Environmental Assessment for Development of Military Operations Areas and Warning Area to Replace Altitude Reservations at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida

  • Published
  • By 325th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
  • 325th Fighter Wing Public Affairs

Environmental Assessment for Development
of Military Operations Areas and Warning Area
to Replace Altitude Reservations at Tyndall Air
Force Base, Florida
Prepared for
Air Combat Command
325th Fighter Wing
Tyndall AFB, Florida
December 2019
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 ii BI1024190935TPA
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA iii DECEMBER 2019
PRIVACY ADVISORY
This Environmental Assessment (EA) is provided for public comment in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA
Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), and 32 CFR Part 989, Environmental
Impact Analysis Process (EIAP). The EIAP provides an opportunity for public input on Air Force decision
making, allows the public to offer inputs on alternative ways for the Air Force to accomplish what it is
proposing, and solicits comments on the Air Force’s analysis of environmental effects. Public commenting
allows the Air Force to make better, informed decisions. Letters or other written or oral comments
provided may be published in the EA. As required by law, comments provided will be addressed in the EA
and made available to the public. Providing personal information is voluntary. Any personal information
provided will be used only to identify your desire to make a statement during the public comment portion
of any public meetings or hearings or to fulfill requests for copies of the EA or associated documents.
Private addresses will be compiled to develop a mailing list for those requesting copies of EA; however,
only the names of the individuals making comments and specific comments will be disclosed. Personal
home addresses and phone numbers will not be published in the EA.
Tables
Table 2-1. Spatial and Vertical Dimensions of Existing Airspaces. ............................................................. 2-4
Table 2-2. Parameters of Baseline Air Operationsa .................................................................................... 2-5
Table 2-3. Selection Standards for Alternatives ......................................................................................... 2-6
Table 2-4. Comparison of Potential Alternatives Against Selection Standards ......................................... 2-7
Table 2-5. Proposed Changes to Airspaces Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) ......................... 2-9
Table 3-1. Military Training Routes .......................................................................................................... 3-13
Table 3-2. Airports in the Region of Influence ......................................................................................... 3-17
Table 3-3. Annual Air Traffic within the Lateral Boundaries of the ACMI East and West ALTRVs ........... 3-19
Table 3-4. Common Sounds and Their Levels .......................................................................................... 3-22
Table 3-5. Estimated Levels of Public Annoyance for Aircraft Noise ....................................................... 3-23
Table 3-6. Predicted Existing Overall Sound Levels at the Sea or Ground Surface Beneath Airspaces ... 3-24
Table 3-7. Predicted Sound Levels for Individual Overflights .................................................................. 3-25
Table 3-8. Predicted Slant Distance and Lateral Distance from Flight Track for Speech Interference .... 3-26
Table 3-9. Predicted Slant Distance and Lateral Distance from Flight Track for Sleep Disturbance ....... 3-27
Table 3-10. Aircraft Mishap Classes ......................................................................................................... 3-29
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA vii DECEMBER 2019
Table 3-11. Mishap Data for F-22 and T-38 Aircraft ................................................................................ 3-30
Table 3-12. Federally Listed Marine Species Having Potential to Occur in the Northeastern Gulf of
Mexico .................................................................................................................................. 3-32
Table 3-13. Summary of Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3-39
Table 5-1. List of Primary Preparers ........................................................................................................... 5-1
Figures
Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................ 1-2
Figure 2-1. Existing ACMI East and West ALTRVs ...................................................................................... 2-2
Figure 2-2. Existing ACMI Extensions ......................................................................................................... 2-3
Figure 2-3. Proposed Special Use Airspaces Under Alternative 1 .............................................................. 2-8
Figure 3-1. Airspace Classification Diagram ............................................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3-2. Region of Influence for Airspace Analysis ................................................................................ 3-8
Figure 3-3. Air Traffic Control Areas ........................................................................................................ 3-10
Figure 3-4. High-Altitude Airspace ........................................................................................................... 3-12
Figure 3-5. Military Training Routes ........................................................................................................ 3-14
Figure 3-6. Federal Airways ...................................................................................................................... 3-15
Figure 3-7. Thunder Corridor ................................................................................................................... 3-16
Figure 3-8 Annual Air Traffic within the Lateral Boundaries of the ACMI East and West ALTRVs .......... 3-18
Figure 3-9. Predicted Maximum Sound Levels for Individual Overflights................................................ 3-26
Figure 3-10. Predicted Sound Exposure Level for Individual Overflights ................................................. 3-27

BI1024190935TPA ix DECEMBER 2019
Acronyms and Abbreviations
% percent
§ Section
ACMI Aerial Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation
AFB Air Force Base
AFI Air Force Instruction
AGL above ground level
Air Force United States Air Force
ALTRV Altitude Reservation
ANSI American National Standard Institute
AoC Area of Control
AoR Area of Responsibility
AP Aeronautical Proposal
APE Area of Potential Effects
ATC air traffic control
ATCAA Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace
BASH Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHABA Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics
CSE Center Scheduling Enterprise
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DNL Day-Night Sound Level
DoD Department of Defense
EA Environmental Assessment
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EIAP Environmental Impact Analysis Process
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EO Executive Order
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ERCF Eglin Radar Control Facility
ESA Endangered Species Act
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FCMP Florida Coastal Management Program
FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FL Flight Level
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
FY fiscal year
GHG greenhouse gas
IFR Instrument Flight Rules
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 x BI1024190935TPA
IICEP Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination for Environmental Planning
IR Instrument Route
Leq Equivalent Sound Level
Lmax Maximum Sound Level
LOA Letter of Agreement
MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act
MOA Military Operations Area
MR_NMAP MOA Range Noisemap
MSL mean sea level
MTR Military Training Route
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAS National Airspace System
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
nm2 square nautical miles
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOA Notice of Availability
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOTAM Notice to Airmen
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NRIS National Register Information System
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
RA Restricted Area
RAPCON Radar Approach Control
RNAV Area Navigation
ROI region of influence
SEL Sound Exposure Level
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SUA Special Use Airspace
UAV unmanned aerial vehicle
USC United States Code
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VFR Visual Flight Rules
VR Visual Route
BI1024190935TPA 1-1 DECEMBER 2019
SECTION 1
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
Introduction
The United States Air Force (Air Force), 325th Fighter Wing at Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB), Florida
proposes that the airspaces known as the Aerial Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation (ACMI) East and
West Stationary Altitude Reservations (ALTRVs) be charted and published by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) as Special Use Airspaces (SUAs). An ALTRV is defined by the FAA as airspace
utilization under prescribed conditions normally employed for the mass movement of aircraft or other
special user requirements which cannot otherwise be accomplished. The FAA defines SUA as airspace
wherein activities must be confined because of their nature and/or wherein limitations may be imposed
upon aircraft operations that are not a part of those activities. The ALTRVs have been jointly used by
Tyndall AFB and Eglin AFB for military air operations for over 40 years. The FAA is responsible for
authorizing the modification or establishment of airspace and has the final decision-making authority
regarding implementation of the Proposed Action. The Air Force, in coordination with the FAA, has
prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the potential environmental consequences
associated with charting and publishing the ACMI East and West ALTRVs as SUAs.
Tyndall AFB is located approximately 13 miles east of Panama City in the southeastern corner of Bay
County, Florida. The Base is approximately 18 miles long by 3 miles wide and encompasses nearly 30,000
acres on a peninsula that is surrounded by the waters of the Gulf of Mexico to the south, St. Andrew Bay
to the west, and East Bay to the north. The ACMI East and West ALTRVs encompass approximately 112
and 71.8 square nautical miles, respectively, and are located between 3 and 12 nautical miles off the
coast of the eastern Panhandle of Florida, approximately 65 nautical miles southeast of Tyndall AFB
(Figure 1-1).
This EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United
States Code [USC] §4321-4347), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 Code of
Federal Regulations [CFR] §1500-1508), and 32 CFR Part 989, et seq., Environmental Impact Analysis
Process. NEPA is the basic national requirement for identifying environmental consequences of federal
decisions. NEPA ensures that environmental information is available to the public, agencies, and the
decision-maker before decisions are made and before actions are taken.
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 1-2 BI1024190935TPA
Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 1-3 DECEMBER 2019
Decision to be Made
The Air Force will make one of the following three decisions regarding the Proposed Action:
1. Select the No Action Alternative and do not request that the FAA chart and publish the ALTRVs as
SUAs.
2. Prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and request that the FAA chart and publish the
ALTRVs as SUAs, if based on the analysis in this EA, the Proposed Action would not have a significant
environmental impact.
3. Initiate preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), if based on the analysis in this EA,
the Proposed Action would have a significant environmental impact.
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to support the training mission of the 325th Fighter Wing and
other units who conduct air operations in the ACMI East and West ALTRVs and, to improve overall
aviation safety in the area.
The Proposed Action is needed because the subject ALTRVs are used primarily for military air operations
and use of the airspaces by civilian or commercial aircraft poses a safety risk due to low public
awareness of military use of the airspaces. Charting and publishing the ALTRVs as SUAs would more
accurately represent their use and increase public awareness of military air operations in the airspaces,
thereby improving overall aviation safety in the area.
Interagency Coordination and Consultation
The environmental analysis process, in compliance with NEPA guidance, includes public and agency
review of information pertinent to the Proposed Action. Scoping is an early and open process for
developing the breadth of issues to be addressed in an EA and for identifying significant concerns
related to an action. Per the requirements of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (42 USC
4231) and Executive Order (EO) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, federal, state,
and local agencies with jurisdiction that could potentially be affected by the Proposed Action were
requested to provide input during development of this EA, including the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), Florida State Clearinghouse, and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Those
Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination for Environmental Planning (IICEP) letters and
responses are included in Appendix A.
The FAA is responsible for navigable airspace within the United States and is identified as a cooperating
agency for the preparation of this EA. The FAA performs its role as a cooperating agency in accordance
with the guidelines set forth in FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures;
FAA Order JO 7400.2M, Appendix 7, Memorandum of Understanding Between the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Department of Defense Concerning Environmental Review of Special Use
Airspace Actions (Appendix B); and FAA Order JO 7400.2M, Appendix 8, FAA Special Use Airspace
Environmental Processing Procedures. In addition to serving as a cooperating agency in the preparation
of this EA, the FAA is also responsible for reviewing the Aeronautical Proposal (AP) prepared for the
Proposed Action. The EA and AP review processes are conducted in tandem as much as possible;
however, they are separate processes with their own respective timelines.
Government-to-Government Consultation
EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, directs federal agencies to
coordinate and consult with Native American tribal governments whose interests might be directly and
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 1-4 BI1024190935TPA
substantially affected by activities on federally administered lands. Consistent with EO 13175,
Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 4710.02, Interactions with Federally-Recognized Tribes, and Air
Force Instruction (AFI) 90-2002, Air Force Interaction with Federally-Recognized Tribes, federally
recognized tribes that are historically affiliated with lands in the vicinity of the Proposed Action have
been invited to consult on all proposed undertakings that have potential to affect properties of cultural,
historical, or religious significance to the tribes. The tribal consultation process is distinct from NEPA
consultation or the interagency coordination process, and it requires separate notification of all relevant
tribes. The timelines for tribal consultation are also distinct from those of other consultations. The
Installation Commander is the point-of-contact for consultation with Native American tribes.
Documentation of government-to-government consultation is included in Appendix A.
Public Review of Environmental Assessment
A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the draft EA was published in the newspapers of record listed on DATE
TO BE DETERMINED (Appendix C). The NOA invited the public to review and comment on the draft EA.
The public review period lasted 30 days and ended on DATE TO BE DETERMINED. Received comments
are included in Appendix C and addressed in the final EA.
The NOA was published in the following newspapers:
• Panama City News Herald
Coastal Zone Management Consistency
The federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) provides assistance to states, in cooperation with
federal and local agencies, to develop land and water use programs in coastal zones. According to
Section 307 of the CZMA, federal projects that affect land uses, water uses, or coastal resources in a
state’s coastal zone must be consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable
policies of that state’s federally approved coastal zone management plan.
The Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP) is based on a network of agencies implementing
24 statutes that protect and enhance Florida’s natural, cultural, and economic coastal resources. The
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) implements the FCMP through the Florida State
Clearinghouse. The Clearinghouse routes applications for federal activities, such as EAs, to the
appropriate state, regional, and local reviewers to determine federal agency consistency with the FCMP.
Following their review of the EA, the FCMP state agencies provide comments and recommendations to
the Clearinghouse based on their statutory authorities. Based on an evaluation of the comments and
recommendations, the FDEP makes the state's CZMA consistency determination for the proposed
federal activity. Comments and recommendations regarding federal agency consistency are then
forwarded to the applicant in the state clearance letter issued by the Clearinghouse.
Copies of the draft EA, along with the Air Force’s federal CZMA consistency determination (Appendix D),
were sent to the Florida State Clearinghouse to obtain the state’s CZMA consistency determination for
the Proposed Action (Appendix A). The state’s CZMA consistency determination for the Proposed Action
and associated comments are included in Appendix A and addressed in the final EA.
Applicable Laws and Environmental Regulations
Implementation of the Proposed Action would involve coordination with several organizations and
agencies. Adherence to the requirements of specific laws, regulations, best management practices, and
necessary permits are described in detail in each resource section. A list of laws and regulations relevant
to NEPA and the resources assessed in this EA is provided as Appendix E.
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 1-5 DECEMBER 2019
1.8.1 National Environmental Policy Act
NEPA requires that federal agencies consider potential environmental consequences of proposed
actions. The law’s intent is to protect, restore, or enhance the environment through well-informed
federal decisions. The CEQ was established under NEPA for the purpose of implementing and overseeing
federal policies as they relate to this process. In 1978, the CEQ issued Regulations for Implementing the
Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR §1500-1508). These regulations
specify that an EA be prepared to:
• Briefly provide sufficient analysis and evidence for determining whether to prepare an EIS or a
FONSI
• Aid in an agency’s compliance
• Facilitate preparation of an EIS when one is necessary
1.8.2 The Environmental Impact Analysis Process
The Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP) is the process by which the Air Force facilitates
compliance with environmental regulations (32 CFR Part 989, Environmental Impact Analysis Process),
including NEPA, which is the primary legislation affecting the agency’s decision-making process.

