergy
the
battle
against
program
base
for
existing
local
evaluation
requirements
support
an integrated
Suitable
only
appropriate
include
threat
20
25
Ease,
When measured
19
is
force
No other
unique
base
Force
as Holloman
school.
instrumentation,
17
such
trainers.
components,
for
range
range
the high-use
Air
8
or
a
military
bases,
Edirards
These
16
represent
Nellis
under
range
primarily
user8
total
contribution
A majot
a1
to the
operations
a 9 percent
would
7-15-99
including
15
operations.
16
HEARING
capabilities,
7
day between
annual
the
fly
per
1
2
over
10,000
or missions
and
. .
11
be
airspeeds.
F-22
per
2007,
range
the
gorties
By 2008,
12
of
at subsonic
sorties
eight
rill
be conducted
level
six
complex
operations,
We anticipate
8
range
majority
complex
ground
I
Force
physical
to
support
development
school.
Base
meet
Nellia
and
its
r&es
the
F-22
Air
Force
interaction
evaluation
with
and
testing
Base
current
program
and
alS0
Air
and
school.
I will
turn
the
microphone
over
to
Jim
PUBLIC
1
REARING
CamPe,
7-15-93
who will
PUBLIC
discuss
the
environmental
2
MR. CAMPE:
3
I’ll
highlight
you tonight:
one,
the
Act,
two,
a summary
4
for
5
Policy
6
environmental
1
proposed
8
events.
EEPA:
Thank
action;
and,
National
9
policy
12
environmental
consequences
decision
15
impact3
and
16
This
17
some of the
16
requiremeats.
is
maker
that
20
was published
21
and in
in
from his
various
Federal
newspapers
the
incorporate
3
public
changes
5
federal,
6
will
and
work
no-action
alternative.
9
this
means
case
missions
and Air
13
and
14
existing
this
Bass.
of August
1991
23
meetings
24
are
25
holding
in
involvement
1997
as well
this
month.
The Draft
EIS
as the
Final
and
US
will
14
address
during
local,
the
coapleting
that
the
F-22
not
taking
range
at
and
place
a
alternative
occur
complex
analyze
beddown
activities
and
work.
agencies
aircraft
would
state,
process
our
The no-action
Flying
Nellis
many
requires
currently
the
contacted
while
actions
in
and
Nellis
its
Air
supporting
at
the
would
installation
continue
at
levels.
To summarize
15
EIS
them
a
12
shows
the
document
agencies
EEPA alzo
actions.
slide
and
the
also
tribal
with
7
Force
and this
period,
to
We have
16
discussion,
11
follewing
la
and
19
starting
20
370,
21
years
the
Air
actions
operate
and
increase
in
Air
aircraft
facility
starting
Torba’z
proposes
at Nellis
2ao2,
make
Major
Force
17 F-22
in
earlier
to
take
Force
over
the
Base:
station
a seven-year
personnel
period
by approximately
inprovementz
over
zeveral
.’
2000.
region.
The DE19
22
Public
22
comment
comments.
11
the
NEPA
the
2
7-15-99
public
azsccisted
decisions.
to undertake
45-day
10
states
public
Register
in
is
or her
fulfilling
of intent
Act
environmental
procezs,
the
of upcoming
federal
the
of potential
Gays we are
the
us to consider
of major
may result
A notice
schedule
requires
to inform
is a well-defined
19
from
REARING
1
4
potential
of United
environmental
Farce
of the
deClar&iM
11
process
BnviroluRental
Policy
government’8
14
the
this
Environmental
federal
Our role
of
may result
three,
10
13
areas
National
that
13
you.
three
impacts
process.
includes
scoping
public
hearinga
is made avallable
for
23
resource
24
installation
25
range
has
categories
shown
and
surrounding
analyzed
on
impacts
this
slide
to the
for
12
the
we
a
complex.
community
and
the
Nellis
PUBLIC
liZP.RING
7-15-99
1
2
current
operations
3
the
4
any changes
5
will
6
categories.
Nellis
not
to
alternative
or
range
complex,
not
for
so it
current
would
the
not
environmental
alter
base
or
result
conditions
as I go through
the
15
HEARING
1
current
2
study.
in
3
aoa
4
environment
5
noise
resource
7-15-99
conditions
8
potential
3
around
Nellis
10
Nellis
range
11
base,
12
Each
13
&IS.
scoping
impacts
and
of
of
Air
raised
subsonic
Force
complex,
Base,
air
The following
is
15
takeoffs
16
base
17
installation
Ill
approximately
19
base.
all
the
2008.
The majority
21
occur
22
approximately
23
between
between
lo:00
24
a.m.
and lo:00
275
of the
flights
p.m.
and
against
7:00
levels
the
actual
the
base.
in
findings..
and
apgrckimately
12
noise
zones
13
contours.,
uaad
15
F-22
the
be at the
an increase
levels
flights
p.m.,
each
to the
noise
11
from
at
of
the
would
with
year
occurring
F-22
levels
beddown
of
above
in
acceptable
17
commercial,
LB
County
19
been
20
affected
21
and
are
County
speeds
approximately
24
flying
air
combat
25
would
occur
within
uses
according
the
noise
were
land
be
to
regulations
use
the
use.
within
the
Clark
have
in
base
areas
since
study.
operate
10 percent
Bellia
the
to
industrial,
noise
in
action,
would
around
maneuvers.
live
regulations
residential
would
and
be within
for
noise
the
cases
However,
These
on a 1992
conditions
proposed
levels
land
to restrict
23
baseline
impacts
noise
open
F-22
increased
roning
regulations.
The
in
would
potential
by aircraft
22
result
the
people
recommendations
based
airfield
currently
65 decibels,
determining
enacted
Nellis
16
lands,
under
Clark
zoning
the
most
people
37,750
end
in
1997
open
22,900
Projected
16
noise
conditions.
in
65 decibels
from
for
over
occur
above
a 1937
to
2 decibels
About
during
to current
increase
would
areas
annually
a.m.
due
the
be expected
exceed
10
14
current
of the
with
or 9,000
represent8
over
9
flights,
would
7:00
The noise
compared
aircraft
13 percent
20
occur
This
the
addressed
F-22
generally
in
not
operations
relative
The
would
8
F-22
would
levels
7
use
the
the
the
land
associated
summarize
would
17 of
in
boome
around
4500
and landings,
when
sonic
thoroughly
slides
Approximately
14
and
justice
concerns
about
noise
quality
environmental
these
concerns
as measured
The
6
public
is
would
infrastructure
be addressed
7
25
PUBLIC
The no-action
at
of
All
range
supersonic
the
time
supersonic
complex
while
activity
airspace
1996
Comments
F-22 Force Development
Evaluation
and Weapons ScI~ool Beddown, Nellis
AFB
EmLIC
Hw.RING
7-15-99
PUBLIC
We will
1
2
in
October
3
Air
Force
4
proceed
prapare
1999.
After
waiting
make a decision
with
the
proposed
EIS
period,
19
1
HEARING
please
7-B-99
address
the
tonight
and
7
continue
to help
8
consider
environmental
9
decision-making.
presentation.
13
your
presentations,
14
will
soon
.15
your
public
get
concludes
17
here,
18
is
19
the
20
review
21
aa that
22
accurately
23
environmental
Final
the
that
your
of
the
Torha
Thank
and
Mr.
on the
EIS.
Draft
we do have
record
will
inputs
csn make sure
and completely
your
in
you
speak
only
any speakers
after
6
you speak
7
first
identify
8
where
you
9
appear.
14
of
were
stated
were
here
tonight,
I reccgnise
you,
I’ll
and
it
clearly
and
slowly
yourself,
are
from,
starting
and
the
reporter
the
going
comments
tonight
but
17
comments
to the
Draft
18
Statement.
21
time.
