Maine State Library Digital Maine

Transportation Documents Transportation

8-1-2009

Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Modification of the CONDOR 1 and CONDOR 2 Military Operations Areas (MOA), August 2009

Maine Department of Transportation

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalmaine.com/mdot_docs

Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Modification of the

Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas

104th Fighter Wing, Barnes Air National Guard Base, Westfield,

MA Project No. ANG0956737

August 2009

Acronyms and Abbreviations

104 FW 104 Figher Wing MDIFW Maine Department of Inland AGL above ground level Fisheries and Wildlife AHAS Avian Hazard Advisory System MOA military operations area ANG Air National Guard MOU Memorandum of Understanding APE Area of Potential Effect MR_NMAP Military Operating Area and Range AQCR Air Quality Control Region Noise Model and Assessment AT Appalachian Trail Program ATC Air Traffic Control MSL mean sea level BAM Bird Avoidance Model MTR military training route BASH Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality CAA Clean Air Act Standards CAP Combat Air Patrol NEPA National Environmental Policy CEQ Council on Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations NHDES New Hampshire Department of CLNA Connecticut Lakes Natural Area Environmental Services CMR Combat Mission Ready NHNHB New Hampshire Natural Heritage CO Carbon Monoxide Bureau CWA Clean Water Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act dB decibel NM nautical mile dBA A-weighted decibel NO2 nitrogen dioxide DNL Day Night Average Sound Level NPS National Park Service DoD Department of Defense NRHP National Register of Historic Places DOT Department of Transportation NWR National Wildlife Refuge EA Environmental Assessment O3 ozone EADS Eastern Air Defense Sector PM Particulate Matter EIAP Environmental Impact Analysis PM10 particulate matter less than 10 Process microns in diameter EIS Environmental Impact Statement PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 EO Executive Order microns in diameter ESA Endangered Species Act ppm parts per million FAA Federal Aviation Administration PSD Prevention of Significant FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Deterioration Noise RAP Ready Aircrew Program FLIP Flight Information Publication RF Radio Frequency FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact ROI Region of Influence HAPs hazardous air pollutants SERE Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and IICEP Interagency and Intergovernmental Escape Coordination for Environmental SEL Sound Exposure Level Planning SHPO State Historic Preservation Office IFR Instrument Flight Rules SIP State Implementation Plan IMC Instrument Meteorological SO2 sulfur dioxide Conditions SUA Special Use Airspace IR Instrument Route USAF U.S. Air Force Ldn day-night average A-weighted USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection sound level Agency

Ldnmr onset rate-adjusted monthly day- USFS U.S. Forest Service night average A-weighted sound USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service level VFR Visual Flight Rules LOWAT Low Altitude Awareness Training VR Visual Route MAANG Massachusetts Air National Guard MDEP Maine Department of Environmental Protection

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 3 1.1 Introduction...... 1-1 4 1.2 Location ...... 1-1 5 1.3 Purpose of the Proposed Action...... 1-2 6 1.4 Need for the Proposed Action...... 1-6 7 1.5 Summary of Environmental Study Requirements ...... 1-11 8 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 2-1 9 2.1 Current Training Activity ...... 2-1 10 2.2 Proposed Action...... 2-4 11 2.4 Concurrent NEPA Actions...... 2-15 12 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT...... 3-1 13 3.1 Airspace Management ...... 3-1 14 3.2 Safety ...... 3-9 15 3.3 Noise ...... 3-13 16 3.4 Air Quality...... 3-20 17 3.5 Geological Resources...... 3-25 18 3.6 Water Resources...... 3-28 19 3.7 Biological Resources...... 3-31 20 3.8 Land Use...... 3-42 21 3.9 Socioeconomic Resources...... 3-49 22 3.10 Cultural Resources...... 3-56 23 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES...... 4-1 24 5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS...... 5-1 25 6.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...... 6-1 26 7.0 SPECIAL PROCEDURES...... 7-1 27 8.0 REFERENCES ...... 8-1 28

29 LIST OF TABLES

30 31 Table 1-1. FAA Order 1050.1, Environmental Resources to be Considered...... 1-14 32 Table 2-1. Utilization Summary for the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs and VR-840/1/2, 33 FY 2003* ...... 2-4 34 Table 2-2. Projected Utilization of the Condor High and Low MOAs and VR 35 840/1/2 following implementation of the Proposed Action...... 2-6 36 Table 2-3. Alternatives to modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs...... 2-11 37 Table 2-4. Land Use Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternative 38 Configurations of the Adirondack Airspace Complex...... 2-14 39 Table 3-1. FAA Airspace Classification Specifications...... 3-3 40 Table 3-2. Baseline Mishap Rates for F-15s and F-16s ...... 3-11 41 Table 3-3. Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments...... 3-18

1 Table 3-4. Sound Levels Associated with Aircraft Annual Operations in the 2 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs under existing conditions ...... 3-19 3 Table 3-3. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring for O3 at Site 330074001, Mt. 4 Washington, Coos County, New Hampshire (ppm) ...... 3-23 5 Table 3-6. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring for PM2.5 at Site 230172011, 6 Rumford Avenue Parking Lot, Oxford County, Maine (µg/m3)...... 3-23 7 Table 3-7. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring for PM10 at Site 230172007, Village 8 Green-Route 108, Oxford County, Maine in micrograms per cubic 9 meter ...... 3-24 10 Table 3-8. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring (SO2): Site 230172007, Village 11 Green-Route 108, Oxford County, Maine (parts per million [ppm]) .... 3-24 12 Table 3-9. Summary of Current Aircraft Emissions for all Users in the Condor 1 13 and 2 MOAs and VR 840/1/2 (tons/year)...... 3-25 14 Table 3-10. Common Wildlife Species Underlying the Condor 1 and Condor 2 15 MOAs...... 3-36 16 Table 3-11. Population Data for Franklin, Oxford, Piscataquis, Somerset, and 17 Coos Counties, 2000 ...... 3-52 18 Table 3-12. Employment Comparison Data, 2000...... 3-55 19 Table 4-1. Changes in Class A and Class B Mishap Potential...... 4-7 20 Table 4-2. Proposed and Baseline MTR Sound Levels...... 4-12 21 Table 4-3. Proposed and Baseline MOA Sound Levels...... 4-13 22 Table 4-4. Summary of Emissions from Aircraft Operations Associated with the 23 Proposed Action (tons/year) ...... 4-16 24 Table 5-1. Consideration of Resources for Cumulative Impacts Analysis ...... 5-2 25 Table 5-2. Utilization of the Proposed Condor Low and High MOAs and VR- 26 840/1/2 following implementation of the Proposed Action and the 27 BRAC commission decisions ...... 5-7 28 Table 5-3. Cumulative Impacts on Uniform Distributed Sound Levels within the 29 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs...... 5-10 30 Table 5-4. Cumulative Impacts on Maximum Centerline Sound Levels within 31 the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs...... 5-11 32 Table 5-5. Summary of Emissions from Aircraft Operations Associated with the 33 Proposed Action and BRAC decisions (tons/year)...... 5-12 34 Table 6-1. Comparison of Alternatives ...... 6-6 35

36 LIST OF FIGURES 37 38 Figure 1-1. Site Location Map...... 1-4 39 Figure 1-2 Location of the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs and MTRs ...... 1-5 40 Figure 1-3 Adirondack Airspace Complex below 1,000 ft AGL (May-Oct) ...... 1-10 41 Figure 1-4 Adirondack Airspace Complex below 1,000 ft AGL (Nov-Apr) ...... 1-10 42 Figure 2-1 Proposed Condor Low and High MOAs and MTRs...... 2-8 43 Figure 2-2 Proposed MOAs (3-Dimensional) Condor High and Low MOAs and MTR 44 Corridors 2-9 45 Figure 3-1 Spatial characteristics of Controlled and Uncontrolled Airspace

1 Figure 3-2 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, MTR Centerlines and corridors...... 3-7 2 Figure 3-3 Biophysical Regions Underlying Condor 1 and 2 MOAs ...... 3-33 3 Figure 3-4 Known Bald Eagle Essential Habitats Underlying the Condor 1 and 2 4 MOAs...... 3-39 5 Figure 3-5 Property Ownership Underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs ...... 3-45 6 Figure 3-6 Rangley High Peaks Phase 1 and Phase 2 Forest Legacy Lands...... 3-48 7 Figure 3-7 Census Tracts Underlying Condor 1 and 2 MOAs ...... 3-51 8 Figure 5-1 Kibby Mountain Wind Project...... 5-7 9 Figure 5-2 Distribution of Low-Altitude Sorties in Existing and Proposed Low 10 Altitude Airspace Under Existing Conditions, the Proposed Action, 11 and the Proposed Action with BRAC Recommendations ...... 5-8 12

13 APPENDICES

14 Appendix A IICEP Consultation 15 Appendix B Technical Descriptions of the Existing and proposed Condor MOAs 16 Appendix C Supplemental Noise Information 17 Appendix D Wildlife and Plant Species List 18 Appendix E National Historic Register-Listed Properties 19

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2 The Air National Guard (ANG) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for the 3 proposed modification to the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas (MOAs) used by 4 the 104th Fighter Wing of the Massachusetts ANG (MAANG). The 104th Fighter Wing is 5 based in Westfield, Massachusetts. Currently the F-15s based in Massachusetts conduct a 6 portion of their training missions in the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs, located in 7 southwestern Maine and northeastern New Hampshire. The 104 FW provides vital 8 support to the United States’ war on terrorism and homeland security.

9 As currently defined, the floors of Condor 1 and 2 MOAs are too high to allow for the 10 effective and efficient completion of low altitude awareness training (LOWAT), Low 11 Slow/Visual Identification intercept training, and Slow Shadow intercept training 12 missions. The 104 FW currently conducts all of its LOWAT training events in Visual 13 Route (VR)-840/1/2, but VR-840/1/2 is not configured to allow two-way traffic, 14 reversing direction, or high-to-low altitude intercepts, which are critical aspects of 15 LOWAT. As a result the pilots of the 104 FW, who are tasked with the 24-hour air 16 defense of the northeastern US, cannot meet/maintain their LOWAT qualifications. The 17 purpose of the Proposed Action is to rectify these deficiencies and provide the 104 FW 18 with sufficient training opportunities in a safe training environment to fulfill its mission.

19 The 104 FW proposes to combine the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, divide the combined MOA 20 into Condor Low MOA and Condor High MOA, and lower the flight floor of the 21 proposed Condor Low MOA from 7,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) (between 22 approximately 2,800 to 6,300 feet above ground level [AGL]) to 500 feet AGL. 23 Specifically, Condor Low MOA would extend from 500 feet AGL up to, but not 24 including, 7,000 feet MSL. Condor High MOA would extend from 7,000 feet MSL up to 25 but not including flight level (FL) 180, or 18,000 feet MSL. The Proposed Action would 26 decrease use of the airspace (Table ES-1) by decreasing use of the Visual Routes and due 27 to the nature of high to low-altitude intercept training as opposed to continuous low 28 altitude/ low level flying. The ongoing Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) actions

1 in the region would further decrease airspace use. Annual airspace use below 5,000 feet 2 AGL would decrease to approximately 97-149 hours/year.

3 Table ES-1. Summary of Current and Proposed Operations (including the BRAC 4 actions) in the Condor MOAs and Underlying MTRs

Airspace Current Operations Proposed Operations Proposed Operations (hrs/yr) (hrs/yr) including BRAC (hrs/yr) Condor MOA 192-300 (7,000+ ft 192-300 (79-125 below 174-276 (79-125 below AGL) 5,000 feet AGL; 21-33 5,000 feet AGL; 21-33 below 1,000 feet AGL) below 1,000 feet AGL) VR 840/1/2 36-52 (500-3,000 ft 18-24 (500-3,000 ft AGL) 18-24 (500-3,000 ft AGL) AGL) Total 228-352 210-324 192-300 5

6 This EIS considered three alternatives to the Proposed Action; however, only the “Lower 7 Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged” alternative was carried forward for 8 detailed consideration. This alternative would lower the flight floor of the Condor 1 9 MOA from 7,000 MSL to 500 feet AGL. The flight floor of the Condor 2 MOA would 10 remain 7,000 feet MSL and the flight ceiling for the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs would remain 11 at FL 180. This alternative would address the deficiency in LOWAT training 12 opportunities; however, this alternative would restrict lateral defensive tactics due to the 13 insufficient lateral boundaries of the Condor 1 MOA (60 nautical miles (NM) by 40 NM) 14 when compared to the Proposed Action (60 NM by 60 NM). Therefore, the Proposed 15 Action is the only course of action that would fully address the 104 FW’s need for low 16 altitude training airspace.

17 The “Use of Other Airspace” alternative was eliminated from the list of reasonable 18 alternatives because there are no MOAs or Warning Areas within 200 NM of Barnes 19 ANG Base that are available for F-15 LOWAT training and meet 60 NM by 60 NM 20 airspace requirements below from 500 – 1,000 ft AGL.

21 The “Deployment for LOWAT Training” alternative, which would involve deploying to 22 other bases with access to suitable airspace for LOWAT training, was also eliminated 23 from the list of reasonable alternatives due to the prohibitive cost of this alternative.

1 This EIS evaluated the potential environmental effects associated with the modification 2 of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs on ten resource areas. The Proposed Action would 3 have no effect on geological resources or water resources. The Proposed Action would 4 have the potential to affect airspace management, biological resources, land use safety, 5 socioeconomics, and cultural resources but would have no significant impacts on these 6 resources. To mitigate potential impacts to bald eagles, the ANG would maintain buffer 7 areas from the surface to 1,000 ft AGL within a radius of 0.25 mile from known bald 8 eagle nests, and refrain from flying within these buffers, from 1 February through 31 9 August.

10 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs would have minor negative impacts 11 on air quality and noise, but these impacts would not exceed the 65 dB threshold for a 12 significant impact in FAA Order 1050.1E or the more conservative 55 dB threshold 13 established by the EPA to protect public health and welfare, including annoyance, in 14 areas where quiet is a recognized use. When the Proposed Action is combined with the 15 ongoing BRAC actions in the region, the cumulative effects on air quality and noise in 16 the area underlying the proposed Condor MOAs would be beneficial. The BRAC action 17 would reduce the number of users in the proposed Condor MOAs; thereby decreasing the 18 number of annual sorties and total emissions. The sortie decrease would reduce the 19 overall noise levels underlying the MOAs as fewer flights would occur and be spread 20 over a larger area, although the areas within the current MOA boundary but outside the 21 existing military training routes (MTRs) would now be subject to low-level flights under 22 the Proposed Action. These flights would occur an average of once a week.

23 Implementation of the Proposed Action would not have a significant impact on the 24 quality of the human or natural environment.

Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

2 1.1 Introduction

3 The Air National Guard (ANG) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 4 for the proposed modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas (MOAs) 5 (referred to hereafter as the Proposed Action) used by the 104th Fighter Wing (104 FW) 6 of the Massachusetts ANG (MAANG). Multiple military services have used the Condor 7 1 and 2 MOAs for mid-to-high altitude training for over 20 years. The Environmental 8 Impact Analysis Process (EIAP) for the Proposed Action is being conducted in 9 accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations to comply 10 with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and in conformity with 11 Executive Order (EO) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.

12 1.2 Location

13 The 104 FW is based at Barnes ANG Base in 14 Westfield, Massachusetts. The 104 FW flies the F-15 15 Eagle aircraft, which carries air-to-air ordnance and is 16 a dedicated air-superiority fighter designed to achieve 17 and maintain supremacy in the airspace over a 18 battlefield. The 104 FW currently conducts the 19 medium and high-altitude portion of its training F-15 Eagle 20 missions in the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs, which occupy a trapezoidal area of 21 approximately 4,022 square miles in southwestern Maine and northeastern New 22 Hampshire (Figure 1-1). The MOAs are centered approximately 200 NM northeast of 23 Barnes ANG Base (Figure 1-1). Both MOAs extend from 7,000 feet above mean sea 24 level (MSL) (between approximately 2,800 feet and 6,300 feet above ground level 25 [AGL]) up to but not including FL 180 (between approximately 13,739 feet to 17,321 26 feet AGL). Scoty Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace exists above the Condor 1 and 2 27 MOAs from 18,000 feet MSL (between approximately 13,739 feet to 17,321 feet AGL) 28 to 60,000 feet MSL (between approximately 30,739 feet to 59,321 feet AGL). Condor 1 29 MOA is located immediately west of Condor 2 MOA (Figure 1-2). The Condor 1 and 2

1-1 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 MOAs are utilized by aircraft from the MAANG, the Vermont ANG, United States Air 2 Force (USAF), and the United States Navy. Units from these services use a variety of 3 aircraft including the F-15, F-16, KC-10, KC-135, and P-3. As of January 2010 the 4 United States Navy will no longer fly P-3s in the Condor 1 or 2 MOAs because 5 implementation of current Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) committee 6 recommendations will relocate them out of the Northeast (See Section 2.4 for a full 7 description of the BRAC decisions that affect the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs).

8 Military Training Routes (MTRs) are developed by the military and the Federal Aviation 9 Administration (FAA) for low-altitude, high-speed training of military pilots. Visual 10 Routes (VR) are MTRs on which operations are conducted on a Visual Flight Rules 11 (VFR) flight plan below 10,000 feet AGL at speeds greater than 250 knots indicated 12 airspeed with ceilings at least 3,000 feet AGL and five miles visibility. Three VRs occur 13 under the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs: VR-840, VR-841, and VR-842. These routes have 14 been active military training areas for over 20 years. The VRs overlap each other along 15 much of their lengths and are collectively charted as VR-840/1/2. The floor of VR 16 840/1/2 varies according to aircraft type, but is fixed at 500 feet AGL for F-15s and F- 17 16s. Instrument Routes (IRs) are another class of MTRs. Four IRs (IR-800, IR-850, IR- 18 851, and IR-852), which are MTRs on which operations may be conducted in Instrument 19 Meteorological Conditions on an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plan, underlie parts 20 of the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs (Figure 1-2).

21 1.3 Purpose of the Proposed Action

22 The Ready Aircrew Program (RAP) is the USAF’s continuation training program 23 designed to focus training or develop capabilities vital to a unit’s core missions. The 24 RAP requirements for every qualified F-15 and F-16 pilot include Low Altitude 25 Awareness Training (LOWAT) which includes realistic, mission oriented air-to-air 26 operations while in a LOWAT-certified low-altitude block, at or below 1,000 feet AGL, 27 as well as Low Slow/Visual Identification intercept and Slow Shadow intercept training 28 missions. These training events entail identifying and engaging aerial targets at low 29 altitude, low altitude navigation, tactical formation, and defensive maneuvering to avoid

1-2 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 or negate threats. To be Combat Mission Ready, all F-15 and F-16 pilots are required to 2 demonstrate proficiency in these skills down to 500 feet AGL, also known as LOWAT 3 CAT I, on a regular basis. F-15 and F-16 pilots are required to train at low, medium, and 4 high altitude regimes because F-15 and F-16 fighter aircraft are designed to fly at a range 5 of altitudes from 500 feet AGL to 50,000+ feet MSL.

1-3 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1

1-4 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1

1-5 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 As currently defined, the floors of Condor 1 and 2 MOAs (7,000 feet MSL) are too high 2 to allow for the effective and efficient completion of LOWAT, Low Slow/Visual 3 Identification intercept training, and Slow Shadow intercept training missions. These 4 missions are vital aspects of the 104 FW’s required training to fulfill its assigned role in 5 the United States’ war on terrorism, which includes Air Superiority, 24-hour Air Defense 6 Alert, and Combat Air Patrol (CAP). On September 11th, 2001, the 102 FW (now the 7 104 FW) intercepted over 100 civilian aircraft and every intercept was below 1,000 feet 8 AGL. The events of September 11th, 2001 underscore the 104 FW’s need to be fully 9 trained and operational in low-altitude environments. The operational limits imposed by 10 the current configuration of the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs significantly impair the 104 FW’s 11 ability to maintain their LOWAT qualifications and meet the Low Slow/Visual 12 Identification intercept and Slow Shadow intercept training requirements of the RAP. 13 The purpose of the Proposed Action is to rectify these deficiencies and provide the 104 14 FW with sufficient training space to fulfill its mission.

15 1.4 Need for the Proposed Action

16 The Proposed Action is necessary for the following reasons:

17 • The airspace available to the 104 FW does not provide an optimal environment to 18 conduct LOWAT training;

19 • LOWAT training is ineffective and unsafe over water, so an overland training site 20 is required;

21 • The current structure of the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs and VR-840/1/2 leads to 22 inefficient, unrealistic, and ineffective training operations;

23 • No other military airspace in the Northeast region is adequately configured to 24 support LOWAT training exercises; and

25 • The current configurations of the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs negatively impact the 26 104 FW’s mission readiness.

1-6 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 This section discusses each of these needs in greater detail.

2 Need for an optimal training environment

3 The 104 FW currently conducts all of its LOWAT training events in VR-840/1/2, but 4 VR-840/1/2 is not configured to allow two-way traffic, reversing direction, or high to low 5 altitude intercepts, which are all critical aspects of LOWAT. As a result, pilots training 6 along these routes are not able to satisfy their training requirements. Operations in VR- 7 840/1/2 are typically scheduled independently of operations in Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, 8 although some missions require the concurrent use of VR-840/1/2 with one or both of the 9 Condor MOAs.

10 Similar to VR 840/1/2, IR-800, 850, 851, and 852 are also configured for one-way traffic 11 only, so they are not suitable for the air to air defensive maneuvering component of 12 LOWAT. The inherent operational limitations associated with the one-way traffic pattern 13 and the lack of continuity between the MOAs, VRs, and IRs make it impossible to 14 conduct a realistic LOWAT training scenario, and mean the pilots of the 104 FW cannot 15 currently meet/maintain their LOWAT qualifications.

16 Need for an overland training airspace

17 Overland airspace is needed to meet LOWAT training requirements because USAF 18 regulations prohibit pilots from training below 1,000 feet MSL over water due to the risk 19 of spatial disorientation and visual illusions, which are common over water at low 20 altitudes. There is also no terrain to navigate in relation to over the water. It would be 21 inappropriate to conduct LOWAT training over water because learning to use exterior 22 visual references to assess altitude is a critical low-altitude navigation skill that cannot be 23 practiced over water.

24 Opportunity to increase training efficiency

25 The Proposed Action would provide the 104 FW pilots with the operational flexibility 26 required to complete their LOWAT and other required training more efficiently than they 27 can under current conditions. Navigation Training and LOWAT must be completed at

1-7 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 low altitudes, but other required training such as Air Combat and Advanced Handling 2 Characteristics Training are more appropriately conducted in a range of high and low 3 altitudes. Continuity between the high-and low-altitude environments allows pilots to 4 transition seamlessly between the optimal altitudes for the various required training 5 missions, allowing them to complete several training requirements during one sortie. In 6 their current configuration the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs and the MTRs do not allow a 7 military pilot to transition directly between the mid- to high-altitude MOAs and the low- 8 altitude MTRs because the maximum altitude for the MTRs (6,000 feet MSL) does not 9 adjoin the flight floor of the Condor MOAs (7,000 feet MSL). This effectively means 10 that once the pilots enter the MTRs they are effectively flying in a “one-way tunnel”, and 11 must fly the complete route before exiting the airspace and re-entering the MOAs at a 12 higher altitude.

13 Under the current airspace configuration, certain required training exercises cannot be 14 accomplished during the same sortie. For example, a pilot cannot enter the Condor 1 and 15 2 MOAs to conduct intercept training and then transition directly to the MTRs to 16 accomplish LOWAT training during the same sortie. This introduces an unrealistic pause 17 to all training activities while transitioning between high and low altitudes and ultimately 18 increases the time that military aircraft must spend in the airspace to achieve their 19 training requirements. Maneuvers that require transitioning between low and high 20 altitudes, such as high-to-low altitude intercepts, must currently be set up independently 21 in the low- and high-altitude environments, thereby reducing the realism and 22 effectiveness of the training exercise. This is a particularly significant limitation for the 23 pilots of the 104 FW, as high-to-low intercepts are critical to key aspects of the 104 FW’s 24 mission. The Proposed Action would effectively allow the 104 FW to “bundle” multiple 25 training missions into the same sortie. This capability is significantly constrained by the 26 affected airspace’s current configuration.

27 The Proposed Action would improve the efficiency of the 104 FW’s training regimen by 28 reducing the number of training sorties required, and increase the effectiveness of the 29 unit’s training in terms of preparing pilots for real-world operational scenarios. This 30 improvement would reduce the unit’s overall time spent training, time spent at low

1-8 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 altitude during each sortie, and the frequency and duration of the unit’s activities in the 2 affected airspace.

3 Lack of other suitable airspace

4 The minimum size of training airspace required to meet all LOWAT training 5 requirements is 60 NM x 60 NM (US Air Force RAND Study, 2001). None of the 6 overland, low altitude airspace in the northeastern U.S. currently available or proposed 7 for F-15 LOWAT meets the airspace LOWAT training size requirement of 60 NM by 60 8 NM. These areas include VR-840/1/2, Yankee MOA, and the Adirondack Airspace 9 Complex.

10 The MTRs are the only overland low altitude training airspaces currently available to the 11 104 FW. The MTRs underlie 53 percent of the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs. The MTRs are 12 too small to accommodate LOWAT training and do not allow two-way traffic or 13 reversing directions which are both critical aspects of LOWAT. Additionally, pilots 14 cannot transition directly between the MTRs and the MOAs because the maximum 15 altitudes for the MTRs (up to a maximum of 6000 feet MSL) do not adjoin the flight 16 floors of the Condor MOAs (base at 7000 feet MSL), so training for intercepts from high 17 to low altitudes is not currently possible.

18 The Adirondack Airspace Complex is equally restrictive because it is too narrow 19 (between 10 to 15 NM wide on average) for the maneuvers and operations required by F- 20 15s performing LOWAT. The Adirondack Airspace Complex which replaced the 21 Falcon, Drum, and Syracuse MOAs includes an irregularly-shaped low altitude airspace 22 below 1000 feet AGL approximately 35 to 45 NM long (depending on the time of year) 23 by 15 NM wide. Figures 1-3 and 1-4 depict the Adirondack Airspace Complex below 24 1000 feet AGL in summer and winter. The Adirondack Airspace Complex, including the 25 low altitude portion of the airspace, is designed and optimized for air-to-ground, 26 ‘bombing range’ type training, not LOWAT.

27

28

1-9 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 Figure 1-3 Adirondack Airspace Complex below 1000 ft AGL (May-Oct) 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18 19 Figure 1-4 Adirondack Airspace Complex below 1000 ft AGL (Nov-Apr)

1-10 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Need to improve mission readiness

2 As a result of the lack of suitable low altitude training airspace in the Northeast Region, 3 less than five percent of the 104 FW pilots are currently completing their LOWAT RAP 4 training requirements. This deficiency impacts the unit’s ability to provide 24-hour Air 5 Defense Alert, which is one of its primary missions. In addition to the deficiencies in 6 their LOWAT RAP training regime, none of the 104 FW pilots are currently meeting 7 their Low Slow/Visual Identification intercept and Slow Shadow intercept training 8 requirements, because the MTRs are too narrow for lateral movements and do not allow 9 pilots to reverse their course. These requirements are essential training for their Air- 10 Superiority and 24-hour Air Defense Alert roles.

11 1.5 Summary of Environmental Study Requirements

12 The Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAP) is the process by which federal 13 agencies facilitate compliance with environmental regulations. The primary legislation 14 affecting these agencies’ decision-making process is the National Environmental Policy 15 Act (NEPA) of 1969. The following sections describe this act and other facets of the 16 EIAP.

17 1.5.1 National Environmental Policy Act

18 NEPA requires that federal agencies consider potential environmental consequences of 19 proposed actions in their decision-making process. The law’s intent is to protect, restore, 20 or enhance the environment through well-informed federal decisions. The Council on 21 Environmental Quality (CEQ) was established under NEPA for the purpose of 22 implementing and overseeing federal policies as they relate to this process. In 1978, the 23 CEQ issued Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National 24 Environmental Policy Act (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §1500-1508 [CEQ, 25 1978]). These regulations specify that an EA be prepared to:

26 • briefly provide sufficient analysis and evidence for determining whether or not to 27 prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant 28 Impact (FONSI);

1-11 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 • aid in the agency’s compliance with NEPA when an EIS is deemed unnecessary; 2 and

3 • Facilitate EIS preparation when one is necessary. An EIS is required when the 4 federal action is likely to significantly affect one or more environmental resources 5 or when the action has the potential to create significant public controversy.

6 To comply with relevant environmental statutes (e.g., the Safe Drinking Water Act, 7 Endangered Species Act [ESA], and National Historic Preservation Act [NHPA]) in 8 addition to NEPA, the decision-making process for the Proposed Action involves a 9 thorough examination of all pertinent environmental issues.

10 1.5.2 Interagency/Intergovernmental Coordination for Environmental Planning

11 NEPA and CEQ regulations require intergovernmental notifications prior to making any 12 statement of potential environmental impacts. The ANG, through the Interagency/ 13 Intergovernmental Coordination for Environmental Planning (IICEP) process, notifies 14 relevant federal, state, and local agencies and allows them sufficient time to make known 15 their environmental concerns specific to the Proposed Action. Comments and concerns 16 submitted by these entities are incorporated into the analysis of potential environmental 17 impacts conducted as part of the EA. Copies of the IICEP consultation letter, responses, 18 and distribution list are included in Appendix A.

19 To eliminate unnecessary duplicity of effort between the FAA and the Department of 20 Defense (DoD), a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the FAA and DoD 21 was signed on 4 October 2005 to provide for the issuance of environmental documents 22 for the development, designation, modification, and use of Special Use Airspace (SUA)1. 23 The MOU describes the role of the DoD and the FAA, as a cooperating agency, on SUA 24 proposals such as the Proposed Action addressed in this EIS.

25 In a letter dated 21 August 2006, the FAA consented to participate as a cooperating 26 agency in the preparation of an EA for this project because this proposal involves SUA

1 Special Use Airspace - airspace within which specific activities must be confined, or wherein limitations are imposed on aircraft not participating in those activities.

1-12 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 (Appendix A). Upon completion of the EA in March 2009, the FAA concurred with the 2 EA’s findings that the Proposed Action would not have significant environmental 3 impacts. The ANG has independently elected to proceed with an EIS for the Proposed 4 Action in response to requests from several elected officials and the general public.

5 1.5.3 Air Conformity Requirements

6 Federal agencies are required to make a determination that a Proposed Action conforms 7 to an approved Clean Air Act (CAA) implementation plan. Typically, each state 8 develops, and must receive U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) approval 9 for its State Implementation Plan (SIP), which documents the rules it will implement to 10 achieve or maintain attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 11 The USEPA has set forth regulations (40 CFR 93, Subpart B) that outline the 12 requirements and procedures for a conformity determination. Because the goal of the 13 rule is to ensure that a Proposed Action does not prevent an area from achieving or 14 maintaining attainment, only projects in either a non-attainment or maintenance area must 15 undergo further analysis. In order to address the conformity requirements, this EIS 16 includes a conformity determination and an analysis of air emissions associated with the 17 Proposed Action.

18 1.5.4 Federal Aviation Administration Regulations

19 The FAA is responsible for managing navigable airspace for public safety and ensuring 20 efficient use for commercial air traffic, general aviation, and national defense, including 21 SUA utilized by the Department of Defense (DoD). The FAA established several 22 policies including:

23 • Order 1050.1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures; and 24 • Order 7400.2, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

25 FAA Order 1050.1 provides the FAA with policies and procedures to ensure agency 26 compliance with NEPA and implementing regulations issued by the CEQ (40 CFR parts 27 1500-1508). Appendix A in FAA Order 1050.1 identifies 18 impact categories that 28 should be considered during the NEPA process. This EIS considers each of the resources

1-13 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 as prescribed by the FAA Order 1050.1 The sections where each of these resources are 2 discussed in the EIS, or the rationale for excluding a detailed discussion of a specific 3 resource, are provided in Table 1-1. FAA Order 7400.2, specifically Chapter 32, 4 provides guidance to air traffic personnel to assist in applying the requirements in Order 5 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” to air traffic actions.

