Final 

Environmental Assessment

for the

United States Marine Corps

Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

on Public Lands within Southern California

March 2013
Final

Environmental Assessment

for the

United States Marine Corps

Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

on Public Lands within Southern California

March 2013
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations ES-1 

Final EA 

Executive Summary 

The United States Marine Corps (USMC), in cooperation with the United States Forest Service (USFS), 

has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to assess potential environmental effects from USMC 

aviation operations on public lands located outside of Department of Defense (DoD)-controlled airspace 

and located off of DoD-controlled installations and training ranges in southern California. The USMC 

currently conducts rotary wing operations on public lands managed by the USFS Cleveland National 

Forest (Trabuco Ranger District) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) El Centro Field Office 

(Figure ES-1). This EA evaluates the effects of continued flight activity (e.g., landing and takeoff 

operations) by the existing rotary wing inventory (CH-46E, CH-53E, AH-1W/Z, and UH-1N/Y) as well 

as effects from the newly acquired MV-22B Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft on USFS and BLM managed public 

lands. This EA takes into account that aging CH-46E aircraft are currently being replaced by the MV22B, which is a new USMC tilt-rotor aircraft that can operate as a helicopter or turboprop airplane. 

The USFS is a Cooperating Agency on this action. The USMC is seeking to obtain special use 

authorization from the Cleveland National Forest, per current USFS regulations and a 1988 Master 

Agreement between the DoD and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) concerning the 

use of National Forest System lands for military activity. The USMC is also coordinating with the BLM 

El Centro Field Office, even though proposed flight activity on BLM managed land would be considered 

a “casual use level of activity” (BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2001-030), and requires no further 

authorization from BLM. 

Proposed training operations would primarily be conducted by the west coast-based First Marine 

Expeditionary Force, Third Marine Aircraft Wing (3D MAW) squadrons based at Marine Corps Air 

Station (MCAS) Miramar and MCAS Camp Pendleton. Training operations may also originate out of 

MCAS Yuma, especially during large training exercises. Training would also be conducted by squadrons 

from other aircraft wings, such as visiting east-coast based Second MAW (2D MAW) squadrons or 

Fourth MAW (4th MAW) reserve squadrons. 

Flight activity proposed in this EA would augment training that is conducted on the region’s military 

installations and ranges, and is expected to account for about 10 percent of the required regional rotary 

wing and tilt-rotor training. Proposed operations would include conducting practice landing and takeoffs 

on public lands managed by the USFS Cleveland National Forest and the BLM El Centro Field Office. 

Landing and takeoffs would take place in designated areas known as Landing Zones (LZs). 

ES.1 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action 

The purpose of the proposed action is to allow continued military aviation training operations on USFS and 

BLM managed lands in southern California that have been used for approximately 40 years by Marine 

Corps helicopters. The use of these public lands by USMC rotary wing and tilt-rotor squadrons is needed to 

develop and sustain critical pilot skills by achieving and maintaining required operational training that meet 

USMC standards for certifications, safety, combat effectiveness, and combat survivability. 

There are two key needs for the proposed action: 

• Varied Terrain with Adequate Airspace Conditions. To meet and maintain high standards of 

training, 3D MAW and other visiting squadrons must operate in a variety of terrain, climatic 

conditions, and altitudes that simulate various real world conditions (e.g., access to a variety of 

low level flight approaches, landing areas, outlying landing fields and other types of air and 

ground space). Aircrews must learn to quickly recognize, understand, and solve the tactical 

challenges presented by each of these conditions and be able to conduct all types of required 
95

95

California

Mexico

Arizona

Mexico

Colorado River

Salton

Sea

111

78

1

78

86

86

98

San Bernardino

Barstow

Riverside

Santa Ana

Blythe

Los

Angeles

Brawley

Yuma

San Diego

Escondido Oceanside

Calexico

El Centro

SAN BERNARDINO CO.

SAN DIEGO CO.

ORANGE

CO.

LOS ANGELES

CO.

RIVERSIDE CO.

MOHAVE CO.

LA PAZ CO.

YUMA CO.

IMPERIAL CO.

8

10

40

15

10

15

15

405

5

5

8 Cargo

Muchacho

Mtns.

PACIFIC

OCEAN

95

78

MCB Camp

Pendleton

Trabuco

Ranger District

Palomar

Ranger District

Descanso

Ranger District

MCAS Camp

Pendleton

MCAGCC

Twentynine Palms

Chocolate Mountain

Aerial Gunnery Range

Barry M. Goldwater

Range (West)

Landing Zone

Military Range

Cleveland National

Forest Boundary

BLM El Centro

Field Office Boundary

Scale

0 30

0 Kilometers 50

Miles

N

Figure ES-1. Location of Proposed Landing Zones within the Cleveland National Forest, Trabuco Ranger District, and the BLM El Centro Field Office

MCAS MIRAMAR

MCAS

YUMA

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations ES-2

Final EA

Executive Summary

Picacho Peak
Executive Summary

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations ES-3 

Final EA 

missions under variable terrain. By training under a variety of environmental conditions and 

locations with adequate airspace conditions (e.g., lack of air traffic congestion or airspace 

restrictions), aircrews can maximize training opportunities and ensure that each training flight is 

challenging, instructional, and not repetitious. 

• Proximity to Air Station. A basic requirement of aviation training is for training areas to be in 

reasonable proximity to military air stations if training is to result in combat-ready aircrews. 

Training in proximity to air stations allows aircrews and aircraft to spend a larger proportion of 

the limited and expensive flight time available for training on productive activities rather than en 

route to and from the training area. It also ensures that an aircraft can fly from the air station to a 

training area, complete a 40-minute training mission, and return to the air station while retaining 

an acceptable fuel reserve (e.g., enough fuel to accommodate an emergency or weather delay). 

For the purposes of this EA, reasonable proximity is considered to be about 200 nautical miles 

(nm) (370 kilometers [km]) for the MV-22B (Department of Navy 2009a), and about 65 nm (120 

km) for rotary wing aircraft (Karika, personal communication 2011). 

The mountainous environment of the Cleveland National Forest offers high altitude, confined area 

landing opportunities that are not replicated on USMC installations or training ranges in proximity to the 

air stations in question. The next closest high altitude military aviation training area with established LZs 

is associated with the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center in the Sierra Nevada Mountains 

near Bridgeport, California; the LZs are located over 300 nm (555 km) from MCAS Camp Pendleton and 

even farther from MCAS Miramar or MCAS Yuma. 

Although there are other nearby military ranges with desert terrain (e.g., Barry M. Goldwater Range 

West) similar to the public lands managed by the BLM EL Centro Field Office, these ranges often 

experience crowded airspace conditions and scheduling conflicts with fixed wing training and other 

advanced training exercises. These airspace conflicts limit opportunities for the types of rotary wing and 

tilt-rotor training addressed in this EA. 

Overall, current DoD installations and ranges are able to fulfill most mission requirements, but they do 

not offer the full variability needed to simulate real world conditions and often experience crowded 

airspace conditions. Therefore, continued use of LZs on public lands managed by the USFS Cleveland 

National Forest and the BLM El Centro Field Office is critical to the quality, variety, and quantity of 

training and the ability of USMC aviation to maintain readiness. 

ES.2 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

ES.2.1 Alternative 1 

ES.2.1.1 Airspace Operations 

Under Alternative 1, USMC aviation would continue existing rotary wing flight activity at the Cleveland 

National Forest and on BLM El Centro managed lands, except that CH-46E sorties1

 would decline over 

time and would be replaced by MV-22B sorties. The USMC proposes to conduct an estimated 2,502 annual 

sorties, which equate to 15,861 individual LZ landings, at the Cleveland National Forest and on BLM El 

Centro managed lands. Overall, the number of proposed sorties at the Cleveland National Forest is expected to 

go down about seven percent compared to existing conditions (although the number of individual landings is 

expected to go up about three percent), and the number of proposed sorties and landings on BLM El Centro 

managed lands is expected to increase by over 300 percent. 

 

1

 A sortie consists of a single military aircraft flight from takeoff through landing. For example, an aircraft entering a specific restricted area, 

conducting its mission in the airspace, and then exiting the airspace has its activity counted as one sortie. 
Executive Summary

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations ES-4 

Final EA 

The largest change in aircraft flight activity is related to the proposed MV-22B sorties. The MV-22B tiltrotor aircraft is a new type of aircraft for the USMC, with new and different capabilities as compared to 

the CH-46E helicopter it replaces. With its greater speed and range, the MV-22B would permit tactical 

training in ways not currently possible using conventional helicopters, including training farther from 

their homebase without the need for refueling. For this reason, operators of the MV-22B propose to use 

BLM El Centro managed lands much more than operators of the existing CH-46E helicopter. The 

operations-related information provided here and elsewhere in the EA is based on the MV-22 Training 

and Readiness Manual (USMC 2010b), which provides the best information available regarding proposed 

MV-22B flight activity. 

Aircraft would originate from MCAS Miramar, MCAS Camp Pendleton, or MCAS Yuma. Rotary wing 

aircraft originating from MCAS Miramar and MCAS Camp Pendleton would re-fuel at MCAS Yuma 

before using the LZs on BLM El Centro managed lands. Rotary wing aircraft originating from MCAS 

Yuma would re-fuel at MCAS Miramar or MCAS Camp Pendleton before using the LZs at the Cleveland 

National Forest. With its greater range as a tilt-rotor aircraft, there is no need for the MV-22B to refuel 

before training at either location. 

Aircraft would fly along normal departure routes from an airfield and then along established routes to 

reach a general LZ area. While transitioning to the LZs from an airfield, the rotary wing usually would 

fly between 1,000 to 2,000 feet (305 to 610 meters) above ground level, while the tilt-rotor aircraft 

usually would fly similar to a turboprop airplane between 8,000 to 12,000 feet (2,438 to 3,658 meters) 

above ground level. Although military missions are normally exempt from Forest Service Manual Policy 

2326.03, which discourages flying at least 2,000 feet over the ground surface over designated and 

recommended National Forest wilderness areas, the USMC would strive to be consistent with this policy, 

whenever possible. 

ES.2.1.2 Flight Activity within the Cleveland National Forest 

A 1972 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States (U.S.) Navy, Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command Southwest, and the USFS, California Region established the use of nine LZs for 

military training within the Cleveland National Forest. Because of the introduction of the MV-22B 

aircraft to USMC operations, and because an MOU is no longer appropriate for authorizing use of 

National Forest System lands, the USMC is seeking to obtain special use authorization from the 

Cleveland National Forest to allow continued use of the established LZs by USMC aviation. This is 

consistent with a 1988 Master Agreement between the DoD and the USDA, which established policies 

and procedures for establishing special use authorization for DoD activity on National Forest System 

lands. This authorization would need to be renewed every twenty years. 

Although flight activity may occur over much of the Cleveland National Forest, only specific areas have 

been designated for landing and takeoff operations. The USMC proposes to use eight of the nine LZs 

established in the 1972 MOU (LZ Sites 3 and 5 through 11). Additionally, two of these LZs (LZ Site 6 

and LZ Site 9) also have alternative landing configurations and thus have been identified as separate LZs 

for the purpose of this EA (i.e., LZ Site 6 and LZ Site 6 Alt; and LZ Site 9 and LZ Site 9 Alt). LZ Site 4, 

one of the original nine LZs, is not proposed for continued use at this time because this LZ is located on 

private in-holdings within the Cleveland National Forest. Therefore, 10 LZs (8 original and 2 alternative 

configurations) are carried forward for analysis. About 35 sorties would occur per month, based on 422 

proposed annual sorties. 

To address USFS concerns about dust emissions from aircraft landing and takeoff operations, the 

proposed action includes implementation of dust abatement measures for undeveloped LZs (i.e., those 

with exposed soils) and maintenance of paved LZs within the Cleveland National Forest. These measures 
Executive Summary

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations ES-5 

Final EA 

have yet to be described in detail, but are expected to consist of application of a non-toxic dust palliative 

(e.g., semi-permanent glue-like materials) that would reduce the amount of dust mobilized and dispersed 

by aircraft operations. The USMC will work with the USFS on selection of an appropriate material and 

on implementation of a suitable monitoring plan. Monitoring would ensure that the dust abatement 

measures are successful in reducing dust generation to a level that would not adversely affect the area 

surrounding the LZ and ensure that the dust abatement practices themselves do not result in adverse 

effects on regulated resources. 

ES.2.1.3 Flight Activity within BLM El Centro Managed Lands 

The BLM El Centro managed lands offer large expanses of open desert that have been used for USMC 

landing and takeoff operations over the last 40 years. Unlike the prepared and graded LZs within the 

Cleveland National Forest, the open desert was conducive to landing operations without any type of land 

improvement. The USMC estimates that over the past 40 years about 60 LZs were used in the open 

desert. Of those 60 LZs, 13 designated LZs have been selected for evaluation under the proposed action2

. 

About 173 sorties would occur per month, based on 2,080 proposed annual sorties. 

The types of landing and takeoff operations addressed under the proposed action are consistent with the 

definition of “casual use level of activity,” according to BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2001-030 

(Attachment 1: Military Activities on the Public Lands, section B.1.f). Casual use of BLM managed 

public lands is defined by 43 CFR 2920.0-5(k) and 2920.1-1(d) (see also BLM Manual Section 

2801.48.A). By definition, casual use activities do not have any adverse safety impacts on other public 

land uses, and have only a minimal or transient environmental effect on relatively small areas of public 

lands. Activities that qualify under casual use require no authorization from BLM. Although no written 

authorization is necessary, the USMC is coordinating with BLM on the proposed action as a casual use 

level activity as defined by BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2001-030, Attachment 1. 

ES.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no USMC rotary wing or tilt-rotor operations would occur on public 

lands managed by the Cleveland National Forest and the BLM El Centro Field Office. It is possible that 

private companies and other agencies, such as the Sheriff Department, Fire Department, and the U.S. 

Navy, may continue to use these LZs. Although the No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose 

and need for the proposed action, its inclusion enables decision makers to compare the environmental 

consequences of the alternatives. Please note that the No Action Alternative is different from the baseline 

against which impacts of the proposed action are evaluated; the baseline is the same as the existing 

conditions (i.e., current operation levels based on 2010 flight activities as described in section 2.1.2, 

Current Rotary Wing Flight Activities). 

ES.2.3 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated 

ES.2.3.1 Relocate Existing Training to DoD Lands 

The USMC considered relocating aircraft operations that occur at the Cleveland National Forest and on 

BLM El Centro managed lands to a nearby DoD facility. For example, USMC training ranges near 

MCAS Miramar, MCAS Camp Pendleton, and MCAS Yuma include Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp 

Pendleton, the Bob Stump Training Range Complex (Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range, Barry 

M. Goldwater Range West, R-2510, and R-2512), and Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center 

(MCAGCC) Twentynine Palms. Other nearby military ranges include Barry M. Goldwater Range East 

 

2

 LZ Canary and LZ PC3 Option, which were addressed in the Public Draft EA, have been subsequently dropped from further consideration. 
Executive Summary

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations ES-6 

Final EA 

(U.S. Air Force), the National Training Center at Fort Irwin (U.S. Army), the Yuma Proving Ground 

(U.S. Army), Naval Air Facility El Centro (U.S. Navy), and the China Lake Naval Weapons Center (U.S. 

Navy). 

USMC aviation is currently conducting training flight activities at MCB Camp Pendleton, the Bob Stump 

Training Range Complex, and MCAGCC. Additional training at these facilities would not meet the 

purpose of and need for conducting operations in a variety of terrain and altitudes that mirror real-world 

conditions. For example, none of these DoD training areas offer similar, unique mountainous conditions 

(e.g., sloped landings and crosswind landings at high elevation) as the existing LZs at the Cleveland 

National Forest. Although Barry M. Goldwater Range West may have similar terrain as the public lands 

managed by the BLM EL Centro Field Office, the crowded airspace conditions and associated scheduling 

conflicts for the nearby USMC training ranges would make relocating additional operations there 

infeasible (see also section ES-1, Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action). 

Regarding non-USMC training ranges, these facilities receive heavy use from other military services and 

often have primary missions and uses that would conflict with low-flying rotary wing and tilt-rotor flight 

operations and landings (e.g., tank maneuvers, artillery firing, air-to-ground delivery by jet aircraft, and 

air-to-air combat). As such, relocating proposed operations to other DoD lands fails to meet the purpose 

and need and cannot be considered a viable alternative. 

ES.2.3.2 Move Existing Training to Other Public Lands 

The nature of the USMC training operations requires relatively large training areas with access to suitable 

LZs that meet the purpose of and need for the proposed action (see section ES-1). Present-day prospects 

for creating new LZs on public lands are greatly impeded by existing or proposed utility corridors and 

energy development projects (e.g., solar or wind farms), increased density of adjacent settlements, and 

long-term commitments of open space areas to other land uses, such as congressionally-designated or 

proposed wilderness areas and critical habitat for endangered species. 

There are other existing public lands that are currently used for USMC aviation operations, but these are 

located outside the proximity radius for regional squadron activity. For example, aviation training occurs 

in the Sierra Nevada Mountains near Bridgeport, California, on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest 

through the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center. However, this area is located over 300 nm 

(555 km) from MCAS Camp Pendleton and even farther from MCAS Miramar or MCAS Yuma, and it 

takes aircraft several hours to transit to this location from southern California and western Arizona. 

Therefore, this is not a viable alternative for local training. 

ES.3 Summary of Impacts 

Based on USMC review, the proposed action has little potential to impact Socioeconomics, Ground 

Traffic and Transportation, Infrastructure and Utilities, Hazardous Materials and Waste, or Environmental 

Justice. Accordingly, no further discussion of these resource areas will be included in this analysis. For 

the rest, the environmental consequences associated with implementation of Alternative 1 and the No 

Action Alternative are presented and compared in Table ES-1. A detailed description of the affected 

environment and analysis of the environmental consequences is presented in Chapter 3 (Affected 

Environment and Environmental Consequences). As shown is Table ES-1, implementation of any of the 

alternatives would not result in significant impacts to any resource area. 
Executive Summary

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations ES-7 

Final EA 

ES.4 Preferred Alternative 

Marine Corps Installations (MCI) West, on behalf of the USMC, has identified Alternative 1 as the 

preferred alternative because this alternative best reflects the purpose and need for the proposed action. 

Alternative 1 would allow continued use of public lands managed by the Cleveland National Forest and 

the BLM El Centro Field Office, which are critical for ongoing military aviation training because these 

lands offer a variety of training environments necessary to meet mission requirements that are not 

available on any military installations in the region. 

ES.5 Public Participation and Agency Consultation 

The purpose of the public participation process was to actively inform the public, organizations, government 

agencies, federally and non-federally recognized Indian tribes, and elected officials about the proposed 

action and to receive public input during the various stages of the NEPA process. No comments were 

received during the public scoping process. The Public Draft EA was released on 2 July 2012, and the 

USMC held two open house public meetings in July 2012. Eleven comments were received during the 30-

day review of the Public Draft EA, and responses to these comments are provided in Appendix F-1. 

Additionally, MCI West, in cooperation with BLM and USFS, consulted with federally recognized and 

non-federally recognized Indian tribes affiliated with lands involved in this action. Furthermore, the 

USMC, in cooperation with the USFS, completed consultation efforts with the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and with the California State 

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (see 

section 2.6, Agency Consultation and Approvals, for more information). While not required for LZs 

located on BLM lands, special use authorization from the USFS is required before the proposed action 

can proceed on the Cleveland National Forest. 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table ES-1. Summary of Impacts 

Resource Area Alternative 1 No Action 

Cleveland National Forest BLM El Centro 

Airspace Proposed change in operations would not 

alter any airspace configuration, and it would not impact current or future military and general aviation airspace use. No significant impact would occur. 

Proposed change in operations would not alter any airspace configuration, and it would not impact current or future military and general aviation airspace use. No significant impact would occur. 

No USMC rotary wing oactivities would take plamay still use the LZs. Twould likely continue wLZs, although at a lower existing conditions. DepLZs are used by other agbeneficial impact. 

Noise Noise exposure under Alternative 1 

would either stay the same or decrease compared to existing conditions, and noise drops below 60 dB CNELmr over 

surrounding residential communities. Therefore, no significant noise impact would occur. 

Although Alternative 1 would result in an approximate 331 percent increase in annual sorties relative to existing conditions, there would be relatively minor changes in noise exposure compared to existing conditions, and noise drops below 60 dB CNELmr over surrounding residential communities. Therefore, no significant noise impact would occur. 

No USMC rotary wing oactivities would take plamay still use the LZs. Taircraft operations woulthe vicinity of the LZs, athan under existing condhow often the LZs are uthis could be a beneficia

Land Use and Recreation 

Proposed change in operations would be consistent with relevant land use plans (e.g., Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan and proposed amendments), and routine training activities would not result in permanent alteration of the area’s recreation opportunity. No significant impact on land use or recreation would occur. 

Proposed change in operations would be in conformance with the BLM’s mandate to manage BLM land for multiple uses as outlined in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and routine training activities would not result in permanent alteration of the area’s recreation opportunity. No significant impact on land use or recreation would occur. 

No USMC rotary wing oactivities would take plamay still use the LZs. Tto recreation due to noiswould likely continue wLZs, although at a lower conditions. Depending by other agencies, this cimpact. 

Air Quality Alternative 1 would reduce emissions 

within each project region, and emissions would not exceed any applicable conformity de minimis or 

USEPA Prevention of Significant Deterioration threshold. No significant air quality impact would occur. 

Alternative 1 would reduce emissions within each project region, and emissions would not exceed any applicable conformity de minimis or USEPA Prevention of Significant Deterioration threshold. No significant air quality impact would occur. 

Elimination of existing Uoperations would result reductions within the ClBLM El Centro, and San regions. Therefore, the would produce beneficiasignificant air quality im
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table ES-1. Summary of Impacts 

Resource Area Alternative 1 No Action 

Cleveland National Forest BLM El Centro 

Topography, Geology and Soils 

Because Alternative 1 would utilize existing LZs on level ground and in areas generally far removed from perennial surface waters, there would be no significant erosion-related impacts in the Cleveland National Forest. 

Because Alternative 1 would utilize existing LZs on level ground and in areas generally far removed from perennial surface waters, there would be no significant erosion-related impacts on BLM El Centro managed lands. 

No USMC rotary wing oactivities would take plamay still use the LZs. Tamount of soil erosion mvicinity of the LZs, altholevel than under existing on how often the LZs arthis could be a beneficia

Water Resources Because Alternative 1 would utilize 

existing LZs on level ground not subject to high erosion rates and in areas generally far removed from perennial surface waters, there would be no significant water resources impacts from erosion-induced sedimentation in the Cleveland National Forest. 

Because Alternative 1 would utilize existing LZs on level ground not subject to high erosion rates and in areas generally far removed from perennial surface waters, there would be no significant water resources impacts from erosion-induced sedimentation on BLM El Centro managed lands. 

No USMC rotary wing oactivities would take plamay still use the LZs. Tamount of soil erosion awater resources may conof the LZs, although likeunder existing conditionoften the LZs are used bcould be a beneficial im

Biological Resources 

There would be no significant impact on federally listed, state-listed, and other sensitive species from noise and dust generation on and adjacent to LZs. 

There would be no significant impact on federally listed, state-listed, and other sensitive species noise and dust generation on and adjacent to LZs. 

No USMC rotary wing oactivities would take plamay still use the LZs. Twithin both regions woufrequent rotary wing opedust generation on and aDepending on how often other agencies, this coul

Cultural Resources 

There would be no effect on a historic property or tribal cultural resource, and no significant impacts would occur under NEPA. 

There would be no adverse effect on a historic property or tribal cultural resource, and no significant impacts would occur under NEPA. 

No USMC rotary wing owould occur on public lCleveland National ForeCentro Field Office. Thno adverse impact on hicultural resources. 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table ES-1. Summary of Impacts 

Resource Area Alternative 1 No Action 

Cleveland National Forest BLM El Centro 

Public Health and Safety 

All safety actions that are in place for existing training flights would continue for the proposed operations. Additionally, the potential for fire is considered low because the Cleveland National Forest LZs are typically heavily disturbed and/or developed and generally void of vegetation. No significant impact would occur. 

All safety actions that are in place for existing training flights would continue for the proposed operations. Additionally, the potential for fire is considered low because the BLM LZs are almost entirely void of vegetation and dominated by desert pavement. No significant impact would occur. 

No USMC rotary wing oactivities would take plamay still use the LZs. Tand safety issues may covicinity of the LZs, altholevel than under existing on how often the LZs arthis could be a beneficia

Aesthetics Aircraft activities at the proposed LZs 

would occur in low numbers and would be generally dispersed over broad geographic areas. Therefore, routine training activities would not result in permanent alteration of the area’s visual environment or high scenic integrity, and there would be no significant impact on visual resources. 

The visual effects would be somewhat greater than the current level of impacts due to the larger numbers of sorties. However, the number of sorties per day would still be small and of short duration and would be dispersed over a wide geographic area. Therefore, routine training activities would not result in permanent alteration of the area’s visual environment, and there would be no significant impact on visual resources. 

No USMC rotary wing oactivities would take plamay still use the LZs. Ton visual resources may vicinity of the LZs, altholevel than under existing on how often the LZs arthis could be a beneficia
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations i

Final EA

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................................ES-1

Table of Contents......................................................................................................................................... i 

1 Purpose and Need ..........................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action............................................................................1-3

1.3 Environmental Issues of the Proposed Action ......................................................................1-4

1.4 Regulatory Setting.................................................................................................................1-4

1.5 Public Participation Process.................................................................................................. 1-5

1.6 Organization of the Document..............................................................................................1-6

2 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives.......................................................................2-1

2.1 USMC Aviation Squadrons under Consideration in this EA................................................2-1

2.1.1 Description of Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Aircraft.................................................2-1

2.1.2 Current Rotary Wing Flight Activities.....................................................................2-4

2.2 Proposed Action....................................................................................................................2-4

2.2.1 Alternative 1.............................................................................................................2-5

2.2.2 No Action Alternative............................................................................................2-13

2.2.3 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated ................................................................2-13

2.3 Resource Areas Eliminated From Detailed Consideration .................................................2-14

2.4 Summary of Impacts...........................................................................................................2-15

2.5 Preferred Alternative...........................................................................................................2-15

2.6 Agency Consultation and Approvals ..................................................................................2-15

3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.....................................................3.1-1

3.1 Airspace .............................................................................................................................3.1-1

3.1.1 Affected Environment...........................................................................................3.1-1

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures......................................3.1-2

3.2 Noise ..................................................................................................................................3.2-1

3.2.1 Definition of Noise................................................................................................3.2-1

3.2.2 Methodology .........................................................................................................3.2-2

3.2.3 Affected Environment...........................................................................................3.2-3

3.2.4 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures......................................3.2-5

3.3 Land Use and Recreation ...................................................................................................3.3-1

3.3.1 Affected Environment...........................................................................................3.3-1

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures......................................3.3-5

3.4 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................3.4-1

3.4.1 Affected Environment...........................................................................................3.4-2

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures......................................3.4-7

3.5 Topography, Geology, and Soils........................................................................................3.5-1

3.5.1 Affected Environment...........................................................................................3.5-1

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures......................................3.5-4

3.6 Water Resources ................................................................................................................ 3.6-1

3.6.1 Affected Environment...........................................................................................3.6-1

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures......................................3.6-3

3.7 Biological Resources.......................................................................................................... 3.7-1

3.7.1 Affected Environment...........................................................................................3.7-1

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures....................................3.7-30

3.8 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................. 3.8-1

3.8.1 Affected Environment...........................................................................................3.8-1

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures......................................3.8-5
Table of Contents

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations ii 

Final EA 

3.9 Public Health and Safety .................................................................................................... 3.9-1

3.9.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................... 3.9-1

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures ...................................... 3.9-4

3.10 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................... 3.10-1

3.10.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................................... 3.10-1

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures .................................... 3.10-2

4 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects Considered in the 

Cumulative Analysis ............................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2.1 Military Actions ....................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2.2 United States Forest Service Actions ....................................................................... 4-2

4.2.3 Bureau of Land Management Actions ..................................................................... 4-4

4.2.4 Orange County Actions ............................................................................................ 4-6

4.2.5 Riverside County and California Department of Transportation 

Actions ..................................................................................................................... 4-7

4.2.6 City of Corona Actions ............................................................................................ 4-7

4.3 Potential Cumulative Impacts by Environmental Resource Area ......................................... 4-8

4.3.1 Airspace ................................................................................................................... 4-8

4.3.2 Land Use and Recreation ......................................................................................... 4-8

4.3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 4-9

4.3.4 Water Resources .................................................................................................... 4-12

4.3.5 Biological Resources .............................................................................................. 4-12

4.3.6 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 4-13

4.3.7 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................... 4-14

5 Other NEPA Considerations ........................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of Alternatives Including 

the Proposed Action and All Mitigation Measures Being Considered ................................. 5-1

5.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Natural or Depletable 

Resources .............................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.3 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Use of the Human Environment 

and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ......................................... 5-1

5.4 Any Probable Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided and 

are not Amenable to Mitigation ............................................................................................ 5-2

6 Persons and Agencies Contacted or Consulted ........................................................................... 6-1

Department of Defense .................................................................................................................... 6-1

United States Forest Service ............................................................................................................ 6-1

Bureau of Land Management .......................................................................................................... 6-2

United States Fish and Wildlife Service .......................................................................................... 6-2

State Historic Preservation Office ................................................................................................... 6-2

7 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................ 7-1

Lead Agency .................................................................................................................................... 7-1

Cooperating Agency ........................................................................................................................ 7-1

8 References ...................................................................................................................................... 8-1

9 Acronyms........................................................................................................................................ 9-1

 
Table of Contents

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations iii 

Final EA 

Appendices 

A Scoping and Agency Correspondence 

 A-1 Scoping 

 A-2 Tribal Consultation 

 A-3 United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

A-4 United States Forest Service 

A-5 State Historic Preservation Office 

B Air Quality Emission Calculations and Clean Air Act Conformity Analyses 

 B-1 Air Quality Emissions Calculations 

 B-2 Clean Air Act Conformity Record of Non-Applicability (RONA) 

C Noise 

 C-1 Aircraft Noise Modeling Data Wyle 2011 

 C-2 Discussion of Noise and Its Effect on the Environment (Wyle) 

D Landing Zone Figures 

E Risk of Fire From V-22 Exhaust Memo 

F Public Draft EA Comments and Public Outreach 

 F-1 Public Draft EA Comments and Responses 

 F-2 Public Outreach Summary (August 2012) 

 
Table of Contents

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations iv 

Final EA 

List of Tables 

ES-1 Summary of Impacts .................................................................................................................. ES-8

1.4-1 Applicable Federal Regulations, Instructions, and Public Law .................................................... 1-5

2.1-1 Aircraft Comparison ..................................................................................................................... 2-3

2.1-2 Existing Estimated Annual Sorties and Landings on Non-DoD Lands ........................................ 2-4

2.2-1 Proposed Change in Annual Sorties by Aircraft Type under Alternative 1 .................................. 2-6

2.2-2 Proposed Change in Annual Landings by Aircraft Type under Alternative 1 .............................. 2-6

2.2-3 List of Proposed Landing Zones within the Cleveland National Forest ....................................... 2-9

2.2-4 List of Proposed Landing Zones within BLM El Centro Managed Lands ................................. 2-10

2.4-1 Summary of Impacts ................................................................................................................... 2-17

3.1-1 Definitions of Different Classes of Airspace ............................................................................. 3.1-2

3.2-1 Maximum CNELmr at Modeled Landing Zones in Cleveland National Forest for 

Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................................... 3.2-4

3.2-2 Maximum CNELmr at Modeled Landing Zones on BLM El Centro Managed Land 

under Baseline Conditions ......................................................................................................... 3.2-5

3.2-3 Maximum CNELmr at Modeled Landing Zones in Cleveland National Forest for 

Alternative 1 .............................................................................................................................. 3.2-6

3.2-4 Maximum CNELmr at Modeled Landing Zones on BLM El Centro Managed Land for 

Alternative 1 .............................................................................................................................. 3.2-8

3.3-1 Description of Land Use Zones within Cleveland National Forest ........................................... 3.3-3

3.3-2 Special Use Areas in the Vicinity of the Proposed LZs within Lands Managed by the 

BLM El Centro Field Office ...................................................................................................... 3.3-7

3.4-1 California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards ........................................................... 3.4-1

3.4-2 Annual Emissions from Current Helicopter Operations within the Cleveland National 

Forest Project Region ................................................................................................................. 3.4-6

3.4-3 Annual Emissions from Current Helicopter Operations within the BLM El Centro 

Project Region ............................................................................................................................ 3.4-7

3.4-4 Annual Emissions from Current Helicopter Operations within the San Diego Air Basin 

Project Region ............................................................................................................................ 3.4-7

3.4-5 Annual Emissions due to the Operation of the USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor 

Training Activities- Alternative 1 .............................................................................................. 3.4-9

3.5-1 Soil Type Characteristics at Landing Zones within the Cleveland National Forest ................. 3.5-2

3.5-2 Soil Association Characteristics at Landing Zones on BLM El Centro Lands .......................... 3.5-3

3.7-1 Vegetation Communities in the Vicinity of the Cleveland National Forest LZs ....................... 3.7-2

3.7-2 Special Status Plant Species Potentially Present in the Proposed Project Areas, 

Cleveland National Forest .......................................................................................................... 3.7-4

3.7-3 Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Present in Project Areas, Cleveland National 

Forest ......................................................................................................................................... 3.7-9

3.7-4 Special Status Plant Species Potentially Present in the Proposed Project Areas, BLM El 

Centro ....................................................................................................................................... 3.7-17

3.7-5 Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Present in Project Areas, BLM El Centro 

Field Office .............................................................................................................................. 3.7-20

3.7-6 Summary of Results for Tortoise Survey Efforts on BLM Managed Lands ........................... 3.7-28

3.7-7 Desert Tortoise Sign Key ......................................................................................................... 3.7-29

3.8-1 Newly Recorded Sites Within the Project APE for BLM El Centro ......................................... 3.8-4

3.9-1 Projected Class A Mishap Rates for Aircraft ............................................................................. 3.9-1

3.9-2 Class A Flight Mishaps for MV-22 ........................................................................................... 3.9-2

3.9-3 Class A Flight Mishaps for Light Attack Helicopters ................................................................ 3.9-2

3.9-4 Class A Flight Mishaps for Medium and Heavy Lift Helicopters ............................................. 3.9-3

4-1 Annual GHG Emissions from the Proposed Action ................................................................... 4-10
Table of Contents

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations v 

Final EA 

List of Figures 

ES-1 Location of Proposed Landing Zones within the Cleveland National Forest, Trabuco 

Ranger District, and the BLM El Centro Field Office ............................................................... ES-2

1.1-1 Location of Proposed Landing Zones within the Cleveland National Forest, Trabuco 

Ranger District, and the BLM El Centro Field Office .................................................................. 1-2

2.1-1 Photographs of Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Aircraft ................................................................... 2-2

2.2-1 Location of Proposed Landing Zones within the Cleveland National Forest ............................... 2-8

2.2-2 Location of Proposed Landing Zones within BLM El Centro Managed Lands ......................... 2-11

3.2-1 Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels of Common Sounds ........................................................... 3.2-2

3.3-1 Location of LZs within the Cleveland National Forest Land Use Zones................................... 3.3-2

3.3-2 Special Use Areas in the Vicinity of the Proposed LZs within Lands Managed by the 

BLM El Centro Field Office ...................................................................................................... 3.3-6

3.10-1 Time-Lapsed Photographs during a One-Time MV-22 Landing Demonstration at LZ 

Site 5 ........................................................................................................................................ 3.10-3
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 1-1 

Final EA 

1 Purpose and Need 

1.1 Introduction 

The United States Marine Corps (USMC), in cooperation with the United States Forest Service (USFS), 

has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to assess potential environmental effects from USMC 

aviation operations on public lands located outside of Department of Defense (DoD)-controlled airspace 

and located off of DoD-controlled installations and training ranges in southern California. The USMC 

currently conducts rotary wing operations on public lands managed by the USFS Cleveland National 

Forest (Trabuco Ranger District) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) El Centro Field Office 

(Figure 1.1-1). This EA evaluates the effects of continued flight activity (e.g., landing and takeoff 

operations) by the existing rotary wing inventory as well as effects from the newly acquired MV-22B 

Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft on USFS and BLM managed public lands. 

The USFS is a Cooperating Agency on this action. The USMC is seeking to obtain special use 

authorization from the Cleveland National Forest, per current USFS regulations and a 1988 Master 

Agreement between the DoD and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) concerning the 

use of National Forest System lands for military activity. The USMC is also coordinating with the BLM 

El Centro Field Office, even though proposed flight activity on BLM managed land would be considered 

a “casual use level of activity” (BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2001-030), and requires no further 

authorization from BLM. 

Proposed training operations would primarily be conducted by the west coast-based First Marine 

Expeditionary Force (I MEF), Third Marine Aircraft Wing (3D MAW) squadrons based at Marine Corps 

Air Station (MCAS) Miramar and MCAS Camp Pendleton. Additionally, training operations may 

originate out of MCAS Yuma, especially during large training exercises. Training would also be 

conducted by squadrons from other aircraft wings, such as visiting east-coast based Second MAW (2D 

MAW) squadrons or Fourth MAW (4th MAW) reserve squadrons. 

Rotary wing and tilt-rotor aircraft under consideration in this EA include the Sea Knight (CH-46E), Super 

Stallion (CH-53E), Super Cobra (AH-1W)1

, Viper (AH-1Z), Huey (UH-1N)2, Venom (UH-1Y), and 

Osprey (MV-22B). This EA takes into account that aging CH-46E aircraft are currently being replaced 

by the MV-22B, which is a new USMC tilt-rotor aircraft that can operate as a helicopter or turboprop 

airplane. 

Flight activity proposed in this EA would augment training that is conducted on the region’s military 

installations and ranges, and is expected to account for about 10 percent of the required regional rotary 

wing and tilt-rotor training. Proposed operations would include conducting practice landing and takeoffs 

on public lands managed by the USFS Cleveland National Forest and the BLM El Centro Field Office. 

Landing and takeoffs would take place in designated areas known as Landing Zones (LZs), as defined by 

Joint Publication (JP) 1-02 (i.e., any specified zones used for the landing of aircraft). To be an LZ, an 

area must be free of vertical obstructions, relatively flat, and able to support the weight of an aircraft 

without it sinking into the substrate (i.e., soil or snow). Within an LZ, one or more specific landing sites 

or points can be defined where one aircraft can land and take off safely. Therefore, some LZs can support 

landing activities by more than one aircraft simultaneously. 

 

1

 AH-1W and AH-1Z are variations on the same model of aircraft, and are sometimes referred collectively in this EA as “AH-1W/Z.” 2

 UH-1N and UH-1Y are variations on the same model of aircraft, and are sometimes referred collectively in this EA as “UH-1N/Y.” 
95

95

California

Mexico

Arizona

Mexico

Colorado River

Salton

Sea

111

78

1

78

86

86

98

San Bernardino

Barstow

Riverside

Santa Ana

Blythe

Los

Angeles

Brawley

Yuma

San Diego

Escondido Oceanside

Calexico

El Centro

SAN BERNARDINO CO.

SAN DIEGO CO.

ORANGE

CO.

LOS ANGELES

CO.

RIVERSIDE CO.

MOHAVE CO.

LA PAZ CO.

YUMA CO.

IMPERIAL CO.

8

10

40

15

10

15

15

405

5

5

8 Cargo

Muchacho

Mtns.

PACIFIC

OCEAN

95

78

MCB Camp

Pendleton

Trabuco

Ranger District

Palomar

Ranger District

Descanso

Ranger District

MCAS Camp

Pendleton

MCAGCC

Twentynine Palms

Chocolate Mountain

Aerial Gunnery Range

Barry M. Goldwater

Range (West)

Landing Zone

Military Range

Cleveland National

Forest Boundary

BLM El Centro

Field Office Boundary

Scale

0 30

0 Kilometers 50

Miles

N

Figure 1.1-1. Location of Proposed Landing Zones within the Cleveland National Forest, Trabuco Ranger District, and the BLM El Centro Field Office

MCAS MIRAMAR

MCAS

YUMA

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 1-2

Final EA

1.0 Purpose and Need

Picacho Peak
1.0 Purpose and Need

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 1-3 

Final EA 

Typical practice landing and takeoff operations consist of a low level approach to the LZ to allow a pilot 

to visually inspect the area and select a specific landing site that is free of all obstacles (e.g., uneven 

terrain) and civilians (e.g., recreational users). The pilot lands the aircraft only when the area is 

determined safe. This type of training enables pilots and flight crews to identify an LZ, transition into an 

appropriate approach, land, and then subsequently take off in a variety of weather conditions (i.e., rain, 

lighting, cloud cover) and in different types of terrain. This type of training also can simulate various 

combat missions. For example, these operations may simulate the discharge or pickup of passengers, 

evacuation of wounded personnel, and/or the delivery of supplies, although no actual movement of people 

or supplies would occur at the LZs evaluated under this EA. 

Depending on the training scenario, an aircraft may land and take off at an LZ only once or may make 

multiple passes and landings at the same LZ. An aircraft may also train at several LZs during a single 

training event, and the training scenario may involve multiple aircraft. Other aircraft operations, which 

usually are practiced in conjunction with the takeoff and landing operations at LZs, include hover-holds 

(e.g., hovering above an LZ), general navigation/tactical training, night vision goggle training, and 

terrain-flight (following the terrain). 

The proposed action, alternatives, and the No Action Alternative are described in further detail in Chapter 

2.0 of this EA. 

1.2 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action 

The purpose of the proposed action is to allow continued military aviation training operations on USFS 

and BLM managed public lands in southern California that have been used for approximately 40 years by 

Marine Corps helicopters. The use of these public lands by USMC rotary wing and tilt-rotor squadrons is 

needed to develop and sustain critical pilot skills by achieving and maintaining required operational 

training that meet USMC standards for certifications, safety, combat effectiveness, and combat 

survivability. 

There are two key needs for the proposed action: 

• Varied Terrain with Adequate Airspace Conditions. To meet and maintain high standards of 

training, 3D MAW and other visiting squadrons must operate in a variety of terrain, climatic 

conditions, and altitudes that simulate various real world conditions (e.g., access to a variety of 

low level flight approaches, landing areas, outlying landing fields and other types of air and 

ground space). Aircrews must learn to quickly recognize, understand, and solve the tactical 

challenges presented by each of these conditions and be able to conduct all types of required 

missions under variable terrain. By training under a variety of environmental conditions and 

locations with adequate airspace conditions (e.g., lack of air traffic congestion or airspace 

restrictions), aircrews can maximize training opportunities and ensure that each training flight is 

challenging, instructional, and not repetitious. 

• Proximity to Air Station. A basic requirement of aviation training is for training areas to be in 

reasonable proximity to military air stations if training is to result in combat-ready aircrews. 

Training in proximity to air stations allows aircrews and aircraft to spend a larger proportion of 

the limited and expensive flight time available for training on productive activities rather than en 

route to and from the training area. It also ensures that an aircraft can fly from the air station to a 

training area, complete a 40-minute training mission3

, and return to the air station while retaining 

an acceptable fuel reserve (e.g., enough fuel to accommodate an emergency or weather delay). 

 

3

 Training mission durations may vary depending on how far an aircraft has to travel to reach a training area. 
1.0 Purpose and Need

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 1-4 

Final EA 

For the purposes of this EA, reasonable proximity is considered to be about 200 nautical miles 

(nm) (370 kilometers [km]) for the MV-22B (Department of Navy [DoN] 2009a), and about 

65 nm (120 km) for rotary wing aircraft (Karika, personal communication 2011). 

The mountainous environment of the Cleveland National Forest offers high altitude, confined area 

landing opportunities that are not replicated on USMC installations or training ranges in proximity to the 

air stations in question. The next closest high altitude military training area with established LZs is 

associated with the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center in the Sierra Nevada Mountains 

near Bridgeport, California; the LZs are located over 300 nm (555 km) from MCAS Camp Pendleton and 

even farther from MCAS Miramar or MCAS Yuma. 

Although there are other nearby military ranges with desert terrain (e.g., Barry M. Goldwater Range 

West) similar to the public lands managed by the BLM EL Centro Field Office, these ranges often 

experience crowded airspace conditions and scheduling conflicts with fixed wing training and other 

advanced training exercises. These airspace conflicts limit opportunities for the types of rotary wing and 

tilt-rotor training addressed in this EA. 

Overall, current DoD installations and ranges are able to fulfill most mission requirements, but they do 

not offer the full variability needed to simulate real world conditions and often experience crowded 

airspace conditions. Therefore, continued use of LZs on public lands managed by the USFS Cleveland 

National Forest and the BLM El Centro Field Office is critical to the quality, variety, and quantity of 

training and the ability of USMC aviation to maintain readiness. 

1.3 Environmental Issues of the Proposed Action 

Environmental issues potentially affected by the proposed action and evaluated in this EA include the 

following: Airspace; Noise; Land Use and Recreation; Air Quality; Topography, Geology and Soils; 

Water Resources; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Aesthetics; and Public Health and Safety 

(see also section 2.3, Resource Areas Eliminated from Detailed Consideration). 

1.4 Regulatory Setting 

This EA discusses reasonable alternatives for meeting the purpose of and need for the proposed action; 

establishes a baseline (i.e., existing environmental conditions) in the vicinity of the proposed action; 

identifies direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that might result from the proposed action; and 

recommends measures to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts. The decision to be made by the 

Marine Corps Installations (MCI) West is whether or not to move forward with the proposed action. The 

decision to be made by the USFS is whether or not to issue special use authorization to the USMC. 

This EA has been prepared in accordance with applicable federal regulations, instructions, and public law 

including but not limited to those provided in Table 1.4-1. The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) requires consideration of potential impacts to the environment in the decision-making process for 

federal actions. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implement the “action forcing” 

provision of NEPA to ensure that federal agencies comply with NEPA. Marine Corps Order (MCO) 

P5090.2A (with change 2) provides specific guidance for the USMC in preparing environmental 

documentation for proposed actions subject to NEPA, and USFS procedures for implementing NEPA are 

set forth in 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 220. 

The proposed action is the continuation of and modification to an ongoing USMC activity. USMC NEPA 

policy and guidance (MCO P5090.2A Section 12202.1b and USMC NEPA Manual Section 2.1) requires 

NEPA review of continuing activities when there is a substantial change in the continuing activity (such 
1.0 Purpose and Need

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 1-5 

Final EA 

as operational tempo, area of use, or equipment) that has the potential for significant environmental 

impacts. 

Table 1.4-1. Applicable Federal Regulations, Instructions, and Public Law 

Name Regulation 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Public Law 91-190, 42 USC §§ 4321-

4370h 

Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing 

the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act 

40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 

Department of Navy Procedures for Implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

32 CFR Part 775 

United States Forest Service Procedures for Implementing NEPA 32 CFR Part 220 

Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual Chapter 12 Marine Corps Order P5090.2A, change 2 

Military Activities On and Over the Public Lands Bureau of Land Management Instruction 

Memorandum No. 2001-030 

Clean Air Act, as amended, 42, including 1993 General Conformity 

Rule 

USC §§ 7401-7671q 

Clean Water Act 33 USC §§ 1251-1387 

Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and 

Liability Act 

42 USC §§ 9601-9675 

Endangered Species Act 16 USC §§ 1531-1544 

Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-income Populations, 11 February 1994 

Executive Order 12898 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act 43 USC §§1701-1785 

Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic 

Performance, 5 October 2009 

Executive Order 13514 

Floodplain Management, 24 May 1977 Executive Order 11988 

Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation 

Management 

Executive Order 13423 

Invasive Species Executive Order 13112 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 16 USC §§ 703-712 

Minimum Standards for Management of Hazardous and Extremely 

Hazardous Wastes 

California Code of Regulations, Title 22 

National Historic Preservation Act 16 USC §§ 470-470x-6 

Native Americans Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 25 USC §§ 3001-3013 & 40 CFR Part 10 

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks, 23 April 1997 

Executive Order 13045 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 42 USC §§ 6901-6992k 

Responsibility of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, 11 

January 2001 

Executive Order 13186 

Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation 

Management, 24 January 2007 

Executive Order 13423 

Notes: USC = United States Code, CFR = Code of Federal Regulations 

1.5 Public Participation Process 

The purpose of the public participation process was to actively inform the public, organizations, government 

agencies, federally and non-federally recognized Indian tribes, and elected officials about the proposed 

action and to receive public input during the various stages of the NEPA process. The USFS issued 204 

public scoping letters (Appendix A-1) for the proposed action in March 2012 for a 30-day scoping period 

that ended on 15 April 2012. No comments were received in response to the scoping letters. The Public 

Draft EA was released on 2 July 2012 for a 30-day review period. The document was available for review 

at three local libraries and for download on the project website (www.rotarywingnepa.com). The USMC 
1.0 Purpose and Need

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 1-6 

Final EA 

held two open house public meetings in southern California (El Centro and Corona) on 17 and 25 July 2012. 

The public outreach efforts related to the release of the Public Draft EA are described more fully in 

Appendix F-2. Additionally, section 2.6 (Agency Consultation and Approvals) has more information about 

coordination and consultation efforts with government agencies and federally and non-federally recognized 

Indian tribes. 

Eleven comments were received during the 30-day review of the Public Draft EA, and responses to these 

comments are provided in Appendix F-1. The comments addressed concerns about cultural resources, 

public safety, hazardous materials and waste, and open space. Based on these comments and further input 

from consultation efforts, the USMC decided to drop LZ Canary and LZ PC3 Option from further 

consideration. This change is reflected in the Final EA. 

1.6 Organization of the Document 

This EA is organized as follows: Chapter 1 defines the purpose of and need for the proposed action. 

Chapter 2 describes the alternatives for accomplishing the proposed action. Chapter 3 describes the 

affected environment and analyzes the environmental consequences of each alternative. Chapter 4 

examines the cumulative impacts of the proposed action in conjunction with other past, present, and 

reasonably-foreseeable future actions in the area. Chapter 5 addresses various other considerations 

required by NEPA. The final chapters of the EA include a list of references cited, persons and agencies 

contacted, and the names of preparers and their qualifications. 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 2-1 

Final EA 

2 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives 

The proposed action is use of specific public lands managed by the USFS and BLM for USMC aviation 

training operations to attain and maintain proficiency in the operational employment of rotary wing and 

tilt-rotor aircraft. 

2.1 USMC Aviation Squadrons under Consideration in this EA 

As directed by law (10 United States Code [USC] § 5063), the USMC must be able to field, on virtually 

immediate notice, a self-sufficient, combined arms combat force that can operate in three dimensions 

(land, air, and sea) under a single command. The USMC organizes its ground combat divisions and air 

wings into Marine Air Ground Task Forces (MAGTF). This forms the fundamental cornerstones of 

modern USMC combat doctrine and is one of the first front-line combat forces that the nation turns to in 

times of crisis. The training operations addressed under this proposed action would primarily be 

conducted by 3D MAW, which is the aviation component of the I MEF, the USMC’s largest MAGTF. 

The 3D MAW mission is to provide combat ready expeditionary aviation forces capable of short notice 

world wide deployment to MAGTF, fleet, and unified commanders. 3D MAW was commissioned in 

November 1942, and has supported combat efforts during World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam 

War, and recent actions in the Middle East. It has also supported humanitarian actions in Somalia, Haiti, 

India, and Pakistan. 

3D MAW currently operates 19 squadrons of rotary wing and tilt-rotor aircraft under two Marine Air 

Groups (MAGs), including MAG 16 stationed at MCAS Miramar and MAG 39 stationed at MCAS Camp 

Pendleton. Of the 330 rotary wing and tilt-rotor aircraft in the current 3D MAW inventory, there are 95 

AH-1W/Z, 63 UH-1N/Y, 64 CH-53E, and 108 aircraft that have transitioned or are currently transitioning 

from CH-46E to MV-22B1

. 3D MAW also operates fixed wing aviation squadrons under MAG 11 and 

MAG 13 (Hornet - FA-18D/E, Harrier - AV-8B, and Hercules - KC-130), but these fixed wing squadrons 

are not part of the proposed action. 

Although training activities would primarily be conducted by 3D MAW, training would also be 

conducted by squadrons from other aircraft wings, such as visiting east-coast based 2D MAW squadrons 

or 4th MAW reserve squadrons. Some training may also originate out of MCAS Yuma, especially during 

special exercises, like those associated with the Weapons Tactics Instructors (WTI) course. The purpose 

of the WTI course is to hone the skills of USMC aviation units in weapons delivery, tactics, command 

and control, and integration of joint forces. Special exercises such as WTI are designed to expose 

participants to missions that would likely be implemented while deployed, with emphasis on integration, 

coordination, and tactical execution. However, proposed types of operations at the LZs discussed in this 

EA would be similar no matter where the aircraft originated or whether the flight activity was part of an 

individual training exercise or a larger special exercise (i.e., practicing landing and takeoff operations 

only, but no discharge or pickup of people or supplies). 

2.1.1 Description of Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Aircraft 

The rotary wing and tilt-rotor aircraft under consideration in this EA include the MV-22B, CH-46E, CH53E, AH-1W/Z, and UH-1N/Y (Figure 2.1-1, Table 2.1-1). 

 

 

1

 As of the time of the release of this EA, four CH-46E squadrons have already transitioned to the MV-22B. An additional five squadrons 

are scheduled to transition to the MV-22B by 2017 (USMC 2010a). 
Super Cobra (AH-1W) Viper (AH-1Z)

Huey (UH-1N) Venom (UH-1Y)

Super Stallion (CH-53E)

Osprey (MV-22)

Sea Knight (CH-46E)

2-2

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Final EA

Figure 2.1-1. Photographs of Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Aircraft
 2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 2-3 

Final EA 

Table 2.1-1. Aircraft Comparison 

Aircraft Empty Weight (lbs) Payload (lbs) Cruise Speed(kts)

AH-1W (Super Cobra) 10,750 3,986 131 

AH-1Z (Viper) 11,700 5,558 137 

UH-1N (Huey) 7,200 3,352 100 

UH-1Y (Venom) 11,700 5,930 153 

CH-46E (Sea Knight) 11,600 4,000 lbs 120 

CH-53E (Super Stallion) 37,500 Internal: 32-55 passengers; External: 36,000 lbs 150 

MV-22B (Osprey) 35,000 Internal: 24 passengers; External: 12,500 lbs 240 

Notes: lbs=pounds; kts=knots 

Source: USMC 2010a; DoN 2009b. 

The CH-46E, a medium lift helicopter, is approaching the end of its service life, and is currently being 

replaced by the MV-22B. The transition between CH-46E and MV-22B is expected to be completed by 

2017, based on the current Marine Aviation Plan (USMC 2010a). The mission of the CH-46E and MV22B squadrons is to support the MAGTF commander by providing assault support transport of combat 

troops, supplies and equipment, day or night under all weather conditions during expeditionary, joint, or 

combined operations (USMC 2010a). 

The MV-22B tilt-rotor aircraft is a new type of aircraft for the USMC with new and different capabilities 

as compared to the CH-46E helicopter it replaces. The MV-22B has the ability to fly twice as fast, four 

times as far, and carry twice the combat load of the less-capable, 1960s-era CH-46E medium lift 

helicopters (DoN 2009b). The unique tilt-rotor allows the MV-22B to operate as a helicopter or 

turboprop airplane. This allows the MV-22B to combine the hovering advantages of a helicopter, with 

the high speed and high altitude cruise capability of a modern turboprop airplane. The MV-22B can carry 

up to 24 combat-loaded Marines, or 12,500 pounds (6 tons) of cargo, at a cruising speed in excess of 240 

knots (276 miles per hour [mph]) (USMC 2010a). It has a flight ceiling of up to 25,000 feet (7,620 

meters). Combat support is enhanced by the MV-22B’s ability to operate at night, under adverse weather 

conditions, in confined or isolated areas, and with various internal and external loads. These special 

capabilities allow the USMC to rapidly insert assault forces into enemy territory while enhancing aircraft 

and passenger security and survivability. 

The CH-53E is a heavy lift helicopter designed to transport heavy equipment and supplies to and from 

offshore ships as well as support subsequent onshore operations. The CH-53E can carry between 32 and 

55 passengers (depending on seat configuration), and is capable of transporting 36,000 pounds (16 tons) 

of cargo externally, at a cruising speed of about 150 knots (173 mph) (USMC 2010a). The mission of the 

CH-53E squadrons is to support the MAGTF commander by providing assault support transport of heavy 

weapons, equipment and supplies (USMC 2010a). 

The USMC also occasionally uses the CH-53E and the CH-46E to support the California Department of 

Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL Fire) with wildfire suppression in wildland areas of San Diego County, 

upon request (Fire Department News Network 2011). The MV-22B is currently undergoing testing for a 

fire-bucket (a bucket assembly suspended from an aircraft to carry water for fire-fighting efforts), which 

would allow it to replace the CH-46E in these wildfire suppression efforts. 

The AH-1W/Z and UH-1N/Y are light attack helicopters, whose mission is to support the MAGTF 

commander by providing offensive air support, utility support, armed escort and airborne supporting arms 

coordination (USMC 2010a). These attack helicopters carry between two and six weapons stations 

(USMC 2010a). Attack helicopters generally practice landing and takeoff exercises at LZs less than the 

other rotary wing aircraft because their primary mission is air support, not transport of people or supplies. 
 2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 2-4 

Final EA 

2.1.2 Current Rotary Wing Flight Activities 

Two specialized terms are often used to describe flight activities: sortie and operation. A sortie consists 

of a single military aircraft flight from takeoff through landing. For example, an aircraft entering a 

specific area, conducting its mission in the airspace, and then exiting the airspace has its activity counted 

as one sortie. An operation represents a single movement or individual flight, such as one takeoff, 

arrival, or touch-down. For example, one aircraft departing and returning would represent two airfield 

flight operations. Therefore, a single sortie generates two or more operations. The following quantified 

flight information is based on sortie counts, unless otherwise stated. 

USMC rotary wing aircraft currently conduct an estimated 935 annual sorties, which equate to about 4,892 

individual LZ landings, at the Cleveland National Forest and on BLM El Centro managed lands (Table 2.1-

2). Hover-holds (e.g., hovering above an LZ), general navigation/tactical training, night vision goggle 

training, and terrain-flight (following the terrain)2

 are practiced in conjunction with the takeoff and landing 

operations at LZs. Aviation training most often involves one or two rotary wing aircraft, but may include as 

many as four aircraft landing simultaneously at one LZ (depending on LZ size and configuration). Current 

and proposed flight activities at the Cleveland National Forest and on BLM El Centro managed lands do not 

include ground troop movements or training, refueling operations, or the use of flares or ordnance. 

Table 2.1-2. Existing Estimated Annual Sorties and Landings on Non-DoD Lands 

Aircraft Cleveland National Forest BLM El Centro Total

Sorties Landings Sorties Landings Sorties Landings

AH-1W/Z 228 744 49 150 277 894

UH-1N/Y 132 828 31 180 163 1,008

CH-53E 24 140 197 1,110 221 1,250

CH-46E1 68 420 206 1,320 274 1,740

Total 452 2,132 483 2,760 935 4,892

Notes: 

1. Sortie estimates are based on pre-transition to the MV-22B (see Appendix C [Noise]). 

2. Sorties comprise both Confined Area Landing (CAL) and non-CAL type sorties. For this EA, non-CAL sorties include 

general navigation/tactical training conducted in the vicinity of an LZ, while landing and takeoff operations are 

considered CAL sorties. 

3. Landings are based on the number of estimated landings that take place during each CAL sortie; this estimate differs by 

aircraft type (see Appendix B [Air Quality Emissions Calculations]).

Flight activities are conducted in conformance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-mandated 

restrictions and Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization (NATOPS) flight 

instructions (e.g., Chief of Naval Operations Instruction [OPNAVINST] 3710.7U), which includes 

regulations regarding public areas and designated wilderness areas. Pilots are restricted from landing 

within congressionally-designated or proposed wilderness areas or United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS)-designated critical habitat. 

All aircraft also operate in accordance with their corresponding NATOPS training manuals. For example, 

the NATOPS manual on the MV-22B identifies measures and limitations on how the aircraft is flown, 

including time on the ground and requirements for nacelle rotation when landed to reduce heat effects. 

2.2 Proposed Action 

The proposed action addressed in this EA is the continued flight activities of USMC aircraft on non-DoD 

lands, specifically aircraft operations on and over public lands administered by the Cleveland National 

 

2

 Only a minor amount of terrain-following flights are currently conducted by the CH-46E at these locations, and none are proposed for any 

aircraft under Alternative 1. 
 2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 2-5 

Final EA 

Forest and the BLM El Centro Field Office, to attain and maintain proficiency in the operational 

employment of rotary wing and tilt-rotor aircraft. This section describes the reasonable alternatives for 

accomplishing the proposed action, which were developed by the USMC in cooperation with the USFS 

(see Chapter 6, Persons and Agencies Contacted or Consulted, for more information). CEQ Regulations 

for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA establish a number of policies for federal agencies, 

including “using the NEPA process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to the proposed 

action that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions on the quality of the human 

environment” (40 CFR 1500.2 [e]). Therefore, this EA only carries forward for analysis alternatives that 

could reasonably meet the purpose and need for the proposed action. Alternatives considered but 

eliminated because they would not meet the purpose of and need for the proposed action are discussed in 

section 2.2.3 (Alternatives Considered But Eliminated). 

One action alternative was carried forward for full analysis, as described below. 

2.2.1 Alternative 1 

2.2.1.1 Use of Landing Zones 

Alternative 1 was designed to allow continued military aviation training operations on public lands managed 

by the USFS Cleveland National Forest and the BLM El Centro Field Office at selected, existing LZs. 

Specific LZs on these public lands were selected for continued operations based on the following criteria: 

• Adequate airspace conditions (e.g., lack of air traffic congestion or airspace restrictions) to 

support flight operations by rotary wing and tilt-rotor aircraft; 

• Avoidance of congressionally-designated or proposed wilderness areas or USFWS-designated 

critical habitat; and 

• Compatibility with land owner uses and/or management plans. 

Under Alternative 1, USMC aviation would continue existing rotary wing flight activity at the Cleveland 

National Forest and on BLM El Centro managed lands, except that CH-46E sorties would decline over 

time and would be replaced by MV-22B sorties. The USMC proposes to conduct an estimated 2,502 

annual sorties, which equate to 15,861 individual LZ landings, at the Cleveland National Forest and on 

BLM El Centro managed lands (Tables 2.2-1 and 2.2-2). Overall, the number of proposed sorties at the 

Cleveland National Forest is expected to go down about seven percent compared to existing conditions 

(although the number of individual landings is expected to go up about three percent), and the number of 

proposed sorties and landings on BLM El Centro managed lands is expected to increase by over 300 

percent. 

The largest change in aircraft flight activity is related to the proposed MV-22B sorties. The MV-22B tiltrotor aircraft is a new type of aircraft for the USMC, with new and different capabilities as compared to 

the CH-46E helicopter it replaces. The USMC has made reasonable assumptions about the number and 

types of proposed MV-22B sorties, based on what is currently being performed by medium lift helicopter 

squadrons, while accounting for noted differences in the aircraft. For example, with its greater speed and 

range, the MV-22B would permit tactical training in ways not currently possible using conventional 

helicopters, including training farther from their homebase without the need for refueling (see section 1.2, 

under bullet Proximity to Air Station). For this reason, operators of the MV-22B propose to use BLM El 

Centro managed lands much more than operators of the existing CH-46E helicopter. The operationsrelated information provided here and elsewhere in the EA is based on the MV-22 Training and Readiness 

Manual (USMC 2010b), which provides the best information available regarding proposed MV-22B 

flight activity. 
 2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 2-6 

Final EA 

Table 2.2-1. Proposed Change in Annual Sorties by Aircraft Type under Alternative 1 

Aircraft Estimated Existing 

Annual Sorties 

Estimated Proposed 

Annual Sorties 

Proposed Change in 

Annual Sorties Percent Change 

Cleveland National Forest 

AH-1W/Z 228 154 -74 -32% 

UH-1N/Y 132 138 +6 +5% 

CH-53E 24 24 - 0% 

CH-46E 68 - -68 N/A 

MV-22B1 - 106 +106 N/A 

Total 452 422 -30 -7% 

BLM El Centro 

AH-1W/Z 49 37 -12 -24% 

UH-1N/Y 31 33 +2 +6% 

CH-53E 197 196 -1 -1% 

CH-46E 206 - -206 NA 

MV-22B1 - 1,814 +1,814 N/A 

Total 483 2,080 +1,597 +331% 

Notes: 

1. Existing sorties are based on 2010 flight activities; proposed sorties are based on expected 2017 flight activities (after full

transition to the MV-22B) (see Appendix C [Noise]). 

Table 2.2-2. Proposed Change in Annual Landings by Aircraft Type under Alternative 1 

Aircraft Estimated Existing 

Annual Landings 

Estimated Proposed 

Annual Landings 

Proposed Change in 

Annual Landings Percent Change 

Cleveland National Forest 

AH-1W/Z 744 492 -252 -34% 

UH-1N/Y 828 852 +24 +3% 

CH-53E 140 140 - 0% 

CH-46E 420 - -420 NA 

MV-22B1 - 721 +721 N/A 

Total 2,132 2,205 +73 +3% 

BLM El Centro 

AH-1W/Z 150 114 -36 -24% 

UH-1N/Y 180 192 +12 +7% 

CH-53E 1,110 1,100 -10 -1% 

CH-46E 1,320 - -1,320 NA 

MV-22B1 - 12,250 +12,250 N/A 

Total 2,760 13,656 +10,896 +395% 

Notes: 

1. Landings are based on the number of estimated landings that take place during each CAL sortie; this estimate differs by 

aircraft type (see Appendix B [Air Quality Emissions Calculations]). 

Based on the latest Marine Aviation Plan (USMC 2010a), the number of proposed AH-1W/Z and UH1N/Y sorties is estimated to fluctuate slightly from existing conditions due to slight changes in aircraft 

numbers over time, while CH-53E operations would remain similar to existing conditions. 

