Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

for
EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations
at NAS Whidbey Island Complex

Washington State Department of Health

7 Dec 2016

Overall Classification:
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED
1
 Proposed Action

Proposed Action:
Continue and expand existing Growler operations at NAS Whidbey Island
complex: Ault Field and Outlying Field (OLF) Coupeville
Increase electronic attack (VAQ) capabilities by increasing the number of
aircraft at NASWI by 35 or 36 aircraft to support an expanded DoD mission
Construct and renovate facilities at Ault Field
Station additional personnel and family members
Alternatives 1 and 3 add approximately 375 personnel and 900 family members
Alternative 2 adds approximately 675 personnel and 1600 family members
Purpose and Need:
Augment existing VAQ community with additional EA-18G aircraft as
appropriated by Congress in order to increase electronic attack
capabilities to counter increasingly sophisticated threats
Maintain and expand EA-18G operational readiness to fulfill Title 10
responsibilities
Timeline: Phased implementation over four years (2017-2021)
UNCLASSIFIED
2
 Force Structures Analyzed

Total # VAQ
Alternatives Force Structure FCLP per year*
aircraft
No Action 9 CVW squadrons x 5 aircraft
3 Exp squadrons x 5 aircraft
Alternative 1 RES squadron x 5 aircraft 82 20,800 ops
(baseline for comparison) 1 FRS with 17 aircraft

9 CVW squadrons x 8 aircraft

Alternative 1**: 3 Exp squadrons x 5 aircraft
Add 3 aircraft to each CVW 1 RES squadron x 5 aircraft 117 (+35) 43,900 ops
squadron 1 FRS with 25 aircraft (+8)

Alternative 2**: 9 CVW squadrons x 7 aircraft

Establish 2 new Exp 5 Exp squadrons x 5 aircraft
squadrons and add 2 aircraft 1 RES squadron x 5 aircraft 118 (+36) 42,000 ops
to each CVW squadrons 1 FRS with 25 aircraft (+8)

Alternative 3**: 9 CVW squadrons x 7 aircraft

Add 2 aircraft to each CVW 3 Exp squadrons x 8 aircraft
squadron and add 3 aircraft 1 RES squadron x 5 aircraft 118 (+36) 41,900 ops
to each Exp squadron 1 FRS with 26 aircraft (+9)

* For a high-tempo FCLP year, airfield operations increase by 1-4% at Ault Field, and 10-11% at OLF Coupeville
** Each force structure alternative analyzes sub-alternatives which evaluate the distribution of FCLP training between
Ault Field and OLF Coupeville. Draft EIS describes the range of alternatives as well as other basing and training
options considered but eliminated.
UNCLASSIFIED
3
 Nine Alternatives and Scenarios

Three force structure alternatives to augment Navys VAQ capabilities by

operating additional EA-18G Growler aircraft as appropriated by Congress
Carrier squadrons: deploy on aircraft carriers; conduct periodic FCLP training
Expeditionary squadrons (includes a Reserve squadron): deploy overseas to land-
based locations; do not normally require FCLP training
Training squadron (FRS): provide post-graduate training of new pilots/pilots
returning to flight status; conduct periodic FCLP training
Different force structures have different environmental impacts
Each alternative has three sub-alternatives to evaluate the distribution of FCLP
training between Ault Field and OLF Coupeville
Scenario A: 20% at Ault Field and 80% at OLF Coupeville
Scenario B: 50% at Ault Field and 50% at OLF Coupeville
Scenario C: 80% at Ault Field and 20% at OLF Coupeville
No Action Alternative
Does not meet purpose and need
Provides a baseline for comparison only

UNCLASSIFIED
4
 Scoping Identified 16 Environmental Resources

Airfield and Airspace (usage and capacity)

Noise (noise of average/high-tempo FCLP years, supplemental metrics, health effects)
Public Health & Safety (aircraft safety, Clear and Accident Potential Zones, risks to children)
Land Use (on-base, off-base and regional land use compatibility, recreation)
Cultural Resources (architectural, archeological, cultural)
Biological Resources (habitat, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, etc.)
Socioeconomics (population, economy, housing, community services & schools)
American Indian Traditional Resources (protected treaty resources)
Environmental Justice (low income, minorities)
Air Quality (criteria pollutants, emission sources)
Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases (adapt to climate change effects)
Water Resources (groundwater, surface water, wetlands, marine sediments)
Transportation (on-/off-base roadways, construction-related activities)
Infrastructure (public utilities, solid waste, energy and communications)
Geological Resources (topography, geology, seismic events and soils)
Hazardous Materials and Waste (management practices)
UNCLASSIFIED
5
 Draft EIS Findings: Airfield and Airspace