BI1024190935TPA 2-1 DECEMBER 2019
SECTION 2
Description of the Proposed Action and
Alternatives
Proposed Action
Under the Proposed Action, the airspaces known as the ACMI East and West Stationary ALTRVs would
be charted and published by the FAA as SUAs. The ACMI East and West ALTRVs encompass
approximately 112 and 71.8 square nautical miles, respectively, and are located between 3 and 12
nautical miles off the coast of the eastern Panhandle of Florida, approximately 65 nautical miles
southeast of Tyndall AFB and 105 miles southeast of Eglin AFB. The ALTRVs have been jointly used by
Tyndall AFB and Eglin AFB for military air operations for over 40 years. The primary users of the ALTRVs
include the 325th Fighter Wing at Tyndall AFB, the 96th Test Wing and 33rd Fighter Wing at Eglin AFB,
and the 53rd Weapons Evaluation Group located at both Tyndall AFB and Eglin AFB. Historically, the
ALTRVs have been used primarily by F-22 and T-38 aircraft operated by the 325th Fighter Wing at
Tyndall AFB; however, military air operations in the airspaces have also included a wide variety of other
aircraft types. The ALTRVs are proposed to be charted and published as SUAs to more accurately reflect
their military use, support Air Force air operations, and improve overall aviation safety in the area. The
Proposed Action would essentially involve reclassifying airspace currently used for military purposes to a
classification that is consistent with the airspace’s military use.
Due to their relatively small size and proximity to other SUAs, and to provide military users with a larger
area of contiguous SUA over land and water, the ACMI East and West ALTRVs are always used in
conjunction with other adjacent and nearby SUAs. The SUAs adjacent to or near the ALTRVs include
Warning Area W-470A to the south, Military Operations Areas (MOAs) Tyndall-G and Tyndall-F to the
west, and MOA Tyndall-E to the northwest (Figure 2-1). A Warning Area is airspace of defined
dimensions, extending from 12 nautical miles outward from the coast of the U.S., that contains activity
that may be hazardous to non-participating aircraft. A MOA is airspace established outside of Class A
airspace (from Flight Level [FL] 180 to FL 600) to separate or segregate certain nonhazardous military
activities from Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) traffic and to identify for Visual Flight Rules (VFR) traffic
where these activities are conducted. Charting and publishing the ALTRVs as SUAs would facilitate couse
of the airspaces with other SUAs during training operations and would connect overland and
overwater SUAs to provide a larger and more realistic training area for military users, thereby enhancing
their training operations.
The ALTRVs are part of the airspace complexes known as the ACMI Extensions, which also include the
ACMI East and West Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspaces (ATCAAs) and the portion of MOA Tyndall-G
that underlies the ACMI West ATCAA (Figure 2-2). An ATCAA is an airspace of defined vertical and lateral
limits, assigned by air traffic control (ATC) for the purpose of providing air traffic separation between the
specified activities being conducted within the assigned airspace and other IFR air traffic. ATCAAs
typically start at FL 180, which is 18,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL), and in some cases are
contoured to the dimensions of the MOAs beneath them. The ACMI East ATCAA is above and aligned
with the ACMI East ALTRV. The ACMI West ATCAA is above the ACMI West ALTRV and MOA Tyndall-G.
The ACMI East and West ALTRVs and ATCAAs are typically used in conjunction with Warning Area
W-470A for overwater training by F-22 and T-38 aircraft.
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 2-2 BI1024190935TPA
Figure 2-1. Existing ACMI East and West ALTRVs
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 2-3 DECEMBER 2019
Figure 2-2. Existing ACMI Extensions
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 2-4 BI1024190935TPA
The ACMI East and West ALTRVs each have a floor of 5,000 feet above MSL and a ceiling that extends to
but does not include FL 180. The overlying ACMI East and West ATCAAs each extend from FL 180 to
FL 600. The spatial and vertical dimensions of the ALTRVS and airspaces adjacent to or near the ALTRVs
are presented in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1. Spatial and Vertical Dimensions of Existing Airspaces.
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
Airspace Area
(square nautical miles) Floor Ceiling
Altitude Reservations
ACMI East ALTRV 112 5,000 ft above MSL To but not including FL 180
ACMI West ALTRV 71.8 5,000 ft above MSL To but not including FL 180
Adjacent/Nearby Airspaces
ACMI East ATCAA 112 FL 180 FL 600
ACMI West ATCAA 256 FL 180 FL 600
MOA Tyndall-E 894 300 ft AGL To but not including FL 180
MOA Tyndall-F 339 300 ft AGL To but not including FL 180
MOA Tyndall-G 223 1,000 ft AGL To but not including FL 180
Warning Area W-470A 5,295 Surface Unlimited
ACMI Aerial Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation
AGL above ground level
ALTRV Altitude Reservation
ATCAA Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace
FL Flight Level
Ft feet
MOA Military Operations Area
MSL mean sea level
The FAA Jacksonville Center controls the ALTRVs and adjacent airspaces, and allows Tyndall Radar
Approach Control (RAPCON), Eglin Radar Control Facility (ERCF), and FAA Tallahassee Approach
segmented control of individual Areas of Control (AoCs). The AoCs for Tyndall AFB and Eglin AFB extend
from surface to FL 230, above which is under the control of FAA Jacksonville Center. Within the limits of
Eglin AFB’s AoC, ERCF controls Warning Area W-470 although Tyndall AFB is the primary user of the
airspace. Tyndall AFB and Eglin AFB schedule airspace use through their own scheduling agencies, via
the Center Scheduling Enterprise (CSE); Eglin AFB operates its own CSE system (Eglin CSE). In addition to
directly benefiting military air operations, the Proposed Action would also have a positive impact on
overall airspace management and control in the area conducted by the Air Force, FAA Jacksonville
Center, and FAA Tallahassee Approach. Control and scheduling of the airspaces are discussed further in
the sections of the EA that address airspace management.
For this EA, baseline air operations in the ALTRVs were estimated based on input provided by Tyndall
AFB and Eglin AFB air operations personnel. Overall usage of the ALTRVs and adjacent airspaces has
decreased since Hurricane Michael (October 2018) due to associated disruptions in Tyndall air
operations. Based on data on usage of Warning Area W-470A from 2013 to 2017, usage of the ALTRVs in
terms of total hours used was highest in 2017 during this 5-year period. Therefore, 2017 is considered a
reasonable upper bound for historical annual usage of the ALTRVs, and the operational baseline for the
purpose of impact analysis in this EA.
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 2-5 DECEMBER 2019
The specific operational parameters developed for baseline air operations in the ALTRVs and adjacent
airspaces are presented in Table 2-2. Under the operational baseline, F-22 and T-38 aircraft are
estimated to account for 70 percent and 30 percent of total annual air operations in the airspaces,
respectively, in terms of the number of missions, number of single aircraft sorties, and time in all
airspaces. The airspaces collectively are estimated to be used for military air operations 20 days per
month for 4 hours per day, which equates to 672 hours per year for the F-22 and 288 hours per year for
the T-38. The estimated time that each aircraft type spends in each airspace per year varies; the F-22 is
estimated to spend 90 percent in W-470A, 5 percent in MOA Tyndall-G, and 5 percent in the ALTRVs,
while the T-38 is estimated to spend 85 percent in W-470A, 5 percent in MOA Tyndall-G, and 10 percent
in the ALTRVs. Although actual usage time in the ALTRVs is less than in W-470A, the activation times of
the airspaces are comparable. It should be noted that the lower usage rates of the ALTRVs do not
suggest that the ALTRVs are less useful or necessary for training. Transient aircraft collectively are
estimated to account for an additional 10 percent of total annual air operations in each airspace.
Transient aircraft are defined as aircraft types other than the F-22 and T-38 that operate in the
airspaces, including the F-35, F-18, F-16, F-15, KC-135, B-1, B-52, and various types of unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs) and rotorcraft.
Table 2-2. Parameters of Baseline Air Operationsa
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
Aircraft
Average
Aircraft Per
Mission
Missions
Per Year
Single
Aircraft
Sorties Per
Year
Time in All
Airspaces Per
Year
(hours)
Time in Each Airspace Per Year (hours)
W-470A
(F-22 = 90%)
(T-38 = 85%)
Tyndall-G
(F-22 = 5%)
(T-38 = 5%)
ALTRVs
(F-22 = 5%)
(T-38 = 10%)
F-22 4.05 1,718 6,959 672 604.8 33.6 33.6
T-38 4.05 736 2,982 288 244.8 14.4 28.8
Subtotal 2,454 9,941 960 849.6 48 62.4
Total with Transient
Aircraft (10% increase) 2,699 10,935 1,056 934.6 52.8 68.6
ALTRV Altitude Reservation
a Based on 2017 air operations
Under the Proposed Action, charting and publishing the ACMI East and West Stationary ALTRVs as SUAs
would not change air operations relative to the operational baseline. The composition of the future
aircraft inventory of Tyndall AFB is currently not known, and there would be no change in the general
manner in which the airspaces are used for military purposes under the Proposed Action. For these
reasons, the Proposed Action should have no effect on air operations relative to existing conditions.
Selection Standards
Under NEPA and 32 CFR Part 989, this EA is required to analyze the potential environmental impacts of
the Proposed Action, No Action Alternative, and reasonable alternatives. Reasonable alternatives are
those that meet the underlying purpose of, and need for, the Proposed Action; are feasible from a
technical and economic standpoint; and meet reasonable selection standards (screening criteria) that
are suitable to a particular action. Selection standards may include requirements or constraints
associated with operational, technical, environmental, budgetary, and time factors. Alternatives that are
determined to not be reasonable can be eliminated from detailed analysis in this EA.
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 2-6 BI1024190935TPA
The primary selection standards used to screen alternatives for the Proposed Action included airspace
control, airspace size and availability, and military air operations (Table 2-3).
Table 2-3. Selection Standards for Alternatives
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
Selection Standards Description
1 – Alternative must not
adversely impact airspace
control
Charting and publishing the ALTRVs as SUAs must not adversely impact control
of the proposed SUAs or adjacent/nearby airspaces by the FAA or Air Force.
2 – Alternative must not
adversely impact airspace
size and availability
Charting and publishing the ALTRVs as SUAs must not decrease the size of any
airspace currently used for military air operations or reduce or otherwise
impact the availability of any airspace for military air operations.
3 – Alternative must not
adversely impact military
air operations
Charting and publishing the ALTRVs as SUAs must not adversely impact, either
directly or indirectly, military air operations.
ALTRV Altitude Reservation
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
SUA Special Use Airspace
2.2.1 Screening of Alternatives
The Air Force screened the following potential alternatives to determine if they meet the goals and
intent of the Proposed Action, are feasible from a technical and economic standpoint, and if they meet
the selection standards identified in Table 2-3.
1. Alternative 1 – Chart and Publish the West ALTRV as MOA Tyndall-I and the East ALTRV as MOA
Tyndall J and Warning Area W-470G
2. Alternative 2 – Chart and Publish both ALTRVS as a Portion of a Modified MOA Tyndall-G
3. Alternative 3 – Chart and Publish the West ALTRV as MOA Tyndall-I and the East ALTRV as MOA
Tyndall-J and a Portion of a Modified Warning Area W-470A
4. Alternative 4 – Chart and Publish the East ALTRV as MOA Tyndall-J and Warning Area W-470G, and
the West ALTRV as a Portion of a Modified MOA Tyndall-G
Based on the alternatives screening analysis conducted, only Alternative 1, which is to chart and publish
the West ALTRV as MOA Tyndall-I and the East ALTRV as MOA Tyndall J and Warning Area W-470G
(Section 2.3.1) was determined to be a reasonable alternative for the Proposed Action. The other
alternatives that were considered did not meet the purpose of the Proposed Action, or one or more of
the selection standards (Table 2-4); therefore, these alternatives were determined to not be reasonable
and were eliminated from detailed analysis in this EA. Alternative 1 and the No Action Alternative are
described in detail in Section 2.3 and the alternatives that were eliminated from detailed analysis are
described in detail in Section 2.4.
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 2-7 DECEMBER 2019
Table 2-4. Comparison of Potential Alternatives Against Selection Standards
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
Potential Alternative
Selection Standard
1 – Must Not
Impact
Airspace
Control
2 – Must Not
Impact
Airspace Size
and Availability
3 – Must Not
Impact Military
Air Operations
Alternative 1 – Chart and Publish the West ALTRV as
MOA Tyndall-I and the East ALTRV as MOA Tyndall J and
Warning Area W-470G
Yes Yes Yes
Alternative 2 - Chart and Publish both ALTRVS as a
Portion of a Modified MOA Tyndall-G
No No No
Alternative 3 - Chart and Publish the West ALTRV as
MOA Tyndall-I and the East ALTRV as MOA Tyndall-J
and a Portion of a Modified Warning Area W-470A
Yes No No
Alternative 4 - Chart and Publish the East ALTRV as
MOA Tyndall-J and Warning Area W-470G, and the
West ALTRV as a Portion of a Modified MOA Tyndall-G
No Yes No
Yes meets selection standard
No does not meet selection standard
ALTRV Altitude Reservation
MOA Military Operations Area
Detailed Description of the Alternatives
2.3.1 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)
Under Alternative 1, which is the Preferred Alternative, the ACMI East and West Stationary ALTRVs
would be charted and published specifically as MOAs Tyndall-I and Tyndall-J, and Warning Area W-470G
(Figure 2-3). The Preferred Alternative is based on the Aeronautical Proposal (AP developed for the
Proposed Action (Appendix F). The AP was developed by Tyndall AFB in coordination with the FAA
Jacksonville District in 2016 and was last updated in May 2019 with updated legal descriptions of the
proposed SUAs. The proposed changes to the ACMI East and West ALTRVs and ATCAAs under
Alternative 1 are summarized in Table 2-5.
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 2-8 BI1024190935TPA
Figure 2-3. Proposed Special Use Airspaces Under Alternative 1
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 2-9 DECEMBER 2019
Table 2-5. Proposed Changes to Airspaces Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
Existing Airspace Proposed Changes to Airspace Under Alternative 1
ACMI East ALTRV
- Area = 112 nm2
- Floor = 5,000 feet above MSL
- Ceiling = to but not including FL 180
- Activation by NOTAM
• Western portion (67.2 nm2) would be charted and published as
MOA Tyndall-J. There would be no change to the airspace floor or
ceiling
• Eastern portion (44.8 nm2) would be charted and published as
Warning Area W-470G. There would be no change to the airspace
floor; the ceiling would change from FL 180 to Unlimited
• Activation: 0600 to 0030 local time daily; other times by NOTAM
ACMI West ALTRV
- Area = 71.8 nm2
- Floor = 5,000 feet above MSL
- Ceiling = to but not including FL 180
- Activation by NOTAM
• Airspace would be charted and published as MOA Tyndall-I
• There would be no change to the airspace area, floor, or ceiling
• Activation: 0600 to 0030 Local Time daily; other times by NOTAM
ACMI East ATCAA
- Area = 112 nm2
- Floor = FL 180
- Ceiling = FL 600
• Western portion (67.2 nm2) would remain as ACMI East ATCAA.
There would be no change to the airspace floor or ceiling
• Eastern portion (44.8 nm2) would be charted and published as
Warning Area W-470G. The floor would change from FL 180 to
5,000 feet above MSL and the ceiling would change from FL 600
to Unlimited
ACMI West ATCAA
- Area = 256 nm2
- Floor = FL 180
- Ceiling = FL 600
• There would be no change to the airspace
ACMI Aerial Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation
ALTRV Altitude Reservation
ATCAA Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace
FL Flight Level
MOA Military Operations Area
MSL mean sea level
nm2 square nautical miles
NOTAM Notice to Airmen
Under Alternative 1, the ACMI West ALTRV would be charted and published as MOA Tyndall-I; there
would be no associated change to the airspace area, floor, or ceiling. The western portion of the ACMI
East ALTRV would be charted and published as MOA Tyndall-J and the eastern portion of the ACMI East
ALTRV would be charted and published as Warning Area W-470G. MOA Tyndall-J and Warning Area
W-470G combined would have the same spatial area and configuration as the ACMI East ALTRV. There
would be no associated change to the airspace floor or ceiling of MOA Tyndall-J or to the floor of
W-470G; however, W-470G would have an unlimited ceiling instead of a ceiling of FL 180 like the former
East ALTRV. Under Alternative 1, the proposed MOAs Tyndall-I and Tyndall J, and Warning Area W-470G
would be activated from 0600 to 0300 Local Time and by Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) during other times,
instead of activation by NOTAM at all times like the former ALTRVs.
Under Alternative 1, the ACMI East ATCAA would be shortened laterally to align with the proposed MOA
Tyndall-J below; there would be no change to the airspace floor or ceiling in this western portion of the
ATCAA. Creation of Warning Area W-470G under Alternative 1 would eliminate the eastern portion of
the ACMI East ATCAA and change the floor of the airspace from FL 180 to 5,000 feet above MSL and the
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 2-10 BI1024190935TPA
ceiling of the airspace from FL 600 to unlimited. Under Alternative 1, the proposed W-470G would
become part of the W-470 complex and would be activated under Eglin AFB control whenever W-470A
is activated. There would be no change to the ACMI West ATCAA under Alternative 1.
2.3.2 No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative is to maintain existing conditions. Under the No Action Alternative, the ACMI
East and West Stationary ALTRVs would not be charted or published as SUAs or modified in any other
manner.
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed
Analysis
Several alternatives considered by the Air Force during project planning did not meet the purpose of the
Proposed Action, or one or more of the selection standards presented in Table 2-3; therefore, these
alternatives were determined to not be reasonable and were eliminated from detailed analysis in this
EA. These alternatives and the reasons they were determined to not be reasonable are described as
follows.
2.4.1 Alternative 2 – Chart and Publish both ALTRVs as a Portion of a Modified
MOA Tyndall-G
Under this alternative, existing MOA Tyndall-G would be reconfigured and expanded to the east to
encompass the ACMI East and West ALTRVs as a single MOA. This alternative was determined to not be
feasible due to the existence and necessity of the Thunder Corridor, which extends through Warning
Area W-47OA into ACMI East airspace from 10,000 feet above MSL to FL 600. The Thunder Corridor is
occasionally returned to the FAA Jacksonville Center, upon request, to accommodate civilian aviation
traffic that requires additional area to the west of established approach/departure routes to Tampa and
other airports farther south during severe weather conditions. The existing separation between the East
and West ALTRVs and between the two aligned ATCAAs above allows for use of the Thunder Corridor. A
single MOA would be required to be vertically subdivided to align with the ATCAAs and accommodate
the Thunder Corridor. Such vertical subdivisions would complicate airspace control (Selection
Standard 1) and potentially impact airspace availability (Selection Standard 2) and military air operations
(Selection Standard 3). For these reasons, this alternative was determined to not be reasonable and,
therefore, was eliminated from detailed analysis in this EA.
2.4.2 Alternative 3 – Chart and Publish the West ALTRV as MOA Tyndall-I and
the East ALTRV as MOA Tyndall-J and a Portion of a Modified Warning
Area W-470A
Under this alternative, existing Warning Area W-470A would be reconfigured and expanded to the north
to encompass the eastern portion of the East ALTRV, instead of developing a new Warning Area W-470G
as proposed under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). This alternative would involve charting and
publishing the West ALTRV as MOA Tyndall-I and the western portion of the East ALTRV as MOA
Tyndall-J as proposed under Alternative 1. Portions of Warning Area W-470A are located between 3 and
12 nautical miles from the shoreline; however, per FAA policy, Warning Areas currently cannot be
established closer than 12 nautical miles from the shoreline. Although the expanded portion of W-470A
would not be closer than 12 nautical miles from the shoreline, modifying W-470A as a whole would
result in its portions closer than 12 nautical miles to not be in compliance with the current distance
limitation for Warning Areas and, therefore, would have the potential to reduce its size and availability
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 2-11 DECEMBER 2019
(Selection Standard 2) and impact military air operations (Selection Standard 3). For these reasons, this
alternative was determined to not be reasonable and, therefore, was eliminated from detailed analysis
in this EA.
2.4.3 Alternative 4 – Chart and Publish the East ALTRV as MOA Tyndall-J and
Warning Area W-470G, and the West ALTRV as a Portion of a Modified
MOA Tyndall-G
Under this alternative, existing MOA Tyndall-G would be reconfigured and expanded to the east to
encompass the West ALTRV, instead of developing a new MOA Tyndall-I as proposed under Alternative 1
(Preferred Alternative). This alternative would involve charting and publishing the East ALTRV as MOA
Tyndall-J and Warning Area W-470G as proposed under Alternative 1. Expanding existing MOA Tyndall-G
to encompass the West ALTRV would likely involve lowering the floor of the area occupied by the West
ALTRV to 1,000 feet above MSL to match the floor of MOA Tyndall-G. Non-participating aircraft fly
through MOA Tyndall-G via IFR to access local airports. Modifying MOA Tyndall-G to include the West
ALTRV with an associated lowering of the floor of the West ALTRV would adversely impact airspace
control (Selection Standard 1) associated with non-participating aircraft at lower altitudes (below
5,000 feet above MSL) and military training activities at higher altitudes (above 5,000 feet above MSL).
In addition to complicating airspace control, this alternative would also have the potential to impact
military air operations (Selection Standard 3) in the West ALTRV, which specifically supports
administrative flight activities (non-fighter mode activities such as refueling) and turning radiuses for
aircraft during training that is conducted in W-470A. For these reasons, this alternative was determined
to not be reasonable and, therefore, was eliminated from detailed analysis in the EA.