6 Table 1-1. FAA Order 1050.1, Environmental Resources to be Considered

Resource Location in the EA, or Rationale for Exclusion Air Quality Sections 3.4, 4.4 – Air Quality Coastal Resources Sections 3.6, 4.6 – Water Resources Compatible Land Use Sections 3.8, 4.8 – Land Use Construction Impacts No construction activities would occur under the Proposed Action or Alternative; therefore, this resource was eliminated from further consideration. Department of Transportation Act: This act refers to areas of ecological and cultural significance on the Section 4(f) National, State, and local level. These resources are discussed under Compatible Land Use; Fish, Wildlife, and Plants; Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources; Wetlands; and Wild and Scenic Rivers. Farmlands Sections 3.8, 4.8 – Land Use and Section 3.3, 4.3 – Geological Resources Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Sections 3.7, 4.7 – Terrestrial Resources and Section 3.5, 4.5 – Water Resources Floodplains Sections 3.6, 4.6 – Water Resources Hazardous Materials, Pollutions There would be no hazardous materials, or solid waste generated under Prevention, and Solid Waste the Proposed Action or Alternative; therefore, this resource was eliminated from further consideration. Pollution is discussed in Sections 3.4 and 4.4 (Air Quality) and 3.6 and 4.6 (Water Quality). Historical, Architectural, Archeological, Sections 3.10, 4.10 – Cultural Resources and Cultural Resources Light Emissions and Visual Impacts The Proposed Action or Alternative would not add new light sources or change the visual landscape; therefore, this resource was eliminated from further consideration. Natural Resources and Energy Supply The Proposed Action or Alternative would not involve extractive activities or changes in the energy supply; therefore, this resource was eliminated from further consideration Noise Sections 3.3, 4.3 – Noise Secondary (Induced) Impacts Sections 3.9, 4.9 – Socioeconomic Resources Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Sections 3.9, 4.9 – Socioeconomic Resources Justice, and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks Water Quality Sections 3.6, 4.6 – Water Resources Wetlands Sections 3.7, 4.7 – Terrestrial Resources Wild and Scenic Rivers Sections 3.6, 4.6 – Water Resources 7

1-14 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2 This section describes current training activity, the Proposed Action, and the alternatives 3 to the Proposed Action that have been considered.

4 2.1 Current Training Activity

5 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs comprise a mid-to-high altitude air-to-air training range that has 6 been active for over 20 years. There are no air-to-ground target ranges within or 7 underlying the Condor 1 or 2 MOAs and the 104 FW does not engage in simulated air-to- 8 ground training. All LOWAT training along the MTRs occurs during the day. The 104 9 FW does not train at night, on weekends, or during holidays.

10 Some training exercises within 11 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs require 12 the use of chaff and flares. 13 Chaff consists of small, 14 extremely fine fibers of 15 aluminum-coated glass that 16 disperse widely when ejected 17 from aircraft. The chaff is 18 electromagnetically charged RR-188 Chaff 19 and hides aircraft radar 20 signatures, allowing the aircraft to egress hostile areas undetected (National Guard 21 Bureau, 2002). The RR-188 chaff training device is currently used in the Condor 1 and 2 22 MOAs. The RR-188 is a radio-frequency (RF) passive chaff device that does not 23 interfere with FAA air traffic control radar. This device substitutes a degradable material 24 for the E-type glass normally used in training chaff and it is intended that the device will 25 eventually incorporate degradable plastic for the end cap and piston.

26 Flares are used as deterrents and distractions against guided ordnance and other aircraft 27 during air-to-air combat training. Self-protection flares are magnesium pellets that burn 28 for a short period of time (less than 10 seconds) at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The burn

2-1 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 temperature is hotter than the exhaust of an aircraft, which causes the flare to attract and 2 decoy heat-seeking weapons (National Guard Bureau, 2002). The MJU-7, M-206, and 3 M-211 flares are used by the 104 FW during all air-to-air combat training missions. 4 Flares are deployed in a plastic container, which is consumed during combustion and 5 does not interfere with FAA air traffic control radars. The use of flares is permanently 6 restricted to altitudes above 2,000 feet AGL, and during periods of high fire risk flare use 7 is typically suspended completely.

8 A sortie consists of a single aircraft takeoff, performance of training activities away from 9 the base that normally occurs in one or more identified MOAs (as described below), and 10 a landing. It should be noted that a typical training mission in the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs 11 involves 2 to 4 aircraft, up to a maximum of 8, therefore multiple sorties are conducted 12 during each mission. In fiscal year (FY) 2003 (the last year data representative of 13 predominant utilization patterns in the Condor MOAS was available), the Condor 1 and 2 14 MOAs hosted approximately 480 sorties and VR-840/1/2 hosted approximately 432 15 sorties for a combined total of 912 sorties. Each sortie is between approximately 15 and 16 60 minutes in length. Aircraft flight restrictions prevent any operations from occurring at 17 night below 1,000 feet AGL.

18 The training exercises currently conducted in the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs and underlying 19 VRs include the following seven activities:

20 • Air Combat Maneuvering training typically involves three to four similar aircraft and 21 emphasizes intra-flight coordination, survival tactics, and maneuvering of two aircraft 22 against one or two adversaries.

23 • Advanced Handling Characteristics consists of a single airplane training for 24 proficiency in utilization and exploitation of the aircraft flight envelope consistent 25 with operational and safety constraints including, but not limited to, high/maximum 26 angle of attack maneuvering, energy management, minimum time turns, 27 maximum/optimum acceleration and deceleration techniques, and confidence 28 maneuvers.

2-2 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 • Air Combat Training usually involves four to eight aircraft. This scenario involves 2 designating friendly and enemy forces, which separate as far as possible in the 3 maneuvering airspace to begin tactics training. The training consists of opposing 4 forces engaging each other over a range of altitudes.

5 • Basic Fighter Maneuvering is the fundamental training of all air-to-air flight 6 maneuvering. This training is normally conducted with two similar aircraft to 7 practice individual offensive and defensive maneuvering against a single adversary.

8 • Intercepts training involves the detection and interception of hostile aircraft. The 9 target aircraft attempts to penetrate the area protected by the interceptor who, with the 10 aid of radar, attempts to detect the target, maneuver to identify the target, and reach a 11 position from which the target can be destroyed.

12 • Low Altitude Awareness Training (LOWAT) normally involves two to four aircraft 13 practicing the fundamentals of offensive and defensive aerial maneuvers at low 14 altitude. LOWAT currently occurs only along VR-840/1/2.

15 • Navigation training involves training conducted below 5,000 feet AGL using onboard 16 systems and the fundamental aspects of dead reckoning and point-to-point low 17 altitude navigation, with or without prior route planning.

2-3 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Table 2-1. Utilization Summary for the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs and VR-840/1/2, 2 FY 2003*

Condor 1 & 2 MOAs

Aircraft Type F-15 F-16 KC-135/KC-10 P-3

Sorties/Year 72 324 12 24 Total Hours per Year in the 30 - 48 135 - 216 9 - 12 18 - 24 MOAs Total MOA Usage 192 - 300 Hours per Year (All Aircraft)

VR-840/1/2 (Low Level Routes)

Aircraft Type F-15 F-16 KC-135/KC-10 P-3

Sorties/Year 48 96 0 0 Total Hours per Year in the VR 12 - 20 24 - 32 N/A N/A Routes Total Hours in the VR Routes 36 - 52 Hours per Year (Low Level) - All Aircraft -

Total Airspace Use (MOAs plus Low Level Routes) – All Aircraft

228 - 352 hours/yr

3 4 *When the EIAP for this action began, A-10s from Barnes and Bradley ANG Bases were flying training 5 missions in the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, and were included in the baseline operations numbers for the 6 affected airspace. During the course of the Environmental Assessment, the A-10s from Barnes and Bradley 7 ANG Bases relocated out of the Northeast Region and discontinued using the airspace. Therefore, the 8 baseline operations numbers reported in Table 2-1 do not include the A-10s that formerly flew out of 9 Barnes and Bradley ANG Bases. The FY 2003 utilization data for F-15s, F-16s, KC-135s, KC-10s, and P- 10 3s were compared to annual utilization data from the 10-year period from FY 1996-2005, and are 11 representative of predominant utilization patterns for those aircraft over this time period.

12 Sources: Otis ANG Base Utilization Data, 2006; personal communications with Major Jeffrey Beckel, 13 MAANG (2009).

14 2.2 Proposed Action

15 The 104 FW proposes to combine the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, divide the combined MOA 16 into Condor Low MOA and Condor High MOA, and lower the flight floor from 7,000 17 feet MSL (between approximately 2,800 to 6,300 feet AGL) to 500 feet AGL.

2-4 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Specifically, Condor Low MOA would extend from 500 feet AGL up to, but not 2 including, 7,000 feet MSL. Condor High MOA would extend from 7,000 feet MSL up 3 to, but not including, FL 180, or 18,000 feet MSL (between approximately 13,739 feet 4 and 17,321 feet AGL). The new Condor Low and High MOAs would have the same 5 maximum lateral boundaries as the previous Condor 1 and 2 MOAs (60 NM by 60 NM), 6 thereby providing the 104 FW with the optimal low, medium, and high altitude airspace 7 to meet their LOWAT, Low Slow/Visual Identification intercept, and Slow Shadow 8 intercept requirements. Most training in the affected airspace would continue to occur at 9 mid-to-high altitudes (greater than 5,000 feet AGL). At the request of the Canadian Air 10 Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC), the 10 NM northwestern corner of the airspace 11 will be moved south to provide a 3 NM buffer around Canadian air traffic routes (see 12 Appendix B for a legal proposed airspace description, and Figure 2-1).

13 The Eastern Air Defense Sector (EADS) is currently the scheduling authority for the 14 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs. As a result of creating the Condor Low and High MOAs, the 104 15 FW would only need to schedule the necessary amount of airspace (e.g., schedule only 16 low altitude airspace during low altitude training), and could use either the high or low 17 airspace when the other MOA is not available (e.g., due to weather or use). This 18 approach would serve the 104 FW’s needs for LOWAT training while maximizing the 19 availability of the airspace for other users. Scoty Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace 20 would not be affected by the Proposed Action; the Condor Low and High MOAs would 21 be scheduled separately and used concurrently with Scoty Air Traffic Control Assigned 22 Airspace. Figure 2-1 provides a plan view of the Proposed Action; Figure 2-2 provides a 23 diagrammatical cross sectional view of the Proposed Action.

24 No change in aircraft or personnel would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. The 25 total number of sorties flown by the 104 FW would decrease slightly as a result of the 26 efficiencies gained in F-15 and F-16 training, and in the types of sorties (more LOWAT 27 and significantly less low altitude navigation) conducted by F-15s. The Proposed Action 28 would reduce low altitude usage of airspace because fighter pilots could achieve their 29 required low-altitude training in less time. These decreases would occur primarily 30 because pilots would be able to transition out of the low-altitude environment into a

2-5 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 higher altitude environment immediately after completing required low-altitude training. 2 Flights above 5,000 ft AGL would continue to represent the bulk of military flights in the 3 affected airspace. Table 2-2 summarizes predicted utilization associated with the 4 Proposed Action.

5 Table 2-2. Projected Utilization of the Condor High and Low MOAs and VR 6 840/1/2 following implementation of the Proposed Action

7

Condor High and Low MOAs

Aircraft Type F-15 F-16 KC-135/KC-10 P-3

Sorties/Year 96 300 12 24

Total Hours per Year in the 40 - 64 125 - 200 9 - 12 18 - 24 MOA Total MOA Usage 192 - 300 Hours per Year (All Aircraft)

VR-840/1/2

Aircraft Type F-15 F-16 KC-135/KC-10 P-3

Sorties/Year 0 72 0 0 Total Hours per Year in the N/A 18 - 24 N/A N/A VR-Routes Total Hours in the VR Routes 18-24 Hours per Year (Low Level) - All Aircraft -

Total Airspace Use (MOAs plus Low Level Routes) – All Aircraft

210 - 324 Hours per Year 8

9 The 104 FW would continue to conduct operations mainly on weekdays. The Proposed 10 Action would not typically result in flights at night, on weekends, or during holidays. The 11 Proposed Action would not result in overland night flights below 1,000 feet AGL in any 12 case because these flights are prohibited by Air Force regulations. The Proposed Action 13 would not require any ground-based improvements or other construction activities.

2-6 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1

2-7 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

Figure 2-2 Proposed MOAs (3-Dimensional) Condor High and Low MOAs and MTR Corridors

1

2 2.3 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

3 As part of the EAIP process, potential alternatives to the Proposed Action have been 4 evaluated and either compared to the Proposed Action or eliminated from further 5 consideration.

2-8 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 2.3.1 Evaluated Alternatives

2 One alternative, “Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged,” 3 was evaluated and compared to the Proposed Action.

4 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged

5 Under this alternative, the flight floor of Condor 1 MOA would be lowered to 500 feet 6 AGL; however, the flight floor of Condor 2 MOA would remain at 7,000 feet MSL 7 (between approximately 2,800 feet and 6,300 feet AGL). Condor 1 MOA is 8 approximately 60 NM by 60 NM along its northern and western boundaries, but is only 9 25 NM wide along its southern boundary, which is not large enough for the 104 FW to 10 complete its LOWAT requirements. This option would restrict lateral defensive tactics 11 when compared to the Proposed Action (60 NM by 60 NM).

12 2.3.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated

13 Three additional alternatives were considered but eliminated from further analysis.

14 Use of Other Airspace

15 Under this alternative, users would be diverted to other SUA or Warning Areas in the 16 region that already meet the necessary airspace requirements. Other SUA and Warning 17 Areas that exist within 200 NM of Barnes ANGB include: Adirondack Airspace 18 Complex, Misty Complex and Warning Areas, and Yankee MOA. Currently, there is no 19 available airspace for LOWAT training on a daily basis at these locations.

20 The Adirondack Range and Airspace complex replaced the former Falcon, Drum, and 21 Syracuse MOAs, and is designed for air-to-ground ordinance delivery training. The 22 largest low altitude portion of this MOA below 1000 ft AGL is an irregularly shaped low 23 altitude airspace that is approximately 35 to 45 NM long (depending on the time of year) 24 by 15 NM wide (see Figures 1-3 and 1-4). The Adirondack Airspace Complex, including 25 the low altitude portion of the airspace, is designed and optimized for air-to-ground, 26 ‘bombing range’ type training, with ingress into the Ft Drum range. This configuration 27 does not provide the lateral space needed to simulate real-world intercept scenarios.

2-9 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 The Misty Complex and Warning Areas, located along the coast of New York, are 2 entirely over water. USAF regulations restrict training below 1,000 feet MSL over water 3 due to the risk for spatial disorientation from visual illusions that are common over the 4 water at low altitudes. Therefore, while some low-altitude training (higher than 1,000 5 feet MSL) could be completed in the Misty Complex and Warning Areas, the 104 FW 6 cannot use this airspace for LOWAT missions under 1,000 feet MSL.

7 The Yankee MOA is located in New Hampshire and has a flight floor of 100 feet AGL; 8 however, the airspace is only 20 NM by 25 NM in size and currently is only authorized 9 for A-10s (not authorized for F-15s or F-16s) below 9,000 feet MSL. For these reasons, 10 the “Use of Other Airspace” alternative was eliminated from further consideration.

11 In 2008, in response to inquiries from the Maine Department of Transportation and the 12 public, the ANG examined the potential effects of three alternatives for expanding the 13 low altitude airspace within the Yankee MOA and Adirondack Range and Airspace 14 Complex to support the Proposed Action. The results of this analysis indicated that 15 expanding existing low altitude airspace at Yankee MOA and Adirondack Airspace 16 Complex would cause encroachment of low altitude airspace into larger areas that are not 17 currently exposed to low altitude overflights, encroach into areas that are not currently 18 military airspace, and cause greater impacts over public land than the Proposed Action. 19 The detailed results of this analysis are summarized in Tables 2-3 and 2-4.

2-10 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Table 2-3. Alternatives to modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs

Condor 1 and Condor 2 Yankee MOA Adirondack Airspace Complex Summary MOAs (formerly Drum, Falcon, and Syracuse MOAs) Current status • Condor 1 and 2 MOAs • MOA is approximately 20NM by • Approximately 55 NM by 125 The Condor 1 and 2 MOAs are 60 NM by 60 NM 25NM (500 NM2) NM in area represent the only combined (3,600 NM2- alternative that would fully mimimum area required • Currently only authorized for A- • Western end of Complex is satisfy the area to meet Project purpose) 10s (not authorized for F-15s or F- largest area of existing low- requirements to meet the 16s) below 9,000 ft MSL due to altitude airspace, but is too Project purpose, and would • Currently authorized for size small to support the Proposed require the fewest low altitude use over Action without significant modifications to 53% of the MOAs within expansion. accommodate the 104 FW’s Visual Routes training needs.

Modifications • Proposed Action would • Re-charting Yankee MOA to • Re-charting Adirondack The Proposed Action would required to introduce low altitude accommodate the Project purpose Airspace Complex to introduce low-altitude achieve flights over 1,584 NM2 would introduce new low altitude accommodate the Project overflights over the smallest Project of new area flights by F-15s and F-16s over purpose would introduce low area of new land of any of purpose 3,600 NM2 of new area altitude flights over the alternatives. approximately 1,800-2,700 NM2 of new area depending on configuration.

2-11 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

Condor 1 and Condor 2 Yankee MOA Adirondack Airspace Complex Summary MOAs (formerly Drum, Falcon, and Syracuse MOAs) Comparison of Impacts by affected resource Land use Federally protected areas Land use patterns are similar to Land use patterns are similar to There is no significant that would be subjected to Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs, so Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs, so difference in the proportion new low-altitude overflights there would be no significant there would be no significant of rural or urban land that include Lake Umbagog difference in the amount of urban difference in the amount of urban would be affected under National Wildlife Refuge, versus rural land that would be versus rural land that would be either alternative, but the Appalachian National affected between the alternatives. affected between the alternatives. modifying Condor 1 and Scenic Trail (AT), and the Condor 2 MOAs is the only Redesigning the airspace to the extent The low-altitude portion of the White Mountain National alternative that is not required to accommodate the Complex cannot be expanded Forest. Lake Umbagog severely constrained by Proposed Action would expose sufficiently to accommodate the NWR would have a 2,000 ft existing land use under the Pemigewasset, Presidential Range- required training without incurring flight floor as agreed with existing airspace and/or Dry River, Great Gulf, and Sandwich greater land use impacts than what the US Fish and Wildlife immediate vicinity. Wilderness Areas to increased would be incurred under Condor 1 Service. The AT and White impacts from low altitude flights, and and Condor 2 MOAs. See Table Effects on public land Mountain National Forests likely cause encroachment on 2-4. (primarily federal land would not be significantly Caribou-Speckled Mountain and under Yankee MOA, and affected by the Proposed Breadloaf Wilderness Areas, which primarily Adirondack State Action. are currently outside the MOA Park under Adirondack Roughly 6% of the land boundary. Providing higher flights Airspace Complex) would under Condor 1 and 2 floors over all of these areas would be greater under either MOAs is protected at the significantly reduce the value of the alternative than under the state level. Portions of this area for training purposes and is Proposed Action. land within Grafton Notch therefore not consistent with the

State Park, the Bigelow project purpose. Preserve, and Rangeley Lake State Park would experience slight decreases in low-altitude overflights; other areas would experience slight increases.

2-12 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

Condor 1 and Condor 2 Yankee MOA Adirondack Airspace Complex Summary MOAs (formerly Drum, Falcon, and Syracuse MOAs) Noise The Proposed Action would Re-charting Yankee MOA to Re-charting Adirondack Airspace The Proposed Action would introduce noise impacts accommodate the Project purpose Complex to accommodate the subject the smallest amount from low altitude flights would introduce noise impacts from Project purpose would introduce of area to increased noise over 1,584 NM2 of new low altitude flights over 3,600 NM2 of noise impacts from low altitude from low altitude area. new area. flights over 1,800-2,700 NM2 of overflights. new area depending on configuration. Approximately 70- 98% of the new low-altitude airspace would be over state parks, as opposed to less than 6% over protected state land under Condor 1 and 2 MOAs. Air quality The Proposed Action would Re-charting Yankee MOA to Re-charting Adirondack Airspace The Proposed Action would introduce minor air quality accommodate the Project purpose Complex to accommodate the subject the smallest amount impacts from low altitude would introduce minor air quality Project purpose would introduce of area to minor air quality flights over 1,584 NM2 of impacts from low altitude flights over minor air quality impacts from low impacts from low altitude new area. 3,600 NM2 of new area. altitude flights over approximately overflights. 1,800-2,700 NM2 of new low- altitude airspace. Approximately 70-98% of the new low attitude airspace would be over Adirondack state park, depending on configuration.

2-13 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

Condor 1 and Condor 2 Yankee MOA Adirondack Airspace Complex Summary MOAs (formerly Drum, Falcon, and Syracuse MOAs) Airspace use The Proposed Action would Expanding Yankee MOA to the extent The Adirondack Airspace The Proposed Action is the not introduce new military required to authorize low altitude use Complex is designed as an air-to- only alternative that would activity to the airspace, nor by F-15s would overlap with several ground training, and is committed not constrain existing use of would it increase the small airports. This airspace currently to users requiring this training. other military airspace in number or frequency of low supports A-10 training that would Re-charting this airspace would the region. altitude sorties. New low conflict with, and potentially pre-empt conflict, constrain, or eliminate altitude MOAs would use by the 104 FW; thus the air-to-ground training overly several small alternative is incompatible with the opportunities in an airspace airports. The increase in purpose and need of the Proposed currently designed for their use. low altitude overflights Action. Lateral airspace expansion would outside the existing Visual encroach on civilian Jet Routes Routes would be offset by adjacent to the Complex. decreases in the low altitude flights inside the existing Visual Routes. 1 2 Table 2-4. Land Use Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternative Configurations of the Adirondack Airspace Complex

3 Alternative/purpose Total area of new low-altitude New low-altitude airspace over New low-altitude airspace in areas with airspace (winter/summer for state parks/other state protected no military airspace currently (i.e., complex) land (winter/summer for complex) required lateral airspace expansion) Proposed Action (Condor 1 and 1,692 NM2 Less than 200 NM2 0 NM2 2 MOAs) Adirondack Complex, minimizes 2,200 NM2/2,725 NM2 2,158 NM2/2,676 NM2 326 NM2 lateral complex expansion west. Adirondack Complex, minimizes 1,838 NM2/2,259 NM2 1,314 NM2/1,733 NM2 130 NM2 new low altitude airspace over Adirondack State Park Adirondack Complex, minimizes 1,876 NM2/2,393 NM2 1,647 NM2/2,139 NM2 66 NM2 lateral expansion of the complex 4

2-14 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Based on the analysis of using the Yankee MOA or the Adirondack Airspace Complex 2 for low altitude training, the “use of other airspace” alternative was eliminated from 3 further consideration.

4 Deployment for LOWAT Training

5 Under this alternative, the 104 FW would travel to other LOWAT airspace throughout the 6 country to complete their training. This alternative would require multiple deployments 7 by the 104 FW in order to fulfill the 16 LOWAT RAP missions that are required of each 8 pilot annually to maintain LOWAT CAT I certification. Annually, it would require at 9 least six deployments involving eight aircraft, at an average cost of $200,000 per 10 deployment and therefore be prohibitively expensive to implement. Further, this 11 deployment would reduce the operations readiness of the unit by removing multiple 12 aircraft from the region for prolonged periods. For this reason, the “Deployment for 13 LOWAT Training” alternative was eliminated from further consideration.

14 2.3.3 No-Action Alternative

15 The No-Action Alternative would involve no modifications to the current airspace. The 16 104 FW would remain deficient in its annual LOWAT, Low Slow/Visual Identification 17 intercept, and Slow Shadow intercept training requirements. The 104 FW’s ability to 18 perform real world Air Defense Missions and Homeland Security Missions would 19 continue to suffer and could prevent the successful completion of any low altitude 20 missions. Flights along the MTRs would continue to occur at current rates.

21 The description of existing environmental conditions presented in Section 3, Affected 22 Environment, of this EIS documents conditions as they would occur (i.e., remain) if the 23 No-Action Alternative were selected. Consequently, analysis of this alternative is 24 documented in this EIS.

25 2.4 Concurrent NEPA Actions

26 In accordance with the final recommendations of the BRAC Commission which were 27 approved by Congress in September 2005, the P-3 aircraft from Navy Brunswick AB and

2-15 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 F-16s from the Syracuse ANG will be relocated out of the Northeast. These actions will 2 eliminate the P-3 and F-16 aircraft from these installations as users of the Condor 1 and 3 Condor 2 MOAs, although a smaller number of F-16s from other bases will continue to 4 fly in the MOAs. The environmental analyses for these closure actions are being 5 conducted independently by each installation and would not affect the purpose and need 6 for the Proposed Action. Regardless of the outcome of the BRAC Commission 7 recommendations, the 104 FW’s F-15 pilots would continue to face a deficiency in 8 meeting their training requirements due to a lack of available low altitude airspace.

9

2-16 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

2 This section describes existing environmental conditions for resources potentially 3 affected by the Proposed Action, and provides information to serve as a baseline from 4 which to identify and evaluate environmental changes that may result from the Proposed 5 Action. In compliance with CEQ guidelines, Air Force Instruction 32-7061, and FAA 6 Order 1050.1E the description of the affected environment focuses on the following 7 resources and conditions potentially subject to impacts from the Proposed Action: 8 airspace management, safety, noise, air quality, geological resources, water resources, 9 biological resources, land use, socioeconomics, and cultural resources.

10 3.1 Airspace Management

11 3.1.1 Definition of the Resource

12 The USAF describes airspace management as the coordination, integration, and 13 regulation of the use of airspace of defined dimensions. The objective of airspace 14 management is to meet military training requirements through the safe and efficient use 15 of available navigable airspace. This is to be accomplished in a peacetime environment, 16 while minimizing the impact on other aviation users and the public (AFI 13-201).

17 There are two general categories of airspace: regulatory and non-regulatory. Within 18 regulatory airspace further classifications include controlled, uncontrolled, special use, 19 and other airspace. These categories are dictated by:

20 • the complexity or density of aircraft movement;

21 • the nature of the operations conducted within the airspace;

22 • the level of safety required; and

23 • national and public interest in the airspace.

3-1 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Controlled Airspace

2 Controlled airspace, as defined by FAA Order 7400.2, is a generic term that includes five 3 classes (Class A, B, C, D, and E) of airspace for IFR and VFR flights and defines the 4 dimensions within which Air Traffic Control (ATC) service is provided. All aviation 5 traffic operating in controlled airspace is subject to certain pilot qualifications, operating 6 rules, and equipment requirements (Table 3-1). For IFR operations in any class of 7 controlled airspace, a pilot must file an IFR flight plan and receive an appropriate ATC 8 clearance. Class A Airspace Areas consists of airspace from 18,000 feet MSL up to 9 60,000 feet MSL, including area within 12 nautical miles (NM) of the coast of the 48 10 contiguous states and Alaska. Class B, Class C, and Class D airspaces contain at least 11 one primary airport around which the airspace is designated. Figure 3-1 depicts the 12 spatial characteristics of the five classes of controlled airspace.

3-2 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Table 3-1. FAA Airspace Classification Specifications

Airspace Airspace Classification Features Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E Altitude Range 18,000 feet Surface to Varies1 Surface to 1. All Jet MSL -60,000 14,500 feet 2,500 feet Routes2 and feet MSL MSL AGL within 5 VRs NM of an ATC 2. Federal airfield Airways from 700 or 1,200 feet AGL up to 18,000 feet MSL Operations IFR IFR and VFR IFR and VFR IFR and VFR IFR and VFR Permitted Entry ATC clearance ATC clearance ATC clearance ATC clearance No specific Requirements for IFR. All for IFR. All requirements require radio require radio contact. contact. Minimum Pilot Instrument Private or Student Student Student Qualifications Rating Student Certificate Certificate Certificate Certificate Two-Way Radio Yes Yes Yes Yes No Communications VFR Minimum N/A 3 statute miles 3 statute miles 3 statute miles 3 statute miles3 Visibility VFR Minimum N/A Clear of clouds 500 ft below, 500 ft below, 500 ft below, Distance from 1,000 ft above 1,000 ft above 1,000 ft above Clouds and 2,000 ft and 2,000 ft and 2,000 ft horizontal horizontal horizontal 3 Aircraft All All IFR, SVFR, IFR, SVFR, IFR and SVFR Separation and runway and runway operations operations Traffic N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes Advisories Safety Alerts Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 1 Controlled airspace from the surface, or a given altitude, to a specific higher altitude. Class C airspace is 3 designed to provide additional ATC into, and out of, high density airports. 4 2 High-Altitude Federal Airways 5 3 Different visibility minima and distance from cloud requirements exist for operations above 10,000 feet 6 MSL. 7 Source: ANG, 2005.

8 Uncontrolled Airspace

9 Airspace that has not been designated as Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E 10 airspace is classified as uncontrolled airspace (Class G) and is not subject to controlled 11 airspace restrictions. Limits of uncontrolled airspace typically extend from the surface to 12 700 feet AGL in urban areas, and from the surface to 1,200 feet AGL in rural areas. 13 Uncontrolled airspace can extend above these altitudes to as high as 14,500 feet MSL if

3-3 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 no other types of controlled airspace have been assigned. ATC does not have authority to 2 exercise control over aircraft operations within uncontrolled airspace. Primary users of 3 uncontrolled airspace are general aviation aircraft operating under visual meteorological 4 conditions, which are in effect when visibility is clear2 and instrumentation is not 5 required to navigate.

Figure 3-1 Spatial characteristics of Controlled and Uncontrolled Airspace 6

7 Special Use Airspace

8 SUA consists of airspace within which specific activities must be confined, or wherein 9 limitations are imposed on aircraft not participating in those activities. With the 10 exception of Controlled Firing Areas, SUA is depicted on aeronautical charts. Chart 11 depictions include hours of operation, altitudes, and the agency controlling the airspace. 12 All SUA descriptions are contained in the FAA publication “Regulatory/Non-Regulatory 13 Special Use Airspace Areas” (FAA, 2005).

2 “Clear” visibility for Class G airspace is dependent upon the altitude of operation. The various thresholds are described in 14 CFR Section 91.154

3-4 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 MOAs are SUA areas established outside Class A airspace to separate or segregate 2 certain nonhazardous military activities (e.g., air combat training) from IFR traffic and to 3 delineate areas where nonhazardous military traffic may be encountered by VFR aviators. 4 When a MOA is active, IFR traffic will normally be routed around it, while VFR flights 5 are still allowed to pass through using see-and-avoid measures to maintain safe separation 6 distances.

7 Other Airspace

8 Other airspace areas are used by military aircraft, but do not place restrictions on non- 9 military aircraft. They are designated for informational purposes for general aviation. 10 Examples of these airspace areas are MTRs and air-to-air refueling tracks.

11 MTRs are flight paths that provide a corridor for military low-altitude navigation 12 training. To train realistically and safely, the military and the FAA have developed 13 MTRs, along which the military can train for low-altitude navigation at airspeeds in 14 excess of 250 knots indicated airspeed (approximately 285 miles per hour [mph]). The 15 centerline of a MTR is depicted on aeronautical charts.

16 There are two types of MTRs: IRs and VRs. IRs are MTRs on which operations may be 17 conducted in Instrument Meteorological Conditions on an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) 18 flight plan. VRs are MTRs on which operations may only be conducted under Visual 19 Flight Rules (VFR). For operations along the VRs, the ANG-prescribed weather 20 minimums for operations are a 3,000-foot cloud ceiling and 5 NM visibility. IRs and 21 VRs are typically from 4 to 10 NM wide and have altitude structures from 100 feet AGL 22 to 5,000 feet AGL or higher.