No change to airspace configuration

Sufficient airfield capacity
Total airfield operations increase from 88,600 to 130,000 ops/yr
Return to past levels
In general, impacts are greater around Ault Field (impacts more people)
Greater potential for schedule congestion, especially under Scenario C when 80%
FCLPs are conducted at Ault Field
FCLP training is best conducted at OLF Coupeville (impacts fewer people)
Analyzed standard flight pattern for EA-18G and considered prevailing winds
Transits to all training areas will increase approximately 2-3 flights per day
Same routes as currently used 14,000 - 15,000 feet; max noise levels 60-75 dB

Aircrew training drives the increase in total airfield operations

UNCLASSIFIED
6
Total Airfield Operations
(Ault Field and OLF Coupeville)

Projected
return to past levels 130,000
airfield
ops/yr

Projected
43,900
FCLPs/yr

Desert Last Enduring Introduce Last

Shield/Storm A-6 Freedom EA-18G EA-6B

UNCLASSIFIED
7
 2015 FCLP Training

AULT FIELD OLF COUPEVILLE

110 34
FCLP FCLP
DAYS DAYS
255 331
NO NO FCLP
FCLP DAYS
DAYS

Requires periods of concentrated training, followed by days/weeks of no activity

In 2015, OLF Coupeville was active 34 days out of 365 days/yr (9%)
Typically lasts for 45 minutes with 3-5 aircraft in the FCLP pattern
In 2015, OLF Coupeville was active 91 hours out of 8,760 hrs/yr or 2-3 hrs per FCLP day
In 2015, total number of 22,176 FCLP operations flown represents about 350 hrs/yr (4%)
NASWI publishes FCLP schedules weekly for both Ault Field and OLF Coupeville

Proposed action will result in more FCLP days, more FCLP hours flown
Under Alt 1, projected 43,900 FCLPs represents 650 hours (8% of annual hours) distributed between the two airfields

UNCLASSIFIED
8
 Draft EIS Findings: Noise and Land Use

Noise contours increase by about 20% with the increase in aircraft operations
Increase of to mile to 65 DNL contour over land
Greatest areas of increase occur over water
Supplemental noise metrics
Studied 30 points of interest in the community (schools, parks, neighborhoods)
Potential increase in instances of speech interference and probably of awakening
Actual hearing loss is highly unlikely (metric assumes high noise exposure
8hrs/day for 40yrs; typically indoors 87% of time; and, no continuous exposure)
Short-term noise impacts related to construction at Ault Field
Greater potential for vibration due to the increase in aircraft operations
Localized effects on land and water recreation areas; no impacts to
designated wilderness areas or areas with wilderness characteristics

Area under 65 DNL noise contour increases by about 20%,

with greatest impacts around Ault Field
UNCLASSIFIED
9
 Noise Contour Comparison:
Alternative 1 and No Action Alternative

Table 4.2-1 Acreage and Population within the >65 DNL Contour

Total Area Projected

(land acreage) Population
(individuals)
NAS Whidbey Island Complex
No Action Alternative
Average Year 19,873 10,737
Alternative 1
Scenario A (20/80 FCLP split) 23,810 (+3,877) 12,791 (+1,758)
Scenario B (50/50 FCLP split) 23,623 (+3,690) 13,299 (+2,266)
Scenario C (80/20 FCLP split) 22,968 (+3,035) 13,547 (+2,514)
Percentage Increase
Scenario A (20/80 FCLP split) 19.5% 15.9%
Scenario B (50/50 FCLP split) 18.5% 20.5%
Scenario C (80/20 FCLP split) 15.2% 22.8%

FCLPs conducted at Ault Field

impact more people than FCLPs
conducted at OLF Coupeville
Scenario C has greatest impact on people when
80% of FCLPs are performed at Ault Field
UNCLASSIFIED
10
 Literature Review Findings:
Non-Auditory Health Effect Studies

No definitive scientific evidence that aircraft noise contributes to health effects

Peer-reviewed research has not made a definitive connection between

intermittent military aircraft noise and health effects
Premise is that noise causes annoyance, annoyance causes stress and prolonged
stress is known contributor to hypertension, stroke and other heart diseases
Some studies suggest a possible connection, others have shown no correlation
Navy considered premise/bias when reviewing research studies
Regarding research, a causal relationship may exist but its effect may be small
Example: Consider two blood pressure readings of 110/70 and 112/70
Statistically significant change when comparing two distinct population groups
Insignificant change with regard to an individuals overall health
Individual health is greatly influenced by many confounding factors known to
cause health issues (e.g., heredity, medical history, smoking, diet, exercise)
Confounding factors have a larger and more direct effect on an individual's overall
health than intermittent exposure to aircraft noise