And I’d
23
comments
24
this
public
to the
state
one person
like
Draft
that
views
the
court
hearing.
limit
on any
you keep
your
Impact
while
another
will
to remind
EIS
you
of
personal
help
Environmental
speak
you
representative
a tine
ask
name,
whether
of this
I would
Please
in which
will
to set
do not
Only
your
your
transcript
I am not
Please
with
a designated
Thie
prepare
or
I ask that
podium.
capacity
citizen.
speaking.
table,
the
you should
official,
or if
from
as an interested
is
on the
to
or do both,
expressing
20
statement
up here
loud
16
25
e written
you are
22
the
out
20
you do come up and speak,
a public
19
to
to ma.
do have
For example,
13
that
it
If
we
process.
we have
5
a group,
a part
as they
addressed
may read
12
reporter
preparers
cormnents
you
.15
become
the
4
you
remarks
you may leave
you for
hearing,
a court
will
provide,
are
everything
allow
and your
this
3
11
Campe.
your
If
10
attention,
word-for-word
This
record
they
for
to
their
of
record
EIS,
in
we hear
leadership
main portion
note
to
will
OFFICER McSH?+NE:
The verbatim
said.
If
ask
you
to the
who will
period
my portion
Major
~oulll
or not
comments
FOE?
Air
issues
cMnments
16
the
comment
us assist
HFdRlNG
24
the
Thank
12
that
throughout
That
10
on whether
action.
I am confident
6
25
a 30.day
a Final
2
will
5
11
and distribute
be recogniaad
you
as that
person
is
to limit
the
purpose
at a
your
of
comment period,
I would
suggest
you
avoid
repeating
what
PUBLIC
HEARIWG
another
7-15.99
speaker
inappropriate
it
about
is not
times,
PWLIC
has just
it
aaid
here
ouce
8
remarks,
9
that
10
If
please
will
nsmee
help
12
become
13
included
14
Statement.
part
of the
in
the
2
V-a-n-d-e-r-v-e-e-n.
record.
that
6
week,
I
the
as
6
airfield
of any
9
on behalf
to the
conrt
correct
of your
reporter
spelling
of
record
of
these
10
proceedings
the hearing
Environmental
will
snd will
Cabaco
Company,
operations
of
Impact
this
13
nation.
16
complete.record
17
what
you
19
loud
enough
only
say.’
20
cards
and nobody
21
Anybody
change
22
tonight
for
23
0()()023
is
speak
their
the
in
cards.
who’s
will
be able
she can hear
everybody
We have
24
if
So please
for
19
reporter
I’ve
and slowly
room
got
indicated
mind
and understand
clearly
the
and
vAwIlERvsEw:
I’m
not
going
Well,
anything,
16
being
two attendants’
19
indeed
want
to speak.
I will
.then,
And siuce
1’11
start
with
sir.
no
weak.
weak,
with
facilities
22
whet
the
23
inmv
2s
respect
base
and
also
see
I think
it’s
to
the
good.
I think
that
the
five
site
days
a
manager
maintenance
Borce.
And
with
respect
for
and
I speak
history
the
to my
it
mentioned
done
at
what
you’re
I’d
like
to
its
current
unkind
helps
to
us
avoid
range
is
complex
the
at
fighter.
some
of
the
And based
now
saying.
attention
our
I can
range,
caapliment
to
my experience
here.
the
development
is
this
to develop
experienced
being
the
important
that
that
place
were
of
based’on
authority
perfect
that
extent
that’s
own aind
to
favor
And
tbat
I
does
Air
at
here
i0Oal
in
I am aware
I have
21
here
the
the
much
And
some
24
my
very
technology.
al
to make comments
my company
out
opinions.
17
say
much af a speaker.
to say
the
18
record?
wit.
I5
to bear.
they
and desire
to maks a
for
experience
locally
I'm
which
22
years’
I live
more.
I’fi
of
four
ranges
range,
own persocial
12
Vsndexveen,
northern
sometimes
11
be
about
test
everything
copy
I have
on the
verbatim
an extra
C-a-r-l,
working
Tonopah
is
Carl,
4
5
the
Final
It’s
3
you may mention.
The court
one else
several
7-15-99
name.
14
.15
25
which
the
but
HEARINQ
1
a court
it
with
apeskcrs,
ssme thing
into
al
we do have
The transcripts
11
R-l
her
nothing
earlier,
you have
provide
or places
it
is
other
the
pute
to record
tonight.
with
to repeat
As indicated
reporter
There
agreeing
necessary
Saying
said.
I
the
I can
other
on
confirm
agree.
Air
Force
to environmental
with
PUBLIC
1
HEARING
23
I can speak,
2
.
PUBLIC
7-15-99
iSSUeS,
3
experience
4
attention
in
that
regard,
to detail
I’m
5
out
lot
of environmental
I
to clean
water,‘sewage
a
ordnance
that’s
9
other
this
12
but
13
an Air
room
out
out
that
I’a
out
would
17
with
19
environmental
issues
19
groundwater,
sewage,
there
respect
north
23
range,
ranges
that
personally,
and
there
3
potential
--
5
other
desire
to make
7
tonight.
of
a
participation.
for
things,
some of them as
any
locals
out
about
with
air,
attention
local
my personal
11
comments
12
date.
for
going
on
15
sufficient
16
have.
my opinion,
the
environmental
a little
and
Force
while
good
hearing
19
(Thereupon,
or ovewhelming
20
were
experience
in
the
on the
21
2a
professionally
costs
and
developing
24
25
in
Anybody
hearing
public
folks
the
public
2nd
will
answer
long
any
Is
adjourned
the
proceedings
adjourned
at
7:29
comment
of
1999,
through
remain
as
there
at
and
that
available
questions
p.m.)
for
your
for
writing
as
else
the
night.
works.
24
nation's
not.
AUguSt
tonight
to
the
with
Apparently
that
officials
interest
my mind,
McSlW?E:
you
through
the
here
thank
submitted
This
you
to
remember
kinds,
area
18
conclude
may be
I?
from
will
to
in
you.
OFFICER
extend
Air
I4
23
it’s
will
be
to
comparison
comments?
Please
period
small,
any
I want
ia
are
Thank
That
would
to detail
in
all
no serious
in the
what’s
respect
there,
clear
imagine
that
or
HEARIN@
from
people
here
benefit.
13
law,
impact
that
out
to
6
a variety
and see these
tremendous
to the
given
respect
related
cleanup
of the
responsible
there's
And
24
things
range
be inquisitive
I osn
20
22
to a
contractor.
16
enviromental
respect
there,
most
And I can assure
21
with
there,
go out
here
2
7-15-99
fighter
9
I knaw
15
this
4
disposal,
can’t
Force
14
29
there.
issues
I can because
that
personal
the meticulous
involved
spent
And
in
from
as well.
10
11
again
about
personally
6
areas
once
HEARING
1
is
you
7:29.
may
Thank
PUBLIC
REARING
7-15-99
25
REPORTER ’ 9 CXRTIPICATB
1
2
3
STATE OF NEVJdlA
4
COONTY OF CIARK
1
) as
)
5
I,
6
Jane
7
Reporter,
do hereby
8
Stenotype
all
9
before-entitled
10
indicated
11
were
la
direction
13
transcript
14
record
of
17
county
the
that
transcribed
at
and
of
said
Shari&&
that
State
1L
&F
and accurate
seal
of Nevada,
..
I have
1.
of
hereunto
office
t+is
, 1999.
SC’
21
2:
2,
“/1cc;lu&)
J @ e . Michaels,
RPR
NV CCR NO. 601
CA CSR NO. 10660
set
in
jy4ay
20
2,
my
foregoing
19
2:
notes
and uuder
the
true
in
had.
my official
L/
the
in
and place
WITNRSS wHRRBOP,
of Clark,
had
time
a full,
proceedings
affixed
down
at
and
/ ;
18
the
Shorthand
I took
typewriting
constitutes
the
that
thereafter
and supervision
of
Certified
proceedings
into
IN
hand
certify
matter
and
15
16
V. Michaels,
the
my
F-22 Force Development
Comment/
Letter #
Response
#
and Weapons School Beddown,
NeIIis AFB
Response
0001
0002
0003
0013
0014
0015
0004
0005
0006
0016
0017
0018
(WS) Beddown at Nellis AFB. Public and agency involvement
is an
important part of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA)
process. All comments received during this comment period have
0007
0008
0010
0019
0020
0021
become part of the project record and will contribute to the decisionmaking process. Specific responses to your environmental
questions are
presented below.