Flight activities would be conducted in conformance with FAA-mandated restrictions, NATOPS 

instructions, and other applicable regulations, as described in section 2.1.2 (Current Rotary Wing Flight 

Activities). Proposed aircraft training on non-DoD lands covered under this EA would not include ground 

troop movements or training, refueling operations, or the use of flares or ordnance. 
 2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 2-7 

Final EA 

Overview of LZ Site 3 

2.2.1.2 Transit Routes 

Aircraft would originate from MCAS Miramar, MCAS Camp Pendleton, or MCAS Yuma. Rotary wing 

aircraft originating from MCAS Miramar and MCAS Camp Pendleton would re-fuel at MCAS Yuma 

before using the LZs on BLM El Centro managed lands. Rotary wing aircraft originating from MCAS 

Yuma would re-fuel at MCAS Miramar or MCAS Camp Pendleton before using the LZs at the Cleveland 

National Forest. With its greater range as a tilt-rotor aircraft, there is no need for the MV-22B to refuel 

before training at either location. 

Aircraft would fly along normal departure routes from an airfield and then along established routes to reach 

a general LZ area. While transitioning to the LZs from an airfield, rotary wing aircraft usually would fly 

between 1,000 to 2,000 feet (305 to 610 meters) above ground level, while the tilt-rotor aircraft usually 

would fly similar to a turboprop airplane between 8,000 to 12,000 feet (2,438 to 3,658 meters) above ground 

level. Although military missions are normally exempt from Forest Service Manual Policy 2326.03, which 

discourages flying at least 2,000 feet over the ground surface over designated and recommended National 

Forest wilderness areas, the USMC would strive to be consistent with this policy, whenever possible. 

2.2.1.3 Flight Activity within the Cleveland National Forest 

History of Use and Agency Authorization 

A 1972 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States (U.S.) Navy, NAVFAC SW, 

and the USFS, California Region established the use of nine LZs for military training. The LZs were 

prepared and graded in the early 1970s specifically for rotary wing landing exercises. The 1972 MOU 

was based on a Joint Policy between the USDA and the DoN relating to the use of National Forest lands 

for Defense Purposes and executed by the two Departments in February 1972. 

Because of the introduction of the MV-22B aircraft to USMC operations, and because an MOU is no longer 

appropriate for authorizing use of National Forest System lands, the USMC is seeking to obtain special use 

authorization from the Cleveland National Forest to allow continued use of the established LZs by USMC 

aviation. This is consistent with a 1988 Master Agreement between the DoD and the USDA, which 

established policies and procedures for establishing special use authorization for DoD activity on National 

Forest System lands. This is also consistent with 36 CFR Part 251, Subpart B (Special Uses of Parks, 

Forests, and Public Property), which states that “before conducting a special use, individuals or entities 

must submit a proposal to the authorized officer and must obtain a special use authorization from the 

authorized officer” (36 CRF § 251.50[a]). This authorization would need to be renewed every twenty years. 

Landing Zones 

Although flight activity may occur over much of the 

Cleveland National Forest, only specific areas have 

been designated for landing and takeoff operations 

(Figure 2.2-1). The USMC proposes to use eight of the 

nine LZs established in the 1972 MOU (LZ Sites 3 and 

5 through 11). Additionally, two of these LZs (LZ Site 

6 and LZ Site 9) also have alternative landing 

configurations and thus have been identified as 

separate LZs for the purpose of this EA (i.e., LZ Site 6 

and LZ Site 6 Alt; and LZ Site 9 and LZ Site 9 Alt). 

LZ Site 4, one of the original nine LZs, is not proposed 

for continued use at this time because this LZ is located 

on private in-holdings within the Cleveland National 

Forest. Therefore, 10 LZs (8 original and 2 alternative 

configurations) are carried forward for analysis. 
Site 5

Site 3

Site 7 Site 8

Site 11

Site 9/ 9 Alt

Site 10

Site 6 / 6 Alt

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

Riverside Co.

Orange Co.

Landing Zone

Cleveland National Forest

Trabuco Ranger District N

Orange County

Riverside County

Scale

0 3

0 2

Kilometers

Miles

!

Figure 2.2-1. Location of Proposed Landing Zones within the Cleveland National Forest

2-8

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Final EA
 2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 2-9 

Final EA 

The 10 LZs have met the USMC’s conventional rotary wing training requirements for close to 40 years, 

and the USMC has determined these same LZs are suitable for MV-22B operations. Use of existing LZs 

would minimize potential environmental impacts that could result from the creation of new LZs. No new 

construction or improvements are planned at any LZ location. The existing LZs offer relatively open 

areas, with little or no vegetation cover, and lack physical obstructions like trees and utility poles that 

would present a safety hazard to pilots. Many of the LZs show direct evidence of helicopter use, such as 

aircraft tie-downs at LZ Site 5 and wind sock poles at LZ Sites 5, 7, 8, 9 Alt, and 11. In particular, LZ 

Site 6 Alt is composed of a circular paved helicopter landing pad. Close-up figures of all proposed LZs 

are in Appendix D. 

The LZs are located within the Santa Ana Mountains, along the Orange and Riverside County boundary. 

Nearby residential development has encroached on USFS land over the past 40 years. The Santa Ana 

Mountains are characterized by narrow ridges with steep slopes and deep canyons. Santiago Peak (5,689 

feet/1,734 meters) is the tallest peak in the Santa Ana Range and, along with Modjeska Peak (5,496 

feet/1,675 meters), forms what is commonly called Saddleback Ridge. The LZs are located within this 

mountainous terrain, with elevations ranging from 2,030 to 4,566 feet (619 to 1,392 meters) above mean sea 

level (MSL) (Table 2.2-3). Maximum temperatures ranges from 84 to 92 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (29 to 33 

degrees Celsius [°C]), while winter lows can range between 32 to 44 °F (0 to 7 °C) (Munz and Keck 1968). 

Table 2.2-3. List of Proposed Landing Zones within the Cleveland National Forest 

LZ Name LZ Size 

(acreage) 

Elevation 

(feet AMSL) 

USGS Quadrangle 

Name 

Proposed Annual Sorties 

for All Aircraft 

Site 3 0.3 2,030 Black Star Canyon 36 

Site 5 0.3 3,946 Corona South 36 

Site 6 0.1 3,631 Corona South 170* Site 6 Alt 0.2 3,553 Corona South 

Site 7 0.3 3,704 Corona South 36 

Site 8 0.2 3,805 Corona South 36 

Site 9 0.1 4,117 Corona South 36* Site 9 Alt 0.1 4,258 Santiago Peak 

Site 10 0.1 4,566 Santiago Peak 36 

Site 11 0.3 4,225 Santiago Peak 36 

Notes:

1. LZ = Landing Zone; AMSL = above mean sea level; USGS = United States Geological Survey 

2. *Proposed sorties would likely be split between the main and alternative landing configurations for LZ Site 6/LZ Site 6 

Alt and LZ Site 9/LZ Site 9Alt. 

3. Proposed annual sorties at each LZ are based on the number of estimated sorties for all aircraft types (see Appendix C 

[Noise]). 

Operating Parameters and Flight Protocols 

Pilots may practice landing multiple times at an LZ, and may land at multiple LZs during each visit to the 

Cleveland National Forest. Multiple aircraft may also use an LZ (depending on LZ size and 

configuration) during a practice landing. About 35 sorties would occur per month, based on 422 proposed 

annual sorties (Table 2.2-1). Normal flight operations would not include weekends (beginning at noon on 

Friday and ending at midnight on Sunday) and holidays. Some operations would also be conducted 

during the evening and night hours (see section 3.2, Noise, for more details). 

Squadron scheduling personnel would notify Cleveland Emergency Services Dispatch (Cleveland 

Dispatch) and the Special Use Coordinator to schedule landing operations typically two weeks in 

advance. Pilots would also contact the Cleveland Dispatch when checking into and out of the area. If 

unable to make radio contact, a squadron Operations Duty Officer would telephone Cleveland Dispatch 

and notify when aircraft are inbound and outbound. 
 2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 2-10 

Final EA 

All flight operations would follow standard operating procedures for 3D MAW described in Wing Order 

3710.39E and/or similar wing orders for visiting squadrons (e.g., Wing Order 3710.39 for 2D MAW). 

Additionally, on approach to an LZ, pilots would perform clearance passes of each LZ before landing, 

and pilots would not land, or attempt to land, if civilians are present, consistent with standard avoidance 

measures used to minimize annoyance of persons on the ground (OPNAVINST 3710.7U subsection 5.5 

[Reducing Flight-Related Disturbances]). 

To address USFS concerns about dust emissions from aircraft landing and takeoff operations, the 

proposed action includes implementation of dust abatement measures for undeveloped LZs (i.e., those 

with exposed soils) and maintenance of paved LZs within the Cleveland National Forest. These measures 

have yet to be described in detail, but are expected to consist of application of a non-toxic dust palliative 

(e.g., semi-permanent glue-like materials) that would reduce the amount of dust mobilized and dispersed 

by aircraft operations. The USMC will work with the USFS on selection of an appropriate material and 

on implementation of a suitable monitoring plan. Monitoring would ensure that the dust abatement 

measures are successful in reducing dust generation to a level that would not adversely affect the area 

surrounding the LZ and ensure that the dust abatement practices themselves do not result in adverse 

effects on regulated resources. 

2.2.1.4 Flight Activity within BLM El Centro Managed Lands 

History of Use and Agency Authorization 

The BLM El Centro managed lands offer large expanses of open desert that have been used for USMC 

landing and takeoff operations over the last 40 years. Unlike the prepared and graded LZs within the 

Cleveland National Forest, the open desert was conducive to landing operations without any type of land 

improvement. The USMC estimates that over the past 40 years about 60 LZs were used in the open 

desert. Of those 60 LZs, 13 designated LZs have been selected for evaluation under the proposed action 

(Table 2.2-4, Figure 2.2-2)3

. 

Table 2.2-4. List of Proposed Landing Zones within BLM El Centro Managed Lands 

LZ Name LZ Size 

(acreage) 

Elevation 

(feet AMSL) 

USGS Quadrangle 

Name 

Proposed Annual Sorties 

for All Aircraft 

Bull 3.8 641 East of Acolita 346 

C1 1.8 232 Plaster City NW 114 

Cupcake 2.0 782 Picacho Peak 116 

Eider 5.9 366 Bard 116 

IP1 Option 2.3 921 Quartz Peak 116 

Mallard 1.8 685 Araz 116 

ME3 Option 13.0 277 Bard 116 

MW1 3.2 358 Bard 116* MW1 Option 5.4 361 Bard 

PC3 0.8 687 Quartz Peak 116 

Pelican 0.3 1,952 Picacho Peak 346 

Sparrow 13.6 491 Clyde 346 

Wolf 31.0 161 Painted Gorge 116 

Notes:

1. LZ = Landing Zone; AMSL = above mean sea level; USGS = United States Geological Survey 

2. *Proposed sorties would likely be split between the main and optional landing configurations for MW1/MW1 Option. 

3. Proposed annual sorties at each LZ are based on the number of estimated sorties for all aircraft types (see Appendix C 

[Noise]). 

 

3

 LZ Canary and LZ PC3 Option, which were addressed in the Public Draft EA, have been subsequently dropped from further consideration. 
LZ C1

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

LZ Wolf

!

!

!

!

!

USA

Mexico

California

Arizona

!

LZ ME3 Option

LZ PC3

LZ IP1 Option

LZ Cupcake

LZ Mallard

LZ Eider

LZ Bull

LZ Sparrow

LZ IP1 Option

LZ MW1/

Option

LZ ME3 Option

LZ Cupcake

LZ Mallard

LZ Eider

LZ Pelican

LZ Bull

LZ Sparrow

LZ MW1/

Option

Salton Sea

Riverside County

Imperial County

Arizona

California

Baja California

Sonora

Yuma

San Bernardino

Riverside La Paz

Imperial

Mohave

San Diego

Maricopa

Pima

Figure 2.2-2. Location of Proposed Landing Zones within BLM El Centro Managed Lands

! Landing Zones

Chocolate Mountain

Aerial Gunnery Range

N

Scale

0 15

0 10

Kilometers

Miles

2-11

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Final EA
2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 2-12 

Final EA 

Overview of LZ Wolf 

The types of landing and takeoff operations addressed under the proposed action are consistent with the 

definition of “casual use level of activity,” according to BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2001-030 

(Attachment 1: Military Activities on the Public Lands, section B.1.f). Casual use of BLM managed 

public lands is defined by 43 CFR 2920.0-5(k) and 2920.1-1(d) (see also BLM Manual Section 

2801.48.A). By definition, casual use activities do not have any adverse safety impacts on other public 

land uses, and have only a minimal or transient environmental effect on relatively small areas of public 

lands. Activities that qualify under casual use require no authorization from BLM. Although no written 

authorization is necessary, the USMC is coordinating with BLM on the proposed action as a casual use 

level activity as defined by BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2001-030, Attachment 1. 

Landing Zones 

As described in the previous section under History of 

Use and Agency Authorization, landing and takeoff 

operations on BLM El Centro managed lands would 

be restricted to 13 designated LZs. The USMC has 

determined that these LZs are suited for proposed 

operations. No new construction or improvements are 

needed at any LZ location. Close-up figures of all 

proposed LZs are in Appendix D. 

The LZs are located north of the U.S.-Mexico border 

in the vicinity of El Centro, California, and northnorthwest of Yuma, Arizona, in the Colorado and 

Yuha deserts (subdivisions of the Sonoran Desert). 

The mean annual temperatures range from 68 to 75 °F 

(20 to 24 °C). In summer the average maximum 

temperatures range from 106 to 108 °F (41 to 42 °C) whereas in the winter average minimum 

temperatures are 37 °F (2.7 °C) (Miles and Goudey 1997). Annual precipitation in true deserts is less 

than 6 inches (150 millimeters [mm]) and in drier deserts, like the Colorado and Yuha Deserts, rainfall is 

less than 3 inches (75 mm) (Pavlik 2008). 

The geography of this portion of the Sonoran Desert 

is mostly broad flat valleys with scattered mountains 

of barren rock. The valleys are dominated by low 

shrubs, and the mountains support a variety of shrubs 

and cacti, but the density is typically very sparse. 

The LZs, themselves, are typically composed of 

desert pavement7

 with little to no vegetation. This 

portion of the Sonoran Desert is fairly low in 

elevation, compared with other subdivisions of the 

Sonoran Desert, extending from about 4,000 feet 

(1,219 meters) in elevation to below sea level in 

some valleys. The elevation of the LZs range from 

161 to 1,952 feet (49 to 595 meters) above MSL (see 

Table 2.2-4). 

 

7

 Desert pavement is formed when, in low moisture environments, silt and sand particles are easily blown away, and the remaining particles 

form a tightly packed layer of rocks. Large, flat areas of desert pavement without vegetation are a prominent feature of extremely arid 

landscapes. 

Overview of LZ Bull 
 2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 2-13 

Final EA 

Operating Parameters and Flight Protocols 

Pilots may practice landing multiple times at an LZ, and may land at multiple LZs during each visit. 

Multiple aircraft may also use an LZ (depending on LZ size and configuration) during a practice landing. 

About 173 sorties would occur per month, based on 2,080 proposed annual sorties (see Table 2.2-1). 

Normal flight operations would not include weekends (beginning at noon on Friday and ending at 

midnight on Sunday) and holidays. Some operations would also be conducted during the evening and 

night hours (see section 3.2, Noise, for more details). BLM does not require notification before 

scheduling landing operations because of the “casual use” nature of the activity. 

All flight operations would follow standard operating procedures for 3D MAW described in Wing Order 

3710.39E and/or similar wing orders for visiting squadrons (e.g., Wing Order 3710.39 for 2D MAW). 

Additionally, on approach to an LZ, pilots would perform clearance passes of each LZ before landing, 

and pilots would not land, or attempt to land, if civilians are present, consistent with standard avoidance 

measures used to minimize annoyance of persons on the ground (OPNAVINST 3710.7U subsection 5.5 

[Reducing Flight-Related Disturbances]). 

2.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no USMC rotary wing or tilt-rotor operations would occur on public 

lands managed by the Cleveland National Forest and the BLM El Centro Field Office. It is possible that 

private companies and other agencies, such as the Sheriff Department, Fire Department, and the U.S. 

Navy8

, may continue to use these LZs. Although the No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose 

and need for the proposed action, its inclusion enables decision makers to compare the environmental 

consequences of the alternatives. Please note that the No Action Alternative is different from the baseline 

against which impacts of the proposed action are evaluated; the baseline is the same as the existing 

conditions (i.e., current operation levels based on 2010 flight activities as described in section 2.1.2, 

Current Rotary Wing Flight Activities). 

2.2.3 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated 

2.2.3.1 Relocate Existing Training to DoD Lands 

The USMC considered relocating aircraft operations that occur at the Cleveland National Forest and on 

BLM El Centro managed lands to a nearby DoD facility. For example, USMC training ranges near 

MCAS Miramar, MCAS Camp Pendleton, and MCAS Yuma include Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp 

Pendleton, the Bob Stump Training Range Complex (Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range, Barry 

M. Goldwater Range West, R-2510, and R-2512), and Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center 

(MCAGCC) Twentynine Palms. Other nearby military ranges include Barry M. Goldwater Range East 

(U.S. Air Force), the National Training Center at Fort Irwin (U.S. Army), the Yuma Proving Ground 

(U.S. Army), Naval Air Facility El Centro (U.S. Navy), and the China Lake Naval Weapons Center (U.S. 

Navy). 

USMC aviation is currently conducting training flight activities at MCB Camp Pendleton, the Bob Stump 

Training Range Complex, and MCAGCC. Additional training at these facilities would not meet the 

purpose of and need for conducting operations in a variety of terrain and altitudes that mirror real-world 

conditions. For example, none of these DoD training areas offer similar, unique mountainous conditions 

(e.g., sloped landings and crosswind landings at high elevation) as the existing LZs at the Cleveland 

National Forest. Although Barry M. Goldwater Range West may have similar terrain as the public lands 

managed by the BLM EL Centro Field Office, the crowded airspace conditions and associated scheduling 

 

8

 The U.S. Navy and USMC are separate military services under the Department of the Navy. 
 2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 2-14 

Final EA 

conflicts for the nearby USMC training ranges would make relocating additional operations there 

infeasible (see also section 1.2, Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action). 

Regarding non-USMC training ranges, these facilities receive heavy use from other military services and 

often have primary missions and uses that would conflict with low-flying rotary wing and tilt-rotor flight 

operations and landings (e.g., tank maneuvers, artillery firing, air-to-ground delivery by jet aircraft, and 

air-to-air combat). As such, relocating proposed operations to other DoD lands fails to meet the purpose 

and need and cannot be considered a viable alternative. 

2.2.3.2 Move Existing Training to Other Public Lands 

The nature of the USMC training operations requires relatively large training areas with access to suitable 

LZs that meet the purpose of and need for the proposed action (see section 1.2). Present-day prospects for 

creating new LZs on public lands are greatly impeded by existing or proposed utility corridors and energy 

development projects (e.g., solar or wind farms), increased density of adjacent settlements, and long-term 

commitments of open space areas to other land uses, such as congressionally-designated or proposed 

wilderness areas and critical habitat for endangered species. 

There are other existing public lands that are currently used for USMC aviation operations, but these are 

located outside the proximity radius for regional squadron activity. For example, aviation training occurs 

in the Sierra Nevada Mountains near Bridgeport, California, on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest 

through the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center. However, this area is located over 300 nm 

(555 km) from MCAS Camp Pendleton and even farther from MCAS Miramar or MCAS Yuma, and it 

takes aircraft several hours to transit to this location from southern California and western Arizona. 

Therefore, this is not a viable alternative for local training. 

2.3 Resource Areas Eliminated From Detailed Consideration 

Based on USMC review, the proposed action has little potential to impact Socioeconomics, Ground 

Traffic and Transportation, Infrastructure and Utilities, Hazardous Materials and Waste, or Environmental 

Justice, as described below. Accordingly, no further discussion of these resource areas is included in the 

EA analysis. 

Socioeconomics: There would be no change in military, government/civilian, and/or contractor support 

personnel, and there would be no new construction or improvements within the Cleveland National Forest 

or on BLM lands. Therefore, the proposed action would have no socioeconomic impact on the local 

communities, and no socioeconomic impacts would occur. 

Ground Traffic and Transportation: The proposed aircraft flight activity does not include ground 

transportation support. Additionally, no new construction or improvements are proposed within the 

Cleveland National Forest or on BLM lands so there would be no construction-related traffic. Therefore, 

the proposed action would have no impact on the traveled roadway system, and no impacts to ground 

transportation would occur. 

Infrastructure and Utilities: The proposed aircraft flight activity would not include new construction or 

improvements within the Cleveland National Forest or on BLM lands and, therefore, there would be no 

change in any existing infrastructure or utilities. Additionally, the proposed aircraft flight activity would 

not add any new utility demands at any military installation. Therefore, existing conditions would remain 

unchanged, and no impacts to infrastructure and utilities would occur. 
 2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 2-15 

Final EA 

Hazardous Materials and Waste: The proposed aircraft flight activity would not include new 

construction or improvements within the Cleveland National Forest or on BLM lands and, therefore, there 

would be no storage or removal of hazardous materials and waste. In addition, aircraft would not be 

maintained or fueled at any LZ. Therefore, operational impacts would not occur with respect to 

hazardous materials in association with proposed aircraft flight activity. 

Environmental Justice: The areas around the proposed LZs do not contain a disproportionate number of 

low-income or minority populations, and no significant adverse public health or environmental hazards 

would occur as a result of the proposed action. Therefore, the proposed action would not have 

disproportionate adverse environmental or public health effects on minority or low-income populations.

2.4 Summary of Impacts 

The environmental consequences associated with implementation of Alternative 1 and the No Action 

Alternative are presented and compared in Table 2.4-1. A detailed description of the affected 

environment and analysis of the environmental consequences is presented in Chapter 3. Cumulative 

Impacts are discussed in Chapter 4. 

2.5 Preferred Alternative 

MCI West, on behalf of the USMC, has identified Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative because this 

alternative best reflects the purpose and need for the proposed action. Alternative 1 would allow 

continued use of public lands managed by the Cleveland National Forest and the BLM El Centro Field 

Office, which are critical for ongoing military aviation training because these lands offer a variety of 

training environments necessary to meet mission requirements that are not available on any military 

installations in the region. 

2.6 Agency Consultation and Approvals 

As described in sections 2.2.1.3 (Flight Activity within the Cleveland National Forest) and 2.2.1.4 (Flight 

Activity within BLM El Centro Managed Lands), the USMC is coordinating with the USFS and BLM 

regarding this action. While the USMC is seeking to obtain special use authorization from the Cleveland 

National Forest, the action requires no further authorization from BLM. 

The USMC, in cooperation with BLM and USFS, initiated consultation with federally recognized and 

non-federally recognized Indian tribes affiliated with lands involved in this action. Seventy-two letters 

were sent in April 2012 to initiate the consultation process (Appendix A). To date, responses have been 

received from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, Cabazon 

Band of Mission Indians, Cocopah Indian Tribe, Pala Band of Mission Indians, Quechan Indian Tribe, 

Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. The USMC, in cooperation with 

BLM and USFS, coordinated with interested groups regarding their input and concerns about the 

proposed action. 

The USMC, in cooperation with the USFS and BLM, consulted with the USFWS under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). The USMC requested informal consultation on their biological 

assessment on 6 August 2012. The USFWS issued a concurrence letter on 4 September 2012 (see 

Appendix A-3). The USMC provided supplemental information to the USFWS, primarily regarding the 

implementation of proposed dust abatement measures for undeveloped LZs (i.e., those with exposed soils) 

within the Cleveland National Forest. In a letter dated 17 December 2012, the USFWS responded that 

these measures would further avoid and minimize potential effects to federally listed species and, 
 2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 2-16 

Final EA 

therefore, they continue to concur that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect federally listed 

species (see Appendix A-3). 

The USMC, in cooperation with the USFS and BLM, consulted with the California State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO) in accordance with 36 CFR 800, regulations implementing Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended (16 USC 70-470x-6). The California 

SHPO issued a concurrence letter on 3 October 2012 (see Appendix A-5). 

See Chapter 6 (Persons and Agencies Contacted or Consulted) for a listing of contacts made during the 

NEPA process. Correspondence between agencies can also be found in Appendix A. 
 2.0 Description of Propose

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table 2.4-1. Summary of Impacts 

Resource Area Alternative 1 No Action 

Cleveland National Forest BLM El Centro 

Airspace Proposed change in operations would not 

alter any airspace configuration, and it would not impact current or future military and general aviation airspace use. No significant impact would occur. 

Proposed change in operations would not alter any airspace configuration, and it would not impact current or future military and general aviation airspace use. No significant impact would occur. 

No USMC rotary wing oactivities would take plamay still use the LZs. Twould likely continue wLZs, although at a lower existing conditions. DepLZs are used by other agbeneficial impact. 

Noise Noise exposure under Alternative 1 

would either stay the same or decrease compared to existing conditions, and noise drops below 60 dB CNELmr over 

surrounding residential communities. Therefore, no significant noise impact would occur. 

Although Alternative 1 would result in an approximate 331 percent increase in annual sorties relative to existing conditions, there would be relatively minor changes in noise exposure compared to existing conditions, and noise drops below 60 dB CNELmr over surrounding residential communities. Therefore, no significant noise impact would occur. 

No USMC rotary wing oactivities would take plamay still use the LZs. Taircraft operations woulthe vicinity of the LZs, athan under existing condhow often the LZs are uthis could be a beneficia

Land Use and Recreation 

Proposed change in operations would be consistent with relevant land use plans (e.g., Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan and proposed amendments), and routine training activities would not result in permanent alteration of the area’s recreation opportunity. No significant impact on land use or recreation would occur. 

Proposed change in operations would be in conformance with the BLM’s mandate to manage BLM land for multiple uses as outlined in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and routine training activities would not result in permanent alteration of the area’s recreation opportunity. No significant impact on land use or recreation would occur. 

No USMC rotary wing oactivities would take plamay still use the LZs. Tto recreation due to noiswould likely continue wLZs, although at a lower conditions. Depending by other agencies, this cimpact. 

Air Quality Alternative 1 would reduce emissions 

within each project region, and emissions would not exceed any applicable conformity de minimis or 

USEPA Prevention of Significant Deterioration threshold. No significant air quality impact would occur. 

Alternative 1 would reduce emissions within each project region, and emissions would not exceed any applicable conformity de minimis or USEPA Prevention of Significant Deterioration threshold. No significant air quality impact would occur. 

Elimination of existing Uoperations would result reductions within the ClBLM El Centro, and San regions. Therefore, the would produce beneficiasignificant air quality im
 2.0 Description of Propose

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table 2.4-1. Summary of Impacts 

Resource Area Alternative 1 No Action 

Cleveland National Forest BLM El Centro 

Topography, Geology and Soils 

Because Alternative 1 would utilize existing LZs on level ground and in areas generally far removed from perennial surface waters, there would be no significant erosion-related impacts in the Cleveland National Forest. 

Because Alternative 1 would utilize existing LZs on level ground and in areas generally far removed from perennial surface waters, there would be no significant erosion-related impacts on BLM El Centro managed lands. 

No USMC rotary wing oactivities would take plamay still use the LZs. Tamount of soil erosion mvicinity of the LZs, altholevel than under existing on how often the LZs arthis could be a beneficia

Water Resources Because Alternative 1 would utilize 

existing LZs on level ground not subject to high erosion rates and in areas generally far removed from perennial surface waters, there would be no significant water resources impacts from erosion-induced sedimentation in the Cleveland National Forest. 

Because Alternative 1 would utilize existing LZs on level ground not subject to high erosion rates and in areas generally far removed from perennial surface waters, there would be no significant water resources impacts from erosion-induced sedimentation on BLM El Centro managed lands. 

No USMC rotary wing oactivities would take plamay still use the LZs. Tamount of soil erosion awater resources may conof the LZs, although likeunder existing conditionoften the LZs are used bcould be a beneficial im

Biological Resources 

There would be no significant impact on federally listed, state-listed, and other sensitive species from noise and dust generation on and adjacent to LZs. 

There would be no significant impact on federally listed, state-listed, and other sensitive species noise and dust generation on and adjacent to LZs. 

No USMC rotary wing oactivities would take plamay still use the LZs. Twithin both regions woufrequent rotary wing opedust generation on and aDepending on how often other agencies, this coul

Cultural Resources 

There would be no effect on a historic property or tribal cultural resource, and no significant impacts would occur under NEPA. 

There would be no adverse effect on a historic property or tribal cultural resource, and no significant impacts would occur under NEPA. 

No USMC rotary wing owould occur on public lCleveland National ForeCentro Field Office. Thno adverse impact on hicultural resources. 
 2.0 Description of Propose

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table 2.4-1. Summary of Impacts 

Resource Area Alternative 1 No Action 

Cleveland National Forest BLM El Centro 

Public Health and Safety 

All safety actions that are in place for existing training flights would continue for the proposed operations. Additionally, the potential for fire is considered low because the Cleveland National Forest LZs are typically heavily disturbed and/or developed and generally void of vegetation. No significant impact would occur. 

All safety actions that are in place for existing training flights would continue for the proposed operations. Additionally, the potential for fire is considered low because the BLM LZs are almost entirely void of vegetation and dominated by desert pavement. No significant impact would occur. 

No USMC rotary wing oactivities would take plamay still use the LZs. Tand safety issues may covicinity of the LZs, altholevel than under existing on how often the LZs arthis could be a beneficia

Aesthetics Aircraft activities at the proposed LZs 

would occur in low numbers and would be generally dispersed over broad geographic areas. Therefore, routine training activities would not result in permanent alteration of the area’s visual environment or high scenic integrity, and there would be no significant impact on visual resources. 

The visual effects would be somewhat greater than the current level of impacts due to the larger numbers of sorties. However, the number of sorties per day would still be small and of short duration and would be dispersed over a wide geographic area. Therefore, routine training activities would not result in permanent alteration of the area’s visual environment, and there would be no significant impact on visual resources. 

No USMC rotary wing oactivities would take plamay still use the LZs. Ton visual resources may vicinity of the LZs, altholevel than under existing on how often the LZs arthis could be a beneficia
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.1-1 

Final EA 

3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.1 Airspace 

3.1.1 Affected Environment 

3.1.1.1 Airspace Definitions 

Airspace is a resource managed by the FAA, which has established policies, designations, and flight rules 

to protect aircraft in the airfield, en route, and in special use airspace areas identified for military and 

other governmental activities. Airspace management considers how airspace is designated, used, and 

administered to best accommodate the individual and common needs for military, commercial, and 

general aviation. Due to multiple and sometimes competing demands, the FAA considers all aviation 

airspace requirements in relation to airport operations, federal airways, jet routes, military flight training 

activities, and other special needs to determine how the National Airspace System can best be structured 

to satisfy all aviation users. 

Aircraft flights are conducted under either visual or instrument flight rules. The following definitions are 

adapted from the FAA Pilot/Controller Glossary (FAA 2010). 

• Visual Flight Rules (VFR). A standard set of rules that all pilots, both civilian and military, must 

follow when not operating under instrument flight rules and in visual meteorological conditions. 

These rules require that pilots remain clear of clouds and avoid other aircraft. 

• Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). A standard set of rules that all pilots, civilian and military, must 

follow when operating under flight conditions that are more stringent than visual flight rules. 

These conditions include operating an aircraft in clouds, operating above certain altitudes 

prescribed by FAA regulations, and operating in some locations such as major civilian airports. 

Air traffic control agencies ensure separation of all aircraft operating under IFR. 

The FAA and the DoD/DoN establish specific requirements for VFR flight, including minimum visibility, 

and distance from clouds, to ensure that an aircraft operating under VFR has sufficient visibility to ensure 

safety. Meteorological conditions that meet the minimum requirements for VFR flight are termed visual 

meteorological conditions. If they are not met, the conditions are considered instrument meteorological 

conditions, and a flight may only operate under IFR. 

The FAA also has designated different classes of airspace, which are defined as either controlled or 

uncontrolled airspace above the U.S. (Table 3.1-1). Controlled airspace is a term used to encompass 

different classes of airspace (Class A, B, C, D, and E) with air traffic control service (FAA 2008). The 

specific class categories further identify supporting airport operations, designated airways affording en 

route transit from place-to-place, and assigned air traffic control. The classes also dictate pilot 

qualification requirements, rules of flight that must be followed, and the type of equipment necessary to 

operate within that airspace. 

Uncontrolled airspace (Class G) is the portion of the airspace that has not been designated under one of 

the controlled airspace designations (FAA 2008). Class G airspace extends from the ground surface to 

the base of the overlying Class E airspace (see Table 3.1-1). Air traffic control has no authority or 

responsibility to control traffic within Class G airspace. 
3.1 Airspace 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.1-2 

Final EA 

Table 3.1-1. Definitions of Different Classes of Airspace 

Airspace 

Class Description 

Controlled Airspace

Class A Generally extends from 18,000 feet (5,486 meters) MSL and up; unless otherwise authorized, all 

operations are conducted under IFR.

Class B Generally extends from the ground surface to 10,000 feet (3,048 meters) MSL surrounding the 

nation’s busiest airports; an air traffic control clearance is required for all aircraft. 

Class C Generally extends from the ground surface to 4,000 feet (1,219 meters) MSL surrounding those 

airports that have an operational control tower, are serviced by a radar approach control, and have a 

certain number of IFR operations; each aircraft must establish two-way radio communications with air 

traffic control before entering this airspace.

Class D Generally extends from the ground surface to 2,500 feet (762 meters) MSL surrounding those airports 

that have an operational control tower; unless otherwise authorized, each aircraft must establish twoway radio communications with air traffic control before entering this airspace. 

Class E All other controlled airspace not designated Class A, B, C, or D. Generally extends upward from 

either the ground surface or a designated altitude to the overlying or adjacent controlled airspace; it 

generally fills in the gaps between Class B, C, and D airspace at altitudes below 18,000 feet (5,486 

meters) MSL. Class E airspace is intended to provide air traffic service and adequate separation for 

IFR aircraft from other aircraft. Although Class E is controlled airspace, VFR aircraft are not required 

to maintain contact with air traffic control, but are only permitted to operate in clear conditions.

Uncontrolled Airspace

Class G Generally extends from the ground surface to the base of the overlying Class E airspace. Air traffic 

control has no authority or responsibility to control traffic within Class G airspace 

Notes: MSL = mean sea level; IFR = instrument flight rules; VFR = visual flight rules 

Source: FAA 2008

3.1.1.2 Airspace Associated with the Proposed Action 

The airspace proposed for use in the area of the LZs for both Cleveland National Forest and BLM El Centro 

is designated as Class G and E. Class G airspace is designated from the ground surface to 700 feet (213 

meters) above ground level. Above this, the airspace is classified as Class E from 700 feet up to 18,000 feet 

(213 to 5,486 meters) above MSL. The Class G airspace over the Cleveland National Forest is slightly east 

of the Santa Ana Class C airspace that includes John Wayne Airport in Orange County, California; however, 

proposed operations are not expected to use Class C airspace (see section 3.1.2 below). 

Visibility requirements for flights under VFR in Class G airspace are 1 mile (1.6 km) by day, and 3 miles 

(5 km) by night, for altitudes below 10,000 feet (3,048 meters) MSL. Cloud clearance requirements are 

to maintain an altitude that is 500 feet (152 meters) below, 1,000 feet (305 meters) above, and 2,000 feet 

(610 meters) laterally of cloud cover for flights below 10,000 feet (3,048 meters) MSL. By day at 1,200 

feet (366 meters) above ground level and below, aircraft must remain clear of clouds, and there is no 

minimum lateral distance. If these conditions are not met, then flights must operate under IFR. Similar 

restrictions apply for flights in Class E airspace (FAA 2008). 

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 

3.1.2.1 Alternative 1 

Under Alternative 1, aircraft would fly along normal departure routes from an airfield and then along 

established routes to reach a general LZ area. While transitioning to the LZs from an airfield, the rotary 

wing usually would fly between 1,000 to 2,000 feet (305 to 610 meters) above ground level, while the tiltrotor aircraft usually would fly similar to a turboprop airplane between 8,000 to 12,000 feet (2,438 to 

3,658 meters) above ground level. Although military missions are normally exempt from Forest Service 

Manual Policy 2326.03, which discourages flying at least 2,000 feet over the ground surface over 
3.1 Airspace 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.1-3 

Final EA 

designated and recommended National Forest wilderness areas, the USMC would strive to be consistent 

with this policy, whenever possible. Aircraft would be flying in Class E and G airspace as they transition 

to the LZs. The pilots would avoid any surrounding Class C or D, such as Class C airspace over John 

Wayne Airport, or have to get permission from air traffic control before entry. 

Aircraft conducting landing and takeoff operations at the Cleveland National Forest and on BLM El Centro 

managed lands would be flying in Class E and G airspace, as described above. Tilt-rotor and rotary wing 

aircraft would generally operate under VFR, and the military pilots would be responsible for safe separation 

between aircraft using “see and avoid” procedures. Pilots flying under VFR assume responsibility for their 

separation from all other aircraft and are generally not assigned routes or altitudes by air traffic control. 

Similar to existing conditions, all flight operations would be conducted in conformance with FAAmandated restrictions, NATOPS flight instructions (e.g., OPNAVINST 3710.7U), and other standard 

operating procedures (e.g., Wing Order 3710.39E). Additionally, on approach to an LZ, pilots would 

perform clearance passes of each LZ before landing, and pilots would not land, or attempt to land, if 

civilians are present, consistent with standard avoidance measures used to minimize annoyance of persons 

on the ground (OPNAVINST 3710.7U subsection 5.5 [Reducing Flight-Related Disturbances]). 

Cleveland National Forest 

The main change from existing conditions under Alternative 1 is the decline in CH-46E sorties over time, 

and the introduction of MV-22B sorties in and over these public lands. The overall number of proposed 

sorties at the Cleveland National Forest is expected to decrease slightly compared to existing conditions 

(from 452 to 422 annual sorties), while the number of overall landings is expected to increase slightly 

(from 2,132 to 2,205 annual landings). This change in proposed operations would not alter the airspace 

configuration or use over these public lands (i.e., the current alignment, minimum or maximum altitudes, 

allowable times of use, route widths), and it would not impact current or future military and general 

aviation uses of the airspace. Therefore no significant impact on airspace use would occur. 

BLM El Centro Managed Lands 

Similar to operations at the Cleveland National Forest, the main change from existing conditions under 

Alternative 1 is the decline in CH-46E sorties over time, and the introduction of MV-22B sorties. The 

overall number of proposed sorties and LZ landings on lands managed by BLM is expected to increase 

compared to existing conditions (from 483 to 2,080 annual sorties and from 2,760 to 13,656 annual 

landings). This change in proposed operations would not alter the airspace configuration or use over 

these public lands (i.e., the current alignment, minimum or maximum altitudes, allowable times of use, 

route widths), and it would not impact current or future military and general aviation uses of the airspace. 

Therefore no significant impact on airspace use would occur. 

Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures 

Because there would be no significant impact on airspace, no avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation 

measures are required. 

3.1.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no USMC rotary wing or tilt-rotor operations would occur on public 

lands managed by the Cleveland National Forest and the BLM El Centro Field Office. However, other 

agencies, such as the Sheriff Department, Fire Department, and the U.S. Navy, may still use the LZs. 

Therefore, airspace usage would likely continue within the vicinity of the LZs, although at a lower level 

of use than under existing conditions. Depending on how often the LZs are used by other agencies, this 

could be a beneficial impact. 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.2-1 

Final EA 

3.2 Noise 

This section analyzes the potential noise generated by the proposed rotary wing and tilt-rotor activities 

that may result in a change in the immediate airborne noise environment on public lands managed by the 

Cleveland National Forest and the BLM El Centro Field Office. Changes in the noise environment may 

affect wildlife and people, particularly within recreational areas. This section defines noise and describes 

the existing noise sources and levels within the project area. 

3.2.1 Definition of Noise 

Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of vibrations that travel through a medium, such as air or 

water, and are sensed by the human ear. Noise is defined as unwanted or annoying sound that interferes 

with or disrupts normal human activities. Although exposure to very high noise levels can cause hearing 

loss, the principal human response to noise is annoyance (see Appendix C). The response of different 

individuals to similar noise events is diverse and is influenced by the type of noise, the perceived 

importance of the noise, its appropriateness in the setting, the time of day, the type of activity during 

which the noise occurs, and the sensitivity of the individual. Noise may also affect wildlife through 

disruption of resting, foraging, migrating, and other life‐cycle activities (noise impacts on wildlife are 

discussed in section 3.7, Biological Resources). 

The predominant noise sources associated with the proposed action consist of aircraft operations, both at 

and around the Cleveland National Forest and BLM El Centro managed lands. Aircraft are not the only 

sources of noise in an urban or suburban environment, where interstate and local roadway traffic, rail, 

industrial, and neighborhood sources also contribute to or detract from the everyday quality of life. 

Nevertheless, aircraft are readily identified by their noise output and are typically given special attention. 

Consequently, aircraft noise often dominates analyses of environmental impacts. Additional background 

information on noise, including its effect on many facets of the environment, is provided in Appendix C. 

Noise and sound are expressed in a logarithmic unit called the decibel (dB). All sounds have a spectral 

content, which means their magnitude or level changes with frequency, where frequency is measured in 

cycles per second or hertz (Hz). To mimic the human ear’s non‐linear sensitivity and perception of different 

frequencies of sound, the spectral content is weighted. For example, environmental noise measurements are 

usually on an “A‐weighted” scale that filters out very low and very high frequencies to replicate human 

sensitivity. It is common to add the “A” to the measurement unit to identify that the measurement has been 

performed with this filtering process (dBA). In this document, the dB unit refers to A‐weighted sound levels. 

A sound level of 0 dB is approximately the threshold of human hearing and is barely audible under 

extremely quiet listening conditions (Figure 3.2-1). Normal speech has a sound level of approximately 60 

dB. Sound levels above 120 dB begin to be felt inside the human ear as discomfort, and sound levels 

between 130 to 140 dB are felt as pain (Berglund and Lindvall 1995). The minimum change in the sound 

level of individual events that an average human ear can detect is about 3 dB. On average, a person 

perceives a doubling (or halving) of the sound’s loudness when there is a 10 dB change in sound level. 

In accordance with DoD guidelines and standard practice for environmental impact analysis documents, 

the noise analysis herein utilizes the following (A‐weighted) noise descriptors or metrics: Maximum 

Sound Level (ALM), Sound Exposure Level (SEL), and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). 

ALM and SEL describe single noise events whereas CNEL is a time‐averaged metric describing the 

cumulative noise environment of individual noise events over longer periods, usually up to 24 hours. 

CNEL, which is specific to California, also weights or penalizes those levels depending on the time 

period in which they occur, weighting evening (7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M.) sound with a penalty of 5 dBA 

and nighttime (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.) sound with a penalty of 10 dBA. 
3.2 Noise 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.2-2 

Final EA 

Figure 3.2-1. Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels of Common Sounds 

The Onset‐Rate Adjusted Monthly variant of CNEL, denoted CNELmr is specifically utilized for 

describing cumulative aircraft noise exposure from airspace and range operations. Each descriptor, along 

with other noise metrics, is described in more detail in Appendix C. 

It is important to note that all metrics and associated noise models draw from a database of actual aircraft 

noise measurements. As such, they describe and compare noise conditions without requiring noise 

monitoring. 

3.2.2 Methodology 

As noise from future aircraft operations cannot be physically measured in the present, this EA computes 

and estimates the noise generated by aircraft operations. Analysis of aircraft noise exposure and 

compatible land use around DoD airspace areas are typically accomplished using the Military Operating 

Area and Range Noise Model (MR_NMAP; Wyle 1997) suite of computer programs. For this EA, the 

Rotorcraft Noise Model (RNM; Wyle 2010) was also utilized to extract single-event noise levels for input 

into MR_NMAP. The programs allow for entry of airspace information, the horizontal distribution of 

operations, flight profiles (average power settings, altitude distributions, and speeds), and numbers of 

sorties. Horizontal distribution of operations refers to the modeling of lateral airspace utilization via 

three general representations: broadly distributed operations for modeling of Military Operations Area 

and range or LZ events; operations distributed among parallel tracks for modeling of Military Training 

Route events; and operations on specific tracks for modeling of unique Military Operations Area, range, 
3.2 Noise 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.2-3 

Final EA 

Military Training Route, or target area activity. The core program called MR_NMAP incorporates the 

number of monthly operations by time period, specified horizontal distributions, volume of the airspaces, 

and profiles of the aircraft to primarily calculate: (a) CNELmr at many points on the ground, (b) average 

CNELmr for entire airspaces, or (c) maximum CNELmr under MTRs or specific tracks. From calculations 

of CNELmr for many points on the ground, the NMPlot program draws contours of equal CNELmr for 

overlay onto land-use maps. 

For airspace environments, CNELmr contours are plotted and/or are tabulated depending on the magnitude 

of the exposure, from the MR_NMAP program. This EA shows tabulated levels and focuses only on 

aircraft noise levels (not the non-aircraft ambient) and their change compared to existing conditions. 

Aircraft noise impacts would be considered potentially significant if the CNELmr relative to an affected 

residential population increases at least 1.5 dB compared to the baseline conditions within the 

alternative’s 65 dB CNELmr contour (Federal Interagency Committee on Noise [FICON] 1992). 

CNELmr is a noise metric based on average daily operations flown in the busiest month, so busy month 

operations are calculated by dividing the number of annual operations by 12, then multiplying by a busy 

month factor. For this EA, the busy month factor is 1.4 which means that a busy month contains 140 

percent as many operations as an average month. 

3.2.3 Affected Environment 

This section describes the affected environment due to existing rotary wing training operations on public 

lands managed by the Cleveland National Forest and the BLM El Centro Field Office. The existing 

aircraft noise environment is based on the calendar year (CY) 2010 rotary wing operations totaling 935 

annual sorties (USMC 2011). These sorties comprise both CAL and non-CAL type sorties. For this EA, 

non-CAL sorties include general navigation/tactical training conducted in the vicinity of an LZ, while 

landing and takeoff operations are considered CAL sorties. The existing aircraft noise environment for 

the Cleveland National Forest and for BLM El Centro managed lands is described in more detail below. 

3.2.3.1 Cleveland National Forest 

The existing aircraft noise environment at the Cleveland National Forest consists of 452 USMC annual 

sorties conducting operations at eight LZs (LZ Site 6 / LZ Site 6 Alt and LZ Site 9 / LZ Site 9 Alt were 

each modeled as a single LZ due to their proximity with each other). Approximately 31 and 6 percent of 

sorties occur during the CNEL evening and CNEL nighttime periods, respectively. 

Currently, helicopter CAL training at the LZs in the Cleveland National Forest operate in small areas near 

the LZs. While lining up and conducting an approach, helicopters operate at altitudes between 200 and 

1,000 feet (61 – 305 meters) above ground level for a duration of approximately 45 minutes within the 

modeled area. Helicopters approach either with an easterly or westerly heading towards the LZs resulting 

in an area best described by a rectangle oriented east to west and centered at each LZ. These sorties were 

distributed within a large rectangular area with a length of 3 nm (6 km) and a width of 2 nm (4 km). In 

addition to the approach to the LZs, helicopters also descend and land or hover in the direct vicinity of 

each LZ. The hover or landing portion of the CAL sortie is distributed within a circular area centered at 

each LZ with a diameter of 750 feet (229 meters). Within this circular area the helicopters operate 

between the surface and 200 feet (61 meters) above ground level. The altitude distribution and modeled 

average aircraft speeds are listed in Appendix C. 

The current helicopter non-CAL training is conducted in the areas surrounding each LZ, which is 

represented by the 3 nm (6 km) by 2 nm (4 km) rectangle described above but non-CAL sorties do not 

include the landing or hover portion. Helicopter non-CAL sorties utilize both the same altitude 
3.2 Noise 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.2-4 

Final EA 

distribution between 200 and 1,000 feet (61 - 305 meters) above ground level and the same average 

aircraft speeds as the CAL sorties but have durations of only 15 minutes within the modeled areas. 

Noise Exposure 

The CNELmr was calculated for the eight LZs and associated approach pattern described above. For the 

baseline scenario, five of the eight LZs experience sound levels greater than or equal to 65 dB CNELmr as 

summarized in Table 3.2-1 and detailed in Appendix C. The maximum CNELmr of 72 dB occurs at LZ 

Site 6 / LZ Site 6 Alt, while four LZs experience a maximum CNELmr of 65 dB. The 65 dB CNELmr

contour associated with the CAL and non-CAL operations approximates a circle in shape and does not 

exceed a diameter of approximately 1,200 feet (366 meters) at each LZ. Outside of this circle, noise 

contours drop below 65 dB CNELmr, and, in particular, noise drops below 60 dB CNELmr over 

surrounding residential communities. 

Table 3.2-1. Maximum CNELmr at Modeled Landing Zones in Cleveland National 

Forest for Baseline Conditions 

LZ Name Estimated Existing 

Annual Sorties Maximum CNELmr

Maximum CNELmr

Exposure Band 

Site 3 39 65 65-70 

Site 5 39 65 65-70 

Site 6 / 6 Alt 179 72 70-75 

Site 7 39 65 65-70 

Site 8 39 64 60-65 

Site 9 / 9 Alt 39 64 60-65 

Site 10 39 65 65-70 

Site 11 39 64 60-65 

Note: The 65 dB CNELmr contour approximates a circle in shape and does not exceed a diameter of approximately 1,200 

 feet (366 meters). 

3.2.3.2 BLM El Centro Managed Lands 

The existing aircraft noise environment on BLM El Centro managed land consists of 483 USMC annual 

sorties conducting operations at 12 LZs (LZ MW1 / LZ MW1 Option were modeled as a single LZ due to 

their proximity with each other). Approximately 46 and 9 percent of sorties occur during the CNEL 

evening and CNEL nighttime periods, respectively. 

Currently, helicopter CAL training at the LZs on BLM El Centro managed land operate in a similar 

manner as the Cleveland National Forest operations described above except that helicopters approach 

each LZ from any heading direction. For this reason, the approach area was modeled as a circular area 

with a radius of 1.5 nm (2.8 km). While operating within these areas, helicopter altitudes vary between 

200 and 1,000 feet (61 – 305 meters) above ground level for a duration of approximately 45 minutes. The 

hover or landing portion of the helicopter sortie is distributed within a circular area centered at each LZ 

with a diameter of 750 feet (229 meters). Within this smaller circular area the helicopters also operate 

between the surface and 200 feet (61 meters) above ground level. The altitude distribution and modeled 

average aircraft speeds are listed in Appendix C. 

The current helicopter non-CAL training is conducted in the area surrounding each LZ, which is 

represented by the 1.5 nm (2.8 km) radius circle described above but does not include the landing or 

hover portion. Helicopter non-CAL sorties utilize both the same altitude distribution between 200 and 

1,000 feet (61 - 305 meters) and the average aircraft speeds as the CAL sorties but have a duration of only 

15 minutes within the modeled areas. 
3.2 Noise 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.2-5 

Final EA 

Noise Exposure 

The CNELmr was calculated for the 12 LZs and associated approach pattern described above. For the 

baseline scenario, three LZs experience sound levels greater than or equal to 65 dB CNELmr as listed in 

Table 3.2-2 and detailed in Appendix C. The maximum CNELmr of 68 dB occurs at LZs Bull, Pelican, 

and Sparrow. The remaining LZs experience maximum CNELmr of less than 65 dB. For LZs Bull, 

Pelican, and Sparrow, the 65 dB CNELmr contour associated with the CAL and non-CAL operations 

approximates a circle in shape and does not exceed approximately 1,300 feet (396 meters) in diameter at 

each LZ. Outside of this circle, noise contours drop below 65 dB CNELmr, and, in particular, noise drops 

below 60 dB CNELmr over surrounding residential communities. 

Table 3.2-2. Maximum CNELmr at Modeled Landing Zones on BLM El Centro Managed 

Land under Baseline Conditions 

LZ Name Estimated Existing Annual 

Sortie for All Aircraft Maximum CNELmr

Maximum CNELmr

Exposure Band 

Bull 80 68 65-70 

C1 27 63 60-65 

Cupcake 27 62 60-65 

Eider 27 63 60-65 

IP1 Option 27 60 60-65 

Mallard 27 62 60-65 

ME3 Option 27 63 60-65 

MW1 / MW1 Option 27 64 60-65 

PC3 27 63 60-65 

Pelican 80 68 65-70 

Sparrow 80 68 65-70 

Wolf 27 63 60-65 

Note: The 65 dB CNELmr contour approximates a circle in shape and does not exceed approximately 1,300 feet (396 

 meters) in diameter. 

3.2.4 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 

3.2.4.1 Alternative 1 

This section describes the potential noise impacts due to proposed operations associated with Alternative 

1. Alternative 1 includes the replacement of the CH-46E with the MV-22B. The MV-22B is expected to 

conduct 1,920 annual sorties with 55 and 7 percent occurring during CNEL evening and CNEL nighttime, 

respectively. The AH-1 would experience a decrease in annual sorties, UH-1 operations would 

experience a slight increase in annual sorties relative to the baseline scenario, and CH-53E operations 

would remain similar to existing conditions (USMC 2011). The AH-1, UH-1, and CH-53E operations 

under Alternative 1 were modeled as described above for the existing aircraft noise environment. 

The MV-22B would conduct several different tactical approach pattern types, which are classified as 

CAL sorties, while training at LZs. The tactical approach patterns extend approximately 5 nm (9 km) 

along the path of approach towards the LZ with widths of approximately 2 nm (4 km). The MV-22B 

would operate at altitudes between 200 and 3,000 feet (61 – 914 meters) above ground level for a duration 

of approximately 45 minutes within the modeled areas. The MV-22B would also conduct a hover or 

landing portion of the CAL sorties at each LZ in the same manner as the helicopters. This is described 

further below for each training area. 
3.2 Noise 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.2-6 

Final EA 

Cleveland National Forest 

The MV-22B is expected to conduct 106 annual sorties in the Cleveland National Forest, with 

approximately 55 and 7 percent occurring during the CNEL evening and nighttime periods, respectively. 

The MV-22B would utilize areas around LZs in a similar way as existing helicopters except it would 

require a larger airspace area. MV-22B CAL training was modeled as area-type operations distributed to 

a rectangle centered on each LZ, with a dimension of 10 nm (19 km) in length from east to west and 2 nm 

(4 km) in width from north to south. The MV-22B CAL sorties are modeled in this rectangular area with 

altitudes between 200 and 3,000 feet (61 – 914 meters) above ground level for a duration of 

approximately 45 minutes. Similar to the helicopters, the MV-22B would approach either with an 

easterly or westerly heading towards the LZs. In addition to the large approach area, the MV-22B would 

also descend and land or hover in the direct vicinity of each LZ. The landing or hover portion of the MV22B sortie is modeled with the same area-type operation as the helicopters, distributed to a circular area 

centered at each LZ with a diameter of 750 feet (229 meters). Within this circular area the MV-22B 

would operate between the surface and 200 feet (61 meters) above ground level. The altitude distribution 

and modeled average aircraft speeds are listed in Appendix C. 

The MV-22B non-CAL training would be conducted in the area surrounding each LZ and is modeled by 

the 10 nm (19 km) by 2 nm (4 km) rectangular area described above, but does not include a low altitude 

landing or hover portion. MV-22B non-CAL operations utilize both the same altitude distribution 

between 200 and 3,000 feet (61 – 914 meters) and the same average aircraft speeds as the MV-22B CAL 

sorties, but with a duration of only 15 minutes within the modeled areas. 

The AH-1 would experience a decrease in annual sorties (from 228 to 154) and UH-1 operations would 

experience a slight increase in annual sorties (from 132 to 138) relative to the baseline scenario (USMC 

2011). No change is expected for CH-53E operations. The AH-1, UH-1, and CH-53E operations under 

Alternative 1 were modeled as described above for the existing aircraft noise environment. 

Noise Exposure 

The CNELmr was calculated for the eight LZs and associated approach pattern described above. For the 

Alternative 1 scenario, only one LZ (LZ Site 6 / LZ Site 6 Alt) would experience sound levels greater 

than or equal to 65 dB CNELmr as listed in Table 3.2-3 and detailed in Appendix C. The highest 

maximum CNELmr (71 dB) would occur at LZ Site 6 / LZ Site 6 Alt. The remaining seven LZs would 

experience a maximum CNELmr below 65 dB. The 65 dB CNELmr contour at LZ Site 6 / LZ Site 6 Alt 

associated with the CAL and non-CAL operations approximates a circle in shape and would not exceed 

approximately 1,200 feet (366 meters) in diameter (see Figure C1-7 in Appendix C for the noise contours 

at LZ Site 6 / LZ Site 6 Alt). Outside of this circle, noise contours drop below 65 dB CNELmr, and, in 

particular, noise drops below 60 dB CNELmr over surrounding residential communities. 

Table 3.2-3. Maximum CNELmr at Modeled Landing Zones in Cleveland National Forest 

for Alternative 1 

LZ Name Proposed Annual Sorties for 

All Aircraft Maximum CNELmr

Change in Maximum CNELmr 

Relative to Baseline 

Site 3 36 64 -1 

Site 5 36 64 -1 

Site 6/6 Alt 170 71 -1 

Site 7 36 64 -1 

Site 8 36 64 0 

Site 9/9 Alt 36 64 0 

Site 10 36 64 -1 

Site 11 36 64 0 

Note: The 65 dB CNELmr contour approximates a circle in shape and would not exceed approximately 1,200 feet (366 

 meters) in diameter. 
3.2 Noise 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.2-7 

Final EA 

Under Alternative 1 relative to the existing conditions, five LZs would experience a decrease in maximum 

CNELmr of 1 dB and the remaining three LZs would experience no change in maximum CNELmr. These 

small decreases are due to the MV-22B being slightly quieter than the CH-46E, while operating in the 

approach portion of the CAL sorties at altitudes above 200 feet (61 meters) above ground level. 

Additionally, the decrease in noise exposure at the Cleveland National Forest under Alternative 1 is due 

to the 7 percent decrease in total annual sorties relative to existing conditions. 

The change in noise exposure at the Cleveland National Forest under Alternative 1 would not cause a 

significant noise impact because noise exposure would either stay the same or decrease compared to 

existing conditions, and noise drops below 60 dB CNELmr over surrounding residential communities. 

Therefore, no significant noise impact would occur. 

BLM El Centro Managed Lands 

The MV-22B is expected to conduct 1,814 annual sorties over BLM managed lands with approximately 

55 and 7 percent occurring during the CNEL evening and CNEL nighttime periods, respectively. The 

MV-22B is expected to conduct CAL and non-CAL training in a similar manner as the existing 

helicopters except the MV-22B would require a larger area for approaches to the LZs. The MV-22B CAL 

sorties would be distributed within a circular area with a radius of 5 nm (9 km). The MV-22B landing or 

hover portion would be distributed within a circular area with a diameter of 750 feet (229 meters). The 

MV-22B non-CAL sorties were modeled with the same 5 nm (9 km) radius circular area as the BLM El 

Centro CAL sorties but without a landing or hover portion. 

The AH-1 would experience a decrease in annual sorties (from 49 to 37), UH-1 would experience a slight 

increase in annual sorties (from 31 to 33), and CH-53E may see a small decrease in annual sorties (from 

197 to 196) relative to the baseline scenario (USMC 2011). The AH-1, UH-1, and CH-53E operations 

under Alternative 1 were modeled as described above for the existing aircraft noise environment. 

Noise Exposure 

The CNELmr was calculated for the 12 LZs and associated approach pattern described above. For the 

Alternative 1 scenario, 11 LZs would experience sound levels greater than or equal to 65 dB CNELmr as 

listed in Table 3.2-4 and detailed in Appendix C. The maximum CNELmr of 72 dB would occur at LZs 

Bull and Pelican, and the maximum CNELmr of 71 dB would occur at LZ Sparrow. Eight LZs would 

experience maximum CNELmr between 65 dB and 70 dB, and one LZ would remain below 65 dB (LZ IP1 

Option). The 65 dB CNELmr contour associated with the CAL and non-CAL operations approximates a 

circle in shape and would not exceed approximately 1,300 feet (396 meters) in diameter at each LZ (see 

Figure C1-8 in Appendix C for the noise contours at an example BLM El Centro LZ). Outside of this 

circle, noise contours drop below 65 dB CNELmr, and, in particular, noise drops below 60 dB CNELmr

over surrounding residential communities. 

In comparing Alternative 1 to baseline conditions, eight LZs would now experience CNELmr between 65 

dB and 70 dB, and three LZs (Bull, Sparrow, and Pelican) would now experience CNELmr between 70 dB 

and 75 dB. The typical increase in CNELmr would vary between 3 dB and 5 dB at each LZ (Table 3.2-4). 

This increase is primarily a result of the 331 percent increase in annual sorties relative to existing 

conditions. 

Regarding significance, the change in maximum CNELmr for 11 LZs would exceed 1.5 dB compared to 

baseline conditions within the alternative’s 65 dB CNELmr contour. However, this change would not 

affect a residential population because noise drops below 60 dB CNELmr over surrounding residential 

communities. Furthermore, regular, repeated, or continuous exposure to aircraft-generated noise by 

recreational users would be unlikely because routine training operations would vary on a daily basis. 
3.2 Noise 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.2-8 

Final EA 

Although disturbance of recreation activities (e.g., hiking, biking, etc.) near the LZs could occur, it would 

be short-term, consisting of isolated and infrequent landing and takeoff operations (see also section 3.3, 

Land Use and Recreation). Therefore, no significant noise impact would occur. 

Table 3.2-4. Maximum CNELmr at Modeled Landing Zones on BLM El Centro Managed 

Land for Alternative 1 

LZ Name Proposed Annual Sorties 

for All Aircraft Maximum CNELmr

Change in 

Maximum CNELmr 

Relative to Baseline 

Bull 346 72 +4 

C1 114 68 +5 

Cupcake 116 66 +4 

Eider 116 67 +4 

IP1 Option 116 64 +4 

Mallard 116 66 +4 

ME3 Option 116 66 +3 

MW1 / MW1 Option 116 68 +4 

PC3 116 66 +3 

Pelican 346 72 +4 

Sparrow 346 71 +3 

Wolf 116 68 +5 

Note: The 65 dB CNELmr contour approximates a circle in shape and would not exceed approximately 1,300 feet (396 

 meters) in diameter. 

Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures 

Because there would be no significant noise impact, no avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation 

measures are required. 

3.2.4.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no USMC rotary wing or tilt-rotor operations would occur on public 

lands managed by the Cleveland National Forest and the BLM El Centro Field Office. However, other 

agencies, such as the Sheriff Department, Fire Department, and the U.S. Navy, may still use the LZs. 

Therefore, noise from aircraft operations would likely continue within the vicinity of the LZs, although at 

a lower rate than under existing conditions. Depending on how often the LZs are used by other agencies, 

this could be a beneficial impact.
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.3-1 

Final EA 

3.3 Land Use and Recreation 

3.3.1 Affected Environment 

The proposed action and alternatives are located within the USFS (Cleveland National Forest, Trabuco 

Ranger District) and BLM (El Centro Field Office) jurisdiction. Land use management plans adopted by 

these jurisdictions identify the type of uses, including recreation, that could occur within the project site. 

Recreation activities typically include camping, picnicking, hiking, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, 

wildlife viewing, hobby prospecting, sightseeing, photography, hunting, painting, bird watching, and 

biking. 

3.3.1.1 Cleveland National Forest 

The Cleveland National Forest is located on 420,983 acres (170,366 hectares) within Orange, Riverside, 

and San Diego Counties. The proposed LZs are located approximately 5 miles (8 km) from Mission 

Viejo (Highway 241 on east side) to the west and 11 miles (17 km) from Lake Elsinore to the east. The 

area to the west of the project area is located within Orange County and is within the jurisdiction of the 

Silverado-Modjeska Specific Plan. The Santa Ana Mountains are the dominant feature within this area. 

Elevations range from approximately 1,200 feet (366 meters) at the mouth of Silverado Canyon to over 

5,600 feet (1,707 meters) at Santiago Peak. Land uses are primarily residential areas concentrated in the 

canyon bottoms, and residential development has encroached on nearby USFS land over the past 40 

years. The area to the east of the project area is located within Riverside County, adjacent to the lands 

covered by the Temescal Canyon Specific Plan. Land uses within this area consist of mainly 

conservation and rural open space. Further east, the Interstate-15 corridor includes a variety of suburban 

residential and rural estate neighborhoods together with industrial uses and extensive areas of existing and 

potential mineral extraction. 

The Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USFS 2005a) serves as a guide for 

land management within this national forest. The Forest Plan designates land use zones to lands within 

the Cleveland National Forest. Land use zones are the primary tools used by the USFS to describe their 

strategic direction, such as the management intent and suitable uses for areas of the national forest where 

the zone is used. 

There are seven land use zones designated in the Cleveland National Forest (Figure 3.3-1): Developed 

Area Interface; Back Country; Back Country, Motorized Use Restricted; Back Country, Non Motorized; 

Critical Biological; Recommended Wilderness; and Existing Wilderness (USFS 2005a). A description of 

these land use zones is provided in Table 3.3-1. 

The proposed aircraft operations would occur at LZs located along the border between Orange and 

Riverside counties (see Figure 2.2-1). All of the LZs, with the exception of LZ Site 7, are located within 

areas of the Cleveland National Forest designated by the USFS as Back Country land use zone (Figure 

3.3-1). LZ Site 7 is located within the Back Country, Non-Motorized land use zone. The San Mateo 

Canyon Wilderness is the only land use zone designated as Existing Wilderness within the Trabuco 

Ranger District, and this area is located approximately 11 miles (18 km) south of the project site. No 

Critical Biological land use zones are located within the Trabuco Ranger District. 

 
Site 3

Site 5

Orange County

Site 7 Site 8

Site 11

Site 9/ 9 Alt

Site 10

Site 6 / 6 Alt

Site 3

Site 5

Site 7 Site 8

Site 11

Site 9/ 9 Alt

Site 10

Site 6 / 6 Alt

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

Orange County

Riverside County

Trabuco Ranger District Cleveland NF

Source: USFWS 2005

N

Scale

0 3

0 2

Kilometers

Miles

Land Use Zones (USFWS)

Landing Zone (LZ)

Cleveland National Forest 

Trabuco Ranger District Boundary

Back Country

Back Country, Motorized Use Restricted

Back Country, Non-Motorized

Developed Area Interface

Inventoried Roadless Areas

!

3.3-2

3.3 Land Use and Recreation

Figure 3.3-1. Locations of LZs within the Cleveland National Forest Land Use Zones

Riverside Co.

Orange Co.

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Final EA
3.3 Land Use and Recreation 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.3-3 

Final EA 

Table 3.3-1. Description of Land Use Zones within Cleveland National Forest 

Land Use Zone Description 

Developed Area 

Interface 

This zone includes areas adjacent to communities or concentrated developed areas with 

more scattered or isolated community infrastructure and is managed for motorized public 

access. A number of highly popular developed recreation facilities, recreation and nonrecreation special uses facilities, and national forest administrative facilities may be included 

in this zone. The characteristic Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) objectives are 

Rural and Roaded Natural. The level of human use and infrastructure is typically higher 

than in other zones. This zone allows a broad range of higher intensity uses. However, the 

management intent is to limit the level and type of development. Development is limited to 

a slow increase of carefully designed facilities. 