UNCLASSIFIED
11
 Draft EIS Findings: Public Health and Safety

Existing Bird, Animal Strike Hazard (BASH) program manages risk potential
Conceptual Accident Potential Zones (APZs) presented for OLF Coupeville for
some alternatives/scenarios (blue and green arcs)
Not unexpected, suggested by public during scoping
Runway14 APZ
Criteria: APZ required for >5,000 ops on a runway
when flying in the same direction
APZs already exist for Ault Field runways
APZs previously existed for OLF Coupeville runways

Alternatives Runway 32 Runway 14

Existing 2005 AICUZ not required not required
Alternative 1, Scenario A
Alternative 1, Scenario B not required
Alternative 1, Scenario C not required not required
Alternative 2, Scenario A
Alternative 2, Scenario B not required Runway 32 APZ
Alternative 2, Scenario C not required not required
Alternative 3, Scenario A
Alternative 3, Scenario B not required
Alternative 3, Scenario C not required not required
No Action Alternative not required not required
UNCLASSIFIED
12
 Draft EIS Findings (continued)

Cultural Resources
No adverse effects
Minimal to no direct impact to resources from construction activities on Ault Field
Minimal to moderate indirect impacts within >65DNL noise contour (visual, noise, vibration)
Consultations on-going with State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Advisory
Council on Historic Properties (ACHP) and consulting parties
Biological Resources
No significant impact to habitat, terrestrial wildlife and marine mammal species
Animals have presumably habituated to on-going aircraft noise
Will consult on endangered species (Marbled Murrelet, Killer Whale, Humpback Whale, several fish)
Socioeconomics
Positive direct/indirect impacts related to payroll, construction and revenues
Increase in overall local populations by 1% to 2% (greater increase under Alternative 2)
Schools may need additional teachers and classrooms
Communities may need additional housing
Minimal to no impact on medical, police and fire services

UNCLASSIFIED
13
 Resources with Minimal to No Impacts

American Indian Traditional Resources (protected treaty resources)

No impact to American Indian tribe traditional or protected resources
Air Quality, Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Minimal impacts
Environmental Justice
No impacts
Water Resources
Best management practices would minimize impacts, no significant impacts
Transportation and Infrastructure
No impact to level of service of local roads; queuing at gates during peak hours
Sufficient capacity to meet increased demand for utilities and communications
Storm water mitigation will be developed in conjunction with facility design
Geological Resources
No impacts, apply best management practices
Hazardous Materials and Waste
No impacts, existing practices will address increased demands for service

UNCLASSIFIED
14
 Draft EIS Consultations

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

Will consult on Navys finding of May affect but not likely to adversely affect for
Southern Resident Killer Whale, Humpback Whale, green sturgeon, pacific eulachon,
steelhead, salmon (Chinook, Chum), rockfish (Boccaccio, Canary, Yellow-eye)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Will consult on Navys finding of May affect for Marbled Murrelet and May affect but
not likely to adversely affect for bull trout
WA State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
Will continue consultations on Navys defined Area of Potential Effect (APE)
Will consult on potential direct and indirect effects on historic properties
WA State Department of Ecology
Will coordinate on Navys Coastal Consistency Determination
Government-to-Government consultations with American Indian Tribes
Will consult with eight Tribes

UNCLASSIFIED
15
 Key Takeaways

Navy considered public suggestions for basing and training

No other military or civilian airfield can reasonably meet the requirements
Navy considered noise impacts of aircraft operations on the community
Scenarios consider distribution of FCLPs between two airfields
In general, more people are impacted when more FCLPs are conducted at Ault Field
Noise study includes 30 points of interest, supplemental metrics, literature review
Force structure drives aircrew training requirements
Number and type of aircrews determines the increase in total airfield operations
Navy has adopted noise mitigation measures over the years
Course rules already maximize flights over water and avoid populated areas
Installation already attempts to avoid operations during sensitive times (school testing, Sunday
mornings, festival weekends)
Construction of a Hush House would provide some benefit (engine maintenance)
Navy investing in new technology that has the potential to reduce noise
MAGIC CARPET potential to reduce future FCLP requirements
Chevrons potential to reduce noise by modifying engine exhaust nozzle
Navy may update 2005 AICUZ recommendations and potentially partner with local
governments on a Joint Land-Use Study
UNCLASSIFIED
16
 Draft EIS Outreach

Offered 75-day extended public comment period for Draft EIS (10 Nov 25 Jan)
Issued a press release and advertise in local newspapers to encourage
participation
Used Region social media (website and Facebook)
Posted updated project information on project website (download copy of Draft EIS)
Mailed 100+ courtesy notification letters to elected officials, agencies and Tribes
Mailed 1,275+ postcards to interested groups and individuals
Provided hardcopies and CDs in 22 public libraries