23 3.1.2 Existing Conditions

24 For the purposes of analyzing effects on airspace management, the Region of Influence 25 (ROI) associated with the Proposed Action is primarily limited to SUA and “other 26 airspace.” The ROI for this assessment encompasses the lateral and vertical confines of 27 the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, VR-840/1/2, IR-800, and IR-850/1/2 (Figure 3-2).

3-5 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 The military aircraft that currently operate in the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs include F-15, F- 2 16, KC-135/KC-10, and P-3 aircraft. The Condor 1 and 2 MOAs are typically active 3 between Monday and Friday and are not typically scheduled at night, on weekends, or 4 holidays. The 104 FW flew 72 sorties in the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs in FY 03 (the latest 5 year for which data was available), representing 15 percent of the total number of sorties 6 flown in the Condor MOAs that year (480 sorties). The remaining sorties were flown by 7 units from the Vermont ANG, Connecticut ANG, USAF, and the United States Navy.

8 The widths of the MTR corridors in the ROI vary between 3 and 5 NM either side of the 9 MTR centerline. The floor of VR 840/1/2 varies according to aircraft type, from 500 feet 10 AGL for F-15s and F-16s to 100 feet AGL for non-fighter aircraft. The MTR corridors 11 encompass approximately 1,360,384 acres (53 percent) of the area underlying the Condor 12 1 and 2 MOAs. Under current baseline conditions, the 104 FW accounts for 48 low-level 13 sorties annually on VR-840/1/2, or approximately one-third of the total number of yearly 14 sorties on the MTRs in the affected airspace. The remaining sorties on the MTRs are 15 flown by units from the Vermont ANG, USAF, and the United States Navy.

16 There are seven civilian airfields underlying the Condor 1 MOA: Sugarloaf Regional 17 (Public), Bean (Public), Bethel Regional (Public), Swan (Public), Rangeley (Public), 18 Rangeley Lake (Public), and Lindbergh (Private). The area within 7 NM of Rangeley 19 airfield is Class E airspace with a restricted flight floor of 1,500 feet AGL (FLIP, 2003). 20 Rangeley Lake also supports a seaplane base. Four of these airfields currently underlie 21 low-level MTR corridors: Rangeley Lake, Bean, Lindbergh (IR-850/1/2); and Bethel 22 Regional (VR-840/1/2). Civilian pilots operating within these corridors fly under VFR 23 and IFR. Gadabout Gaddis (Private) is the only airfield that underlies the Condor 2 24 MOA. Greenville (Public) and Central Maine (Public) airfields are located outside the 25 boundary of Condor 2 MOA; however, the Class E airspace (with a restricted flight floor 26 of 700 feet AGL) associated with these airfields extends into the area underlying Condor 27 2 MOA.

3-6 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 The Flight Information Publication (FLIP) lists one noise-sensitive avoidance area 2 underlying VR-840/1/2 between Locke Mills and Riverdam in the southwestern quadrant 3 of the Condor 1 MOA.

3-7 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1

3-8 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 3.2 Safety

2 3.2.1 Definition of the Resource

3 The primary safety issue associated with military flight operations is the potential for 4 aircraft mishaps. Aircraft mishaps may involve mid-air collisions with other aircraft, 5 collisions with objects on the surface (e.g., towers or buildings), weather-related 6 accidents, and bird-aircraft strikes. Data commonly used to describe aircraft safety and 7 accident potential include mishap rates per 100,000 flying hours for each aircraft type, 8 years between major mishaps (predicted by comparing the mishap rate with the proposed 9 number of hours to be flown annually), and the calculated Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard 10 (BASH) (ANG, 1998).

11 The USAF identifies five categories of mishap. Class A mishaps are those which result 12 in a human fatality or permanent total disability with a total cost in excess of $1 million 13 for injury, occupational illness, or destruction of an aircraft. Class B mishaps are those 14 which result in a permanent partial disability with a total cost in excess of $200,000 but 15 less than $1 million for injury, occupational illness, and property damage or inpatient 16 hospitalization of three or more personnel. Class C mishaps are those which result in 17 total damage in excess of $20,000 but less than $200,000; an injury resulting in any loss 18 of time from work beyond the day or shift on which it occurred, occupational illness that 19 causes loss of time from work at any time; or an occupational injury or illness resulting in 20 a permanent change of job. Other mishaps not meeting USAF definitions are classified 21 as High Accident Potentials (ANG, 2006).

22 In response to potential risks associated with in-flight collisions with birds, the ANG uses 23 the Avian Hazard Advisory System (AHAS) to generate projected and actual bird hazard 24 data for airspace and MTRs. The AHAS uses three separate methods to assess the 25 BASH: the Next Generation Radar3, the soaring model4, and the migration model5. The

3 NEXRAD - If birds are found to be present using radar, the risk of a bird-plane interaction is calculated from the Air Force Bird Avoidance Model (BAM). 4 Soaring Model - Uses weather data, the BAM, and specific soaring bird data (hawks and vultures) to calculate the risk of a bird-plane interaction.

3-9 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 AHAS expresses BASH in one of three possible levels: low, moderate, or severe. The 2 104 FW uses the highest risk level from the three AHAS methodologies at any given time 3 to determine the risk levels prior to each sortie, and therefore, consistently implements 4 the most conservative training scenarios with respect to BASH risk (Pers. Comm. Capt. 5 Jeff Beckel, 2006).

6 3.2.2 Existing Conditions

7 EADS, the scheduling authority for the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, maintains records of all 8 training activities occurring within the ROI. EADS has no record of any aircraft mishaps 9 occurring within the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, or the underlying MTRs (Pers. Comm. Capt. 10 Jeffrey Beckel, 2006) in the last 40 years. A B-52 crashed on IR-800 in 1963; however, 11 this aircraft type is not currently used within the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs and would not be 12 used in the affected airspace under the Proposed Action.

13 The number of F-15 and F-16 sorties would change as a result of the Proposed Action, so 14 baseline mishap rates for F-15s and F-16s are relevant this analysis. The Air Force 15 Safety Center makes mishap data for F-15s and F-16s publicly available from 1972 16 through 2007, and 1975 through 2007, respectively. Table 3.2 summarizes 5 year, 10 17 year, and cumulative mishap rates over the entire period of record for F-15s and F-16s in 18 terms of mishaps per 100,000 flying hours. These data show that F-15s have historically 19 been more prone than F-16s to be involved in Class B mishaps, but less prone to be 20 involved in Class A mishaps. F-15s have also been almost twice as likely to be involved 21 in a Class B mishap than in a Class A mishap, while F-16s have been over four times as 22 likely to involved in a Class A mishap than a Class B mishap.

5 Migration Model - Uses weather data and waterfowl migration corridors to calculate the risk of a bird- plane interaction.

3-10 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Table 3-2. Baseline Mishap Rates for F-15s and F-16s

Period of Record F-15 F-16 Mishap Rate Class A Class B Class A Class B 5 year rate 1.93 5.79 1.75 2.24 10 year rate 2.15 6.06 2.25 2.87 Cumulative 2.42 4.55 3.82 0.82 Rate Annual mishap rate in the 0.0011616 0.002184 0.0082512 0.0017712 Condor MOAs Annual mishap 0.00484 0.00091 0.0012224 0.0002624 rate in the VRs Net annual mishap rate in the affected 0.0016456 0.003094 0.0094736 0.0020336 airspace (MOA and VR combined) 2 Source: Air Force Safety Center, 2009. 5-year, 10-year, and cumulative mishap rates are reported per 3 100,000 flying hours. Annual mishap rates were calculated for each airspace by multiplying the cumulative 4 mishap rate by the hourly utilization data from Table 2-1 and dividing by 100,000. These calculations 5 likely overstate actual mishap potential because they use the maximum utilization figures for each aircraft 6 and airspace from Table 2-1.

7 There are eight civilian airfields located under the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs. In addition, 8 several lakes in the region are used by float plane operators, including lakes under 9 existing MTRS (Lake Region Air, 2003). Currently over 50% of the area under the 10 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs are within MTRs. F-15s and F-16s currently operate down to 500 11 ft AGL within these corridors, and civilian air traffic including float plane tour operators 12 currently fly within these corridors under VFR (Lake Region Air, 2003). There are 13 currently two separate methods for civilian pilots to obtain near real-time information 14 regarding the scheduling of Condor 1 and 2 MOAs and the underlying MTRs. EADS can 15 be reached by telephone at (800-223-5612), and provides date, time, altitudes, unit, and 16 aircraft type scheduled in the surrounding SUA (including Condor) at that time. Radio- 17 equipped pilots can also call Airborne Frequency 122.55 for updated information on SUA 18 usage. The MAANG is currently working with the FAA to develop an airborne Boston 19 frequency in the vicinity of the Condor MOAs to provide real-time information on 20 military scheduling of the MOAs. This frequency would be identified for civilian aircraft 21 on future sectional maps (Personal Communication, BG Leon Rice, 2007).

3-11 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Collisions with Objects on the Surface

2 The current flight floor of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs is 7,000 feet MSL (2,800 to 3 6,300 feet AGL) and the flight floor of VR-840/1/2 is 500 feet AGL for F-15 and F-16s. 4 There are no structures that intersect any potential flight paths within the MOAs or the 5 underlying MTRs.

6 Weather-Related Incidents

7 Aircraft mishaps are sometimes caused by hazardous weather. Weather conditions may 8 pose a safety hazard and may require alteration or cancellation of planned training 9 missions. The 104 FW independently monitors weather conditions within the Condor 1 10 and 2 MOAs, and based on the size and location of a severe weather system, may either 11 cancel the training mission, or modify the training altitude to fly around the storm system. 12 Under USAF guidelines, pilots must maintain VFR plus 2,000 feet vertical and 1 NM 13 horizontal clearance from clouds and 5 NM visibility and a discernable horizon for all 14 training activities (Pers. Comm. Capt. Jeff Beckel, 2006). Additionally, the 104 FW will 15 not train under Instrument Meteorological Conditions6.

16 Bird-Aircraft Strike Hazard

17 There are no major migratory flyways that pass through, or adjacent to, the Condor 1 and 18 2 MOAs. The Atlantic Flyway is the principle flyway in close proximity to Maine and 19 New Hampshire. The Atlantic Flyway follows the east coast of the United States and 20 moves out over the open ocean as it approaches the Massachusetts and Maine coastlines 21 (http://www.birdnature.com/flyways.html); however, many species of waterfowl and 22 passerines still migrate through the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs during their spring and fall 23 migrations.

24 The current flight floor of the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs is between 2,800 and 6,300 feet 25 AGL. Radar studies document that 95 percent of migratory movements occur below 26 10,000 feet (USGS, 2006); however, this varies depending on migration distance (long

6 Instrument Meteorological Conditions – weather conditions that normally require pilots to fly primarily by reference to instruments

3-12 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 distance migrants fly higher to reduce drag and conserve energy), time of day (nocturnal 2 migrants typically fly at higher altitudes), and species. Waterfowl commonly migrate at 3 lower altitudes (near surface to several hundred feet AGL) while migratory shorebirds 4 will fly over the ocean as high as 15,000 to 20,000 feet MSL (USGS, 2006).

5 The 104 FW has implemented a scaled training response to BASH risk based on the three 6 AHAS threat levels. During periods of “low” hazard, pilots are briefed on bird hazards 7 prior to low-level flight, but no modifications to the flight path, altitudes, or training 8 missions are made. When the bird hazard is “moderate” during planned low-level 9 training, pilots are briefed on bird hazards and the flight path or altitude of the training 10 missions is adjusted to avoid known hazardous areas. If the bird hazard is “severe”, the 11 104 FW modifies the training mission to avoid the altitude blocks affected by the 12 “severe” rating (Pers. Comm. Capt. Jeff Beckel, 2006). The current risk of a bird-plane 13 interaction within the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs is low to moderate, including the fall and 14 spring migration periods.

15 3.3 Noise

16 3.3.1 Definition of the Resource

17 Noise is defined as unwanted sound or, more specifically, as any sound that is 18 undesirable because it interferes with communication, is intense enough to damage 19 hearing, or is otherwise annoying (Federal Interagency Committee on Noise [FICON], 20 1992). Human response to noise can vary according to the type and characteristics of the 21 noise source, distance between the noise source and the receptor, the sensitivity of the 22 receptor, and the time of day. This section of the EIS describes the existing noise 23 environment in the affected airspace and provides a summary of the noise metrics that are 24 pertinent to the analysis of noise-related effects in Section 4.3. Appendix C explains the 25 basic properties of noise propagation, attenuation, and human responses to noise, and 26 provides a more detailed description of the various noise metrics commonly used to 27 assess noise-related impacts.

3-13 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Sound Metrics

2 Due to the wide range in sound levels, sound is expressed in decibels (dB), a unit of 3 measure based on a logarithmic scale. A 10 dB increase in noise level corresponds to a 4 100-percent increase (or doubling) in perceived loudness. As a general rule, a 5 dB 5 change is necessary for noise increases to be noticeable to humans (USEPA 1974). 6 Sound measurement is further refined by using an A-weighted decibel scale to emphasize 7 the range of sound frequencies that are most audible to the human ear (i.e., between 1,000 8 and 8,000 cycles per second). Unless otherwise noted, all decibel measurements 9 presented in this EIS are A-weighted (dBA).

10 Measurements of Average Sound Level

11 Day Night Average Sound Level (DNL)

12 DNL is a noise metric that averages A-weighted sound levels over a 24-hour period, with 13 an additional 10-dB penalty added to noise events occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 14 a.m. This penalty is intended to compensate for generally lower background noise levels 15 at night and an additional annoyance factor associated with nighttime noise events. Small 16 town and quiet suburban areas typically have background DNL values of 45-50 dB, while 17 rural areas typically have slightly lower DNL values between 40-45 dB (Appendix C; 18 DOD 1978).

19 DNL is the standard metric for assessing noise compatibility with existing or proposed 20 land use or developments, and is the preferred noise metric of the U.S. Department of 21 Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), FAA, 22 USEPA, Veterans’ Administration, and DoD. USAF Planning Policy calls for the 23 interpretation of DNL in terms of (1) land use compatibility; and (2) the probability of the 24 noise level being considered highly annoying to ground-based noise receptors.

25 Onset rate-adjusted day-night average, A-weighted sound level (Ldnmr)

26 Ldnmr is an additional noise metric which has been developed specifically for MTRs by 27 the USAF under direction of the Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory. 28 Individual low-altitude events are different from typical noise sources because the rapid

3-14 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 onset of aircraft noise in a MTR can create a “startle” effect. The Ldnmr is similar to the 2 DNL in that it is an average metric with a 10-dB penalty for events occurring between

3 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m (Appendix C). However, Ldnmr represents an average for an 4 entire month utilizing the highest monthly sortie activity, and includes an additional 0- to 5 11-dB penalty to compensate for the “startle” effect of a low-altitude overflight. Because

6 of this penalty, Ldnmr always equals or exceeds DNL. Ldnmr is currently the approved 7 MTR noise metric for the armed services, and the USAF recommends calculation of

8 Ldnmr values for noise assessments along MTRs. Because it is a conservative measure of

9 average noise exposure over time with built-in penalties for rapid onset of noise, Ldnmr 10 closely correlates with the probability of “highly annoying” a noise receptor, and is 11 appropriate to use in areas where receptors would be highly sensitized to potential noise 12 impacts.

13 Measurement of short-term noise events

14 Sound Exposure Level (SEL)

15 DNL and Ldnmr incorporate penalties for nighttime and rapid-onset noise into average 16 sound levels, and are effective measures of noise exposure over time, but are not useful 17 for quantifying the effects of individual noise events because they average the effects of 18 instantaneous noise events over time. The Sound Exposure Level (SEL) metric has been 19 specifically formulated to describe a single noise event (such as an aircraft overflight). 20 The SEL metric describes an aircraft overflight as a period of time when the aircraft is 21 approaching and noise levels are increasing, the instant when the aircraft is directly 22 overhead and the highest noise level is experienced, and the period of time when the 23 aircraft moves away from the noise receptor while noise levels decrease. While such an 24 event may actually last several seconds, the SEL mathematically compresses the total 25 sound emitted during the entire event into a hypothetical one-second time period. 26 Normalizing noise events to a standard, one-second duration facilitates comparison of 27 actual noise events from different sources that may have different actual durations under 28 real-world conditions. The SEL value represents a composite of noise levels over an 29 extended period of time normalized to one second, so SEL values are typically 5 to 10 dB

3-15 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 (50-100%) higher than the actual highest noise level experienced by a noise receptor 2 (Appendix C).

3 Like Ldnmr, SEL is a conservative noise metric and is therefore an appropriate metric to 4 use in situations where receptors are highly sensitized to noise. During the public 5 consultation process, several members of the public indicated that noise was a concern in 6 the affected airspace, and that the area would be sensitive to increases in noise from the 7 Proposed Action. Neither the FAA nor the Air Force requires evaluation of SEL, but the 8 ANG has elected to evaluate SEL in this case due to the sensitivity of certain members of 9 the public to noise effects in the affected airspace.

10 Single Event Maximum Sound Level (Lmax)

11 The Single Event Maximum Sound Level (Lmax) is the most easily understood sound 12 metric. It is the loudest instantaneous noise associated with a particular event. It does 13 not consider duration or the amount of sound energy transmitted during the event, so

14 comparisons of Lmax values between individual events are of limited use and can yield 15 misleading results if they are extrapolated to describe effects on humans. However; 16 because it describes the loudest (i.e.; worst-case potential noise impact) and is an easily 17 understood noise metric, it is included as a supplementary noise metric in this analysis.

18 Noise Predictions

19 The Military Operating Area and Range Noise Model and Assessment Program 20 (MR_NMAP) Version 2.2 is a noise model program that has been approved by the FAA 21 to calculate the noise levels under MOAs, MTRs, and ranges. The calculations in 22 MR_NMAP are based on a USAF dataset of measured aircraft noise levels called

23 NOISEFILE. The noise analysis in this EIS used MR_NMAP to calculate Ldnmr and 24 sound exposure level (SEL) above 65 dB.

3-16 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 3.3.2 Existing Conditions

2 Ambient Noise

3 Noise levels from flight operations usually only exceed ambient background noise 4 beneath main approach and departure corridors, or local air traffic patterns around an 5 airfield, and in areas immediately adjacent to parking ramps and aircraft staging areas. 6 These areas all support concentrated use of aircraft at relatively low altitudes. As aircraft 7 take off and gain altitude, their contributions to total noise levels decrease. Aircraft 8 operations within MOAs tend to be centralized, as aircraft cannot effectively operate in 9 extreme corners of airspace due to the maneuverability limits of the aircraft. 10 Consequently, elevated noise levels are typically concentrated in the central portion of 11 MOAs.

12 Lands beneath the existing Condor 1 and 2 MOAs primarily consist of rural areas, small 13 towns, and limited amounts of suburban residential areas. According to FLIP (2004) 14 there are three noise sensitive areas underlying the Condor 2 MOA: the towns of 15 Farmington, Bingham, and Madison. Table 3-3 summarizes noise levels associated with 16 some common indoor and outdoor activities and settings and also indicates typical 17 subjective human judgments of noise levels. For reference purposes, a baseline noise 18 level of 70 dB is described as moderately loud.

3-17 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Table 3-3. Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments

A-Weighted Noise Source (at a given Sound Level Scale Human Judgment of distance) (dBA) Noise Environment Noise Loudness1 Military Jet Takeoff with 140 N/A N/A Afterburner (50 ft) Civil Defense Siren (100 ft) 130 Carrier Flight Deck N/A Commercial Jet Takeoff (200 120 N/A Threshold of Pain: ft) 32 times as loud Pile Driver (50 ft) 110 Rock Music Concert 16 times as loud Ambulance Siren (100 ft) 100 N/A Very Loud: 8 times as loud Motorcycle (25 ft) 90 Boiler Room 4 times as loud Garbage Disposal (3 ft) 80 High Urban Ambient 2 times as loud Sound Passenger Car, 65 mph (25 ft) 70 N/A Moderately loud

Living Room Stereo (15 ft)

Vacuum Cleaner (3 ft) Electronic Typewriter (10 ft) Normal Conversation (5 ft) 60 Data Processing 1/2 as loud Center Air Conditioning Unit (100 ft) Department Store Light Traffic (100 ft) 50 Private Business 1/4 as loud Office Bird Calls (distant) 40 Low Limit of Urban Quiet Ambient Sound 1/8 as loud Soft Whisper (5 ft) 30 Quiet Bedroom Quiet Notes: 1relative to a reference loudness of 70 dBA Source: FICON, 1992

2 Baseline Noise Levels from Aircraft Operations in the Airspace

3 For the purpose of this analysis, an operation is defined as a randomized flight pattern 4 occurring within the boundaries of a designated MOA, or along a MTR. The noise 5 evaluation is based on annual operations, and the type of mission flown by each of the 6 military aircraft currently operating in the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs.

7 Information on the number of aircraft operations occurring at various altitudes in Condor 8 1 and 2 MOAs was collected from the primary scheduling personnel for the Condor 9 MOAs. These data were then refined to include time of operation and speed.

3-18 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 For the purposes of this EIS, other BRAC recommendation that have yet to be fully 2 implemented to date and which would affect the noise analysis (such as relocation of the 3 P-3s from Navy Brunswick AB out of the Northeast region) are considered concurrent or 4 future actions and are therefore included in the Cumulative Effects analysis in Section 5.

5 Noise levels at the ground surface can change between different locations on a MTR due 6 to variations in the acoustic characteristics of a receptor’s immediate surroundings, so 7 this baseline noise assessment separates VR 840/1/2 into several segments (Track 8 Segments) and calculates background noise levels in each segment. Table 3-4 presents 9 the baseline noise modeling results for the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs and for individual 10 Track Segments along the VRs under existing conditions. Appendix C contains the

11 analysis parameters and calculations used to derive the results in Table 3-3. The Ldnmr 12 and the number of events exceeding a SEL of 65 dB for each airspace component is 13 based on the aircraft, number of operations, altitude, and time spent within the airspace.

14 Table 3-4. Sound Levels Associated with Aircraft Annual Operations in the 15 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs under existing conditions

Uniform Distributed Maximum Number of Events Sound Level Centerline Ldnmr above SEL of 65 dB 1 Baseline Ldnmr (dB) (dB) per year MOAs Condor 1 MOA 31.5 -- 0.6 Condor 2 MOA 31.4 -- 0.6 MTRs (VR-0840, VR-0841, and VR-0842) Segment 01-02 -- 46.1 0.2 Segment 02-03 -- 46.1 0.2 Segment 03-04 -- 47.3 0.2 Segment 04-05 -- 47.3 0.2 Segment 05-06 -- 47.3 0.2 Segment 06-07 -- 46.1 0.2 Segment 07-08 -- 46.1 0.2 Segment 08-09 -- 45.1 0.1 16 1 SEL values for Condor 1 and 2 MOA are higher than any single MTR total because they 17 represent the total number of events per year over SEL 65 dB anywhere in the airspace. 18 Anytime an event above SEL 65 dB occurs within the MTR, it is counted in the MTR total 19 but not in the totals for the MTR segments where SEL did not exceed 65 dB.

20 The results of the baseline noise analysis indicate that when penalties for rapid onset and 21 nighttime use are added to the A-weighted sound levels over a 24-hour period under the

3-19 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 affected airspace, noise levels range from 31-32 dB outside the MTRs to over 47 dB

2 under the MTRs. The monthly average noise levels experienced at ground level (Ldnmr) 3 under existing conditions are between 46 and 48 dB, depending on where the receptor is

4 along the MTR route. Outside the MTRs the Ldnmr is between 31 and 32 dB. Average 5 noise levels are punctuated by occasional events above 65 dB (low level military 6 overflights), but these events occur less than one time per year over the same location 7 anywhere within the affected airspace.

8 The loudest event associated with military aviation within the affected airspace under

9 current conditions is an overflight by an F-15 at 500 ft AGL. This event creates an Lmax 10 of approximately 117.6 dBA. The full MR_NMAP model outputs for the baseline noise 11 assessment are included in Appendix C.

12 3.4 Air Quality

13 3.4.1 Definition of the Resource

14 Air quality is determined by the concentration of designated pollutants in the atmosphere. 15 The Clean Air Act of 1970 and the CAA Amendments of 1990 have established National

16 Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for selected pollutants including ozone (O3),

17 carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter

18 (PM) including particulates equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and

19 particulates equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). These 20 pollutants have the potential to injure human health (including sensitive populations such 21 as children, the elderly, and individuals suffering from respiratory diseases) and 22 adversely impact public welfare such as visibility, crops, and property damage, and are 23 called criteria pollutants because they each have criteria for how many times their 24 NAAQS standards may be exceeded using designated pollutant-specific averaging times 25 such as 3-hour, 8-hour, 24-hr, rolling three months, annual, etc. The NAAQS represent 26 the maximum levels of background pollution that are considered safe, with an adequate 27 margin of safety to protect public health and welfare. State and local agencies may set 28 their own standards, as long as they are at least as stringent as the NAAQS. The Maine 29 Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) and the New Hampshire Department

3-20 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 of Environmental Services (NHDES) administer and enforce air quality regulations in 2 Maine and New Hampshire, respectively. The states of Maine and New Hampshire have 3 adopted all of the NAAQS. USEPA and/or the appropriate state or local agency can 4 declare areas not in compliance with a standard as “nonattainment” areas. In order for 5 areas to reach or maintain “attainment” the NAAQS must not be exceeded more than 6 once per year.

7 The USEPA revises the NAAQS periodically to reflect new scientific evidence or studies 8 that document changes in the public health risks posed by certain criteria pollutants. The 9 baseline air quality assessment in this EIS incorporates the most recent air quality 10 thresholds implemented by the USEPA in May 2008.

11 The 1990 CAA Amendments place most of the responsibility for compliance with the 12 NAAQS on the states. The primary vehicle for implementation of the CAA is known as 13 the SIP, which the USEPA requires each state to prepare. A SIP is a compilation of 14 goals, strategies, schedules, and enforcement actions that will lead the state into 15 compliance with all federal air quality standards.

16 The 1990 CAA Amendments include provisions that require states to regulate major 17 sources. These major source operating permits are called Title V permits, referring to the 18 section of the CAA that requires them. A major stationary source is a facility (i.e., plant, 19 base, or other non-mobile facility) that emits more than the established amount of any 20 criteria pollutant or Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). The major source thresholds in the 21 SIP become smaller with more severe air quality designations.

22 The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program (40 CFR 52.21) evaluates 23 potential emissions from new and modified stationary sources in attainment areas. The 24 goal of the PSD program is to ensure that emissions from major stationary sources do not 25 degrade air quality in attainment areas. As part of the PSD Program, Section 162 of the 26 CAA further established the goal of preserving air quality in national parks and national 27 wilderness areas that exceed 5,000 acres in size if these areas were in existence on 28 August 7, 1977. These areas were defined as mandatory Class I areas, while all other 29 attainment or unclassifiable areas were defined as Class II areas. The PSD requirements

3-21 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 include evaluation of impacts to Class I areas from construction of new major stationary 2 sources, or modifications to existing stationary sources, that occur within 100 miles of a 3 Class I area.

4 3.4.2 Existing Conditions

5 Climate

6 Southwestern Maine and northeastern New Hampshire have a cool, relatively dry 7 climate. Annual temperatures in the southwestern region of Maine average 8 approximately 45.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Average annual precipitation and snowfall are 9 approximately 44.3 and 70.7 inches, respectively. Average relative humidity in the 10 morning and afternoon are approximately 79 and 59 percent, respectively (NRCC, 2006).

11 Temperatures in the northeastern region of New Hampshire average approximately 12 26.5ºF annually. Average annual precipitation and snowfall are approximately 98.96 and 13 258.6 inches, respectively. Average relative humidity in the morning and afternoon are 14 approximately 84 and 83 percent, respectively (NRCC, 2006).

15 Regional Air Quality

16 The Condor 1 and 2 MOAs are located over the Androscoggin Valley Interstate Air 17 Quality Control Region (AQCR) 107, which includes Franklin, Oxford, and Somerset 18 counties in Maine, and Coos County in New Hampshire. These four counties are in 19 attainment (or unclassifiable) for all NAAQS as of June 2009 (USEPA, 2009a).

20 There are two air quality monitoring stations operating in Franklin County, four in Coos

21 County, and two in Oxford County that monitor PM10, PM2.5, SO2, and O3. Currently, 22 Somerset County has no air quality monitoring stations. Based on information from the 23 USEPA AirData website (USEPA, 2009), the most current ambient pollutant 24 concentrations from all the monitoring stations over the past five years (i.e., 2004-2008)

25 were assessed. The 2008 data for O3 and PM2.5 at the monitoring stations are presented in

26 Tables 3-5 and 3-6. There were no 2008 data for PM10 and SO2. The most current air

27 quality data available for PM10 and SO2 were collected in 2004 and are presented in

3-22 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Tables 3-7 and 3-8, respectively. Of the criteria pollutants monitored within AQCR 107,

2 O3 exceeded the 8-hour NAAQS 3 times in 2008 at the Mount Washington Monitoring

3 Station in Coos County, New Hampshire (Table 3-5) and PM2.5 exceeded the 24-hour 4 NAAQS once in 2008 at the Rumford Avenue Parking Lot Monitoring Station in Oxford 5 County, Maine (Table 3-6) . None of the other criteria pollutants reported exceeded the 6 NAAQS.

7 Table 3-3. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring for O3 at Site 330074001, Mt. 8 Washington, Coos County, New Hampshire (ppm)

NAAQS Number of Criterion Maximums Monitoring Data Criteria Exceedences 1st Maximum 0.093 1-hour averages 0.12 0 2nd Maximum 0.090 1st Maximum 0.085 8-hour averages 0.075 3 2nd Maximum 0.077 Source USEPA AirData (assessed March 6, 2009)

9

10 Table 3-6. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring for PM2.5 at Site 230172011, 11 Rumford Avenue Parking Lot, Oxford County, Maine in micrograms 12 per cubic meter

NAAQS Number of Criterion 98th Percentile Mean Criteria Exceedences

98th/99th Percentile 24- 44.7 NA 35 1 Hour Concentration Annual Arithmetic Mean NA 8.69 15 0 Source USEPA AirData (accessed March 6, 2009)

13

3-23 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Table 3-7. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring for PM10 at Site 230172007, Village 2 Green-Route 108, Oxford County, Maine in micrograms per cubic 3 meter

NAAQS Number of Criterion 1st Maximum Mean Criteria Exceedences 98th/99th Percentile 24-Hour 35 N/A 150 0 Concentration Annual Arithmetic NA 12 50 0 Mean Source USEPA AirData (accessed March 6, 2009)

4

5 Table 3-8. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring (SO2): Site 230172007, Village 6 Green-Route 108, Oxford County, Maine (parts per million [ppm])

Maximums/ NAAQS Number of Criterion Monitoring Data Mean Criteria Exceedences 1st Maximum 0.024 3-hour averages 0.5 0 2nd Maximum 0.023 1st Maximum 0.012 24-hour averages 0.14 0 2nd Maximum 0.012 Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.004 0.03 0 Mean Source USEPA AirData (assessed March 6, 2009)

7

8 Emissions Underlying Condor 1 and 2 MOAs

9 The majority of emissions in the existing Condor 1 and 2 MOAs are produced by aircraft 10 flight operations (mobile sources). Table 3-9 provides a summary of current aircraft 11 emissions in the existing Condor 1 and 2 MOAs and the VRs. The emissions estimates 12 were generated using maximum sortie rates and aircraft operational data obtained from 13 the primary scheduling personnel for the airspace (Table 2-1). These emissions occur 14 over a wide area and a range of altitudes. These emissions disperse throughout the region 15 to levels that do not impact the State of Maine or New Hampshire’s ability to comply 16 with their SIP, and therefore, the NAAQS.