Back Country1 This zone includes areas that are generally undeveloped with few roads and is managed for 

motorized public access on designated roads and trails. The characteristic ROS objectives 

are Semi-Primitive Motorized with limited areas of Roaded Natural. The level of human use 

and infrastructure is generally low to moderate. This zone allows a broad range of uses. 

However, the management intent is to retain the natural character inherent in this zone and 

limit the level and type of development. Development is limited to a slow increase of 

carefully designed facilities. 

Back Country, 

Motorized Use 

Restricted 

This zone includes areas that are generally undeveloped with few roads. The level of human 

use and infrastructure is low to moderate. The characteristic ROS objectives are SemiPrimitive Motorized and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. The zone is managed for nonmotorized (mechanized, equestrian, and pedestrian) public access for a wide variety of nonmotorized dispersed recreation opportunities including camping, hiking, biking, hunting, 

and fishing. Designated OHV use is not suitable in this zone. The management intent is to 

retain the natural character of the zone and limit the level and type of development. 

Back Country, 

Non-Motorized1

This zone includes areas that are undeveloped with few, if any, roads. The characteristic 

ROS objective is Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. The level of human use and infrastructure 

is low. Developed facilities are minimal and generally limited to trails and signage. The 

zone is managed for non-motorized (mechanized, equestrian, and pedestrian) public access 

for a wide variety of non-motorized recreation opportunities including remote area camping, 

hiking, mountain biking, hunting, and fishing. Designated OHV use is not permitted in this 

zone. The management intent is to limit the level of development to a low level of increase. 

Facility construction (except trails) is generally not allowed. 

Critical Biological This zone includes areas to manage for the protection of species-at-risk. Facilities are 

minimal to discourage human use. The level of human use and infrastructure is low to 

moderate. The management intent is to retain the natural character and habitat 

characteristics in this zone and limit the level of human development. Low impact uses, 

such as hiking, mountain biking, and hunting are generally allowed. 

Existing 

Wilderness 

This zone includes Congressionally designated wilderness. Only uses consistent with all 

applicable wilderness legislation and with the primitive character are allowed in existing 

wildernesses. The ROS objective is Primitive with limited areas of Semi-Primitive NonMotorized. The management intent is to administer the zone for the use and enjoyment of 

people while preserving its wilderness character and natural conditions. 

Recommended 

Wilderness 

This zone includes land that the USFS is recommending to Congress for wilderness 

designation and will be managed in the same manner as existing wilderness. The 

management intent is to administer this zone for the use and enjoyment of people while 

preserving its wilderness character and natural conditions. 

Note: 1. Bolded text indicates land use zones for the proposed LZ sites.

Source: USFS 2005a 

 
3.3 Land Use and Recreation 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.3-4 

Final EA 

LZ Sites 5, 9, and 9 Alt are located within the Ladd and Coldwater Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA), 

respectively. IRAs are a group of USFS lands without existing roads that have been identified as suitable 

for roadless area conservation. Road construction or reconstruction is allowed within the Ladd IRA, 

while no road construction or reconstruction is allowed within the Coldwater IRA. Currently the USFS is 

proposing to amend the land use zone allocations for specific areas within these IRAs as part of the 

Southern California National Forests Land Management Plan Amendment (USFS 2012a). This 

amendment is a result of a settlement agreement approved 3 January 2011 for California Resources 

Agency, et al vs. United States Department of Agriculture, and Center for Biological Diversity, et al vs. 

United States Department of Agriculture. Although LZ Sites 5, 9, and 9 Alt are located within the Ladd 

and Coldwater IRAs, the land use zone allocations associated with these sites are not expected to change 

under the proposed amendment (USFS 2012b). 

In addition to land use zones, the Cleveland National Forest is divided into a series of geographical units 

referred to as Places. Each Place has a theme, setting, desired condition, and program emphasis. LZ 

Sites 3, 5, 7, 9, 9 Alt, 10, 11, and a portion of LZ Site 8 are located within the Silverado Place. The 

Silverado Place occupies the northwest side of the Trabuco Ranger District from the north national forest 

boundary down to and including Trabuco Canyon. Canyon communities, open-space links to surrounding 

communities, and trail-based recreation characterize this Place. The Silverado Place is an important dayuse area for Orange County, particularly for hiking and mountain biking. Remote or backcountry 

camping is prohibited within the Trabuco Ranger District outside of the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness 

per Forest-Specific Design Criteria CNF S8 (USFS 2005a). 

LZ Sites 6, 6 Alt, and a portion of LZ Site 8 are located within the Elsinore Place. The Elsinore Place 

includes the east-facing slopes of the Santa Ana Mountains and is almost entirely surrounded by urban 

development. Access to the Elsinore Place is limited. The majority of developed recreation sites 

(campgrounds and picnic areas) and special-use authorizations on the Trabuco Ranger District and the 

Wildomar OHV area are located within the Elsinore Place. OHV use, backcountry driving, horseback 

riding, hiking, mountain biking, hang-gliding, camping, and picnicking occur in this Place. A hanggliding site exists above Lake Elsinore. Ortega Falls is a popular setting for seasonal waterplay. 

Recreation occurs throughout the week within the Elsinore Place; however, on weekends and holidays 

recreation sites along Ortega Highway are generally filled to capacity. Some hiking trails lead to this 

Place, but due to the lack of public access there are only a few trails located within the Place. Remote or 

backcountry camping within this Place is prohibited outside of the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness. 

3.3.1.2 BLM El Centro Managed Lands 

The BLM El Centro Office manages approximately 1.4 million acres (0.6 million hectares) of public 

lands spread across Imperial and San Diego counties and located within the California Desert 

Conservation Area (CDCA). The BLM is entrusted with the multiple use management of natural 

resources on public land, in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). 

Specific, authorized uses are determined in the land use planning process, as prescribed in the FLPMA. 

The California Desert Conservation Area Plan (CDCA Plan or Desert Plan) is BLM’s comprehensive 

desert-wide management plan for the CDCA (BLM 1980, as amended) prepared under FLPMA. It 

establishes four multiple-use classes, multiple-use class guidelines, and plan elements for specific 

resources or activities. The four multiple-use classes are Multiple-Use Class C, Multiple-Use Class L 

(Limited Use), Multiple-Use Class M (Moderate Use), and Multiple-Use Class I (Intensive Use). Some 

parcels within the CDCA Plan area have not been placed into multiple-use classes and are unclassified 

lands. These parcels are managed on a case-by-case basis. The proposed LZs are located in areas 

designated as unclassified lands. 
3.3 Land Use and Recreation 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.3-5 

Final EA 

General recreation activities on BLM-administered land in the CDCA include hobby prospecting, 

sightseeing, photography, hunting, painting, bird watching, biking, camping, picnicking, hiking, OHV 

use, and wildlife viewing (BLM 1980). The California Desert attracts several million visitors annually, 

participating in a wide range of recreational activities as noted above. The sheer landscape diversity 

provides a variety of settings in which to enjoy the desert’s natural beauty and solitude away from the 

urban settings of southern California. 

There are six specially managed use areas in the vicinity of the proposed action, as shown in Figure 3.3-2. 

The name, designation, and managing agency for each special management area is listed in Table 3.3-2. 

Several OHV areas are also located in the vicinity of the proposed action (Figure 3.3-2). 

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 

This section evaluates impacts of the proposed action on sensitive land uses. Sensitive land uses are 

defined as land uses that are susceptible to disturbances resulting from a project (e.g., noise, traffic, dust, 

etc.). For the purposes of this impact assessment, sensitive land uses are defined as residences, 

educational institutions, recreational facilities, and certain public facilities (e.g., religious facilities, health 

care facilities). 

Land use analysis in this EA includes those that are located within the project site or in the project vicinity 

that would be affected by the proposed action, especially if they have national, regional, or local 

importance. 

Land Use. The assessment of impacts on land use considers whether changes resulting from 

implementing the proposed action would displace a current use, change suitability of a location for its 

current or planned uses, or impede the management of land use resources according to authorized plans. 

Most of these effects are measured qualitatively, based on values implicit in plans; perceptibility of 

change; and local or widespread dependence on the affected resource. Where possible, the analysis uses 

proportional measures (such as time or extent of an effect) to quantify the degree or magnitude of an 

impact. 

Recreation. The evaluation of impacts on recreation uses a similar approach as described above for land 

use. The analysis considers the anticipated effect of noise on the qualities of recreational areas and user 

experience based on sensitivity of the area or use, and on the spectrum of available recreational 

opportunity. It also considers how changes in public access, if any, would affect spatial and temporal 

availability to areas used for diverse recreational purposes. 

3.3.2.1 Alternative 1 

Cleveland National Forest 

Alternative 1 was designed to allow continued military training operations on public lands managed by 

the USFS Cleveland National Forest, Trabuco Ranger District. No construction activities (including road 

reconstruction) are proposed under Alternative 1. Therefore, no construction-related impacts to land use 

and recreation would occur. 
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

LZ C1

LZ Wolf

LZ Bull

LZ Sparrow

LZ Pelican

LZ IP1 Option

LZ PC3

LZ MW1/Opt

LZ Eider

LZ Cupcake

LZ Mallard

LZ ME3 Option

Figure 3.3-2. Special Use Areas in the Vicinity of the Proposed LZs within Lands Managed by BLM El Centro Field Office

N

Landing Zone (LZ)

OHV Area (Open)

Salton Sea

Protected and Recreation Areas

Area of Critical Environmental Concern

State, County, and City Park

National Wildlife Refuge

Tribal Land

State Recreation Land

Wilderness Area

Scale

0 20

0 15

Kilometers

Miles

Riverside County

Imperial County

!(

North

Algodones Dunes

Wilderness Area

Dos Palmas

Preserve ACEC

Chuckwalla Desert 

Wildlife Management Area

ACEC

Imperial Sand Dunes

Recreation Area

San Sebastian Marsh/

San Felipe Creek ACEC

West Mesa

ACEC

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Final EA

3.3-6

3.3 Land Use and Recreation
3.3 Land Use and Recreation 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.3-7 

Final EA 

Table 3.3-2. Special Use Areas in the Vicinity of the Proposed LZs within Lands 

Managed by the BLM El Centro Field Office 

Special Use Area Managing Agency Description Proximity to 

Proposed Action 

Dos Palmas 

Preserve Area of 

Critical 

Environmental 

Concern (ACEC) 

Cooperatively managed 

by the BLM, the 

California Department of 

Parks, the California 

Department of Fish and 

Game, and the Center for 

Natural Lands 

Management. BLM is 

the lead partner agency. 

The Dos Palmas Preserve ACEC, 

located on 15,000 acres (6,070 

hectares), was established to protect 

unique biological and cultural 

resources. Public visitation is 

encouraged, with several hiking 

opportunities available. 

39 miles (63 km) 

from LZ C1; 50 

miles from LZ Bull 

North Algodones 

Dunes Wilderness 

Area 

BLM North Algodones Dunes Wilderness 

Area is 26,000 acres (10,522 hectares) 

of large sand dunes. Recreational 

activities allowed include camping, 

hiking/backpacking, horseback riding, 

hunting, and wildlife viewing. 

5 miles (8 km) from 

LZ Bull and LZ 

Sparrow 

Chuckwalla Desert 

Wildlife 

Management Area 

ACEC 

BLM This area was established to protect the 

federally listed desert tortoise. 

4 miles (6 km) from 

LZ Pelican and LZ 

Bull 

Imperial Sand 

Dunes Recreation 

Area 

BLM Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation area is 

located on 159,072 acres (64,374 

hectares). The primary use is camping 

and OHV use. Other uses include 

photography, hiking, backpacking, 

nature studies, walking, hunting, rock 

collecting, right-of-way use for utility 

lines, canals and roads, filming, 

conservation activities, and horseback 

riding (BLM 2003). 

2 miles (3 km) from 

LZ Sparrow 

San Sebastian 

Marsh/San Felipe 

Creek ACEC 

BLM This ACEC primarily protects 

biological resources (i.e., critical 

habitat for the federally endangered 

desert pupfish). San Felipe Creek is 

also a registered National Natural 

Landmark. San Sebastian Marsh is 

closed to vehicle use, but open to 

hiking and is a popular area for nature 

study. 

12 miles (19 km) 

from LZ C1 

West Mesa ACEC BLM This ACEC primarily protects cultural 

and biological resources. The main 

uses include OHV, camping, hunting, 

biking, and horseback riding. 

4 miles (6 km) from 

LZ C1 

Source: USGS 2010

Under Alternative 1, the overall number of proposed operations at the Cleveland National Forest is expected 

to decrease slightly compared to existing conditions (from 452 to 422 annual sorties), while the number of 

overall landings is expected to increase slightly (from 2,132 to 2,205 annual landings). Proposed operations 

on USFS land covered under this EA would not include ground troop movements or training, refueling 

operations, or the use of flares or ordnance. Ground access and travel is not affected by this proposed 

action; therefore, no direct spatial or temporal impacts to availability of recreational opportunities would 
3.3 Land Use and Recreation 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.3-8 

Final EA 

occur under this alternative. In addition, established airspace and existing LZ footprints would not be 

expanded with implementation of Alternative 1. The USMC would obtain a special use authorization from 

the Cleveland National Forest, Trabuco Ranger District concerning the use of National Forest System lands 

for military activity. The continued and newly proposed training operations (i.e., landing and takeoff 

operations) would be consistent with existing training operations within the Cleveland National Forest and 

would comply with the established Forest Plan and with proposed Land Management Plan amendments 

(USFS 2012b). Therefore, no significant impact to land use would occur. 

The continued flight activity by the existing rotary wing inventory and new use by the MV-22B aircraft 

within the Cleveland National Forest would result in aircraft noise and dust generation within the proposed 

LZs and over adjacent lands during landing and takeoff operations. Because the overall number of proposed 

annual sorties and annual landings at the Cleveland National Forest is expected to change slightly compared 

to existing conditions (30 less annual sorties and 73 additional annual landings), Alternative 1 would result 

in only minor changes in noise exposure and dust generation from existing conditions, as described below. 

As described in section 3.2 (Noise), the highest noise levels associated with proposed operations would be 

within about 600 feet (180 meters) of each LZ (see Figure C1-7 in Appendix C for the noise contours at 

LZ Site 6 / LZ Site 6 Alt). The primary impact of noise from aircraft overflight on human populations 

would be annoyance. Quietness and naturalness is an intrinsic part of some recreational experiences. 

Reactions to noise in a recreational setting vary. During routine training, aircraft activities at the proposed 

LZs would occur in low numbers and would be generally dispersed over broad geographic areas. 

Regular, repeated, or continuous exposure to aircraft-generated noise would be unlikely because routine 

training operations would vary on a daily basis. Therefore, the proposed impacts to land use and 

recreation due to aircraft noise at any individual LZ would be minimal and would be consistent with 

Forest Plan guidelines and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) objectives for Back Country and 

Back Country, Non-Motorized land use zones. 

Regarding dust generation, rotor wash from aircraft landing, takeoff, and hovering operations would 

result in dust and debris being scattered and becoming airborne in the immediate vicinity of the aircraft, 

although the extent of this dust disturbance would depend on local soil characteristics, presence of 

vegetation, and weather conditions. Dust would be visible to recreational users in the general area within 

sight of the LZ, but the airborne dust would disperse quickly and would likely be visible for only a few 

minutes (see Figure 3.10-1 in section 3.10, Aesthetics). 

Although disturbance of recreation activities (e.g., hiking, biking, etc.) near the LZs could occur, it would be 

short-term, consisting of isolated and infrequent landing and takeoffs operations, and of low intensity (i.e., 

low numbers of aircraft). On approach to an LZ, pilots would perform clearance passes of each LZ before 

landing, and pilots would not land, or attempt to land, if civilians are present, consistent with standard 

avoidance measures used to minimize annoyance of persons on the ground (OPNAVINST 2710.7U 

subsection 5.5 [Reducing Flight-Related Disturbances]). Although recreation within the project area occurs 

throughout the week, scheduling would result in automatic separation of flight operations from weekend 

public recreation. Therefore, the potential for impacts on recreation is somewhat reduced. Given these 

characteristics, routine training activities would not be expected to result in permanent alteration of the 

area’s recreation opportunity; therefore, activities would not result in a significant impact to recreation. 

BLM El Centro Managed Lands 

Alternative 1 would allow continued military training operations on public lands managed by the BLM El 

Centro Field Office, including the use of 13 designated LZs. No construction activities are proposed 

under Alternative 1. Therefore, no construction-related impacts to land use and recreation would occur. 
3.3 Land Use and Recreation 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.3-9 

Final EA 

Training operations for rotary wing aircraft would continue at approximate current levels except that 

CH-46E operations would decline over time (see Table 2.2-1). In addition, 1,814 MV-22B annual sorties 

would be added, which would increase the total number of annual sorties and LZ landings by over 300 

percent compared to existing conditions for this area. Proposed operations on BLM land covered under 

this EA would not include ground troop movements or training, refueling operations, or the use of flares 

or ordnance. Ground access and travel is not affected by this proposed action; therefore, no direct spatial 

or temporal impacts to availability of recreational opportunities would occur under this alternative. In 

addition, established airspace and existing LZ footprints would not be expanded with implementation of 

Alternative 1. The types of landing and takeoff operations addressed under Alternative 1 are consistent 

with BLM’s definition of “casual use level of activity.” By definition, casual use activities do not have 

any adverse safety impacts on other public land uses, and have only minimal or transient environmental 

effect on relatively small areas of public land. Activities that qualify under casual use require no 

authorization from BLM. The continued and newly proposed training operations (i.e., landing and takeoff 

operations) would be consistent with existing training operations within land managed by the BLM El 

Centro Field Office and would be in conformance with the BLM’s mandate to manage BLM land for 

multiple uses as outlined in the FLPMA. Therefore, no significant impact to land use would occur. 

The continued flight activity by the existing rotary wing inventory and new use by the MV-22B aircraft 

within the public lands managed by the BLM El Centro Field Office would result in aircraft noise and 

dust generation within the proposed LZs and over adjacent lands during landing and takeoff operations. 

The overall number of proposed annual sorties and landings is expected to increase by over 300 percent 

compared to existing conditions (from about 483 to 2,080 annual sorties and from 2,760 to 13,656 annual 

landings). Therefore, Alternative 1 would result in an increase in noise exposure and dust generation 

compared to existing conditions, as described below. 

As described in section 3.2 (Noise), the highest noise levels associated with proposed operations would be 

within about 650 feet (198 meters) of each LZ (see Figure C1-8 in Appendix C for the noise contours at 

an example BLM El Centro LZ). As described above for the Cleveland National Forest, the primary 

impact of noise from aircraft overflight on human populations would be annoyance. Quietness and 

naturalness is an intrinsic part of some recreational experiences. Reactions to noise in a recreational 

setting vary. During routine training, aircraft activities at the proposed LZs would occur in low numbers 

and would be generally dispersed over broad geographic areas. Regular, repeated, or continuous exposure 

to aircraft-generated noise would be unlikely because routine training operations would vary on a daily 

basis. Therefore, the proposed impacts to land use and recreation due to aircraft noise at any individual 

LZ would be minimal and would be consistent with BLM guidelines for casual use level of activity. 

Regarding dust generation, rotor wash from aircraft landing, takeoff, and hovering operations would 

result in dust and debris being scattered and becoming airborne in the immediate vicinity of the aircraft, 

although the extent of this dust disturbance would depend on local soil characteristics, presence of 

vegetation, and weather conditions. Dust would be visible to recreational users in the general area within 

sight of the LZ, but the airborne dust would disperse quickly and would likely be visible for only a few 

minutes (see Figure 3.10-1 in section 3.10, Aesthetics). 

Although disturbance of recreation activities (e.g., hiking, biking, etc.) near the LZs could occur, it would be 

short-term, consisting of isolated and infrequent landing and takeoff operations, and of low intensity (i.e., 

low numbers of aircraft). On approach to an LZ, pilots would perform clearance passes of each LZ before 

landing, and pilots would not land, or attempt to land, if civilians are present, consistent with standard 

avoidance measures used to minimize annoyance of persons on the ground (OPNAVINST 2710.7U 

subsection 5.5 [Reducing Flight-Related Disturbances]). Although recreation within the project area occurs 

throughout the week, scheduling would result in automatic separation of flight operations from weekend 

public recreation. Therefore, the potential for impacts on recreation is somewhat reduced. Given these 
3.3 Land Use and Recreation 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.3-10 

Final EA 

characteristics, routine training activities would not be expected to result in permanent alteration of the 

area’s recreation opportunity; therefore, activities would not result in a significant impact to recreation. 

Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures 

Because there would be no significant land use or recreation impact, no avoidance, minimization, and/or 

mitigation measures are required. However, as discussed in section 2.2.1.3 (Flight Activity within the 

Cleveland National Forest), the USMC would work with the USFS to identify and implement appropriate 

dust abatement measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions. These measures would also reduce the 

potential for visible dust generation and further reduce the level of visual impacts on recreational users in 

the Cleveland National Forest. 

3.3.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no USMC rotary wing or tilt-rotor operations would occur on public 

lands managed by the Cleveland National Forest and the BLM El Centro Field Office. However, other 

agencies, such as the Sheriff’s Department, Fire Department, and the U.S. Navy, may still use the LZs. 

Therefore, minor impacts to recreation due to noise and dust generation would likely continue within the 

vicinity of the LZs, although at a lower rate than under existing conditions. Depending on how often the 

LZs are used by other agencies, this could be a beneficial impact.
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.4-1 

Final EA 

3.4 Air Quality 

Existing air quality at a given location can be described by the concentrations of various pollutants in the 

atmosphere. Pollutants are defined as two general types: (1) criteria pollutants and (2) toxic compounds. 

Criteria pollutants have national and/or state ambient air quality standards. The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA) establishes the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), while 

the California Air Resources Board (ARB) establishes the state standards, termed the California Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The NAAQS represent maximum acceptable concentrations that 

generally may not be exceeded more than once per year, except the annual standards, which may never be 

exceeded. The CAAQS represent state maximum acceptable pollutant concentrations that are not to be 

equaled or exceeded. The national and state ambient air quality standards are shown in Table 3.4-1. 

Table 3.4-1. California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant Averaging Time California

Standards 

National Standardsa

Primaryb,c Secondaryb,d

O3

1-hour 0.09 ppm

(180 μg/m3) — — 

8-hour 0.070 ppm

(137 μg/m3)

0.075 ppm

(147 μg/m3) Same as primary 

CO 

8-hour 9 ppm

(10 mg/m3)

9 ppm

(10 mg/m3) — 

1-hour 20 ppm

(23 mg/m3)

35 ppm

(40 mg/m3) — 

NO2

Annual 0.030 ppm

(57 μg/m3)

0.053 ppm

(100 μg/m3) Same as primary 

1-hour 0.18 ppm

(339 μg/m3)

0.10 ppm

(188 μg/m3) — 

SO2

3-hour — — 0.5 ppm

(1,300 μg/m3)

1-hour 0.25 ppm

(655 μg/m3)

0.075 ppm

(105 μg/m3) — 

PM10 Annual 20 μg/m3 — —

24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 Same as primary

PM2.5 Annual 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3

24-hour — 35 μg/m3

Lead 

Rolling 3-month average — 0.15 μg/m3 Same as primary

Quarterly Average — 1.5 μg/m3 Same as primary

30-day average 1.5 μg/m3 — —

Notes: 

a. Standards other than the 8-hour O3, 24-hour PM10, 24-hour PM2.5, and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded 

more than once a year. 

b. Concentrations are expressed first in units in which they were promulgated. Equivalent units given in parenthesis. 

c. Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 

d. Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse 

effects of a pollutant. 

O3 = ozone; CO = carbon monoxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 

microns in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; μg/m3

 = micrograms per cubic meter; mg/m3

= milligrams per cubic meter 

Source: ARB 2010

Toxic air contaminants are compounds that have been determined to represent some level of acute or 

chronic health risk (cancer or non-cancer) to the general public. Units of concentration for these 

pollutants are generally expressed in parts per million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

). 

The main pollutants of concern considered in this air quality analysis include volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter less than 10 

microns in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Although 
3.4 Air Quality 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.4-2 

Final EA 

VOCs or NOx (other than nitrogen dioxide [NO2]) have no established ambient standards, they are 

important as precursors to O3 formation. 

3.4.1 Affected Environment 

Air emissions produced from the proposed action would affect air quality within the proposed Cleveland 

National Forest and BLM El Centro training areas and aircraft flight routes between these areas and 

aircraft basing locations in San Diego County. The analysis of proposed aircraft operations is limited to 

emissions that would occur within the lowest 3,000 feet (914 meters) of the atmosphere, as this is the 

typical depth of the atmospheric mixing layer where emissions released into this layer could affect 

ground-level pollutant concentrations. Emissions released above the mixing layer generally would not 

appreciably affect ground-level air quality. Since project helicopters would transit within 3,000 feet (914 

meters) above ground level in San Diego County, this analysis considers the impact of emissions 

generated by this operation within this region, in addition to project impacts within the Cleveland 

National Forest and BLM El Centro project regions. 

Identifying the region of influence for air quality requires knowledge of the pollutant type, source 

emission rates, the proximity of project emission sources to other emission sources, and local and regional 

meteorology. For inert pollutants (such as CO or dust particulates), the region of influence is generally 

limited to a few miles downwind from a source. The region of influence for reactive pollutants such as 

O3 may extend much farther downwind than for inert pollutants. Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by 

photochemical reactions of previously emitted pollutants called precursors. Ozone precursors are mainly 

NOx and photochemically reactive organic compounds, or VOCs. In the presence of solar radiation, the 

maximum effect of precursor emissions on O3levels usually occurs several hours after they are emitted 

and many miles from their source. 

3.4.1.1 Regulatory Framework 

The Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 (the CAA) and its subsequent amendments establish air quality 

regulations and the NAAQS and delegate the enforcement of these standards to the states. In California, the 

ARB is responsible for enforcing air pollution regulations. The ARB has in turn delegated the 

responsibility of regulating stationary emission sources to regional air agencies. The CAA establishes air 

quality planning processes and requires areas in nonattainment of a NAAQS to develop a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) that details how the state will attain the standard within mandated time frames. 

The requirements and compliance dates for attainment are based on the severity of the nonattainment 

classification of the area. The following summarizes the air quality rules and regulations that apply to the 

proposed action. 

Section 176(c) of the CAA, as articulated in the USEPA General Conformity Rule, states that a federal 

agency cannot issue a permit or support an activity unless the agency determines that it will conform to 

the most recent USEPA-approved SIP. This means that projects using federal funds or requiring federal 

approval in nonattainment or maintenance areas must not (1) cause or contribute to any new violation of a 

NAAQS, (2) increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of 

any standard, interim emission reduction, or other milestone. Conformity determinations are required 

when the annual direct and indirect emissions from a federal action exceed an applicable de minimis

threshold. Applicable de minimis levels vary by pollutant and the severity of nonattainment conditions. 

The ARB is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution 

control programs within California and implementation of the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The 

CCAA required the ARB to establish the CAAQS (see Table 3.4-1). In general, the CAAQS are at least 

as stringent as the NAAQS. The CCAA requires local air districts in the state to achieve and maintain the 
3.4 Air Quality 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.4-3 

Final EA 

CAAQS by the earliest practical date. The CCAA specifies that local air districts should focus particular 

attention on reducing emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources, and it gives districts 

the authority to regulate indirect sources of emissions. 

Greenhouse Gases 

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere by absorbing infrared radiation. 

Without this natural greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature of the Earth would be about 60°F 

(15.5°C) colder (U.S. Global Change Research Program 2009). Scientific evidence indicates a trend of 

increasing global temperature over the past century due to an increase in GHG emissions from human 

activities. The climate change associated with this global warming is predicted to produce environmental, 

economic, and social consequences across the globe. 

Greenhouse gas emissions occur from natural processes and human activities. Water vapor is the most 

important and abundant GHG in the atmosphere. However, human activities produce only a very small 

amount of the total atmospheric water vapor. The most common GHGs emitted from natural processes 

and human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). The main 

source of GHGs from human activities is the combustion of fossil fuels, such as crude oil and coal. 

Examples of GHGs created and emitted primarily through human activities include fluorinated gases 

(hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons) and sulfur hexafluoride. These six GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, 

hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) are regulated by the State of California. 

Each GHG is assigned a global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is the ability of a gas or aerosol to 

trap heat in the atmosphere. The GWP rating system is standardized to CO2, which has a value of one. 

For example, CH4 has a GWP of 21, which means that it has a global warming effect 21 times greater 

than CO2 on an equal-mass basis (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). To simplify GHG 

analyses, total GHG emissions from a source are often expressed as a CO2 equivalent (CO2e). The CO2e

is calculated by multiplying the emissions of each GHG by its GWP and adding the results together to 

produce a single, combined emission rate representing all GHGs. While CH4 and N2O have much higher 

GWPs than CO2, CO2 is emitted in such higher quantities that it is the overwhelming contributor to CO2e

from both natural processes and human activities. 

Recent observed changes due to global warming include rising temperatures, shrinking glaciers and sea 

ice, thawing permafrost, a lengthened growing season, and shifts in plant and animal ranges. 

International, national, and state organizations independently confirm these findings (Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change 2007; U.S. Global Change Research Program 2009; California Energy 

Commission 2009). 

The most recent California Climate Change Scenarios Assessment predicts that temperatures in 

California will increase between 3o

F to 10.5oF (1.7oC to 5.8oC) by 2100, based upon low and high GHG 

emission scenarios (California Energy Commission 2009). Predictions of long-term negative 

environmental impacts due to global warming include sea level rise, changing weather patterns with 

increases in the severity of storms and droughts, changes to local and regional ecosystems including the 

potential loss of species, and a substantial reduction in winter snow pack. In California, predictions of 

these effects include exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in municipal water supply from the 

Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea level that would displace coastal businesses and residences, an increase in 

wild fires, damage to marine and terrestrial ecosystems, and an increase in the incidence of infectious 

diseases, asthma, and other human health problems (California Energy Commission 2009). 

Federal agencies on a national scale address emissions of GHGs by reporting and meeting reductions 

mandated in federal laws, Executive Orders (EOs), and agency policies. The most recent of these are EOs 

13423 and 13514 and the USEPA Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. Several states 
3.4 Air Quality 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.4-4 

Final EA 

have promulgated laws as a means of reducing statewide levels of GHG emissions. In particular, the 

California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) directs the State of California to reduce 

statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Groups of states also have formed regionallybased collectives (such as the Western Climate Initiative) to jointly address GHG pollutants. 

In an effort to reduce energy consumption, reduce dependence on petroleum, and increase the use of 

renewable energy resources in accordance with the goals set by EO 13423 and the Energy Policy Act of 

2005, the DoN and USMC have implemented a number of renewable energy projects (NAVFAC 2006). 

The types of projects currently in operation within the NAVFAC Southwest region include thermal and 

photovoltaic solar systems, geothermal power plants, and wind generators. The military also purchases 

one-half of the biodiesel fuel sold in California. The DoN and USMC continue to promote and install 

new renewable energy projects within the NAVFAC Southwest region. 

On 18 February 2010, the CEQ proposed for the first time draft guidance on how federal agencies should 

evaluate the effects of climate change and GHG emissions for NEPA documentation (CEQ 2010). The 

CEQ does not propose a reference point as an indicator of a level of GHG emissions that may 

significantly affect the quality of the human environment. In the analysis of the direct effects of a 

proposed action, the CEQ proposes that it would be appropriate to 1) quantify cumulative emissions over 

the life of the project; 2) discuss measures to reduce GHG emissions, including consideration of 

reasonable alternatives; and 3) qualitatively discuss the link between such GHG emissions and climate 

change. The CEQ accepted public comments on the draft guidance through 24 May 2010, and it is 

expected to issue final guidance in the near future. 

The potential effects of proposed GHG emissions are by nature global and cumulative impacts because 

individual sources of GHG emissions are not large enough to have an appreciable effect on climate 

change. Therefore, the impact of proposed GHG emissions to climate change is discussed in the context 

of cumulative impacts, as presented in section 4.3.4 of this EA. Appendix B presents estimates of GHG 

emissions generated by the proposed action. 

3.4.1.2 Cleveland National Forest 

The Cleveland National Forest project area is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which 

consists of Orange County and the urbanized areas of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino 

Counties. Due to the combined air pollution sources from over 15 million people and meteorological and 

geographical effects that limit the dispersion of these pollutants, the SCAB can experience high air 

pollutant concentrations. Primary emissions transported from the SCAB are the main contributors to 

pollutant levels in the Cleveland National Forest project area. In addition, elevated levels of fugitive dust 

(PM10and PM2.5) occasionally occur in localities within the project region due to the operation of vehicles 

on unpaved surfaces and the erosion of exposed earth surfaces during high wind events. 

The USEPA designates all areas of the U.S. as having air quality better than (attainment) or worse than 

(nonattainment) the NAAQS (USEPA 2011a). A nonattainment designation generally means that a 

primary NAAQS has been exceeded more than once per year in a given area. With respect to the 

NAAQS, the SCAB presently is classified as extreme nonattainment for O3, serious nonattainment for 

PM10, nonattainment for PM2.5, and in attainment for SO2. The SCAB is also a maintenance area for 

NO2 and CO. Based upon these designations, the applicable annual conformity de minimis thresholds for 

the Cleveland National Forest project area are (1) 10 tons of VOCs and NOx, (2) 70 tons of PM10, and (3) 

100 tons of CO and PM2.5(40 CFR Section 51.853(b)). 

The ARB also designates areas of the state as either in attainment or nonattainment of the CAAQS (ARB 

2011). An area is in nonattainment for a pollutant if its CAAQS has been exceeded more than once in three 
3.4 Air Quality 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.4-5 

Final EA 

years. With respect to the CAAQS, the SCAB presently is in extreme nonattainment for O3 and 

nonattainment for PM10and PM2.5. 

Air quality within the SCAB and the project region has improved since the inception of air pollutant 

monitoring in 1976 by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) (SCAQMD 2012). 

This improvement is due to the implementation of stationary source emission reduction strategies by the 

SCAQMD and lower-polluting on-road motor vehicles. This trend towards cleaner air has occurred in 

spite of continued population growth. For example, the number of days when O3concentrations 

monitored in the SCAB exceeded the 8-hour national standard (0.075 ppm) was 234 in 1979 and lowered 

to 109 in 2010 (SCAQMD 2012). 

In the SCAB, the local air agency is the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD has developed air quality plans that 

are designed to bring the region into attainment of the national and state ambient air quality standards. 

Through this attainment planning process, the SCAQMD develops the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations

to regulate stationary sources of air pollution in the SCAB (SCAQMD 2011). The applicable SCAQMD 

rules that would apply to the proposed action include the following: 

• SCAQMD Rule 402 – Nuisance. This rule prohibits the discharge of air contaminants or other 

materials that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of 

persons or to the public or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or 

property.

• SCAQMD Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust. The purpose of this Rule is to control the amount of 

particulate matter entrained in the atmosphere from man-made sources of fugitive dust. The rule 

prohibits emissions of fugitive dust from any active operation or disturbed surface area to be 

visible beyond the property line of an emission source. The rule requires any active operation to 

utilize applicable best available control measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions within the 

active operation. 

• SCAQMD Rule 1901 – General Conformity. This rule implements the provisions of the 

USEPA General Conformity Rule. 

The USFS implements a Land Management Plan for the Cleveland National Forest that includes 

objectives to promote sustainability and good health (social, economic and ecological) of the national 

forest (USFS 2005a). This plan proposes the following program strategies that pertain to air quality: 

• Air 1 - Minimize Smoke and Dust. This strategy proposes to control and reduce smoke and 

fugitive dust to protect human health, improve safety and/or reduce or eliminate environmental 

impacts. The strategy would incorporate visibility requirements into project plans. 

• Air2 - Forest Air Quality Emissions. This strategy would maintain and update the inventory for 

wildland fire emissions and other forest resource management emissions within the current SIP. 

The strategy would provide input to the SCAQMD on regional air quality issues for forest 

protection. 

Air emissions due to current USMC rotary wing operations within the Cleveland National Forest project 

area occur from (1) the combustion of aviation fuel and (2) fugitive dust (PM10/PM2.5) generated from 

pad landings on exposed soils. Operational data used to estimate emissions from current operations are 

consistent with those evaluated in the noise analyses of this EA (see section 3.2, Noise), and include pad 

landings and cruising operations below 3,000 feet(914 meters) above ground level. Factors needed to 

derive helicopter engine emission rates were obtained from the Navy Aircraft Environmental Support 

Office (AESO) (AESO 2000a, 2000b, 2001a, 2001b, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, and 2011). Fugitive dust 
3.4 Air Quality 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.4-6 

Final EA 

emissions generated by helicopter rotor wash during pad landings were estimated with methods identified 

in special studies conducted by the USEPA (USEPA 2006), soil conditions described in the project 

surveys conducted for the proposed LZs (SAIC 2012a, 2012b), and observations of dust emissions 

generated by helicopters at the existing LZs. Appendix B presents the methods used to estimate 

emissions from current USMC rotary wing operations within each project region. 

Table 3.4-2 summarizes the annual air emission estimates for current USMC rotary wing operations 

within the Cleveland National Forest project region. These data show that helicopter pad landings 

generate the majority of combustive emissions from any type of operation. In addition, the main source 

of PM10 emissions occurs from fugitive dust generated by rotor wash on exposed soils. 

Table 3.4-2. Annual Emissions from Current Helicopter Operations within the 

Cleveland National Forest Project Region 

Activity Type Air Pollutant Emissions (Tons per Year) 

VOC CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 

Transit within the SCAB 0.03 0.29 0.19 0.01 0.11 0.11 

Pad Landings 0.17 1.19 1.01 0.06 0.54 0.54 

Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.16 0.02 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.02 0.26 0.19 0.01 0.11 0.11 

Total Emissions 0.22 1.74 1.38 0.09 0.92 0.78 

Notes: The above data pertain to aircraft operations that occur below 3,000 feet above ground level.

3.4.1.3 BLM El Centro Managed Lands 

The BLM El Centro project region occurs within the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which includes all of 

Imperial County and the southwest third of Riverside County. The arid conditions in the region produce 

low soil moisture and a high potential for fugitive dust emissions, which is one of the main air pollution 

issues in the region. 

With respect to the NAAQS, the entire Imperial County presently is classified as moderate nonattainment 

for O3 and in attainment for CO and SO2.The western two-thirds of Imperial County, which includes LZs 

C1 and Wolf in the west and LZs Bull, Pelican, and Sparrow in the east, is in serious nonattainment for 

PM10. This nonattainment area is known as the Imperial Valley Planning Area (IVPA). Lastly, the 

south-central portion of Imperial County is in nonattainment for PM2.5. This PM2.5 nonattainment area is 

affected by project helicopters that transit between San Diego County and the LZs in eastern Imperial 

County. Based on these designations, the applicable annual conformity de minimis thresholds for these 

regions are (1) 100 tons of VOCs, NOx, and PM2.5 and (2) 70 tons of PM10 (40 CFR Section 

51.853(b)).With regard to the CAAQS, the SSAB attains the CAAQS for all criteria pollutants except 

O3and PM10. 

The local air agency in the BLM El Centro project region is the Imperial County Air Pollution Control 

District (ICAPCD). The ICAPCD has developed air quality plans that are designed to bring the region 

into attainment of the national and state ambient air quality standards. Through this attainment planning 

process, the ICAPCD develops the ICAPCD Rules and Regulations to regulate stationary sources of air 

pollution in Imperial County (ICAPCD 2011). 

Table 3.4-3 summarizes the annual air emission estimates for current USMC rotary wing operations 

within the BLM El Centro project region. These data differentiate emissions into three distinct air quality 

regions of influence within Imperial County: (1) all of Imperial County to determine compliance with all 

pollutants except PM10 and PM2.5, (2) the IVPA PM10 and PM2.5 nonattainment areas, and (3) the nonIVPA PM10 and PM2.5 attainment areas of eastern Imperial County. 
3.4 Air Quality 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.4-7 

Final EA 

Table 3.4-3. Annual Emissions from Current Helicopter Operations within the BLM El 

Centro Project Region 

Activity Type Air Pollutant Emissions (Tons per Year) 

VOC CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 

Transit within Imperial County 0.15 1.42 1.23 0.07 0.51 0.51 

Pad Landings 0.53 2.54 2.63 0.16 0.88 0.88 

Fugitive Dust - - - - 2.37 0.36 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.05 0.35 0.46 0.03 0.15 0.15 

Total Emissions - Imperial County (1) 0.73 4.22 4.32 0.26 3.91 1.89 

Emissions within the IVPA (2) 0.46 2.88 2.86 0.17 2.39 1.25 

Emissions outside the IVPA (3) 0.27 1.34 1.47 0.09 1.52 0.64 

Notes: The above data pertain to aircraft operations that occur below 3,000 feet above ground level.

1. Project region for all pollutants except PM10 and PM2.5. 

2. Portion of Imperial County that does not attain the NAAQS for PM10 or PM2.5.

3. Portion of Imperial County that attains the NAAQS for PM10 and PM2.5.

3.4.1.4 San Diego Air Basin 

The San Diego County project region is synonymous with the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). With 

respect to the NAAQS, the SDAB presently is classified as in nonattainment for O3 and in attainment for 

all other pollutants. The SDAB is also a maintenance area for CO. Based on these designations, the 

applicable annual conformity de minimis thresholds for this region are 100 tons of VOCs, CO, and NOx (40 

CFR Section 51.853(b)). With regard to the CAAQS, the SDAB attains the CAAQS for all criteria 

pollutants except O3, PM10, and PM2.5. 

The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD) has developed air quality plans 

designed to reduce emissions to a level that will bring the SDAB into attainment of the ambient air 

quality standards. Control measures for stationary sources proposed in the air quality plans and adopted 

by the SDCAPCD are incorporated into the SDCAPCD Rules and Regulations (SDCAPCD 2011). 

Table 3.4-4 summarizes the annual air emission estimates for current project USMC rotary wing aircraft 

within the SDAB project region. These data pertain to transit activities for flight destinations to both the 

Cleveland National Forest and BLM El Centro project regions. 

Table 3.4-4. Annual Emissions from Current Helicopter Operations within the San 

Diego Air Basin Project Region 

Activity Type Air Pollutant Emissions (Tons per Year) 

VOC CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 

Transit to CNF 0.06 0.55 0.36 0.02 0.21 0.21 

Transit to Imperial County West LZs 0.02 0.17 0.18 0.01 0.06 0.06 

Transit to Imperial County East LZs 0.21 1.50 1.58 0.09 0.51 0.51 

Total Emissions 0.29 2.22 2.12 0.12 0.78 0.78 

Notes: The above data pertain to aircraft operations that occur below 3,000 feet above ground level.

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 

Project air quality impacts were reviewed for significance compared to federal, state, and local air 

pollution standards and regulations. For the purposes of the present analysis, if proposed emissions were 

projected not to exceed an applicable conformity de minimis threshold within a project region, then 

impacts would be less than significant. If proposed emissions were projected to exceed an applicable 

conformity de minimis threshold within a project region, further analysis would be needed to determine 

whether impacts were significant. In such cases, if emissions conform to the approved SIP, then impacts 
3.4 Air Quality 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.4-8 

Final EA 

would be less than significant. In the case of a criteria pollutant for which a project region attains a 

NAAQS, the analysis used the USEPA Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) threshold for new 

major sources of 250 tons per year as an indicator of significance of projected air quality impacts. 

Although the PSD permitting program is not applicable to mobile sources, PSD thresholds are used as 

criteria to measure air quality impacts under NEPA. 

Air quality impacts from proposed aircraft training operations would occur from the same types of 

emission sources as those associated with existing helicopter operations. These sources include (1) the 

combustion of aviation fuel and (2) fugitive dust generated from pad landings on exposed soils. The 

project air quality impact analyses are based on the net change in emissions between proposed and 

existing aircraft operations. The analyses focus on the year when replacement of the CH-46E helicopter 

with the MV-22B aircraft is complete, or 2017. 

Emissions from proposed aircraft operations were estimated with the same methods used to calculate 

emissions from existing helicopter operations. In addition, factors needed to derive proposed MV-22B 

emission rates were obtained from the AESO (AESO 2001c and 2001d). Appendix B presents the 

methods used to estimate emissions from aircraft operations proposed under each project alternative. 

3.4.2.1 Alternative 1 

Table 3.4-5 presents an estimate of the annual emissions that would occur with the implementation of 

Alternative 1. These data show that implementation would reduce emissions of VOCs and CO within 

each project region. In addition, Alternative 1 would reduce emissions from aircraft transit operations 

within the SDAB. This is because the alternative would replace the CH-46E, which transits below 3,000 

feet above ground level, with the MV-22B, which would transit well above this level. Lastly, emissions 

from Alternative 1 would not exceed any applicable conformity de minimis or PSD threshold within any 

project region. Therefore, Alternative 1 would produce less than significant air quality impacts. 

Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures 

Although emissions from Alternative 1 would not exceed any applicable conformity de minimis or PSD 

threshold within any project region, aircraft pad landings on exposed soils would be a source of localized 

fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) in the Cleveland National Forest. As discussed in section 2.2.1.3 (Flight 

Activity within the Cleveland National Forest), the USMC would work with the USFS to identify and 

implement appropriate dust abatement measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions that could 

temporarily affect local air quality from aircraft pad landings on exposed soils within the Cleveland 

National Forest. These measures would ensure the project is consistent with the air quality objectives in 

the Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan (USFS 2005a). 

3.4.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, elimination of existing USMC helicopter operations would result in 

minor emission reductions within the Cleveland National Forest, BLM El Centro, and San Diego County 

project regions on the order of those identified in Tables 3.4-2 through 3.4-4. Therefore, the No Action 

Alternative would produce beneficial but less than significant air quality impacts. 
3.4 Air Quality 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.4-9 

Final EA 

Table 3.4-5. Annual Emissions due to the Operation of the USMC Rotary Wing and 

Tilt-Rotor Training Activities- Alternative 1 

Project Region/Activity Air Pollutant Emissions (Tons per Year) 

VOC CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 

Cleveland National Forest 

Transit within the SCAB 0.01 0.16 0.15 0.01 0.09 0.09 

Pad Landings 0.09 0.81 4.09 0.14 0.81 0.81 

Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.41 0.06 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.01 0.16 0.18 0.01 0.09 0.09 

Total Proposed Emissions 0.11 1.13 4.42 0.16 1.41 1.05 

Existing Emissions 0.22 1.74 1.38 0.09 0.92 0.78 

Total Net Change -0.11 -0.61 3.04 0.07 0.49 0.27 

Conformity De Minimis Level 10 100 10 NA 70 NA 

Imperial County 

Transit within Imperial County 0.03 0.54 0.97 0.05 - - 

Pad Landings 0.36 2.97 56.68 1.60 - - 

Fugitive Dust - - - - - - 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.01 0.16 0.77 0.03 - - 

Total Proposed Emissions 0.40 3.67 58.42 1.68 - -

Existing Emissions 0.73 4.22 4.32 0.26 - -

Total Net Change -0.33 -0.55 54.10 1.43 - -

Conformity De Minimis Level 100 NA 100 NA NA NA 

Imperial County IVPA 

Transit within IVPA - - - - 0.33 0.33 

Pad Landings - - - - 3.64 3.60 

Fugitive Dust - - - - 15.98 2.40 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) - - - - 0.09 0.09 

Total Proposed Emissions - - - - 20.04 6.42 

Existing Emissions - - - - 2.39 1.25 

Total Net Change - - - - 17.65 5.17 

Conformity De Minimis Level NA NA NA NA 70 100 

Imperial County Non-IVPA 

Transit within Non-IVPA - - - - 0.02 0.02 

Pad Landings - - - - 2.87 2.84 

Fugitive Dust - - - - 12.63 1.89 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) - - - - 0.07 0.07 

Total Proposed Emissions - - - - 15.59 4.83 

Existing Emissions - - - - 1.52 0.64 

Total Net Change - - - - 14.07 4.19 

Conformity De Minimis Level NA NA NA NA NA NA 

San Diego County 

Transit to CNF 0.02 0.30 0.29 0.02 0.17 0.17 

Transit to Imperial County West LZs 0.00 0.05 0.16 0.01 0.05 0.05 

Transit to Imperial County East LZs 0.03 0.45 1.36 0.07 0.41 0.41 

Total Proposed Emissions 0.06 0.80 1.80 0.09 0.62 0.62 

Existing Emissions 0.29 2.22 2.12 0.12 0.78 0.78 

Total Net Change -0.23 -1.42 -0.31 -0.03 -0.15 -0.15 

Conformity De Minimis Level 100 100 100 NA NA NA 

Notes: The above data pertain to aircraft operations that occur below 3,000 feet above ground level. 

“–“ before a number indicates a reduction in emissions.
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.5-1 

Final EA 

3.5 Topography, Geology, and Soils 

3.5.1 Affected Environment 

This section describes the general topography, geology, and soils at the LZs within public lands managed 

by the Cleveland National Forest and the BLM El Centro Field Office. Topography incorporates the 

physiographic or surface features of an area and is usually described with respect to elevation, slope, and 

landforms. Long-term geological, erosional, and depositional processes typically influence topographic 

relief of an area. The geologic resources of an area consist of all soil and bedrock materials, as well as 

general geologic hazards. For the purpose of this study, the terms soil and rock refer to unconsolidated 

and consolidated earth materials, respectively, regardless of depth. Seismicity, which refers to the 

potential for earthquake activity, is not addressed in this EA because there are no construction or physical 

structures associated with the proposed action. 

3.5.1.1 Cleveland National Forest 

Topography 

All the LZs within the Cleveland National Forest are located within the Peninsular Ranges of the 

Southern California Mountains Major Land Resource Area (MLRA), which is an area characterized by 

east-west trending mountains with elevations ranging from 1,000 to 7,900 feet (305 to 2,408 meters). The 

highest peaks in this MLRA are approximately 11,500 feet (3,505 meters). In general, mountains are 

strongly sloping and sharply crested with narrow, alluvium-filled valleys (USDA 2006). The LZs are 

located within the Santa Ana Mountains, a northwest-trending chain that punctuates the boundary 

between Orange and Riverside counties. Notable topographic features in the area of the LZs include 

Santiago Peak (5,689 feet /1,734 meters), Modjeska Peak (5,496 feet/1,675 meters), Bald Peak (3,947 

feet/1,203 meters), Pheasant’s Peak (3,751 feet/1,143 meters), Bedford Peak (3,691 feet/1,125 meters), 

Black Star Canyon, and Silverado Canyon. 

The LZs in the Cleveland National Forest area are typically on relatively small flat areas, often atop a 

ridge with steep topography within line of sight. Elevations at the LZs range from a low of 2,030 feet 

(619 meters) at LZ Site 3 to a high of 4,566 feet (1,392 meters) at LZ Site 10. 

Geology 

The geologic profile of the Southern California Mountains MLRA consists of uplifted and tilted Cenozoic 

Era (65.5 million years old to present) marine sediments, with the eastern portion (in the area of the 

proposed action) consisting of Precambrian (<542 million years old) rocks and Mesozoic Era (251 to 65.5 

million years old) volcanics (USDA 2006). Surface geology in the vicinity of the LZs in the Santa Ana 

Mountains is primarily Upper Jurassic Period (161 to 145 million years old) marine deposits and JurassicTriassic Period (251 to 145 million years old) metavolcanic rocks (Rogers 1965). 

Soils 

Soil types in the area of the LZs1

 are predominantly clay, sandy, or stony loams. Generally, all soils in 

the area of the LZs are deep, well drained, have high erosion potential, rapid runoff, moderate to 

moderately rapid permeability, and are slightly to moderately acidic (USDA 1978). General 

characteristics of the soil series present at the Cleveland National Forest LZs are listed in Table 3.5-1. 

 

1 For the purposes of suitably addressing potential impacts to soils in the areas of the LZs from the actions of aircraft, a 350-foot (107-meter) 

buffer was applied for analysis; thus soil types within this distance of the LZs are addressed, even if they are not at a level slope (which is 

where the LZs themselves would be located). 
3.5 Topography, Geology, and Soils 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.5-2 

Final EA 

Table 3.5-1. Soil Type Characteristics at Landing Zones within 

the Cleveland National Forest 

Soil Type LZ Name Permeability 

Erosion 

Potential 

(bare soil) 

Runoff 

(bare soil) Drainage 

Anaheim clay loam, 15 to 

30 percent slopes; 30 to 50 

percent slopes 

LZ Site 3 Moderately slow High Rapid Well drained 

Friant fine sandy loam, 30 

to 75 percent slopes 

LZ Sites 

5, 8, 9, 9 

Alt 

Moderately rapid High Rapid Well drained 

Friant fine sandy loam, 30 

to 75 percent slopes and 

Escondido very fine sandy 

loam, 15 to 30 percent 

slopes 

LZ Sites 

6, 6 Alt, 

10 

Friantmoderately rapid 

Escondido – 

moderate 

High (both) Rapid 

(both) 

Well drained 

(both) 

Friant fine sandy loam, 30 

to 75 percent slopes and 

Escondido very fine sandy 

loam, 9 to 15 percent 

slopes 

LZ Site 7 Friantmoderately rapid 

Escondido - 

moderate 

Friant - high 

Escondido - 

moderate 

Friant - 

rapid 

Escondido 

– medium 

Well drained 

(both) 

Blasingame stony loam, 30 

to 65 percent slopes 

LZ Site 11 Moderately slow Moderate to high Medium Well drained 

Source: USDA 1978

Anaheim soils are the product of material weathered from soft sandstone or shale; the surface layer is a 

grayish brown clay loam approximately 26 inches (66 centimeters [cm]) thick. Primary vegetation is 

sage, flat-top buckwheat, sumac, and mustard, with an undercover of annual grasses. Blasingame soils 

are derived from materials weathered from metamorphic or granitic rocks and typically have a surface 

layer of brown loam approximately 6 inches (15 cm) thick. Brush is the primary vegetation with some 

areas of scattered oaks and annual grasses. Escondido soils are comprised of materials weathered from 

metamorphic sandstones. The surface layer is a brown fine sandy loam approximately 16 inches (41 cm) 

thick; vegetation is primarily of an oak-grass variety. Friant soils formed in material weathered from 

fine-grained metasedimentary rock and have a surface layer of brown gravelly fine sandy loam 

approximately 17 inches (43 cm) thick. California sagebrush, black sage, flat-top buckwheat, and other 

common brush plants are the dominant vegetation types (USDA 1978). 

3.5.1.2 BLM El Centro Managed Lands 

Topography 

The LZs within BLM El Centro managed lands are located in the Lower Colorado Desert MLRA. 

Landforms in this MLRA primarily consist of mountains, alluvial fans, alluvial fan remnants, and alluvial 

valleys (including active drainages and fluvial terraces), and internally-drained basins (including dry lakes 

and lake terraces). Elevations in this MLRA can range from 275 feet (84 meters) below sea level (in the 

Salton Trough) to 1,650 feet (503 meters) above MSL in low mountain ranges (USDA 2006). Elevations 

at the eastern LZs (those east of the Salton Sea) range from a low of 277 feet (84 meters) at LZ ME3 

Option to a high of 1,952 feet (595 meters) at LZ Pelican. Elevations in the western LZs (Wolf and C1) 

range from 161 feet (49 meters) at LZ Wolf to 232 feet (71 meters) at LZ C1. Notable physiographic 

features in the eastern LZs include the Cargo Muchacho Mountains and Picacho Peak. Notable 

physiographic features in the area of the western LZs include the Coyote and the Fish Creek Mountains. 
3.5 Topography, Geology, and Soils 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.5-3 

Final EA 

Geology 

Much of the Lower Colorado Desert MLRA is underlain by Quaternary Period (2.6 million years old to 

present) alluvial fan deposits, grading from boulder-strewn deposits and coarse desert pavement to finer 

grained sands, silts, and clays that intermix with valley floor alluvial and basin fill. Lower elevations are 

often underlain by silty Pleistocene Epoch (2.6 to 0.011 million years old) playa deposits (USDA 2006). 

Surface geology of the LZs consists of Quaternary alluvium or terrace deposits and Pleistocene 

nonmarine sediments (Strand 1962; Jennings 1967). 

Soils 

Soils in the area of the LZs are predominantly fine sands, or sandy or gravelly loams. Generally, all soils in 

the area of the LZs are deep, have high erosion potential, rapid runoff, moderate to moderately rapid 

permeability, and are slightly to moderately alkaline (USDA 2007). General characteristics of the soil 

associations present at the LZs are listed in Table 3.5-2. In the area of the LZs, more detailed soil 

information is currently not available from the NRCS; soils in such areas are grouped into soil associations, 

which are combinations of two or more soil series with similar characteristics and/or physical properties. 

Table 3.5-2. Soil Association Characteristics at Landing Zones on BLM El Centro Lands 

Soil Association LZ Name Permeability 

Erosion 

Potential 

(bare soil) 

Runoff (bare 

soil) Drainage 

Myoma-CarsitasCarrizo Cupcake, Eider, 

IP1 Option, 

Mallard, ME3 

Option, MW1, 

MW1 Option, 

Sparrow 

Rapid to very 

rapid 

High Slow to very 

slow (except 

during 

torrential rain) 

Somewhat 

excessively 

to 

excessively 

drained 

Rillito-Gunsight Bull, Sparrow Moderate to 

moderately 

rapid 

Slight to 

moderate 

Slow to 

medium 

Somewhat 

excessively 

drained 

Rositas-BeelineBadland1PC3 Moderately 

rapid to rapid 

High Slow to 

moderately 

rapid 

Well to 

somewhat 

excessively 

drained 

Rositas-Orita-CarrizoAco C1, Wolf Moderate to 

rapid 

Moderate to 

high 

Negligible to 

medium 

Well to 

somewhat 

excessively 

drained 

Rock Outcrop1 Pelican - - - - 

Note: 1. Rock Outcrop and Badland are descriptions of surface conditions and not official soil series.

Source: USDA 1977, 1980, 2007, 2011 

Myoma soils formed in wind-blown sand derived from alluvium and are a light olive gray, fine sand to a 

depth of approximately 18 inches (46 cm). Carsitas soils have an olive gray gravelly sand surface layer to 

a depth of approximately 10 inches (25 cm). Carrizo soils formed in mixed alluvium and have a typical 

surface layer of light brown very gravelly sand approximately 3 inches (8 cm) thick. The soil surface is 

covered by roughly seventy percent gravel. Primary vegetation for the Myoma-Carsitas-Carrizo 

Association is creosote bush, white bursage, mesquite, ephemeral grasses, and forbs (USDA 2007). 

Rillito soils are a light brown to light yellowish brown gravelly sandy loam with a surface layer depth of 

approximately 5 inches (13 cm) that originally formed in mixed alluvium. The surface layer can contain 

from 5 to 35 percent gravel. Gunsight soils formed from mixed alluvium and have a surface layer that is 

typically a light brown, very gravelly loam to a depth of approximately 10 inches (25 cm). Dominant 
3.5 Topography, Geology, and Soils 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.5-4 

Final EA 

vegetation for the Rillito-Gunsight Association is creosotebush, desert sage, paloverde, saguaro, 

ironwood, cholla, and triangle bursage (USDA 2007). 

Rositas soils formed in sandy wind-blown material and have a reddish-yellow fine sand surface layer to a 

depth of approximately 9 inches (23 cm). Beeline soils are a light reddish brown, very gravelly sandy loam, 

approximately 7 inches (18 cm) deep. Primary vegetation for the Rillito-Beeline-Badland Association is 

creosotebush, bursage, desert buckwheat, barrel cactus, saguaro, and mesquite (USDA 2007). 

Orita soils are a light brown, gravelly fine sandy loam that formed in alluvium from mixed sources. Aco 

soils are a pinkish gray sandy loam with a surface layer of approximately 18 inches (46 cm). Native 

vegetation for the Rositas-Orita-Carrizo-Aco Association is a sparse cover mainly of creosote bush and 

white bursage. 

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 

3.5.2.1 Alternative 1 

Proposed aircraft operations would have no impacts on topography at any of the LZs. In general, soils at the 

LZs are susceptible to wind erosion. Therefore, a potential impact would result from soil erosion as a result 

of downdraft (and outwash) forces, collectively known as rotor wash, from rotary wing and tilt-rotor aircraft 

during landing, taking off, and hovering immediately above the ground. A further consideration of soil 

erosion is the potential for sediment delivery into nearby waterways (see section 3.6, Water Resources). 

Cleveland National Forest 

The overall number of proposed sorties at the Cleveland National Forest is expected to decrease slightly 

compared to existing conditions (from 452 to 422 annual sorties), while the number of overall landings is 

expected to increase slightly (from 2,132 to 2,205 annual landings). The slight increase in landings may 

result in a slight increase in soil erosion compared to existing conditions, which could result in dust 

generation that could temporarily affect air quality in the immediate vicinity (see section 3.4, Air Quality). 

However, rotor wash-induced soil erosion has a low potential for resulting in sedimentation and associated 

impaired water quality of ephemeral creeks and drainages because existing LZs are on level ground (i.e., 

less susceptible to erosion), and are located in areas generally far removed from perennial surface waters 

(see section 3.6, Water Resources). The USMC would monitor the LZs for indicators of potential soil 

erosion caused by USMC aircraft and would work with the USFS on the appropriate action to take in 

accordance with Forest Service Manual 2520 – Watershed Management, as needed. Therefore, there would 

be no significant erosion-related impacts in the Cleveland National Forest. 

BLM El Centro Managed Lands 

Because the number of proposed sorties and landings on BLM El Centro managed lands is expected to 

increase by over 300 percent under Alternative 1, there would be an increase in total soil erosion 

compared to existing conditions, which could result in dust generation that could temporarily affect air 

quality in the immediate vicinity (see section 3.4, Air Quality). However, as described for the Cleveland 

National Forest, rotor wash-induced soil erosion has a low potential for resulting in sedimentation and 

associated impaired water quality of ephemeral creeks and drainages because existing LZs are on level 

ground (i.e., less susceptible to erosion), and are located in areas generally far removed from perennial 

surface waters (see section 3.6, Water Resources). The USMC would monitor the LZs for indicators of 

potential soil erosion caused by USMC aircraft and would work with BLM on the appropriate action to 

take in accordance with BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2001-030, Supplemental Guidance - Military 

Activities On and Over the Public Lands, as needed. Therefore, there would be no significant erosionrelated impacts on BLM El Centro managed lands. 
3.5 Topography, Geology, and Soils 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.5-5 

Final EA 

Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures 

Because there would be no significant erosion-related impact, no avoidance, minimization, and/or 

mitigation measures for impacts to topography, geology, and soils are required. However, as discussed in 

section 2.2.1.3 (Flight Activity within the Cleveland National Forest), the USMC would work with the 

USFS to identify and implement appropriate dust abatement measures to minimize fugitive dust 

emissions. These measures would also reduce the potential for soil erosion in the Cleveland National 

Forest. 

3.5.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no USMC rotary wing or tilt-rotor operations would occur on public 

lands managed by the Cleveland National Forest and the BLM El Centro Field Office. However, other 

agencies, such as the Sheriff Department, Fire Department, and the U.S. Navy, may still use the LZs. 

Therefore, a minimal amount of soil erosion may continue within the vicinity of the LZs, although likely 

at a lower level than under existing conditions. Depending on how often the LZs are used by other 

agencies, this could be a beneficial impact. 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.6-1 

Final EA 

3.6 Water Resources 

3.6.1 Affected Environment 

This section describes water resources, including surface water, groundwater, and floodplains at the LZs 

within public lands managed by the Cleveland National Forest and the BLM El Centro Field Office. 

Surface water resources include lakes, rivers, and streams and are important for a variety of reasons 

including irrigation, power generation, recreation, flood control, habitat maintenance, and human health. 

Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), applicants for a federal license or permit to conduct 

activities that may result in the discharge of a pollutant into waters of the U.S. must obtain certification 

from the state in which the discharge would originate, or if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution 

control agency with jurisdiction over affected waters at the point where the discharge would originate. 

All projects that have a federal component and may affect state water quality must also comply with 

CWA Section 401. The State of California, by way of the California Environmental Protection Agency, 

has legal authority to implement and enforce the provisions of the CWA, while the USEPA (who sets 

national standards for the quality of wastewater discharges) retains oversight responsibilities. Laws that 

directly affect water resources planning are primarily contained within the California Water Code; 

Division 7 of the Code, referred to as the “Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act”, is directed 

specifically towards the control of water quality. 

Groundwater includes the subsurface hydrologic resources of the physical environment and is often a 

primary source of fresh water for the general population, especially for those in areas of limited 

precipitation, and is commonly used for potable water consumption, agricultural irrigation, and industrial 

applications. The properties of groundwater are often described in terms of depth to aquifer or water 

table, water quality, and surrounding geologic composition. 

Floodplains are defined by EO 11988, Floodplain Management, as “the lowland and relatively flat areas 

adjoining inland and coastal waters including flood-prone areas of offshore islands, including at a 

minimum, the area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year.” Floodplains 

and their associated habitats are biologically unique and highly diverse ecosystems providing a rich 

diversity of aquatic and terrestrial species, as well as promoting stream bank stability and regulating water 

temperatures. EO 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long- and short-term 

adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct or 

indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. 

3.6.1.1 Cleveland National Forest 

The LZs in the Cleveland National Forest are located within the South Coast Hydrologic Region, an area 

covering approximately 10,600 square miles (27,454 square kilometers). This region contains several 

prominent rivers, including the Sespe, Ventura, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana.

There are no waterbodies in the immediate proximity to any of the LZs, due in part to the nature of the 

LZs themselves (flat patches in otherwise mountainous or steep terrain areas). There are, however, 

numerous ephemeral, unnamed streams and washes in the canyons below many of the LZs, which carry 

water primarily after rains from summer thunderstorms. Other waterbodies in the region include Lake 

Matthews, a reservoir located approximately 10 miles (16 km) to the east that provides much of the water 

used by the cities and water districts of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Santiago 

Creek, which drains much of the Santa Ana Mountains, runs to the south of the LZs and feeds into Lake 

Irvine, a 700-acre (283-hectare) reservoir in Orange County. 
3.6 Water Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.6-2 

Final EA 

With the exception of localized perched aquifers within the larger canyons, there are no aquifers in the 

mountainous areas of the Santa Ana Mountains where the LZs are located. Groundwater Basins that can 

be fed by flow from the Santa Ana Mountains include the Upper Santa Ana Valley (Temescal Subbasin), 

the Coastal Plain of Orange County, the San Juan Valley, and Elsinore (California Department of Water 

Resources [CDWR] 2007). 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain maps are not available for the LZs 

located in the Cleveland National Forest; however, based on the varied terrain of the Santa Ana 

Mountains, the distance of the LZs to a substantial waterbody, and the elevation differences between the 

LZs and valley drainages, it is reasonable to conclude that there are no 100-year floodplains located in the 

area of the proposed action. 