Conduct five public meetings using Open House format (5-9 Dec)
Venues selected to accommodate a larger attendance
More poster stations with larger Navy team to answer the publics questions
Four methods for collecting public comments:
Provide oral comments at Open House (stenographer)
Submit written comments at Open House
Submit comments electronically using project website (www.whidbeyeis.com)
Mail written comments to via US Postal System

UNCLASSIFIED
17
 Next Steps

Publish Draft EIS 10 Nov 25 Jan

Initiate consultations Nov 2016
Conduct 5 public meetings 5-9 Dec 16
Prepare Final EIS Feb June 2017
Publish Final EIS Fall 2017
Publish Record of Decision Fall 2017
30-day wait period after Final EIS

Secretary of the Navy or designee is expected to sign

Record of Decision in Fall 2017
UNCLASSIFIED
18
Questions?

UNCLASSIFIED
19
BACK-UP SLIDES

UNCLASSIFIED
20
 Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) Training

Aircraft touches down on simulated carrier deck

and climbs back to 600 AGL pattern altitude
90o 440 AGL 600 AGL Climbs straight ahead, left turn
300 AGL
downwind at 600AGL Landing on an
0.75 NM
Aircraft slows to approach
aircraft carrier,
1.5 NM speed and descends to
600 AGL pattern altitude especially at night,
800 AGL is the most
0.75 NM
800 AGL
challenging and
demanding task in
all of naval aviation

Simulates carrier landing operations (flight patterns, altitudes, and lighting)

Occurs in irregular cycles, tied to carrier operations and FRS training syllabus
Requires periods of concentrated training, followed by little/no activity for days/weeks
Typically lasts for 45 minutes with 3-5 aircraft in the pattern
In 2015, OLF was used for FCLP training 34 days for 91 hours (or 2-3 hours each FCLP day)
NASWI conducts FCLP consistent with levels studied in 2005 until EIS is complete
NASWI publishes weekly FCLP schedule and works with community to minimize noise
impacts
UNCLASSIFIED
21
 Noise Modeling

Accepted DoD and Federal Aviation Administration method for noise analysis
Accurately estimates airfield noise exposure in the community
Considers factors which affect noise propagation: number/type of aircraft, flight
tracks, altitude, power settings, speed, rate of climb, terrain
Accounts for multiple variations that occur daily throughout the year: weather
conditions, seasonal changes, time of day, runway usage, and operational tempo
Computes DNL (day-night average sound level) for hundreds/thousands of points
on the ground
Prepares noise contour maps to analyze compatible land use
Applies 10-dB noise penalty for obtrusiveness during late night and early morning hours
Predicts sound levels for proposed future changes to existing conditions (i.e., new
aircraft, changes in the existing flight operations)
Upheld repeatedly in court cases as an effective means of predicting noise
Supported by science as the best way to predict noise exposure levels
Based on extensive noise measurements taken of aircraft operations
All aircraft have gone through actual noise measurements to create a noise library
EA-18G was derived from the FA-18F Super Hornet (same airframe, same engines)

UNCLASSIFIED
22
 NAS Whidbey Island
Home Basing NEPA History

Public comment period

Completed NEPA
2018
Current NEPA
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004

NEPA process is transparent.

Navy values public involvement.

UNCLASSIFIED
23
 Quick References

Summary of scoping comments from two scoping periods (page 1-18)

Discussion on three noise reports from independent sources (page 1-22)
Section 2.4/Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward which includes basing and training
options suggested by the public during scoping process (page 2-12)
Quantitative analysis of airfield operations in and around Ault Field and OLF under all alternatives
and scenarios (Sections 3.1 and 4.1)
Discussions on Military Operational Areas and Military Training Routes and proposed increase in operations
can be found on pages 3-5 and 4-3, respectively
Noise analysis for each Alternative and Scenario (Section 3.2 and 4.2)
DNL Noise Contour (change in acreage and population)
Comparison of Average Year and High-FCLP Year DNL Contour (pages 4-26, 4-55, 4-83 with more detail provided in
Appendix A page A-359)
Supplemental Metrics
Single Event Noise calculated for 30 points of interest (using SEL and Lmax)
Indoor/Outdoor Speech interference, Classroom/Learning Interference and Sleep Disturbance
Potential Hearing Loss
Non-Auditory Health effects (pages 3-22 and 4-79, with more detail in Appendix A page A26)
Vibration Effects
Noise Mitigation and Noise Abatement information located on pages 3-30 and 4-111
Summary of Impacts to Land Use and Recreation found on page 4-177
Environmental Justice (Sections 3.11 and 4.11, with more information provided in Appendix F)
Analysis prepared using the March 2016 report Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews
by Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice and NEPA
UNCLASSIFIED
24