17 There are two Federal Class I areas within 100 miles of the Proposed Action – White 18 Mountain National Forest and the Appalachian Trail. The Appalachian Trail is a

3-24 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 National Scenic Trail which is administered by the National Park Service (NPS) and 2 other semi public groups in Maine. White Mountain National Forest is located in 3 southwestern Maine and Northern New Hampshire. Lake Umbagog National Wildlife 4 Refuge (NWR) in Oxford County, Maine is also within 100 miles of the Proposed 5 Action, but is not a Federal Class I Area7.

6 Table 3-9. Summary of Current Aircraft Emissions for all Users in the Condor 1 7 and 2 MOAs and VR 840/1/2 (tons/year)

Number CO NO PM / SO VOCs Activities 2 10 2 of Sorties PM2.5 Condor 1 and 2 432 1.97 48.8 0.79 1.99 0.30 MOAs VR-840/1/2 144 0.34 10.3 0.13 0.38 0.04 Total 576 2.31 59.0 0.92 2.37 0.34 8 Source: Emissions factors for each aircraft type were obtained from: Jagielski, Kurt D., and Robert J. 9 O’Brien, 1994. Calculation Methods for Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Inventories, USAF Occupational 10 and Environmental Health Directorate, Air Force Material Command, Brooks AFB, Texas, July 1994.

11 3.5 Geological Resources

12 3.5.1 Definition of the Resource

13 Geological resources are surface and subsurface materials and their properties, including 14 soils and topography. Soils are unconsolidated materials overlying bedrock or other 15 parent material. Soils are organized taxonomically into series, units, or associations 16 consisting of soils with similar color, granular characteristics, slope, and other physical 17 characteristics. Topography is defined as the surface elevation contours of the natural 18 and/or man-made features (exclusive of buildings and temporary features) of an area that 19 describe the configuration of its surface. Topography is influenced by many factors 20 including human activity, underlying geological material, seismic activity, climate 21 conditions, and erosion.

7 Section 162 of the CAA established the goal of preserving the air quality in national parks and national wilderness areas that exceed 5,000 acres in size if these areas were in existence on August 7, 1977. Lake Umbagog was established in 1992 (i.e., after August 7, 1977); therefore, is not considered a Federal Class I Area.

3-25 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 3.5.2 Existing Conditions

2 Geology

3 Most of the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs occur within the Central Maine Basin, which is 4 bordered on the north by the Boundary Mountains. A small area underlying the 5 northwestern portion of the Condor 1 MOA extends into the Connecticut Valley Basin 6 (Marvinney, 2002).

7 The majority of the area underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs lies within the Late 8 Ordovician-Devonian sedimentary basins, which is characterized by marine sandstone 9 and slate, and limy marine shale. The Boundary Mountains region is characterized by 10 Ordovician oceanic crust and Cambrian rocks of the Penobscottian and Taconic events, 11 made up of volcanic and related sedimentary rocks. The oldest deposits are Precambrian 12 gneiss and breccia formations. Younger Ordovician era volcanic and sedimentary rocks 13 occur in the mountainous region in the central portion of the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs. The 14 youngest deposits consist of Devonian marine sandstones in the plains and Devonian age 15 granites in the Boundary Mountains region (Marvinney, 2002). The surface geology 16 throughout the region consists primarily of glacial deposits (MGS, 2005).

17 Soils

18 According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey, there are 19 many soil units in the area under the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs. Based on the available data, 20 the identified soil units are characteristic of soils formed in glacial till. The dominant soil 21 associations in the area underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs are the Telos-Monarda- 22 Monson-Elliotsville Association, Dixfield-Colonel-Lyman-Brayton Association, and the 23 Skerry-Hermon-Monadnock-Colonel Association (NRCS, 2006). Approximately 24 160,607 acres (6 percent) of the area underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs are 25 categorized as Prime Farmland (60,125 acres, or 2 percent) or Farmland of State 26 Importance (100,482 acres, or 4 percent). The Prime Farmlands and Farmlands of State 27 Importance are concentrated under the southern half of the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, 28 primarily surrounding the Androscoggin and Kennebec river valleys (Maine GIS, 2006).

3-26 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Telos-Monarda-Monson-Elliotsville Association

2 The Telos-Monarda-Monson-Eliotsville association underlies the northwest portion of 3 Condor 1 MOA and the northern half of Condor 2 MOA. It is formed from glacial till 4 parent material and its composition tends to be rocky throughout (NRCS, 2006). The 5 Telos, Monarda, and Monson Series soils are primarily silt loams on 1 to 8 percent 6 slopes. These soils range in depth from 20 to over 60 inches deep. The Telos and 7 Monarda Soils are somewhat poorly to poorly drained, while the Monson Series is 8 somewhat excessively drained. The Elliotsville Series is a well drained, moderately deep 9 coarse-loamy soil with dense basil till (NRCS, 2000).

10 Dixfield-Colonel-Lyman-Brayton Association

11 The Dixfield-Colonel-Lyman-Brayton association underlies the northern, eastern, and 12 central portions of Condor 1 MOA and the southern portion of Condor 2 MOA, on 13 sloping, stony ridges. These soils are formed from glacial till and vary from silty to 14 gravelly loams on slopes ranging from 3 to 20 percent (NRCS, 2006). The Dixfield and 15 Colonel Series soils are moderately well to somewhat poorly drained soils with depths to 16 over 60 inches. The Lyman soil series occurs on slightly steeper slopes ranging from 8 to 17 20 percent with shallow soil depths of 10 to 20 inches. Brayton soils are very deep, 18 poorly drained soils with moderate permeability occurring on toeslopes and depressions 19 (NRCS, 2000).

20 Skerry-Hermon-Monadnock-Colonel Association

21 The Skerry-Hermon-Monadnock-Colonel association underlies the southwestern portion 22 of Condor 1 MOA. These soils are typically found in areas with a rolling topography and 23 high densities of boulders (NRCS, 2006). The Skerry series is a deep, well drained, fine 24 sandy loam on slopes from 0 to 20 percent. The Colonel Soils series is a deep, somewhat 25 poorly drained, fine sandy loam on 3 to 15 percent slopes. The Hermon Series is very 26 similar to the Colonel soils with the exception that it is somewhat excessively drained. 27 The Monadnock Series is very deep, well drained, coarse loamy sand formed on upland 28 hills and mountainsides with slopes from 0 to 60 percent (NRCS, 2000).

3-27 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 3.6 Water Resources

2 3.6.1 Definition of the Resource

3 Water resources include surface water, groundwater, wastewater, and potable water 4 resources. A typical water quality analysis considers the quality and availability of 5 surface water and groundwater, the potential for flooding, coastal resources, and wild and 6 scenic rivers. Surface water resources include lakes, rivers, and streams, which are 7 important for economic, ecological, recreational, and human health reasons. 8 Groundwater is the subsurface hydrologic resource that is used for potable water 9 consumption, agricultural irrigation, and industrial applications. Groundwater properties 10 are described in terms of depth to aquifer, aquifer or well capacity, water quality, and 11 surrounding geologic composition. Although wastewater and potable water are not 12 natural resources, they are discussed in terms of their environmental effects.

13 Potential for flooding is discussed in terms of existing and potential hazards associated 14 with 100-year floodplains. Inundation dangers associated with floodplains have 15 prompted federal, state, and local legislation that limits development in these areas 16 largely to recreation and preservation activities. Coastal resources are, by definition, 17 natural resources located in close proximity to coastlines and are protected under the 18 National Coastal Zone Management Act, as well as resource-specific laws such as the 19 Coastal Barriers Resources Act. The individual states designate their own coastal zones 20 within which these laws apply. Wild and scenic rivers are waterways that retain natural 21 or undeveloped character, and are managed under the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers 22 Act of 1968.

23 3.6.2 Existing Conditions

24 Surface water

25 The area under the affected airspace includes numerous surface water bodies. The most 26 significant of these features underlying Condor 1 and 2 MOAs are Rangeley and 27 Flagstaff Lakes in Maine. Several other small lakes and ponds underlie Condor 1 and 2 28 MOAs in Maine and New Hampshire. Condor 1 and 2 MOAs overlie a total of 150

3-28 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 square miles of lakes and ponds and 1,083 miles of streams and rivers in Maine, as well 2 as 43 miles of streams and rivers in New Hampshire (roughly 10 and one percent of 3 Maine and New Hampshire’s surface water features, respectively). Most of the western 4 area underlying the Condor 1 MOA is drained by the Androscoggin River, but the 5 extreme western portion of Condor 1 MOA in New Hampshire is drained by the 6 headwater tributaries of the Connecticut River. The central portion underlying the 7 Condor 1 MOA is drained by the Garrabassett River. The area underlying the eastern 8 portion of Condor 1 MOA and most of Condor 2 MOA is drained by the Kennebec River.

9 Groundwater

10 Three basic types of aquifers occur in Maine and New Hampshire: unconsolidated 11 glaciofluvial deposits (sand and gravel aquifers), till, and fractured bedrock. Bedrock 12 aquifers are the most widespread type of aquifer in the region (MDEP, 2004; USGS, 13 1997). Bedrock wells in both states most often yield relatively small quantities of water. 14 Median yields for bedrock aquifers in New Hampshire are unavailable, but the median 15 yield for a bedrock well in Maine is between 3 and 6 gallons-per-minute (gpm) and only 16 approximately 35 percent of bedrock wells drilled in Maine yield 10 or more gallons per 17 minute (MGS, 2005). Bedrock aquifers are the primary water-bearing units under the 18 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, although sand and gravel aquifers contribute a minor proportion 19 of the overall groundwater resource in the region (MDEP, 2004; USGS, 1997).

20 Water Quality

21 Both Maine and New Hampshire classify surface waters into one of several categories in 22 terms of physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. Both state’s surface water 23 classification systems are goal based, meaning that they establish the level of quality 24 directed by the State to achieve rather than reflecting current water quality conditions. 25 The classification programs include designated uses (e.g. drinking water supply, 26 recreation in and on the water, habitat for fish and other aquatic life), criteria (e.g. 27 bacteria, dissolved oxygen and aquatic life), and characteristics (e.g. natural, free 28 flowing) that specify levels of water quality necessary to maintain the designated uses 29 (MDEP, 2004; NHDES, 2004).

3-29 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Surface water quality in Maine is generally good. When Maine’s last integrated 2 statewide water quality assessment was completed in 2004, only 3.8 percent of Maine’s 3 rivers and streams were impaired for one or more uses, but impaired waters occur under 4 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs. The Kennebec and Androscoggin Rivers, which underlie Condor 5 1 and 2 MOAs, were among the large rivers listed as not attaining all designated uses for 6 fish consumption advisories in Maine, and all surface waters in New Hampshire are 7 considered impaired due to fish and shellfish consumption advisories (EPA, 2002).

8 Groundwater quality is also generally good in Maine, although approximately 11 percent 9 of the state’s current groundwater supply is considered threatened by point source and 10 non-point source pollution. No data on groundwater quality was available for the portion 11 of New Hampshire under Condor 1 MOA.

12 100-year Floodplains

13 One hundred year floodplains border most streams and rivers. They are usually low- 14 lying areas that are hydraulically connected to waterbodies that have a calculated 15 probability of being inundated in any given year of one percent, or a flood recurrence 16 interval of 100 years. One hundred year floodplains generally follow major stream and 17 river channels. Their width is controlled by topography and gradient, and in low gradient 18 areas, one hundred year floodplains tend to be wider than in higher gradient areas. Under 19 the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, the one hundred year floodplains form a network of linear 20 lowland areas in close proximity to the Garrabassett, Kennebec, and Androscoggin 21 Rivers and their major tributaries. The floodplains associated with the Garrabassett and 22 Kennebec Rivers and the tributaries to the Androscoggin River generally run in a 23 northwest to southeast direction. The floodplains associated with the tributaries to the 24 Garrabassett and Kennebec Rivers and the mainstem Androscoggin River generally run 25 in an east-west direction. One hundred year floodplains underlying the Condor 1 MOA 26 within New Hampshire are limited to the floodplains associated with the headwaters of 27 the Connecticut River basin.

3-30 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Wild and Scenic Rivers

2 There are no Federally-designated Wild and Scenic Rivers underlying the Condor 1 or 2 3 MOAs. The only Federally-designated Wild and Scenic River in Maine is the Allagash 4 River in northern Maine. The only Federally-designated Wild and Scenic Rivers in New 5 Hampshire are the Lamprey River in extreme southeastern New Hampshire and Wildcat 6 Brook in eastern New Hampshire.

7 Coastal Resources

8 Maine’s coastal zone includes portions of the ten counties that form Maine’s Atlantic 9 coast or include tidal waters. New Hampshire’s coastal zone includes the state’s 17 10 coastal municipalities (NOAA, 2004). Condor 1 and 2 MOAs do not overlie either 11 state’s coastal zone.

12 3.7 Biological Resources

13 3.7.1 Definition of the Resource

14 Biological resources are defined as native or naturalized plants and animals and the 15 habitats in which they exist. The following sections describe the existing biological 16 resources under the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs including vegetation communities, wetlands, 17 wildlife, and threatened and endangered species.

18 3.7.2 Existing Conditions

19 Vegetation Communities

20 Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs intersect three of the fifteen biophysical regions in Maine, 21 as defined by McMahon (1990). These biophysical regions are the Western Mountains 22 Region, the Western Foothills Region, and the Central Mountains Region (Figure 3-3). 23 The vegetation communities of these biophysical regions are transitional between boreal 24 forests and deciduous forests. The following subsections describe the dominant 25 vegetation communities within each of the three biophysical regions.

3-31 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Western Mountains Region

2 The Western Mountains Region encompasses the majority of the land underlying the 3 Condor 1 MOA and a small part of the southwest portion of Condor 2 MOA (Figure 3-3). 4 At elevations greater than 2,500 feet MSL, subalpine forests contain nearly monotypic 5 stands of balsam fir (Abies balsamea). Red spruce (Picea rubens) and balsam fir forests 6 dominate ridgetops at slightly lower elevations. Sugar maple (Acer saccharum), yellow 7 birch (Betula allegheniensis), and beech (Fagus grandifolia) dominate the valleys, and 8 dwarf shrub heath, rush meadow, fellfield, snowbank, and alpine bog vegetation 9 communities occur on treeless peaks (McMahon, 1990).

10 Western Foothills Region

11 The Western Foothills Region lies under the southeastern portions of Condor 1 and 2 12 MOAs (Figure 3-2). The western boundary of the Western Foothills Region, which 13 roughly follows the 1,000 foot topographic contour, occurs in the transitional area 14 between temperate forests and boreal forest communities. Shagbark hickory (Carya 15 ovata), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black cherry 16 (Prunus serotina), basswood (Tilia americana), and gray birch (Betula populifolia) are 17 among the most common tree species in this region. Common shrubs include buttonbush 18 (Cephalanthus occidentalis), oblongleaf juneberry (Amelanchier canadensis), silky dogwood 19 (Cornus ammomum), hawthorn (Crataegus sp.), bristly dewberry (Rubus hispidus), and 20 black raspberry (Rubus occidentalis) (McMahon, 1990).

21 Central Mountains Region

22 The Central Mountains Region lies under the northeast portion of the Condor 1 MOA and 23 the northwest portion of the Condor 2 MOA (Figure 3-2). Similar to the Western 24 Mountains Region, the Central Mountains Region is dominated by northern hardwood 25 forests at middle elevations and spruce-fir forests on ridges and in poorly drained valleys. 26 The high elevation of the Katahdin Mountain area, underlying the northeast corner of the 27 Condor 2 MOA, supports an alpine vegetation community that is unique in Maine. 28 Common species at high elevations in this area include alpine bearberry (Arctostaphylos

3-32 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 alpine), dwarf birch (Betula glandulosa), dwarf white birch (B. minor), moss heather 2 (Cassiope hypnoides), trailing azalea (Loiseleuria procumbens), blue mountainheath 3 (Phyllodoce caerulea), Lapland rosebay (Phododendron lapponicum), northern willow 4 (Salix arctophila), Labrador willow (S. argyrocarpa), and dwarf willow (S. herbacea) 5 (McMahon,1990).

3-33 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1

3-34 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Wetlands and Riparian Vegetation

2 The United States Army Corps of Engineers and USEPA define wetlands as “those areas 3 that are inundated or saturated with ground or surface water at a frequency and duration 4 sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of 5 vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328). Wetlands 6 play an important role in maintaining environmental quality because of the diverse 7 biologic and hydrologic functions they perform. These functions include, but are not 8 limited to, water quality improvement, groundwater recharge, sediment and toxicant 9 retention, nutrient cycling, plant and animal habitat, and floodwater attenuation and 10 storage. Because of their importance, Federal and many State regulations protect 11 wetlands from alteration or destruction. Wetlands are protected at the Federal level as a 12 subset of the “Waters of the United States” under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 13 (CWA).

14 Riparian areas are defined as zones of interaction between surface water and surrounding 15 uplands and differ from upland areas in that they generally contain a well developed 16 understory vegetation community. Riparian habitats also generally contain higher 17 vegetative and structural diversity than upland areas because water bodies provide 18 openings for light to penetrate, stimulating development of shrub and herbaceous 19 vegetation. Wetland types, as defined by the Maine Department of Environmental 20 Protection (MDEP), that underlie the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs include inland 21 marshes, wet meadows, peatlands, shrub swamps, forested swamps, forested floodplains, 22 and vernal pools (MDEP, 2006). A total of over 165,000 acres of wetlands occur under 23 the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs, which together represent approximately 6.4 percent 24 of the total area underneath the MOAs.

25 Wildlife

26 The Condor 1 and 2 MOAs occur over a variety of habitat types that support a broad 27 range of wildlife species typical of northern climates. Table 3-10 lists the common 28 wildlife species known to occur in the area underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs.

3-35 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Table 3-10. Common Wildlife Species Underlying the Condor 1 and Condor 2 2 MOAs

Common Name Scientific Name Mammals1 Coyote Canis latrans Whitetail deer Odocoileus virginianus Eastern cottontail rabbit Sylvilagus floridanus Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum Black bear Ursus americanus Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus Bobcat Felis rufus Beaver Castor canadensis Fisher Martes pennanti Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Marten Martes Americana Mink Mustela vison Muskrat Ondatra zibethica Opossum Didelphis virginiana River otter Lutra canadensis Raccoon Procyon lotor Long-tail weasel Mustela frenata Short-tail weasel Mustela erminea Moose Alces alces Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus Birds² Common Loon Gavia immer Veery Catharus fuscescens Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Common Raven Corvus corax Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus American Robin Turdus migratorius Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla Northern Parula Parula americana Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis

3-36 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

Common Name Scientific Name Reptiles and Amphibians3 Northern Water Snake Nerodia sipedon Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentia Eastern painted turtle Chrysemys picta picta Wood turtle Glyptemys insculpta Eastern newt Notophthalmus viridescens Spotted salamander Ambystoma maculatum Northern dusky salamander Desmognathus fuscus Northern two-lined salamander Eurycea bislineata Northern red-backed salamander Plethodon cinereus American toad Bufo americanus Gray treefrog Hyla versicolor Spring peeper Pseudacris crucifer Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana Green frog Rana clamitans Pickerel frog Rana palustris Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens Wood frog Rana sylvatica 1 3 1 Sources: MDIFW, 2006a; ² Sauer et al, 2005; and University of Maine, 2006

2

3 Threatened and Endangered Species

4 The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Maine Department of Inland Fish and 5 Wildlife (MDIFW), and the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau (NHNHB) 6 maintain lists of threatened and endangered species in Maine and New Hampshire. 7 Threatened and endangered species are protected from death, harm, or harassment under 8 the US Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1536). Under the ESA, an endangered 9 species is defined as any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 10 portion of its range. A threatened species is defined as any species likely to become an 11 endangered species in the foreseeable future. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires federal 12 agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize listed species or result in 13 the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.

14 The USFWS, MDIFW, and NHNHB databases document that 61 federal- and/or state- 15 listed threatened or endangered species or state-listed species of concern potentially occur 16 within New Hampshire and Maine. The ANG consulted with the USFWS, MDIFW, and 17 NHNHB to determine the listed species that are known or likely to occur in the area 18 under the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs. Based on the results of these consultations, 19 bald eagle and Canada lynx are the only federally-listed species currently known to occur 20 under the affected airspace (Appendix A). When the EIS process began the ANG re- 21 initiated consultations with the USFWS, MDIFW, and NHNHB to confirm the results of

3-37 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 the prior consultation were still valid, and the ANG has not received response from these 2 agencies to date. Appendix D lists the other federal and state listed species that could 3 potentially occur in the area underneath Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs based on life 4 history requirements and habitat availability. The life histories and habitat requirements 5 of selected federal and state-listed species that are reasonably likely to occur in the area 6 under the affected airspace are discussed in the following paragraphs.

7 Bald Eagle

8 When this EIAP began the bald eagle was federally- and state-listed as threatened. It has 9 since been federally de-listed by the USFWS and is currently recommended for de-listing 10 in Maine, although it is still federally protected. Based upon consultation with the 11 USFWS (Appendix A), there are 15 known bald eagle nesting sites underlying the 12 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs (Figure 3-4). The USFWS and MDIFW consider these nesting 13 sites to be “essential habitat areas”. The USFWS recommends avoiding flights below 14 1000 ft AGL over these sites during the nesting season, and the MDIFW requires a 0.25- 15 mile buffer around all essential habitat areas (MDIFW, 2006). During the course of the 16 public consultation process, the ANG received information that a nesting pair of bald 17 eagles was located in the vicinity of Webb Lake. The ANG has forwarded this 18 information to the MDIFW and will cooperate with any efforts by the MDIFW to 19 investigate this information.

20 Golden Eagle

21 The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) is currently a state-listed endangered species in 22 Maine. This species is traditionally associated with rugged topography and open country 23 including rangelands, tundra, and alpine areas. It often nests on cliffs, or trees in forested 24 regions. Golden eagles are typically found in the mountainous areas in the western and 25 northwestern portions of Maine (MDIFW, 2003).

26 Peregrine Falcon

27 The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) is currently a state-listed endangered species in 28 Maine. This species typically requires cliffs for nesting and perching in proximity to

3-38 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 open water. Nest sites are typically located on ledges or overhangs; however, more 2 recently peregrines have adapted to nesting on bridges and buildings in urban 3 environments (MDIFW, 2003).

4

3-39 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 American Three-toed Woodpecker

2 The American three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis) is currently a state-listed 3 threatened species in New Hampshire. This species typically breeds in mature or old- 4 growth boreal conifer forests, especially spruce, larch, fir, and pine (Seattle Audubon 5 Society, 2006). There has been one known occurrence of the American three-toed 6 woodpecker in Coos County, NH. Based on consultation with the NHNHB (Appendix 7 A), the species was last identified in the town of Pittsburg in 1998; but suitable habitat for 8 the American three-toed woodpecker also exists elsewhere in the central portion of 9 Condor 1 MOA in New Hampshire.

10 Common Loon

11 The common loon (Gavia immer) is currently a state-listed threatened species in New 12 Hampshire. The common loon breeds on freshwater lakes with rocky shorelines and 13 bordered by forests. They winter primarily in coastal marine areas or large freshwater 14 lakes (Cornell, 2003a). Based on consultation with the NHNHB (Appendix A), a 15 breeding pair of common loons was identified along Third Connecticut Lake, under the 16 northwest corner of the Condor 1 MOA.

17 Pied-billed Grebe

18 The pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) is currently a state-listed endangered 19 species in New Hampshire. The pied-billed grebe typically breeds in Canada and the 20 United States on seasonal or permanent ponds, bays, and sloughs with dense stands of 21 emergent vegetation. In winter, pied-billed grebes migrate to the southern United States, 22 Central, and South America (Cornell, 2003b). Based on consultation with the NHNHB 23 (Appendix A), there are no known occurrences of the pied-billed grebe within the area 24 underlying the Condor 1 MOA; however, one breeding pair was identified in 1996 near 25 the southwestern MOA boundary.

3-40 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Ring-necked duck

2 The ring-necked duck (Aythya colalris) is currently a rare species in New Hampshire. 3 This species breeds across Canada and the northern United States in small ponds 4 (Cornell, 2003d). Based on consultation with the NHNHB (Appendix A), there have 5 been two documented occurrences of ring-necked ducks along Scott Brook and Norton 6 Pool in 1995 and 1987, respectively. Additionally, suitable habitat for the ring-necked 7 duck occurs under the central portion of the Condor 1 MOA in New Hampshire.

8 Rusty Blackbird

9 The rusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) is currently a rare species in New Hampshire. 10 This species breeds across Alaska, Canada, and northern New England in wet forests 11 including fens, bogs, and beaver ponds. During winter, the rusty blackbird migrates to 12 swamps, woodlands, and pond edges from southern Massachusetts to Florida (Cornell, 13 2003e). Based on consultation with the NHNHB, there are no known occurrences of 14 rusty blackbirds under the Condor 1 MOA; however, suitable habitat for the rusty 15 blackbird is located west of the Condor 1 MOA boundary. One occurrence of the species 16 was documented in this area in 1995.

17 Spruce Grouse

18 The spruce grouse (Falcipennis canadensis) is currently a rare species in New 19 Hampshire. This species is a year-round resident in Maine and prefers coniferous forests 20 dominated by dense stands of spruce, pine, or fir trees (Cornell, 2003f). The NHNHB 21 has not documented any known occurrence of spruce grouse underlying the Condor 1 22 MOA; however, suitable habitat for the species exists adjacent to the central-western 23 boundary of the MOA, and one occurrence of the species was documented in this area in 24 1995.

25 American Marten

26 The American marten (Martes americana) is currently a state-listed threatened species in 27 New Hampshire. This species typically inhabits mature conifer forests of the northern

3-41 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 United States (Wisconsin DNR, 2006). Based on consultation with the NHNHB 2 (Appendix A), there are four known occurrences of the American marten in Coos 3 County, NH underlying the Condor 1 MOA. All of these sites are located within the 4 town of Pittsburg. The latest siting of an American marten in Pittsburg was in July 2003.

5 Redbelly Dace

6 The redbelly dace (Phoxinus eos) is currently a rare species in New Hampshire. The 7 redbelly dace occurs in ponds and in the slow parts of streams, often in cool, darkly 8 stained waters of swampy northern creeks (Cornell, 2003c). It is occasionally taken in 9 areas with moderate current. Based on consultations with the NHNHB (Appendix A) the 10 redbelly dace was historically present in Scott Bog under the western border of the 11 Condor 1 MOA; however, no individuals have been identified in the area since 1985.

12 Bicknell’s thrush

13 Although it was not identified as a species of concern by the government agencies, the 14 public requested that the EIS consider potential impacts to the Bicknell’s thrush. The 15 Bicknell’s thrush is a state listed species of special concern in Maine. It occurs in young 16 to medium-aged fir dominated montane forests above 8,900 feet MSL in elevation, 17 although there are no areas underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs that approach/exceed 18 8,900 feet MSL. It is sensitive to habitat disturbance, and requires intact montane forest 19 to breed. Threats to the Bicknell’s thrush’s habitat include residential and commercial 20 development and wind power projects (McKinley, 2007).

21 3.8 Land Use

22 3.8.1 Definition of the Resource

23 Land use refers to both natural and “human modified” conditions occurring at a particular 24 location. Examples of human-modified land use categories include residential, industrial, 25 transportation, communications and utilities, agricultural, institutional, recreational, and 26 other developed areas. Management plans and zoning regulations determine the type and 27 extent of land use allowable in specific areas and are often intended to protect specially

3-42 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 designated or environmentally sensitive areas. The management plans that apply to this 2 EIS include: the White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 3 (Forest Plan), the Appalachian National Scenic Trail Strategic Plan, and Maine and New 4 Hampshire statewide resource planning documents.

5 3.8.2 Existing Conditions

6 The Condor 1 and 2 MOAs occupy a trapezoidal area that covers approximately 4,022 7 square miles in southwestern Maine and extreme northeastern New Hampshire. Land use 8 within the area underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs can be divided into four general 9 categories of property ownership: Federal, Penobscot Indian Nation, State, and private 10 ownership (Figure 3-5).

11 Federal Land

12 Federal land includes land managed by the NPS, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), USFWS, 13 and the DoD. There are no federally designated Wilderness Areas underlying the Condor 14 1 and Condor 2 MOAs. The Appalachian National Scenic Trail (AT) is a continuous, 15 marked, 75-year-old footpath that traverses the Appalachian Mountain chain from central 16 Maine to northern Georgia, for a distance of 2,175 miles. As the longest unit of the 17 National Park System, the AT provides opportunities for millions of visitors each year to 18 experience wild, scenic, and pastoral settings. It also affords opportunities for continuous 19 long-distance hiking. Congress designated the Appalachian Trail as the nation’s first 20 national scenic trail to provide for outdoor recreation, conservation, and enjoyment of 21 scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities of the areas through which it passes.

22 The AT traverses the ridgelines of the White Mountains, Mahoosuc Range, and Western 23 Main Mountains within the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs over a distance of 24 approximately 144 miles. Elevations range from 500 feet to more than 4,000 feet MSL. 25 These mountainous areas provide wild and primitive recreational and scenic opportunities 26 for long-distance hiking. This section of the AT has also been identified as a potential 27 historic district, eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NPS, 28 2007).

3-43 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 White Mountain National Forest was established by Presidential proclamation in 1918 2 and is managed by the USFS. It encompasses approximately 800,000 acres of land, of 3 which approximately 1,260 acres are overlain by the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs. Elevations 4 in the portion of the White Mountain National Forest underlying the Condor 1 and 2 5 MOAs range from approximately 700 to 1,300 feet MSL. The Forest supports a variety 6 of back country recreation opportunities such as hiking, camping, and snowmobiling and 7 also supports timber harvest.

8 Lake Umbagog NWR was established in 1993 and is managed by USFWS. It 9 encompasses more than 16,300 acres in Maine and New Hampshire. The Condor 1 and 2 10 MOAs overlie approximately 3,860 acres of land in the refuge (all within the State of 11 Maine). Elevations in the portion of the refuge underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs 12 range from 1,300 to 1,600 feet MSL. The refuge is characterized by extensive wetland 13 complexes that are excellent for waterfowl production.

3-44 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1

3-45 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 The DoD operates the Brunswick Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) 2 facility. The SERE school is based at Naval Air Station Brunswick in Brunswick, Maine, 3 and uses an approximately 12,000-acre property in Rangeley, Maine for training 4 activities (DOD, 2006a). The Brunswick/Rangely facility is the Navy’s only cold- 5 weather SERE school, and offers “training for DoD personnel to provide them with the 6 technical knowledge, practical experience and personal confidence necessary for world- 7 wide survival and evasion” (DOD, 2005). Elevations at the Rangeley SERE facility 8 range from 1,600 to 3,600 feet MSL and activities include search and rescue operations, 9 as well as joint SERE/ANG operations. This facility is located under the central portion 10 of the Condor 1 MOA.

11 Penobscot Nation

12 The Penobscot Nation occupies two parcels of Federal Indian Reservation lands under the 13 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs: the 23,445-acre Alder Stream land in northern Franklin County, 14 and the 24,222-acre Carrabassett Valley land in central Franklin County. The Alder 15 Stream land is held in trust by the federal government, while the Carrabassett Valley land 16 was purchased by the Penobscot Nation in 1981 as part of the Maine Indian Land Claims 17 Act (Town of Carrabassett Valley, 2006).

18 State Land

19 The Condor 1 and 2 MOAs overlie approximately 170,000 acres (6.6 percent of the area 20 underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs) of land owned or managed by the States of Maine 21 and New Hampshire. These lands are managed for multiple uses including recreation, 22 wildlife, and timber production. Important state-owned resources include:

23 • State parks in Maine: The Condor 1 and 2 MOAs completely overlie Mount Blue 24 State Park and Rangeley Lake State Park in Franklin County, as well as most of 25 Grafton Notch State Park in Oxford County. These parks are managed by the 26 Maine Bureau of Parks and Land.