3.6.1.2 BLM El Centro Managed Lands 

The lands managed by the BLM El Centro Field Office are located within the Colorado Basin Hydrologic 

Region, an area of approximately 20,000 square miles (51,800 square kilometers), considered to be one of 

California’s most arid regions. However, this region contains approximately 900 miles (1,448 km) of 

streams and rivers and 250,000 acres (101,171 hectares) of lakes. Two waterbodies of significance are 

located in the Colorado Basin Hydrologic Region, the Salton Sea and the Colorado River. The Salton 

Sea, which formed between 1905 and 1907 from an accidental release of Colorado River overflow, is 

approximately 241,000 acres (97,529 hectares) in size. The Salton Sea is California’s largest inland water 

body, and serves as a reservoir for irrigation return water and stormwater from surrounding counties 

(California Water Resources Control Board [CWRCB] 2007). 

Although the eastern LZs (those east of the Salton Sea) do not border directly on any waterbodies, there 

are numerous unnamed ephemeral streams and washes in the vicinity. Many of these drain to the AllAmerican Canal, an 80-mile (129-km) long aqueduct that transports water from the Colorado River, by 

way of the Imperial Dam in Yuma, Arizona, to numerous cities in the Imperial Valley to the west. There 

are also no waterbodies in the vicinity of the western LZs (LZ C1 and LZ Wolf); however, both LZs are 

located in ephemeral washes that drain from the Coyote Mountains to the west. The closest substantial 

body of water is the Salton Sea, approximately 15 miles (24 km) northeast of the LZs. 

The eastern LZs overlie three groundwater basins, the Amos Valley, the Ogilby Valley, and the Yuma 

Valley. Water-bearing material in the Amos Valley is Quaternary and Tertiary alluvium with a maximum 

depth of the valley fill estimated at 550 feet (168 meters). Groundwater quality is marginal to poor for 

domestic use due to elevated concentrations of fluoride, chloride, sulfate, and total dissolved solids 

(TDS). Groundwater in the Ogilby Basin is found in Quaternary age alluvium, which is primarily 

unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Maximum depth is at least 521 feet (159 meters) deep and 

water quality is compromised by the presence of various salts. Water-bearing material within the Yuma 

Valley Basin is alluvium, including unconsolidated Quaternary alluvial deposits and the underlying 

Tertiary alluvial deposits. Maximum depth of the valley fill is at least 200 feet (61 meters). In general, 

groundwater in this basin is marginal for domestic and irrigation uses because of elevated levels of TDS, 

chloride, sulfate, and sodium content (CDWR 2003). 

The western LZs (C1 and Wolf) overlie the Borrego Valley Groundwater Basin, an alluvium-filled valley 

underlain by crystalline bedrock. The valley fill consists of three aquifers: upper, middle, and lower. The 

upper aquifer is comprised of Holocene to Pleistocene age deposits and is 1,000 feet (305 meters) thick at 

the north end of the basin. The middle and lower aquifers are Pleistocene age continental deposits with 

thicknesses of up to 700 feet (213 meters) in the middle aquifer and up to 1,800 feet (549 meters) thick in 

the lower aquifer. Water from the basin can have high TDS and/or nitrate; water samples from some 

wells have high sodium, sulfate, chloride, iron, or boron concentrations (CDWR 2003). 
3.6 Water Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.6-3 

Final EA 

FEMA floodplain maps are not available for all the eastern LZs, but some of the low-lying portions of 

ephemeral washes in the area of the LZs are designated as 100-year floodplains (FEMA 1984). The 

lowest lying areas of the ephemeral washes closest to LZ C1 and LZ Wolf are categorized as 100-year 

floodplains (FEMA 1984). 

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 

3.6.2.1 Alternative 1 

Proposed aircraft operations would have no significant impacts on groundwater resources or floodplains. 

The following analysis addresses potential impacts to surface water. 

Cleveland National Forest 

The overall number of proposed sorties at the Cleveland National Forest is expected to decrease slightly 

compared to existing conditions (from 452 to 422 annual sorties), while the number of overall landings is 

expected to increase slightly (from 2,132 to 2,205 annual landings). As discussed in section 3.5 

(Topography, Geology, and Soils), the slight increase in landings may result in a slight increase in soil 

erosion compared to existing conditions. However, the LZs in the Cleveland National Forest are existing 

LZs (i.e., no new ground disturbance); they are in areas far removed from any perennial surface waters; 

and they are situated on areas with flat surrounding terrain that are not subject to high erosion rates. 

Therefore, it is unlikely that significant water quality impacts associated with erosion-induced 

sedimentation would result from the proposed operations under Alternative 1. Additionally, all proposed 

aircraft operations would adhere to requirements set forth within applicable Federal, state and local 

regulations, including the Forest Service Manual 2520 - Watershed Management. Therefore, there would 

be no significant impact to water resources in the Cleveland National Forest. 

BLM El Centro Managed Lands 

Because the number of proposed sorties and landings on BLM El Centro managed lands is expected to 

increase by over 300 percent under Alternative 1, there would be an increase in total soil erosion 

compared to existing conditions. However, as with the Cleveland National Forest, the LZs on BLM 

managed lands are existing LZs (i.e., no new ground disturbance); they are in areas far removed from any 

perennial surface waters; and they are situated on relatively wide areas of flat terrain that are not subject 

to high erosion rates. Therefore, it is unlikely that significant water quality impacts associated with 

erosion-induced sedimentation would result from the proposed operations under Alternative 1. Low 

rainfall typical of the surrounding desert would also limit sediment transport. Additionally, all proposed 

aircraft operations would adhere to requirements set forth within applicable Federal, state and local 

regulations, including the BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2001-030, Supplemental Guidance - 

Military Activities On and Over the Public Lands. Therefore, there would be no significant impact to 

water resources on BLM El Centro managed lands. 

Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures 

Because there would be no significant impact to water resources, no avoidance, minimization, and/or 

mitigation measures are required. However, as discussed in section 2.2.1.3 (Flight Activity within the 

Cleveland National Forest), the USMC would work with the USFS to identify and implement appropriate 

dust abatement measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions. These measures would also reduce the 

potential for soil erosion and associated impacts to water quality in the Cleveland National Forest. 
3.6 Water Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.6-4 

Final EA 

3.6.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no USMC rotary wing or tilt-rotor operations would occur on public 

lands managed by the Cleveland National Forest and the BLM El Centro Field Office. However, other 

agencies, such as the Sheriff Department, Fire Department, and the U.S. Navy, may still use the LZs. 

Therefore, a minimal amount of soil erosion and associated impacts to water resources may continue 

within the vicinity of the LZs, although likely at a lower level than under existing conditions. Depending 

on how often the LZs are used by other agencies, this could be a beneficial impact.
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.7-1 

Final EA 

3.7 Biological Resources 

This section analyzes the potential effects on biological resources from the proposed rotary wing and tiltrotor activities on public lands managed by the Cleveland National Forest and the BLM El Centro Field 

Office. This section describes plant and wildlife habitats, sensitive species, and jurisdictional lands 

within and in the vicinity of the project area. 

3.7.1 Affected Environment 

The following information is based primarily on the results of botanical and wildlife surveys conducted 

for the proposed action (SAIC 2012a, 2012b, 2012d, 2012e. 2012f), as well as associated background 

research (e.g., review of California Natural Diversity Database [CDNNB] and California Native Plant 

Society [CNPS] Rare Plant Ranking System [RPRS]) and coordination with staff at the USFWS, 

Cleveland National Forest, and the BLM El Centro Field Office. Additionally, this section is consistent 

with the project’s Biological Assessment (USMC 2012a), and various project-specific USFS documents, 

including a Biological Evaluation (USMC 2012b), Management Indicator Species Report (SAIC 2012g), 

Migratory Bird Assessment (SAIC 2012h), and Noxious Weed Risk Assessment (SAIC 2012i). 

3.7.1.1 Cleveland National Forest 

The LZs in the Cleveland National Forest are located in the Santa Ana Mountains. The northwest portion 

of the Santa Ana Mountain range starts in the Chino Hills and extends approximately 35 miles (56 km) to 

the southeast near the Santa Margarita River. The highest summit in the range is Santiago Peak at 5,689 

feet (1,734 meters) above MSL, and forms the Saddleback formation with Modjeska Peak. Cleveland 

National Forest has a Mediterranean climate with warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters. The mean 

annual precipitation in the Santa Ana Mountains is 15 to 30 inches (38 to 76 cm) per year, with most of 

the moisture falling as rain in the winter and occasional light snow on the mountain tops. 

The LZs are located on exposed ridges or plateaus and are typically underlain by disturbed native soils, 

gravel, pavement, or other surfaces. See section 3.5 (Topography, Geology, and Soils) for additional soil 

information. 

Vegetation 

This section summarizes the vegetation communities identified in the vicinity of the Cleveland National 

Forest LZs, with full descriptions presented in the Biological Resources Survey Report of Ten Proposed 

Military Aircraft Landing Zones, U.S. Forest Service Lands, Cleveland National Forest 

(SAIC 2012a). Vegetation in the region is classified as CalVeg Zone 7, with four major categories 

represented in the project area: forested communities, shrub dominated communities, herbaceous 

communities, and non-vegetated cover types. Table 3.7-1 lists the CalVeg Alliances mapped within the 

LZs and buffers and associated acreages. 

In general, the LZs are located within previously disturbed areas that are devoid of vegetation or support 

primarily herbaceous species with limited shrubs (SAIC 2012a). All sites have at least some level of 

disturbance, including occasionally maintained fire breaks, abandoned roads, areas containing paving, and 

routinely disturbed LZs. For those LZs with vegetation, plants are sparsely distributed and vegetation 

communities are typically limited to ruderal species or non-native grassland with a limited occurrence of 

native plants. 
3.7 Biological Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.7-2 

Final EA 

Table 3.7-1. Vegetation Communities in the Vicinity of the Cleveland National Forest LZs 

Code Cover Type Total Acres Total Hectares

Forested Communities

KP Knobcone pine 0.68 0.28

Total 0.68 0.28

Shrub Dominated Communities

CA Chamise alliance 4.80 1.94

CQ Lower montane mixed chaparral 25.69 10.40

CQT Lower montane mixed chaparral transition 13.84 5.60

CS Scrub oak 28.40 11.50

SD Manzanita chaparral 7.62 3.08

SQ Soft scrub-mixed chaparral 12.29 4.97

SQT Soft scrub-mixed chaparral transition 1.64 0.66

SS California sagebrush 9.81 3.97

Total 104.10 42.13

Herbaceous Communities

HG Annual grasses & forbs 3.97 1.61

HM Perennial grasses & forbs 2.44 0.99

Total 6.41 2.60

Non-Vegetated Classes

IB Urban barren soils 3.26 1.32

IBR Urban related barren soil roads 3.37 1.36

UB Urban development 0.18 0.07

Total 6.81 2.75

Overall Total 118.00 47.75

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats 

The plant communities noted above provide habitats of various degrees of quality for wildlife that occur 

in the vicinity of the proposed LZs. Common bird species throughout the project area include spotted 

towhee (Pipilo maculatus), scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), wrentit (Chamaea fasciata), and 

hummingbirds (Family: Trochilidae). Only a few mammals or mammal signs were observed during 

general daytime wildlife surveys, including coyote (Canis latrans) scat (LZ Site 3), which is expected to 

range throughout the national forest. Other common mammals expected in the Cleveland National Forest 

include several species of bats, skunk, bobcat, raccoon, rabbits, and various small rodents. 

Sensitive Species 

Sensitive species include those that are listed, proposed, or candidates for listing as threatened or 

endangered under the federal ESA, species that have similar status under the California ESA, species 

conserved or under management by the USFS, and other species that are of regional concern due to rarity 

and potential vulnerability to extinction. Sensitive habitats include those that support endangered, 

threatened or sensitive species and, therefore, are important to the conservation of these species, as well 

as wetlands and other waters regulated under Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA. 

Management Indicator Species are a select list of species chosen by the USFS because their population or 

habitat trends are believed to indicate the effects of management activities (36 CFR 219.19(a)(1); 36 CFR 

219.14), and are chosen as a focus for monitoring (36 CFR 219.19(a)(6)) (USFS 2005a, 2005b; USDA 

2012). Species considered for designation as Management Indicator Species are assessed using the 

following criteria: 

• Changes in the species' population or habitat should reflect the effects of national forest 

management activities; and 

• Population or habitat trends for the species must be capable of being effectively and efficiently 

monitored and evaluated. 
3.7 Biological Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.7-3 

Final EA 

Management Indicator Species are monitored as indictors of progress toward achieving desired conditions 

for biological resources. Management Indicator Species are not included in the list of sensitive plants or 

animal species that are potentially present in the project area (Tables 3.7-2 and 3.7-3) unless they meet 

one of the other sensitive classifications. 

Plants 

In general, habitat surrounding the LZs supports vegetation types with dense scrub and chaparral species 

that could be suitable for a number of sensitive plant species (Table 3.7-2). Of these, only one federally 

listed plant, thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) (listed as federally threatened and state 

endangered), may occur within the project vicinity near LZ Site 3 based on the known elevational range of 

the species (76 FR 26 6848-6925) and the presence of suitable habitat (see Table 3.7-2). 

Rare plant surveys were conducted in June 2011 within the LZ boundaries and accessible portions of the 

surrounding native plant communities up to 350 feet (107 meters) away (SAIC 2012b). Not all 

surrounding areas were accessible as a result of steep slopes on the edges of several of the LZs. In spring 

(March to May) 2012, additional focused surveys for rare plants, including thread-leaved brodiaea, were 

conducted concurrently with wildlife surveys at LZ Site 3, LZ Site 5, LZ Site 6, LZ Site 6 Alt, LZ Site 7, 

and LZ Site 8 (SAIC 2012f). Rare plant surveys included LZs that contained areas with potentially 

suitable habitats, and methods followed the USFS Threatened and Endangered Plants Habitat Suitability 

and Survey Requirements for Brodiaea filifolia. 

No federal or state-listed plant species were observed at any of the LZs during the 2011 and 2012 surveys. 

However, thread-leaved brodiaea does have the potential to be present within the buffer of LZ Site 3 based 

on the known elevational range of the species and the presence of suitable grassland habitat. Surveys in 

2011 and 2012 did not identify this species as present, but thread-leaved brodiaea spends most of its life 

comprised only of underground parts. Aboveground parts are present for only a few months out of the year, 

typically following substantial spring rains, and may not be present above-ground every year, based on 

conditions. As a result, there is some chance for thread-leaved brodiaea to be present within 350 feet (107 

meters) of LZ Site 3 (the LZ itself does not support suitable habitat). 

Three additional special status plant species were identified during the 2011 and 2012 surveys: Santiago 

Peak phacelia (Phacelia keckii), included in the CNPS Inventory as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B 

(rare and endangered in California and elsewhere), Coulter’s Matilija poppy (Romneya coulteri), CRPR 4 (a 

watch list) and Catalina mariposa lily (Calochortus catalinae) (CRPR 4.2, uncommon and fairly endangered 

in California (SAIC 2012a, 2012f). An individual of Santiago Peak phacelia was found in the surrounding 

area of LZ Site 10. Because only one individual was found, it was not collected and identification was not 

confirmed. However, the plant met the description for this species, and it is reported to occur in the vicinity 

of LZ Site 10 (California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG] 2011a). Coulter’s Matilija poppy was 

observed at several locations throughout the project area, and was sometimes a frequent component of the 

scrub and chaparral plant communities adjacent to LZs. Catalina mariposa lilies were scattered in the 

perennial grassland of LZ Site 3 buffer area. Other special status plant species may occur within the project 

area but were not observed during the 2011 or 2012 surveys (see Table 3.7-2). In addition, Coulter pine 

(Pinus coulteri), a Management Indicator Species, occurs in areas surrounding LZ Site 6 and LZ Site 10 

(SAIC 2012g). Other Management Indicator Species, including Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii), big 

cone douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga macrocarpa), California black oak (Quercus kelloggii) and white fir (Abies 

concolor), are not present within the project area. No plant species found on the LZs and/or buffer areas 

are included in the Federal Noxious Weed List (USDA 2012) or on lists of target species for management 

prepared for southern California national forests (USFS 2005c). 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table 3.7-2. Special Status Plant Species Potentially Present in the Proposed Project Areas, Clevelan

Species 

Status 

Fed/State/CRPR 

Other 

Habitat Blooming period Notes 

Federally Listed 

Allium munzii

Munz’s onion

FE/ST/1B.1/-- Grassy openings in coastal sage scrub, chaparral, 

juniper woodland and valley and foothill grasslands; mesic exposures or seasonally moist microsites, usually grows on sandstone with carbonate layers, soils and moist, heavy clays from 974 to 3,511 feet (297 - 1,070 meters). 

March – May 

Reported 4.6 miles (7.4 from the project area. suitable habitat present project area and specieobserved during 2011 asurveys. 

Astragalus brauntonii 

Braunton's milkvetch

FE/--/1B.1/-- Chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill 

grasslands, recent burns or disturbed areas; usually grows on sandstone with carbonate layers from 13 to 2,100 feet (4 - 640 meters). 

January – August 

Reported 3.8 miles (6.1 from project area. LZs above elevation range ospecies. 

Brodiaea filifolia

Thread-leaved brodiaea

FT/SE/1B.1/-- Chaparral (openings), Cismontane woodland, 

coastal scrub, playas, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools/often clay at elevations ranging from 100 to 2,500 feet (30 - 765 meters). 

March – June 

Reported 5 miles (8 kmthe project area. Has thpotential to occur in nagrasslands adjacent to L3 based on suitable habknown distribution. 

Dudleya cymosa ssp. 

ovatifolia 

Santa Monica dudleya 

FT/--/1B.2/-- Chaparral, coastal scrub; shaded slopes in 

canyons on sedimentary conglomerates, volcanic or other rocky substrates; primarily on northfacing slopes 680 to 1,640 feet (210 – 500 meters). 

March – June 

Perennial herb; reportemiles (5 km) west of L11. Not known to occuproject area; no suitablobserved. 

Non-listed Plants – California Rare Plant Rank (from CNDDB Quad Report) 

Calochortus plummerae 

Plummer's mariposa-lily

--/--/1B.2/FS-S Chaparral, foothill woodland, yellow pine forest, 

coastal sage scrub and valley and foothill grassland; on dry rocky soils below 1,700 feet (518 meters). 

May - July 

Perennial herb (bulbifeseveral occurrences obin project area: about 0(0.8 km) southeast of L5, LZ Site 6 and LZ Sithowever, all LZs are hithan species’ known raSuitable habitat is presbuffer area but no planobserved in or near LZ2011 and 2012 surveys
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table 3.7-2. Special Status Plant Species Potentially Present in the Proposed Project Areas, Clevelan

Species 

Status 

Fed/State/CRPR 

Other 

Habitat Blooming period Notes 

Non-listed Plants – California Rare Plant Rank 1B (from CNDDB Quad Report) (continued) 

Calochortus weedii var. 

intermedius 

Intermediate mariposa lily 

--/--/1B.2/FS-S Chaparral, coastal scrub, and in valley and 

foothill grasslands; on dry, rocky, open slopes, rock outcrops, and calcareous soils from 390 - 2,790 feet (120 - 850 meters). 

May-July Perennial herb (bulbife

several occurrences repproject area: about 0.5 (0.8 km) west from LZ and 9 Alt. Observed in on Bedford Motorway elevation than LZs; all of which are higher thaspecies’ known range. 

Comarostaphylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolia 

Summer holly 

--/--/1B.2/FS-S Chaparral, often in mixed chaparral in California, 

sometimes post-burn; 90 to 1,810 feet (30 - 550 meters). 

May - June 

Shrub; reported more tmiles (8 km) from the parea. All LZs are highespecies known elevatiorange. 

Dudleya multicaulis

Many-stemmed dudleya

-- / -- /1B.2/FS-S Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill 

grassland; on clay soils from 49 to 2,592 feet (15 - 790 meters). Occurrence reported in Black Star Canyon. All but one LZ is higher than species’ known elevation range. 

April - July 

LZ Site 3 is within elevrange and near known occurrence of this specsuitable habitat is preseSite 3, although speciefound during 2011 and surveys. 

Dudleya viscida 

Sticky dudleya 

--/--/1B.2/FS-S Coastal scrub, coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, on 

north and south-facing cliffs and banks; 30 to 1,810 feet (10 - 550 meters). 

May - June 

Perennial herb; reportethan 5 miles (8 km) froproject area. All LZs ahigher than species knoelevational range. 

Hesperocyparis forbesii 

Tecate cypress

--/--/1B.1/FS-S Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral; 

primarily on north-facing slopes, groves often associated with chaparral; 820 to 4,950 feet (250 – 1,500 meters). 

June - October 

Evergreen tree; several occurrences reported in area; 1.6 miles (2.6 kmLZ Site 11 and 1.2 milekm) southeast of LZ SiThis tree species would easily identifiable and found in or near LZs du2011 and 2012 surveys
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table 3.7-2. Special Status Plant Species Potentially Present in the Proposed Project Areas, Clevelan

Species 

Status 

Fed/State/CRPR 

Other 

Habitat Blooming period Notes 

Non-listed Plants – California Rare Plant Rank 1B (from CNDDB Quad Report) (continued)

Horkelia cuneata var. puberula 

Mesa horkelia 

--/--/1B.1/FS-S Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, 

sandy or gravelly sites; 230 to 2,660 feet (70 – 810 meters). 

February - July 

Perennial herb; reportethan 5 miles (8 km) froproject area. Only LZ within elevation range species; suitable habitapresent at LZ Site 3, buspecies not found durinand 2012 surveys. 

Lepechinia cardiophylla 

Santa Ana (heart-leaved) pitchersage 

--/--/1B.2/FS-S Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, 

cismontane woodland; 1,800 to 4,500 feet (550 – 1,370 meters). 

April - July 

Shrub; reported in buffLZ Sites 6 and 6 Alt; amiles (0.3 km) north of Sites 9 and 9 Alt, less tmile (0.2 km) west of L5, and less than 0.5 milkm) to north east of LZ Suitable habitat presenbuffers. 

Lepidium virginicum var. 

robinsonii 

Robinson’s pepper grass 

--/--/1B.2/-- Chaparral, coastal scrub; dry soils, shrubland; 3 

to 3,100 feet (1 – 945 meters). 

January - July 

Annual herb, reported miles (4.7 km) west of 11. Suitable habitat prLZ buffers. 

Monardella hypoleuca ssp. lanata 

Felt-leaved monardella 

--/--/1B.2/FS-S Chaparral, cismontane woodland; occurs in 

understory in mixed chaparral, chamise chaparral, and southern oak woodland; sandy soils; 980 to 5,160 feet (300 – 1,575 meters). 

June - August 

Perennial herb (rhizomreported 1.9 miles (3.1 southwest and 1.2 milekm) northeast of LZ Sand 0.8 miles (1.3 km) southeast of LZ Site 10Suitable soils not preseLZs or buffer areas.
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table 3.7-2. Special Status Plant Species Potentially Present in the Proposed Project Areas, Clevelan

Species 

Status 

Fed/State/CRPR 

Other 

Habitat Blooming period Notes 

Non-listed Plants – California Rare Plant Rank 1B (from CNDDB Quad Report) (continued)

Monardella macrantha ssp. 

hallii 

Hall’s monardella 

--/--/1B.3/FS-S Broad-leaved upland forest, chaparral, lower 

montane coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland; dry slopes and ridges in openings; 2,280 to 7,200 feet (695 – 2,195 meters). 

June - August 

Perennial herb (rhizomreported in project areamile (1.1 km) east of L11, and 0.9 mile (1.5 kmof LZ Site 10. Suitable present in LZ buffers aspecies reported or obsnear several LZ sites.

Nolina cismontane 

Peninsular nolina 

--/--/1B.2/FS-S Chaparral, coastal scrub; primarily on sandstone 

and shale substrates, also gabbro; 460 to 4,190 feet (140 – 1,275 meters). 

May - July 

Perennial evergreen shreported 1.2 miles (1.9 south of LZ Site 3. Susoils not present in LZs buffer areas. 

Phacelia keckii 

Santiago Peak phacelia 

--/--/1B.3/FS-S Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral; open 

areas, sometimes along creeks; 1,780 to 5,250 feet (545 – 1,600 meters). 

May - June 

Annual herb; reported Site 5, also 1.9 miles (3east of LZ Site 11 and miles (2.3 km) southeaSite 10. Observed in barea of LZ Site 10 durisurveys. Suitable habitpresent in LZ buffers aspecies reported or obsnear several LZ sites. 

Satureja chandleri 

San Miguel savory 

--/--/1B.2/FS-S Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, 

riparian woodland, valley and foothill grassland; rocky gabbroic or metavolcanic substrate; 394 to 3,297 feet (120 – 1,005 meters). 

March - July 

Shrub; reported more tmiles (8 km) from the parea. Suitable habitat ipresent in LZ buffers, bspecies not found durinand 2012 surveys. 

Symphyotrichum defoliatum 

San Bernadino aster 

--/--/1B.2/-- Meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps, 

coastal scrub, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, grassland; vernally mesic grassland or near ditches, streams and springs, disturbed areas; 7 to 6,700 feet (2 – 2,040 meters). 

August - November 

Perennial (rhizomatousreported more than 5 mkm) from the project arsuitable habitat present project area. 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table 3.7-2. Special Status Plant Species Potentially Present in the Proposed Project Areas, Clevelan

Species 

Status 

Fed/State/CRPR 

Other 

Habitat Blooming period Notes 

Non-listed Plants – California Rare Plant Rank 1B (from CNDDB Quad Report) (continued)

Tetracoccus dioicus 

Parry’s tetracoccus 

--/--/1B.2/FS-S Chaparral, coastal scrub; stony, decomposed 

gabbro soil; 490 to 3,300 feet (150 – 1,000 meters). 

April - May 

Shrub; reported more tmiles (8 km) from the parea. Species not foun2011 and 2012 surveys

Tortula californica 

California screw moss 

--/--/1B.2/FS-S Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland; 

moss growing on sandy soil; 30 to 4,800 feet (10 – 1,460 meters). 

— Reported more than 5 m

km) from the project arSpecies not found durinand 2012 surveys. 

Other Sensitive Plant Species (from CNDDB report)

Romneya coulteri 

Matilija poppy 

--/--/4.2/-- Chaparral, coastal scrub; 60 to 3,600 feet (20 – 

1,200 meters); often found in burned areas (firefollower). 

March - July 

Perennial (rhizomatousobserved in shrub-domcommunities at many lthroughout the project Suitable habitat in LZ band species reported or observed near several L

Notes: 

Federal Status (determined by United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFS]): 

FE Federally Listed Endangered

 FT Federally Listed Threatened California Rare Plant Rank (California Native Plant Society [CNPS] / California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG]) Threat Ranks:List 1B: Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere. 0.1-Seriously threatened in California List 2: Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. 0.2-Fairly threatened in California 

List 4: Plants of limited distribution (A watch list). 0.3-Not very threatened in California 

FS–S = USFS Region 5 Sensitive Source: CDFG 2011a and CNPS 2012 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table 3.7-3. Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Present in Project Areas, Cleveland Nat

Sensitive Species 

Status 

Fed/State/ 

USFS 

Habitat and Distribution Breeding period Notes 

Mammals 

Dipodomys stephensi 

Stephen’s kangaroo rat 

FE/ST/ FS-S 

Known from 16 localities in and around San Jacinto Valley from Riverside south to vicinity of Vista, San Diego County. Habitat occurs below 2,000 feet (610 meters) in flat or gently rolling, often degraded grasslands but may also occur in coastal scrub or sagebrush with sparse canopy cover. 

Winter, coinciding with beginning of rains. Usually 1 March - 31 July.

No suitable habitat range not present iproject LZs. 

Perognathus longimembris brevinasus 

Los Angeles pocket mouse 

--/CASC/ FS-S 

Occurs sparingly in grassland, alluvial sage scrub, and coastal sage scrub of the coastal basins of southern California, historically from Burbank and San Fernando on the northwest to San Bernardino on the northeast to Cabazon, Hemet, and Aguanga on the east and southeast. The recorded elevational range is from 548 feet (167 meters) at Burbank to 2,651 feet (808 meters) at Oak Grove. 

Young are born in burrow nests, usually in late spring through early fall. 

Hibernates in the wgenerally from OctFebruary. Range ientirely outside NaForest System land

Birds 

Coccyzus americanus occidentalis

Western yellowbilled cuckoo 

FC/SE/FS-S Less than 40 pairs known in the state in open 

woodland with clearings and thick, scrubby undergrowth along watercourses. In California, large tracts (in excess of 49 acres [20 hectares]) of deciduous riparian woodland are preferred and bird is generally absent from heavily-forested and urban areas. 

Peak is mid-July to early August. Well-concealed nest in tangled willow habitat placed in dense foliage from 5 to 40 feet (2-12 meters) off the ground and close to water. 

Areas of tall cottonstands are utilized foraging. 

Empidonax traillii extimus 

Southwestern willow flycatcher 

FE-CH/SE/ FS-S 

Nests only in dense riparian vegetation associated with streams, rivers, lakes, springs, and other watercourses and wetlands. In California, this bird breeds from near sea level on the Santa Margarita River to 2,640 feet (805 meters) at the South Fork Kern River and 3,000 feet (914 meters) at upper San Luis Rey River. 

Arrives in the breeding grounds between early May and early June. Successful breeders depart from breeding territories as early as mid-August, and fledglings probably leave the breeding area a week or two after adults, but few details are known. 

Right on edge of sprange; the non-listebrewsteri may also 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table 3.7-3. Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Present in Project Areas, Cleveland Nat

Sensitive Species 

Status 

Fed/State/ 

USFS 

Habitat and Distribution Breeding period Notes 

Birds (continued) 

Polioptila californica californica 

Coastal California gnatcatcher 

FT-CH/ CASC/FS-S 

A variety of arid scrub, primarily coastal sage, habitats that are more open. Mostly absent from coastal areas dominated by black sage, white sage, or lemonadeberry. Occurs in northwest Baja California, Mexico to Ventura County. Limited to lower elevations (<2,000 feet [<600 meters]) south and west of Transverse and Peninsular Ranges with highest densities occurring in coastal areas of Orange and San Diego counties. 

15 February – 31 August. Nest placement typically in areas with less than 40 percent slope gradient, often using gullies and drainages. 

CDFG (2011a) notuncommon, obligaof arid coastal scruabout 1,500 feet (5In general this specnumerous near the scrub–grassland inwhere sage scrub gchaparral. LZ Site at or above the uppthe species. No coaCalifornia gnatcatcobserved during thprotocol surveys (S2012d). Because shabitat occurs in ththere is potential foCalifornia gnatcatcoccupy adjacent artravel through LZ 

Vireo bellii pusillus 

Least Bell’s vireo 

FE-CH/SE/ FS-S 

Riparian woodlands, scrub, and thickets, including in coastal southern California. 

15 March – 31 August, prefers to nest in a dense shrub layer between 2 to 10 feet (0.6 and 3 meters) from the ground. 

No suitable habitat or near project LZs

Amphibians 

Anaxyrus californicus 

Arroyo toad 

FECH/CASC/ FS-S 

Ranges west of the desert in coastal area washes, arroyos, sandy riverbanks, riparian areas with willows, sycamores, oaks, cottonwoods. Extremely specialized habitat needs, including exposed sandy streamsides with stable terraces for overwinter and 

forage sites. Streams not necessarily perennial but occur from sea level to 4,400 feet (1,341 meters). 

Mating and egg-laying takes place from March to July at the quiet margins of shallow streams or pools free of predatory fishes with sandy or gravel bottoms without silt. 

LZs are on ridgelinpeaks. Arroyo toagradient riverine anfloodplain habitats 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table 3.7-3. Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Present in Project Areas, Cleveland Nat

Sensitive Species 

Status 

Fed/State/ 

USFS 

Habitat and Distribution Breeding period Notes 

Amphibians (continued) 

Rana draytoni

California redlegged frog 

FTCH/CASC/ FS-S 

Inhabits quiet pools of streams, marshes, and occasionally ponds along the Coast Ranges from Mendocino County south and in portions of the Sierra Nevada and Cascades ranges, usually below 3,936 feet (1,200 meters). 

Breeds January to July (peak in February) in the south. Eggs are deposited in permanent pools attached to emergent vegetation and in contact with the water’s surface. 

— 

Ranu muscosa

Sierra Madre (mountain) yellow-legged frog 

FE-CH/--/-- In southern California, isolated populations exist in 

the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains from 1,200 feet to 7,500 feet (370 - 2,290 meters). Populations are restricted to streams in ponderosa pine, montane hardwood-conifer, and montane riparian habitats. 

Breeding takes place from March to May. Eggs are usually laid in shallow water attached to gravel or rocks. 

— 

Invertebrates 

Euphydryas editha quino

Quino checkerspot butterfly 

FE-CH/--/-- Topographically diverse landscapes that contain low 

to moderate levels of nonnative vegetation, including coastal sage scrub, open chaparral, juniper woodlands, forbs, and native grasslands. 

Adults emerge early to late spring, mate, lay eggs. Eggs hatch in about 10 days and larva then feed on annuals Plantago erecta or Castilleja exserta. 

Host plants do not survey area. No Qucheckerspot butterdocumented during focused surveys (S2012e). However, habitat and alternaplants Rigid bird’s (Cordylanthus rigi

present. 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table 3.7-3. Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Present in Project Areas, Cleveland Nat

Sensitive Species 

Status 

Fed/State/ 

USFS 

Habitat and Distribution Breeding period Notes 

Invertebrates (continued) 

Pyrgus ruralis lagunae 

Laguna Mountains skipper 

FE/--/-- Occupies montane meadow habitats in a very 

restricted range within San Diego County, in the Laguna and Palomar mountains. 

Two adult flight seasons each year during which the butterflies mate, one in mid-spring and a second in late summer. 

Decreasing abundalarval host and necCleveland's horkel(Horkelia clevelanis restricted to monmeadows, has affeabundance. Host pnot occur in Santa Mountains. 

Notes: 

Federal State USFS FE = Listed under ESA as endangered ST = Listed as threatened in California FS–S = USFS FT = Listed under ESA as threatened SE = Listed as endangered in California FC = Candidate for federal listing CFP = California fully protected CH = USFWS-designated critical habitat occurs in the county CASC = California species of special concern 

Source: CDFG 2011b, CalFish 2011, NatureServe Explorer 2011, and CalHerps 2011 
3.7 Biological Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.7-13 

Final EA 

Wildlife 

A list of target sensitive wildlife species of concern that may occur within the project area is presented in 

Table 3.7-3. Wildlife habitat surveys conducted for the proposed action focused on the potential for 

suitable habitat to exist within or in the vicinity of the LZs (SAIC 2012b). Additional USFWS protocol 

level surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) and Quino checkerspot 

butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) were conducted in spring 2012, as described below. 

The LZs provide only marginally suitable habitat for most wildlife species because they are usually 

exposed to, disturbed from and/or developed for prior training use. Native plant communities that 

typically surround the LZs would provide much higher quality habitats than the LZs themselves, and 

species that could occur within the LZs would likely be migrating between adjacent higher quality 

habitats for short periods of time. As a result, very few special status or sensitive animal species have the 

potential to occur in the LZs due to lack of suitable habitat and/or, for many species, LZs being outside of 

known ranges. 

Two federally listed species have potentially suitable habitat in the project area: coastal California 

gnatcatcher (listed as federally threatened) and Quino checkerspot butterfly (listed as federally 

endangered). The buffer area adjacent to LZ Site 3 supports coastal sage scrub habitat and is at the upper 

limits of the known elevation range for coastal California gnatcatcher. As a result, USFWS protocol level 

surveys were conducted between April and May 2012, and followed Coastal California Gnatcatcher 

(Polioptila californica californica) Presence/ Absence Survey Guidelines February 28, 1997. No coastal 

California gnatcatchers were observed during the protocol survey (SAIC 2012d). Therefore, considering 

habitat type, known occurrences, lack of presence during breeding season, and the slopes and elevations 

present in the project area, coastal California gnatcatchers are not expected to occur in or near the proposed 

LZs; however, because they occupy adjacent areas, they may travel through LZ Site 3. 

In addition, buffers associated with LZ Site 3, LZ Site 5, LZ Site 6, LZ Site 6 Alt, LZ Site 7 and LZ Site 8 

contain potential suitable habitat for Quino checkerspot butterfly, and the LZs occur within the USFWS 

Quino Checkerspot Buttefly Survey Area (USFWS 2005). This species is historically known to occur in 

Orange County and portions of western Riverside County near the Santa Ana Mountains. Quino 

checkerspot butterflies generally occur in open vegetated habitats that contain the larval host plant, 

California plantain (Plantago erecta). In recent years, these butterflies have been documented in 

chaparral, where larvae use previously unknown host plant species, including Coulter’s snapdragon 

(Antirrhinum coulterianum), Chinese houses (Collinsia concolor), and stiffbranch bird’s beak 

(Cordylanthus rigidus). Also, “hill-topping”, where male butterflies await the arrival of unmated females 

to secure mates, is common in many species of butterfly. Quino checkerspot butterfly protocol surveys 

were conducted at LZ Site 3, LZ Site 5, LZ Site 6, LZ Site 6 Alt, LZ Site 7 and LZ Site 8 between March 

and April 2012, and followed the USFWS Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) Survey 

Protocol Information, February 2002. No Quino checkerspot butterflies were documented during the 

2012 focused surveys (SAIC 2012e). Therefore, considering known occurrences, the history of Quino 

checkerspot butterflies being absent from the area, and lack of presence during protocol surveys, Quino 

checkerspot butterflies are not expected to occur in or near the proposed LZs; however, the LZs represent 

potential hilltopping venues and the presence of alternative host plants provide potential suitable habitat. 

The California Species of Special Concern Coast Range newt (Taricha torosa torosa) also has potential to 

spend non-breeding time in chaparral or grasslands within the project area. This newt migrates up to 2 

miles (3 km) to water to breed, and no newts were observed during surveys. In addition, the western red 

bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), also a California Species of Special Concern, has the potential to forage in the 

project area, but no bats or suitable roosting sites were observed during surveys. 
3.7 Biological Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.7-14 

Final EA 

The California Watch List species Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) is expected in the project vicinity 

and was observed flying near LZ Site 9 during 2011 surveys. Other raptors including the golden eagle 

(Aquila chrysaetos), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrines ssp. anatum), and prairie falcon (Falco 

mexicanus) are identified as “species of concern” in the Cleveland National Forest Land Management 

Plan (USFS 2005a) and require protection of known active and inactive raptor nesting areas. Data 

provided by the Cleveland National Forest (personal communication, Winters 2012) shows that no known 

raptor nests are located within a 0.5 mile (0.8 km) radius buffer for any of the LZs. The nearest known 

raptor nest is located approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 km) from LZ Site 3. The remaining known raptor nest 

locations are greater than 2 miles (3.2 km) from any LZ. Golden eagles, peregrine falcons and prairie 

falcons may forage in the project area but none of these raptor species were observed during 2011 or 2012 

surveys. 

USFS-sensitive species such as the California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), coastal rosy boa 

(Lichanura trivirgata roseofusca), and San Diego mountain kingsnake (Lampropeltis zonata pulchra) 

have some potential to occur in the project vicinity, but most have a need for access to water, which was 

not present at or near any of the LZs. Sensitive bat species may also use the project area for foraging but 

suitable roost sites were not observed at or near the LZs. Another USFS-sensitive species, the coast 

horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), occurs in a wide variety of open and chaparral habitats that most 

of the LZs provide. This species was observed near LZ Site 6 Alt and LZ Site 7 during 2012 surveys. 

Management Indicator Species identified for the Cleveland National Forest that occur in the project area 

include mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), mountain lion (Puma concolor), arroyo toad (Anaxyrus [Bufo] 

californicus) and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) (USFS 2012c; SAIC 2012g). Indicators (primarily 

scat and tracks) of mule deer were seen on several LZs, consistent with likely browsing by this species 

throughout the project area. The native areas around the LZs also likely support several prey species for 

mountain lions, and some good habitat for song sparrows. Suitable arroyo toad habitat may occur below 

the LZs, but not within the LZ or buffer areas. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Lands or Otherwise Sensitive Environments 

There are no wetlands or other waters of the U.S. on or in the immediate vicinity of the LZs at the 

Cleveland National Forest; most of the LZs occur on ridgelines or peaks surrounded by moderate to steep 

grades. 

3.7.1.2 BLM El Centro Managed Lands 

The project area encompasses regions in the Colorado and Yuha Deserts that occur at low elevations and are 

surrounded by higher mountain peaks, thus blocking the moist coastal air and rains, and resulting in very 

hot, arid climatic conditions (CDFG 2007). The LZs are located primarily northwest of Yuma, Arizona and 

east of El Centro, California just west of the Colorado River. The topography is characterized by steep, 

rocky ridges separating broad flat desert valleys. Ravines gradually broaden into sandy washes. Slopes and 

plains are mostly devoid of vegetation and are instead covered with a desert pavement of angular cobbles. 

The climate is arid with hot, dry summers and cool, slightly moist winters. The mean annual precipitation is 

3 to 6 inches (76 to 152 mm), with most of the moisture occurring as rain in the winter along with occasional 

summer thunderstorms (Natural Resource Conservation Science [NRCS] 2010). Runoff is mainly generated 

from rain falling on rock outcrops in the mountains, which then flows into ravines that drain into the sandy 

washes. On the slopes and plains where soil material has accumulated, runoff from rainfall events is low to 

negligible with most rainfall infiltrating into the highly permeable soils (NRCS 2010). 
3.7 Biological Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.7-15 

Final EA 

Vegetation 

This portion of the Sonoran Desert is fairly low in elevation, compared with other subdivisions of the 

region, extending from about 4,000 feet (1,219 meters) in elevation to below sea level in some valleys. 

The geography is mostly broad flat valleys with scattered mountains of barren rock. The valleys are 

dominated by low shrubs, primarily creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) and white bursage (Ambrosia 

dumosa), two of the most drought-tolerant plants in North America. In the driest areas of this subdivision 

even these species become restricted to drainage courses, with trees, such as ironwood (Olneya tesota) 

and blue palo verde (Cercidium floridum), found only in the larger washes. The mountains support a 

variety of shrubs and cacti, but the density is typically very sparse. Annual species comprise more than 

half the flora, especially on the driest sites. These annual species are mostly winter-growing and appear 

in numbers only when conditions are favorable (Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum 2011; Pavlik 2008). 

The vegetation within the LZ survey areas is consistent with that described above for the Sonoran Desert. 

Vegetation categories identified at the LZs follow A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 

2009). Primary vegetation categories include the following (SAIC 2012b): 

• Creosote Bush Shrubland Alliance – creosote bush is the dominant shrub with bursage and 

brittlebush absent or present in very low cover. 

• Creosote Bush–White Bursage Shrubland Alliance – creosote bush and bursage are co-dominant 

with other shrubs not exceeding the cover of these two species. White bursage may be present in 

greater cover than creosote bush. 

• Blue Palo Verde–Ironwood Woodland Alliance – blue palo verde and ironwood are co-dominant, 

or either species is dominant, in the large shrub or tree canopy. The tree canopy may be open to 

continuous, the shrub layer may be intermittent or open, and the herbaceous layer sparse or with 

seasonal annuals. 

The LZs are typically covered only by desert pavement supporting little to no vegetation. In some LZs, 

scattered annual species such as desert sunflower (Geraea canescens), plantain (Plantago ovata), and 

species of pincushion (Chaenactis spp.) were found in small openings or cracks in the desert pavement 

where moisture likely collects. Shrubs, such as creosote bush and bursage, were mostly found in association 

with the shallow washes that cross the pavement and drained into larger washes. Creosote bush was most 

often the dominant shrub with bursage a common co-dominant. Brittlebush (Encelia farinosa) and ocotillo 

(Fouquieria splendens) were also frequently common in the shrub layer. Other shrubs, including purple 

heather (Krameria erecta) and fagonia (Fagonia laevis), were present at all of the surveyed areas, although 

sometimes in small numbers. Cacti were also infrequent to common at the LZs. The most common species 

were beavertail (Opuntia basilaris) and slender cholla (Opuntia echinocarpa). Teddy bear cholla 

(Cylindropuntia bigelovii), nipple cactus (Mammillaria tetrancistra), California barrel cactus (Ferocactus 

cylindraceus var. cylindraceus), and others were less commonly observed, although occurrence could be 

frequent to abundant at some of the surveyed areas, especially in the rockier areas. 

Large trees including ironwood and blue palo verde were only found in the larger, broad washes that were 

usually outside the LZ boundaries and at the outer limits of the survey area. Wolf berry (Lycium 

andersonii), narrowleaf silverbush (Ditaxis lanceolata) and desert lavender (Hyptis emoryi) were 

common associates in the broader, more defined desert washes in the survey area. No aquatic or wetland 

habitats were observed at any of the LZs. Dense riparian habitat dominated by non-native tamarisk 

(Tamarix sp.) was observed in one survey area, near LZ ME3 Option. 
3.7 Biological Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.7-16 

Final EA 

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats 

Mammals that occur in desert regions tend to be nocturnal (night active) or crepuscular (active during 

dawn and dusk hours) to avoid the heat of the day. Common mammals that occupy the more undisturbed 

portions of the project region include two jackrabbit species. The black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus 

californicus) lives in valleys and flat, open country of the four U.S. southwestern deserts, and the antelope 

jackrabbit (L. alleni) occurs in the Sonoran and Chihuahuan deserts. A common rodent is the kangaroo 

rat, with two species found in this region, Merriam’s (Dipodomys merriami) and desert kangaroo rat (D. 

deserti). Mule deer occupy a wide range across the western U.S. and utilize riparian areas and arroyos 

where woody browse can be found and cover is present. Coyotes are wide-ranging and feed on mice, 

rabbits, ground squirrels, other small rodents, insects, reptiles, and fruits and berries in the desert in 

addition to foraging around human habitations. Signs of wild burro (Equus asinus) were prevalent in the 

project area. The desert is home to a wide variety of reptiles, with common species including rattlesnakes 

(Crotalus spp.) and lizards such as western whiptails (Cnemidophorus tigris) and the side-blotched lizard 

(Uta stansburiana), both observed in the LZs.

A variety of birds have adapted to Sonoran Desert life including raptors (birds of prey) and songbirds. 

Common birds in the project vicinity included turkey vultures (Cathartes aura), hummingbirds, blackthroated sparrow (Amphispiza bilineata), rock wren (Salpinctes obsoletus), woodpeckers (Family: Picidae), 

including flickers and sapsuckers, and upland species such as Gambel’s quail (Callipepla gambelii). 

Sensitive Species 

Sensitive species include those that are listed, proposed, or candidates for listing as threatened or 

endangered under the federal ESA, species that have similar status under the California ESA, species 

conserved or under management by the BLM, and other species that are of regional concern due to rarity 

and potential vulnerability to extinction. Sensitive habitats include those that support endangered, 

threatened or sensitive species and, therefore, are important to the conservation of these species, as well 

as wetlands and other waters regulated under Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA. 

Plants 

Several sensitive plants species were the subject of focused surveys based on the potential for occurrence on 

or in the vicinity of the LZs (Table 3.7-4). The areas surrounding the LZs generally supported sparse desert 

vegetation types that are suitable habitats for a number of sensitive species. Other species were considered 

low likelihood based on the lack of suitable habitat. Complete rare plant surveys were conducted within the 

LZ boundaries and portions of the surrounding native plant communities up to 350 feet (107 meters) away 

over three visits in 2010 and 2011 (SAIC 2012b). No federal or state-listed plant species and no federal or 

state-listed special status or BLM Sensitive plant species were found at any of the LZs. Pink fairy duster 

(Calliandra eriophylla), CRPR List 2 (rare in California but more common elsewhere), was common to 

dominant in the washes near LZs Cupcake, IP1 Option, and Mallard. This species was not found within the 

LZs, which are located on desert pavement and bordered by the desert washes. 

Also, two individuals of suspected Yuma silverbush (Ditaxis serrata var. californica), CRPR 3 (a review 

list; plants for which more information is needed) were found just inside the boundary of LZ PC3. Both 

individuals were a prostrate form of Ditaxis and further investigation determined specimens had more 

features consistent with this sensitive species, although they did not fit all characteristics. Many 

individuals of narrowleaf silverbush (Ditaxis lanceolata; specimens collected and identification 

confirmed), a woody, upright form of Ditaxis, were at the edges of the large wash. It is possible the 

prostrate form may be a hybrid. 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table 3.7-4. Special Status Plant Species Potentially Present in the Proposed Project Areas, BL

Species 

Status 

Fed/State/CRPR/ 

Other 

Habitat Blooming period 

Federally and California State-listed and BLM (El Centro Region) Sensitive Plant Species 

Astragalus magdalenae var.peirsonii 

Peirson’s milk vetch 

FE/ST/1B.2/ 

BLM-S 

Perennial herb; desert dunes; -180 to 660 feet (-55 – 200 meters). 

December - April 

Only known occurrAlgodones Dunes, Quad Clyde). No sof LZs. 

Croton wigginsii 

Wiggins’ croton 

--/SR/2.2/ 

BLM-S 

Perennial shrub; dunes, Sonoran desert scrub; 165 to 330 feet (50 – 100 meters). 

March - May Species is reported 

east of LZ Sparrow Species not expecte

habitat may be pres

Fremontodendron mexicanum 

Mexican flannel bush 

FE/--/1B.3/ 

BLM-S 

Evergreen shrub; dry canyons, chaparral and southern oak woodlands; 1,500 feet (450 meters). 

March - June Species not reporte

suitable habitat ma

Helianthus niveus ssp. tephrodes

Algodones Dunes sunflower 

FSC/SE/1B.2/ 

BLM-S 

Perennial herb; desert dunes; 165 to 330 feet (50 – 100 meters). 

September - May 

Species is reported east of LZ Sparrow suitable habitat in t

Lupinus excubitus var. medius 

Mountain Springs lupine 

--/--/1B.3/ 

BLM-S 

Perennial, sub-shrub; desert washes, creosote bush scrub; 1,390 to 4,200 feet (425 – 1,370 meters). 

March - May Species not reporte

suitable habitat ma

Dieteria asteroides var lagunensis 

Laguna Mountains aster 

--/--/1B.3/ 

BLM-S 

Perennial herb; dry slopes, yellow pine forest, cismontane woodland and lower montane coniferous forest; 2,600 to 7,000 feet (780 – 2,200 meters). 

July - August Species not reporte

Suitable habitat unlrange of species. 

Cylindropuntia munzii 

Munz cholla 

--/--/1B/ 

BLM-S 

Perennial stem succulent, shrub to 

tree-like; sandy or gravely areas in Sonoran Desert Scrub; 500 to 2,000 feet (30 - 885 meters). 

May - Reproduction is vegetative; identifiable all year. 

Species not reporteknown occurrences Chocolate Mountai

Palafoxia arida var. gigantea

Giant Spanish needle 

--/--/1B.3/ 

BLM-S 

Annual to perennial herb; desert dunes; 50 to 330 feet (15 – 100 meters). 

February - May 

Species is reported east of LZ Sparrow Suitable habitat not 

Pholisma sonorae 

Sandfood 

--/--/1B.3/ 

BLM-S 

Perennial herb, parasitic; desert dunes; 0 to 660 feet (0 – 200 meters). 

April - June Species is reported 

east of LZ Sparrow Suitable habitat not 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table 3.7-4. Special Status Plant Species Potentially Present in the Proposed Project Areas, BL

Species 

Status 

Fed/State/CRPR/ 

Other 

Habitat Blooming period 

Other California Rare Plant Rank 

Abronia villosa var. aurita 

Chaparral sand verbena 

--/--/1B.1/-- Annual herb; chaparral, coastal scrub, 

and desert dunes; 260 to 5,300 feet (75 – 1,610 meters). 

January -September 

Species not reportealthough is reported Quad Plaster City) present; not found d

Calliandra eriophylla 

Pink fairy-duster 

--/--/2.3/-- Perennial deciduous shrub; Sonoran 

desert scrub, sandy or rocky soils; 400 to 5,000 feet (120 – 1,500 meters). 

January - March 

Species found near and Mallard, also obetween LZs in dry also reported to occnot found during su

Chylismia arenaria 

Sand evening-primrose 

--/--/2.2/-- Annual/perennial herb; Sonoran 

desert scrub, rocky soils; -230 to 3,020 feet (-70 – 915 meters). 

November - May 

Species reported neOption and Pelican Peak, and Quartz Psurveys. 

Carnegiea gigantea 

Saguaro 

--/--/2.2/-- Perennial stem succulent; Sonoran 

desert scrub; 165 to 500 feet (50 – 150 meters). 

May - June Species reported ne

ME3 Option, MW1Quads: Bard and Pduring surveys. 

Colubrina californica 

Las Animas colubrina 

--/--/2.3/-- Perennial deciduous shrub; Mojavean 

desert scrub, Sonoran desert scrub; 30 to 3,300 feet (10 – 1,000 meters). 

September - November (April-May) 

Species reported neOption and Pelican Peak, Quartz Peak)

Ditaxis claryana 

Glandular ditaxsis 

--/--/2.2/-- Perennial herb; Mojavean desert 

scrub, Sonoran desert scrub; 0 to 1,540 feet (0 - 465 meters). 

October - March 

Species reported neOption and Pelican not found during su

Ditaxis serrata var. californica 

Yuma silverbush or California ditaxsis 

--/--/3.2/-- Perennial herb; Sonoran desert scrub; 

0 to 1,540 feet (0 - 465 meters). 

March - December 

Species (or hybrid) reported near any o

Koeberlinia spinosa spp. tenuispina

 Slender-spined allthorn 

--/--/2.2/-- Perennial deciduous shrub, riparian 

woodland, Sonoran desert scrub; 492 to 1,673 feet (150 – 510 meters). 

May - July Species reported ne

Picacho Peak); not 

Malperia tenuis 

Brown turbans 

--/--/2.2/-- Annual herb; Sonoran desert scrub, 

sandy soils; 495 to 1,690 feet (15 – 335 meters). 

March - April Species reported ne

Plaster City NW); n
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table 3.7-4. Special Status Plant Species Potentially Present in the Proposed Project Areas, BL

Species 

Status 

Fed/State/CRPR/ 

Other 

Habitat Blooming period 

Other California Rare Plant Rank (continued) 

Nemacaulis denudata var. gracilis

Slender cottonheads 

--/--/2.2/-- Annual herb; coastal dunes, desert 

dunes, Sonoran desert scrub; -165 to 1,320 feet (-50 – 400 meters). 

(March) April - May 

Species is reported east of LZ Sparrow not expected in LZsmay be present; not 

Notes: 

Federal Status (determined by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service):FE Federally Listed Endangered FT Federally Listed Threatened FP Federally Proposed for Listing FC Federal Candidate for listing as threatened or endangered. 

California State Status (determined by California Department of Fish 

SE California State Listed Endangered ST California State Listed Threatened SR California State Listed Rare 

California Rare Plant Rank (California Native Plant Society [CNPS] / California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG]) Threat Ranks:

List 1B: Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere. 0.1-Seriously threatened in California List 2: Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. 0.2-Fairly threatened in California 

List 4: Plants of limited distribution (A watch list). 0.3-Not very threatened in California 

BLM-S: Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Sensitive 

Source: CDFG 2010a; CNPS 2010; BLM 2008
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table 3.7-5. Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Present in Project Areas, BLM El Centro 

Sensitive Species 

Status 

Fed/ State (CA or 

AZ)/ BLM 

Habitat Breeding period 

Mammals 

Ovis canadensis nelsoni (O.c. cremnobates) 

Nelson’s (or desert) bighorn sheep, the Distinct Population Segment (DPS) known as penninsular bighorn sheep 

FE-CH/ST/BLMS, EC Mountains, canyons, and upper alluvial fans on east facing slopes (typically below 

4,593 feet [1,400 meters]) of the Peninsular Ranges, extending southward into Baja California, Mexico. 

The rut occurs in late-summer to fall. Lambs are born after a six month gestation. 

C2C

Eumops perotis californicus 

Western mastiff bat

-/-/CASC/BLM-S, 

EC 

Small colonies seek diurnal refuge in rocks crevices that form vertical cliffs with roost entrances typically horizontally oriented, that have moderately large openings, and face downward so they can be entered from below. 

Mating occurs in early spring, parturition from June to early July; males and females remain together throughout the year. 

Teha

Plecotus townsendii 

(Pale) Townsend's western big-eared bat 

-/-/CASC/BLM-S, 

EC 

A variety of grassland/shrub and forested environments from sea level to 10,000 feet (3,048 meters); rock shelters, caves, and/or abandoned mines for roosts. 

Mating occurs in winter; births occur from May through June, with young able to fly 3 weeks after birth. 

Justsca

Antrozous pallidus 

Pallid bat 

-/-/CASC/BLM-S, 

EC 

Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands & forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Roosts must protect bats from high temperatures. Very sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites. 

Mating occurs in fall, gestation begins in spring, and females give birth early each summer within a maternal colony deep in a canyon crevice. Maternal colonies can include up to 200 females and young. The young fledge at about six weeks of age. 

— 

Myotis ciliolabrum 

Western small-footed myotis 

-/-/BLM-S, EC, Y Grassland, rivers; roost in caves, mines, 

rock crevices, abandoned birds' nests, under tree bark, and in buildings. In the winter months, hibernates in rock crevices inside caves and abandoned mines. 

Mating occurs in fall, young are born May through July. 

— 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table 3.7-5. Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Present in Project Areas, BLM El Centro 

Sensitive Species 

Status 

Fed/ State (CA or 

AZ)/ BLM 

Habitat Breeding period 

Mammals (continued) 

Myotis evotis 

Long-eared myotis 

-/-/BLM-S, EC This bat roosts in buildings, crevices, 

spaces under bark, and snags. Caves are used primarily as night roosts. It roosts singly, or is found in fairly small groups. Feeds along habitat edges, in open habitats, and over water. 

Mating probably occurs in the fall. The young are born from May through July, with a peak in June. 

Fwthhth

Myotis velifer 

Cave myotis 

-/-/CASC/ 

BLM-S, EC, Y 

A colonial cave-dweller, this bat occurs in colonies of several thousand individuals in most of its range. Mines and buildings also may be used. Hibernation caves have high humidity, often with standing or running water and little air movement. Feeds along riparian vegetation, over water, between patches of riparian vegetation, and to a lesser extent over open areas. 

Breeds in fall and winter; young are born in June and July. 

— 

Myotis yumanensis 

Yuma myotis 

-/-/BLM-S, EC Optimal habitats are open forests and 

woodlands with sources of water over which to feed. Distribution is closely tied to bodies of water. Maternity colonies in caves, mines, buildings or crevices that maintain high temperatures. 

Births occur from May to early July, and usually only one young is born to each female. 

— 

Macrotus californicus 

California leaf-nosed bat 

-/-/CASC/AZSC/ 

BLM-S, EC 

Desert scrub, mines; spend days roosting in caves and abandoned mines or buildings (stay through the winter). 

Mating occurs in autumn months; young are born in May or June. 

N
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table 3.7-5. Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Present in Project Areas, BLM El Centro 

Sensitive Species 

Status 

Fed/ State (CA or 

AZ)/ BLM 

Habitat Breeding period 

Birds 

Coccyzus americanus occidentalis

Western yellow-billed cuckoo 

FC/SE Open woodland with clearings and thick, 

scrubby under-growth along watercourses. In California, large tracts (in excess of 49 acres [20 hectares]) of deciduous riparian woodland - generally absent from heavily forested and urban areas. 

Peak is mid-July to early August. B

bdfegTgncfo

Empidonax trailii extimus 

Southwestern willow flycatcher 

FE-CH/SE Nests only in dense riparian vegetation 

associated with streams, rivers, lakes, springs, and other watercourses and wetlands. 

May-June – July-August. — 

Rallus longirostris ssp.yumanensis 

Yuma clapper rail 

FE/ST/CFP Shallow, freshwater marshes containing 

stands of cattails and bulrushes. 

March 15 – April 30 on California-Arizona border. 

— 

Vireo bellii pusillus 

Least Bell’s vireo 

FE-CH/SE Dense willow-dominated riparian habitats 

with lush understory vegetation, nesting in the understory and using taller trees for foraging and singing perches. 

First eggs are laid in April. — 

Micrathene whitneyi 

Elf owl 

--/SE Mature dense vegetation with large trees 

and an understory of mesquite, willow, or tamarisk; will also occur in dry oak woodlands, wooded canyons, and sycamores at elevations up to 7,000 feet (2,134 meters). 

Arrives in breeding range by March. Fledging occurs by late June or early July. 

— 

Buteo swainsoni 

Swainson’s hawk 

--/ST Typical habitat is open desert, 

grassland, or cropland containing scattered, large trees or small groves. Forages in adjacent grasslands, suitable grain or alfalfa fields, or livestock pastures. In southern California, now mostly limited to spring and fall transient. 

Breeding occurs late March to late August, with peak activity late May through July. 

PC
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table 3.7-5. Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Present in Project Areas, BLM El Centro 

Sensitive Species 

Status 

Fed/ State (CA or 

AZ)/ BLM 

Habitat Breeding period 

Birds (continued) 

Colaptes chrysoides 

Gilded flicker 

--/SE Typically found at an altitude of 0 to 

6,854 feet (0 – 2,089 meters) in giant cactus forests of southwestern deserts. Excavates nests in saguaro, cottonwoods, and willows. Nonmigratory. 

Nesting begins in early April, fledging by June. 

— 

Melanerpes uropygialis 

Gila woodpecker 

--/SE Mature cottonwood-tree willow riparian 

forest, mesquite riparian woodland, and saguaro forest. 

April through July, with peak in April-May. 

In pereinshshse

Laterallus jamaicensis ssp.coturniculus 

California black rail 

--/ST/CFP/ 

AZSC/BLM-S, EC 

Coastal and freshwater wetland habitat and generally avoid habitat that is affected by daily tidal action, preferring areas that do not flood regularly. 

March-June. V

cpruaw

Vireo bellii arizonae 

Arizona Bell’s vireo 

--/SE Low, dense, scrubby vegetation in areas 

of early succession and is particularly dependent on corridors of habitat along rivers and streams. 

March-August. — 

Vireo vicinior 

Gray vireo 

--/CASC Mountains, chaparral, oak woodland. 

Occupied habitats occur on arid slopes dominated by short, densely branched, stiff-twigged shrubs. 

March through August. Open cup nests are placed in shrubs at heights of 3 to 4 feet (0.9 – 1.2 meters). 

Dmtw

Toxostoma lecontei 

Le Conte’s thrasher 

--/CASC/BLM-S, 

EC 

Occurs primarily in open desert wash, desert scrub, alkali desert scrub, and desert succulent shrub habitats; also occurs in Joshua tree habitat with scattered shrubs. 

Territory defended most actively from early December to early February, with breeding occurring from late January into early June. Peak from mid-March to midApril. 

— 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table 3.7-5. Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Present in Project Areas, BLM El Centro 

Sensitive Species 

Status 

Fed/ State (CA or 

AZ)/ BLM 

Habitat Breeding period 

Birds (continued) 

Athene cunicularia 

Burrowing owl 

--/CASC#2/BLMS, EC, Y Grassland and agricultural areas. Yearlong resident of open, dry 

grassland and desert habitats, and in grass, forb and open shrub stages of pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine habitats. Uses rodent or other burrow for roosting and nesting cover. 

Breeding occurs from March through August, with peak in April and May. Exhibit strong breeding site fidelity. 

— 

Charadrius montanus 

Mountain plover 

--/CASC#3/ BLMS Winter resident from September through March, found on short 

grasslands and plowed fields in foothill valleys west of San Joaquin Valley, Imperial Valley, and along the central Colorado River valley. Avoids high and dense cover. 

Does not nest in California. — 

Falco peregrinus ssp. anatum 

Peregrine falcon 

--/CFP/AZSC Open habitats, such as grasslands, 

agricultural fields, ponds, and coastal areas. Requires protected cliffs and ledges for cover. 

Very uncommon breeding resident. Active nesting sites are known along the coast north of Santa Barbara, in the Sierra Nevada, and in other mountains of northern California, usually near water, March-August. 

— 

Herptiles 

Gopherus agassizii 

Desert tortoise, the DPS known as the Mojave population occurring north and west of the Colorado River 

FT-CH/ST/BLMS, EC, Y Rocky slopes in desert scrub to semi- desert grassland, as well as along 

washes, and extending into creosote bush flats. 

March-May. C

Lpa

Coleonyx switaki 

Barefoot banded gecko 

--/ST/BLM-S, EC Lives on boulder-strewn hillsides of 

granitic or volcanic outcroppings in the deserts of San Diego and Imperial counties at elevations of 984 to 2,050 feet (300 – 625 meters). 

Breed from Mid-May to late July. S

vyo
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table 3.7-5. Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Present in Project Areas, BLM El Centro 

Sensitive Species 

Status 

Fed/ State (CA or 

AZ)/ BLM 

Habitat Breeding period 

Herptiles (continued) 

Scaphiopus couchi 

Couch’s spadefoot 

--/CASC/BLM-S, 

EC 

In California, elevational distribution is from about 690 feet (210 meters) to about 1,120 feet (340 meters). Frequents arid and semi-arid habitats occurring along desert washes, in desert riparian, palm oases, desert succulent shrub, and desert scrub habitats. It is also found in cultivated cropland areas. 

Temporary pools and potholes with water lasting longer than 10-12 days are required as breeding sites. Runoff basins at the base of sand dunes are also used. Individuals are opportunistic breeders, reproducing only during and immediately after the onset of warm rains, usually in the spring and summer. 

— 

Rana yavapaiensis 

San Sebastian (or lowland) leopard frog 

-/-/BLM-S, EC Frequents desert, grassland, oak and 

oak-pine woodlands, entering the permanent springs and pools of streams, overflow ponds, side channels of major rivers, and, in drier areas, permanent stock tanks. Stays close to water. 

In California, breeding and egglaying occur from December to June depending on local conditions. Eggs normally hatch within three weeks; tadpoles typically metamorphose in two to four months. 

