December 27, 2017 Holloman ADB Airspace EIS c ... - Wilderness Watch

Board of Directors Gary Macfarlane, ID President Franz Camenzind, WY Vice-President Jerome Walker, MT Secretary/Treasurer

December 27, 2017 Holloman ADB Airspace EIS c/o Cardno 501 Butler Farm Road Hampton, VA 23666 Submitted electronically online and via US Mail

Marty Almquist, MT Janine Blaeloch, WA Talasi Brooks, ID Louise Lasley, NM

RE: Scoping Comments on Special Use Airspace Optimization Project, Holloman Air Force Base Dear Project Managers:

Cyndi Tuell, AZ René Voss, CA Senior Advisor Stewart M. Brandborg Executive Director George Nickas Advisory Council Magalen Bryant Dr. Derek Craighead Dr. M. Rupert Cutler Dr. Roderick Nash Minneapolis, MN Office 2833 43rd Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55406 (P) 612.201.9266 Moscow, ID Office P.O. Box 9623 Moscow, ID 83843 (P) 208.310.7003

Wilderness Watch submits the following scoping comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Special Use Airspace Optimization Project, Holloman Air Force Base. Wilderness Watch is a national wilderness conservation organization dedicated to the protection and proper stewardship of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Wilderness Watch believes the proposal would have serious impacts to Wilderness. By way of introduction, the project website is consistently unclear as to what is proposed. In particular, the Alternatives Poster is confusing. The large circle and the arrows in the alternative two map are not explained in the narrative or the map. Further, the Reserve MOA, listed as an existing MOA on the alternative 2 map, does not show up on the no-action alternative map. It may be best to reopen the scoping period with revised materials that better explain the proposed actions so citizens would better understand what is proposed and where it is proposed. Nonetheless, the website materials do give an indication there will be serious impacts on Wilderness. Wilderness The first sentence of Section 2(a) of the 1964 Wilderness Act describes the purpose of the Act: In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition,

P.O. Box 9175 | Missoula, MT 59807 | 406.542.2048 | [email protected] | www.wildernesswatch.org

it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as ''wilderness areas'', and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness; and no Federal lands shall be designated as ''wilderness areas'' except as provided for in this Act or by a subsequent Act. In brief that purpose is to keep some areas unoccupied and unmodified. And this protection is for present and future generations--for all time--in perpetuity. Congress identified a new resource--the resource of wilderness. Further Congress defined wilderness in section 2(c) as a place "in contrast" to areas where humans and their works dominate, "where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." Thus, there is a clear intention that Wilderness must remain in contrast to modern civilization, its technologies, conventions, and contrivances. Indeed, there is the mandate to preserve wilderness in perpetuity. On thing that is clear from the website is that flights over Wilderness, particularly in alternative 2 (the Gila, Aldo Leopold, Apache Kid, Blue Range, Bear Wallow and Withington Wildernesses), will be exponentially increased. The noise from jets would almost be constant in these Wilderness as there would be 10,0000 sorties per year. While it seems that 2,000 feet will be the lowest elevation allowed over Wilderness, how will the pilots know where the wilderness boundary is located? How is this “in contrast” to areas where human works dominate the landscape? The Gila and Aldo Leopold Wildernesses are flagships of the National Wilderness Preservation System (at one time they were both part of the administratively designated Gila Wilderness). Together, they cover over ¾ of a million acres of wild country. The official wilderness website, www.wilderness.net, has this to say about the Gila Wilderness: On June 3, 1924, at Aldo Leopold's insistence, Gila became the world's first designated Wilderness area (and also New Mexico's largest Wilderness). Today this is one of the best destinations for backpackers in America. High mesas, rolling hills, and deep canyons distinguish the eastern portions, as do piñon and juniper woodland and a few grassland areas. Ponderosa pines blanket the central portion, with sheer cliffs outlining the Gila River. The west and southwest portions boast high mountains, particularly the Mogollon Range, with elevations up to 10,895 feet and steep canyons carved from the drainages of Turkey Creek and Mogollon Creek. … While the map provided on the project’s website is not particularly detailed, it also appears that the Blue Range, Bear Wallow, Apache Kid and Withington Wildernesses may suffer the same fate as the larger Gila and Aldo Leopold Wildernesses under alternative 2. The Blue Range Wilderness is an extension of the Mogollon Rim country that that also encompass the Gila and Aldo Leopold Wildernesses. The size of the Blue Range, with the contiguous Blue Range Primitive Area and other contiguous roadless lands, rivals that of the Gila Wilderness. According to wilderness.net in the 45,000-acre Apache Kid Wilderness, “Human visitors are few, but

2

wildlife can be seen making their way across this rugged terrain range from Coues white-tailed deer and mule deer to elk, black bears, bobcats, cougars, antelope, javelina, coyotes, rabbits, squirrels, and quail.” What will be the impact on wilderness and the wildlife and rare visitor seeking solitude from this proposal? If alternative 1 only includes the expansion of the Talon MOA, it still might directly affect Carlsbad Caverns National Park and the Carlsbad Caverns Wilderness. Wilderness.net states regarding this Wilderness, “[T]he park’s biodiversity is quite high.” This biodiversity includes 17 species of bats. This is perhaps the most famous cave ecosystem in the world. Equally troubling is the use of flares and chaff. The website notes:

If the chaff or flares drop onto the Wilderness, it would be a violation of the Wilderness Act. 36 CFR § 261.18 (c) prohibits not only landing of aircraft, but also “dropping or picking up of any material” by aircraft. Similarly, 36 CFR § 293.6 states “there shall be in National Forest Wilderness” … “no dropping of materials” from “aircraft.” The information that is provided, though it lacks context, is alarming due to the number of flares, chaff bundles and fibers. There is no explanation as to size or composition of the chaff bundles and fibers. NEPA and Alternatives The impact of alternative 1 on Wilderness, or the differences between that alternative and alternative 2 and the no-action alternative are not as easily determined because the information is not clear. Would alternative 1 only affect the expanded Talon MOA? Would increased use, including the low level flights and dropping of flares and chaff only occur in the Gila National Forest and other public land under alternative 2? Aside from the Wildernesses mentioned above, what are the impacts of current Air Force use on other Wildernesses, which are near or within the current areas of operation including the Bosque del Apache, White Mountain and Capitan Wildernesses? Would these Wildernesses be affected by either of the action alternatives in an increased way? The scoping information indicates that several alternatives were eliminated. Case law The Seventh Circuit Court explains: No decision is more important than delimiting what these "reasonable alternatives" are. . . . One obvious way for an agency to slip past the strictures of NEPA is to contrive a purpose so slender as to define competing "reasonable alternatives" out of consideration (and even out of existence). . . . If the agency constricts the definition of the project's purpose and thereby excludes what truly are reasonable alternatives, the EIS cannot fulfill its role. 3

Simmons, 120 F.3d at 660. Further, courts have ruled, “[A]n agency may not define the objectives of its action in terms so unreasonably narrow that only one alternative . . . would accomplish the goals of the agency's action, and the EIS would become a foreordained formality.” Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 994, 112 S. Ct. 616 (1991). Since we are just at the scoping phase, the Air Force needs to look at a wide range of alternatives and take the time to do a well-considered EIS. Dismissing alternatives at this early date suggests precisely what the courts have warned against. The Air Force needs to be open to an adequate range of alternatives. Please keep us updated on this issue. Sincerely,

Gary Macfarlane Board Member

4