3-46 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 • Six Wildlife Management Areas in Maine: Black Brook Flowage, Fahi Pond, 2 Flagg Pond, Spectacle Pond, Strong Pond, and Stump Pond. These areas are 3 managed by the MDIFW.

4 • Public Reserve Lands in Maine: These include the 36,000-acre Bigelow Preserve, 5 and a number of other preserves and other properties used for recreation, forestry, 6 and open space. These facilities are managed by the Maine Bureau of Parks and 7 Land.

8 • Connecticut Lakes Natural Area (CLNA): The CLNA is a collection of public 9 land including the Connecticut Lakes State Forest, Connecticut Lakes Nature 10 Preserve, Connecticut Lakes Wildlife Management Area, and the Norton Pool 11 Preserve. These lands are owned and managed by the New Hampshire Fish and 12 Game Department. The Condor 1 MOA overlies more than 14,000 of the 25,000 13 acres of the CLNA in New Hampshire.

14 Rangeley High Peaks Initiative

15 The Forest Legacy Program (FLP) is a partnership between states and the USDA Forest 16 Service to identify and help conserve environmentally sensitive and valuable forested 17 land. The program is funded primarily through federal grants to the states, which use the 18 funds for land preservation and conservation projects and to administer the program at 19 the local level.

20 The High Peaks Region eccompasses approximately 230,000 acres of Maine's western 21 mountains near the communities of Rangeley, Phillips, Kingfield and Stratton. The State 22 of Maine has designated approximately 59,790 acres of the High Peaks Region under 23 Condor 1 MOA for protection. The state designated 13,446 acres (22 percent) of the 24 High Peaks Forest Legacy Area under Condor 1 MOA for protection under Phase 1 of the 25 Rangeley High Peaks Initiative. The remaining 46,344 acres (78 percent) are designated 26 as Phase 2 lands and are also targeted for future protection. Figure 3-6 illustrates the 27 location of the High Peaks Forest Legacy Phase 1 and Phase 2 lands with respect to the 28 existing MTRs in the Condor 1 MOA.

3-47 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 2 3 Approximately 56,804 acres (95 percent) of the total High Peaks Forest Legacy land fall 4 within an MTR corridor. This includes all of the Phase 1 land, and 42,399 acres of the 5 Phase 2 land (94 percent of all Phase 2 Forest Legacy land). Approximately 2,826 acres

3-48 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 of Phase 2 land (5 percent of total Forest Legacy land and 6 percent of Phase 2 land) fall 2 outside of an existing MTR corridor.

3 Private Land

4 Land under the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs not under federal, military, or state control is in 5 private ownership. The Condor 1 and 2 MOAs overlie numerous small towns in Maine, 6 ranging in population from less than 100 to more than 7,000. The largest of these towns 7 is Farmington, near the southeastern boundary of the Condor 2 MOA, with an estimated 8 2005 population of 7,504 (US Census Bureau, 2006).

9 3.9 Socioeconomic Resources

10 3.9.1 Definition of the Resource

11 Socioeconomics is defined as the basic attributes and resources associated with the 12 human environment, particularly population and economic activity. Economic activity 13 typically comprises employment, personal income, and industrial growth. Impacts on 14 these two fundamental socioeconomic indicators can also influence other indicators such 15 as housing availability and public services.

16 In 1994, EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and 17 Low-Income Populations, was issued to focus the attention of federal agencies on human 18 health and environmental conditions in minority and low-income communities, and to 19 ensure that disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on 20 these communities are identified and addressed. Also, EO 13045, Protection of Children 21 from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, was issued in 1997 to focus attention 22 of federal agencies on assessing environmental health risks and safety risks that may 23 disproportionately affect children and ensure that such risks are addressed.

24 3.9.2 Existing Conditions

25 The Condor 1 and 2 MOAs overlie all or substantial portions of 26 US Census tracts in 26 Franklin, Oxford, Piscataquis, and Somerset Counties in Maine, and Coos County, New 27 Hampshire (Tracts 9604, 9605, 9853, 9856, 9862, 9863, 9864, 9865, 9870, 9901, 9906,

3-49 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 9910, 9911, 9912, 9913, 9914, 9951, 9954, 9955, 9956, 9957, 9958, 9959, 9960, and 2 9961 in Maine, and tract 9501 in New Hampshire (Figure 3-7). The aggregate population 3 of these 26 Census tracks was 78,088 in 2000. This represents approximately 42 percent 4 of the combined populations of Franklin, Oxford, Piscataquis, Somerset, and Coos 5 Counties (185,456) (Table 3-11).

6 The area underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs has a similar or lower percentage of 7 ethnic and racial minorities (1.8 percent) as compared to Franklin County (2.0 percent), 8 Oxford County (1.7 percent), Piscataquis County (2.2 percent), Somerset County (2.0 9 percent), Coos County (1.9 percent), and the entire states of Maine (3.0 percent) and New 10 Hampshire (3.9 percent) (Table 3-12). Native Americans were the largest minority group 11 comprising 0.4 percent of the population underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, 12 compared to 0.6 and 0.2 percent in the states of Maine and New Hampshire, respectively, 13 0.5 percent in Piscataquis County, 0.4 percent in Franklin and Somerset Counties, and 0.3 14 percent in Oxford and Coos Counties. Approximately 14.1 percent (10,753 persons) of 15 the population underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs was living below the poverty level 16 in 2000, compared to 14.6 percent in Franklin County, 11.8 percent in Oxford County, 17 14.8 percent in Piscataquis County, 14.9 percent in Somerset County, 10.0 percent in 18 Coos County, 10.9 percent in all of Maine, and 6.5 percent in all of New Hampshire.

19 Children (persons under 18 years of age) comprised 23.6 percent of the area under the 20 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, compared to 23.5 percent in Franklin County, 24.2 percent in 21 Oxford County, 23.4 percent in Piscataquis County, 24.7 percent in Somerset County, 22 22.8 percent in Coos County, 23.5 percent in Maine, and 24.6 percent in New Hampshire.

3-50 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1

3-51 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

Table 3-11. Population Data for Franklin, Oxford, Piscataquis, Somerset, and Coos Counties, 2000

Maine New Hampshire Condor MOA Franklin Oxford Somerset Coos County County Piscataquis County County County Population 1,284,576 29,467 54,755 17,235 50,888 1,258,315 33,111 78,088 2000 Ethnic Composition Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White 1,236,014 96% 28,865 98% 53,797 98% 16,862 98% 49,868 98% 1,186,851 94% 32,466 98% 76,701 98% African American 6,760 1% 72 0% 95 0% 36 0% 121 0% 9,035 1% 40 0% 127 0% Native American 7,098 1% 109 0% 151 0% 89 1% 208 0% 2,964 0% 93 0% 292 0% Asian 9,111 1% 126 0% 201 0% 47 0% 171 0% 15,931 1% 123 0% 248 0% Pacific Islander 382 0% 6 0% 12 0% 4 0% 11 0% 371 0% 5 0% 9 0% Other 2,911 0% 49 0% 59 0% 24 0% 55 0% 7,420 1% 53 0% 98 0% Multiple Races 12,647 1% 240 1% 440 1% 173 1% 454 1% 13,214 1% 331 1% 613 1% Minority 38,909 3% 602 2% 958 2% 373 2% 1,020 2% 48,935 4% 645 2% 1,387 2% 2000 Age Composition Under 18 301,238 23% 6,929 24% 13,234 24% 4,034 23% 12,563 25% 309,562 25% 7,558 23% 18,397 24% 18 to 64 799,936 62% 18,354 62% 32,728 60% 10,206 59% 31,047 61% 800,783 64% 19,440 59% 47,375 61% 65 and Over 183,402 14% 4,184 14% 8,793 16% 2,995 17% 7,278 14% 147,970 12% 6,113 18% 12,316 16% 2000 Income Median Household Income 37,240 31,459 33,435 28,250 30,731 49,467 33,593 N/A Percent of individuals below poverty level 10.9% 14.6% 11.8% 14.8% 14.9% 6.5% 10.0% 14.1%

3-52 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

Employment

According to the 2000 Census, the largest segment (22.6 percent) of the working population underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs was employed in the educational, health, and social services industries. The second largest employment sector was manufacturing, accounting for 21.0 percent of jobs in the area, followed by retail trade (11.5 percent) and arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food service (9.5 percent). Together these four employment sectors accounted for 64.7 percent of jobs held by residents. The job market in the area underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs is similar to the job market in the surrounding counties (Franklin, Oxford, Piscataquis, Somerset, and Coos) and the states of Maine and New Hampshire, where the top three employment sectors were also education, manufacturing, and retail (Table 3-12).

A portion of Maine’s economy revolves around the tourism industry. The portions of western Maine underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs are home to numerous ski resorts (Figure 3-8), solitude retreats, and recreational horseback riding farms. Agricultural land, including pasture for a variety of livestock, is also present throughout the area underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs.

3-53 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

3-54 Environmental Impact StatementModification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

Table 3-12. Employment Comparison Data, 2000 ne New Hampshire Condor MOA Franklin Oxford Piscataquis Somerset Coos County Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 2.6% 444 3.2% 771 3.0% 330 4.5% 1,061 4.6% 5,837 0.9% 486 3.1% 1,422 4.1% 6.9% 896 6.5% 2,365 9.2% 494 6.8% 2,075 8.9% 44,269 6.8% 918 5.9% 2,806 8.0% 14.2% 2,478 18.0% 5,160 20.1% 1,761 24.2% 5,462 23.5% 117,673 18.1% 3,415 21.8% 7,378 21.0% 3.4% 262 1.9% 557 2.2% 115 1.6% 630 2.7% 23,426 3.6% 360 2.3% 607 1.7% 13.5% 1,779 13.0% 3,126 12.2% 958 13.2% 2,897 12.5% 89,089 13.7% 2,279 14.5% 4,054 11.5% 4.3% 454 3.3% 926 3.6% 427 5.9% 981 4.2% 27,006 4.1% 695 4.4% 1,358 3.9% 2.5% 141 1.0% 410 1.6% 120 1.6% 327 1.4% 17,478 2.7% 204 1.3% 441 1.3% 6.2% 724 5.3% 1,040 4.0% 223 3.1% 769 3.3% 40,731 6.3% 568 3.6% 1,454 4.1%

6.9% 539 3.9% 1,246 4.9% 249 3.4% 1,021 4.4% 57,369 8.8% 506 3.2% 1,381 3.9%

23.2% 3,519 25.6% 5,847 22.8% 1,575 21.6% 4,800 20.7% 130,390 20.0% 3,212 20.5% 7,938 22.6%

7.1% 1,379 10.0% 2,310 9.0% 394 5.4% 1,235 5.3% 45,001 6.9% 1,551 9.9% 3,342 9.5%

4.7% 666 4.8% 1,073 4.2% 270 3.7% 1,113 4.8% 27,780 4.3% 707 4.5% 1,663 4.7% 4.5% 456 3.3% 855 3.3% 364 5.0% 834 3.6% 24,822 3.8% 785 5.0% 1,267 3.6%

3-55 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 3.10 Cultural Resources

2 3.10.1 Definition of the Resource

3 Cultural resources represent and document activities, accomplishments, and traditions of 4 previous civilizations and link current and former inhabitants of an area. Depending on 5 their condition and historic use, these resources may provide insight in to living 6 conditions in previous civilizations and may retain cultural and religious significance to 7 modern groups. They include archaeological and architectural resources.

8 Archaeological resources are areas where prehistoric or historic activity measurably 9 altered the earth or where deposits of physical remains (e.g., arrowheads, pottery) have 10 been discovered. Architectural resources include standing buildings, districts, dams, and 11 other structures of historic or aesthetic significance. Architectural resources generally 12 must be more than 50 years old to be considered for inclusion in the National Register of 13 Historic Places (NRHP), an inventory of culturally significant resources identified in the 14 US; however, more recent structures, such as Cold War-era resources, may warrant 15 protection if they have the potential to gain significance in the future and are considered 16 extraordinary in nature. Traditional cultural resources can include archaeological 17 resources, structures, neighborhoods, prominent topographic features, habitats, plants, 18 animals, and minerals that Native Americans or other groups consider essential for the 19 preservation of cultural identities and traditional ways of life.

20 Several laws and regulations have been established to manage cultural resources 21 including the National Historic Preservation Act (1966), the Archaeological and Historic 22 Preservation Act (1974), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978), the 23 Archaeological Resource Protection Act (1979), and the Native American Graves 24 Protection and Repatriation Act (1990).

25 In order for a cultural resource to be considered significant or for inclusion on the 26 National Register, it must “possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, 27 workmanship, feeling, and association” and meet one or more of the following criteria 28 (36 CFR Section 60.4):

3-56 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 • be associated with events that have had a significant contribution 2 to the broad patterns of our history; or

3 • be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

4 • embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method 5 of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that 6 possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and 7 distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual 8 distinction; or

9 • have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in 10 prehistory or history.”

11 On 27 November 1999, the DoD promulgated its Annotated American Indian and Alaska 12 Native Policy, which emphasizes the importance of respecting and consulting with tribal 13 governments on a government-to-government basis. This policy requires an assessment, 14 through consultation, of the effects proposed DoD actions may have on protected tribal 15 resources, tribal rights, and Indian lands before decisions are made by the respective 16 services.

17 3.10.2 Existing Conditions

18 Southwestern Maine and northeast New Hampshire have been inhabited for thousands of 19 years, perhaps as far back as the last Ice Age, and were populated by Abenaki, Penobscot, 20 and other Indian tribes at the time of the first European explorations. Archeological 21 research has revealed the presence of Native American activity along the Dead River in 22 what is now Somerset County (BPL, 2005), and several pre-historic archeological sites in 23 this area are listed on the National Register of Historic Places as contributing to past 24 Indian and proto-Indian cultures (Appendix E).

25 Northern New England remained sparsely populated throughout the early colonial period, 26 with scattered settlements in the 17th and 18th centuries. Growth in the fur trade brought 27 hunters and trappers to the area, and prompted trade between these settlers and Native

3-57 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 American tribes. Conflict between Indian and European forces was common throughout 2 this period, which was marked by King Philip’s War, the French and Indian War, and the 3 Revolutionary War. In 1775, Benedict Arnold led a force of more than 1,000 men from 4 the Kennebec River to Quebec City to conduct an ultimately unsuccessful attack on 5 British forces in Quebec City. His expedition passed through the rugged terrain of 6 modern Franklin and Somerset County (BPL, 2005).

7 The region underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs retains its rural qualities today, and is 8 characterized by small towns, large land preserves, and abundant forests. The forest 9 products industry has played an important role in the region’s history, economy, and 10 culture, and “many large blocks of industrial timberland remain[ing] today within the 11 region” (BPL, 2005). The CLNA was created from the sale of land owned by the 12 International Paper Company (NHFG, 2006). Recreation has also played an important 13 role in shaping the region. First constructed in the 1920s and 1930s, the Appalachian 14 Trail extends more than 2,170 miles along the Appalachian Mountains from Georgia to 15 Mount Katahdin, in Piscataquis County, and crosses through portions of Franklin, 16 Oxford, Piscataquis, and Somerset Counties under the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs. Hiking, 17 skiing, whitewater boating, hunting, and other recreational activities are common, and 18 help drive the area’s economic activity, as evidenced by the substantial number of 19 residents employed in the Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation, and Food 20 industries (see Section 3.9).

21 Native American Resources

22 The Penobscot Nation holds two parcels of Federal Indian Reservation lands underlying 23 the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs: the Alder Stream and Carrabassett Valley properties. Based 24 on information received from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Eastern Region (Appendix 25 A), the Penobscot Nation was the only Native American tribe identified in the area 26 underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs.

3-58 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Historic Resources

2 According to the NRHP databases and Maine Historic Resources Inventory (Appendix 3 E), a total of 132 listed or eligible properties, structures, historic districts, or 4 archeological sites underlie the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, with the largest number (52) in 5 Franklin County, Maine. Numerous additional historic properties, including 6 archaeological sites and historic structures, are potentially present in the Maine portion of 7 the area under the affected airspace. The Maine Historic Resources Inventory, which 8 lists these resources, was provided by the Maine SHPO on 8 November 2006 in response 9 to an initial data request on 18 October 2006 (Appendix A). Additionally, in a letter 10 dated 26 March 2007, the Maine SHPO identified the Appalachian Trail as eligible for 11 listing on the National Register of Historic Places as a linear historic district.

12 The NRHP database contains no entries corresponding to the area underlying the Condor 13 1 MOA in New Hampshire. In addition, there are no properties, structures, or areas 14 under the Condor 1 MOA listed on the New Hampshire State Register of Historic Places 15 (NH SHPO, 2006). When the EIS process began the ANG re-initiated consultations with 16 the Maine and New Hampshire SHPOs to verify that the results of the prior consultations 17 with these agencies were still valid, and the ANG has not yet received responses from 18 these agencies.

3-59 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1

2

3

3-60 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

2 This section of the EIS assesses the potential environmental consequences associated 3 with the Proposed Action and Alternatives. Potential impacts are addressed by resource 4 area as described in Section 3.0, Affected Environment.

5 3.11 Airspace Management

6 4.1.1 Significance Criteria

7 Impacts on airspace use are assessed by comparing existing military flight operations 8 with forecasted military and civil aviation activities in the ROI. This section of the EIS 9 analyzes the capability of affected airspace elements to accommodate projected military 10 activities, and includes a determination of whether such increases would have any 11 adverse impacts on overall airspace use in the ROI. Other considerations include the 12 interaction of the proposed use of specific airspace with adjacent controlled, 13 uncontrolled, or other military training airspace; possible impacts on other non- 14 participating civil and military aircraft operations; and possible impacts on civil airports 15 that underlie or are proximate to the airspace involved in the Proposed Action. Impacts 16 to airspace management would be considered significant if they:

17 • negatively affect the movement of other air traffic in the area;

18 • compromise air traffic control systems or facilities; or

19 • cause an increase in midair collision potential between military and non- 20 participating civilian operations.

21 4.1.2 Proposed Action

22 The Proposed Action would lower the flight floor to 500 feet AGL and create the Condor 23 Low and Condor High MOAs. The airspace would average approximately two sorties per 24 flying day (an average of 20 flying days per month) as it does under current conditions.

4-1 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 The Proposed Action would have the following effects on the number of sorties flown per 2 year in the affected airspace:

3 • Increase the number of F-15 sorties in the MOAs by approximately 24 sorties, or 4 approximately 33%;

5 • Decrease the number of F-16 sorties in the MOAs by approximately 24 sorties, or 6 approximately 7%;

7 • Eliminate the F-15s from the VR routes;

8 • Decrease the number of F-16 sorties in the VRs by approximately 24 sorties, or 9 approximately 25%;

10 • Decrease the overall number of sorties in the VRs by approximately 72 sorties or 11 approximately 50%; and

12 • Decrease the overall number of sorties in the affected airspace by approximately 13 12%.

14 The Proposed Action would have the following effects on utilization (time spent) in 15 the affected airspace:

16 • Decrease the total utilization of the existing VRs by 18-28 hours (50%) per 17 year; and

18 • Decrease the total utilization of the affected airspace by 18-28 hours (7-8%) 19 per year.

20 Effects on VFR traffic 21 22 The Proposed Action would reduce the potential for interference between civilian and 23 military pilots within the MTRs, which cover slightly more than half of the affected 24 airspace. Under the Proposed Action, low altitude sorties would not be as highly 25 concentrated anywhere in the affected airspace as they are now in the VRs. Figure 4.1 26 illustrates the comparative concentrations of low altitude sorties in terms of annual sorties

4-2 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 per acre of ground covered before and after the Proposed Action inside and outside the 2 VRs. The Proposed Action would de-centralize the remaining F-15 and some of the F-16 3 low-altitude activity by distributing some VR traffic into new low-altitude areas outside 4 the VRs. Areas outside the MTRs (roughly 47% of the affected airspace, or 3,600 square 5 miles of land area under the affected airspace) would experience low-level flights under 6 the Proposed Action where none occur now. As a result, low altitude interaction between 7 military and civilian VFR traffic (similar to those that can occur now in the MTRs) could 8 occur over a wider area, but the overall likelihood of interaction between military and 9 civilian VFR traffic would decrease because military utilization of low altitude areas as a 10 whole (in the MOAs and MTRs combined) would decrease.

11 Effects on IFR Traffic

12 Creation of the Condor Low MOA would cause a minor restriction of access to the 13 airspace for IFR traffic. IFR traffic would not be permitted to fly in the affected airspace 14 when the proposed Condor Low MOA is active. This restriction would not be in effect 15 every day; it would only be in effect under IFR conditions and when the MOA is active. 16 Two sorties per flying day would activate the Condor Low MOA for approximately 25- 17 40 minutes per flying day; IFR traffic would have unrestricted access to the Condor Low 18 MOA at all other times. IFR pilots are currently acclimated to the inaccessibility of IR 19 850/1/2 during military training, so the Proposed Action would not constitute any change 20 in access for civilian IFR traffic within IR 850/1/2.

21 Effects on air traffic control and facilities

22 The Proposed Action would not use or interfere with any airfields underlying the 23 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs. The Proposed Action would require a broader 24 application of the procedures that non-military air traffic currently implement to fly 25 safely within the MTRs. The 104 FW would continue to maintain a minimum altitude of 26 1,500 ft AGL within 7 NM of Rangeley Lake airfield. Additionally, military aircraft 27 would continue to maintain 1,000 feet vertical spacing and an approximate 100-foot 28 lateral bubble around Bean, Lindbergh, and Bethel airfields. Depending on the volume of 29 civilian air traffic, the 104 FW may be required to establish avoidance procedures below

4-3 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 700 feet AGL within the Class E airspace surrounding the Greenville and Central Maine 2 airfields. Boston Center will also advise military aircraft of the presence of civilian 3 aircraft in the airspace to further enable military pilots to avoid general aviation traffic. 4 The RR-188 training chaff and flares that would be used in the proposed Condor Low 5 and High MOAs do not interfere with FAA radar, so extending the use of these devices 6 throughout the proposed Condor Low MOA will not interfere with air traffic control.

7 Effects on collision potential

8 On-board radar can detect civilian pilots outside of 60 miles and the ANG would 9 terminate training or move to different areas of the airspace if civilian aircraft are 10 detected. Additionally, some civilian aircraft locations will be transmitted to all military 11 aircraft through Mode 3 transponders, which can be detected by the fighters’ on board 12 air-to-air interrogators (AAI) outside of 60 miles. General aviation pilots that fly 13 exclusively outside the MTRs would have the potential to encounter low-altitude military 14 flights where none exist now, but nowhere in the affected airspace would the potential for 15 low-altitude interaction between general aviation and military traffic be as great as it is 16 currently within the MTRs. Civilian air traffic including float plane tour operators 17 currently fly within the MTR corridors under VFR (Lake Region Air, 2003) which 18 indicates that civilian air traffic is compatible with low-altitude military training activity. 19 Therefore, the Proposed Action would not significantly increase the chance for mid-air 20 collisions with civilian aircraft (for further discussion of effects on safety refer to Section 21 4.2).

22 In a letter dated 31 October 2006, the USFWS indicated their concern with deconfliction8 23 of low-altitude airspace for their fixed-wing aircraft during aerial species counts 24 (Appendix A). The 104 FW has provided a contact person at EADS, the airspace 25 scheduling authority, for the purposes of coordinating all airspace deconfliction and 26 identifying periods when the MOA is active for civilian pilots (Section 7.0).

8 “Deconfliction” is the process whereby the non-military entity (USFWS) would contact EADS to ensure the airspace is cleared of military aircraft during aerial species count events.

4-4 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Refer to Section 5.0 for further discussion of the cumulative effects of flight reductions 2 due to the additive influence of BRAC decisions

3 4.1.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 4 Alternative

5 The “Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged” alternative 6 reflects all aspects of the Proposed Action, except the flight floor of Condor 2 MOA 7 would remain 7,000 feet MSL (between approximately 2,800 and 6,300 feet AGL). No 8 low-altitude sorties would be conducted in the Condor 2 MOA (other than those that 9 currently occur along pre-existing MTRs); therefore there would be no new low-altitude 10 flights over the Gadabout Gaddis airport.

11 This alternative would entail a higher probability of low-altitude interactions between 12 military and general aviation traffic in Condor 1 MOA than under the Proposed Action 13 because all of the low-altitude sorties that would be relocated out of the MTRs would 14 occur in Condor 1 MOA rather than being distributed across both MOAs. The probability 15 of interactions between military and general aviation traffic in Condor 2 MOA would be 16 unchanged. Regardless of this change, assuming that the safety measures that would be 17 instituted over the entire airspace under the Proposed Action would be implement in 18 Condor 1 MOA, this alternative would not adversely impact civilian airports underlying 19 the proposed Condor 1 or Condor 2 MOAs. Therefore, this alternative would have no 20 significant impact on airspace management.

21 4.1.4 No-Action Alternative

22 Under the No-Action Alternative, the flight floor of the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs would 23 remain unchanged and no new areas would be exposed to low level flights; therefore, the 24 No-Action Alternative would have no impact on airspace management.

4-5 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 4.2 Safety

2 4.2.1 Significance Criteria

3 A significant impact to safety would occur if implementation of the Proposed Action 4 would substantially increase the risks associated with mishap potential or flight safety 5 relevant to the public or the environment. The change in mishap potential is determined 6 by comparing the accident rates for aircraft utilizing the airspace prior to, and following, 7 the Proposed Action.

8 Changes in flight tracks or missions can also result in impacts to safety if the Proposed 9 Action would increase the risk of a bird strike. The increased BASH risk is determined 10 by comparing the BASH data for the routes previously flown to similar data for the 11 Proposed Action.

12 4.2.2 Proposed Action

13 Quantifying the impacts of the Proposed Action on mishap rates entailed the following 14 steps:

15 • Calculating the change in F-15 and F-16 utilization per year in the MOAs and 16 VRs;

17 • Multiplying the percentage of overall utilization attributable to each aircraft type 18 by their respective Class A and Class B mishap rates to derive the individual 19 effects of both aircraft types on mishap potential in the MOAs and the VRs; and

20 • Adding the individual effects of both aircraft types to calculate the net change in 21 mishap potential in the MOAs and the VRs attributable to the Proposed Action.

22 The Proposed Action would result in a slight decrease in potential for Class A and B 23 mishaps in the VRs, primarily because utilization of the VRs by both F-15s and F-16s 24 would decrease under the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would result in a slight 25 increase in potential for Class B mishaps, but a larger decrease in potential for Class A 26 mishaps in the MOAs. The disparity in impacts on Class A and Class B mishap potential

4-6 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 in the MOAs derives mostly from the differences in historical F-15 mishap rates: Over 2 the last three decades F-15s have been slightly more prone than F-16s to be involved in 3 Class B mishaps, and slightly less prone to be involved in Class A mishaps. F-15s have 4 also been almost twice as prone to be involved in a Class B mishap as in a Class A 5 mishap, while F-16s have been involved in over four times as many Class A mishaps than 6 Class B mishaps. Therefore, increasing F-15 sorties and decreasing F-16 sorties in the 7 MOAs would decrease the relative risk of a Class A mishap, but increase the relative risk 8 of a Class B sortie occurring in the MOAs. Table 4.1 quantifies the changes in mishap 9 potential in both the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs and the MTRs that would occur as a 10 result of the Proposed Action.

11 Table 4-1. Changes in Class A and Class B Mishap Potential

Change in Overall Change in Class A mishap Change in Class B Airspace Utilization potential mishap potential F-15s MOA +16 hours (+33%) +0.0003872 +0.00728 VRs -20 hours (-33 %) -0.000484 -0.00091 F-16s MOA -16 hours (-7%) -0.0006112 -0.0001312 VRs -6 hours (-19%) -0.0003056 -0.0000656 Net Change (F-15s and F-16s combined) MOAs 0 hours -0.000224 +0.0005968 VRs -26 hours -0.0007896 -0.0009756 12 Changes in mishap potential are reported in mishaps per year. These calculations likely overstate effects on 13 mishap potential because they use the maximum changes in utilization figures for each aircraft and 14 airspace, so this methodology provides a conservative assessment of the impacts of the Proposed Action on 15 safety.

16 The increase in Class B mishap potential calculated in Table 4.1 for the Condor 1 and 2 17 MOAs represents a very remote risk (equating to a risk of roughly one additional Class B 18 mishap every 1,675 years at the utilization rates for the MOAs under the Proposed 19 Action), and would be more than offset by the decreases in Class A mishap potential 20 throughout the MOAs and Class B mishap potential in the VRs. These calculations are 21 based mishap rates for the entire fleet of U.S. F-15s operating worldwide, but based on 22 current mishap data for the affected airspace, where the 104 FW currently conducts low- 23 altitude training, existing safety measures have historically been sufficient to prevent 24 mishaps. Therefore, there is no evidence to indicate that the Proposed Action would

4-7 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 constitute a significant negative impact on mishap potential in the Condor Low and High 2 MOAs.

3 The potential would exist for civilian VFR pilots to encounter military aircraft conducting 4 low altitude training in areas where military aircraft do not currently occur; however, the 5 change in military air traffic patterns associated with the proposed Condor Low MOA 6 would not significantly affect safety for the following reasons:

7 • civilian pilots in the area are accustomed to sharing airspace with military traffic 8 on existing low-level routes within the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs;

9 • Boston Center will transmit the location and altitude of all known civilian aircraft 10 to all military aircraft operating in the airspace by use of Boston’s radar and mode 11 3 transponder interrogations;

12 • military pilots are trained to see and avoid aircraft at the speeds they would be 13 traveling within the affected airspace; and

14 • the military aircraft that would be operating within the proposed Condor Low and 15 High MOAs are equipped with radar and air-to-air interrogators that are capable 16 of detecting other aircraft at distances in excess of 60 miles. This capability 17 enables military pilots to undertake necessary avoidance maneuvers, often before 18 the civilian pilot is aware of the military aircraft’s presence;

19 • civilian aircraft, including floatplanes, use the areas underlying the MTRs 20 currently, and EADS has not recorded any mishaps within the Condor 1 and 2 21 MOAs or the underlying MTRs in the last 40 years (Pers. Comm. Capt. Jeffrey 22 Beckel, 2006). The current safety record within the affected airspace suggests 23 that military and civilian aircraft can operate safely together within Condor 1 and 24 2 MOAs; and

25 • the Proposed Action would effectively extend the same operational scenario that 26 has safely accommodated military and civilian use of the same airspace within the 27 MTRS over the remainder of Condor 1 and 2 MOAs.

4-8 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 The Proposed Action would lower the flight floor of the Condor MOAs to 500 feet AGL. 2 The Proposed Action would disperse some of the existing sorties from within the MTRs 3 to the larger Condor Low and High MOAs. There are no data to suggest that bird 4 concentrations or distributions are significantly different within or outside the MTRs in 5 the affected airspace, so there is no reason to assume that BASH risk would increase as a 6 result of the Proposed Action. BASH risk associated with military flights to 500 ft AGL 7 within the MTRs have historically been successfully mitigated through preflight review 8 of the AHAS and the BASH-related training modification measures described in Section 9 3.2.2. Were BASH risks to increase due to changes in bird distribution or behavior, 10 continued application of the existing bird BASH mitigation measures in the proposed 11 Condor Low and High MOAs would likely mitigate any potential increase in BASH 12 throughout the affected airspace. Therefore, the Proposed Action, coupled with the bird 13 BASH mitigation measures currently practiced by the 104 FW, would not likely have an 14 adverse impact on safety related to BASH. For additional discussion of bird-aircraft 15 strike potential with the Proposed Action, refer to Section 4.7.2.