— 

Phyrnosoma mcalli 

Flat-tailed horned lizard 

-/CASC, AZSC/ 

BLM-S, EC 

Fine sand for cover is a critical habitat element, also use shrubs and clumps of grass, in desert washes and desert flats. 

Courtship and breeding probably take place in the early spring following winter emergence but this has not been confirmed. Observations of young from a first clutch appeared in early July and those from the second clutch appeared in late August and early September. 

Tsplimtho
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Final EA 

Table 3.7-5. Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Present in Project Areas, BLM El Centro 

Sensitive Species 

Status 

Fed/ State (CA or 

AZ)/ BLM 

Habitat Breeding period 

Invertebrates 

Euphydryas editha quino (=E.e.wrighti)

Quino checkerspot butterfly 

FE Topographically diverse landscapes that 

contain low to moderate levels of nonnative vegetation, including coastal sage scrub, open chaparral, juniper woodlands, forbs, and native grasslands. 

Adults emerge early to late spring, mate, lay eggs. Eggs hatch in about a week and a half, larva then feed on annuals Plantago erecta or Castilleja exserta. 

— 

Notes: 

Federal State BLM (newest update available 2FE = Listed under ESA as endangered ST = Listed as threatened in California BLM-S, EC = listed on BLM El Ce

FT = Listed under ESA as threatened SE = Listed as endangered in California BLM-S, Y = BLM sensitive in YuFC = Candidate for federal listing CFP = California fully protected CH = USFWS-designated critical habitat occurs in the county WL = California Watch List 

 AZSC = Arizona Species of Concern  CASC = California Species of Concern Source: CDFG 2010b, CalFish 2010, CalHerps 2010, NatureServe Explorer 2010, and BLM 2008
3.7 Biological Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.7-27 

Final EA 

Wildlife 

Project areas also were evaluated for the potential to support habitat for sensitive wildlife species that may 

occur in the region (Table 3.7-5). Following the data review and assessment, surveys were completed on all 

LZs to determine potential presence of suitable habitat for special status or BLM sensitive animals (SAIC 

2012b). The federally listed desert tortoise (also listed as threatened in California and as a BLM special 

status species) was identified on or near LZ Sparrow and LZ Mallard, and flat-tailed horned lizard (BLM 

sensitive species) was observed near LZ C1 and on LZ Wolf in the Yuha Desert west of the Salton Sea. 

Both species are described in detail in the following sections. 

No other federal or state-listed special status or BLM sensitive species were observed within the LZs. 

Additionally, no LZs occur within USFWS currently mapped critical habitat for the federally listed 

peninsular bighorn sheep. The LZs surveyed supported limited to no large woody vegetation suitable for 

special status woodpecker and owl species nesting habitat. No preferred bat habitats such as large caves, 

deep rock crevices, mines, or abandoned buildings were observed within the LZs. Further, none of the LZs 

contained perennial water to support special status fish, amphibians, and wading birds listed in Table 3.7-5. 

Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) 

The desert tortoise was emergency-listed by USFWS on 4 August 1989, and the Mojave population was 

federally listed as threatened in April 1990 (USFWS 1990). The Mojave population includes all desert 

tortoises occurring north and west of the Colorado River, which encompasses the majority of the LZs. 

The Final Rule for USFWS-designated critical habitat for the Mojave Desert population of the Desert 

Tortoise was published in 1994 (59 Federal Register 5820-5866). The USFWS determined that the 

Mojave Desert tortoise population warranted listing in response to documented population declines over 

large portions of its range. The decline is thought to be due to a number of causes, including loss of 

habitat, upper respiratory tract disease, predation by ravens on young tortoises, disturbance from offhighway vehicle use, livestock grazing degrading habitat, and direct disturbance and collection by 

humans. Portions of the LZ project area occur near but not within the Colorado Desert Recovery Unit for 

desert tortoise described in the USFWS Draft Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2008). 

The desert tortoise is an herbivorous reptile found 

throughout much of the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts. 

Its range roughly approximates the distribution of 

creosote bush scrub plant community. The desert 

tortoise spends much of the year underground in 

burrows it excavates to avoid extreme temperatures 

during summer and winter. Tortoises construct and 

maintain burrows, of which there may be several 

within an individual's home range. The desert tortoise 

is active above ground during the spring, summer, and 

autumn when daytime temperatures are below 90 °F 

(32 °C). Most activity occurs during spring and early 

summer. 

Desert tortoises in the Colorado Desert Recovery Unit are found in the valleys, on bajadas, desert 

pavements, and rocky slopes, and in the broad, well-developed washes. Vegetation within critical habitat 

is characterized by relatively species-rich succulent scrub, creosote bush scrub, and blue palo verde, 

ironwood, and smoke tree communities. The emergence of tortoises generally coincides with healthy 

growth of winter and late summer annuals because this region has two distinct wet seasons that support 

corresponding floras (USFWS 2008). Desert tortoises require friable soil for burrow and nest construction. 
3.7 Biological Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.7-28 

Final EA 

The soil must be a fine gravelly and/or sandy loam, with some clay for burrow stability. Burrows are dug 

to use during winter dormancy and for summer use; burrows may be more than 9 feet (3 meters) long. 

Tortoise burrows are located in the open, under shrubs and rocks, or in the banks of gullies and washes. 

This species remains in burrows during the hottest parts of summer to conserve water, emerging in the 

morning or late afternoon to forage from March through October (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 2004). 

Desert tortoises sometimes rely on shrubs for cover during the day. Tortoises remain in burrows during 

most of the period between November and March (i.e., winter dormancy). 

No critical habitat is present at or in the vicinity of any of the LZs. LZ Sparrow occurs closest to mapped 

USFWS-designated critical habitat and is within approximately 3 miles (4.8 km) of known desert tortoise 

occurrences (CDFG 2010a). 

With the exception of LZ C1 and LZ Wolf that are located in the Yuha Desert and west of the Salton Sea, 

the rest of the LZs are within the mapped desert tortoise range (CDFG 2010b) and are considered suitable 

habitat for the species. Desert tortoise protocol-level surveys were conducted from 3 to 7 October 2011 

and followed 2010 Field Season Pre-project Field Survey Protocol for Potential Desert Tortoise Habitats 

(USFWS 2010). LZ C1 and LZ Wolf were not surveyed because they are outside the known range of the 

species. Two additional sites (LZ Mallard and LZ Sparrow) are within the known range of the species, 

and tortoises or sign were identified at these LZs during prior reconnaissance surveys and are assumed 

occupied; therefore no additional surveys were completed for LZ Mallard and LZ Sparrow. Based on the 

reconnaissance survey and the protocol-level surveys, presence of live tortoise was observed at LZ 

Sparrow and tortoise sign (burrows, scat, carcasses and/or shell remains) was observed within the 

protocol survey area for LZ Cupcake, LZ IP1 Option, LZ Eider, LZ Mallard, and LZ ME3 Option (Tables 

3.7-6 and 3.7-7). The occurrence of either live tortoises or tortoise sign indicates the presence of desert 

tortoise (USFWS 2010). Although sign and/or tortoises were not located at the remainder of the sites, 

they are within the known range and recovery area of desert tortoise and for the purposes of this 

evaluation, suitable habitat is presumed. 

Table 3.7-6. Summary of Results for Tortoise Survey Efforts on BLM Managed Lands 

Landing Zone Name Tortoise Sign within the Protocol Survey Area 

Bull no sign 

C1 - 3

Cupcake burrow (class 3) and scat (class 3) 

Eider carcass (class 5) 

IP1 Option burrow (class 3) 

Mallard 1 burrow (class1), scat (class 3) 

ME3 Option burrow (class 5) 

MW1 no sign 

MW1 Option no sign 

PC3 no sign 

Pelican no sign 

Sparrow 2 live tortoise, burrows (class 2, 3, 4, and 5) 

Wolf - 3

Notes: 

See Table 3.7-7 for class descriptions. 

1 Observed during biological surveys October 2010; LZ not surveyed in October 2011. 

2 Observed during biological surveys April 2010, LZ not surveyed in October 2011. 

3 Protocol surveys not required. LZ is west of the Salton Sea and outside the known range and recovery area for Desert 

tortoise. 
3.7 Biological Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.7-29 

Final EA 

Table 3.7-7. Desert Tortoise Sign Key

Sign Type Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 

Burrow 

and Den 

Currently active 

with tortoise or 

recent tortoise 

sign 

Good condition, 

definitely 

tortoise but no 

evidence of 

recent use 

Deteriorated 

condition but is 

definitely 

tortoise 

Deteriorated 

condition, possibly 

tortoise (no other 

corroborating 

sign) 

Good condition, 

possibly tortoise 

(no other 

corroborating sign) 

Scat Wet or moist but 

not from rain or 

dew or dried but 

with obvious 

odor 

Dry, dark brown, 

has a glaze, and 

some odor 

Dry, has no 

glaze or odor, is 

slightly 

bleached, is 

light brown, and 

plant fibers are 

tightly packed 

Dry, has no glaze 

or odor, is 

somewhat 

bleached, is light 

brown to pale 

yellow, plant 

fibers are not 

tightly packed, 

and has a scaly 

appearance. 

Dry, has no glaze 

or odor, is 

bleached, is white, 

and consists only of 

plant fibers 

Carcasses, 

Shell 

Remains 

and bone 

fragments 

Fresh or putrid Fresh or putrid, 

is of normal 

color and the 

scutes adhere to 

the bone 

Scutes are 

peeling from 

the bone 

Shell bone is 

falling apart and 

the growth rings 

on the scutes are 

peeling 

Disarticulated and 

scattered 

Flat-tailed Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii) 

The distribution of the flat-tailed horned lizard once 

included the area from Palm Springs, California south 

to Sonora and Baja California, Mexico. Its current 

range is the most limited of all horned lizards and is 

restricted to scattered locations on sandy soils in the 

lower Colorado River subdivision of the Sonoran 

Desert. In the U.S., this species currently occurs 

primarily between the Salton Sea and the southern 

border with Mexico, concentrated in the Imperial 

Valley and the deserts west and south of Yuma, 

Arizona. Concerns about the declining numbers of flattailed horned lizard prompted its addition to the species 

proposal for listing as threatened, but the proposal was 

withdrawn by the USFWS on 15 March 2011 (76 Federal Register 14210). The flat-tailed horned lizard 

remains of concern and is protected through conservation agreements and a Rangewide Management 

Strategy (Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Interagency Coordinating Committee [FTHLICC] 2003). State and 

federal agencies that manage land or natural resources within the range of this species are participants in the 

Conservation Agreement and the Rangewide Management Strategy, including MCAS Yuma, Naval Air 

Facility (NAF) El Centro, and NAVFAC SW (FTHLICC 2003). 

Two of the project LZs, C1 and Wolf, occur within the known range of this species, but no LZs are 

located within flat-tailed horned lizard designated Management and Research Areas (FTHLICC 2003). A 

flat-tailed horned lizard was observed within LZ Wolf during the April 2011 survey. One was also 

observed during an archaeological survey in May 2010 near LZ C1 (SAIC 2011). 
3.7 Biological Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.7-30 

Final EA 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Lands or Otherwise Sensitive Environments 

Aquatic and wetland habitats are limited in the Colorado and Yuha Deserts. Two of the region’s most 

significant aquatic systems are the Salton Sea and the Colorado River. In some areas runoff from 

seasonal rains and groundwater springs can form alluvial fans, desert arroyos, desert fan palm oases, 

freshwater marshes, brine lakes, desert washes, ephemeral and perennial streams, and riparian vegetation 

communities dominated by cottonwood, willow, and non-native tamarisk (CDFG 2007). Areas 

surrounding several of the LZs support small dry desert washes with a slightly higher cover of vegetation. 

No wetlands or other waters of the U.S. are present within any of the LZs. 

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 

The training associated with the proposed action includes the use of several types of rotary wing and tiltrotor aircraft practicing approach, touch-down, and takeoff exercises at the LZs. No deployment or 

recovery of personnel or equipment, and no use of training artillery is proposed. A detailed presentation 

of operational frequency is presented in section 2.2 (Proposed Action) and Tables 2.2-1 and 2.2-2. 

This biological resource impact assessment was conducted for the proposed action and evaluated several 

factors including magnitude of impact, permanence of impact (permanent loss versus temporary short 

term/temporary long term), sensitivity of the resource, and legal protection of the resource. This 

assessment is based on project-specific biological resource surveys (SAIC 2012a, 2012d, 2012e), a review 

of existing data for the region, data contained within the CNDDB, and coordination among Cleveland 

National Forest, BLM, USFWS, and USMC staff. A Biological Assessment (USMC 2012a) has been 

prepared separately for this project as part of the ESA Section 7 consultation process, and the USFWS 

concurrence letter is included in Appendix A-3. 

3.7.2.1 Alternative 1 

Cleveland National Forest 

Vegetation 

No construction is proposed at any of the LZs; therefore, there would be no direct removal of vegetation 

at any of the proposed project areas. In addition, all LZs in the Cleveland National Forest are developed 

to various levels ranging from fire roads to entirely paved helicopter pads, and the LZs are already in use 

and are routinely exposed to existing training activities involving helicopters. Under Alternative 1, the 

training frequency would be similar to existing conditions, with the total annual sorties decreasing about 7 

percent and overall landings increasing about 3 percent. As a result, the frequency of events would 

decrease from existing conditions; however, the number of landing per event would slightly increase. 

Continued training would result in the temporary disturbance of loose surface debris and soil caused by 

downdraft and outwash from moving rotors (collectively known as rotor wash) in the vicinity of takeoffs, 

landings, and near-surface hovering. Additionally, the MV-22B would replace the antiquated CH-46E 

over time, and rotor wash from the MV-22B is 3 to 4 times greater than that associated with the CH-46 

(Bell Boeing 2008). 

Rotor wash from aircraft during landing, takeoffs, and hovering immediately above the ground would 

temporarily affect vegetation and wildlife habitat in the immediate vicinity of the hovering aircraft. Rotor 

wash would result in dust and debris being scattered and becoming airborne in the immediate vicinity of 

the aircraft, although the extent of this dust disturbance would depend on a variety of factors including 

local soil characteristics, topography, presence of vegetation, and weather conditions. Dust deposits may 

affect essential plant processes including photosynthesis, respiration, and transpiration; dust also may 

allow the penetration of phytotoxic gaseous pollutants to nearby vegetation and may cause increased 

incidence of plant pests and diseases (Farmer 1993). Indirect impacts would be localized to the existing 
3.7 Biological Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.7-31 

Final EA 

disturbed and/or developed open areas of the LZs and, to a lesser extent, adjacent vegetation1

; any limited 

herbaceous vegetation (e.g., grasses and forbs) would be quick to recover. Because these LZs are 

generally devoid of native vegetation or paved, the continued training activity would not likely result in 

uprooting of plants or permanently affecting the distribution of plant communities or associated habitats. 

Additionally, the proposed dust abatement measures described in section 2.2.1.3 (Flight Activity within 

the Cleveland National Forest) would minimize dust generation and limit indirect effects on adjacent 

vegetation. 

No plant species found on the LZs and/or buffer areas are included in the Federal Noxious Weed List 

(USDA 2012j) or on lists of target species for management prepared for southern California national 

forests (USFS 2005c). In general, the non-native species that do occur on the LZs and buffer areas are 

ubiquitous in southern California and are long established in the project area, and thus do not pose a new 

threat to native vegetation (SAIC 2012i). There is minimal risk of transporting seed of invasive species 

from site to site because all travel would be by aircraft. 

Because of the unique tilt-rotor design of the MV-22B, introduction of the MV-22B into a national forest 

is a fire concern. Fire ignitions would be most frequent under conditions of low moisture, low relative 

humidity, and high ambient temperatures, and are especially prevalent under Santa Ana conditions, during 

which dry air masses move from the interior to the coast, typically accompanied by high winds and hot 

temperatures. Fire potential would be highest in undeveloped areas with an abundance of natural fire 

fuels (e.g., dry grasses or finely branched shrubs that extend above the ground surface), dry soil, and low 

moisture content. Under the proposed action, however, aircraft would only land within the designated LZ 

areas, which are typically heavily disturbed and/or developed and generally devoid of vegetation. No 

landings would occur in undisturbed, undeveloped sites outside of the proposed LZs. Additionally, many 

of the LZs are on or adjacent to fire breaks, which are routinely maintained by the USFS through 

controlled burns or other methods. Therefore, the potential for fire is considered low. 

In addition, operation of the MV-22B, itself, has not been identified as a cause of frequent fires. A DoN 

review concluded that under normal operations with engine exhaust deflectors operating, the exhaust of 

the MV-22B should not heat the ground to a temperature high enough to support combustion of plant 

based materials such as dry grasses (DoN 2008 [see Appendix E]). The aircraft operates with the exhaust 

deflectors on at all times when on the ground, and the pilot is not allowed to land in an unprepared LZ if 

the deflectors are inoperative. 

Based on the above analysis, impacts on vegetation associated with takeoff, landing and low-level 

hovering would be less than significant. 

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats 

The use of any rotary wing and tilt-rotor aircraft in the vicinity of undeveloped areas has the potential to 

add noise to the natural environment, similar to existing conditions. While transitioning to the LZs from an 

airfield, rotary wing aircraft would usually fly between 1,000 and 2,000 feet (305 and 610 meters) above 

ground level; tilt-rotor aircraft would usually fly similar to a turboprop airplane, between 8,000 and 12,000 

feet (2,438 and 3,658 meters) above ground level. While lining up and conducting an approach, rotary 

wing aircraft operate at altitudes between 200 and 1,000 feet (61 and 305 meters) above ground level, and 

usually approach from an easterly or westerly heading. The MV-22B would follow a similar approach 

but would remain at altitudes between 200 and 3,000 feet (61 and 914 meters) above ground level, and 

transition to descend in a steeper trajectory to the LZ. While flying at higher altitudes, the MV-22 would 

 

1

 The majority of dust exposure would be confined to the LZ and is expected to disperse quickly over an area up to about 350 feet (107 

meters) distance from the aircraft, although this distance would depend on a variety of factors, including local soil characteristics, 

topography, presence of vegetation, and weather conditions. The 350-foot radius was based on the Navy Program Office’s review of 

existing rotor wash information for the MV-22 (Bell Boeing 2008). 
3.7 Biological Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.7-32 

Final EA 

produce less approaching noise than lower flying rotary wing aircraft. Noise modeling of the proposed 

approach pattern demonstrated that noise exposure under Alternative 1 would be most prevalent within 

about 1,200 feet (366 meters) of an LZ (see section 3.2, Noise). Noise modeling for Alternative 1 also 

resulted in lower or identical noise envelopes at all LZs compared to current conditions, and only one LZ 

(LZ Site 6/LZ Site 6 Alt) would experience annual-averaged sound levels greater than 65 dB CNELmr (see 

Section 3.1, Noise). Any nearby canyon bottoms and riparian corridors within the approach pattern would 

experience annual-averaged sound levels less than 65 dB CNELmr. 

Noise can cause a response by wildlife, potentially inducing a startle response and causing possible injury 

from trampling or uncontrolled running or flight, increasing expenditure of energy during critical periods, 

decreasing the amount of time spent on life functions such as seeking food or mates, temporarily masking 

auditory signals from other animals, and/or otherwise reducing the protection and stability of young 

animals. The type of noise that can stimulate the startle reflex is highly variable among animal species 

and situations (Manci et al. 1988). In general, studies have indicated that close, loud, and sudden noises 

that are combined with a visual stimulus produce the most intense reactions. Rotary wing aircraft are 

believed to generally induce the startle response more frequently than fixed wing aircraft (Gladwin et al. 

1988). This response is attributed to the low-frequency percussive sounds (“wop-wop-wop”) 

characteristic of some helicopters, such as the UH-1 Huey (UH-1N), which are audible at a distance, and, 

at closer range, have visible moving rotors. As for a typical startle response to a rotary wing aircraft, 

current training activities were witnessed during field surveys, with a CH-46E touching down at and 

taking off from LZ Site 11. Several songbirds were observed to fly away from the immediate vicinity of 

the LZ as the helicopter approached. Following takeoff, the birds returned within five minutes. 

Additionally, the frequency of noise (how constant or infrequent the noise source is) will affect species 

differently. For example, constant noise sources such as chronic industrial noise can reduce nesting bird 

species richness and lead to a change in the species composition of avian communities towards more 

tolerant species (Francis et al. 2009). Like industrial noise, chronic traffic noise appears to have the 

potential to alter avian communities and reduce population densities for several bird species (Reijnen and 

Foppen 2006). Some species seem to be unaffected by noise while others may not come near roads when 

traffic volume is high (Bautista et al. 2004). For example, song sparrows (Melospiza melodia) living in 

urban environments in Oregon have been shown to adapt and maintain their populations in urban areas 

despite the noise (Woods and Yezerinac 2006), whereas horned lark (Eremophila alpestris) numbers 

decreased at distances of up to 1,640 feet (500 meters) from the edge of the road (United States 

Department of Transportation 2004). 

Helicopter overflights and landings are a source of more infrequent noise, in contrast to chronic urban 

noise discussed above. Overall, there are few studies available that have examined the effect of aircraft 

noise on bird species; however, those studies that do exist generally focus on a particular group or species 

of bird. For example, to investigate the potential effects of rotary wing noise on coastal California 

gnatcatcher populations, Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute conducted a study at MCAS Miramar from 

1998 through 2001 that involved monitoring active coastal California gnatcatcher nests to determine 

factors affecting nesting success (Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute 2006). At MCAS Miramar, the 

noise environment, including helicopters, is not correlated with reproductive success of coastal California 

gnatcatcher; however, habitat structure, composition and other physical components are correlated with 

nesting success. The study concluded that coastal California gnatcatchers find and inhabit suitable 

nesting habitat independent of the noise environment at MCAS Miramar. 

Several other studies on nesting raptors have also indicated that birds become habituated to aircraft 

overflights and that long-term reproductive success is not affected by exposure to overflight (Grubb and 

King 1991; Ellis et al. 1991). Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) were more disturbed by human 

pedestrian activity than overflights by aircraft (Grubb and King 1991). In another study, Andersen et al. 
3.7 Biological Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.7-33 

Final EA 

(1989) found that red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), a common raptor in the Cleveland National 

Forest, appeared to readily habituate to regular aircraft overflights. Nesting peregrine falcons (Falco 

peregrinus) in Alaska showed small differences in nest attendance and time-activity budgets between 

undisturbed nests and those that were overflown by military aircraft within 500 feet (152 meters); 

however, the differences were not correlated with specific overflights nor did they affect reproductive 

success (Palmer et al. 2003). Furthermore, Palmer et al. (2003) did not observe a difference in nestprovisioning rates between disturbed and undisturbed nests. Similarly, golden eagles have shown little 

effects due to aircraft flights. In their guidelines for aerial surveys, the USFWS (Pagel et al. 2010) 

summarized past studies by stating that most golden eagles respond to survey aircraft (fixed wing and 

helicopters) by remaining on their nests and continuing to incubate or roost. Surveys took place generally 

as close as 33 to 66 feet (10 to 20 meters) from cliffs (including hovering less than 30 seconds if 

necessary to count eggs) and no farther than 656 feet (200 meters) from cliffs depending on safety (Pagel 

et al. 2010). 

Although there are no specific studies evaluating the impacts of tilt-rotor aircraft (MV-22B) on wildlife 

species, this aircraft is somewhat similar to rotary wing aircraft, such as the CH-46E, except as follows. 

The MV-22B would appear more like a fixed wing aircraft with onset of sound from an MV-22B building 

up relatively gradually and the rotating blades forming a blur rather than being seen as rotating parts, and 

thereby reducing the potential for a startle effect. The MV-22B sounds more like a conventional 

turboprop aircraft, such as a short-hop commuter airliner or a C-130 cargo plane, than a helicopter in that 

it makes a steady buzzing tone and lacks the low pitched percussive (“wop-wop-wop”) sound associated 

with many helicopters. . 

Wildlife in the vicinity of the point source for noise would likely exhibit increased awareness or response, 

which would vary depending on animal group and other factors. The species groups most likely to be 

present in the immediate vicinity of the LZs, and thus most likely to be affected by noise associated with 

continued LZ use, include small mammals, reptiles, and resident birds. Ungulates and large mammals 

may traverse LZs but because most LZs are located on ridgelines, only limited protective habitat and 

resources exists. Animals present would likely avoid the area, take cover, or temporarily suspend activity 

when the noise source is present. 

Regarding raptors and other Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)-protected birds (SAIC 2012h), the 

nearest known raptor nests are located between about 1.5 to 2 miles (2.4 to 3.2 km) from an LZ. 

However, it is possible that an aircraft on approach to an LZ or flying between LZs could fly near one of 

the raptor nests, although the frequency of such an event, if occurring at all, is expected to be low because 

there are only approximately 3 to 7 sorties proposed at individual LZs per month2

. As noted above, 

several studies on nesting raptors have indicated that birds become habituated to aircraft overflights and 

that long-term reproductive success is not affected by exposure to overflight; nonetheless, overflight 

activity has the potential to at least temporarily result in a behavioral change in nesting birds, and as a 

result, the USFS may require breeding season limitations or seasonal restrictions at some LZs to minimize 

impacts to known raptor nests or other migratory bird species, and this would be coordinated during the 

Special Use Permit process. 

In addition to noise, effects related to dust generation and wind velocities from rotor wash would diminish 

with distance from the aircraft. Wind velocities associated with rotor wash would diminish substantially 

beyond about 100 feet (30 meters) from the aircraft (Bell Boeing 2008). Additionally, the proposed dust 

 

2

 Most of the LZs would have approximately 36 sorties over the year (estimated at three sorties per month or about one every 10 days). LZ 

Site 9 and 9 Alt would have 36 annual sorties split between them (estimated at less than two sorties per month or one every 20 days at each 

LZ). The maximum expected frequency would be at LZ Sites 6 and 6 Alt, with 170 annual sorties split between them (estimated at 7 sorties 

per month or one every 4 to 5 days at each LZ). 
3.7 Biological Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.7-34 

Final EA 

abatement measures described in section 2.2.1.3 (Flight Activity within the Cleveland National Forest) 

would minimize dust generation and limit effects on vegetation and wildlife habitat. 

Although some disruption to wildlife functions may temporarily occur in the immediate vicinity of the 

disturbed and/or degraded LZs, the continued training use of these LZs, even with the incorporation of the 

MV-22B, is not likely to permanently preclude the use of the adjacent areas by common and non-listed 

wildlife species or permanently remove habitats or use by MBTA-protected birds. If there were a 

response to the training activity in the immediate vicinity of the LZ, the most likely response would be a 

temporary movement of birds to another area or take cover during the activity. Because of the 

infrequency of touchdown and takeoff operations and the type of activity proposed, the scope of effect 

would be primarily within the immediate area surrounding LZs and would only occur occasionally (not 

chronic like traffic or industrial noise). This type of wildlife response would be within the range of 

responses to a wide variety of human and non-human stimuli. Therefore, although temporary effects 

would occur in the immediate vicinity of LZs during specific training events, or from overflights that 

occur within proximity to nesting birds such as raptors, impacts resulting from this alternative on 

common and non-listed sensitive wildlife populations and habitats could occur but would not be expected 

to be significant. 

Special Status Plant Species 

Only one federally listed plant, thread-leaved brodiaea (listed as federally threatened and state 

endangered), may occur within the project vicinity (near LZ Site 3) based on the known distribution and 

elevational range of the species and the presence of suitable habitat. Thread-leaved brodiaea was not 

identified during 2011 and 2012 surveys, but this species may not present above ground parts every year. 

Although it is not likely, it is possible for it to be present within the buffer area of LZ Site 3. Even if it is 

present, it would be unlikely that the critical underground parts (corms) would be injured by proposed 

aircraft on the ground with engines running. MV-22B landing and takeoff operations would result in 

greater heat conditions and rotorwash disturbance than rotary wing aircraft due to the orientation of its 

nacelles. Although surface soil temperatures can reach 422 °F (216 °C) under the MV-22 nacelles, 

thread-leaved brodiaea corms are normally buried about 6 inches (15 cm) or more below the soil surface. 

Soil transfers heat very poorly, with heat transfer depending not only on the surface temperature and 

duration of exposure but also on the soil water content, soil texture, and soil pore distribution (Sugihara et 

al. 2006). Heat transfer through dry soils is very poor and temperatures rapidly decrease with small 

increments of depth. For example, a grass fire with surface soil temperatures of 482 °F (250 °C) 

generated temperatures of less than 212 °F (100 °C) at a depth of only 0.5 inches (1.3 cm) (Wells et al. 

1979). At a depth of only 2 inches (5 cm), there is very little increase in soil temperature even after 

exposures to surface temperatures ranging from about 572 °F (300 °C) to over 1,112°F (600 °C) on the 

order of 20 minutes or more (Figure 5.2 in Sugihara et al. 2006). Because thread-leaved brodiaea corms 

would be buried at about 3 times that depth, it is doubtful that injurious or lethal increases in temperature 

would be experienced by the corms. Based on the insulating properties of soil, temperatures would be 

expected to diminish rapidly with depth and very small changes in temperature would be expected at the 

depth that thread-leaved brodiaea corms would be buried. Similarly, transfer of heat laterally from the 

point of heating would be very slow. Any effect from the exhaust gases would therefore be localized 

underneath the engine nacelles. 

As a result, even if the thread-leaved brodiaea is present, the potential for injury to underground parts 

would be very low and would be most likely to occur directly on the LZ itself, where suitable habitat for 

this species does not occur. Therefore, impacts to thread-leaved brodiaea, if the plant is present, would be 

less than significant. 
3.7 Biological Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.7-35 

Final EA 

No other federally listed plant species are expected to be present at or within the LZ buffers. Regarding 

indirect effects to other sensitive plant species, the continued training activity would not likely result in 

uprooting of plants or permanently affecting the distribution of plant communities or associated habitats, 

as described above under Vegetation. Additionally, the proposed dust abatement measures described in 

section 2.2.1.3 (Flight Activity within the Cleveland National Forest) would minimize dust generation and 

limit indirect effects on adjacent vegetation, including special status plant species. Similarly, the 

Biological Evaluation (USMC 2012b) of USFS sensitive plant species concluded that the project may 

affect some individuals, but would not cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability. 

Special Status Wildlife Species 

No federally listed endangered or threatened wildlife species are expected to occur on or in the vicinity of 

the proposed LZs due to a lack of suitable habitat and results of negative surveys of adjacent native 

wildlife habitats (SAIC 2012d, 2012e). The two exceptions include possible visits by coastal California 

gnatcatcher near LZ Site 3 and possible hilltopping on or near LZs by Quino checkerspot butterflies. 

Although no coastal California gnatcatchers were observed in the project vicinity, it is possible, although 

unlikely, that a coastal California gnatcatcher would visit on or near LZ Site 3 when an aircraft operation 

was occurring. During such an event, it may fly away or take cover in response to the aircraft. Similarly, 

the LZs represent potential hilltopping venues for Quino checkerspot butterflies due to the presence of 

alternative host plants (e.g., rigid bird’s beak [Cordylanthus rigidus] and Chinese houses [Collinsia 

concolor]). However, project implementation would not remove vegetation or other habitat components 

that support these host plants. If coastal California gnatcatchers or Quino checkerspot butterflies are 

occasional visitors to the area, and they are present when a proposed aircraft operation is occurring, the 

expected temporary noise and dust that occur in the LZs and buffers during intermittent operations would 

likely cause individuals to avoid the area. However, based on the negative survey results, lack of 

evidence that the species occur at any of the LZs, and the infrequency of proposed training, the potential 

for any effect on these species is low. 

If other federally protected species migrate through the area, the primary direct impacts of aircraft activity 

on endangered, threatened, and sensitive species would include noise and aircraft rotor wash (winds 

generated during low level hovering), similar to discussions above under Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats. 

Noise and rotor wash decrease with distance and would be of concern only when the aircraft is close to 

occupied habitat, such as during takeoff and landing, or low-level hovering, if the species is present. Bird 

species (including migratory and/or nesting birds) located adjacent to project sites would be most 

vulnerable as they may exhibit a flushing response to the noise and downdraft of aircraft. Raptors are less 

likely to show a negative response to overflights and noise. Similar to common wildlife, the most likely 

response by an endangered, threatened, or sensitive bird species (including migratory species) to the 

training activity would be temporary avoidance of the area during the activity. Therefore, potential 

impacts on federally listed, state-listed, and other sensitive wildlife species, if they were to be present, are 

expected to be less than significant. Similarly, the Biological Evaluation (USMC 2012b) of USFS 

sensitive wildlife species concluded that the project may affect some individuals, but would not cause a 

trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability. 

Sensitive Habitats 

No wetlands or other sensitive habitat types are present on or in the immediate vicinity of the Cleveland 

National Forest LZs; therefore, no impacts would occur. 
3.7 Biological Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.7-36 

Final EA 

BLM El Centro Managed Lands 

Vegetation 

No new construction or infrastructure improvements are proposed as part of this alternative; therefore, 

there would be no direct loss of vegetation or wildlife habitat associated with aircraft operations at the 

BLM El Centro LZs. As described above for the Cleveland National Forest LZs, continued training may 

result in temporary disturbance of loose surface debris and soil caused by rotor wash in the vicinity of 

takeoffs, landings, and near-surface hovering, potentially resulting in an indirect impact to vegetation and 

soils. Downdraft from aircraft could temporarily disturb vegetation and wildlife habitat in the immediate 

vicinity of the aircraft. This potential impact would be very localized and would be unlikely to 

permanently affect the distribution of sparse plant communities or associated habitats. Additionally, most 

LZs are already almost entirely dominated by desert pavement with little to no vegetation present. 

Moreover, any localized effect on the soil at the LZs may be obscured by blowing dust and sand 

associated with naturally-occurring high winds (dust storms or sandstorms) that may occur numerous 

times per year. Additionally, the training areas that would be used have a history of similar training 

activities, and incorporation of increased operations due to the new MV-22B aircraft would represent a 

negligible change in the overall training environment at these locations. As a result, impacts associated 

with hovering and landing would be limited to areas that are routinely affected by training and have 

limited vegetation, and would be minor and very localized. 

Under the proposed action, aircraft would only land within the designated LZ areas, which are almost 

entirely devoid of vegetation and dominated by desert pavement, and no landings would occur in 

undisturbed, undeveloped sites outside of the proposed LZs. Therefore, the potential for fire is considered 

very low, given the available information on the aircraft and general lack of fire fuel at the BLM El 

Centro LZs. 

Based on the above analysis, impacts on vegetation associated with takeoff, landing and low-level 

hovering would be less than significant. 

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats 

Most of the vertebrate species that occur in the vicinity of the BLM El Centro LZs are resident or 

migratory birds, reptiles, and nocturnal mammals. As discussed above under Cleveland National Forest, 

the use of any rotary wing or tilt-rotor aircraft within undeveloped areas has the potential to add noise to 

the natural environment and cause a response by wildlife, potentially inducing a startle response; cause 

possible injury from trampling or uncontrolled running or flight; increased expenditure of energy during 

critical periods; decreased the amount of time spent on life functions such as seeking food or mates; 

temporary mask auditory signals from other animals; and/or otherwise reduce the protection and stability 

of young animals (Manci et al. 1988). As described above for the Cleveland National Forest, there are no 

specific studies evaluating the impacts of tilt-rotor aircraft on wildlife species. However, impacts would 

be somewhat similar to those of other rotary wing aircraft, although the MV-22B may sound more like a 

conventional turboprop aircraft than a helicopter. 

Effects related to dust generation and wind velocities from rotor wash and effects from noise would 

diminish with distance from the aircraft. Wind velocities associated with rotor wash would diminish 

substantially beyond 100 feet (30 meters) from the aircraft (Bell Boeing 2008). Noise modeling of the 

proposed approach pattern demonstrated that noise exposure under Alternative 1 would be most prevalent 

within about 1,300 feet (396 meters) of an LZ (see section 3.2, Noise). However, the density of wildlife 

at LZs at any given time would be very low due to the lack of vegetation and vast exposed desert 

pavement areas. As a result, impacts on wildlife from downdraft/outwash and noise are expected to be 

less than significant. 
3.7 Biological Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.7-37 

Final EA 

Special Status Plant Species 

There are no existing federally listed plant species known to occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the 

LZs considered under this alternative (SAIC 2012b). Implementation of the proposed action is unlikely 

to affect sensitive plant species. As a result, no impacts on endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant 

species would occur. 

Special Status Wildlife Species 

Desert Tortoise. Desert tortoise is known to occur at or near several LZs (Table 3.7-6) and, based on the 

known range of the species and habitat preferences, the species has the potential to occur at all LZs except 

LZ C1 and LZ Wolf. All LZs proposed for continued training are established and currently used. None of 

the LZs are located within designated critical habitat for the desert tortoise. 

Desert tortoises are above ground and active during a very limited time of year, generally during spring, 

and could be affected directly by aircraft landings. Desert tortoises are typically underground during the 

hottest parts of summer to conserve water, and they brumate (hibernation-like state that cold-blooded 

animals utilize during very cold weather) underground during most of the period between November and 

March. From March to October, desert tortoises emerge to forage in the morning and late afternoon, with 

most activity occurring in March and April (USGS 2004). Because of the limited period of activity above 

ground, operations during evening and nighttime hours and during the winter months would not affect 

desert tortoises. Even during the period of greatest tortoise activity, training operations have a very low 

probability of affecting tortoises given the sparse distribution of individual tortoises, the existing uses and 

level of disturbance of the LZs, and the small “footprint” of an operation. Because no ground activities 

(only touch-down and takeoff operations) are proposed under this alternative, the potential for aircraft to 

individually crush burrows or otherwise physically degrade habitat is very low. 

Because of the high winds, blowing dust, and outdoor recreation that are all common in the area, any 

effects on desert tortoise from aircraft would be low and not likely to result in a permanent change to the 

habitat for the species. Individual tortoises in the vicinity of a landing or hovering aircraft may assume a 

protective posture by temporarily withdrawing their head and limbs into their shell and remaining still, 

much as they do when a human or predator approaches. This posture provides protection from physical 

injury, and minimizes exposure to blowing dust and high frequency sound. Water balance and energy 

balance would be unaffected. The tortoise would resume normal activities following departure of the 

aircraft from the immediate area of the tortoise. Furthermore, noise effects on desert tortoise are not well 

understood, but similar to other effects, the potential for tortoise to be present at the exact time when an 

aircraft is approaching and during the time of year when tortoises are active would result in a very low 

potential for effects. 

Because activities proposed under this alternative would not result in the permanent removal, conversion, 

or degradation of habitat for the species, and because the potential for direct effects on individual tortoises 

such as crushing or temporary destruction of burrows is considered very low, impacts resulting from 

proposed activities are considered less than significant. 

Flat-tailed Horned Lizard. Only two LZs, C1 and Wolf, are within the known range of the species. 

Activities proposed at these locations would include touching down and taking off by rotary wing and tiltrotor aircraft. The sites are currently used for training and no construction, removal, modification, or 

conversion of habitat is proposed. Although training activities would temporarily increase noise and dust at 

an LZ while training occurs, effects would not result in the loss of any habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. 

The desert environment routinely includes high winds and blowing dust and species are accustomed to such 

forces. Because no on-ground training is proposed, the potential for the direct loss of any habitat is very 

low, and impacts resulting from proposed activities are considered less than significant. 
3.7 Biological Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.7-38 

Final EA 

Other Federally Listed or Otherwise Sensitive Species. No other federally listed endangered or threatened 

wildlife species are expected to occur on or in the vicinity of the proposed LZs due to a lack of suitable 

habitat and results of surveys of adjacent native wildlife habitats. If a federally protected species migrates 

through the area, such as a transient from the Colorado River or other more suitable habitat, the primary 

direct impacts of aircraft activity on endangered, threatened, and sensitive species would include noise and 

aircraft rotor wash (winds generated during low level hovering), similar to discussions above under Wildlife 

and Wildlife Habitats. Noise and rotor wash effects decrease with distance and would be of concern only 

when the aircraft is close to occupied habitat, such as during takeoff and landing operations, or low-level 

hovering, if the species is present. Bird species (including migratory and/or nesting birds) located adjacent 

to project sites would be most vulnerable as they may exhibit a flushing response to the noise and downdraft 

of an aircraft. Similar to common wildlife, the most likely response by an endangered, threatened, or 

sensitive bird species (including migratory species) to the training activity would be temporary avoidance of 

the area during the activity. Therefore, potential impacts on federally listed, state-listed, and other sensitive 

wildlife species, if they were to be present, are expected to be less than significant. 

Sensitive Habitats 

No wetlands or other sensitive habitat types are present on or in the immediate vicinity of the BLM El 

Centro LZs; therefore, no impacts would occur. 

Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures 

Proposed dust abatement measures at LZs within the Cleveland National Forest are described in section 

2.2.1.3 (Flight Activity within the Cleveland National Forest). These measures would reduce the potential 

for dust accumulation on nearby vegetation and reduce the level of impacts on biological resources. 

Because there would be no significant impact on biological resources, no additional avoidance, 

minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. 

3.7.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no USMC rotary wing or tilt-rotor operations would occur on public 

lands managed by the Cleveland National Forest and the BLM El Centro Field Office. However, other 

agencies, such as the Sheriff’s Department, Fire Department, and the U.S. Navy, may still use the LZs. 

Therefore, noise and rotor wash effects from aircraft operations would likely continue within the vicinity 

of the LZs, although at a lower rate than under existing conditions. The degraded quality of surface and 

vegetation at the LZs would likely remain the same even at a reduced rate of use. Specific to desert sites, 

desert tortoise individuals and habitats would continue to be subject to disturbance, but at a reduced rate. 

Depending on how often the LZs are used by other agencies, this could be a beneficial impact. 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.8-1 

Final EA 

3.8 Cultural Resources 

3.8.1 Affected Environment 

Cultural resources are historic and traditional cultural properties that reflect our heritage and are considered 

important to a culture, a subculture, or a community for scientific, traditional, religious, or other reason. 

Federal regulations define historic properties to include prehistoric and historic sites, buildings, structures, 

districts, or objects in or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (National 

Register), as well as artifacts, records, and remains related to such properties (NHPA, as amended [16 USC 

470-470x-6]). Additionally, cultural resources are protected under the Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act of 1979 (ARPA) (16 USC 470aa-470mm), Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA) (25 USC 3001-3013), and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 USC 1996 and 

1996a). Compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, which directs federal agencies to take into account the 

effect of a federal undertaking on a historic property, is outlined in the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation’s regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR Part 800). The NHPA and 

associated Section 106 compliance also provides guidance for Native American consultation. 

3.8.1.1 Definition of the Area of Potential Effects 

Under Section 106 of the NHPA, federal agencies must review the effects of an undertaking within the 

area of potential effects (APE), defined as “the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may 

directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties 

exist” (36 CFR 800.16(d)). 

The APE for the proposed action consists of all areas of potential ground disturbance associated with 

aircraft operations at LZs in the Cleveland National Forest and on BLM lands. Although no new 

construction or improvements are proposed at any LZ, ground disturbance from hovering and landing of 

aircraft could occur due to dust and debris being scattered and/or becoming airborne from aircraft rotor 

wash. Downdraft (and outwash) forces, collectively known as rotor wash, are relative to the engine 

power settings and the aircraft’s proximity to the ground. Rotor wash from an aircraft during landing, 

takeoff, and hovering operations immediately above the ground may disturb archaeological artifacts lying 

on the surface in the immediate vicinity of the aircraft, although the extent of this disturbance would 

depend on local soil characteristics, presence of vegetation, and size/weight of artifacts. Therefore, to 

account for the possible extent of ground disturbance from aircraft rotor wash during landing, takeoff, and 

hovering operations, the APE was defined as the LZ and a 350-foot (107-meter) radius buffer surrounding 

each LZ, based on a downdraft study commissioned by the Navy (Bell Boeing 2008). 

For historic architectural resources and Native American resources, the APE for direct impacts is the 

same as described above (i.e., areas of potential ground disturbance from aircraft rotorwash), but indirect 

impacts were also considered for the viewshed of any historic buildings or traditional cultural resources 

that may be affected by proposed aircraft operations. 

The California SHPO reviewed this undertaking (File No. USMC 120802A) and concurred that the 

project APE had been properly determined and documented pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(a)(1) and 

800.16(d) (see Appendix A-5). 

3.8.1.2 Cultural Setting 

The prehistoric chronology for southern California can be divided into three general periods – Early 

Prehistoric, Archaic Period, and Late Prehistoric Period. The Early Prehistoric period, also known as the 

San Dieguito complex, dates from about 12,000 to 7,000 years before present (B.P.). The San Dieguito 
3.8 Cultural Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.8-2 

Final EA 

people were hunter-gatherers that appear to have been organized into small mobile groups. The economy of 

San Dieguito groups was probably a generalized one that included both plants and animals, although there 

was an emphasis on deer, elk, and small game. The environment was generally cooler and wetter than at 

present, which provided a greater density of animal and plant resources. By the end of this period, climactic 

and ecological conditions approximated the present arid situation, resulting in reduced resources and human 

populations and a possible abandonment of desert regions by about 7,000 B.P. San Dieguito sites commonly 

contain a wide variety of scrapers, heavy choppers, crescentics, and large leaf-shaped projectile points and 

knives (Moratto 1984). In desert regions, such as the Colorado and Yuha deserts1

, San Dieguito sites 

include lithic scatters, cleared circles, rock features, and trails on the surface of heavily deflated desert 

pavements (SAIC 2011). Few sites from this time period, consisting of only an occasional San Dieguito 

projectile point, have been recorded further north in the Cleveland National Forest (SAIC 2012c). 

The Archaic Period, dating from about 7,000 to 1,000 B.P., was a time of more regional specialization of 

hunting and gathering traditions. The desert complexes have been termed Pinto (7,000-4,000 B.P.) and 

Amargosa (4,000-1,000 B.P.) based on distinctive projectile point types. Although present in the Great 

Basin and Mojave Desert, Pinto and Amargosan sites have rarely been identified in the Colorado and 

Yuha deserts (SAIC 2011). For other regions of southern California, this time period is defined by the La 

Jolla/Pauma complex (circa 8,600-1,300 B.P.). During this period the subsistence focus changed from 

generalized hunting and gathering and a more mobile lifestyle to an emphasis on plant foods and marine 

resources. Most sites are located along the coast and major drainage systems extending inland and are 

characterized by the appearance of milling stone technology (basin metates and manos), shell middens, 

terrestrial and marine mammal remains, burials, rock features, cobble-based tools at coastal sites and 

increased hunting equipment and quarry-based tools at inland sites. No well-documented La Jolla/Pauma 

complex sites have been recorded in the Trabuco Ranger District2

 of the Cleveland National Forest (SAIC 

2012c). 

The Late Prehistoric period (about 1,000-100 B.P.) was a time characterized by an increased number of 

sites, technological innovations, and new patterns in material culture and belief systems throughout 

southern California. In the desert regions, the term Patayan (“the Old Ones” in the Yuman language) is 

used to define a pattern of subsistence, settlement and technology during this time period. Groups 

occupied seasonal villages or temporary camps where rock-outlined jacales (thatched roof huts), simple 

ramadas (structures with roofs but no walls), low-walled rock structures, or brush huts were constructed. 

Horticulture was first practiced by groups on the Colorado River and it later spread to the Imperial Valley. 

Traits associated with the mobile and diversified subsistence strategy include a sparse material culture, 

extensive trail systems, the use of temporary camps and limited activity areas, a dispersed settlement 

pattern, use of rockshelters, agave roasting pit sites, and the use of bedrock and portable ground stone 

milling equipment (SAIC 2011). 

For other regions of southern California, the Late Prehistoric period is defined by the San Luis Rey 

complex, which has been identified for the southern Orange, western Riverside, and northern San Diego 

Counties area. It is characterized by the introduction of ceramics and changes in burial traditions and 

lithic technology. Along the coast, there is a shift from littoral resource exploitation to an emphasis on 

inland plant (especially acorns) food collection, processing, and storage. These changes are believed to 

be associated with a migration of Yuman-speaking people from the eastern Colorado River region around 

2,000 B.P. (Rogers 1945) and Shoshonean speakers after about 1,500 B.P. (Moratto 1984). During this 

period, inland semi-sedentary villages were established along major watercourses, and mountain areas 

were seasonally occupied to exploit acorns and piñon nuts. Late Prehistoric sites are well documented in 

the Cleveland National Forest (SAIC 2012c). 

 

1

 As described in Chapter 2, the BLM El Centro LZs are located in the Colorado and Yuha deserts. 2

 As described in Chapter 2, the Cleveland National Forest LZs are located in the Trabuco Ranger District. 
3.8 Cultural Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.8-3 

Final EA 

Ethnographically, two Hokan-speaking groups, the Desert Tipai (Kamia or Kumeyaay) and Quechan, are 

primarily affiliated with the project area in the desert region. In addition, other lowland Yuman tribes, 

such as the Mojave, Cocopah, Halchidhoma, and Maricopa, traveled widely across the desert for purposes 

of social visitation, religious pilgrimages, trade, alliance building, and warfare (Cleland 2004). This is 

represented by the numerous trail systems throughout the Colorado Desert (Schaefer and Schultze 1996). 

Further northwest, three Shoshonean groups (Gabrielino, Luiseño/Juaneño, and Cupeño) are primarily 

affiliated with the Trabuco Ranger District of the Cleveland National Forest. All but the Cupeño are 

associated with one of the coastal missions at San Gabriel, San Luis Rey, and San Juan Capistrano. 

Additional information on the prehistory, ethnohistory, and history of the project area is presented in the 

archaeological survey reports noted below (SAIC 2011, 2012c). 

3.8.1.3 Cultural Resources within the APE for Cleveland National Forest 

An archaeological investigation for the ten Cleveland National Forest LZs was conducted for the 

proposed action, and consisted of archival and document review of previous archaeological studies and a 

Class III intensive field survey3

 of the entire APE (SAIC 2012c). A records and literature search of the 

California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) was conducted at the Eastern Information 

Center (EIC), University of California, Riverside, and at the South Central Coastal Information Center 

(SCCIC), California State University Fullerton, California on 3 May 2010 to identify previously recorded 

cultural resources and previous studies within a 1-mile (1.6-km) radius of the APE. A records search was 

also conducted at the Cleveland National Forest supervisor’s office, San Diego, California, on 27 May 

2011. Previous archaeological investigations recorded four archaeological sites located within a one-mile 

radius of the APE, but none within the APE for the Cleveland National Forest. 

Although some of the APE had been previously surveyed, these surveys were at least 20 years old and 

many did not provide complete pedestrian survey coverage of their respective project areas; therefore, the 

entire APE was re-surveyed in August 2011. During the survey, one newly identified prehistoric site and 

one newly recorded isolated find were recorded outside of the LZ but within the 350-foot (107-meter) 

buffer area. The prehistoric site (CA-ORA-1717) consists of a petroglyph (human-shaped stick figure) 

carved on a sandstone boulder. The petroglyph is recommended eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register under Criterion D, because the site may provide information on prehistoric ceremonialism and 

symbolism, and it may mark the location of a sacred area to Native Americans. The isolated find 

(Primary Number 30-100340) is a rock pool feature recommended not eligible for listing in the National 

Register. Isolated finds, by definition, are usually not eligible for listing in the National Register, and this 

holds true for the rock pool isolate. No historic buildings were identified at any LZ. 

3.8.1.4 Cultural Resources within the APE for BLM El Centro Managed Lands 

An archaeological investigation for the BLM El Centro LZs was conducted for the proposed action, and 

consisted of archival and document review of previous archaeological studies and a Class III intensive field 

survey4

 of the entire APE (SAIC 2011). Records and literature searches of the CHRIS were conducted at 

the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) on 11 February 2010, 4 October 2010, and 8 April 2011 to 

identify previously recorded cultural resources and previous studies within a 1-mile (1.6-km) radius of the 

APE. Although the archaeological survey covered 23 potential LZs, 10 of the 23 LZs were subsequently 

dropped from further consideration due to potential impacts on archaeological resources and are no longer 

part of the proposed action. Based on input from interested Indian tribes (see below), two other LZs were 

redesigned to minimize impacts on nearby archaeological sites. The following summary provides 

information in regards to the 13 LZs that are carried forward under the proposed action. 

 

3

 SAIC received a permit under the ARPA (Permit # TRD-000103) from the Cleveland National Forest District Office in July 2011. 4

 The Class III field survey was conducted under BLM Statewide Cultural Use Permit (CA-10-15) and three separate Fieldwork 

Authorizations (CR-CA-670-10-120FA01; CR-CA-670-10-120FA02; and CR-CA-670-10-120FA03). 
3.8 Cultural Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.8-4 

Final EA 

Previous archaeological investigations recorded 134 archaeological sites within one mile (1.6 km) of the 

APE for the 13 BLM El Centro LZs (see Table 3 of SAIC 2011). Three sites were recorded within the 

APE, but were not relocated during the field survey. It is possible the sites were either recorded in the 

wrong location or may have been destroyed since their recordation (e.g., artifacts may have been collected 

or washed away from their original location) (see SAIC 2011). 

Although some of the APE had been previously surveyed (see SAIC 2011), most of these surveys were at 

least 20 years old; therefore, the entire APE was re-surveyed between May 2010 and April 2011. The 

Class III intensive field survey confirmed that no archaeological sites or isolates are located within any of 

the 13 LZs, but the survey recorded 23 archaeological sites within the buffer zones of the LZs (Table 3.8-

1). Of these 23 sites, three prehistoric trails (CA-IMP-11649, CA-IMP-11665, and CA-IMP-11667) are 

recommended eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion D5

, because they may provide 

information on prehistoric and ethnohistoric Native American culture history, trail usage, transport, and 

symbolic behavior. An additional 15 sites consisting of rock cairns and rock alignments may represent 

trail markers, shrines, hunting blinds, or mark the locations of prehistoric burials or places of traditional 

cultural importance, but this cannot be verified without further study. These 15 sites are considered 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register under Criterion D for the purposes of this undertaking. 

Therefore, 18 sites within the APE for the 13 BLM El Centro LZs are considered historic properties for 

the purposes of this undertaking. 

Table 3.8-1. Newly Recorded Sites Within the Project APE for BLM El Centro 

Site Identifier Site Type National Register Eligibility

Recommendation 

CA-IMP-11640 Rock cairn Eligible* 

CA-IMP-11641 Rock cairn & possible shrine Eligible* 

CA-IMP-11642 Historic rock cairn Not eligible 

CA-IMP-11648 Rock alignment Not eligible 

CA-IMP-11649 Prehistoric trail Eligible

CA-IMP-11653 Rock cairn Eligible* 

CA-IMP-11654 Rock cairn Eligible* 

CA-IMP-11655 Rock cairn Eligible* 

CA-IMP-11660 Rock cairn Eligible* 

CA-IMP-11661 Rock cairn Eligible* 

CA-IMP-11662 Rock cairn Eligible* 

CA-IMP-11664 Rock cairn Eligible* 

CA-IMP-11665 Prehistoric trail complex Eligible

CA-IMP-11667 Prehistoric trails Eligible

CA-IMP-11668 Rock cairn Eligible* 

CA-IMP-11669 Rock cairn Eligible* 

CA-IMP-11670 Rock cairn Eligible* 

CA-IMP-11671 Rock cairn Eligible* 

CA-IMP-11672 Rock cairn Eligible* 

CA-IMP-11673 Rock alignment Eligible* 

CA-IMP-11675 Prehistoric lithic scatter Not eligible 

CA-IMP-11676 Prehistoric lithic scatter Not eligible 

CA-IMP-11677 Prehistoric lithic scatter Not eligible 

Notes: 

*For the purposes of this undertaking, the site is considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register. 

Source: SAIC 2011 

 

5

 The California SHPO (File No. USMC 120802A) declined to either concur or not concur with the determinations of eligibility. 
3.8 Cultural Resources 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.8-5 

Final EA 

3.8.1.5 Native American Consultation and Coordination 

As described in section 2.6 (Agency Consultation and Approvals), the USMC, in cooperation with BLM 

and USFS, initiated consultation with federally recognized and non-federally recognized Indian tribes 

affiliated with lands involved in this action. Seventy-two letters were sent in April 2012 to initiate the 

consultation process (Appendix A). To date, responses have been received from the Agua Caliente Band 

of Cahuilla Indians, Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Cocopah 

Indian Tribe, Quechan Indian Tribe, Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, and Soboba Band of Luiseño 

Indians. The USMC coordinated with interested groups to determine if any other sensitive cultural sites, 

besides the archaeological sites discussed above, are located within the APE. No other resources were 

identified during this effort. The USMC also took into consideration concerns made by groups on 

potential effects on archaeological resources, and dropped some LZs from further consideration and 

redesigned two others to minimize impacts on nearby archaeological sites. For example, LZ Canary and 

LZ PC3 Option, which were addressed in the Public Draft EA, were subsequently dropped from further 

consideration at the request of the Quechan Indian Tribe. 

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 

3.8.2.1 Alternative 1 

Cleveland National Forest 

As described in section 3.8.1.4 (Cultural Resources within the APE for Cleveland National Forest), only 

one site (CA-ORA-1717, petroglyph) located within the APE for the Cleveland National Forest LZs is 

considered a historic property for the purpose of this undertaking. The archaeological site is in the buffer 

area of an LZ and is protected from possible aircraft rotor wash disturbance because it is located down 

slope from the LZ and sheltered behind a rock outcrop. Therefore, there would be no effect on a historic 

property or tribal cultural resource, and no significant impacts would occur under NEPA. 

BLM El Centro Managed Lands 

As described in section 3.8.1.5 (Cultural Resources within the APE for BLM El Centro Managed Lands), 

no archaeological sites or isolates are located within any of the 13 LZs, although 18 archaeological sites 

considered historic properties for the purpose of this undertaking are located within the buffer area 

surrounding the LZs. The 18 archaeological sites either are located at least 200 feet (61 meters) from 

aircraft landing and takeoff operations or otherwise protected from rotor wash by local geographic 

features. Therefore, it is unlikely that rotor wash from aircraft operations would adversely affect these 

sites. There would be no adverse effect on a historic property or tribal cultural resource, and no 

significant impacts would occur under NEPA. The California SHPO reviewed the proposed undertaking 

(File No. USMC 120802A) and concurred that the proposed undertaking would have no adverse effect on 

the identified historic properties. 

Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures 

Because there would be no significant impact on cultural resources, no avoidance, minimization, and/or 

mitigation measures are required beyond the project redesign components that were incorporated into the 

proposed action (e.g., dropping/redesigning LZs to minimize impacts). 

3.8.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no USMC rotary wing or tilt-rotor operations would occur on public 

lands managed by the Cleveland National Forest and the BLM El Centro Field Office. No adverse impact 

on historic properties would occur under the No Action Alternative.
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.9-1 

Final EA 

3.9 Public Health and Safety 

The USMC practices Operational Risk Management as outlined in OPNAVINST 3500.39A and MCO 

3500.27A. Requirements outlined in these documents provide for a process to maintain readiness in 

peacetime and achieve success in combat while safeguarding people and resources. The following safety 

and environmental health analysis addresses issues related to the health and wellbeing of both military 

personnel and civilians. Specifically, this section provides information on hazards associated with aircraft 

mishaps and wildfire management. Proposed flight activities at the Cleveland National Forest and on 

BLM El Centro managed lands do not include the use of flares or ordnance and, therefore, explosive 

safety is not addressed. 

3.9.1 Affected Environment 

The FAA is responsible for ensuring safe and efficient use of U.S. airspace by military and civilian 

aircraft and for supporting national defense requirements. To fulfill these requirements, the FAA has 

established safety regulations, airspace management guidelines, a civil-military common system, and 

cooperative activities with the DoD. The primary concern with regard to military training flights is the 

potential for aircraft mishaps (i.e., crashes) to occur, which could be caused by mid-air collisions with 

other aircraft or objects, weather difficulties, mechanical failures, pilot error, or bird-aircraft strikes. 

Aircraft mishaps are classified as A, B, or C (Table 3.9-1). Class A mishaps are the most severe with 

total property damage of $2 million or more and a fatality and/or permanent total disability. Based on 

historical data on mishaps at all installations, and under all weather conditions and altitudes of flight, the 

military services calculate Class A mishap rates per 100,000 flying hours for each type of aircraft in the 

inventory. These mishap rates do not consider combat losses due to enemy action. Calculating Class A 

mishaps can be used for comparing mishap rates for various aircraft types, as shown below. 

Table 3.9-1. Projected Class A Mishap Rates for Aircraft

Mishap Class Total Property Damage Fatality/Injury 

A $2,000,000 or more and/or aircraft destroyed Fatality or permanent total disability 

B $500,000 or more but less than $2,000,000 Permanent partial disability or three or 

more persons hospitalized as inpatients 

C $50,000 or more but less than $500,000 Nonfatal injury resulting in loss of time 

from work beyond day/shift when injury 

occurred 

Historically, when new military aircraft first enter the inventory, the accident rate for flight safety is 

higher. During the development and testing phase, the MV-22 recorded two Class A mishaps. All MV22 aircraft were grounded for 17 months after the second mishap in December 2000. As a result of these 

incidents, a major re-engineering of the aircraft’s electrical and hydraulic systems allowed the aircraft to 

return to flight in November 2001 (Fiscal Year [FY] 2002). Since that time, additional safety, reliability 

and maintainability improvements along with additional capabilities have been implemented. To present 

a realistic picture of the actual mishap rate for the MV-22, the number of Class A mishaps during the 

testing phase of the aircraft (before reaching operational status) versus the number of mishaps after 

reaching operational status is broken out in Table 3.9-2. The accident rate for the MV-22 after reaching 

operational status is 1.43 for 69,823 hours (FY 2004 through FY 2010). 

 
3.9 Public Health and Safety 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.9-2 

Final EA 

Table 3.9-2. Class A Flight Mishaps for MV-22 

FY Flight Hours Class A Mishaps Mishap Rate3

Before Reaching Operational Status 

1999 416 0 0 

2000 221 1 452.5

2001 470 1 212.8

20021 Unavailable 0 0 

20031 Unavailable 0 0 

Operational Status 

20042 1,986 0 0 

2005 5,045 0 0 

2006 6,989 0 0 

2007 10,547 1 9.48

2008 15,123 0 0 

2009 13,204 0 0 

2010 16,929 0 0 

Total (2004-2010) 69,823 1 1.43

Notes: 

1. Aircraft Grounded. 

2. Aircraft Returns to Flight Status. 

3. Class A mishap rates per 100,000 flying hours. 

Source: Holden 2011

The rotary wing aircraft included under this proposed action have similar total mishap rates (Tables 3.9-2, 

3.9-3, 3.9-4). The H-46, the longest running aircraft, has a mishap rate of 5.73 for 4,078,948 flight hours 

(FY 1964 through FY 2010); the CH-53E has a rate of 2.4 for 790,775 flight hours (FY 1984 through FY 

2010); the UH-1N has a rate of 3.16 for 253,517 flight hours (FY 1999 through FY 2010); the UH-1Y has 

a rate of zero for 14,822 flight hours (FY 2007 through FY 2010); the AH-1W has a rate of 2.18 for 

504,477 flight hours (FY 1999 through FY 2010); and the AH-1Z has a rate of zero for 3,091 flight hours 

(FY 2007 through FY 2010). A notable pattern in these tables is the fluctuation of mishap rates from year 

to year for all aircraft types, especially during the early years of introduction. 

The MV-22B and other relatively new aircraft (AH-1Z and UH-1Y) are expected to have (in the future) 

an accident rate similar to or less than other rotary aircraft (approximately one per 100,000 flight hours). 

This is part of an established trend regarding military aircraft. Combat aircraft are becoming more 

reliable, even as they become more complex. 

Table 3.9-3. Class A Flight Mishaps for Light Attack Helicopters 

Year 

UH-1N UH-1Y AH-1W AH-1Z

Flight 

Hours 

Class A 

Mishaps 

Mishap 

Rate 

Flight 

Hours 

Class A

Mishaps

Mishap

Rate

Flight

Hours

Class A

Mishaps

Mishap 

Rate

Flight 

Hours 

Class A

Mishaps

Mishap

Rate

FY 99 24,644 0 0.00 - - - 42,546 2 25.85 - - -

FY 00 22,818 0 0.00 - - - 42,069 1 26.15 - - -

FY 01 22,552 0 0.00 - - - 41,246 0 0.00 - - -

FY 02 22,857 3 13.13 - - - 44,454 1 24.74 - - -

FY 03 19,192 2 10.42 - - - 36,609 1 30.05 - - -

FY 04 18,722 2 10.68 - - - 37,952 2 28.98 - - -

FY 05 25,461 0 0.00 - - - 50,004 0 0.00 - - -

FY 06 22,713 0 0.00 - - - 45,345 1 24.26 - - -

FY 07 24,923 1 4.01 235 0 0 48,951 0 0.00 88 0 0

FY 08 18,455 0 0.00 1,886 0 0 38,045 1 28.91 738 0 0

FY 09 14,992 0 0.00 3,228 0 0 34,922 1 31.50 726 0 0

FY 10 16,188 0 0.00 9,473 0 0 42,334 2 25.98 1,539 0 0

Total 253,517 8 3.16 14,822 0 0 504,477 12 2.18 3,091 0 0

Note: Class A mishap rates per 100,000 flying hours.