BI1024190935TPA 3-1 DECEMBER 2019
SECTION 3
Affected Environment
Scope of the Analysis
This section addresses the affected environment and environmental consequences of the alternatives of
the Proposed Action, which are Alternative 1 and the No Action Alternative. The affected environment is
the existing condition of each resource for which the alternatives are assessed. Per the scoping process
prescribed in 40 CFR §1501.7(a) (3), resources that have the potential to be affected by the Proposed
Action are analyzed in detail in this EA whereas resources that do not have the potential to be
appreciably affected by the Proposed Action were eliminated from detailed analysis in this EA.
The environmental consequences are the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the
alternatives on each resource. Direct impacts are those that would result from the action at the same
time and in the same place the action is being implemented. Indirect impacts are those that would
result from the action at a later time or would be farther removed in distance from the action but are
still reasonably foreseeable. Cumulative impacts are those that would result from the incremental
impacts of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. As
appropriate, impacts are further discussed as being temporary, short-term, or long-term.
In an EA, the magnitude of the impact is considered regardless of whether the impact is adverse or
beneficial. Determination of the significance of the impact, as described in 40 CFR §1508.27, requires
considerations of both context and intensity. Context considers the geographic extent of the potential
impact (local, regional, or greater extent) while intensity considers the severity of the impact. The
following terms are used to describe the magnitude of impacts in this EA:
• No Effect—The action would not cause a detectable change.
• Negligible—The impact would be at the lowest level of detection; the impact would not be
significant.
• Minor—The impact would be slight but detectable; the impact would not be significant.
• Moderate—The impact would be readily apparent; the impact would not be significant.
• Major—The impact would be clearly adverse or beneficial; the impact has the potential to be
significant. The significance of adverse and beneficial impacts is subject to interpretation and should
be determined based on the final proposal. In cases of adverse impacts, the impact may be reduced
to less than significant by mitigation, design features, and/or other measures that may be taken.
The FAA has the final-decision making authority regarding implementation of the Proposed Action. The
resources identified in FAA Order 1050.1F as having potential to be relevant to FAA actions were
evaluated by the Air Force in cooperation with the FAA to determine the extent to which they may be
affected by the Proposed Action.
Resources Analyzed
The following resources were determined to have potential to be affected by the Proposed Action and,
therefore, are analyzed in detail in this EA:
• Airspace Management
• Noise
• Biological Resources
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 3-2 BI1024190935TPA
• Cultural Resources
• Safety
Resources Eliminated from Detailed Analysis
The Proposed Action was determined to have no appreciable effect on several resources; therefore,
these resources were eliminated from detailed analysis in this EA. The resources that were eliminated
from detailed analysis and the rationale for their elimination are presented in the subsections that
follow.
3.3.1 Air Quality
Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and
the environment. NAAQS have been established for the following air pollutants, which are called criteria
pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, and respirable particulate
matter, defined as particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter and particulate matter less than
2.5 microns in diameter. An area (county or air basin) that meets the air quality standard for the criteria
pollutants is designated as being in attainment. The ACMI East and West ALTRVs overlay the waters of
the Gulf of Mexico between 5,000 and 18,000 feet above MSL. The coastal counties nearest to the
ALTRVs, which include Franklin, Wakulla, Jefferson, Taylor, and Dixie Counties, are all currently classified
as being in attainment for all criteria pollutants stipulated under the NAAQS (EPA, 2019); therefore, the
Proposed Action does not require a general conformity analysis under 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart W and 40
CFR Part 93, Subpart B.
The mixing height is the altitude above which air emissions released by aircraft generally do not mix with
ground-level emissions or have an effect on ground-level air pollutant concentrations in the local area.
The mixing height is established by the EPA in 40 CFR §93.153(c)(2)(xxii), which states:
“Air traffic control activities and adopting approach, departure, and enroute procedures for aircraft
operations above the mixing height specified in the applicable SIP or TIP. Where the applicable SIP or TIP
does not specify a mixing height, the Federal agency can use the 3,000 feet above ground level as a
default mixing height, unless the agency demonstrates that use of a different mixing height is
appropriate because the change in emissions at and above that height caused by the Federal action is de
minimis.” The ACMI East and West ALTRVs are located over the Gulf of Mexico above 5,000 feet above
MSL. When over the ocean, 5,000 feet above MSL is equivalent to 5,000 feet above ground level (AGL);
therefore, the ALTRVs are located above the EPA designated default mixing height of 3,000 feet AGL.
Lastly, the Proposed Action would have no effect on air operations relative to existing conditions, nor
would it involve construction, new stationary sources of air emissions, or changes in personnel or
ground-based operations. For these reasons, the Proposed Action would have no effect on air quality.
3.3.2 Climate
Climate change is known to be caused by natural processes and is also generally believed to be
influenced by human activities such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. GHGs are gases that trap heat
in the Earth’s atmosphere and they include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, and
other gases. EO 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, outlines policies intended
to ensure that federal agencies evaluate climate change risks and vulnerabilities and manage the shortand
long-term effects of climate change on their operations and mission. The Proposed Action would
have no effect on air operations relative to existing conditions, nor would it involve construction, new
stationary sources of air emissions, or changes in personnel or ground-based operations. Therefore, the
Proposed Action is not expected to result in a net increase in GHGs or otherwise affect climate change.
The impact of global climate change on air operations conducted in the ALTRVs proposed to be charted
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 3-3 DECEMBER 2019
and published as SUAs would depend on the magnitude of such changes; near-term climate changes are
expected to have no appreciable effect on air operations in the airspaces. For these reasons, the
Proposed Action would have no effect on climate.
3.3.3 Coastal Resources
The ACMI East and West ALTRVs overly the waters of the Gulf of Mexico between 3 and 12 nautical
miles off the coast of the eastern Panhandle of Florida. The ALTRVs are located between 5,000 and
18,000 feet above MSL and have been jointly used by Tyndall AFB and Eglin AFB for military air
operations for over 40 years. Based on their location and altitude, use of the ALTRVs for military air
operations has no effect on coastal resources. The general manner in which the airspaces are used for
military purposes would not change under the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would also not
involve construction, changes in personnel or ground-based operations, or any activity that would
adversely impact a designated Coastal Barrier Resource System unit. Lastly, the Air Force has concluded
that the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) is consistent with the statutes implemented under the
Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP). The Air Force’s federal CZMA consistency determination
is provided as Appendix D; the state’s CZMA consistency determination for the Proposed Action, when
received from the Florida State Clearinghouse, will be provided in Appendix A. For these reasons, the
Proposed Action would have no effect on coastal resources.
3.3.4 Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f)
Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 USC §303) protects
significant publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and public and
private historic sites. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85)
provided that "no military flight operation (including a military training flight), or designation of airspace
for such an operation, may be treated as a transportation program or project for purposes of 49 USC
§303(c) (note: Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act was renumbered in
1983 as Section 303(c) of Title 49). Given that the designation of airspace for military flight operations is
exempt from Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act, the Proposed Action
would have no effect on Section 4(f) resources.
3.3.5 Farmlands
Important farmlands include pastureland, cropland, and forest that are designated as prime or unique
farmland, or farmland identified as having statewide or local importance. The Proposed Action would
not involve construction, land development, or any other activity that would convert farmland to nonagricultural
uses. Therefore, the Proposed Action would have no effect on farmlands.
3.3.6 Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and Pollution Prevention
The Proposed Action would not involve construction, development, or other ground-disturbing activity;
result in changes in air operations, personnel, or ground-based operations; or involve any other activity
that would occur in known contaminated areas or otherwise affect hazardous materials, hazardous
waste, solid waste, or pollution prevention. For these reasons, the Proposed Action would have no
effect on hazardous materials, solid waste, or pollution prevention.
3.3.7 Land Use
The Proposed Action involves charting and publishing airspaces located between 3 and 12 nautical miles
offshore and between 5,000 and 18,000 feet above MSL as SUAs. The general manner in which the
airspaces are used for military purposes would not change and there would be no effect on air
operations relative to existing conditions. The Proposed Action would not change the current or
proposed land use of any area, nor would it involve construction, development, changes in groundEA
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 3-4 BI1024190935TPA
based operations, or any other activity that would impact land use compatibility in any area. For these
reasons, the Proposed Action would have no effect on land use. The potential effects of noise on land
use compatibility under the Proposed Action are assessed in detail as part of the analysis of noise in this
EA.
3.3.8 Natural Resources and Energy Supply
Under the Proposed Action, the general manner in which the subject airspaces are used for military
purposes would not change and there would be no effect on air operations relative to existing
conditions. The Proposed Action would also not involve construction, development, changes in groundbased
operations, or any other activity that would result in increased consumption of natural resources
or use of energy supplies. The Proposed Action would not require the need for unusual natural
resources and materials, or those in short supply. For these reasons, the Proposed Action would have no
effect on natural resources or energy supply.
3.3.9 Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
The Proposed Action would not change the number of persons working at Tyndall AFB or Eglin AFB or
living in the local area. The Proposed Action would be confined within the boundaries of the subject
airspaces and use of the airspaces by commercial aircraft is infrequent; therefore, the Proposed Action
would have little to no impact on commercial uses or other public economic activity. There would be no
construction, development, changes in military air operations, changes in ground-based operations, or
any other activity that would have an effect on the local economy. For these reasons, the Proposed
Action would have no appreciable effect on the local demographics, local economy, number of persons
living in on-base or off-base housing, number of children attending schools in the area, or demand for
emergency services (medical, police, and fire-fighting).
On February 11, 1994, the President issued EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority and Low-Income Populations. This EO requires federal agencies to address disproportionate
environmental and human health impacts from federal actions on minority populations and low-income
populations. The President directed all federal agencies to analyze the environmental effects on
minority and low-income communities, including human health, social, and economic effects.
The Air Force’s Guide for Environmental Justice Analysis Under the Environmental Impact Analysis
Process (EIAP) provides guidance on how environmental justice should be analyzed in conjunction with
EIAP, in accordance with NEPA (Air Force, 2014). According to this guidance, if the Proposed Action
would have no environmental impact(s), or impact(s) that would not be adverse, the Proposed Action
would not disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations and no environmental justice
analysis would be required. If the Proposed Action is determined to have an adverse environmental
impact, then the environmental justice analysis should be conducted in accordance with the guidance to
determine if it would disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. The guidance
defines adverse impacts as follows: “Adverse means the impact would have a negative effect on human
health or the environment that is significant, unacceptable, or above generally accepted norms. Adverse
human health effects include bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death. Adverse environmental
effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or social impacts when interrelated to
impacts on the natural or physical environment.”
Guidelines for the protection of children are specified in EO 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risk (Federal Register, Volume 62, Number 78, April 23, 1997),
amended in 2001 by EO 13229 and in 2003 by EO 13296. EO 13045 requires that federal agencies make
it a high priority to identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that may
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 3-5 DECEMBER 2019
disproportionately affect children, and ensure that policies, programs, and standards address
disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental health or safety risks.
Based on the analysis conducted in this EA, the Proposed Action would not result in any adverse
environmental impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not disproportionately impact minority
or low-income populations. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in increased
exposure of children to environmental health or safety risks such as those associated with the
generation, use, or storage of hazardous materials/waste. The Proposed Action would not involve
construction, development, adverse air emissions, changes in hazardous materials/waste management,
or any other activity that would potentially impact children. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not
result in disproportionate environmental health or safety risks to children.
3.3.10 Visual Resources
The Proposed Action involves charting and publishing airspaces located between 3 and 12 nautical miles
offshore and between 5,000 and 18,000 feet above MSL as SUAs. The general manner in which the
airspaces are used for military purposes would not change and there would be no effect on air
operations relative to existing conditions. The Proposed Action would not involve construction,
development, changes in ground-based operations, or any other activity that would 1) produce light
emissions that would create annoyance or interference with activities or 2) contrast with, or detract
from, the visual resources and/or visual character of the existing environment. For these reasons, the
Proposed Action would have no effect on visual resources.
3.3.11 Water Resources
The ACMI East and West ALTRVs overly the waters of the Gulf of Mexico between 5,000 and 18,000 feet
above MSL between 3 and 12 nautical miles off the coast of the eastern Panhandle of Florida. Based on
their location and altitude, use of the ALTRVs for military air operations has no effect on water
resources, including wetlands, floodplains, surface waters, groundwater, and wild and scenic rivers. The
general manner in which the airspaces are used for military purposes would not change under the
Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would also not involve construction, changes in personnel or
ground-based operations, or any other activity that would adversely impact water resources. For these
reasons, the Proposed Action would have no effect on water resources.
Airspace
3.4.1 Affected Environment
Airspace is the four-dimensional area (space and time) that overlies a nation and falls under its
jurisdiction. Airspace consists of both controlled and uncontrolled areas. Controlled airspace and the
constructs that manage it are known as the National Airspace System (NAS). This system is “…a common
network of U.S. airspace; air navigation facilities, equipment and services, airports or landing areas;
aeronautical charts, information and services; rules, regulations and procedures; technical information;
and manpower and material" (FAA, 2015). Navigable airspace is airspace above the minimum altitudes
of flight prescribed by Title 49, Subtitle VII, Part A, Air Commerce and Safety, and includes airspace
needed to ensure the safety of aircraft launch, recovery, and transit of the NAS (49 USC 40102).
Congress has charged the FAA with the responsibility of developing plans and policies for the use of
navigable airspace and assigning, by regulation or order, the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the
safety of aircraft and efficient use of airspace (49 USC 40103(b)). The FAA also regulates military
operations in the NAS through the implementation of FAA Order JO 7400.2M, Procedures for Handling
Airspace Matters and FAA Order JO 7610.4U, Special Operations. FAA Order JO 7610.4U was jointly
developed by the DoD and FAA to establish policy, criteria, and specific procedures for air traffic control
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 3-6 BI1024190935TPA
(ATC) planning, coordination, and services during defense activities and special military operations. The
use and management of airspace by Air Force organizations is defined in AFI 13-201, Air Force Airspace
Management and AFI 11-214, Air Operations and Procedures.
Different classifications of airspace are defined by different types of altitude measurements. The
altitudes commonly referred to throughout this section are:
• Above Ground Level (AGL) - This measurement is the distance above the earth and is typically used
at lower elevations in Class-G airspace (defined later in this section), approach/departure situations,
or any condition that typically occurs in the space between surface and 1,200 feet AGL.
• Mean Sea Level (MSL) - This measurement is defined as the altitude above MSL, as defined by
altimeter instrumentation.
• Flight Level (FL) - FL is for used for airspace higher than 18,000 ft above MSL up to and including
FL 600. To obtain FL, the altimeter is set at the International Standard Atmosphere and described by
dropping the last two digits. FL 600 is comparable to 60,000 feet above MSL at the International
Standard Atmosphere setting.
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and Visual Flight Rules (VFR) are the two basic modes of flying. IFR is a
method of air navigation that relies on instrumentation and is always under the direction of ATC. As
aircraft launch at one airport, traverse the sky, and then land at a different airport, every movement is
directed by ATC. Control is transferred from one ATC to another as aircraft cross jurisdictional lines
designated by the FAA. VFR is a method of air navigation that relies primarily on visual reference for
location and see-and-avoid techniques for safe separation of aircraft. VFR flying is inherently subject to
weather conditions.
Controlled airspace has a set of classifications indicated on sectional maps that include Classes A
through E and G; there is no Class F (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3-1. Airspace Classification Diagram
Source: AOPA (2017)
• Class-A airspace is the region between FL 180 and FL 600 over the contiguous U.S. All traffic in this
airspace follows IFR. This airspace is dominated by commercial traffic using designated flight routes
between FL 180 and FL 450.
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 3-7 DECEMBER 2019
• Class-B airspace is associated with larger airports that manage large numbers of aircraft flights. It is
configured in multiple layers resembling an upside-down layer cake. While each airport is configured
specific to its circumstances, a common configuration would include an inner circle (first layer) that
extends from surface to 10,000 feet above MSL and is 10 to 20 nautical miles in diameter; a middle
circle that extends from 1,200 feet AGL to 10,000 feet above MSL and is 30 nautical miles in
diameter; and an outer circle that extends from 2,500 feet AGL to 10,000 feet above MSL and is 40
nautical miles in diameter.
• Class-C airspace is the most common class for airports with control towers, radar approach control,
and a certain number of IFR operations. While each Class-C airspace is specifically tailored to the
needs of the airport, a typical configuration consists of an inner circle of 5 nautical miles extending
from surface to 4,000 feet above MSL, and an outer circle of 10 nautical miles extending from 1,200
feet AGL to 4,000 feet above MSL.
• Class-D airspace extends upward from the surface to 2,500 feet above the airport elevation
surrounding airports with operational control towers. Each Class-D airspace area is individually
tailored, and instrument procedures for their use are published.
• Class-E airspace is any controlled airspace that is not Class A, B, C, or D. It extends upward from
either the surface or a designated altitude to the overlying or adjacent controlled airspace. Class-E
transitional airspace is also used by transiting aircraft during take-off and landing from 700 feet AGL
up to 17,999 feet above MSL. Notably, federal airways and offshore airspace areas below FL 180 are
Class-E airspace.
• Class-G airspace is otherwise uncontrolled airspace that has not been designated as Class A, B, C, D,
or E. IFR aircraft do not operate in Class-G airspace with the possible exception of aligning an
approach or departure on an IFR flight plan. This is done at their own risk, as ATC does not track VFR
activity in these areas.
There are also Special Use Airspaces (SUAs) that are designed to ensure the separation of nonparticipating
(non-military) aircraft from potentially hazardous operations or conflict with military
operations. SUAs typically include Restricted Areas (RAs) and Military Operations Areas (MOAs). RAs are
airspaces that are restricted from commercial or private traffic while activated; thereby, allowing
unfettered execution of military operations within them. MOAs are airspaces that have a high-level of
military use and have been established to advise commercial and private traffic to either stay clear or be
vigilantly aware of the military use of the airspace when it is activated. Air Traffic Control Assigned
Airspace (ATCAA) is another type of SUA that is established within Class-A airspace that is already
managed by Air Route Traffic Control Centers. Commercial traffic is routed around these areas when
activated to ensure unfettered military operations within the ATCAA. A stationary Altitude Reservation
(ALTRV) is a temporary airspace normally employed for the mass movement of aircraft or other special
user requirements which cannot otherwise be accommodated. ALTRVs are normally temporary and not
intended to be used for military training activities. These types of SUAs are described in greater detail in
the subsections that follow.
3.4.1.1 Region of Influence
Figure 3-2 shows the region of influence (ROI) for the airspace analysis conducted for this EA. The ROI
extends approximately 10 nautical miles beyond the existing ACMI East and West ALTRVs. The airspace
components within the ROI are part of the larger SUA complex that includes other MOAs, ATCAAs,
Warning Areas, and RAs that form an expansive, contiguous training airspace over land and water. This
SUA complex serves a large variety of aircraft from Tyndall AFB, Eglin AFB, and other military
installations from around the region. The existing airspace components within the ROI are described in
the subsections that follow. It should be noted that there are slight discrepancies in the boundaries of
some of the airspaces based on their registered coordinates. These misalignments are a result of legacy
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 3-8 BI1024190935TPA
coordinates moving into the digital age; they are small and insignificant to aircraft operations.
Eventually, the FAA will update the coordinates to close the gaps to form a seamless series of SUAs
within the complex.
Figure 3-2. Region of Influence for Airspace Analysis
3.4.1.2 Air Traffic Control Areas and Local Flying Areas
The ROI contains designated ATC areas necessary for localized control of flying operations under the
authority of the FAA Jacksonville Center. ATCs in the ROI include the Eglin Radar Control Facility (ERCF),
Tyndall Radar Approach Control (RAPCON), and FAA Tallahassee Approach (Figure 3-3). When not
operational, ATC in these areas reverts back to the Jacksonville Center.
The Tyndall RAPCON Area of Responsibility (AoR) is approximately 5,207 square nautical miles and
extends from surface up to FL 230. Tyndall RAPCON provides transit, flight-following (tracking), and
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 3-9 DECEMBER 2019
approach/departure services to airports as well as ATC over all MOAs, RAs, and ATCAAs within this AoR.
A portion of W-151B is also included in the Tyndall RAPCON AoR when it is released back to the
Jacksonville Center by the ERCF. Scheduled operational hours are 6:00 am to 1:30 am the following day
(0600 - 0130).
The ERCF AoR is approximately <To Be Determined> square nautical miles and extends from surface up
to FL 230. It abuts the Tyndall RAPCON AoR to the east. Preparer’s Note: ERCF area and boundaries will
be added when data is received.
Tallahassee Approach provides ATC for IFR operations within an area of 4,105 square nautical miles east
of the Tyndall RAPCON AoR. It abuts MOA Tyndall-G to the west and the ACMI East ALTRV to the south.
The Tallahassee Approach AoR extends from surface up to 11,000 feet above MSL. When Tallahassee
Approach is not operational, control is transferred to the Jacksonville Center from 6,000 feet above MSL
up to 11,000 feet above MSL.
The Carrabelle Area is a designation for scheduling and activating multiple, contiguous airspaces within
the lateral confines of MOA Tyndall-E. It includes MOA Tyndall-E from 9,000 feet above MSL up to FL 180
and a portion of the Carrabelle ATCAA from FL 180 up to FL 230; extensions can be requested up to
FL 370. These activations are not charted but are addressed via NOTAM. Tyndall RAPCON provides ATC
and Tyndall Riptide conducts scheduling and activation for the Carrabelle Area.
ACMI West is a local designation for scheduling and activation of multiple, contiguous airspaces,
including the ACMI West ALTRV and portions of the ACMI West ATCAA and MOA Tyndall-G, from 5,000
feet above MSL up to FL 230. MOA Tyndall-G below 5,000 feet above MSL remains under the control of
Tyndall RAPCON to provide non-participating aircraft access to the shoreline and airports below. These
activations are not charted but are addressed via NOTAM. Tyndall RAPCON provides ATC and Tyndall
Riptide conducts scheduling and activation.
ACMI East is a local designation for scheduling and activation of multiple, contiguous airspaces including
the ACMI East ALTRV and the portion of the ACMI East ATCAA from 5,000 feet above MSL up to FL 230.
This airspace activation is often associated with activation and use of W-470A for training over the Gulf
of Mexico. These activations are not charted but are addressed via NOTAM. The ERCF provides ATC and
Tyndall Riptide conducts scheduling and activation.
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 3-10 BI1024190935TPA
Figure 3-3. Air Traffic Control Areas
3.4.1.3 Military Operations Areas
MOAs are SUAs established for the purpose of separating certain military training activities from IFR
traffic. All MOAs are depicted on sectional charts that identify the exact area, name of the airspace,
altitudes of use, published hours of use, and controlling agency. IFR traffic may be cleared to pass
through an active MOA if adequate IFR separation criteria can be met and procedures are described in a
Letter of Agreement (LOA) between the military unit and the ATC controlling agency (FAA Order
JO 7400.2M). Non-participating VFR aircraft can operate in an active MOA while using see-and-avoid
flight procedures to avoid training activities.
The ROI contains portions of three MOAs: MOA Tyndall-G, MOA Tyndall-E, and MOA Tyndall-F (Figure 2-2).
MOA Tyndall-G covers an area of approximately 223 square nautical miles mostly within the Gulf of
Mexico near Apalachicola Bay. It extends from 1,000 feet AGL up to, but not including 18,000 feet above
MSL. MOA Tyndall-F is located west - northwest of MOA Tyndall-G, is approximately 339 square nautical
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 3-11 DECEMBER 2019
miles, and extends from 300 feet AGL up to, but not including 18,000 feet above MSL. MOA Tyndall-E is
located north of MOA Tyndall-G and east of MOA Tyndall-F, is approximately 894 square nautical miles,
and extends from 300 feet AGL up to, but not including 18,000 feet above MSL. Charted activation times
for all three MOAs are intermittent Saturday through Sunday, intermittent Monday through Friday, and
other times by Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). The controlling agency is Tyndall RAPCON and the scheduling
agency is Tyndall Riptide.
3.4.1.4 Stationary Altitude Reservations
ALTRVs are temporary airspaces normally used for the mass movement of aircraft or special
requirements which cannot otherwise be accommodated. ALTRVs are not charted airspaces and are
meant to be used on a temporary basis. The ACMI East and West ALTRVs are the only two ALTRVs within
the ROI. The ACMI West ALTRV is approximately 71.8 square nautical miles and abuts MOA Tyndall-G to
the north, W-470A to the south, and the ACMI East ALTRV to the east. The ACMI East ALTRV is
approximately 112 square nautical miles and abuts W-470A to the south and the ACMI West ALTRV to
the west. Both ALTRVs extend from 5,000 feet above MSL up to, but not including 18,000 feet above
MSL, with activation by NOTAM. The controlling agency is the ERCF under the authority of the FAA
Jacksonville Center, and the scheduling agency is Tyndall Riptide.
3.4.1.5 Warning Areas
Warning Areas are airspaces over domestic or international waters no closer than 12 nautical miles from
shore. They are advisory in nature and alert pilots of inherently hazardous flight activities. Warning Area
W-470A is partially within the ROI south of the ACMI East/West ALTRVs and ATCAAs, and MOA Tyndall-
G. W-470A is approximately 5,295 square nautical miles, extends from surface up to an unlimited
altitude, and is part of a large complex of Warning Areas that extend to the south over the Gulf of
Mexico. Charted activation times are 6:00 am through 12:30 am the following day (0600 - 0030), and
other times by NOTAM. The controlling agency is the ERCF under the authority of the Jacksonville
Center, and the scheduling agency is Eglin Center Scheduling Enterprise (CSE). This airspace is often
activated together with the ACMI West ALTRV and a portion of MOA Tyndall-G.
3.4.1.6 Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspaces
ATCAAs are a group of SUA in Class-A airspace above FL 180. These predefined airspaces are not charted
but are identified by the FAA as active or scheduled for military training activities. There are several
interconnected ATCAAs in the ROI (Figure 3-4). The ACMI West ATCAA is above the ACMI West ALTRV
and MOA Tyndall-G, and abuts the ACMI East ATCAA to the east, Raven South ATCAA to the north, and
W-470A to the south. It is approximately 256 square nautical miles and extends from FL 180 up to
FL 600. The ACMI West ATCAA is often activated together with the ACMI West ALTRV, W-470A, and a
portion of MOA Tyndall-G. The ACMI East ATCAA is located above the ACMI East ALTRV and abuts the
ACMI West ATCAA to the west and W-470A to the south. This airspace is approximately 112 square
nautical miles and extends from FL 180 up to FL 600. The ACMI East ATCAA is often activated together
with the ACMI East ALTRV. The Raven North and South ATCAAs abut the ACMI West ATCAA and extend
from FL 180 up to FL 600.
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 3-12 BI1024190935TPA
Figure 3-4. High-Altitude Airspace
3.4.1.7 Military Training Routes
Military Training Routes (MTRs) are used by the military for low-level training, and they also provide
access to and from ranges and installations. MTRs include Visual Routes (VRs), Instrument Routes (IRs),
and Slow Routes. Each route is identified by two letters, followed by either four numbers for routes
below 1,500 feet AGL, or three numbers for those above 1,500 feet AGL. IRs are flown under ATC, while
VR routes are not. Figure 3-5 shows the MTRs that extend through the ROI. Although no MTRs extend
directly though the ACMI East and West ALTRVs, the outer edge of IR-21 touches both ALTRVs and the
outer edge of IR-32-33 touches the East ALTRV. All MTRs in the ROI are scheduled by units unassociated
with Tyndall AFB. Table 3-1 presents the MTRs in the ROI, including their scheduling authority and
annual usage based on number of sorties flown in 2018. The number of sorties flown on all MTRs in the
ROI except VR-1002 is negligible. There were 660 sorties per year on VR-1002, which operates below
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 3-13 DECEMBER 2019
1,500 feet AGL in this area. VR-1002 is both laterally and vertically separated from the ALTRVs in this
area.
Table 3-1. Military Training Routes
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
MTR Segment Scheduling
Agency
Number of Sorties
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
IR-15 A-E 23 OSS Moody 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 6
IR-19 H-J JAX NAS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IR-21 D-F NAS Pensacola
IR-32 A-B JAX NAS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IR-33 E-G JAX NAS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VR-1002 G-H JAX NAS 77 65 56 66 52 25 39 51 58 45 97 29 660
VR-1005 D-E JAX NAS 2 13 9 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 35
23 OSS Moody 23rd Operational Support Squadron, Moody Air Force Base, Georgia
IR Instrument Route
JAX NAS Jacksonville Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida
NAS Pensacola Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida
MTR Military Training Route
VR Visual Route
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 3-14 BI1024190935TPA
Figure 3-5. Military Training Routes
3.4.1.8 Federal Airways and Thunder Corridor
Federal airways are linear routes that extend between navigational beacons that broadcast directional
information used by aircraft to maintain course along the route. Federal airways include low-altitude
Victor airways and high-altitude jet routes. Victor airways extend from 1,200 feet AGL up to but not
including 18,000 feet above MSL in Class-E airspace. There are two Victor airways that pass through the
ROI: V-97 and V-521 (Figure 3-6). These routes do not intersect either the ACMI East or West ALTRV. As
the FAA transitions to direct routing using Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System
methodologies, it has been found that more non-participating air traffic operates outside of these
airways than what is tracked on these outdated routes.
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 3-15 DECEMBER 2019
Figure 3-6. Federal Airways
The Thunder Corridor is a weather deviation corridor established through a LOA between the FAA,
Tyndall AFB, and Eglin AFB. It is activated in times of inclement weather in the area, allowing the FAA
more space for commercial transit north-south along the area of V-521, V-97, and J-41-43. The Thunder
Corridor extends northward within the eastern boundaries of W-470D, W-470B, and W-470 A into the
ACMI East airspace (Figure 3-7). The ACMI East and West ALTRVs are separated by the western
boundary of the Thunder Corridor; this allows the ACMI East ALTRV to be deactivated independently
from the ACMI West ALTRV when the corridor is active. The corridor is approximately 15 nautical miles
wide and extends from 10,000 feet above MSL to FL 600 as needed. When air traffic must be rerouted
due to weather, the Jacksonville Center Watch Manager will call Tyndall Riptide and make a “Hailstorm”
request to activate the Thunder Corridor, which ends training activities within the designated
boundaries for the altitudes requested as soon as practicable.
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 3-16 BI1024190935TPA
Figure 3-7. Thunder Corridor
3.4.1.9 Airports
There are no airports located directly beneath the ACMI East or West ALTRV, but several are within the
ROI (Figure 3-2 and Table 3-2). Access to these airports occurs through MOA Tyndall-G when it is
activated. In most situations, MOA Tyndall-G is activated from 5,000 feet above MSL and above;
thereby, allowing unencumbered access through airspace beneath active military training activities.
When altitudes below 5,000 feet above MSL are activated, there are exclusion zones with radii of 3
nautical miles from surface up to 1,500 feet AGL around Apalachicola Airport, St. George Island Airport,
and Carrabelle-Thompson Airport. Apalachicola Airport is the only airport in the ROI with RNAV
approach.
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 3-17 DECEMBER 2019
Table 3-2. Airports in the Region of Influence
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
Airport Public or Private Airspace Class Operations Per Yeara
Apalachicola Regional Airport (KAAF) Public Trans-E 24,455
Carrabelle-Thompson Airport (X13) Public E 4,264
Dog Island Airport (FA43) Public E -
St. George Island Airport (F47) Private Trans-E 504
Wakulla County Airport (2J0) Public E 2,392
a Operational data from 2018
Source: AirNav (2019)
3.4.1.10 Air Traffic
Air traffic data is recorded by the FAA in the Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System. Figure 3-8
depicts the aircraft that traversed the lateral boundaries of the ACMI East and West ALTRVs (1) below
5,000 feet above MSL, (2) between 5,000 feet above MSL and FL 180, and (3) above FL 180. Airspace
below 5,000 feet MSL is used for non-participating aircraft to transit below military training activities
conducted in these areas. Airspace between 5,000 feet above MSL and FL 180 includes the existing ACMI
East and West ALTRVs. Airspace above FL 180 includes the existing ACMI East and West ATCAAs. A total
of 35,032 aircraft traversed the lateral boundaries of the ALTRVs from June 2018 to July 2019 (Table 3-3).
Of this total, 10,395 were military aircraft and 24,097 were civilian aircraft. The majority of the aircraft
(93 percent) traversed this area above FL 180; this assessment assumed that 5 percent of the aircraft
traversed more than one altitude block and, therefore, were double counted.
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 3-18 BI1024190935TPA
Figure 3-8 Annual Air Traffic within the Lateral Boundaries of the ACMI East and West ALTRVs
Source: FAA (2019)
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 3-19 DECEMBER 2019
Table 3-3. Annual Air Traffic within the Lateral Boundaries of the ACMI East and West ALTRVs
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
Year Month
Altitude Block
Low-Level Total
Surface - 5,000a
Mid-Level
5,000a – FL 180
High-Level
FL 180 – FL 600
2018
July 20 160 2,982 3,162
August 15 128 2,762 2,905
September 13 139 2,044 2,196
October 45 318 2,785 3,148
November 10 222 2,956 3,188
December 12 162 2,874 3,048
2019
January 10 165 2,701 2,876
February 9 145 2,430 2,584
March 21 164 3,117 3,302
April 12 154 2,462 2,628
May 14 169 2,593 2,776
June 21 210 2,978 3,209
Annual Total 202 2,137 32,693 35,032
ACMI Aerial Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation
ALTRV Altitude Reservation
FL Flight Level
a 5,000 feet above mean sea level
Data Source: FAA (2019)
3.4.2 Environmental Consequences
3.4.2.1 Alternative 1
Under Alternative 1, charting and publishing the ACMI East and West Stationary ALTRVs as MOAs
Tyndall-I and Tyndall-J, and Warning Area W-470G would have minor beneficial impacts on airspace use
and management. Alternative 1 would involve changes to the boundaries and configurations of some of
the airspaces within the ACMI complex and their activation protocols but would not involve any change
to air operations within the airspaces relative to existing conditions. The beneficial impacts of
Alternative 1 on airspace use and management would result directly from the proposed SUAs being
more accurately defined, charted, and published with respect to their current and future use for military
air operations.
Air Traffic Control Areas
All airspace within the ROI falls under the overall jurisdiction and authority of the FAA Jacksonville
Center. Under the authority of the Jacksonville Center, the FAA Tallahassee Approach, Tyndall RAPCON,
and ERCF provide ATC within specific geographically distinct and operationally separate AoRs. Under
Alternative 1, the proposed MOA Tyndall-I and MOA Tyndall-J, which would be developed from the
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 3-20 BI1024190935TPA
existing ACMI West ALTRV and ACMI East ALTRV, respectively, would be transferred from the ATC
authority of the ERCF to the ATC authority of Tyndall RAPCON. The eastern portion of the ACMI East
ALTRV, which would be designated as W-470G, would change in configuration but would remain under
the ATC authority of the ERCF. These changes would potentially result in short-term impacts to airspace
use and management. Any associated impacts would eventually subside with familiarity of the new
conditions and would be negligible overall.
Military Operations Areas
Under Alternative 1, the ACMI West ALTRV would be charted and published as MOA Tyndall-I; there
would be no associated change to the airspace area, floor, or ceiling. The western portion of the ACMI
East ALTRV (67.2 square nautical miles) would be charted and published as MOA Tyndall-J (the eastern
portion would be established as Warning Area W-470G); there would be no associated change to the
airspace floor or ceiling of this western portion. The proposed MOAs would be activated from 0600 to
0300 Local Time and by NOTAM during other times, instead of activation by NOTAM at all times like the
former ALTRVs.
The establishment of MOAs Tyndall-I and Tyndall-J would create a permanent contiguous SUA by filling
the gap between the existing MOA complex to the north and west, and the Warning Area complex to
the south. The proposed MOAs would be more beneficial to airspace use and management compared to
the existing ACMI East and West ALTRVs because they would be permanently charted airspaces with
published times of activation. Aviators would have greater foreknowledge of airspace use, which would
allow better planning and associated benefits to flight efficiency and safety. The other existing MOAs
(and Warning Areas) in the ROI would continue to function without change. Alternative 1 would have no
effect on the usage or control mechanisms of these SUAs. Overall, Alternative 1 would result in a simpler
ATC environment, which would benefit military air operations, as well as commercial and civilian flights.
Stationary Altitude Reservations
Alternative 1 would eliminate the long-term use of ALTRVs in the ROI. ALTRVs are not permanently
charted airspaces with identifiable activation times. Aviators are often unaware of their status and do
not have sufficient time to plan for accessing them. The proposed elimination of the ALTRVs under
Alternative 1 would result in an ATC environment that is easier to understand, use, and manage, which
would benefit military and non-military aviation in the area.
Alternative 1 would result in minor changes to the group of individual airspaces included within the
ACMI East and ACMI West activation protocols. The modified activation protocol for the ACMI West
local flying area would include the new MOA Tyndall-I, and portions of the existing ACMI West ATCAA
and MOA Tyndall-G from 5,000 feet above MSL up to FL 230. The modified activation protocol for the
ACMI East local flying area would include the new MOA Tyndall-J, new W-470G, and reconfigured ACMI
East ATCAA. These changes to the activation protocols, primarily the elimination of the ALTRVs, would
simplify airspace activation and use, thereby, benefiting airspace navigation and understanding among
controllers and aviators.
Warning Areas
Alternative 1 would establish one new Warning Area: W-470G. This airspace would serve as the
functional equivalent to a portion of the ACMI East ALTRV in conjunction with MOA Tyndall-J. The
boundary between the proposed MOA Tyndall-J and W-470G would be established at a distance of
12 nautical miles from the nearest shoreline to the northwest. The vertical dimensions of W-470G would
match the floor of the proposed MOAs (5,000 feet above MSL instead of surface) and the ceiling of the
other Warning Areas to the south (unlimited altitude). The differences in the vertical dimensions of
W-470G relative to the adjacent MOAs and Warning Areas would potentially have short-term impacts
on airspace use and management. Any associated impacts would eventually subside as pilots and ATC
become accustom to the new conditions; the overall potential impact would be negligible. W-470G
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 3-21 DECEMBER 2019
would most often be activated and deactivated in conjunction with adjacent Warning Areas (for
example, W-470A) and/or be included in the ACMI East activation protocol that would also include the
ACMI East ATCAA and MOA Tyndall-J. The ERCF would be the control authority of the new W-470G.
Under Alternative 1, the other Warning Areas in the ROI would continue to function without any
changes.
Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace
Under Alternative 1, the existing ACMI East ATCAA would be modified; there would be no change to the
existing ACMI West ATCAA or any other existing ATCAAs, and no new ATCAAs would be established. The
ACMI East ATCAA would be shortened laterally to align with the proposed MOA Tyndall-J below and to
accommodate the proposed W-470G to the east. The ACMI East ATCAA would be reduced by more than
half along a line established at 12 nautical miles from the nearest shoreline to the northwest. The
proposed modification of the ACMI East ATCAA would potentially have short-term impacts on airspace
use and management. Any associated impacts would eventually subside as pilots and ATC become
accustom to the new conditions; the overall potential impact would be negligible. Activation and usage
of the ACMI East and West ATCAAs would continue to be conducted via the ACMI East and ACMI West
activation protocols currently conducted for the local flying area.
Military Training Routes
No MTRs extend directly though the ACMI East and West ALTRVs; however, the outer edge of IR-21
touches both ALTRVs and the outer edge of IR-32-33 touches the East ALTRV. Both MTRs, by
designation, are flown IFR; therefore, they are always controlled by ATC. This reduces the potential for
interference from these overlaps. Implementation of Alternative 1 would not change traffic on these
routes, alter their control mechanisms, or have any other associated adverse effects.
Federal Airways and Thunder Corridor
Alternative 1 would involve changes to the boundaries and configurations of some airspaces; however,
no federal airways would intersect or be in close proximity to the modified airspaces. The majority of
non-participating traffic in the area occurs above FL 180, is managed by the Jacksonville Center, and
presently experiences no impedance to airspace use. Implementation of Alternative 1 would not change
these conditions or the volume of non-participating traffic. The proposed MOA Tyndall-J and W-470G
would follow deactivation protocols for the Thunder Corridor in the same manner as currently followed
by the existing ACMI East ALTRV. There would be no changes to the ATC authority or activation
protocols for federal airways under Alternative 1.
Airports and Air Traffic
Implementation of Alternative 1 would have no appreciable effect on airports; access to and from
airports in the ROI would continue to follow existing protocols and controls through MOA Tyndall-G
airspace. Alternative 1 would result in a simpler ATC environment, which would benefit military,
commercial, and civilian air traffic.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis conducted, Alternative 1 would have a minor beneficial impact on airspace use
and management. The impact would not be significant.
3.4.2.2 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the ACMI East and West Stationary ALTRVs would not be charted or
published as SUAs or modified in any other manner. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no
effect on airspace use or management. However, the benefits to airspace use and management that
would result under Alternative 1 would not be realized under the No Action Alternative.
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 3-22 BI1024190935TPA
Noise
3.5.1 Affected Environment
Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of vibrations that travel through a medium, such as air, and
are sensed by the human ear. Noise is defined as any sound that is undesirable because it interferes
with communication, is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise intrusive. Human response
to noise varies depending on the type and characteristics of the noise, distance between the noise
source and the receptor, receptor sensitivity, and time of day.
Sound varies by both intensity and frequency. Sound pressure level, described in decibels (dB), is used to
quantify sound intensity. The dB is a logarithmic unit that expresses the ratio of a sound pressure level
to a standard reference level. Hertz are used to quantify sound frequency. The human ear responds
differently to different frequencies. A-weighing, measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA), approximates a
frequency response expressing the perception of sound by humans. Sounds encountered in daily life and
their levels are presented in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4. Common Sounds and Their Levels
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
Outdoor Sound Level
(dBA) Indoor
Jet flyover at 1,000 feet 100 Rock band
Gas lawnmower at 3 feet 90 Food blender at 3 feet
Downtown (large city) 80 Garbage disposal
Heavy traffic at 150 feet 70 Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet
Normal conversation 60 Normal speech at 3 feet
Quiet urban daytime 50 Dishwasher in next room
Quiet urban nighttime 40 Theater, large conference room
dBA = A-weighted decibel
Source: Harris (1998)
The sound pressure level metric describes steady noise levels, although few noises are, in fact, constant;
therefore, additional metrics have been developed to describe noise, including:
• Equivalent Sound Level (Leq)—The average sound level in dB of a given event or period of time.
• Maximum Sound Level (Lmax)—The maximum sound level of an acoustic event in dB; for example,
when an aircraft is directly overhead.
• Sound Exposure Level (SEL)—A measure of the total energy of an acoustic event. It represents the
level of a one-second long constant sound that would generate the same energy as the actual timevarying
noise event such as an aircraft overflight. SEL provides a measure of the net effect of a single
acoustic event, but it does not directly represent the sound level at any given time.
• Day-Night Sound Level (DNL)—The average annual sound energy with penalty added to the
nighttime levels. Due to the potential to be particularly intrusive, noise events occurring between
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. are assessed a 10-dB penalty when calculating DNL. DNL is a useful
descriptor for aircraft noise because it averages ongoing yet intermittent noise and it measures total
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 3-23 DECEMBER 2019
sound energy over a 24-hour period. DNL provides a measure of the overall acoustic environment;
however, as with SEL, it does not directly represent the sound level at any given time.
3.5.1.1 Regulatory Review
The Noise Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-574) directs federal agencies to comply with applicable
federal, state, and local noise control regulations. The Noise Control Act specifically exempts certain
military activities, including military aircraft operations from state and local noise ordinances. There are
no federal, state, or local noise regulations directly applicable to the Proposed Action. The Air Force’s
guidelines for noise exposure are outlined in AFI 32-7063, Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Program
and AFI 32-7070, Air Force Noise Program. Table 3-5 presents estimated levels of public annoyance used
by the Air Force for aircraft noise per AFI 32-7070 (U.S. Air Force, 2016). These guidelines are consistent
with those used by the FAA as outlined in 14 CFR §1500.
Table 3-5. Estimated Levels of Public Annoyance for Aircraft Noise
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
Aircraft Noise General Level of Noise Percent Highly Annoyed
Less than 65 dBA Low Less than 12%
65 to 75 dBA Moderate 12 to 36%
More than 75 dBA High More than 36%
dBA = A-weighted decibel
DNL = Day-Night Sound Level
Source: U.S. Air Force (2016)
3.5.1.2 Background Noise
Existing sources of noise nearest the ACMI East and West ALTRVs include military and civilian aircraft
flights, shipping traffic, and natural noises such as ocean waves and weather events. Background noise
levels (Leq and DNL) were estimated using the techniques specified in the American National Standard
Institute’s (ANSI’s) Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of Environmental
Sound, Part 3: Short-term Measurements with an Observer Present (ANSI, 2013). The area beneath the
ALTRVs, which is over the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, is relatively quiet; background sound levels
without aircraft would not normally exceed 40 dBA Leq in the daytime, 34 dBA Leq at night, or 42 dBA
DNL overall. During periods when the ocean is calm, background levels could be substantially less,
particularly at night.
3.5.1.3 Overall Aircraft Noise
MOA Range Noisemap (MR_NMAP), version 3.0, which is part of the NoiseMAP computer suite, was
used to predict existing sound levels associated with aircraft operations at the sea surface beneath the
ACMI East and West ALTRVs and beneath adjacent MOA Tyndall-G and W-470A. Parameters considered
in the modeling included aircraft type, air speed, power settings, aircraft operations, vertical training
profiles, and the time spent within each airspace block. Air operations in the ACMI East and West
ATCAAs, which are located above the ACMI East and West ALTRVs, were also modeled as part of this
analysis. Based on the modeling results, predicted existing overall sound levels range from 46.5 to 53.9
dBA DNL at the sea or ground surface beneath the existing airspaces (Table 3-6).
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 3-24 BI1024190935TPA
Table 3-6. Predicted Existing Overall Sound Levels at the Sea or Ground Surface Beneath Airspaces
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
Airspace Existing Overall Sound Level at the Sea Surface
(dBA DNL)
ACMI East and West ALTRVs 46.5
MOA Tyndall-G 48.3
W-470A 53.9
ACMI Aerial Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation
ALTRV Altitude Reservation
dBA A-weighted decibel
DNL Day-Night Sound Level
MOA Military Operations Area
The modeling results indicate that existing aircraft operations in the ALTRVS, MOA Tyndall-G, and W-
470A generate noise levels at the sea surface well below 65 dBA DNL, which is the threshold for low
probability for public annoyance (see Section 3.5.1.1). The generated noise levels occur over an area of
approximately 5,702 square miles in the Gulf of Mexico, most of which is beyond 3 nautical miles off the
coast. Based on the generated noise levels and where they occur, existing air operations in the airspaces
are not expected to result in any public annoyance.
3.5.1.4 Individual Overflight Noise
As discussed in Section 3.5.1.3, existing overall operational noise levels have low potential to result in
public annoyance. Noise from individual overflights should also be assessed as they generate distinct
acoustic events. Table 3-7 presents the predicted Lmax and SEL for individual aircraft overflights for the
primary users of the existing ACMI East/West ALTRVs, MOA Tyndall-G, and W-470A based on the noise
modeling conducted for this EA. The slant distance values in the table are the distances in a straight line
between the aircraft and points below the aircraft, regardless of angle or direction relative to the
aircraft. For example, for an aircraft directly overhead, the slant distance would be the altitude of the
aircraft. Based on the modeling results, F-22 aircraft are substantially louder than T-38 aircraft. Taking
into account background noise levels, which are estimated between 34 and 40 dBA (see Section 3.5.1.2),
F-22 aircraft would be audible more than 25,000 feet away and T-38 aircraft would be audible
approximately 10,000 feet away.
Individual overflights in the ALTRVs and W-470A would be no closer than 3 nautical miles (18,288 feet)
from the coastline whereas individual overflights in portions of MOA Tyndall-G would be directly over
the coastline. Taking into account the estimated background noise levels between 34 and 40 dBA,
individual overflights in the landward most portions of the ALTRVs and W-470A by F-22 aircraft would be
perceived as audible, but distant, in outdoor areas along the coast. The associated noise levels inside
homes and other buildings would be approximately 30 to 40 dBA lower and, therefore, barely
perceptible or not audible. Individual overflights in the landward most portions of the ALTRVs and
W-470A by T-38 aircraft would be barely perceptible or not audible in outdoor areas along the coast.
Individual overflights in MOA Tyndall-G would be conducted between 1,000 and 18,000 feet above
ground level (AGL). Individual overflights by F-22 aircraft in portions of this airspace that are directly
over or near the coast at lower altitudes (1,000 to 5,000 feet AGL) would generate noise that is clearly
audible and sometimes loud, in outdoor areas. Individual overflights by T-38 aircraft in the same areas at