16 4.2.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 17 Alternative

18 Under this alternative, the flight floor of Condor 1 MOA would be lowered to 500 feet 19 AGL; however, the flight floor of Condor 2 MOA would remain at 7,000 feet MSL 20 (between approximately 2,800 feet and 6,300 feet AGL). Combined utilization in 21 Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs would remain unchanged, apart from an incremental so 22 The same aircraft that currently utilize the affected airspace would utilize the Condor 1 23 and 2 MOAs, although the distribution of sorties within the airspace would be slightly 24 different than under the Proposed Action. Utilization of the Condor 1 MOA would be 25 higher than under the Proposed Action because all the low altitude sorties that would be 26 relocated out of the MTRs would occur in Condor 1 MOA rather than being distributed 27 between both MOAs. Therefore; this alternative would cause an incremental increase in 28 mishap potential in Condor 1 MOA and a proportional decrease in mishap potential in the 29 MTRs when compared with the Proposed Action. Mishap potential in the Condor 2 30 MOA would not change. Across the affected airspace as a whole, the potential mishap

4-9 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 rates would remain about the same and there would be no significant adverse impact on 2 mishap potential as a result of the Proposed Action.

3 As under the Proposed Action, there would be no significant adverse impact on safety 4 relative to the BASH risk. For additional discussion of potential bird-aircraft strikes 5 under this alternative, refer to Section 4.7.3.

6 4.2.4 No-Action Alternative

7 Under the No-Action Alternative no modifications would be made to the existing 8 airspace, so the mishap and BASH risks would not change. Therefore, the No-Action 9 Alternative would have no impact on safety.

10 4.3 Noise

11 4.3.1 Significance Criteria

12 Noise analyses typically evaluate potential changes to existing noise environments 13 through implementation of a proposed action. These changes may be beneficial if they 14 reduce the incidence of exposure of sensitive receptors to unacceptable noise levels. 15 Conversely, significant impacts may occur if changes result in increased exposure to 16 unacceptable noise levels. According to FAA Order 1050.1E (Appendix A), a significant 17 noise impact would occur if the Proposed Action would cause noise sensitive areas to 18 experience an increase in noise of 1.5 decibel (dB) or more at or above 65 dB day-night 19 average sound level (DNL) noise exposure when compared to the No-Action Alternative 20 for the same time frame. The FAA order also explains that the 65 DNL threshold does 21 not adequately address the effects of noise on visitors to areas within a national wildlife 22 refuge where other noise is very low and a quiet setting is a generally recognized purpose 23 and attribute. Analyses of the areas within Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge are 24 discussed in Section 4.8, Land Use.

25 During the public consultation process, several members of the public indicated that 26 noise was a concern in the affected airspace, and that the area would be sensitive to 27 increases in noise from the Proposed Action. To enhance the rigor of the noise analysis

4-10 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 this EIS replaces the standard DNL metric with the more conservative Ldnmr metric,

2 includes an analysis of SEL, and provides supplemental information on Lmax.

3 4.3.2 Proposed Action

4 The Proposed Action would only affect the Project Area during military overflights. 5 Therefore, the Proposed Action would have no impact on ambient noise levels when the 6 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs are not in use. The noise analysis for this EIS 7 used MR_NMAP Version 2.2 to assess the potential effects of the Proposed Action on 8 noise levels associated with military overflights. MR_NMAP is one of the software 9 programs approved by the FAA to assess noise-related impacts associated with military 10 training in SUA. The analytical parameters considered in this analysis included aircraft 11 type, proposed aircraft operations, and a conservative estimate of the amount of time 12 spent within each airspace block (Appendix D).

13 Tables 4-2 and 4-3 present the results of the MR_NMAP noise analysis for the Proposed 14 Action. Appendix D contains the complete modeling analysis.

15 Average Sound Level

16 Under the Proposed Action Ldnmr would decrease under the existing MTRs. Table 4-2 17 presents the baseline and proposed noise modeling results for the individual segments of

18 the MTRs (i.e. VRs). Ldnmr levels on the centerline of VR 0840/1/2 associated with the 19 Proposed Action would be below 65 dBA, and would represent an average decrease of 20 11.8 dBA from existing conditions. The decrease in noise would be more than twice the 21 amount that is noticeable to humans, so under the Proposed Action a ground-based noise 22 receptor underneath VR-0840/1/2 would notice a decrease in average noise associated 23 with aircraft overflights.

4-11 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Table 4-2. Proposed and Baseline MTR Sound Levels

Maximum Centerline Difference Number of Difference Airspace - Level Ldnmr (Baseline to Events above (Baseline to Condition VR-0840/1/2 (dBA) Proposed) SEL of 65 dB Proposed) Baseline Segment 46.1 0.2 -11.8 -0.1 Proposed 01 - 02 33.5 0.1 Baseline Segment 46.1 0.2 -11.8 -0.1 Proposed 02 - 03 33.5 0.1 Baseline Segment 47.3 0.3 -11.8 -0.2 Proposed 03 - 04 34.7 0.1 Baseline Segment 47.3 0.3 -11.8 -0.2 Proposed 04 - 05 34.7 0.1 Baseline Segment 47.3 0.3 -11.8 -0.2 Proposed 05 - 06 34.7 0.1 Baseline Segment 46.1 0.2 -11.8 -0.1 Proposed 06 - 07 33.5 0.1 Baseline Segment 46.1 0.2 -11.8 -0.1 Proposed 07 - 08 33.5 0.1 Baseline Segment 45.1 0.2 -11.8 -0.1 Proposed 08 - 09 32.6 0.1 2

3 Ldnmr would increase outside the MTRs under the Proposed Action. Table 4-3 presents 4 the baseline and proposed noise modeling results outside the MTRs. The Proposed

5 Action would raise the Ldnmr within Condor Low and High MOAs to 38.5 dBA, which

6 would represent an increase of approximately 7 dBA in Ldnmr over existing conditions in 7 the areas outside the existing MTRs. The increase in noise would be noticeable to 8 humans, so under the Proposed Action a ground-based noise receptor underneath Condor 9 Low MOA but outside VR-0840/1/2 would recognize an increase in noise associated with 10 aircraft overflights. The increase in low level overflights outside the existing MTRs

11 would not cause the DNL (or Ldnmr in this case) to surpass the 65 dB threshold for a 12 significant impact in FAA Order 1050.1E or the more conservative 55 dB threshold 13 established by the EPA to protect public health and welfare, including annoyance, in 14 areas where quiet is a recognized use (USEPA, 1974). Therefore; the Proposed Action 15 would have no significant impact on noise according to the analytical standards set by the 16 FAA.

4-12 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Table 4-3. Proposed and Baseline MOA Sound Levels

Uniform Number of Difference Distributed Difference Events above (Proposed-Baseline) Sound Level (Baseline to SEL of 65 dBA in Number of Condition Airspace Ldnmr (dBA) Proposed) per day Events per day Condor 1 Baseline 31.5 MOA 1.2 (0.6 events (Existing Condor 2 for each MOA) condition) 31.4 MOA +7dBA -1.2 Condor Low Proposed and High 38.5 0 MOAs Note: The area of noise effect for Baseline Condor 1 and 2 MOAs are 3,196.3 and 814.4 square miles, respectively. The total area of noise effect for the combined low and high MOA is 4,011 square miles.

2

3 Short-Term Noise Events

4 Short-term exposure to low altitude overflights would increase outside the MTRs, while 5 the frequency of these events within the MTRs (which cover slightly more than half of 6 the affected airspace) would decrease. SEL events above 65 dbA would still occur, but 7 they would occur so infrequently and for such a short duration that they are difficult to 8 model. When interpreting this result it is important to consider the definition of SEL. 9 SEL measurements effectively compress the total sound emitted during an entire event 10 into a hypothetical one-second time period. Under the Proposed Action, aircraft would 11 fly lower than they do now in the area outside the MTRs. This means that overflights 12 would be louder than they are now. It also means that the aircrafts’ audible footprints 13 would be smaller at ground level than under current conditions, and that the aircrafts’ 14 audible footprints would pass over any given location quicker than they do under current 15 conditions (i.e.; loud overflights would be heard over a smaller area and would be shorter 16 than under current conditions.

17 Lmax would remain unchanged under the Proposed Action at 117.6 dBA. Any given point 18 on the ground within the MTRs would be subject to fewer of these events than under 19 existing conditions, but the areas outside the MTRs would experience them more often.

4-13 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 4.3.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 2 Alternative

3 Under this alternative, the flight floor of Condor 1 MOA would be lowered to 500 feet 4 AGL; however, the flight floor of Condor 2 MOA would remain at 7,000 feet MSL 5 (between approximately 2,800 feet and 6,300 feet AGL). The potential noise impacts to 6 the areas underlying the proposed Condor 1 MOA under this alternative would be the

7 same as under the Proposed Action i.e.; Condor 1 MOA would experience Ldnmr at 8 approximately 38.5 dBA. The noise levels underlying Condor 2 MOA would be the same 9 as current conditions (31 dBA). SEL events above 65 dBA would occur more frequently

10 in Condor 1 MOA than in Condor 2 MOA, but not as frequently as they occur now.. Lmax 11 would remain unchanged in both MOAs. Therefore, similar to the Proposed Action, this 12 alternative would have no significant impact on noise levels underlying the Condor 1 and 13 2 MOAs.

14 4.3.4 No-Action Alternative

15 Under the No-Action Alternative, the proposed airspace modification would not occur. 16 Existing conditions as described in Section 3.3.2, would remain unchanged. 17 Consequently, the No-Action Alternative would not alter the noise environment beneath 18 the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs.

19 4.4 Air Quality

20 4.4.1 Significance Criteria

21 Section 176(c) of the CAA (implemented by EPA’s General Conformity Rule 40 CFR 22 Part 51 Subpart W) provides the framework for ensuring that federal actions conform to 23 the SIP. Before any Federal agency engages in, supports, licenses, permits, or approves 24 any activity, that agency has a responsibility to ensure that the activity would conform to 25 the applicable SIP.

26 To assess potential impacts on air quality as a result of the Proposed Action, air emissions 27 resulting from the Proposed Action were calculated and compared with baseline

4-14 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 emissions, applicable NAAQS, and the Maine and New Hampshire SIPs. Air quality 2 impacts from the Proposed Action would be significant if they:

3 • Increase ambient air pollution concentrations above any NAAQS;

4 • Contribute to an existing violation of any NAAQS; or

5 • Interfere with, or delay, timely attainment of NAAQS.

6 4.4.2 Proposed Action

7 The Proposed Action would redistribute the existing number of sorties within the 8 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs. The Proposed Action would result in fewer 9 sorties being flown at low altitudes within the VRs underlying the MOAs, and more 10 sorties being flown at low altitudes within the larger proposed Condor Low MOA. The 11 Proposed Action would not change the altitude of the sorties that would continue to be 12 flown in VR 840/1/2 (i.e., 500 to 3,000 ft AGL). Table 4-4 indicates that total emissions 13 would be below the existing aircraft emissions for all the criteria pollutants and as a 14 result, would not increase ambient air pollution concentrations above any NAAQS. 15 Therefore, emissions from the Proposed Action would not compromise the State of 16 Maine and New Hampshire’s ability to comply with their respective SIPs.

17 The potential for ground-level air quality degradation is greater for aircraft operating in 18 lower altitudes than for aircraft operating in higher altitudes. There would be minor 19 ground-level air quality impacts associated with re-locating these sorties to a lower 20 altitude within the proposed Condor Low MOA outside VR-840/1/2, but these impacts 21 would be offset by a corresponding reduction in low altitude sorties within VR 840/1/2, 22 and the incremental reductions in low-altitude emissions achieved through increases in 23 training efficiency and reductions in the actual amount of time spent at low altitude 24 during each sortie. Because the Proposed Action would effectively re-locate existing 25 emissions within the footprint of the Condor MOAs but would not contribute any new 26 sources of emissions or increase the quantities of any criteria pollutant that would be 27 emitted when compared with existing conditions, the Proposed Action would have no 28 significant impact on air quality.

4-15 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Table 4-4. Summary of Emissions from Aircraft Operations Associated with the 2 Proposed Action (tons/year)

# of PM10 / Activities CO NOx SO2 VOCs Sorties PM2.5 Proposed Condor 432 2.05 51.0 0.82 2.08 0.31 MOAs Proposed VR-840/1/2 72 0.11 3.43 0.04 0.13 0.01 Total Proposed Aircraft Emissions 504 2.16 54.5 0.86 2.20 0.32 (Proposed Action) Existing Aircraft 576 2.31 59.0 0.92 2.37 0.34 Emissions 3 Source: Emissions factors from each aircraft type were obtained from: Jagielski, Kurt D., and Robert J. 4 O’Brien, 1994. Calculation Methods for Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Inventories, USAF Occupational 5 and Environmental Health Directorate, Air Force Material Command, Brooks AFB, Texas, July 1994.

6 4.4.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 7 Alternative

8 Under this alternative, the flight floor of Condor 1 MOA would be lowered to 500 feet 9 AGL, and the flight floor of Condor 2 MOA would remain 7,000 feet MSL (2,800 to 10 6,300 feet AGL). Similar to the Proposed Action, the air quality benefits associated with 11 a reduction in low altitude sorties within the VR would offset the corresponding air 12 quality impacts associated with re-locating these sorties within the larger Condor 1 MOA. 13 This alternative would not contribute any new sources of emissions or alter the quantities 14 of any criteria pollutant that would be emitted in Condor 1 MOA when compared with 15 existing conditions, so this alternative would have no significant effect on air quality in 16 Condor 1 MOA. Air quality in the area underlying the Condor 2 MOA would be similar 17 to existing conditions. Therefore, this alternative would have no adverse impact on air 18 quality in the area underlying the proposed Condor 1 and 2 MOAs.

19 4.4.4 No-Action Alternative

20 Under the No-Action Alternative, air emissions would remain the same as current 21 conditions. Consequently, implementation of the No-Action Alternative would have no 22 impact on air quality.

4-16 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 4.5 Geological Resources

2 4.5.1 Significance Criteria

3 Protection of unique geological features, minimization of soil erosion, and the siting of 4 facilities in relation to potential geologic hazards are considered when evaluating impacts 5 of a Proposed Action on geological resources. Airspace actions typically do not involve 6 land-based construction activities; therefore, the potential impacts associated with a 7 Proposed Action occur from ground disturbing activities including use of ordinance, 8 chaff, and flares. The impacts from chaff and flares can often be avoided or minimized 9 through use of fully combustible materials.

10 4.5.2 Proposed Action

11 The Proposed Action would have no effect on geology, soils, or topography underlying 12 the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs because the Proposed Action would not 13 involve any ground-disturbing activities.

14 The 104 FW would use chaff and flares during some training exercises, as it does under 15 current conditions. The total quantity of chaff and flares used by the 104 FW would not 16 change as a result of the Proposed Action. The use of chaff and flares within the 17 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs would have no effect on geology, soils, or 18 topography because most of this material does not survive the combustion process and/or 19 is relatively inert (National Guard Bureau, 2002).

20 4.5.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 21 Alternative

22 This alternative would have no effect on geology, soils, or topography underlying the 23 proposed Condor 1 and 2 MOAs because it would involve no ground-disturbing 24 activities. Chaff use would be limited under this alternative to the Condor 1 MOA 25 because the flight floor of the Condor 2 MOA would be too high for low-altitude training 26 exercises, where chaff is primarily used. The total number of flares used by the 104 FW 27 would not change as a result of the Proposed Action.

4-17 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 4.5.4 No-Action Alternative

2 Under the No-Action Alternative, no ground disturbance would occur and, therefore, 3 there would be no effect on geology, soils, or topographic resources.

4 4.6 Water Resources

5 4.6.1 Significance Criteria

6 Water availability, quality, and use; existence of flood plains; coastal resources, wild and 7 scenic rivers, and associated regulations form the basis for the significance criteria for 8 impacts on water resources. An impact on water resources would be significant if it were 9 to violate the terms of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) of 10 1972, the Clean Water Floodplains and Floodways Act of 1977, the National Coastal 11 Zone Management Act of 1972, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts of 1968, and/or the Safe 12 Drinking Water Act of 1974. Specifically, the Proposed Action would have the potential 13 for significant impacts on water resources if it were to:

14 • reduce the availability or supply of water to existing users;

15 • create or contribute to the overdraft of groundwater, or exceed the safe annual 16 yield of water supply sources;

17 • adversely affect water quality or endanger public health by creating or worsening 18 health hazard conditions;

19 • create pass-through or interference with a Publicly-Owned Treatment Works 20 (POTW);

21 • threaten or damage unique hydrological characteristics;

22 • result in new construction in an area with a high probability of flooding; or

23 • violate established laws or regulations that protect or manage water resources of 24 an area.

4-18 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 4.6.2 Proposed Action

2 The Proposed Action would have no effect on water resources because it would not alter 3 the quantity or quality of surface water or groundwater under the proposed Condor Low 4 or High MOAs. Because the Proposed Action would not require any discharge to surface 5 waters, or withdrawal of either surface water or groundwater, the Proposed Action would 6 have no effect on water quality or quantity. No floodplains would be altered as a result of 7 the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would not overlap the coastal zone in Maine 8 or New Hampshire, nor would it overlap any federally-designated wild and scenic rivers. 9 Therefore, the Proposed Action would have no effect on water resources.

10 4.6.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 11 Alternative

12 This alternative would have no effect on water resources because it would not alter the 13 quantity or quality of surface water or groundwater under the Condor 1 or 2 MOAs, nor 14 would it affect floodplains, coastal resources, or wild and scenic rivers underlying either 15 of the MOAs.

16 4.6.4 No-Action Alternative

17 Under the No Action Alternative, the existing Condor 1 and 2 MOAs would remain 18 unchanged. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no effect on water 19 resources.

20 4.7 Biological Resources

21 4.7.1 Significance Criteria

22 The ANG’s significance criteria for assessing impacts to biological resources are based 23 on four major elements:

24 • The importance of the resource, in legal, commercial, recreational, ecological or 25 scientific terms;

4-19 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 • The proportion of the resource that would be affected, relative to its abundance in 2 the region;

3 • The sensitivity of the resource to proposed activities; and

4 • The duration of the ecological consequences.

5 Specifically, impacts to biological resources would be significant if important species or 6 habitats (i.e., species or habitats considered significant by state or federal natural resource 7 agencies) are adversely affected over relatively large areas; a large proportion of an 8 important species or habitat within a region is adversely affected; or if disturbances 9 related to the Proposed Action cause significant reductions in population size or 10 distribution of an important species. The duration of an impact also affects its 11 significance level. For example, temporary impacts (i.e., noise associated with 12 construction) are typically considered less significant than permanent impacts (land 13 conversion).

14 Potential noise impacts on biological resources resulting from airspace modifications 15 were analyzed by comparing baseline sound levels and sortie rates for the restricted 16 airspace and MTR to the sound levels and sortie rates that are projected to result from the 17 Proposed Action. The potential for disturbance was then evaluated based on the 18 projected change in sound level and, where relevant, the predicted or documented 19 response of the species or species groups to similar changes in sound level.

20 Determination of the significance of potential impacts on vegetation communities, 21 including wetlands, is based on the functions and values of the particular community or 22 wetland. For example, a wetland analysis evaluates the functions (physical, biological, 23 and chemical processes) and values (processes or attributes valuable to society) of a 24 wetland. Potential physical impacts affecting a wetland’s ability to perform its functions 25 and values are evaluated to determine the level of significance of potential impacts.

26 The FAA considers an impact on federally-listed threatened and endangered species to be 27 significant when the USFWS or National Marine Fisheries Service determines that the 28 Proposed Action would likely jeopardize the continued existence of the species in

4-20 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 question, or would result in the destruction or adverse modification of Federally- 2 designated critical habitat in the affected area. The presence of federally-listed 3 threatened or endangered species and the possibility of impacts as potentially serious as 4 extinction or extirpation, or destruction or adverse modification of designated critical 5 habitat, are factors weighing in favor of a finding of significance. However, an action 6 need not involve a threat of extinction to meet the NEPA standard of significance.

7 The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize 8 endangered or threatened species. In order to meet this requirement, scoping with the 9 appropriate federal and state natural resources agencies was initiated through the IICEP 10 process. Section 7 of the ESA requires that all federal agencies avoid “taking” 11 endangered or threatened species including jeopardizing their habitats. Procedurally, this 12 includes a consultation process with USFWS that ends with USFWS’ concurrence with a 13 determination that a Proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or 14 critical habitat or a biological opinion determining the risk of jeopardy from a Federal 15 agency project. If during “informal” consultation with the USFWS it is determined that 16 the Proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat, the 17 consultation process is terminated and no further action is necessary. If the Proposed 18 Action were likely to result in an adverse impact to any threatened and endangered 19 species, then the ANG would enter into “formal” consultation.

20 4.7.2 Proposed Action

21 The Proposed Action would have no significant effect on biological resources. The 22 Proposed Action would not result in any construction or ground disturbance; therefore, 23 the potential effects of the Proposed Action on biological communities would be limited 24 to noise, bird-aircraft collisions, and the use of chaff and flares associated with military 25 aircraft sorties. There would be no effect on vegetation communities or wildlife habitats, 26 including wetlands.

4-21 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Effects of Noise on Wildlife

2 Within certain ecological settings, the proximate effects of aircraft training and associated 3 noise may be of sufficient magnitude to result in the direct loss of individuals or reduce 4 reproductive output through diminished vigor and recruitment. The effects of noise and 5 startle effects on wildlife and domestic animals have been examined in a variety of 6 studies and data/literature reviews over the past 30 to 35 years (e.g., Manci et al., 1988). 7 These studies show a wide variety of animal responses to aircraft overflights (or 8 simulated aircraft noise) by different types of animals and also differing responses by the 9 same species under similar conditions. Most impacts reported appeared to be minor and 10 temporary (e.g., Lamp, 1989) and, when evaluated, did not have acute (near-term) effects 11 on reproduction, mortality, or survivorship.

12 Studies on the effects of noise on wildlife have focused primarily on mammals and birds. 13 These studies suggest that the potential for long-term, population-level, noise-related 14 adverse impacts such as reduced reproductive success or increased mortality is remote. 15 Studies on the effects of subsonic aircraft disturbances on ungulates (e.g., pronghorn, elk, 16 and mule deer), in both laboratory and field conditions, suggest that effects are transient, 17 of short duration, and that the animals habituate to the aircraft noise (Workman et al., 18 1992; Krausman et al., 1983; Weisenberger et al., 1996). Documented responses of 19 bighorn sheep to overflights of military jets range from no response to increased heart 20 rates, minor behavior changes, and vacating the affected area (Workman et al., 1992, 21 Lamp, 1989). Mule deer responses to helicopter overflights ranged from no movements 22 to moving less than 0.6 miles to unaffected habitats (Krausman et al., 1986).

23 Similarly, raptors and other birds (e.g., waterfowl) have been shown to be relatively 24 unaffected by low-level flights by aircraft: reactions were brief and not detrimental to 25 reproductive success (Lamp, 1989; Ellis et al., 1991). Documented responses of bald 26 eagles and other raptors to aircraft overflights range from no response to startle 27 responses, including movement from the affected area (White and Sherrod, 1973). Lamp 28 (1989) studied the effects of military jet overflights less than 3,000 feet AGL on 29 numerous species of waterbirds and found that reactions ranged from no response to

4-22 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 minor behavior changes and vacating the affected area (Lamp, 1989). Similarly, Black et 2 al. (1984) showed that military jet overflights of less than 500 feet AGL had no effect on 3 colony establishment, colony size, nesting behavior, or breeding success of various 4 species of egrets, cormorant, ibis, and egrets. A study of the effects of low-level air traffic 5 on red-tailed hawks (Anderson, 1997) suggested that individuals in affected areas 6 eventually habituate to low-level air traffic; however, individuals that have not 7 experienced such aircraft activity could temporarily move from the affected areas and 8 leave their nests unattended or dislodge eggs or young during a quick departure.

9 The Proposed Action would not have a significant impact on wildlife underlying the 10 proposed Low and High Condor MOAs. Since military overflights are currently 11 occurring as low as 500 ft AGL along the existing VRs and at higher altitudes in the 12 Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs, resident wildlife is somewhat habituated to military air 13 traffic. Under the Proposed Action, there would be no increase in the net number of 14 sorties conducted within the MOAs and a relatively small number of sorties 15 (approximately 2) would be conducted each flying day. Some individuals may be 16 temporarily disturbed or startled by increased noise levels and/or low-level overflights, 17 but they would likely habituate to these activities and would not suffer any long-term, 18 adverse effects such as reduced reproductive success or fecundity.

19 Potential for Bird Strikes

20 In addition to noise, the other potential effect of the Proposed Action on wildlife is the 21 possibility of bird strikes. Most birds fly below 500 feet AGL except during migration 22 (Erlich et al., 1988). The potential for bird strikes associated with aircraft operations in 23 the proposed Condor High and Condor Low MOAs is relatively low since the floor of the 24 proposed MOA is 500 feet AGL. When migrating, birds often climb to relatively great 25 heights, possibly to avoid dehydration in the warmer air near the ground. Generally, 26 long-distance migrants fly at elevations between 5,000 and 20,000 feet AGL. The 27 greatest potential for bird strikes would be during spring and fall migration when birds 28 are flying at higher altitudes; however, the Proposed Action would not increase the 29 potential for bird strikes at high altitudes because it would not increase the altitude at

4-23 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 which aircraft currently operate, or increase the number of sorties within the affected 2 airspace. See Section 5.0 for a further discussion of the additive effects of the 2005 3 BRAC decisions on the Proposed Action.

4 Chaff and Flares

5 The 104 FW would use a small amount of chaff and flares during some training 6 exercises. Studies evaluating the environmental effects of the use of chaff and flares 7 indicate that they do not significantly affect terrestrial wildlife for the following reasons 8 (USAF, 1997):

9 • Startle effects from chaff and flare deployment are minimal or insignificant 10 relative to the noise of the aircraft;

11 • Birds and bats are unlikely to be struck in flight or on the ground by debris from 12 chaff or deployed flares due to the small amount and light weight of material 13 ejected and the visibility of the flare; and

14 • Inhalation of flare combustion products or ingestion of chaff components is 15 unlikely to cause adverse effects because of the nontoxic nature of the materials at 16 the concentrations to which wildlife could be expected to be exposed.

17 The primary environmental concern related to flares is increased potential of fire. Flare 18 usage under normal conditions is not likely to cause a fire. Extreme precautions are taken 19 with the use of flares, particularly in times of extreme fire hazard conditions. During 20 periods of high fire hazard, the minimum altitude for flare release (2,000 feet AGL) can 21 be raised, or use can be suspended, to alleviate the risk of flare-induced fires (National 22 Guard Bureau, 2002).

23 Effects on Federally-listed Threatened and Endangered Species

24 The bald eagle and Canada lynx are the only federal species currently known to occur in 25 the proposed project area; however, the USFWS (in a letter dated 31 October 2006) does 26 not anticipate adverse impacts to the Canada Lynx to occur as a result of the Proposed

4-24 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Action (Appendix A). Breeding bald eagles occur within the area underlying the 2 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs. Activities that disturb foraging eagles, 3 especially during winter, and breeding bald eagles can cause them to expend more 4 energy, which can increase their susceptibility to disease and poor health. The effects of 5 noise on wintering bald eagles have not been thoroughly studied, although studies on bald 6 eagles are more developed than for many other wildlife species. Noise produced by pile 7 driving (60 to 75 decibels) was considered inconsequential to wintering eagle behavior 8 beyond a distance of 400 m (1,300 ft) in the San Juan Islands, Washington. Forested 9 habitats provide some shelter from noise exposure and individuals occurring within 10 forested habitats are less likely to respond to noise exposure than those in more open 11 habitats. In the proposed Condor High and Low MOA, wintering bald eagles occur 12 within densely forested habitats and so would be somewhat sheltered from noise 13 exposure. Also, low-altitude MTRs (VR and IR) already intersect 9 of the 16 known bald 14 eagle nesting areas with no reported bird-aircraft strikes. Considering the relatively few 15 sorties that would occur on a daily basis (approximately two) and that in some cases 16 nesting pairs appear to have habituated to low level overflights in the MTRs, the 17 Proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect wintering bald eagles. Instantaneous 18 noise levels will be above the 60-75 decibel range, but direct overflights would be of very 19 short duration, therefore the Proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect nesting bald 20 eagles.

21 Although the Proposed Action is unlikely to have significant impacts on bald eagles, the 22 USFWS and MDIFW both expressed concerns over the potential for noise related 23 impacts on nesting pairs of bald eagles. In order to mitigate these potential impacts, the 24 ANG proposed to implement the following mitigation measures:

25 • establish buffer areas from surface to 1,000 ft AGL with a radius of 0.25 mile 26 from bald eagle nests, and refrain from flying within these buffers from 1 27 February through 31 August, inclusive;

4-25 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 • consult with MDIFW to obtain current nesting information on an annual basis at 2 the beginning of each nesting season, and to adjust the bald eagle nesting buffer 3 areas accordingly; and

4 • provide the contact information for a website where bald eagle biologists can 5 check schedules for military sorties within Condor MOA prior to flying annual 6 nest surveys within the MOA.

7 The USFWS indicated in a letter dated 8 January 2007 that these mitigation measures 8 would be sufficient to prevent adverse impacts to Bald Eagles (Appendix A). In a letter 9 dated 16 July 2007, the Maine field office of the USFWS concurred that, based on the 10 project description and above mitigation measures, the Proposed Action is not likely to 11 adversely affect bald eagles and the Canada lynx. In a letter dated 20 April 2007, the 12 USFWS-New Hampshire concurred that there are no federally-listed species in the 13 project area and no further consultation is required (Appendix A).

14 Effects on State listed species

15 The effects of the Proposed Action on listed bird species would be limited to noise and 16 strike-related impacts. No bird strikes have been reported in the past in the affected 17 airspace, and the low altitude MTRs currently encompass approximately 53 percent of 18 the low-altitude airspace within the boundaries of the Proposed Condor Low and High 19 MOA. Considering the relatively few sorties that would occur on a daily basis 20 (approximately two), the Proposed Action is not likely to increase bird strikes.

21 The potential impact of noise on golden eagles, peregrine falcons, American three-toed 22 woodpeckers, ring-necked duck, and Bicknell’s thrush would be similar to that described 23 above for bald eagles. The forested habitats underlying the proposed Condor Low and 24 High MOAs would provide shelter for all of these species from noise exposure. Third 25 Connecticut Lake was identified by NHNHB as potential common loon habitat and is 26 located under the extreme northwest corner of the Condor 1 MOA. The lake would not 27 likely be subjected to frequent low-altitudes overflights because military pilots prefer to 28 train closer to the center of MOAs where maneuverability is comparatively greater than

4-26 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 near the boundaries of the MOA, so the Proposed Action’s effects on common loons 2 would be minimal. There are no known occurrences of the pied-billed grebe, rusty 3 blackbird, or spruce grouse within the area underlying the Condor 1 MOA, so the 4 Proposed Action’s potential to affect these species would also be minimal.

5 Potential impacts on American marten would be limited to noise-related effects. The 6 American marten is primarily a forest species, and the forested habitats underlying the 7 proposed Condor Low and Condor High MOAs would provide shelter from noise 8 exposure. The Proposed Action is not likely to significantly affect American martens.

9 The Proposed Action would have no effects on habitat for redbelly dace, and the lack of 10 reliable records of this species in the Project Area since 1985 suggests that the species 11 may have been extirpated from the Project Area. Therefore the Proposed Action would 12 have no significant effects on this species.

13 4.7.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 14 Alternative

15 This alternative would result in lower noise levels and fewer low altitude flights than the 16 Proposed Action because the Condor 2 MOA floor would remain at 7,000 feet MSL 17 rather than 500 feet AGL. Accordingly, the effects on vegetation, wildlife, and 18 threatened and endangered species caused by noise and potential bird strikes would be 19 marginally less for this alternative than the effects described for the Proposed Action.

20 4.7.4 No-Action Alternative

21 Under the No-Action Alternative, no change in flight levels, ground disturbance, or 22 change in training operations would occur. Therefore, the No-Action Alternative would 23 have no effect on vegetation, wildlife, or threatened and endangered species.