0011
0022
0023
0001
R-l
Evaluation
R-2
Thank you for your comment during the public comment period on the
Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for the proposed F-22
Aircraft Force Development
Evaluation (FDE) and Weapons School
The Air Force disagrees with the opinion that the selection criteria are
“obstacles that are relatively easy to overcome.”
The Air Force used a
deliberative process in identifying its selection criteria to meet the
purpose and need for this action. Screening of assets against the selection
criteria demonstrated that neither Holloman AFB nor Edwards AFB
would meet the need of the Air Force. Much of the equipment, facilities,
realistic threats, and infrastructure required to fully develop F-22
capabilities, as identified in criteria 7 and 8, is one of-a-kind technology
that would be extremely costly and
reasonable to redundantly duplicate
addition, major exercises conducted
operational tests in the environment
-
0001
R-3
time consuming to replicate. It is not
these assets at another, location. In
at Nellis AFB allow complex
the F-22 was designed to encounter.
These criteria and considerations were developed from regulations,
policy, and mission requirements.
They do not have to be singularly
derived from regulations. The three overall considerations provide for
realistic and efficient operations at a lower cost. Criterion 1 is exclusive
for the mission type discussed in the Draft EIS and is defined by Air
Force policy and directive. The remaining criteria identify the
infrastructure, airspace, and facilities necessary to conduct the FDE
program and WS for this state-of-the-art aircraft.
-
Responses to Comments
2.2-l
F-22 Force Development
Comment/
Letter ##
0001
Evaluation
and Weapons School Beddown, Nellis AFB
Response
#
R-4
Response
Estimated costs for new range infrastructure and facilities
required at Holloman and Edwards AFBs are respectively
that would be
and
conservatively projected at $80 million and $45 million.
These range
improvements would not be required at Nellis AFBs because of the
already developed and adjacent Nellis Range Complex (NRC).
Additionally,
on-base facility improvements
of approximately
$25
million would be required at any base (see Draft EIS section 2.1.5).
0001
R-5
There are no reasonable alternatives
that adequately
criteria. Further analysis of unacceptable
unproductive.
alternatives
meet the selection
would be
0001
R-6
The potential increased noise footprint around Nellis AFB would lie
almost entirely inside areas zoned by Clark County for noise compatible
land uses and are within long-term historical noise levels. Noise
increases would be expected to be less than 2 dB which is within typical
noise fluctuations at Nellis AFB, as indicated by long-term averaging and
number and type of aircraft and sorties flown. The management actions
that would be applied if the Proposed Action were selected are listed in
section 1.3 of the Final EIS.
0001
R-7
There are approximately
900 acres of open land under the projected 70
DNL or greater noise contour. These lands are currently used for
industrial, commercial, or residential development.
Should Clark County
allow residential development of these open lands, current zoning would
permit fewer than two single family units per acre. This would represent
a maximum potential growth of approximately
5,500 people around
Nellis AFB. This growth is miniscule (less than one-half
in comparison to the current and projected rate of growth
Las Vegas area (approximately
10 percent per year). As
stated, other potential alternatives to the Proposed Action
minimum requirements and were eliminated from further
0001
R-8
The discussion of environmental
justice has been clarified
of one percent)
for the entire
previously
did not meet
analysis.
in section 3.2
of this Final EIS.
0001
R-9
The calculations
of RCRA waste have been clarified
and updated in the
Final EIS.
2.2-2
Responses to Comments
-
F-22 Force Development
Comment/
Letter #
0002
and Weapons School Beddown,
Response
#
R-10
R-11
NeIlis AFB
Response
The suggested revision has been made to the Final EIS.
Clarifications,
0002
Evaluation
See Errata and
section 3.2.
As stated in the Draft EIS, 17 F-22s would conduct an additional 4,472
sorties annually from Nellis AFB by 2008. These training and test
missions will be conducted in a manner similar to the missions currently
flown by the Nellis AFB aircraft. In addition, the F-22 is predominantly
a
medium to high altitude fighter conducting low-altitude combat
operations (below 2,000 feet AGL) less frequently than the F-15 or F-l 6.
The F-22 would depart and return using the same procedures, routes,
ingress, and egress flown by the current Nellis AFB aircraft.
0002
R-12
Prevailing agreements on sensitive and avoidance areas on the NRC
would apply to F-22 activities. In addition, avionics on the F-22 will aid
the pilot in avoiding these areas by providing audio and visual alerts in
the cockpit. The F-22 would fly departures and recoveries near Hayford
and Sheep peaks as directed by local procedures. However, the
performance capability of the F-22 will allow it to reach higher altitudes
quicker than current fighters, minimizing
low-altitude time near these
peaks.
0003
R-13
Water for the proposed facilities would be piped from existing facilities
in accordance with all applicable regulations.
0004
R-14
Nellis AFB took numerous efforts to involve all members of the public in
the EIS preparation. Public scoping meetings and public hearings to
which all citizens were invited were held in several communities
in
Nevada. Local and regional newspapers were used to advertise these
meetings. More specifically, a public hearing was held on July 13, 1999
in the area adjacent to Nellis AFB and copies of the Draft EIS were
placed in local libraries in Las Vegas as well as throughout southern
Nevada.
0004
R-15
Information
See also response R- 16.
on race and income is presented in section 3.12 of the Draft
EIS.
Responses to Comments
2.2-3
F-22 Force Development
Comment/
Letter #
0004
Evaluation
and Weapons School Beddown, Nellis AFB
Response
Response
#
R-16
The Draft EIS was not published
in Spanish.
The Hispanic
population
in
the affected area is about 7.6 percent of the total population.
This is less
than the county average of 10.9 percent. The Air Force and Nellis AFB
made numerous efforts to involve all of the public in the EIS process.
See R-14 above.
0004
R-17
Potential impacts to traditional Indian lands and resources are discussed
in section 4.8 of the Draft EIS.
0004
R-18
Airfield operations and sortie-operations are presented in two ways in the
Draft EIS; each corresponds to two different areas of analysis: the area
around Nellis AFB uses airfield operations (68,000) and the NRC uses
sortie-operations
(200,000-300,000).
Definitions for these terms are
given in section 2.2 of the Draft EIS. The number of airfield operations
occurring at Nellis AFB is an accurate representation of annual use of the
base and is based on an average of several years’ counts of takeoffs and
landings. Similarly, the number of sortie-operations
is an accurate
representation
years.
in the use of the NRC over the last 15
0004
R-19
The Draft EIS includes a discussion of Sound Exposure Level (SEL) as
well as the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL). Multiple aircraft
flights are included in the noise model to determine subsonic and
supersonic noise levels.
0004
R-20
Potential noise increases would be less than 2 dB; therefore, the Air
Force has no plans to soundproof these facilities.
0004
R-2 1
The noise analysis reflects the expected manner the F-22 will fly in the
NRC. They are not expected to use MTRs. Use of the MTRs was
included,
0004
2.2-4
-
of fluctuations
R-22
as appropriate,
in the discussion of cumulative
impacts.
Specific noise analysis for the F-22 is discussed in section 4.2 of the
Draft EIS.
Responses to Comments
F-22 Force Development
Comment/
Letter #
0004
Response
#
R-23
R-24
and Weapons School Beddown, Nellis AFB
Response
Red Flag and Green Flag exercises are analyzed as part of baseline
conditions;
Draft EIS.
0004
Evaluation
projected noise levels are discussed in section 3.2.2 of the
In the F-22 beddown EIS, the Air Force presented the areas exposed to
noise from Nellis AFB of 65 DNL or greater over a 17-year period. It
then compared these areas and those areas zoned by Clark County for
land uses compatible with noise of 65 DNL or greater around the base
with the projected area under the Proposed Action. Almost all of the
areas that would be affected by the F-22 beddown have had similar or
higher noise levels in the past and are zoned for noise levels of 65 DNL
or greater. The addition of F-22 noise in areas already exposed to such
noise is unlikely to result in impacts to property values.
