Maine State Library Digital Maine

Transportation Documents Transportation

2-1-2007

Environmental Assessment : Modifications of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas; Massachusetts Air National Guard 102nd Fighter Wing Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Massachusetts (Draft, February 2007)

Maine Department of Transportation

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

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

MODIFICATION OF THE CONDOR 1 AND CONDOR 2 MILITARY OPERATIONS AREAS

Massachusetts Air National Guard 102nd Fighter Wing Otis Air National Guard Base Falmouth, Massachusetts

February 2007

AIR NATIONAL GUARD READINESS CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ºF degrees Fahrenheit Ldn day-night average A-weighted µ/m3 microns per cubic meter sound level nd 102 FW 102 Fighter Wing Ldnmr onset rate-adjusted monthly day- AAMRL Armstrong Aerospace Medical night average A-weighted sound Research Laboratory level ACBT Air Combat Training LOWAT Low Altitude Awareness Training ACM Air Combat Maneuvering MAANG Massachusetts Air National Guard AFI Air Force Instruction MDEP Maine Department of AGL above ground level Environmental Protection AHAS Avian Hazard Advisory System MDIFW Maine Department of Inland AHC Advanced Handling Characteristics Fisheries and Wildlife ANG Air National Guard MOA military operations area AQCR Air Quality Control Region MOU Memorandum of Understanding APE Area of Potential Effect mph miles per hour AT Appalachian Trail MR_NMAP Military Operating Area and Range ATC Air Traffic Control Noise Model and Assessment ATCAA Air Traffic Control Assigned Program Airspace MSL mean sea level BAM Bird Avoidance Model MTR military training route BASH Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality BFM Basic Fighter Maneuvering Standards CAA Clean Air Act NEADS North East Air Defense Sector CAP Combat Air Patrol NEPA National Environmental Policy CEQ Council on Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations NEXRAD Next Generation Radar CLNA Connecticut Lakes Natural Area NHDES New Hampshire Department of CMR Combat Mission Ready Environmental Services CO Carbon Monoxide NHNHB New Hampshire Natural Heritage CTANG Connecticut Air National Guard Bureau CWA Clean Water Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act dB decibel NM nautical mile dBA A-weighted decibel NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service DoD Department of Defense NO2 nitrogen dioxide DOT Department of Transportation NPS National Park Service EA Environmental Assessment NRCS Natural Resource Conservation EIAP Environmental Impact Analysis Service Process NRHP National Register of Historic Places EIS Environmental Impact Statement NWR National Wildlife Refuge EO Executive Order O3 ozone ESA Endangered Species Act PM Particulate Matter FAA Federal Aviation Administration PM10 particulate matter less than 10 FAC Forward Air Control microns in diameter FICON Federal Interagency Committee on PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 Noise microns in diameter FLIP Flight Information Publication ppm parts per million FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact PRL Public Reserved Lands FW Fighter Wing PSD Prevention of Significant HAPs hazardous air pollutants Deterioration HUD Housing and Urban Development RAP Ready Aircrew Program IICEP Interagency and Intergovernmental RF Radio Frequency Coordination for Environmental ROI Region of Influence Planning SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act IFR Instrument Flight Rules SERE Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and IMC Instrument Meteorological Escape Conditions SEL Sound Exposure Level INT Tactical Intercepts SHPO State Historic Preservation Office IR Instrument Route SIP State Implementation Plan ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

SO2 sulfur dioxide SUA Special Use Airspace THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USAF U.S. Air Force USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VFR Visual Flight Rules VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions VTANG Vermont Air National Guard VR visual route WMA Wildlife Management Area 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1

4 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 5 6 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED 1-1 7 1.2 LOCATION 1-1 8 1.3 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1-5 9 1.4 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 1-6 10 1.5 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REQUIREMENTS 1-8 11 1.5.1 National Environmental Policy Act 1-8 12 1.5.2 Interagency/Intergovernmental Coordination for Environmental 13 Planning 1-8 14 1.5.3 Air Conformity Requirements 1-9 15 1.5.4 Federal Aviation Administration Regulations 1-10

16 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-1 17 18 2.1 CURRENT TRAINING ACTIVITY 2-1 19 2.2 PROPOSED ACTION 2-3 20 2.3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 2-6 21 2.3.1 Evaluated Alternatives 2-6 22 2.3.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated 2-7 23 2.3.3 No-Action Alternative 2-8 24 2.4 CONCURRENT NEPA ACTIONS 2-8

25 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1 26 27 3.1 AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT 3-1 28 3.1.1 Definition of the Resource 3-1 29 3.1.2 Existing Conditions 3-5 30 3.2 SAFETY 3-8 31 3.2.1 Definition of the Resource 3-8 32 3.2.2 Existing Conditions 3-9 33 3.3 NOISE 3-11 34 3.3.1 Definition of the Resource 3-11 35 3.3.2 Existing Conditions 3-12 36 3.4 AIR QUALITY 3-16 37 3.4.1 Definition of the Resource 3-16 38 3.4.2 Existing Conditions 3-18 39 3.5 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3-21 40 3.5.1 Definition of the Resource 3-21 41 3.5.2 Existing Conditions 3-22 42 3.6 WATER RESOURCES 3-24 43 3.6.1 Definition of the Resource 3-24

Draft Environmental Assessment i Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 3.6.2 Existing Conditions 3-25 2 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3-27 3 3.7.1 Definition of the Resource 3-27 4 3.7.2 Existing Conditions 3-27 5 3.8 LAND USE 3-38 6 3.8.1 Definition of the Resource 3-38 7 3.8.2 Existing Conditions 3-38 8 3.9 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES 3-42 9 3.9.1 Definition of the Resource 3-42 10 3.9.2 Existing Conditions 3-43 11 3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3-48 12 3.10.1 Definition of the Resource 3-48 13 3.10.2 Existing Conditions 3-49

14 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1 15 16 4.1 AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT 4-1 17 4.1.1 Significance Criteria 4-1 18 4.1.2 Proposed Action 4-1 19 4.1.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 20 Alternative 4-3 21 4.1.4 No-Action Alternative 4-3 22 4.2 SAFETY 4-4 23 4.2.1 Significance Criteria 4-4 24 4.2.2 Proposed Action 4-4 25 4.2.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 26 Alternative 4-5 27 4.2.4 No-Action Alternative 4-5 28 4.3 NOISE 4-5 29 4.3.1 Significance Criteria 4-5 30 4.3.2 Proposed Action 4-6 31 4.3.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 32 Alternative 4-8 33 4.3.4 No-Action Alternative 4-9 34 4.4 AIR QUALITY 4-9 35 4.4.1 Significance Criteria 4-9 36 4.4.2 Proposed Action 4-9 37 4.4.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 38 Alternative 4-10 39 4.4.4 No-Action Alternative 4-11 40 4.5 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4-11 41 4.5.1 Significance Criteria 4-11 42 4.5.2 Proposed Action 4-11 43 4.5.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 44 Alternative 4-12 45 4.5.4 No-Action Alternative 4-12

Draft Environmental Assessment ii Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 4.6 WATER RESOURCES 4-12 2 4.6.1 Significance Criteria 4-12 3 4.6.2 Proposed Action 4-13 4 4.6.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 5 Alternative 4-13 6 4.6.4 No-Action Alternative 4-14 7 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4-14 8 4.7.1 Significance Criteria 4-14 9 4.7.2 Proposed Action 4-16 10 4.7.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 11 Alternative 4-21 12 4.7.4 No-Action Alternative 4-21 13 4.8 LAND USE 4-22 14 4.8.1 Significance Criteria 4-22 15 4.8.2 Proposed Action 4-23 16 4.8.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 17 Alternative 4-27 18 4.8.4 No-Action Alternative 4-27 19 4.9 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES 4-27 20 4.9.1 Significance Criteria 4-27 21 4.9.2 Proposed Action 4-28 22 4.9.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 23 Alternative 4-29 24 4.9.4 No-Action Alternative 4-29 25 4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4-29 26 4.10.1 Significance Criteria 4-29 27 4.10.2 Proposed Action 4-30 28 4.10.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 29 Alternative 4-32 30 4.10.4 No-Action Alternative 4-33

31 5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5-1 32 33 5.1 METHODS FOR THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS 5-1 34 5.1.1 Scope of Cumulative Impact Analysis 5-1 35 5.1.2 Cumulative Effects Analysis 5-3 36 5.1.3 Conclusions of the Cumulative Impacts Analysis 5-9

37 6.0 SUMARY OF FINDINGS 6-1 38 39 6.1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 6-1 40 6.1.1 Airspace Management 6-1 41 6.1.2 Safety 6-1 42 6.1.3 Noise 6-1 43 6.1.4 Air Quality 6-2 44 6.1.5 Geological Resources 6-2 45 6.1.6 Water Resources 6-2

Draft Environmental Assessment iii Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 6.1.7 Biological Resources 6-3 2 6.1.8 Land Use 6-3 3 6.1.9 Socioeconomics 6-4 4 6.1.10 Cultural Resources 6-4 5 6 6.2 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 6-5 7 6.2.1 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 6-5 8 6.2.2 No-Action Alternative 6-5

9 7.0 SPECIAL PROCEDURES 7-1

10 8.0 REFERENCES 8-1

11 9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 9-1

12 LIST OF FIGURES

13 Figure 1-1 Site Location Map, Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, MA 1-3 14 Figure 1-2 Location of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs and MTRs 1-4 15 Figure 2-1 Proposed Condor Low and High MOAs and MTRs 2-5 16 Figure 2-2 Cross Section of the Proposed Condor Low and High MOAs 2-6 17 Figure 3-1 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, MTR Centerlines and Corridors 3-7 18 Figure 3-2 Biophysical Regions Underlying Condor 1 and 2 MOAs 3-30 19 Figure 3-3 Known Bald Eagle Essential Habitats Underlying the Condor 1 and 2 20 MOAs 3-35 21 Figure 3-4 Property Ownership Underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs 3-40 22 Figure 3-5 Census Tracts Underlying Condor 1 and 2 MOAs 3-44

23 LIST OF TABLES

24 Table 1-1 FAA Order 1050.1, Environmental Resources to be Considered 1-11 25 Table 2-1 Utilization Summary for the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs and VR­ 26 840/1/2, FY 2003 2-3 27 Table 3-1 FAA Airspace Classification Specifications 3-3 28 Table 3-2 Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments 3-14 29 Table 3-3 Sound Levels Associated with Aircraft Annual Operations in the Condor 30 1 and 2 MOAs under existing Conditions 3-15 31 Table 3-4 2004 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring for PM10 at Site 230172007, 32 Village Green-Route 108, Oxford County, Maine (in micrograms per 33 cubic meter [µg/m3]) 3-19 34 Table 3-5 2004 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring for PM2.5 at Site 230172011, 35 Rumford Avenue Parking Lot, Oxford County, Maine (µg/m3) 3-19 36 Table 3-6 2004 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring for SO2 at Site 230172007, 37 Village Green-Route 108, Oxford County, Maine (in parts per million 38 [ppm]) 3-20 39 Table 3-7 2004 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring for O3 at Site 330074001, Mt. 40 Washington, Coos County, New Hampshire (ppm) 3-20

Draft Environmental Assessment iv Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Table 3-8 Summary of Current Aircraft Emissions for All Users in the Condor 1 2 and 2 MOAs and VR 840/1/2 (tons/year) 3-21 3 Table 3-9 Common Wildlife Species Underlying the Condor 1 and Condor 2 4 MOAs 3-32 5 Table 3-10 Population Data for Franklin, Oxford, Piscataquis, Somerset, and Coos 6 Counties, 2000 3-45 7 Table 3-11 Employment Comparison Data, 2000 3-47 8 Table 4-1 Proposed and Baseline MOA Sound Levels 4-7 9 Table 4-2 Proposed and Baseline MTR Sound Levels 4-8 10 Table 5-1 Consideration of Resources for Cumulative Impacts Analysis 5-2 11 Table 5-2 Utilization of the Proposed Condor Low and High MOAs and VR­ 12 840/1/2 following implementation of the Proposed Action and the 13 BRAC commission decisions 5-5 14 Table 5-3 Cumulative Impacts on Uniform Distributed Sound Levels within the 15 Proposed Condor Low and High MOAs 5-6 16 Table 5-4 Cumulative Impacts on Maximum Centerline Sound Levels within the 17 Proposed Condor Low and High MOAs 5-7 18 Table 5-5 Summary of Emissions from Aircraft Operations Associated with the 19 Proposed Action and BRAC decisions (tons/year) 5-8 20 Table 6-1 Comparison of Alternatives 6-6

21 APPENDICES

22 Appendix A IICEP Consultation Letters and Responses 23 Appendix B Technical Descriptions of the Existing and Proposed Condor MOAs 24 Appendix C Supplemental Noise Information 25 Appendix D Wildlife and Plant Species List 26 Appendix E National Historic Register-Listed Properties

Draft Environmental Assessment v Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2 The Air National Guard (ANG) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the 3 proposed modification to the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas (MOAs) used by 4 the 102nd Fighter Wing (102 FW) of the Massachusetts ANG (MAANG). The 102 FW 5 is based at Otis ANG Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts and currently conducts a portion 6 of its training missions in the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs, located in southwestern 7 Maine and northeastern New Hampshire. The 102 FW provides vital support to the 8 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, or Slow Shadow intercept training missions. 12 The 102 FW currently conducts all of its LOWAT training events in Visual Route (VR)- 13 840/1/2, but VR-840/1/2 is not configured to allow two-way traffic, reversing directions 14 on the route, or high to low altitude intercepts, which are critical aspects of LOWAT. 15 The purpose of the Proposed Action is to rectify these deficiencies and provide the 102 16 FW with sufficient training opportunities in a safe training environment to fulfill its 17 mission.

18 The 102 FW proposes to combine the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, divide the combined MOA 19 into Condor Low MOA and Condor High MOA, and lower the flight floor of the 20 proposed Condor Low MOA from 7,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) (between 21 approximately 2,800 to 6,300 feet above ground level [AGL]) to 500 feet AGL. 22 Specifically, Condor Low MOA would extend from 500 feet above ground level (AGL) 23 up to, but not including, 7,000 feet MSL. Condor High MOA would extend from 7,000 24 feet MSL up to but not including flight level (FL) 180, or 18,000 feet MSL.

25 This EA considered one alternative to the Proposed Action for providing the 102 FW 26 with ready access to low-altitude training airspace: “Lower Condor 1 MOA with Condor 27 2 MOA Unchanged.” This alternative would lower the flight floor of the Condor 1 MOA 28 from 7,000 MSL to 500 feet AGL. The flight floor of the Condor 2 MOA would remain 29 7,000 feet MSL and the flight ceiling for the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs would remain at FL Draft Environmental Assessment ES-1 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 180. This alternative would address the deficiency in LOWAT training opportunities; 2 however, this alternative would restrict lateral defensive tactics due to the insufficient 3 lateral boundaries of the Condor 1 MOA (60 nautical miles (NM) by 40 NM) when 4 compared to the Proposed Action (60 NM by 60 NM). The Proposed Action is the only 5 course of action that would fully address the 102 FW’s need for low altitude training 6 airspace.

7 The “Use of Other Airspace” alternative was eliminated from the list of reasonable 8 alternatives because there are no MOAs or Warning Areas within 200 NM of Otis ANG 9 Base that are available for LOWAT training on a day-to-day basis. The “Deployment for 10 LOWAT Training” alternative, which would involve deploying to other bases with access 11 to suitable airspace to complete the required LOWAT training, was also eliminated from 12 the list of reasonable alternatives due to the prohibitive cost of this alternative.

13 This EA evaluated the potential environmental effects associated with the modification of 14 the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOA on ten resource areas. The Proposed Action would 15 have no effect on geological resources, water resources, land use, socioeconomics, and 16 cultural resources. The Proposed Action would have the potential to affect airspace 17 management, biological resources, and safety, but would have no significant impacts on 18 these resources. To mitigate potential impacts to bald eagles, the ANG would maintain 19 buffer areas from surface to 1,000 ft AGL within a radius of 0.25 mile from known bald 20 eagle nests, and refrain from flying within these buffers from 1 February through 31 21 August.

22 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs would have minor negative impacts 23 on air quality and noise, but these impacts would not be significant. When the Proposed 24 Action is combined with the effects on ongoing Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 25 actions, the cumulative effects on air quality and noise in the area underlying the 26 proposed Condor MOAs would be beneficial. The cumulative effects on air quality and 27 noise would be beneficial because the BRAC action would reduce the number of users in 28 the proposed Condor MOAs; thereby decreasing the number of annual sorties. The sortie

Draft Environmental Assessment ES-2 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 decrease would reduce the occurrence of noise events of 65 dBA. Additionally, the 2 decrease in sorties would decrease the emissions in the proposed Condor MOAs.

3 Implementation of the Proposed Action would not have a significant impact on the 4 quality of the human or natural environment or generate significant controversy.

Draft Environmental Assessment ES-3 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

2 1.1 Introduction

3 The Air National Guard (ANG) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the 4 proposed modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas (MOAs) used by 5 the 102nd Fighter Wing (102 FW) of the Massachusetts ANG (MAANG). The 6 Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP) for this proposed action is being 7 conducted in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 8 to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and in 9 conformity with Executive Order (EO) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal 10 Programs.

11 1.2 Location

12 The 102 FW is based at Otis ANG Base in Falmouth, 13 Massachusetts. The 102 FW flies the F-15 Eagle 14 aircraft, which carries air-to-air ordnance and is a 15 dedicated air-superiority fighter that is designed to 16 achieve and maintain supremacy in the airspace over 17 a battlefield. The 102 FW currently conducts the

18 medium and high-altitude training portion of its F-15 aircraft 19 training missions in the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs, located in southwestern Maine 20 and northeastern New Hampshire (Figure 1-1). The MOAs are centered approximately 21 200 NM northwest of Otis ANG Base, located in Falmouth Massachusetts (Figure 1-1). 22 The altitudes of both MOAs extend from 7,000 feet MSL (between approximately 2,800 23 feet and 6,300 feet AGL) up to but not including FL 180 (between approximately 13,739 24 feet to 17,321 feet AGL). Scoty Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA) 25 currently exists above the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs from 18,000 feet MSL (between 26 approximately 13,739 feet to 17,321 feet AGL) to 60,000 feet MSL (between 27 approximately 30,739 feet to 59,321 feet AGL). Condor 1 MOA is located immediately 28 west of Condor 2 MOA (Figure 1-2). The Condor 1 and 2 MOAs are currently utilized

Draft Environmental Assessment 1-1 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 by aircraft from the MAANG, the Vermont ANG (VTANG), the Connecticut ANG 2 (CTANG), United States Air Force (USAF), and the United States Navy. Units from 3 these services use a variety of aircraft including the A-10, F-15, F-16, KC-10, KC-135, 4 and P-3.

Draft Environmental Assessment 1-2 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1

Draft Environmental Assessment 1-3 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1

Draft Environmental Assessment 1-4 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 1.3 Purpose of the Proposed Action

2 The Ready Aircrew Program (RAP) is the Air Force’s continuous training program 3 designed to focus training or develop capabilities needed to accomplish a unit’s core 4 missions. The RAP requirements for every qualified F-15 pilot include Low Altitude 5 Awareness Training (LOWAT) which includes realistic, mission oriented air-to-air 6 operations while in a LOWAT certified low-altitude block, at or below 1,000 feet AGL, 7 as well as Low Slow/Visual Identification intercept and Slow Shadow intercept training 8 missions. These training events include identifying and engaging aerial targets at low 9 altitude, low altitude navigation, tactical formation, and defensive maneuvering to avoid 10 or negate threats. In order to be Combat Mission Ready (CMR), all F-15 pilots are 11 required to demonstrate proficiency down to 500 feet AGL, also known as LOWAT CAT 12 I. Pilot operational training requirements require missions to be accomplished in the low, 13 medium, and high altitude regimes because operation of the F-15 involves flying at all 14 altitudes from 500 feet AGL to 50,000+ feet MSL.

15 As currently defined, the floors of Condor 1 and 2 MOAs (7,000 feet MSL) are too high 16 to allow for the effective and efficient completion of LOWAT, Low Slow/Visual 17 Identification intercept training, or Slow Shadow intercept training missions. These 18 missions are vital aspects of the 102 FW’s role in the United States’ war on terrorism, 19 which includes Air Superiority, 24-hour Air Defense Alert, and Combat Air Patrol 20 (CAP). On September 11th, 2001, the 102 FW intercepted over 100 civilian aircraft and 21 every intercept was below 1,000 feet AGL. The events of September 11th, 2001 22 underscore the 102 FW’s need to be fully trained and operational in low-altitude 23 environments. The operational limits imposed by the current configuration of the Condor 24 1 and 2 MOAs significantly impair the 102 FW’s ability to maintain their LOWAT 25 qualifications and meet the Low Slow/Visual Identification intercept and Slow Shadow 26 intercept training requirements of the RAP. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to 27 rectify these deficiencies and provide the 102 FW with sufficient training opportunities to 28 fulfill its mission.

Draft Environmental Assessment 1-5 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 1.4 Need for the Proposed Action

2 Military Training Routes (MTRs) are mutually developed by the military and the Federal 3 Aviation Administration (FAA) for low-altitude, high-speed training of military pilots. 4 Visual Routes (VR) are MTRs on which operations are conducted on a Visual Flight 5 Rules (VFR) flight plan below 10,000 feet AGL at speeds greater than 250 knots 6 indicated airspeed with ceilings at least 3,000 feet AGL and five miles visibility. Three 7 VR underlie parts of the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs: VR-840, VR-841, and VR-842. These 8 routes overlap each other along most of their route and are collectively charted as VR- 9 840/1/2. The floor of VR 840/1/2 varies according to aircraft type, from 500 feet AGL 10 for F-15s and F-16s to 100 feet for A-10s. The 102 FW currently conducts all of its 11 LOWAT training events in VR-840/1/2, but VR-840/1/2 is not configured to allow two- 12 way traffic, reversing directions on the route, or high to low altitude intercepts, which are 13 critical aspects of LOWAT. Operations in VR-840/1/2 are typically scheduled 14 independently of operations in Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, although some missions require 15 the concurrent use of VR-840/1/2 with one or both of the Condor MOAs.

16 Four Instrument Routes (IR), which are MTRs on which operations may be conducted in 17 Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) on an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight 18 plan, underlie parts of the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs: IR-800, IR-850, IR-851, and IR-852 19 (Figure 1-2). Like VR 840/1/2, IR-800, 850, 851, and 852 are also configured for one- 20 way traffic only, so they are not suitable for the air to air defensive maneuvering 21 component of LOWAT.

22 Overland airspace is needed to meet LOWAT training requirements because Air Force 23 regulations restrict pilots from training below 1,000 feet MSL over water due to the risk 24 of spatial disorientation and visual illusions which are common over water at low 25 altitudes. There is also no terrain to navigate in relation to over the water. This forces 26 the pilots to look inside the cockpit at instruments to assess their altitude versus looking 27 outside the cockpit as if they were over actual terrain. There is no instrument in the F-15 28 which shows actual height above ground level, so flying over terrain is accomplished 29 using the pilot’s experience and visual references. It would be inappropriate to conduct

Draft Environmental Assessment 1-6 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 LOWAT training over water because flying over land requires using exterior visual 2 references to assess altitude, but instruments may used to assess altitude over water. VR- 3 840/1/2 and the Syracuse MOA (a 10-mile wide MOA located 260 NM from Otis 4 ANGB) are the only overland low altitude training airspaces currently available to the 5 102 FW and both of these areas fail to meet the training needs of the 102 FW. Portions 6 of VR-840/1/2 lie underneath the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs; however, these VRs do not 7 allow the 102 FW to complete certain LOWAT training requirements because they do not 8 allow two-way traffic or reversing direction on the routes. Pilots cannot transition 9 directly between the MTRs and the MOAs because the maximum altitudes for the MTRs 10 do not adjoin the floors of the MOAs so training for intercepts from a high to low 11 altitude is not currently possible. The Syracuse MOA is equally restrictive because it is 12 too narrow (10 nautical miles [NM] wide on average) for the maneuvers and operations 13 required in the LOWAT RAP training regime. The necessary training airspace to meet 14 all training requirements is 60 NM x 60 NM (Robbert et. al., 2001). None of the 15 overground airspace currently available to the 102 FW for LOWAT satisfies this 16 requirement.

17 As a result of the lack of suitable low altitude airspace for training, less than five percent 18 of the 102 FW pilots are currently completing their LOWAT RAP training requirements. 19 The pilots who are currently LOWAT certified either received their certification during 20 deployments to other bases for specialized training, or were certified at a previous base 21 prior to transferring to the 102 FW at Otis ANGB. This deficiency degrades the unit’s 22 ability to provide 24-hour Air Defense Alert, which is one of its primary missions. In 23 addition to the deficiencies in their LOWAT RAP training regime, none of the 102 FW 24 pilots are currently meeting their Low Slow/Visual Identification intercept and Slow 25 Shadow intercept training requirements, because VR-840/1/2 is too narrow for lateral 26 movements and is a one-way corridor that does not allow pilots to reverse their course. 27 These requirements are essential training for their Air-Superiority and 24-hour Air 28 Defense Alert roles.

Draft Environmental Assessment 1-7 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 1.5 Summary of Environmental Study Requirements

2 The EIAP is the process by which federal agencies facilitate compliance with 3 environmental regulations. The primary legislation affecting these agencies’ decision- 4 making process is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The following 5 sections describe this act and other facets of the EIAP.

6 1.5.1 National Environmental Policy Act

7 NEPA requires that federal agencies consider potential environmental consequences of 8 proposed actions in their decision-making process. The law’s intent is to protect, restore, 9 or enhance the environment through well-informed federal decisions. The CEQ was 10 established under NEPA for the purpose of implementing and overseeing federal policies 11 as they relate to this process. In 1978, the CEQ issued Regulations for Implementing the 12 Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 Code of Federal 13 Regulations [CFR] §1500-1508 [CEQ, 1978]). These regulations specify that an EA be 14 prepared to:

15 • briefly provide sufficient analysis and evidence for determining whether or not to 16 prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant 17 Impact (FONSI);

18 • aid in the agency’s compliance with NEPA when an EIS is deemed unnecessary; 19 and

20 • facilitate EIS preparation when one is necessary.

21 To comply with relevant environmental statutes (e.g., the Safe Drinking Water Act 22 [SDWA], Endangered Species Act [ESA], and National Historic Preservation Act 23 [NHPA]) in addition to NEPA, the decision-making process for the Proposed Action 24 involves a thorough examination of all pertinent environmental issues.

25 1.5.2 Interagency/Intergovernmental Coordination for Environmental Planning

26 NEPA and CEQ regulations require intergovernmental notifications prior to making any 27 statement of potential environmental impacts. The ANG, through the Interagency/

Draft Environmental Assessment 1-8 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Intergovernmental Coordination for Environmental Planning (IICEP) process, notifies 2 relevant federal, state, and local agencies and allows them sufficient time to make known 3 their environmental concerns specific to the Proposed Action. Comments and concerns 4 submitted by these entities are incorporated into the analysis of potential environmental 5 impacts conducted as part of the EA. Copies of the IICEP consultation letter, responses, 6 and distribution list are included in Appendix A.

7 To eliminate unnecessary duplicity of effort between the FAA and the Department of 8 Defense (DoD), a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the FAA and DoD 9 was signed on 4 October 2005 to provide for the issuance of environmental documents 10 for the development, designation, modification, and use of Special Use Airspace (SUA)1. 11 The MOU describes the role of the FAA as a cooperating agency on DoD SUA 12 proposals, such as the Proposed Action addressed in this EA. In a letter dated 21 August 13 2006, the FAA consented to participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of this 14 EA because this proposal involves SUA (Appendix A).

15 1.5.3 Air Conformity Requirements

16 Federal agencies are required to make a determination that a Proposed Action conforms 17 to an approved Clean Air Act (CAA) implementation plan. Typically, each state 18 develops, and must receive EPA approval for, its State Implementation Plan (SIP), which 19 documents the rules it will implement to achieve or maintain attainment of the National 20 Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 21 (EPA) has set forth regulations (40 CFR 93, Subpart B) that outline the requirements and 22 procedures for a conformity determination. Because the goal of the rule is to ensure that 23 a Proposed Action does not prevent an area from achieving or maintaining attainment, 24 only projects in either a non-attainment or maintenance area must undergo further 25 analysis. In order to address the conformity requirements, this EA includes a conformity 26 determination and an analysis of air emissions associated with the Proposed Action.

1 Special Use Airspace - airspace within which specific activities must be confined, or wherein limitations are imposed on aircraft not participating in those activities. Draft Environmental Assessment 1-9 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 1.5.4 Federal Aviation Administration Regulations

2 The FAA is responsible for managing navigable airspace for public safety and ensuring 3 efficient use for commercial air traffic, general aviation, and national defense, including 4 SUA utilized by the DoD. To identify and manage potentially significant environmental 5 and social impacts of airspace proposals, the FAA established several policies including:

6 • Order 7400.2.-Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters;

7 • Order 1050.1.-Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures; and

8 FAA Order 7400.2F, specifically Chapter 32, prescribes the policy, criteria, guidelines, 9 and procedures applicable to the operation, planning, programming, safety, and standards 10 associated with SUA management. FAA Order 1050.1 provides the FAA with policies 11 and procedures to ensure agency compliance with NEPA and implementing regulations 12 issued by the CEQ (40 CFR parts 1500-1508). Appendix A in FAA Order 1050.1 13 identifies 18 environmental resources that should be considered during the NEPA 14 process. This EA considers each of the resources as prescribed by the FAA Order 1050.1 15 The locations where each of these resources is discussed in the EA, or the rationale for 16 excluding a detailed discussion of a specific resource, are provided in Table 1-1.

Draft Environmental Assessment 1-10 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 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. 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 the Proposed Prevention, and Solid Waste 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

Draft Environmental Assessment 1-11 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 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 an air-to-air training range. There are no air-to-ground 6 target ranges within or underlying Condor 1 and 2 MOAs.

7 Some training exercises within 8 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs require 9 the use of chaff and flares. 10 Chaff consists of small, 11 extremely fine fibers of 12 aluminum-coated glass that 13 disperse widely when ejected 14 from aircraft. The chaff is 15 electromagnetically charged RR-188 Chaff 16 and hides aircraft radar 17 signatures, allowing the aircraft to egress hostile areas undetected (National Guard 18 Bureau, 2002). The RR-188 chaff training device is currently used in the Condor 1 and 2 19 MOAs. The RR-188 is a radio-frequency (RF) passive chaff device that does not 20 interfere with FAA air traffic control radar. This device substitutes a degradable material 21 for the E-type glass normally used in training chaff and it is intended that the device will 22 eventually incorporate degradable plastic for the end cap and piston.

23 Flares are used as deterrents and distractions against guided ordinance and other aircraft 24 during air-to-air combat training. Self-protection flares are magnesium pellets that burn 25 for a short period of time (less than 10 seconds) at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The burn 26 temperature is hotter than the exhaust of an aircraft, which causes the flare to attract and 27 decoy heat-seeking weapons (National Guard Bureau, 2002). The MJU-7, M-206, and 28 M-211 flares are used by the 102 FW during all air-to-air combat training missions.

Draft Environmental Assessment 2-1 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Area February 2007 1 Flares are deployed in a plastic container, which is consumed during combustion and 2 does not interfere with FAA air traffic control radars.

3 A sortie consists of a single aircraft takeoff, performance of training activities away from 4 the base that normally occurs in one or more identified MOAs (as described below), and 5 a landing. In fiscal year (FY) 2003, the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs hosted approximately 480 6 sorties and VR-840/1/2 hosted approximately 264 sorties for a combined total of 744 7 sorties (Table 2-1).

8 The training exercises currently conducted in Condor 1 and 2 MOAs and underlying VRs 9 include the following seven activities:

10 • Air Combat Maneuvering (ACM) training usually involves three to four similar 11 aircraft and emphasizes intra-flight coordination, survival tactics, and maneuvering of 12 two aircraft against one or two adversaries.

13 • Advanced Handling Characteristics (AHC) is single airplane training for proficiency 14 in utilization and exploitation of the aircraft flight envelope, consistent with 15 operational and safety constraints, including, but not limited to high/maximum AOA 16 maneuvering, energy management, minimum time turns, maximum/optimum 17 acceleration and deceleration techniques, and confidence maneuvers.

18 • Air Combat Training (ACBT) usually involves four to eight aircraft. This scenario 19 involves designating friendly and enemy forces, which separate as far as possible in 20 the maneuvering airspace to begin tactics training. The training consists of opposing 21 forces engaging each other over a range of altitudes.

22 • Basic Fighter Maneuvering (BFM) is the fundamental training of all air-to-air flight 23 maneuvering. This training is normally conducted with two similar aircraft to 24 practice individual offensive and defensive maneuvering against a single adversary.

25 • Intercepts (INT) training involves the detection and interception of hostile aircraft. 26 The target aircraft attempts to penetrate the area protected by the interceptor which,

Draft Environmental Assessment 2-2 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Area February 2007 1 with the aid of radar, attempts to detect the target, maneuver to identify the aircraft, 2 and reach a position from which the target can be destroyed.

3 • Low Altitude Awareness Training (LOWAT) normally involves two to four aircraft 4 practicing the maneuvers and fundamentals of offensive and defensive aerial 5 maneuvers at low altitude. LOWAT currently occurs only along VR-840/1/2.

6 • Navigation (NAV) training involves training conducted below 5,000 feet AGL using 7 onboard systems and the fundamental aspects of dead reckoning and point-to-point 8 low altitude navigation, with or without prior route planning.

9 Table 2-1. Utilization Summary for the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs and VR-840/1/2, 10 FY 2003

A-10 F-15 F-16 KC-135/ P-3 KC-10 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs Sorties/Year 48 72 204 12 144 Type BFM/ACM BFM/ACM/ BFM/ACM/ACBT/ N/A N/A ACBT/AHC/INT AHC/INT/PGM/ HADB/HARB

Sortie Length 30-50 minutes 25-40 minutes 25-40 minutes 45-60 45-60 minutes minutes Altitude/Time 5,000+ feet AGL/100% spent (%) VR-840/1/2 Sorties/Year 120 48 96 N/A N/A Type NAV LOWAT/NAV LOWAT/NAV N/A N/A Sortie Length 20-25 minutes 15-20 minutes 15-20 minutes N/A N/A Altitude/Time 500 – 1,000 feet AGL/80% N/A N/A spent (%) 1,000 – 3,000 feet AGL/20% 11 Source: Otis ANG Base Utilization Data, 2006

12 2.2 Proposed Action

13 The 102 FW proposes to combine the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs and divide the combined 14 MOA into Condor Low MOA and Condor High MOA and lower the flight floor from 15 7,000 feet MSL (between approximately 2,800 to 6,300 feet AGL) to 500 feet AGL. 16 Specifically, Condor Low MOA would extend from 500 feet AGL up to, but not 17 including, 7,000 feet MSL. Condor High MOA would extend from 7,000 feet MSL up 18 to, but not including, FL 180 (between approximately 13,739 feet to 17,321 feet AGL).

Draft Environmental Assessment 2-3 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Area February 2007 1 The new Condor Low and High MOAs would have the same maximum lateral 2 boundaries as the previous Condor 1 and 2 MOAs (60 NM by 60 NM), thereby providing 3 the 102 FW with the optimal low, medium, and high altitude airspace to meet their 4 LOWAT and Low Slow/Visual Identification intercept and Slow Shadow intercept 5 requirements. However, at the request of the Canadian Air Route Traffic Control Center 6 (ARTCC), the 10 NM northwestern corner of the airspace will be moved south to provide 7 a 3 NM buffer around air traffic routes (see Appendix B for legal airspace description).

8 The North East Air Defense Sector (NEADS) is currently the scheduling authority for the 9 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs. By creating Condor Low and High MOAs, the 102 FW would 10 only need to schedule the necessary amount of airspace (e.g., schedule only low altitude 11 airspace during low altitude training) and they could continue to use either the high or 12 low airspace when one is not available (e.g., due to weather or use). This approach 13 would serve the 102 FW’s needs for LOWAT training while maximizing the availability 14 of the airspace for other users. Scoty ATCAA would not be affected by the Proposed 15 Action: the Condor Low and High MOAs would be scheduled and used concurrently 16 with Scoty ATCAA. Figure 2-1 provides a plan view of the Proposed Action; Figure 2-2 17 provides a cross sectional view of the Proposed Action.

18 No change in aircraft or personnel or change in the net number or type of sorties 19 conducted by the 102 FW would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. The Proposed 20 Action would not require any ground-based improvements or other construction 21 activities.

Draft Environmental Assessment 2-4 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Area February 2007 1

Draft Environmental Assessment 2-5 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Area February 2007 17,999 ft MSL

Condor High MOA

6,999 ft MSL

Condor Low MOA

500 ft MSL

Ground surface

Figure 2-2. Cross Section of the Proposed Condor Low and High MOAs

1 2 2.3 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

3 As part of the EA process, potential alternatives to the Proposed Action have been 4 evaluated and compared to the Proposed Action.

5 2.3.1 Evaluated Alternatives

6 One alternative, “Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged,” 7 was evaluated and compared to the Proposed Action.

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

9 Under this alternative, the flight floor of Condor 1 MOA would be lowered to 500 feet 10 AGL; however, the flight floor of Condor 2 MOA would remain at 7,000 feet MSL 11 (between approximately 2,800 feet and 6,300 feet MSL). Condor 1 MOA is

Draft Environmental Assessment 2-6 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Area February 2007 1 approximately 60 NM by 40 NM which is not large enough for the 102 FW to complete 2 their LOWAT requirements. This option would restrict lateral defensive tactics due to 3 the less-than-required lateral boundaries of Condor 1 airspace (60 NM by 40 NM) when 4 compared to the Proposed Action (60 NM by 60 NM).

5 2.3.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated

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

7 Use of Other Airspace

8 Under this alternative, users would be diverted to other SUA or Warning Areas in the 9 region that already meet the necessary airspace requirements. Other SUA and Warning 10 Areas that exist within 200 NM of Otis ANGB include: Syracuse MOA, Misty Complex 11 and Warning Areas, and Yankee MOA. There is no available airspace for LOWAT 12 training on a daily basis at these locations. The majority of the Syracuse MOA is only 10 13 NM wide along most of its border so it is unusable for LOWAT mission training because 14 there is not enough area to accomplish turn reversals at tactical airspeed while performing 15 realistic intercepts from a high to low altitude regime. The Misty Complex and Warning 16 Areas, located along the coast of New York, are entirely over water. Air Force 17 regulations restrict training below 1,000 feet MSL over water due to the risk for spatial 18 disorientation from visual illusions that are common over the water at low altitudes. 19 Therefore, while some LOWAT training (higher than 1,000 feet MSL) could be 20 completed in the Misty Complex and Warning Areas, the 102 FW cannot use this 21 airspace for LOWAT missions under 1,000 feet MSL. The Yankee MOA is located in 22 New Hampshire and has a flight floor of 100 feet AGL; however, the airspace is only 20 23 NM by 25 NM in size. For these reasons, these alternatives were eliminated from further 24 consideration.

25 Deployment for LOWAT Training

26 This alternative would require multiple deployments by the 102 FW in order to fulfill the 27 16 annual LOWAT RAP missions that are required by each pilot. Annually, it would 28 require at least six deployments involving eight aircraft, at an average cost of $200,000

Draft Environmental Assessment 2-7 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Area February 2007 1 per deployment and therefore be prohibitively expensive to implement. For this reason, 2 this alternative was eliminated from further consideration.

3 2.3.3 No-Action Alternative

4 The No-Action Alternative would involve no modifications to the current airspace. The 5 102 FW would remain deficient in its annual LOWAT and Low Slow/Visual 6 Identification intercept and Slow Shadow intercept training requirements. The 102 FW’s 7 ability to perform real world Air Defense Missions and Homeland Security Missions 8 would continue to suffer and could prevent the successful completion of any low altitude 9 missions.

10 The description of existing environmental conditions presented in Section 3, Affected 11 Environment, of this EA documents conditions as they would occur (i.e., remain) if the 12 No-Action Alternative were selected. Consequently, analysis of this alternative is 13 documented in this EA.

14 2.4 Concurrent NEPA Actions

15 Also occurring in the area but unrelated to the Proposed Action, the MAANG is 16 preparing an EIS to close Otis ANG Base in accordance with the final recommendations 17 of the BRAC Commission, which were approved by Congress in September 2005. As a 18 result of this BRAC decision, the F-15s from the 102 FW would transfer from Otis ANG 19 base, approximately 200 NM south of the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, to the 104 FW at 20 Barnes ANG base in Western Massachusetts, approximately 200 NM south-southwest of 21 the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs. NEADS would continue to be the scheduling authority for 22 the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs and this transfer would not affect the purpose and 23 need for the Proposed Action as the F-15 pilots would continue to be deficient in meeting 24 their training requirements.

25 Additional BRAC Commission recommendations would relocate A-10 and P-3 aircraft 26 from the Barnes, Bradley, and Syracuse ANG bases, and F-16s from the Syracuse ANG 27 base. These actions would eliminate the A-10, P-3, and F-16 aircraft from these 28 installations as users of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs. The environmental analyses

Draft Environmental Assessment 2-8 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Area February 2007 1 for these closure actions are being conducted independently by each installation and 2 would not affect the purpose and need for the Proposed Action. Regardless of the 3 outcome of the BRAC Commission recommendations, the 102 FW’s F-15 pilots would 4 continue to face a deficiency in meeting their training requirements due to a lack of 5 available low altitude airspace.

Draft Environmental Assessment 2-9 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Area February 2007 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 and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7061, 6 the description of the affected environment focuses on the following resources and 7 conditions potentially subject to impacts from the Proposed Action: airspace 8 management, safety, noise, air quality, geological resources, water resources, biological 9 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 categories of airspace: regulatory and non-regulatory. Within regulatory 18 airspace further classifications include controlled, uncontrolled, special use, and other 19 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.

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-1 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 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 where Air Traffic Control (ATC) service is provided to these users. All 5 aviation traffic operating in controlled airspace is subject to certain pilot qualifications, 6 operating rules, and equipment requirements, (Table 3-1). For IFR operations in any 7 class of controlled airspace, a pilot must file an IFR flight plan and receive an appropriate 8 ATC clearance. Class B, Class C, and Class D airspaces contain at least one primary 9 airport around which the airspace is designated.

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-2 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 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 ATC clearance Requirements for IFR. All for IFR. All for IFR. All require radio require radio require radio contact. contact. contact. Minimum Pilot Instrument Private or Student Student Student Qualifications Rating Student Certificate Certificate Certificate Certificate Two-Way Radio Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes for IFR 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

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-3 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 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 (VMC). VMC are in effect when visibility is clear and does not require the 5 use of instrumentation to navigate.

6 Special Use Airspace

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

13 MOAs are established outside Class A airspace to separate or segregate certain 14 nonhazardous military activities (e.g., air combat training) from IFR traffic and to 15 delineate areas where nonhazardous military traffic may be encountered for VFR 16 aviators. When a MOA is active, IFR traffic will normally be routed around it, while 17 VFR flights are still allowed to pass through using see-and-avoid measures to maintain 18 safe separation distances.

19 Other Airspace

20 Other airspace areas are used by military aircraft but do not place restrictions on non­ 21 military aircraft. They are designated for informational purposes for general aviation. 22 Examples of these airspace areas are MTRs and air-to-air refueling tracks.

23 MTRs are flight paths that provide a corridor for military low-altitude navigation 24 training. To train realistically and safely, the military and the FAA have developed 25 MTRs, along which the military can train for low-altitude navigation at airspeeds in 26 excess of 250 knots indicated airspeed (approximately 285 miles per hour [mph]). There 27 are two types of MTRs: IR and VR. Typical MTRs are from four to 10 NM wide and

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-4 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 have altitude structures from 100 feet AGL to 5,000 feet AGL or higher. The centerline 2 of a MTR is depicted on aeronautical charts.

3 3.1.2 Existing Conditions

4 The region of influence (ROI) associated with the Proposed Action is primarily limited to 5 SUA and “other airspace.” The ROI for this assessment encompasses the lateral and 6 vertical confines of the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, VR-840/1/2, IR-800, and IR-850/1/2 7 (Figure 3-1).

8 The aircraft that currently operate in the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs include A-10, F-15, F-16, 9 KC-135/KC-10, and P-3 aircraft. The Condor 1 and 2 MOAs typically operate between 10 Monday and Friday and are not scheduled on weekends or holidays. The 102 FW flew 11 72 sorties in the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs in FY 03, representing 15 percent of the total 12 airspace utilization (480 sorties). The remaining sorties were flown by units from the 13 VTANG, CTANG, USAF, and the United States Navy.

14 The widths of the MTR corridors in the ROI vary between 3 and 5 NM either side of the 15 MTR centerline. The MTR corridors encompass approximately 1,360,384 acres (53 16 percent) of the area underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs. The 102 FW flew 48 low­ 17 level sorties along VR-840/1/2 in FY 03, representing 18 percent of the total airspace 18 utilization (264 sorties) with the remaining sorties flown by units from the VTANG, 19 CTANG, USAF, and the United States Navy.

20 There are six civilian airfields underlying the Condor 1 MOA: Sugarloaf Regional 21 (Public), Bean (Public), Bethel Regional (Public), Swan (Public), Rangley (Public), 22 Rangley Lake (Public), and Lindbergh (Private). The area within 7 NM of Rangley 23 airfield is Class E airspace with a restricted flight floor of 1,500 feet AGL (FLIP, 2003). 24 Rangley Lake also supports a seaplane base. Four of these airfields currently underlie 25 low-level MTR corridors: Rangley Lake, Bean, Lindbergh (IR-850/1/2); and Bethel 26 Regional (VR-840/1/2). Civilian pilots operating within these corridors fly under VFR. 27 Gadabout Gaddis (Private) is the only airfield that underlies the Condor 2 MOA. 28 Greenville (Public) and Central Maine (Public) airfields are located outside the boundary

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-5 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 of Condor 2 MOA; however, the Class E airspace (with a restricted flight floor of 700 2 feet AGL) associated with these airfields extends into the area underlying Condor 2 3 MOA.

4 The current Flight Information Publication (FLIP) lists one noise-sensitive avoidance 5 area underlying VR-840/1/2 between Locke Mills and Riverdam in the southwestern 6 quadrant of the Condor 1 MOA.

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-6 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-7 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 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 collisions. Data commonly used to describe aircraft safety 7 and accident potential include mishap rates per 100,000 flying hours for each aircraft 8 type, years between major mishaps (predicted by comparing the mishap rate with the 9 proposed number of hours to be flown annually), and the calculated Bird Aircraft Strike 10 Hazard (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 the potential loss of life and aircraft damage caused by in-flight collisions 23 with birds, the ANG uses the Avian Hazard Advisory System (AHAS) to generate 24 projected and actual bird hazard data for airspace and MTRs. The AHAS uses three 25 separate methods to assess the BASH: the next generation radar (NEXRAD)1, the

1 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). Draft Environmental Assessment 3-8 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 soaring model2, and the migration model3. The AHAS ranks the BASH as low, 2 moderate, and or severe. The 102 FW uses the highest risk level from the three AHAS 3 methodologies to determine the risk levels prior to each sortie, and therefore, consistently 4 implements the most conservative training scenarios with respect to BASH risk (Pers. 5 Comm. Capt. Jeff Beckel, 2006).

6 3.2.2 Existing Conditions

7 NEADS, the scheduling authority for the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, maintains records of all 8 training activities occurring within the ROI. NEADS has no record of any aircraft 9 mishaps occurring within the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, or the underlying MTRs (Pers. 10 Comm. Capt. Jeffrey Beckel, 2006).

11 Collisions with Objects on the Surface

12 The current flight floor of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs is 7,000 feet MSL (2,800 to 13 6,300 feet AGL) and the flight floor of VR-840/1/2 is 500 feet AGL for the F-15 and F­ 14 16 and 100 feet AGL for the A-10. There are no structures that currently intersect any 15 potential flight paths within the MOAs or the underlying MTRs.

16 Weather-Related Incidents

17 Aircraft mishaps are sometimes caused by hazardous weather. Weather conditions may 18 pose a safety hazard and may require alteration or cancellation of planned training 19 missions. The 102 FW independently monitors the weather conditions within the Condor 20 1 and 2 MOAs, and based on the size and location of the severe weather system, may 21 either cancel the training mission, or modify the training altitude to fly around the storm 22 system. Additionally, the 102 FW will not utilize any airspace that is under Instrument

2 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 Migration Model - Uses weather data and waterfowl migration corridors to calculate the risk of a bird- plane interaction. Draft Environmental Assessment 3-9 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Meteorological Conditions (IMC)4 because the pilots are required, under USAF 2 guidelines, to maintain 2,000 feet vertical and 1 NM horizontal clearance from airspace 3 under IMC with 5 NM visibility and a discernable horizon for all training activities (Pers. 4 Comm. Capt. Jeff Beckel, 2006).