lower altitudes would be audible but more faint. Overflights by both aircraft types in the same areas at
higher altitudes would generate substantially less noise levels, with F-22 noise being clearly audible but
faint and T-38 noise being barely perceptible or not audible in outdoor areas.
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 3-25 DECEMBER 2019
Table 3-7. Predicted Sound Levels for Individual Overflights
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
Slant Distance
(feet)
Maximum Sound Level (dBA)a Sound Exposure Level (dBA)b
F-22c T-38d F-22c T-38d
500 117.5 84.2 121.0 91.2
1,000 110.2 76.2 115.5 85.0
5,000 90.6 54.2 100.1 67.2
10,000 80.3 41.8 91.6 56.7
20,000 68.2 27.2 81.3 43.8
25,000 63.7 21.8 77.4 39.0
a The Maximum Sound Level (Lmax) is the Lmax during an individual overflight.
b The Sound Exposure Level (SEL) is the sound level if the entire overflight was compressed into one second; SEL does not
represent the actual noise at any given time.
c F-22 operating at 85 percent power settings at 300 knots.
d T-38 operating at 85 percent power settings at 200 knots.
Speech Interference
In general, low- to mid-altitude aircraft overflights can interfere with communication on the ground, and
in homes, schools or other buildings near their flight path. The disruption of routine activities in the
home, such as radio or television listening, telephone use, or family conversation, can cause frustration
and irritation. The quality of speech communication is also important in classrooms, offices, and
industrial settings and those who attempt to communicate over aircraft noise can potentially experience
fatigue and vocal strain. The threshold at which aircraft noise may begin to interfere with speech and
communication is 75 dBA (DNWG, 2009). This level is consistent with, and more conservative than, the
thresholds outlined in Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements, and Guidelines for Schools,
Part 1: Permanent Schools (ANSI/ASA, 2010).
Figure 3-9 depicts the predicted Lmax for individual aircraft overflights for the primary users of the
existing ACMI East/West ALTRVs, MOA Tyndall-G, and W-470A based on the noise modeling conducted
for this EA. Table 3-8 presents the predicted slant distance and lateral distance on the ground from the
flight track at which an individual aircraft overflight interferes with speech. Speech interruptions are in
the form of a momentary pause in conversation in response to the aircraft noise. Individual F-22
overflights in the low-altitude portions of the existing airspaces interfere with speech of individuals
within approximately 3.0 miles of the flight track, whereas T-38 overflights interfere with speech within
0.2 mile of the flight track. Individual acoustic events from F-22 and T-38 operations in the lower
portions of MOA Tyndall-G are loud enough to interfere with speech both inside and outside buildings
under the MOA. These effects are distributed throughout areas below and adjacent to the MOA. It is
possible that some locations experience these events more often others; however, louder events at
these locations are offset with a one-to-one reduction in overflights at other locations. Acoustic events
from individual F-22 and T-38 operations in the ACMI East/West ALTRVs and W-470A, although audible,
are too far away to interfere with speech either inside or outside buildings along the coast.
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 3-26 BI1024190935TPA
Figure 3-9. Predicted Maximum Sound Levels for Individual Overflights
Table 3-8. Predicted Slant Distance and Lateral Distance from Flight Track for Speech Interference
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
Aircraft
Slant Distance to
Speech Interference
Threshold
(feet)
Overflight Altitude (feet above ground level)
500 1,000 5,000 10,000
Lateral Distance from Flight Track for Speech Interference [feet (miles)]
F-22 16,000 15,992 (3.0) 15,969 (3.0) 15,199 (2.9) 12,490 (2.4)
T-38 1,250 1,146 (0.2) 750 (0.1) - -
Sleep Disturbance
Sleep disturbance is another potential form of annoyance associated with mid- and low-altitude aircraft
overflights. The intermittent nature of aircraft noise can be more disturbing than continuous noise.
Sleep disturbance can be caused by both the intensity and duration of each noise event; therefore, it is
best assessed by the SEL metric, which captures the total energy (intensity and duration) of each noise
event. The threshold at which aircraft noise may begin to interfere with sleep is 90 dBA SEL (DNWG
2009). SEL is the sound level if the entire overflight was compressed into one second; it is a higher value
in dB than the Lmax for the overflight, and it does not represent the actual noise at any given time.
Figure 3-10 depicts the predicted SEL for individual aircraft overflights for the primary users of the
existing ACMI East/West ALTRVs, MOA Tyndall-G, and W-470A based on the noise modeling conducted
for this EA. Table 3-9 presents the predicted slant distance and lateral distance on the ground from the
flight track at which an individual aircraft overflight interferes with sleep. Sleep disturbances can range
from momentary changes in sleep patterns to complete awakenings. F-22 aircraft operating in the lowaltitude
portions of the existing airspaces can cause sleep disturbances within approximately 2.1 miles of
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 3-27 DECEMBER 2019
the flight track, whereas T-38 aircraft can cause sleep disturbances within 0.1 mile of the flight track.
Individual acoustic events from F-22 and T-38 operations in the lower portions of MOA Tyndall-G are
loud enough to cause sleep disturbances both inside and outside buildings under the MOA. These
effects are distributed throughout areas below and adjacent to the MOA. It is possible that some
locations experience these events more often others; however, louder events at these locations are
offset with a one-to-one reduction in overflights at other locations. Acoustic events from individual F-22
and T-38 operations in the ACMI East/West ALTRVs and W-470A are too far away to cause sleep
disturbances either inside or outside buildings along the coast.
Figure 3-10. Predicted Sound Exposure Level for Individual Overflights
Table 3-9. Predicted Slant Distance and Lateral Distance from Flight Track for Sleep Disturbance
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
Aircraft
Slant Distance to
Sleep Disturbance
Threshold (feet)
Overflight Altitude (feet above ground level)
500 1,000 5,000 10,000
Lateral Distance from Flight Track for Sleep Disturbance [feet (miles)]
F-22 11,000 10,989 (2.1) 10,954 (2.1) 9,798 (1.9) 4,583 (0.9)
T-38 600 332 (0.1) - - -
Damage to Hearing
Noise-related hearing loss resulting from long-term exposure (many years) to continuous noise in the
work place has been studied extensively, but there has been little research on the potential for noiserelated
hearing loss on the public from exposure to aircraft noise. Unlike workplace noise, community
exposure to aircraft overflight noise is not continuous, but instead consists of individual events during
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 3-28 BI1024190935TPA
which the sound level exceeds the background level for a limited time. An individual would need to be
exposed to an average sound level of 75 dBA, 8 hours per day, over a period of 40 years to experience
hearing loss (EPA, 1974; CHABA, 1977). Accordingly, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) and Air Force have adopted a continuous noise threshold of 80 dBA for 8 hours per day for
hearing protection (Air Force, 2013). Aircraft overflights are intermittent and not continuous; therefore,
no individuals are exposed to sound levels that exceed 75 dBA for 8 hours per day beneath the ACMI
East/West ALTRVs, MOA Tyndall-G, or W-470A. For short-term noise exposure, the OSHA and Air Force
have adopted an instantaneous noise threshold of 140 dB for hearing loss. Individual aircraft overflights
within the ACMI East/West ALTRVs, MOA Tyndall-G, and W-470A are not supersonic and do not
generate sonic booms above 140 dB; therefore, no individuals beneath or adjacent to these airspaces
are exposed to instantaneous noise levels that exceed 140 dB.
Damage to Structures
Noise from low-level aircraft overflights can cause buildings under the flight path to vibrate, which the
occupants may experience as shaking of the structure and rattling of the windows. However, based on
experimental data and models, noise and vibrations from subsonic aircraft overflights do not cause
structural damage to buildings. Impulsive noise, such as noise produced by explosions and sonic booms,
above 140 dB is required to damage structures (Air Force, 2016; Siskind, 1989, Bureau of Mines, 1980).
Individual overflights within the ACMI East/West ALTRVs, MOA Tyndall-G, and W-470A are not
supersonic, and do not generate sonic booms above 140 dB; therefore, they have no potential to
damage to structures.
3.5.2 Environmental Consequences
3.5.2.1 Alternative 1
Under Alternative 1, charting and publishing the ACMI East and West Stationary ALTRVs as MOAs
Tyndall-I and Tyndall-J, and Warning Area W-470G would involve changes to the boundaries and
configurations of some of the airspaces within the ACMI complex and their activation protocols but
would not involve any change to air operations within the airspaces relative to existing conditions. Given
that air operations would not change, Alternative 1 would have no appreciable effect on the noise
environment with respect to overall aircraft noise and noise from individual aircraft overflights.
Under Alternative 1, overall sound levels at the sea or ground surface beneath proposed MOAs Tyndall-I
and Tyndall-J and W-470G would range from approximately 46.5 to 53.9 dBA DNL as predicted for
existing conditions (Table 3-5) and, therefore, would be well below 65 dBA DNL, which is the threshold
for low probability for public annoyance. There would be no appreciable change to the overall
distribution of the generated noise levels occur over the area beneath the proposed airspaces, which
would be beyond 3 nautical miles from the coastline. Based on the generated noise levels and where
they would occur, future air operations in the proposed airspaces are not expected to result in any
public annoyance.
As determined for existing conditions, individual overflights in the proposed airspaces by F-22 aircraft
would be perceived as audible, but distant, in outdoor areas and barely perceptible or not audible in
indoor areas along the coast. Individual overflights by T-38 aircraft would be barely perceptible or not
audible in outdoor areas along the coast. Based on the thresholds at which aircraft noise may begin to
interfere with speech (75 dBA) and sleep (90 dBA SEL), future individual F-22 and T-38 overflights in the
proposed airspaces would not interfere with speech or sleep either inside or outside buildings along the
coast. The threshold established for hearing loss from continuous noise is 80 dBA for 8 hours per day
and the threshold established for both hearing loss and structural damage from instantaneous noise is
140 dB (see Section 3.5.1.4). Under Alternative 1, future individual aircraft overflights in the proposed
airspaces would continue to be intermittent and not continuous and, therefore, would have no potential
to cause hearing loss from continuous noise. As under existing conditions, future individual overflights
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 3-29 DECEMBER 2019
would not be supersonic and would not generate sonic booms above 140 dB; therefore, they would
have no potential to cause hearing loss or damage structures from instantaneous noise.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis conducted, Alternative 1 would have no noise-related effects.
3.5.2.2 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the ACMI East and West Stationary ALTRVs would not be charted or
published as SUAs or modified in any other manner. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no
noise-related effects.
Safety
3.6.1 Affected Environment
Flight safety as it relates to the Proposed Action involves the potential for aircraft mishaps, which
include collisions with other aircraft, objects, or wildlife, and mishaps caused by weather, equipment
malfunction, pilot error, or other factors. The analysis of safety for the Proposed Action is restricted to
military and non-military flights that occur within the existing ACMI East and West ALTRVs and
associated proposed SUAs.
AFI 91-202, The U.S. Air Force Mishap Prevention Program, establishes the requirements of the Air
Force’s mishap prevention program. The safety of military air operations is often evaluated in terms of
the mishap rate, which is expressed as the number of mishaps per 100,000 flying hours for each aircraft
type. Mishaps are classified by the DoD based on the severity of injury and the amount of damage
measured in monetary value resulting from the mishap. The primary classes of aircraft mishaps are Class
A, B, C, and D (Table 3-10).
Table 3-10. Aircraft Mishap Classes
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
Mishap
Class
Criteriaa
Total Property Damage Fatality/Injury
A $2,000,000 or more and/or aircraft destroyed Fatality or permanent total disability
B $500,000 or more but less than $2,000,000 Permanent partial disability or three or more
persons hospitalized as inpatients
C $50,000 or more but less than $500,000 Nonfatal injury resulting in loss of time from work
beyond day/shift when injury occurred
D $20,000 or more but less than $50,000 Recordable injury or illness not otherwise
classified as a Class A, B, or C
a One or more of the criteria identified for each class must be met.
Class A mishaps are the most severe in terms of total property damage and impacts to human health. A
Class A mishap results when one or more of the following criteria are met: 1) the total direct cost of the
mishap is $2,000,000 or more, 2) a DoD aircraft is destroyed, and/or 3) the mishap results in a fatality or
permanent total disability.
Under the operational baseline used for this EA, F-22 and T-38 aircraft are estimated to account for 70
percent and 30 percent of total annual air operations in the existing ALTRVs, respectively, in terms of the
number of missions, number of single aircraft sorties, and time in the airspaces (see Section 2.1).
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 3-30 BI1024190935TPA
Table 3-11 presents DoD-wide Class A and B mishap data for F-22 and T-38 aircraft during the 5-year
period from fiscal year (FY) 2014 to FY 2018 (Air Force Safety Center, 2019).
Table 3-11. Mishap Data for F-22 and T-38 Aircraft
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
Aircraft Annual Average
Class A Mishaps
Average Class A
Rate
Annual Average
Class B Mishaps
Average Class B
Rate
Average Annual
Hours
F-22 1.80 5.45 4.40 13.33 33,015
T-38 0.60 0.58 0.80 0.78 102,805
Notes:
Mishap rates are number of mishaps per 100,000 flight hours.
Presented data is for all Department of Defense aircraft and for the 5-year period from Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 to FY 2018.
Source: Air Force Safety Center (2019)
As indicated in Table 3-11, the average Class A and B rates for F-22 aircraft in the entire DoD inventory
during the 5-year period from FY 2014 to FY 2018 were 5.45 and 4.40, respectively. The average Class A
and B rates for T-38 aircraft over the same period were 0.58 and 0.78, respectively. Based on data
provided by the 325th Fighter Wing Flight Safety Manager for this EA, there have been no recorded
aircraft mishaps of any type within the ACMI East and West ALTRVs over the last 10 years.
Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) refers to the hazard associated with incidents of birds and
other types of wildlife striking aircraft. AFI 91-212, Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH)
Management Program, provides policy and guidance for implementing an effective BASH management
program for the Air Force. The 325th Fighter Wing Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) Plan 910 (Air Force,
2018) provides guidance on implementation of Tyndall AFB’s BASH program. This plan addresses
exposure of local and transient aircraft to both indigenous wildlife populations and seasonal bird
migrations at and near the Base. Tyndall AFB’s BASH program involves multiple components that include
land management measures to minimize birds and other types of wildlife in and near the airfield, and
procedures that address monitoring and notifications of bird/wildlife activity and strike risk. Tyndall AFB,
Eglin AFB, and transient pilots have access to the Avian Hazard Advisory System and Bird Avoidance
Model, which are web-based tools that use historical and real-time data to help aviators assess the
BASH risk for specific locations, including the airspaces addressed in this EA. In general, aircraft-wildlife
strikes occur mostly during takeoff, landing, or low-altitude flights. Approximately 90 percent of
aircraft-wildlife strikes occur on or near airports, when aircraft are below an altitude of 2,000 feet
AGL (FAA, 2005). The ACMI East and West ALTRVs are located between 3 and 12 nautical miles offshore
and 5,000 and 18,000 feet above MSL and, therefore, do not pose a high BASH risk to aviators.
The ACMI East and West ALTRVs are not charted airspaces. Activation of the ALTRVs and other airspaces
included in the ACMI East and West local flying areas is conducted via NOTAM. Given that the ALTRVs
are not charted and published, and are used primarily for military air operations, their use by nonparticipating
aircraft poses a safety risk. Civilian and commercial aviators are often unaware of the
activation status of the ALTRVs and, therefore, do not have sufficient time to plan for accessing them.
Although ATC is able to track civilian and commercial aircraft when they enter the ALTRVs, the presence
of any non-participating aircraft within the airspaces during military air operations poses a safety risk to
all aviators within the airspaces.
3.6.2 Environmental Consequences
3.6.2.1 Alternative 1
Under Alternative 1, charting and publishing the ACMI East and West Stationary ALTRVs as MOAs
Tyndall-I and Tyndall-J, and Warning Area W-470G would not involve any change to air operations within
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 3-31 DECEMBER 2019
the airspaces relative to existing conditions. Given that air operations would not change, Alternative 1
would have no appreciable effect on the potential for aircraft mishaps with respect to future air
operations in the proposed SUAs. Charting and publishing the ALTRVs as SUAs would conceivably reduce
the potential for mishaps with respect to the resulting increased awareness by non-participating aircraft
of the SUAs; however, any reduction in associated mishap potential is expected to be negligible given
that there have been no mishaps of any type in the airspaces over the last 10 years.
Under Alternative 1, the proposed SUAs would continue to be no closer than 3 nautical miles from shore
and the floors of the proposed SUAs would be the same as the floors of the existing ALTRVs (5,000 feet
above MSL). Given that there would be no change in the distance from shore or lowest altitude at which
future air operations would be conducted in the airspaces, there would be no appreciable change to the
associated BASH risk in the airspaces under Alternative 1.
The ACMI East and West ALTRVs are not charted airspaces with identifiable activation times and are
used primarily for military air operations. Civilian and commercial aviators may not always be aware of
the activation status of the ALTRVs and, therefore, may not be sufficiently prepared to enter the
airspaces. For these reasons, use of the ALTRVs by non-participating aircraft during military air
operations poses a safety risk to all aviators within the airspaces. Under Alternative 1, charting and
publishing the ALTRVs as SUAs would more accurately represent their use and increase public awareness
of military air operations in the airspaces, thereby improving overall aviation safety in the area. The
proposed MOAs Tyndall-I and Tyndall-J and Warning Area W-470G would be permanently charted
airspaces with published times of activation. Aviators would have greater awareness of the military use
of the airspaces, which would allow better planning and associated benefits to flight safety.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis conducted, Alternative 1 would have a moderate beneficial impact on safety. The
impact would not be significant.
3.6.2.2 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the ACMI East and West Stationary ALTRVs would not be charted or
published as SUAs or modified in any other manner. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no
effect on safety. However, the benefits to flight safety that would result under Alternative 1 would not
be realized under the No Action Alternative.
Biological Resources
3.7.1 Affected Environment
The general categories of biological resources addressed in this EA include vegetation, wildlife, and
special-status species. The analysis of biological resources for the Proposed Action focuses on biota that
potentially occur under and above the sea surface in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico in and near the
lateral footprint of the ACMI East and West ALTRVs, which encompass approximately 112 and
71.8 square nautical miles, respectively, between 3 and 12 nautical miles off the coast of the eastern
Panhandle of Florida. Given that the ALTRVs are located entirely over the waters of the Gulf of Mexico,
the analysis of biological resources does not address any biota on land. The ALTRVs are located
approximately 65 nautical miles from Tyndall AFB; therefore, the analysis also does not address
biological resources associated with the Base.
3.7.1.1 Vegetation and Wildlife
Vegetation in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico primarily includes marine phytoplankton (microscopic
algae) and marine macroalgae (seaweed). The phytoplankton community in the Gulf of Mexico consists
of numerous species of diatoms, dinoflagellates, and other classes of microalgae. Phytoplankton are the
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 3-32 BI1024190935TPA
base of the ocean food web and under certain conditions, are capable of forming very large blooms that
may cover vast areas of the ocean. Numerous macroalgae species occur in the Gulf of Mexico, some
being sessile (attached to substrate) and others free-floating. Sargassum, which includes several species
of free-floating brown algae, is a very common type of seaweed in Gulf of Mexico waters. Sargassum,
which often drifts as mats, provides habitat for numerous species of marine fish and invertebrates.
Numerous resident and migratory bird species have potential to occur in and near the lateral footprint
of the East and West ALTRVs. The vast majority of bird species would occur well below the floor of
ALTRVs, which is 5,000 feet above MSL; a few migratory species known to fly at high altitudes, such as
the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and pintail (Anas acuta), could occur within the vertical boundaries of
the airspaces.
The waters of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico are rich in marine animal life. These waters support
numerous species of zooplankton (animal plankton), invertebrates, and fish, as well as a few species of
sea turtles and marine mammals. Benthic communities in the area are dominated by nematodes (small
worms), copepod crustaceans, polychaete worms, mollusks (clams and snails), and large crustaceans
(shrimp and crabs). A large number of resident and migratory fish species occur in the northeastern Gulf
of Mexico. Several fish species in these waters, such as snapper, grouper, mackerel, and tuna are
economically important. Fish species in offshore marine waters can be generally categorized as benthic
(typically occurring near the seafloor) or pelagic (typically occurring in the upper layers of the open sea).
Numerous whale and dolphin species occur in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico; the bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncates) is very common in the area. All marine mammals that occur in United States
territorial waters are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (further discussed in
Section 3.7.2).
3.7.1.2 Special-Status Species
Plant and animal species that are federally listed as Endangered or Threatened are afforded legal
protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that
actions they authorize, fund, or carry out will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of federally
listed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such
species. The ESA also requires that federal agencies implement measures to conserve, protect, and,
where possible, enhance any listed species and its habitat. The ESA is administered by the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Generally, the
USFWS manages land and freshwater species and the NMFS manages marine and anadromous species,
which are species that breed in freshwater but live most of their lives in the sea. Section 7 of the ESA
requires that federal actions determined to potentially impact federally listed species be consulted with
the USFWS or NMFS.
Plant and animal species in Florida may also be awarded state listing and associated regulatory
protection. Special-status species also include species not ESA-listed or state listed but which are
protected under the MMPA, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, or Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Table 3-12 presents the federally listed marine species that have potential to occur in the waters of the
northeastern Gulf of Mexico.
Table 3-12. Federally Listed Marine Species Having Potential to Occur in the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Legal Status
Fish
Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi T
Giant manta ray Manta birostris T
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 3-33 DECEMBER 2019
Table 3-12. Federally Listed Marine Species Having Potential to Occur in the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Legal Status
Oceanic whitetip shark Carcharhinus longimanus T
Scalloped hammerhead shark Sphyrna lewinii T
Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata E
Reptiles
Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas T
Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii E
Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea E
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta T
Mammals
Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus E
Florida manatee Trichechus manatus latirostris T
Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus E
Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis E
Sperm whale Physeter microcephalus E
E Endangered: species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
T Threatened: species likely to become Endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
Data Sources: NOAA (2019a)
As indicated in Table 3-12, a total of five fish species, four sea turtle species, and five mammal species
that are federally listed have potential to occur in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. In addition to these
marine species, a small number of federally-listed bird species have potential to occur in the area,
including the federally threatened piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and rufa red knot (Calidris canutus
rufa). The potential occurrence of these two bird species in the area is based on their documented
seasonal occurrence at Tyndall AFB located approximately 65 nautical miles to the northwest (Air Force,
2015). As with their occurrence at Tyndall AFB, potential occurrence of these bird species in the area is
expected to be relatively rare and associated with seasonal migrations. The five federally-listed marine
mammal species identified in Table 3-12 are also protected under the MMPA, as are all other marine
mammals that occur in U.S. territorial waters.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined under the Magnuson-Stevens Act as “those waters and substrate
necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity”. The Magnuson-Stevens Act
requires federal agencies to consult with the NMFS when any activity proposed to be permitted, funded,
or undertaken by a federal agency may have adverse effects on designated EFH. EFH within the
northeastern Gulf of Mexico primarily includes relatively shallow benthic areas that contain emergent
and/or submerged aquatic vegetation, such as seagrass. However, sargassum, which occurs in deeper
waters is also designated as EFH by the NMFS.
Critical habitat is defined by the ESA as specific areas within or outside the geographical area occupied
by a listed species that contain physical or biological features essential to the species’ conservation, and
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 3-34 BI1024190935TPA
that may require special management considerations or protection. Of the federally-listed species
identified in Table 3-12, critical habitat has been designated for the Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus
desotoi) and smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinate). Designated critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon
extends from the mean high-water line out to 1 nautical mile offshore along most of the Florida
Panhandle (NOAA, 2019b). Given that the ALTRVs are located beyond 3 nautical miles from shore,
critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon is not located within the lateral footprint of the ALTRVs. Critical
habitat for the smalltooth sawfish has been designated only in southern peninsular Florida (NOAA,
2019c) and, therefore, is not located within the lateral footprint of the ALTRVs.
3.7.2 Environmental Consequences
3.7.2.1 Alternative 1
The analysis of potential impacts to biological resources under Alternative 1 focuses on biota that
potentially occur under and above the sea surface in and near the lateral footprint of the ACMI East and
West ALTRVs. Given that the ALTRVs are located entirely over the waters of the Gulf of Mexico
approximately 65 nautical miles from Tyndall AFB, the impact analysis does not address any biota on
land or any biota associated with the Base.
Alternative 1 would not involve construction, development, or any other activity that would physically
impact vegetation or wildlife, including special-status species or their habitat. Existing air operations in
the ACMI East and West ALTRVs have the potential to impact biological resources primarily via noise
disturbance and bird-aircraft strikes. The vast majority of bird-aircraft strikes occur on or near airports,
at altitudes below 2,000 feet AGL. Although a few migratory species known to fly at high altitudes could
occur with the vertical boundaries of the ALTRVs, most resident and migratory bird species in the area
would occur well below the floor of the ALTRVs, which is 5,000 feet above MSL. Based on their offshore
location and high-altitude floor, the ALTRVs pose a relatively low BASH risk (further discussed in Section
3.6). Under Alternative 1, the floors of the proposed SUAs would be the same as the floors of the
existing ALTRVs (5,000 feet above MSL) and there would be no change in air operations within the
airspaces relative to existing conditions; therefore, there would be no appreciable change to the
potential for bird-aircraft strikes under Alternative 1.
The effects of noise on wildlife are not well understood and are mostly based on observations of
behavioral responses. A general behavioral reaction by some wildlife species when exposed to noise is
the startle response, which may include flight, jumping, running, or movement of the head in the
apparent direction of the noise source (Manci et al., 1988). Direct physiological effects of noise on
wildlife are difficult to measure in the field, but may include some health effects, depending on the
noise levels. The effects of aircraft noise on fish, reptiles, and amphibians have not been well studied.
Although fish do startle in response to low-flying aircraft noise, the literature indicates that they
habituate to the noise and shadows of aircraft. The most common reaction of birds and mammals to
aircraft noise, particularly when the aircraft is visible to the animal is some degree of the startle
response; rotary aircraft such as helicopters typically cause a greater startle response than fixed-wing
aircraft (Manci et al., 1988).
As discussed in Section 3.5, the predicted existing overall noise level at the sea surface directly beneath
the ACMI East and West ALTRVs is 46.5 dBA DNL. The highest Lmax that is predicted to occur at the sea
surface from individual aircraft overflights in the ALTRVs is 90.6 dBA for F-22 aircraft and 54.2 dBA for
T-38 aircraft (Table 3-7). These noise levels are the loudest levels that are generated, and they result
when the aircraft are flying at the altitude of the floor of the airspaces (5,000 feet above MSL);
overflights by both aircraft types at higher altitudes within the airspaces would generate substantially
less noise levels at the sea surface. Based on the predicted noise levels, noise from existing aircraft
operations in the ALTRVs could potentially disturb birds and certain types of marine animal life, such as
surfacing sea turtles and marine mammals, beneath the airspaces. The potential for disturbance to
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 3-35 DECEMBER 2019
marine species below the sea surface is less due to the noise attenuating effect of water. The potential
for noise disturbance is highest for F-22 aircraft and when air operations are conducted in the lower
portions of the airspaces. Given that the highest overflight noise level at the sea surface is predicted to
be 90.6 dBA under these conditions, noise-related impacts to animals from existing air operations is
expected to be minor overall and largely limited to temporary startle responses in some species. The
noise levels are well below the instantaneous noise threshold of 140 dB for human hearing loss and the
potential associated startle responses are not expected to result in adverse effects on the health or
reproduction of any species. Moreover, wildlife in this part of the Gulf of Mexico have experienced noise
from military air operations for decades and, therefore, are acclimated to such noise. Under Alternative
1, charting and publishing the ALTRVs as MOAs Tyndall-I and Tyndall-J, and Warning Area W-470G would
not involve any change to air operations within the airspaces relative to existing conditions; therefore,
future individual overflights within the proposed SUAs would have no appreciable effect on the noise
environment or result in greater noise-related effects on wildlife, including special-status species.
In summary, Alternative 1 would not involve any activity that would physically impact biological
resources or appreciably change the potential for bird-aircraft strikes or the existing noise environment.
For these reasons, the Air Force concludes that Alternative 1 would have no effect on biological
resources including species protected by the ESA under the regulatory jurisdiction of the USFWS or
NMFS.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis conducted, Alternative 1 would have no effect on biological resources.
3.7.2.2 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the ACMI East and West Stationary ALTRVs would not be charted or
published as SUAs or modified in any other manner. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no
effect on biological resources.
Cultural Resources
3.8.1 Affected Environment
Cultural resources consist of any physical or traditional evidence of human activity considered relevant
to a particular culture or community. Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic sites, structures,
districts, and artifacts, as well as a community’s heritage and way of life.
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) sets forth government policy and procedures regarding
historic properties. Historic property is defined under 36 CFR Part 800.16 (l)(1) as “any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) maintained by the Secretary of the Interior.” Section 106 of the NHPA
requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on such properties, following
regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR Part 800). Another applicable
law is the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987; this act requires consideration of activities that may affect
a shipwreck.
As defined under 36 CFR Part 800.16(d), the Area of Potential Effects (APE) is “the geographic area or
areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of
historic properties, if such properties exist.” For the analysis of cultural resources in this EA, the APE for
the Proposed Action is identified as the area under the sea surface within the lateral footprint of the
ACMI East and West ALTRVs, which encompass approximately 112 and 71.8 square nautical miles,
respectively, between 3 and 12 nautical miles off the coast of the eastern Panhandle of Florida. Given
that the ALTRVs are located entirely over the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the APE does not include any
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 3-36 BI1024190935TPA
area on land. The ALTRVs are located approximately 65 nautical miles from Tyndall AFB; therefore, the
APE also does not include any cultural resources associated with the Base.
Available data on submerged shipwrecks and other cultural resources within the APE were obtained via
reviews of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Coast Survey’s
Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System and National Register Information System (NRIS)
(NOAA, 2019d; NRIS, 2019). Based on these data sources, there are six known submerged vessels
underneath the lateral footprint of the ACMI East and West ALTRVs. None of these submerged vessels
are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP.
3.8.2 Environmental Consequences
3.8.2.1 Alternative 1
Section 106 of the NHPA requires the Air Force to consider effects of its undertakings on properties
listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP. In assessing whether an undertaking, such as the Proposed
Action, affects such properties, the Air Force must consider both direct and indirect effects. Direct
effects include physical impacts, such as demolition or damage from construction or other activity.
Indirect effects include impacts that could alter the historic setting or context of a property, such as
noise disturbance or aesthetic/visual impacts.
The APE for the Proposed Action, which is the area under the sea surface within the lateral footprint of
the ACMI East and West ALTRVs, covers a total area of 183.8 square nautical miles between 3 and 12
nautical miles off the coast of the eastern Panhandle of Florida. Given that the ALTRVs are located
entirely over the waters of the Gulf of Mexico approximately 65 nautical miles from Tyndall AFB, the APE
does not include any area on land or any cultural resources associated with the Base. Known cultural
resources within the APE are limited to six submerged vessels, none of which are listed or eligible for
listing in the NRHP (see Section 3.8.1).
Alternative 1 would not involve construction, development, or any other activity that would physically
impact the submerged vessels or any unknown underwater cultural resources within the APE. Based on
the location of the APE, Alternative 1 would have no potential to affect any cultural resources on land or
cultural resources associated with Tyndall AFB.
As discussed in Section 3.5, noise and vibrations from subsonic aircraft overflights do not cause
structural damage to buildings. Impulsive noise, such as noise produced by explosions and sonic booms,
above 140 dB is required to damage structures. Existing individual overflights within the ACMI East and
West ALTRVs are not supersonic, and do not generate sonic booms above 140 dB (see Section 3.5);
therefore, they have no potential to damage structures, including the submerged vessels or any
unknown underwater structures in (or outside) the APE. Under Alternative 1, charting and publishing
the ALTRVs as MOAs Tyndall-I and Tyndall-J, and Warning Area W-470G would not involve any change to
air operations within the airspaces relative to existing conditions; therefore, future individual overflights
within the proposed SUAs would have no appreciable effect on the noise environment. Overflights
under Alternative 1 would continue to not generate sonic booms above 140 dB and, therefore, would
have no potential to damage cultural resources in (or outside) the APE.
Scoping letters solicitating input on the Proposed Action were sent to the Florida State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) on August 8, 2019 and to the six Native American Tribes who have expressed
an interest in Tyndall AFB for their ancestral ties (Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, Muscogee (Creek)
Nation, Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Seminole Tribe of Florida, and
Thlopthlocco Tribal Town) on August 26, 2019 (Appendix A). In a reply letter dated September 4, 2019
(Appendix A), the SHPO indicated that it finds that “the proposed undertaking will have no effect on
historic properties.” In a reply email dated October 3, 2019 (Appendix A), the Seminole Tribe of Florida
indicated that it “has no objections to the project at this time.” The Seminole Tribe of Florida also
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
BI1024190935TPA 3-37 DECEMBER 2019
requested that they be notified if any unknown cultural resources are inadvertently discovered; the Air
Force commits to satisfy this request. Consultation letters that included copies of the draft EA and FONSI,
were sent to the same six Native American Tribes on <Date To Be Determined> (Appendix A). Responses
from the Native American Tribes will be addressed in this EA when received.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis conducted, Alternative 1 would have no effect on cultural resources.
3.8.2.2 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the ACMI East and West Stationary ALTRVs would not be charted or
published as SUAs or modified in any other manner. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no
effect on cultural resources.
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are defined in the CEQ regulations implementing provisions of NEPA (CEQ 1508.7)
as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added
to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or
non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually
minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.”
3.9.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Tyndall AFB has been an active military installation for over 78 years, from its beginning in 1941 to the
present. The area surrounding Tyndall AFB has experienced steady population and economic growth
during this period; past major actions in the area have been primarily associated with residential and
commercial development in the population centers and development of regional infrastructure such as
roadways, airports, and utility systems. Various projects at Tyndall AFB involving improvements to
existing on-base facilities, roads, and utility systems, and construction of new infrastructure have been
conducted over the years as needed to support the Base’s mission.
On October 10, 2018, Tyndall AFB and surrounding areas were directly hit by Hurricane Michael, which
had the highest sustained-wind speeds of any hurricane to hit the continental United States in over 25
years. The affected region experienced catastrophic damage from the hurricane and has been in
recovery mode ever since. Although some repair and rebuilding has occurred since the hurricane, most
of the recovery efforts to date have involved damage assessment and planning for infrastructure
reconstruction. Based on initial assessments, approximately 100 facilities were destroyed, and 195
facilities sustained moderate-to-severe damage at Tyndall AFB. A Program Management Office
established by the Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center in November 2018 is leading the
effort to support near-term resumption of mission operations and long-term redevelopment of Tyndall
AFB as the model Air Force Installation of the Future. An EA is currently being prepared to analyze the
potential impacts associated with reconstruction of the Base.
Repair and rebuilding of hurricane-damaged Infrastructure constitute the primary foreseeable future
mission-support actions at Tyndall AFB. Several Tyndall AFB plans are being updated to document
current conditions and outline the goals and objectives for redevelopment of the Base. Tyndall AFB’s
mission and the type and level of military operations conducted at the Base have undergone many
changes over the years. Tyndall AFB’s current mission includes the training of F-22A Raptor pilots and
maintenance personnel. Potential future mission-related actions at Tyndall AFB include the potential
beddown of MQ-9 Reaper drone aircraft and F-35 aircraft or just the beddown of F-35 aircraft. A
separate NEPA document is currently being prepared to analyze the potential impacts of adding these
aircraft to Tyndall AFB. If Tyndall AFB is ultimately selected as the beddown location for the MQ-9
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 3-38 BI1024190935TPA
Reaper and/or F-35, a number of infrastructure improvement projects would be conducted at the Base
to support the addition of the aircraft and personnel.
A wide range of future actions may occur at Tyndall AFB depending on Congressional and Air Force
decisions regarding hurricane response. However, speculative actions that may conceivably occur are
not analyzed as cumulative impacts in this EA as they are too uncertain to be “reasonably foreseeable”
within the meaning of 40 CFR §1508.7.
3.9.2 Cumulative Impacts
Based on the findings of this EA, the Proposed Action would have no effect on air quality, climate,
coastal resources, Department of Transportation Act – Section 4(f) resources, farmlands, hazardous
materials, solid waste, pollution prevention, land use, natural resources/energy supply, socioeconomics,
visual resources, water resources, noise, biological resources, or cultural resources. Therefore, the
Proposed Action would have no cumulative impacts on these resources when combined with past,
present, or future actions.
Alternative 1 would have a minor beneficial impact on airspace use and management (see Section 3.4)
and a moderate beneficial impact on flight safety (see Section 3.6). The beneficial impacts of
Alternative 1 on airspace use/management and flight safety are closely related and would result directly
from the proposed SUAs being more accurately defined, charted, and published with respect to their
current and future use for military air operations. This would result in an airspace environment that is
easier to understand, use, and manage, as well as greater public awareness of military air operations in
the airspaces, all of which are factors that would benefit both military and non-military aviation in the
area.
Alternative 1 would involve changes to the boundaries and configurations of some of the airspaces
within the ACMI complex and their activation protocols but would not involve any change to air
operations within the airspaces relative to existing conditions. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not result
in increased airspace congestion, ATC workload, or restrictions on public use of airspace when combined
with future actions that involve military and/or non-military aviation in the region.
There is potential for MQ-9 Reaper drone aircraft and/or F-35 aircraft to be added to Tyndall AFB in the
future. A separate NEPA document is currently being prepared to analyze the potential impacts of
adding these aircraft to Tyndall AFB. Although the composition of the future aircraft inventory of Tyndall
AFB is currently not known, the benefits to airspace use/management and flight safety under
Alternative 1 would also apply to any future changes in aircraft or air operations associated with Tyndall
AFB.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis conducted, when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions,
Alternative 1 is not expected to have significantly adverse cumulative impacts on any resource.
Summary of Environmental Consequences
The potential environmental consequences of Alternative 1 and the No Action Alternative on the
resources analyzed in detail in this EA are summarized in Table 3-13.
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
DECEMBER 2019 3-39 BI1024190935TPA
Table 3-13. Summary of Environmental Consequences
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
Resource Alternative 1 No Action Alternative
Airspace Minor Beneficial Impact – Not Significant
Under Alternative 1, the proposed MOAs Tyndall-I and Tyndall-J would be transferred from the ATC authority
of the ERCF to the ATC authority of Tyndall RAPCON. The eastern portion of the ACMI East ALTRV, which
would be designated as W-470G, would change in configuration but would remain under the ATC authority of
the ERCF. These changes would potentially result in short-term impacts to airspace use and management. Any
associated impacts would eventually subside with familiarity of the new conditions and would be negligible
overall.
The proposed MOAs would be activated from 0600 to 0300 local time and by NOTAM during other times,
instead of activation by NOTAM at all times like the former ALTRVs. The proposed MOAs would be more
beneficial to airspace use and management compared to the existing ALTRVs because they would be
permanently charted airspaces with published times of activation. Aviators would have greater
foreknowledge of airspace use, which would allow better planning and associated benefits to flight efficiency
and safety. The other existing MOAs and Warning Areas in the ROI would continue to function without
change. The proposed elimination of the ALTRVs would result in an ATC environment that is easier to
understand, use, and manage, which would benefit military and non-military aviation in the area.
Minor changes to the ACMI East and West activation protocols, primarily the elimination of the ALTRVs,
would simplify airspace activation and use, thereby, benefiting airspace navigation and understanding among
controllers and aviators.
The differences in the vertical dimensions of proposed W-470G relative to the adjacent MOAs and Warning
Areas, as well as the proposed modification of the ACMI East ATCAA would potentially have short-term
impacts on airspace use and management. Any associated impacts would eventually subside as pilots and ATC
become accustom to the new conditions; the overall potential impact would be negligible. W-470G would
most often be activated and deactivated in conjunction with adjacent Warning Areas (for example, W-470A)
and/or be included in the ACMI East activation protocol that would also include the ACMI East ATCAA and
MOA Tyndall-J. The ERCF would be the control authority of the new W-470G. The other Warning Areas in the
ROI would continue to function without any changes.
Alternative 1 would have no appreciable effect on MTRs, federal airways, the Thunder Corridor, airports, or
air traffic.
No Effect
The No Action Alternative would
have no effect on airspace use or
management. However, the benefits
to airspace use and management
that would result under Alternative 1
would not be realized under the No
Action Alternative.
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
BI1024190935TPA 3-40 DECEMBER 2019
Table 3-13. Summary of Environmental Consequences
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
Resource Alternative 1 No Action Alternative
Noise No Effect
Alternative 1 would not involve any change to air operations within the airspaces relative to existing
conditions and, therefore, would have no appreciable effect on the noise environment with respect to overall
aircraft noise and noise from individual aircraft overflights.
Overall sound levels at the sea or ground surface beneath proposed MOAs Tyndall-I and Tyndall-J and W-
470G would range from approximately 46.5 to 53.9 dBA DNL as predicted for existing conditions and,
therefore, would be well below 65 dBA DNL, which is the threshold for low probability for public annoyance.
There would be no appreciable change to the overall distribution of the generated noise levels occur over the
area beneath the proposed airspaces, which would be beyond 3 nautical miles from the coastline. Based on
the generated noise levels and where they would occur, future air operations in the proposed airspaces are
not expected to result in any public annoyance.
As determined for existing conditions, individual overflights in the proposed SUAs by F-22 aircraft would be
perceived as audible, but distant, in outdoor areas and barely perceptible or not audible in indoor areas along
the coast. Individual overflights by T-38 aircraft would be barely perceptible or not audible in outdoor areas
along the coast. Future individual F-22 and T-38 overflights in the proposed SUAs would not interfere with
speech or sleep either inside or outside buildings along the coast, and would have no potential to cause
hearing loss or damage structures.
No Effect
The No Action Alternative would
have no noise-related effects.
Safety Moderate Beneficial Impact – Not Significant
Alternative 1 would not involve any change to air operations within the airspaces relative to existing
conditions and, therefore, would have no appreciable effect on the potential for aircraft mishaps with respect
to future air operations in the proposed SUAs. Any reduction in mishap potential due to increase awareness
by non-participating aircraft of the SUAs is expected to be negligible given that there have been no mishaps of
any type in the airspaces over the last 10 years.
There would be no change in the distance from shore or lowest altitude at which future air operations would
be conducted in the SUAs; therefore, there would be no appreciable change to the associated BASH risk in the
airspaces.
The proposed SUAs would be permanently charted airspaces with published times of activation. Aviators
would have greater awareness of the military use of the airspaces, which would allow better planning and
associated benefits to flight safety.
No Effect
The No Action Alternative would
have no effect on safety. However,
the benefits to flight safety that
would result under Alternative 1
would not be realized under the No
Action Alternative.
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS
DECEMBER 2019 3-41 BI1024190935TPA
Table 3-13. Summary of Environmental Consequences
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
Resource Alternative 1 No Action Alternative
Biological
Resources
No Effect
Alternative 1 would not involve construction, development, or any other activity that would physically impact
vegetation or wildlife, including special-status species or their habitat. Based on their offshore location and
high-altitude floor, the existing ALTRVs pose a relatively low BASH risk. The floors of the proposed SUAs would
be the same as the floors of the existing ALTRVs (5,000 feet above MSL) and there would be no change in air
operations within the airspaces relative to existing conditions; therefore, there would be no appreciable
change to the potential for bird-aircraft strikes under Alternative 1.
Noise-related impacts to animals from existing air operations is expected to be minor overall and largely
limited to temporary startle responses in some species. The noise levels are well below the instantaneous
noise threshold of 140 dB for human hearing loss and the potential associated startle responses are not
expected to result in adverse effects on the health or reproduction of any species. Wildlife in this part of the
Gulf of Mexico have experienced noise from military air operations for decades and, therefore, are acclimated
to such noise. Alternative 1 would not involve any change to air operations within the airspaces relative to
existing conditions; therefore, future individual overflights within the proposed SUAs would have no
appreciable effect on the noise environment or result in greater noise-related effects on wildlife, including
special-status species.
In summary, Alternative 1 would not involve any activity that would physically impact biological resources or
appreciably change the potential for bird-aircraft strikes or the existing noise environment. For these reasons,
the Air Force concludes that Alternative 1 would have no effect on biological resources including species
protected by the ESA under the regulatory jurisdiction of the USFWS or NMFS.
No Effect
The No Action Alternative would
have no effect on biological
resources.
Cultural
Resources
No Effect
Known cultural resources within the APE are limited to six submerged vessels, none of which are listed or
eligible for listing in the NRHP. Alternative 1 would not involve construction, development, or any other
activity that would physically impact the submerged vessels or any unknown underwater cultural resources
within the APE. Based on the location of the APE, Alternative 1 would have no potential to affect any cultural
resources on land or cultural resources associated with Tyndall AFB.
Existing individual overflights within the ALTRVs are not supersonic, and do not generate sonic booms above
140 dB; therefore, they have no potential to damage structures, including the submerged vessels or any
unknown underwater structures in (or outside) the APE. Overflights under Alternative 1 would continue to
No Effect
The No Action Alternative would
have no effect on cultural resources.
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
BI1024190935TPA 3-42 DECEMBER 2019
Table 3-13. Summary of Environmental Consequences
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
Resource Alternative 1 No Action Alternative
not generate sonic booms above 140 dB and, therefore, would have no potential to damage cultural
resources in (or outside) the APE.
In a reply letter dated September 4, 2019, the SHPO indicated that it finds that “the proposed undertaking
will have no effect on historic properties.” In a reply email dated October 3, 2019, the Seminole Tribe of
Florida indicated that it “has no objections to the project at this time.” The Seminole Tribe of Florida also
requested that they be notified if any unknown cultural resources are inadvertently discovered; the Air Force
commits to satisfy this request. Responses from the other Native American Tribes that were consulted will be
addressed in this EA when received.
Cumulative
Impacts
When added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, Alternative 1 is not expected to have
significantly adverse cumulative impacts on any resource.
When added to past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable actions, the
No Action Alternative is not expected
to have significantly adverse
cumulative impacts on any resource.
BI1024190935TPA 4-1 DECEMBER 2019
SECTION 4
Mitigation Measures and Required Permits
Based on the analyses conducted in this EA, Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would have
no effect on noise, biological resources, or cultural resources and only beneficial impacts on airspace use
and management and flight safety. No mitigation would be required for any activity within the scope of
Alternative 1 or necessary to achieve the effect determinations for the resources addressed in this EA.
No permits would be required for implementing Alternative 1. The LOAs between Tyndall AFB, Eglin AFB,
and the FAA that address airspace use and control in the region would need to be modified to address
the changes to the existing ACMI East and West airspaces proposed under Alternative 1.