0004
R-25
There is no requirement
0004
R-26
The data set from which the “Schultz curve” is synthesized is not a
model, but rather a dose-response relationship for noise exposure levels
and annoyance. The original curve was developed in the 1970s and
updated in 1991 (Fiddell et aE. 1991). The revised analysis showed only
minor differences in noise-induced annoyance as predicted by Schultz.
The F-22 EIS uses the latest updated noise-annoyance curve in the noise
analysis (Finegold et al. 1994).
0004
R-27
The revised noise-annoyance study (Finegold et al. 1994) acknowledges
that aircraft noise is somewhat more annoying than surface traffic and
incorporates this finding in the analysis.
0004
R-28
According
1”\
-
to perform a cost benefit analysis for this EIS.
to the 1992 Federal Interagency
Committee
on Noise
(FICON), the “dose-effect relationship, as represented by DNL and
‘Percent Highly Annoyed,’ remains the best available approach for
analyzing overall health and welfare impacts for the vast majority of
transportation noise analysis situations.”
Responses to Comments
2.2-5
F-22 Force Development
Comment/
Letter #
0004
Evaluation
and Weapons School Beddown,
Response
#
R-29
Neliis AFB
Response
Although
there is a high correlation
between the percentages of groups of
people highly annoyed and the level of average noise exposure measured
in DNL, the correlation is much lower for the annoyance of individuals.
Many personal factors may influence the manner in which individuals
react to noise. The great variability between individuals makes it
impossible to predict accurately how any individual will react to a given
noise event. However, scientific findings substantiate that community
annoyance to aircraft noise is represented reliably using DNL (see R-3 1
below).
0004
R-30
Noise in recreation areas is discussed in section 4.10 of the Draft EIS.
The analysis examines noise in recreation areas near Nellis AFB,
subsonic noise over recreation areas in the NRC, and the effects of sonic
booms over recreation areas. The Air Force recognizes that the response
to noise in residential and recreational areas may differ. Therefore,
different criteria were used to address noise in recreation areas such as
the change in noise levels, potential overflights, and number of sonic
booms.
0004
R-3 1
The noise modeling techniques used in the Draft EIS have been validated
by actual measurements and results are accepted by the Environmental
Protection Agency, Housing and Urban Development,
and other federal
agencies. Additional on-site monitoring would not be expected to show
differing results from those presented in the EIS.
0004
R-32
The analysis of community noise was based on the revised and updated
version of the Schultz curve (Finegold et al. 1994).
0004
R-33
The findings
0005
R-34
The Air Force is working with Clark County on this issue.
0006
R-35
It is beyond the scope of this EIS to address the legal implications
treaty of Ruby Valley.
2.24
by Finegold
et aE. (1994) are included
in the analysis.
of the
Responses to Comments
F-22 Force Development
Comment/
Letter #
0006
Evaluation
Response
#
R-36
and Weapons School Beddown,
Nellis AFB
Response
The Air Force believes it is in full compliance
with E.O. 12898. We have
evaluated the Proposed Action based on the criteria presented in Chapter
2 of the Draft EIS. These criteria are not related to race, color, or religion,
and are used to evaluate the Proposed Action from an operational
standpoint.
R-37
0006
Proposed F-22 operations in the NRC involve shared use of airspace over
an extremely large landmass that includes several towns, mining
operations, recreation areas, and ranching activities. There’are thousands
of individuals of numerous racial, religious, and occupational orientations
using this area.
0006
R-38
Nellis AFB took numerous efforts to involve all Native Americans in the
F-22 beddown public involvement process. While the Consolidated
Group of Tribes and Organizations was used to obtain data concerning
the proposed F-22 beddown, solicitation of opinions of Native Americans
was not limited to this group. Chairpersons and representatives from 17
regional tribes were notified of the proposed operations and forwarded
copies of the Draft EIS; a presentation on the F-22 EIS was given at the
June 1999 Nellis AFB Native American Interaction Program (NAIP)
general meeting; and several scoping meetings and public hearings to
which all citizens were invited were held in communities
in Nevada.
0009
0013
0016
R-39
Thank you for your letter. You have been removed from the mailing
per your request.
R-40
Decisions regarding
Responses to Comments
funding
list
of the F-22 are beyond the scope of this EIS.
2.2-7
F-22 Force Development
Comment/
Letter #
0014
0017
Evaluation
and Weapons School Beddown, Neiiis AFB
Response
#
R-41
Response
Nellis AFB has published an Air Installation Compatible Use Zone
(AICUZ) report. The report includes recommendations
to Clark County
planners about noise and safety issues surrounding Nellis AFB. Clark
County has enacted zoning ordinances that closely mirror the
recommendations
contained in the Nellis AFB report. Historically,
the
largest number of accidents at an air base occur on the runway or just off
either end of the runway. Land off the north end of the runways at Nellis
AFB is unpopulated.
Much of the land to the south is zoned for lowoccupancy commercial and residential uses. Also, aircraft experiencing
problems usually land at Indian Springs Air Force Auxiliary Airfield or
the Tonopah Test Range.
0015
R-42
The environmental
analysis was conducted to determine whether there
would be significant impacts, such as the spread of diesel fuel on the
landscape and over cultural resources. Results of the analysis indicate
that the natural and cultural resources environment should not be
impacted by operation of the F-22 beddown proposal.
0015
R-43
Nellis AFB has taken efforts to ensure that groups, organizations, and
individuals have opportunities to present their concerns. The Nellis AFB
Native American Interaction Program provided a presentation and forum
at the general meeting June 3 and 4, 1999, for tribal chairpersons and
designated representatives to respond to the proposed project. Also, all
members of the public, including Native American individuals, were
invited to the meetings and hearings held in the region. Nellis AFB
understands that individuals at these meetings and hearings are
responding
any tribe.
2.2-8
for themselves
and do not necessarily represent the view of
Responses to Comments
F-22 Force DeveIopment
Comment/
Letter #
0020
Response
#
R-44
Evaluation
and Weapons School Beddown,
Nellis AFB
Response
The Draft EIS acknowledges that noise is unwanted sound, and that
annoyance is the usual human reaction to exposure to noise in section
4.2.1. Public concern with sonic booms was also noted in section 4.2 of
the Draft EIS. As reflected in that section, the majority of sonic booms
are anticipated to occur in authorized airspace in the Elgin and Coyote
Military Operation Areas of the NRC. The F-22 will only fly supersonic
within existing supersonic-approved
airspace. Public noise complaints
can be made by calling the Air Warfare Center Public Affairs office at
Nellis AFB at (702) 652-2750 or l-800-859-3804.
0022
R-45
Prevailing rules for sensitive and avoidance areas on the NRC would
apply to the F-22 as well other aircraft. Public noise complaints can be
made by calling the Air Warfare Center Public Affairs office at Nellis
AFB at (702) 652-2750 or l-800-859-3804.
0022
R-46
F-22 operations plan to use the entire NRC as described in the Draft EIS.
The level of flight activity in the NRC requires the use of all associated
airspace, including restricted airspace over the Nevada Test Site, to meet
training and test needs.
0022
R-47
The Air Force is committed to enforcing existing flight restrictions in the
NRC. Public noise complaints can be made by calling the Air Warfare
Center Public Affairs office at Nellis AFB at (702) 652-2750 or 1-800859-3804.
Responses to Commetits
2.2-9
ERRATA
AND CLARIFICATIONS
3.1
INTRODUCTION
This section contains errata and clarifications.
Errata rectify minor errors found in the Draft EIS
ranging from corrections of spellings to inserting words or phrases inadvertently omitted from the
Draft EIS. Clarifications
consist of explanatory information designed to enhance understanding
of information in the Draft EIS. These clarifications do not represent substantive changes to the
analysis or findings in the Draft EIS. Neither the errata nor the clarifications alter the conclusions
presented in the Draft EIS regarding environmental
impacts.
Combined with the Draft EIS, the errata and clarifications
form the core of the Final EIS.