4-27 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 4.8 Land Use

2 4.8.1 Significance Criteria

3 The significance of impacts caused by changes in land use is based on the level of land 4 use sensitivity in areas likely to be affected by the Proposed Action and compatibility of 5 the Proposed Action with other nearby land uses. The ANG considers land use impacts to 6 be considered significant if they:

7 • are inconsistent or non-compliant with current land use plans or policies applying 8 to the area;

9 • preclude the viability of existing land use;

10 • preclude the continued use or occupation of an area;

11 • are incompatible with adjacent or nearby land use to the extent that public health 12 or safety is threatened; or

13 • conflict with planning criteria established to ensure the safety and protection of 14 human life and property.

15 Under FAA Order 1050.1E, land use compatibility is determined by comparing the

16 predicted or measured Ldn values at a site to the values listed in Table 1, FAA Order 17 1050.1E, Appendix A, Section 4.2b. All land uses listed on that table are consistent with

18 noise levels below 65 Ldn. However, the Order also notes that these land uses and values 19 are only applicable to the extent that they are relevant to the value, significance, and 20 enjoyment of the lands in question (FAA Order 1050.1E, Appendix A, Section 6.2g). For 21 example, the guidelines “do not adequately address the effects of noise on the 22 expectations and purposes of people visiting areas within a national park or wildlife 23 refuge where other noise is very low and a quiet setting is a generally recognized 24 purposed and attribute” (FAA Order 1050.1E, Appendix A, Section 4.3).

25 The impacts of federal actions on sensitive environmental areas are typically regulated by 26 provisions of section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act. However,

4-28 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 “designation of airspace for military flight operations is exempt from section 4(f)” (FAA 2 Order 1050.1E, Appendix A, Section 6.1c).

3 4.8.2 Proposed Action

4 The following sections describe the effects of sorties on the various land uses underlying 5 the proposed Condor High and Low MOAs (refer to Figure 3-4). Since the Proposed 6 Action would not involve any land disturbance, the principal effects of the Proposed 7 Action on land use would be noise-related.

8 Appalachian Trail

9 Approximately 144 miles of the AT underlie the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs. 10 The mission of the Appalachian Trail Park Office, which performs NPS management 11 functions for the AT, is “to foster the Cooperative Management System of the 12 Appalachian National Scenic Trail in order to preserve and provide for the enjoyment of 13 the varied scenic, historic, natural and cultural qualities of the areas between the states of 14 Maine and Georgia through which the Trail passes” (NPS, 2005)”

15 The Proposed Action is consistent with the mission of the AT for the following reasons:

16 • The Proposed Action would increase overall noise levels by approximately 6 dB

17 to approximately 38.5 dB, but noise levels would remain well below Ldnmr 55 dB, 18 the recommended DNL to protect public health and welfare, including annoyance, 19 in areas where quiet is a recognized use (USEPA, 1974).

20 • Low-level training routes (500 feet AGL for F-15s) currently overfly 64.5% of the 21 AT within the Condor MOAs and concentrate low-level training in those areas. 22 The Proposed Action would decrease the likelihood of concentrated overflights of 23 those areas of the AT. There would be an increase in flights over the remaining 24 portion of the AT; however, the Proposed Action would decrease the frequency of 25 low-level flights over most (64.5%) of the AT under the affected airspace.

4-29 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 • There would be no increase in the net number of sorties conducted in the 2 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs. Further, no training activities would 3 occur at night, on weekends, or during holidays.

4 The Proposed Action would introduce additional noise elements to this area; although, 5 for the reasons described above, the impact on the AT would not be significant. In a 6 letter dated 7 February 2008, the NPS concurred that there would be no adverse effect to 7 the Appalachian Trail (Appendix A).

8 White Mountain National Forest

9 Approximately 1,260 acres of the White Mountain National Forest are located under the 10 Condor MOAs. The White Mountain National Forest is managed by the USFS. The 11 USFS has prepared a Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan or LRMP) for 12 this forest. The Forest Plan was most recently updated in 2005, and its primary goals are 13 to “manage to sustain a healthy forest and use the latest scientific knowledge to restore 14 the land and forest where needed; provide recreation and other opportunities, 15 experiences, and benefits, some of which are not readily available elsewhere; and 16 recognize the Forest's support to local economies while realizing the importance to 17 society of a natural appearing landscape distinct from the human altered environments 18 otherwise dominant in the East” (USFS, 2005).

19 The Proposed Action is consistent with the mission, goals, objectives, and management 20 prescriptions of the White Mountain National Forest LRMP, as amended, because of the 21 reasons described above for the AT, and because the portion of the White Mountain 22 National Forest that underlies the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs sits along the 23 southwestern edge of the airspace where low-altitude operations would rarely occur. 24 While military aircraft could theoretically operate anywhere within the MOA, pilots 25 would tend to avoid the edges of the airspace, making overflights of the White Mountain 26 National Forest rare. The Proposed Action would introduce additional noise elements to 27 this area but because of its location near the edge of the affected airspace noise impacts 28 on the White Mountain National Forest would be minimal.

4-30 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

2 Approximately 3,860 acres of the Lake Umbagog NWR underlies the proposed Condor 3 Low and High MOAs and is administered by the USFWS. The overall goals of the Lake 4 Umbagog NWR are to “conserve wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public 5 benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various 6 migratory bird treaties and conventions,” and “for migratory bird management purposes” 7 (USDA, 2006).

8 The USFWS began preparation of the refuge’s primary management guidance, the 9 Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and an accompanying EIS, in 2002. In January 10 2009 the USFWS selected the final management alternative from a list of three potential 11 management alternatives. The selected alternative focuses on protecting “the biological 12 integrity, diversity, and environmental health of Umbagog Lake and its associated rivers 13 and streams.” It also provides for conservation of upland mixed forest and the species 14 that depend on that habitat (USFWS, 2009).

15 Most of the portion of Lake Umbagog NWR that underlies the proposed Condor Low and 16 High MOAs also falls within the existing VR-840/1/2 corridors. ANG activities in this 17 area, under the Proposed Action, would be similar to activities already practiced under 18 current conditions, although fewer low-altitude flights would occur in these areas than 19 occur under current conditions. The Proposed Action would not increase the net number 20 of sorties conducted within the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs, nor would it 21 expand the lateral boundaries of the MOA. The portion of Lake Umbagog NWR that is 22 under the proposed Condor Low MOA but not under VR840/1/2 is immediately adjacent 23 to the western boundary of the affected airspace, so low-altitude overflights in this area 24 would be rare. Areas of the Lake Umbagog NWR that are not currently subjected to low- 25 level overflights would remain largely undisturbed under the Proposed Action. In 26 response to a letter from the USFWS dated 16 July 2007, the ANG agreed to maintain a 27 2,000-foot buffer surrounding the refuge as requested by the USFWS. Based on the 28 project description and the buffer described above, the USFWS determined that this

4-31 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 buffer would “allow [the USFWS] to meet the ANG’s needs while protecting Lake 2 Umbagog NWRs wildlife and public resources” (Appendix A).

3 The Proposed Action would introduce additional noise elements to this area; although, 4 based on the reasons described above and the proposed 2,000-foot buffer, the Proposed 5 Action would not have a significant impact on the Lake Umbagog NWR.

6 US Navy SERE Facility

7 The US Navy SERE Facility near Rangeley is run by DoD. It offers instruction to help 8 military personnel evade capture by enemy forces, maintain morale during captivity, and 9 successfully execute rescue operations. The SERE facility conducts joint operations with 10 ANG units, and is not a noise-sensitive environment. The SERE facility also underlies 11 the existing VR-842 and IR-850/1/2 MTRs, where existing ANG activities are similar to 12 those in the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs. The Proposed Action would not 13 affect use of the SERE facility.

14 State and Private Lands

15 Various state and privately held lands underlie the proposed Condor Low and High 16 MOAs, including state parks, public reserve land (in Maine only), and private lands.

17 In Maine, public reserve lands are managed for multiple uses under a "dominant use" 18 system which establishes separate “dominant” and “secondary” use priorities. This 19 system generally gives priority to sensitive natural resources and backcountry recreation, 20 and recognizes “opportunities for solitude” as either dominant or secondary uses in many 21 Public Reserve Land units (BPL, 2000). The Proposed Action would introduce 22 additional noise elements to this area; although, for the reasons described in Section 4.3, 23 the impact would not be significant.

24 The Proposed Action is consistent with the mission and management goals of state- 25 owned public lands, as well as private lands, for the following reasons:

4-32 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 • The Proposed Action would increase overall noise levels by approximately 6 dB

2 to approximately 38.5 dB, but noise levels would remain well below Ldnmr 55 dB, 3 the recommended DNL to protect public health and welfare, including annoyance, 4 in areas where quiet is a recognized use (USEPA, 1974).

5 • Large amounts of state and private land in the Condor MOA also fall within the 6 existing VR-840/1/2 corridor, in fact most (53%) of the land under the affected 7 airspace would experience a decrease in low-altitude overflights as a result of the 8 Proposed Action. ANG activities in the proposed Condor MOA would be similar 9 to activities already practiced in the VR routes.

10 • The Proposed Action would not increase the net number of sorties conducted 11 within the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs, nor would it expand the lateral 12 boundaries of the MOA.

13 4.8.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 14 Alternative

15 Under this Alternative, the flight floor of the existing Condor 1 MOA would be lowered 16 to 500 feet AGL; however the flight floor of the existing Condor 2 MOA would remain at 17 7,000 feet MSL (between approximately 3,800 and 6,300 feet AGL). The area that 18 would be affected by this alternative includes a portion of the AT, White Mountain 19 National Forest, Lake Umbagog NWR, the US Navy SERE Facility, and the CLNA as 20 well as the cities of Farmington and Bingham (combined 2005 estimated population of 21 8,500), the Spectacle Pond and Fahi Pond Wildlife Management Areas, and other state- 22 owned lands. The overall effects of this alternative on land use under the Proposed 23 Condor 1 MOA would be identical to the effects of the Proposed Action. Land use in the 24 area under the existing Condor 2 MOA would be unaffected.

25 4.8.4 No-Action Alternative

26 Under the No-Action Alternative, no change in training operations would occur. 27 Therefore, the No-Action Alternative would have no effect on land use.

4-33 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 4.9 Socioeconomic Resources

2 4.9.1 Significance Criteria

3 The significance of population and expenditure impacts are assessed in terms of their 4 direct effects on the local economy and related effects on other socioeconomic resources 5 (e.g., housing). The magnitude of potential impacts can vary greatly depending on the 6 location of a Proposed Action. For example, implementation of an action that creates 10 7 employment positions may be unnoticed in an urban area, but may have significant 8 impacts in a more rural region. If potential socioeconomic impacts would result in 9 substantial shifts in population trends, or adversely affect regional spending and earning 10 patterns, they would be significant.

11 Under EO 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 12 Populations and Low-Income Populations) and 13045 (Protection of Children from 13 Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks), socioeconomic impacts are assessed for 14 potential disproportionate effects on minority and low-income communities and children, 15 respectively.

16 4.9.2 Proposed Action

17 The Proposed Action would not result in any change in the number of personnel, or 18 require the relocation of personnel at the 104 FW, nor involve any new construction. 19 Therefore, there would be no impact on the area’s population or employment.

20 Quiet conditions support the tourism industry in Maine, and tourism is a prominent 21 activity and business sector in the area underlying the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs. 22 The low-level training routes currently occupy 53% of the area underlying the Condor 23 MOAs and concentrate low-level training along those routes. The Proposed Action 24 would decrease the noise associated with low-level overflights in those areas, but there 25 would be a corresponding increase in low-level flight-related noise over the remaining

26 portion of the affected airspace. Noise levels would remain well below Ldnmr 55 dB, the 27 recommended DNL to protect public health and welfare, including annoyance, in areas

4-34 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 where quiet is a recognized use (USEPA, 1974) so the Proposed Action would not be 2 expected to have a significant noise-related effect on recreation.

3 According to several members of the public, recreational aviation is also a significant 4 component of the tourism industry. Low-level military flights would occur, on average, 5 over approximately 1-2 hours per day, but the daily duration of exposure to noise from 6 low-level military overflights for any single point on the ground would be far less than 1- 7 2 hours. There would be no net adverse effect on aviation safety or civilian access to the 8 affected airspace (see Sections 4.1 and 4.2), so the Proposed Action would not be 9 expected to have a significant noise-related negative effect on the aviation-related 10 tourism industry in Maine.

11 To comply with EO 12898, ethnicity and poverty status in the study area were examined 12 and compared to county and state statistics to determine if any minority or low-income 13 groups could be disproportionately affected by the Proposed Action. This review 14 indicated that the proportion of low-income persons and minorities underlying the 15 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs is less than or similar to overall county and state 16 levels. The primary potential impact to the area underlying the MOA would be noise. 17 The noise analysis (see Section 4.2) concluded that no individuals would be exposed to 18 noise levels above DNL 65 dB and that the Proposed Action would not have a significant 19 adverse noise-related effect on local residents. Therefore, there would be no significant 20 adverse impact on these populations.

21 In addition, EO 13045 requires that Federal agencies identify and assess environmental 22 health and safety risks that might disproportionately affect children. The Proposed 23 Action would not produce any significant noise, health, or safety impacts; consequently, 24 the Proposed Action would not pose any significant adverse or disproportionate 25 environmental health risks or safety risks to children.

4-35 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 4.9.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 2 Alternative

3 Under this alternative, noise levels in the area under the existing Condor 2 MOA would 4 remain unchanged. The overall effects of this alternative on socioeconomics under the 5 Condor 1 MOA would be similar to, but less than, the Proposed Action; therefore, this 6 alternative would have no significant impacts on socioeconomics or disproportionately 7 adverse effects on minority or low-income populations or children under Condor 1 MOA. 8 This alternative would have no effect on socioeconomic resources in the area under 9 Condor 2 MOA.

10 4.9.4 No-Action Alternative

11 The No-Action Alternative would have no effect on the socioeconomics of the area.

12 4.10 Cultural Resources

13 4.10.1 Significance Criteria

14 Both federal and state laws regulate the management and control of cultural resources. 15 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act empowers the Advisory Council on 16 Historic Preservation to comment on federally initiated, licensed, or permitted projects 17 affecting cultural sites listed or eligible for inclusion on the National Register. 18 Ordinarily, determinations of eligibility for National Register listing (made in 19 consultation between federal agencies and the SHPO) are used as a means to distinguish 20 properties that possess significance regarding American history, architecture, 21 archaeology, engineering, or culture from those of lesser importance.

22 This analysis considers both direct and indirect impacts to cultural resources. Direct 23 impacts include:

24 • physical alteration, damage, or destruction of all or part of a resource;

25 • alteration of the environmental setting of the cultural resource;

4-36 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 • addition of visual, audible, or atmospheric disturbances that are out of character 2 with the property or its setting; or,

3 • neglect of the resource resulting in its destruction or deterioration.

4 Direct impacts are assessed by considering the proximity of ANG activities to the cultural 5 resource sites. Indirect impacts result primarily from the effects of project-induced 6 population increases and the resulting need to develop new housing areas, utilities 7 services, and other support functions necessary to accommodate population growth. 8 These activities and their subsequent use have the potential to affect cultural resources.

9 The ANG considers impacts to Native American resources to be significant if the effect 10 of a Proposed Action has the potential to significantly affect protected tribal resources, 11 tribal rights, or Indian lands.

12 4.10.2 Proposed Action

13 There are no land-based activities associated with the Proposed Action, so the only 14 potential effect of the Proposed Action on cultural resources underlying the proposed 15 Condor High and Low MOAs would be from noise and/or vibrations caused by sorties. 16 The lateral boundaries of the proposed Condor MOAs would constitute the Area of 17 Potential Effect (APE) of the Proposed Action on cultural resources. All of the listed and 18 eligible historic properties, including archaeological sites and historic structures, 19 underlying the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs are located in Maine (Appendix 20 E).

21 Historic Resources

22 The Proposed Action would have no adverse effect on existing or eligible cultural 23 resources within the APE for the following reasons:

24 • the Proposed Action would not involve any physical destruction, damage, or 25 alteration of any part of any cultural properties;

4-37 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 • the Proposed Action would not isolate or alter the character of the setting of any 2 cultural properties;

3 • the Proposed Action would not result in any deterioration or destruction of any 4 cultural properties through neglect; and

9 5 • the instantaneous maximum noise level (Lmax) on the surface for an F-15 flying 6 at 500 feet AGL is 115.7 dB; which is below the 130+ dB range typically 7 associated with structural damage from noise vibrations. Noise levels in excess of 8 110 dB, however, may result in secondary vibrations, such as rattling of pictures, 9 windowpanes, or dishes (Wyle Acoustics Group, 2003). These effects would be 10 negligible because they would have a short duration (15-20 seconds) followed by 11 a return to ambient conditions for any given location under the affected airspace.

12 The Proposed Action would introduce visual and audible elements that could be 13 perceived as being out of character with cultural properties in a quiet setting. Visual 14 effects on these resources would be negligible since the aircraft would be visible from 15 any given cultural resource for a few minutes per flying day. Audible effects on cultural 16 resources would be minor because the overall noise level would increase by

17 approximately 6 dB, but remain well below Ldnmr 55 dB..

18 As part of the IICEP process, the Maine and New Hampshire SHPOs, tribal historic 19 preservation officers and local Native American tribes were consulted on the potential 20 effects of the Proposed Action on cultural resources pursuant to Section 106 of the 21 National Historic Preservation Act. In a letter dated 19 October 2006, the New 22 Hampshire SHPO indicated there were no cultural resources underlying the Condor 1 23 MOA. Low-level sorties would not adversely affect historic sites or districts, nor would 24 it affect the integrity of the recorded, or any unrecorded, archaeological sites within the 25 APE. The associated noise-generated vibrations would not be sufficient to cause any 26 structural damage. Therefore, the data recovery potential (potential for scientific study)

9 The instantaneous maximum noise level represents the noise exposure (in dB) if an individual was standing directly under an F-15 that flew overhead at 500 feet AGL. This differs from overall noise level which is an average of the overall noise environment, not an individual flight.

4-38 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 of any sites would not be affected. For a full discussion of the AT, refer to section 4.8. 2 In a letter dated 22 February 2008, the Maine SHPO concurred that the Proposed Action 3 will have no adverse effect on historic properties underlying the Condor MOAs 4 (Appendix A).

5 Native American Resources

6 The Proposed Action would have no adverse effect on existing Native American 7 resources within the APE for the following reasons:

8 • The Proposed Action would not involve any physical destruction, damage, or 9 alteration of any part of any Native American properties, specifically the two 10 blocks of land owned or held in trust for the Penobscot Nation;

11 • Although the Proposed Action would increase overall noise levels by

12 approximately 6 dB, the overall noise level would remain well below Ldnmr 55 dB, 13 the recommended DNL to protect public health and welfare, including annoyance, 14 in areas where quiet is a recognized use (USEPA, 1974).

15 • The Alder Stream property falls within the existing IR-800 MTR corridor, while a 16 portion of the Carrabassett Valley property falls within the VR-842 MTR 17 corridor. ANG activities in the proposed Condor MOA would be similar to 18 activities already practiced in the MTRs. The only area of Native American lands 19 that would experience an increase in low altitude overflights would be the portion 20 of the Carrabassett Valley property that is outside MTRs.

21 The Penobscot Nation was contacted in October 2006 and March 2007 regarding the 22 cultural significance of these sites; however, no response was received. For the reasons 23 described in the Historic Resources section above, the Proposed Action would have no 24 significant impact on historic Native American resources within the APE. If any 25 traditional ceremonies would be particularly sensitive to noise from aircraft overflights, 26 the Penebscot Nation may contact the EADS to coordinate training sorties to the greatest 27 extent possible to minimize the potential disruption (refer to Section 7 of the EIS for 28 specific contact information).

4-39 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 4.10.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 2 Alternative

3 This alternative would have similar impacts on cultural resources under the Condor 1 4 MOA as those described for the Proposed Action.. Conditions underlying the existing 5 Condor 2 MOA would remain unchanged.

6 4.10.4 No-Action Alternative

7 The No-Action Alternative would have no effect on cultural properties within the APE.

4-40 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

2 Cumulative impacts on environmental resources result from incremental effects of a 3 proposed action, when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 4 future projects in the area. Cumulative impacts can result from minor, but collectively 5 substantial, actions undertaken over a period of time by various agencies (federal, state, 6 and local) or individuals. In accordance with NEPA, an EA must include an assessment 7 of cumulative impacts resulting from projects that are potential, under construction, 8 recently completed, or anticipated to be implemented in the near future. This cumulative 9 effects analysis (CEA) follows guidelines set forth in the CEQ handbook, Considering 10 Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Act (CEQ, 1997).

11 5.1 Methods for the Cumulative Impact Analysis

12 This cumulative impact analysis included three major tasks, as per the guidelines cited 13 above:

14 1. Determine the scope of the cumulative analysis, including relevant resources, 15 geographic extent, and time frame;

16 2. Conduct the cumulative effects analysis; and

17 3. Determine the cumulative impacts to relevant resources.

18 5.1.1 Scope of Cumulative Impact Analysis

19 Identification of Relevant Resources

20 Resources identified for consideration in the cumulative impacts analysis were those that 21 were adversely impacted by the Proposed Action or Alternatives. If the Proposed Action 22 or Alternatives did not result in direct or secondary impacts on a resource, then that 23 resource was eliminated from the cumulative impact evaluation (CEQ, 1997). Table 5-1 24 provides a summary of the decision-making process conducted to identify the relevant 25 resources to be considered in this cumulative impacts analysis.

5-1 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Table 5-1. Consideration of Resources for Cumulative Impacts Analysis

Resource Impacts of the Impacts of the Lower No-Action Cumulative Area Proposed Action Condor 1 MOA with Alternative Effects Condor 2 MOA Analysis Unchanged Alternative Required Airspace No significant adverse No significant adverse No effect Yes Management impact. No net change impact. Increased in MOA utilization, utilization of Condor 1 decreased utilization of MOA, no change in the VRs. Condor 2 MOA, decrease Redistribution of low in utilization of VRs. altitude military Redistribution of low activity, but no altitude military activity, significant change in but significant change in the number of low the number of low altitude sorties. Minor altitude sorties. Minor gains in operational gains in operational efficiency. Minor efficiency. Minor negative impacts on negative impacts on accessibility of the accessibility of Condor 1 MOAs under IFR MOA under IFR. conditions. Safety No adverse effect. No adverse effect, similar No effect Yes Minor increase in to proposed action but probability of Class B the increase in Class B mishaps in the MOAS; mishap potential would decrease in Class B occur entirely within mishap potential in the Condor 1 MOA. VRs and in Class A mishap potential in the MOAs and VRs Noise Minor adverse effect on Minor adverse effect on No effect Yes Ldnmr and SEL outside Ldnmr in Condor 1 MOA. the existing MTRs. Similar to the Proposed Minor decreases in Action. Minor decreases Ldnmr and SEL in the in Ldnmr and SEL in the existing MTRs. existing MTRs. No change in Condor 2 MOA Air Quality Minor negative effects Minor impact in Condor No effect Yes due to low altitude 1; positive effect in the emissions but no VRs; no change in significant impact Condor 2. Geological No effect No effect No effect No Resources Water No effect No effect No effect No Resources Biological No adverse effect No adverse effect No effect No Resources

5-2 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

Resource Impacts of the Impacts of the Lower No-Action Cumulative Area Proposed Action Condor 1 MOA with Alternative Effects Condor 2 MOA Analysis Unchanged Alternative Required Land Use Minor negative effect No significant adverse No effect Yes on lands that are effect currently not subjected to low altitude overflights. No significant adverse effect on the affected airspace as a whole Socioeconomics No adverse effect No adverse effect No effect No Cultural No adverse effect No adverse effect No effect No Resources

1 Geographical Extent of Analysis

2 The geographic area of concern for a cumulative impacts analysis is typically defined by 3 the extent of the influence of a potential action and its alternatives (CEQ, 1997). The 4 extent of influence of the Proposed Action and its Alternative with respect to the relevant 5 resources for this cumulative impacts analysis is limited to the airspace within the 6 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs and the lands underlying these proposed MOAs.

7 Time Frame for Analysis

8 CEQ guidelines require that potential cumulative impacts be considered over a specified 9 time period (i.e., from past through future). In order to assess the influence of a given 10 action, a cumulative impact analyses should be conducted using existing, readily 11 available data and the scoping of the cumulative impact analysis should be defined, in 12 part, by data availability.

13 The appropriate time for considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 14 projects can be the design life of a project, or future time frames used in local master 15 plans and other available predictive data. The impacts of past actions have been 16 considered in the analysis of this EA in establishing the baseline against which the 17 Proposed Action is compared.

5-3 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 5.1.2 Cumulative Effects Analysis

2 There are no reasonably foreseeable state, county, or local projects with the potential for 3 cumulative impacts when combined with the Proposed Action. The ANG contacted the 4 state, county, and local planning offices in order to identify projects with the potential to 5 cumulatively impact the area underlying the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs. 6 The Maine Land Use Regulation Commission oversees the unorganized territories (areas 7 outside the incorporated towns) in northern Franklin County. Additionally, the ANG 8 contacted the following county and local planning offices in order to identify projects 9 with the potential to cumulatively impact the area underlying the proposed Condor Low 10 and High MOAs:

11 • Maine County Planning Offices: Oxford, Franklin, Somerset, and Piscataquis 12 Counties;

13 • New Hampshire County Planning Offices: Coos County;

14 • Maine Local Planning Offices: Towns of Andover and Byron (Oxford County); 15 Towns of Rangeley and Farmington (Franklin County); Town of Solon (Somerset 16 County); and the Towns of Shirley Mills and Wellington (Piscataquis County).

17 There were no towns in New Hampshire underlying, or in the vicinity of, the proposed 18 Condor 1 MOA; therefore, no local planning offices in New Hampshire were contacted.

19 There are three federal projects with the potential for synergistic effects with the 20 Proposed Action. Based on the 2005 BRAC Commission decisions, current users of the 21 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs from Syracuse ANG and Brunswick Naval bases 22 would be realigned and no longer train in the proposed Condor MOAs. These 23 realignments would remove some of the F-16s and the P-3 aircraft as users from the 24 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs (see Section 2.4). The other federal projects are the Kibby 25 Mountain wind project and the Record Hill wind project. The Kibby Mountain wind 26 project is a 132-megawatt wind project in the northern portion of the affected airspace 27 under IR-800 (Figure 5-1), and is currently under construction. The Record Hill Wind 28 Farm is a proposed 55 megawatt commercial wind project consisting of 22 turbines

5-4 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 arrayed along the ridgeline that connects Partridge Peak, Record Hill, and Flathead 2 Mountain. The proposed Record Hill project would be located to the east of VR-840/1/2 3 in eastern Oxford County (Figure 5-1). Another wind farm has been proposed in the area 4 surrounding Reddington Township; however, the proposal has not been approved by the 5 state permitting board and therefore is not considered to be a reasonably foreseeable 6 action for the purposes of this assessment.

7 Table 5-2 summarizes the future utilization of the proposed Condor Low and High 8 MOAs and VR-840/1/2 following the complete implementation of the 2005 BRAC 9 Commission decisions. The Condor Low and High MOAs and underlying VRs would 10 support approximately 484 sorties per year compared to 576 sorties per year under 11 current conditions (see Table 2-1) and the 504 sorties that would occur under the 12 Proposed Action alone (see Table 2-2). Each sortie would spend approximately 15 to 35 13 percent of their time (4-14 minutes per sortie) below 3,000 feet AGL. On average, 14 approximately two training missions would be scheduled each week. Depending on the 15 type of mission, multiple sorties may be conducted during each training mission. 16 Typically, the Condor Low and High MOAs would not be scheduled on weekends or 17 holidays.

5-5 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1

5-6 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Table 5-2. Utilization of the Proposed Condor Low and High MOAs and VR- 2 840/1/2 following implementation of the Proposed Action and the 3 BRAC commission decisions

Condor 1 and 2 MOAs Aircraft Type F-15 F-16 KC-135/KC-10 P-3

Sorties/Year 96 300 12 0

Total Hours/Year in 40 - 64 125 - 200 9 - 12 N/A the MOAs Total MOA Usage 174 - 276 Hours per Year (All Aircraft)

VR-840/1/2

Aircraft Type F-15 F-16 KC-135/KC-10 P-3

Sorties/Year 0 72 0 0

Total Hours/Year in N/A 18 - 24 N/A N/A VR Routes Total Hours in the VR Routes (Low Level) 18 - 24 Hours per Year - All Aircraft - Total Airspace Use (MOA plus VR Routes) – All Aircraft

192 - 300 Hours 4 Source: Otis ANG Base Utilization Data, 2006.

5 When combined with the effects of the BRAC decisions, the Proposed Action would 6 have the potential to contribute to cumulative effects on airspace management, safety, 7 noise, air quality, and land use. The following section analyzes the cumulative effects of 8 the BRAC decisions and the Proposed Action on these resources.

9 Cumulative Effects on Airspace Management

10 Under the Proposed Action some areas outside the current MTRs would experience low- 11 level flights where none occurred before. However, these operations would be 12 distributed through an area of 3,600 NM2, and would not significantly congest, restrict, or 13 negatively affect the movement of other air traffic in the region or accessibility of the

5-7 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 airspace to other air traffic. When the effects of the Proposed Action are combined with 2 the effects of the BRAC decision, access to the MOAs under IFR conditions would be 3 curtailed, but there would be fewer low-level overflights distributed over a larger area 4 than under current conditions. Low altitude sorties would not be as highly concentrated 5 anywhere in the affected airspace as they currently are in the VRs. Figure 5.1 illustrates 6 the comparative concentrations of low altitude sorties in terms of annual sorties per acre 7 of ground covered before and after the Proposed Action and BRAC are implemented, 8 inside and outside the VRs.

9 Figure 5.2 Distribution of low-altitude sorties in existing and proposed low 10 altitude airspace under existing conditions, the Proposed Action, and 11 the Proposed Action with BRAC recommendations

12

13

200 200 150 144 14 150 100 72 72 100 72 72

50 50 15 0 0 0 Baseline Proposed Action Proposed Action and Baseline Proposed Action Proposed Action

Low-altitude sorties Low-altitude per year BRAC and BRAC 16 Low-altitude sortiesper year

MTRS (% of total area) Outside MTRs (% of total area) 17

18 The reduction in F-16 utilization of the MOAs would moderate the negative impacts on 19 access to the MOAs under IFR conditions, because the MOAs will not be activated as 20 often in the future to support F-16 training sorties as they are now. Therefore, the 21 Proposed Action would not contribute significantly to cumulative negative effects on 22 airspace management. The Kibby Mountain wind project will have no cumulative impact

5-8 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 on airspace management because it lies entirely under IR-800 and IR-800 would remain 2 unchanged by the Proposed Action. It is standard procedure to enter the locations of 3 known wind power projects into the onboard navigation systems on ANG aircraft. Pilots 4 are therefore aware of the wind projects’ locations, and avoid them much as they would a 5 surface threat (such as a surface to air missile site). Although the Proposed Action would 6 allow low-altitude military traffic to approach the Kibby Mountain project from several 7 directions whereas military traffic can only approach from one direction currently, pilots 8 would be aware of the wind project’s location, and be able to avoid the turbines. The 9 Kibby Mountain project is also located on the extreme northern boundary of the affected 10 airspace where relatively few LOWAT missions would be flown. The Record Hill 11 project would be more centrally located within the MOA, and the Proposed Action would 12 introduce military overflights at lower altitudes than they currently occur over the 13 proposed Record Hill project site. Similar to the Kibby Mountain project, pilots would 14 be aware of the wind project’s location, and be able to avoid the turbines.