BI1024190935TPA 5‐1 DECEMBER 2019
SECTION 5
List of Primary Preparers
Table 5‐1 lists the individuals who participated in the preparation of this report.
Table 5‐1. List of Primary Preparers
EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs
Name Organization Primary Responsibility
Tunch Orsoy Jacobs, Inc. Project Manager/Author
Megan Ruiz Jacobs, Inc Deputy Project Manager/Cultural Resources Analysis
Victoria Hernandez Jacobs, Inc Technical Review/Quality Control
Tim Lavallee LPES, Inc. Noise Analysis
Joe Rexroad LPES, Inc. Airspace Analysis
Carol Montgomery Jacobs, Inc. Graphic Designer
Jennifer Moore Jacobs, Inc. Editor

BI1024190935TPA 6-1 DECEMBER 2019
SECTION 6
List of Persons Consulted
Following are the individuals consulted in preparation of this report:
• Roberto Aguilera, FAA Tallahasse Approach, Tallahassee, Florida
• Luke Alcorn, FAA Jacksonville Center, Jacksonville, Florida
• Paul N. Backhousee, Seminole Tribe of Florida, Clewiston, Florida
• Sean M. Blomquist, USFWS, Panama City, Florida
• Stephanie A. Bryan, Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Atmore, Alabama
• Thomas Carona, Tyndall AFB, Florida
• Hastings Chase, Eglin AFB, Florida
• Gregory Chilcoat, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Wewoka, Oklahoma
• Jose Cintron, Tyndall AFB, Florida
• SSgt Joe Crutcher, Tyndall AFB, Florida
• Maj John Cummings, Tyndall AFB, Florida
• Billy Cypress, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, Miami, Florida
• Crystal Darnell, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama
• Fred Dayhoff, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, Ochopee, Florida
• Roger A. Dean, FAA National Headquarters, Washington D.C.
• Lisa Favors, FAA Eastern Service Area, Atlanta, Georgia
• Lt Col Jesus Figueroa, Tyndall AFB, Florida
• James Floyd, Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Okmulgee, Oklahoma
• Lt Col Jeffrey Godzik, FAA Central Service Area, Fort Worth, Texas
• MSgt Jessica Guile, Eglin AFB, Florida
• Don Harkins, FAA Eastern Service Area, Atlanta, Georgia
• Theodore Isham, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Seminole, Oklahoma
• Brian LaCross, FAA Jacksonville Center, Jacksonville, Florida
• Corain Lowe-Zepeda, Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Okmulgee, Oklahoma
• Glenn May, Eglin AFB, Florida
• Victoria L. Menchaca, Seminole Tribe of Florida, Clewiston, Florida
• Ryan Morrow, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, Okemah, Oklahoma
• Don Musser, FAA Jacksonville Center, Jacksonville, Florida
• MSgt Melissa O’Hara, Tyndall AFB, Florida
• Marcellus Osceola Jr., Seminole Tribe of Florida, Hollywood, Florida
• Timothy A. Parsons, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee, Florida
• Aaron Payne, FAA Tallahassee Approach, Tallahassee, Florida
• Cindy Pettit, Air Force Civil Engineer Center, San Antonio, Texas
• Joseph Ray, Eglin AFB, Florida
• SSgt Mark Rice, Tyndall AFB, Florida
• Jim Roncaglione, Tyndall AFB, Florida
• CMSgt John Sawyer, Eglin AFB, Florida
• Michael Simons, Tyndall AFB, Florida
• Emman Spain, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, Okemah, Oklahoma
• Nolan Swick, Air Force Civil Engineer Center, San Antonio, Texas
• John “Wes” Vinyard, FAA Eastern Service Area, Atlanta, Georgia
• Edwin Wallace, Tyndall AFB, Florida
• Carolyn White, Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Atmore, Alabama
• Hugh Wyckoff, FAA Tallahassee Approach, Tallahassee, Florida