5 Bird-Aircraft Strike Hazard

6 There are no major migratory flyways that pass through, or adjacent to, the Condor 1 and 7 2 MOAs. The Atlantic Flyway is the principle flyway in close proximity to Maine and 8 New Hampshire. The Atlantic Flyway follows the east coast of the United States and 9 moves out over the open ocean as it approaches the Massachusetts and Maine coastlines 10 (http://www.birdnature.com/flyways.html); however, many species of waterfowl and 11 passerines still migrate through the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs during their spring and fall 12 migrations. The primary migration periods for the counties underlying the Condor 1 and 13 2 MOAs (Franklin, Oxford, Piscataquis, and Somerset) occur from 20 March through 5 14 May and 15 September through 10 October.

15 The current flight floor of the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs is between 2,800 and 6,300 feet 16 AGL. Radar studies document that 95 percent of migratory movements occur below 17 10,000 feet (USGS, 2006); however, this varies depending on the migration distance 18 (long distance migrants fly higher to reduce drag and conserve energy), time of day 19 (nocturnal migrants typically fly at higher altitudes), and species. Waterfowl commonly 20 migrate at lower altitudes (near surface to several hundred feet) while migratory 21 shorebirds will fly over the ocean as high as 15,000 to 20,000 feet MSL (USGS, 2006).

22 The 102 FW has implemented a scaled training response to the BASH risk based on the 23 three AHAS threat levels. During periods of “low” hazard, pilots are briefed on bird 24 hazards prior to low-level flight, but no modifications to the flight path, altitudes, or 25 training missions are made. When the bird hazard is “moderate” during planned low­ 26 level training, pilots are briefed on bird hazards and the flight path or altitude of the

4 Instrument Meteorological Conditions – weather conditions that normally require pilots to fly primarily by reference to instruments Draft Environmental Assessment 3-10 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 training missions is adjusted to avoid known hazardous areas. If the bird hazard is 2 “severe”, the 102 FW modifies the training mission to avoid the altitude blocks affected 3 by the “severe” rating (Pers. Comm. Capt. Jeff Beckel, 2006). The current risk of a bird- 4 plane interaction within the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs is low to moderate, including the fall 5 and spring migration periods.

6 3.3 Noise

7 3.3.1 Definition of the Resource

8 Noise is defined as unwanted sound or, more specifically, as any sound that is 9 undesirable because it interferes with communication, is intense enough to damage 10 hearing, or is otherwise annoying (Federal Interagency Committee on Noise [FICON], 11 1992). Human response to noise can vary according to the type and characteristics of the 12 noise source, the distance between the noise source and the receptor, the sensitivity of the 13 receptor, and the time of day.

14 Sound Metrics

15 Due to the wide range in sound levels, sound is expressed in decibels (dB), a unit of 16 measure based on a logarithmic scale. A 10 dB increase in noise level corresponds to a 17 100-percent increase (or doubling) in perceived loudness. As a general rule, a 5 dB 18 change is necessary for noise increases to be noticeable to humans (USEPA 1974). 19 Sound measurement is further refined by using an A-weighted decibel scale to 20 emphasizes the range of sound frequencies that are most audible to the human ear (i.e., 21 between 1,000 and 8,000 cycles per second). Therefore, unless otherwise noted, all 22 decibel measurements presented in this EA are A-weighted (dBA).

23 Ldn is a noise metric that averages A-weighted sound levels over a 24-hour period, with 24 an additional 10-dB penalty added to noise events occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 25 a.m. This penalty is intended to compensate for generally lower background noise levels

26 at night and the additional annoyance associated with nighttime events. Ldn is the most 27 widely used descriptor for assessing noise compatibility with existing or proposed land 28 use or developments, and is the preferred noise metric of the U.S. Department of Housing

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-11 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), FAA, 2 USEPA, Veterans’ Administration, and DoD. USAF planning policy calls for the

3 interpretation of Ldn in terms of (1) land use compatibility; and (2) the probability of the 4 noise level being considered highly annoying to ground-based noise receptors.

5 An additional noise metric, the “onset rate-adjusted monthly day-night average, A­

6 weighted sound level,” (Ldnmr) has been developed specifically for MTRs by the USAF 7 under direction of the Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory (AAMRL). 8 Individual low-altitude events are different from typical noise sources because the rapid

9 onset of aircraft noise in a MTR can create a “startle” effect. The Ldnmr, is similar to the

10 Ldn in that it is an average metric with a 10-dB penalty for events occurring between

11 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. However, Ldnmr represents an average for an entire month, 12 utilizing the highest monthly sortie activity, and includes an additional 0- to 11-dB 13 penalty to compensate for the “startle” effect of a low-altitude overflight. Because of this

14 penalty, Ldnmr always equals or exceeds Ldn. Ldnmr is currently the approved MTR noise

15 metric for the armed services and the USAF recommends calculation of Ldnmr values for 16 noise assessments along MTRs.

17 Noise Predictions

18 The Military Operating Area and Range Noise Model and Assessment Program 19 (MR_NMAP) Version 2.2 is a noise model program that calculates the noise levels under 20 MOAs, MTRs, and ranges. The calculations in MR_NMAP are based on a USAF dataset 21 of measured aircraft noise levels called NOISEFILE. The noise analysis in this EA used

22 MR_NMAP to calculate Ldnmr and sound exposure level (SEL) above 65 dB.

23 3.3.2 Existing Conditions

24 Ambient Noise

25 Noise levels from flight operations usually only exceed ambient background noise 26 beneath main approach and departure corridors, or local air traffic patterns around an 27 airfield, and in areas immediately adjacent to parking ramps and aircraft staging areas. 28 These areas all support concentrated use of aircraft at relatively low altitudes. As aircraft

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-12 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 take off and gain altitude, their contributions to total noise levels decreases. Beneath 2 MOAs, elevated noise levels are typically concentrated in the center of the operations 3 areas. Aircraft operations within MOAs tend to be centralized, as aircraft cannot 4 effectively operate in extreme corners of airspace due to the maneuverability limits of the 5 aircraft.

6 Lands beneath the existing Condor 1 and 2 MOAs primarily consist of rural areas, small 7 towns, and limited amounts of suburban residential areas. There are three noise sensitive 8 areas underlying the Condor 2 MOA: the towns of Farmington, Bingham, and Madison. 9 Table 3-2 identifies noise levels associated with some common indoor and outdoor 10 activities and settings and also indicates typical subjective human judgments of noise 11 levels. For reference purposes, a baseline noise level of 70 dB is described as moderately 12 loud.

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-13 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Table 3-2. 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.

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-14 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Appendix C contains the analysis parameters for baseline noise conditions conducted for 2 this EA using MR_NMAP 2.2. Table 3-3 and Appendix C contain the results of the

3 baseline noise analysis. The sound level in the noise metric Ldnmr and the number of 4 events exceeding the sound exposure level (SEL) of 65 dB for each airspace component 5 is based on the aircraft, number of operations, altitude, and time spent within the airspace. 6 The values for the MTRs (in this case, VRs only) represent the maximum noise level 7 along the route within the boundaries of Condor 1 MOA. Noise levels at the ground 8 surface can change between different locations on a MTR due to variations in the 9 acoustic characteristics of a receptor’s immediate surroundings, so the baseline noise 10 assessment separates VR 840/1/2 into several segments (Track Segments) and calculates 11 background noise levels in each segment. Table 3-3 presents the baseline noise modeling 12 results for the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs and for different Track Segments along the VRs 13 under existing conditions.

14 Table 3-3. 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 Level above SEL of 65 dB Baseline Ldnmr (dB) Ldnmr (dB) per year MOAs Condor 1 MOA 31.2 -- 0.5 Condor 2 MOA 31.1 -- 0.5 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 0.3 Segment 04-05 -- 47.3 0.3 Segment 05-06 -- 47.3 0.3 Segment 06-07 -- 46.1 0.2 Segment 07-08 -- 46.1 0.2 Segment 08-09 -- 45.2 0.2 16

17 The noise modeling results also include SEL measurements for Condor 1 and 2 MOAs. 18 SEL measurements describe a noise event such as an aircraft overflight as a period of 19 time when an aircraft is approaching and noise levels are increasing, an instant when the 20 aircraft is directly overhead and the highest noise level is experienced, and the period of

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-15 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 time when the aircraft moves away from the noise receptor while noise levels decrease. 2 While such an event may last several seconds, the SEL measurement represents a one- 3 second-noise level describing the overflight. Since the SEL value represents a composite 4 of noise levels over an extended period of time normalized to one second, SEL values are 5 typically 5 to 10 dB higher than the actual highest noise level experienced by a noise 6 receptor (Appendix C). Table 3-3 lists the number of events that typically take place

7 above a SEL of 65 Ldnmr dB in the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs under existing conditions. SEL

8 values are converted to Ldnmr for comparison with planning criteria, as Ldnmr values 9 correlate more readily with the probability of “highly annoying” a noise receptor. The 10 applicable planning criteria consider the probability of annoyance in determining noise-

11 related impacts. A comparison of the Ldnmr values in Table 3-3 to the typical ambient 12 noise levels in rural areas, small towns, and suburban residential areas (Section 3.3.2) and 13 the reference noise levels in Table 3-2 indicates that noise from military aircraft in 14 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs does not currently exceed typical rural ambient noise levels, and 15 is likely not annoying to most people.

16 3.4 Air Quality

17 3.4.1 Definition of the Resource

18 Air quality is described by the concentration of designated pollutants in the atmosphere. 19 The Clean Air Act of 1970 and the CAA Amendments of 1990 have established national

20 air quality standards for criteria pollutants including ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO),

21 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM) including

22 particulates equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and particulates equal to

23 or less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The NAAQS represent the 24 maximum levels of background pollution that are considered safe, with an adequate 25 margin of safety to protect public health and welfare. State and local agencies may set 26 their own standards, as long as they are at least as stringent as the NAAQS. The Maine 27 Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) and New Hampshire Department of 28 the Environmental Services (NHDES) administer and enforce air quality regulations in 29 Maine and New Hampshire, respectively. The states of Maine and New Hampshire have

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-16 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 adopted all of the NAAQS. USEPA and/or the appropriate state or local agency can 2 declare areas not in compliance with a standard as “nonattainment” areas. In order for 3 areas to reach or maintain “attainment” the NAAQS must not be exceeded more than 4 once per year.

5 In September 2006, the USEPA strengthened the air quality standards for particle 3 6 pollution by reducing the 24 hour PM2.5 standard from 65 to 35 µg/m . The current

7 “annual arithmetic mean” standard for PM2.5 was retained. The effective date of

8 designation for the revised “24-hour average” PM2.5 standard is April 2010. States are 9 expected to meet the revised standard by 2015, with a possible extension to 2020, 10 depending on local conditions and the availability of controls 11 (http://epa.gov/pm/naaqsrev2006.html). This analysis used the more conservative 35 12 µg/m3 standard.

13 The 1990 CAA Amendments place most of the responsibility for compliance with the 14 NAAQS on the states. The primary vehicle for implementation of the CAA is known as 15 the SIP, which the USEPA requires each state to prepare. A SIP is a compilation of 16 goals, strategies, schedules, and enforcement actions that will lead the state into 17 compliance with all federal air quality standards.

18 The 1990 CAA Amendments include provisions that require states to regulate major 19 sources. These major source operating permits are called Title V permits, referring to the 20 section of the CAA that requires them. A major stationary source is a facility (i.e., plant, 21 base, or other non-mobile facility) that emits more than the established amount of any 22 criteria pollutant or hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The major source thresholds in the 23 SIP become smaller with more severe air quality designations.

24 The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program (40 CFR 52.21) evaluates 25 potential emissions from new and modified stationary sources in attainment areas. The 26 goal of the PSD program is to ensure that emissions from major stationary sources do not 27 degrade air quality in attainment areas. As part of the PSD Program, Section 162 of the 28 CAA further established the goal of preserving the air quality in national parks and 29 national wilderness areas that exceed 5,000 acres in size if these areas were in existence

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-17 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 on August 7, 1977. These areas were defined as mandatory Class I areas, while all other 2 attainment or unclassifiable areas were defined as Class II areas. The PSD requirements 3 include evaluation of impacts to Class I areas from construction of new major stationary 4 sources, or modifications to existing stationary sources, that occur within 100 miles of a 5 Class I area.

6 3.4.2 Existing Conditions

7 Climate

8 Southwestern Maine and northeastern New Hampshire have a cool, relatively dry 9 climate. Annual temperatures in the southwestern region of Maine average 10 approximately 45.4 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF). Average annual precipitation and snowfall 11 are approximately 44.3 and 70.7 inches, respectively. Average relative humidity in the 12 morning and afternoon are approximately 79 and 59 percent, respectively (NRCC, 2006).

13 Temperatures in the northeastern region of New Hampshire average approximately 14 26.5ºF annually. Average annual precipitation and snowfall are approximately 98.96 and 15 258.6 inches, respectively. Average relative humidity in the morning and afternoon are 16 approximately 84 and 83 percent, respectively (NRCC, 2006).

17 Regional Air Quality

18 The Condor 1 and 2 MOAs are located over the Androscoggin Valley Interstate Air 19 Quality Control Region (AQCR) 107, which includes Franklin, Oxford, and Somerset 20 counties in Maine, and Coos County in New Hampshire. The four counties are in 21 attainment (or unclassifiable) for all NAAQS as of October 2006 (USEPA, 2006a).

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

23 County, and two in Oxford County that monitor PM10, PM2.5, SO2, and O3. Currently, 24 Somerset County has no air quality monitoring stations. Based on information from the 25 USEPA AirData website (USEPA, 2006b), the maximum pollutant concentrations from 26 all the monitoring stations over the past three years occurred in 2004. The 2004 air

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-18 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 quality data5 for the monitoring stations are presented in Tables 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7. Of

2 the criteria pollutants monitored in 2004 within AQCR 107, only O3 exceeded the 8-hour 3 NAAQS (3 exceedances) at the Coos County monitoring station (Table 3-7). However, 4 based on the partially available information from the USEPA AirData for 2005 and 2006, 5 none of the criteria pollutants reported had exceeded the NAAQS.

6 Table 3-4. 2004 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring for PM10 at Site 230172007, 7 Village Green-Route 108, Oxford County, Maine (in micrograms per 8 cubic meter [µg/m3])

NAAQS Number of Criterion 1st Maximum Monitoring Data Criteria Exceedences 98th/99th Percentile 24-Hour 35 N/A 150 0 Concentration Annual Arithmetic NA 12 50 0 Mean Source USEPA AirData (assessed October 4, 2006)

9

10 Table 3-5. 2004 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring for PM2.5 at Site 230172011, 11 Rumford Avenue Parking Lot, Oxford County, Maine (µg/m3)

Monitoring NAAQS Number of Criterion 98th Percentile Data Criteria Exceedences

98th/99th Percentile 24­ 33 NA 35 0 Hour Concentration Annual Arithmetic Mean NA 10.6 15 0 Source USEPA AirData (assessed October 4, 2006)

5 The 2004 air quality monitoring data was used because this was the most recent year for which all monitoring stations within the area underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs reported data. Draft Environmental Assessment 3-19 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Table 3-6. 2004 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring for SO2 at Site 230172007, 2 Village Green-Route 108, Oxford County, Maine (in parts per million 3 [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 October 4, 2006)

4 Table 3-7. 2004 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring for O3 at Site 330074001, Mt. 5 Washington, Coos County, New Hampshire (ppm)

NAAQS Number of Criterion Maximums Values Criteria Exceedences 1st Maximum 0.097 1-hour averages 0.12 0 2nd Maximum 0.094 1st Maximum 0.089 8-hour averages 0.08 3 2nd Maximum 0.088 Source USEPA AirData (assessed October 4, 2006)

6 Emissions Underlying Condor 1 and 2 MOAs

7 The majority of emissions in the existing Condor 1 and 2 MOAs are produced by aircraft 8 flight operations (mobile sources). Table 3-8 provides a summary of current aircraft 9 emissions in the existing Condor 1 and 2 MOAs and VR-840/1/2. The emissions 10 estimates were generated using sortie rates and aircraft operational data obtained from the 11 primary scheduling personnel (Table 2-1). These emissions occur over a wide area and a 12 range of altitudes. These emissions disperse throughout the region to levels that do not 13 impact the State of Maine or New Hampshire’s ability to comply with their SIP, and 14 therefore, the NAAQS.

15 There are two Federal Class I areas within 100 miles of the Proposed Action – White 16 Mountain National Forest and Appalachian Trail. The Appalachian Trail is a National 17 Scenic Trail which is administered by the National Park Service (NPS) and other semi 18 public groups in Maine. White Mountain National Forest is located in southwestern

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-20 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Maine and Northern New Hampshire. Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 2 in Oxford County, Maine is also within 100 miles of the Proposed Action, but is not a 3 Federal Class I Area6.

4 Table 3-8. Summary of Current Aircraft Emissions for all Users in the Condor 1 5 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 2 480 3.0 43.6 0.89 2.23 0.49 MOAs VR-840/1/2 264 0.60 10.6 0.12 0.47 0.05 Total 744 3.60 54.2 1.01 2.7 0.54 6 Source: Emissions factors for each aircraft type were obtained from: Jagielski, Kurt D., and Robert J. 7 O’Brien, 1994. Calculation Methods for Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Inventories, USAF Occupational 8 and Environmental Health Directorate, Air Force Material Command, Brooks AFB, Texas, July 1994.

9 3.5 Geological Resources

10 3.5.1 Definition of the Resource

11 Geological resources are surface and subsurface materials and their properties, including 12 soils and topography. Soils are unconsolidated materials overlying bedrock or other 13 parent material. Soil is described in terms of series or type, slope, and physical 14 characteristics. Soil depth, structure, elasticity, strength, shrink-well potential, and 15 erodibility influence site suitability for structures and facilities. Topography is defined as 16 the surface elevation contours of the natural and/or man-made features (exclusive of 17 buildings and temporary features) of an area that describe the configuration of its surface. 18 Topography is influenced by many factors including human activity, underlying 19 geological material, seismic activity, climate conditions, and erosion.

6 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. Draft Environmental Assessment 3-21 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 3.5.2 Existing Conditions

2 Geology

3 The area underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs encompasses portions of Coos County in 4 New Hampshire and Oxford, Somerset, Franklin, and Piscataquis counties in Maine. 5 Most of the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs occur within the Central Maine Basin, which is 6 bordered on the north by the Boundary Mountains. A small area underlying the 7 northwestern portion of the Condor 1 MOA extends into the Connecticut Valley Basin 8 (Marvinney, 2002).

9 The majority of the area underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs lies within the Late 10 Ordovician-Devonian sedimentary basins, which is characterized by marine sandstone 11 and slate, and limy marine shale. The Boundary Mountains region is characterized by 12 Ordovician oceanic crust and Cambrian rocks of the Penobscottian and Taconic events, 13 made up of volcanic and related sedimentary rocks. The oldest deposits are Precambrian 14 gneiss and breccia formations. Younger Ordovician era volcanic and sedimentary rocks 15 occur in the mountainous region in the central portion of the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs. The 16 youngest deposits consist of Devonian marine sandstones in the plains and Devonian age 17 granites in the Boundary Mountains region (Marvinney, 2002). The surface geology 18 consists primarily of glacial deposits (MGS, 2005).

19 Soils

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

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-22 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Importance are concentrated under the southern half of the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, 2 primarily surrounding the Androscoggin and Kennebec river valleys (Maine GIS, 2006).

3 Telos-Monarda-Monson-Elliotsville Association

4 The Telos-Monarda-Monson-Eliotsville association underlies the northwest portion of 5 Condor 1 MOA and the northern half of Condor 2 MOA. It is formed from glacial till 6 parent material and the composition tends to be rocky throughout (NRCS, 2006). The 7 Telos, Monarda, and Monson Series soils are primarily silt loams on 1 to 8 percent 8 slopes. These soils range in depth from 20 to over 60 inches deep. The Telos and 9 Monarda Soils are somewhat poorly to poorly drained, while the Monson Series is 10 somewhat excessively drained. The Elliotsville Series is a well drained, moderately deep 11 coarse-loamy soil with dense basil till (NRCS, 2000).

12 Dixfield-Colonel-Lyman-Brayton Association

13 The Dixfield-Colonel-Lyman-Brayton association underlies the northern, eastern, and 14 central portions of Condor 1 MOA and the southern portion of Condor 2 MOA, on 15 sloping, stony ridges. These soils are formed from glacial till and vary from silty to 16 gravelly loams on slopes ranging from 3 to 20 percent (NRCS, 2006). The Dixfield and 17 Colonel Series soils are moderately well to somewhat poorly drained soils with depths to 18 over 60 inches. The Lyman soils series occurs on slightly steeper slopes ranging from 8 19 to 20 percent with shallow soil depths of 10 to 20 inches. Brayton soils are very deep, 20 poorly drained soils with moderate permeability occurring on toeslopes and depressions 21 (NRCS, 2000).

22 Skerry-Hermon-Monadnock-Colonel Association

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

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-23 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 The Monadnock Series is very deep, well drained, coarse loamy sand formed on upland 2 hills and mountainsides with slopes from 0 to 60 percent (NRCS, 2000).

3 3.6 Water Resources

4 3.6.1 Definition of the Resource

5 Water resources include surface water, groundwater, wastewater, and potable water 6 resources. Included in this analysis are the quality and availability of surface water, 7 groundwater, the potential for flooding, coastal resources, and wild and scenic rivers. 8 Surface water resources include lakes, rivers, and streams, which are important for 9 economic, ecological, recreational, and human health reasons. Groundwater is the 10 subsurface hydrologic resource that is used for potable water consumption, agricultural 11 irrigation, and industrial applications. Groundwater properties are described in terms of 12 depth to aquifer, aquifer or well capacity, water quality, and surrounding geologic 13 composition. Although wastewater and potable water are not natural resources, they are 14 discussed in terms of their environmental effects.

15 Potential for flooding is discussed in terms of existing and potential hazards associated 16 with 100-year floodplains. Inundation dangers associated with the floodplains have 17 prompted federal, state, and local legislation that limits development in these areas 18 largely to recreation and preservation activities. Coastal resources are, by definition, 19 natural resources located in close proximity to coastlines and are protected under the 20 National Coastal Zone Management Act, as well as resource-specific laws such as the 21 Coastal Barriers Resources Act. The individual states designate their own coastal zones 22 within which these laws apply. Wild and scenic rivers are waterways that retain natural 23 or undeveloped character, and are managed under the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers 24 Act of 1968.

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-24 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 3.6.2 Existing Conditions

2 Surface water

3 The most significant surface water features underlying Condor 1 and 2 MOAs are 4 Rangely and Flagstaff Lakes in Maine. Numerous other small lakes and ponds underlie 5 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs in Maine and New Hampshire. Condor 1 and 2 MOAs overlie a 6 total of 150 square miles of lakes and ponds and 1,083 miles of streams and rivers in 7 Maine, as well as 43 miles of streams and rivers in New Hampshire (roughly 10 and one 8 percent of Maine and New Hampshire’s surface water features, respectively). Most of 9 the western area underlying the Condor 1 MOA is drained by the Androscoggin River, 10 but the extreme western portion of Condor 1 MOA in New Hampshire is drained by the 11 headwater tributaries of the Connecticut River basin. The central portion underlying the 12 Condor 1 MOA is drained by the Garrabassett River. The area underlying the eastern 13 portion of Condor 1 MOA and most of Condor 2 MOA is drained by the Kennebec River.

14 Groundwater

15 Three basic types of aquifers occur in Maine and New Hampshire: unconsolidated 16 glaciofluvial deposits (sand and gravel aquifers), till, and fractured bedrock. Bedrock 17 aquifers are the most widespread type of aquifer in the region (MDEP, 2004; USGS, 18 1997). Bedrock wells in both states most often yield relatively small quantities of water. 19 Median yields for bedrock aquifers in New Hampshire are unavailable, but the median 20 yield for a bedrock well in Maine is between 3 and 6 gallons-per-minute (gpm) and only 21 approximately 35 percent of bedrock wells drilled in Maine yield 10 or more gallons per 22 minute (MGS, 2005). Bedrock aquifers are the primary water-bearing units under the 23 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, although sand and gravel aquifers contribute a minor proportion 24 of the overall groundwater resource in the region (MDEP, 2004; USGS, 1997).

25 Water Quality

26 Both Maine and New Hampshire classify surface waters into one of several categories in 27 terms of physical, chemical and biological characteristics. Both state’s surface water 28 classification systems are goal based, meaning that they establish the level of quality

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-25 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 directed by the State to achieve rather than reflecting current water quality conditions. 2 The classification programs include designated uses (e.g. drinking water supply, 3 recreation in and on the water, habitat for fish and other aquatic life), criteria (e.g. 4 bacteria, dissolved oxygen and aquatic life), and characteristics (e.g. natural, free 5 flowing) that specify levels of water quality necessary to maintain the designated uses 6 (MDEP, 2004; NHDES, 2004).

7 Surface water quality in Maine is generally good. When Maine’s last integrated 8 statewide water quality assessment was completed in 2004, only 3.8 percent of Maine’s 9 rivers and streams were impaired for one or more uses, but impaired waters occur under 10 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs. The Kennebec and Androscoggin Rivers, which underlie Condor 11 1 and 2 MOAs, were among the large rivers listed as not attaining all designated uses for 12 fish consumption advisories in Maine, and all surface waters in New Hampshire are 13 considered impaired due to fish and shellfish consumption advisories (EPA, 2002).

14 Groundwater quality is also generally good in Maine, although approximately 11 percent 15 of the state’s current groundwater supply is considered threatened by point source and 16 non-point source pollution. No data on groundwater quality was available for the portion 17 of New Hampshire under Condor 1 MOA.

18 100-year Floodplains

19 One hundred year floodplains border most streams and rivers. They are usually low­ 20 lying areas that are hydraulically connected to waterbodies that have a calculated 21 probability of being inundated in any given year of one percent, or a flood recurrence 22 interval of 100 years. One hundred year floodplains generally follow major stream and 23 river channels. Their width is controlled by topography and gradient, and in low gradient 24 areas, one hundred year floodplains tend to be wider along lower-order streams. Under 25 the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, the one hundred year floodplains form a network of linear 26 lowland areas in close proximity to the Garrabassett, Kennebec, and Androscoggin 27 Rivers and their major tributaries. The floodplains associated with the Garrabassett and 28 Kennebec Rivers and the tributaries to the Androscoggin River generally run in a 29 northwest to southeast direction. The floodplains associated with the tributaries to the

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-26 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Garrabassett and Kennebec Rivers and the mainstem Androscoggin River generally run 2 in an east-west direction. One hundred year floodplains underlying the Condor 1 MOA 3 within New Hampshire are limited to the floodplains associated with the headwaters of 4 the Connecticut River basin.

5 Wild and Scenic Rivers

6 There are no Federally-designated Wild and Scenic Rivers underlying the Condor 1 or 2 7 MOAs. The only Federally-designated Wild and Scenic River in Maine is the Allagash 8 River in northern Maine. The only Federally-designated Wild and Scenic Rivers in New 9 Hampshire are the Lamprey River in extreme southeastern New Hampshire and Wildcat 10 Brook in eastern New Hampshire.

11 Coastal Resources

12 Maine’s coastal zone includes portions of the ten counties that form Maine’s Atlantic 13 coast or include tidal waters. New Hampshire’s coastal zone includes the state’s 17 14 coastal municipalities (NOAA, 2004). Condor 1 and 2 MOAs do not overlie either 15 state’s coastal zone.

16 3.7 Biological Resources

17 3.7.1 Definition of the Resource

18 Biological resources are defined as native or naturalized plants and animals and the 19 habitats in which they exist. The following sections describe the existing biological 20 resources under the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs including vegetation communities, wetlands, 21 wildlife, and threatened and endangered species.

22 3.7.2 Existing Conditions

23 Vegetation Communities

24 Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs intersect three of the fifteen biophysical regions in Maine, 25 as defined by McMahon (1990). These biophysical regions are the Western Mountains

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-27 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Region, the Western Foothills Region, and the Central Mountains Region (Figure 3-2). 2 The vegetation communities of these biophysical regions are transitional between boreal 3 forests and deciduous forests. The following subsections describe the dominant 4 vegetation communities within each of the three biophysical regions.

5 Western Mountains Region

6 The Western Mountains Region encompasses the majority of the land underlying the 7 Condor 1 MOA and a small part of the southwest portion of Condor 2 MOA (Figure 3-3). 8 At elevations greater than 2,500 feet MSL, subalpine forests contain nearly monotypic 9 stands of balsam fir (Abies balsamea). Red spruce (Picea rubens) and balsam fir forests 10 dominate ridgetops at slightly lower elevations. Sugar maple (Acer saccharum), yellow 11 birch (Betula allegheniensis), and beech (Fagus grandifolia) dominate the valleys, and 12 dwarf shrub heath, rush meadow, fellfield, snowbank, and alpine bog vegetation 13 communities occur on treeless peaks (McMahon, 1990).

14 Western Foothills Region

15 The Western Foothills Region lies under the southeastern portions of Condor 1 and 2 16 MOAs (Figure 3-2). The western boundary of the Western Foothills Region, which 17 roughly follows the 1,000 foot topographic contour, occurs in the transitional area 18 between temperate forests and boreal forest communities. Shagbark hickory (Carya 19 ovata), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black cherry 20 (Prunus serotina), basswood (Tilia americana), and gray birch (Betula populifolia) are 21 among the most common tree species in this region. Common shrubs include buttonbush 22 (Cephalanthus occidentalis), oblongleaf juneberry (Amelanchier canadensis), silky dogwood 23 (Cornus ammomum), hawthorn (Crataegus sp.), bristly dewberry (Rubus hispidus), and 24 black raspberry (Rubus occidentalis) (McMahon, 1990).

25 Central Mountains Region

26 The Central Mountains Region lies under the northeast portion of the Condor 1 MOA and 27 the northwest portion of the Condor 2 MOA (Figure 3-2). Similar to the Western 28 Mountains Region, the Central Mountains Region is dominated by northern hardwood

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-28 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 forests at middle elevations and spruce-fir forests on ridges and poorly drained valleys. 2 The high elevation of the Katahdin Mountain area, underlying the northeast corner of the 3 Condor 2 MOA, supports an alpine vegetation community that is unique in Maine. 4 Common species at high elevations in this area include alpine bearberry (Arctostaphylos 5 alpine), dwarf birch (Betula glandulosa), dwarf white birch (B. minor), moss heather 6 (Cassiope hypnoides), trailing azalea (Loiseleuria procumbens), blue mountainheath 7 (Phyllodoce caerulea), Lapland rosebay (Phododendron lapponicum), northern willow 8 (Salix arctophila), Labrador willow (S. argyrocarpa), and dwarf willow (S. herbacea) 9 (McMahon,1990).

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-29 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-30 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Wetlands and Riparian Vegetation

2 The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and EPA define wetlands as 3 “those areas that are inundated or saturated with ground or surface water at a frequency 4 and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 5 prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 6 328). Wetlands play an important role in maintaining environmental quality because of 7 the diverse biologic and hydrologic functions they perform. These functions include, but 8 are not limited to, water quality improvement, groundwater recharge, sediment and 9 toxicant retention, nutrient cycling, plant and animal habitat, and floodwater attenuation 10 and 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 represents approximately 6.4 percent of the 24 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 3-9 lists the common 28 wildlife species known to occur in the area underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs.

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-31 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Table 3-9. 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 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

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-32 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 Common Name Scientific Name 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 1 Source: MDIFW, 2006a 2 ² Source: Sauer et al, 2005 3 3 Source: University of Maine, 2006

4 Threatened and Endangered Species

5 The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Maine Department of Inland Fish and 6 Wildlife (MDIFW), and the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau (NHNHB) 7 maintain lists of threatened and endangered species in Maine and New Hampshire. 8 Threatened and endangered species are protected from death, harm, or harassment under 9 the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536). Under the ESA, an endangered species is defined as any 10 species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A 11 threatened species is defined as any species likely to become an endangered species in the 12 foreseeable future. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that 13 their actions are not likely to jeopardize listed species or result in the destruction or 14 adverse modification of designated critical habitat.

15 The USFWS, MDIFW, and NHNHB databases document that 61 federal- and/or state­ 16 listed threatened or endangered species or state-listed species of concern potentially occur 17 within New Hampshire and Maine. The ANG consulted with the USFWS, MDIFW, and 18 NHNHB to determine the listed species that are known or likely to occur in the area 19 under the Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs. The bald eagle and Canada Lynx are the only 20 federal species currently known to occur in the proposed project area; however, the 21 USFWS does not anticipate adverse impacts to the Canada Lynx (Appendix A). 22 Appendix D contains the federal and state listed species that could potentially occur in 23 the area underneath Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs based on life history requirements 24 and habitat availability.

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-33 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Bald Eagle

2 The bald eagle is federally- and state-listed as threatened. Based upon consultation with 3 the USFWS (Appendix A), there are 15 known bald eagle nesting sites underlying the 4 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs (Figure 3-3). The USFWS and MDIFW considers these nesting 5 sites to be “essential habitat areas”. The USFWS recommends avoiding flights below 6 1000 ft AGL over these sites during the nesting season, and the MDIFW requires a 0.25­ 7 mile buffer around all essential habitat areas (MDIFW, 2006).

8 Golden Eagle

9 The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) is currently a state-listed endangered species in 10 Maine. This species is traditionally associated with rugged topography and open country 11 including rangelands, tundra, and alpine areas. It often nests on cliffs, or trees in forested 12 regions. Golden eagles are typically found in the mountainous areas in the western and 13 northwestern portions of Maine (MDIFW, 2003).

14 Peregrine Falcon

15 The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) is currently a state-listed endangered species in 16 Maine. This species typically requires cliffs for nesting and perching in proximity to 17 open water to enhance foraging opportunities. Nest sites are typically located on ledges 18 or overhangs; however, more recently peregrines have adapted to nesting on bridges and 19 buildings in urban environments (MDIFW, 2003).

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-34 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-35 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 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; however, suitable 8 habitat for the American three-toed woodpecker exists throughout the central portion of 9 Condor 1 MOA in NH.

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.

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-36 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 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 blackbird underlying 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

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-37 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 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 consultation 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 3.8 Land Use

13 3.8.1 Definition of the Resource

14 Land use refers to both natural and “human modified” conditions occurring at a particular 15 location. Examples of human-modified land use categories include residential, industrial, 16 transportation, communications and utilities, agricultural, institutional, recreational, and 17 other developed areas. Management plans and zoning regulations determine the type and 18 extent of land use allowable in specific areas and are often intended to protect specially 19 designated or environmentally sensitive areas. The Management Plans that specifically 20 apply to this EA include: the White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource 21 Management Plan (Forest Plan), the Appalachian National Scenic Trail Strategic Plan, 22 and Maine and New Hampshire statewide resource planning documents.

23 3.8.2 Existing Conditions

24 The Condor 1 and 2 MOAs occupy a trapezoidal area that covers approximately 4,022 25 square miles in southwestern Maine and extreme northeastern New Hampshire. Land use 26 within the area underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs can be divided into four general

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-38 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 categories of property ownership: Federal, Penobscot Indian Nation, State, and private 2 ownership (Figure 3-4).

3 Federal Land

4 Federal land includes land managed by the NPS, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), USFWS, 5 and the DoD. There are no federally designated Wilderness Areas underlying the Condor 6 1 and Condor 2 MOAs. The Appalachian National Scenic Trail (AT) stretches more than 7 2,100 miles from Springer Mountain, Georgia to Mount Katahdin, in Piscataquis County, 8 Maine. The trail was built by volunteers during the 1920s and 1930s, and was completed 9 in 1937. The passage of the National Trails System Act designated the AT as the nation’s 10 first National Scenic Trail in 1968. The AT is now a unit of the National Park System, 11 and is managed cooperatively by NPS, USFS, the non-profit Appalachian Trail 12 Conservancy, and volunteers from local AT clubs. The Condor 1 and 2 MOAs overlie 13 approximately 144 miles of the AT. Elevations on this stretch of the AT range widely 14 from 500 to 4,000 feet MSL. The trail is primarily used for recreational hiking and 15 camping.

16 White Mountain National Forest was established by Presidential proclamation in 1918, 17 and is managed by the USFS. It encompasses nearly 800,000 acres of land, of which 18 approximately 1,260 acres are overlain by the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs. Elevations in the 19 portion of the forest underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs range from approximately 700 20 to 1,300 feet MSL. The Forest supports a variety of back country recreation 21 opportunities such as hiking and camping and also supports timber harvest.

22 Lake Umbagog NWR was established in 1993 and is managed by USFWS. It 23 encompasses more than 16,300 acres in Maine and New Hampshire. The Condor 1 and 2 24 MOAs overlie approximately 3,860 acres of land in the refuge (all within the State of 25 Maine). Elevations in the portion of the refuge underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs 26 range from 1,300 to 1,600 feet MSL. The refuge is characterized by extensive wetland 27 complexes that are excellent for waterfowl production.

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-39 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-40 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 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 Rangely, Maine for training activities 4 (DOD, 2006a). The Brunswick/Rangely facility is the Navy’s only cold-weather SERE 5 school, and offers “training for DoD personnel to provide them with the technical 6 knowledge, practical experience and personal confidence necessary for world-wide 7 survival and evasion” (DOD, 2005). Elevations at the Rangeley SERE facility range 8 from 1,600 to 3,600 feet MSL and activities include search and rescue operations, as well 9 as joint SERE/ANG operations. This facility lies entirely within the lateral boundaries of 10 the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs.

11 Penobscot Nation

12 The Penobscot Nation holds 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 overlie the entirety of Mount 24 Blue State Park and Rangeley Lake State Park in Franklin County, as well as the 25 vast majority of Grafton Notch State Park in Oxford County. These parks are 26 managed by the Maine Bureau of Parks and Land.

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-41 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 • Six Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) in Maine: Black Brook Flowage, Fahi 2 Pond, Flagg, Spectacle Pond, Strong Pond, and Stump Pond. These areas are 3 managed by the MDIFW.

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

7 • Connecticut Lakes Natural Area (CLNA): The CLNA is a collection of public 8 land including the Connecticut Lakes State Forest, Connecticut Lakes Nature 9 Preserve, Connecticut Lakes WMA, and the Norton Pool Preserve. These lands 10 are owned and managed by the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. The 11 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs overlie more than 14,000 of the 25,000 acres of the CLNA 12 in New Hampshire.

13 Private Land

14 Land under the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs not under federal, military, or state control is in 15 private ownership. The Condor 1 and 2 MOAs overlie numerous small towns in Maine, 16 ranging in population from less than 100 to more than 7,000. The largest of these towns 17 is Farmington, near the southeastern boundary of the Condor 2 MOA, with an estimated 18 2005 population of 7,504 (US Census Bureau, 2006).

19 3.9 Socioeconomic Resources

20 3.9.1 Definition of the Resource

21 Socioeconomics is defined as the basic attributes and resources associated with the 22 human environment, particularly population and economic activity. Economic activity 23 typically comprises employment, personal income, and industrial growth. Impacts on 24 these two fundamental socioeconomic indicators can also influence other components 25 such as housing availability and public services.

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-42 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 In 1994, EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and 2 Low-Income Populations, was issued to focus attention of federal agencies on human 3 health and environmental conditions in minority and low-income communities and to 4 ensure that disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on 5 these communities are identified and addressed. Also, EO 13045, Protection of Children 6 from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, was issued in 1997 to focus attention 7 of federal agencies on assessing environmental health risks and safety risks that may 8 disproportionately affect children and ensure that such risks are addressed.

9 3.9.2 Existing Conditions

10 The Condor 1 and 2 MOAs overlie all or substantial portions of 26 US Census tracts in 11 Franklin, Oxford, Piscataquis, and Somerset Counties in Maine, and Coos County, New 12 Hampshire (Tracts 9604, 9605, 9853, 9856, 9862, 9863, 9864, 9865, 9870, 9901, 9906, 13 9910, 9911, 9912, 9913, 9914, 9951, 9954, 9955, 9956, 9957, 9958, 9959, 9960, and 14 9961 in Maine, and tract 9501 in New Hampshire (Figure 3-5.). The population of these 15 26 Census tracks was 78,088 in 2000. This represents approximately 42 percent of the 16 combined populations of Franklin, Oxford, Piscataquis, Somerset, and Coos Counties 17 (185,456) (Table 3-10).

18 The area underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs has a similar or lower percentage of 19 ethnic and racial minorities (1.8 percent) as compared to Franklin County (2.0 percent), 20 Oxford County (1.7 percent), Piscataquis County (2.2 percent), Somerset County (2.0 21 percent), Coos County (1.9 percent), and the states of Maine (3.0 percent) and New 22 Hampshire (3.9 percent) (Table 3-11). Native Americans were the largest minority group 23 comprising 0.4 percent of the area underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, compared to 24 0.6 and 0.2 percent in the states of Maine and New Hampshire, respectively, 0.5 percent 25 in Piscataquis County, 0.4 percent in Franklin and Somerset Counties, 0.3 percent in 26 Oxford and Coos Counties. Approximately 14.1 percent (10,753 persons) of the 27 population underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs was living below the poverty level in 28 2000, compared to 14.6 percent in Franklin County, 11.8 percent in Oxford County, 14.8

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-43 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 percent in Piscataquis County, 14.9 percent in Somerset County, 10.0 percent in Coos 2 County, 10.9 percent in Maine, and 6.5 percent in New Hampshire.

3 Children (persons under 18 years of age) comprised 23.6 percent of the area under the 4 Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, compared to 23.5 percent in Franklin County, 24.2 percent in 5 Oxford County, 23.4 percent in Piscataquis County, 24.7 percent in Somerset County, 6 22.8 percent in Coos County, 23.5 percent in Maine, and 24.6 percent in New Hampshire.

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-44 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-45 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Table 3-10. Population Data for Franklin, Oxford, Piscataquis, Somerset, and Coos Counties, 2000

Franklin Oxford Somerset New Coos Condor Maine County County Piscataquis County County Hampshire County MOA 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% 2 Source: US Census Bureau, 2001a 3

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-46 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Employment

2 According to the 2000 Census, the largest segment (22.6 percent) of the working 3 population underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs was employed in the educational, 4 health, and social services industries. The second largest employment sector was 5 manufacturing, accounting for 21.0 percent of jobs in the area, followed by retail trade 6 (11.5 percent) and arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food service (9.5 7 percent). Together these four employment sectors accounted for 64.7 percent of jobs 8 held by residents. The job market in the area underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs is 9 similar to the job market in the surrounding counties (Franklin, Oxford, Piscataquis, 10 Somerset, and Coos) and the states of Maine and New Hampshire, where the top three 11 employment sectors were also education, manufacturing, and retail (Table 3-11).

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-47 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Table 3-11. Employment Comparison Data, 2000

Franklin Oxford Piscataquis New Coos Condor Industry Maine County County County Somerset County Hampshire County MOA Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Agriculture, forestry, fishing and 16,087 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% hunting, and mining Construction 42,906 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% Manufacturing 88,885 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% Wholesale trade 21,470 3.4% 262 1.9% 557 2.2% 115 1.6% 630 2.7% 23,426 3.6% 360 2.3% 607 1.7% Retail trade 84,412 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% Transportation and warehousing, 26,857 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% and utilities Information 15,294 2.5% 141 1.0% 410 1.6% 120 1.6% 327 1.4% 17,478 2.7% 204 1.3% 441 1.3% Finance, insurance, real estate 38,449 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% and rental and leasing Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and 43,074 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% waste management services Educational, health and social 144,918 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% services: Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food 44,606 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% services Other services (except public 29,182 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% administration) Public administration 27,871 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% 2 Source: US Census Bureau, 2001b 3

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-48 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 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 to living conditions 6 in previous civilizations and may retain cultural and religious significance to modern 7 groups.

8 Archaeological resources comprise areas where prehistoric or historic activity 9 measurably altered the earth or where deposits of physical remains (e.g., arrowheads, 10 pottery) have been discovered. Architectural resources include standing buildings, 11 districts, dams, and other structures of historic or aesthetic significance. Architectural 12 resources generally must be more than 50 years old to be considered for inclusion in the 13 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), an inventory of culturally significant 14 resources identified in the US; however, more recent structures, such as Cold War-era 15 resources, may warrant protection if they have the potential to gain significance in the 16 future and are considered extraordinary in nature. Traditional cultural resources can 17 include archaeological resources, structures, neighborhoods, prominent topographic 18 features, habitats, plants, animals, and minerals that Native Americans or other groups 19 consider essential for the 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 meet one or more of the following criteria (36 CFR Section 27 60.4):

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-49 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 “The quality of significance in American history, architecture, 2 archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, 3 buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, 4 setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and: (1) that are 5 associated with events that have had a significant contribution to the broad 6 patterns of our history; or (2) that are associated with the lives of persons 7 significant in our past; or (3) that embody the distinctive characteristics of 8 a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a 9 master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant 10 and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual 11 distinction; or (4) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information 12 important in prehistory or history.”

13 On 27 November 1999, the DoD promulgated its Annotated American Indian and Alaska 14 Native Policy, which emphasizes the importance of respecting and consulting with tribal 15 governments on a government-to-government basis. This policy requires an assessment, 16 through consultation, of the effect proposed DoD actions may have on protected tribal 17 resources, tribal rights, and Indian lands before decisions are made by the respective 18 services.

19 3.10.2 Existing Conditions

20 Brief Regional History

21 Southwestern Maine and Northeast New Hampshire have been inhabited for thousands of 22 years, perhaps as far back as the last Ice Age, and were populated with Abenaki, 23 Penobscot, and other Indian tribes at the time of the first European explorations. 24 Archeological research has revealed the presence of Native American activity along the 25 Dead River in what is now Somerset County (BPL, 2005), and several pre-historic 26 archeological sites in this area are listed on the National Register of Historic Places as 27 contributing to past Indian and proto-Indian cultures (Appendix E).

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-50 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Northern New England remained sparsely populated throughout the early colonial period, 2 with scattered settlements in the 17th and 18th centuries. Growth in the fur trade brought 3 hunters and trappers to the area, and prompted trade between these settlers and Native 4 American tribes. Conflict between Indian and European forces was common throughout 5 this period, which was marked by King Philip’s War, the French and Indian War, and the 6 Revolutionary War. In 1775, Benedict Arnold led a force of more than 1,000 men from 7 the Kennebec River to Quebec City to conduct an ultimately unsuccessful attack on 8 British forces in Quebec City. His expedition passed through the rugged terrain of 9 modern Franklin and Somerset County (BPL, 2005).

10 The region underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs retains its rural qualities today, and is 11 characterized by small towns, large land preserves, and abundant forests. The forest 12 products industry has played an important role in the region’s history, economy, and 13 culture, and “many large blocks of industrial timberland remain[ing] today within the 14 region” (BPL, 2005). The CLNA was created from the sale of land owned by the 15 International Paper Company (NHFG, 2006). Recreation has also played an important 16 role in shaping the region. First constructed in the 1920s and 1930s, the Appalachian 17 Trail extends more than 2,170 miles along the Appalachian Mountains from Georgia to 18 Mount Katahdin, in Piscataquis County, and crosses through the portions of, Franklin, 19 Oxford, Piscataquis, and Somerset Counties that underlie the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs. 20 Hiking, skiing, whitewater boating, hunting, and other recreational activities are 21 common, and help drive the area’s economic activity, as evidenced by the large number 22 of residents employed in the Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation, and Food 23 category (see Section 3.9).

24 Native American Resources

25 As described in Section 3.8, the Penobscot Nation holds two parcels of Federal Indian 26 Reservation lands underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs: the Alder Stream and 27 Carrabassett Valley properties. Based on information received from the Bureau of Indian 28 Affairs, Eastern Region (Appendix A), the Penobscot Nation was the only Native

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-51 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 American tribe identified in the area underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs. Consultation 2 with the Penobscot Nation to evaluate the cultural significance of these sites is ongoing.

3 Historic Resources

4 According to the NRHP databases and Maine Historic Resources Inventory (Appendix 5 E), a total of 132 listed or eligible properties, structures, historic districts, or 6 archeological sites underlie the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, with the largest number (52) in 7 Franklin County, Maine. Numerous additional historic properties, including 8 archaeological sites and historic structures, are potentially present in the Maine portion of 9 the project area. The Maine Historic Resources Inventory, which lists these resources, 10 was provided by the Maine SHPO on 8 November 2006 in response to an initial data 11 request on 18 October 2006 (Appendix A).