15 Cumulative Effects on Safety

16 In addition to changes in F-15 and F-16 utilization as a result of the Proposed Action, 17 other concurrent and future actions will affect utilization of the affected airspace by P-3s 18 and F-16s. Therefore, the analysis of cumulative effects on safety must consider future 19 P-3 and F-16 utilization. The F-16s from Syracuse that would be officially eliminated as 20 users of the airspace under BRAC have not scheduled the airspace in the last three years, 21 so they are not considered further in this analysis. Implementation of the 2005 BRAC 22 actions will also eliminate P-3s from the affected airspace, so the partial contribution to 23 cumulative mishap risk in the affected airspace associated with P-3 operations will be 24 eliminated. The Air Force does not maintain historical data on P-3 mishaps so this EIS 25 does not quantify the reduction in mishap risk associated with the BRAC actions, but this 26 action would have a beneficial effect on safety. Therefore, the Proposed Action would 27 contribute to cumulative beneficial effects on safety.

5-9 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Cumulative Effects on Noise

2 The Proposed Action would effectively redistribute existing low-altitude military air 3 traffic from within VR0840/1/2 throughout the proposed Condor Low MOA. The BRAC 4 decisions would decrease the total number of sorties that would occur within the

5 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs. Table 5-3 compares Ldnmr values under existing

6 conditions to Ldnmr values under the combined effects of the Proposed Action and the 7 BRAC decisions (See Appendix D for the detailed noise analysis modeling outputs).

8 Table 5-3. Cumulative Impacts on Uniform Distributed Sound Levels within the 9 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs

Uniform Number of Difference (Proposed Distributed Difference Events above Action and BRAC) in Sound Level relative to SEL of 65 dBA Number of Events per Condition Airspace Ldnmr (dBA) baseline per day day Condor 1 31.5 0.6 Baseline MOA (Existing Condor 2 condition) 31.4 0.6 MOA

Condor Proposed Low and +7.0 Action 38.5 0 -1.2 High alone MOAs Proposed Condor Action Low and +7.0 38.5 0 combined High with BRAC MOAs Note: The area of noise effect for Baseline Condor 1 and 2 MOAs are 3,196.3 and 814.4 square miles, respectively. The total area of noise effect for the combined Low and High MOAs is 4,011 square miles. 10

11 The Ldnmr in Condor 1 and 2 MOAs is approximately 31.5 dB under existing conditions, 12 and noise events above 65 dBA occur at a frequency of approximately 0.6 events per day 13 in each MOA. The Proposed Action combined with the BRAC decisions would raise the

14 Ldnmr under Condor Low and High MOAs to 38.5 dBA (Table 5.3), but reduce Ldnmr 15 under the existing MTRs and reduce noise events above 65 dBA (Table 5-4). This would

16 represent an approximately 7.0 dBA decrease in the MTR Ldnmr from the Proposed 17 Action alone (31.5 dBA).

5-10 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Although the BRAC actions would decrease military utilization of the airspace, they 2 would not contribute to cumulative effects on noise. The noise impacts associated with 3 the Proposed Action and the Proposed Action plus BRAC are essentially the same. For 4 practical purposes this means that the BRAC decisions would have no measurable 5 additional positive or negative effect apart from the impact associated with the Proposed 6 Action, or stated another way, that the noise-related impacts associated with all the 7 actions discussed in this EIAP are attributable to the Proposed Action. Therefore; the 8 Proposed Action and BRAC decisions would not have significant cumulative effects on 9 noise.

10 Table 5-4. Cumulative Impacts on Maximum Centerline Sound Levels within the 11 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs

Maximum Centerline Difference Number of Difference Airspace - Level Ldnmr (Baseline to Events above (Proposed- Condition VR-0840/1/2 (dB) Proposed) SEL of 65 dB Baseline) 46.1 0.2 Baseline Segment Proposed Action + -11.8 -0.1 01 - 02 33.5 0.1 BRAC 46.1 0.2 Baseline Segment Proposed Action + -11.8 -0.1 02 - 03 33.5 0.1 BRAC 47.3 0.3 Baseline Segment Proposed Action + -11.8 -0.2 03 - 04 34.7 0.1 BRAC 47.3 0.3 Baseline Segment Proposed Action + -11.8 -0.2 04 - 05 34.7 0.1 BRAC 47.3 0.3 Baseline Segment Proposed Action + -11.8 -0.2 05 - 06 34.7 0.1 BRAC 46.1 0.2 Baseline Segment Proposed Action + -11.8 -0.1 06 - 07 33.5 0.1 BRAC 46.1 0.2 Baseline Segment Proposed Action + -11.8 -0.1 07 - 08 33.5 0.1 BRAC 45.1 0.2 Baseline Segment Proposed Action + -11.8 -0.1 08 - 09 32.6 0.1 BRAC 12

13 Cumulative Effects on Air Quality

5-11 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 The Proposed Action would have a minor positive effect on air quality under the MTRs 2 and a minor negative impact on air quality within the proposed Condor Low and High 3 MOAs. The BRAC decisions would have a positive effect on air quality throughout the 4 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs. The Proposed Action and BRAC decisions 5 would result in an approximate 50 percent decrease in low altitude sorties within the 6 MTRs, but a portion of these sorties would be carried out outside the MTRs. Table 5-5 7 provides a summary of the estimated aircraft emissions that would be generated as a 8 result of the Proposed Action and the BRAC decisions. As shown in Table 5-5, total 9 emissions would be below the existing aircraft emissions for all the criteria pollutants and 10 would not increase ambient air pollution concentrations above any NAAQS. Therefore, 11 emissions from the Proposed Action would not compromise the State of Maine and New 12 Hampshire’s ability to comply with their respective SIPs. The General Conformity 13 requirements do not apply to the Proposed Project because the areas underlying the 14 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs are designated attainment, or unclassifiable, for 15 all major criteria pollutants. The Proposed Action would cause an incremental decrease 16 in ground level air quality, but the combined effects of the BRAC decisions and the 17 Proposed Action would cause a minor increase in air quality throughout the proposed 18 Condor Low and High MOAs.

19 Table 5-5. Summary of Emissions from Aircraft Operations Associated with the 20 Proposed Action and BRAC decisions (tons/year)

# of PM10 / Activities CO NOx SO2 VOCs Sorties PM2.5 Proposed Condor 408 1.82 50.0 0.77 1.97 0.27 MOAs Proposed VR-840/1/2 72 0.11 3.43 0.04 0.13 0.01 Total Proposed 480 1.93 53.4 0.81 2.09 0.28 Aircraft Emissions (Proposed Action and BRAC) Existing Aircraft 576 2.31 59.0 0.92 2.37 0.34 Emissions 21 Source: Emissions factors from each aircraft type were obtained from: Jagielski, Kurt D., and Robert J. 22 O’Brien, 1994. Calculation Methods for Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Inventories, USAF Occupational 23 and Environmental Health Directorate, Air Force Material Command, Brooks AFB, Texas, July 1994.

24 Cumulative Effects on Land Use

5-12 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 The cumulative effect of the Proposed Action on land use is related primarily to effects 2 on noise, because noise impacts can influence the types of activities and uses the land 3 under the affected airspace can support. The Proposed Action would cause minor 4 increases in noise in some areas where quiet is a recognized land use; however, noise

5 levels would remain well below Ldnmr 55 dB, the recommended DNL to protect public 6 health and welfare, including annoyance, in areas where quiet is a recognized use 7 (USEPA, 1974). These increases would be offset by corresponding decreases in noise 8 elsewhere underlying the MOA where quiet is a recognized use (e.g., portions of the AT 9 currently underlying MTR corridors). The BRAC decisions would not have any 10 significant cumulative effect on noise associated with low-altitude military overflights 11 underlying the affected airspace, so the Proposed Action would not contribute to 12 significant cumulative effects on land use.

13 5.1.3 Conclusions of the Cumulative Impacts Analysis

14 This EA concludes that the cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and 15 implementation of the 2005 BRAC decisions would be limited to beneficial effects on 16 airspace management and air quality. The BRAC decisions would not contribute to 17 cumulative effects on land use or noise, and would have no cumulatively adverse effects 18 on any resource evaluated in this EIAP.

5-13 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

5-14 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 6.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

2 This EA evaluated the potential environmental effects associated with the modification of 3 the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOA on ten resource areas. The following sections provide 4 a summary of the findings according to resource area.

5 6.1 Summary of Potential Effects for the Proposed Action

6 6.1.1 Airspace Management

7 The Proposed Action would have no significant effect on airspace management. No new 8 aircraft would utilize the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs, and existing special 9 procedures would continue to be implemented around the civilian airports in the region to 10 manage the interaction between civilian and military air traffic. The 104 FW would 11 realize gains in operational efficiency as a result of the Proposed Action. The Proposed 12 Action would result in minor negative impacts on accessibility of the MOAs under IFR 13 conditions.

14 6.1.2 Safety

15 The Proposed Action would have no significant effect on safety. No new aircraft would 16 utilize the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs. The Proposed Action would decrease 17 Class A mishap potential; the potential for Class B mishaps to occur in the MOAs would 18 increase slightly. Continued preflight review of the AHAS and the resulting modification 19 of training activities when necessary would mitigate potential effects on BASH risk. The 20 Proposed Action would effectively extend the same operational scenario that currently 21 safely accommodates military and civilian use, including float planes operators, of the 22 same airspace within the MTRs over the remainder of Condor 1 and 2 MOAs. Therefore 23 the Proposed Action would have no significant impact on safety.

24 6.1.3 Noise

25 The Proposed Action would have no significant effect on noise. The Proposed Action

26 would raise the Ldnmr under Condor Low and High MOAs to approximately 38.5 dBA. 27 However; noise levels would remain well below the FAA significance-threshold of 65

6-1 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 dB, and the more conservative 55 dB threshold established by the EPA. The 2 instantaneous noise associated with low altitude overflights outside VR 0840/1/2 would 3 be higher than under existing conditions, but these increases would be offset by 4 corresponding decreases in instantaneous noise associated with low altitude overflights

5 within VR 0840/1/2. Lmax would remain unchanged under the Proposed Action, but could 6 occur at any point under the Condor Low MOA. Any given point on the ground within 7 the MTRs would be subject to fewer of these events than under existing conditions. The 8 areas outside the MTRs would experience them more often than under current conditions; 9 however, total operations within the MOAs would remain approximately 2 hours per 10 week during daytime, weekday hours.

11 6.1.4 Air Quality

12 The Proposed Action would have no significant effect on air quality. The Proposed 13 Action alone would cause minor ground-level air quality impacts associated with re- 14 locating these sorties to a lower, but these impacts would be offset by a corresponding 15 reduction in low altitude sorties in the MTRs, incremental reductions in low-altitude 16 emissions achieved through increases in training efficiency, and reductions in the actual 17 amount of time spent at low altitude during each sortie. Concurrent and future actions 18 would have positive cumulative effects on air quality by reducing aviation-related 19 emissions in the affected airspace. The General Conformity requirements do not apply to 20 the Proposed Action because the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs are in 21 attainment for all major criteria pollutants, or are unclassifiable.

22 6.1.5 Geological Resources

23 The Proposed Action would have no effect on geology, soils, or topography underlying 24 the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs because the Proposed Action would not 25 involve ground-disturbing activities. The 102 FW would use chaff and flares during 26 some training exercises; however, the total amount of chaff and flares expended would 27 not change as a result of the Proposed Action. The majority of the material within the 28 chaff and flares do not survive the combustion process and/or is relatively inert; 29 therefore, the Proposed Action would have no effect on geological resources.

6-2 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 6.1.6 Water Resources

2 The Proposed Action would have no effect on water resources because it would not 3 require any discharge to surface waters, or withdrawal of either surface water or 4 groundwater. No floodplains would be altered as a result of the Proposed Action. The 5 Proposed Action would not overlap Maine’s or New Hampshire’s Coastal Zone, nor 6 would it overlap any federally-designated wild and scenic rivers.

7 6.1.7 Biological Resources

8 The Proposed Action would have no significant effect on biological resources. The 9 Proposed Action would not result in any construction or ground disturbance; therefore, 10 the potential effects of the Proposed Action on biological communities would be limited 11 to noise, bird strikes, and the use of chaff and flares associated with military aircraft 12 sorties. There would be no effect on significant vegetation communities and habitats. 13 The Proposed Action would raise the average background noise level under Condor Low 14 and High MOAs to 38.5 dBA. Increased noise levels and low-level overflights could 15 temporarily disturb wildlife but affected individuals would likely habituate to these 16 activities and would not suffer any long-term adverse effects. The potential for bird 17 strikes is minimal because the Proposed Action would not affect a major avian migratory 18 corridor, and existing mitigation techniques would continue to be applied to further 19 reduce risks of bird strikes. To mitigate potential impacts to bald eagles, the ANG will 20 maintain buffer areas from the surface to 1,000 ft AGL with a radius of 0.25 mile from 21 known bald eagle nests, and refrain from flying within these buffers from 1 February 22 through 31 August, inclusive. The Proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect 23 federally or state listed threatened or endangered species, because the Proposed Action 24 would not alter these species’ habitats.

25 6.1.8 Land Use

26 The Proposed Action would not have a significant effect on land use underlying the 27 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs. The Proposed Action would maintain noise 28 levels well below Ldnmr 55 dB, the recommended DNL to protect public health and

6-3 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 welfare, including annoyance, in areas where quiet is a recognized use (USEPA, 1974) 2 throughout the proposed Condor 1 and 2 MOAs; however, areas outside the current VR- 3 840/1/2 would experience a slight increase in low-level flight noise. From a MOA-wide 4 perspective this increase would be offset by the corresponding decreases in noise 5 elsewhere within the affected airspace. The Proposed Action is also consistent with the 6 management plans for public lands underlying the proposed Condor Low and High 7 MOAs. There will a minor increase in flights over portions of the AT; however, the 8 Proposed Action will decrease the likelihood of low-level flights over 64.5 % of the AT. 9 In a letter dated 7 February 2008, the NPS concurred that the Proposed Action would 10 have no adverse effect to recreation, natural resources, or the Appalachian Trail. The 11 Proposed Action would not contribute to significant cumulative effects on land use.

12 6.1.9 Socioeconomics

13 The Proposed Action would not have a significant effect on the socioeconomics of the 14 communities underlying the proposed MOA. The Proposed Action would not add or 15 remove permanent or temporary employment opportunities or require new construction. 16 The proportion of low-income persons and minorities underlying the proposed Condor 17 Low and High MOAs is less than or similar to overall county and state levels; therefore, 18 there would be no significant adverse effect on these populations from the Proposed 19 Action. The Proposed Action would not produce any significant noise, health, or safety 20 impacts. It would have no significant effect on the tourism industry; nor would it pose 21 any significant adverse or disproportionate environmental health risks or safety risks to 22 children.

23 6.1.10 Cultural Resources

24 The Proposed Action would not have a significant adverse effect on cultural resources 25 within the APE, as it would not involve any construction, demolition, or ground 26 disturbance that could directly impact cultural resources. The Proposed Action would 27 introduce visual and audible elements that may be out of character with some cultural 28 properties, but these effects would be negligible since the sorties would only be visible 29 from any given cultural property for less than a few minutes per flying day, and the

6-4 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Proposed Action would have an overall positive effect on noise level would increase less 2 than 6 dB and would remain well below the 65 dB threshold (38 dB). Noise levels below 3 this standard protect public health and welfare, including annoyance with an adequate 4 safety margin. Instantaneous noise levels will not reach the range required to damage 5 existing structures (130 dB+); however, some minor secondary vibrations (rattling 6 windows or dishes) may be noticed in areas directly underneath low altitude (500 feet 7 AGL) overflights. The New Hampshire SHPO, in a letter dated 19 October 2006, 8 identified no historic resources underlying the Condor 1 MOA. In a letter dated 22 9 February 2008, the Maine SHPO concurred that the Proposed Action will have no 10 adverse effect on historic properties underlying the Condor MOAs (Appendix A). The 11 Penobscot Nation was contacted in October 2006 and March 2007 (see certified mail 12 receipts in Appendix A) regarding the Proposed Action; however, no response was 13 received.

14 6.2 Summary of the Proposed Alternative

15 This section compares the environmental effects of the Proposed Alternative with the 16 Proposed Action.

17 6.2.1 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged

18 Under this alternative, the flight floor of Condor 1 MOA would be lowered to 500 feet 19 AGL; however, the flight floor of Condor 2 MOA would remain at 7,000 feet MSL 20 (between approximately 2,800 feet and 6,300 feet AGL). This alternative would not 21 completely meet the project purpose. The later extent of Condor 1 MOA (40 NM) is not 22 wide enough (60 NM) to allow complete training for lateral defensive movements and 23 intercepts. The impacts to the area underlying the Proposed Condor 1 MOA would be 24 similar to the Proposed Action, including a negligible increase in ground-level noise and 25 a minor decrease in air quality. The instantaneous noise level associated with a low 26 altitude flyover would increase but these events would become less frequent within VR 27 840/1/2. A minor decrease in air quality would occur in Condor 1 as a result of the 28 Proposed Action, but this decrease would not be significant.

6-5 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 6.2.2 No-Action Alternative

2 The No-Action Alternative would avoid the negligible impacts on noise associated with 3 the Proposed Action and Alternative. The adverse environmental effects of the Proposed 4 Action are minimal and, therefore, the environmental benefits associated with the No- 5 Action Alternative relative to the Proposed Action are minimal. Moreover, this 6 alternative would not meet the defined purpose and need of the Proposed Action, and 7 would leave the 102 FW unable to meet their LOWAT training requirements.

8 None of the effects described above for either the Proposed Action or the alternative of 9 lowering Condor 1 MOA and leaving Condor 2 MOA unchanged would rise to the level 10 of significance as defined in the ANG’s and FAA’s regulations implementing NEPA. 11 Table 6-1 summarizes these findings for each resource analyzed in this EIAP.

12 Table 6-1. Comparison of Alternatives

Resource Area Proposed Action Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA No-Action with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged Alternative Achieve Project Purpose Yes Partially No Airspace Management No significant No significant effect No effect effect Safety No significant No significant effect No effect effect Noise No significant No significant effect No effect effect Air Quality No significant No significant effect No effect effect Geological Resources No effect No effect No effect Water Resources No effect No effect No effect Biological Resources No significant No significant effect No effect effect Land Use No significant No significant effect t No effect effect Socioeconomics No significant No significant effect No effect effect Cultural Resources No significant No significant effect No effect effect 13

6-6 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 7.0 SPECIAL PROCEDURES

2 The proposed activities would not result in any significant adverse effects that would 3 require mitigation. However, there are several special procedures that the 102 FW (104 4 FW) currently implements, or proposes to implement, to minimize the potential minor 5 adverse impacts from the Proposed Action.

6 • Monitor the AHAS as part of the standard preflight mission requirements and 7 alter or cancel sorties in areas or periods with “moderate” to “severe” BASH 8 risks.

9 • Monitor the local weather and alter or cancel sorties to avoid inclement weather 10 systems;

11 • The ANG will maintain 1,500 feet AGL over the Rangeley Airfield within 7 NM 12 of the airport as per the avoidance requirements in the FLIP (2003).

13 • The ANG will load the locations of the proposed wind farms into the onboard 14 navigational systems on their aircraft, and their pilots will avoid these areas, 15 similar to the way they currently avoid surface threats (such as surface-to-air 16 missile installations.

17 • In order to minimize conflicts with Native American ceremonies and USFWS 18 aerial surveys, these organizations may contact EADS (Robert Resendez) prior to 19 conducting any ceremonies that would be particularly sensitive to aircraft 20 overflights or low-level flights within the proposed Condor Low MOA. The 21 contact phone number is (313)-334-6726.

22 • The ANG will maintain buffer areas from surface to 1,000 ft AGL within a radius 23 of 0.25 mile from known bald eagle nests, and refrain from flying within these 24 buffers from 1 February through 31 August, inclusive.

25 • The ANG will consult with MDIFW and the USFWS to obtain current bald eagle 26 nesting information on an annual basis at the beginning of each nesting season,

7-1 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 and to adjust the bald eagle nesting buffer areas underlying the proposed Condor 2 Low and High MOAs accordingly.

3 • The ANG will place a 2,000-foot buffer area around the Lake Umbagog NWR.

4 • The ANG will eliminate the use of flares during droughts.

5 • Provide the contact information for a website where bald eagle biologists can 6 check schedules for military sorties within the proposed Condor Low and High 7 MOAs prior to flying annual nest surveys within the MOA.

8 As part of the Proposed Action, the 102 FW (104 FW) will continue to implement these 9 procedures during all training sorties.

10

11

7-2 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 8.0 REFERENCES

2

3 Air Force Safety Center. 2009. Mishap History for F-15s and F-16s. 4 http://www.afsc.af.mil/

5 Andersen, D.E., Rongstad, O.J., and W.R. Mytton, 1989. Response of nesting red-tailed 6 hawks to helicopter overflights. Condor 91:296-299.

7 ANG, 2006. Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment for Proposed Aircraft 8 Conversion at the 104th Fighter Wing. Massachusetts Air National Guard. Air 9 National Guard Environmental Division. 30 March 2006.

10 ANG, 2005. Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment for Proposed Coastal 11 Airspace Complex. Georgia Air National Guard. Air National Guard 12 Environmental Division. May 2005.

13 ANG, 1998. Small Project Environmental Assessment Preparation Guide for Air 14 National Guard Projects. Air National Guard, Environmental Division. 15 November 1998.

16 Black, B.B., M.W. Collopy, H.F. Percival, A.A. Tiller, and P.G. Bohall, 1984. Effect of 17 low-level military training flights on wading bird colonies in Florida. Florida 18 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, School of Forestry and Resource 19 Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Technical Report No. 7, 190 20 pp.

21 Bureau of Parks and Land (BPL), Maine Department of Conservation, 2000. Integrated 22 Resource Policy. December 18.

23 ____, 2005. Flagstaff Region Management Plan, Preliminary Planning Document. 24 October 31.

8-1 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Cornell, 2003a. All About Birds: Common Loon. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2 http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Common_Loon_dtl.html. 3 Accessed 6 December 2006.

4 Cornell, 2003b. All About Birds: Pied-billed Grebe. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 5 http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Pied- 6 billed_Grebe_dtl.html. Accessed 6 December 2006.

7 Cornell, 2003c. Northern Redbelly Dace. 8 http://fish.dnr.cornell.edu/nyfish/Cyprinidae/northern_redbelly_dace.html. 9 Accessed 6 December 2006.

10 Cornell, 2003d. All About Birds: Ring-necked Duck. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 11 http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Ring- 12 necked_Duck_dtl.html. Accessed 6 December 2006.

13 Cornell, 2003e. All About Birds: Rusty Blackbird. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 14 http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Rusty_Blackbird_dtl.html 15 Accessed 6 December 2006.

16 Cornell, 2003f. All About Birds: Spruce Grouse. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 17 http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Spruce_Grouse_dtl.html. 18 Accessed 6 December 2006.

19 DOD, 1978. Planning in the Noise Environment. AFM 19-10, TM 5-803-2, and 20 NAVFAC P-970. Washington D.C.: Department of Defense.

21 DOD, 2005. Fleet Aviation Specialized Operational Training Group, Atlantic, SERE 22 School. Accessed at http://www.fasolant.navy.mil/brunssere.htm

23 ____, 2006. Naval Air Station Brunswick (website). Accessed at 24 http://www.nasb.navy.mil/

25 Ellis, D.H., C. Ellis and D. Mindell, 1991. Raptor responses to low-level jet aircraft and 26 sonic booms. Environmental Pollution 74:53-83.

8-2 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 EPA, 2002. National Water Quality Assessment Database: Assessment Data for the 2 State of New Hampshire Year 2002. 3 http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters/w305b_report_v2.state?p_state=NH

4 Erlich, P., D. Dobkin, D. Wheye, and D. Wheye, 1988. Birds in Flight. Audubon Society. 5 242 pgs.

6 FAA, 2005. Regulatory/Non-Regulatory Special Use Airspace Areas. Airspace and 7 Rules, Office of System Operation and Safety. 4 August 2005.

8 Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), 1992. Federal Agency Review of 9 Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues: Volume I, Policy Report, Technical 10 Report. n.p.: FICON 1992.

11 FLIP, 2004. Flight Information Publication AP/1B, Military Training Routes, 10 June 12 2004

13 ____, 2003. Flight Information Publication, AP/1A, Special Use Airspace, 25 December 14 2003.

15 http://www.birdnature.com/flyways.html. Accessed 18 October 2006.

16 Krausman, P.R. and J.J. Hervert, 1983. Mountain sheep responses to aerial surveys. 17 Wildlife Society Bulletin 11:372-375.

18 Krausman, P.R., B.D. Leopold and D.L. Scarbrough, 1986. Desert mule deer response to 19 aircraft. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:756-760.

20 Krausman, P.R., L.K. Harris, C.L. Blasch, K.K.G. Koenen, and J. Francine, 2004. 21 Effects of Military Operations on Behavior and Hearing of Endangered Sonoran 22 Pronghorn. Wildlife Monographs 157:1-41.

23 Lake Region Air, 2003. Scenic Float Plane Rides in the Rangeley. Lakes Region of 24 Maine, by LRA. http://rangeleyme.com/lra/scenic-flights.shtml. Accessed 8 25 October 2007.

8-3 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Lamp, R.E., 1989. Monitoring the effects of military air operations at Fallon Naval Air 2 Station on the biota of Nevada. Report by Nevada Dept. of Wildlife for the U.S. 3 Navy.

4 Maine, 2006. GIS Data Catalog. 5 http://apollo.ogis.state.me.us/catalog/catalog.asp?state=2&extent=cover

6 MDIFW, 2003. Maine Endangered Species Program: Threatened and Endangered 7 Species. http://www.state.me.us/ifw/wildlife/etweb/statelist.htm. Updated 21 8 October 2005. Accessed 6 December 2006.

9 Manci, K.M., D.N. Gladwin, R. Villella and M.G. Cavendish, 1988. Effects of aircraft 10 noise and sonic booms on domestic animals and wildlife: A literature synthesis. 11 NERC-88/29. USFWS, National Ecology Research Center, Fort Collins, CO. 12 1988.

13 Marvinney, Robert G., 2002. Bedrock Geologic History of Maine. Maine Geological 14 Survey. Maine Department of Conservation. www.state.me.us Augusta, Maine.

15 McMahon, J.S., 1990. The biophysical regions of Maine: patterns in the landscape and 16 vegetation. M.S. thesis, University of Maine, Orono. 119 pp.

17 MDEP, 2006. Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Bureau of Land and 18 Water Quality. http://www.state.me.us/dep/blwq/wetlands/index.htm

19 ____, 2004 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Document 20 Number DEPLW0665. 21 http://mainegov/images.informe.org/dep/blwq/docmonitoring/305b/2004_Final_3 22 05b_Section1.pdf

23 MDIFW, 2006a. Maine Department of Inland Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Homepage. 24 http://www.state.me.us/ifw/

8-4 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 ____, 2006b. Maine Department of Inland Fish and Wildlife. Essential Habitat Rule. 2 http://www.state.me.us/ifw/wildlife/etweb/habitat/eshabitatrule.htm. Accessed 23 3 October 2006.

4 MGS, 2005. Surficial Geologic History of Maine, Maine Department of Conservation. 5 www.state.me.us Augusta, Maine.

6 ____, 2005. Bedrock Groundwater Resources Maps. http://mainegov- 7 images.informe.org/doc/nrimc/mgs/pubs/series/bgwr/bgwr-sidebar.pdf

8 National Guard Bureau, 2002. Draft Environmental Assessment for Deployment of Chaff 9 and Flares in Military Operations Areas (Phase II).August 2002.

10 NHDES, 2004. Desingated Uses for New Hampshire Surface Waters. 11 http://www.des.state.nh.us/wmb/swqa/2004/ratings.html

12 New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, 2006. Connecticut Lakes Natural Area 13 Stewardship Plan. Draft.

14 NPS, 2005. Appalachian National Scenic Trail Strategic Plan.

15 NPS, undated. Wild and Scenic Rivers by State. 16 http://www.nps.gov/rivers/wildriverslist.html

17 NRCS, 2000. State of Maine Catena Key. United States Department of Agriculture. 18 www.me.nrcs.usda.gov.

19 ____, 2006 . United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation 20 Service. http://www.me.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/SoilSurveyProgram.html.

21 NOAA, 2004. Coastal Zone Boundaries. 22 http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/mystate/docs/StateCZBoundaries.pdf

23 Personal Communication, 2007. Col Leon Rice, Massachusetts Air National Guard. 24 Communication via e-mail dated 9 October 2007.

8-5 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Personal Communication, 2007. Lt Col Landon Jones III, ANG/CEVP. Communication 2 via e-mail dated 4 October 2007.

3 Personal Communication, 2006. Captain Jeffrey Beckel, 102 FW. Communication via e- 4 mail dated 11 October and 16 October 2006.

5 Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, 6 Results and Analysis 1966 - 2005. Version 6.2.2006. USGS Patuxent Wildlife 7 Research Center, Laurel, MD

8 Seattle Audubon Society, 2006. Bird Web: American Three-toed Woodpecker. 9 http://birdweb.org/birdweb/bird_details.aspx?id=277. Accessed 6 December 10 2006.

11 Sultzman, L., 1997. Abenaki History. Accessed at http://www.tolatsga.org/aben.html

12 Town of Carrabassett Valley, 2006. Historical View. Accessed at 13 http://www.carrabassettvalley.org/aboutcv/history.asp

14 USAF, 1997. Environmental effects of self-protection chaff and flares. Headquarters Air 15 Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base, VA

16 US Census Bureau, 2006. Subcounty Population Estimates. June 21. Accessed at 17 http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html

18 ____, 2001a. 2000 US Census, Summary Tape File 1. Accessed at 19 http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html

20 ____, 2001b. 2000 US Census, Summary Tape File 3. Accessed at 21 http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html

22 USDA, 2006. Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge. Accessed at 23 http://www.fws.gov/northeast/lakeumbagog/

24 USEPA, 2006a. Green Book for Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. 25 http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/. Accessed 17 October 2006.

8-6 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 ____, 2009. USEPA AirData. http://www.epa.gov/oar/data/. Accessed 6 March 2009.

2 USFS, 2005. White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

3 ____, 2006. White Mountain National Forest At a Glance. Accessed at 4 http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/about/glance.php

5 USGS, 2006. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/migration/altitude.htm. 6 Accessed 18 October 2006.

7 ____, 2005. Stakeholder Survey Results for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge: 8 Completion Report. Open File Report 2005-1378.

9 ____, 1997. USGS Programs in New Hampshire: Groundwater Resources. 10 http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/FS-029-96/#HDR02

11 University of Maine, 2006. PEARL, Amphibians and Reptiles. Senator George J. Mitchell 12 Center for Environmental and Watershed Research, University of Maine. 13 http://pearl.maine.edu/windows/biodiversity/amphibians_checklist.htm3

14 Weisenberger, M.E., P.R. Krausman, M.C. Wallace, D.W. De Young, and O.E. 15 Maughan, 1996. Effects of Simulated Jet Aircraft Noise on Heart Rate and 16 Behavior of Desert Ungulates. Journal of Wildlife Management. 60(1):52-61.

17 White, C.M., and S.K. Sherrod, 1973. Advantages and disadvantages of the use of rotor- 18 winged aircraft in raptor surveys. Raptor Research 7:97-104.

19 Wikepedia, 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_meteorological_conditions. 20 Accessed 17 October 2006.

21 Wisconsin DNR, 2006. American Marten (Martes americana). 22 http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/factsheets/mammals/Marten.htm. 23 Accessed 6 December 2006.

8-7 Environmental Impact Statement Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas August 2009

1 Workman, G.W., T.D. Bunch, J.W. Call, R.C. Evans, R.C. Nielson, L.S. and E.M. 2 Rawlings, 1992. Sonic boom and other disturbance impacts on bighorn sheep. 3 Utah State University for Hill Air Force Base, Utah.

8-8