BI1024190935TPA 7-1 DECEMBER 2019
SECTION 7
References
Air Force Safety Center. 2019. F-22 and T-38 Flight Mishap History. Available online at
https://www.safety.af.mil/Divisions/Aviation-Safety-Division/Aviation-Statistics/. Accessed
October 21, 2019.
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). 2017. Airspace-at-a-Glance. Available at
https://www.aopa.org/-/media/files/aopa/home/pilot-resources/asi/various-safetypdfs/
airspace2011.pdf. Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Air Safety Institute.
AirNav. 2019. Airport Information. Available at: https://airnav.com/airports/.
American National Standard Institute (ANSI). 2013. Quantities and Procedures for Description and
Measurement of Environmental Sound. Part 3: Short-term Measurements with an Observer
Present. ANSI S12.9-1993 (R2003)/Part 3.
American National Standards Institute (ANSI), Acoustical Society of America (ASA). 2010. Acoustical
Performance Criteria, Design Requirements, and Guidelines for Schools, Part 1: Permanent
Schools. ANSI/ASA S12.60-2010/Part 1 (R2015).
Bureau of Mines. 1980. Structure Response and Damage Produced by Airblast from Surface Mining.
Report No. RI 8485. Available at
https://www.osmre.gov/resources/blasting/docs/USBM/RI8485StructureResponseDamageProd
ucedAirblast1980.pdf.
Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics (CHABA). 1977. . Guidelines for Preparing
Environmental Impact Statements on Noise. National Research Council, Assembly of Behavioral
and Social Sciences, Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2005. Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports: A Manual for
Airport Personnel. Second edition. Prepared by E.C. Cleary and R. A. Dolbeer. July.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2015. FAA Order 1050.1F Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures. July 16.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2019. Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System Data for
Aircraft Activity within the Lateral Boundaries of the ACMI East and West ALTRVs.
Harris, C.M. 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurement and Noise Control. Acoustical Society of
America. Sewickley, Pennsylvania.
Manci, K.M., D.N. Gladwin, R. Villella, and M.G Cavendish. 1988. Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic
Booms on Domestic Animals and Wildlife: A Literature Synthesis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Ecology Research Center, Feet. Collins, Colorado, NERC-88/29. 88 pp.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2019a. Gulf of Mexico’s Threatened and
Endangered Species. Available online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/southeast.
Accessed on September 27, 2019.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2019b. Critical Habitat for Gulf Sturgeon.
Available online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/critical-habitat-gulf-sturgeon.
Accessed on September 27, 2019.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2019c. Critical Habitat for U.S. DPS of
Smalltooth Sawfish. Available online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/critical-habitatus-
dps-smalltooth-sawfish. Accessed on September 27, 2019.
EA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOAS AND WARNING AREA TO REPLACE ALTRVS TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 2019 7-2 BI1024190935TPA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2019d. Office of Coast Survey’s Automated
Wreck and Obstruction Information System. Available online at
https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/data/wrecks-and-obstructions.html. Accessed October 8, 2019.
National Register of Historic Places (NRIS). 2019. National Register Information System Database.
Available online at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm.
Accessed October 14, 2019.
Siskind, D.E. 1989. Vibrations and Airblast Impacts on Structures from Munitions Disposal Blasts.
Proceedings, Inter-Noise 89.
U.S. Air Force. 2013. Air Force Occupational Safety and Health Standard 48-20. May 10, 2013. Aerospace
Medicine. Occupational Noise Hearing Conservation Program.
U.S. Air Force. 2014. Guide for Environmental Justice Analysis Under the Environmental Impact Analysis
Process (EIAP). November.
U.S. Air Force. 2015. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. June.
U.S. Air Force. 2016. Air Force Instruction 32-7070, Air Force Noise Program. April 21.
U.S. Air Force. 2018. 325th Fighter Wing Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) Plan 910. January 1.
U.S. Department of Defense Noise Working Group (DNWG). 2009. Technical Bulletin, Using
Supplemental Noise Metrics and Analysis Tools. December.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise
Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. Florida Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each
County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants. Available online at
https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_fl.html. Accessed July 22, 2019.
Appendix A
Interagency and Intergovernmental
Consultation