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 The New Hampshire SHPO concurred with this assessment in a response dated 19 16 October 2006 (Appendix A).

Draft Environmental Assessment 3-52 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

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

5 4.1 Airspace Management

6 4.1.1 Significance Criteria

7 Impacts to airspace use are assessed by comparing the projected military flight operations 8 with existing conditions and with forecasted civil aviation activities in the ROI. This 9 assessment includes an analysis of the capability of affected airspace elements to 10 accommodate projected military activities, and a determination of whether such increases 11 would have any adverse impacts on overall airspace use in the ROI. Other considerations 12 include the 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 • compromised air traffic control systems or facilities; or

19 • caused 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. Annual use would not change from current conditions 24 and the projected flights in the MOAs would continue to average approximately 40 25 sorties per month, or two sorties per flying day (an average of 20 flying days per month).

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-1 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 The MTRs would also continue to be used at current levels (22 sorties per month; 2 approximately 1 sortie per flying day).

3 The Proposed Action would have no significant impact on airspace management for the 4 following reasons:

5 • The Proposed Action would not change current use levels within the affected 6 airspace,

7 • The Proposed Action would not significantly congest, restrict, or negatively affect 8 the movement of other air traffic in the region. IFR pilots are currently 9 acclimated to the inaccessibility of the IR 850/1/2 during military training,

10 • the Proposed Action would not change accessibility of IR 850/1/2 to IFR traffic. 11 Although the creation of the Condor Low MOA would cause a minor restriction 12 for IFR traffic within the active MOA, two sorties per flying day would activate 13 the Condor Low MOA for only 1 to 2 hours per flying day. This translates to loss 14 of access to the active MOA for IFR traffic for 4 to 8 percent of each flying day. 15 IFR traffic would have unrestricted access to the Condor Low MOA at all other 16 times.

17 • The Proposed Action would not use or interfere with any airfields underlying the 18 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs. The 102 FW would continue to maintain 19 a minimum altitude of 1,500 ft AGL within 7 NM of Rangely airfield. Depending 20 on the volume of civilian air traffic, the 102 FW may be required to establish 21 avoidance procedures below 700 feet AGL within the Class E airspace 22 surrounding the Greenville and Central Maine airfields.

23 • The RR-188 training chaff and flares that would be used in the proposed Condor 24 Low and High MOAs do not interfere with FAA radar.

25 • The potential would exist for civilian pilots to occupy the same airspace as 26 military aircraft conducting low altitude training in the proposed Condor Low 27 MOA, but pilots at these airports are accustomed to low-level military overflights

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-2 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 in these areas and are accustomed to operating under VFR. Four of the airfields 2 underlying the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs currently are within low- 3 level MTR corridors. Based on the current use of VR, the Proposed Action would 4 not significantly increase the chance for mid-air collisions with civilian aircraft 5 (for further discussion of aircraft mishaps refer to Section 4.2).

6 • In a letter dated 31 October 2006, the USFWS indicated their concern with 7 deconfliction of low-altitude airspace for their fixed-wing aircraft during aerial 8 species counts (Appendix A). The 102 FW has provided a contact person at 9 NEADS, the airspace scheduling authority, for the purposes of coordinating all 10 airspace deconfliction (Section 7.0).

11 4.1.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 12 Alternative

13 The Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged Alternative 14 reflects all aspects of the Proposed Action, except the flight floor of Condor 2 MOA 15 would remain 7,000 feet MSL (between approximately 2,800 and 6,300 feet AGL). No 16 low-altitude sorties would be conducted in the Condor 2 MOA; therefore there would be 17 no low-altitude flights over the Gadabout Gaddis airport. Based on the few number of 18 sorties per month, the location of four of the small airports already within low-level flight 19 corridors, and maintaining Condor 2 MOA unchanged, this alternative would not 20 significantly impact civilian airports underlying the proposed Condor Low and High 21 MOAs. Therefore, this alternative would have no significant impact on airspace 22 management.

23 4.1.4 No-Action Alternative

24 Under the No-Action Alternative, the flight floor of the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs would 25 remain unchanged and no new areas would be exposed to low level flights; therefore, the 26 No-Action Alternative would have no impact on airspace management.

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-3 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 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 The Proposed Action would have no significant adverse impact on the mishap potential 14 of aircraft within the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs. The Proposed Action 15 would not change the type of aircraft or the number of sorties within the proposed 16 Condor Low or High MOAs. The change in altitude associated with the proposed 17 Condor Low MOA would not significantly affect safety because civilian pilots in the area 18 are accustomed to sharing airspace with military traffic due to the presence of low-level 19 routes within the existing Condor 1 and 2 MOAs. Therefore, there would be no increase 20 in the mishap potential associated with the aircraft using the Condor Low and High 21 MOAs. Because the proposed mishap rates among active users of the MOA would not 22 change, the Proposed Action would have no significant adverse impact on mishap 23 potential.

24 The Proposed Action would lower the flight floor of the Condor MOAs to 500 feet AGL, 25 which could potentially increase BASH risk. BASH risk associated with military flights 26 to 500 ft AGL within the MTRs have historically been successfully mitigated through 27 preflight review of the AHAS and the BASH-related training modification measures 28 described in Section 3.2.2. The Proposed Action would disperse some of the existing

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-4 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 sorties from within the MTRs to the larger Condor Low and High MOAs. There are no 2 data to suggest that bird concentrations or distributions are significantly different within 3 or outside the MTRs in the affected airspace, so application of the existing bird BASH 4 mitigation measures throughout the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs would likely 5 mitigate any potential increase in BASH throughout the affected airspace. Therefore, the 6 Proposed Action, coupled with the existing bird BASH mitigation measures, would have 7 no significant adverse impact on safety related to BASH. For additional discussion of 8 bird-aircraft strike potential with the Proposed Action, refer to Section 4.7.2.

9 4.2.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 10 Alternative

11 Under this alternative, the flight floor of Condor 1 MOA would be lowered to 500 feet 12 AGL; however, the flight floor of Condor 2 MOA would remain at 7,000 feet MSL 13 (between approximately 2,800 feet and 6,300 feet AGL). Similar to the Proposed Action, 14 the aircraft utilizing this airspace would be the same as current conditions. Therefore, the 15 potential mishap rates would remain about the same and there would be no significant 16 adverse impact on mishap potential.

17 As under the Proposed Action, there would be no significant adverse impact on safety 18 relative to the BASH risk. For additional discussion of potential bird-aircraft strikes 19 under this alternative, refer to Section 4.7.3.

20 4.2.4 No-Action Alternative

21 Under the No-Action Alternative no modifications would be made to the existing 22 airspace, so the mishap and BASH risks would not change. Therefore, the No-Action 23 Alternative would have no impact on safety.

24 4.3 Noise

25 4.3.1 Significance Criteria

26 According to FAA Order 1050.1E (Appendix A), a significant noise impact would occur 27 if the Proposed Action would cause noise sensitive areas to experience an increase in Draft Environmental Assessment 4-5 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 noise of 1.5 decibel (dB) or more at or above 65 day-night sound level (Ldn) noise 2 exposure when compared to the No-Action Alternative for the same time frame. The

3 FAA order also explains that the 65 Ldn threshold does not adequately address the effects 4 of noise on visitors to areas within a national wildlife refuge where other noise is very 5 low and a quiet setting is a generally recognized purpose and attribute. Analyses of the 6 areas within a national wildlife refuge are discussed in Section 4.8, Land Use.

7 Noise analyses typically evaluate potential changes to existing noise environments that 8 are instigated by implementation of a proposed action. These potential changes may be 9 beneficial if they reduce the number of sensitive receptors exposed to unacceptable noise 10 levels. Conversely, changes may be significant if they result in increased exposure to 11 unacceptable noise levels.

12 4.3.2 Proposed Action

13 The Proposed Action would only affect the Project Area during military overflights. 14 Therefore, the Proposed Action would have no impact on ambient noise levels when the 15 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs are not in use. The noise analysis for this EA 16 used MR_NMAP Version 2.2 to assess the potential effects of the Proposed Action on 17 noise levels associated with military overflights. The analytical parameters considered in 18 this analysis included aircraft type, proposed aircraft operations, and a conservative 19 estimate of the amount of time spent within each airspace block (Appendix C).

20 Under the Proposed Action, the existing Condor 1 and 2 MOAs would be combined and 21 divided into Condor Low and Condor High MOAs and the flight floor would be lowered 22 from 7,000 feet MSL (between approximately 2,800 to 6,300 feet AGL) to 500 feet AGL. 23 However, the maximum lateral boundaries for the airspace would remain unchanged. 24 The sorties flown within the VRs underlying the MOAs would occur in altitudes ranging 25 from 500 ft AGL to 3,000 ft AGL, which is the same altitude as the baseline condition.

26 Tables 4-1 and 4-2 present the results of the MR_NMAP noise analysis for the Proposed 27 Action. Appendix C contains the complete modeling analysis. Noise levels would

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-6 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 increase through implementation of the Proposed Action; however, the increase would

2 not surpass the 65 Ldn threshold (FAA Order 1050.1E).

3 Table 4-1 shows sound level values for the existing and proposed MOAs. The average 4 baseline noise level in Condor 1 and 2 MOAs is about 31 dB under existing conditions, 5 and noise events above 65 dBA occur roughly once every two days. The Proposed 6 Action would raise the average baseline noise level under Condor Low and High MOAs 7 to 38 dBA, but the frequency of noise events above 65 dBA would decrease to one every 8 10 days. There would be fewer noise events above 65 dBA under the Proposed Action 9 than under existing conditions because aircraft would be flying lower than under existing 10 conditions, which would make the aircrafts’ audible footprint smaller. Therefore, any 11 given point on the ground would be subject to fewer noise events of 65 dBA than under 12 existing conditions.

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

Uniform Difference Number of Distributed (Baseline Events above Difference (Proposed- Sound Level to SEL of 65 dBA Baseline) in Number of Condition Airspace Ldnmr (dBA) Proposed) per day Events per day Condor 1 Baseline 31.2 MOA 1.0 (0.5 events (Existing Condor 2 for each MOA) condition) 31.1 MOA +6.5 -0.9 Condor Low and Proposed 37.6 0.1 High 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. 14 15 Perceived noise levels can vary as a result of environmental and operational factors along 16 a MTR, so noise impacts were assessed within several segments of VR 0840/1/2 17 individually. Table 4-2 presents the baseline and proposed noise modeling results for the 18 individual segments of the MTRs (i.e. VRs). The values for the MTRs represent the 19 maximum noise levels that would occur along VR 0840/1/2 within the boundary of the 20 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs.

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-7 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 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 (dB) Proposed) SEL of 65 dB Proposed) Baseline Segment 46.1 0.2 -11.8 0 Proposed 01 - 02 34.3 0.2 Baseline Segment 46.1 0.2 -11.8 0 Proposed 02 - 03 34.3 0.2 Baseline Segment 47.3 0.3 -11.8 -0.1 Proposed 03 - 04 35.5 0.2 Baseline Segment 47.3 0.3 -11.8 -0.1 Proposed 04 - 05 35.5 0.2 Baseline Segment 47.3 0.3 -11.8 -0.1 Proposed 05 - 06 35.5 0.2 Baseline Segment 46.1 0.2 -11.8 0 Proposed 06 - 07 34.3 0.2 Baseline Segment 46.1 0.2 -11.8 0 Proposed 07 - 08 34.3 0.2 Baseline Segment 45.2 0.2 -11.8 -0.1 Proposed 08 - 09 33.4 0.1 2

3 Maximum noise levels on the centerline of VR 0840/1/2 associated with the Proposed 4 Action would be below 65 Ldn, and would represent an average decrease of 11.8 dB 5 from existing conditions. This decrease in noise levels would be caused by relocating 6 low altitude sorties out of VR 0840/1/2 and distributing them throughout Condor Low 7 MOA. The decrease in noise would be more than twice the amount that is noticeable to 8 humans, so under the Proposed Action a ground-based noise receptor underneath VR- 9 0840/1/2 would recognize a decrease in noise associated with aircraft overflights.

10 4.3.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 11 Alternative

12 Under this alternative, the flight floor of Condor 1 MOA would be lowered to 500 feet 13 AGL; however, the flight floor of Condor 2 MOA would remain at 7,000 feet MSL 14 (between approximately 2,800 feet and 6,300 feet AGL). The potential noise impacts to 15 the areas underlying the proposed Condor 1 MOA under this alternative would be the 16 same as under the Proposed Action (38 dBA). The noise levels underlying Condor 2

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-8 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 MOA would be the same as current conditions (31 dBA). Therefore, similar to the 2 Proposed Action, this alternative would have no significant impact on noise levels 3 underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs.

4 4.3.4 No-Action Alternative

5 Under the No-Action Alternative, the proposed airspace modification would not occur. 6 Existing conditions as described in Section 3.3.2, would remain unchanged. 7 Consequently, the No-Action Alternative would not alter the noise environment beneath 8 the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs.

9 4.4 Air Quality

10 4.4.1 Significance Criteria

11 Section 176(c) of the CAA (implemented by EPA’s General Conformity Rule 40 CFR 12 Part 51 Subpart W) provides the framework for ensuring that federal actions conform to 13 the SIP. Before any Federal agency engages in, supports, licenses, permits, or approves 14 any activity, that agency has a responsibility to ensure that the activity would conform to 15 the applicable SIP.

16 To assess potential impacts on air quality as a result of the Proposed Action, air emissions 17 resulting from the Proposed Action at the 102 FW were calculated and compared with 18 baseline emissions, applicable NAAQS, and the Maine and New Hampshire SIPs. Air 19 quality impacts from a Proposed Action would be significant if they:

20 • Increase ambient air pollution concentrations above any NAAQS;

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

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

23 4.4.2 Proposed Action

24 The Proposed Action would redistribute the existing number of sorties within the 25 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs. The Proposed Action would result in fewer

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-9 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 sorties being flown at low altitudes within the VRs underlying the MOAs, and more 2 sorties being flown at low altitudes within the larger proposed Condor Low MOA. The 3 Proposed Action would not change the altitude of the sorties that would continue to be 4 flown in VR 840/1/2 (i.e., 500 to 3,000 ft AGL).

5 The potential for ground-level air quality degradation is greater for aircraft operating in 6 lower altitudes than for aircraft operating in higher altitudes. There would be minor 7 ground-level air quality impacts associated with re-locating these sorties to a lower 8 altitude within the proposed Condor Low MOA outside VR-840/1/2, but these impacts 9 would be offset by a reduction in low altitude sorties within VR 840/1/2. Because the 10 Proposed Action would effectively re-locate existing emissions within the footprint of the 11 Condor MOAs but would not contribute any new sources of emissions or alter the 12 quantities of any criteria pollutant that would be emitted when compared with existing 13 conditions, the Proposed Action would have no significant effect on air quality.

14 4.4.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 15 Alternative

16 Under this alternative, the flight floor of Condor 1 MOA would be lowered to 500 feet 17 AGL, and the flight floor of Condor 2 MOA would remain 7,000 feet MSL (2,800 to 18 6,300 feet AGL). Similar to the Proposed Action, this alternative combined with the 19 BRAC decisions would cause an overall decrease in the number of low altitude sorties 20 within VR 0840/1/2, but a subset of these sorties would be completed outside VR 21 0840/1/2. These sorties would be completed within the larger Condor 1 MOA. The air 22 quality benefits associated with a reduction in low altitude sorties within the VR would 23 offset the corresponding air quality impacts associated with re-locating these sorties 24 within the larger Condor 1 MOA. Air quality in the area underlying the Condor 2 MOA 25 would be similar to existing conditions. This would likely offset any ground-level air 26 quality degradation due to lowering the flight floor of the proposed Condor 1 MOA. 27 Therefore, this alternative would have no adverse impact on air quality in the area 28 underlying the proposed Condor 1 and 2 MOAs.

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-10 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 4.4.4 No-Action Alternative

2 Under the No-Action Alternative, air emissions would remain the same as current 3 conditions. Consequently, implementation of the No-Action Alternative would have no 4 impact on air quality.

5 4.5 Geological Resources

6 4.5.1 Significance Criteria

7 Protection of unique geological features, minimization of soil erosion, and the siting of 8 facilities in relation to potential geologic hazards are considered when evaluating impacts 9 of a Proposed Action on geological resources. Airspace actions typically do not involve 10 land-based construction activities; therefore, the potential impacts associated with a 11 Proposed Action occur from ground disturbing activities including use of ordinance, 12 chaff, and flares. The impacts from chaff and flares can often be avoided or minimized 13 through use of fully-combustible materials.

14 4.5.2 Proposed Action

15 The Proposed Action would have no effect on geology, soils, or topography underlying 16 the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs because the Proposed Action would not 17 involve any ground-disturbing activities.

18 The 102 FW would use chaff and flares during some training exercises, as under current 19 conditions. The total amount of chaff and flares used by the 102 FW would not change 20 as a result of the Proposed Action. The use of chaff and flares within the proposed 21 Condor Low and High MOAs would have no effect on geology, soils, or topography 22 because most of this material does not survive the combustion process and/or is relatively 23 inert (National Guard Bureau, 2002).

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-11 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 4.5.3 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, and the flight floor of Condor 2 MOA would remain 7,000 feet MSL (2,800 to 5 6,300 feet AGL). This alternative would have no effect on geology, soils, or topography 6 underlying the proposed Condor 1 and 2 MOAs because it would involve no ground- 7 disturbing activities. Chaff use would be limited under this alternative to the Condor 1 8 MOA because the flight floor of the Condor 2 MOA would be too high for low-altitude 9 training exercises, where chaff is primarily used. The total number of flares used by the 10 102 FW would not change as a result of the Proposed Action.

11 4.5.4 No-Action Alternative

12 Under the No-Action Alternative, no ground disturbance would occur and, therefore, 13 there would be no effect on geology, soils, or topographic resources.

14 4.6 Water Resources

15 4.6.1 Significance Criteria

16 Water availability, quality, and use; existence of flood plains; coastal resources, and wild 17 and scenic rivers and associated regulations form the basis for the significance criteria for 18 impacts on water resources. An impact on water resources would be significant if it were 19 to violate the terms of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) of 20 1972, the Clean Water Floodplains and Floodways Act of 1977, the National Coastal 21 Zone Management Act of 1972, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts of 1968, and/or the Safe 22 Drinking Water Act of 1974. Specifically, the Proposed Action would be significant if it 23 were to:

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

25 • create or contribute to the overdraft of groundwater, or exceed the safe annual 26 yield of water supply sources;

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-12 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 • adversely affect water quality or endanger public health by creating or worsening 2 health hazard conditions;

3 • create pass-through or interference with a Publicly-Owned Treatment Works 4 (POTW);

5 • threaten or damage unique hydrological characteristics;

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

7 • violate established laws or regulations that protect or manage water resources of 8 an area.

9 4.6.2 Proposed Action

10 The Proposed Action would have no effect on water resources because it would not alter 11 the quantity or quality of surface water or groundwater under the proposed Condor Low 12 or High MOAs. Because the Proposed Action would not require any discharge to surface 13 waters, or withdrawal of either surface water or groundwater, the Proposed Action would 14 have no effect on water quality or quantity. No floodplains would be altered as a result of 15 the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would not overlap Maine’s or New 16 Hampshire’s Coastal Zone, nor would it overlap a federally-designated wild and scenic 17 river.

18 4.6.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 19 Alternative

20 This alternative would have no effect on water resources because it would not alter the 21 quantity or quality of surface water or groundwater under the Condor 1 or 2 MOAs, nor 22 would it affect floodplains, coastal resources, or wild and scenic rivers within either of 23 the MOAs.

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-13 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 4.6.4 No-Action Alternative

2 Under the No Action Alternative, the existing Condor 1 and 2 MOAs would remain 3 unchanged. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no impact on water 4 resources.

5 4.7 Biological Resources

6 4.7.1 Significance Criteria

7 The ANG significance criteria for assessing impacts to biological resources are based on 8 four major elements:

9 • The importance of the resource, in legal, commercial, recreational, ecological or 10 scientific terms;

11 • The proportion of the resource that would be affected, relative to its abundance in 12 the region;

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

14 • The duration of the ecological consequences.

15 Specifically, the ANG considers impacts to biological resources to be significant if 16 important species or habitats (i.e., species or habitats considered significant by state or 17 federal natural resource agencies) are adversely affected over relatively large areas; a 18 large proportion of an important species or habitat within a region is adversely affected; 19 or if disturbances cause significant reductions in population size or distribution of an 20 important species. The duration of an impact also affects its significance level. For 21 example, temporary impacts (i.e., noise associated with construction) are typically 22 considered less significant than permanent impacts (land conversion).

23 Potential noise impacts on biological resources resulting from airspace modifications 24 were analyzed by comparing baseline sound levels and sortie rates for the restricted 25 airspace and MTR to the sound levels and sortie rates that are projected to result from the

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-14 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Proposed Action. The potential for disturbance was then evaluated based on the 2 projected change in sound level and, where relevant, the predicted or documented 3 response of the species or species groups to similar changes in sound level.

4 Determination of the significance of potential impacts on vegetation communities, 5 including wetlands, is based on the functions and values of the particular community or 6 wetland. For example, a wetland analysis evaluates the functions (physical, biological, 7 and chemical processes) and values (processes or attributes valuable to society) of a 8 wetland. Potential physical impacts affecting a wetland’s ability to perform its functions 9 and values are evaluated to determine the level of significance of potential impacts.

10 The FAA considers an impact significant to federally-listed threatened and endangered 11 species when the USFWS or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determines that 12 the Proposed Action would likely jeopardize the continued existence of the species in 13 question, or would result in the destruction or adverse modification of Federally- 14 designated critical habitat in the affected area. The presence of federally-listed 15 threatened or endangered species and the possibility of impacts as potentially serious as 16 extinction or extirpation, or destruction or adverse modification of designated critical 17 habitat, are factors weighing in favor of a finding of significance. However, an action 18 need not involve a threat of extinction to meet the NEPA standard of significance.

19 The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize 20 endangered or threatened species. In order to meet this requirement, scoping with the 21 appropriate federal and state natural resources agencies was initiated through the IICEP 22 process. Section 7 of the ESA requires that all federal agencies avoid “taking” 23 endangered or threatened species including jeopardizing their habitats. Procedurally, this 24 includes a consultation process with USFWS that ends with USFWS concurrence with a 25 determination that a Proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or 26 critical habitat or a biological opinion determining the risk of jeopardy from a Federal 27 agency project. If during “informal” consultation with the USFWS it is determined that 28 the Proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat, the 29 consultation process is terminated and no further action is necessary. If the Proposed

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-15 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Action were likely to result in an adverse impact to any threatened and endangered 2 species, then the ANG would enter into “formal” consultation.

3 4.7.2 Proposed Action

4 The Proposed Action would have no significant effect on biological resources. The 5 Proposed Action would not result in any construction or ground disturbance; therefore, 6 the potential effects of the Proposed Action on biological communities would be limited 7 to noise, bird-aircraft collisions, and the use of chaff and flares associated with military 8 aircraft sorties. There would be no effect on vegetation communities and habitats, 9 including wetlands.

10 Effects of Noise on Wildlife

11 Within certain ecological settings, the proximate effects of aircraft training and associated 12 noise may be of sufficient magnitude to result in the direct loss of individuals or reduce 13 reproductive output through diminished vigor and recruitment. The effects of noise and 14 startle effects on wildlife and domestic animals have been examined in a variety of 15 studies and data/literature reviews over the past 30 to 35 years (e.g., Manci et al., 1988). 16 These studies show a wide variety of animal responses to aircraft overflight (or simulated 17 aircraft noise) by different types of animals and also differing responses by the same 18 species under similar conditions. Effects that could result in long-term, population-level 19 adverse impacts such as reduced reproductive success or increased mortality are rare. 20 Most impacts reported appeared to be minor and temporary (e.g., Lamp, 1989) and, when 21 evaluated, did not have acute (near-term) effects on reproduction, mortality, or 22 survivorship.

23 Studies on the effects of noise on wildlife have focused primarily on mammals and birds. 24 Studies on the effects of subsonic aircraft disturbances on ungulates (e.g., pronghorn, elk, 25 and mule deer), in both laboratory and field conditions, suggest that effects are transient, 26 of short duration, and that the animals habituate to the aircraft noise (Workman et al., 27 1992; Krausman et al., 1983; Weisenberger et al., 1996). Documented responses of 28 bighorn sheep to overflights of military jets range from no response to increased heart

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-16 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 rates, minor behavior changes, and vacating of the affected area (Workman et al., 1992, 2 Lamp, 1989). Mule deer responses to helicopter overflights ranged from no movements 3 to moving less than 0.6 miles to unaffected habitats (Krausman et al., 1986).

4 Similarly, raptors and other birds (e.g., waterfowl) have been shown to be relatively 5 unaffected by low-level flights by aircraft: reactions were brief and not detrimental to 6 reproductive success (Lamp, 1989; Ellis et al., 1991). Documented responses of bald 7 eagles and other raptors to aircraft overflights range from no response to startle 8 responses, including movement from the affected area (White and Sherrod, 1973). Lamp 9 (1989) studied the effects of military jet overflights less than 3,000 feet AGL on 10 numerous species of waterbirds and found that reactions ranged from no response to 11 minor behavior changes and vacating of the affected area (Lamp, 1989). Similarly, Black 12 et al. (1984) showed that military jet overflights of less than 500 feet AGL had no effect 13 on colony establishment, colony size, nesting behavior, or breeding success of various 14 species of egrets, cormorant, ibis, and egrets (Black et al., 1984). A study of the effects 15 of low-level air traffic on red-tailed hawks (Anderson, 1997) suggested that individuals in 16 affected areas eventually habituate to low-level air traffic; however, individuals that have 17 not experienced such aircraft activity could temporarily move from the affected areas and 18 leave their nests unattended or dislodge eggs or young during a quick departure.

19 The Proposed Action would not significantly affect wildlife underlying the proposed Low 20 and High Condor MOAs. Since military overflights are currently occurring in the 21 Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOA, although at higher altitudes, and along the existing VRs, 22 resident wildlife is somewhat habituated to the activity. Under the Proposed Action, 23 there would be no increase in the net number of sorties conducted within the MOAs and a 24 relatively small number of sorties (approximately 3) would be conducted each flying day. 25 Some individuals may be temporarily disturbed or startled by increased noise levels 26 and/or low-level overflights, but they would likely habituate to these activities and would 27 not suffer any long-term, adverse effects such as reduced reproductive success or 28 fecundity.

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-17 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Potential for Bird Strikes

2 In addition to noise, the other potential effect of the Proposed Action on wildlife is the 3 possibility of bird strikes. Most birds fly below 500 feet AGL except during migration 4 (Erlich et al., 1988). The potential for bird strikes associated with aircraft operations in 5 the proposed Condor High and Condor Low MOAs is relatively low since the floor of the 6 proposed MOA is 500 feet AGL. When migrating, birds often climb to relatively great 7 heights, possibly to avoid dehydration in the warmer air near the ground. Generally, 8 long-distance migrants fly at elevations between 5,000 and 20,000 feet AGL. The 9 greatest potential for bird strikes would be during spring and fall migration when birds 10 are flying at higher altitudes; however, the Proposed Action would not increase the 11 potential for bird strikes at high altitudes because it would not increase the altitude at 12 which aircraft currently operate, or increase the number of sorties within the affected 13 airspace,.

14 Chaff and Flares

15 The 102 FW would use a minimal amount of chaff and flares during some training 16 exercises. Studies evaluating the environmental effects of the use of chaff and flares 17 indicate that they do not significantly affect terrestrial wildlife for the following reasons 18 (USAF, 1997):

19 • Startle effects from chaff and flare deployment are minimal or insignificant 20 relative to the noise of the aircraft;

21 • Birds and bats are unlikely to be struck in flight or on the ground by debris from 22 chaff or deployed flares due to the small amount and light weight of material 23 ejected and the visibility of the flare; and

24 • Inhalation of flare combustion products or ingestion of chaff components is 25 unlikely to cause adverse effects because of the nontoxic nature of the materials at 26 the expected exposure level.

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-18 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 The primary concern with flares is the increased incidence of fire. Extreme precautions 2 are taken with the use of flares, particularly in times of extreme fire hazard conditions. 3 Flare usage under these conditions is not likely to cause a fire. During periods of high 4 fire hazard, the minimum altitude for flare release (2,000 feet AGL) can be raised, or use 5 can be suspended, to alleviate the risk of flare-induced fires (National Guard Bureau, 6 2002).

7 Effects on Federally-listed Threatened and Endangered Species

8 The bald eagle and Canada Lynx are the only federal species currently known to occur in 9 the proposed project area; however, the USFWS does not anticipate adverse impacts to 10 the Canada Lynx (Appendix A). Breeding bald eagles occur within the area underlying 11 the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs. Activities that disturb foraging eagles, 12 especially during winter, and breeding bald eagles can cause them to expend more 13 energy, which can increase their susceptibility to disease and poor health. The effects of 14 noise on wintering bald eagles have not been thoroughly studied, although studies are 15 more developed than for many wildlife species. Noise produced by pile driving (60 to 75 16 decibels) was considered inconsequential to wintering eagle behavior beyond a distance 17 of 400 m (1,300 ft) in the San Juan Islands, Washington. Forested habitats provide some 18 shelter from noise exposure and individuals occurring within forested habitats are less 19 likely to respond to noise exposure than those in more open habitats. In the proposed 20 Condor High and Low MOA, wintering bald eagles occur within densely forested 21 habitats and so would be somewhat sheltered from noise exposure. Also, low-altitude 22 MTRs (VR and IR) already intersect 9 of the 15 bald eagle nesting areas with no reported 23 bird-aircraft strikes. Considering the relatively few sorties that would occur on a daily 24 basis (approximately two), the Proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect wintering 25 bald eagles. Instantaneous noise levels will be below the 60-75 decibel range, but direct 26 overflights would be of very short duration, therefore the Proposed Action is not likely to 27 adversely affect nesting bald eagles.

28 Although the Proposed Action is unlikely to have significant impacts on bald eagles, the 29 USFWS and MDIFW both expressed concerns over the potential for noise related

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-19 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 impacts on nesting pairs of bald eagles. In order to mitigate these potential impacts, the 2 ANG proposed to implement the following mitigation measures:

3 • establish buffer areas from surface to 1,000 ft AGL with a radius of 0.25 miles 4 from bald eagle nests, and refrain from flying within these buffers from 1 5 February through 31 August, inclusive;

6 • consult with MDIFW to obtain current nesting information on an annual basis at 7 the beginning of each nesting season, and to adjust the bald eagle nesting buffer 8 areas accordingly; and

9 • provide the contact information for a website where bald eagle biologists can 10 check schedules for military sorties within Condor MOA prior to flying annual 11 nest surveys within the MOA.

12 The USFWS concurred with this mitigation in a letter dated 8 January 2007 (Appendix 13 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, and ring-necked duck would be similar to that described above for bald 23 eagles. The forested habitats underlying the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs 24 would provide shelter for all of these species from noise exposure. Third Connecticut 25 Lake was identified by NHNHB as potential common loon habitat and is located under 26 the extreme northwest corner of the Condor 1 MOA. The lake would not likely be 27 subjected to frequent low-altitudes overflights because military pilots prefer to train

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-20 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 closer to the center of MOAs where maneuverability is comparatively greater, so the 2 proposed Project’s effects on common loons would be minimal. There are no known 3 occurrences of the pied-billed grebe, rusty blackbird, or spruce grouse within the area 4 underlying the Condor 1 MOA, so the Proposed Action’s potential to affect these species 5 would also be minimal.

6 Potential impacts on American martin would be limited to noise impacts on birds. The 7 American marten is primarily a forest species, and the forested habitats underlying the 8 proposed Condor 1 and Condor 2 MOAs would provide shelter from noise exposure. 9 The Proposed Action is not likely to significantly affect American martens. The 10 Proposed Action would have no direct effects on habitat for redbelly dace, and the lack of 11 reliable records of this species in the Project Area since 1985 suggests that the species 12 may have been extirpated from the Project Area. Therefore the Proposed Action would 13 have no significant effects on this species.

14 4.7.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 15 Alternative

16 This alternative would result in lower noise levels and fewer low altitude flights than the 17 Proposed Action because the Condor 2 MOA floor would remain at 7,000 feet MSL 18 rather than 500 feet AGL. Accordingly, the effects on vegetation, wildlife, and 19 threatened and endangered species caused by noise and potential bird strikes would be 20 marginally less for the Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 than that 21 described for the Proposed Action.

22 4.7.4 No-Action Alternative

23 Under the No-Action Alternative, no change in flight levels, ground disturbance, or 24 change in training operations would occur. Therefore, the No-Action Alternative would 25 have no effect on vegetation, wildlife, or threatened and endangered species.

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-21 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 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,

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-22 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 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 37 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 • Significant portions of the AT underlying the proposed Condor Low and High 21 MOAs also fall within the existing VR-840/1/2 corridors. ANG activities in the 22 proposed Condor High and Low MOAs would be similar to activities already 23 practiced in the VR.

24 • There would be no increase in the net number of sorties conducted in, or the 25 lateral boundaries of, the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs.

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-23 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 The Proposed Action would introduce additional noise elements to this area; although, 2 for the reasons described above, the impact on the AT would not be significant.

3 White Mountain National Forest

4 Approximately 1,260 acres of the White Mountain National Forest underlies to proposed 5 Condor Low and High MOAs. The White Mountain National Forest is managed by the 6 USFS. The USFS has prepared a Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan or 7 LRMP) for this forest. The Forest Plan was most recently updated in 2005, and its 8 primary goals are to “manage to sustain a healthy forest and use the latest scientific 9 knowledge to restore the land and forest where needed; provide recreation and other 10 opportunities, experiences, and benefits, some of which are not readily available 11 elsewhere; and recognize the Forest's support to local economies while realizing the 12 importance to society of a natural appearing landscape distinct from the human altered 13 environments otherwise dominant in the East” (USFS, 2005). The Proposed Action is 14 consistent with the mission, goals, objectives, and management prescriptions of the White 15 Mountain National Forest LRMP, as amended, because the portion of the White 16 Mountain National Forest that underlies the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs sits 17 along the southwestern edge of the airspace. While military aircraft could theoretically 18 operate anywhere within the MOA, pilots would tend to avoid the edges of the airspace, 19 making overflights of the Forest less likely.

20 The Proposed Action would introduce additional noise elements to this area; although, 21 for the reasons described above, the impact would not be significant.

22 Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

23 Approximately 3,860 acres of the Lake Umbagog NWR underlie’s the proposed Condor 24 Low and High MOAs and is administered by USFWS. The overall goals of the Lake 25 Umbagog NWR are to “conserve wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public 26 benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various 27 migratory bird treaties and conventions,” and “for migratory bird management purposes” 28 (USDA, 2006).

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-24 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 USFWS began preparation of the refuge’s primary management guidance, the 2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), in 2002. Preparation of the Draft CCP is 3 currently underway, but no CCP document has been made available to the public. A user 4 survey, part of the CCP process, is available. Respondents to this survey identified 5 “experiencing a serene environment” as an important reason for visiting the preserve, and 6 also identified the Dead River portion of the preserve (the area that falls within the 7 proposed Condor MOAs) as an important location for “experiencing a serene 8 environment” (USGS, 2005).

9 Proposed ANG activities in this area would be similar to activities already practiced in 10 the VR. 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. The Proposed Action is consistent with the mission of the Lake 13 Umbagog NWR because the portion of Lake Umbagog NWR that underlies the proposed 14 Condor Low and High MOAs also falls within the existing VR-840/1/2 corridors.

15 The Proposed Action would introduce additional noise elements to this area; although, 16 for the reasons described above, the impact would not be significant.

17 US Navy SERE Facility

18 The US Navy SERE Facility near Rangeley is run by DoD. It offers instruction to help 19 military personnel evade capture by enemy forces, maintain morale during captivity, and 20 successfully execute rescue operations. The SERE facility conducts joint operations with 21 ANG units, and is not a noise-sensitive environment. The SERE facility also underlies 22 the existing VR-842 and IR-850/1/2 MTRs, where existing ANG activities are similar to 23 those in the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs. The Proposed Action would not 24 affect use of the SERE facility.

25 State and Private Lands

26 Various state and privately held lands underlie the proposed Condor Low and High 27 MOAs, including state parks and public reserve land (in Maine).

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-25 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 In Maine, public reserve lands are managed for multiple uses under a "dominant use" 2 system which establishes separate “dominant” and “secondary” use priorities. This 3 system generally gives priority to sensitive natural resources and backcountry recreation, 4 and recognizes “opportunities for solitude” as either dominant or secondary uses in many 5 PRL units (BPL, 2000). The Proposed Action would introduce additional noise elements 6 to this area; although, for the reasons described in Section 4.3, the impact would not be 7 significant.

8 The overall vision of the CLNA is that visitors will be able “to engage in remote, wild 9 lands recreational experiences and enjoy traditional pursuits including hunting, fishing, 10 trapping, snowmobiling and nature observation.” The Stewardship Goal for the 11 Connecticut Lakes Nature Area emphasizes management of an old-growth ecosystem 12 with minimal human intervention. The Stewardship Goal for the Connecticut Lakes 13 WMA is to manage “wildlife habitats that provide for game and non-game wildlife 14 species native to the Connecticut Lakes Ecoregion… with emphasis on those species 15 considered to be rare or of conservation concern” (NHFG, 2006).

16 The Proposed Action is consistent with the mission and management goals of state- 17 owned public lands, as well as private lands, for the following reasons:

18 • The Proposed Action would increase overall noise levels by approximately 6 dB 19 to approximately 37 dB, but noise levels would remain well below Ldnmr 55 dB, 20 the recommended DNL to protect public health and welfare, including annoyance, 21 in areas where quiet is a recognized use (USEPA, 1974).

22 • Large amounts of state and private land in the Condor MOA also fall within the 23 existing VR-840/1/2 corridor. ANG activities in the proposed Condor MOA 24 would be similar to activities already practiced in the routes.

25 • The Proposed Action would not increase the net number of sorties conducted 26 within the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs, nor would it expand the lateral 27 boundaries of the MOA.

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-26 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 As with the White Mountain National Forest, the CLNA is also at the edge of the 2 proposed Condor MOAs (Figure 3-4). While military aircraft could theoretically operate 3 anywhere within the MOA, pilots would tend to avoid the edges of the airspace, making 4 overflights of the CLNA less likely.

5 The Proposed Action would introduce additional noise elements to other state and public 6 lands; although, for the reasons described above, the impact would not be significant.

7 4.8.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 8 Alternative

9 Under this Alternative, the flight floor of the existing Condor 1 MOA would be lowered 10 to 500 feet AGL; however the flight floor of the existing Condor 2 MOA would remain at 11 7,000 feet MSL (between approximately 3,800 and 6,300 feet AGL). The overall effects 12 of this alternative on land use would be identical to the effects of the Proposed Action 13 under Condor 1 MOA. This area includes a portion of the AT, White Mountain National 14 Forest, Lake Umbagog NWR, the US Navy SERE Facility, and the CLNA. Land use in 15 the area under the existing Condor 2 MOA would be unaffected. This area includes the 16 cities of Farmington and Bingham (combined 2005 estimated population of 8,500), a 17 portion of the AT, the Spectacle Pond and Fahi Pond WMAs, and other state-owned 18 lands.

19 4.8.4 No-Action Alternative

20 Under the No-Action Alternative, no change in training operations would occur. 21 Therefore, the No-Action Alternative would have no effect on land use.

22 4.9 Socioeconomic Resources

23 4.9.1 Significance Criteria

24 The significance of population and expenditure impacts are assessed in terms of their 25 direct effects on the local economy and related effects on other socioeconomic resources 26 (e.g., housing). The magnitude of potential impacts can vary greatly depending on the 27 location of a Proposed Action. For example, implementation of an action that creates 10 Draft Environmental Assessment 4-27 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 employment positions may be unnoticed in an urban area, but may have significant 2 impacts in a more rural region. If potential socioeconomic impacts would result in 3 substantial shifts in population trends, or adversely affect regional spending and earning 4 patterns, they would be significant.

5 Under EO 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 6 Populations and Low-Income Populations) and 13045 (Protection of Children from 7 Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks), socioeconomic impacts are assessed for 8 potential disproportionate effects on minority and low-income communities and children, 9 respectively.

10 4.9.2 Proposed Action

11 The Proposed Action would not result in any change in the number of personnel, or 12 require the relocation of personnel at the 102 FW, nor involve any new construction. 13 Therefore, there would be no significant impact on area population or employment.

14 To comply with EO 12898, ethnicity and poverty status in the study area were examined 15 and compared to county and state statistics to determine if any minority or low-income 16 groups could be disproportionately affected by the Proposed Action. This review 17 indicated that the proportion of low-income persons and minorities underlying the 18 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs is less than or similar to overall county and state 19 levels. The only identified potential impact to the area underlying the MOA would be 20 noise. The noise analysis (see Section 4.2) concluded that no individuals would be 21 exposed to noise levels above DNL 65 dB and that the Proposed Action would not have a 22 significant adverse noise-related effect on local residents. Therefore, there would be no 23 significant adverse impact on these populations.

24 In addition, EO 13045 requires that Federal agencies identify and assess environmental 25 health and safety risks that might disproportionately affect children. The Proposed 26 Action would not produce any significant noise, health, or safety impacts; consequently, 27 the Proposed Action would not pose any significant adverse or disproportionate 28 environmental health risks or safety risks to children.

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-28 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 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 would be 5 similar to, but less than, the Proposed Action; therefore, it would have no significant 6 adverse impacts on socioeconomics or disproportionately adverse effects on minority or 7 low-income populations or children.

8 4.9.4 No-Action Alternative

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

10 4.10 Cultural Resources

11 4.10.1 Significance Criteria

12 Both federal and state laws regulate the management and control of cultural resources. 13 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act empowers the Advisory Council on 14 Historic Preservation to comment on federally initiated, licensed, or permitted projects 15 affecting cultural sites listed or eligible for inclusion on the National Register. 16 Ordinarily, determinations of eligibility for National Register listing (made in 17 consultation between federal agencies and the SHPO) are used as a means to distinguish 18 properties that possess significance regarding American history, architecture, 19 archaeology, engineering, or culture from those of lesser importance.

20 This analysis considers both direct and indirect impacts to cultural resources. Direct 21 impacts include:

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

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

24 • addition of visual, audible, or atmospheric disturbances that are out of character 25 with the property or its setting; or,

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-29 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 • neglect of the resource resulting in its destruction or deterioration.

2 Direct impacts are assessed by considering the proximity of ANG activities to the cultural 3 resource sites. Indirect impacts result primarily from the effects of project-induced 4 population increases and the resulting need to develop new housing areas, utilities 5 services, and other support functions necessary to accommodate population growth. 6 These activities and their subsequent use have the potential to affect cultural resources.

7 The ANG considers impacts to Native American resources to be significant if the effect 8 of a Proposed Action has the potential to significantly affect protected tribal resources, 9 tribal rights, or Indian lands.

10 4.10.2 Proposed Action

11 The Maine and New Hampshire SHPOs, tribal historic preservation officers (THPOs), 12 and local Native American tribes will have the opportunity to comment on this EA 13 pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the IICEP. Since 14 there are no land-based activities associated with the Proposed Action, the only potential 15 effect of the Proposed Action on cultural resources underlying the proposed Condor High 16 and Low MOAs would be from noise and/or vibrations caused by sorties. The lateral 17 boundaries of the proposed Condor MOAs would constitute the Area of Potential Effect 18 (APE) of the Proposed Action on cultural resources.

19 Historic Resources

20 The Proposed Action would have no significant effect on existing or eligible cultural 21 resources within the APE for the following reasons:

22 • the Proposed Action would not involve any physical destruction, damage, or 23 alteration of any part of any cultural properties;

24 • the Proposed Action would not isolate or alter the character of the setting of any 25 cultural properties;

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-30 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 • the Proposed Action would not result in any deterioration or destruction of any 2 cultural properties through neglect;

3 • although the Proposed Action would introduce visual and audible elements that 4 are out of character with these cultural properties, these effects would be 5 negligible since the sorties would only be visible from any given cultural resource 6 for less than a few minutes per flying day and the overall noise level would

7 increase by only approximately 6 dB and remain well below Ldnmr 55 dB 8 (approximately 37 dB); and

1 9 • the instantaneous maximum noise level (Lmax) on the surface for an F-15 flying 10 at 500 feet AGL is 115.7 dB; which is below the 130+ dB range typically 11 associated with structural damage from noise vibrations. Noise levels in excess of 12 110 dB, however, may result in secondary vibrations, such as rattling of pictures, 13 windowpanes, or dishes (Wyle Acoustics Group, 2003). These impacts would 14 have a short duration (15-20 seconds) and then noise levels would return to 15 ambient conditions.

16 All of the listed and eligible historic properties, including archaeological sites and 17 historic structures, underlying the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs are located in 18 Maine (Appendix E). In a letter dated 19 October 2006, the New Hampshire SHPO 19 indicated there were no cultural resources underlying the Condor 1 MOA. Low-level 20 sorties would not adversely affect historic sites or districts, nor would it affect the 21 integrity of the recorded, or any unrecorded, archaeological sites within the APE. The 22 associated noise-generated vibrations would not be sufficient to cause any structural 23 damage. Therefore, the data recovery potential (potential for scientific study) of any sites 24 would not be affected. Maine and New Hampshire SHPO concurrence with these 25 findings is currently pending.

1 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. Draft Environmental Assessment 4-31 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Native American Resources

2 The Proposed Action would have no adverse effect on existing Native American 3 resources within the APE for the following reasons:

4 • The Proposed Action would not involve any physical destruction, damage, or 5 alteration of any part of any Native American properties, specifically the two 6 blocks of land owned or held in trust for the Penobscot Nation;

7 • Although the Proposed Action would increase overall noise levels by 8 approximately 6 dB, the overall noise level would remain well below Ldnmr 55 9 dB, the recommended DNL to protect public health and welfare, including 10 annoyance, in areas where quiet is a recognized use (USEPA, 1974).

11 • The Alder Stream property falls within the existing IR-800 MTR corridor, while a 12 portion of the Carrabassett Valley property falls within the VR-842 MTR 13 corridor. ANG activities in the proposed Condor MOA would be similar to 14 activities already practiced in the MTRs.

15 Consultation with the Penobscot Nation is currently ongoing. For the reasons described 16 in the Historic Resources section above, the Proposed Action would have no significant 17 impact on historic Native American resources within the APE. If any traditional 18 ceremonies would be particularly sensitive to noise from aircraft overflights, the 19 Penebscot Nation may contact the NEADS to coordinate training sorties to the greatest 20 extent possible to minimize the potential disruption (refer to Section 7 of the EA for the 21 specific contact information).

22 4.10.3 Lower Airspace in Condor 1 MOA with Condor 2 MOA Unchanged 23 Alternative

24 This alternative would have similar impacts to the Proposed Action, except that noise 25 levels and the potential for vibration in the area underlying the existing Condor 2 MOA 26 would remain unchanged.

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-32 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 4.10.4 No-Action Alternative

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

Draft Environmental Assessment 4-33 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 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.

Draft Environmental Assessment 5-1 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 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 Analysis Condor 2 MOA Required Unchanged Alternative Airspace No significant No significant effect No effect No Management effect Safety No significant No significant effect No effect No effect Noise Minor increase in Same as Proposed Action No effect Yes average noise except in Condor 2 where levels outside VR noise levels would not 840/1/2; decrease change in noise levels within VR 840/1/2. Air Quality Minor negative Same as Proposed Action No effect Yes effect except in Condor 2 where air quality would not change. Geological No effect No effect No effect No Resources Water No effect No effect No effect No Resources Biological No significant No significant effect No effect No Resources effect Land Use No effect No effect No effect No Socioeconomics No effect No effect No effect No Cultural No effect No effect No effect No Resources 2

3 Geographical Extent of Analysis

4 The geographic area of concern for a cumulative impacts analysis is typically defined by 5 the extent of the influence of a potential action and its alternatives (CEQ, 1997). The 6 extent of influence of the Proposed Action and its Alternative with respect to the relevant 7 resources for this cumulative impacts analysis is limited to the airspace within the 8 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs and the lands underlying these proposed MOAs.

9 Time Frame for Analysis

10 CEQ guidelines require that potential cumulative impacts be considered over a specified 11 time period (i.e., from past through future). In order to assess the influence of a given 12 action, a cumulative impact analyses should be conducted using existing, readily

Draft Environmental Assessment 5-2 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 available data and the scoping of the cumulative impact analysis should be defined, in 2 part, by data availability.

