Environmental Assessment for the Establishment of Low Altitude Training for Cannon AFB, New Mexico Public comments on this Draft EA are requested pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 USC 4321, et seq. All written comments received during the comment period would be made available to the public and considered during Final EA preparation. The provision of private address information with your comment is voluntary and would not be released for any other purpose unless required by law. However, this information is used to compile the project mailing list and failure to provide it would result in your name not being included on the mailing list. August 2011 DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) INTRODUCTION -The Air Force is interested in obtaining public and agency comments on this revised proposal to designate a low altitude training area for training Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) aircrews. This Draft FONSI is provided as part of the attached Environmental Assessment for public and agency review. NAME OF PROPOSED ACTION - Establishment of Low Altitude Training for Cannon AFB, New Mexico. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE - The United States Air Force (Air Force) proposes to designate a low altitude training area in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado where 27 Special Operations Wing (27 SOW) aircrews operating from Cannon AFB would train for worldwide operations under their global response commitment. Cannon AFB based MC-130J and CV-22 aircraft rely on darkness, terrain, and low altitude to provide masking during missions. 27 SOW aircrews are required to maintain flight proficiency in varying terrain including mountainous terrain, varying threat levels, different climatic conditions, and low altitude after dark missions to support Special Operations Forces. Deployed aircrews face the world’s most diverse tactics, anti-aircraft systems, and hostile terrain. Aircrew survivability in combat requires the constant exercise of perishable flying and crew coordination skills in challenging environments that closely simulate the conditions and terrain of actual combat. With the Proposed Action, aircrews would plan and fly low altitude routes in mountainous terrain (especially at high elevations) to ensure that aircraft power capabilities are not compromised and that the crew avoids potentially hazardous situations. An estimated three missions per flying day (688 missions per year) would depart Cannon AFB at dusk, enter the low altitude training area, and continue on an approximately five hour mission. The proposed low altitude training area (Figure 2-4) would be mapped in its entirety and aircrews would pre-plan and execute night low altitude missions. Aircrews would fly approximately 30 route segments in a mission, simulate dropping and retrieving personnel or supplies, participate in low altitude refueling, and perform related 27 SOW training activities. Approximately 10 percent of the training mission would be flown between 300 and 500 feet (ft) Above Ground Level (AGL), 40 percent between 500 and 999 ft AGL, and 50 percent between 1,000 and 3,000 ft AGL. Aircrews would fly back to either Cannon AFB to conduct pilot proficiency training or Melrose AFR to conduct airdrop, air land, or weapons delivery training. Public, agency, and Air Force review resulted in the identification of nine candidate training area alternatives. Seven operational selection standards were applied and three environmental selection standards were applied to the extent practicable to the candidate alternatives. The resulting Proposed Action incorporates public and agency concerns and the following elements: 1. Proposed training area boundaries were moved from those initially presented to the public to avoid large populated areas and transportation corridors. 2. Community airports would be avoided by 1,500 ft and a three nautical mile (nm) radius. 3. Permanent avoidance areas would be placed around communities. 4. Special Use Land Management Areas (SULMAs), such as national parks and national monuments, would be avoided by flying at least 2,000 ft AGL. 5. The 27 SOW would coordinate with representatives of national forests and grasslands to address any noise concerns received from the public. 6. Procedures would be established for telephone or e-mail notification so that ranchers, Tribal representatives, and coordinators of special events could appraise the 27 SOW of the location of operations, such as branding, to identify temporary avoidance areas. 7. Mapping the entire training area for obstacles and avoidance areas would permit aircrews to work with the entire proposed low altitude training area in planning ingress and egress for special operations missions. 8. The proposed training area is of sufficient size so the average of three - 1 - training missions per night would be able to avoid overflight of the same location in any given night to the maximum extent possible. 9. Calculations were made which estimate that any given location would be overflown within 1,000 ft, on the average, approximately three times per month. 10. Proposed training area boundaries were adjusted to deconflict from civil aviation east of the Rockies and from current military training in the existing Colorado Low Altitude Tactical Navigation (LATN) area. 11. Training aircraft would climb to 3,000 ft AGL to traverse the approximately 15 mile wide corridor between the New Mexico and Colorado portions of the proposed training area (Figure 2-4). 12. Wind energy and other commercial tower development would meet Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules and would be mapped as avoidance areas within the training area. 13. Proposed training area boundaries have been adjusted to reflect the areas identified as sensitive in Tribal comments. 14. Military training aircraft would not fly lights out in the proposed training area to enhance see-and-avoid procedures. 15. Threatened and endangered or candidate species locations and critical habitats identified by management agencies would be avoided by a minimum altitude of 1,000 ft AGL. The No Action Alternative consists of 27 SOW training using existing MOAs and MTRs with altitude floors to 500 ft or below and restricted areas as described in the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) Assets Beddown at Cannon Air Force Base New Mexico Environmental Impact Statement (AFSOC EIS 2007) (Air Force 2007). Additional low altitude training would occur under circumstances where missions are flown during the day to identify waypoints and flight segments for aircrews to fly after dark. Training flights would be in accordance with FAA 91.119 rules. Mission planning would make sure that flights were dispersed so that the same location was not overflown more than once per night. Under the No Action Alternative, pilot and aircrew training would be limited since MOAs, MTRs, and restricted airspaces do not contain needed variability in mission planning or in topography, especially in high altitude areas. After dark training limited to pre-surveyed waypoints and flight segments would not prepare 27 SOW aircrews for combat requirements. Aircrews would not plan their own ingress and egress and waypoints and segments that are flown consistently result in aircrew familiarity. The No Action Alternative would mean that 27 SOW aircrews would not maintain the highest state of proficiency essential for combat. The No Action Alternative does not permit 27 SOW aircrews to train to required low altitude flight proficiency. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES - Potential environmental consequences associated with proposed low altitude flight activities are summarized in the following paragraphs. There would be no construction so there would be no construction noise, air emissions, or ground disturbance. Airspace Management – The creation of the proposed training area would not alter the current management of airspace. The Proposed Action would not affect airspace alignment, minimum or maximum altitudes, allowable times of use, existing training routes, or impact current or future military and general aviation uses of the airspace. The Proposed Action avoids airports and heavily travelled civil aviation corridors. No significant airspace management impacts would be expected from implementation of the Proposed Action. Noise – Noise was modeled for both onset rate-adjusted Single Exposure Levels (SEL) and onset rate- adjusted Day-Night average monthly sound Levels (DNLmr). The flight configuration used for both aircraft types in the MRNMAP computer model noise analysis yields noise estimates that are higher than the noise levels anticipated to occur during most low altitude training flights. Twice the average flight activity was used to calculate the time-averaged noise levels generated by proposed operations in the 27 SOW training area. The noise level mathematically calculated as less than 35 dB DNLmr. If noise levels beneath existing airspace units were greater than 45 dB DNLmr, then 27 SOW training would add less than 0.1 dB to overall noise levels. If noise levels beneath existing airspace units were less than 45 dB, then the overall noise level would increase by less than 3 dB. In either situation, noise generated by operations in the proposed training area would not contribute to overall noise levels exceeding 55 dB - 2 - DNLmr, which was identified by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as being the noise level above which to assess public health and welfare. Population centers would