Organization of the errata and clarifications follows the organization of the Draft EIS to assist the
reader. The errata and clarifications start with the Executive Summary and progress through the
remainder of the chapters and sections in the Draft EIS. Those sections of the Draft EIS not
requiring any changes or clarifications are omitted from the list presented below.
Each erratum or clarification is listed according to its section, page, paragraph, and line number in
the Draft EIS. The underlined words in the errata and clarifications are not part of the text
changes to the Draft EIS; they are instructions. To ensure a clear understanding of the changes
made to the Draft EIS, one section - 4.12 Environmental
Justice - has been reprinted in its
entirety. Also, when one or two numbers change within a table, the entire table is repeated.
However, most of the errata and clarifications simply replace a word or phrase.
Errata and Clar~jkafions
3.0-l
F-22 Force Development
Evaluation
3.2 ERRATA
Draft EIS
Section
Page
Paragraph
and Weapons S&o01 Beddown, Nellis AFB
AND CLARIFICATIONS
Line(s)
TABLE
Errata or Clarification
Executive
ES-1
5 th
7
Add “on or near the base” after “Base components”
Summary
- ._._.........._._..._.
.._......
.._._........_
- _._.
- _........_.....
._.-_
...--...”
. “._._
._.....
_.._.
_.__..__
_..___-..____._.
St
ES-3
1
2
Before “(Table ES- 1)” +lcJ “for airspace management, air
Executive
Summary
quality, safety, land use, hazardous materials and waste,
earth and water resources, recreation and visual
resources, and socioeconomics.
The F-22 beddown
would result in an increase in noise around Nellis AFB
relative to baseline conditions. Increased noise would
extend into areas with greater than average minority and
low-income populations resulting in a disproportionate
effect on these groups. This environmental
justice
impact would primarily occur in locations already zoned
by Clark County to control development in areas subject
to noise levels of 65 DNL or greater.”
.._.......
. ..._...
__.._..
. ...___..__
. ..-_...._
- ._-__
_.-..........
_ _ .._.........
..i... ...”.
..I-.-....-...............~..
_.. ...--...-.-........-.-.
“.”.... ...-..-.....-..-.-............
_.. .. ..-...-..-.-..-......
_ _ .. ...
Executive
ES-4
3’d full
1-6
Renlace from “Under the Proposed Action.. . through
Summary
northeast of the base.” &
“The F-22 beddown would
wagraph
result in increased subsonic noise at and around Nellis
AFB, but noise conditions would remain generally
consistent with the patterns of the past 20 years. Ninetyfive percent of the lands around Nellis AFB are zoned for
and previously exposed to equivalent noise levels, or are
undeveloped lands northeast of the base. Addition of F22 flight activities would increase the area around the
/ Ibase currently affected by noise levels of 65 DNL or
greater. DNL, or Day-Night Average Sound Level, is a
noise metric that combines levels and durations of noise
events and the number of events over a daily time period.
The area around the base exposed to these noise levels
wouId increase to approximately
23,000 acres, or 8,700
acres more than under baseline conditions and could
affect an additional 6,250 people.”
_...__.._
__;. - _.__.._
,,.,,.
“._. ...-....-.--...--.--......-.
_._.__._
- ___._
- _...
_.____. __....^_
_._”
.--_--I..--._.-.__
..--.-.-.-.--.....
- -......
_._
..-..-.--.-...-.-....
- ^.._..
I.--.-- ..-._.._.__._.__..._....
Executive
ES-5
6’
2
Change “26 percent and 11 percent” & “24 percent and
Summary
10 percent”
i
:
I
#
g
:
3.0-2
’
,
Errata and Clar@cations
F-22 Force Development Evaluation and Weapons School Beddown, NelIis AFB
Draft EIS
Section
Page
Paragraph
Line(s)
Executive
Summary
ES-6
1St
1-2
Errata
or Clarification
Replace “These figures exceed the 25 percent minority
average and equal the 11 percent low-income average in
Clark County” &
“The 24 percent of minority
populations and the 10 percent low-income populations
currently affected by noise are lower than the Clark
County average for these groups.”
_._”.._..
_. .- -_ . .._.~..
_..“.._
.,.__._.,....,....,.,.~.......~..,...,..
. .._...
_.”,....,,..._,._.._
..._..._-_._...-..--._.-........
.
..-.-....
_. . _ .._..._.............~.......-.~~.
_....,....._..._._._,_._..,,,,
St
4
Executive
ES-6
1
Change “27 percent minority and 19 percent low-income
populations.”
@ “30 percent minority and 16 percent
Summary
low-income populations.”
.__........._........,,,...-...~.,....
“I,_.._..__....._..._...,,,
_,_
_._,..._..,,.
_~__._
,_._.
-_.__..._
_._..-........_...___-~.~
“.._
..,-._.
_~_.....,..,,.,.,..,,
_,_..
_..___.._...
_.“_.
..-.-_.“.“”
-...“._
nd
2
2-4
Replace
“The
primary
air-to-ground
munition
carried
by
2.3
2-38
the F-22 is expected to be the JDAM. JDAMs consist of
1,000 pound bombs guided to the target by an attached
Global Positioning System (GPS) Receiver” m
“the
primary air-to-ground munition carried by the F-22 is
expected to be the GBU 32 variant of the JDAM, which
uses a 1,000 pound general purpose Mark-83 bomb.
JDAMs are guided to the target by an attached Global
Positioning
System (GPS) Receiver.”
_._...._...._.
__^_
_..._.._......
_,.._.._._.,_._...
_,..,
. .._..._._..__......
_,_.._
.._.......___.
_._
.._.._..__.,.,.,.,,._.
_..._.”
.._._._._.._....
_-.._-_-__,.._ _..“.”
. . -.__..,._.
I_ ..-_.
..__.__......._..-~..-..
_ _.-_..___...
rd
3
1
Change
“Mark-82”
&
“Mark-83”
2.3
2-38
_...................,.
_.._,_._.
_..,...
“..“_
.. .._..__.__....
__._
,,,._.
_,_.___.__.,..,,_.,
__.._
. . ..._.._..
- . “.”__...._._.__.
“._...”.--.._
__.,,..,
_._,,.
_ _.._..._._.__
.,,_...“._
. . “.“...
2-49
Table 2.6NA
Under Airsoace for Proposed Action: F-22 Beddown, add
2.6
after “An increase of 544 F-22 annual night operations”. .
,
. “; an 11% increase” in the third bullet
_ .._._.._...
- ._._._
_. ,...._..
- ...”_,,,,.
,,_._..,_..
- .,...__,.
_,..,__^.....
__.__,,,,
“__.“_
_-___.
_,..“._.~.._._
.._.
__
._,._.-..__.__.-..._....
_. _I_-._-.-._-_.~..._
.._._.._.....
.._..._
..-_..
-_.- ,_.-._
.._.
_.._.._.____.---.,...
_ ,,,,_.,,,,.
Table 2.6- 1
NA
Under Noise and Land Use for No-Action Alternative,
2.6
2-50
change “about 22,800 people” Q “about 3 1,000 people”
in the second bullet
. .._
_._._...,,
__
._,,,,
_._
_._...,
_,_,,,,”
,_______.____.._,,
_,__
.___._._.._
_,,.,
_,_._._._,.._.--.-.”
.-.--_..___.,_.-_.._
...~.....__
__“_
,--.__._.
-.._,_
..--..-----“”
Z-50
Table 2.6-l
NA
Under Noise and Land Use for Proposed Action: F-22
2.6
Beddown, change “about 37,750 people” & “about
37,250 people” &r the second bullet
_._._
.-.--_..-..
--.--........
““_..__._..-...
- ..__._(._.--...
_--.__.._--.^.._-.....-.....
_..._
. .--..... ..---_..-_-.._.....--......_...-_.-_.-I-..2-55
Table 2.6-l
NA
Under Environmental Justice for No-Action Alternative,
2.6
replace the first bullet with “Baseline noise levels of 65
DNL or greater do not disproportionately
affect minority
groups (24%) or low-income populations (10%)”
.--.-__.,-_,_,
_-...-.__..___.,.