3 The appropriate time for considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 4 projects can be the design life of a project, or future time frames used in local master 5 plans and other available predictive data. The impacts of past actions have been 6 considered in the analysis of this EA in establishing the baseline against which the 7 Proposed Action is compared.

8 5.1.2 Cumulative Effects Analysis

9 There are no reasonably foreseeable state, county, or local projects with the potential for 10 cumulative impacts when combined with the Proposed Action. The ANG contacted the 11 state, county, and local planning offices in order to identify projects with the potential to 12 cumulatively impact the area underlying the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs. 13 The Maine Land Use Regulation Commission oversees the unorganized territories (areas 14 outside the incorporated towns) in northern Franklin County. A wind farm has been 15 proposed in the area surrounding Reddington Township; however, the proposal has not 16 been approved by the state permitting board and therefore is not considered to be a 17 reasonably foreseeable action for the purposes of this assessment.

18 Additionally, the ANG contacted the following county and local planning offices in order 19 to identify projects with the potential to cumulatively impact the area underlying the 20 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs:

21 • Maine County Planning Offices: Oxford, Franklin, Somerset, and Piscataquis 22 Counties;

23 • New Hampshire County Planning Offices: Coos County;

24 • Maine Local Planning Offices: There are 26 towns underlying the proposed 25 Condor Low and High MOAsTowns of Andover and Byron (Oxford County); 26 Towns of Rangeley and Farmington (Franklin County); Town of Solon (Somerset 27 County); and the Towns of Shirley Mills and Wellington (Piscataquis County).

Draft Environmental Assessment 5-3 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 There were no towns in New Hampshire underlying, or in the vicinity of, the proposed 2 Condor 1 MOA; therefore, no local planning offices in New Hampshire were contacted.

3 There is one federal project with the potential for synergistic effects with the Proposed 4 Action. Based on the 2005 BRAC Commission decisions, current users of the proposed 5 Condor Low and High MOAs from Barnes, Bradley, and Syracuse ANG bases would be 6 realigned and no longer train in the proposed Condor MOAs. These realignments would 7 remove the A-10 and P-3 aircraft as users from the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs (see Section 8 2.4)

9 Table 5-2 describes the future utilization of the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs 10 and VR-840/1/2 following implementation of the 2005 BRAC Commission decisions. 11 The Condor Low and High MOAs and underlying VRs would support approximately 348 12 sorties per year compared to 744 sorties per year under current conditions (see Table 2- 13 1). Each sortie would spend approximately 15 to 35 percent of their time (4-14 minutes 14 per sortie) below 3,000 feet AGL. On average, approximately two training missions 15 would be scheduled each weekday. Depending on the type of mission, multiple sorties 16 may be conducted during each training mission. Typically, the Condor Low and High 17 MOAs would not be scheduled on weekends or holidays.

Draft Environmental Assessment 5-4 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 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 F-15 F-16 KC-135/KC-10 Proposed Condor Low and High MOAs Sorties/Year 96 192 12 Type BFM/ACM/ACBT/ BFM/ACM/ACBT/AHC/ N/A AHC/INT/LOWAT INT/PGM/HADB/HARB/ LOWAT/CAS/FAR/SAR Sortie Length 25-40 minutes 25-40 minutes 45-60 minutes Altitude/Time 500 – 1,000 feet AGL/5% 500 – 1,000 feet AGL/15% 5,000+ feet AGL/ spent (%) 1,000 – 3,000 feet AGL/10% 1,000 – 3,000 feet AGL/20% 100% 3,000 – 5,000 feet AGL/10% 3,000 – 5,000 feet AGL/20% 5,000+ feet AGL/75% 5,000+ feet AGL/45% VR-840/1/2 Sorties/Year 0 48 N/A Type N/A LOWAT/NAV N/A Sortie Length N/A 15-20 minutes N/A Altitude/Time N/A 500 – 1,000 feet AGL/80% N/A spent (%) 1,000 – 3,000 feet AGL/20% 4 Source: Otis ANG Base Utilization Data, 2006.

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

9 Cumulative Effects on Noise

10 The Proposed Action would effectively redistribute existing low-altitude military air 11 traffic from within VR0840/1/2 throughout the proposed Condor Low MOA. The 12 decisions would decrease the total number of sorties that would occur within the 13 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs. Table 5-3 compares sound level values under 14 existing conditions to sound level values under the combined effects of the Proposed 15 Action and the BRAC decisions (See Appendix B for the detailed noise analysis).

Draft Environmental Assessment 5-5 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Table 5-3. Cumulative Impacts on Uniform Distributed Sound Levels within the 2 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 Baseline 31.2 0.5 MOA (Existing Condor 2 condition) 31.1 0.5 MOA -1.0 Proposed Condor +5.9 Action Low and 37.1 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. 3

4 The Ldnmr in Condor 1 and 2 MOAs is approximately 31 dB under existing conditions, 5 and noise events above 65 dBA occur roughly once every two days. The Proposed

6 Action combined with the BRAC decisions would raise the Ldnmr under Condor Low and 7 High MOAs to approximately 37 dBA, but eliminate noise events above 65 dBA. This

8 would represent an approximately 0.5 dBA decrease in the Ldnmr from the Proposed 9 Action alone (37.6 dBA), There would be lower noise levels under the Proposed Action 10 and the BRAC decisions than under existing conditions or the Proposed Action alone 11 because fewer aircraft would operate in the Condor MOAs under the Proposed Action 12 and BRAC decisions than under existing conditions or the Proposed Action alone, and 13 aircraft that fly higher can be heard over greater distances because noise propagates in a 14 line-of-sight direction. As a result of the Proposed Action, aircraft in the proposed 15 Condor Low MOA would fly lower than they do under existing conditions which would 16 make the aircrafts’ audible footprints smaller.

17 The instantaneous noise associated with overhead, low altitude overflights outside VR 18 0840/1/2 would be higher than under existing conditions, but the frequency of overhead, 19 low altitude overflights within VR 0840/1/2 would decrease. VR 0840/1/2 overlaps more 20 than half of the affected airspace, so most of affected airspace would experience a

21 decrease in the frequency of low altitude overflights, The minor increase in Ldnmr and the 22 increase in instantaneous noise associated with overhead, low altitude overflights outside

Draft Environmental Assessment 5-6 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 VR 0840/1/2 would be offset by eliminating noise events above 65 dBA and reducing 2 instantaneous noise associated with overhead, low altitude overflights within VR 3 0840/1/2. Therefore; the Proposed Action and BRAC decisions would not have 4 significant cumulative effects on noise.

5 Table 5-4. Cumulative Impacts on Maximum Centerline Sound Levels within the 6 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 + -11.3 -0.1 01 - 02 34.8 0.1 BRAC Baseline 46.1 0.2 Segment Proposed Action + -11.3 -0.1 02 - 03 34.8 0.1 BRAC Baseline 47.3 0.3 Segment Proposed Action + -11.3 -0.2 03 - 04 36.0 0.1 BRAC Baseline 47.3 0.3 Segment Proposed Action + -11.3 -0.2 04 - 05 36.0 0.1 BRAC Baseline 47.3 0.3 Segment Proposed Action + -11.3 -0.2 05 - 06 36.0 0.1 BRAC Baseline 46.1 0.2 Segment Proposed Action + -11.3 -0.1 06 - 07 34.8 0.1 BRAC Baseline 46.1 0.2 Segment Proposed Action + -11.3 -0.1 07 - 08 34.8 0.1 BRAC Baseline 45.2 0.2 Segment Proposed Action + -11.4 -0.1 08 - 09 33.8 0.1 BRAC 7

8 Cumulative Effects on Air Quality

9 The Proposed Action would have a minor positive effect on air quality under VR-840/1/2 10 and a minor negative impact on air quality within the proposed Condor Low and High 11 MOAs. The BRAC decisions would have a positive effect on air quality throughout the 12 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs. The Proposed Action and BRAC decisions 13 would result in an approximate 82 percent decrease in low altitude sorties within the VR,

Draft Environmental Assessment 5-7 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 but a portion of these sorties would be carried out outside the VRs. Table 4-3 provides a 2 summary of the estimated aircraft emissions that would be generated as a result of the 3 Proposed Action and the BRAC decisions. As shown in Table 5-5, total emissions would 4 be below the existing aircraft emissions for all the criteria pollutants and would not 5 increase ambient air pollution concentrations above any NAAQS. Therefore, emissions 6 from the Proposed Action would not compromise the State of Maine and New 7 Hampshire’s ability to comply with their respective SIPs. The General Conformity 8 requirements do not apply to the Proposed Project because the areas underlying the 9 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs are designated attainment, or unclassifiable, for 10 all major criteria pollutants. The Proposed Action would cause an incremental decrease 11 in ground level air quality, but the combined effects of the BRAC decisions and the 12 Proposed Action would cause a minor increase in air quality throughout the proposed 13 Condor Low and High MOAs.

14 Table 5-5. Summary of Emissions from Aircraft Operations Associated with the 15 Proposed Action and BRAC decisions (tons/year)

# of PM10 / Activities CO NOx SO2 VOCs Sorties PM2.5 Proposed Condor 300 1.47 39.7 0.64 1.58 0.23 MOAs Existing VR-840/1/2 48 0.076 2.28 0.03 0.085 0.008 Total Proposed 348 1.55 42.0 0.67 1.67 0.24 Aircraft Emissions (Proposed Action and BRAC) Existing Aircraft 744 3.60 54.2 1.01 2.7 0.54 Emissions 16 Source: Emissions factors from each aircraft type were obtained from: Jagielski, Kurt D., and Robert J. 17 O’Brien, 1994. Calculation Methods for Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Inventories, USAF Occupational 18 and Environmental Health Directorate, Air Force Material Command, Brooks AFB, Texas, July 1994.

19 Therefore, there would be a minor positive cumulative effect on air quality in the 20 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs.

21 The nexus between the Proposed Action and the BRAC decisions are considered in detail 22 in the analysis of the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action in Section 4, so 23 further analysis of the combined effects of the BRAC decisions and the Proposed Action 24 is not necessary.

Draft Environmental Assessment 5-8 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 5.1.3 Conclusions of the Cumulative Impacts Analysis

2 This EA concludes that the cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and 3 implementation of the 2005 BRAC decisions would be limited to effects on noise and air 4 quality, and would have no significant adverse effects.

Draft Environmental Assessment 5-9 Modification of the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 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.

11 6.1.2 Safety

12 The Proposed Action would have no significant effect on safety. No new aircraft would 13 utilize the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs; therefore, there would be no increase 14 in the mishap potential associated with the aircraft using the Condor Low and High 15 MOAs. Although the Proposed Action would have the potential to increase BASH risk, 16 continued preflight review of the AHAS and the resulting modification of training 17 activities when necessary would mitigate these potential effects. Therefore the Proposed 18 Action would have no significant effect on safety.

19 6.1.3 Noise

20 The Proposed Action would have no significant effect on noise. The Proposed Action 21 would raise the average background noise level under Condor Low and High MOAs to 22 approximately 38 dBA, but noise levels would remain well below the FAA significance- 23 threshold of 65 dB. The instantaneous noise associated with low altitude overflights 24 outside VR 0840/1/2 would be higher than under existing conditions, but these increases 25 would be offset by corresponding decreases in instantaneous noise associated with low

Draft Environmental Assessment 6-1 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 altitude overflights within VR 0840/1/2. Together the Proposed Action and the BRAC 2 decisions would contribute to a beneficial cumulative effect on noise.

3 6.1.4 Air Quality

4 The Proposed Action would have no significant effect on air quality. The Proposed 5 Action, combined with the other BRAC decisions, would result in a decrease in the 6 number of sorties in the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs as well as a 7 redistribution of where those sorties would occur. The Proposed Action alone would 8 result in an incremental decrease in air quality, but the overall decrease in the number of 9 sorties outside the VRs plus the reduction in low altitude emissions within the VRs 10 attributable to the BRAC decisions would likely offset any ground-level air quality 11 degradation due to lowering the flight floor due to the Proposed Action. The General 12 Conformity requirements do not apply to the Proposed Action because the proposed 13 Condor Low and High MOAs are in attainment for all major criteria pollutants, or are 14 unclassifiable.

15 6.1.5 Geological Resources

16 The Proposed Action would have no effect on geology, soils, or topography underlying 17 the proposed Condor Low and High MOAs because the Proposed Action would not 18 involve ground-disturbing activities. The 102 FW would use chaff and flares during 19 some training exercises; however, the total amount of chaff and flares expended would 20 not change as a result of the Proposed Action. The majority of the material within the 21 chaff and flares do not survive the combustion process and/or is relatively inert; 22 therefore, the Proposed Action would have no effect on geological resources.

23 6.1.6 Water Resources

24 The Proposed Action would have no effect on water resources because it would not 25 require any discharge to surface waters, or withdrawal of either surface water or 26 groundwater. No floodplains would be altered as a result of the Proposed Action. The 27 Proposed Action would not overlap Maine’s or New Hampshire’s Coastal Zone, nor 28 would it overlap any federally-designated wild and scenic rivers.

Draft Environmental Assessment 6-2 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 6.1.7 Biological Resources

2 The Proposed Action would have no significant effect on biological resources. The 3 Proposed Action would not result in any construction or ground disturbance; therefore, 4 the potential effects of the Proposed Action on biological communities would be limited 5 to noise, bird strikes, and the use of chaff and flares associated with military aircraft 6 sorties. There would be no effect on vegetation communities and habitats, including 7 wetlands. The Proposed Action would raise the average background noise level under 8 Condor Low and High MOAs to 38 dBA. Increased noise levels and low-level 9 overflights could temporarily disturb wildlife but affected individuals would likely 10 habituate to these activities and would not suffer any long-term adverse effects. The 11 potential for bird strikes is minimal because the Proposed Action would not affect a 12 major avian migratory corridor, and existing mitigation techniques would continue to be 13 applied to further reduce risks of bird strikes. To mitigate potential impacts to bald 14 eagles, the ANG will maintain buffer areas from the surface to 1,000 ft AGL with a 15 radius of 0.25 mile from known bald eagle nests, and refrain from flying within these 16 buffers from 1 February through 31 August, inclusive. The Proposed Action is not likely 17 to adversely affect federally or state listed threatened or endangered species, because the 18 Proposed Action would not alter these species’ habitats.

19 6.1.8 Land Use

20 The Proposed Action would not have a significant effect on land use underlying the 21 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs. The Proposed Action would maintain noise 22 levels well below Ldnmr 55 dB (38 dB), the recommended DNL to protect public health 23 and welfare, including annoyance, in areas where quiet is a recognized use (USEPA, 24 1974), and significant portions of the MOA already fall within the low-altitude MTR 25 corridors where practices similar to the Proposed Action already occur. The Proposed 26 Action is also consistent with the management plans for public lands underlying the 27 proposed Condor Low and High MOAs.

Draft Environmental Assessment 6-3 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 6.1.9 Socioeconomics

2 The Proposed Action would not have any effect on the socioeconomics of the 3 communities underlying the proposed MOA. The Proposed Action would not add or 4 remove permanent or temporary employment or require new construction. The 5 proportion of low-income persons and minorities underlying the proposed Condor Low 6 and High MOAs is less than or similar to overall county and state levels; therefore, would 7 be no significant adverse effect on these populations from the Proposed Action. The 8 Proposed Action would not produce any significant noise, health, or safety impacts; 9 consequently, the Proposed Action would not pose any significant adverse or 10 disproportionate environmental health risks or safety risks to children.

11 6.1.10 Cultural Resources

12 The Proposed Action would not have a significant adverse effect on cultural resources 13 within the APE, as it would not involve any construction, demolition, or ground 14 disturbance that could directly impact cultural resources. The Proposed Action would 15 introduce visual and audible elements that may be out of character with some cultural 16 properties, but these effects would be negligible since the sorties would only be visible 17 from any given cultural property for less than a few minutes per flying day, and the 18 Proposed Action would have an overall positive effect on noise level would increase less 19 than 6 dB and would remain well below the 65 dB threshold (38 dB). Noise levels below 20 this standard protect public health and welfare, including annoyance with an adequate 21 safety margin. Instantaneous noise levels will not reach the range required to damage 22 existing structures (130 dB+); however, some minor secondary vibrations (rattling 23 windows or dishes) may be noticed in areas directly underneath low altitude (500 feet 24 AGL) overflights. The New Hampshire SHPO, in a letter dated 19 October 2006, 25 identified no historic resources underlying the Condor 1 MOA. The Maine SHPO, in a 26 letter dated 8 November 2006, provided a list of all eligible and NRHP-listed historic 27 resources in the counties underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs. Consultation with these 28 SHPOs to obtain concurrence with the finding of “No Adverse Effect” is currently 29 ongoing, as is consultation with the Penobscot Nation.

Draft Environmental Assessment 6-4 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 6.2 Summary of the Proposed Alternative

2 This section compares the environmental effects of the Proposed Alternative with the 3 Proposed Action.

4 6.2.1 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). This alternative would not 8 completely meet the project purpose. The later extent of Condor 1 MOA (40 NM) is not 9 wide enough (60 NM) to allow complete training for lateral defensive movements and 10 intercepts. The impacts to the area underlying the Proposed Condor 1 MOA would be 11 similar to the Proposed Action, including a negligible increase in ground-level noise and 12 a minor decrease in air quality. The instantaneous noise level associated with a low 13 altitude flyover would increase but these events would become less frequent within VR 14 840/1/2. A minor decrease in air quality would occur in Condor 1 as a result of the 15 Proposed Action, but this decrease would not be significant.

16 6.2.2 No-Action Alternative

17 The No-Action Alternative would avoid the negligible impacts on noise associated with 18 the Proposed Action and Alternative. The adverse environmental effects of the Proposed 19 Action are minimal and, therefore, the environmental benefits associated with the No- 20 Action Alternative relative to the Proposed Action are minimal. Moreover, this 21 alternative would not meet the defined purpose and need of the Proposed Action, and 22 would leave the 102 FW unable to meet their LOWAT training requirements.

Draft Environmental Assessment 6-5 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 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 adverse effect No effect adverse effect Safety No significant No significant adverse effect No effect adverse effect Noise Minor adverse Minor adverse impact No effect effect Air Quality Minor adverse Minor adverse impact No effect effect Geological Resources No effect No effect No effect Water Resources No effect No effect No effect Terrestrial Resources No significant No significant adverse effect No effect adverse effect Land Use No effect No effect No effect Socioeconomics No effect No effect No effect Cultural Resources No adverse effect No adverse effect No effect 2

Draft Environmental Assessment 6-6 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 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 4 currently implements, or proposes to implement, to minimize the potential minor adverse 5 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 Ridgely airfield within 7 NM of 12 the airport as per the avoidance requirements in the FLIP (2003).

13 • In order to minimize conflicts with Native American ceremonies and USFWS 14 aerial surveys, these organizations may contact NEADS (Robert Resendez) prior 15 to conducting any ceremonies that would be particularly sensitive to aircraft 16 overflights or low-level flights within the proposed Condor Low MOA. The 17 contact phone number is (313)-334-6726.

18 • The ANG will maintain buffer areas from surface to 1,000 ft AGL within a radius 19 of 0.25 mile from known bald eagle nests, and refrain from flying within these 20 buffers from 1 February through 31 August, inclusive.

21 • The ANG will consult with MDIFW and the USFWS to obtain current bald eagle 22 nesting information on an annual basis at the beginning of each nesting season, 23 and to adjust the bald eagle nesting buffer areas underlying the proposed Condor 24 Low and High MOAs accordingly.

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

Draft Environmental Assessment 7-1 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 • Provide the contact information for a website where bald eagle biologists can 2 check schedules for military sorties within the proposed Condor Low and High 3 MOAs prior to flying annual nest surveys within the MOA.

4 As part of the Proposed Action, the 102 FW will continue to implement these procedures 5 during all training sorties.

Draft Environmental Assessment 7-2 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 8.0 REFERENCES

2 Andersen, D.E., Rongstad, O.J., and W.R. Mytton, 1989. Response of nesting red-tailed 3 hawks to helicopter overflights. Condor 91:296-299.

4 ANG, 2006. Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment for Proposed Aircraft 5 Conversion at the 104th Fighter Wing. Massachusetts Air National Guard. Air 6 National Guard Environmental Division. 30 March 2006.

7 ANG, 2005. Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment for Proposed Coastal 8 Airspace Complex. Georgia Air National Guard. Air National Guard 9 Environmental Division. May 2005.

10 ANG, 1998. Small Project Environmental Assessment Preparation Guide for Air 11 National Guard Projects. Air National Guard, Environmental Division. 12 November 1998.

13 Black, B.B., M.W. Collopy, H.F. Percival, A.A. Tiller, and P.G. Bohall, 1984. Effect of 14 low-level military training flights on wading bird colonies in Florida. Florida 15 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, School of Forestry and Resource 16 Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Technical Report No. 7, 190 17 pp.

18 Bureau of Parks and Land (BPL), Maine Department of Conservation, 2000. Integrated 19 Resource Policy. December 18.

20 ____, 2005. Flagstaff Region Management Plan, Preliminary Planning Document. 21 October 31.

22 Cornell, 2003a. All About Birds: Common Loon. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 23 http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Common_Loon_dtl.html. 24 Accessed 6 December 2006.

25 Cornell, 2003b. All About Birds: Pied-billed Grebe. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 26 http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Pied- 27 billed_Grebe_dtl.html. Accessed 6 December 2006.

28 Cornell, 2003c. Northern Redbelly Dace. 29 http://fish.dnr.cornell.edu/nyfish/Cyprinidae/northern_redbelly_dace.html. 30 Accessed 6 December 2006.

31 Cornell, 2003d. All About Birds: Ring-necked Duck. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 32 http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Ring- 33 necked_Duck_dtl.html. Accessed 6 December 2006.

Draft Environmental Assessment 8-1 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 Cornell, 2003e. All About Birds: Rusty Blackbird. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2 http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Rusty_Blackbird_dtl.html 3 Accessed 6 December 2006.

4 Cornell, 2003f. All About Birds: Spruce Grouse. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 5 http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Spruce_Grouse_dtl.html. 6 Accessed 6 December 2006.

7 DOD, 2005. Fleet Aviation Specialized Operational Training Group, Atlantic, SERE 8 School. Accessed at http://www.fasolant.navy.mil/brunssere.htm

9 ____, 2006. Naval Air Station Brunswick (website). Accessed at 10 http://www.nasb.navy.mil/

11 Ellis, D.H., C. Ellis and D. Mindell, 1991. Raptor responses to low-level jet aircraft and 12 sonic booms. Environmental Pollution 74:53-83.

13 EPA, 2002. National Water Quality Assessment Database: Assessment Data for the 14 State of New Hampshire Year 2002. 15 http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters/w305b_report_v2.state?p_state=NH

16 Erlich, P., D. Dobkin, D. Wheye, and D. Wheye, 1988. Birds in Flight. Audubon Society. 17 242 pgs.

18 FAA, 2005. Regulatory/Non-Regulatory Special Use Airspace Areas. Airspace and 19 Rules, Office of System Operation and Safety. 4 August 2005.

20 Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), 1992. Federal Agency Review of 21 Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues: Volume I, Policy Report, Technical 22 Report. n.p.: FICON 1992.

23 FLIP, 2004. Flight Information Publication AP/1B, Military Training Routes, 10 June 24 2004

25 ____, 2003. Flight Information Publication, AP/1A, Special Use Airspace, 25 December 26 2003.

27 http://www.birdnature.com/flyways.html. Accessed 18 October 2006.

28 Krausman, P.R. and J.J. Hervert, 1983. Mountain sheep responses to aerial surveys. 29 Wildlife Society Bulletin 11:372-375.

30 Krausman, P.R., B.D. Leopold and D.L. Scarbrough, 1986. Desert mule deer response to 31 aircraft. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:756-760.

32 Krausman, P.R., L.K. Harris, C.L. Blasch, K.K.G. Koenen, and J. Francine, 2004. 33 Effects of Military Operations on Behavior and Hearing of Endangered Sonoran 34 Pronghorn. Wildlife Monographs 157:1-41.

Draft Environmental Assessment 8-2 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 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 October 8 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. http://mainegov 21 images.informe.org/dep/blwq/docmonitoring/ 22 305b/2004_Final_305b_Section1.pdf

23 MDIFW, 2006a. Maine Department of Inland Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Homepage. 24 http://www.state.me.us/ifw/

25 ____, 2006b. Maine Department of Inland Fish and Wildlife. Essential Habitat Rule. 26 http://www.state.me.us/ifw/wildlife/etweb/habitat/eshabitatrule.htm. Accessed 23 27 October 2006.

28 MGS, 2005. Surficial Geologic History of Maine, Maine Department of Conservation. 29 www.state.me.us Augusta, Maine.

30 ____, 2005. Bedrock Groundwater Resources Maps. http://mainegov- 31 images.informe.org/doc/nrimc/mgs/pubs/series/bgwr/bgwr-sidebar.pdf

32 National Guard Bureau, 2002. Draft Environmental Assessment for Deployment of Chaff 33 and Flares in Military Operations Areas (Phase II).August 2002.

34 NHDES, 2004. Desingated Uses for New Hampshire Surface Waters. 35 http://www.des.state.nh.us/wmb/swqa/2004/ratings.html

Draft Environmental Assessment 8-3 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, 2006. Connecticut Lakes Natural Area 2 Stewardship Plan. Draft.

3 NPS, 2005. Appalachian National Scenic Trail Strategic Plan.

4 NPS, undated. Wild and Scenic Rivers by State. 5 http://www.nps.gov/rivers/wildriverslist.html

6 NRCS, 2000. State of Maine Catena Key. United States Department of Agriculture. 7 www.me.nrcs.usda.gov.

8 ____, 2006 . United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation 9 Service. http://www.me.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/SoilSurveyProgram.html.

10 NOAA, 2004. Coastal Zone Boundaries. 11 http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/mystate/docs/StateCZBoundaries.pdf

12 Personal Communication, 2006. Captain Jeffrey Beckel, 102 FW. Communication via e- 13 mail dated 11 October and 16 October 2006.

14 Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, 15 Results and Analysis 1966 - 2005. Version 6.2.2006. USGS Patuxent Wildlife 16 Research Center, Laurel, MD

17 Seattle Audubon Society, 2006. Bird Web: American Three-toed Woodpecker. 18 http://birdweb.org/birdweb/bird_details.aspx?id=277. Accessed 6 December 19 2006.

20 Sultzman, L., 1997. Abenaki History. Accessed at http://www.tolatsga.org/aben.html

21 Town of Carrabassett Valley, 2006. Historical View. Accessed at 22 http://www.carrabassettvalley.org/aboutcv/history.asp

23 USAF, 1997. Environmental effects of self-protection chaff and flares. Headquarters Air 24 Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base, VA

25 US Census Bureau, 2006. Subcounty Population Estimates. June 21. Accessed at 26 http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html

27 ____, 2001a. 2000 US Census, Summary Tape File 1. Accessed at 28 http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html

29 ____, 2001b. 2000 US Census, Summary Tape File 3. Accessed at 30 http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html

31 USDA, 2006. Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge. Accessed at 32 http://www.fws.gov/northeast/lakeumbagog/

Draft Environmental Assessment 8-4 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 USEPA, 2006a. Green Book for Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. 2 http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/. Accessed 17 October 2006.

3 ____, 2006b. USEPA AirData. http://www.epa.gov/oar/data/. Accessed 4 October 4 2006.

5 USFS, 2005. White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

6 ____, 2006. White Mountain National Forest At a Glance. Accessed at 7 http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/about/glance.php

8 USGS, 2006. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/migration/altitude.htm. 9 Accessed 18 October 2006.

10 ____, 2005. Stakeholder Survey Results for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge: 11 Completion Report. Open File Report 2005-1378.

12 ____, 1997. USGS Programs in New Hampshire: Groundwater Resources. 13 http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/FS-029-96/#HDR02

14 University of Maine, 2006. PEARL, Amphibians and Reptiles. Senator George J. Mitchell 15 Center for Environmental and Watershed Research, University of Maine. 16 http://pearl.maine.edu/windows/biodiversity/amphibians_checklist.htm3

17 Weisenberger, M.E., P.R. Krausman, M.C. Wallace, D.W. De Young, and O.E. 18 Maughan, 1996. Effects of Simulated Jet Aircraft Noise on Heart Rate and 19 Behavior of Desert Ungulates. Journal of Wildlife Management. 60(1):52-61.

20 White, C.M., and S.K. Sherrod, 1973. Advantages and disadvantages of the use of rotor- 21 winged aircraft in raptor surveys. Raptor Research 7:97-104.

22 Wikepedia, 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_meteorological_conditions. 23 Accessed 17 October 2006.

24 Wisconsin DNR, 2006. American Marten (Martes americana). 25 http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/factsheets/mammals/Marten.htm. 26 Accessed 6 December 2006.

27 Workman, G.W., T.D. Bunch, J.W. Call, R.C. Evans, R.C. Nielson, L.S. and E.M. 28 Rawlings, 1992. Sonic boom and other disturbance impacts on bighorn sheep. 29 Utah State University for Hill Air Force Base, Utah.

Draft Environmental Assessment 8-5 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 1 9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

2 ERM, in consultation with the Air National Guard, prepared this EA. Members of the 3 professional staff are listed below.

4 Air National Guard

5 Lt. Col. Landon Jones III 6 Capt. Jeffrey “Monty” Beckel

7 ERM

8 David Blaha, AICP, Principal-in-Charge 9 Jason Willey, Project Manager, Water Resources 10 William Sadlon, Deputy Project Manager, Safety 11 Kent Adams, Air Space Planner, Airspace Management 12 Yinka Afon, Engineer, Noise and Air Quality 13 Matthew Teitt, Scientist, Biological Resources and Geology and Soils 14 Benjamin Sussman, AICP, Land Use, Socioeconomic, and Cultural Resources

15 TEC, Inc.

16 Mike Lucas, Noise Specialist, Noise

Draft Environmental Assessment 9-1 Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas February 2007 Appendix A

IICEP Consultation Letters and Responses IICEP Consultation Tracking Log Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas

Consultation Phases Agency/Contact Address Phone/Fax/E-mail Initial IICEP Letter Draft EA Final EA Allen M. Lucas Ph: 404-305-5583 Date sent: Date sent: FAA Southern Regional Office [email protected] Reply received: Reply received: N/A 1701 Columbia Ave, Room 550 Major Concerns: Major Concerns: College Park, GA 30337 Earle G. Shettleworth, Jr., Director Ph: 207-287-2132 Date sent: 17 Oct 2006 Date sent: Date sent: Maine Historic Preservation Commission Fax: 207-287-2335 Reply received: 8 Nov 2006 Reply received: Reply received: 55 Capitol Street, State House Station 65 Major Concerns: Provided a Major Concerns: Major Concerns: Augusta, Maine 04333-0065 database of listed and eligible properties James McCohaha, State Historic Preservation Ph: 603-271-3483 Date sent: 17 Oct 2006 Date sent: Date sent: Officer Fax: 603-271-3433 Reply received: 3 Nov 2006 Reply received: Reply received: State of New Hampshire, Department of Major Concerns: SHPO Major Concerns: Major Concerns: Cultural Resources concurred there were no 19 Pillsbury Street cultural resources Concord, NH 03301-3570 underlying the Project area James Sappier, Chief Ph: 207-827-7776 Date sent: 17 Oct 2006 Date sent: Date sent: Penobscot Indian Nation Fax: 207-827-6042 Reply received: none Reply received: Reply received: 12 Wabanaki Way, Indian Island Major Concerns: Major Concerns: Major Concerns: Old Town, ME 04468 Mark Stadler, Director Ph: 207-941-4468 Date sent: 17 Oct 2006 Date sent: Date sent: Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and (Charlie Todd – Bald Reply received: none Reply received: Reply received: Wildlife Eagle biologist) Major Concerns: MDIFW Major Concerns: Major Concerns: 284 State St., State House Station 41 [email protected] participated in bald eagle Augusta, Maine 04333-0065 mitigation agreement Lionel R. Chute, Administrator Ph: 603-271-2214 Date sent: 17 Oct 2006 Date sent: Date sent: New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau Fax: 603-271-6488 Reply received: 24 Oct 2006 Reply received: Reply received: P.O. Box 1856 [email protected] Major Concerns: critical Major Concerns: Major Concerns: Concord, New Hampshire 03301 habitat and listed species underlying the Project area Mark McCollough, Endangered Species Ph: 207-827-5938 Date sent: 17 Oct 2006 Date sent: Date sent: Biologist Mark_McCollough@fws. Reply received: 10 Nov 2006 Reply received: Reply received: U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Maine Field Office gov Major Concerns: Bald Major Concerns: Major Concerns: 1168 Main St. Eagle, Golden Eagle, Old Town, Maine 04468 Peregrine Falcon

1/12/2007

16 October 2006 Reference: 0020538.81.01

Earle G. Shettleworth, Jr., Director Maine Historic Preservation Commission 55 Capitol Street, State House Station 65 Augusta, Maine 04333-0065

RE: Section 106 Consultation, Modification of Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas, Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Massachussetts

Dear Mr. Shettleworth:

The Air National Guard (ANG) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to modify the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas (MOAs) (see Attachment 1, Location Map) used by the 102nd Fighter Wing (102 FW), located at Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Massachusetts. This environmental impact analysis process is being conducted in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and in conformity with Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. We are writing this letter to advise you of the ANG’s proposal and to request your assistance in identifying any potential cultural resources issues related to the 102 FW’s proposal.

The current Condor 1 and 2 MOAs extend from 7,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) (between approximately 2,800 feet and 6,300 feet above ground level [AGL]) up to but not including 18,000 feet MSL (between approximately 13,739 feet to 17,321 feet AGL). The 102 FW’s training activities include basic fighter maneuvering, air combat maneuvering, air combat training, advanced handling characteristics, high altitude dive bomb, high angle release bomb, intercepts, low altitude awareness training, navigation, and precision guided munitions.

The 102 FW proposes to combine the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, and divide the combined MOA horizontally into Condor Low MOA and Condor High MOA. The 102 FW also proposes to lower Condor Low MOA’s flight floor from 7,000 feet MSL (between approximately 2,800 to 6,300 feet AGL) to 500 feet AGL. Under this proposal Condor Low MOA would extend from 500 feet AGL up to, but not including, 7,000 feet MSL (between approximately 2,800 to 6,300 feet AGL). Condor High MOA would extend from 7,000 feet MSL up to but not including 18,000 feet MSL (between approximately 13,739 feet to 17,321 feet AGL). The lateral dimensions of the new Condor Low and High MOAs would be the same as the previous Condor 1 and 2 MOAs (60 NM by 60 Mr. Earle G. Shettleworth, Jr. 0020538.81.01 16 October 2006 Page 2

NM). There would be no increases in the number of sorties flown in the new Condor High and Low MOAs as a result of this proposal.

As an alternative to the Proposed Action, the 102 FW is evaluating lowering the flight floor of Condor 1 MOA and leaving the flight floor of Condor 2 MOA unchanged.

To the extent that the Proposed Action would not result in any ground- disturbing activities, we expect that the only potential effects on historic properties would be from noise or vibrations. Please inform me of any listed or National Register-eligible historic properties in the areas underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs that could be affected by this proposed project pursuant to Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act within 30 days. Responses should be directed to Environmental Resources Management (ERM), Inc, located at 200 Harry S Truman Parkway, Suite 400, Annapolis, MD, 21401. I can also be reached at (410) 266-0006 or [email protected].

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

William Sadlon Scientist enc. Site Location Map cc: Landon Jones, ANG file 40 -8 A R D V A N Piscataquis 0 A 0 -8 County C IR

Somerset County 40 VR-841 VR-8

2 / /1 1 0 / 4 0 -8 5 R 8 V Franklin County - 2 R -84 I Coo VR

County

E E

R I

H PROPOSED CONDOR LOW MO

S PROPOSED CONDOR HIGH MOA P MAINE V

M SCOTY ATCAA

R A - 8

4 H 0 / 1

W W /

2 E

N Oxford County

Proposed Condor Low MOA: 500 ft AGL to 6,999 ft MSL Proposed Condor High MOA: 7,000 ft to 17,999 ft MSL Scoty ATCAA: 18,000 ft to 60,000 ft MSL

Legend Proposed Condor MOA Maine Propose MTR Centerlines New Hampshire Condor Low and High MOAs Open Water 0 2.5 5 10 15 and MTR Scale in Miles

200 Harry S. Truman Parkway Suite 400 Annapolis, MD 21401 (410) 266-0006 16 October 2006 (410) 266-8912 (fax) Reference: 0020538.81.01 http://www.erm.com

James McCohaha, State Historic Preservation Officer State of New Hampshire, Department of Cultural Resources 19 Pillsbury Street Concord, NH 03301-3570

RE: Section 106 Consultation, Modification of Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas, Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Massachussetts

Dear Mr. McChohaha:

The Air National Guard (ANG) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to modify the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas (MOAs) (see Attachment 1, Location Map) used by the 102nd Fighter Wing (102 FW), located at Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Massachusetts. This environmental impact analysis process is being conducted in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and in conformity with Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. We are writing this letter to advise you of the ANG’s proposal and to request your assistance in identifying any potential cultural resources issues related to the 102 FW’s proposal.

The current Condor 1 and 2 MOAs extend from 7,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) (between approximately 2,800 feet and 6,300 feet above ground level [AGL]) up to but not including 18,000 feet MSL (between approximately 13,739 feet to 17,321 feet AGL). The 102 FW’s training activities include basic fighter maneuvering, air combat maneuvering, air combat training, advanced handling characteristics, high altitude dive bomb, high angle release bomb, intercepts, low altitude awareness training, navigation, and precision guided munitions.

The 102 FW proposes to combine the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, and divide the combined MOA horizontally into Condor Low MOA and Condor High MOA. The 102 FW also proposes to lower Condor Low MOA’s flight floor from 7,000 feet MSL (between approximately 2,800 to 6,300 feet AGL) to 500 feet AGL. Under this proposal Condor Low MOA would extend from 500 feet AGL up to, but not including, 7,000 feet MSL (between approximately 2,800 to 6,300 feet AGL). Condor High MOA would extend from 7,000 feet MSL up to but not including 18,000 feet MSL (between approximately 13,739 feet to 17,321 feet AGL). The lateral dimensions of the new Condor Low and High MOAs would be the same as the previous Condor 1 and 2 MOAs (60 NM by 60 Mr. James McCohaha 0020538.81.01 16 October 2006 Page 2

NM). There would be no increases in the number of sorties flown in the new Condor High and Low MOAs as a result of this proposal.

As an alternative to the Proposed Action, the 102 FW is evaluating lowering the flight floor of Condor 1 MOA and leaving the flight floor of Condor 2 MOA unchanged.

To the extent that the Proposed Action would not result in any ground- disturbing activities, we expect that the only potential effects on historic properties would be from noise or vibrations. Please inform me of any listed or National Register-eligible historic properties in the areas underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs that could be affected by this proposed project pursuant to Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act within 30 days. Responses should be directed to Environmental Resources Management (ERM), Inc, located at 200 Harry S Truman Parkway, Suite 400, Annapolis, MD, 21401. I can also be reached at (410) 266-0006 or [email protected].

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

William Sadlon Scientist enc. Site Location Map cc: Landon Jones, Air National Guard file 40 -8 A R D V A N Piscataquis 0 A 0 -8 County C IR

Somerset County 40 VR-841 VR-8

2 / /1 1 0 / 4 0 -8 5 R 8 V Franklin County - 2 R -84 I Coo VR

County

E E

R I

H PROPOSED CONDOR LOW MO

S PROPOSED CONDOR HIGH MOA P MAINE V

M SCOTY ATCAA

R A - 8

4 H 0 / 1

W W /

2 E

N Oxford County

Proposed Condor Low MOA: 500 ft AGL to 6,999 ft MSL Proposed Condor High MOA: 7,000 ft to 17,999 ft MSL Scoty ATCAA: 18,000 ft to 60,000 ft MSL

Legend Proposed Condor MOA Maine Propose MTR Centerlines New Hampshire Condor Low and High MOAs Open Water 0 2.5 5 10 15 and MTR Scale in Miles

200 Harry S. Truman Parkway Suite 400 Annapolis, MD 21401 (410) 266-0006 16 October 2006 (410) 266-8912 (fax) Reference: 0020538.81.01 http://www.erm.com

Mark Stadler, Director Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife 284 State St., State House Station 41 Augusta, Maine 04333-0065

RE: Section 7 Consultation, Modification of Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas, Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Massachussetts

Dear Mr. Shettleworth:

The Air National Guard (ANG) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to modify the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas (MOAs) (see Attachment 1, Location Map) used by the 102nd Fighter Wing (102 FW), located at Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Massachusetts. This environmental impact analysis process is being conducted in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and in conformity with Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. We are writing this letter to advise you of the ANG’s proposal and to request your assistance in identifying any potential impacts to state-listed rare, threatened, or endangered species (RTEs) related to the 102 FW’s proposal.

The current Condor 1 and 2 MOAs extend from 7,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) (between approximately 2,800 feet and 6,300 feet above ground level [AGL]) up to but not including 18,000 feet MSL (between approximately 13,739 feet to 17,321 feet AGL). The 102 FW’s training activities include basic fighter maneuvering, air combat maneuvering, air combat training, advanced handling characteristics, high altitude dive bomb, high angle release bomb, intercepts, low altitude awareness training, navigation, and precision guided munitions.

The 102 FW proposes to combine the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, and divide the combined MOA horizontally into Condor Low MOA and Condor High MOA. The 102 FW also proposes to lower Condor Low MOA’s flight floor from 7,000 feet MSL (between approximately 2,800 to 6,300 feet AGL) to 500 feet AGL. Under this proposal Condor Low MOA would extend from 500 feet AGL up to, but not including, 7,000 feet MSL (between approximately 2,800 to 6,300 feet AGL). Condor High MOA would extend from 7,000 feet MSL up to but not including 18,000 feet MSL (between approximately 13,739 feet to 17,321 feet AGL). The lateral dimensions of the new Condor Low and High MOAs would be the same as the previous Condor 1 and 2 MOAs (60 NM by 60 Mr. Mark Stadler 0020538.81.01 16 October 2006 Page 2

NM). There would be no increases in the number of sorties flown in the new Condor High and Low MOAs as a result of this proposal.

As an alternative to the Proposed Action, the 102 FW is evaluating lowering the flight floor of Condor 1 MOA and leaving the flight floor of Condor 2 MOA unchanged.

To the extent that the Proposed Action would not result in any ground- disturbing activities, we expect that the only potential effects on state-listed RTEs would be from noise. Please inform me of any state-listed RTEs in the areas underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs that could be affected by this proposed project pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act within 30 days. Responses should be directed to Environmental Resources Management (ERM), Inc, located at 200 Harry S Truman Parkway, Suite 400, Annapolis, MD, 21401. I can also be reached at (410) 266-0006 or [email protected].

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

William Sadlon Scientist enc. Site Location Map cc: Landon Jones, ANG file 40 -8 A R D V A N Piscataquis 0 A 0 -8 County C IR

Somerset County 40 VR-841 VR-8

2 / /1 1 0 / 4 0 -8 5 R 8 V Franklin County - 2 R -84 I Coo VR

County

E E

R I

H PROPOSED CONDOR LOW MO

S PROPOSED CONDOR HIGH MOA P MAINE V

M SCOTY ATCAA

R A - 8

4 H 0 / 1

W W /

2 E

N Oxford County

Proposed Condor Low MOA: 500 ft AGL to 6,999 ft MSL Proposed Condor High MOA: 7,000 ft to 17,999 ft MSL Scoty ATCAA: 18,000 ft to 60,000 ft MSL

Legend Proposed Condor MOA Maine Propose MTR Centerlines New Hampshire Condor Low and High MOAs Open Water 0 2.5 5 10 15 and MTR Scale in Miles 200 Harry S. Truman Parkway Suite 400 Annapolis, MD 21401 (410) 266-0006 16 October 2006 (410) 266-8912 (fax) Reference: 0020538.81.01 http://www.erm.com

Lionel R. Chute, Administrator New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau P.O. Box 1856 Concord, New Hampshire 03301

RE: Section 7 Consultation, Modification of Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas, Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Massachussetts

Dear Mr. Chute:

The Air National Guard (ANG) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to modify the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas (MOAs) (see Attachment 1, Location Map) used by the 102nd Fighter Wing (102 FW), located at Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Massachusetts. This environmental impact analysis process is being conducted in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and in conformity with Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. We are writing this letter to advise you of the ANG’s proposal and to request your assistance in identifying any potential impacts to state-listed rare, threatened, or endangered species (RTEs) related to the 102 FW’s proposal.

The current Condor 1 and 2 MOAs extend from 7,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) (between approximately 2,800 feet and 6,300 feet above ground level [AGL]) up to but not including 18,000 feet MSL (between approximately 13,739 feet to 17,321 feet AGL). The 102 FW’s training activities include basic fighter maneuvering, air combat maneuvering, air combat training, advanced handling characteristics, high altitude dive bomb, high angle release bomb, intercepts, low altitude awareness training, navigation, and precision guided munitions.

The 102 FW proposes to combine the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, and divide the combined MOA horizontally into Condor Low MOA and Condor High MOA. The 102 FW also proposes to lower Condor Low MOA’s flight floor from 7,000 feet MSL (between approximately 2,800 to 6,300 feet AGL) to 500 feet AGL. Under this proposal Condor Low MOA would extend from 500 feet AGL up to, but not including, 7,000 feet MSL (between approximately 2,800 to 6,300 feet AGL). Condor High MOA would extend from 7,000 feet MSL up to but not including 18,000 feet MSL (between approximately 13,739 feet to 17,321 feet AGL). The lateral dimensions of the new Condor Low and High MOAs would be the same as the previous Condor 1 and 2 MOAs (60 NM by 60 Mr. Lionel R. Chute 0020538.81.01 16 October 2006 Page 2

NM). There would be no increases in the number of sorties flown in the new Condor High and Low MOAs as a result of this proposal.

As an alternative to the Proposed Action, the 102 FW is evaluating lowering the flight floor of Condor 1 MOA and leaving the flight floor of Condor 2 MOA unchanged.

To the extent that the Proposed Action would not result in any ground- disturbing activities, we expect that the only potential effects on state-listed RTEs would be from noise. Please inform me of any state-listed RTEs in the areas underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs that could be affected by this proposed project pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act within 30 days. Responses should be directed to Environmental Resources Management (ERM), Inc, located at 200 Harry S Truman Parkway, Suite 400, Annapolis, MD, 21401. I can also be reached at (410) 266-0006 or [email protected].

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

William Sadlon Scientist enc. Site Location Map cc: Landon Jones, ANG file 40 -8 A R D V A N Piscataquis 0 A 0 -8 County C IR

Somerset County 40 VR-841 VR-8

2 / /1 1 0 / 4 0 -8 5 R 8 V Franklin County - 2 R -84 I Coo VR

County

E E

R I

H PROPOSED CONDOR LOW MO

S PROPOSED CONDOR HIGH MOA P MAINE V

M SCOTY ATCAA

R A - 8

4 H 0 / 1

W W /

2 E

N Oxford County

Proposed Condor Low MOA: 500 ft AGL to 6,999 ft MSL Proposed Condor High MOA: 7,000 ft to 17,999 ft MSL Scoty ATCAA: 18,000 ft to 60,000 ft MSL

Legend Proposed Condor MOA Maine Propose MTR Centerlines New Hampshire Condor Low and High MOAs Open Water 0 2.5 5 10 15 and MTR Scale in Miles Memo NH Natural Heritage Bureau

To: William Sadlon, Environmental Resource Management 200 Harry S. Truman Parkway Suite 400 Annapolis MD 21401

From: Melissa Harty, NH Natural Heritage Bureau Date: 10/24/2006 Re: Review by NH Natural Heritage Bureau NHB File ID: 6912 Town: Pittsburg Project type: Army flight training Location: Condor 1 and 2 MOA fly zone cc: Kim Tuttle

As requested, I have searched our database for records of rare species and exemplary natural communities, with the following results.

Vertebrate species State1 Federal Notes American Marten (Martes americana) T -- Contact the NH Fish & Game Dept (see below). American Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides T -- Contact the NH Fish & Game Dept (see below). dorsalis) Common Loon (Gavia immer) T -- Contact the NH Fish & Game Dept (see below). Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) E -- Contact the NH Fish & Game Dept (see below). Redbelly Dace (Phoxinus eos)* -- -- Contact the NH Fish & Game Dept (see below). Ring-necked Duck (Aythya collaris) -- -- Contact the NH Fish & Game Dept (see below). Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) -- -- Contact the NH Fish & Game Dept (see below). Spruce Grouse (Falcipennis canadensis) -- -- Contact the NH Fish & Game Dept (see below). 1Codes: "E" = Endangered, "T" = Threatened, "--" = an exemplary natural community, or a rare species tracked by NH Natural Heritage that has not yet been added to the official state list. An asterisk (*) indicates that the most recent report for that occurrence was more than 20 years ago. Contact for all animal reviews: Kim Tuttle, NH F&G, (603) 271-6544.