Ms. Donna L. Barber
Chief, Installation Management Flight
325th Civil Engineer Squadron
540 Mississippi Ave
Tyndall AFB FL 32403
Dr. Sean M. Blomquist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1601 Balboa Avenue
Panama City FL 32405
Dear Dr. Blomquist
The United States Air Force (Air Force), in coordination with the Federal Aviation
administration (FAA) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts associated with the Development of Military Operations Areas (MOAs)
and Warning Area to Replace Altitude Reservations (ALTRVs) at Tyndall Air Force Base
(AFB), Florida. The EA is being prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA,
and the Air Force NEPA regulations.
Under the Proposed Action, the 325th Fighter Wing at Tyndall AFB, Florida proposes that the
airspaces known as the Aerial Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation (ACMI) East and West
Stationary ALTRVs be charted and published as Special Use Airspaces (SUAs). The ACMI
East and West ALTRVs are located off the coast of the eastern Panhandle of Florida (Figure 1)
and have been jointly used by Tyndall AFB and Eglin AFB for military air operations for over
40 years. The ACMI East and West ALTRVs each have a floor of 5,000 feet above Mean Sea
Level (MSL) and a ceiling that extends to but does not include Flight Level 180 (18,000 feet
above MSL). Under the Preferred Alternative, the ALTRVs would be charted and published
specifically as MOAs Tyndall-I and Tyndall J, and Warning Area W-470G (Figure 2). Charting
and publishing the ALTRVs as SUAs would more accurately represent their use and increase
public awareness of military air operations in the airspaces, thereby improving overall aviation
safety in the area.
There would be no change in air operations relative to the baseline (existing conditions) under
the Proposed Action. In addition, there would be no change in airspace boundaries or the general
manner in which the airspaces are used for military purposes under the Proposed Action. The
FAA is responsible for authorizing the modification or establishment of airspace and, therefore,
has the final decision-making authority regarding implementation of the Proposed Action.
The EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs will assess the
potential environmental impacts associated with this Proposed Action, and examine the
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
325TH FIGHTER WING (ACC)
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE FLORIDA
08 AUGUST 2019
2
cumulative effects when combined with past, present, and any future proposals. As part of the
Air Force’s Environmental Impact Analysis Process, we request your input in identifying general
or specific issues or areas of concern you feel should be addressed in the environmental analysis.
To ensure the Air Force has sufficient time to consider your input in the preparation of the
Draft EA, please forward written issues or concerns to Mr. Jose J. Cintron at
jose.cintron.1@us.af.mil, (850) 283-4341, or via mail at Jose J. Cintron, 325 CES/CEIE, 540
Mississippi Ave, Tyndall AFB FL 32403 within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Thank you in
advance for your assistance in this effort.
.
Sincerely
DONNA L. BARBER, GS-13, DAF
2 Attachments:
1. Figure 1 – Proposed Action Area
2. Figure 2 – Proposed Special Use Airspaces Under Alternative 1
BARBER.DONN
A.L.1029350945
Digitally signed by
BARBER.DONNA.L.1029350945
Date: 2019.08.06 09:00:56
-05'00'
ACMI West ALTRV ACMI East ALTRV
FIGURE 1
Proposed Action Area
Gulf of Mexico
Tallahassee
Tampa
LEGEND
1. ACMI = Aerial Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation
2. ALTRV = Altitude Reservation
Tyndall AFB
Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO © 2018 Google
0 52 104
Approximate scale in miles
FIGURE 2
Proposed Special Use Airspaces Under
Alternative 1
LEGEND
1. MOA = Military Operations Area
2. MSL = mean sea level
0 5 10
Statute Miles
0 5 10
Nautical Miles
RON DESANTIS
Governor
LAUREL M. LEE
Secretary of State
Division of Historical Resources
R.A. Gray Building • 500 South Bronough Street• Tallahassee, Florida 32399
850.245.6300 • 850.245.6436 (Fax) • FLHeritage.com
Mr. Jose J. Cintron September 4, 2019
Chief, Environmental Element
325th Civil Engineer Squadron
540 Mississippi Avenue
Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida 32403-5014
Re: DHR Project No.: 2019-4901 / Received by DHR: August 13, 2019
Draft Environmental Assessment for the Development of Military Operations Areas (MOAs) and
Warning Area to Replace Altitude Reservations (ALTRVs) at Tyndall Air Force Base
Tyndall Air Force Base, Bay County
Dear Mr. Cintron:
This office reviewed the referenced project for possible impact to historic properties listed, or eligible for
listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. The review was conducted in accordance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended and 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of
Historic Properties.
Based on the information provided, it is the opinion of this office that the proposed undertaking will have
no effect on historic properties.
If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Scott Edwards, Historic
Preservationist, by electronic mail scott.edwards@dos.myflorida.com, or at 850.245.6333 or
800.847.7278.
Sincerely,
Timothy A. Parsons, Ph.D.
Director, Division of Historical Resources
and State Historic Preservation Officer
Ms. Donna L. Barber
Chief, Installation Management Flight
325th Civil Engineer Squadron
540 Mississippi Ave
Tyndall AFB FL 32403
Dr. Timothy A. Parsons
State Historic Preservation Officer
Division of Historical Resources
500 South Bronough Street
Tallahassee FL 32399
Dear Dr. Parsons
The United States Air Force (Air Force), in coordination with the Federal Aviation
administration (FAA) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts associated with the Development of Military Operations Areas (MOAs)
and Warning Area to Replace Altitude Reservations (ALTRVs) at Tyndall Air Force Base
(AFB), Florida. The EA is being prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA,
and the Air Force NEPA regulations.
Under the Proposed Action, the 325th Fighter Wing at Tyndall AFB, Florida proposes that the
airspaces known as the Aerial Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation (ACMI) East and West
Stationary ALTRVs be charted and published as Special Use Airspaces (SUAs). The ACMI
East and West ALTRVs are located off the coast of the eastern Panhandle of Florida (Figure 1)
and have been jointly used by Tyndall AFB and Eglin AFB for military air operations for over
40 years. The ACMI East and West ALTRVs each have a floor of 5,000 feet above Mean Sea
Level (MSL) and a ceiling that extends to but does not include Flight Level 180 (18,000 feet
above MSL). Under the Preferred Alternative, the ALTRVs would be charted and published
specifically as MOAs Tyndall-I and Tyndall J, and Warning Area W-470G (Figure 2). Charting
and publishing the ALTRVs as SUAs would more accurately represent their use and increase
public awareness of military air operations in the airspaces, thereby improving overall aviation
safety in the area.
There would be no change in air operations relative to the baseline (existing conditions) under
the Proposed Action. In addition, there would be no change in airspace boundaries or the general
manner in which the airspaces are used for military purposes under the Proposed Action. The
FAA is responsible for authorizing the modification or establishment of airspace and, therefore,
has the final decision-making authority regarding implementation of the Proposed Action.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
325TH FIGHTER WING (ACC)
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE FLORIDA
08 AUGUST 2019
2
The EA for Development of MOAs and Warning Area to Replace ALTRVs will assess the
potential environmental impacts associated with this Proposed Action, and examine the
cumulative effects when combined with past, present, and any future proposals. As part of the
Air Force’s Environmental Impact Analysis Process, we request your input in identifying general
or specific issues or areas of concern you feel should be addressed in the environmental analysis.
To ensure the Air Force has sufficient time to consider your input in the preparation of the
Draft EA, please forward written issues or concerns to Mr. Jose J. Cintron at
jose.cintron.1@us.af.mil, (850) 283-4341, or via mail at Jose J. Cintron, 325 CES/CEIE, 540
Mississippi Ave, Tyndall AFB FL 32403-501 within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Thank you
in advance for your assistance in this effort.
.
Sincerely
DONNA L. BARBER, GS-13, DAF
2 Attachments:
1. Figure 1 – Proposed Action Area
2. Figure 2 – Proposed Special Use Airspaces Under Alternative 1
BARBER.DONN
A.L.1029350945
Digitally signed by
BARBER.DONNA.L.1029350945
Date: 2019.08.06 09:05:27
-05'00'
ACMI West ALTRV ACMI East ALTRV
FIGURE 1
Proposed Action Area
Gulf of Mexico
Tallahassee
Tampa
LEGEND
1. ACMI = Aerial Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation
2. ALTRV = Altitude Reservation
Tyndall AFB
Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO © 2018 Google
0 52 104
Approximate scale in miles
FIGURE 2
Proposed Special Use Airspaces Under
Alternative 1
LEGEND
1. MOA = Military Operations Area
2. MSL = mean sea level
0 5 10
Statute Miles
0 5 10
Nautical Miles
From: Victoria Menchaca <VictoriaMenchaca@semtribe.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 1:10 PM
To: CINTRON, JOSE J GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <jose.cintron.1@us.af.mil>
Cc: David Echeverry <davidecheverry@semtribe.com>; THPO Compliance <THPOCompliance@semtribe.com>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] US Airforce - Tyndall Development of MOAs and Warning Area
October 03, 2019
Jose J. Cintron
Chief, Environmental Element
325 CES/CEIE
Phone: 850-283-4341
Email: jose.cintron.1@us.af.mil
Subject: US Airforce - Tyndall Development of MOAs and Warning Area
THPO #: 0031628
Dear Mr. Cintron,
Thank you for contacting the Seminole Tribe of Florida – Tribal Historic Preservation Office (STOF-THPO) regarding the US Airforce - Tyndall
Development of MOAs and Warning Area. The proposed undertaking does fall within the STOF Area of Interest. We have reviewed the documents
provided and completed our assessment pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing authority, 36 CFR
800. We have no objections to the project at this time. However, please notify us if any archaeological, historical, or burial resources are
inadvertently discovered.
Respectfully,
Victoria L. Menchaca, MA, Compliance Review Specialist
STOF-THPO, Compliance Review Section
30290 Josie Billie Hwy, PMB 1004
Clewiston, FL 33440
Office: 863-983-6549 ext 12216
Email: victoriamenchaca@semtribe.com
Web: www.stofthpo.com


Appendix B
Federal Aviation Administration
Cooperation

JUN 04 2019

Appendix 7. FAA/DOD Memorandum of Understanding Page 1 of 3
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/AIR/airapp7.html 4/24/2012
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
ORDER
JO 7400.2J
Effective Date:
February 9, 2012
Subject: Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters
Includes: Errata effective 2/9/12
Appendix 7. FAA/DOD Memorandum of Understanding
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Concerning
Environmental Review of Special Use Airspace Actions
I. Purpose and Scope.
The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to describe the
guidelines for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations
(40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) without unnecessary duplication of effort by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Department of Defense (DOD). This MOU
promotes early coordination between FAA and DOD during the environmental
review process associated with the establishment, designation, and modification of
Special Use Airspace (SUA); permits the application of “lead agency“ and
“cooperating agency" procedures to environmental assessments (EA) and findings
of no significant impact as well as to environmental impact statements (EIS); and
provides for the issuance of environmental documents for the development,
designation, modification, and use ofSUA.
II. Definitions.
The definitions contained in the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), FAA
Orders, and relevant DOD and/or Service guidance are applicable to this MOU.
III. Designation of Lead and Cooperating Agency.
A. Introduction: The actions taken by DOD and FAA in the establishment,
designation, or modification of SUA are subject to environmental impact evaluation
pursuant to NEPA, as implemented by the CEQ regulations. The CEQ regulations
encourage a lead agency be designated where related actions by several Federal
agencies are involved.
The lead agency, in such instances, is responsible for consultation with other
agencies, for coordination of appropriate environmental studies and evaluations, and
for preparation of any NEPA-related determinations or documents in cooperation
with other Federal agencies. Each agency recognizes the need to eliminate
duplication. The cooperating agency assumes responsibility to independently review
the environmental documents prepared by the lead agency and to assess whether
the environmental documents meet the standards for adequacy under NEPA.
Appendix 7. FAA/DOD Memorandum of Understanding Page 2 of 3
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/AIR/airapp7.html 4/24/2012
The DOD and the FAA will ensure appropriate consideration of all actions and
impacts, including cumulative impacts. The resultant environmental documents of
the lead agency are accepted and used in decisions and planning by all agencies
involved with the proposed action.
B. Designation of lead agency. When the DOD proposes that the FAA establish,
designate, or modify SUA, the DOD shall serve as the lead agency for the evaluation
of environmental impacts and the preparation and processing of environmental
documents. However, when the FAA proposes the establishment, designation, or
modification of SUA affecting DOD, the FAA shall serve as the lead agency for the
evaluation of environmental impacts and the preparation and processing of
environmental documents.
C. Designation of cooperating agency. When the DOD proposes that the FAA
establish, designate, or modify SUA, the FAA shall act as a cooperating agency for
the evaluation of environmental impacts. However, when the FAA proposes the
establishment, designation, or modification of SUA affecting DOD, the DOD shall act
as a cooperating agency for the evaluation of environmental impacts.
IV. Level of EnvironmentalDocumentation
A. General. Environmental documentation will be processed in accordance with
applicable FAA Orders, and DOD and/or Service directives.
B. Categorical Exclusions. Where the actions of one agency are subject to a
categorical exclusion (CATEX), and the actions of the other agency, with respect to
the same SUA request, require an EA, the agency requiring the EA will prepare the
appropriate environmental documentation. The applicability of a CATEX to parts of
the actions of one of the agencies will be noted in the environmental document. The
background information in support of CATEXs, identified by either DOD or FAA,
shall be forwarded to the agency requiring preparation of the EA and may be used
by either agency, as allowed by their respective regulations/directives. When the
categorical exclusion of the proponent is not listed in FAAO 1050.1E, Chapter 3,
which would require FAA to prepare the environmental documentation; FAA budget
constraints may delay processing and implementation of a proponent's proposal.
V. General Guidance
A. Scheduling. Whenever an action under this MOU requires cooperation or
coordination between the FAA and DOD, the two agencies shall agree on a
schedule to ensure that required actions are taken on a timely basis. Each agency
will notify the other of any difficulty with meeting scheduled deadlines or any need to
revise the schedule.
B. Resolution of disagreements. If the FAA and DOD fail to reach agreement at the
normal working level on any issue relating to environmental processing of SUA
proposals, the matter will be referred, in ascending order, as outlined in the table
below. At any time, the FAA's Office of the Chief Counsel and the Office of the
General Counsel of the Service Department involved shall be consulted for
assistance with legal issues.
Equivalent Levels of Responsibility for Resolution of Disagreements
Appendix 7. FAA/DOD Memorandum of Understanding Page 3 of 3
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/AIR/airapp7.html 4/24/2012
VI. Effective Date. This MOU shall become effective on the last signature date below
and shall remain in effect until otherwise rescinded or modified by both signatory
parties. If either party determines that it is necessary to amend this MOU, the other
party shall be notified in writing of the specific change(s) desired, with proposed
language and the reason(s) for the amendment. The proposed amendment shall
become effective upon written agreement of bothparties.
SIGNED: DATE: October 4, 2005
Carl P. McCullough Michael A. Cirillo
Department of Defense Federal Aviation
Administration
FAA Administrator
Vice President, Mission SupportServices
Service Secretary
Policy Board on Federal
Aviation (PBFA)
Principal Member
Director, System Operations & Safety PBFA Alternate Principal
Member
Manager, System Operations & Safety,
Environmental Programs
PBFA Working Group Member
Return to
Air Traffic Publications
Library
Return to
JO 7400.2 Procedures for
Handling Airspace Matters
Home Page
Return to
Table of Contents