Source: Holden 2011
3.9 Public Health and Safety 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.9-3 

Final EA 

Table 3.9-4. Class A Flight Mishaps for Medium and Heavy Lift Helicopters 

Year 

H-46 (all types)1

 CH-53E 

Flight 

Hours 

Class A 

Mishaps 

Mishap 

Rate2

Flight 

Hours 

Class A 

Mishaps 

Mishap 

Rate2

FY 64 147 0 0 - - -

FY 65 9,034 1 11.07 - - -

FY 66 33,442 2 5.98 - - -

FY 67 75,236 17 22.60 - - -

FY 68 92,108 24 26.06 - - -

FY 69 161,595 29 17.95 - - -

FY70 140,406 21 14.96 - - -

FY 71 132,350 9 6.80 - - -

FY 72 96,042 9 9.37 - - -

FY 73 93,971 6 6.38 - - -

FY 74 68,509 6 8.76 - - -

Jul-Dec 74 41,170 4 9.72 - - -

CY 75 86,428 5 5.79 105 0 0

CY 76 87,319 5 5.73 27 0 0

CY 77 93,500 3 3.21 249 0 0

CY 78 97,307 5 5.14 0 1 0

CY 79 92,390 3 3.25 88 0 0

Jan-Sep 80 66,689 4 6.00 0 0 0

FY 81 88,951 8 8.99 160 0 0

FY 82 92,300 5 5.42 4,629 0 0

FY 83 99,406 3 3.02 10,629 0 0

FY 84 106,039 3 2.83 16,259 1 6.15

FY 85 106,883 2 1.87 19,152 4 20.89

FY 86 110,743 7 6.32 22,748 1 4.40

FY 87 118,331 5 4.23 16,081 1 6.22

FY 88 112,606 4 3.55 21,075 0 0

FY 89 112,365 4 3.56 25,431 0 0

FY 90 98,775 4 4.05 27,385 1 3.65

FY 91 110,122 3 2.72 30,269 1 3.30

FY 92 96,834 4 4.13 28,598 1 3.50

FY 93 106,743 5 4.68 31,903 1 3.13

FY 94 98,796 2 2.02 33,779 0 0

FY 95 96,115 1 1.04 34,345 0 0

FY 96 90,401 5 5.53 24,867 0 0

FY 97 81,816 3 3.67 26,439 0 0

FY 98 87,321 1 1.15 30,327 0 0

FY 99 84,346 1 1.19 29,408 1 3.40

FY 00 92,849 1 1.08 32,739 0 0

FY 01 91,708 2 2.18 28,660 0 0

FY 02 90,287 2 2.22 36,144 1 2.77

FY 03 79,390 2 2.52 37,340 0 0

FY 04 63,436 1 1.58 35,010 2 5.71

FY 05 71,758 1 1.39 34,595 1 2.89

FY 06 59,676 0 0 33,321 1 3.00

FY 07 56,330 1 1.78 33,828 1 2.96

FY 08 41,032 1 2.44 29,842 0 0

FY 09 36,558 0 0 24,768 0 0

FY 10 29,388 0 0 30,575 0 0

Total 4,078,948 234 5.73 790,775 19 2.4

Notes: 

1. Data are from all models of the H-46, not just the CH-46, 

2. Class A mishap rates per 100,000 flying hours. 

Source: McKeel 2011
3.9 Public Health and Safety 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.9-4 

Final EA 

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 

3.9.2.1 Alternative 1 

Emergency and Mishap Response 

It is not possible to predict the precise location of an aircraft accident, should one occur. Improved 

system awareness and sensing capabilities installed on combat aircraft have the benefit of improved 

tracking and avoidance of light aircraft, thereby reducing mishap potentials. If an accident occurs, 

however, the first consideration is loss of life followed by damage to property. The aircrew’s ability to 

exit from a malfunctioning aircraft is dependent on the type of malfunction encountered. The probability 

of an aircraft crashing into a populated area is extremely low, but it cannot be totally discounted. During 

training flights within the airspace, pilots are instructed to avoid direct flyovers of population centers 

when operating at very low altitudes. The limited amount of time an aircraft spends over any specific 

geographic area lessens the probability of a disabled aircraft impacting a populated area. 

Secondary effects of an aircraft crash include the potential for fire or environmental contamination. Since 

the extent of secondary effects is situational, it is difficult to quantify them. A crash of any aircraft can 

cause damage and/or loss of life. Should a mishap occur in highly vegetated areas during a hot, dry 

summer, such a mishap would pose a higher risk of fire than would a mishap in more barren and rocky areas 

during the winter (see below for additional wildfire information). When an aircraft crashes, it may release 

hydrocarbons and the petroleum, oils, and lubricants not consumed in a fire could contaminate soil and 

water. The potential for contamination depends on several factors such as the porosity of the surface soils as 

that would determine how rapidly contaminants are absorbed, the specific geologic structures in the region 

would determine the extent and direction of the contamination plume, and the locations and characteristics 

of surface and groundwater in the area would affect the extent of contamination to those resources. 

Cleveland National Forest 

The overall number of proposed sorties at the Cleveland National Forest is expected to decrease slightly 

compared to existing conditions (from 452 to 422 annual sorties), while the number of overall landings is 

expected to increase slightly (from 2,132 to 2,205 annual landings). This change would result in a 

negligible impact on mishap potential compared to existing conditions. Additionally, as noted above, the 

MV-22B and other relatively new aircraft (AH-1Z and UH-1Y) are expected to have (in the future) an 

accident rate similar to or less than other rotary aircraft (approximately one per 100,000 flight hours), 

which may lower the overall mishap potential compared to the existing mix of aircraft. All safety actions 

that are in place for existing training flights would continue to be in place for the proposed operations. 

The 3D MAW maintains detailed emergency and mishap response plans to react to an aircraft accident, 

should one occur. These plans assign agency responsibilities and prescribe functional activities necessary 

to react to major mishaps, whether on or off the base. Therefore, there would be no significant impact to 

flight safety as a result of the implementation of Alternative 1. 

BLM El Centro Managed Lands 

Because the number of proposed sorties and landings on BLM El Centro managed lands is expected to 

increase by over 300 percent under Alternative 1, there may be an increase in mishap potential compared 

to existing conditions. However, the MV-22B and other relatively new aircraft (AH-1Z and UH-1Y) are 

expected to have (in the future) an accident rate similar to or less than other rotary aircraft (approximately 

one per 100,000 flight hours), which may lower the overall mishap potential compared to the existing mix 

of aircraft. As described above for operations at the Cleveland National Forest, all safety actions that are 

in place for existing training flights would continue to be in place for the proposed operations. Therefore, 

there would be no significant impact to flight safety as a result of the implementation of Alternative 1. 
3.9 Public Health and Safety 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.9-5 

Final EA 

Wildfire Management 

Rotary wing aircraft have been training in the Cleveland National Forest and on BLM El Centro lands for 

over 40 years and have not been identified as an ignition source for wildfires during normal operations. 

Because of its unique tilt-rotor design, introduction of the MV-22B into a national forest has been a 

concern for officials at the Trabuco Ranger District of the Cleveland National Forest. The Program 

Executive Officer for Air Assault and Special Mission Programs initiated a study to determine the risk of 

grass fire due to the exhaust temperature of the MV-22 (DoN 2008 [see Appendix E]). This study 

indicates that under normal operations, with exhaust deflectors operating, the exhaust of the MV-22 

would not heat the ground to a temperature high enough to support combustion of plant based materials. 

This is consistent with operational experience that found only one fire caused by an inoperative exhaust 

deflector in over 44,000 flight hours of operations with various types and locations of unprepared landing 

areas (DoN 2008). 

Cleveland National Forest 

As discussed in section 3.7 (Biological Resources), fire ignitions would be most frequent under 

conditions of low fuel moisture, low relative humidity, and high ambient temperatures, and are especially 

prevalent under Santa Ana conditions, during which dry air masses move from the interior to the coast, 

typically accompanied by high winds and hot temperatures. Fire potential would be highest in 

undeveloped areas with an abundance of natural fire fuels (e.g., dry grasses or finely branched shrubs that 

extend above the ground surface), dry soil, and low moisture content. Under Alternative 1, however, 

aircraft would only land within the designated LZs, which are typically heavily disturbed and/or 

developed and generally void of natural vegetation (see Appendix D), and no landings would occur in 

undisturbed, undeveloped sites outside of the proposed LZs. Additionally, many of the LZs are on or 

adjacent to fire breaks, which are routinely maintained by the USFS through controlled burns or other 

methods. Therefore, the potential for fire is considered low for operations at the Cleveland National 

Forest LZs. The USMC would work closely with the USFS, as needed, to establish appropriate protocols 

in the unlikely event of an aircraft mishap or ignition of fire. Therefore, there would be no significant 

impact to public health and safety as a result of the implementation of Alternative 1. 

BLM El Centro Managed Lands 

As described above for operations at the Cleveland National Forest, fire potential would be highest in 

undeveloped areas with an abundance of natural fire fuels (e.g., dry grasses or finely branched shrubs that 

extend above the ground surface), dry soil, and low moisture content. Under Alternative 1, however, 

aircraft would only land within the designated LZs, which are almost entirely void of vegetation and 

dominated by desert pavement, and no landings would occur in undisturbed, undeveloped sites outside of 

the proposed LZs. Therefore, the potential for fire on BLM El Centro lands is considered very low. The 

USMC would work closely with the BLM, as needed, to establish appropriate protocols in the unlikely 

event of an aircraft mishap or ignition of fire. Therefore, there would be no significant impact to public 

health and safety as a result of the implementation of Alternative 1. 

Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures 

Because there would be no significant impact to public health and safety, no avoidance, minimization, 

and/or mitigation measures are required. 
3.9 Public Health and Safety 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.9-6 

Final EA 

3.9.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no USMC rotary wing or tilt-rotor operations would occur on public 

lands managed by the Cleveland National Forest and the BLM El Centro Field Office. However, other 

agencies, such as the Sheriff Department, Fire Department, and the U.S. Navy, may still use the LZs. 

Therefore, public health and safety issues may continue within the vicinity of the LZs, although likely at a 

lower level than under existing conditions. Depending on how often the LZs are used by other agencies, 

this could be a beneficial impact. 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.10-1 

Final EA 

3.10 Aesthetics 

3.10.1 Affected Environment 

Visual resources are defined as the natural and manufactured features that constitute an area’s aesthetic 

qualities. These features form the overall impression that an observer receives of an area, including its 

landscape character. Landforms, water surfaces, vegetation, and manufactured features are considered 

distinctive elements of an area’s visual character. 

Generally, any activity that has the potential to alter the quality or distinguishable characteristic of the 

perceived environment may be considered as having an impact on the visual resources of that area. The 

significance of a change in visual character is influenced by social considerations including public value 

placed on the resource, public awareness and use of the area, and general community concern for visual 

resources in the area. These social considerations are the basis of visual sensitivity and derive from the 

degree of public interest in a visual resource and concern over potential adverse changes in the quality of 

that resource. 

Of particular importance with respect to military operations is an assessment of the perceived impacts that 

landing operations may have on the aesthetic and visual quality of representative aesthetic features. In 

particular, aesthetic and visual resources associated with the LZs in the Cleveland National Forest and on 

BLM managed lands primarily involve the natural landscape associated with mountain ridges and diverse 

desert environments in which landing operations would occur. 

3.10.1.1 Cleveland National Forest 

As discussed in section 3.3 (Land Use and Recreation), all of the LZs, with the exception of LZ Site 7, 

are located within areas of the Cleveland National Forest designated by the USFS as Back Country land 

use zone (Figure 3.3-1). LZ Site 7 is located within the Back Country, Non-Motorized land use zone. In 

addition, the LZs in the Cleveland National Forest are in the Silverado and Elsinore Places designated in 

the Forest Plan (USFS 2005a). According to the Forest Plan, both Places should remain undeveloped as 

natural appearing backdrops to the nearby urban areas of Orange and Riverside counties. Maintenance of 

scenic qualities is a program emphasis for both areas. 

Elsinore Place is one of the most visible landscapes in the national forest. The USFS manages this area to 

preserve the undeveloped quality and character of the urban backdrop, including the natural appearing 

skyline silhouette of the Santa Ana Mountains, and the scenic integrity of areas visible from Interstate-15 

and Ortega Highway corridors. 

Silverado Place is maintained as a natural appearing landscape that functions as a backdrop for southern 

Orange County and canyon communities. The USFS manages this area to preserve the undeveloped 

quality and character of the urban backdrop. Areas viewed from canyon communities include woodland 

plant habitats that have high scenic value and enhance the recreation experience (e.g., wildflowers and 

deciduous trees) and rare vegetative communities on upland slopes that add diversity to the landscape 

(i.e., knobcone pine and coastal sage scrub). 

The USFS designates scenic integrity objectives to areas within the national forest. Scenic integrity is the 

state of naturalness (or disturbance) created by human activities or alteration. The project area is located 

within an area with a high scenic integrity objective, which means the area appears unaltered. 

No scenic highways or wild and scenic rivers are located within the project area or immediate vicinity. 
3.10 Aesthetics 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.10-2 

Final EA 

3.10.1.2 BLM El Centro Managed Lands 

The LZs are located on land managed according to the CDCA Plan, as amended (BLM 1980), which 

designates land uses according to multiple-use classes, as described in section 3.3 (Land Use and 

Recreation). The proposed LZs are located in areas designated as unclassified lands. Unclassified lands 

are scattered and isolated parcels of public land in the CDCA, which are managed on a case-by-case 

basis, as described in the Land Tenure Adjustment Element section of the CDCA Plan (BLM 1980). 

There are no provisions to protect visual resources within unclassified lands in the Land Tenure 

Adjustment Element of the CDCA Plan (BLM 1980). 

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 

Visual resource impacts associated with aircraft operations primarily involve the presence of aircraft in 

otherwise natural rural settings. Visual effects include the aircraft themselves, both in the air and on the 

ground, as well as ancillary visible evidence of aircraft operations such as dust generation during landing 

and takeoff operations. During night time operations, navigation lights would be visible. An associated 

effect is the noise of engines and blades that would attract attention in the direction of the aircraft and 

away from visual resources, thereby making it more likely that a bystander would notice the aircraft. 

3.10.2.1 Alternative 1 

Cleveland National Forest 

The overall number of proposed operations in the Cleveland National Forest would decline slightly from 

current operations (from 452 to 422 sorties per year), while the number of landings is expected to increase 

slightly (from 2,132 to 2,205 annual landings). There would be no construction or alteration of the 

landscape that would be visible to the casual observer; therefore, there would be no permanent change to 

the visual environment. Overflights to and from the LZs would continue, but at a relatively low 

frequency of about 36 sorties per year (or 3 a month) for most LZs. While the mix of aircraft would differ 

from the current situation, it is very unlikely that casual observers would notice the difference. 

Rotor wash from aircraft landing, takeoff, and hovering operations would result in dust and debris being 

scattered and becoming airborne in the immediate vicinity of the aircraft, although the extent of this dust 

disturbance would depend on local soil characteristics, presence of vegetation, and weather conditions. 

Dust would be visible to recreational users in the general area within sight of the LZ, but the airborne dust 

would disperse quickly. For example, time-lapsed photographs taken during a one-time MV-22 landing 

demonstration at LZ Site 5 show that airborne dust from the landing dispersed in less than two minutes 

(Figure 3.10-1).1

Aircraft activities at the proposed LZs would also occur in low numbers and would be generally dispersed 

over broad geographic areas. Regular, repeated, or continuous adverse visual impacts would be unlikely 

because routine training operations would vary on a daily basis. Casual observers would primarily be 

recreational users within the Cleveland National Forest. As discussed in section 3.3 (Land Use and 

Recreation), disturbance to nearby recreational users (e.g., hiking, biking, etc.) could occur, but this would 

be short-term, consisting of isolated and infrequent landing and takeoff operations, and of low intensity (i.e., 

low numbers of aircraft). Although recreation within the project area occurs throughout the week, 

scheduling would result in automatic separation of flight operations from weekend public recreation. 

Therefore, the potential for visual or aesthetic impacts on recreational users would be somewhat reduced. 

Given these characteristics, routine training activities would not result in permanent alteration of the area’s 

visual environment or high scenic integrity, and there would be no significant impact on visual resources. 

 

1

 Note that LZ Site 5 is composed of barren and gravelly soils and the remnants of an old landing pad and, therefore, may not represent the 

maximum amount of dust generation at other previously undeveloped sites. 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Final EA

Figure 3.10-1. Time-Lapsed Photographs during a One-Time MV-22 Landing Demonstration at LZ Site 5

3.10-3

3.10 Aesthetics

Date: 4 November 2011

Time: 12:54:04 PM

Date: 4 November 2011

Time: 12:54:17 PM

Date: 4 November 2011

Time: 12:54:38 PM

Date: 4 November 2011

Time: 12:55:43 PM
3.10 Aesthetics 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 3.10-4 

Final EA 

BLM El Centro Managed Lands 

Aircraft operations on BLM El Centro lands would increase substantially from current operations (from 

483 to 2,080 sorties per year). As with the Cleveland National Forest LZs, there would be no 

construction or alteration of the landscape that would be visible to the casual observer. Even with an 

increase in overflights to and from the LZs, the overall frequency would remain relatively low at about 

114 to 346 sorties per year (or 10 to 29 a month) for each LZ. While the mix of aircraft would differ from 

the current situation, it is unlikely that casual observers would notice the difference. Overall, the visual 

effects of Alternative 1 within BLM El Centro lands would be somewhat greater than the current level of 

impacts due to the larger numbers of sorties. However, the number of sorties per day would still be small 

and of short duration and would be dispersed over a wide geographic area such that no one location is 

likely to experience substantial adverse visual impacts. Given these characteristics, routine training 

activities would not result in permanent alteration of the area’s visual environment, and there would be no 

significant impact on visual resources. 

Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures 

Because there would be no significant impact on visual resources, no avoidance, minimization, and/or 

mitigation measures are required. However, as discussed in section 2.2.1.3 (Flight Activity within the 

Cleveland National Forest), the USMC would work with the USFS to identify and implement appropriate 

dust abatement measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions. These measures would reduce the potential 

for dust generation and associated visual or aesthetic impacts on recreational users in the Cleveland 

National Forest. 

3.10.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no USMC rotary wing or tilt-rotor operations would occur on public 

lands managed by the Cleveland National Forest and the BLM El Centro Field Office. However, other 

agencies, such as the Sheriff Department, Fire Department, and the U.S. Navy, may still use the LZs. 

Therefore, minor impacts on visual resources may continue within the vicinity of the LZs, although likely 

at a lower level than under existing conditions. Depending on how often the LZs are used by other 

agencies, this could be a beneficial impact. 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 4-1 

Final EA 

4 Cumulative Impacts 

4.1 Introduction 

CEQ regulations implementing NEPA require that the cumulative impacts of a proposed action be 

assessed (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). A cumulative impact is defined as the following: 

The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts 

can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period 

of time. (40 CFR § 1508.7) 

CEQ’s guidance for considering cumulative effects states that NEPA documents “should compare the 

cumulative effects of multiple actions with appropriate national, regional, state, or community goals to 

determine whether the total effect is significant” (CEQ 1999). The first step in assessing cumulative 

effects, therefore, involves identifying and defining the scope of other actions and their interrelationship 

with the proposed action or alternatives. The scope must consider other projects that coincide with the 

location and timetable of the proposed action and other actions. Section 4.2 identifies relevant past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including both military actions in the region as well as 

other federal and non-federal actions. Projects were selected because they are either similar to the 

proposed action, large enough to have far reaching effects, or in proximity to the proposed action. 

Section 4.3 provides an analysis of cumulative impacts for relevant environmental resources, and further 

defines the region of influence and relevant projects for each resource area. 

4.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects 

Considered in the Cumulative Analysis 

This section describes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in either the project area or 

the greater regional area of influence. Projects are organized by military actions (section 4.2.1), USFS 

actions (section 4.2.2), BLM actions (section 4.2.3), Orange County actions (section 4.2.4), Riverside 

County and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) actions (section 4.2.5), and City of 

Corona actions (section 4.2.6). Most of the land within and surrounding the project area is federally 

owned and/or federally managed and, therefore, the projects described below center on federal actions. 

Note that some utility developments that are proposed on nearby federal lands (e.g., San Diego Gas & 

Electric Company [SDG&E] projects) are included below under the applicable federal land owner. To 

the extent that details regarding such actions exist and the actions have a potential to interact with the 

proposed action described in this EA, these actions are included in the cumulative impact analysis. 

4.2.1 Military Actions 

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Land Withdrawal Renewal. The DoN is initiating the process 

set forth in the Withdrawal Act of 1994 to request Congress to renew the land withdrawal at the 

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range, which is part of the USMC’s Bob Stump Training Range 

Complex, as there is a continuing military need for the range. The current military withdrawal for the 

range expires in October 2014. The range consists of approximately 459,000 acres (185,750 hectares) 

located within desert mountain terrain in Riverside and Imperial counties in southern California, east of 

the Salton Sea (see Figure 1.1-1). Its primary mission is military aircrew training in the delivery of air-toground ordnance. The DoN published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register in September 2010 
4 Cumulative Impacts 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 4-2 

Final EA 

announcing its intent to prepare a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to support the land 

withdrawal application (DoN 2011a). The Draft Legislative EIS was distributed to the public in August 

2012 (DoN 2012a), and the public comment period ended 30 November 2012. No change in the potential 

for direct impacts to biological resources (including desert tortoise) or cultural resources would be 

expected to occur as a result of the renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal. 

West Coast Homebasing of the Joint Strike Fighter. The DoN published a Notice of Intent in the Federal 

Register in January 2011 announcing its intent to prepare an EIS that will evaluate the potential 

environmental effects associated with basing the Navy’s F-35C Joint Strike Fighter aircraft on the west 

coast of the U.S. Under this proposal, a total of seven active-duty F/A-18C Hornet squadrons and one 

fleet replacement squadron, a total of 100 aircraft, would transition to the more advanced F-35C Joint 

Strike Fighter beginning in 2015. The preliminary screening process identified two potentially suitable 

west coast home basing locations: Naval Air Station Lemoore, located in Kings County, California, and 

Naval Air Facility El Centro, located in Imperial County, California (DoN 2011b). Additionally, the DoN 

signed the Record of Decision (ROD) in December 2010 to homebase 96 USMC Joint Strike Fighters at 

MCAS Miramar and 88 USMC Joint Strike Fighters at MCAS Yuma (DoN 2010b). Potential impacts 

may include noise and air quality associated with aircraft overflights. 

MCAGCC Twentynine Palms Land Acquisition and Airspace Establishment Project. This proposed 

action consists of expanding the land base and special use airspace of MCAGCC in Twentynine Palms, 

California, to provide a training range facility capable of supporting large force exercises. The proposed 

action would accommodate a proposed new program of sustained, combined-arms, live-fire, and 

maneuver training for all elements of a Marine Expeditionary Brigade-sized Marine Air Ground Task 

Force. The Draft EIS (DoN 2011c) was distributed to the public in February 2011, with the comment 

period running through May 2011. The Final EIS (DoN 2012c) was released in July 2012, with the ROD 

expected in January 2013 (DoN 2012b). The EIS indicates the project may impact biological resources 

(including desert tortoise), cultural resources, paleontological resources, soils, air quality, and mineral 

resources. 

Proposed Utility and Infrastructure Improvements to Camp Billy Machen. This proposed action consists 

of providing utility and infrastructure improvements to a Navy Sea, Air and Land (SEAL) Team desert 

warfare training facility that is located on the northwestern edge of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial 

Gunnery Range, near Niland, Imperial County, California. The project also proposes constructing a 

materials storage facility outside the existing cantonment area. A Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) was signed in April 2012 (USMC 2012c). 

4.2.2 United States Forest Service Actions 

Ongoing Uses within the Cleveland National Forest. The Cleveland National Forest provides for 

management of multiple-uses, as described in the Land Use Management Plan (USFS 2005a). Ongoing 

activities and uses that occur within the forest include restoration of vegetation, recreation (hunting, 

fishing, lodges, resorts, clubs, mountain biking, camping, and off-highway vehicle use), motorized use, 

communication sites, livestock grazing, roads, utility corridors, mineral resource exploration and 

development, renewable energy development, and fuel break construction/maintenance. In particular, the 

Land Use Management Plan has identified the need to maintain 1,000 acres of fuel break annually, and 

fuel breaks need to be treated on a rotational basis to assure that a low fuel loading is maintained (USFS 

2005a; see also specific fuel break projects noted below). Fuel break maintenance generally includes 

grading and controlled burns, which may result in smoke and dust emissions. 

Consolidation and Reissuance of San Diego Gas & Electric Company Permits. The Cleveland National 

Forest proposes to issue a Master Special Use Permit to SDG&E for the operation and maintenance of 
4 Cumulative Impacts 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 4-3 

Final EA 

existing electric distribution and transmission lines, appropriate access roads, and other appurtenant 

facilities (USFS 2012e). The permit will also include conditions necessary for resource protection. The 

project area is located in multiple locations within the Trabuco, Palomar and Descanso Ranger Districts, 

Cleveland National Forest. This action is needed because the existing authorizations are expired, and the 

existing powerlines are needed to supply power to local communities, residents, and government-owned 

facilities located within and adjacent to the Cleveland National Forest. An EA was completed in May 

2009 (USFS 2009). The EA indicates the project may have wildland fire risks and impacts on biological 

resources. 

Sunrise Powerlink Transmission Line Project. The Cleveland National Forest proposes to allow SDG&E 

to construct powerlines across portions of the Cleveland National Forest between Imperial Valley and San 

Diego. The 119-mile (192-km) Sunrise Powerlink transmission line would affect the Cleveland National 

Forest Descanso Ranger District near MCAS Miramar and would cross BLM land to tie in near El 

Centro, California. The purpose of the line is to link San Diego to the Imperial Valley. Communities 

potentially affected include Alpine, Lakeside, McCain Valley, and other incorporated areas in San Diego 

County, California. This project was approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) 

and BLM in 2010 (see section 4.2.3 for more information on BLM’s action). The Cleveland National 

Forest superintendent approved the project in July 2010 (USFS 2012d), and is currently under 

construction. The ROD (USFS 2010) indicates the project would have wildland fire risks, visual impacts, 

and impacts on biological resources. 

North Main Divide Fuel Break System. The proposed action would remove vegetation on the North Main 

Divide Fuel break System, which is located along the North Main Divide Road within the Trabuco 

Ranger District, Cleveland National Forest (USFS 2012f). The proposal calls for both hand clearing 

techniques and prescribed fire in performing this vegetation removal. A Final EA was released in May 

2012 (USFS 2012j), and a FONSI was signed in May 2012 (USFS 2012k). Fuel break maintenance 

generally includes some grading and controlled burns, which may result in smoke and dust emissions. 

El Cariso, Indian, and Munhall Plantation Vegetation Management. The Trabuco Ranger District of the 

Cleveland National Forest proposes to manage vegetation in three locations on the district utilizing a 

variety of methods, including possible use of broadcast burning within the understory. Proposed 

activities would improve the health and vigor of trees and other vegetation in the plantations and would 

protect the trees from wildfires. A scoping letter was released in June 2011 (USFS 2011a), and the 

project is currently under analysis (USFS 2012g). Broadcast burning within the understory may result in 

temporary smoke and dust emissions.

Elsinore Peak Fuels Treatment. The Trabuco Ranger District proposes to create a fuels treatment area 

adjacent to the community of Rancho Capistrano and along the South Main Divide Road by using 

mechanical treatments and burning. A scoping letter was released in June 2011 (USFS 2011a), and the 

project is currently under analysis (USFS 2012h). Fuels treatment generally may include grading and 

controlled burns, which may result in smoke and dust emissions.

Silverado Fuel Break. The Trabuco Ranger District proposes to construct a fuel break on the ridge 

between Silverado and Harding canyons to provide protection for the communities in Silverado and 

Modjeska canyons. The fuel break system would be maintained by hand clearing vegetation, pile 

burning, mechanical equipment (masticator) and broadcast burning. A scoping letter was released in July 

2011 (USFS 2011b), and the project is currently under analysis (USFS 2012i). Fuel break maintenance 

generally includes grading and controlled burns, which may result in smoke and dust emissions. 
4 Cumulative Impacts 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 4-4 

Final EA 

4.2.3 Bureau of Land Management Actions 

Ongoing Uses within the BLM El Centro Field Office Jurisdiction. The mission of the BLM is to sustain 

the health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future 

generations. Land within the jurisdiction of the BLM El Centro Field Office provides for management of 

multiple-uses, in accordance with FLPMA. Ongoing activities and uses that occur within these BLM 

lands include renewable energy development, fire/fuels management, grazing of rangeland, landscape 

conservation, recreation (bird watching, camping, hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, off-road 

vehicles, rockhounding, and target shooting), management of wild horses and burros, management of 

abandoned mine lands, and management of wildlife and fisheries. 

West Chocolate Mountains Renewable Energy Evaluation Area. BLM is currently evaluating a proposed 

action to develop renewable energy projects within a 59,000 acre (23,877 hectare) West Chocolate 

Mountains Renewable Energy Evaluation Area (REEA) located east of the Salton Sea and west of the 

Chocolate Mountains. The purpose of the proposed action is to facilitate appropriate and environmentally 

responsible development of geothermal, solar, and wind energy in the West Chocolate Mountains REEA. 

BLM is preparing an EIS and a CDCA Plan Amendment to evaluate the potential environmental impacts 

associated with identifying sites on specific BLM managed surface lands as suitable for authorization of 

rights-of-way for testing and developing solar and wind energy facilities. This EIS and CDCA Plan 

Amendment also will consider approval of a noncompetitive geothermal lease application filed with the 

BLM before 2005. This planning effort will not sanction any specific energy development at this time, 

including the lease application, which might result in environmental impacts. Additional project-specific 

environmental analyses would need to be conducted before on-the-ground development activities could 

occur; however, further amendments of the CDCA plan would not be required (BLM 2012a). The Draft 

EIS (BLM 2011e) was distributed to the public in June 2011, and the Final EIS (BLM 2012k) was 

released in November 2012. The EIS identified adverse impacts to air quality, noise, geologic resources, 

soils, water resources, vegetation, fish and wildlife, cultural resources, paleontological resources, visual 

resources, lands and realty, human health and safety, energy and minerals, recreation, and traffic and 

transportation. 

Sunrise Powerlink Transmission Line Project. Similar to what was described above in section 4.2.2, this 

project consists of a 119-mile (192-km) Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. BLM 

and the CPUC released a Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) 

in October 2008. The EIS/EIR was supported by the following Cooperating and Responsible agencies: 

the USFS (Cleveland National Forest), the Bureau of Indian Affairs, MCAS Miramar, and the California 

Department of Parks and Recreation (Anza-Borrego Desert State Park). On 24 February 2009, the BLM 

approved a temporary right-of-way grant for construction and a long-term right-of-way grant for the 

operation and maintenance of the transmission lines where they cross approximately 49 miles of public 

lands in Imperial and San Diego counties. On 2 February 2011, the BLM issued a notice to proceed for 

construction within the fence line of the existing Imperial Valley Substation, and on 4 April 2011, issued 

a second notice to proceed authorizing construction of overhead transmission on the public lands crossed 

by the project (BLM 2012b). The EIS/EIR (CPUC 2008) identified potential impacts that include air 

emissions associated with construction; loss of native vegetation, removal of habitat, and potential 

collisions of birds with transmission lines; loss of agricultural lands; noise from construction, 

maintenance, and corona noise from transmission lines; threats to biological resources in certain 

locations; visual resources; recreational resources; and cultural resources. 

Ocotillo Sol Solar Energy Project. SDG&E is requesting a right-of-way authorization from the BLM to 

construct and operate a photovoltaic solar energy facility on public land located in southwest Imperial 

County, California. The Ocotillo Sol Solar Energy Project would be built on an approximately 100-acre 

(40 hectare) site located approximately 9 miles (15 km) southwest of El Centro, and 4 miles (6 km) south 
4 Cumulative Impacts 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 4-5 

Final EA 

of Interstate 8. The project would be a 15- to 18-megawatt (MW) photovoltaic project (with peak 

capacity of 20 MW). The Draft EIS (BLM 2012k) was distributed to the public in April 2012, and the 

Final EIS is currently being prepared (BLM 2012c). Impacts identified in the Draft EIS (BLM 2012k) 

include construction and operational emissions of air pollutants, greenhouse gas emissions, potential soil 

erosion, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, threat of 

wildland fire, recreation, visual resources, transportation, noise, and public health and safety. 

Ocotillo Express Wind Energy Project. Ocotillo Express, LLC, has applied to the BLM for a right-ofway on public lands to construct a wind generation power plant facility. This power plant facility would 

be located approximately 5 miles (8 km) west of Ocotillo, California. The project would generate 550 

MW of wind energy, and would include a substation; administration, maintenance and operations 

facilities; transmission; and temporary construction lay down areas. The recently approved Sunrise 

Powerlink transmission line crosses the proposed site, which represents 15,000 acres (6,070 hectares) of 

public land administered by the BLM, with a small portion of public land under the jurisdiction of 

Imperial County. The Sunrise Powerlink would deliver the power generated by the Ocotillo Express 

project to energy consumers throughout southern California. The Final EIS/EIR was released in March 

2012 (BLM 2012d) and the ROD for this project was published in the Federal Register on 11 May 2012 

(BLM 2012j). In addition, the Notice to Proceed was authorized on 14 May 2012 (BLM 2012e), and the 

right-of-way grant was signed on 11 May 2012 (US DOI 2012). The Final EIS/EIR (BLM 2012d) 

identified potential impacts to air quality, cultural resources, noise, paleontological resources, vegetation 

resources, visual resources, and wildlife resources. 

Imperial Solar Energy Center-West. CSOLAR Development, LLC, has submitted a right-of-way 

application to construct, operate, and maintain a 230 kilovolt transmission line on land managed by the 

BLM El Centro Field Office (BLM 2012f). The proposed action consists of two primary components: 1) 

the construction and operation of a solar energy facility; and, 2) the construction and operation of the 

electrical transmission lines that would connect from the solar facility to the existing Imperial Valley 

substation. The solar energy center would be on 1,103 acres (446 hectares) of vacant land previously 

utilized for agricultural purposes in the Imperial Valley, California. The Final EIR/EA was released in 

July 2011 (BLM 2011a), and the FONSI was signed in August 2011 (BLM 2011b). Furthermore, the 

Secretary of the Interior approved the transmission line on public lands on 25 August 2011 (US DOI 

2011a), and the right-of-way grant was signed on 27 September 2011 (US DOI 2011b). The Final 

EIR/EA (BLM 2011a) considered potential impacts to visual resources, land use, 

transportation/circulation, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, geology/soils and mineral resources, 

cultural resources, noise, agricultural resources, health and safety, hydrology and water quality, biological 

resources, public services and utilities, paleontological resources, and recreation. 

Tule Wind Energy and East County Substation Projects. Pacific Wind Development has submitted a 

right-of-way application to BLM to construct, operate, and maintain an energy generation facility 

approximately 60 miles (97 km) east of San Diego, California, north of Interstate 8 (BLM 2012g). The 

project would generate 200 MW of wind energy. The proposed project would include the construction of 

new roads, turbines, a transmission line, and other facilities. It would be constructed on approximately 

15,500 acres (6,273 hectares) consisting of lands administered by the BLM as well as private lands under 

county jurisdiction, state lands, and lands within the Ewiiaapaayp Indian Reservation. SDG&E has 

applied to BLM for a 1.5-mile (2.4-km) long right-of-way to accommodate a 138-kilovolt transmission 

line in support of the wind project. The right-of-way is part of the application SDG&E has filed with the 

CPUC for the much larger East County Substation Project. The Final EIR/EIS was released in October 

2011 (BLM 2011c), and the ROD was signed in December 2011 (BLM 2011b). Various components of 

the proposed project were determined in the EIR/EIS to potentially impact biological resources (Quino 

checkerspot butterfly), air quality, visual resources, cultural resources, and noise. 
4 Cumulative Impacts 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 4-6 

Final EA 

Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly named and referred to as the Solar Two Project). Stirling Energy 

Systems has submitted an application to BLM for development of a concentrated solar electrical 

generating facility capable of generating 750 MW of renewable power (BLM 2012h). The proposed 

project is located on approximately 6,140 acres (2,485 hectares) of federal land managed by the BLM and 

approximately 300 acres (121 hectares) of privately owned land. The project site is in Imperial County, 

California, approximately 4 miles (6 km) east of Ocotillo, and 14 miles (23 km) west of El Centro. The 

Final EIS was released in July 2010 (BLM 2010), and a ROD was signed on 5 October 2010 (BLM 

2012h). However, on 17 August 2011, the California Energy Commission formally terminated the 

project license at the applicant’s request (California Energy Commission 2011). 

Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area Management Plan. The USFWS designated critical habitat for 

Peirson’s Milk Vetch in 2008, which triggered BLM to begin a new Recreation Area Management Plan 

planning process. The planning area consists of approximately 200,000 acres (80,937 hectares), with 

approximately 150,000 acres (60,703 hectares) of BLM managed land and 25,829 acres (10,453 hectares) 

designated as North Algodones Dunes Wilderness Area. The planning area is bordered on the east by the 

Chocolate Mountain Range and the Cargo Muchacho Mountains, bordered on the west by the East Mesa 

Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Management Area, and bordered on the south by the U.S./Mexico border. The 

Recreation Area Management Plan includes closing 100 percent of Peirson’s Milk Vetch critical habitat, 

providing more acreage available for off-highway vehicle recreation than under current conditions, 

providing protection of Peirson’s Milk Vetch, and making lands available for renewable energy (BLM 

2012i). The Final EIS (BLM 2012 m) was released in September 2012. 

4.2.4 Orange County Actions 

Saddle Crest Homes. An application has been submitted to the Orange County Community Development 

Department for a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Area Plan to allow for 

development of Saddle Crest Homes, a gated community comprised of 65 detached single-family 

residential units concentrated off Santiago Canyon Road, with proposed open space dedication along the 

northeastern portion of the property. Saddle Crest Homes is located in unincorporated Orange County 

north of the junction of Live Oak Canyon Road with El Toro Road and east of Santiago Canyon Road. 

The Cleveland National Forest and other open space areas are adjacent to Saddle Crest Homes to the 

north. The project site lies within the Upper Aliso Residential District in the northwestern portion of the 

Foothill Trabuco Specific Plan area. A Draft EIR (County of Orange 2012a) was published on 20 April 

2012, and the Final EIR (County of Orange 2012b) was released in July 2012. The EIR identified 

potential impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, 

greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and 

planning, recreation, and utilities and service systems. 

Oak Flat Tower. Kierktron Inc. has submitted an application to the Orange County Community 

Development Department for a grading permit and building permit to allow for development of four radio 

transmitting towers and equipment building and removal of existing site structures. The project is located 

at 9193 Black Star Canyon Road, within an unincorporated area of Orange County adjacent to the 

Riverside County border. The site is a private in-holding within the Cleveland National Forest Trabuco 

Ranger District known as “Oak Flat.” An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared 

in August 2011. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (County of Orange 2011) noted less than significant 

impacts, with mitigation, for biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas 

emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise. 
4 Cumulative Impacts 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 4-7 

Final EA 

4.2.5 Riverside County and California Department of Transportation Actions 

State Route-91 Corridor Improvement Project. The Riverside County Transportation Commission and 

Caltrans are proposing capacity, operational, and safety improvements on part of State Route 91 and part 

of Interstate 15. The project would widen the existing State Route 91 from the State Route 91/State 

Route 241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the 

City of Riverside in Riverside County. The project also includes improvements to Interstate 15 in 

Riverside County between the Interstate 15 and Cajalco Road interchange in the City of Corona and the 

Interstate 15 and Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. The Draft EIR/EIS was 

published on 20 May 2011, which started the public comment period that ended on 11 July 2011. The 

Final EIR/EIS was released in August 2012, and a ROD was signed on 23 October 2012 (Caltrans 2012). 

4.2.6 City of Corona Actions 

Rancho de Paseo Valencia. An application has been submitted to the City of Corona Planning 

Department to allow for development of 34 single-family estate lots on 64 acres. Approval of the project 

is pending. 

Arantine Hills Specific Plan. An application was submitted to the City of Corona Planning Department 

for approval of a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, development agreement, a tentative map, and 

subsequent parcel maps and tentative tract maps to allow for development of a 276-acre master-planned 

community that includes residential, commercial, and mixed-use development as well as open 

space/recreational uses. A Draft EIR (City of Corona 2012a) was published on 9 May 2012, and the Final 

EIR was released in July 2012 (City of Corona 2012b). The EIR identified potential impacts for air 

quality, biological resources, archaeological and paleontological resources, geology and soils, greenhouse 

gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation, and 

utilities and service systems. 

Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension. The City of Corona Public Works Capital Improvement Division 

submitted an application to construct two new miles of Foothill parkway from Skyline Drive to Paseo 

Grande at Green River. Connections to the new section of Foothill Parkway from both Mangular Avenue 

via Chase drive and Border Avenue are also being considered as part of the overall project. The project 

would improve east/west traffic flow through the southern portion of the city and provide a parallel route 

to Ontario Avenue. The Final EIR was approved in February 2009. The final engineering and design is 

expected to be completed in 2012 after which construction would begin. The Final EIR (City of Corona 

2009) identified potential impacts for aesthetics, light and glare, air quality, noise, cultural resources, and 

geologic and seismic hazards. 

Green River Road Widening. The City of Corona Public Works Capital Improvements Division 

submitted an application to widen Green River Road between State Route 91 and Palisades Drive from 4 

to 6 lanes including installation of curb and gutter, sidewalk, utility relocation, installation of storm drain 

laterals and culverts, the installation of a new traffic signal at Green River Road/ Palisades Drive, the 

modification of the existing traffic signal at Green River Road/Dominguez Ranch Road, and the 

modification of the exiting intersections of Green River Road/Fresno Road and Green River 

Road/Nicholas Place. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (City of Corona 2010) was 

prepared in January 2010. Potential impacts were noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for 

hydrology and water quality, air quality, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and 

cultural resources. 
4 Cumulative Impacts 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 4-8 

Final EA 

4.3 Potential Cumulative Impacts by Environmental Resource 

Area 

This section addresses the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed action in conjunction with the 

aforementioned projects. These projects represent past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions with 

the potential for cumulative impacts when considered in conjunction with the potential impacts from the 

proposed action. However, if a project would not result in direct or indirect impacts on a resource area, it 

would not contribute to a cumulative impact on that resource area. CEQ guidance states, “A cumulative 

effects analysis should ‘count what counts,’ not produce superficial analyses or a long laundry list of 

issues that have little relevance to the effect of the proposed action or the eventual decisions” (CEQ 

1997). Therefore, the cumulative impact analysis focuses on 1) those resource areas with the potential to 

be significantly impacted by the project; and/or 2) those resource areas currently in poor or declining 

health or at risk even if project impacts would be relatively small (less than significant). 

4.3.1 Airspace 

The geographic scope of the airspace cumulative analysis includes the airspace over much of southern 

California. The regional airspace on the west coast (and elsewhere) is becoming more and more crowded 

due to increasing commercial, private, and military aviation demands. The FAA has to consider multiple 

and sometimes competing demands, while managing airspace conditions to satisfy all aviation users. 

Regarding the proposed action, the change in proposed operations would not alter the airspace 

configuration or use over public lands (i.e., the current alignment, minimum or maximum altitudes, 

allowable times of use, and route widths), and it would not impact current or future military and general 

aviation uses of the airspace. Other military projects within the region that could affect airspace use 

include the MCAGCC Land Acquisition and Airspace Establishment Project and the Basing of the Joint 

Strike Fighter (if Naval Air Facility El Centro is selected for basing), both of which could increase 

military aviation operations within the general region. The Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range 

Land Withdrawal Renewal is not expected to significantly affect airspace use, because it would allow 

continued use of that training range, similar to existing conditions. Additionally, various alternative 

energy projects, such as those associated with the proposed West Chocolate Mountains Renewable 

Energy Evaluation Area, would not directly affect airspace use. However, they could have indirect 

impacts on adjacent military activities by introducing new light sources that could affect military night 

flight training or other obstacles (e.g., wind towers) that could encroach on military and general aviation 

airspace use. The LZs identified under the proposed action, however, were chosen based on adequate 

airspace conditions (e.g., lack of air traffic congestion or airspace restrictions) to reduce potential 

conflicts within the regional airspace. Therefore, the cumulative impacts identified for airspace from the 

proposed action, in conjunction with other projects on and in the regional vicinity, would not be 

cumulatively significant. 

4.3.2 Land Use and Recreation 

Urbanization and population growth in southern California in the past 50 years has led to an increased 

demand for and use of the Cleveland National Forest and BLM land for recreational land uses (USFS 

2005a, BLM 1980). Outdoor recreation is a growing use within the national forest and BLM land and 

demand is expected to increase in the future with continued population growth. Conflicts among land 

uses and users may increase as available space becomes more crowded, where incompatible uses are not 

separated, or where desired opportunities are not available (USFS 2005a, BLM 1980). Human caused 

sights and sounds are an impact on the recreational experiences, typically disrupting the primitive solitude 

that visitors seek. These often include the sight and sound of nearby development, highways, 

management activities, and commercial or military overflights. 
4 Cumulative Impacts 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 4-9 

Final EA 

The geographic scope of the land use cumulative analysis includes the Cleveland National Forest, 

Trabuco Ranger District, and lands managed by the BLM El Centro Field Office, as well as adjacent 

areas/communities. Cumulative impacts are assessed in terms of their compatibility with existing land 

uses and recreational opportunity. Projects within this region that would displace a current use, change 

suitability of a location for its current or planned uses, or impede the management of land use resources 

according to authorized plans would impact land use. Also, projects that would decrease recreational 

opportunities, diminish the user experience, and/or restrict spatial and temporal availability of recreational 

opportunities would impact recreation. 

The proposed action would not result in significant impacts to land use or recreation within jurisdictions 

of the USFS or BLM because existing land use designations would not change as a result of the proposed 

action, and the existing land uses and recreational opportunities within the project area would essentially 

continue to be used for the same purposes. 

Numerous proposed new construction projects listed in section 4.2 (Past, Present, and Reasonably 

Foreseeable Future Projects Considered in the Cumulative Analysis), especially the various alternative 

energy projects, the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area Management Plan, and residential 

development adjacent to the Cleveland National Forest, have the potential to impact land use and 

recreation. Additionally, examples of proposed military projects that may impact land use and recreation 

include Basing of the Joint Strike Fighter (increased aircraft overflights if Naval Air Facility El Centro is 

selected for basing) and the MCAGCC Land Acquisition and Airspace Establishment Project (withdrawal 

of public lands for military use). Most of these projects would require a change in existing land use 

designation. The proposed alternative energy projects would likely result in decreased recreational 

opportunities because the land would no longer be available for recreational uses, while the Sand Dunes 

Recreation Area Management Plan would increase recreational opportunities. Additionally, the new 

residential developments near the Cleveland National Forest may result in increased recreational use of 

the forest. However, the cumulative projects located on and in the vicinity of the proposed LZs would be 

required to comply with existing land use and forest management plans, as described for the proposed 

action, including appropriate management for multiple uses, such as recreation. Therefore, the 

cumulative impacts identified for land use and recreation from the proposed action, in conjunction with 

other projects on and in the regional vicinity, would not be cumulatively significant. 

4.3.3 Air Quality 

4.3.3.1 Criteria Pollutants 

The proposed training operations under the proposed action would generate air emissions that would 

occur over large areas within the Cleveland National Forest, BLM El Centro Field Office managed lands, 

and San Diego County project regions. As discussed in section 3.4 (Air Quality), due to their proximity 

to large population centers and climactic conditions, the air sheds around the Cleveland National Forest 

and BLM El Centro managed lands can experience high air pollutant concentrations. These regions do 

not currently attain the national and/or state ambient air quality standards for O3, PM10, and/or PM2.5. 

However, due to the general rural locations of the project landing zones and aircraft flight routes, ambient 

pollutant levels are lower in these areas compared to the urbanized areas within the project air basins. 

Because most of the emissions associated with the proposed action would occur from in-flight aircraft, 

they would substantially dilute in the atmosphere prior to impact at ground level. Any concurrent 

emissions-generating action that occurs in the vicinity of proposed training operations, such as prescribed 

burns, unpaved road use, new construction related to renewable energy projects or residential 

development, and increased military aircraft training activities identified above in section 4.2 (Past, 

Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects Considered in the Cumulative Analysis), would 
4 Cumulative Impacts 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 4-10 

Final EA 

potentially contribute to the ambient cumulative impact of proposed emissions. Future sources of air 

emissions would occur far enough away from proposed operations such that they also would substantially 

dilute and produce low ambient pollutant impacts in proximity to proposed operations. Therefore, air 

quality impacts from the combination of proposed and future emission sources would not be substantial 

enough to contribute to an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard. As a result, the proposed 

training operations associated with the proposed action would produce less than significant cumulative 

impacts to criteria pollutant levels. 

4.3.3.2 Greenhouse Gases 

The potential effects of proposed GHG emissions are by nature global and cumulative impacts, as 

individual sources of GHG emissions are not large enough alone to have an appreciable effect on climate 

change. Therefore, an appreciable impact on global climate change would only occur when proposed 

GHG emissions combine with GHG emissions from other man-made activities on a global scale. 

Currently, there are no formally adopted or published NEPA thresholds of significance for GHG 

emissions. Therefore, in the absence of an adopted or science-based NEPA significance threshold for 

GHGs, this EA compares GHG emissions from the proposed action to baseline conditions and to the U.S. 

net GHG emissions inventory of 2009 to determine the relative increase in proposed GHG emissions. 

Appendix B presents estimates of GHG emissions generated by the proposed action. 

Table 4-1 summarizes the net change in annual GHG emissions that would occur from the proposed training 

operations under Alternative 1. These data show that CO2e emissions from Alternative 1would increase by 

455 percent over the project baseline CO2e emissions. These data also show that the ratio of CO2e 

emissions from Alternative 1 to the CO2e emissions associated with the net U.S. sources in 2009 is 

approximately 0.0015/5,618 million metric tons, or about 0.0003 percent of the U.S. CO2e emissions 

inventory. Since GHG emissions from Alternative 1 would equate to minimal amounts of the U.S 

inventory, this would not substantially contribute to global climate change. Therefore, GHG emissions from 

the proposed action would produce less than significant cumulative impacts to global climate change. 

Table 4-1. Annual GHG Emissions from the Proposed Action 

Scenario/Activity Metric Tons per Year1

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Emission Increases – Alternative 1 - - - 15,298 

Project Baseline Emissions - - - 3,418 

Alternative 1 Emissions as a % of Baseline Emissions - - - 448 

U.S. 2009 Net Emissions (106 metric tons) 2 - - - 5,618.2 

Alternative 1 Emissions as a % of U.S. Emissions - - - 0.0003 

Notes: 

1. CO2e = (CO2 * 1) + (CH4* 21) + (N2O * 296). 

2. Source: USEPA 2011b

Although the proposed action would produce minimal cumulative impacts to global climate change, the 

USMC and DoN implement broad-based programs to reduce energy consumption and shift to renewable 

and alternative fuels, thereby reducing overall emissions of GHGs. Some of these programs include the 

following: 

• EO 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, adopted in 

October 2009, directs federal agencies to increase renewable energy use to achieve general GHG 

emission reductions. EO 13514 requires federal agencies to develop a 2008 GHG emissions 

baseline and to develop a percentage reduction target for agency-wide GHG reductions by FY 2020. 
4 Cumulative Impacts 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 4-11 

Final EA 

As part of this effort, federal agencies will evaluate sources of GHG emissions and develop, 

implement, and annually update an integrated Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan that will 

prioritize agency actions based on lifecycle analyses. The DoD is currently developing its Strategic 

Sustainability Performance Plan that will guide USMC initiatives to reduce GHG emissions. 

• The Commandant of the Marine Corps’ “Bases-to-Battlefield” Expeditionary Energy Strategy 

and Implementation Plan (2011) declares the intent to implement measures to conserve energy 

and to reduce a dependence on foreign oil. The campaign plan identifies long-term goals to 

reduce energy intensity and increase the amount of renewable electrical energy usage. This plan 

requires base commanders to evaluate the effectiveness of incorporating emerging technologies 

that would reduce GHGs. 

• MCI West has undertaken a study to evaluate and address GHG emissions, as documented in the 

draft Greenhouse Gas Assessment for Marine Corps Installations West (MCI West 2009). The 

study provides the basis for recommended GHG management policies at MCI West. 

• On 16 October 2009, the Secretary of the Navy announced five energy targets for the Navy and 

Marine Corps, as summarized below: 

o When awarding contracts, appropriately consider energy efficiency and energy footprints as 

additional factors in acquisition decisions. 

o By 2012, demonstrate a Green Strike Group composed of nuclear vessels and ships powered 

by biofuels. By 2016, sail the Strike Group as a Great Green Fleet composed of nuclear 

ships, surface combatants equipped with hybrid electric alternative power systems running on 

biofuels, and aircraft running on biofuels. 

o By 2015, cut petroleum use in its 50,000 non-tactical commercial fleet in half, by phasing in 

hybrid, flex fuel, and electric vehicles. 

o By 2020, produce at least half of the shore-based installations energy requirements from 

alternative sources. Also, convert 50 percent of all shore installations to net zero energy 

consumers. 

o By 2020, half of the DoN’s total energy consumption for ships, aircraft, tanks, vehicles and 

shore installations will come from alternative sources. 

• As part of its efforts to encourage the development of alternative fuels, on 22 January 2010 the 

DoN and the Department of Agriculture signed an MOU to encourage the development of 

advanced biofuels and other renewable energy systems. 

Renewable energy projects currently implemented and planned within the jurisdiction of MCI West 

would reduce emissions of GHGs by about 250,000 metric tons (CO2e) from current operations over a 25-

year life cycle (DoN 2010a). These projects include thermal and photovoltaic solar systems, geothermal 

power plants, and wind generators. These renewable energy initiatives are not proposed as emission 

reductions to directly offset GHG emissions produced by the proposed action, but rather demonstrate 

initial responses for DoN compliance with EO 13514 and to factor GHG management into DoN proposals 

and impact analyses. 

Climate Change Adaptation 

In addition to assessing whether the proposed action potentially would impact climate change, the 

following considers how climate change could impact these actions and what adaptation strategies, if any, 

would be required to respond to these future conditions. For project operations within southern 

California, the main effect of climate change to consider is increased temperatures, droughts, and 

wildfires, as documented in Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (United States Global 
4 Cumulative Impacts 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 4-12 

Final EA 

Change Research Program 2009). Current rotary wing training operations in the Cleveland National 

Forest and BLM El Centro project regions have adapted to the high temperatures that frequently occur in 

both areas, as well as wildfires that occur in the Cleveland National Forest. Exacerbation of these 

conditions in the future could impede proposed training operations during extreme events or could cause 

smoke obscurations from wildfire events. No other substantial effects from future climate change would 

impact the proposed training operations. 

4.3.4 Water Resources 

Most of the LZs are located in relatively undisturbed watersheds with natural channels. However, many 

stream channels downstream of the Cleveland National Forest, Trabuco Ranger District, and lands under the 

jurisdiction of the BLM El Centro Office boundaries have been altered through flow management or 

channelization. Urbanization and agricultural development downstream of the USFS and BLM lands has 

had a marked effect on water resources. Watershed conditions, or watershed health, on the national forests 

and BLM land vary depending on amount of disturbance that has occurred within each watershed and the 

effect of the disturbance on the natural integrity of the watershed as a whole. Most water produced within 

the Cleveland National Forest, Trabuco Ranger District, and lands under the jurisdiction of the BLM El 

Centro Office meets or exceeds federal and state water quality standards. Waters that do not meet State 

Regional Water Quality Control Board standards (CWA Section 303 [d]) can be designated by the state as 

“impaired.” Impairments are alterations in water quality factors typically associated with temperature, 

sediment, and chemicals. These water bodies are usually found in low elevational areas, have associated 

floodplains, and have easy vehicle access and high use rates. Disturbances within the watershed including 

recreation, grazing, and special uses can also adversely affect a watershed's condition. 

Because the proposed action would have no impact on groundwater resources or floodplains, this 

cumulative analysis focuses on surface waters. The cumulative geographic scope with respect to soil 

erosion and associated sediment transfer and delivery to nearby waterways is the encompassing watershed 

of each proposed action site, as these areas represent receiving waters for the cumulative projects. Under 

the proposed action, the soils at most LZs are susceptible to wind erosion, including aircraft rotor wash 

during landings, takeoffs, and hovering. However, the proposed action would utilize already existing 

landing sites on level ground, in areas generally far removed from perennial surface waters. Therefore, 

there would be no significant impact to water resources. 

Water quality impacts associated with erosion-induced sedimentation could result from proposed new 

construction projects listed in section 4.2 (Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects 

Considered in the Cumulative Analysis), especially the various alternative energy and residential 

development projects. Compliance with applicable DoD, Federal, State, BLM, USFS, and local 

regulations, land use and resource management plans, and/or requirements would minimize the majority 

of long-term impacts from both the proposed action and other projects on and in the regional vicinity. In 

addition, the relative distance from the LZs to significant perennial waterways makes substantial transport 

of sediment unlikely and would not greatly contribute to the combined actions of other activities resulting 

in sediment transport to waterways. Therefore, the cumulative impacts identified for water resources 

from the proposed action, in conjunction with other projects on and in the regional vicinity, would not be 

cumulatively significant. 

4.3.5 Biological Resources 

Rapid development in southern California and beyond to western Arizona has resulted in a steady decline of 

regionally important plant communities and habitats for native plant and wildlife species. As a result, the 

availability and connectivity of high function native open space areas have become limited, and require 

management and regulatory oversight. Lands such as those associated with National Forest System and 
4 Cumulative Impacts 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 4-13 

Final EA 

BLM can be protected from major development, but nonetheless are subject to mixed land uses such as 

recreation, alternative energy development, timber, mining, or other activities, all of which have the 

potential to further reduce the quantity or quality of important native habitats. 

The geographic region of analysis for cumulative impacts on biological resources consists of areas on or 

in the vicinity of the Cleveland National Forest, BLM El Centro managed lands, and adjacent 

communities. Projects with direct and indirect impacts on biological resources include those that would 

result in the direct loss of native plant communities, loss of individuals, permanent loss of sensitive plant 

populations, noise production, dust disturbance, and permanent lighting. For native plant and wildlife 

communities, other significant impacts could include habitat fragmentation or degradation of quality, and 

direct permanent loss of contiguous native connecting habitats such as migration or movement corridors. 

Regarding the proposed action, the primary direct impacts of aviation activity on endangered, threatened, 

and sensitive species, such as desert tortoise and/or federally listed transient birds, would include noise 

and aircraft rotor wash (winds generated during low level hovering). Noise and rotor wash effects 

decrease with distance and would be of concern only when aircraft are close to occupied habitat, such as 

during takeoff and landing, or low-level hovering, if the species are present. The most likely response by 

a sensitive wildlife species to the training activity would be temporary avoidance of the area during the 

activity. Dust and debris produced by training operations at the LZs could potentially result in an indirect 

impact to vegetation and soil; however due to weather patterns, lack of vegetation and the locations of the 

LZs, dust would only temporarily affect the surrounding vegetation and wildlife habitat in the immediate 

vicinity of the hovering aircraft. 

Numerous proposed new construction projects listed in section 4.2 (Past, Present, and Reasonably 

Foreseeable Future Projects Considered in the Cumulative Analysis), especially the various alternative 

energy projects and residential development projects, have the potential to impact biological resources. 

Additionally, examples of proposed military projects that may impact biological resources include Basing 

of the Joint Strike Fighter (noise from increased aircraft overflights if Naval Air Facility El Centro is 

selected for basing) and the MCAGCC Land Acquisition and Airspace Establishment Project (potential 

desert tortoise impacts from military training). Potential impacts from reasonably foreseeable actions in 

the project areas would range from temporary noise and dust exposure and increased human activity during 

other project construction, to the permanent loss of various-sized areas of habitats, especially in desert 

regions for alternative energy projects. Some of these impacts are mitigable, especially if the project sites 

do not support federally listed or otherwise sensitive species, and provide only marginal habitat to more 

common wildlife. With the low activity level of operational use for the proposed and foreseeable actions, it 

is expected that migratory and resident wildlife within the project areas would continue to use occupied 

habitats. The limited adverse impacts associated with the proposed action would contribute minimally to 

adverse effects on biological resources associated with the combined development projects proposed and 

underway in Cleveland National Forest and on BLM lands that would cumulatively result in the build-out of 

undeveloped areas. As a result, the cumulative impacts identified for biological resources from the 

proposed action, in conjunction with other projects on and in the regional vicinity, would not be 

cumulatively significant. 

4.3.6 Cultural Resources 

Regional development and urbanization in southern California has resulted in extensive impacts on 

cultural resources, especially the destruction of archaeological sites. Archaeological sites are non-renewable 

resources, and there are strict federal and state regulations for their management and protection. As noted 

for Biological Resources above, public lands managed by the USFS and BLM can be protected from major 

development; however, various types of mixed land uses such as recreation, residential construction, 
4 Cumulative Impacts 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 4-14 

Final EA 

alternative energy development, timber, mining, or other activities, all have the potential to impact 

archaeological sites, historic buildings or structures, or traditional cultural properties. 

The geographic region of analysis for cumulative impacts on cultural resources consists of areas on or in 

the vicinity of the Cleveland National Forest, BLM El Centro managed lands, and adjacent communities. 

For the proposed action, LZs within Cleveland National Forest and BLM El Centro managed lands were 

selected and designed to minimize impacts on archaeological sites, and the proposed action would have 

no adverse effect on a historic property or tribal cultural resource. 

Numerous proposed construction projects listed in section 4.2 (Past, Present, and Reasonably 

Foreseeable Future Projects Considered in the Cumulative Analysis), especially the various alternative 

energy projects and residential development projects proposed in previously undisturbed areas, have the 

potential to impact cultural resources. Additionally, examples of proposed projects that may impact 

cultural resources from ground disturbance associated with military training activities include Basing of 

the Joint Strike Fighter and the MCAGCC Land Acquisition and Airspace Establishment Project. Federal 

projects with the potential for significant impacts on cultural resources would undergo Section 106 review 

under NHPA and any potentially significant impacts would be mitigated, usually through avoidance when 

possible. However, archaeological sites are a limited resource and, therefore, any impact on an 

archaeological site that is eligible or potentially eligible for listing in the National Register and/or is of 

concern to the Native American community may contribute to a cumulative impact. The limited impacts 

associated with the proposed action would contribute minimally to adverse impacts on cultural resources 

associated with the combined development projects proposed and underway in the Cleveland National 

Forest and on BLM lands that would cumulatively result in the build-out of undeveloped areas. 

Therefore, the cumulative impacts identified for cultural resources from the proposed action, in 

conjunction with other projects on and in the regional vicinity, would not be cumulatively significant. 

4.3.7 Aesthetics 

The rugged wildland landscapes of southern California are increasingly valued for the visual contrast they 

provide in a rapidly urbanizing region. Visitors and residents value the forested and open space 

backdrops that frame the urban complex. The contrast between the urban and natural settings is the 

unique characteristic that distinguishes this area from other regions of the country. As the area 

surrounding the Cleveland National Forest, Trabuco Ranger District, and lands under the jurisdiction of 

the BLM El Centro Office have become more urbanized, a higher value has been placed on naturalappearing landscapes and their preservation for future generations. 

The geographic scope of analysis for the cumulative loss of visual quality includes the Cleveland National 

Forest, Trabuco Ranger District, and lands managed by the BLM El Centro Field Office, as well as 

adjacent areas/communities. Generally, projects that have the potential to alter the quality or 

distinguishable characteristic of the perceived environment may be considered as having an impact on the 

visual resources of that area. The significance of a change in visual character is influenced by social 

considerations including public value placed on the resource, public awareness of the area, and general 

community concern for visual resources in the area. 

The proposed action would not result in significant aesthetic impacts within jurisdictions of the USFS or 

BLM because the number of annual sorties at each LZ would be small, sorties would be of short duration, 

and sorties would be dispersed over a wide geographic area such that no one location is likely to 

experience a substantial adverse visual impacts. Overall, proposed action activities would contribute 

minimally to cumulative loss of visual quality. 
4 Cumulative Impacts 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 4-15 

Final EA 

Numerous proposed construction projects listed in section 4.2 (Past, Present, and Reasonably 

Foreseeable Future Projects Considered in the Cumulative Analysis), especially the various alternative 

energy projects and residential development projects proposed in previously undisturbed areas, have the 

potential to impact aesthetic resources. However, federal projects with the potential for significant 

impacts on aesthetic resources would be required to comply with existing USFS and BLM management 

plans, as described for the proposed action, including provisions for protecting scenic integrity and 

sensitive visual resources. The limited adverse impacts associated with the proposed action would 

contribute minimally to adverse impacts on visual or aesthetic resources associated with the combined 

development projects proposed and underway in Cleveland National Forest and on BLM lands that would 

cumulatively result in the build-out of undeveloped areas. Therefore, the cumulative impacts to visual 

quality from the proposed action, in conjunction with other projects on and in the regional vicinity, would 

not be cumulatively significant.
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 5-1 

Final EA 

5 Other NEPA Considerations 

5.1 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of 

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action and All Mitigation 

Measures Being Considered 

The proposed aircraft operations would not include construction or improvements within the Cleveland 

National Forest or on BLM lands, and there would be no change in energy (electricity and natural gas) or 

water consumption for these agencies. Additionally, the proposed aircraft operations would not add any 

new energy or water consumption demands at any military installation1

. Therefore, energy and water 

consumption, as well as demand for services, would not increase due to implementation of the proposed 

action. 

5.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Natural or 

Depletable Resources 

NEPA requires an analysis of significant, irreversible effects resulting from implementation of a proposed 

action. Resources that are irreversibly or irretrievably committed to a project are those that are typically 

used on a long-term or permanent basis; however, those used on a short-term basis that cannot be 

recovered (e.g., non-renewable resources such as metal, fuel, and other natural or cultural resources) also 

are irretrievable. Human labor also is considered an irretrievable resource. All such resources are 

irretrievable in that they are used for one project and thus become unavailable for other purposes. An 

impact that falls under the category of the irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources is the 

destruction of natural resources that could limit the range of potential uses of that resource. 

The proposed aircraft operations would not include construction or improvements within the Cleveland 

National Forest or on BLM lands, so there would be no short- or long-term commitment of resources on 

public lands (e.g., construction materials and construction labor). Proposed aircraft operations would 

result in an irreversible commitment of fuel for aircraft training activities and human labor associated 

with military training. However, such commitments are similar to existing conditions, and are neither 

unusual nor unexpected, given the nature of the action. 

The proposed action would not result in the destruction of environmental resources, such that the range of 

potential uses of the environment would be limited, or affect the biodiversity of the region. 

5.3 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Use of the Human 

Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of LongTerm Productivity 

NEPA requires consideration of the relationship between short-term use of the environment and the 

impacts that such use could have on the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity of the 

affected environment. Impacts that narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment are of 

particular concern. Such impacts include the possibility that choosing one alternative could reduce future 

flexibility to pursue other alternatives, or that choosing a certain use could eliminate the possibility of 

other uses at the site. 

 

1

 Increased operations at the air stations from the introduction of the MV-22B were previously addressed in the EIS for the West Coast 

Basing of the MV-22 (DoN 2009a). 
5 Other NEPA Considerations 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 5-2 

Final EA 

The proposed action would allow continued use of existing LZs within the Cleveland National Forest and 

on BLM lands. The selected LZs are typically heavily disturbed and/or developed and generally void of 

vegetation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed action would not result in short-term or long-term 

risks to the health, safety, or general welfare of communities surrounding the project area. In addition, 

long-term biological productivity would not be affected because implementation of the proposed action 

would not result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to biological resources. 