A negative result (no record in our database) does not mean that a sensitive species is not present. Our data can only tell you of known occurrences, based on information gathered by qualified biologists and reported to our office. However, many areas have never been surveyed, or have only been surveyed for certain species. For some purposes, including legal requirements for state wetland permits, the fact that no species of concern are known to be present is sufficient. However, an on-site survey would provide better information on what species and communities are indeed present.

Department of Resources and Economic Development DRED/NHB Division of Forests and Lands PO Box 1856 (603) 271-2214 fax: 271-6488 Concord NH 03302-1856

EOCODE: AMAJF01010*018*NH NHB: 6912

New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau - Animal Record American Marten (Martes americana)

Legal Status Conservation Status Federal: Not listed Global: Demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure State: Listed Threatened State: Imperiled due to rarity or vulnerability

Description at this Location Conservation Rank: Not ranked Comments on Rank:

Detailed Description: 2003: Area 7047: 1 individuals live-trapped (7/8). Area 7049M: Individuals live-trapped on 2 dates (7/9, 7/18). Area 7053M: Individuals live-trapped on 2 dates (7/12, 7/16).2002: Area 7011: 1 reported by trapper, D. Heenan.2001: Area 6956: Tracks observed (3/1). Area 6958: 1 seen (10/1).1998: Area 6955: 1 seen. General Area:

Location Survey Site Name: Stub Hill Managed By:

County: Coos USGS quad(s): Rump Mountain (4507121) Town(s): Pittsburg Lat, Long: 450706N, 0710605W Size: 20.7 acres Elevation:

Precision: Within (but not necessarily restricted to) the area indicated on the map.

Directions:

Dates documented First reported: 1998-12-01 Last reported: 2003-07-18

The New Hampshire Fish & Game Department has jurisdiction over rare wildlife in New Hampshire. Please contact them at 2 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301 or at (603) 271-2461. EOCODE: AMAJF01010*063*NH NHB: 6912

New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau - Animal Record American Marten (Martes americana)

Legal Status Conservation Status Federal: Not listed Global: Demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure State: Listed Threatened State: Imperiled due to rarity or vulnerability

Description at this Location Conservation Rank: Not ranked Comments on Rank:

Detailed Description: 2003: Area 7048M: 1 individual live-trapped on 3 dates (7/9, 7/11, 7/17).2002: Area 7010: 1 reported by trapper, D. Heenan. General Area:

Location Survey Site Name: Rump Mountain, west of Managed By:

County: Coos USGS quad(s): Rump Mountain (4507121) Town(s): Pittsburg Lat, Long: 451115N, 0710539W Size: 8.2 acres Elevation:

Precision: Within (but not necessarily restricted to) the area indicated on the map.

Directions:

Dates documented First reported: 2002 Last reported: 2003-07-17

The New Hampshire Fish & Game Department has jurisdiction over rare wildlife in New Hampshire. Please contact them at 2 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301 or at (603) 271-2461. EOCODE: AMAJF01010*059*NH NHB: 6912

New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau - Animal Record American Marten (Martes americana)

Legal Status Conservation Status Federal: Not listed Global: Demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure State: Listed Threatened State: Imperiled due to rarity or vulnerability

Description at this Location Conservation Rank: Not ranked Comments on Rank:

Detailed Description: 2003: Area 7045M: Individuals live-trapped on 2 dates (7/8, 7/14). Area 7054: 1 Individual live-trapped (7/13).2002: Area 7006: 1 reported by trapper, D. Heenan. Area 7007: 1 reported by trapper, D. Heenan. General Area:

Location Survey Site Name: Ingersoll Brook Managed By:

County: Coos USGS quad(s): Second Connecticut Lake (4507122) Town(s): Pittsburg Lat, Long: 451343N, 0710933W Size: 16.4 acres Elevation:

Precision: Within (but not necessarily restricted to) the area indicated on the map.

Directions:

Dates documented First reported: 2002 Last reported: 2003-07-14

The New Hampshire Fish & Game Department has jurisdiction over rare wildlife in New Hampshire. Please contact them at 2 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301 or at (603) 271-2461. EOCODE: AMAJF01010*058*NH NHB: 6912

New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau - Animal Record American Marten (Martes americana)

Legal Status Conservation Status Federal: Not listed Global: Demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure State: Listed Threatened State: Imperiled due to rarity or vulnerability

Description at this Location Conservation Rank: Not ranked Comments on Rank:

Detailed Description: 2002: 1 reported by trapper, D. Heenan. General Area:

Location Survey Site Name: Third Connecticut Lake, east of Managed By: Connecticut Lakes State Forest. DRED (FO)

County: Coos USGS quad(s): Second Connecticut Lake (4507122) Town(s): Pittsburg Lat, Long: 451430N, 0711146W Size: 7.7 acres Elevation:

Precision: Within (but not necessarily restricted to) the area indicated on the map.

Directions:

Dates documented First reported: 2002 Last reported: 2002

The New Hampshire Fish & Game Department has jurisdiction over rare wildlife in New Hampshire. Please contact them at 2 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301 or at (603) 271-2461. EOCODE: ABNYF07110*005*NH NHB: 6912

New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau - Animal Record American Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis)

Legal Status Conservation Status Federal: Not listed Global: Demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure State: Listed Threatened State: Critically imperiled due to rarity or vulnerability

Description at this Location Conservation Rank: Not ranked Comments on Rank:

Detailed Description: 1998: 1 female observed (Obs_id 74). 1996: 1 adult female seen (Obs_id 68). 1995: 1 female observed (Obs_id 70). 1954: New nest hole with young. 1952: Female with young in a nest. General Area: 1998: Old budworm-killed stand of balsam fir, which had been partially salvage-logged, and with an understory of softwood regenerating (Obs_id 74). 1996: Wet spruce-fir forest, which was fairly open. Area appeared to be clear-cut in the past (Obs_id 68). 1995: Mature spruce- fir stand in bog area. Mossy with some open water (Obs_id 70). 1996: Responded to a tape. (Obs_id 68). 1995: Concurrent to this sighting, there was a male black-backed woodpecker ca. 50 yards to the east. There was no interaction between the two species. 1954: Observation date July 5.

Comments: Location Survey Site Name: Norton Pool vicinity Managed By: Norton Pool Preserve. The Nature Conservancy (FO)

County: Coos USGS quad(s): Rump Mountain (4507121) Town(s): Pittsburg Lat, Long: 451217N, 0710702W Size: 2183.4 acres Elevation: 1950 feet

Precision: Within 1.5 miles of the area indicated on the map (location information is vague or uncertain).

Directions: East Inlet. 1998: On south shoreline of East Inlet Stream, roughly 0.3 mile above (upstream) of inflow into East Inlet Flowage. 1996: Off East Inlet Road. Go 3.4 miles past East Inlet boat ramp, & look for a logging road/clearing on left. Walk logging road about 1/4 mile to where a secondary logging road comes in from the left. Bird was about 2/3 mile down secondary logging road. 1995: Northeastern shore of East Inlet. 1954, 1952: East Inlet.

Dates documented First reported: 1952-06-29 Last reported: 1998-05-16

The New Hampshire Fish & Game Department has jurisdiction over rare wildlife in New Hampshire. Please contact them at 2 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301 or at (603) 271-2461. EOCODE: ABNBA01030*189*NH NHB: 6912

New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau - Animal Record Common Loon (Gavia immer)

Legal Status Conservation Status Federal: Not listed Global: Demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure State: Listed Threatened State: Not ranked (need more information)

Description at this Location Conservation Rank: Not ranked Comments on Rank:

Detailed Description: 2005: pair, 2 hatched and survived.2004: pair.2003: Area 3497M: pair, 2 hatched and survived.2002: Area 4197M: pair, 1 hatched and survived.2000: Area 3658: pair, 1 hatched and survived. General Area: LPC territory NHT0260.

Comments: Location Survey Site Name: Third Connecticut Lake Managed By: Connecticut Lakes State Forest. NH Dept. of Resources & Economic Dev. (DRED) (FO)

County: Coos USGS quad(s): Second Connecticut Lake (4507122) Town(s): Pittsburg Lat, Long: 451357N, 0711143W Size: 5.7 acres Elevation:

Precision: Within (but not necessarily restricted to) the area indicated on the map.

Directions:

Dates documented First reported: 2000-05-17 Last reported: 2005-07-20

The New Hampshire Fish & Game Department has jurisdiction over rare wildlife in New Hampshire. Please contact them at 2 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301 or at (603) 271-2461. EOCODE: ABNCA02010*012*NH NHB: 6912

New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau - Animal Record Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps)

Legal Status Conservation Status Federal: Not listed Global: Demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure State: Listed Endangered State: Not ranked (need more information)

Description at this Location Conservation Rank: Poor quality, condition and/or lanscape context ('D' on a scale of A-D). Comments on Rank:

Detailed Description: 1996: 2 adults observed on 6/10 and 6/16. 1995: 2 adults, 2 almost full grown juveniles observed lurking in emergent vegetation near the dam (8/9). 1993: 1 adult observed (6/20). 1992: 1 heard calling (7/20), 3 calling (6/21), 1 calling, 1 nest found (5/17). General Area:

Location Survey Site Name: East Inlet Flowage Managed By: Norton Pool Preserve. The Nature Conservancy (FO)

County: Coos USGS quad(s): Second Connecticut Lake (4507122) Town(s): Pittsburg Lat, Long: 451111N, 0710835W Size: 2.8 acres Elevation: 1940 feet

Precision: Within (but not necessarily restricted to) the area indicated on the map.

Directions: [4 miles northeast of Second Connecticut Lake, below dam for East Inlet Flowage.]

Dates documented First reported: 1992-05-17 Last reported: 1996-06-21

The New Hampshire Fish & Game Department has jurisdiction over rare wildlife in New Hampshire. Please contact them at 2 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301 or at (603) 271-2461. EOCODE: AFCJB31020*010*NH NHB: 6912

New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau - Animal Record Redbelly Dace (Phoxinus eos)

Legal Status Conservation Status Federal: Not listed Global: Demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure State: Not listed State: Rare or uncommon

Description at this Location Conservation Rank: Historical records only - current condition unknown. Comments on Rank:

Detailed Description: 1985: 4 age and sex unknowns (Obs_id 667). General Area: 1985: Freshwater - stream or river (Obs_id 667). 1985: 7 northern redbelly dace collected and preserved at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard. Catalog number 63020. Approximate lat/long location (Obs_id 667).

Comments: Location Survey Site Name: Scott Bog Managed By:

County: Coos USGS quad(s): Second Connecticut Lake (4507122) Town(s): Pittsburg Lat, Long: 451236N, 0711003W Size: .3 acres Elevation:

Precision: Within (but not necessarily restricted to) the area indicated on the map.

Directions: 1985: Scott Bog Brook below dam on Scott Bog (Obs_id 667).

Dates documented First reported: 1985-08-14 Last reported: 1985-08-14

The New Hampshire Fish & Game Department has jurisdiction over rare wildlife in New Hampshire. Please contact them at 2 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301 or at (603) 271-2461. EOCODE: ABNJB11040*007*NH NHB: 6912

New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau - Animal Record Ring-necked Duck (Aythya collaris)

Legal Status Conservation Status Federal: Not listed Global: Demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure State: Not listed State: Not ranked (need more information)

Description at this Location Conservation Rank: Not ranked Comments on Rank:

Detailed Description: 1987: Numbers nested. 1982: Female with several young seen (7/18) by Tudor Richards. 1981: 1 female seen (7/12) by Bob Quinn. General Area:

Location Survey Site Name: Norton Pool Managed By: Norton Pool Preserve. The Nature Conservancy (FO)

County: Coos USGS quad(s): Rump Mountain (4507121) Town(s): Pittsburg Lat, Long: 451156N, 0710656W Size: 1477.6 acres Elevation: 2020 feet

Precision: Within 1.5 miles of the area indicated on the map (location information is vague or uncertain).

Directions: Norton Pool site, nests at East Inlet.

Dates documented First reported: 1981 Last reported: 1987

The New Hampshire Fish & Game Department has jurisdiction over rare wildlife in New Hampshire. Please contact them at 2 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301 or at (603) 271-2461. EOCODE: ABPBXB5010*005*NH NHB: 6912

New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau - Animal Record Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus)

Legal Status Conservation Status Federal: Not listed Global: Apparently secure but with cause for concern State: Not listed State: Imperiled due to rarity or vulnerability

Description at this Location Conservation Rank: Not ranked Comments on Rank:

Detailed Description: 1995: 1 adult male, 1 adult female. How observed: seen, apparently carrying food. (Obs_id 1736). 1991: Observed (Obs_id 1736). General Area: 1995: Freshwater - Marsh or swamp (Obs_id 1736). 1995: Birds also in this area regularly from at least 1991 onward (Obs_id 1736).

Comments: Location Survey Site Name: Scott Brook Managed By:

County: Coos USGS quad(s): Second Connecticut Lake (4507122) Town(s): Pittsburg Lat, Long: 451141N, 0711003W Size: 161.4 acres Elevation:

Precision: Within (but not necessarily restricted to) the area indicated on the map.

Directions: 1995: Scott Bog Road [on Scott Brook in between the East Inlet and Connecticut River.] (Obs_id 1736).

Dates documented First reported: 1995-06-11 Last reported: 1995-06-11

The New Hampshire Fish & Game Department has jurisdiction over rare wildlife in New Hampshire. Please contact them at 2 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301 or at (603) 271-2461. EOCODE: ABNLC09010*007*NH NHB: 6912

New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau - Animal Record Spruce Grouse (Falcipennis canadensis)

Legal Status Conservation Status Federal: Not listed Global: Demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure State: Not listed State: Rare or uncommon

Description at this Location Conservation Rank: Not ranked Comments on Rank:

Detailed Description: 1995: 1 adult, 2 chicks observed at Scott Brook Rd.; 1 adult, 4 chicks observed at East Inlet Rd. General Area:

Location Survey Site Name: Scott Brook Road Managed By: Connecticut Lakes State Forest. DRED (FO)

County: Coos USGS quad(s): Second Connecticut Lake (4507122) Town(s): Pittsburg Lat, Long: 451142N, 0711003W Size: 32.9 acres Elevation: 1940 feet

Precision: Within 1.5 miles of the area indicated on the map (location information is vague or uncertain).

Directions: From Pittsburgh center head north on Rte. 3 to the north side of Second Connecticut Lake. From here turn onto Scott Brook Rd.

Dates documented First reported: 1995-06-17 Last reported: 1995-06-17

The New Hampshire Fish & Game Department has jurisdiction over rare wildlife in New Hampshire. Please contact them at 2 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301 or at (603) 271-2461. 200 Harry S. Truman Parkway Suite 400 Annapolis, MD 21401 (410) 266-0006 16 October 2006 (410) 266-8912 (fax) Reference: 0020538.81.01 http://www.erm.com

Mark McCollagh, Endangered Species Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Maine Field Office 1168 Main St. Old Town, Maine 04468

RE: Section 7 Consultation, Modification of Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas, Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Massachussetts

Dear Mr. McCollogh:

The Air National Guard (ANG) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to modify the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas (MOAs) (see Attachment 1, Location Map) used by the 102nd Fighter Wing (102 FW), located at Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Massachusetts. This environmental impact analysis process is being conducted in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and in conformity with Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. We are writing this letter to advise you of the ANG’s proposal and to request your assistance in identifying any potential impacts to federally-listed rare, threatened, or endangered species (RTEs) related to the 102 FW’s proposal.

The current Condor 1 and 2 MOAs extend from 7,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) (between approximately 2,800 feet and 6,300 feet above ground level [AGL]) up to but not including 18,000 feet MSL (between approximately 13,739 feet to 17,321 feet AGL). The 102 FW’s training activities include basic fighter maneuvering, air combat maneuvering, air combat training, advanced handling characteristics, high altitude dive bomb, high angle release bomb, intercepts, low altitude awareness training, navigation, and precision guided munitions.

The 102 FW proposes to combine the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, and divide the combined MOA horizontally into Condor Low MOA and Condor High MOA. The 102 FW also proposes to lower Condor Low MOA’s flight floor from 7,000 feet MSL (between approximately 2,800 to 6,300 feet AGL) to 500 feet AGL. Under this proposal Condor Low MOA would extend from 500 feet AGL up to, but not including, 7,000 feet MSL (between approximately 2,800 to 6,300 feet AGL). Condor High MOA would extend from 7,000 feet MSL up to but not including 18,000 feet MSL (between approximately 13,739 feet to 17,321 feet AGL). The lateral dimensions of the new Condor Low and High MOAs would be the same as the previous Condor 1 and 2 MOAs (60 NM by 60 Mr. Mark McCollogh 0020538.81.01 16 October 2006 Page 2

NM). There would be no increases in the number of sorties flown in the new Condor High and Low MOAs as a result of this proposal.

As an alternative to the Proposed Action, the 102 FW is evaluating lowering the flight floor of Condor 1 MOA and leaving the flight floor of Condor 2 MOA unchanged.

To the extent that the Proposed Action would not result in any ground- disturbing activities, we expect that the only potential effects on federally-listed RTEs would be from noise. Please inform me of any federally-listed RTEs in the areas underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs that could be affected by this proposed project pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act within 30 days. Responses should be directed to Environmental Resources Management (ERM), Inc, located at 200 Harry S Truman Parkway, Suite 400, Annapolis, MD, 21401. I can also be reached at (410) 266-0006 or [email protected].

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

William Sadlon Scientist enc. Site Location Map cc: Landon Jones, ANG file 40 -8 A R D V A N Piscataquis 0 A 0 -8 County C IR

Somerset County 40 VR-841 VR-8

2 / /1 1 0 / 4 0 -8 5 R 8 V Franklin County - 2 R -84 I Coo VR

County

E E

R I

H PROPOSED CONDOR LOW MO

S PROPOSED CONDOR HIGH MOA P MAINE V

M SCOTY ATCAA

R A - 8

4 H 0 / 1

W W /

2 E

N Oxford County

Proposed Condor Low MOA: 500 ft AGL to 6,999 ft MSL Proposed Condor High MOA: 7,000 ft to 17,999 ft MSL Scoty ATCAA: 18,000 ft to 60,000 ft MSL

Legend Proposed Condor MOA Maine Propose MTR Centerlines New Hampshire Condor Low and High MOAs Open Water 0 2.5 5 10 15 and MTR Scale in Miles

200 Harry S. Truman Parkway Suite 400 Annapolis, MD 21401 (410) 266-0006 16 October 2006 (410) 266-8912 (fax) Reference: 0020538.81.01 http://www.erm.com

James Sappier, Chief Penobscot Indian Nation 12 Wabanaki Way Indian Island Old Town, ME 04468

RE: Proposed Modification of Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas, Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Massachussetts

Dear Mr. Sappier:

The Air National Guard (ANG) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to modify the Condor 1 and 2 Military Operations Areas (MOAs) (see Attachment 1, Location Map) used by the 102nd Fighter Wing (102 FW), located at Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Massachusetts. This environmental impact analysis process is being conducted in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and in conformity with Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. We are writing this letter to advise you of the ANG’s proposal and to request your assistance in identifying any potential issues related to the 102 FW’s proposal.

The current Condor 1 and 2 MOAs extend from 7,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) (between approximately 2,800 feet and 6,300 feet above ground level [AGL]) up to but not including 18,000 feet MSL (between approximately 13,739 feet to 17,321 feet AGL). The 102 FW’s training activities include basic fighter maneuvering, air combat maneuvering, air combat training, advanced handling characteristics, high altitude dive bomb, high angle release bomb, intercepts, low altitude awareness training, navigation, and precision guided munitions.

The 102 FW proposes to combine the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs, and divide the combined MOA horizontally into Condor Low MOA and Condor High MOA. The 102 FW also proposes to lower Condor Low MOA’s flight floor from 7,000 feet MSL (between approximately 2,800 to 6,300 feet AGL) to 500 feet AGL. Under this proposal Condor Low MOA would extend from 500 feet AGL up to, but not including, 7,000 feet MSL (between approximately 2,800 to 6,300 feet AGL). Condor High MOA would extend from 7,000 feet MSL up to but not including 18,000 feet MSL (between approximately 13,739 feet to 17,321 feet AGL). The lateral dimensions of the new Condor Low and High MOAs would be the same as the previous Condor 1 and 2 MOAs (60 NM by 60 Mr. James Sappier 0020538.81.01 16 October 2006 Page 2

NM). There would be no increases in the number of sorties flown in the new Condor High and Low MOAs as a result of this proposal.

As an alternative to the Proposed Action, the 102 FW is evaluating lowering the flight floor of Condor 1 MOA and leaving the flight floor of Condor 2 MOA unchanged.

To the extent that the Proposed Action would not result in any ground- disturbing activities, we expect that the only potential would be from noise or vibrations. Please review the attached Location Map and inform us of any concerns related to the 102 FW’s proposal within 30 days. Responses should be directed to Environmental Resources Management (ERM), Inc, located at 200 Harry S Truman Parkway, Suite 400, Annapolis, MD, 21401. I can also be reached at (410) 266-0006 or [email protected].

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

William Sadlon Scientist enc. Location Map cc: Landon Jones, ANG file 40 -8 A R D V A N Piscataquis 0 A 0 -8 County C IR

Somerset County 40 VR-841 VR-8

2 / /1 1 0 / 4 0 -8 5 R 8 V Franklin County - 2 R -84 I Coo VR

County

E E

R I

H PROPOSED CONDOR LOW MO

S PROPOSED CONDOR HIGH MOA P MAINE V

M SCOTY ATCAA

R A - 8

4 H 0 / 1

W W /

2 E

N Oxford County

Proposed Condor Low MOA: 500 ft AGL to 6,999 ft MSL Proposed Condor High MOA: 7,000 ft to 17,999 ft MSL Scoty ATCAA: 18,000 ft to 60,000 ft MSL

Legend Proposed Condor MOA Maine Propose MTR Centerlines New Hampshire Condor Low and High MOAs Open Water 0 2.5 5 10 15 and MTR Scale in Miles

Comment Response Matrix Comments received on preliminary Draft EA (October 2006)

Comment Location Commenter Comment Response Number 1 ES-2, line 6 Pat Welch, The reference of within 200 NM should be Agree, change made ANG from the base, not Condor MOA. Suitable airspace could be within 200 NM of Condor MOA but be useless to the Unit. 2 ES-2, line Pat Welch, Change “less-than-optimal” to Agree, change made 22 ANG “insufficient” to strengthen the wording 3 1-2, line 16 Pat Welch, CAP in this reference should refer to Agree, change made ANG “Combat Air Patrol” not “Civil Air Patrol” 4 1-4, line 6 Pat Welch, Delete “during weather” Agree, change made ANG 5 1-4, lines Pat Welch, Delete the discussion of the currency of IR Agree, change made 18-20 ANG Route surveys and use. It doesn’t add value to the discussion and could lead to demands to remove the routes from charting. Mission or training requirement changes could increase their importance in a very short period of time. Getting the routes recurrent would only require slow flying them and analysis of new obstructions which could happen very quickly. If they are lost it would require new development, including environmental studies, and could take several years to reestablish them. Don’t highlight their lack of use! Simply state that they don’t provide sufficient capability for meeting the training requirements.

1/10/2007 1 Comment Response Matrix Comments received on preliminary Draft EA (October 2006)

Comment Location Commenter Comment Response Number 6 1-4, lines Pat Welch, Combine this VR-840/1/2 information with Agree, change made 21-23 ANG the other VR-840/1/2 info (line 13). 7 1-5, lines Pat Welch, “because their upper limits are too low” Agree, change made 13-14 ANG isn’t written clearly. I believe that what is meant is that pilots cannot transition directly between the MTRs and the MOAs because the maximum altitudes for the MTRs do not adjoin the floors of the MOAs. 8 1-5, lines Pat Welch, Should read “The necessary training Change not made. As per discussion with 16-17 ANG airspace to meet all training requirements is Landon Jones, establishment of 80 NM x 80 NM x 60 NM:” 60 NM would require creation of airspace outside the current boundaries of Condor 1 and 2 MOAs. This would require extensive additional environmental work. During the kick-off meeting, Capt. Beckel indicated that 60 NM x 60 NM would be sufficient for training (as listed in the aeronautical proposal); therefore, the EA will analyze the impacts of a 60 NM x 60 NM grid and the EA language will be revised. 9 2-1, lines 5- Pat Welch, Suggest, wrongly, that MOAs, or other Agree, change made 7 ANG SUA, need to be designated as a “range” to use chaff and flares or that they can only be expended on a “range”. No so and we don’t want to imply that.

1/10/2007 2 Comment Response Matrix Comments received on preliminary Draft EA (October 2006)

Comment Location Commenter Comment Response Number 10 2-1, line 11 Pat Welch, Chaff is not a distraction, it is used to hide Agree, change made ANG the radar signature of the aircraft to avoid detection. 11 2-2, line 4 Pat Welch, Remove “sorties”. It will be confusing as it Agree, change made ANG is used following the discussion of sorties. It doesn’t add value and some will expect to see sortie numbers in the explanations. 12 2-2, line 21 Pat Welch, Why is HADB/HARB included? No other Agree, change made ANG reference in the document to this training. Not F-15. 13 2-3, lines 5- Pat Welch, Same as above for CAS/FAC/TST/BSA Agree, change made 7 ANG 14 2-3, lines Pat Welch, Same as above for PGM Agree, change made 11-13 ANG 15 2-7, line 13 Pat Welch, Change “less-than-optimal” to “less-than- Agree, change made ANG required” 16 2-7, line 22 Pat Welch, Should be changed to reflect within 200 Agree, change made ANG NM of the base. Same as #1. 17 2-7, line 24 Pat Welch, Change “on a day-to-day” to “daily” Agree, change made ANG 18 2-8, line 10 Pat Welch, Expect to get 60 NM x 40 NM if this type Agree, text revised to further discuss ANG of rational remains in the document inadequacies of a 60 NM x 40 NM grid 19 2-9, lines Pat Welch, Mentions Syracuse but not their F-16s. Agree, change made 11-14 ANG Also no basing location information is shown for the P-3s.

1/10/2007 3 Comment Response Matrix Comments received on preliminary Draft EA (October 2006)

Comment Location Commenter Comment Response Number 20 2-9, line 17 Pat Welch, It might be appropriate, following the Agree, change made ANG previous BRAC discussion, to eliminate the reference to the 102nd here and just use F- 15 pilots or to show it as 102FW (104FW) F-15 pilots. 21 3-2, line 3 Pat Welch, “IR and VR” should be “IFR and VFR” Agree, change made ANG 22 3-4, line 14- Pat Welch, “IR and VR” should be “IFR and VFR” Agree, change made 16 ANG 23 3-5, line 7 Pat Welch, Strike “however, VR-840/1/2 is the only Agree, change made ANG MTR currently used by the ANG (Table 2- 1).” Same reason as #5 above. 24 3-5, lines 5- Pat Welch, Strike “the SUA within the ROI Agree, change made 6 ANG includes…(Figure 3-1)”. It is repetitive. Us the last sentence in the paragraph. 25 3-5, line 16 Pat Welch, After “5 NM” add “either side” Agree, change made ANG 26 3-8, lines Pat Welch, Check the definition for a “Class B and C” Agree, change made 10-13 ANG mishaps. This doesn’t appear to be complete. 27 4-19, line Pat Welch, Misspelled words “1fewer” and “on”. Agree, change made 26 ANG 28 4-19, line Pat Welch, “ASL” should be “MSL” Agree, change made 26 ANG

1/10/2007 4 Comment Response Matrix Comments received on preliminary Draft EA (October 2006)

Comment Location Commenter Comment Response Number 29 4-22, lines Pat Welch, Impacts on the AT could be primarily Disagree. The EA has proven that the 1-4 ANG seasonal, as there would be far less use impacts are not significant. Addressing the from late Fall through early Spring due to impacts in terms of seasonality would prevailing weather conditions. This could suggest that use of the airspace would then be verified through the mentioned AT be higher during periods of “nicer weather” office. This would also apply to many of (i.e., times of higher public use) and the other areas mentioned such as the White possibly confuse the “no significant Mountain National Forest. impact” conclusion. Because the no significant impact conclusion can be reached without discussing seasonality, we recommend the seasonality discussion not be included in the EA following discussion with Landon Jones. 30 5-4, line 3 Pat Welch, Extra word. “The Proposed Action would Agree, change made. The text was revised ANG decrease increase air quality…” to clarify the benefits to air quality. 31 iii Jane Yagley, The page for cultural resources in Section Agree, change made. ANG 6.0is listed as 3-4 32 4-30 Jane Yagley, Proposed Action. The first bullet on this Agree, change made. A footnote was added ANG page lists the db as below 55, however, the to describe the instantaneous noise level in next paragraph lists it as 115 db which detail and how it differs from the overall might cause vibrations but no damage. noise level. Further description of the noise First the difference in db is going to raise levels is available in the Appendices. red flags to the public. Which is it and it would be good to give a frame of reference for the volume of 55 or 115 db.

1/10/2007 5 Comment Response Matrix Comments received on preliminary Draft EA (October 2006)

Comment Location Commenter Comment Response Number 33 4-30 Jane Yagley, I would also disagree with how this section Disagree. The section is organized ANG is laid out, on 4-29 it lists adverse effects according to the Significance Criteria as and says the action doesn’t have the laid out in Section 106 of the NHPA. For potential to damage the site (the vibrations simplicity, the potential impacts are do not have the potential). Then without addressed this way to plainly lay out how shifting the discussion the bullets begin to we are complying with the Section 106 list how the actions aren’t impacting. It requirements. However, the text has been might read better, and this is only a revised to develop better transitions in the suggestion, to say these are the three types discussion. of adverse effect, then with a transition sentence to two assess the potential for the action thru audio, visual, and vibrations to impact any resources. 34 6-4, cultural Jane Yagley, If consultation is still ongoing with the Agree, change made resources ANG Penobscot Nation that should also be noted as it was for SHPO consultation.

1/10/2007 6 Comment Response Matrix Comments received on preliminary Draft EA (October 2006)

Comment Location Commenter Comment Response Number 35 General Jane Yagley, I am not certain the Penobscot are the only The Penobscot tribe was selected as the ANG Native American community with historic only tribe to contact following associations to the region. I recommend conversations and a subsequent fax from getting the list of tribes the Army Guard the Bureau of Indian Affairs, NE Region worded with for both New Hampshire and identifying the tribes in the area and their Main ICRMPs to ensure you have contact information. consulted all appropriate tribes. Additionally be aware that simply sending a This is an airspace action and the only letter with the draft EA is not considered impact is noise/vibration, therefore, the consultation. At the very least a follow up impact on historic Native American phone call to the tribal government asking properties would be the same as the impact if they received the document and if they to general historic resources. Text was had any questions, need clarification, and if added to the impact discussion to reference they will be providing comments on the this connection, and emphasize the Proposed Action. Noise can be very conclusion that the Proposed Action would disruptive to ceremonies particularly if also have no significant impact on historic conducted outside. This can be resolved by Native American resources. coordination between the tribe and the appropriate ANG representative. A contact will be established for the local tribe to contact and coordinate scheduling during specific ceremonies that would be particularly disrupted by aircraft overflights.

1/10/2007 7 Comment Response Matrix Comments received on preliminary Draft EA (October 2006)

Comment Location Commenter Comment Response Number 36 General Jane Yagley, As for the SHPO consultation letter it asks Agree. ERM contacted the SHPO to get the ANG the SHPO to tell us if there are eligible or appropriate lists prior to completion of this listed properties within the APE. It is the Draft EA. The SHPO provided links to responsibility of the agency to identify any websites where GIS data of these resources resources that the SHPO. ERM should was available. Additionally, in response to have had their people get a list from the the initial consultation request, the Maine SPHO, yes some only respond to written SHPO provided a detailed list of all requests but that is separate from the resources in Maine that was cross-checked Section 106 request for review of the with the boundaries of the APE. Any sites project. The SHPO may be fine with this not previously included were added to the letter but be prepared for a pushback from EA. them as well. 37 General Alan Lucas The document adequately addresses the None necessary (FAA) various impact categories under FAA Regulation 1050.1 E pending any additional input from the various agencies and groups that will review the document 38 Page 1-10 Randy “Order 1050.1” should be Order “1050.1E”. This language was developed during Chambers, previous work with the FAA, and the Order ANG Legal is referenced as 1050.1 at their request.

1/10/2007 8 Comment Response Matrix Comments received on preliminary Draft EA (October 2006)

Comment Location Commenter Comment Response Number 39 Page 3-12 Randy The EA states that ambient noise in rural “Ambient” noise levels without aircraft are Chambers, areas range from 40 to 48 Ldn. On page 3- not included in this analysis because the ANG Legal 14, Table 3-3, the baseline sound levels Proposed Action would have no impact on associated with aircraft annual operations in noise levels during periods with no aircraft the two MOAs is said to be 31 dB. The activity. The text has been revised to more next question is then, what is the current clearly differentiate between ambient and noise level within the two MOAs when the baseline noise levels. ambient and the aircraft annual operations sound levels are combined? If combined, would this then be “the average background noise level” for the two MOAs? 40 Page 3-31 Randy The EA states that studies have shown that The discussion was meant to indicate that Chambers, 95% of migratory bird movements occur greater than 50% of migratory bird flights ANG Legal below 10,000 feet with the majority occur below 3,000 feet AGL. However, occurring below 3,000 feet AGL. Please this information is irrelevant to the analysis define what is meant by a “majority.” of the Proposed Action and was removed.

1/10/2007 9 Comment Response Matrix Comments received on preliminary Draft EA (October 2006)

Comment Location Commenter Comment Response Number 41 Page 4-4 Randy The EA states that lowering the flight floor The MAANG currently utilize low-altitude Chambers, to 500 feet AGL would potentially increase MTRs underlying the Condor 1 and 2 ANG Legal the BASH risk, but then goes on to say that MOAs and employs the mitigation there is no significant risk due to the overall measures discussed in the EA. These low number of operations, preflight reviews measures have been successful in that there of bird data and bird related training have been no bird-related mishaps in these measures. There is, however, nothing in MTRs. Therefore it is reasonable to the EA to support these conclusory assume that these mitigation measures, statements. In particular, since the majority when combined with the operations of birds fly below 3,000 feet, and the MOA dispersed over a wider area than the low- is being lowered from 3,000 feet to 500 level MTRs, would produce a similar feet, the logical conclusion is that there will success rate in avoidance of bird-related be a significant increase in bird strikes. It is mishaps in the proposed Condor Low and also possible that the mitigation measures High MOAs. Additionally, there is no mentioned may reduce this threat to below statistical data to suggest that the significance, but at this time there is no concentration of birds outside the MTRs is statistical data to show whether there is or greater than within the MTRs. is not going to be a significant impact. 42 Pages 4-6 Randy There is a statement that the average Agree, change made and 4-7 Chambers, background noise level in Condor 1 and 2 ANG Legal MOAs is about 31 dB under existing conditions. Shouldn’t this be that 31 dB is the “baseline sound levels associated with aircraft annual operations” rather than “the average background noise level”?

1/10/2007 10 Comment Response Matrix Comments received on preliminary Draft EA (October 2006)

Comment Location Commenter Comment Response Number 43 Page 4-17 Randy The EA states that most birds fly below 500 The reference to 3,000 feet AGL on page 3- Chambers, feet AGL. This may or may not contradict 31 has been removed. ANG Legal the statement on page 3-31 that the majority of birds fly below 3,000 feet. Please clarify. 44 Page 4-19; Randy Change “lfewer ow” to “fewer low”. Agree, change made line 25 Chambers, ANG Legal 45 General Randy Although the EA clearly states that the The analysis in section 4.0 of the EA has Chambers, proposed action is unrelated to the BRAC been revised to remove all influence of the ANG Legal EIS (EA at page 2-9, section 2.4, BRAC actions. The impacts of the BRAC Concurrent NEPA Actions), many of the actions are now addressed in the cumulative conclusions found in the EA are based on impacts section. the expectation that Otis will in fact be closed and that the A-10 and P-3 aircraft in the Northeast will be going away. The environmental consequences discussed in the EA, particularly in reference to noise, safety, and air pollution, are “combined with the BRAC decisions. . . “ See, page 4- 2, section 4.1.2; page 4-6, section 4.3.2; page 4-9, section 4.4.2; page 4-10, section 4.4.3; page 4-22, section 4.8.2; and page 4- 30, section 4.10.2. Since the conclusions being made in the EA are so dependent on the BRAC recommendations being followed, the EA and the EIS could be combined.

1/10/2007 11 Comment Response Matrix Comments received on preliminary Draft EA (October 2006)

Comment Location Commenter Comment Response Number 46 Cultural Earle G The Maine SHPO provided a database of all The database was reviewed and all sites Resources Shettleworth, listed and eligible properties underlying the within the project area were included in the Maine SHPO Condor 1 and 2 MOAs EA and cultural resources analysis.

This correspondence was also documented in the EA and included as an appendix. 47 Cultural James The New Hampshire SHPO responded that This correspondence was documented in Resources McCohaha, there were no known resources underlying the EA and included as an appendix. NH SHPO the Condor 1 MOA. 48 Biological Melissa The New Hampshire Natural Heritage These species were specifically identified in Resources Harty, NH Bureau provided a list of all rare, the EA and included in the biological NHB threatened, or endangered species resources impact analysis. underlying the Condor 1 MOA including: American Marten, American Three-toed This correspondence was also documented Woodpecker, Common Loon, Pied-billed in the EA and included as an appendix. Grebe, Redbelly Dace, Ring-necked Duck, Rusty Blackbird, and Spruce Grouse. 49 Biological Mark The USFWS identified the federally A Bald Eagle mitigation package was Resources McCollough, protected species, Bald Eagle, that occur developed in consultation with the USFWS. US Fish and underlying the project area. The ANG will restrict overflights of known Wildlife nest sites to 1,000 feet vertically and 0.25- Service mile laterally between 1 February and 31 August. Additionally, the ANG will annually consult with the USFWS and MDIFW to identify any new nesting sites.

This correspondence was also documented in the EA and included as an appendix.

1/10/2007 12 Appendix B

Technical Descriptions of the Existing and Proposed Condor MOAs Technical Descriptions of the Existing and Proposed Condor Airspaces

Airspace Block Coordinates Altitude Blocks Existing Airspace Condor 1 MOA at lat. 44°20’00” N, long. 070°51’58” W; 7,000 feet MSL up to, to lat. 44°54’00” N, long. 071°00’58” W; but not including, FL180 to lat. 45°15’00” N, long. 071°12’28” W; thence along the United States/Canadian border; to lat. 45°19’03” N, long. 070°48’28” W; to lat. 45°24’00” N, long. 069°47’58” W; to lat. 44°32’50” N, long. 070°12’58” W; to lat. 44°20’00” N, long. 070°21’58” W; to the point of beginning. Condor 2 MOA at lat. 44°32’50” N, long. 070°12’58” W; 7,000 feet MSL up to, but to lat. 45°24’00” N, long. 069°47’58” W; not including, FL180 to lat. 45°25’00” N, long. 069°29’58” W; to lat. 45°05’30” N, long. 069°29’58” W; to the point of beginning. Proposed Airspace Condor Low and High at lat. 44°20’00” N, long. 070°51’58” W; Condor Low MOA: 500 MOAs to lat. 44°54’00” N, long. 071°00’58” W; feet AGL up to, but not to lat. 45°15’00” N, long. 071°12’28” W; including, 7,000 feet thence along the United States/Canadian border; MSL to lat. 45°19’03” N, long. 070°48’28” W; Condor High MOA: to lat. 45°24’00” N, long. 069°47’58” W; 7,000 feet MSL up to, but to lat. 45°25’00” N, long. 069°29’58” W; not including, FL180 to lat. 45°05’30” N, long. 069°29’58” W; to lat. 44°32’50” N, long. 070°12’58” W; to lat. 44°20’00” N, long. 070°21’58” W; to the point of beginning. Appendix C

Supplemental Noise Information Noise Modeling - Existing Conditions existing.txt ***** MOA RANGE NOISEMAP ***** Version 2.2 Release Date 15 August 1999 SETUP PARAMETERS Number of MOAs and Ranges = 3 Number of tracks = 6 Lower Left Corner of Grid (Lat/Long) = 43 30 00 N 072 00 00 W Upper Right Corner of Grid (Lat/Long) = 46 00 00 N 068 30 00 W Grid spacing = 1000. feet Number of events above an SEL of 65 dB Temperature = 59 F Humidity = 70 Flying days per month = 30

MOA SPECIFICATIONS MOA name CONDOR 1 Latitude Longitude 44 20 01 N 070 51 59 W 44 53 59 N 071 00 53 W 45 14 59 N 071 12 23 W 45 13 59 N 071 07 54 W 45 18 01 N 071 04 59 W 45 19 03 N 071 00 55 W 45 20 60 N 070 59 58 W 45 19 57 N 070 57 32 W 45 16 58 N 070 55 54 W 45 13 60 N 070 53 24 W 45 13 04 N 070 52 01 W 45 14 02 N 070 51 01 W 45 15 59 N 070 49 53 W 45 19 01 N 070 48 27 W 45 24 03 N 069 47 53 W 44 32 51 N 070 12 58 W 44 19 58 N 070 21 56 W 44 20 01 N 070 51 59 W Floor = 5000 feet AGL Ceiling = 50000 feet AGL

MOA name CONDOR 2 Latitude Longitude 44 32 51 N 070 12 58 W 45 24 03 N 069 47 53 W 45 24 60 N 069 29 55 W 45 05 28 N 069 29 55 W 44 32 51 N 070 12 58 W Floor = 5000 feet AGL Ceiling = 50000 feet AGL

TRACK SPECIFICATIONS Track name VR-0840 Flag Latitude Longitude Left Right Floor 1 Floor 2 Radius Angle Notation (feet) (feet) (feet AGL) (feet AGL) (feet) (degrees) LW 44 01 59 N 070 48 55 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 24 03 N 070 41 01 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 46 59 N 070 54 02 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 44 58 02 N 070 48 58 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 45 12 57 N 070 25 55 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 45 41 59 N 069 33 00 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 33 00 N 069 14 54 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 16 58 N 069 15 00 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 45 13 31 N 069 35 47 W 30380. 30380. 0 Track name VR-0841 Flag Latitude Longitude Left Right Floor 1 Floor 2 Page 1 existing.txt Radius Angle Notation (feet) (feet) (feet AGL) (feet AGL) (feet) (degrees) LW 44 01 59 N 070 48 55 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 24 03 N 070 41 01 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 46 59 N 070 54 02 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 44 58 02 N 070 48 58 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 45 12 57 N 070 25 55 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 45 14 31 N 070 03 47 W 30380. 30380. 0 Track name IR-0800 Flag Latitude Longitude Left Right Floor 1 Floor 2 Radius Angle Notation (feet) (feet) (feet AGL) (feet AGL) (feet) (degrees) LW 44 22 03 N 067 51 55 W 24304. 24304. 17000 LW 44 48 00 N 067 55 59 W 24304. 24304. 17000 LW 44 53 58 N 067 48 55 W 24304. 24304. 10000 LW 44 56 02 N 067 39 53 W 24304. 24304. 10000 LW 44 56 03 N 067 31 55 W 24304. 24304. 3000 LW 44 44 03 N 067 10 54 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 32 59 N 067 11 56 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 27 03 N 067 35 00 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 32 59 N 067 48 00 W 24304. 24304. 3000 LW 44 43 58 N 067 49 58 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 04 01 N 067 53 59 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 08 58 N 067 54 55 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 53 28 N 067 57 30 W 12152. 12152. 0 LW 45 58 33 N 068 01 02 W 12152. 12152. 0 LW 46 03 05 N 068 09 26 W 12152. 12152. 0 LW 46 05 31 N 068 13 02 W 48608. 24304. 500 LW 46 45 31 N 068 34 54 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 46 47 34 N 068 37 31 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 47 03 02 N 068 55 02 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 47 05 04 N 069 08 26 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 46 53 04 N 069 32 29 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 46 42 36 N 069 50 57 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 46 38 07 N 069 54 54 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 45 01 N 070 04 01 W 18228. 24304. 0 LW 45 38 59 N 070 04 56 W 18228. 24304. 0 LW 45 34 58 N 070 07 56 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 02 57 N 070 57 58 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 01 03 N 071 03 00 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 59 01 N 071 14 59 W 24304. 24304. 8000 LW 44 56 58 N 071 21 01 W 24304. 24304. 8000 LW 44 51 58 N 071 29 58 W 24304. 24304. 8000 LW 44 43 40 N 071 45 00 W 24304. 24304. 12000 LW 44 38 02 N 071 57 54 W 24304. 24304. 12000 Track name IR-0850 Flag Latitude Longitude Left Right Floor 1 Floor 2 Radius Angle Notation (feet) (feet) (feet AGL) (feet AGL) (feet) (degrees) LW 44 28 30 N 067 46 55 W 30380. 30380. 4000 LW 44 56 16 N 068 02 57 W 30380. 30380. 4000 LW 45 09 19 N 068 08 01 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 18 59 N 068 11 58 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 58 01 N 068 29 54 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 13 35 N 068 36 53 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 18 32 N 068 39 27 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 22 03 N 068 50 55 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 12 04 N 068 53 02 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 09 02 N 068 48 53 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 45 56 58 N 068 40 58 W 30380. 30380. 2000 Page 2 existing.txt LW 45 40 29 N 068 59 58 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 24 34 N 069 16 24 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 18 01 N 069 26 57 W 30380. 30380. 500 LW 45 12 27 N 069 33 54 W 30380. 24304. 500 LW 45 04 57 N 069 38 25 W 30380. 24304. 500 LW 44 58 03 N 069 41 55 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 56 34 N 069 49 32 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 53 31 N 069 54 24 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 51 33 N 069 58 06 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 44 50 00 N 070 08 55 W 30380. 18228. 0 LW 44 55 59 N 070 12 56 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 44 59 57 N 070 24 55 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 01 02 N 070 33 46 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 44 51 01 N 070 35 02 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 44 53 28 N 070 22 53 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 44 59 57 N 070 24 55 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 12 32 N 068 54 31 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 13 29 N 068 19 13 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 18 59 N 068 11 58 W 30380. 30380. 1500 Track name IR-0851 Flag Latitude Longitude Left Right Floor 1 Floor 2 Radius Angle Notation (feet) (feet) (feet AGL) (feet AGL) (feet) (degrees) LW 44 28 30 N 067 46 55 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 44 56 16 N 068 02 57 W 30380. 30380. 4000 LW 45 09 19 N 068 08 01 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 13 29 N 068 19 13 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 12 32 N 068 54 31 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 24 34 N 069 16 24 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 40 29 N 068 59 58 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 45 56 58 N 068 40 58 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 09 02 N 068 48 53 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 12 04 N 068 53 02 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 22 03 N 068 50 55 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 18 32 N 068 39 27 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 13 35 N 068 36 53 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 45 58 01 N 068 29 54 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 18 59 N 068 11 58 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 13 29 N 068 19 13 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 12 32 N 068 54 31 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 24 34 N 069 16 24 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 18 01 N 069 26 57 W 30380. 30380. 500 LW 45 12 27 N 069 33 54 W 30380. 24304. 500 LW 45 04 57 N 069 38 25 W 30380. 24304. 500 LW 44 58 03 N 069 41 55 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 56 34 N 069 49 32 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 53 31 N 069 54 24 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 51 33 N 069 58 06 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 44 50 00 N 070 08 55 W 30380. 18228. 0 LW 44 55 59 N 070 12 56 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 44 59 57 N 070 24 55 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 01 02 N 070 33 46 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 44 51 01 N 070 35 02 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 44 53 28 N 070 22 53 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 44 59 57 N 070 24 55 W 30380. 30380. 0 Track name IR-0852 Flag Latitude Longitude Left Right Floor 1 Floor 2 Radius Angle Notation (feet) (feet) (feet AGL) (feet AGL) (feet) (degrees) LW 44 28 30 N 067 46 55 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 44 56 16 N 068 02 57 W 30380. 30380. 4000 Page 3 existing.txt LW 45 09 19 N 068 08 01 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 13 29 N 068 19 13 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 12 32 N 068 54 31 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 24 34 N 069 16 24 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 18 01 N 069 26 57 W 30380. 30380. 500 LW 45 12 27 N 069 33 54 W 30380. 24304. 500 LW 45 04 57 N 069 38 25 W 30380. 24304. 500 LW 44 58 03 N 069 41 55 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 56 34 N 069 49 32 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 53 31 N 069 54 24 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 51 33 N 069 58 06 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 44 50 00 N 070 08 55 W 30380. 18228. 0 LW 44 55 59 N 070 12 56 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 44 59 57 N 070 24 55 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 01 02 N 070 33 46 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 44 51 01 N 070 35 02 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 44 53 28 N 070 22 53 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 44 59 57 N 070 24 55 W 30380. 30380. 0

MISSION DATA Mission name = F15MOA Aircraft code = 146 Speed = 550 kias Power = 82.0 Altitude Distribution Lower Alt Upper Alt Percent (feet AGL) (feet AGL) Utilization 5000 5000 100

Mission name = F16MOA Aircraft code = 164 Speed = 500 kias Power = 95.4 Altitude Distribution Lower Alt Upper Alt Percent (feet AGL) (feet AGL) Utilization 5000 5000 100

Mission name = A10MOA Aircraft code = 22 Speed = 325 kias Power = 5333.0 Altitude Distribution Lower Alt Upper Alt Percent (feet AGL) (feet AGL) Utilization 5000 5000 100

Mission name = P3MOA Aircraft code = 251 Speed = 150 kias Power = 1200.0 Altitude Distribution Lower Alt Upper Alt Percent (feet AGL) (feet AGL) Utilization 5000 5000 100

Mission name = KC135MOA Aircraft code = 89 Speed = 300 kias Power = 86.0 Altitude Distribution Lower Alt Upper Alt Percent (feet AGL) (feet AGL) Utilization 5000 5000 100

Mission name = F15VR Aircraft code = 146 Speed = 550 kias Power = 82.0 Page 4 existing.txt Altitude Distribution Lower Alt Upper Alt Percent (feet AGL) (feet AGL) Utilization 500 1000 80 1000 3000 20

Mission name = F16VR Aircraft code = 164 Speed = 500 kias Power = 95.4 Altitude Distribution Lower Alt Upper Alt Percent (feet AGL) (feet AGL) Utilization 500 1000 80 1000 3000 20

Mission name = A10VR Aircraft code = 22 Speed = 325 kias Power = 5333.0 Altitude Distribution Lower Alt Upper Alt Percent (feet AGL) (feet AGL) Utilization 500 1000 80 1000 3000 20

MOA OPERATION DATA MOA name = CONDOR 1 Daily Monthly Yearly Mission Day Night Day Night Day Night Time On Range Name OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS (minutes) F15MOA .160 .000 4.80 .00 58. 0. 40 F16MOA .453 .000 13.60 .00 163. 0. 40 A10MOA .107 .000 3.20 .00 38. 0. 50 P3MOA .320 .000 9.60 .00 115. 0. 60 KC135MOA .027 .000 .80 .00 10. 0. 60

MOA name = CONDOR 2 Daily Monthly Yearly Mission Day Night Day Night Day Night Time On Range Name OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS (minutes) F15MOA .040 .000 1.20 .00 14. 0. 40 F16MOA .113 .000 3.40 .00 41. 0. 40 A10MOA .027 .000 .80 .00 10. 0. 50 P3MOA .080 .000 2.40 .00 29. 0. 60 KC135MOA .007 .000 .20 .00 2. 0. 60

Page 5 existing.txt MOA name = CONDOR PROPOSED Daily Monthly Yearly Mission Day Night Day Night Day Night Time On Range Name OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS (minutes)

TRACK OPERATION DATA Track name = VR-0840 Daily Monthly Yearly Mission Day Night Day Night Day Night Name OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS F15VR .133 .000 4.00 .00 48. 0. F16VR .267 .000 8.00 .00 96. 0. A10VR .333 .000 10.00 .00 120. 0.