Appendix C
Public Review of Environmental
Assessment
(to be provided after public review)

Appendix D
Federal Agency Coastal Zone
Management Act Consistency
Determination

FEDERAL AGENCY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA)
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
This document provides the State of Florida with the U.S. Air Force’s Consistency Determination under
CZMA Section 307 and 15 CFR. Part 930 subpart C, for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) analyzed
in the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for Development of Military Operations Areas and Warning
Area to Replace Altitude Reservations at Tyndall Force Base (AFB), Florida. Federal consistency with the
statutes implemented under the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program is addressed in the table
below. Pursuant to 15 CFR § 930.41, the Florida State Clearinghouse has 60 days from receipt of this
document to concur with, or object to, this Consistency Determination, or to request an extension, in
writing, under 15 CFR § 930.41(b). Florida’s concurrence will be presumed if Tyndall AFB does not
receive its response within 60 days from receipt of this document.
Florida Coastal Management Program Review
Statute Federal Consistency Scope
Chapter 161
Beach and Shore Preservation
The Preferred Alternative would not affect the
state’s management or preservation of beaches and
shores.
This statute provides policy for the
regulation of construction,
reconstruction, and other physical
activities related to the beaches and
shores of the state. Additionally,
this statute requires the restoration
and maintenance of critically
eroding beaches.
Chapter 163, Part II
Growth Policy; County and
Municipal Planning; Land
Development Regulation
The Preferred Alternative would not affect local
government comprehensive plans.
Requires local governments to
prepare, adopt, and implement
comprehensive plans that
encourage the most appropriate
use of land and natural resources in
a manner consistent with the public
interest.
Chapter 186
State and Regional Planning
The Preferred Alternative would not affect the
state’s plans for water use, land development, and
transportation.
Details state-level planning efforts.
Requires the development of
special statewide plans governing
water use, land development, and
transportation.
Chapter 252
Emergency Management
The Preferred Alternative would not affect the
state’s vulnerability to natural disasters. The
Preferred Alternative would not affect emergency
response and evacuation procedures.
Provides for planning and
implementation of the state’s
response to, efforts to recover
from, and the mitigation of natural
and manmade disasters.
Chapter 253
State Lands
The Preferred Alternative does not involve the use of
state lands and would not restrict public access to
state lands. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative
would be consistent with the state’s administration
of public lands.
Addresses the state’s
administration of public lands and
property of this state and provides
direction regarding the acquisition,
disposal, and management of all
state lands.
Chapter 258
State Parks and Preserves
The Preferred Alternative would not affect state
parks or preserves.
Addresses administration and
management of state parks and
preserves.
Chapter 259
Land Acquisition for
Conservation or Recreation
The Preferred Alternative would not affect the
state’s acquisition of environmentally endangered
lands or outdoor recreation lands.
Authorizes acquisition of
environmentally endangered lands
and outdoor recreation lands.
Statute Federal Consistency Scope
Chapter 260
Florida Greenways and Trails
Act
The Preferred Alternative would not affect the
Florida Greenways and Trails Program.
Established in order to conserve,
develop, and use the natural
resources of Florida for healthful
and recreational purposes.
Chapter 267
Historical Resources
Potential impacts on cultural resources are analyzed
in Section 3.8 of the EA. Based on the analysis
conducted, the Preferred Alternative would have no
effect on cultural resources. Therefore, the Preferred
Alternative would be consistent with the
management and preservation of the state’s
archaeological and historical resources.
Addresses management and
preservation of the state’s
archaeological and historical
resources.
Chapter 288
Commercial Development and
Capital Improvements
The Preferred Alternative would not affect current
or future business, trade, or tourism in the region.
Promotes and develops general
business, trade, and tourism
components of the state economy.
Chapter 334
Transportation Administration
The Preferred Alternative would not affect the
state’s administration of transportation.
Addresses the state’s policy
concerning transportation
administration.
Chapter 339
Transportation Finance and
Planning
The Preferred Alternative would not affect the
finance and planning needs of the state’s
transportation system.
Addresses the finance and planning
needs of the state’s transportation
system.
Chapter 373
Water Resources
Potential impacts on water resources are analyzed in
Section 3.3.11 of the EA. Based on the analysis
conducted, the Preferred Alternative would have no
effect on wetlands, surface water, floodplains, or
groundwater. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative
would be consistent with the state’s statutes and
regulations regarding the water resources of the
state.
Addresses sustainable water
management; the conservation of
surface and ground waters for full
beneficial use; the preservation of
natural resources, fish, and wildlife;
protecting public land; and
promoting the health and general
welfare of Floridians
Chapter 375
Outdoor Recreation and
Conservation Lands
The Preferred Alternative would not affect
recreational opportunities on state lands.
Develops comprehensive
multipurpose outdoor recreation
plan to document recreational
supply and demand, describe
current recreational opportunities,
estimate need for additional
recreational opportunities, and
propose means to meet the
identified needs.
Chapter 376
Pollutant Discharge
Prevention and Removal
Potential impacts on hazardous materials, solid
waste, and pollution prevention are discussed in
Section 3.3.6 of the EA. Based on the analysis
conducted, the Preferred Alternative would no effect
on these resources/practices. Therefore, the
Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the
state’s statutes and regulations regarding the
transfer, storage, or transportation of pollutants.
Regulates transfer, storage, and
transportation of pollutants, and
cleanup of pollutant discharges.
Chapter 377
Energy Resources
The Preferred Alternative would not affect oil and
gas resources of the state.
Addresses regulation, planning, and
development of oil and gas
resources of the state.
Chapter 379
Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Potential impacts on fish and wildlife, including
special-status species, are analyzed in Section 3.7 of
the EA. Based on the analysis conducted, the
Preferred Alternative would no effect on fish and
Addresses the management and
protection of the state’s wide
diversity of fish and wildlife
resources.
Statute Federal Consistency Scope
wildlife, including special-status species. Therefore,
the Preferred Alternative would be consistent with
the state’s policies concerning the protection of fish
and wildlife resources.
Chapter 380
Land and Water Management
The Preferred Alternative would not affect state
management of land or water.
Establishes land and water
management policies to guide and
coordinate local decisions relating
to growth and development.
Chapter 381
Public Health, General
Provisions
The Preferred Alternative would not affect the
state’s policy concerning the public health system.
Establishes public policy concerning
the state’s public health system.
Chapter 388
Mosquito Control
The Preferred Alternative would not affect mosquito
control efforts.
Addresses mosquito control effort
in the state.
Chapter 403
Environmental Control
Potential impacts on air quality, hazardous
materials/solid waste, and water quality are
analyzed in Section 3.3.1, Section 3.3.6, and Section
3.3.11, respectively, of the EA. Based on the analysis
conducted, the Preferred Alternative would have no
effect on these resources/practices. Therefore, the
Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the
state’s statutes and regulations regarding water
quality, air quality, pollution control, solid waste
management, and other environmental control
efforts.
Establishes public policy concerning
environmental control in the state.
Chapter 553
Building Construction
Standards
The Preferred Alternative would not involve
construction. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative
would be consistent with the state’s regulations and
standards pertaining to building construction.
Addresses the building construction
standards established by the state.
Chapter 582
Soil and Water Conservation
The Preferred Alternative would not affect the
state’s soil and water conservation efforts.
Provides for the control and
prevention of soil erosion.
Chapter 597
Aquaculture
The Preferred Alternative would not affect the
state’s policy pertaining to aquaculture.
Addresses enhancement and
regulation of aquaculture in the
state.

Appendix E
Applicable Laws and Regulations

Applicable Laws and Regulations
Laws and regulations relevant to NEPA and the resources assessed in this EA include, but are not limited
to, the following:
 Title 40 CFR Parts 1500‐1508
 Title 42, USC, Sections 4321‐4370f
 Title 32 CFR Part 989, Environmental Impact Analysis Process
 EO 11988, Floodplain Management, May 24, 1977
 EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, May 24, 1977
 EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐Income
Populations, February 11, 1994
 EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, November 6, 2000
 EO 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, July 14, 1982
 DoD Instruction 4715.9, Environmental Planning and Analysis, May 3, 1996
 AFI 32‐7064, Integrated Natural Resources Management, November 18, 2014
 AFI 32‐7065, Cultural Resources Management Program, November 19, 2014
 AFI 13‐201, Air Force Airspace Management, July 24, 2018
 AFI 11‐214, Air Operations Rules and Procedures, August 14, 2012
 FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, July 16, 2015
 FAA Order JO 7400.2M, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, February 28, 2019
 Noise Control Act, Title 42, USC, Sections 4901 et seq.
 Clean Air Act, Title 42, USC, Sections 7401 et seq.
 Rivers and Harbors Act, Title 33, USC, Section 401
 Clean Water Act, Title 33, USC, Sections 1251 et seq.
 National Historic Preservation Act, Title 16, USC, Section 470
 Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Title 16, USC, Section 470
 Endangered Species Act, Title 16, USC, Section 1531 et seq.
 Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Title 16, USC, Sections 703‐712
 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Title 16, USC, Sections 668‐668d
 Coastal Zone Management Act, Title 16, USC, Section 1451 et seq.
 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Title 42, USC, Section 6901 et seq.

Appendix F
Aeronautical Proposal

AIRSPACE PROPOSAL
TO PUBLISH AND CHART TYNDALL MILITARY OPERATIONS
AREAS INDIA AND JULIET AND WARNING AREA XXX
325th FIGHTER WING, TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FL
AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT OFFICE
September 21, 2016
a. Proponents Transmittal Letter. See attached.
b. Area Description.
Tyndall MOA India
Boundaries.
– Beginning at N29° 51' 01" W084° 24' 30";
to N29° 42' 30" W084° 20' 00";
to N29° 42' 30" W084° 40' 00";
to N29° 44' 43" W084° 34' 42";
to point of beginning.
Altitudes. 5,000’ MSL to but not including FL 180
Times of use. 0600-0030 local time daily, other times by NOTAM
Controlling agency. U.S. Air Force, Tyndall Radar Approach Control
Using agency. US Air Force, 325th Fighter Wing, Tyndall AFB, FL
Tyndall MOA Juliet
Boundaries.
– Beginning at N29° 42' 30" W084° 20' 00";
to N29° 51' 01" W084° 24' 30";
to N29° 50' 41" W084° 22' 12";
to N29° 48' 15" W084° 09' 35";
to N29° 46' 10" W084° 11' 18";
to N29° 42' 58" W084° 16' 45";
to N29° 42' 30" W084° 19' 12";
to point of beginning.
Altitudes. 5,000’ MSL to but not including FL 180
Times of use. 0600-0030 local time daily, other times by NOTAM
Controlling agency. U.S. Air Force, Tyndall Radar Approach Control
Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 325th Fighter Wing, Tyndall AFB, FL
W-XXX
Boundaries.
– Beginning at N29° 46' 57" W084° 02' 50";
to N29° 48' 15" W084° 09' 35";
to N29° 46' 10" W084° 11' 18";
to N29° 42' 58" W084° 16' 45";
to N29° 42' 30" W084° 19' 12";
to N29° 42' 30" W084° 00' 00";
to point of beginning.
Designated altitudes. 5,000’ MSL to unlimited
Times of use. 0600-0030 local time daily, other times by NOTAM
Controlling agency. FAA, Jacksonville ARTCC
Using agency. US Air Force, 325th Fighter Wing, Tyndall AFB, FL
c. Airspace Statement of Need and Justification.
1. This airspace proposal is submitted to support the 325th Fighter Wing’s primary mission of
providing air dominance training for F-22 Raptor pilots. The proposed SUA is currently known as the
ACMI East/West stationary altitude reservations each with an associated Air Traffic Control Assigned
Airspace (ATCAA), and has been in use in excess of 40 years. F-22 pilots are required to maintain
proficiency and familiarization in a number of mission skillsets in accordance with higher headquarters
instruction as stated in the Ready Aircrew Program Tasking Message. Up to 44% of training missions will
involve some type of strike of a land based target. To meet these requirements, F-22 pilots will escort
other tactical aircraft as they strike land-based targets, or will identify, designate, and attack land-based
targets on their own. Only roughly 4% of F-22 required training missions require bomb-on -coordinate
strikes, which can be easily simulated over water. All other strikes require the use of overland airspace to
provide a real-world target environment so striking aircraft can use onboard sensors to execute their
tactics. Seamlessly connecting the overwater and over land airspace allows for a larger and more realistic
battlespace (i.e. allowing friendly forces to ingress over water from friendly airspace into hostile foreign
lands). Without the ability to designate targets in overland airspace, and flow from overwater to overland
to engage those targets with simulated precision guided munitions, F-22 pilots will be unable to maintain
proficiency and familiarization in the skillsets required for real-world combat operations.
Publishing the current ACMI East/West stationary altitude reservation as Tyndall Military Operations
Areas (MOA) India and Juliet and Warning Area XXX will more correctly label the airspaces with their
current activities and allow for publication on aeronautical charts improving public awareness and
enhancing aviation safety. There are no planned changes to their use or to the existing boundaries or
altitudes as identified in the current ZJX LOA. Aircraft training in this airspace will normally be
Tyndall’s F-22s and T-38s, but will also include other Tactical and Strategic aircraft. This proposal will
have a positive impact on civilian aviation users and surrounding air traffic facilities if approved.
Coordination of this proposal with Jacksonville Air Route Traffic Control Center (ZJX) and Tallahassee
Approach Control (TLH) has been on-going for several years and both strongly support the initiative.
Creation of Tyndall MOAs India, Juliet, and W-XXX, in conjunction with existing SUA, provide the
minimum acceptable airspace (approximately 70NM X 100NM) for training and operations. F-22 and
other participating aircraft employ advanced multi-axis/wide azimuth Suppression of Enemy Air Defense
(SEAD) and modern strike package tactics. Specifically, F-22s offset a target or threat(s) from the
aircraft's nose to minimize chances for detection, as well as conduct Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)
mapping. Enemy threat systems that aircraft participating in the SUA will train against typically have
radar systems that can provide anywhere from 60 to 120 degrees of azimuth coverage. To tactically
counter this threat, participating aircraft will need to offset, out-bracket, or saturate the threat. Modern
strike packages consist of multiple platforms with varying tactical objectives contributing to an overall
mission objective. For example, some aircraft will be responsible for strike while others will be
responsible for SEAD or Escort. To deconflict these assets, a package commander will typically place
support assets off the main fight axis (+/- 30-60 degrees) to allow the strikers to execute an on-axis attack.
Combining the proposed SUA with existing SUA will ensure wide multi-axis threat training against landbased
targets for 4th and 5th generation platforms can be achieved in accordance with readiness
requirements.
The proposed SUA is south of Tyndall Overland MOA F & G; north of W-470A airspace and is bordered
from the east by heavily used V97, J41-43, and Q104; and to the West by W-151B airspace. Eglin AFB
is the using agency for W-151B and thus scheduling that area for Tyndall aircraft is difficult due to the
heavy usage and unpredictability of Eglin test missions. Even if W-151B was available for Tyndall
aircraft, simultaneous scheduling of W-151B and Tyndall F MOA is unfeasible since doing so would cut
off Tyndall’s departure arrival corridor. There is no alternative airspace for this proposed action.
Modification of the Tyndall Military Operations Area Golf was studied and disapproved as it would
require internal subdivisions and potentially over complicate airspace control. Modification of the
W470A airspace was studied and disapproved as not practical due to the proximity of the shoreline.
2. The area will be available for joint use.
d. Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA).
There currently exist and plan to continue associated ATCAA (FL180 – Unlimited) to overly the proposed
SUA, with similar times of use of 0600-0030 local time daily, other times by NOTAM.
e. Activities
1. For areas that will contain aircraft operations.
(a) The number and types of aircraft that will normally use the area. Normally, Tyndall’s F-
22s and T-38s will be the primary user of this area. Other Tactical and Strategic aircraft may use the
area frequently and irregularly. Tyndall logged 10,997 sorties and 2953 hours in the proposed airspace
for FY2015.
(b) Specific Activities and the maximum altitudes required for each type of activity planned.
Tactical combat maneuvering by fighter and transport category fixed wing aircraft involving abrupt,
unpredictable changes in altitude, attitude, and direction of flight. Maximum daily use altitude of
FL600.
Air Combat Tactics (ACT). Maximum altitude FL600
Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD). Maximum altitude FL600
Non-standard formation flights. Maximum altitude FL600
Basic Surface Attack (BSA). Maximum altitude FL600
Close Air Support (CAS). Maximum altitude FL300
Surface Attack Tactics (SAT). Maximum altitude FL600
Forward Airstrike Control – Airborne (FAC-A). Maximum altitude FL600
Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR). Maximum altitude FL400
Air Interdiction (AI). Maximum altitude FL600
Opposed Surface Attack Tactics (OPSAT). Maximum altitude FL600
Defensive Counter Air (DCA). Maximum altitude FL600
Large Force Employment (LFE) combat training. Maximum altitude FL600
Flare/chaff countermeasures for self-protection. Maximum altitude FL600
(c) Supersonic Flight. Supersonic flight operations are not authorized in the proposed MOA
airspace.
f. Environmental and land use information.
Send comments related to environmental aspects of this proposal to:
325CES/CEIE
Attn: Mr. Jose Cintron
119 Alabama Avenue
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
g. Communications and Radar.
1. All participating aircraft will use Tyndall RIPTIDE airspace scheduling (850) 283-3401/DSN 523-
3401, USAF Central Scheduling Enterprise (CSE). ATC frequencies assigned real time. Ground based
radar and radio communications will be used by Jacksonville ARTCC and Tyndall RAPCON to control
the airspace.
2. Jacksonville ARTCC, AWACS, Eglin Radar Control Facility, Dog House MRU, Tyndall RAPCON,
and WETSTONE MRU will be the primary agencies to provide traffic advisories, radar monitoring,
airspace border integrity and range control.
h. Safety considerations.
1. Activity will be contained within the MOA and WA using geographic references, inertial
navigation, global positioning systems and TACAN radial/DME references.
2. Malfunctions will be handled in accordance with aircraft technical orders, Service Directives, and
FARs.
3. Participants will adhere to the provisions of FAR 91.119 and applicable service directives to
determine minimum safe altitudes within the airspace.
i. Coordination Summary.
HQ ACC/A3AA
FAA Jacksonville Air Route Traffic Control Center
FAA Tallahassee Approach
Air Force Representative, Lt Col Eric Eibe, FAA Eastern Service Area
j. Area Chart.
Existing Airspace
Proposed Airspace
k. Environmental Documents.
AF813 is attached.
Attachment 1
Non-Regulatory Special Use Airspace Legal Descriptions
Tyndall MOA India [New]
Boundaries. Beginning at N29° 51' 01" W084° 24' 30";
to N29° 42' 30" W084° 20' 00";
to N29° 42' 30" W084° 40' 23";
thence East 3 NM from and parallel to the shoreline;
to N29° 44' 30" W084° 36' 05";
to N29° 44' 43" W084° 34' 42";
to point of beginning.
Designated altitudes. 5,000’ MSL to but not including FL 180
Time of designation. 0600-0030 local time daily, other times by NOTAM
Controlling agency. U.S. Air Force, Tyndall Radar Approach Control
Using agency. US Air Force, 325th Fighter Wing, Tyndall AFB, FL
Tyndall MOA Juliet [New]
Boundaries. Beginning at N29° 51' 01" W084° 24' 30";
to N29° 50' 41" W084° 22' 12";
to N29° 48' 03" W084° 08' 30";
thence West 12NM from and parallel to the shoreline;
to N29° 42' 30" W084° 15' 57";
to N29° 42' 30" W084° 20' 00”;
to point of beginning.
Designated altitudes. 5,000’ MSL to but not including FL 180
Time of designation. 0600-0030 local time daily, other times by NOTAM
Controlling agency. U.S. Air Force, Tyndall Radar Approach Control
Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 325th Fighter Wing, Tyndall AFB, FL
W-470G [New]
Boundaries. Beginning at N29° 48' 03" W084° 08' 30";
to N29° 46' 57" W084° 02' 50";
to N29° 42' 30" W084° 00' 00";
to N29° 42' 30" W084° 15' 57";
thence East 12NM from and parallel to the shoreline;
to point of beginning.
Designated altitudes. 5,000’ MSL to unlimited
Time of designation. 0600-0030 local time daily, other times by NOTAM
Controlling agency. FAA, Jacksonville ARTCC
Using agency. US Air Force, 325th Fighter Wing, Tyndall AFB, FL