5.4 Any Probable Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be 

Avoided and are not Amenable to Mitigation 

This EA has determined that the proposed action would not result in any significant unmitigable impacts; 

therefore, there are no probable adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or are not amenable 

to mitigation. 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 6-1 

Final EA 

6 Persons and Agencies Contacted or Consulted 

The following federal agencies were either involved in the NEPA process or were contacted during 

preparation of this EA. Appendix A also has a listing of federally recognized and non-federally 

recognized Indian tribes, other agencies, organizations, and individuals that were contacted through the 

NEPA public participation process. See also section 1.5 (Public Participation Process) and section 2.6 

(Agency Consultation and Approvals) for more information. 

Department of Defense 

• Coffer, Lyn. Aircraft Environmental Support Office, U.S. Navy – Fleet Readiness Center 

Southwest, Naval Station North Island 

• Finn, Kelly. NEPA Project Manager, NAVFAC SW 

• Goodfellow, Sue. Head, Planning and Conservation Section, USMC Headquarters, Marine Corps 

Installation Command (MCI-Com) 

• Hamilton, Mike. Assistant Director, Office of Government External Affairs, MCI West 

• Herbst, George. Archaeologist, NAVFAC SW 

• Karika, LtCol Ken “Smooch.” 3D MAW, MCAS Miramar 

• Lamb, Ron. NEPA Specialist, USMC Headquarters, MCI-Com 

• Likins, Zachery. Environmental Coordination and Compliance, Environmental Security, MCI 

West 

• Shiro, Major Todd “Buff.” 3D MAW, MCAS Miramar 

United States Forest Service 

• Brand, Becky. Special Use Administrator, Trabuco Ranger District, Cleveland National Forest 

• Eastwood, Steve. Engineering, Lands, Recreation and Heritage Staff Officer, Cleveland National 

Forest 

• Fletcher, Keith. District Ranger, Trabuco Ranger District, Cleveland National Forest 

• Harvey, Steve. Heritage and Tribal Relations Program Manager, Cleveland National Forest 

• Joseph, Carlton. Fire Management Officer (Chief), Cleveland National Forest 

• Martin, Gordon. District Fire Management Officer, Trabuco Ranger District, Cleveland National 

Forest 

• Mink, Virgil. Former Special Use Administrator, Trabuco Ranger District, Cleveland National 

Forest 

• Rodriguez, Jake. Recreations, Lands, and Special Uses Staff Officer, Trabuco Ranger District, 

Cleveland National Forest 

• Thomas, Mary. Former District Wildlife Biologist and Resource Staff Officer, Trabuco Ranger 

District, Cleveland National Forest 

• Winter, Kirsten. Forest Biologist, Cleveland National Forest 
6 Persons and Agencies Contacted or Consulted 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 6-2 

Final EA 

Bureau of Land Management 

• Blanchard, Jenny. Archaeologist, BLM, El Centro Field Office 

• McCollum, Christine. Archaeologist, BLM, El Centro Field Office 

• Sahagun, Jeff. Archaeologist, BLM, El Centro Field Office 

• Simmons, Carrie. Archaeologist, BLM, El Centro Field Office 

• Steward, Daniel. Resources Branch Chief, BLM, El Centro Field Office 

• Trouette, Andrew. Biologist, BLM, El Centro Field Office 

• Tyson, Sharon. Biologist, BLM, El Centro Field Office 

• Wood, Vicky. Manager, BLM, El Centro Field Office 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

• Bennett, Jesse. Carlsbad Field Office, USFWS 

• Sorensen, Pete. Palm Springs Field Office, USFWS 

State Historic Preservation Office 

• Saunders, Jenan. Acting State Historic Preservation Officer 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 7-1 

Final EA 

7 List of Preparers 

Lead Agency

USMC 

MCI West Box 555200 

MCB Camp Pendleton, California 92055 

Cooperating Agency

USFS Cleveland National Forest 

10845 Rancho Bernardo Road, Suite 200 

San Diego, California 92127 

This EA was prepared for, and under the direction of, the USMC and NAVFAC SW by SAIC. Members 

of SAIC’s team of professional staff who contributed to the preparation of this document are listed below. 

Name Title Degree Years of 

Experience Project Participation 

Karen Foster NEPA Project 

Manager/Cultural 

Resources Manager 

Ph.D., Anthropology 22 EA Project Manager; 

Cultural Resources 

A. Trevor Pattison NEPA Project Manager/ 

Environmental Scientist 

B.S., Earth Systems 

Science 

13 EA Deputy Project 

Manager; Biological 

Resources 

Chris Crabtree Air Quality Specialist/ 

Meteorologist 

B.A., Environmental 

Studies 

26 Air Quality; RONA 

Adam Hasen Air Quality Specialist B.S., Chemical 

Engineering and MBA 

29 Air Quality 

Brad Rock Senior Analyst B.A., Biology 36 Airspace; Public Health 

and Safety 

Debra Barringer Ecologist M.S., Ecology 16 Biological Resources 

Lauren Brown Botanist B.S., Ecology and 

Systematic Biology 

19 Biological Resources 

Stephen Bryne Senior Archaeologist M.S., Anthropology 15 Cultural Resources 

Trisha Drennan Senior Archaeologist M.Sc., Maritime 

Archaeology 

12 Cultural Resources 

Greg Wadsworth Production Manager B.A., Music 

Composition 

6 Document Production 

Lisbeth Springer, 

AICP 

Senior Planner MCRP 26 Environmental Justice 

Christopher Woods GIS Analyst B.A., Geography 13 GIS, Field Data Collection

Cay FitzGerald Technical Illustration, 

Graphics 

A.A., Fine Arts 32 Graphics 

Catrina Gomez Environmental Planner MESM, Environmental 

Science & 

Management 

6 Land Use and Recreation; 

Aesthetics 

Joseph Czech 

(Wyle Laboratories, 

Inc.) 

Principal Engineer, 

Noise 

B.S., Aerospace 

Engineering 

22 Noise 

Patrick H. Kester 

(Wyle Laboratories, 

Inc.) 

Acoustical Engineer B.S., Mechanical 

Engineering 

4 Noise 

Andrew Lissner NEPA Project Manager Ph.D., Biology 26 Quality Assurance/ 

Quality Control 

Daniel Dehn Environmental Analyst M.A., English 6 Topography, Geology, 

and Soils; Water 

Resources 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 8-1 

Final EA 

8 References 

Andersen, D.E., O.J. Rongstad, and W.R. Mytton. 1989. Response of Red-Tailed Hawks to Helicopter 

Overflights. The Condor, Volume 91: 296-299. 

Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. 2011. Center for Sonoran Desert Studies. Available on internet at: 

http://www.desertmuseum.org/desert/sonora.php. Accessed 29 April 2011. 

Bautista M. Luis, Jesus T. Garcia, Ricardo G. Calmaestra, Carlos Palacin, Carlos A. Martin, Manuel B. 

Morales, Raul Bonal, and Javier Vinuela. 2004. Effects of Weekend Road Traffic on the Use of 

Space by Raptors. Conservation Biology 18: 726-732. 

Bean, Lowell J., and Charles R. Smith. 1978. Cupeño. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 550-

563. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian 

Institution, Washington, D.C. 

Bell Boeing. 2008. Hover Outwash Profile Comparison of V-22, CH-46A, CH-53E. 

Berglund, B., and T. Lindvall, editors. 1995. Community Noise. Institute of Environmental Medicine. 

Bowles, A. E., S. Eckert, L. Starke, E. Berg, L. Wolski, and J. Matesic, Jr. 1999. Effects of Flight Noise 

from Jet Aircraft and Sonic Booms on Hearing, Behavior, Heart Rate, and Oxygen Consumption 

of Desert Tortoises (Gopherus agassizii). Air Force Research Laboratory AFRL-HE-WP-TR1999-0170. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2012a. West Chocolate Mountains Renewable Energy Evaluation 

Area. Web site at: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/nepa/wcm.html. Accessed May 

2012. 

 . 2012b. Sunrise Powerlink Transmission Line Project. Web site at: 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/nepa/sunrise.html. Accessed May 2012. 

 . 2012c. Ocotillo Sol Project. Web site at: 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/nepa/ocotillosol.html. Accessed May 2012. 

 . 2012d. Proposed Plan Amendment & Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final 

Environmental Impact Report for the Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility. February 2012. Web site 

at: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/nepa/ocotillo_express_wind.html. Accessed May 

2012. 

 . 2012e. Ocotillo Express Wind Energy Project. Web site at: 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/nepa/ocotillo_express_wind.html. Accessed May 2012. 

 . 2012f. Imperial Solar Energy Center (CSolar) West. Web site at: 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/nepa/isec_west.html. Accessed May 2012. 

 . 2012g. Tule Wind Energy and East County Substation Projects. Web site at: 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/nepa/tule.html. Accessed May 2012. 

 . 2012h. Imperial Valley Solar Project. Web site at: 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/nepa/stirling.html. Accessed May 2012. 
8 References 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 8-2 

Final EA 

 . 2012i. Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area Management Plan. Web site at: 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/recreation/ohvs/isdra/dunesinfo/docs/isdramp.html. 

Accessed May 2012. 

 . 2012j. Record of Decision for the Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility and Amendment to the 

California Desert Conservation Area Plan. May. 

 . 2012k. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft CDCA Plan Amendment, Ocotillo Sol 

Project, Bureau of Land Management. April. 

 . 2012l. Final Environmental Impact Statement and California Desert Conservation Area Plan 

Amendment for the West Chocolate Mountains Renewable Energy Area. BLM/CA/ES-2013-

001+1793. November. 

 . 2012m. Imperial Sand Dunes Proposed Recreation Area Management Plan/California Desert 

Conservation Area Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement. El Centro Field 

Office. Septemeber. 

 . 2011a. Final Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment for the Imperial 

Solar Energy Center (CSolar) West Project. July. Web site at: 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/elcentro/nepa/isec_west.Par.73533.File.dat/F

0ISECw_ES.pdf. Accessed May 2012. 

 . 2011b. Finding of No Significant Impact for the Imperial Solar Energy Center (CSolar) West 

Project. August. 

 . 2011c. Final Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the East 

County Substation, Tule Wind, and Energia Sierra Juarez Gen-Tie Projects. October. Web site 

at: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/environment/info/dudek/ECOSUB/ECO_Final_EIREIS.htm#VOLUMES 1 and 2: Revised Draft EIR/EIS. Accessed May 2012. 

 . 2011d. Record of Decision for the Tule Wind Project. December. 

 . 2011e. Draft Environmental Impact Statement and California Desert Conservation Area Plan 

Amendment for the West Chocolate Mountains Renewable Energy Area, DOI no. DES 11-21, 

June. 

 . 2010. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Imperial Valley Solar Project. July. Web 

site at: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/nepa/stirling.html. Accessed May 2012. 

 . 2008. Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Colorado River District, Yuma Field Office, Yuma, AZ. April. 

 . 2003. Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP). El Centro Filed 

Office. May. 

 . 1980 (as amended). The California Desert Conservation Area Plan 1980 as amended. Desert 

District. Riverside, California. 

CalFish. 2011. Online information about fish species of California. Web site at: 

http://calfish.ucdavis.edu/calfish/. Accessed January 2011. 
8 References 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 8-3 

Final EA 

 . 2010. Online information about fish species of California. Web site at: 

http://calfish.ucdavis.edu/calfish/. Accessed March 2010. 

CalHerps. 2011. Online information about reptile and amphibian species of California. Web site at: 

http://www.californiaherps.com/. Accessed January 2011. 

 . 2010. Online information about reptile and amphibian species of California. Web site at: 

http://www.californiaherps.com/. Accessed March 2010. 

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2011. Area Designations Maps/State and National. Web site at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Accessed August 2011. 

 . 2010. Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). Web site at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs.htm. Accessed August 2010. 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2011a. California Natural Diversity Database. 

Species occurrences database search using RareFind 4. Report generated 6 July 2011. 

 . 2011b. Department of Fish and Game Biogeographic Data Branch of California Natural 

Diversity Database, Special Animals list and California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. 

Prepared by California Interagency Wildlife Task group. Web site at: 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx. Accessed March 2011. 

 . 2010a. California Natural Diversity Database. Species occurrences database search using 

RareFind 3 (version 3.1.1). Report generated 12 October 2010. 

 . 2010b. Department of Fish and Game Biogeographic Data Branch of California Natural 

Diversity Database, Special Animals list and California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. 

Prepared by California Interagency Wildlife Task group. Web site at: 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx. Accessed April 2010. 

 . 2007. California Wildlife: Conservation Challenges; California Wildlife Action Plan. Web site 

at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/WAP/ region-colorado.html. Accessed May 2011. 

California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS). 2012. Record of Decision. California State 

Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project. October. 

California Department of Water Resources (CDWR). 2007. Basins and Subbasins of the South Coast 

Hydrologic Region and the Colorado River Basin. 

 . 2003. California’s Groundwater. Bulletin 118. October. Updated February 2004. 

California Energy Commission. 2011. Order Terminating Commission Decision and License for 

Imperial Valley Solar Project. Docket 08-AFC-5C. August. 

 . 2009. The Future Is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science Impacts and Response 

Options for California. Web site at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-500-

2008-071/CEC-500-2008-071.PDF. Accessed September 2011. 

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2012. On-line Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Web site 

at: http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi. Accessed July 2012. 
8 References 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 8-4 

Final EA 

 . 2010. On-line Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Web site at: 

http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi. Accessed October 2010. 

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact 

Report/Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Land Use Amendment, San Diego Gas & 

Electric Company Application for the Sunrise Powerlink Project. SCH #2006091071. DOI 

Control No. FES-08-54. October. 

California Water Resources Control Board (CWRCB). 2007. Fact Sheet – Colorado River Basin. 

City of Corona. 2012a. Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearing House No. 2006091093, 

Arantine Hills Specific Plan. May. 

 . 2012b. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearing House No. 2006091093, Arantine 

Hills Specific Plan. July. 

 . 2010. Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration, Green River Road Widening. January. 

 . 2009. Final Environmental Impact Report, Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension, SCH NO. 

2007061044. January. 

Cleland, James H. 2004. Ethnographic Trail Systems as Large-Scale Cultural Landscapes: Preservation 

and Management Issues. In Exploring the Boundaries of Historic Landscape Preservation, pp. 

41-55. The Alliance for Landscape Preservation. Web site at: 

http://www.clemson.edu/caah/cedp/cudp/pubs/alliance/04_cleland.pdf. Accessed September 

2011. 

Commandant of the Marine Corps. 2011. USMC Expeditionary Energy Strategy and Implementation 

Plan - Bases-to-Battlefield. 

Council on Environmental Quality. 2010. White House Council on Environmental Quality Announces 

Steps to Modernize and Reinvigorate the National Environmental Policy Act. Web site at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/Press_Releases/18 February_2010. 

Countess Environmental. 2006. WRAP Fugitive Dust Handbook. Available at 

http://www.wrapair.org/forums/dejf/fdh/. 

County of Orange. 2012a. Saddle Crest Homes Draft Environmental Impact Report. April. 

 . 2012b. Saddle Crest Homes Final Environmental Impact Report. July. 

 . 2011. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, KBRT – Oak Flat Towers Planning 

Application No. PA 100028. August. 

Delaney, D. K., T.G. Grubb, and L.L. Pater. 1997. Effects of Helicopter Noise on Nesting Mexican 

Spotted Owls. Project Order No. DE P.O. 95-4, U.S. Air Force, Holloman Air Force Base, New 

Mexico. 

Department of Navy (DoN). 2012a. Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement for the Renewal 

of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Land Withdrawal. August. 
8 References 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 8-5 

Final EA 

 . 2012b. Land Acquisition/Airspace Establishment Study. Web site at: 

http://www.marines.mil/unit/29palms/las/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed May 2012. Web site 

changed to: http://www.29palms.marines.mil/Staff/G4InstallationsandLogistics/Land 

Acquisition.aspx. Accessed December 2012. 

 . 2012c. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land Acquisition and Airspace Establishment 

to Support Large-Scale Marine Air Ground Task Force Live Fire and Maneuver Training. July. 

 . 2011a. Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Land Withdrawal Renewal. Web site at: 

http://www.chocolatemountainrenewal.com/index.html. Accessed August 2011. 

 . 2011b. Navy Publishes Notice of Intent to Prepare West Coast Joint Strike Fighter Homebasing 

EIS. Web site at: http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=58234. Accessed August 

2011. 

 . 2011c. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Land Acquisition and Airspace Establishment 

to Support Large-Scale Marine Air Ground Task Force Live Fire and Maneuver Training. 

February. 

 . 2010a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the West Coast Basing of the F-35B. Table 

7-10 in Section 7.3.4. 

 . 2010b. Record of Decision for the U.S. Marine Corps West Coast Basing of the F-35B 

Aircraft. December. 

 . 2009a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the West Coast Basing of the MV-22. 

Prepared by the Department of Navy. 

 . 2009b. MV-22 Facilities Requirements Document for Typical Shore-based and Shipboard 

Sites. Volume 1. The Boeing Company. 

 . 2008. Risk of Fire from V-22 Exhaust. Technical Memorandum Ser PMA-275/V22/357 to 

Headquarters, Marine Corps, Department of Aviation, Aviation Logistics Support Branch, 

Washington DC from Program Executive Officer, Air ASW Assault and Special Mission 

Programs, Patuxent River MD. 21 July 2008. 

Ellis, D.H., C.H. Ellis, and D.P. Mindell. 1991. Raptor Responses to Low-Level Jet Aircraft and Sonic 

Booms. Environmental Pollution, Volume 74: 53-83. 

Farmer, A. 1993. The Effects of Dust on Vegetation - a Review. Environmental Pollution 79: 63-75. 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2010. Pilot/Controller Glossary. Addendum to the 

Aeronautical Information Manual. Web site at: 

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/INDEX.HTM. Accessed August 2011. 

 . 2008. Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge. U.S. Department of Transportation, 

FAA, Flight Standards Service. FAA-H-8083-25A. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1984. Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Imperial County 

California. March. 
8 References 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 8-6 

Final EA 

Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN). 1997. Effects of Aviation Noise on 

Awakenings from Sleep. June. 

Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON). 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport 

Noise Analysis Issues. August. 

Fire Department News Network. 2011. United States Marine Corps and Navy Helicopter Crews Assist 

CAL Fire With Wildfire Suppression. Web site at: 

http://www.fdnntv.com/news.asp_Q_articleID_E_8519_A_title_E_United_States_Marine_Corps

_and_Navy_Helicopter_Crews_Assist_CAL_Fire_With_Wildfire_Suppression. Accessed June 

2011. 

Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Interagency Coordinating Committee (FTHLICC). 2003. Flat-tailed horned 

lizard rangewide management strategy, 2003 revision. 78 pp. plus appendices. 

Francis, C.D., C. P. Ortega and A. Cruz. 2009. Noise Pollution Changes Avian Communitites and 

Species Interactions. Current Biology 19: 1415-1419. 

Gladwin, D.N., D.A. Asherin, and K.M. Manci. 1988. Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Booms on Fish 

and Wildlife. Results of a Survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species and 

Ecological Services Field Offices, Refuges, Hatcheries, and Research Centers. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Grubb, T.G. and R.M. King. 1991. Assessing Human Disturbance of Breeding Bald Eagles with 

Classification Tree Models. Journal of Wildlife Management, Volume 55, Number 3: 500-511. 

Harris, C.M. 1979. Handbook of Noise Control. McGraw-Hill Book Co. 

Holden, Lt Col. 2011. Electronic mail between Lt Col Holden and Brad Chittenden regarding aircraft 

mishap data for the MV-22, UN-1N, UN-1Y, AH-1W, and AH-1Z. August. 

Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute. 2006. Final Report: The Effects of Helicopter Noise on the Coastal 

California Gnatcatcher at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar. Prepared for Marine Corps Air Bases 

Western Area Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest. San Diego, California. 

Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD). 2011. ICAPCD Rules and Regulations. Web 

site at: 

http://www.imperialcounty.net/AirPollution/Forms%20&%20Documents/RULEBOOK/06%20R

ULEBOOK%20JUNE%2028%20%202011.pdf. Accessed September 2011. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Geneva, 

Switzerland. Web site at: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm. Accessed September 

2011. 

Jennings, C.W. 1967. Geologic Map of California: Salton Sea sheet: California Division of Mines and 

Geology. Scale 1:250000. Web site at: http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngmbin/ILView.pl?sid=333_1.sid&vtype=b. Accessed August 2011. 
8 References 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 8-7 

Final EA 

Karika, personal communication. 2011. Electronic mail between LtCol Kenneth Karika, USMC, Joseph 

Czech, Wyle Laboratories, Inc., and SAIC regarding regarding training radius for rotary wing and 

tilt-rotor aircraft. June. 

Kociolek A.V., A. P. Clevenger, C.C. St. Clair, and D. S. Proppe. 2010. Effect of Road Networks on 

Bird Populations. Conservation Biology 25: 241-249. 

Manci, K.M., D.N. Gladwin, R. Villella, and M. Cavendish. 1988. Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic 

Booms on Domestic Animals and Wildlife: a Literature Synthesis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

National Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, CO. NERC-88/29. 

Marine Corps Installations West (MCI West). 2009. Greenhouse Gas Assessment for Marine Corps 

Installations West. 

McKeel, Major Geoff. 2011. Electronic mail between Major Geoff McKeel, Aviation Safety Officer, 

and Lt. Col. Holden regarding aircraft mishap data for the CH-46 and the CH-53, February and 

August. 

Miles, Scott R. and Charles B. Goudey (compilers). 1997. Ecological Subregions of California: Section 

and Subsection Descriptions. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, 

California. 

Moratto, M. 1984. California Archaeology. Orlando: Academic Press, Inc. 

Morton, D.M. 2004. Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, Southern 

California. USGS Open File Report 99-172. 

Munz, Philip A., and David D. Keck. 1968. A California Flora. University of California Berkeley. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2010. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey 

Geographic (SSGURGO) Database for Orange County, California. Web site at: 

http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed July 2010. 

NatureServe Explorer. 2011. An online encyclopedia of life. Web site at: http://www. 

natureserve.org/explorer/. Accessed January 2011. 

 . 2010. An online encyclopedia of life. Web site at: http://www. natureserve.org/explorer/. 

Accessed March 2010. 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC). 2006. Department of the Navy Southwest – 

Renewable Energy and Distributed Generation Projects. 

Navy Aircraft Environmental Support Office (AESO). 2011. AESO Memorandum Report No. 9953, 

Revision B, Aircraft Emissions Estimates: H-60 Mission Operations Using JP-5. 

 . 2009a. AESO Memorandum Report No. 9824, Revision B, Aircraft Emissions Estimates: AH1W Takeoff and Landing Cycle and In-Frame, Maintenance Testing Using JP-5. 

 . 2009b. AESO Memorandum Report No. 9961, Revision A, Aircraft Emissions Estimates: AH-1 

Mission Operations Using JP-5. 
8 References 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 8-8 

Final EA 

 . 2009c. AESO Memorandum Report No. 9929, Revision A, Aircraft Emissions Estimates: H-60 

Takeoff and Landing Cycle and In-Frame, Maintenance Testing Using JP-5. 

 . 2001a. AESO Memorandum Report No. 9816, Revision F, Aircraft Emissions Estimates: H-46 

Takeoff and Landing Cycle and In-Frame, Maintenance Testing Using JP-5. 

 . 2001b. AESO Memorandum Report No. 9959, Revision B, Aircraft Emissions Estimates: H-46 

Mission Operations Using JP-5. 

 . 2001c. AESO Memorandum Report No. 9946, Revision E, Aircraft Emissions Estimates: V-22 

Landing and Takeoff Cycle and In-Frame, Engine Maintenance Testing Using JP-5. 

 . 2001d. AESO Memorandum Report No. 9965, Revision B, Aircraft Emissions Estimates: V-22 

Mission Operations Using JP-5. 

 . 2000a. AESO Memorandum Report No. 9822, Revision C, Aircraft Emissions Estimates: H-53 

Takeoff and Landing Cycle and In-Frame, Maintenance Testing Using JP-5. 

 . 2000b. AESO Memorandum Report No. 9960, Revision B, Aircraft Emissions Estimates: H-53 

Mission Operations Using JP-5. 

Pagel, J.E., D.M. Whittington, and G.T. Allen. 2010. Interim Golden Eagle Inventory and Monitoring 

Protocols; and Other Recommendations. Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. February. 

Palmer, A.G., D.L. Nordmeyer, and D.D. Roby. 2003. Effects of Jet Aircraft Overflights on Parental 

Care of Peregrine Falcons. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(2):499-509. 

Pavlik, B. M. 2008. The California Deserts An Ecological Rediscovery. University of California Press, 

Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. 

Reijnen, R., and R. Foppen. 2006. Impact of Road Traffic on Breeding Bird Populations. Pp 255-274 in 

ed. J. Davenport and J. Davenports. The Ecology of Transportation: Managing Mobility for the 

Environment. Springer, Netherlands. 

Rogers, Malcolm J. 1945. An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Prehistory

1(2):167-198. 

Rogers, T.H. 1965. Geologic Map of California: Santa Ana Sheet. California Division of Mines and 

Geology. Scale 1:250,000. Web site at: http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngmbin/ILView.pl?sid=452_1.sid&vtype=b. Accessed August 2011. 

San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD). 2011. SDCAPCD Rules and Regulations. 

Web site at: http://www.sdapcd.org/rules/rules.html. Accessed September 2011. 

Sawyer J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation (2nd edition). 

California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento, California. 

 
8 References 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 8-9 

Final EA 

Schaefer, J. and Carol Schultze. 1996. Cultural Resources of Indian Pass: An Inventory and Evaluation 

for the Imperial Project, Imperial County, California. Report prepared by ASM Affiliates. 

Report submitted to Chemgold. Unpublished report on file at South Coastal Information Center, 

San Diego State University, San Diego. 

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). 2012a. Biological Resources Survey Report of 

Ten Proposed Military Aircraft Landing Zones, U.S. Forest Service Lands, Cleveland National 

Forest Orange and Riverside Counties, California. 

 . 2012b. Biological Resources Survey Report of Twenty-Three Proposed Military Aircraft 

Landing Zones on Bureau of Land Management Lands, Imperial County, California. 

 . 2012c. Cultural Resources Survey Report of Ten Proposed Military Aircraft Landing Zones, 

U.S. Forest Service Lands, Cleveland National Forest Orange and Riverside Counties, California. 

 . 2012d. Protocol Survey Report for the Coastal California Gnatcatchers, U.S. Forest Service 

Lands, Cleveland National Forest, Orange County, California. 

 . 2012e. Protocol Survey Report for the Qunio Checkerspot Butterfly, U.S. Forest Service 

Lands, Cleveland National Forest Orange and Riverside Counties, California. 

 . 2012f. Results of Focused Thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifoia) Surveys for the Proposed 

Military Aircraft Landing Zone Project Located on the United States Forest Service, Cleveland 

National Forest, Orange County, California. 

 . 2012g. Management Indicator Species Report for the United States Marine Corps Rotary Wing 

and Tilt-Rotor Training Operaions on Cleveland National Forest, Orange and Riverside Counties, 

Califonria. November. 

 . 2012h. Migratory Bird Assessment for the United States Marine Corps Rotary Wing and TiltRotor Training Operaions on Cleveland National Forest, Orange and Riverside Counties, 

Califonria. November. 

 . 2012i. Noxious Weed Risk Assessment for the United States Marine Corps Rotary Wing and 

Tilt-Rotor Training Operaions on Cleveland National Forest, Orange and Riverside Counties, 

Califonria. November. 

 . 2012j. U.S. Department of Agriculture Federal noxious weed list. Available on-line at 

http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=Federal. Accessed October. 

 . 2011. Cultural Resources Survey Report of Twenty-three Proposed Military Aircraft Landing 

Zones on Bureau of Land Management Lands, Imperial County, California. September. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2012. Historic Ozone Air Quality Trends. 

Available at http://www.aqmd.gov/smog/o3trend.html. Accessed 2012. 

 . 2011. SCAQMD Rules and Regulations. Website http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/rulesreg.html. 

Strand, R.G. 1962. Geologic Map of California: Sand Diego-El Centro Sheet. California Division of 

Mines and Geology. Scale 1:250,000. Web site at: http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngmbin/ILView.pl?sid=489_1.sid&vtype=b. Accessed September 2011. 
8 References 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 8-10 

Final EA 

Sugihara, Neil, Jan w. van Wagtendonk, Joann Fites-Kaufman, Kevin E. Shaffer, and Andrea E. Thode. 

2006. Fire in California’s Ecosystems. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 

California. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2012. Biological Resource Condition, Cleveland 

National Forest. Web site at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/cleveland/ 

landmanagement/planning/?cid=fsbdev7_016573. Accessed May 2012. 

 . 2011. Web Soil Survey website data – multiple soils. Web site at: 

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed August 2011. 

 . 2007. Official Soil Series Descriptions – multiple soils. Web site at: 

http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html. Accessed August 2011. 

 . 2006. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, 

Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. USDA Handbook 296. Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. 

 . 1980. Soil Survey of Yuma-Wellton Area, Parts of Yuma County Arizona, and Imperial 

County, California. Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Arizona Agricultural 

Experiment Station and the California Agricultural Experiment Station. December. 

 . 1978. Soil Survey of Orange County and Western Part of Riverside County, California. Soil 

Conservation Service and Forest Service, in cooperation with University of California 

Agricultural Experiment Station. September. 

 . 1977. Soil Survey of Maricopa County Arizona, Central Part. Soil Conservation Service in 

cooperation with the University of Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station. September. 

United States Department of Interior (US DOI). 2012. Right-of-Way Grant for the Ocotillo Express 

Wind Facility. El Centro Field Office. Serial No. CACA-051552. May. 

 . 2011a. Imperial Solar Energy Center (CSolar) West Secretary of Interior, Salazar, Press 

Release. Salazar Approves Transmission for Major Solar Project in California. 25 August. 

 . 2011b. Right-of-Way Grant for Imperial Solar Energy Center (CSolar) West. El Centro Field 

Office. Serial No. CACA-51644. September. 

 . 2010. Right-of-Way Lease/Grant for Imperial Valley Solar. El Centro Field Office. Serial No. 

CACA-47740. October. 

United States Department of Transportation. 2004. Synthesis of Noise Effects on Wildlife Populations. 

Publication No. FHWA-HEP-06-016. September. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011a. The Green Book Nonattainment 

Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk. Accessed 

September 2011. 

 . 2011b. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2009. EPA 430-R-11-

005. April 2011. Web site at: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. Accessed September 2011. 
8 References 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 8-11 

Final EA 

 . 2006. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Volume I. Section 13.2.5, 

Industrial Wind Erosion. Web site at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s0205.pdf. Accessed September 2011. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Letter received in response to: Request for 

Species List for the Proposed MV-22 and Rotary Wing Operations and Training on NonDepartment of Defense Lands in Orange, Riverside, and Imperial Counties, California and List of 

Federally Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species that may Occur in the 

Vicinity of Orange County, California. 17 February. 

 . 2010. Preparing for any Action that May Occur Within the Range of the Mojave Desert 

Tortoise (Gopherinus agassizii), which contains Pre-project Field Survey Protocol for Potential 

Desert Tortoise Habitats . USFWS, 2010 Field Season, 18 pp., Desert Tortoise Recovery Office, 

Reno, Nevada. 

 . 2008. Draft revised recovery plan for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise (Gopherus 

agassizii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California and Nevada Region, Sacramento, 

California. 

 . 2005. USFWS Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Area. Web site at: 

http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/TEspecies/Documents/QuinoDocs/web-map20052.pdf. Accessed 

May 2012. 

 . 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Determination of threatened status for 

the Mojave population of the desert tortoise. Federal Register 55(63):12178–12191. 

United States Forest Service (USFS). 2012a. Notice of Intent to Amend Land Management Plans for the 

Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino National Forests, California. Federal 

Register Vol. 77, No. 82. 27 April. 

 . 2012b. Southern California National Forests Land Management Plan Amendments. Web site 

at: http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/ 

www/nepa/76364_FSPLT2_123449.pdf. Accessed May 2012. 

 . 2012c. Cleveland National Forest Management Indicator Species information obtained from 

Cleveland National Forest files. April. 

 . 2012d. Sunrise Powerlink Transmission Line Project. Web site at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=27924. Accessed May 2012. 

 . 2012e. Consolidation and Reissuance of San Diego Gas & Electric (SDGE) Company Permits. 

Web site at: http://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/current-sopa.php?forest=110502 

and http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=310. Accessed May 2012. 

 . 2012f. North Main Divide Fuel Break System. Web site at: http://data.ecosystemmanagement.org/nepaweb/current-sopa.php?forest=110502 and 

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=34142. Accessed May 2012. 

 
8 References 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 8-12 

Final EA 

 . 2012g. El Cariso, Indian, and Munhall Plantation Vegetation Management. Web site at: 

http://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/current-sopa.php?forest=110502 and 

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=34018&exp=detail. Accessed May and 

December 2012. 

 . 2012h. Elsinore Peak Fuels Treatment. Web site at: http://data.ecosystemmanagement.org/nepaweb/current-sopa.php?forest=110502 and 

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=23080&exp=detail. Accessed May and 

December 2012. 

 . 2012i. Silverado Fuel Break. Web site at: http://data.ecosystemmanagement.org/nepaweb/current-sopa.php?forest=110502 and 

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=12953&exp=detail. Accessed May and 

December 2012. 

 . 2012j. North Main Divide Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment. Cleveland 

National Forest. May. 

 . 2012k. North Main Divide Fuels Reduction Project Finding of No Significant Impact. 

Cleveland National Forest. May. 

 . 2011a. Scoping Letter for the El Cariso, Indian, and Munhall Plantation Vegetation 

Management Project, Trabuco Ranger District, Cleveland National Forest. June. 

 . 2011b. Scoping Letter for the Silverado Fuel Break Project, Trabuco Ranger District, 

Cleveland National Forest. July. 

 . 2010. Record of Decision, San Diego Gas & Electric Special Use Authorization for the Sunrise 

Powerlink Transmission Line Project. July. 

 . 2009. Environmental Assessment for the San Diego Gas & Electric Master Special Use Permit, 

Cleveland National Forest. May. 

 . 2005a. Land Management Plan. Parts 1, 2, 3: R5-MB-074-B, R5-MB-075, R5-MB-077, and 

R5-MB-080. 

 . 2005b. Final Environmental Impact Statement on four Forest Land Management Plans. Vols. 1 

and 2. R5-MB-074-A. September. 

 . 2005c. U.S. Department of Agriculture Land Management Plan. Part 3 Design Criteria for the 

Southern California National Forests. September. 

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2010. USGS Protected Areas Database v1.1 04/30/2010. 

Web site at: http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/data/padus-data/. 

 . 2004. Desert Tortoise Ecology, Mojave Desert Tortoise GATF Project. Web site at: 

http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/biology/tortoise1. Accessed July 2009. 

United States Global Change Research Program. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States. Web site at: www.globalchange.gov/usimpacts. Accessed March 2010. 
8 References 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 8-13 

Final EA 

United States Marine Corps (USMC). 2012a. Biological Assessment for the for the United States Marine 

Corps Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operaions on Cleveland National Forest, Orange and 

Riverside Counties, Califonria. July. 

 . 2012b. Biological Evaulation for the United States Marine Corps Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor 

Training Operaions on Cleveland National Forest, Orange and Riverside Counties, Califonria. 

November. 

 . 2012c. Department of Defense United States Marine Corps Finding of No Significant Impact 

For Proposed P -771 Infrastructure Improvements at Camp Billy Machen, Imperial County, 

California. 11 April 2012. 

 . 2011. Electronic mail from LtCol Kenneth Karika, USMC, to Joseph Czech, Wyle 

Laboratories, Inc., re “data collection workbook for SoCal RW&TR Ops Training EA (noise & 

aq)”. 16 March. 

 . 2010a. FY2011 Marine Aviation Plan. September. 

 . 2010b. MV-22 Training and Readiness Manual. NAVMC 3500.11B. March. 

Wells, C, R. Campbell, L. DeBano, C. Lewis, R. Fredriksen, E.C. Franklin, R. Froelich, and P. Dunn. 

1979. Effects of Fire on Soil: A State-of-Knowledge Review. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, General Technical Report, WO-7. Prepared for the Forest Service National Fire 

Effects Workshop, April 10-14, 1978. Denver, Colorado. 

Woods, E. William and Stephen M. Yezerinca. 2006. Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) Song Varies 

with Urban Noise (Le Chant de Melospiza melodia Varie avec le Bruit Urbain). The Auk 123: 

650-659. 

Winters, personal communication. 2012. Electronic mail between Kirsten Winters, biologist at the 

Cleveland National Forest, and SAIC regarding raptor nest locations in the Trabuco Ranger 

District. 

Wyle. 2010. Wyle Report WR 08-04, Rotorcraft Noise Model Technical Reference and User Manual 

(Version 7.2), Wyle Laboratories, Inc. April 2010. 

 . 1997. Wyle Research Report WR 94-12-R, Military Operating Area and Range Noise Model 

MR_NMAP User’s Manual, Wyle Laboratories, Inc. March 1997. 
USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 9-1 

Final EA 

9 Acronyms 

°C Celsius 

°F Fahrenheit 

μg/m3

 micrograms per cubic meter 

2D MAW Second Marine Aircraft Wing 

3D MAW Third Marine Aircraft Wing 

4th MAW Fourth Marine Aircraft Wing 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

AESO Navy Aircraft Environmental Support Office 

AH-1W Super Cobra (helicopter) 

AH-1Z Viper (helicopter) 

ALM Maximum Sound Level 

APE area of potential effects 

ARB Air Resources Board 

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

B.P. Before Present 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards 

CAL Confined Area Landing 

CAL Fire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 

Caltrans California Department of Transportation 

CCAA California Clean Air Act 

CDCA California Desert Conservation Area 

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game 

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database 

CDWR California Department of Water Resources 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CH4 methane 

CH-46E Sea Knight (helicopter) 

CH-53E Super Stallion (helicopter) 

CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System 

cm centimeter 

CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level 

CNPS California Native Plant Society 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CO2e CO2 equivalent 

CPUC California Public Utilities Commission 

CRPR California Rare Plant Rank 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWRCB California Water Resources Control Board 

CY calendar year 

dB decibel 

dBA decibel on an “A-weighted” scale 

DoD Department of Defense 

DoN Department of the Navy 

EA Environmental Assessment 
9 Acronyms 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 9-2 

Final EA 

EIC Eastern Information Center 

EIR/EIS Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EO Executive Order 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FTHLICC Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Interagency Coordinating Committee 

FY fiscal year 

GHG greenhouse gases 

GWP global warming potential 

Hz hertz 

I MEF First Marine Expeditionary Force 

ICAPCD Imperial County Air Pollution Control District 

IFR Instrument Flight Rules 

IVPA Imperial Valley Planning Area 

JP Joint Publication 

km kilometers 

LZ landing zone 

MAG Marine Air Group 

MAGTF Marine Air Ground Task Forces 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MCAGCC Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center 

MCAS Marine Corps Air Station 

MCB Marine Corps Base 

MCI Marine Corps Installations 

MCI-Com Marine Corps Installations Command 

MCO Marine Corps Order 

MLRA Major Land Resource Area 

mm millimeter 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

mph miles per hour 

MR_NMAP Military Operating Area and Range Noise Model 

MSL mean sea level 

MV-22 Osprey (tilt-rotor aircraft) 

MW megawatt 

N2O nitrous oxide 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

NATOPS Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization 

NAVFAC SW Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

nm nautical mile 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOA Notice of Availability 

NOx nitrogen oxides 

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Science 
9 Acronyms 

USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 9-3 

Final EA 

O3 ozone 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

OPNAVINST Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 

PL Public Law 

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 

PM2.5 and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

ppm parts per million 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

REEA Renewable Energy Evaluation Area 

RNM Rotorcraft Noise Model 

ROD Record of Decision 

RONA record of non-applicability 

ROS Recreation Opportunity spectrum 

RPRS Rare Plant Ranking System 

SAIC Science Applications International Corporation 

SCAB South Coast Air Basin 

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District 

SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center 

SCIC South Coastal Information Center 

SDAB San Diego Air Basin 

SDCAPCD San Diego County Air Pollution Control District 

SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric Company 

SEAL Sea, Air and Land 

SEL Sound Exposure Level 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SSAB Salton Sea Air Basin 

TDS total dissolved solids 

UH-1N Huey (helicopter) 

UH-1Y Venom (helicopter) 

U.S. United States 

USC United States Code 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

USFS United States Forest Service 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

USMC United States Marine Corps 

VFR Visual Flight Rules 

VOC volatile organic compounds 

WTI Weapons Tactics Instructors 
APPENDIX A 

Scoping and Agency Correspondence 
APPENDIX A-1 

Scoping 




Site 3 Site 5

Site 7 Site 8

Site 9/ 9 Alt

Site 11

Site 10

Site 6 / 6 Alt

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

Landing Zone

Cleveland National Forest

Trabuco Ranger District N

Orange County

Riverside County

Scale

0 3

0 2

Kilometers

Miles

!

Riverside Co.

Orange Co.
Public Scoping Letter Mailing List 

4-Wheel Drive & Sport Utility Magazine Harbors, Beaches & Parks Commission 

AC/SES, Planning Branch Historical Commission 

Acjachemen Nation Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel 

American Towers IMBA 

Azteca News Inaja/Cosmit Reservation 

Backcountry Horsemen Inter-Canyon League 

Barona Band of Mission Indians Irvine Valley College 

Bowers Museum Jamul Indian Village 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, So. California Juaneno Band of Mission Indians 

Bureau of Land Management Juaneno Indian Council/San Juan Capistrano 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe R/R Jurupa Chamber of Commerce 

California Coalition Alternative to Pesticide La Jolla Band of Luiseño Indians 

California Indian Basket Weavers Assoc La Posta Band of Mission Indians 

California Dept of Fish & Game Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce 

California State Assembly Los Angeles Mycological Society 

California State Assembly, District 64 Los Angeles SMSA Limited Partnership 

California State Assembly, District 66 Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians 

Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Manzanita Band of Mission Indians 

Campo Band of Mission Indians Martin Luther King Senior Citizens 

Canyon Land Conservation Fund Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians 

Cato Geoscience Mexican Ind. Sociedad de Obreros 

CDC/CRC Norco Fire Dept. Mobile Relay Associates, Inc. 

Center for Biological Diversity Murrieta Chamber of Commerce 

Chambers Group Norco Chamber of Commerce 

City of Corona Norco Fire Department 

City of Elsinore OCSD/Communications Division 

City of Lancaster OES, Fire & Rescue Branch 

City of Los Angeles Orange Chamber of Commerce 

City of Murrieta Orange Co. Chapter, CNPS 

Corona Chamber of Commerce Orange County Board of Supervisors 

Corona Fire Dept. Orange County Fish & Game 

Corona Public Library, Heritage Room Orange County Historical Commission 

CORVA Orange County Transportation Authority 

County of Orange Pacific Mining Association 

County of Riverside Pala Band of Mission Indians 

County Regional Parks Pauma Band of Luiseño Indians 

Day Wireless Systems PCAS 

Department of Forestry Pechanga Band of Mission Indians 

Department of Parks-Recreation, Elsinore/Chino Pechanga Environmental Program 

Department of Forestry & Fire Protection Pechanga Fire Department 

El Cariso Volunteer Fire Department Pechanga Indian Reservation 

Elsinore Hang Gliding Association, Mission Viejo Pechanga Tribal Council 

Elsinore Hang Gliding Association, Temecula Pinnacle Towers Inc. 

Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians Press Enterprise 

Fish & Game Commission Public Facilities & Resources Department 

Fresno County Parks Division Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Fullerton College Raytheon Systems Co. 
Public Scoping Letter Mailing List 

Glen Ivy Hot Springs Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce Warrior's Society 

Resource Conservation District Water Quality Control Board 

Resources Development & Management Dept. Wildomar Chamber of Commerce 

Rincon Band of Mission Indians Mark Abrams 

Riverside County Board of Supervisors Leighsa Anderson 

Riverside County Fish & Game Commission Neal Anderson 

Riverside Library Paul Apodaca 

Riverside Visitor Center Al Bahm 

Rural Canyons Conservation Fund Carol Barreto 

San Juan Capistrano Juaneno Indians Carole Bell 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueño Indians Don Benefiel 

Santiago County Water District Deborah Bieber 

Sea & Sage Audubon Society Richard Bohlander 

Sheriff/ Real Estate Service Larry Boothe 

Sherman Indian Museum Randy Botta 

Sierra Club Gary Bounce 

Sierra Club, Audubon Society Barbara Bowers 

Sierra Sites Michael Brajdic 

Southern California Edison Co. David Bramlet 

Southern California Edison Fire Control Allen Brown 

Southern California Gas Co. Peter Brucker 

Southern California Magazine Dave Buchanan 

State of California Transportation Dept. David Buckingham 

Sycuan Band of The Kumeyaay Nation Bob Buster 

Temecula Band of Luiseno Indians Ilse Byrnes 

The Center For Natural Resources Bryan Calderwood 

The Mature Traveler Kenneth Calvert 

The Nature Conservancy Glen Campbell 

The Wilderness Society Kerry Cato, PhD 

Touch Tel Corp Ray Chandros 

Trabuco District Electronic Users Association Arthur Coe 

Trabuco Holy Jim Cabin Association Fred Daniel 

Trails4All Ian Davidson 

Transportation & Land Management Agency Barbara Deboom 

Transportation Corridor Agencies Dee Dee Dunbar 

U. S. Dept of Agriculture/Forest Fire Lab Joseph Dworzan 

U. S. Marine Corps Environmental Security Teri Edelbrock 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Leroy J. Elliot 

Union Pacific R/R Co. Dennis Ellison 

United States House of Representatives, Brea Larry Engwall 

United States House of Representatives, Fullerton Anne Fege 

United States House of Representatives, Garden Grove Virginia Field 

United States House of Representatives, Riverside Davis Fillis 

URS Corporation Robert Fisher 

USGS Gordon Martin 

Jim Force Bo Mazzetti 
Public Scoping Letter Mailing List 

Gloria Freel Ed Mc Ormond 

Richard Friesen Carol Mccolly 

John Furlong George Mcgehee 

Len Gardner Debbie Megna 

Shasta Gaughen Manuel Mello, Jr. 

Shirley Grindle Kenneth Meza 

Gary Glotfelty Sally Miller 

Josephine Gomas Bardot Noel Moore 

John Gomez, Jr Terry Morairty 

Mike Grace Al Moreno 

Sally Haase Phil Moser 

Manuel Hamilton Albert Murtz 

Philip Hamm Boyd Newby 

Andrew Harris Glen Newman 

Raymond Haynes Lt. Col. and Mrs. David Niederhaus 

Shireen Heidari Deborah North 

Liza and Garry Heinrich Cathy Nowak 

Mike Hilberath Rex Oliver 

Daviod Hogan Rebecca Osuna 

Anna Hoover Rod Pacheco 

Kristy Hori Gary Palakouic 

Elden Hughes Ann and Ken Palmer 

Patricia Huntington-Biagini Gwendolyn Parada 

Vincent Ibanez Vivian Parker 

Albert Ilata Ramiro Parra 

Alissa Ing La Vonne Peck 

Deborah Johnson Stephen Pencall 

Melissa Johnson Chalynn Peterson 

Sonia Johnston Robert Peterson 

Rich Kimberlin Anthony R. Pico 

Jerry King Kenneth and Vikki Piety 

Dave Kling Zachary Principe 

Francine Kupsch Bill Purcell 

Monique La Chappa Gregory Quellette 

Allen E. Lawson Ken Quigley 

Pauline Leonard Gabriele Rau 

Joe Linder John Reddick 

Mayoral Lopez Alec Reynolds 

Ruth Love Linda and Gene Ridenour 

Ulrike Luderer Joseph Robben 

Mark Macarro Honorable Frank C. Roberts 

Thomas Machulda Lilian Robles 

John Magee Teeter Maria Romero 

Randall Majel Thorpe Romero 

Barbara Mangan Mark Romere 

Beverly Martin Eva-Maria Swedlow 

Mary Lou Rosczyk W. Tadlock 
Public Scoping Letter Mailing List 

Cindy Roth Tom Tammone 

Edward Royce Lisa Telles 

Tom Ruzika Stacie Tennant 

Kami Sabetzadeh Bruce Thompson 

Loretta Sanchez Wolf Tinsley 

Wayne Scharf Wayne Todd 

Roger Scherer James Trujillo 

Hay Scott Daniel J. Tucker 

Markus Seitz Chris and AntonioVargas 

Stuart Sheldon Norma Velez 

Jill Sherman Laura Verdugo 

Marie Siebee Teresa Viveros 

Lorene Sisquoc Marian Walkingstick 

Chuck Skaggs Mike Wallman 

James Sleeper Mike Warren 

Dr. William Smith Keith Warren 

Robert Smith Ray Weems 

Bill and Marilyn Soderquist Robert Wheeler 

Laura Solorio Troy Whitman 

Betty Somes John Williams 

Darlene Sotelo Nancy Williams 

Bobby Spiegel Chris Wills, MD 

Todd Spitzer Stefanie Wilson 

Judy Spivey Pete Wohlgemuth 

Ted St. John L Wolfley 

Fred Steiner Mike Wylie 

John Stickler Jeremy Zagarella 

Henry Stringer 

Edwin Studor 
APPENDIX A-2 

Tribal Consultation 


95

95

California

Mexico

Arizona

Mexico

Colorado River

Salton

Sea

111

78

1

78

86

86

98

San Bernardino

Barstow

Riverside

Santa Ana

Blythe

Los

Angeles

Brawley

Yuma

San Diego

Escondido Oceanside

Calexico

El Centro

SAN BERNARDINO CO.

SAN DIEGO CO.

ORANGE

CO.

LOS ANGELES

CO.

RIVERSIDE CO.

MOHAVE CO.

LA PAZ CO.

YUMA CO.

IMPERIAL CO.

8

10

40

15

10

15

15

405

5

5

8 Cargo

Muchacho

Mtns.

PACIFIC

OCEAN

95

78

MCB Camp

Pendleton

Trabuco

Ranger District

Palomar

Ranger District

Descanso

Ranger District

MCAS Camp

Pendleton

MCAGCC

Twentynine Palms

Chocolate Mountain

Aerial Gunnery Range

Barry M. Goldwater

Range (West)

Landing Zone

Military Range

Cleveland National

Forest Boundary

BLM El Centro

Field Office Boundary

Scale

0 30

0 Kilometers 50

Miles

N

Figure 1. Location of Proposed Landing Zones within the Cleveland National Forest, Trabuco Ranger District, and the BLM El Centro Field Office

MCAS MIRAMAR

MCAS

YUMA

Picacho Peak
Site 3 Site 5

Site 7 Site 8

Site 11

Site 9/ 9 Alt

Site 10

Site 6 / 6 Alt

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

Riverside Co.

Orange Co.

Landing Zone

Cleveland National Forest

Trabuco Ranger District N

Orange County

Riverside County

Scale

0 3

0 2

Kilometers

Miles

Figure 2. Location of Proposed Landing Zones within the Cleveland National Forest

!
LZ C1

LZ IP1

Option

LZ PC3/

Option

LZ Eider

LZ Canary

LZ Mallard

LZ Sparrow !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

LZ Wolf

!

!

!

!

!

USA

Mexico

LZ Bull

LZ Cupcake

LZ Pelican

LZ MW1/

Option

LZ ME3

Option

California

Arizona

Salton Sea

Riverside County

Imperial County

Arizona

California

Baja California

Sonora

Yuma

San Bernardino

Riverside La Paz

Imperial

Mohave

San Diego

Maricopa

Pima

Figure 3. Location of Proposed Landing Zones within BLM El Centro Managed Lands

! Landing Zones

Chocolate Mountain

Aerial Gunnery Range

N

Scale

0 15

0 10

Kilometers

Miles


95

95

California

Mexico

Arizona

Mexico

Colorado River

Salton

Sea

111

78

1

78

86

86

98

San Bernardino

Barstow

Riverside

Santa Ana

Blythe

Los

Angeles

Brawley

Yuma

San Diego

Escondido Oceanside

Calexico

El Centro

SAN BERNARDINO CO.

SAN DIEGO CO.

ORANGE

CO.

LOS ANGELES

CO.

RIVERSIDE CO.

MOHAVE CO.

LA PAZ CO.

YUMA CO.

IMPERIAL CO.

8

10

40

15

10

15

15

405

5

5

8 Cargo

Muchacho

Mtns.

PACIFIC

OCEAN

95

78

MCB Camp

Pendleton

Trabuco

Ranger District

Palomar

Ranger District

Descanso

Ranger District

MCAS Camp

Pendleton

MCAGCC

Twentynine Palms

Chocolate Mountain

Aerial Gunnery Range

Barry M. Goldwater

Range (West)

Landing Zone

Military Range

Cleveland National

Forest Boundary

BLM El Centro

Field Office Boundary

Scale

0 30

0 Kilometers 50

Miles

N

Figure 1. Location of Proposed Landing Zones within the Cleveland National Forest, Trabuco Ranger District, and the BLM El Centro Field Office

MCAS MIRAMAR

MCAS

YUMA

Picacho Peak
Site 3 Site 5

Site 7 Site 8

Site 11

Site 9/ 9 Alt

Site 10

Site 6 / 6 Alt

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

Riverside Co.

Orange Co.

Landing Zone

Cleveland National Forest

Trabuco Ranger District N

Orange County

Riverside County

Scale

0 3

0 2

Kilometers

Miles

Figure 2. Location of Proposed Landing Zones within the Cleveland National Forest

!
LZ C1

LZ IP1

Option

LZ PC3/

Option

LZ Eider

LZ Canary

LZ Mallard

LZ Sparrow !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

LZ Wolf

!

!

!

!

!

USA

Mexico

LZ Bull

LZ Cupcake

LZ Pelican

LZ MW1/

Option

LZ ME3

Option

California

Arizona

Salton Sea

Riverside County

Imperial County

Arizona

California

Baja California

Sonora

Yuma

San Bernardino

Riverside La Paz

Imperial

Mohave

San Diego

Maricopa

Pima

Figure 3. Location of Proposed Landing Zones within BLM El Centro Managed Lands

! Landing Zones

Chocolate Mountain

Aerial Gunnery Range

N

Scale

0 15

0 10

Kilometers

Miles
Federally and Non-Federally Recognized Indian Tribes 

Included in the Consultation Process 

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Ak-Chin Indian Community 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians 

Barona Band of Mission Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Campo Kumeyaay Nation 

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe 

Cocopah Indian Tribe 

Colorado River Indian Tribes 

Colorado River Reservation 

Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe 

Fort Yuma Indian Reservation – Quechan Tribe 

Gila River Indian Community 

Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel 

Inaja/Cosmit Reservation 

Jamul Indian Village 

Juaneño Band of Mission Indians 

Kumeyaay Cultural Historic Committee 

Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee 

Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians 

La Jolla Band of Luiseño Indians 

La Posta Band of Mission Indians 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians 

Manzanita Band of Mission Indians 

Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians 

Morongo Band of Mission Indians 

Pala Band of Mission Indians 

Pauma Band of Luiseño Indians 

Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians 

Quechan Cultural Committee 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Rincon Band of Mission Indians 

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 

San Luis Rey Band of Luiseño Indians 

San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueño Indians 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians 

Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Tohono O’odham Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twentynine Palms Band of Mission Indians 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 


April 30, 2012 

Attn: Mike Hamilton, Deputy Director 

Regional Environmental Coordination 

and Office of Government and External Affairs 

MCIWEST G-7 

Re: Aircraft Training on Non-Department of Defense Lands by the USMC 

The Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians appreciates your observance of Tribal Cultural 

Resources and their preservation in your project. The information provided to us on said 

project(s) has been assessed through our Cultural Resource Department, where it was 

concluded that although it is outside the existing reservation, the project area does fall 

within the bounds of our Tribal Traditional Use Areas. At this time the Soboba Band 

does not have any specific concerns regarding this project, but requests notification of 

any inadvertent discoveries that may be discovered during the course of the project. 

[SPECIAL NOTE (for projects other than cell towers): If this project is associated with a city or county specific plan or general plan 

action it is subject to the provisions of SB18-Tradtional Tribal Cultural Places (law became effective January 1, 2005) and will require 

the city or county to participate in formal, government-to-government consultation with the Tribe. If the city or county are your 

client, you may wish to make them aware of this requirement. By law, they are required to contact the Tribe. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Ontiveros 

Soboba Cultural Resource Department 

P.O. Box 487 

San Jacinto, CA 92581 

Phone (951) 654-5544 ext. 4137 

Cell (951) 663-5279 

jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov

Ms. Rose Duro 

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS MARINE CORPS INSTALLATIONS WEST- MARINE CORPS BASE 

BOX555200 

CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA 92055-5200 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, Cultural Committee 

POBOX68 

Valley Center, California 92082 

Ms. Duro 

Thank you for your inquiry. 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

G-7 

3000 

13 June 2012 

The U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the 

continued use ofU.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands by 

rotary-wing aircraft (helicopters) and the new tilt-rotor aircraft, known as the MV -22 (which is 

replacing the current-inventory CH-46E). 

The Native American Heritage Commission was contacted regarding this project in 2011. The 

USMC, in cooperation with BLM and USFS, has also mailed out seventy-two letters to initiate 

consultation with federally recognized and non-federally recognized Indian tribes affiliated with 

lands involved in this action. 

The USMC in support of this EA has conducted detailed archaeological surveys for 33 proposed 

landing zones (LZ), ten of which are located in the Trabuco Ranger District of the Cleveland 

National Forest, and 23 sites located in the El Centro Field Office area of the BLM. These field 

surveys were conducted in coordination with the USFS and BLM to determine the presence or 

absence of archaeological sites within or adjacent to each proposed LZ to include a 350ft buffer 

area beyond the perimeter of each LZ. 

For these LZs no construction or improvements are proposed. As you mention, soil disturbance 

does have the potential to occur from rotor-induced downwash (also known as prop wash) from 

hovering and landing aircraft. To acknowledge this, surveys also included a 350-foot buffer area 

around each LZ perimeter to evaluate any potential surface disturbance that could occur from the 

landing and take-off activities. 

For the ten proposed LZ sites in the Cleveland National Forest, no archaeological sites were 

found within the LZ areas and only one archaeological site was located within the Area of 

Potential Effect (APE). This newly-recorded site is in the survey buffer area, and is protected 

from possible disturbance from rotor wash because it is located down slope from the LZ and 

sheltered behind a rock outcrop. On the BLM managed lands, eight of the 23 LZs surveyed were 

dropped from consideration for future use by the USMC because of the presence of 

archaeological resources. The USMC is analyzing the effects of using the remaining 15 existing 

LZs on BLM lands. 
We plan to have the Draft EA available for public review in July 2012. You will be notified 

when the EA is available, and we invite you to attend one of our public review meetings after the 

release of the Draft EA. If you have additional questions, concerns, or would like more 

information, or if you so desire I can arrange for a Government-to-Government meeting to 

discuss any specific concerns with the Tribe. My contact information is (760)725-2635; email 

Charles.hamilton@usmc.mil. 

Again thank you for your inquiry. 

ton 

Deputy Director G-7 

Marine Corps Installations West 

Copy to: USPS Cleveland National Forest 

(Attn: Steve Harvey) 

10845 Rancho Bernardo Road, Suite 200 

San Diego, CA 

92127-2107 

2 
AUGUSTINE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS 

P.O. Box 846 • Coachella, CA 92236 • (760) 398-4 722 • Fax (760) 398-4252 

Tribal Chairperson: MaryAnn Green 

Patrick L. Christman 

United States Marine Corps 

Marine Corps Installation West 

Box 555200 

Camp Pendleton, CA 92055-5200 

RE: Marine Corps Continuation of Aircraft Training Project 

Dear Mr. Christman: 

May 24, 2012 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer input concerning the development of the aboveidentified project. We appreciate your sensitivity to the cultural resources that may be 

impacted by your project, and the impmiance of these cultural resources to the Native 

American peoples that have occupied the land surrounding the area of your project for 

thousands of years. Unfortunately, increased development and lack of sensitivity to 

cultural resources has resulted in many significant cultural resources being destroyed or 

substantially altered and impacted. Your invitation to consult on this project is greatly 

appreciated. 

At this time we are unaware of specific cultural resources that may be affected by the 

proposed project. We encourage you to contact other Native American Tribes and 

individuals within the immediate vicinity of the project site that may have specific 

information concerning cultural resources that may be located in the area. We also 

encourage you to contract with a monitor who is qualified in Native American cultural 

resources identification and who is able to be present on-site full-time during the preconstruction and construction phase of the project. Please notify us immediately should 

you discover any cultural resources during the development of this project. 

Very truly yours, 

Augustine Band of 

f/flfJJ>-

Mary Ann Green 

Tribal Chairperson 
~UA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIAN~ 

TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

May 25, 2012 

Patrick L. Christman 

Assistant Chief of Staff G-7 

Director, Regional Environmental Coordination/ 

Governmental and External Affairs 

Marine Corps Installation West 

Box 555200 

Camp Pendleton, CA 92055-5200 

RE: Initiation of Consultation- Aircraft Training on Non-Department of Defense 

Lands by the United States Marine Corps 

Dear Mr. Christman: 

The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians appreciates your efforts to include the Agua 

Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office in your project. The project area is beyond 

the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation lands and our Traditional Use Area. We currently 

have no concerns regarding this project. We defer to Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. 

This letter shall conclude our consultation efforts. 

Again, we appreciate your interest in our tribal resources and heritage. If you have 

questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at 

(760) 699-6907. You may also email me at ptuck@aguacaliente-nsn.gov . 

Cordially, 

Y;_·- & V2_ 

Patricia A. Garcia-Tuck 

Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

AGUA CALIENTE BAND 

OF CAHUILLA INDIANS 

C: Agua Caliente CulturaiRegister 

X:\CONSULTAT.IONS Letters\FY2012\0ff\USMC_MCIWEST_ 05_25_12.doc 

54 0 1 D I N A H 5 H .O R E D R IV E, PALM 5 P R I N G S, C A 9 2 2 6 4 

T 760/699/6800 F 760/699/6924 WWW.AGUACALIENTE-NSN.GOV 
APPENDIX A-3 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 



United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Ecological Services 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 

601 0 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 10 1 

Carlsbad. California 9201 1 

In Reply Refer To: 

FWS-MCBCP-I 180154-11 SL0267 FEB 17 2011 

Mr. Patrick L. Christman 

Assistant Chief of Staff G-7 

Regional Environmental and Governmental Affairs 

Marine Corps Installations West 

P.O. Box 555200 

Camp Pendleton, California 9201 1 

Subject: Request for Species List for the Proposed MV-22 and Rotary Wing Operations and 

Training on Non-Department of Defense Lands in Orange, Riverside, and Imperial 

Counties. Califomia 

Dear Mr. Christman: 

This letter is in response to your request, received January 24,201 1, for a list of federally 

endangered, threatened, and proposed species potentially present in the vicinity of the above 

referenced project. To assist you in evaluating the potential occurrence of federally listed 

endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species and their critical habitat that may occur 

in the vicinity of the area identified, we are providing the enclosed list. 

The primary mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is to "work with others to 

conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing 

benefit of the American people." Specifically, the Service administers the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and provides support to other Federal 

agencies in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Section 9 

of the Act prohibits the "take" (e.g., harm, harassment, pursuit, injury, kill) of federally listed 

wildlife. Take incidental to otherwise lawful activities can be permitted under the provisions of 

section 7 (Federal consultations) and section 10 (private permits) of the Act. 

We do not have on-the-ground site-specific information for this area. Therefore, we recommend 

that an assessment of the actual potential for direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts likely to 

result from the proposed study be conducted by a biologist directly familiar with the habitat 

conditions and associated species in and around the study area. 

Please contact the California Department of Fish and Game for State-listed and other sensitive 

species that may occur in the area of the project. State-fisted species are protected under the 

provisions of the California Endangered Species Act. Rare plant species that may occur in the 
Mr. Patrick L. Christman (FWS-MCBCP-1 lBOl54-11SL0267) 

project area are included in the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) inventory of rare and 

endangered vascular plants in California. State-listed and CNPS species require full 

consideration under the California Environmental Quality Act. 

Should you have any questions regarding the species list provided, or your responsibilities under 

the Act, please contact Fish and Wildlife Biologist Peter Beck of my staff at (760) 43 1-9440, 

extension 2 13. 