Grid Specifications: Number of columns = 689 Number of rows = 434 Grid point spacing = 2140. feet.

********************************************************** * Note: The grid spacing was revised due to MR_NMAP * * program limits. * * * * The original grid point spacing was = 1000. feet. * * The revised grid point spacing is = 2140. feet. * **********************************************************

********************************************************** * Warning: Grid points spaced greater than 1000 feet * * apart may not provide the necessary grid resolution, * * in some cases, to compute noise contours with * * high accuracy. For low-altitude track operations, * * the recommended grid spacing is less than 1000 feet. * * * * Computing a high resolution grid may require * * breaking the airspace into sections, * * to avoid exceeding MR_NMAP program limits. * **********************************************************

OMEGA108R was successfully executed.

Mission Name >F15MOA Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 100 126.8 126.8 125 125.3 125.3 160 123.8 123.8 200 122.2 122.2 250 120.6 120.6 315 119.0 117.7 A-Weighted Sound Exposure Level Page 6 existing.txt 400 117.4 115.0 F-15A 550 Kts 500 115.7 112.5 TRAINING ROUTE 82% NC 630 114.0 109.9 Mission Speed 550 Kts Mission Power 82. % NC 800 112.2 107.5 1000 110.3 105.0 Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 1250 108.4 102.5 6300 91.6 86.2 1600 106.4 100.3 8000 88.4 83.2 2000 104.3 98.1 10000 84.8 79.8 2500 102.1 95.8 12500 80.8 75.5 3150 99.7 93.6 16000 76.2 70.5 4000 97.2 91.4 20000 71.1 64.8 5000 94.5 88.9 25000 65.1 58.2 Mission Name >F16MOA Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 100 113.9 113.9 125 112.4 112.4 160 110.9 110.9 200 109.4 109.4 250 107.9 107.9 315 106.3 105.6 A-Weighted Sound Exposure Level 400 104.7 103.2 F-16(G100) 500 Kts 500 103.0 100.7 MID SPD TRAINING RT 95.4% NC 630 101.3 98.4 Mission Speed 500 Kts Mission Power 95. % NC 800 99.6 96.0 1000 97.7 93.7 Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 1250 95.8 91.4 6300 77.9 75.6 1600 93.7 89.3 8000 74.3 72.4 2000 91.5 87.2 10000 70.3 68.6 2500 89.2 85.1 12500 65.9 63.6 3150 86.7 83.0 16000 61.1 57.8 4000 84.0 80.8 20000 55.9 51.3 5000 81.1 78.3 25000 50.4 43.9

Mission Name >A10MOA Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 100 107.0 107.0 125 105.5 105.5 160 103.9 103.9 200 102.3 102.3 250 100.6 100.6 315 98.9 98.4 A-Weighted Sound Exposure Level 400 97.1 96.1 A-10A 325 Kts 500 95.2 93.6 TRAINING ROUTE 5333NF 630 93.3 91.0 Mission Speed 325 Kts Mission Power 5333. NF 800 91.2 88.4 1000 89.1 85.6 Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 1250 86.9 82.7 6300 68.9 64.2 1600 84.6 80.2 8000 66.0 60.8 2000 82.2 77.6 10000 63.0 57.0 2500 79.7 75.0 12500 59.8 52.3 3150 77.1 72.4 16000 56.6 47.2 4000 74.5 70.0 20000 53.2 42.1 5000 71.7 67.2 25000 49.6 37.2 Mission Name >P3MOA Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground Page 7 existing.txt 100 103.0 103.0 125 101.5 101.5 160 100.0 100.0 200 98.5 98.5 250 97.0 97.0 315 95.4 95.0 A-Weighted Sound Exposure Level 400 93.7 92.8 P-3C 150 Kts 500 92.0 90.4 CRUISE POWER 1200ESHP 630 90.3 87.9 Mission Speed 150 Kts Mission Power 1200. ESHP 800 88.4 85.4 1000 86.5 83.0 Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 1250 84.4 80.6 6300 64.8 62.7 1600 82.3 78.4 8000 61.1 58.8 2000 79.9 76.1 10000 57.3 54.3 2500 77.3 73.7 12500 53.5 48.7 3150 74.6 71.3 16000 49.8 43.2 4000 71.6 68.8 20000 46.2 38.6 5000 68.3 65.9 25000 42.6 35.3

Mission Name >KC135MOA Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 100 115.3 115.3 125 113.8 113.8 160 112.2 112.2 200 110.6 110.6 250 108.9 108.9 315 107.2 106.6 A-Weighted Sound Exposure Level 400 105.4 104.2 C-135A 300 Kts 500 103.6 101.6 CRUISE POWER 86% RPM 630 101.7 99.0 Mission Speed 300 Kts Mission Power 86. % RPM 800 99.7 96.4 1000 97.6 93.6 Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 1250 95.4 90.8 6300 77.5 72.7 1600 93.2 88.3 8000 74.3 69.3 2000 90.8 85.8 10000 70.9 65.5 2500 88.4 83.3 12500 67.2 60.8 3150 85.9 80.8 16000 63.3 55.4 4000 83.2 78.4 20000 59.1 49.6 5000 80.4 75.6 25000 54.5 43.3

Mission Name >F15VR Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 100 126.8 126.8 125 125.3 125.3 160 123.8 123.8 200 122.2 122.2 250 120.6 120.6 315 119.0 117.7 A-Weighted Sound Exposure Level 400 117.4 115.0 F-15A 550 Kts 500 115.7 112.5 TRAINING ROUTE 82% NC 630 114.0 109.9 Mission Speed 550 Kts Mission Power 82. % NC 800 112.2 107.5 1000 110.3 105.0 Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 1250 108.4 102.5 6300 91.6 86.2 1600 106.4 100.3 8000 88.4 83.2 2000 104.3 98.1 10000 84.8 79.8 2500 102.1 95.8 12500 80.8 75.5 Page 8 existing.txt 3150 99.7 93.6 16000 76.2 70.5 4000 97.2 91.4 20000 71.1 64.8 5000 94.5 88.9 25000 65.1 58.2 Mission Name >F16VR Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 100 113.9 113.9 125 112.4 112.4 160 110.9 110.9 200 109.4 109.4 250 107.9 107.9 315 106.3 105.6 A-Weighted Sound Exposure Level 400 104.7 103.2 F-16(G100) 500 Kts 500 103.0 100.7 MID SPD TRAINING RT 95.4% NC 630 101.3 98.4 Mission Speed 500 Kts Mission Power 95. % NC 800 99.6 96.0 1000 97.7 93.7 Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 1250 95.8 91.4 6300 77.9 75.6 1600 93.7 89.3 8000 74.3 72.4 2000 91.5 87.2 10000 70.3 68.6 2500 89.2 85.1 12500 65.9 63.6 3150 86.7 83.0 16000 61.1 57.8 4000 84.0 80.8 20000 55.9 51.3 5000 81.1 78.3 25000 50.4 43.9

Mission Name >A10VR Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 100 107.0 107.0 125 105.5 105.5 160 103.9 103.9 200 102.3 102.3 250 100.6 100.6 315 98.9 98.4 A-Weighted Sound Exposure Level 400 97.1 96.1 A-10A 325 Kts 500 95.2 93.6 TRAINING ROUTE 5333NF 630 93.3 91.0 Mission Speed 325 Kts Mission Power 5333. NF 800 91.2 88.4 1000 89.1 85.6 Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 1250 86.9 82.7 6300 68.9 64.2 1600 84.6 80.2 8000 66.0 60.8 2000 82.2 77.6 10000 63.0 57.0 2500 79.7 75.0 12500 59.8 52.3 3150 77.1 72.4 16000 56.6 47.2 4000 74.5 70.0 20000 53.2 42.1 5000 71.7 67.2 25000 49.6 37.2

Noise levels on the tracks were successfully calculated.

***** MOA RANGE NOISEMAP ***** RESULTS

The noise metric is Ldnmr. Page 9 existing.txt

MOA RESULTS Intersecting Uniform Number of MOA MOA Avoidance Distributed Events Above Name Area Area Sound Level SEL of 65 dB (sq statute miles) (dB) CONDOR 1 3196.3 .0 31.2 .5 CONDOR 2 814.4 .0 31.1 .5 TRACK RESULTS Track Name = VR-0840 Maximum Number of Track Centerline Events Above Segment Level (dB) SEL of 65 dB 01 - 02 46.1 .2 02 - 03 46.1 .2 03 - 04 47.3 .3 04 - 05 47.3 .3 05 - 06 47.3 .3 06 - 07 46.1 .2 07 - 08 46.1 .2 08 - 09 45.2 .2

Date: 9/18/2006 Start Time: 18:15: 1 Stop Time: 18:15:26 Total Running Time: 0 minutes and 25 seconds.

Page 10 Noise Modeling – Proposed Action proposed-intermediate.txt ***** MOA RANGE NOISEMAP ***** Version 2.2 Release Date 15 August 1999 SETUP PARAMETERS Number of MOAs and Ranges = 3 Number of tracks = 6 Lower Left Corner of Grid (Lat/Long) = 43 30 00 N 072 00 00 W Upper Right Corner of Grid (Lat/Long) = 46 00 00 N 068 30 00 W Grid spacing = 1000. feet Number of events above an SEL of 65 dB Temperature = 59 F Humidity = 70 Flying days per month = 30

MOA SPECIFICATIONS MOA name CONDOR 1 Latitude Longitude 44 20 01 N 070 51 59 W 44 53 59 N 071 00 53 W 45 14 59 N 071 12 23 W 45 13 59 N 071 07 54 W 45 18 01 N 071 04 59 W 45 19 03 N 071 00 55 W 45 20 60 N 070 59 58 W 45 19 57 N 070 57 32 W 45 16 58 N 070 55 54 W 45 13 60 N 070 53 24 W 45 13 04 N 070 52 01 W 45 14 02 N 070 51 01 W 45 15 59 N 070 49 53 W 45 19 01 N 070 48 27 W 45 24 03 N 069 47 53 W 44 32 51 N 070 12 58 W 44 19 58 N 070 21 56 W 44 20 01 N 070 51 59 W Floor = 5000 feet AGL Ceiling = 50000 feet AGL

MOA name CONDOR 2 Latitude Longitude 44 32 51 N 070 12 58 W 45 24 03 N 069 47 53 W 45 24 60 N 069 29 55 W 45 05 28 N 069 29 55 W 44 32 51 N 070 12 58 W Floor = 5000 feet AGL Ceiling = 50000 feet AGL MOA name CONDOR PROPOSED Latitude Longitude 44 20 01 N 070 51 59 W 44 53 59 N 071 00 53 W 45 14 59 N 071 12 23 W 45 13 59 N 071 07 54 W 45 18 01 N 071 04 59 W 45 19 03 N 071 00 55 W 45 20 60 N 070 59 58 W 45 19 57 N 070 57 32 W 45 16 58 N 070 55 54 W 45 13 60 N 070 53 24 W 45 13 04 N 070 52 01 W 45 14 02 N 070 51 01 W 45 15 59 N 070 49 53 W 45 19 01 N 070 48 27 W 45 24 03 N 069 47 53 W 45 24 60 N 069 29 55 W Page 1 proposed-intermediate.txt 45 05 28 N 069 29 55 W 44 32 51 N 070 12 58 W 44 19 58 N 070 21 56 W 44 20 01 N 070 51 59 W Floor = 500 feet AGL Ceiling = 50000 feet AGL

TRACK SPECIFICATIONS Track name VR-0840 Flag Latitude Longitude Left Right Floor 1 Floor 2 Radius Angle Notation (feet) (feet) (feet AGL) (feet AGL) (feet) (degrees) LW 44 01 59 N 070 48 55 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 24 03 N 070 41 01 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 46 59 N 070 54 02 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 44 58 02 N 070 48 58 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 45 12 57 N 070 25 55 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 45 41 59 N 069 33 00 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 33 00 N 069 14 54 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 16 58 N 069 15 00 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 45 13 31 N 069 35 47 W 30380. 30380. 0 Track name VR-0841 Flag Latitude Longitude Left Right Floor 1 Floor 2 Radius Angle Notation (feet) (feet) (feet AGL) (feet AGL) (feet) (degrees) LW 44 01 59 N 070 48 55 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 24 03 N 070 41 01 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 46 59 N 070 54 02 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 44 58 02 N 070 48 58 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 45 12 57 N 070 25 55 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 45 14 31 N 070 03 47 W 30380. 30380. 0 Track name IR-0800 Flag Latitude Longitude Left Right Floor 1 Floor 2 Radius Angle Notation (feet) (feet) (feet AGL) (feet AGL) (feet) (degrees) LW 44 22 03 N 067 51 55 W 24304. 24304. 17000 LW 44 48 00 N 067 55 59 W 24304. 24304. 17000 LW 44 53 58 N 067 48 55 W 24304. 24304. 10000 LW 44 56 02 N 067 39 53 W 24304. 24304. 10000 LW 44 56 03 N 067 31 55 W 24304. 24304. 3000 LW 44 44 03 N 067 10 54 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 32 59 N 067 11 56 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 27 03 N 067 35 00 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 32 59 N 067 48 00 W 24304. 24304. 3000 LW 44 43 58 N 067 49 58 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 04 01 N 067 53 59 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 08 58 N 067 54 55 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 53 28 N 067 57 30 W 12152. 12152. 0 LW 45 58 33 N 068 01 02 W 12152. 12152. 0 LW 46 03 05 N 068 09 26 W 12152. 12152. 0 LW 46 05 31 N 068 13 02 W 48608. 24304. 500 LW 46 45 31 N 068 34 54 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 46 47 34 N 068 37 31 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 47 03 02 N 068 55 02 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 47 05 04 N 069 08 26 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 46 53 04 N 069 32 29 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 46 42 36 N 069 50 57 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 46 38 07 N 069 54 54 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 45 01 N 070 04 01 W 18228. 24304. 0 LW 45 38 59 N 070 04 56 W 18228. 24304. 0 Page 2 proposed-intermediate.txt LW 45 34 58 N 070 07 56 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 02 57 N 070 57 58 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 01 03 N 071 03 00 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 59 01 N 071 14 59 W 24304. 24304. 8000 LW 44 56 58 N 071 21 01 W 24304. 24304. 8000 LW 44 51 58 N 071 29 58 W 24304. 24304. 8000 LW 44 43 40 N 071 45 00 W 24304. 24304. 12000 LW 44 38 02 N 071 57 54 W 24304. 24304. 12000 Track name IR-0850 Flag Latitude Longitude Left Right Floor 1 Floor 2 Radius Angle Notation (feet) (feet) (feet AGL) (feet AGL) (feet) (degrees) LW 44 28 30 N 067 46 55 W 30380. 30380. 4000 LW 44 56 16 N 068 02 57 W 30380. 30380. 4000 LW 45 09 19 N 068 08 01 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 18 59 N 068 11 58 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 58 01 N 068 29 54 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 13 35 N 068 36 53 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 18 32 N 068 39 27 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 22 03 N 068 50 55 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 12 04 N 068 53 02 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 09 02 N 068 48 53 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 45 56 58 N 068 40 58 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 45 40 29 N 068 59 58 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 24 34 N 069 16 24 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 18 01 N 069 26 57 W 30380. 30380. 500 LW 45 12 27 N 069 33 54 W 30380. 24304. 500 LW 45 04 57 N 069 38 25 W 30380. 24304. 500 LW 44 58 03 N 069 41 55 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 56 34 N 069 49 32 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 53 31 N 069 54 24 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 51 33 N 069 58 06 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 44 50 00 N 070 08 55 W 30380. 18228. 0 LW 44 55 59 N 070 12 56 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 44 59 57 N 070 24 55 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 01 02 N 070 33 46 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 44 51 01 N 070 35 02 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 44 53 28 N 070 22 53 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 44 59 57 N 070 24 55 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 12 32 N 068 54 31 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 13 29 N 068 19 13 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 18 59 N 068 11 58 W 30380. 30380. 1500 Track name IR-0851 Flag Latitude Longitude Left Right Floor 1 Floor 2 Radius Angle Notation (feet) (feet) (feet AGL) (feet AGL) (feet) (degrees) LW 44 28 30 N 067 46 55 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 44 56 16 N 068 02 57 W 30380. 30380. 4000 LW 45 09 19 N 068 08 01 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 13 29 N 068 19 13 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 12 32 N 068 54 31 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 24 34 N 069 16 24 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 40 29 N 068 59 58 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 45 56 58 N 068 40 58 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 09 02 N 068 48 53 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 12 04 N 068 53 02 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 22 03 N 068 50 55 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 18 32 N 068 39 27 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 13 35 N 068 36 53 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 45 58 01 N 068 29 54 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 18 59 N 068 11 58 W 30380. 30380. 1500 Page 3 proposed-intermediate.txt LW 45 13 29 N 068 19 13 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 12 32 N 068 54 31 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 24 34 N 069 16 24 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 18 01 N 069 26 57 W 30380. 30380. 500 LW 45 12 27 N 069 33 54 W 30380. 24304. 500 LW 45 04 57 N 069 38 25 W 30380. 24304. 500 LW 44 58 03 N 069 41 55 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 56 34 N 069 49 32 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 53 31 N 069 54 24 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 51 33 N 069 58 06 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 44 50 00 N 070 08 55 W 30380. 18228. 0 LW 44 55 59 N 070 12 56 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 44 59 57 N 070 24 55 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 01 02 N 070 33 46 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 44 51 01 N 070 35 02 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 44 53 28 N 070 22 53 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 44 59 57 N 070 24 55 W 30380. 30380. 0 Track name IR-0852 Flag Latitude Longitude Left Right Floor 1 Floor 2 Radius Angle Notation (feet) (feet) (feet AGL) (feet AGL) (feet) (degrees) LW 44 28 30 N 067 46 55 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 44 56 16 N 068 02 57 W 30380. 30380. 4000 LW 45 09 19 N 068 08 01 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 13 29 N 068 19 13 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 12 32 N 068 54 31 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 24 34 N 069 16 24 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 18 01 N 069 26 57 W 30380. 30380. 500 LW 45 12 27 N 069 33 54 W 30380. 24304. 500 LW 45 04 57 N 069 38 25 W 30380. 24304. 500 LW 44 58 03 N 069 41 55 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 56 34 N 069 49 32 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 53 31 N 069 54 24 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 51 33 N 069 58 06 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 44 50 00 N 070 08 55 W 30380. 18228. 0 LW 44 55 59 N 070 12 56 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 44 59 57 N 070 24 55 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 01 02 N 070 33 46 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 44 51 01 N 070 35 02 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 44 53 28 N 070 22 53 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 44 59 57 N 070 24 55 W 30380. 30380. 0

MISSION DATA Mission name = F15MOA Aircraft code = 146 Speed = 550 kias Power = 82.0 Altitude Distribution Lower Alt Upper Alt Percent (feet AGL) (feet AGL) Utilization 500 1000 5 1000 3000 10 3000 5000 10 5000 5000 75

Mission name = F16MOA Aircraft code = 164 Speed = 500 kias Power = 95.4 Altitude Distribution Lower Alt Upper Alt Percent (feet AGL) (feet AGL) Utilization 500 1000 15 1000 3000 20 Page 4 proposed-intermediate.txt 3000 5000 20 5000 5000 45

Mission name = KC135MOA Aircraft code = 89 Speed = 300 kias Power = 86.0 Altitude Distribution Lower Alt Upper Alt Percent (feet AGL) (feet AGL) Utilization 5000 5000 100

Mission name = A10MOA Aircraft code = 22 Speed = 325 kias Power = 5333.0 Altitude Distribution Lower Alt Upper Alt Percent (feet AGL) (feet AGL) Utilization 5000 5000 100

Mission name = P3MOA Aircraft code = 251 Speed = 150 kias Power = 1200.0 Altitude Distribution Lower Alt Upper Alt Percent (feet AGL) (feet AGL) Utilization 5000 5000 100

Mission name = F16VR Aircraft code = 164 Speed = 500 kias Power = 95.4 Altitude Distribution Lower Alt Upper Alt Percent (feet AGL) (feet AGL) Utilization 500 1000 80 1000 3000 20

Mission name = A10VR Aircraft code = 22 Speed = 325 kias Power = 5333.0 Altitude Distribution Lower Alt Upper Alt Percent (feet AGL) (feet AGL) Utilization 500 1000 80 1000 3000 20

MOA OPERATION DATA MOA name = CONDOR 1 Daily Monthly Yearly Mission Day Night Day Night Day Night Time On Range Name OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS (minutes)

MOA name = CONDOR 2 Daily Monthly Yearly Mission Day Night Day Night Day Night Time On Range Name OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS (minutes) Page 5 proposed-intermediate.txt

MOA name = CONDOR PROPOSED Daily Monthly Yearly Mission Day Night Day Night Day Night Time On Range Name OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS (minutes) F15MOA .200 .000 6.00 .00 72. 0. 40 F16MOA .900 .000 27.00 .00 324. 0. 40 KC135MOA .033 .000 1.00 .00 12. 0. 60 A10MOA .133 .000 4.00 .00 48. 0. 50 P3MOA .067 .000 2.00 .00 24. 0. 60

TRACK OPERATION DATA Track name = VR-0840 Daily Monthly Yearly Mission Day Night Day Night Day Night Name OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS F16VR .133 .000 4.00 .00 48. 0. A10VR .800 .000 24.00 .00 288. 0.

Track name = VR-0841 Daily Monthly Yearly Mission Day Night Day Night Day Night Name OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS

Track name = IR-0800 Daily Monthly Yearly Mission Day Night Day Night Day Night Name OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS

Track name = IR-0850 Daily Monthly Yearly Mission Day Night Day Night Day Night Name OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS

Track name = IR-0851 Daily Monthly Yearly Mission Day Night Day Night Day Night Name OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS

Track name = IR-0852 Daily Monthly Yearly Mission Day Night Day Night Day Night Name OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS

********************************************************** Page 6 proposed-intermediate.txt * Note: The grid spacing was revised due to MR_NMAP * * program limits. * * * * The original grid point spacing was = 1000. feet. * * The revised grid point spacing is = 2140. feet. * **********************************************************

********************************************************** * Warning: Grid points spaced greater than 1000 feet * * apart may not provide the necessary grid resolution, * * in some cases, to compute noise contours with * * high accuracy. For low-altitude track operations, * * the recommended grid spacing is less than 1000 feet. * * * * Computing a high resolution grid may require * * breaking the airspace into sections, * * to avoid exceeding MR_NMAP program limits. * **********************************************************

***** MOA RANGE NOISEMAP ***** RESULTS

The noise metric is Ldnmr.

MOA RESULTS Intersecting Uniform Number of MOA MOA Avoidance Distributed Events Above Name Area Area Sound Level SEL of 65 dB (sq statute miles) (dB) CONDOR 1 3196.3 .0 .0 .0 CONDOR 2 814.4 .0 .0 .0 CONDOR PROPOSED 4010.7 .0 37.6 .1 TRACK RESULTS Track Name = VR-0840 Maximum Number of Track Centerline Events Above Segment Level (dB) SEL of 65 dB 01 - 02 34.3 .2 02 - 03 34.3 .2 03 - 04 35.5 .2 04 - 05 35.5 .2 05 - 06 35.5 .2 06 - 07 34.3 .2 07 - 08 34.3 .2 08 - 09 33.4 .1 Track Name = VR-0841 Maximum Number of Track Centerline Events Above Segment Level (dB) SEL of 65 dB 01 - 02 .0 .0 02 - 03 .0 .0 03 - 04 .0 .0 04 - 05 .0 .0 Page 7 proposed-intermediate.txt 05 - 06 .0 .0 Track Name = IR-0800 Maximum Number of Track Centerline Events Above Segment Level (dB) SEL of 65 dB 01 - 02 .0 .0 02 - 03 .0 .0 03 - 04 .0 .0 04 - 05 .0 .0 05 - 06 .0 .0 06 - 07 .0 .0 07 - 08 .0 .0 08 - 09 .0 .0 09 - 10 .0 .0 10 - 11 .0 .0 11 - 12 .0 .0 12 - 13 .0 .0 13 - 14 .0 .0 14 - 15 .0 .0 15 - 16 .0 .0 16 - 17 .0 .0 17 - 18 .0 .0 18 - 19 .0 .0 19 - 20 .0 .0 20 - 21 .0 .0 21 - 22 .0 .0 22 - 23 .0 .0 23 - 24 .0 .0 24 - 25 .0 .0 25 - 26 .0 .0 26 - 27 .0 .0 27 - 28 .0 .0 28 - 29 .0 .0 29 - 30 .0 .0 30 - 31 .0 .0 31 - 32 .0 .0 32 - 33 .0 .0 Track Name = IR-0850 Maximum Number of Track Centerline Events Above Segment Level (dB) SEL of 65 dB 01 - 02 .0 .0 02 - 03 .0 .0 03 - 04 .0 .0 04 - 05 .0 .0 05 - 06 .0 .0 06 - 07 .0 .0 07 - 08 .0 .0 08 - 09 .0 .0 09 - 10 .0 .0 10 - 11 .0 .0 11 - 12 .0 .0 12 - 13 .0 .0 13 - 14 .0 .0 14 - 15 .0 .0 15 - 16 .0 .0 16 - 17 .0 .0 17 - 18 .0 .0 18 - 19 .0 .0 19 - 20 .0 .0 20 - 21 .0 .0 21 - 22 .0 .0 22 - 23 .0 .0 Page 8 proposed-intermediate.txt 23 - 24 .0 .0 24 - 25 .0 .0 25 - 26 .0 .0 26 - 27 .0 .0 27 - 28 .0 .0 28 - 29 .0 .0 29 - 30 .0 .0 Track Name = IR-0851 Maximum Number of Track Centerline Events Above Segment Level (dB) SEL of 65 dB 01 - 02 .0 .0 02 - 03 .0 .0 03 - 04 .0 .0 04 - 05 .0 .0 05 - 06 .0 .0 06 - 07 .0 .0 07 - 08 .0 .0 08 - 09 .0 .0 09 - 10 .0 .0 10 - 11 .0 .0 11 - 12 .0 .0 12 - 13 .0 .0 13 - 14 .0 .0 14 - 15 .0 .0 15 - 16 .0 .0 16 - 17 .0 .0 17 - 18 .0 .0 18 - 19 .0 .0 19 - 20 .0 .0 20 - 21 .0 .0 21 - 22 .0 .0 22 - 23 .0 .0 23 - 24 .0 .0 24 - 25 .0 .0 25 - 26 .0 .0 26 - 27 .0 .0 27 - 28 .0 .0 28 - 29 .0 .0 29 - 30 .0 .0 30 - 31 .0 .0 31 - 32 .0 .0 Track Name = IR-0852 Maximum Number of Track Centerline Events Above Segment Level (dB) SEL of 65 dB 01 - 02 .0 .0 02 - 03 .0 .0 03 - 04 .0 .0 04 - 05 .0 .0 05 - 06 .0 .0 06 - 07 .0 .0 07 - 08 .0 .0 08 - 09 .0 .0 09 - 10 .0 .0 10 - 11 .0 .0 11 - 12 .0 .0 12 - 13 .0 .0 13 - 14 .0 .0 14 - 15 .0 .0 15 - 16 .0 .0 16 - 17 .0 .0 17 - 18 .0 .0 Page 9 proposed-intermediate.txt 18 - 19 .0 .0 19 - 20 .0 .0

Date: 12/20/2006 Start Time: 19:49:29 Stop Time: 19:49:51 Total Running Time: 0 minutes and 23 seconds.

Page 10 Noise Modeling – Cumulative Impacts cumulative.txt ***** MOA RANGE NOISEMAP ***** Version 2.2 Release Date 15 August 1999 SETUP PARAMETERS Number of MOAs and Ranges = 3 Number of tracks = 6 Lower Left Corner of Grid (Lat/Long) = 43 30 00 N 072 00 00 W Upper Right Corner of Grid (Lat/Long) = 46 00 00 N 068 30 00 W Grid spacing = 1000. feet Number of events above an SEL of 65 dB Temperature = 59 F Humidity = 70 Flying days per month = 30

MOA SPECIFICATIONS

MOA name CONDOR PROPOSED Latitude Longitude 44 20 01 N 070 51 59 W 44 53 59 N 071 00 53 W 45 14 59 N 071 12 23 W 45 13 59 N 071 07 54 W 45 18 01 N 071 04 59 W 45 19 03 N 071 00 55 W 45 20 60 N 070 59 58 W 45 19 57 N 070 57 32 W 45 16 58 N 070 55 54 W 45 13 60 N 070 53 24 W 45 13 04 N 070 52 01 W 45 14 02 N 070 51 01 W 45 15 59 N 070 49 53 W 45 19 01 N 070 48 27 W 45 24 03 N 069 47 53 W 45 24 60 N 069 29 55 W 45 05 28 N 069 29 55 W 44 32 51 N 070 12 58 W 44 19 58 N 070 21 56 W 44 20 01 N 070 51 59 W Floor = 500 feet AGL Ceiling = 50000 feet AGL

TRACK SPECIFICATIONS Track name VR-0840 Flag Latitude Longitude Left Right Floor 1 Floor 2 Radius Angle Notation (feet) (feet) (feet AGL) (feet AGL) (feet) (degrees) LW 44 01 59 N 070 48 55 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 24 03 N 070 41 01 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 46 59 N 070 54 02 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 44 58 02 N 070 48 58 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 45 12 57 N 070 25 55 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 45 41 59 N 069 33 00 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 33 00 N 069 14 54 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 16 58 N 069 15 00 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 45 13 31 N 069 35 47 W 30380. 30380. 0 Track name VR-0841 Flag Latitude Longitude Left Right Floor 1 Floor 2 Radius Angle Notation (feet) (feet) (feet AGL) (feet AGL) (feet) (degrees) LW 44 01 59 N 070 48 55 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 24 03 N 070 41 01 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 46 59 N 070 54 02 W 18228. 18228. 0 Page 1 cumulative.txt LW 44 58 02 N 070 48 58 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 45 12 57 N 070 25 55 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 45 14 31 N 070 03 47 W 30380. 30380. 0 Track name IR-0800 Flag Latitude Longitude Left Right Floor 1 Floor 2 Radius Angle Notation (feet) (feet) (feet AGL) (feet AGL) (feet) (degrees) LW 44 22 03 N 067 51 55 W 24304. 24304. 17000 LW 44 48 00 N 067 55 59 W 24304. 24304. 17000 LW 44 53 58 N 067 48 55 W 24304. 24304. 10000 LW 44 56 02 N 067 39 53 W 24304. 24304. 10000 LW 44 56 03 N 067 31 55 W 24304. 24304. 3000 LW 44 44 03 N 067 10 54 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 32 59 N 067 11 56 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 27 03 N 067 35 00 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 32 59 N 067 48 00 W 24304. 24304. 3000 LW 44 43 58 N 067 49 58 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 04 01 N 067 53 59 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 08 58 N 067 54 55 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 53 28 N 067 57 30 W 12152. 12152. 0 LW 45 58 33 N 068 01 02 W 12152. 12152. 0 LW 46 03 05 N 068 09 26 W 12152. 12152. 0 LW 46 05 31 N 068 13 02 W 48608. 24304. 500 LW 46 45 31 N 068 34 54 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 46 47 34 N 068 37 31 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 47 03 02 N 068 55 02 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 47 05 04 N 069 08 26 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 46 53 04 N 069 32 29 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 46 42 36 N 069 50 57 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 46 38 07 N 069 54 54 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 45 01 N 070 04 01 W 18228. 24304. 0 LW 45 38 59 N 070 04 56 W 18228. 24304. 0 LW 45 34 58 N 070 07 56 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 02 57 N 070 57 58 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 45 01 03 N 071 03 00 W 24304. 24304. 0 LW 44 59 01 N 071 14 59 W 24304. 24304. 8000 LW 44 56 58 N 071 21 01 W 24304. 24304. 8000 LW 44 51 58 N 071 29 58 W 24304. 24304. 8000 LW 44 43 40 N 071 45 00 W 24304. 24304. 12000 LW 44 38 02 N 071 57 54 W 24304. 24304. 12000 Track name IR-0850 Flag Latitude Longitude Left Right Floor 1 Floor 2 Radius Angle Notation (feet) (feet) (feet AGL) (feet AGL) (feet) (degrees) LW 44 28 30 N 067 46 55 W 30380. 30380. 4000 LW 44 56 16 N 068 02 57 W 30380. 30380. 4000 LW 45 09 19 N 068 08 01 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 18 59 N 068 11 58 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 58 01 N 068 29 54 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 13 35 N 068 36 53 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 18 32 N 068 39 27 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 22 03 N 068 50 55 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 12 04 N 068 53 02 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 09 02 N 068 48 53 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 45 56 58 N 068 40 58 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 45 40 29 N 068 59 58 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 24 34 N 069 16 24 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 18 01 N 069 26 57 W 30380. 30380. 500 LW 45 12 27 N 069 33 54 W 30380. 24304. 500 LW 45 04 57 N 069 38 25 W 30380. 24304. 500 LW 44 58 03 N 069 41 55 W 18228. 18228. 500 Page 2 cumulative.txt LW 44 56 34 N 069 49 32 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 53 31 N 069 54 24 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 51 33 N 069 58 06 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 44 50 00 N 070 08 55 W 30380. 18228. 0 LW 44 55 59 N 070 12 56 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 44 59 57 N 070 24 55 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 01 02 N 070 33 46 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 44 51 01 N 070 35 02 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 44 53 28 N 070 22 53 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 44 59 57 N 070 24 55 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 12 32 N 068 54 31 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 13 29 N 068 19 13 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 18 59 N 068 11 58 W 30380. 30380. 1500 Track name IR-0851 Flag Latitude Longitude Left Right Floor 1 Floor 2 Radius Angle Notation (feet) (feet) (feet AGL) (feet AGL) (feet) (degrees) LW 44 28 30 N 067 46 55 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 44 56 16 N 068 02 57 W 30380. 30380. 4000 LW 45 09 19 N 068 08 01 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 13 29 N 068 19 13 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 12 32 N 068 54 31 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 24 34 N 069 16 24 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 40 29 N 068 59 58 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 45 56 58 N 068 40 58 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 09 02 N 068 48 53 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 12 04 N 068 53 02 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 22 03 N 068 50 55 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 18 32 N 068 39 27 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 46 13 35 N 068 36 53 W 30380. 30380. 2000 LW 45 58 01 N 068 29 54 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 18 59 N 068 11 58 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 13 29 N 068 19 13 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 12 32 N 068 54 31 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 24 34 N 069 16 24 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 18 01 N 069 26 57 W 30380. 30380. 500 LW 45 12 27 N 069 33 54 W 30380. 24304. 500 LW 45 04 57 N 069 38 25 W 30380. 24304. 500 LW 44 58 03 N 069 41 55 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 56 34 N 069 49 32 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 53 31 N 069 54 24 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 51 33 N 069 58 06 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 44 50 00 N 070 08 55 W 30380. 18228. 0 LW 44 55 59 N 070 12 56 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 44 59 57 N 070 24 55 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 01 02 N 070 33 46 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 44 51 01 N 070 35 02 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 44 53 28 N 070 22 53 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 44 59 57 N 070 24 55 W 30380. 30380. 0 Track name IR-0852 Flag Latitude Longitude Left Right Floor 1 Floor 2 Radius Angle Notation (feet) (feet) (feet AGL) (feet AGL) (feet) (degrees) LW 44 28 30 N 067 46 55 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 44 56 16 N 068 02 57 W 30380. 30380. 4000 LW 45 09 19 N 068 08 01 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 13 29 N 068 19 13 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 12 32 N 068 54 31 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 24 34 N 069 16 24 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 18 01 N 069 26 57 W 30380. 30380. 500 LW 45 12 27 N 069 33 54 W 30380. 24304. 500 Page 3 cumulative.txt LW 45 04 57 N 069 38 25 W 30380. 24304. 500 LW 44 58 03 N 069 41 55 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 56 34 N 069 49 32 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 53 31 N 069 54 24 W 18228. 18228. 500 LW 44 51 33 N 069 58 06 W 18228. 18228. 0 LW 44 50 00 N 070 08 55 W 30380. 18228. 0 LW 44 55 59 N 070 12 56 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 44 59 57 N 070 24 55 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 45 01 02 N 070 33 46 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 44 51 01 N 070 35 02 W 30380. 30380. 1500 LW 44 53 28 N 070 22 53 W 30380. 30380. 0 LW 44 59 57 N 070 24 55 W 30380. 30380. 0

MISSION DATA Mission name = F15MOA Aircraft code = 146 Speed = 550 kias Power = 82.0 Altitude Distribution Lower Alt Upper Alt Percent (feet AGL) (feet AGL) Utilization 500 1000 5 1000 3000 10 3000 5000 10 5000 5000 75

Mission name = F16MOA Aircraft code = 164 Speed = 500 kias Power = 95.4 Altitude Distribution Lower Alt Upper Alt Percent (feet AGL) (feet AGL) Utilization 500 1000 15 1000 3000 20 3000 5000 20 5000 5000 45

Mission name = KC135MOA Aircraft code = 89 Speed = 300 kias Power = 86.0 Altitude Distribution Lower Alt Upper Alt Percent (feet AGL) (feet AGL) Utilization 5000 5000 100

Mission name = F16VR Aircraft code = 164 Speed = 500 kias Power = 95.4 Altitude Distribution Lower Alt Upper Alt Percent (feet AGL) (feet AGL) Utilization 500 1000 80 1000 3000 20

MOA OPERATION DATA MOA name = CONDOR PROPOSED Daily Monthly Yearly Mission Day Night Day Night Day Night Time On Range Name OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS Page 4 cumulative.txt (minutes) F15MOA .200 .000 6.00 .00 72. 0. 40 F16MOA .533 .000 16.00 .00 192. 0. 40 KC135MOA .033 .000 1.00 .00 12. 0. 60

TRACK OPERATION DATA Track name = VR-0840 Daily Monthly Yearly Mission Day Night Day Night Day Night Name OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS OPS F16VR .267 .000 8.00 .00 96. 0.

Grid Specifications: Number of columns = 689 Number of rows = 434 Grid point spacing = 2140. feet.

********************************************************** * Note: The grid spacing was revised due to MR_NMAP * * program limits. * * * * The original grid point spacing was = 1000. feet. * * The revised grid point spacing is = 2140. feet. * **********************************************************

********************************************************** * Warning: Grid points spaced greater than 1000 feet * * apart may not provide the necessary grid resolution, * * in some cases, to compute noise contours with * * high accuracy. For low-altitude track operations, * * the recommended grid spacing is less than 1000 feet. * * * * Computing a high resolution grid may require * * breaking the airspace into sections, * * to avoid exceeding MR_NMAP program limits. * **********************************************************

OMEGA108R was successfully executed.

Mission Name >F15MOA Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 100 126.8 126.8 125 125.3 125.3 160 123.8 123.8 200 122.2 122.2 250 120.6 120.6 315 119.0 117.7 A-Weighted Sound Exposure Level 400 117.4 115.0 F-15A 550 Kts Page 5 cumulative.txt 500 115.7 112.5 TRAINING ROUTE 82% NC 630 114.0 109.9 Mission Speed 550 Kts Mission Power 82. % NC 800 112.2 107.5 1000 110.3 105.0 Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 1250 108.4 102.5 6300 91.6 86.2 1600 106.4 100.3 8000 88.4 83.2 2000 104.3 98.1 10000 84.8 79.8 2500 102.1 95.8 12500 80.8 75.5 3150 99.7 93.6 16000 76.2 70.5 4000 97.2 91.4 20000 71.1 64.8 5000 94.5 88.9 25000 65.1 58.2 Mission Name >F16MOA Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 100 113.9 113.9 125 112.4 112.4 160 110.9 110.9 200 109.4 109.4 250 107.9 107.9 315 106.3 105.6 A-Weighted Sound Exposure Level 400 104.7 103.2 F-16(G100) 500 Kts 500 103.0 100.7 MID SPD TRAINING RT 95.4% NC 630 101.3 98.4 Mission Speed 500 Kts Mission Power 95. % NC 800 99.6 96.0 1000 97.7 93.7 Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 1250 95.8 91.4 6300 77.9 75.6 1600 93.7 89.3 8000 74.3 72.4 2000 91.5 87.2 10000 70.3 68.6 2500 89.2 85.1 12500 65.9 63.6 3150 86.7 83.0 16000 61.1 57.8 4000 84.0 80.8 20000 55.9 51.3 5000 81.1 78.3 25000 50.4 43.9 Mission Name >KC135MOA Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 100 115.3 115.3 125 113.8 113.8 160 112.2 112.2 200 110.6 110.6 250 108.9 108.9 315 107.2 106.6 A-Weighted Sound Exposure Level 400 105.4 104.2 C-135A 300 Kts 500 103.6 101.6 CRUISE POWER 86% RPM 630 101.7 99.0 Mission Speed 300 Kts Mission Power 86. % RPM 800 99.7 96.4 1000 97.6 93.6 Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 1250 95.4 90.8 6300 77.5 72.7 1600 93.2 88.3 8000 74.3 69.3 2000 90.8 85.8 10000 70.9 65.5 2500 88.4 83.3 12500 67.2 60.8 3150 85.9 80.8 16000 63.3 55.4 4000 83.2 78.4 20000 59.1 49.6 5000 80.4 75.6 25000 54.5 43.3

Mission Name >F16VR Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 100 113.9 113.9 Page 6 cumulative.txt 125 112.4 112.4 160 110.9 110.9 200 109.4 109.4 250 107.9 107.9 315 106.3 105.6 A-Weighted Sound Exposure Level 400 104.7 103.2 F-16(G100) 500 Kts 500 103.0 100.7 MID SPD TRAINING RT 95.4% NC 630 101.3 98.4 Mission Speed 500 Kts Mission Power 95. % NC 800 99.6 96.0 1000 97.7 93.7 Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 1250 95.8 91.4 6300 77.9 75.6 1600 93.7 89.3 8000 74.3 72.4 2000 91.5 87.2 10000 70.3 68.6 2500 89.2 85.1 12500 65.9 63.6 3150 86.7 83.0 16000 61.1 57.8 4000 84.0 80.8 20000 55.9 51.3 5000 81.1 78.3 25000 50.4 43.9

Process noise levels on > CONDOR PROPOSED MOA area (squared statute miles) > 4010.69 Noise levels on the tracks were successfully calculated.

***** MOA RANGE NOISEMAP ***** RESULTS

The noise metric is Ldnmr.

MOA RESULTS Intersecting Uniform Number of MOA MOA Avoidance Distributed Events Above Name Area Area Sound Level SEL of 65 dB (sq statute miles) (dB) CONDOR PROPOSED 4010.7 .0 37.1 .0

TRACK RESULTS Track Name = VR-0840 Maximum Number of Track Centerline Events Above Segment Level (dB) SEL of 65 dB 01 - 02 34.8 .1 02 - 03 34.8 .1 03 - 04 36.0 .1 04 - 05 36.0 .1 05 - 06 36.0 .1 06 - 07 34.8 .1 07 - 08 34.8 .1 08 - 09 33.8 .1

Date: 9/18/2006 Page 7 cumulative.txt Start Time: 18:15:34 Stop Time: 18:15:56 Total Running Time: 0 minutes and 23 seconds.