_x .._
-____,_,.,
_I..--._..--....-.
_.------.--“---._.,.....-.
- _._._....
- ._._-._
-.-_-.__
.-I
Errata and Clarzjkations
._-...._
I
.-..
_._...___.I
..-.
,“.”
.
“.-.._.11.-.”
.--.
3.0-3
F-22 Force Development
Evaiuation
and Weapons School Beddown,
Nellis AFB
Draft EIS
Section
Page
Paragraph
Line(s)
Errata
2.6
2-55
Table 2.6-l
NA
Under Environmental Justice for Prouosed Action,
reolace the first bullet with “Projected noise levels of 65
DNL or greater would disproportionately
affect about
11,200 (30%) people belonging to minority groups and
about 5,900 low-income people (16%), but this effect
would primarily occur in locations already zoned by
Clark County to control development in areas subject to
noise levels of 65 DNL or greater”
3.2
3.2-V
3.2-2
6 th
1-5
Replace Darag;raph with “ Human response to noise can
vary greatly to a given sound level and frequency.
Depending on the individual disposition to the noise
source, the response can range from cccalming” to
“startling.”
With the exception of evaluating sleep
disturbance, metrics used to measure human response to
noise consider the cumulative amount of noise over some
time duration, typically 1, 8 and 24 hours. Many laymen
consider this “averaging” over time as misleading since
the resulting noise level can be less than the
instantaneous or peak value of the noise signal.
Realistically,
from a “response” perspective, the true
effect can only be understood when compared to a
standard. This is analogous to temperature.
Most
Americans well understand the Fahrenheit temperature
scale, some also understand the Centigrade scale;
however, few would understand that 32 degrees
Fahrenheit is comparable to 273 degrees Kelvin or 492
degrees Rankin. Thus, without a standard for
comparison, the data become meaningless.
The standard
metric for human annoyance is based on the “cumulative
dose” or time-weighted
average noise level such as
DNL.”
3.2
3.2-2
lSt Bullet
4
Add “measured”
3.2
_-.-_..“-...“”
3.2-2
4th Bullet
4-5
Replace “this effect can make noise seem louder than its
actual level.” &
“this effect can startle the receiver.”
.._._I...__._
-.--..--.-.------
or Clarification
__---_..--.---
.--..-
_..__
-...._.
_.-.-I.-._._-.....“.-~-.~
.--..----.-..-..........-.
_._...
_..______.”
--,,,_
3.0-4
-.._
. ..-.__..
after “Sound levels are”
Errata and Clari~cations
_ ..-._
F-22 Force Development
Draft EIS
Section
3.2.1
Page
j 3.2-18
Evaluation
and Weapons Scizool Beddown,
Nellis AFB
Paragraph
Line(s)
Errata
or Clarification
3rd
4-8
Renlace “In contrast, the area affected by actual baseline
noise levels of 65 DNL or greater includes about half as
many people (i.e., 23,000).” & “In contrast, the area in
which 3 1,000 people live has been exposed to baseline
noise levels of 65 DNL or greater.”
NA
Replace Table 3.2-7 with:
. . _ . ...__-.--..............”
,.,_,.._.,..
i . ..___..........
_.._.
3.2.1
j 3.2-19
Table 3.2-7
Table 3.2-7. Affected Population
Population
and Annoyance
Estimates around Nellis AFB
Afleeted ’
1 Number of People Potentially Highly
Annoyed Under Baseline Noise
Contours
Within Clark
County Zones
Under Baseline
Noise Contours
65-70
24,402
22,669
2,720
70-75
14,119
8,208
1,806
Noise Level
@N-Q
75-80
5,379
I
91
I
I
34
80-85
1,200
32
17
>85
0
0
0
TOTAL
I
45,100
I
4,577
I
’ Nellis AFB population excluded; estimated from 1998 count of housing units multiplied by 3.02 people per unit
(regional average)
_i_..
3.2.1
3.2-19
._...-.
_ “_._-_---.._.-_..-.
3.2-29
3.2.2
nd
2
/
1
Replace “approximately 2,900 people” a
] “approximately 4,600 people”
I
/
+
3ti full
paragraph
2-3
Change “National Wildlife Range System” Q “National
Wildlife Refuge System”
..i_
m
Errata and Clarifications
3.0-5
F-22 Force Development
Evaluation
and Weapons School Beddown,
Nellis AFB
Draft EIS
Section
Page
Paragraph
Line(s)
Errata or Clarification
3.5.1.1
3.5-2
1St
5-7
Change “the base has a Spill Prevention and Response
Plan, Nellis AFB Plan 19-1, and a Facilities Respon&
Plan included as appendices in the Nellis AFB
Hazardous Waste Management Plan” to read “the base
has a Facilities Response Plan and the Nellis AFB
Hmardozks WasteManagement Plan”
-...........
_ . . ....”
3.5-2
2 nd
3.5-2
2 nd
3.5-2
rd
..-.......~......
_.__
_..-.
1
Add “(NAFB
Plan 12)” after‘NeZZis AFB Hazardous
Waste Management Plan”
Delete “RCRA
and non-RCRA”
.._-_......._.._,,,.,...
_”. _ ___...--.
..--......-..
_..,.......
_ ..-_.._
..__.--..* ...-.---...-........”
. _.._I.....-...-.-........-..--..---.-.........
.” ..-..
3
.-_“_._
. ..-..-..
3 rd
3.5-2
,..-....
_._.,_
.. .
3.5-2
3 rd
3.5-2
4th
1
Replace “more than 110,000 pounds” yvitJ
“approximately
149,000 pounds”
.._........._._.._._....-,
“,..
2
Add “presently” after “Nellis AFB is”, replace “areas”
J& “sites” anJ “or” *
“and”
8-16
Replace fi-om “Wastes generated on base.. . ..” through
“waste streams generated on base.” yvitJ “Wastes
generated on base are turned into 83 satellite
accumulation points and then into the Central
Accumulation
Site on base. These accumulation points
manage 46 established waste streams generated on base.
The Defense Reutilization
and Marketing Office is
responsible for managing disposal operations.”
..___-._..-.““l-.^-”-....-._..
3.5.1.1
_-.__._.__
- ____._
-__._._..
3.12.1
3.12-3
&J
5-7
“and vehicle”
after “aircraft”
Replace “These areas have also traditionally
been
occupied by a higher proportion of members of a
minority group (from 26 to 3 1 percent of the population
affected by noise levels grater than 65 DNL,).” &
“These areas have also historically been occupied by a
higher proportion of members of a minority group; 33
percent of the population in the area zoned by Clark
County for noise levels of 65 DNL or greater are
minorities (Table 3.12-l).”
.-_._^-....-_.. ._-_.-.--.l--“” .._--..
3.0-6
Errata and Clarifications
Draft EIS
Section
F-22 Force Development
Evaluation
and Weapons School Beddown,
Page
Paragraph
Line(s)
Errata or Clarification
5 th
l-7
Replace entire paragraph with “Approximately
3 1,000
total people are estimated to be affected by current
(baseline) noise levels of 65 DNL or greater. Out of
those 3 1,000 people about 7,480 (24 percent) are
considered to be minorities, and 3,218 (10 percent) to
have low incomes. The 24 percent minority and 10
percent low-income populations currently affected by
noise around Nellis AFB are lower than the county
average. Within the area around Nellis AFB zoned for
noise of 65 DNL or greater, 33 percent of the people
belong to minority populations and 13 percent to lowincome populations (Table 3.12- 1)”
3.12.1
Nellis AFB
Delete paragraph starting with “Minority
income” through “above 70 DNL.”
3.12.1
3.12.1
3.12-5
/ Table 3.12-1
and low-
Replace Table 3.12- 1 with:
NA
Table 3.12-1. Minority and Low-Income Populations Around Nellis AFB in
Areas with Baseline Noise of 65 DNL or Greater
Clark County Total Population’
Clark County
265 DNL
Zoning Noise Levels 2
Baseline Noise Levels
265 DNL
Minority
%
Low-Income
%
281,120
25
123,200
11
14,897
33
5,792
13
7,480
24
3,218
10
‘Total population based on 1996 estimate from Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning.
