Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Modification of the CONDOR 1 and CONDOR 2 Military Operations Areas (MOA), August 2009
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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