Page 8 Noise Modeling – Lmax calculation LMAX.txt Mission Name >F15MOA Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 100 132.8 132.8 125 130.8 130.8 160 128.6 128.6 200 126.5 126.5 250 124.3 124.3 315 122.1 120.8 Maximum A-Weighted Level 400 119.9 117.5 F-15A 550 Kts 500 117.6 114.3 TRAINING ROUTE 82% NC 630 115.2 111.2 Mission Speed 550 Kts Mission Power 82. % NC 800 112.8 108.1 1000 110.4 105.1 Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 1250 107.8 102.0 6300 86.8 81.5 1600 105.2 99.2 8000 83.0 77.9 2000 102.5 96.3 10000 78.9 73.9 2500 99.7 93.5 12500 74.3 69.0 3150 96.8 90.7 16000 69.1 63.4 4000 93.7 87.8 20000 63.3 57.0 5000 90.4 84.7 25000 56.8 49.9

Mission Name >F16MOA Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 100 119.5 119.5 125 117.4 117.4 160 115.3 115.3 200 113.2 113.2 250 111.1 111.1 315 108.9 108.2 Maximum A-Weighted Level 400 106.7 105.2 F-16(G100) 500 Kts 500 104.4 102.1 MID SPD TRAINING RT 95.4% NC 630 102.1 99.2 Mission Speed 500 Kts Mission Power 95. % NC 800 99.8 96.2 1000 97.3 93.3 Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 1250 94.8 90.4 6300 72.7 70.4 1600 92.1 87.7 8000 68.5 66.6 2000 89.3 85.0 10000 63.9 62.2 2500 86.4 82.3 12500 58.9 56.6 3150 83.3 79.6 16000 53.5 50.2 4000 80.0 76.8 20000 47.7 43.1 5000 76.5 73.7 25000 41.6 35.1 Mission Name >A10MOA Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 100 110.5 110.5 125 108.4 108.4 160 106.2 106.2 200 104.0 104.0 250 101.7 101.7 315 99.4 98.9 Maximum A-Weighted Level 400 97.0 96.0 A-10A 325 Kts 500 94.5 92.9 TRAINING ROUTE 5333NF 630 92.0 89.7 Mission Speed 325 Kts Mission Power 5333. NF 800 89.3 86.5 1000 86.6 83.1 Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 1250 83.8 79.6 6300 61.6 57.0 1600 80.9 76.5 8000 58.1 53.0 Page 1 LMAX.txt 2000 77.9 73.3 10000 54.5 48.5 2500 74.8 70.1 12500 50.7 43.2 3150 71.6 67.0 16000 46.9 37.5 4000 68.4 63.9 20000 42.9 31.8 5000 65.0 60.5 25000 38.7 26.3 Mission Name >P3MOA Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 100 103.2 103.2 125 101.1 101.1 160 99.0 99.0 200 96.9 96.9 250 94.8 94.8 315 92.6 92.2 Maximum A-Weighted Level 400 90.3 89.4 P-3C 150 Kts 500 88.0 86.4 CRUISE POWER 1200ESHP 630 85.7 83.3 Mission Speed 150 Kts Mission Power 1200. ESHP 800 83.2 80.2 1000 80.7 77.2 Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 1250 78.0 74.2 6300 54.2 52.0 1600 75.2 71.4 8000 49.9 47.6 2000 72.3 68.5 10000 45.5 42.4 2500 69.1 65.5 12500 41.1 36.3 3150 65.8 62.5 16000 36.8 30.2 4000 62.2 59.4 20000 32.6 25.0 5000 58.3 55.9 25000 28.4 21.1

Mission Name >KC135MOA Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 100 115.8 115.8 125 113.7 113.7 160 111.6 111.6 200 109.4 109.4 250 107.1 107.1 315 104.8 104.1 Maximum A-Weighted Level 400 102.4 101.1 C-135A 300 Kts 500 100.0 98.0 CRUISE POWER 86% RPM 630 97.4 94.7 Mission Speed 300 Kts Mission Power 86. % RPM 800 94.8 91.5 1000 92.2 88.1 Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 1250 89.4 84.8 6300 67.2 62.4 1600 86.5 81.7 8000 63.4 58.4 2000 83.6 78.5 10000 59.4 54.1 2500 80.6 75.4 12500 55.2 48.7 3150 77.4 72.4 16000 50.6 42.8 4000 74.2 69.3 20000 45.8 36.4 5000 70.8 66.0 25000 40.7 29.5 Mission Name >F15VR Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 100 132.8 132.8 125 130.8 130.8 160 128.6 128.6 200 126.5 126.5 250 124.3 124.3 315 122.1 120.8 Maximum A-Weighted Level 400 119.9 117.5 F-15A 550 Kts 500 117.6 114.3 TRAINING ROUTE 82% NC 630 115.2 111.2 Mission Speed 550 Kts Mission Power Page 2 LMAX.txt 82. % NC 800 112.8 108.1 1000 110.4 105.1 Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 1250 107.8 102.0 6300 86.8 81.5 1600 105.2 99.2 8000 83.0 77.9 2000 102.5 96.3 10000 78.9 73.9 2500 99.7 93.5 12500 74.3 69.0 3150 96.8 90.7 16000 69.1 63.4 4000 93.7 87.8 20000 63.3 57.0 5000 90.4 84.7 25000 56.8 49.9 Mission Name >F16VR Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 100 119.5 119.5 125 117.4 117.4 160 115.3 115.3 200 113.2 113.2 250 111.1 111.1 315 108.9 108.2 Maximum A-Weighted Level 400 106.7 105.2 F-16(G100) 500 Kts 500 104.4 102.1 MID SPD TRAINING RT 95.4% NC 630 102.1 99.2 Mission Speed 500 Kts Mission Power 95. % NC 800 99.8 96.2 1000 97.3 93.3 Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 1250 94.8 90.4 6300 72.7 70.4 1600 92.1 87.7 8000 68.5 66.6 2000 89.3 85.0 10000 63.9 62.2 2500 86.4 82.3 12500 58.9 56.6 3150 83.3 79.6 16000 53.5 50.2 4000 80.0 76.8 20000 47.7 43.1 5000 76.5 73.7 25000 41.6 35.1 Mission Name >A10VR Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 100 110.5 110.5 125 108.4 108.4 160 106.2 106.2 200 104.0 104.0 250 101.7 101.7 315 99.4 98.9 Maximum A-Weighted Level 400 97.0 96.0 A-10A 325 Kts 500 94.5 92.9 TRAINING ROUTE 5333NF 630 92.0 89.7 Mission Speed 325 Kts Mission Power 5333. NF 800 89.3 86.5 1000 86.6 83.1 Distance Air to Ground Ground to Ground 1250 83.8 79.6 6300 61.6 57.0 1600 80.9 76.5 8000 58.1 53.0 2000 77.9 73.3 10000 54.5 48.5 2500 74.8 70.1 12500 50.7 43.2 3150 71.6 67.0 16000 46.9 37.5 4000 68.4 63.9 20000 42.9 31.8 5000 65.0 60.5 25000 38.7 26.3

Page 3 SOUND BASICS

B.1 Properties of Sound

B.1.1 Sound Wave Properties

To gain an understanding of the principles applied to the analysis of sound effects, it may first be beneficial to examine the characteristics of "sound" and how they relate to "noise." The definitions of sound and noise are bound up in human perceptions of each. Sound is a complex vibration transmitted through the air that, upon reaching the ears, may be perceived as desirable or unwanted. Noise can be defined simply as unwanted sound or, more specifically, as any sound that is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing, is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying (U.S. EPA 1976). Sound can be defined as an auditory sensation evoked by an oscillation (vibratory disturbance) in the pressure and density of a fluid, such as air, or in the elastic strain of a solid, with the frequency in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 Hz. In air, sound propagation occurs as momentum is transferred through molecular displacement from the displaced molecule to an adjacent one. An object's vibrations stimulate the air surrounding it, and cause a series of compression and rarefaction cycles as it moves outward and inward. The number of times per second the wave passes from a period of compression, through a period of rarefaction, and back to the start of another compression is referred to as the frequency of the wave and is expressed in cycles per second, or hertz (Hz). The distance traveled by the wave through one complete cycle is referred to as the wavelength. The higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength and vice versa. B.1.2 Sound Intensity and Loudness

As sound propagates from a single source, it radiates more or less uniformly in all directions, forming a sphere of acoustic energy. Although the total amount of acoustic energy remains constant as the spherical wave expands, the intensity of the energy [amount of energy per unit of area on the surface of the sphere, normally expressed in watts per square meter (watts/m2)] decreases in proportion to the square of the distance (because the same amount of energy must be distributed over the surface area of the sphere which increases in proportion to the square of the distance from the source). The intensity of the acoustic energy cannot be measured conveniently; however, as the sound waves propagate through the air, they create changes in pressure which can be measured conveniently and provide a meaningful measure of the acoustic power intensity (loudness). The sound intensity is proportional to the square of the fluctuations of the pressure above and below normal atmospheric pressure. Measurements of sound pressure (defined as the root mean square of the fluctuations in pressure relative to atmospheric pressure) is the most common measure of the strength of sound or noise. B.1.3 The Decibel

The faintest sound audible to the normal human ear has an intensity of approximately 10-12 watts/m2. In contrast, the sound intensity produced by a Saturn rocket at liftoff is approximately 108 watts/m2. The ratio of these two sound intensities is 1020 (1 followed by 20 zeros), a range that is difficult to comprehend or use. To permit comparison of values which vary so greatly in magnitude, it is most convenient to express them in terms of their logarithms - the power to which 10 must be raised to equal the number. The logarithms of the sound intensities indicated above would vary from -12 to 8, a range of 20 units. To avoid the use of negative numbers, it is convenient to express the C-1 values in terms of the logarithm of their ratio to a standardized reference value, most frequently the lowest value expected to be encountered. On this logarithmic scale, an increase of 1 unit represents a ten-fold increase in the ratio. On this scale, the values for the sound intensities would vary from 0 to 20. The unit of measurement on a logarithmic scale is the Bel, named in honor of Alexander Graham Bell. The bel is a rather large unit and since each unit represents a 10-fold increase relative to the previous value, it is convenient to divide each unit into 10 subunits known as decibels and abbreviated as dB. Using the decibel scale, our range of intensity ratios now expands to 0.0 to 200.0 rather than 0 to 20. The decibel scale is commonly used for the measurement of values which vary over extremely large ranges. Because the values are the logarithms of ratios, they are dimensionless (have no units of measurement such as length, mass or time) and are normally referred to as levels. By definition:

 MeasuredQuantity  L = 10log  (Eq. 0-1)  ReferencedQuantit y 

Because decibels are logarithmic, they are not arithmetically additive. If two similar sound sources produce the same amount of sound (for example 100 dB each), the total sound level will be 103 dB, not 200 dB. The greater the difference between the two sound levels, the less impact the smaller number will have on the larger. As an example, if 70 dB and 50 dB are logarithmically added, the result is less than 0.05 of a decibel increase, to 70.04 dB. Likewise, when summing multiple events of the same magnitude, the heaviest penalty is paid for the first two or three events, with each successive event having a lesser impact. For example, if five 100 dB events are added, the result is approximately 107 dB. Sound levels can be added using the following equation:

 n xi  10log ∑1010  (Eq. 0-2)  i = 1  A.1.4 Measurement of Sound Intensity

As stated previously, sound pressure can be measured more conveniently and accurately than sound intensity (although measurement techniques are available for measuring sound intensity directly). The sound intensity (power per unit area) varies in proportion to the square of the sound pressure. For example in a plane progressive wave in air, the sound intensity (I) is defined by the equation:

P 2 I = (Eq. 0-3) dC

Where: d=Density of the air C=Velocity of sound in air

The change in sound intensity can be measured in terms of the change in sound pressure level (SPL) expressed in decibels:

C-2 SP 2  = Meas SPL 10 log  2  (Eq. 0-4)  SPRe f 

Where: SPMeas = Measured sound pressure

SPRef = Reference pressure (20 µP)

A.1.5 Sound Propagation and Attenuation

As stated previously, sound intensity decreases with increasing distance from the source due to the dissipation of the sound energy over an increasing area. The sound intensity varies inversely with the square of distance from the source. For each time the distance from the source doubles, the sound pressure is reduced by a factor of two, and the sound level, which is proportional to the square of the pressure, is reduced by a factor of 4. As illustrated by the equation below (Eq. A-5), this is equivalent to a decrease of approximately 6 dB in the sound pressure level for each doubling of distance.

 (.05P 2   P 2   P 2  L = 10 log   = 10 log( 0.5 2 ) + 10 log   =−6 +10 log   (Eq. 0-5)  2   2   2  PRe f PRe f PRe f

In addition to the decrease in sound level which results from the spreading of the sound waves and distribution of the sound energy over an 40 increasingly large area, interaction with the 30 molecules of the atmosphere results in absorption of some of the sound energy. The amount of 20 energy absorbed is dependent on the atmospheric conditions (temperature and 10 humidity) and on the frequency characteristics of Atmospheric Absorption (dB/1000 ft) the sound. Figure 0–1 illustrates the effect of 0 frequency on the absorption of sound under -10 typical weather conditions of 60° F and 49% 100 1000 10000 Frequency (Hz) relative humidity. Source: U.S. DOTrT, ansportation Noise and Its Cont, r1972ol As shown in Figure 0–1, atmospheric absorption can have a significant influence on the attenuation of sounds with a high frequency. For complex noise signals with a significant high frequency Figure 0–1 Typical effect of frequency on component, such as aircraft noise, atmospheric atmospheric absorption of sound attenuation can result in significant reduction in sound levels as the distance from the source increases. Figure 0–2 illustrates typical noise level variation as a function of distance with and without atmospheric absorption effects. As shown in Figure 0–2, the effect of atmospheric attenuation is significant for high frequency sound (1000 Hz and above) at essentially all distance and becomes significant for mid- frequency sound (around 500 Hz) at large distances.

C-3 In addition to molecular absorption, there are a variety of atmospheric phenomena, such as wind and temperature 0 gradients, which affect the propagation of sound through the Inverse Square Propagation -6 dB per doubling of distance air. Sound propagating from sources on or near the ground -10 (such as aircraft ground runups and flight at low altitudes) is also influenced by terrain, vegetation, and structures which -20 may either absorb or reflect sound, depending upon their characteristics and location and orientation relative to the -30 source.

A.1.6 Sound Energy Dose Response -40

Mid Frequency Sound*

Observations that attempt to describe the environmental RELATIVE SOUND LEVEL (dB) -50 High Frequency consequences of discrete events must weigh the Sound* characteristics of the individual sound events by the number -60 of those events. These measurements describe an empirical *Includes atmospheric absorption effects dosage-effect relationship, and are one of the few -70 400 4000 20000 quantitative tools available for predicting sound-induced 1000 10000 annoyance. These metrics are often referred to as DISTANCE FROM SOURCE (FEET) dose-response metrics, and will be discussed later in this Source: U.S. DoD,Planning in the Noise Environment, 1978 appendix. Figure 0–2 Typical attenuation of sound with distance from a point source

C-4 A.2 Human Hearing

A.2.1 How the Human Ear Works

Sound waves entering the ear are enhanced by the resonant characteristics of the auditory canal. Sound waves travel up the ear canal and set up vibrations in the eardrum. Behind the eardrum is a cavity called the middle ear. The middle ear functions as an impedance matcher. It is comprised of three tiny bones that provide frictional resistance, mass, and stiffness, and thus act in opposition to the incoming sound wave and transmit vibrations to the inner ear. More specifically, sound pressure from waves traveling through the air (low impedance) is amplified about 21 times so that it may efficiently travel into the high impedance fluid medium in the inner ear. This is accomplished by the leverage action of the three middle ear bones. The footplate of the stapes, the bone closest to the inner ear, in turn moves in and out of the oval window in the inner ear. The movement of the oval window sets up motion in the fluid that fills the inner ear. The movement of this fluid causes the hairs immersed in the fluid to move. The movement of these hairs stimulates the cells attached to them to send impulses along the fibers of the auditory nerve to the brain. The brain translates these impulses into the sensation of sound. A.2.2 Human Response to Sounds

A.2.2.1 Human Hearing Thresholds

Laboratory experiments have found that the "absolute" threshold of hearing in young adults corresponds to a pressure of about 0.0002 dyne/centimeter2 (cm2) or 0.00002 Pascal. This reference level was determined in a quiet noise environment and at the most acute frequency range of human hearing, between 1,000 and 4,000 Hz. The general range of human hearing is usually defined as being between 20 and 20,000 Hz. Frequencies below 20 Hz are called infrasonic, while those above 20,000 Hz are called ultrasonic. Frequencies in the range of 20 to 20,000 Hz are called sonic, and are referred to as the audible frequency area. A.2.2.2 Loudness

On the decibel scale, an increase in Sound Pressure Level (SPL) of 3 dB represents a doubling of sound energy, but an increase in SPL on the order of 10 dB represents a subjective doubling of "loudness" (U.S. DoD 1978). Table 0–1 depicts the relative loudness of typical noises encountered in the indoor and outdoor environments.

C-5 Table 0–1 Decibel levels (dB) and relative loudness of typical noise sources in indoor and outdoor environments

Subjective Community Noise Levels Home and Industry Noise Levels Loudness dB(A) Overall level (Outdoor) (Indoor) (Relative to 70 dB) Military jet aircraft take-off from aircraft Oxygen torch...... 121 dB 120 Uncomfortably carrier with afterburner at 50 ft.130 dB 32 times as loud loud Turbo-fan aircraft at takeoff power Riveting machine ...... 110 dB 110 at 200 ft...... 118 dB Rock band...... 108-114 dB 16 times as loud Boeing 707 or DC-8 aircraft at 1 nautical mile (6080 ft) before landing....106 dB 100 Very loud Jet flyover at 1000 ft ...... 103 dB 8 times as loud Bell J-2A helicopter at 100 ft....100 dB Boeing 737 or DC-9 aircraft at 1 nautical Newspaper press...... 97 dB mile (6080 ft) before landing...... 97 dB 90 Power mower...... 96 dB 4 times as loud Motorcycle at 25 ft ...... 90 dB Car wash at 20 ft...... 89 dB Food blender...... 88 dB Propeller plane flyover at Milling machine ...... 85 dB 80 1000 ft...... 88 dB Garbage disposal...... 80 dB 2 times as loud Diesel truck 40 mph at 50 ft...... 84 dB Diesel train 45 mph at 100 ft...... 83 dB High urban ambient sound ...... 80 dB Living room music...... 76 dB Passenger car 65 mph at 25 ft ..77 dB Radio or TV-audio, 70 Moderately loud Freeway at 50 ft from pavement vacuum cleaner ...... 70 dB 70 dB(A) edge at 10 a.m...... 76 dB Air conditioning unit at Cash register at 10 ft ...... 65-70 dB 100 ft...... 60 dB Electric typewriter at 10 ft...... 64 dB 60 Dishwasher (Rinse) at 10 ft..... 60 dB 1/2 as loud Conversation...... 60 dB Large transformers at 50 Quiet 100 ft...... 50 dB 1/4 as loud Bird calls ...... 44 dB 40 Lowest limit of urban ambient sound...... 40 dB dB Scale Interrupted 10 Just audible Threshold of 0 Hearing Source: M.C. Branch, et al. 1970. The loudness of sound (sensation) depends on its intensity, and on the frequency of the sound and the characteristics of the human ear. The intensity of sound is a purely physical property, whereas the loudness depends also upon the characteristics of the receptor ear. In other words, the intensity of a given sound striking the ear of a normal hearing person and of a hard-of-hearing person might be the same, but the perceived loudness would be quite different. A.2.2.3 Effects of Frequency on Loudness

The response of the human ear to frequency and intensity is not linear, but varies with sensation level. Figure 0–3 depicts this response characteristic. The equal loudness levels depicted in the figure were defined as the intensity required to make a given test tone seem equally as loud as the reference tone of 1,000 Hz. The unit of loudness level that is used to plot the data is called the phon. Thus, the loudness level in phons of any sound is equal to the intensity level in decibels of a 1,000 Hz tone which is perceived as equal in loudness to the sound under evaluation.

C-6 130 Feeling 120 120 110 110 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 Loudness Level (Phons) Intensity Level (dB) 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 -10 20 100 1000 10000 Frequency (Hz) Source:Noise Effects Handbook, U.S. EPA 1981

Figure 0–3 Equal Loudness Contours

The data in Figure 0–3 can be used to illustrate the effects of both frequency and energy level on the sensation of loudness. The effect of frequency on the perceived loudness is most pronounced at frequencies below 1000 Hz and low sound levels. Although 100 Hz and 1000 Hz tones with intensity levels of approximately 37 dB and 0 dB, respectively, are perceived as equally loud (i.e., barely detectable-0 phons), the 100 Hz tone has 5000 times the sound energy of the 1000 Hz tone. In contrast, 100 Hz and 1000 Hz tones with intensities of 100 dB would sound equally loud-approximately 100 phons. The relationship between frequency, intensity, and loudness is quite complex. However, humans do have a sense of relative loudness, and a fair measure of agreement can be reached on when a sound is one-third as loud as another, one-half as loud, etc.

C-7 A.2.2.4 Frequency weighted sound levels

Because the human ear does not respond to sounds of varying frequency and intensity in a linear fashion, various "weighting" factors are applied to noise measurements in an effort to produce results which correspond to human response. These weighting factors are applied to the levels of sound in specific frequency intervals and added or subtracted based on the average human response to sounds in that frequency range; the resultant values are then summed to determine the overall "weighted" level. The most commonly used weighting systems are the "A" and "C" scales. The A-scale de-emphasizes the low- and high-frequency portions of the sound spectrum. This weighting provides a good approximation of the response of the average human ear and correlates well with the average person's judgment of the relative loudness of a noise event. In contrast, the C-weighting scale gives nearly equal emphasis to sounds of all frequencies and approximates the actual (unweighted) sound level. The C-weighted sound level is used for large amplitude impulse sounds such as sonic booms, explosions, and weapons noise in which the total amount of energy is an important factor Figure 0–4 shows how A-weighting and C-weighting in a sound meter are applied to sounds of various frequencies.

10 C-weighting 0

-10

-20

-30

-40 A-weighting Weighting (dB) -50

-60

-70

-80 10 100 1000 10000 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 0–4 Frequency Responses for Sound Level Weighting Characteristics A.2.2.5 Supersonic Aircraft and Sonic Booms

An aircraft in supersonic flight (faster than the speed of sound) creates a wave of compressed air out in front of the aircraft. This wave is known as a "sonic boom" and is heard, and felt, as C-8 a sudden, loud impulse noise. A sonic boom may be defined as "an acoustic phenomenon heard when an object exceeds the speed of sound"(U.S. DoD AF 1986a). Individuals on the ground experiencing a sonic boom actually hear the change in pressure when air molecules are first compressed and then returned to a more normal state. This pressure differential across the shock wave is relatively large and is very sudden. The human ear perceives this rapid change in pressure as an impulsive sound not unlike a firecracker, a rifle shot, or the crack of a whip. Supersonic aircraft create two categories of sonic booms: the carpet boom and the focused (or super) boom. An aircraft traveling straight and level at supersonic speeds would create a continuous boom that can be likened to a moving carpet across the ground. Focused booms, on the other hand, are a result of maneuvering flight and most often occur during rapid acceleration, tight turns, and pushover operations with a small curvature or arc of the flight track. The surface area affected by focused booms is usually substantially smaller than that impacted by a carpet boom. The intensity and overpressures created by a focused boom may be two to five times higher, while the duration would be about the same. Not all booms created by aircraft are heard at ground level. Variations in atmospheric temperature (decreasing temperature gradients as altitude increases) tend to bend the sound waves upward. Depending on the altitude and Mach number1 of an aircraft, the paths of many sonic booms are deflected upward and never reach the earth. Likewise, the width of the area impacted by a sonic boom can also be decreased. Of those sonic booms that reach the surface, the intensity of the sound overpressure is largely dependent on the aircraft altitude, airspeed, size (length), and attitude (straight and level, turning, climbing, diving, etc.). This peak sound overpressure is expressed in terms of dBC (C-weighted decibel) or pounds per square foot (psf) of pressure. Maximum peak overpressure (Lpk) normally occurs directly under the flight track of the aircraft and decreases laterally at a rate proportional to -(3/4) power of the slant range between the aircraft and the observer. As an example, if an F-16 aircraft flying at supersonic speed and at 15,000 feet above the ground produced a sonic boom that generated an overpressure of 2.4 psf directly beneath the aircraft, the overpressure would decay laterally from the flight path. At 1 mile laterally, Lpk would equal 2.30 psf; at 2 miles, Lpk would equal 2.06 psf, at 3 miles, Lpk would equal 1.81 psf, and by about 4.25 miles, Lpk would equal 0.50 psf.

A.3 Sound Metrics

To assess the impacts of sound on a diverse spectrum of receptors, a variety of metrics may be used. Depending on the specific situation, appropriate metrics may include instantaneous levels, single event, or cumulative metrics. Single event metrics are used to assess the potential impacts of sound on structures and animals, and may be employed for informational purposes in the assessment of some human effects. Cumulative metrics are most useful in characterizing the overall noise environment and are the primary metrics used in development of community (exposed population) dose-response relationships. A.3.1 Single Event Metrics

Metrics used to characterize a single sound event include the instantaneous sound level as a function of time, the maximum sound level, the equivalent (average) level, and the Sound Exposure Level (SEL), a single number metric which incorporates both level and duration. The relationship between these metrics is illustrated in Figure 0–5.

1 Mach Number is defined as the ratio the speed of a moving object to the speed of sound in the medium through which it travels. C-9 110 Legend SEL = 105 dB 105 Instantaneous level Lmax = 101 dB 100 Leq for Lmax>65 t > 91 dB � 6 sec Leq = 97.0 dB 95 Leq for Lmax>91

90 t > 65 dB � 17.5 sec Leq = 92.8 dB Decibels 85

80

75 A-weighted level (dB)

70 Sound Exposure Level (SEL) 65

60

55 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time (seconds)

Figure 0–5 Relationship between single event sound metrics

A.3.1.1 Single Event Instantaneous Sound Levels

The Sound Pressure Level (SPL) and the A-weighted sound level, both expressed in decibels (dB), may be used to characterize single event maximum sound levels for general audible noise. Figure 0–5 indicates the variation in the A-weighted sound level (L) for the time during a typical aircraft flyover event when the level exceeds 65 dB. For this event (which is representative of a flyover by a military fighter aircraft at a distance of approximately 1,000 feet and a speed of 350 knots), the sound level increases rapidly to a level of approximately 101 dB in approximately 5.5 seconds and then decreases back to less than 65 dB in a period of approximately 12 seconds.

A.3.1.2 Single Event Maximum Sound Level (Lmax)

The single event maximum value is the most easily understood descriptor for a noise event, it provides no information concerning either the duration of the event or the amount of sound energy. This metric is currently used for noise certification of small propeller-driven aircraft and to assess potential effects on animals. A.3.1.3 Duration

The "duration" of a sound event can be determined in terms of the total time during which the sound level exceeds some specified threshold value. In the example in Figure 0–5, the level

C-10 exceeds 65 dB for approximately 17.5 seconds. Major limitations on the usefulness of this metric is the absence of a standardized threshold value and the inability to quantify the amount of sound energy associated with the event.

A.3.1.4 Equivalent Level (Leq)

For any specified period, the equivalent sound level, i.e., the level of a steady tone which provides an equivalent amount of sound energy, may be calculated using the relationship:

T  1 LtA ()  = 10 Leq ()T 10 log  ∫10 dt (Eq. 0-6) T 0 

Where: Leq(T) is the equivalent sound level for the period T T is the length of the time interval during which the average is taken, and LA(t) is the time varying value of the A-weighted sound level in the interval 0 to T.

Although the equivalent sound level metric includes all of the sound energy during an event, the absence of a standardized averaging period makes it difficult to compare data for events of different duration. In the example in Figure 0–5, the equivalent level for the 17.5 second duration of the event above 65 dB (Leq(17.5sec)) is approximately 92.8 dB; if the Leq is calculated for the approximately 6 seconds during which the sound level exceeds 90 dB, the result is approximately 97.0 dB. A.3.1.5 Single Event Energy (Sound Exposure Level)

Subjective tests indicate that human response to noise is a function not only of the maximum level, but also of the duration of the event and its variation with respect to time. Evidence indicates that two noise events with equal sound energy will produce the same response. For example, a noise with a constant level of SPL 85 dB lasting for 10 seconds would be judged to be equally as annoying as a noise event with an SPL 82 dB and a duration of 20 seconds. (i.e., one-half the energy lasting twice as long). This is known as the "equal energy principle." The Sound Exposure Level (SEL) is a measure of the physical energy of the noise event which takes into account both intensity and duration. The SEL is based on the integral of the A-weighted sound level during the period it is above a specified threshold (that is at least 10 dB below the maximum value measured during the noise event) with reference to a standardized duration of 1 second. Thus, the SEL is the level of a constant sound with a duration of 1 second which would provide an amount of sound energy equal to the energy of the event under consideration. It may be calculated using the equation for the equivalent level Eq. 0-7 with the duration (T) replaced by the referenced time (Tref) of 1 second.

t t 2 2 L (t)  1 L A (t)   A  SEL = 10 log ∫ 10 10 dt = 10 log ∫10 10 dt (Eq. 0-7) T Ref  t  t 1  1 

Where: TRef is equal to 1 second t1 is the time at which the level exceeds 10 dB below the maximum value; and t2 is the time at which the level drops below 10 dB below the maximum value.

In the example in Figure 0–5, the SEL is approximately 105 dB. The value of considering both total energy and duration is illustrated by comparison of the calculated SEL values based on the time above 65 dB and the time above 91 dB (10 dB less than the maximum recorded C-11 value of 101 dB). The SEL calculated on the basis of the levels during the approximately 17.5 seconds when the sound level is above 65 dB is 105.3 dB; based on the approximately 6 seconds when the level exceeds 91 dB, the calculated SEL is 105.0 dB, a difference of only 0.3 dB. By comparison, the Leq values for the same periods were 92.8 and 97.0 dB, respectively, a difference of 4.2 dB. This comparison illustrates the value of SEL as a single number metric which considers both total energy and duration.

Table 0–2 and Table 0–3 provide SEL and Lmax values for military and commercial aircraft operating at takeoff thrust and airspeed, and measured at a slant distance of 1000 ft. By definition, SEL values are referenced to a duration of 1 second and should not be confused with either the average or maximum noise levels associated with a specific event. As noted in Figure 0–5, the SEL value for the flyover event was approximately 105 dB while the equivalent level based on a duration of approximately 17 seconds was 92.8, a difference of 12.2 dB. By definition, noise levels that exceed the SEL value must have durations of less than one second. For aircraft overflights, maximum noise levels would typically be 5 to 10 dB below the SEL value.

C-12 Table 0–2 Sound Exposure Level (SEL) and Maximum A-Weighted Level (Lmax) Data for Military Aircraft

Aircraft Type Sound Maximum Exposure Sound Level a Level (SEL) (Lmax) Jet Bomber/Tanker/Transport B-1B 123.5 118.3 B-52G 121.5 113.9 B-52H 112.2 105.2 C-17 100.0 94.5 C-5 113.5 106.3 C-135B 106.6 101.9 C-141 105.8 99.7 KC-135A 117.8 109.1 KC-135R 92.2 87.1 Other Jet Aircraft with Afterburners F-4 115.7 109.7 F-14 109.7 106.4 F-15 112.0 104.3 F-16 106.7 101.0 F-18 116.9 108.0 FB-111 108.1 102.3 T-38 105.5 98.3 Other Jet Aircraft without Afterburners A-6 112.5 108.3 A-7 111.3 107.7 A-10 96.9 93.2 C-21 91.1 84.6 T-1A 99.4 90.3 T-37 97.7 91.0 T-39 103.3 96.8 T-43 100.8 94.1 Propeller Aircraft C-12 79.3 73.2 C-130 90.5 83.7 P-3 96.8 91.0 a At nominal takeoff thrust and airspeed and at a slant distance of 1,000 ft from the aircraft. Source: U.S. Air Force, AL/OEBN 1992.

C-13 Table 0–3 Sound Exposure Level (SEL) and Maximum A-Weighted Level (Lmax) Data for Civilian Aircraft Aircraft Type Sound Maximum Exposure Sound Level a Level (SEL) (Lmax) Civil Jet Aircraft 707, DC-8 113.5 104.4 727 112.5 106.5 737, DC-9 110.0 104.0 747 102.5 96.3 757 97.0 91.5 767 96.7 91.2 DC-10, L-1011 100.0 92.3 Learjet 97.1 89.4 a At nominal takeoff thrust and airspeed and at a slant distance of 1,000 ft from the aircraft. Source: U.S. Air Force, AL/OEBN 1992. SEL is a measure of the total energy associated with a single noise event, and is useful for making calculations involving aircraft flyovers. The frequency characteristics, sound level, and duration of aircraft flyover noise events vary according to aircraft type and model (engine type), aircraft configuration (i.e., flaps, landing gear, etc.), engine power setting, aircraft speed, and the distance between the observer and the aircraft flight track. SEL versus slant range values are derived from noise measurements made according to a source noise data acquisition plan developed by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc., in conjunction with the U.S. Air Force's Armstrong Laboratory2 (AL) and carried out by AL. Extensive noise data were collected for various types of aircraft/engines at different power settings and phases of flight. This extensive database of aircraft noise data provides the basis for calculating average individual-event sound descriptors for specific aircraft operations at any location under varying meteorological conditions. These reference values are adjusted to a location by correcting for temperature, humidity, altitude, and variations from standard aircraft operating conditions (power settings and speed). A.3.2 Application of Single Event Metrics

Single event analysis is sometimes conducted to evaluate sleep disturbances at nighttime and less frequently, some speech interference issues, primarily at locations where the cumulative, A-weighted sound is below DNL 65 dB. However, there is no accepted methodology for aggregating effects into some form of cumulative impact metric; and single event metrics do not describe the overall noise environment. As described below, the day-night cumulative methodology includes a 10 dB nighttime penalty that reflects the potential for added annoyance due to sleep disturbance, speech interference, and other effects (U.S. Air Force, AAMRL 1991). Single event prediction methods have limited application to land use planning. One should not infer that an area is simultaneously exposed to a given noise level, since sound decays with

2 The U.S. Air Force Armstrong Laboratory was formerly known as the Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory (AAMRL) and the majority of the work discussed in this section was conducted under that designation C-14 increasing distance from the flight track. The databases used in noise models are based on the average of numerous SEL values collected under carefully controlled conditions and normalized to standard acoustic conditions and aircraft operating parameters. Although these values may be adjusted to reflect specific meteorological conditions (temperature and humidity) and aircraft operating parameters (power setting and speed), they represent average values for that type of aircraft operating under the specified conditions. However, for a variety of reasons including daily/seasonal weather changes, wind speed and direction, variations in aircraft power settings and speed due to weight or weather conditions, etc., SEL values measured for specific events under field conditions may vary significantly from the average values predicted on the basis of the standardized values. Consequently, the single event metric has limited use in evaluating sound impacts. When SEL is used to supplement cumulative metrics, it serves only to provide additional information. SEL has been used to evaluate sleep interference, but does not predict long-term human health effects. Sleep interference evaluation using SEL does not presently account for human habituation. A.3.3 Cumulative energy average metrics

Urban traffic is by far the most pervasive outdoor residential sound source, although aircraft sound is a significant source as well. Over 96 million persons are estimated to be exposed, in and around their homes, to high traffic noise levels. Figure 0–6 depicts the typical daily sound exposure found in various settings. Cumulative energy average metrics correlate well with aggregate community response to the sound environment. They may be derived from single event sound levels or computed from measured data. Although they were not designed as single event measures, they use single event data averaged over a specified time period. Thus single event measures or cumulative measures can relate to speech and sleep disturbance, although the relationship with sleep disturbance is not clearly established (Dean 1992).

C-15 Source: Noise Effects Handbook , U.S. EPA 1981

Figure 0–6 Hypothesized life style sound exposure patterns

C-16 A.3.3.1 Equivalent Sound Level

The Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) is the Energy-Averaged Sound Level (usually A-weighted) integrated over a specified time period. The term "equivalent" indicates that the total acoustical energy associated with a varying sound (measured during the specified period) is equal to the acoustical energy of a steady state level of Leq for the same period of time. The purpose of the Leq is to provide a single number measure of sound averaged over a specified time period (Newman and Beattie 1985). A.3.3.2 Day-Night Average Sound Level

The Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) is the Energy-Averaged Sound Level (Leq) measured over a period of 24 hours, with a 10 dB penalty applied to nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) sound levels to account for increased annoyance by sound during the night hours. The annual average DNL (DNL y-avg.) is the value specified in the FAA Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 noise compatibility planning process, and provides the basis for the land use compatibility planning guidelines in the Air Force Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) program (Newman and Beattie 1985; U.S. Air Force 1984). The typical range of outdoor DNL levels is illustrated in Figure 0–7.

C-17 Typical Range of Outdoor Community Noise Exposure Levels

90

Under Flight Path at Major Airport, ½ to 1 Mile from Runway

80 Downtown in Major Metropolis

Dense Urban Area with Heavy Traffic

70

Urban Area

60 DNL (dB)

Suburban and Low Density Urban 50

Small Town and Quiet Suburban

40 Rural

30

Source: DoD 1978

Figure 0–7 Typical Range of Outdoor Community Day-Night Average Noise Levels (DNL)

C-18 A.3.4 Basis for Use of DNL as the Single Environmental Descriptor

DNL (Leq with a 10 dB penalty for nighttime exposure) was selected by EPA as the uniform descriptor of cumulative sound exposure to correlate with health and welfare effects (U.S. EPA 1974, 1982). Subsequently, all Federal agencies adopted YDNL (Ldny) as the basis for describing community noise exposure. DNL methodology has given consistent results in the national and international literature under a wide range of noise conditions (including loud and soft noise levels, and frequent and infrequent numbers of discrete aircraft events). Although seasonal corrections are not included in the definition of the DNL metric, the methodology does not preclude its use in any analysis of a special, well-defined noise exposure scenario. Sound predictions are less reliable at lower levels (as low as 2 events per day) and at increasing distances from the airport, where the ability to determine the contribution of different sound sources is diminished. Since public health and welfare effects have not been established at these lower levels, there are problems in interpreting predictions below DNL 60 dB (DNL 55 dB plus a 5 dB margin of safety). Much of the criticism of the use of YDNL for community annoyance and land use compatibility around airports may stem from a failure to understand the metric. Another factor may be that some persons exposed to aircraft noise do not accept DNL 65 dB as the appropriate lower limit of noise exposure for noise impact. However, an average sound metric such as DNL takes into account the sound levels of all individual events that occur during a 24-hour period, and the number of times those events occur. The averaging of sound over a 24-hour period does not ignore the louder single events, but actually tends to emphasize both the sound level and number of those events. This is the basic concept of a time-averaged sound metric, and specifically DNL. The logarithmic nature of the dB unit causes sound levels of the loudest events to control the 24-hour average. A.3.5 Day-Night Average Sound Level (C-Weighted)

While peak sound pressure level may be satisfactory for assessing impulses in a restricted range of peak pressures and durations, it is not sufficient as a general descriptor for use in measurement or prediction of the combined environmental effects of impulses having different pressure-time characteristics (U.S. Air Force 1984). The noise measures recommended for assessing these impulsive sound events is the C-Weighted Day-Night Average Sound Level, symbolized Lcdn. C-weighting does not discount the low frequency components of the sound event which are a major part of impulsive noise (see Figure 0–4). Further, estimates of impulsive noise magnitude conform with magnitude estimates of other noises when the high- energy impulsive noise is measured by C-weighting. Lcdn is computed in the same manner as Ldn, except the Energy Averaged Sound Level used would be referenced to the C-weighting scale rather than the A-weighting. Lcdn has been found to correlate well with average human responses to impulsive noise and is the acoustical measure recommended by the National Research Council and the Environmental Protection Agency for assessing the environmental impacts of impulsive noise (U.S. Air Force 1984).

A.3.6 Onset Rate Adjusted Monthly Day-Night Average A-Weighted Sound Level (Ldnmr)

Aircraft operations along low-altitude military training routes (MTRs) create noise effects that are not described well using the metrics that have been identified so far in this appendix. Most MTRs are used intermittently, from five to ten times per day along the most heavily traveled routes to less than ten times per one or two weeks. Average usage is in the range of two to five times per day. MTRS are typically several miles wide and aircraft can use any portion of the route, thus even points under the centerline of the route will probably not be directly overflown by each sortie. Use of MTRs results in noise exposure that is "well below threshold limits for hearing damage or other physiological effects" (U.S. Air Force, AAMRL 1987).

C-19 However, aircraft flying at maneuvering speeds and at a minimum of 500 feet above ground level generate high level, short duration noise events that tend to create annoyance due to a startling effect on people overflown by these aircraft. Ldnmr modifies the DNL metric with a penalty for the onset rate of an aircraft, based on its airspeed, altitude, and number and type of engines. The penalty is a logarithmic ratio of onset rates with the following equation:

Onset Penalty = 16.6 log [Onset Rate (dB/sec)/(15 dB/sec)]

The onset penalty is applied to DNL values computed for low-altitude flight operations. This metric applies for onset rates from 15 dB per second to 30 dB per second. Onset rates below the threshold of 15 dB do not require adjustments to the DNL, while onset rates greater than 30 dB per second are assigned a maximum penalty of a 5 dB increase to the computed DNL. A.3.7 Supplemental Sound Metrics

DNL is sometimes supplemented by other metrics to characterize specific effects. These analyses are accomplished on a case-by-case basis, as required, and may include Leq (Equivalent Sound Level), composite one-third octave band SPL (Sound Pressure Level), SEL (Sound Exposure Level), and Lmax (Maximum Sound Level). Sound pressure levels are the starting points for all other metrics. Composite one-third octave band SPL is used to analyze sound impacts on structures; Lmax is used to assess impacts on animals. SPL and Lmax are expressed in units of decibels (dB).

A.4 Sound Analysis Methodology

A.4.1 NOISEMAP Computer Program

The NOISEMAP program is actually a group of computer programs developed by the U.S. Air Force to predict noise exposures in the vicinity of an air base due to aircraft flight, maintenance, and ground run-up operations. These programs can also be used for noise exposure prediction at civilian or joint-use (military-civilian) airfields if appropriate noise reference files are available. The NOISEMAP programs utilize a database of aircraft noise emission characteristics (NOISEFILE) that is accessed by the OMEGA10 and OMEGA11 subprograms to produce SEL versus slant range values specific to the aircraft operating parameters and meteorological conditions. Data describing flight tracks, flight profiles, power settings, flight paths and profile utilization, and ground run-up information by type of aircraft/engine are assembled and processed for input into a central computer. The NOISEMAP program uses this information to calculate DNL values at points on a regularly spaced 100x100 grid surrounding the airfield. This information is then input to another subprogram that generates contour lines connecting points of equal DNL values in a manner similar to elevation contours shown on topographic maps. Contours are normally generated at 5 dB intervals beginning at a lower limit of DNL 65 dB, the maximum level considered acceptable for unrestricted residential use.

A.4.2 MRNMAP Computer Program

MRNAMP is a noise model used to calculate distributed aircraft operations under Military Operations Areas (MOAs), along Military Training Routes (MTRs), and Ranges. The program begins by calculating a table of SEL values versus ground distance based on the aircraft operating at an equivalent acoustical altitude. Then the distance separating noise contours is multiplied by time spent in the airspace and the actual speed of the aircraft. The result is the are of noise contours swept out under the airspace. The energy-average is calculated by C-20 normalizing this area with respect to the total airspace area and summing over all contours.. The model is based on measurements made in actual MOAs and aircraft trajectory data collected from aircraft training in MOAs and on ranges.

MRNMAP can generate several metrics including Leq, Ldn, and Ldnmr. The Ldnmr calculations are accomplished using the validated Air Force algorithm. All the raster files created by MRNMAP can be displayed on a standard VGA computer screen, output to an ASCII file containing a grid of equally spaced numbers, and output to a Geographic Information System compatible raster file.

A.4.3 ROUTEMAP Computer Program

ROUTEMAP calculates ground level noise exposure along an MTR corridor. ROUTEMAP treats an individual flight track as a point source moving along a line, which, when time-averaged, becomes a line source. Vertical plane dispersion is modeled by using an equivalent acoustical altitude that is determined from an altitude distribution of time spent at selected altitude ranges. Algorithms used in ROUTEMAP are either the same as or closely resemble those used by NOISEMAP, with the difference being ROUTEMAP's adaptation for low-altitude, high speed flyovers (Cook n.d.). ROUTEMAP generates its adjusted SEL values from the ROUTEFILE dataset, OMEGA10R. Input variables required are aircraft type, number of day and night operations per month, airspeed, power setting, altitude, and whether the flight is VFR or IFR. Ldnmr is computed for ground positions within 13 miles of the route centerline. ROUTEMAP can also compute Leq, the monthly A-weighted noise level without onset or night penalty and the population expected to be highly annoyed as a function of Ldnmr (Cook n.d.). A.4.4 Integrated Noise Model (INM) Computer Program

The INM program was initially released in January 1978 by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The model has been substantially updated since that time, and is the recommended tool for site analysis for Airport Noise Control and Land Use Compatibility (ANCLUC) planning studies. INM contains computer models for determining the impact of aircraft noise in and around airports. This noise impact can be given in terms of contours of equal noise exposure for Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF), Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL), and Time Above a specified threshold of A-weighted sound (TA). The contours are presented in the form of a printout of the contour coordinates and area impacted, and as a plot of the contours. In addition, a printout report of populations within the contour areas may be produced. The model also allows for the calculation of several noise measures at specific points (grid) in the airport vicinity. The output from this type of calculation is a printout report. The model also produces a number of supporting reports.

C-21 REFERENCES

Babish, W., and J. Gallacher, 1990. "Traffic Noise, Blood Pressure and Other Risk Factors ­ The Caephilly and Speedwell Collaborative Heart Disease Studies." Noise '88: New Advances in Noise Research. pp. 315-326, Council for Building Research Stockholm, Sweden, Swedish.

Bedard, A.J., and R.K. Cook. 1987. "Pressure Fields from Aircraft and Localized Severe Weather as Building Design Parameters." J. Wind Eng. and Ind. Aerodynm. 25:355-363.

Carden, H.D., et al. 1969. "Building Variations Due to Aircraft Noise and Sonic Boom Excitation." Sym. Mach. Noise, ASME Paper 69-WA/GT-8.

Clarkson, B.L., and W.H. Mayes. 1972. Sonic Boom Building Structure Responses Including Damages. J. Acoustical Society 51, 742-757.

Cook, Brenda W., and M.J. Lucas. N.d. A Review of Air Force Policy and Noise Models Pertaining to the Noise Environment Under Low-Altitude, High-Speed Training Areas.

Dean, Herb. 1992. Personal Communication. Washington, D.C.: AFCEE/ESE-W, Dept. of the Air Force.

Fidell, S., and David M. Green. 1989. "A Systematic Interpretation of a Dosage-Effect Relationship for the Prevalence of Noise-Induced Annoyance." In: U.S. Air Force, Noise and Sonic Boom Impact Technology. HSD-TR-89-008. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: U.S. Dept. of Defense.

Fields, James M., and Frederick L. Hall. 1987. "Community Effects of Noise." P.M. Nelson, ed. In: Transportation Noise Reference Book, pp. 3.1-3.27. Cambridge, GB: Butterworth Co. Ltd.

Fields, J.M., and C.A. Powell. 1987. "Community Reactions to Helicopter Noise: Results from an Experimental Study." Journal of Acoustical Society of America 82(2):479-492.

Finegold, L.S., S. Fidell, N.H. Reddingius, and B.A Kugler. 1990. "NSBIT Program: Development of Assessment System for Aircraft Noise (ASAN) and Research on Human Impacts of Aircraft Overflight Noise." Published in Proceedings of Inter- Noise 90: 1115-1120. Gothenburg, Sweden.

Finegold, L.S., C.S. Harris, and H.E. von Gierke. 1992. "Applied Acoustical Report: Criteria for Assessment of Noise Impacts on People." Submitted to Journal of Acoustical Society of America. June 1992.

Frankel, Marvin. 1986. "Regulating Noise from Illinois Airports." Illinois Business Review 43:3­ 9.

Frerichs, R.R., B.L. Beeman, and A. H. Coulson. 1980. "Los Angles Airport Noise and Mortality - Faulty Analysis and Public Policy." American Journal of Public Health, 70:357-362.

Galloway, William. 1991. Personal communication with Herb Dean, Larry McGlothlin, Jerry Speakman, Jim Hegland, and Dr. Henning von Gierke. Washington, D.C.

C-22 Griefahn, B., and A. Muzet. 1978. "Noise-Induced Sleep Disturbances and Their Effect on Health." Journal of Sound and Vibration 59(1):99-106.

Harris, Stan, Henning von Gierke, and Jerry Speakman. 1991. Personal Communication with Larry McGlothlin. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: U.S. Air Force, AAMRL.

Hattis, D., B. Richardson, and N. Ashford. 1980. Noise, General Stress Responses, and Cardiovascular Disease Processes: Review and Reassessment of Hypothesized Relationships. EPA Report No. 550/9-80-101. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA

Horonjeff, R., R. Bennett, and S. Teffeteller. 1978. Sleep Interference. BBN Rpt. No. 3710. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute.

International Organization for Standardization. 1959. Expression of the Physical and Subjective Magnitude of Sound or Noise. ISOR 131. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.

Ising, H., and M. Spreng. 1988. "Effects of Noise From Military Low Level Flights on Humans." Proceedings of "Noise as a Public Health Problem." Swedish Council for Building Research. Stockholm, Sweden 1988. Editors: B. Berglund; U. Berglund; J. Karlsson; T. Lindzall. Volumes I - III.

Ising, H., K. Rebentisch., I. Curio., H. Otten, and W. Schulte. 1991. "Health Effects of Military Low-Altitude Flight Noise." Environmental Research Plan of the Federal Minister for the Environment, Protection of Nature and Reactor Security. Noise Abatement Research Report No. 91-105 01 116. Berlin, Germany: Institute of Water, Soil and Air Hygiene of the Federal Health Office.