‘Zoning based on Clark County Depar@ent of Comprehensive Planning.
1..._.
-_.“.“..- -.-..-
1”3
4.2.1
1 4.2-9
..__.I
,...-....
-_-_---_ -.-,
P-J
Errata and Clarifications
!
/ 2nd
) Change “about 38,000 people” & “about 37,000 people”
1 & “Almost 15,000 people” Q “Approximately
6,000
1 people”
,_..._
- _...__.
“._
_.-.--.
.I .._-__-.._-_---_
-.-.__”
..-...
_.---..^..-_.-..
“~.~~..--~.-...-.---~..~.~~--...~~.--~~-~.~-.~-...--___._._
.---...
2
3.0-7
F-22 Force Development
Evaluation
Page
Draft EIS
Section
1 4.2-9
f
I
and Weapons School Beddown,
1Paragraph
1Line(s)
/
!
I
/ Table 4.2-4
i NA
/
Neilis AFB
/ Errata or Clarification
i Replace Table 4.2-4 with:
/
Table 4.2-4. Baseline and Projected Affected Population
Voise Level
(DNL
Baseline
Population
Aflected’
Baseline Number of
People Potentially
Highly Annoyed’
Projected
Population
Afsected’
and Annoyance
Proje,cted Number
of People Highly
Annoyed’
Population
within Clark
County Zones’
65-70
22,669
2,720
27,056
3,247
24,402
70-75
8,208
1,006
10,074
2,216
14,119
75-80
91
34
30
11
5,379
80-85
32
17
90
48
1,200
>85
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
31,000
4,577
37,2501
5,522
45,100
Nellis AFB excluded.
4.2.1
Change “approximately
5,500 people”
5,600 people” & “approximately
4.2.1
Change “an increase of 2,700 people” & “an increase of
945 people”
4.5.2
4.5-3
1 1s’ full
1 paragraph
1 2-3
f
Change “about 4,000 pounds” fir “about 14,500 pounds”
4.5.2
4.5-3
1i 1”’ full
14
]
Chance “less than a 3 percent increase” 9 “less than a 10
percent increase” and add “This increase would not
exceed hazardous waste amounts disposed of in the past
which were as high as 461,000 pounds in 1992.
Hazardous waste has been reduced by roughly 68 percent
and is expected to continue to decrease.” after “to current
conditions.”
/ paragraph
!
/
!
/
!
>
!
$
- .._.
-.._--__._._.__i
__._.
-_.----.__ ._......
-.” I-.-.-. .-.._
- ___.-
3.0-8
Errata and Clar#cations
Draft EIS
Section
4.8.2
)
-zI
F-22 Force Development
Evahation
and Weapons School Beddown,
Page
Line(s)
Errata or Clarification
3
Add “potentially
Paragraph
L
4.8-2
I
2”d full
paragraph
....b
4.8.2
_..._. ..-.....
“._. .‘-7’
!
j...
4.8-2
4.8.2
.._.._.
_...-. . _
4.8-2
2”d full
paragraph
10
“-”
!
.A..
4.12-1
through
4.12-5
Errata and Clar@kations
eligible”
after “effects to”
_._._...........
__._.....__..._._......~..--..................
..-.....-..._._..”
..._..._....................-.-...............~..-....
_.- ._._......
_“._
._._.__....,_.._......
__._..._....
Renlace “The Munitions Area has never been surveyed.”
m
“ The munitions area will be surveyed and any
cultural resources found would be evaluated by January
2000, prior to construction.”
. _.._
._..._..._............
- __....
..;..-
2”d full
12
paragraph
.._........................
“,.._
,..,._..._
...j .._....
_ . . ..~.. .-._
.,..-._.
“._
- ._......
-t””
1 13
4.8.2
4.8-2
2”d full
paragraph
4.12
Nellis AFB
Delete “and survey to identify
archaeological
remains”
. .. . .,......-..-..........-.
I..”. . ..--....
__......_._........._....-..,......~.~...~.-.........
.-.....
_ .._.___..._..
_._.._._.__.__.”
,..,.,”
_........_...........,,”
_I.._._..._..,
Delete “significant”
and replace “of possible.” m
“and
mitigate effects to insignificant
levels through data
recovery.”
,.-.........
_ . . . ...___._._..- .._._._.. . _.._.“.“_. .. ..~. _.”_”..._.-....--.....”
. . _.-....-...........
“._.-...._.-.-....-........
_,...._.,............-....-....,
“..._ .._- ..-.....
_..“._.._.._...
_...”
. ._..,._._..,...._
“_,_,.”
,,.,..,
NA
NA
Replace Section 4.12, Environmental
Justice. with a
revised Section 4.12 (below)
A...
3.0-9
F-22 Force Development
Evaluation
and Weapons School Beddown,
4.12 ENVIRONMENTAL
Nellis AFB
JiJSTICE
Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address ErzvironmentaI Justice in
Minority and Low-Income Populations, this analysis addresses potential disproportionately
high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on these populations.
As directed by Executive
The existence of disproportionately
high and adverse impacts first depends on identifying impacts
for each of the individual resources (e.g., noise, air quality, water resources, and hazardous
materials and wastes). If implementation
of the Proposed Action were to have potentially
significant effects on people for any particular resource, then it would be necessary to examine
those impacts in terms of their potential to adversely and disproportionately
affect minority or
low-income communities.
Section 3.12 determined that noise was the only resource with such
potential.
Determining
disproportionate
impacts involves comparing the composition of the affected
population to the composition of the Region of Comparison (ROC). The ROC is the smallest
political unit encompassing the impact area. For the area around Nellis AFB, the ROC is Clark
County. The ROC for the NRC includes Clark, Lincoln, and Nye counties.
4.12.1
No-Action
Akernative
Because there would be no change from existing conditions
there would be no environmental justice issues.
4.12.2
under the No-Action
Alternative,
Proposed Action
NELLIS AFB
During the winter of 1998 a windshield survey was conducted, including personal contact with
managers of multiple dwelling units. These data were combined with census tract data to ensure
consideration of potential impacts at or below the census tract level. This information provided
up-to-date estimates of population in the area surrounding the base. The information resulting
from this evaluation has been incorporated into this analysis.
Low-income and minority populations in the residential areas associated with Sunrise Manor and
other unincorporated
communities near Nellis AFB would bear a disproportionately
greater share
of noise impacts than the population as a whole in the surrounding community.
Portions of
Sunrise Manor west and south of Nellis AFB (refer to Figure 3.2-5) would be subject to increased
noise of 2 dB or less above levels currently experienced. This would occur almost entirely in
areas already zoned by Clark County to control development in areas subject to noise levels of 65
DNL or greater.
3.0-10
Errata and Clarificatioms
F-22 Force Development
Evaluation
and Weapons School Beddown,
Nellis AFB
The minority population residing within Clark County Planning zones of 65 DNL or greater
represents 33 percent of the total population in that area, as compared to the minority population
in the ROC which is 25 percent. This means that the area historically affected by Nellis AFB
operations already has a higher proportion of minorities than the ROC. Currently, 24 percent of
the population affected by baseline noise levels are minorities (Figure 4.12-1). This would
increase to 30 percent of the total population under the Proposed Action. Minority members
potentially affected by noise would increase from 7,480 to 11,199 (Table 4.12-1). Approximately
76 percent of the affected minority members live in areas with noise levels between 65 and 70
DNL (Table 4.12-2).
The low-income populations residing within Clark County Planning Zones of 65 DNL or greater
represents 13 percent of the total population in that area, as compared to the low-income
population in the ROC which is 11 percent. This means that the area historically affected by
Nellis AFB operation already has a higher proportion of low-income people than the ROC.
Currently, 10 percent of the population affected by baseline noise levels is low-income (see
Figure 4.12-1). This would increase to 16 percent of the total population under the Proposed
Action. The low-income population potentially affected by noise would increase from 3,2 18 to
5,883 (see Table 4.12-1). Approximately
70 percent of the affected members of the low-income
population live in areas with noise levels between 65 and 70 DNL (Table 4.12-3).
Table
4.12-1.
Minority
and Low-Income
Populations
Affected
Greater than or Equal to 65 DNL
by Noise Levels
Minority
%
Low-income
%
281,120
25
123,200
11
14,897
33
5,792
13
Baseline Noise Levels
265 DNL
7,480
24
3,218
10
Projected Noise Levels
265 DNL
11,199
30
5,883
16
Clark County Total Population’
Clark County
265 DNL
Zoning Noise Levels2
* Total population based on 1996 estimate from Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning.
* Zoning based on Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning.
Errata and Clarifications
3.0-11
.
F-22 Force Development
Evaluation
and Weapons School Beddown,
Nellis AFB
LEGEND
m
Low Income
(> 10.4%)
m
h4inority
m
Lmvimmand
Minority
B
Pmjwted Affected Am
Exceeds county zone
(> 25.1%)
.e*+&
Baseline (1997) 6SdB
N&e Contour
#+‘**
Pmposed F-22 6533
Noise Contour
#
Chh~mty65dB
Noise
Figure 4.12-1. Proposed Noise Contours and Low-Income and Minority Census ‘l’rat.zt.s
3.0-12
Errata and Clarifictions
F-22 Force Development
Evaluation
and Weapons School Beddown,
Nellis AFB
Table 4.12-2. Minority
Populations
in Areas
with Noise of 65 DNL or Greater
1 65-70
1
8,083
1
4,609
1 70-75
1
4,745
1
2,842
1,780
80-85
289
>85
0
TOTAL
14,897
I
8,552
22
7
I
3,936
-15
I
I
I
0
I
7,480
Table 4.12-3. Low-Income
Populations
in Areas
with Noise of 65 DNL or Greater
DNL
Clark County Zoning
Low-Income
Population
Baseline
Low-Income
Population
Projected LowIncome
Population
65-70
3,171
2,195
70-75
1,774
1,011
75-80
720
9
I
3
80-85
127
>85
0
TOTAL
5,792
3,218
I
5,883
I
I
4,125
1,746
Projected vs.
Baseline Change in
Low-Income
I
I
I
I
-6
I
2,665
I
~QNAGEMENTACTIONSTOREDUCEPOTENTIALEFFECTS:Zoning regulations currently require all
residential construction within areas affected by noise levels of 65 DNL or greater to include
noise attenuation features. Noise attenuation from current standard construction practices can
reduce indoor noise by 20 dB or more. The Air Force will continue to work with Clark County
and other local officials to support enforcement of existing zoning ordinances and to assessthe
Errata and Clarifications
3.0-13
F-22 Force Development
Evaluation
and Weapons School Beddown, Nellis AFB
adequacy of noise abatement measures. If changes are found to be needed to address noise
conditions, the Air Force will assist local officials who seek to establish or modify noise
attenuation measures. The Air Force will also continue to employ aircraft noise abatement
procedures that will apply to the F-22 aircraft around the base, including expedited climb-outs for
all aircraft and restrictions on the time and direction of flight activities. In addition, Nellis AFB
proposes to expand their community interaction program to provide more emphasis on minority
and low-income populations around the base. This effort would aid these segments of the
community in understanding the function and importance ofNellis AFB, as well as provide a
focused opportunity for minority and low-income populations to work with the base on issues
concerning them.
NELLISRANGECOMPLEX
The Proposed Action’s only effect that could have an adverse impact on minority and low-income
populations is noise levels of 65 DNL or greater. No change would occur to subsonic noise levels
under the Proposed Action. A 1 to 3 CDNL increase would occur due to supersonic operations in
the Elgin and Coyote Military Operations Areas, but the combined subsonic and supersonic noise
level would still be less than 65 DNL (see Table 4.2-9). Although Elgin has been identified as a
low-income area, Coyote overlies neither low-income nor minority tracts. No disproportionate
increase in noise over low-income or minority tracts would occur under the Proposed Action.
AMERICAN INDIAN RESERVATIONS
No American Indian reservations directly underlie airspace affected by the Proposed Action.
There would be no disproportionate
impacts to American Indian populations.
3.0-14
Errata and Clarifications
LIST
ACC
ACEC
AFB
AFI
AFY
AGE
AGL
AICUZ
Air Force
APZ
ASM
ATCAA
AWACS
BASH
BLM
BNA
CDNL
CEQ
CERCLA
CFR
CGTO
co
CY
dB
DNL
DNWR
DOD
DOE
Do1
EC
ECE
ECR
ECS
ECW
EIAP
EIS
EPA
ERIS
FAA
FDE
FICON
FLPMA
FY
GPS
HAZMAT
HQ ACC
HUD
I-15
IICEP
IOT&E
IR
JDAM
KCAS
L
Ldnmr
“7
i
LEIS
LLW
Lmax
LOLA
LOS
OF ACRONYMS
Air Combat Command
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Air Force Base
Air Force Instruction
Acre-feet per year
Aerospace Ground Equipment
Above ground level
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone
U.S. Air Force
Accident Potential Zone
Aircraft Structural Maintenance
Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace
Airborne Warning and Control System
Bird-Aircraft Strike Hazard
Bureau of Land Management
Block numbering area
C-Weighted Day-Night Sound Level
Council on Environmental Quality
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
Code of Federal Regulations
Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations
Carbon monoxide
Calendar year
Decibel
Day-Night Average Sound Level
Desert National Wildlife Refuge
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Electronic combat
Electronic Combat East
Electronic combat ranges
Electronic Combat South
Electronic Combat West
Environmental impact analysis process
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Protection Agency
Economic Resource Impact Statement
Federal Aviation Administration
Force Development Evaluation
Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
Federal Land Policy and Management Act
Fiscal year
Global Positioning System
Hazardous materials
Headquarters Air Combat Command
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Interstate 15
Intergovernmental/Interagency
Coordination of
Environmental Planning
Initial Operational Test and Evaluation
Instrument route
Joint Direct Attack Munitions
Knots Calibrated Airspeed
Sound ievel
Onset-Rate Adjusted Monthly Day-Night
Average Sound Level
Legislative Environmental Impact Statement
Low-level nuclear waste
Maximum sound level
Live ordnance loading area
Level of Service
AND ABBREVIATIONS
MAILS
mm
MLWA
MOA.
MOU
MR-NMAP
MSL
MTR
NAAQS
NAFR
NAIP
NDEP
NDOW
NEPA
NM
NOx
NO1
NPDES
NRC
NRHP
NTS
NWHR
NWR
OT&E
Pb
PCB
PLO
PMlo
wm
PSD
Psf
RCRA
RFMDS
RMP
ROC
ROD
ROI
SEL
SHPO
SIP
so2
sax
TPECR
TSP
TTR
U.S.C.
U.S.
USFWS
USGS
v/c
vmt
voc
VR
VRM
WHMA
ws
WSA
Multiple Aircraft Instantaneous Line Source
Millimeter
Military Lands Withdrawal Act
Military Operations Area
Memorandum of Understanding
MOA-Route NOISEMAP
Mean sea level
Military training route
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Nellis Air Force Range
Native American Interaction Program
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
Nevada Division of Wildlife
National Environmental Policy Act
Nautical mile
Nitrogen oxide
Notice of Intent
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Nellis Range Complex
National Register of Historic Places
Nevada Test Site
Nevada Wild Horse Range
National Wildlife Refuge
Operational Test and Evaluation
Lead
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Public Land Order
Particulate matter equal to or less than 10
microns in diameter
Parts per million
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Pounds per square foot
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Red Flag Measurement and Debriefing System
Resource Management Plan
Region of Comparison
Record of Decision
Region of Influence
Sound exposure level
State Historic Preservation Officer
State Implementation Plan
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfur oxide
Tolicha Peak Electronic Combat Range
Total Suspended Partical
Tonopah Test Range
United States Code
United States
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
United States Geological Survey
Volume to capacity
Vehicle miles traveled
Volatile organic compound
Visual route
Visual resources management
Wild Horse Management Area
Weapons School
Wilderness Study Area