Karagodina, I.L, S.A. Soldatkina, I.L. Vinokur, and A.A. Klimukhin. 1969. "Effect of Aircraft Noise on the Population Near Airports." Hygiene and Sanitation 34: 182-187.

Lukas, J. 1975. "Noise and Sleep: A Literature Review and a Proposed Criterion for Assessing Effect." Journal of the American Acoustical Society 58(6).

Lukas, J. 1977. Measures of Noise Level: Their Relative Accuracy In Predicting Objective and Subjective Responses to Noise During Sleep. EPA-600/1-77-010. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Luz, G.A., R. Raspet, and P.D. Shomer. 1985. "An Analysis of Community Complaints to Army Aircraft and Weapons Noise." Community Reaction to Impulsive Noise: A Final 10-Year Research Summary. Tech. Rpt. N-167. Champaign, Illinois: U.S. Army Construction Research Laboratory.

Meechem, W.C., and N.A. Shaw. 1988. "Increase in Disease Mortality Rates Due to Aircraft Noise." Proceedings of the International Congress of Noise as a Public Health Problem. Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm, Sweden, 21-25 August.

National Research Council (NRC). Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics (CHABA). 1977. Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Impact Statements on Noise. Report of Working Group 69 on Evaluation of Environmental Impact of Noise. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.

National Research Council. Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics (CHABA). 1981. The Effects on Human Health From Long-Term Exposures to Noise. Report of Working Group 81. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

C-23 National Research Council. Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics (CHABA). 1982. Prenatal Effects of Exposure to High-Level Noise. Report of Working Group 85. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council.

Newman, T.S., and K.R. Beattie. 1985. Aviation Noise Effects. Report No. FAA-EE-85-2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Environment and Energy

Ollerhead, J.B., et al. 1992. Report of a Field Study of Aircraft Noise and Sleep Disturbance. A study commissioned by the Department of Transport from the Department of Safety, Environment and Engineering Civil Aviation Authority. Department of Transport, Civil Aviation Authority, London, England.

Pearson, K. April. 1974. Handbook of Noise Ratings. NASA CR-2376. Washington, D.C.: Bolt, Beranek and Newman.

Pearson, K., D. Barber, and B. Tabachnik. 1989. Analysis of the Predictability of Noise- Induced Sleep Disturbance. NSBIT Report No. HAD-TR-89-029. Brooks AFB, Texas: Human Systems Division, Noise and Sonic Boom Impact Technology, Advanced Development Program Office.

Peterson, E.A., J.S. Augenstein, and C.L. Hazelton. 1984. "Some Cardiovascular Effects of Noise." Journal of Auditory Research 24:35-62.

Schomer, P.D. 1981. "The Growth of Community Annoyance with Loudness and Frequency of Occurrence of Events." Noise Control Engineering July-August 1981.

Shultz, T.J. 1978. "Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise Annoyance." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 64(2):377-405.

Society of Aeronautical Engineers. 1985. "Estimation of One-Third-Octave Band Lateral Attenuation of Sound from Jet-Propelled Airplanes." SAE Aerospace Information Report; AIR 1906.

Speakman, J. 1992. Personal Communication. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: Air Force, Systems Command, Armstrong Laboratory.

Talbott, E., J. Helmkamp, K. Matthews, L Kuller, E. Cottington, and G. Redmond. 1985. "Occupational Noise Exposure, Noise-Induced Hearing Loss, and the Epidemiology of High Blood Pressure." American Journal of Epidemiology. 121:501-515.

Thompson, S.J. 1981. Epidemiology Feasibility Study: Effects of Noise on the Cardiovascular System. EPA Report No. 550/9-81-103. Washington, D.C.: EPA

Thompson, S., S. Fidell, and B. Tabachnick. 1989. "Feasibility of Epidemiologic Research on Nonauditory Health Effects of Residential Aircraft Noise Exposure, Volumes I, II & III." NSBIT Report No. HSD-TR-89-007. Brooks AFB, Texas: U.S. Air Force, Human Systems Division, Noise and Sonic Boom Impact Technology, Advanced Development Program Office (HQ HSD/YA-NSBIT).

U.S. Air Force. 1984. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Handbook. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Air Force.

C-24 U.S. Air Force. 1984. Guidelines: Assessing Noise Impact of Air Force Flying Operations. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Air Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Engineering and Services.

U.S. Air Force. Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory. 1987. Environmental Noise Assessment for Military Aircraft Training Routes, Volume 2: Recommended Noise Metric. AAMRL-TR-87-001. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Air Force Systems Command, Human Systems Division.

U.S. Department of Defense, Air Force. Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory. 1991. Personal Communication with Dr. Stan Harris, Dr. Henning von Gierke, and Mr. Jerry Speakman.

U.S. Department of Defense, Air Force. Headquarters. 1984. Assessing Noise Impact of Air Force Flying Operations. Washington, DC: Dept. of the Air Force.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. 1973. Statistical Prediction Model for Glass Breakage From Nominal Sonic Boom Loads. FAA-RD­ 73-79. Washington, D.C.: Federal Aviation Administration.

U.S. Departments of the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy. 1978. Planning in the Noise Environment. AFM 19-10, TM 5-803-2, and NAVFAC P-970. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. About Sound. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. Noise Effects Handbook. Fort Walton Beach, Florida: Prepared by National Association of Noise Control Officials for U.S EPA, Office of Noise Abatement and Control.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Noise Abatement and Control. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. EPA-550/9-74-004. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Noise Abatement and Control. 1976. About Sound. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Noise Abatement and Control. 1981. Noise Effects Handbook: A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise. EPA Report No. 550/9-82-106. Fort Walton Beach Fl.: National Assoc. of Noise Control.

U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency. Office of Noise Abatement and Control. 1982. Guidelines for Noise Impact Analysis. EPA-550/9-82-1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA. van Dijk, F.J.H., A.M Souman, and F.F. de Fries. 1987. "Nonauditory Effects of Noise in Industry, Volume I: A Final Field Study in Industry." International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 59:133-145.

C-25 B. EFFECTS OF SOUNDS ON HUMANS

Undesired sound may interfere with a broad range of human activities, degrading public health and welfare. Affected activities may include speech, sleep, learning, relaxation, listening, and other human endeavors. The level of sound that interferes with human activity depends on the activity and its contextual frame of reference. The effect of activity interference is often described in terms of annoyance. However, various other factors, such as attitude towards the sound source and local conditions, may influence an individual's reaction to activity interferences (U.S. EPA, Office of Noise Abatement and Control 1974).

B.1 Annoyance

Annoyance is a summary measure of the general adverse reaction of people to noise that produces speech interference; sleep disturbance; induces a desire for a tranquil environment; or interferes with the ability to use the telephone, radio or television satisfactorily. The measure of this adverse reaction is the percentage of area population that feels highly annoyed by sound of a specified level. Sound can be defined as an auditory sensation evoked by an oscillation (vibratory disturbance) in the pressure and density of a fluid (including air), or in the elastic strain in a solid, with frequency in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 Hz. Noise can be defined simply as any unwanted sound; or, more specifically, as any sound that is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing, is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying (U.S. EPA, Office of Noise Assessment and Control 1976). In practice, the definitions of sound and noise are bound up in the subjective human perceptions of each. Annoyance is a psychological response to a given noise exposure. It may result from speech or sleep interference, but it can arise in a variety of other circumstances. The perceived unpleasantness of the noise is a factor of annoyance, as is any anxiety or apprehension that the noise may cause (Frankel 1986). Community response is a term used to describe the annoyance of groups of people exposed to environmental noise in residential settings. The preponderance of case histories and social surveys indicate that the response of a community to aircraft noise is affected not only by how loud the sound is, but also by how often sound events occur (e.g., the total sound exposure in a specified time period). This is consistent with the results of psychoacoustic laboratory experiments that show that the magnitude of sound and its duration are exchanges on an energy summation basis. On the assumption that community response is related to the total sound energy in a specified time period, events of equal magnitude are summed on the basis of 10 Log N where N is the number of events. Recent studies have shown that 10 Log N can be used to accurately predict community annoyance for sound events as low as 2 per day; other studies had previously shown that 10 Log N worked well for cumulative sound exposure of several hundred events per day (Schomer 1981, Fields and Powell 1987). The effect of noise on people derives from complex relationships between numerous factors; and separating the effects of these often confounding factors is impractical, if not impossible. The variability in the way individuals react to sound makes it impossible to accurately predict how any one individual will respond to a given sound. However, when the community is considered as a whole, trends emerge which relate noise to annoyance. DNL alone provides an adequate indicator of community annoyance to aircraft noise. EPA's "Levels" document states "This formula of equivalent level [DNL] is used here to relate noise in residential environments to chronic annoyance by speech interference and in some part by sleep and activity interference" (U.S. EPA, Office of Noise Abatement and Control 1974). C-26 In 1978, Schultz synthesized a relationship between transportation noise exposure and the prevalence of annoyance in communities from the findings of a number of social surveys. These assessments have become the model for assessing the effects of long-term sound exposure on communities. Schultz developed methods for converting sound exposures measured in different units to a common set of units (DNL) and devised ways of comparing annoyance judgements measured on very different response scales. The independent variable Schultz chose for the dosage-effect relationship was a cumulative measure of the time integral of sound intensity to which the communities are exposed. The dependent variable was a measure of the upper portion of the distribution of self-reported annoyance. The resulting metric, "Percent Highly Annoyed," is symbolically illustrated as (%HA). The logistic fits by Armstrong Laboratory to Schultz (161 points) and an update of 400 data points are expressed by the following relationship: Fit to 400 points: %HA = 100/[1 + EXP(11.13 - .141 LDN)] Schultz Fit: %HA = 100/[1 + EXP(10.43 - .132 LDN)] This approximation was adopted in preference to a third order polynomial least squares fit as recommended by Fidell and Green (1989) to ensure the dose-response relationship predicts no annoyance at an exposure level of DNL 45 dB, and conforms with the EPA Levels document. Results derived from a recent analysis by Armstrong Laboratory of the update of 400 data points to the Schultz curve validate the continued accuracy of the Schultz relationship between DNL and %HA. Further, %HA remains the best approach since the updated curve differs less than one percent in the DNL range of 45 dB to 75 dB from the original logistics fit. Finally, the review also concluded that the DNL-%HA relationship is valid for all types of transportation noise. The new curve is shown in Figure B–1.

C-27 Annoyance 100 Fit to 400 Points : %HA = 100 / ( 1 + EXP ( 11.13 - .141 Ldn ) )

Schultz Fit : %HA = 100 / ( 1 + EXP ( 10.43 - .132 Ldn ) )

80

60 % Highly Annoyed

40

20

0 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 Day-Night Average Sound Level in dB

Figure B–1 Comparison of Logistic Fits for Prediction of Percent Highly Annoyed--Schultz Data (161 points) and Update of 400 Data Points Thus, the "Schultz Curve" is the best available source of empirical dosage-effect information for predicting community response to transportation noise; and annoyance is the characterization of the community response. On the other hand, complaints are not a measure of community impact. An analysis of complaints by Luz, Raspet and Schomer (1985) supports noise abatement (reduction) policies based on an assessment of the level of annoyance rather than the number of complaints. Annoyance can exist without complaints and, conversely, complaints may exist without adverse sound levels. The current body of evidence indicates that complaints are an inadequate indicator of the full extent of noise effects on a population (Fields and Hall 1987). The estimates of annoyance presented in this document are based on the average Percent Highly Annoyed for each DNL interval indicated in Table B–1.

C-28 Table B–1 Average Percent Highly Annoyed (%HA) by DNL Level DNL % Highly DNL % Highly DNL % Highly Annoyed Annoyed Annoyed 50 1.6626 64 10.8515 78 46.7048 51 1.9096 65 12.2927 79 50.225 52 2.1924 66 13.8955 80 53.743 53 2.516 67 15.6699 81 57.2241 54 2.886 68 17.6245 82 60.6351 55 3.3086 69 19.7657 83 63.9455 56 3.7906 70 22.0974 84 67.1284 57 4.3397 71 24.6197 85 70.1615 58 4.9642 72 27.3289 86 73.0271 59 5.6733 73 30.2167 87 75.7128 60 6.4767 74 33.27 88 78.2109 61 7.385 75 36.4705 89 80.5182 62 8.4092 76 39.7953 90 82.6353 63 9.5609 77 43.2171 Note: Fit to 400 data points.

B.2 Speech Interference

Speech interference associated with aircraft noise is a primary source of annoyance to individuals on the ground. The disruption of leisure activities (such as listening to the radio, television, and music), and conversation gives rise to frustration and irritation. Quality speech communication is obviously also important in the classroom, office, and industrial settings. Researchers have found that aircraft noise at the 75 dB level annoyed the highest percentage of the population when it interfered with television sound, with eighty percent of the test population reporting annoyance. Also high on the list of annoyances for the surveyed population was flickering of the television picture and interference with casual conversation by aircraft noise (Newman and Beattie 1985). Noise levels that interfere with listening to a desired sound such as speech or music can be defined in terms of the level of interfering sound required to mask the desired sound. Such levels have been quantified for speech communication by directly measuring the interference with speech intelligibility as a function of the level of the intruding sound relative to the level of speech sounds (U.S. EPA, Office of Noise Abatement and Control 1974). In general, it was found that intelligibility is related to the amount by which the levels of speech signals exceed steady state noise levels. The difference between speech and noise levels is usually referred to as the speech-to-noise ratio. However, since no quantitative relationship has been established between speech interference and learning, no additional criteria have been developed for determining speech interference effects on learning.

B.3 Hearing Loss

Hearing loss can be either temporary or permanent. A noise-induced temporary threshold shift is a temporary loss of hearing experienced after a relatively short exposure to excessive noise. A Noise-Induced Temporary Threshold Shift (NITTS) means that the detection level of sound has been increased. Recovery is fairly rapid after cessation of the noise. A Noise-Induced Permanent Threshold Shift (NIPTS) is an irreversible loss of hearing caused by prolonged exposure to excessive noise. This loss is essentially indistinguishable from the normal hearing loss associated with aging. Permanent hearing C-29 loss is generally associated with destruction of the hair cells of the inner ear. Based on EPA criteria, hearing loss is not expected for people living in areas with DNL < 75 dB. Further, as stated in the EPA Levels document, changes in hearing levels of 5 dB are generally not considered noticeable or significant (U.S. EPA, Office of Noise Abatement and Control 1974). An outdoor DNL of 75 dB is considered the threshold above which the risk of hearing loss is evaluated. Following guidelines recommended by the Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics, the average change in the threshold of hearing for people exposed to DNL ≥ 75 dB was evaluated (National Research Council 1977). Results indicated that an average of 1 dB hearing loss could be expected for people exposed to DNL ≥ 75 dB. For the most sensitive 10% of the exposed population, the maximum anticipated hearing loss would be 4 dB. These hearing loss projections must be considered high as the calculations are based on an average daily outdoor exposure of 16 hr (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) over a 40 year period. It is doubtful that any individual would spend this amount of time outdoors within the DNL ≥ 75 dB contours.

B.4 Sleep Disturbance

The effects of noise on sleep have long been a concern of parties interested in assessing residential noise environments. Early studies, conducted mainly in the 1970s, measured noise levels in bedrooms in which sleep was apparently undisturbed by noise. Tests were conducted mainly in laboratory environments in which sleep disturbance was measured in a variety of ways. Most frequently, awakening was measured either by a verbal response, or a button push; in some instances, sleep disturbance, as well as awakening, was determined by electroencephalograph (EEG) recordings of brain activity which indicated stages of sleep and awakening. Various types of noise were presented to the sleeping subjects throughout the night. These noises consisted primarily of transportation noises, including those produced by aircraft, trucks, cars and trains. The aircraft noises included both subsonic aircraft flyover noises as well as sonic booms. Synthetic noises, including laboratory- generated sounds consisting of shaped noises and tones, were also studied. Reviews by Lukas (1975), Griefahn and Muzet (1978), and Pearsons et al. (1989) provide an overview of data available in the 1970s on the effects of different levels of noise on sleep-state changes and waking. Various A-weighted levels between 25 and 50 dB were observed to be associated with an absence of sleep disturbance. Because of the large variability of the data in these reviews, there is some question as to the reliability of the results. Consequently, the dose-response curve developed by Lukas, which plots the probability of awakening as a function of SEL, provides a guide only to the most extreme limits of the potential effects of noise on sleep. The 10-dB nighttime "penalty" added to noise levels for the period 10 PM to 7 AM in computing DNL is intended to account for the intrusiveness of noise at night, partly due to the lower nighttime ambient, and therefore tends to reflect to some extent the potential for wakeups. However, some agencies believe that if there are an unusual number of nighttime noise events, supplemental analysis to indicate sleep disturbance semi- quantitatively, in terms of the putative number of wakeups, is desirable. Such an analysis is generally based on a "single-event" parameter, such as SEL or Lmax. Based on the literature reviewed in a recent Air Force-sponsored study of sleep disturbance (Pearsons et al. 1989), no specific adverse health effects have been clearly associated with sleep disturbance, either awakening or sleep-state changes. Nevertheless, sleep disturbance, particularly awakening, is generally considered undesirable, and may be considered an impact caused by noise exposure (consequently, awakening has been

C-30 selected as the parameter recommended for evaluating the effects of noise on sleep). The U.S. Air Force plans to conduct a field study of sleep disturbance, using awakening as the dependent variable, in the near future (1993/1995) (Finegold et al. 1990). As reported in the 1989 study by Pearsons et al, the effort to develop sleep disturbance prediction curve identified the need for substantially more research in this area. Of concern were: • large discrepancies between laboratory and field studies; • highly variable and incomplete data bases; • lack of appropriate field studies; • the study's methodologies; • the need to consider non-acoustic effects; and • the role of habituation. In cases where supplemental analysis of potential sleep disturbance is considered necessary, the USAF has developed an interim dose-response curve to predict the percent of exposed population expected to be awakened (% awakening) as a function of exposure to single event noise levels expressed as SEL (Finegold et al. 1992). This interim prediction curve is based on statistical adjustment of the most recent, inclusive analysis of published sleep disturbance studies conducted by Pearson et al. (1989). The recommended dose- response relationship is expressed by the equation: %Awaking = (7.079x 10- 6)x SEL3.496 This recommended interim dose-response relationship is shown by the curve in Figure B–2, and the individual points shown in the figure represent groupings of recorded data.

C-31 SLEEP DISTURBANCE

100 % AWAKENINGS = .000007079 x SEL ^ 3.496

80 %

A W A 60 K OBSERVED E N PREDICTED I 40 N G S 20

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

INDOOR SEL IN DECIBELS

Figure B–2 Sleep disturbance as a function of single event noise exposure (Finegold et al. 1992) In December 1992, the first report of a comprehensive field study conducted by the Civil Aviation Authority of the British Department of Transport was released (Ollerhead et al, 1992). This study was conducted under carefully controlled field conditions and used devices known as actimeters to measure fine limb movements, usually of the wrist, which are indicative of sleep disturbance. Field work was conducted during the summer of 1991 at locations surrounding major British airports. In all, 400 subjects were monitored for a total of 5,742 subject-nights resulting in a total of some 40,000 subject-hours of sleep data which were subsequently analyzed and broken down into more than 4.5 million 30-second epochs. A total of 4,823 aircraft noise events were logged during the 120 measurement nights and outdoor noise levels ranged from 60 dBA to more than 100 dBA Lmax. Actimetry data were correlated with sleep-EEG records for 178 subject nights and showed good agreement between actimetrically determined arousals and EEG determined awakenings. The mean arousal rate (i.e., the proportion of epochs with movement arousals) for all subjects, all causes, all nights and all epochs was 5.3 percent. For the average sleeping period of 7.25 hours, this is equivalent to about 45 arousals per night. Of these, some 40

C-32 percent, (i.e., about 18±4) were considered likely to be awakenings of 10-15 seconds or more, the remainder being considered minor perturbations. Based on the data obtained during this study, the authors reached the following conclusions concerning the effects of aircraft noise on sleep: • All subjective reactions vary greatly from person to person and from time to time and sleep disturbance is no exception; deviations from the average can be very large. Even so, this study indicates that, once asleep, very few people living near airports are at risk of any substantial sleep disturbance due to aircraft noise, even at the highest event noise levels. • At outdoor event levels below 90 dBA (80 dBA Lmax), average sleep disturbance rates are unlikely to be affected by aircraft noise. At higher levels, and most of the events upon which these conclusions are based were in the range 90 to 100 dBA SEL (90 to 95 dBA Lmax), the chance of the average person being awakened is about 1 in 75 [1.33 percent]. Compared to the overall average of about 18 nightly awakenings, this probability indicates that even large numbers of noisy nighttime aircraft movements will cause very little increase in the average person's nightly awakenings. Therefore, based on expert opinion on the consequences of sleep disturbance, the results of this study provide no evidence to suggest that aircraft noise is likely to cause harmful after effects. • At the same time, it must be emphasized that these are estimates of average effects; clearly, more susceptible people exist. At one extreme, 2-3 percent of people are over 60 percent more sensitive than average;some maybe twice as sensitive to noise disturbance. There may also be particular times of the night, perhaps during periods of sleep lightening, when individuals could be more sensitive to noise. Although the relationship cannot be verified statistically, the data do indicate that aircraft events with noise levels greater than 100 dBA SEL (95 dBA Lmax) out of doors, will have a greater chance of disturbing sleep. The most sensitive people may also react to aircraft noise events with levels below 90 dBA SEL (80 dBA Lmax), approximating to 95 EPNdB on the noise scale used internationally for the noise certification of aircraft. The results of this study are consistent with the results of the laboratory studies reviewed by Pearsons et al (1989) which indicated much lower levels of sleep disturbance under field conditions than under laboratory conditions. As noted above, Ollerhead concludes that sleep disturbance rates are unlikely to affected by aircraft noise below 90 dB SEL and that for events with SELs in the range of 90 to 100 dB, the chance of an average persons being awakened are about 1 in 75 (about 1.33 percent). Although the authors concluded that events with SEL > 100 dB are more likely to result in sleep disturbance, no specific dose- response relationship between SEL and percent awaking was suggested. To provide an estimate of the percent awaking for SELs between 100 and 110 dB data on unadjusted arousal rates (i.e., not adjusted for the varying sensitivity of individuals) were used. For this analysis, 50 percent of the actimetrically measured arousals were assumed to result in awaking. Table 1-5 provides a comparison of the predicted percent awaking based on the Air Force interim model and the data in Ollerhead et al (1992). This document provides comparisons of predicted awaking based on both the air Force interim model and the data in Ollerhead et al. (1992)3.

3 Since the data in Ollerhead et al. (1992) does not include SEL > 110 dB, the predicted awaking based on the Air Force interim model for SEL > 95 was used in both estimates.

C-33 Table B–2 Comparison of predicted awakening based on Air Force interim model and data from Ollerhead et al. (1992)

Outdoor SEL (dB) Predicted Awaking (percent) Air Force Interim Model Ollerhead et.al. (1992) > 110 41.0 Not Estimated 105-110 33.3 2.8 100-105 26.6 2.1 95-100 21.0 1.3 90-95 16.3 1.1 85-90 12.3 0

There should be continued research into community reactions to aircraft noise, including both sleep disturbance and non-auditory health effects of noise.

B.5 Nonauditory Health Effects

Based on summaries of previous research in the field, (Thompson 1981; Thompson et al. 1989; CHABA 1981; CHABA 1982; Hattis et al. 1980; and U.S. EPA 1981) predictions of nonauditory health effects as a result of exposure to aircraft noise (both subsonic and supersonic) in a residential environment have not been conclusively demonstrated. One of the earliest of these projects (CHABA 1981) reported that while the available evidence was suggestive, it did not provide definitive answers to the question of health effects of long- term exposure to noise, other than to the auditory system. The committee recommended that in the absence of adequate knowledge as to whether or not noise can produce effects upon health, other than damage to the auditory system, an attempt should be made to obtain more critical evidence. A valid predictive procedure requires: (1) evidence for a causal relationship between aircraft noise exposure and adverse nonauditory health consequences, and (2) knowledge of a quantitative (dose-response) relationship between the amount of noise exposure and specific health effects. Because the results of studies of aircraft noise on health are highly equivocal, there is currently no scientific basis for making valid risk assessments. Alleged nonauditory health consequences of aircraft noise exposure which have been studied include birth defects, low birth weight, mental problems, cancer, stroke, hypertension, sudden cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and cardiac arrhythmias. Of these, hypertension is the most biologically plausible effect of noise exposure. Noise appears to elicit many of the same biochemical and physiological reactions, including temporary elevation of blood pressure, as do many other everyday stressors. These temporary increases in blood pressure are believed to lead to a gradual resetting of the body's blood pressure control system. Over a period of years, some researchers hypothesize that permanent hypertension may develop (e.g. Peterson et al., 1984). One mechanism hypothesized is that continuous stimulation of the central nervous system by noise induces changes in cardiac function and peripheral vascular resistance, which in turn raises blood pressure and gradually resets the baro-receptor (blood pressure) control system. Although inconclusive, studies of the prevalence of elevated blood pressure in C-34 noise-exposed populations suggest that long-term exposure to high levels of occupational noise may be associated with an increase in hypertension in the later decades of life. These studies, coupled with increases in flight operations around civilian airports and military airbases plus an increase in low altitude overflights in military training areas, have increased public concern about potential health hazards of aircraft noise exposure in recent years. Studies in residential areas exposed to aircraft noise have produced contradictory results that are difficult to interpret. Early investigations indicated that incidence of hypertension was from two to four times higher in areas near airport than in areas away from airports (Karagodina et al., 1969). Although Meechan and Shaw (1988) continue to report excessive cardiovascular mortality among individuals, 75 years or older, living near the Los Angles International Airport, their findings cannot be replicated (Frerichs et al., 1980). In fact, noise exposure increased over the years while there was a decline in all cause, age- adjusted death rates and inconsistent changes in age-adjusted cardiovascular, hypertension, and cerebrovascular disease rates. Some European research (Ising et al., 1991; Ising and Spreng 1988) has shown more positive association between exposure to aircraft noise and adverse health effects, including a result that showed more pronounced effects in females than males. The adequacy of the methodology and the consistency of the conclusions, however are still being debated. The major problem that requires further consideration is that the methodology of these studies does not lend itself to conclusive proof of significant nonauditory health effects in residential areas exposed to aircraft noise. Most studies which have controlled for multiple factors have shown no, or a very weak association between noise exposure and nonauditory health effects. This observation holds for studies of occupational and traffic noise as well as for aircraft noise exposure. In contrast to the reports of two- to six-fold increases in incidence of hypertension due to high industrial noise (see review by Thompson et al., 1989), the more rigorously controlled studies (Talbott et al., 1985; and van Dijk et al. 1987) showed equivocal associations between hypertension and prolonged exposure to high levels of occupational noise. In the Talbott et al. (1985) study a significant relationship was shown between noise-induced hearing loss and high blood pressure in the 56 plus age group. The critical question is whether observed positive associations are causal ones. In the aggregate, studies indicated that the association between street traffic noise and blood pressure or other cardiovascular changes are arguable. Two large prospective collaborative studies (Babish and Gallacher 1990) of heart disease are of particular interest. To date, cross-sectional data from these cohorts offer contradictory results. Data from one cohort show a slight increase in mean systolic blood pressure [2.4 millimeters of mercury (mmHg)] in the noisiest compared to the quietest area; while data from the second cohort show the lowest mean systolic blood pressure and highest high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (lipoprotein protective of heart disease) for men in the noisiest area. These effects of traffic noise on blood pressure and blood lipids were more pronounced in men who were also exposed to high levels of noise at work. More rigorous epidemiologic study designs for investigating causal and dose-response relationships depend upon assignment of noise dose and health status to individuals. The best established environmental noise descriptor, yearly DNL, is inherently place-oriented and may bear little specifiable relationship to personal exposure. Because health consequences of environmental noise exposure are unlikely to appear in less than five to ten years, individual dosimetry may not be practicable. There are three problems with using dosimetry in epidemiologic studies: (1) wearing may be burdensome, (2) irritating, and (3) tedious to the participants.

C-35 It is clear from the foregoing that the current state of technical knowledge cannot support inference of a causal or consistent relationship, or a quantitative dose-response model, between residential aircraft noise exposure and health consequences. Thus, no technical means are available for predicting extra-auditory health effects of noise exposure. This conclusion cannot be construed as evidence of no effect of residential aircraft noise exposure on nonauditory health. Current findings, taken in sum, indicate that further rigorous studies, such as an appropriately designed prospective epidemiologic study, are urgently needed.

C-36 REFERENCES Babish, W., and J. Gallacher, 1990. "Traffic Noise, Blood Pressure and Other Risk Factors ­ The Caephilly and Speedwell Collaborative Heart Disease Studies." Noise '88: New Advances in Noise Research. pp. 315-326, Council for Building Research Stockholm, Sweden, Swedish.

Carden, H.D., et al. 1969. "Building Variations Due to Aircraft Noise and Sonic Boom Excitation." Sym. Mach. Noise, ASME Paper 69-WA/GT-8.

Clarkson, B.L., and W.H. Mayes. 1972. Sonic Boom Building Structure Responses Including Damages. J. Acoustical Society 51, 742-757.

Cook, Brenda W., and M.J. Lucas. N.d. A Review of Air Force Policy and Noise Models Pertaining to the Noise Environment Under Low-Altitude, High-Speed Training Areas.

Dean, Herb. 1992. Personal Communication. Washington, D.C.: AFCEE/ESE-W, Dept. of the Air Force.

Fidell, S., and David M. Green. 1989. "A Systematic Interpretation of a Dosage-Effect Relationship for the Prevalence of Noise-Induced Annoyance." In: U.S. Air Force, Noise and Sonic Boom Impact Technology. HSD-TR-89-008. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: U.S. Dept. of Defense.

Fields, James M., and Frederick L. Hall. 1987. "Community Effects of Noise." P.M. Nelson, ed. In: Transportation Noise Reference Book, pp. 3.1-3.27. Cambridge, GB: Butterworth Co. Ltd.

Fields, J.M., and C.A. Powell. 1987. "Community Reactions to Helicopter Noise: Results from an Experimental Study." Journal of Acoustical Society of America 82(2):479-492.

Finegold, L.S., S. Fidell, N.H. Reddingius, and B.A Kugler. 1990. "NSBIT Program: Development of Assessment System for Aircraft Noise (ASAN) and Research on Human Impacts of Aircraft Overflight Noise." Published in Proceedings of Inter- Noise 90: 1115-1120. Gothenburg, Sweden.

Finegold, L.S., C.S. Harris, and H.E. von Gierke. 1992. "Applied Acoustical Report: Criteria for Assessment of Noise Impacts on People." Submitted to Journal of Acoustical Society of America. June 1992.

Frankel, Marvin. 1986. "Regulating Noise from Illinois Airports." Illinois Business Review 43:3­ 9.

Frerichs, R.R., B.L. Beeman, and A. H. Coulson. 1980. "Los Angles Airport Noise and Mortality - Faulty Analysis and Public Policy." American Journal of Public Health, 70:357-362.

Galloway, William. 1991. Personal communication with Herb Dean, Larry McGlothlin, Jerry Speakman, Jim Hegland, and Dr. Henning von Gierke. Washington, D.C.

C-37 Griefahn, B., and A. Muzet. 1978. "Noise-Induced Sleep Disturbances and Their Effect on Health." Journal of Sound and Vibration 59(1):99-106.

Harris, Stan, Henning von Gierke, and Jerry Speakman. 1991. Personal Communication with Larry McGlothlin. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: U.S. Air Force, AAMRL.

Hattis, D., B. Richardson, and N. Ashford. 1980. Noise, General Stress Responses, and Cardiovascular Disease Processes: Review and Reassessment of Hypothesized Relationships. EPA Report No. 550/9-80-101. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA

Horonjeff, R., R. Bennett, and S. Teffeteller. 1978. Sleep Interference. BBN Rpt. No. 3710. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute.

International Organization for Standardization. 1959. Expression of the Physical and Subjective Magnitude of Sound or Noise. ISOR 131. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.

Ising, H., and M. Spreng. 1988. "Effects of Noise From Military Low Level Flights on Humans." Proceedings of "Noise as a Public Health Problem." Swedish Council for Building Research. Stockholm, Sweden 1988. Editors: B. Berglund; U. Berglund; J. Karlsson; T. Lindzall. Volumes I - III.

Ising, H., K. Rebentisch., I. Curio., H. Otten, and W. Schulte. 1991. "Health Effects of Military Low-Altitude Flight Noise." Environmental Research Plan of the Federal Minister for the Environment, Protection of Nature and Reactor Security. Noise Abatement Research Report No. 91-105 01 116. Berlin, Germany: Institute of Water, Soil and Air Hygiene of the Federal Health Office.

Karagodina, I.L, S.A. Soldatkina, I.L. Vinokur, and A.A. Klimukhin. 1969. "Effect of Aircraft Noise on the Population Near Airports." Hygiene and Sanitation 34: 182-187.

Lukas, J. 1975. "Noise and Sleep: A Literature Review and a Proposed Criterion for Assessing Effect." Journal of the American Acoustical Society 58(6).

Lukas, J. 1977. Measures of Noise Level: Their Relative Accuracy In Predicting Objective and Subjective Responses to Noise During Sleep. EPA-600/1-77-010. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Luz, G.A., R. Raspet, and P.D. Shomer. 1985. "An Analysis of Community Complaints to Army Aircraft and Weapons Noise." Community Reaction to Impulsive Noise: A Final 10-Year Research Summary. Tech. Rpt. N-167. Champaign, Illinois: U.S. Army Construction Research Laboratory.

Meechem, W.C., and N.A. Shaw. 1988. "Increase in Disease Mortality Rates Due to Aircraft Noise." Proceedings of the International Congress of Noise as a Public Health Problem. Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm, Sweden, 21-25 August.

National Research Council (NRC). Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics (CHABA). 1977. Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Impact Statements on Noise. Report of Working Group 69 on Evaluation of Environmental Impact of Noise. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.

C-38 National Research Council. Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics (CHABA). 1981. The Effects on Human Health From Long-Term Exposures to Noise. Report of Working Group 81. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics (CHABA). 1982. Prenatal Effects of Exposure to High-Level Noise. Report of Working Group 85. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council.

Newman, T.S., and K.R. Beattie. 1985. Aviation Noise Effects. Report No. FAA-EE-85-2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Environment and Energy

Ollerhead, J.B., et al. 1992. Report of a Field Study of Aircraft Noise and Sleep Disturbance. A study commissioned by the Department of Transport from the Department of Safety, Environment and Engineering Civil Aviation Authority. Department of Transport, Civil Aviation Authority, London, England.

Pearson, K. April. 1974. Handbook of Noise Ratings. NASA CR-2376. Washington, D.C.: Bolt, Beranek and Newman.

Pearson, K., D. Barber, and B. Tabachnik. 1989. Analysis of the Predictability of Noise- Induced Sleep Disturbance. NSBIT Report No. HAD-TR-89-029. Brooks AFB, Texas: Human Systems Division, Noise and Sonic Boom Impact Technology, Advanced Development Program Office.

Peterson, E.A., J.S. Augenstein, and C.L. Hazelton. 1984. "Some Cardiovascular Effects of Noise." Journal of Auditory Research 24:35-62.

Schomer, P.D. 1981. "The Growth of Community Annoyance with Loudness and Frequency of Occurrence of Events." Noise Control Engineering July-August 1981.

Shultz, T.J. 1978. "Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise Annoyance." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 64(2):377-405.

Talbott, E., J. Helmkamp, K. Matthews, L Kuller, E. Cottington, and G. Redmond. 1985. "Occupational Noise Exposure, Noise-Induced Hearing Loss, and the Epidemiology of High Blood Pressure." American Journal of Epidemiology. 121:501-515.

Thompson, S.J. 1981. Epidemiology Feasibility Study: Effects of Noise on the Cardiovascular System. EPA Report No. 550/9-81-103. Washington, D.C.: EPA

Thompson, S., S. Fidell, and B. Tabachnick. 1989. "Feasibility of Epidemiologic Research on Nonauditory Health Effects of Residential Aircraft Noise Exposure, Volumes I, II & III." NSBIT Report No. HSD-TR-89-007. Brooks AFB, Texas: U.S. Air Force, Human Systems Division, Noise and Sonic Boom Impact Technology, Advanced Development Program Office (HQ HSD/YA-NSBIT).

U.S. Air Force. 1984. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Handbook. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Air Force.

C-39 U.S. Air Force. Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory. 1987. Environmental Noise Assessment for Military Aircraft Training Routes, Volume 2: Recommended Noise Metric. AAMRL-TR-87-001. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Air Force Systems Command, Human Systems Division.

U.S. Department of Defense, Air Force. Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory. 1991. Personal Communication with Dr. Stan Harris, Dr. Henning von Gierke, and Mr. Jerry Speakman. U.S. Departments of the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy. 1978. Planning in the Noise Environment. AFM 19-10, TM 5-803-2, and NAVFAC P-970. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. About Sound. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. Noise Effects Handbook. Fort Walton Beach, Florida: Prepared by National Association of Noise Control Officials for U.S EPA, Office of Noise Abatement and Control.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Noise Abatement and Control. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. EPA-550/9-74-004. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency. Office of Noise Abatement and Control. 1982. Guidelines for Noise Impact Analysis. EPA-550/9-82-1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA. van Dijk, F.J.H., A.M Souman, and F.F. de Fries. 1987. "Nonauditory Effects of Noise in Industry, Volume I: A Final Field Study in Industry." International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 59:133-145.

C-40 Appendix D

Wildlife and Plant Species List Common Name Federal Maine Status New Hampshire Scientific Name Status Status Mammals1 Canada lynx T NL E Lynx canadensis Northern bog lemming NL T NL Synaptomys borealis Pine marten NL NL T Martes americana small-footed bat NL NL E Myotis leibii Gray wolf T NL NL Canis lupus Eastern cougar T NL NL Felis concolor couguar Birds2 Golden eagle NL E NL Aquila chrysaetos Eskimo Curlew E NL NL Numenius borealis Bald eagle T T E Haliacetus leucocephalus Pied-billed grebe NL NL E Podilymbus podiceps Common tern NL NL E Sterna hirundo Northern harrier NL NL E Circus cyaneus Golden eagle NL NL E Aquila chrysaetos Peregrine falcon NL E E Falco peregrinus (breeding pop. only) Piping plover T E E Charadrius melodus Upland sandpiper NL T E Bartramia longicauda Roseate tern E E E Sterna dougallii Least tern NL E E Sterna antillarum Black tern NL E NL Chlidonias niger American pipit NL E NL Anthus rubescens (breeding pop. only) Purple martin NL NL E Progne subis Sedge wren NL E E Cistothorus platensis Common loon NL NL T Gavia immer Common Name Federal Maine Status New Hampshire Scientific Name Status Status Osprey NL NL T Pandion haliaetus Cooper’s hawk NL NL T Accipiter cooperii Arctic tern NL T T Sterna paradisaea Common nighthawk NL NL T Chordeiles minor Three-toed woodpecker NL NL T Picoides tridactylus Grasshopper sparrow NL E T Ammodramus savannarum Harlequin duck NL T NL Histrionicus histrionicus Atlantic puffin NL T NL Fratercula arctica Razorbill NL T NL Alca torda Fish1 Sunapee trout NL NL NL Salvelinus alpinus Shortnose sturgeon E NL E Acipenser brevirostrum Swamp darter NL T NL Etheostoma fusiforme Reptiles3 Timber rattlesnake NL NL E Crotalus horridus Eastern hognose snake NL NL T Heterodon platyhinos Blanding’s turtle NL E NL Emydoidea blandingii Spotted turtle NL T NL Clemmys guttata Box turtle NL E NL Terrapene carolina Black racer NL E NL Coluber constrictor Amphibians3 Marbled salamander NL NL E Ambystoma opacum Invertebrates3 Dwarf wedge mussel NL NL E Alasmidonta heterodon Ringed bog haunter dragonfly NL E E Williamsonia lintneri Persius dusky wing skipper NL NL E Erynnis persius persius Karner blue butterfly E NL E Lycaeides melissa samuelis Frosted elfin butterfly NL NL E Incisalia irus Common Name Federal Maine Status New Hampshire Scientific Name Status Status Brook floater NL NL E Alasmidonta varicosa Pine pinion moth NL NL T Lithophane lepida lepida Cobblestone tiger beetle NL NL T Cicindela marginipennis Pine barrens Zanclognatha moth NL T T Zanclognatha martha Roaring Brook mayfly NL E NL Epeorus frisoni Clayton’s Copper NL E NL Lycaena dorcas claytoni Edward’s hairstreak NL E NL Satyrium edwardsii Hessel’s Hairstreak NL E NL Callophrys hesseli Katahdin Arctic NL E NL Oeneis polixenes katahdin Twilight moth NL T NL Lycia rachelae Pygmy snaketail NL T NL Ophiogomphus howei Tomah Mayfly NL T NL Siphlonisca aerodromia Tidewater mucket NL T NL Leptodea ochracea Yellow lampmussel NL T NL Lampsilis cariosa T = Threatened; E = Endangered; WSC = Wildlife of Special Concern; NL= Not listed Sources: 1MDIFW, 2006a; 2Sauer et. al., 2005; 3University of Maine, 2006 Appendix E

National Historic Register-Listed Properties National Historic Register-Listed Properties underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs

Date Listed on the National Historic Site County Type of Site Register* Abbott, Jacob, House Franklin Historic 1973 Bass Boarding House Franklin Historic 1988 Blanchard, Ora, House Franklin Historic 1980 Coburn, John G., House Franklin Historic 2002 Coplin Plantation Schoolhouse Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1997 Cutler Memorial Library Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1973 Farmington Historic District Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1985 First Congregational Church, United Church of Christ Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1974 Franklin County Courthouse Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1983 Free Will Baptist Meetinghouse Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1973 Goodspeed Memorial Library Franklin Historic 1989 Greenacre Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1982 Greenwood, Chester, House Franklin Historic 1978 Holmes-Craft Homestead Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1973 Hutchins, Frank, House Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1986 Jay-Niles Memorial Library Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1987 Little Red Schoolhouse Franklin Historic 1972 Madrid Village Schoolhouse Franklin Historic 1995 Maine Woods Office Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1980 McCleary Farm Franklin Historic 1989 Merrill Hall Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1980 New Sharon Bridge Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1999 New Sharon Congregational Church Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1985 Nordica Homestead Franklin Historic 1969 North Jay Grange Store Franklin Historic 1974 Norton, William F., House Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1982 Old Union Meeting House Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1973 Oquossoc Log Church Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1984 Orgone Energy Observatory Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1999 Pennell Institute Franklin Historic 1982 Porter-Bell-Brackley Estate Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1980 Ramsdell, Hiram, House Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1973 Rangeley Trust Company Building Franklin Historic 1989 Rangley Public Library Franklin Historic 1978 Salem Town House (former) Franklin Historic 2005 Temple Intervale School Franklin Historic 1985 Thompson's Bridge Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1991 Tufts House Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1979 Union Church Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1989 Upper Dallas School Franklin Historic 1990 Whitney, Capt. Joel, House Franklin Architecture/Engineering 2003 Winter, Amos G., House Franklin Architecture/Engineering 1976 Franklin and Arnold Trail to Quebec Somerset Historic 1969 Centennial Bridge Franklin Eligible (5852) National Historic Register-Listed Properties underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs

Date Listed on the National Historic Site County Type of Site Register* Lower Mill Bridge Franklin Eligible (2484) Lower Village Bridge Franklin Eligible (5063) McLeary Bridge Franklin Eligible (0403) Mill Pond Bridge Franklin Eligible (2565) Multiple properties, Routes 4/27 Franklin Historic Eligible Norton Bridge Franklin Eligible (5053) Stanley School Franklin Historic Eligible (224-0001) Tim Pond Brook Site Franklin Archeological Eligible Andover Hook and Ladder Company Building Oxford Historic 2001 Andover Public Library Oxford Architecture/Engineering 1981 Bennett Bridge Oxford Architecture/Engineering 1970 Broad Street Historic District Oxford Historic 1977 Cole Block Oxford Architecture/Engineering 1998 Deacon Hutchins House Oxford Historic 1979 Dreamhome Oxford Architecture/Engineering 1996 First Universalist Society of West Sumner Oxford Architecture/Engineering 2002 Foster Family Home Oxford Architecture/Engineering 1994 Gehring Clinic Oxford Historic 1976 Greenwood Town Hall, Former Oxford Historic 2001 Hall House Oxford Architecture/Engineering 2002 Irish, J. & O., Store Oxford Architecture/Engineering 1983 Lovejoy Bridge Oxford Architecture/Engineering 1970 Lower Sunday River School Oxford Historic 1978 Mason, Dr. Moses, House Oxford Historic 1972 Mechanic Institute Oxford Historic 1980 Merrill-Poor House Oxford Architecture/Engineering 1976 Middle Intervale Meeting House and Common Oxford Architecture/Engineering 1998 Municipal Building Oxford Historic 1980 Philbrook, John M., House Oxford Architecture/Engineering 1995 Philbrook, Samuel D., House Oxford Architecture/Engineering 1995 Rumford Falls I-V site Oxford Archeological 1992 Rumford Falls V site Oxford Archeological 1992 Rumford Falls Power Company Building Oxford Architecture/Engineering 1980 Rumford Point Congregational Church Oxford Architecture/Engineering 1985 Rumford Public Library Oxford Historic 1989 Smith I site Oxford Archeological 1992 Smith II site Oxford Archeological 1992 Strathglass Building Oxford Architecture/Engineering 1980 Strathglass Park Historic District Oxford Historic 1974 Sunday River Bridge Oxford Architecture/Engineering 1970 Town of Rumford Site Oxford Archeological 1992 Vail Site 81.1 Oxford Archeological 1980 Warren, David, House Oxford Architecture/Engineering 1983 Whitman Memorial Library Oxford Architecture/Engineering 1995 National Historic Register-Listed Properties underlying the Condor 1 and 2 MOAs

Date Listed on the National Historic Site County Type of Site Register* 34 Rte 17, Mexico Oxford Historic Eligible (278-0048) Andrews Bridge Oxford Eligible (3590) Andrews Bridge #2 Oxford Eligible (1516) Artist Covered Bridge Oxford Eligible (1007) Chisholm Park Bridge Oxford Eligible (2990) Hancock Apartments Oxford Historic Eligible (377-0010) Hartford Street Bridge Oxford Eligible (3638) Martin Memorial Bridge Oxford Eligible (3248) Morse Bridge Oxford Eligible (2585) Zebediah Mitchell Farm Oxford Historic Eligible (278-0065) Monson Engine House (Former) Piscataquis Historic 2005 Swedish Lutheran Church Piscataquis Architecture/Engineering 1984 Rboert T. Moore Ranch Piscataquis Historic Eligible Anson Grange #8 Somerset Historic 2004 Bailey Farm Windmill Somerset Architecture/Engineering 1988 Bingham Free Meetinghouse Somerset Architecture/Engineering 1976 Carrabasset Inn Somerset Historic 2000 Carratunk Falls Archeological District Somerset Archeological 1986 Concord Haven Somerset Architecture/Engineering 1992 Dudley's Corner School House Somerset Historic 2002 Embden Town House Somerset Historic 1989 Evergreens, The Somerset Architecture/Engineering 1982 Hodgdon Site Somerset Archeological 1980 Lakewood Theatre Somerset Historic 1975 Madison Public Library Somerset Historic 1989 New Portland Wire Bridge Somerset Architecture/Engineering 1970 Norridgewock Archeological District Somerset Archeological 1993 Old Point and Sebastian Rale Monument Somerset Historic 1973 South Solon Meetinghouse Somerset Architecture/Engineering 1980 Steward-Emery House Somerset Architecture/Engineering 1992 Temples Historic District Somerset Architecture/Engineering 1983 Weston Homestead Somerset Architecture/Engineering 1977 52 Route 201 A/8 Somerset Historic Eligible (260-0039) Anson Hydro Project Somerset Architecture/Engineering Eligible Bartlett Bridge Somerset Eligible (5129) Blackwell Block Somerset Historic Eligible (260-0010) Canal Bridge Somerset Eligible (2122) Carabasset Bridge Somerset Eligible (5131) Madison Congregational Church Somerset Historic Eligible (260-0032 Mill Stream Bridge Somerset Eligible (1061) Sandy River Hydro Project Somerset Architecture/Engineering Eligible Tom Collins Bridge Somerset Eligible (2845) Walter S. Wyman Hydro Station Somerset Architecture/Engineering Eligible (042-0004) Wyman Hydro Project Somerset Architecture/Engineering Eligible (293-0001) * (Parentheses) indicate the Maine Historic Preservation Commission (MHPC) ID number or bridge number, if available, for properties not listed on the National Historic Register.