Sincerely, 

-fS Karen A. Goebel 

Assistant Field Supervisor 
Mr. Patrick L. Christman (FWS-MCBCP-1 lBOl54-11 SLO267) 3 

Federally Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species that May Occur in the 

Vicinity of Orange County, California 

January 27,2011 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal status' 

Braunton's milk-vetch 

Ventura marsh milk-vetch 

thread-leaved brodiaea 

salt marsh bird's beak 

San Fernando Valley spineflower 

Santa Monica Mountains dudleya 

Laguna Beach live-forever 

Santa Ana River woolly-star 

Gambel's watercress 

big-leaved crown beard 

Znvertehrirtes 

San Diego fairy shrimp 

Quino checkerspot butterfly 

Riverside fairy shrimp 

Santa Ana sucker 

tidewater goby 

southern steelhead 

Astragalus brauntonii 

Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosi.ssimus 

BrodiaeaJilifolia 

Chloropyron maritimum var. maritimum 

Chorizanthe pariyi var. fernandina 

Dudleyu cymosa subsp. ovatifolio 

Dudleya stolonifera 

Eriastrum densifolium subsp. sanctorum 

Rorippa gambellii 

Verbesina dissita 

Branchinecta sandiegonensis 

Euphydryas editha quino 

Streptocephalzrs woottoni 

Catostomus santaanae 

Eucyclogobius newberryi 

Oncorhynchus mykiss 

endangered, CH 

endangered, CH 

threatened, CH 

endangered 

candidate 

threatened 

threatened 

endangered 

endangered 

threatened 

endangered, CH 

endangered, CH 

endangered, CH 

threatened, CH 

endangered, CH 

endangered 
Mr. Patrick L. Christman (FWS-MCBCP-I 1BOI 54-1 1SL0267) 4 

Federally Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species that May Occur in the 

Vicinity of Orange County, California 

January 27,2011 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal status' 

Amphibians 

arroyo toad 

California red-legged frog 

BB 

western snowy plover 

yellow-billed cuckoo 

southwestern willow flycatcher 

short-tailed albatross 

coastal California gnatcatcher 

light-footed clapper rail 

California least tern 

least Bell's vireo 

Mammals 

southern sea otter 

Pacific pocket mouse 

Anaxyrus californicus 

Rana drayfoni 

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus 

Coccyzus americanus 

Empidonax truillii extimus 

Phoebastria albatrus 

Polioptila californica californica 

Rullus longirostris levipes 

Sternula antillarum brown; 

Vireo belliipusillus 

Enhydra lutris nereis 

Perognathus longimembris pacrficu.~ 

endangered, CH 

threatened, CH 

threatened, CH 

candidate 

endangered, CH 

endangered 

threatened, CH 

endangered 

endangered 

endangered, CH 

threatened 

endangered 

1 CH -Designated Critical Habitat 

PCH - Prooosed Critical Habitat 
Mr. Patrick L. Christman (FWS-MCBCP-1 lB0154-11SL0267) 5 

Federally Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species that May Occur in the 

Vicinity of Riverside County, California 

January 27,2011 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal statusZ 

Pa 

Munz's onion 

San Diego ambrosia 

Braunton's milk-vetch 

Coachella Valley milk-vetch 

triple-ribbed milk-vetch 

San Jacinto Valley crownscale 

Nevin's barberry 

thread-leaved brodiaea 

Vail Lake ceanothus 

slender-horned spineflower 

Santa Ana River woolly-star 

Parish's daisy 

San Diego button celery 

spreading navarretia 

California Orcutt grass 

Brand's phacelia 

Hidden Lake bluecurls 

Allium munzii 

Ambrosia pumila 

Astragalus brauntonii 

Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae 

Astragalus tricarinatus 

Atriplex coronata var. notatior 

Berberis nevinii 

Brodiaea filifolia 

Ceanothus ophiochllus 

Dodecahema leptoceras 

Eriastrum densifolium subsp. sunctorum 

Erigeron parishii 

Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii 

Navarretia fossalis 

Orcuttia californica 

Phacelia stellaris 

endangered, CH 

endangered, CH 

endangered, CM 

endangered, CH 

endangered 

endangered, CH 

endangered, CH 

threatened, CH 

threatened, CH 

endangered 

endangered 

threatened, CH 

endangered 

threatened, CH 

endangered 

candidate 

Trichostema austromontanum subsp. threatened 

compactum 

Invertebrates 

vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi Threatened, CH 

Casey's June beetle Dinacoma caseyi endangered, PCH 
Mr. Patrick L. Christman (FWS-MCBCP-11B0154-11 SL0267) 6 

Federally Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species that May Occur in the 

Vicinity of Riverside County, California 

January 27,2011 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal statusZ 

Quino checkerspot butterfly Euphydiyas editha quino 

Delhi Sands flower-loving fly Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis 

Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni 

Santa Ana sucker Cafostomus santaanae 

desert pupfish Cyprinodon macularius 

bonytail chub Gila elegans 

Colorado squawfish Ptychocheilus lucius 

razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus 

Amphibians 

arroyo toad 

desert slender salamander 

California red-legged frog 

mountain yellow-legged frog 

Re~tiles 

desert tortoise 

flat-tailed homed lizard 

Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard 

Bmountain plover 

yellow-billed cuckoo 

southwestern willow flycatcher 

coastal California gnatcatcher 

Anaxyrus californicus 

Balrachoseps aridus 

Ranu draytoni 

Ranu muscosa 

Gopherus agassizii 

Phrynosoma mcallii 

Uma inornata 

Charadrius montanus 

Coccyzus americanus 

Empidonax traillii extimus 

Polioptila californica californica 

endangered, CH 

endangered 

endangered, CH 

threatened, CH 

endangered, CH 

endangered, CH 

endangered, CH 

endangered, CH 

endangered, CH 

endangered 

threatened, CH 

endangered, CH 

threatened, CH 

prop. threatened 

threatened, CH 

threatened 

candidate 

endangered, CH 

threatened, CH 
Mr. Patrick L. Christman (FWS-MCBCP-I 1B0154-11SL0267) 7 

Federally Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species that May Occur in the 

Vicinity of Riverside County, California 

January 27,2011 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal statusz 

Yuma clapper rail 

California least tern 

least Bell's vireo 

Rallus longirostris yumanensis endangered 

Sternula antillarum brown; endangered 

Vireo belliipusillus endangered, CH 

Mammals 

San Bernardino kangaroo rat Dipodomys merriamz parvz~.~ endangered, CH 

Stephens' kangaroo rat Dipodomys stephensi endangered 

Peninsular bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis nelsonz endangered, CH 

Palm Springs ground squirrel Spermoph~lus tereticaudus chlorus candidate 

* CH Designated Critical Habitat 

PCH -Proposed Critical Habitat 
Mr. Patrick L. Christman (FWS-MCBCP-1 lBOl54-11SLO267) 8 

Federally Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species that May Occur in the 

Vicinity of Imperial County, California 

January 27.2011 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal status3 

PM 

Peirson's milk-vetch 

desert pupfish 

bonytail chub 

Colorado squawfish 

razorback sucker 

Reptiles 

desert tortoise 

flat-tailed horned lizard 

B& 

mountain plover 

yellow-billed cuckoo 

southwestern willow flycatcher 

Yuma clapper rail 

California least tern 

least Bell's vireo 

Mammals 

Peninsular bighorn sheep 

Astragalus mugdulenue var. peirsonii 

Cyprinodon maculurius 

Gila elegans 

Ptychocheilus lucius 

Xyrauchen texanus 

Gopherus agassizii 

Phrynosoma mcallii 

Chavadriu.~ montanus 

Coccyzus americanus 

Empidonax traillii extimus 

Rallus longirostris yumanensis 

Sternula antillarum browni 

Vireo belliipusillus 

Ovis canadensis nelsoni 

threatened, CH 

endangered, CH 

endangered, CH 

endangered, CH 

endangered, CH 

threatened, CH 

prop. threatened 

threatened 

candidate 

endangered, CH 

endangered 

endangered 

endangered, CH 

endangered, CH 

' CH - Designated Critical Habitat 

PCH - Proposed Critical Habitat 
 

AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 

3120 Chicago Avenue, Suite 110 

Riverside, California 92507 

Tel +1 (951) 369-8060 

Fax +1 (951) 369-8035 www.amec.com 1

September 27, 2011 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 

6010 Hidden Valley Road, 

Carlsbad, CA 92011 

ATTN: Ms. Pete Sorensen 

RE: Notification to conducted focused presence/absence surveys for the desert tortoise 

on the Bureau of Land Management Lands Imperial County, CA for the MV22 and 

Rotary Wing Training Environmental Assessment. 

Dear Mr. Sorensen, 

This letter serves as AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. (AMEC)/Science Applications 

International Corporation (SAIC) formal notification of our intention to conduct focused 

presence/absence surveys for the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) on 17 proposed 

helicopter landing zones (LZ) collectively referred to as the “El Centro Landing Sites” 

(See attached map). The surveys will be conducted starting October 3, 2011 in 

accordance with the 2010 Field Season Pre-project Field Survey Protocol for Potential 

Desert Tortoise Habitats (USFWS 2010). Surveyors will be led by myself and Nathan 

Moorhatch of AMEC, and supported byTara Schoenwetter and Debra Barringer of SAIC. 

Respectfully, 

Michael D. Wilcox 

Wildlife Biologist / Ecologist 

AMEC 

Earth & Environmental, Inc. 

3120 Chicago Avenue, Suite 110, Riverside, CA 92507, USA 

Tel 1+ (951) 369-8060, Fax 1+ (951) 369-8035 

Direct 1+ (951) 369-8060 x 105, Mobile 1+ (951) 634-9765 

michael.wilcox@amec.com

amec.com

 

 
Ms. Susie Tharratt 12 March 2012 

Recovery Permit Coordinator 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Ecological Services, Carlsbad Field Office 

6010 Hidden Valley Road Suite 101 

Carlsbad, California 92011 

Re: Notification of Initiation of Surveys for Federally-listed Coastal California Gnatcatcher 

Surveys on Cleveland National Forest at Trabuco Ranger District, Orange County, California for 

the Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations on Public Lands Environmental Assessment. 

Dear Ms. Tharratt, 

This letter serves as Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) formal notification of our 

intention to conduct U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol surveys for federally-listed coastal 

California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) at Cleveland National Forest, in the Trabuco 

Ranger District. 

Marine Corps Installations/WEST (MCIWEST) is initiating consultation for a project that would allow 

the United States Marine Corps (USMC) to continue rotary wing aircraft (helicopter) training on nonDepartment of Defense (DoD) lands within southern California, as well as introducing tilt-rotor aircraft 

training on those lands. USMC rotary wing aircraft training currently occurs on public lands managed by 

the United States Forest Service (USFS) Cleveland National Forest (CNF) (Trabuco Ranger District). 

Protocol surveys for federally-listed coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) 

would be conducted at CNF Landing Zone Site 3 in eastern Orange County, California and is located in 

Black Star Canyon along the western slopes of the Santa Ana mountains (U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-

minute series, Black Star Canyon topographic quadrangle) (Figure 1). More specifically, Site 3 occurs at 

an elevation of 2,044 feet and is approximately 0.5 acres in size, with a total area of about 13.0 acres, 

including surrounding 350 ft. radius buffer area (potential impact area). 

Surveys will be conducted by biologist Brian Karpman (Permit number- 810768); SAIC biologist Tara 

Schoenwetter will assist with surveys under the direct supervision of the above listed permitted 

individual. The surveys will be conducted starting March 21, 2012 in accordance with the Coastal 

California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines

(Guidelines) (USFWS 1997). Survey results will be sent to the USFWS within 45 days of completion. 

Please contact me via phone (714) 454-7784 or email icarus816@msn.com, if you have any questions or 

concerns regarding this notification. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Brian Karpman 

101 Eucalyptus Lane 

Costa Mesa, California 92627 

Tel: (714) 454-7784 
Ken H. Osborne (permit #TE837760-7)

6675 Avenue Juan Diaz,

Riverside, CA 92509

(951) 360-6461

March 26, 2012

Attn: Ms. Susie Tharratt,

USFWS Carlsbad Field Office

6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101

Carlsbad, CA 92011

RE: Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey being undertaken for six sites of proposed Military

Aircraft Landing Zones, Santa Ana Mountains, Cleveland National Forrest.

Dear Ms. Tharratt,

I write and inform you of protocol, focused adult Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (QCB)

surveys I am undertaking for this year in the Santa Ana Mts., Cleveland National Forest for

the Marine Corps Installations/WEST (MCIWEST) rotary wing and tilt-rotor training

operations on public lands Environmental Assessment (EA). Six proposed Military Landing

Zone Sites (for Helicopters) are distributed along ridgelines in northern portions of the Santa

Ana Mts., in Riverside and Orange Counties, ranging in elevation from 2,044 feet to nearly

4,000 feet. Each of the sites (including surrounding buffer areas) encompasses approximately

10 to 13 acres.

I am undertaking these surveys on behalf of Endemic Environmental Services /Science

Applications International Corporation (SAIC). On March 18, 2012, I visited six proposed

Landing Zone Sites, identified as “Site 3”, “Site 5”, “Site 6”, “Site 6 Alt.”, “Site 7”, and “Site

8” on the attached maps (Black Star Canyon, CA, and Corona South, CA, USGS

Topographic maps at 100%) to be surveyed for QCB specifically in order to 1) evaluate site

potential(s) for occurrence of QCB; and 2) in order to undertake preliminary site evaluations

consistent with and pursuant to the USFWS prescribed QCB survey protocol. I found

Plantago erecta south of Site 3, (lowest elevation of the sites). Of the remaining sites(5, 6, 6

Alt., 7, and 8), all are of elevations between 3,500 and 4,000 feet, contextually situated within

chaparral communities where the QCB host plant Cordylanthus rigidus is present on at least

two sites. Habitats on, or in the vicinity of all these sites, have the potential to support QCB

in the context of the “high” elevation ecology of the butterfly, where QCB phenology is

typically a month behind the low elevation populations. All sites represent potential

hilltopping areas for QCB.

Respectfully submitted,

Ken H. Osborne


Begin forwarded message: 

From: Crysta Dickson <crysta100@cox.net> 

Date: April 4, 2012 8:24:03 PM PDT 

To: "susie_tharratt@fws.gov" <susie_tharratt@fws.gov> 

Cc: "bnerhus@gmail.com" <bnerhus@gmail.com> 

Subject: Modification to notice to begin CAGN surveys, Blackstar Cyn, Cleveland Nat'l 

Forest, OC, CA

Hello Susie, 

Attached is a 15 day notice previously sent to you to begin CAGN surveys for a site in Blackstar 

Cyn, Cleveland National Forest, Orange County, CA. Due to unexpected circumstances, Brian 

Karpman will not be able to conduct the surveys. We would like to modify the the notice to 

include myself as the permitted biologist (TE-067347-4) conducting the surveys. Biologists Tara 

Schoenwetter and Barry Nerhus will assist and be under my direct supervision during all 

surveys. I would also like to modify the schedule to begin surveys starting Friday, April 13, 

2012. All other conditions under the notification will remain the same. Please feel free to contact 

me if there are any questions. 

Thank you, 

Crysta Dickson 

949.292.7135 

Crysta100@cox.net

 
ONITBD STATES MARINE CORPS 

MARINE CORPS INSTALLATIONS WEST-MARINE CORPS BASE 

BOX 555010 

Mr. Jim Bartel 

Field Supervisor 

CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA 92055-5010 

USFWS Carlsbad Field Office 

6010 Hidden Valley Road 

Carlsbad, CA 92009 

Attention: Jonathan Snyder 

Dear Mr. Bartel: 

5090 

ENV/DIR 

AUG 6 2012 

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR INFORMAL CONSULTATION IN SUPPORT OF ROTARY 

WING/TILT-ROTOR HELICOPTER TRAINING OPERATIONS ON 

NON-DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LANDS 

On behalf of the United States Marine Corps (USMC), Marine 

Corps Installations West-Marine Corps Base (MCIWEST-MCB), Camp 

Pendleton (CAMPEN), requests an informal consultation with the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in support of 

Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor (MV-22) Helicopter Training 

Operations on non-Department of Defense (DoD) lands, as 

described below. A Biological Assessment and associated survey 

reports for the Proposed Action are provided in enclosure (1) . 

Project activities will occur at twenty-three landing zones 

(LZs), located on the Bureau's of Land Management (El Centro 

Field Office) and the United States Forest Service's (Cleveland 

National Forest) lands (enclosure (2)). Twenty-three federally 

listed species and one candidate specie for listing were 

evaluated based on an initial assessment of species distribution 

and availability of suitable habitat. MCIWEST-MCB CAMPEN 

determined that the Proposed Action will Not Effect twenty of 

the twenty-four species, and May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect, four of the twenty-four.species (enclosure (3)). 

Description of the Action 

The purpose of the proposed action is to introduce the MV-22 

Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft into military aviation training and 

to continue military aviation training on non-DoD lands within 

southern California which have previously been used by the USMC 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 
5090 

ENV/DIR 

AUG 6 2012 

for approximately 40 years. The continued use of public lands 

by USMC helicopter squadrons is needed to develop and sustain 

critical pilot skills that meet USMC standards for pilot 

certification, safety, combat effectiveness, and combat 

survivability. Current DoD installations and ranges are able to 

fulfill most training mission requirements, however, they do not 

offer the full range of variability needed to simulate real 

world conditions and often experience crowded airspace 

conditions. Therefore, continued use of non-DoD lands, 

particularly public lands, by USMC helicopter squadrons, 

inclusive of MV-22s, is critical and crucial for the quality, 

variety, and quantity of training to maintain military 

readiness. 

The Proposed Action involves landing and takeoff operations 

at specified LZs. The USMC does not propose new construction, 

modifications, or improvements at any of the twenty-three 

selected LZs (enclosure (1)). Typical practice landing and 

takeoff operations consist of a low level approach to an LZ to 

allow the pilot to visually inspect the area and select a 

specific landing site within the LZ that is free of all 

obstacles (e.g., uneven terrain, tall vegetation, etc.), as well 

as civilians (e.g., recreational users). The pilot lands the 

aircraft only when the area is determined to be safe. This type 

of training enables pilots and flight crews to identify an LZ, 

transition into an appropriate approach, land, and then 

subsequently take off in a variety of weather conditions (i.e., 

rain, cross-winds, cloud cover, etc.) and in different types of 

terrain. Rotary wing and tilt-rotor aircraft landing gear 

typically touch the ground in three or four contact points, with 

each contact no more than one square foot distance from each 

other. Other impacts of aircraft landing and takeoff operations 

include engine noise and rotor-induced downwash of ground 

sediment, as described in the enclosed Biological Assessment 

(enclosure (4)). The aircrafts involved with this undertaking 

include various helicopters (AH-1W/Z, UH-1N/Y, CH-53E) and the 

MV-22 tilt-rotor Osprey aircraft. The CH-46E aircraft would 

continue to use these same LZs until such time as they are fully 

replaced by the MV-22 Osprey (projected for not later than 

2018). 

2 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 
5090 

ENV/DIR 

AUG 6 2012 

Pilots will be restricted to landing at the selected LZs 

listed in enclosure (1) . Training would not include ground 

maneuvers (i.e., no trucks or people on the ground), refueling 

operations, the use of flares or ordnance, or the need for any 

type of construction. Pilots will use pre-flight briefing 

materials illustrating permissible landing sites and will use 

precision navigation systems to follow the landing restrictions 

listed in the briefing materials. 

Aircraft operations will primarily originate from Marine 

Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar and MCAS Camp Pendleton in 

California. Operations may also originate out of MCAS Yuma in 

Arizona, especially during large training exercises. Aircrafts 

will fly along normal departure routes from an airfield and then 

along established routes to reach a general LZ area. While 

transitioning to the LZs from an airfield, helicopters will 

usually fly between 1,000 to 2,000 feet above ground level, 

while the tilt-rotor aircraft usually will fly between 8,000 to 

12,000 feet above ground level, similar to a turboprop airplane. 

Summary of the Biological Assessment 

The USFWS reports 87 federally listed wildlife species (with 

some overlaps by counties) having the potential to occur within 

Riverside, Imperial, and Orange counties, which encompass the 

project areas. A number of species can be removed from 

consideration because there is no potential for the species to 

exist in the project area, based on a lack of minimal habitat 

requirements (such as beach, marine, and perennial river 

species) . Twenty-three federally listed threatened or 

endangered species and one candidate specie were then carried 

forward and initially evaluated for having the potential to 

occur within the two regions of proposed action activities 

(enclosure (2)). The twenty-four species were further 

evaluated. Based on the lack of known occurrences and suitable 

habitat, results of project-specific biological surveys, and 

project sites being outside known range of many species, only 

four species - the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila 

californica californica), Quine checkerspot butterfly 

(Euphydryas editha quino), thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea 

filifolia) , and desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) - have the 

3 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 
5090 

~f1G/D~R2012 

potential to occur within or in the vicinity of the proposed 

project LZs. No critical habitat for these species occurs 

within or immediately adjacent to the twenty-four LZs. 

Coastal California gnatcatcher has the potential to occur in 

the vicinity of only one LZ in the Cleveland National Forest (LZ 

Site 3). Direct effects resulting in injury or mortality to the 

California gnatcatcher are unlikely because of the limited 

amount of high quality habitat, potential for the species to 

occur at an LZ that is higher than this species known elevation 

range, and negative results from the 2012 protocol surveys. 

However, indirect effects such as the addition of noise, dust, 

and other disturbance that may cause a startle or flight 

response has the potential to occur at LZ Site 3, if 

gnatcatchers should be present in the area. 

The Quine checkerspot butterfly has the potential to occur 

on six LZs in the Cleveland National Forest (LZ Site 3, LZ Site 

5, LZ Site 6, LZ Site 6 Alt, LZ Site 7 and LZ Site 8). Direct 

effects resulting in injury or mortality to the Quine 

checkerspot butterfly are unlikely considering known occurrences 

coupled with the history of Quine checkerspot butterflies being 

absent from the area, and negative results provided from the 

2012 protocol surveys. Quine checkerspot butterflies are not 

expected to occur in or near the proposed LZs. However, the LZs 

represent potential hilltopping venues for the Quine checkerspot 

butterfly and the presence of host plants (e.g., rigid bird's 

beak [Cordylanthus rigidus] and Chinese houses [Collinsia 

concolor]) provide suitable habitat. Project implementation 

will have no adverse effects on vegetation or other habitat 

components and, therefore, would have no direct effects to the 

Quine checkerspot butterfly. If Quine checkerspot butterflies 

are occasional visitors to the area, indirect effects such as 

the expected temporary noise and dust disturbance that will 

occur at the LZs and buffers will not be anticipated to 

adversely affect the species. 

Thread-leaved brodiaea has the potential to occur only in 

the vicinity of one LZ in Cleveland National Forest (LZ Site 3). 

Thread-leaved brodiaea survey results from 2011 and 2012 were 

negative. Project implementation will have no adverse effects 

4 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 
5090 

ENV/DIR 

AUG 6 2012 

on vegetation or other habitat components and, therefore, will 

have no direct effects on thread-leaved brodiaea. For threadleaved brodiaea occurrences that may be in the project vicinity, 

indirect effects such as temporary exposure to dust that may 

occur during intermittent operations will not adversely affect 

the species. 

Potential direct effects on desert tortoise that may result 

from the proposed action include direct mortality of individuals 

in the rare event of a tortoise's presence during a training 

operation with inability to escape or crushing of burrows. 

Indirect impacts such as noise and dust may cause a startle 

response due to aircraft landing, low-altitude hovering, and 

takeoff operations. Anticipated effects of the proposed action 

will be temporary, if at all, affect only individuals of listed 

species, and are not likely to reach the level of injury or 

mortality, except in very rare instances. It is not expected 

that any population exposed to proposed aircraft operations will 

be measurably affected. 

Therefore, "Proposed Action" impacts may affect but are 

unlikely to adversely affect listed species or their suitable 

habitat within or near project LZs. Consequently, the USMC has 

determined that the Proposed Action would not jeopardize the 

continued existence or recovery of any federally listed species 

potentially occurring in the project area. 

If we can provide any additional information or clarification 

to facilitate this informal consultation, please contact me at 

(760) 725-3561 or Mr. Zak Likins at (760) 763-7948, or 

zachery.likins®usmc.mil. 

5 

Sincerely, 

S. W. NORQUIST 

Director 

Environmental Security 

By direction of the 

Commanding General 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 
5090 

:e;NV/DIR 

AUG 6 2012 

Enclosures: 1. General Biological Resources Survey Report with 

Appendices (General Biological Resources Survey 

Report, Cleveland National Forest LZs; General 

Biological Resources Survey Report, Bureau of 

Land Management, El Centro LZs) 

2. Table 1: Size and Location of Proposed LZs 

3. Table 2: Listed Species and Summary of 

Potential Effects/USMC Determination 

4. Biological Assessment with Appendices (Survey 

Report for Quine Checkerspot Cleveland 

National Forest; Survey Report for Threadleaved Brodiaea,Cleaveland National Forest; 

Survey Report for Coastal California 

Gnatcatcher, Cleveland National Forest; Survey 

Report for Desert Tortoise, Bureau of Land 

Management, El Centro) 

6 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 
TABLE 1: SIZE AND LOCATION OF PROPOSED LZs 

LZ SileName LZ Size LZ and Buffer LongDM LatDM LongDD LatDD LongDMS LatDMS 

(acres) (acres) 

Cleveland National Forest LZs' 

3 0.3 12.9 117° 39.516' 33° 47.912' -117.659 33.79853 117°39'30.97 33°47'54.6

5 0.3 13.2 117° 36.647' 33° 47.732' -117.611 33.79557 117°36'38.83 33°47'43.9

6 0.1 10.6 117° 35.011' 33°47.250' -117.583 33.78754 117°35'0.69 33°47'14.9

6ALT 0.2 11.5 117° 34.858' 33°47.264' -117.581 33.78771 117°34'51.49 33°47'15.8

7 0.3 12.5 117° 35 .165' 33° 45.757' -117.586 33.7626 117°35'9.88 33°45'45.4

8 0.2 11.9 117° 33.935' 33° 45.838' -117.566 33.76398 117°33'56.11 33°45'50.3

9 0.1 10.4 117° 32.148' 33° 45.080' -117.536 33.75135 117°32'8.91 33°45'4.81 

9ALT 0.1 11.1 117° 32.064' 33°44.928' -117.534 33.74879 117°32'3.85 33°44'55.6

10 0.1 11.2 117° 33.114' 33° 43.813' -117.552 33.73024 117°33'6.81 33°43'48.8

11 0.3 12.8 117° 33.944' 33° 42.708' -117.566 33.71179 117°33'56.61 33°42'42.5

BLM El Centro LZr 

Bull 3.8 26.0 -115° 01.634' 33° 03.420' -115.0272267 33.05700808 -115° 01' 38.02" 33° 03' 25.2

Cl 1.8 20.4 -115° 58.167' 32° 53.896' -115.9694455 32.8982760 -115° 58' 10.00" 32° 53' 53.7

Cupcake 2.0 20.4 -114° 44.896' 32° 52.681' -114.7482759 32.87801945 -114° 44' 53.79" 32° 52' 40.8

Eider 5.9 35.8 -114° 35.193' 32° 50.747' -114.5865456 32.8457840 -114° 35' 11.56" 32° 50' 44.8

IPl Option 2.3 21.8 -114° 47.456' 33° 0.407' -114.7909316 33.0067806 -114° 47' 27.35" 33° 0' 24.4

Mallard 1.8 24.0 -114° 43.402' 32° 52.154' -114.7233669 32.8692252 -114° 43' 24.12" 32° 52' 09.2

ME3 Option 13.0 46.8 -114° 30.596' 32° 51.466' -114.5099422 32.85776587 -114° 30' 35.79" 32° 51' 27.9

MWl 3.2 25.2 -114°35.790' 32° 50.407' -114.5965029 32.84010884 -114° 35' 47.41" 32° 52' 24.3

MW1 Option 5.4 33.2 -114°35.808' 32° 50.490' -114.5967936 32.84149827 -114° 35' 48.46" 32° 50' 29.3

PC3 0.8 16.6 -114° 40.117' 32° 59.299' -114.6686150 32.9883110 -114° 40' 7.01" 32° 59' 17.

Pelican 0.3 13.2 -114° 50;102' 33° 03.793' -114.8350294 33.0632204 -114 ° 50' 06.11" 33° 03' 47.5

Sparrow 13.6 63.1 -114° 59.469' 32° 58.681' -114.9911477 32.9780211 -114° 59' 28.13" 32° 58' 40.8

Wolf 31.0 73.0 -115°54.640' 32°49.640' -115.9106736 32.8273336 -115° 54' 38.42" 32° 49' 38.4

Notes: 

* Landing Zone (LZ), Decimal Minutes (DM), Decimal Degrees (DD), Degrees Minutes Seconds (OMS), and Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone liN 

1The datum for all coordinates is North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). 

1be datum for all coordinates is WGS84. 
TABLE 2: LISTED SPECIES AND 

SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS I USMC DETERMINATION 

Listed Federal Effects 

Species Status Determination Justification for Determination 

Cleveland National Forest Trabuco Ranger District LZs 

Suitable habitat present in buffer area of one LZ (Site 3) in Cleveland National Forest. 

Coastal California May Affect, Not No occurrences of coastal California gnatcatchers reported during 2011 field surveys 

gnatcatcher FT Likely to Adversely and protocol surveys conducted in 2012 . Because suitable habitat occurs in the 

Affect vicinity, there is potential for coastal California gnatcatchers to occupy adjacent areas 

or travel through LZ Site 3. 

Arroyo toad FE No Effect No suitable habitat observed on or near LZs; suitable topography not present 

(drainages). 

Stephens' kangaroo FE No Effect Not known to occur in the project vicinity; no suitable habitat observed. rat. 

Pacmcoocketmouse FE No Effect Not known to occur in the project vicinity; no suitable habitat observed. 

California red-legged FT No Effect Not known to occur in the project vicinity; no suitable habitat observed. frog 

Sierra Madre yellow- FE No Effect Not known to occur in the project vicinity; no suitable habitat observed. leaaedfroa 

Desert slender FE No Effect Not known to occur in the project vicinity; no suitable habitat observed. salamander 

San Diego fairy FE No Effect No sign of vernal pool habitat observed or expected on or near LZs. shrimp 

Riverside fairy FE No Effect No sign of vernal pool habitat observed or expected on or near LZs. shrimp 

Vernal pool fairy FT No Effect No sign of vernal pool habitat observed or expected on or near LZs. shrimp 

Santa Ana sucker FT No Effect Not known to occur in the project vicinity; no suitable habitat observed. 

Laguna Mountains FE No Effect Not known to occur in the project vicinity; no suitable habitat observed. skipper 

May Affect, Not Primary host plants were not present in project LZs; however, suitable habitat and 

alternative host plants are present on select LZs in the Cleveland National Forest. Quine checkerspot FE Likely to Adversely Some LZs represent potential hilltopping venues. No Quine checkerspot butterflies Affect were recorded durina protocol surveys conducted in 2012. 

Munz's onion FE No Effect Not known to occur in the project vicinity; no suitable habitat observed. 

Santa Monica FT No Effect Nearest known occurrence reported is 3 miles (5 km) west of LZ Site 11; no 

dudley a suitable habitat observed on or near LZs. 

Thread-leaved May Affect, Not Not known to occur in the project vicinity; only one LZ (Site 3) is within elevation 

brodiaea FT Likely to Adversely range of this species and suitable habitat is present. Species not found during 

Affect surveys conducted in 2011 and 2012. 

BLM El Centro LZs 

Peninsular bighorn FE No Effect No suitable habitat within LZs, and no effects to suitable habitat expected. sheep 

Yuma clapper rail FE No Effect Not known to occur in the Proiect vicinity: no suitable habitat observed. 

May Affect, Not Suitable habitat and species present near some of the LZs; however, LZs not within 

Desert tortoise FT Likely to Adversely critical habitat. Intermittent training operations are not likely to have an adverse effect 

Affect on the population. 

Desert pupfish FE No Effect Not known to occur in the project vicinity; no suitable habitat observed. 

Peirson's milk vetch FT No Effect Not known to occur in the project vicinity: no suitable habitat observed. 

Species that May Occur in Both Project Areas 

Southwestern willow FE No Effect No riparian habitat present in LZs; species may pass through during migration. flycatcher 

Western yellow-billed FC No Effect No riparian habitat present in LZs; species may pass through during migration. cuckoo 

Least Bell's vireo FE No Effect No riparian habitat present in LZs: SPecies may pass through during migration. 

Notes: 

FT-federally listed as threatened· FE -federally listed as endanaered· FC - a candidate for listina. 

ENCLOSURE ( 3) 
United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Ecological Services 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 

6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101 

In Reply Refer To: 

FWS-OR/WRlV /IMP-11 BO 154-1210526 

S.W. Norquist 

Director, Environmental Security 

United States Marine Corps 

Carlsbad, California 92011 

Marine Corps Installations West-Marine Corps Base 

Box 555010 

Camp Pendleton, California 92055-5010 

SEP 04 2012 

Subject: Request for Section 7 Informal Consultation Regarding the Proposed Rotary 

Wing/Tilt-Rotor Helicopter Training Operations on Non-Department of Defense 

Lands, Orange, Riverside, and Imperial Counties, California 

Dear Mr. Norquist: 

This letter responds to your request and biological assessment dated and received 

August 6, 2012, regarding the potential effects of the proposed rotary wing/tilt-rotor helicopter 

training operations and potential impacts to the federally endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly 

(Euphydryas editha qui no) and the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila 

californica californica), desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), and thread-leaved brodiaea 

(Brodiaea filifolia). In your letter and biological assessment, you concluded that the proposed 

project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect these species and requested our 

concurrence with this determination in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

The proposed project involves the use of 10 landing zones on the Trabuco Ranger District of the 

Cleveland National Forest and 13 on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. The landing 

zones would be used by rotary wing and tilt-rotor aircraft including the Sea Knight (CH-46E), 

Super Stallion (CH-53E), Super Cobra (AH-1 W), Viper (AH-1 W), Huey (UH-1N), Venom 

(UH1 Y), and Osprey (MV -22B). The proposed areas have been used as landing zones for these 

aircraft previously, except for the MV -22B. About 2,618 sorties are planned, which translates to 

over 16,000 individual landings. While transitioning to the landing zones, the rotary wing 

aircraft would fly between 1,000 to 2,000 feet above ground level, while the tilt-rotor aircraft 

would fly between 8,000 to 12,000 feet above ground level. 

Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, Coastal California Gnatcatcher, and Thread-leaved Brodiaea 

We concur that the Quino checkerspot butterfly, coastal California gnatcatcher, and thread-leaved 

brodiaea are not likely to be adversely affected by the proposed project. Appropriate habitat 
S.W. Norquist (FWS-OR/WRIVIIMP-11B0154-12I0526) 

assessments and surveys were completed in 2011 and 2012, and no occurrences of these species 

were observed in and around the proposed landing zones. 

Desert Tortoise 

Eleven of the 13 landing zones on BLM lands have desert tortoise suitable habitat. During 

sur\reys according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protocol, desert tortoise were observed near 

two of the landing zones, and burrows or other sign were found at an additional three landing 

zones. The 11 zones that are suitable desert tortoise habitat are characterized by central areas of 

pavement, surrounded by washes or open creosote bush scrub (Larrea tridentata). 

2 

However, we concur that the desert tortoise is not likely to be adversely affected by the proposed 

project. The proposed landing zones have been used for several decades, and our field inspection 

of several landing zones found that the extent of surface disturbance from past landings is 

sufficiently minor that it is often difficult to detect. Since past use of these zones has not resulted 

in significant impacts to desert tortoise habitat and use of the MV-22B should not result in 

significant additional impacts, we do not anticipate that the proposed action would appreciably 

degrade the value of desert tortoise habitat in and around these sites. In addition, the potential for 

the collision with or crushing of a desert tortoise or its burrow is discountable. Desert tortoise 

burrows tend to be constructed in washes or under vegetation while the majority of the landing 

zones are pavement, and the footprint associated with the types of aircraft proposed for use is 

relatively small. 

Should project plans change or if additional information on the distribution of listed or proposed 

species becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. Please contact Jesse Bennett 

of this office at 760-431-9440, extension 305 or Nisa Marks of the Palm Springs Fish and 

Wildlife Office at 760-322-2070, extension 208 with any questions. 

Sincerely, 

~Karen A. Goebel 

Assistant Field Supervisor 
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 

MARINEj CORPS INSTALLATIONS WEST-MARINE CORPS BASE 

: BOX 555010 

ICAMP PENDLETON. CALIFORNIA 92055-5010 

i 

Mr. Jim Bartel 

Field Supervisor 1 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Carlsbad Field Office 1 

6010 Hidden Valley Ro~d 

Carlsbad, CA 92009 ' 

Attn: Jesse Bennett ancUor Jonathan Snyder 

Dear Mr. Bartel: 

5090 

ENV/DIR 

21 Nov 12 

SUBJECT: PROPOSEb ROTARY WING/TILT -ROTOR HELICOPTER TRAINING 

OPERATIONS ON NO~-DEP ARTMENT OF DEFENSE LANDS IN ORANGE AND 

RIVERSIDE COUNTIE~, CALIFORNIA (FWS-OR/WRIV IIMP-11 BO 154-1210526). 

The U.S. Forest Service,' Cleveland National Forest (Forest Service), a Cooperating Agency on 

the above named Propos~d Action has requested that the U. S. Marine Corps (Marine Corps) 

provide you with the fol~owing supplemental information. To that end, Marine Corps 

Installations West (MCIWEST)-MCB Camp Pendleton (MCBCAMPEN), on behalf of the 

Marine Corps, is transm~ing the supplemental information listed below for your review 

regarding potential impacts for the Proposed Action on three (3) species; the federally endangered 

Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), the federally threatened coastal California 

gnatcatcher (Polioptila cdlifornica californica) and thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaeafilifolia). 

Since your concurrence With our original determination on the subject Proposed Action (USFWS 

letter dated 04 Septem~er 2012), the Proposed Action has been modified to include dust 

abatement measures. In! light of this supplemental information, we request this supplemental 

information, as highligijted below, be inserted into a revised Biological Assessment for the 

Proposed Action (FWS~ORIWRlV IIMP-11 BO 154-121 0526) and a reconsideration of your 

analysis and determinat~on of "not likely to be adversely affected" ... as it relates to the above 

species: 

Executive Summary 

i 

• Page ES-3, linest3-19, the following text has been inserted. This will be a global change 

to all project do uments (i.e., Environmental Assessment, Biological Assessment and 

Biological Evalu, tion), prepared for the Proposed Action, where appropriate. 

"The proposed f;. ction for National Forest System, Trabuco Ranger District lands 

includes imp/em ntation of dust abatement measures. These measures have yet to be 

described in deta,"l, but are expected to consist of application of a dust palliative (e.g., 

For Official Use Only 
semi-permanent $lue-like materials) that will reduce the amount of dust mobilized and 

dispersed by aircraft operations. The Marine Corps will work with the Forest Service on 

selection of an appropriate material and on implementation of a suitable monitoring 

plan. Monitoring !will ensure that the dust abatement measures are successful in reducing 

dust generation tb a level that will not adversely ajfoct the area surrounding the landing 

pads and ensure 1that the dust abatement practices themselves do not result in adverse 

effects on regulat~d resources. " ! 

• Page ES-4, linesJ11-4, the language regarding "jeopardy" has been stricken, as jeopardy 

calls are only rna e by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This will be a global 

change to all Jtoject documents (i.e., the Environmental Assessment, Biological 

Assessment and Biological Evaluation) prepared for the Proposed Action. 

Proposed Action 

• Page Ila-5, under description of proposed activity, after line 19, the following text has 

been inserted. This will be a global change to all project documents (i.e., Environmental 

Assessment, Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation), prepared for the 

Proposed Action, where appropriate. 

"The proposed action for National Forest System, Trabuco Ranger District lands 

includes implementation of dust abatement measures. These measures have yet to be 

described in detail, but are expected to consist of application of a dust palliative (e.g., 

semi-permanent glue-like materials) that will reduce the amount of dust mobilized and 

dispersed by aircraft operations. The Marine Corps will work with the Forest Service on 

selection of an appropriate material and on implementation of a suitable monitoring 

plan. Monitoring will ensure that the dust abatement measures are successful in reducing 

dust generation to a level that will not adversely affect the area surrounding the landing 

pads and ensure that the dust abatement practices themselves do not result in adverse 

effects on regulated resources. " 

• Page IIa-5, line 40, the following text has been inserted: 

"The Special Use Permit would replace the 1972 MOU as the instrument authorizing 

land use and occupancy. At the request of the Forest Service, the USMC has temporarily 

ceased aviation operations under this document. " 

Measures Proposed to A ~oid, Minimize and Compensate for Effects to Listed Species 

• Page Jib, lines 1 t3 have been replaced· with the following text, as indicated above 

regarding a global ichange to the document: 

For Official Use Only 

2 
"The proposed action for National Forest System, Trabuco Ranger District lands 

includes implementation of dust abatement measures. These measures have yet to be 

described in detail, but are expected to consist of application of a dust palliative (e.g., 

semi-permanent glue-like materials) that will reduce the amount of dust mobilized and 

dispersed by aircraft operations. The Marine Corps will work with the Forest Service on 

selection of an appropriate material and on implementation of a suitable monitoring 

plan. Monitoring will ensure that the dust abatement measures are successful in reducing 

dust generation to a level that will not adversely affict the area surrounding the landing 

pads and ensure that the dust abatement practices themselves do not result in adverse 

effects on regulated resources. " 

Description of Listed Species or Critical Habitat 

• Page IV-5, lines 27-29, the Forest Service maintains that surveys for Brodiaeafilifolia 

did not fully meet the survey protocol requirements set forth by USFWS and the 

Cleveland National Forest, and that plant surveys were conducted too early in the season 

and did not overlap with peak flowering times for this species on the Cleveland National 

Forest. Therefore, lines 27-29 have been replaced with the following text: 

"Surveys in 2011 and 2012 did not identify this species as present, but Brodiaeafilifolia 

spends most of its life comprised only of underground parts. Above ground parts are 

present for only a few months out of the year typically following substantial spring rains 

and may not be present above ground every year, based on conditions. As a result, there is 

some chance for Brodiaeafilifolia to be present within the 350ftet (107 meters) buffer of 

LZ Site 3 (the LZ itself does not support suitable habitat). " 

Analysis of Effects 

• Page V-4 and V-5, lines 21 (V-4) to 20 (V-5) in sections describing anticipated effects 

on Thread-leaved Brodiaea, California Gnatcatcher, and Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, 

the following text has been inserted for each species: 

"With inclusion of proposed mitigation measures for dust abatement, and monitoring of 

dust abatement effectiveness, exposure to dust would not be expected to adversely affect 

the species. " 

Persons and Agencies Contacted or Consulted 

• Page VIII, Mary Thomas was contacted in May 2011 during the early stages of the 

project, however, she was not involved in the consultation effort, nor did she review the 

BA in its final form. At the request of the Forest Service, her name has been removed 

from this section. 

For Official Use Only 

3 
General Consideration 

• The BA will strike all statements regarding jeopardy and adverse modification of critical 

habitat, as these finding are made only by the USFWS for federally-listed species (p. ES4, lines 1-4; page 1-2, line 14; page V-6, Lines 6-8). 

• On page IV -5, lines 27-29, the last sentence is revised to include the following text: 

"Surveys for Brodiaea filifolia did not fully meet the survey protocol requirements set 

forth by the Cleveland National Forest, as plant surveys were conducted too early in the 

season and did not overlap with the peak flowering times for this species on the Forest. 

Survey results, therefore, cannot be considered conclusive and it remains possible that 

Brodiaeafilifolia may still be present at LZ3." 

• On page V- 4 and V- 5, lines 21 (V-4) to 20 (V-5) in sections describing anticipated 

effects on thread-leaved brodiaea, California Gnatcatcher, and Quino Checkerspot 

Butterfly, the following text has been inserted for each species: 

" With inclusion of the proposed mitigation measures for dust abatement, and 

monitoring of dust abatement effectiveness, exposure to dust would not be expected to 

adversely affect the species. " 

Upon completion of the revisions identified above to all appropriate sections of the BA and 

related project documents, copies of the revised BA and related documents will be forwarded to 

your office for your records. 

Please let me know if you have any questions, comments or concerns regarding the changes 

identified above for the Proposed Action, or if you need additional information beyond what is 

provided. Point of contacts are Mr. Zak Likins at (760)725-7948 or Mr. Charles Hamilton at 

(760)725-2635. 

CkH on 

Deputy Director, G-7 GEAIREC 

MCIWest-MCBCamPend 

For Official Use Only 

4 
u.s. 

United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

...,.. &Wll.DUFE 

SERV>CE 

6010 

Carlsbad 

Carlsbad, 

Hidden 

Ecological 

Fish 

Valley 

California 

and 

Services 

Wildlife 

Road, 

92011 

Suite 

Office 

101 

~ In Reply Refer To: 

FWS-OR/WRN/IMP-llBO 154-12I0526-R001 

DEC 17 2012 

C.M. Hamilton 

United States Marine Corps 

Marine Corps Installations West-Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton 

Box 555010 

Camp Pendleton, California 92055-5010 

Subject: Section 7 Informal Consultation Regarding the Proposed Rotary Wing/Tilt-Rotor 

Helicopter Training Operations on Non-Department of Defense Lands, Orange, 

Riverside, and Imperial Counties, California 

Dear Mr. Hamilton: 

This letter responds to your letter dated November 21, 2012, and received November 26,2012, 

regarding the proposed rotary wing/tilt-rotor helicopter training operations. We had previously 

concurred in a September 4, 2012, letter that the proposed activities were not likely to adversely 

affect the federally endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha qui no) and the 

federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), desert 

tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), and thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaeafilifolia) in accordance with 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). You propose to add 

dust abatement measures and monitoring to the proposed action for project activities on the 

Cleveland National Forest. These changes will further avoid and minimize potential effects to 

federally listed species. Therefore, we continue to concur that the proposed action is not likely to 

adversely affect federally listed species as described in our September 4, 2012, letter. 

Should project plans change or if additional information on the distribution oflisted or proposed 

species becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. Please contact Jesse Bennett 

of this office at 760-431-9440 extension 305 with any questions. 

Sincerely, 

~Karen A. Goebel 

Assistant Field Supervisor 
APPENDIX A-4 

United States Forest Service 
United States

DePartment of

USDA Agriculture ffi

Forest

Service

Cleveland National

Forest

Trabuco Ranger District

1147 East 6th Street

Corona, CA 92879-16f6

(951) 736-1El1

(9s1) 736-3002 FAX

cRs 1-800-735-2922

File Code: 2720

Date: January 31,2012

Mr. ChristoPher E. Haskett

Real Estate Contracting Offrcer

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest

D}APacifrc HighwaY

SanDiego, CA92l32-51DA

Dear Mr. Haskett:

This letter is a follow up to our meeting with you on January 12,z}lz,regarding your Special

use Proposai dated o"""*u.. 20,2A10,*iri"rt requests a Special use Authonzation'for up to ten

Landing Zones located on National Eor"ri Sy.tern lands orih. Trabuco Ranger District of the

Cleveland National Forest'

your proposai meets Forest Service screening criteria regulations located at Title 36 CFR

25L.Sa{Q (enelosed) for consideration u* *?ppiication-for the use and occupancy of National

Forest System lands. In concept, we ale u*".piittg your proposal as an application' Your

application will be subject to environmental analysis according to the provisions of the National

Environmental policy Act giEpA). w;*ill ";ider authoriiirrg yo* proposal based on the

n"Aingt of the NEPA analysis once it has been completed'

We are currently in the process of preparing an lnterag.:.y Agreement b:twe.en the United

States Marine corps *d rh" usDA Forerti"rvice foifundinfof Forest Service personnel to

continue to review your documentation' and process your request'

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Becky Brand' Special Uses

Ai*ioi=ou,o.. Si. can be reached at (qSt) 736-1811 ext.3277.

SincerelY,

M

District Ranger

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recyclad PaP€r '3









APPENDIX A-5 

State Historic Preservation Officer 











APPENDIX B 

Air Quality Emissions Calculations 

and Clean Air Act Conformity Analyses 
APPENDIX B-1 

Air Quality Emissions Calculations 
Appendix B-1 Table of Contents - Air Emission Calculations for the USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations Project

Table B1-1. Annual Helicopter Transit Flights to Landing Zones - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Table B1-2. Helicopter Transit Flights Distances/Durations within Affected Air Basins - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Table B1-3. Existing Aircraft Operations within Landing Zones - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Table B1-4. Annual Proposed Aircraft Landing Zone Operations - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Table B1-5. AH-1W/Z Aircraft Emission Factors - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations.

Table B1-6. CH-46E Aircraft Emission Factors - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations.

Table B1-7. CH-53E Aircraft Emission Factors - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations.

Table B1-8. UH-1N/Y Aircraft Emission Factors - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations.

Table B1-9. MV-22 Aircraft Emission Factors - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations.

Table B1-10. Fugitive Dust Emission Factors for One Aircraft Pad Landing within Imperial County - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations.

Table B1-11 Fugitive Dust Emission Factors for One Aircraft Pad Landing within CNF - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations.

Table B1-12. Existing Emissions from Helicopter Transits within the San Diego Air Basin - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Table B1-13. Proposed Emissions from Helicopter Transits within the San Diego Air Basin - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Table B1-14. Existing Emissions from Helicopter Transits within the South Coast Air Basin - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Table B1-15. Proposed Emissions from Helicopter Transits in the South Coast Air Basin - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Table B1-16. Existing Emissions from Helicopter Transits within the Imperial County IVPA - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Table B1-17. Propsed Emissions from Helicopter Transits within the Imperial County IVPA - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Table B1-18. Existing Emissions from Helicopter Transits in Imperial County Non-IVPA - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Table B1-19. Propsed Emissions from Helicopter Transits in Imperial County Non-IVPA - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Table B1-20. Existing Emissions from Aircraft Landing Zone Operations within the South Coast Air Basin - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Table B1-21. Proposed Emissions from Aircraft Landing Zone Operations within the South Coast Air Basin - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Table B1-22. Existing Emissions from Aircraft Landing Zone Operations within the Imperial County IVPA - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Table B1-23. Propsed Emissions from Aircraft Landing Zone Operations within the Imperial County IVPA - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Table B1-24. Existing Emissions from Aircraft Landing Zone Operations within the Imperial County Non-IVPA - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Table B1-25. Propsed Emissions from Aircraft Landing Zone Operations within the Imperial County Non-IVPA - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Table B1-26. Emissions Summary for Aircraft Operations within the San Diego Air Basin - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Table B1-27. Emissions Summary for Aircraft Operations within the South Coast Air Basin - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Table B1-28. Emissions Summary from Aircraft Operations within the Imperial County IVPA - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Table B1-29. Emissions Summary from Aircraft Operations within the Imperial County Non-IVPA - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Table B1-30. Emissions Summary from Aircraft Operations within Imperial County - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Appendix B-1 B1-1
Table B1-1. Annual Helicopter Transit Flights to Landing Zones - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Destination/Aircraft Existing Proposed

Trabuco Ranger District

AH-1W/Z 228 154 

CH-46E 68 - 

CH-53 24 24 

UH-1N/Y 132 138 

MV-22 106 

Total 452 422 

Imperial County - Total

AH-1W/Z 49 37 

CH-46E 206 - 

CH-53 197 196 

UH-1N/Y 31 33 

MV-22 1,814 

Total 483 2,080 

Imperial County - West LZs (1)

AH-1W/Z 5 3 

CH-46E 21 - 

CH-53 20 20 

UH-1N/Y 3 3 

MV-22 - 183 

Total 49 210 

Imperial County - East LZs within IVPA (2)

AH-1W/Z 23 16 

CH-46E 93 - 

CH-53 91 91 

UH-1N/Y 14 14 

MV-22 - 828 

Total 220 949 

Imperial County - East LZs outside IVPA (3)

AH-1W/Z 20 18 

CH-46E 93 - 

CH-53 86 85 

UH-1N/Y 14 15 

MV-22 802 

Total 214 921 

Notes: (1) Operations at the C1 and Wolf LZs.

 (2) Operations at the Bull, Pelican, and Sparrow LZs.

 (3) Operations at the remaining LZs in southeast Imperial County..

Annual Sorties

Appendix B-1 B1-2
Table B1-2. Helicopter Transit Flights Distances/Durations within Affected Air Basins - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Cruising

Destination/Aircraft Speed (Kts) SD Co. SCAB I. Co. IVPA I. Co. Non-IVPA SD Co. SCAB I. Co. IVPA I. Co. Non-IVPA

Trabuco Ranger District

AH-1W/Z 134 29.5 15.6 - - 0.22 0.12 - -

CH-46E 120 29.5 15.6 - - 0.25 0.13 - -

CH-53 150 29.5 15.6 - - 0.20 0.10 - -

UH-1N/Y 127 29.5 15.6 - - 0.23 0.12 - -

MV-22 240 29.5 15.6 - - 0.12 0.07 - -

Imperial County - West LZs (1)

AH-1W/Z 134 61.7 - 9.6 - 0.46 - 0.07 -

CH-46E 120 61.7 - 9.6 - 0.51 - 0.08 -

CH-53 150 61.7 - 9.6 - 0.41 - 0.06 -

UH-1N/Y 127 61.7 - 9.6 - 0.49 - 0.08 -

MV-22 240 61.7 - 9.6 - 0.26 - 0.04 -

Imperial County - East LZs within IVPA (2)

AH-1W/Z 134 59.9 - 62.5 - 0.45 - 0.47 -

CH-46E 120 59.9 - 62.5 - 0.50 - 0.52 -

CH-53 150 59.9 - 62.5 - 0.40 - 0.42 -

UH-1N/Y 127 59.9 - 62.5 - 0.47 - 0.49 -

MV-22 240 59.9 - 62.5 - 0.25 - 0.26 -

Imperial County - East LZs outside IVPA (3)

AH-1W/Z 134 59.9 - 71.2 6.9 0.45 - 0.53 0.05

CH-46E 120 59.9 - 71.2 6.9 0.50 - 0.59 0.06

CH-53 150 59.9 - 71.2 6.9 0.40 - 0.47 0.05

UH-1N/Y 127 59.9 - 71.2 6.9 0.47 - 0.56 0.05

MV-22 240 59.9 - 71.2 6.9 0.25 - 0.30 0.03

Notes: (1) Route to the C1 and Wolf LZs.

 (2) Route to the Bull, Pelican, and Sparrow LZs.

 (2) Route to the remaining LZs in southeast Imperial County..

Air Basin/Round Trip Distance (NM) Air Basin/Round Trip Cruise Duration (Hrs)

Appendix B-1 B1-3
Table B1-3. Existing Aircraft Operations within Landing Zones - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Total Annual Total Annual

Destination/Aircraft Landings Cruise Mode (Hr)

Trabuco Ranger District

AH-1W/Z 124 6 744 26.0

CH-46E 42 10 420 6.6

CH-53 14 10 140 2.7

UH-1N/Y 69 12 828 15.8

Total 249 2,132 51.1

Imperial County - Total

AH-1W/Z 25 6 150 6.4

CH-46E 132 10 1,320 18.8

CH-53 111 10 1,110 21.6

UH-1N/Y 15 12 180 4.0

Total 283 2,760 50.8

Imperial County - West LZs (1)

AH-1W/Z 3 6 17 0.6

CH-46E 13 10 133 1.7

CH-53 11 10 114 2.0

UH-1N/Y 2 12 19 0.4

Total 29 282 4.6

Imperial County - East LZs within IVPA (2)

AH-1W/Z 13 6 76 2.6

CH-46E 60 10 599 7.7

CH-53 51 10 513 8.9

UH-1N/Y 7 12 84 1.6

Total 131 1,272 20.8

Imperial County - East LZs outside IVPA (3)

AH-1W/Z 9 6 57 3.2

CH-46E 59 10 588 9.4

CH-53 48 10 483 10.8

UH-1N/Y 6 12 78 2.0

Total 123 1,206 25.3

Notes: (1) Operations at the C1 and Wolf LZs.

 (2) Operations at the Bull, Pelican, and Sparrow LZs.

 (2) Operations at the remaining LZs in southeast Imperial County..

Annual CAL 

Sorties

Landings/S

ortie

Appendix B-1 B1-4
Table B1-4. Annual Proposed Aircraft Landing Zone Operations - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Total Annual Total Annual

Destination/Aircraft Landings Cruise Mode (Hr)

Trabuco Ranger District

AH-1W/Z 82 6 492 18.0

CH-46E - 10 - -

CH-53 14 10 140 2.7

UH-1N/Y 71 12 852 16.8

MV-22 103 7 721 0.9

Total 270 2,205 38.4

Imperial County - Total

AH-1W/Z 19 6 114 4.5

CH-46E 10 - -

CH-53 110 10 1,100 21.6

UH-1N/Y 16 12 192 4.2

MV-22 1,750 7 12,250 15.9

Total 1,895 13,656 46.2

Imperial County - West LZs (1)

AH-1W/Z 2 6 11 0.4

CH-46E - 10 - -

CH-53 11 10 114 2.0

UH-1N/Y 2 12 20 1.4

MV-22 177 7 1,239 4.2

Total 192 1,383 8.0

Imperial County - East LZs within IVPA (2)

AH-1W/Z 8 6 49 1.8

CH-46E - 10 - -

CH-53 51 10 513 8.9

UH-1N/Y 7 12 89 1.7

MV-22 800 7 5,597 6.5

Total 866 6,248 19.0

Imperial County - East LZs outside IVPA (3)

AH-1W/Z 9 6 54 2.2

CH-46E - 10 - -

CH-53 47 10 473 10.8

UH-1N/Y 7 12 84 1.0

MV-22 773 7 5,414 5.2

Total 837 6,025 19.2

Notes: (1) Operations at the C1 and Wolf LZs.

 (2) Operations at the Bull, Pelican, and Sparrow LZs.

 (2) Operations at the remaining LZs in southeast Imperial County..

Annual CAL 

Sorties

Landings/S

ortie

Appendix B-1 B1-5
Table B1-5. AH-1W/Z Aircraft Emission Factors - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations.

Fuel Flow Rate/ VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Operation Type Engine Power Setting Aircraft (Lb/Hr) References

Cruise 38% Q 850 0.56 10.54 5.55 0.40 4.20 3,216 4.20 1

Fuel/Operation (Lb)

Mountain Pad Landing 67 0.04 0.76 0.36 0.03 0.28 214 0.28 2

Notes: The AH-1W/Z helicopters have 2 T700-GE-401C engines.

 (1) AESO Memorandum Report No. 9824, Revision B, Aircraft Emissions Estimates: AH-1W Takeoff and Landing Cycle and In-Frame, Maintenance Testing Using JP-5, November 2009.

 (2) AESO Memorandum Report No. 9961, Revision A, Aircraft Emissions Estimates: AH-1 Mission Operations Using JP-5, November 2009.

Table B1-6. CH-46E Aircraft Emission Factors - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations.

Fuel Flow Rate/ VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Operation Type Engine Power Setting Aircraft (Lb/Hr) References

Cruise 91% Ng RPM 1,120 3.43 19.74 3.94 0.40 1.78 3,176 1.78 1

Fuel/Aircraft Op (Lb)

Mountain Pad Landing 95 0.35 1.87 0.39 0.04 0.19 302 0.19 2

Notes: The CH-46 helicopter has 2 T58-GE-16 engines.

 (1) AESO Memorandum Report No. 9816, Revision F, Aircraft Emissions Estimates: H-46 Takeoff and Landing Cycle and In-Frame, Maintenance Testing Using JP-5, January 2001.

 (2) AESO Memorandum Report No. 9959, Revision B, Aircraft Emissions Estimates: H-46 Mission Operations Using JP-5, January 2001.

Engine Emission Factors - Pounds/1000 Pounds Fuel

Emissions per Operation - Pounds

Engine Emission Factors - Pounds/1000 Pounds Fuel

Emissions per Operation - Pounds

Appendix B-1 B1-6
Table B1-7. CH-53E Aircraft Emission Factors - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations.

Fuel Flow Rate/ VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Operation Type Engine Power Setting Aircraft (Lb/Hr) References

Cruise 70% Qeng 4,464 0.15 2.13 8.08 0.40 2.21 3,220 2.21 1

Fuel/Aircraft Op (Lb)

Mountain Pad Landing 540 0.52 1.94 4.03 0.22 1.19 1,739 1.19 2

Notes: The CH-53 helicopter has 3 T64-GE-415 engines.

 (1) AESO Memorandum Report No. 9822, Revision C, Aircraft Emissions Estimates: H-53 Takeoff and Landing Cycle and In-Frame, Maintenance Testing Using JP-5, February 2000.

 except that CO2 emissions based upon a factor of 3,200 lb/1000 lb fuel. 

 (2) AESO Memorandum Report No. 9960, Revision B, Aircraft Emissions Estimates: H-53 Mission Operations Using JP-5, April 2000.

Table B1-8. UH-1N/Y Aircraft Emission Factors - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations.

Fuel Flow Rate/ VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Operation Type Engine Power Setting Aircraft (Lb/Hr) References

Cruise 65% Torque 1,200 0.55 6.25 6.40 0.40 4.20 3,221 4.20 1

Fuel/Aircraft Op (Lb)

Mountain Pad Landing 181 0.10 0.91 1.23 0.07 0.76 582 0.76 2

Notes: Based upon data for the UH-1Y helicopter, which has 2 T700-GE-401C engines.

 (1) AESO Memorandum Report No. 9929, Revision A, Aircraft Emissions Estimates: H-60 Takeoff and Landing Cycle and In-Frame, Maintenance Testing Using JP-5, November 2009.

 (2) AESO Memorandum Report No. 9953, Revision B, Aircraft Emissions Estimates: H-60 Mission Operations Using JP-5, June 2011.

Table B1-9. MV-22 Aircraft Emission Factors - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations.

Fuel Flow Rate/ VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Operation Type Engine Power Setting Engine (Lb/Hr) References

FW (0°) Cruise 3,820 0.01 0.52 14.09 0.40 1.58 3,209 1.56 1

Helo (16°) Cruise 3,060 0.01 0.79 11.64 0.40 1.58 3,212 1.56 1

Average Cruise 3,440 0.01 0.66 12.87 0.40 1.58 3,211 1.56 1

Fuel/Aircraft Op (Lb)

Single Pad or Confined Area Landing - Pounds 591 0.01 0.29 8.87 0.24 0.94 1,899 0.93 2

Notes: The MV-22 aircraft has 2 T406-AD-400 engines.

 (1) AESO Memorandum Report No. 9946, Revision E, Aircraft Emissions Estimates: V-22 Landing and Takeoff Cycle and In-Frame, Engine Maintenance Testing Using JP-5, January 2001.

 (2) AESO Memorandum Report No. 9965, Revision B, Aircraft Emissions Estimates: V-22 Mission Operations Using JP-5, January 2001.

Individual Engine Emission Factors - Pounds/1000 Pounds Fuel

Emissions per Operation - Pounds

Engine Emission Factors - Pounds/1000 Pounds Fuel

Emissions per Operation - Pounds

Engine Emission Factors - Pounds/1000 Pounds Fuel

Emissions per Operation - Pounds

Appendix B-1 B1-7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

A B C D E F G H I JK

Table B1-10. Fugitive Dust Emission Factors for One Aircraft Pad Landing within Imperial County - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations.

Friction Velocity P

Aircraft u* (m/s) (5) (Gm/m 2 ) (6) PM PM10 PM2.5

AH-1W/Z 3,380 48.0 1,513 32.3 1.70 1.710 0.82 0.41 0.24 0.06

CH-46 3,740 84.3 4,666 32.3 1.70 1.710 2.73 1.36 0.27 0.20

CH-53 7,850 79.0 4,098 32.5 1.70 1.721 5.06 2.53 0.56 0.38

MV-22 12,300 84.0 4,633 32.7 1.70 1.732 8.87 4.43 0.87 0.66

UH-1N 2,500 48.0 1,513 32.2 1.70 1.707 0.61 0.31 0.18 0.05

UH-1Y 3,656 49.0 1,576 32.3 1.70 1.710 0.92 0.46 0.27 0.07

Notes: (1) Due to rotor overlap, actual diameters for CH-46 and MV-22 used in the calculations = 84.3' and 84', respectively.

 (2) Equal to 3 times the rotor diameter - the area of disturbance expected from rotary wing aircraft during a desert landing and take-off.

 (3) Wind speeds at 10 meter level (U10) for the MV-22 based upon wind speeds measured at 1 meter above ground when this aircraft hovered at 20’ AGL (Bell Boeing 2008).

 Equates to equation #5 presented in AP-42 Section 13.2.5 (EPA 2006). This approach assumes that the maximum aircraft downdraft approaches the fastest mile wind speed. 

 Wind speeds for all other aircraft estimated by multiplying U10 for the MV-22 times the ratio of the horsepower rating of each aircraft divided by the horsepower rating of the MV-22.

 This approach was taken, as data are not available to adequately estimate the down draft wind speeds for these aircraft, yet aircraft horsepower rating is proportional to

 potential thrust or the ability of an aircraft to generate down draft.

 (4) Threshold friction velocity value chosen from values listed for surface types identified in Table 8-3 in the WRAP Fugitive Dust Handbook (Countess Environmental 2006). 

 Data on climatic conditions, soil and vegetation conditions described in Archaeological and Biological surveys for the proposed landing zones (LZs), and observations of 

 dust emissions generated by a CH-46 landing at the existing Canary LZ, were used in this selection process (SAIC 2011 and 2012b). 

 (5) Equates to equation #4 presented in AP-42 Section 13.2.5.

 (6) Equates to equation #3 presented in AP-42 Section 13.2.5.

 (7) Equal to Disturbed Area times P. These values are annual averages.

Table B1-11 Fugitive Dust Emission Factors for One Aircraft Pad Landing within CNF - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations.

U* P

Aircraft (m/s) (Gm/m 2 ) (3) PM PM10 PM2.5

AH-1W/Z 3,380 48.0 1,513 0.16 0.08 0.05 0.01

CH-46 3,740 84.3 4,666 0.55 0.27 0.05 0.04

CH-53 7,850 79.0 4,098 1.01 0.51 0.11 0.08

MV-22 12,300 84.0 4,633 1.77 0.89 0.17 0.13

UH-1N 2,500 48.0 1,513 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.01

UH-1Y 3,656 49.0 1,576 0.18 0.09 0.05 0.01

Notes: (1) Due to rotor overlap, actual diameters for CH-46 and MV-22 used in the calculations = 84.3' and 84', respectively.

 (2) Equal to 3 times the rotor diameter - the area of disturbance expected from rotary wing aircraft during a desert landing and take-off.

 (3) P values = 20% of those defined for the Imperial Valley (IV) project region, as (a) the Cleveland National Forest (CNF) project region is cooler and more humid that the IV, 

 (b) the LZs in the CNF have soils that are less silty and are more vegetated than the LZs in the IV (SAIC 2012a and 2012c), and (c) observations of a CH-46 landing at LZs 

 within the CNF determined that this activity generated lower dust emissions than those observed in the IV project region.

 (4) Equal to Disturbed Area times P. These values are annual averages.

Pounds/LTO (7)

Rotor Diameter 

(Ft) (1)

Disturbed Area 

(m 2 ) (2)

Threshold Friction 

U 10 (m/s) Velocity (m/s)

Pounds/LTO (4)

Total Engine Hp 

Rating

Total Engine Hp 

Rating

Rotor Diameter 

(Ft) (1)

Disturbed Area 

(m 2 ) (2)

Threshold Friction 

Velocity u t (m/s) (4)

U 10 (m/s) 

(3)

Appendix B-1 B1-8
Table B1-12. Existing Emissions from Helicopter Transits within the San Diego Air Basin - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Destination/Flight Details VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Trabuco Ranger District

AH-1W/Z 0.01 0.23 0.12 0.01 0.09 0.09 68.68 

CH-46E 0.03 0.18 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.02 29.76 

CH-53 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 33.95 

UH-1N/Y 0.01 0.12 0.12 0.01 0.08 0.08 59.54 

Subtotal 0.06 0.55 0.36 0.02 0.21 0.21 191.92 

Imperial County - West LZs

AH-1W/Z 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.26 

CH-46E 0.02 0.12 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 18.76 

CH-53 0.00 0.04 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.04 59.30 

UH-1N/Y 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.82 

Subtotal 0.02 0.17 0.18 0.01 0.06 0.06 84.14 

Imperial County - East LZs

AH-1W/Z 0.00 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.03 26.79 

CH-46E 0.18 1.02 0.20 0.02 0.09 0.09 164.71 

CH-53 0.02 0.34 1.27 0.06 0.35 0.35 507.92 

UH-1N/Y 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.03 25.63 

Subtotal 0.21 1.50 1.58 0.09 0.51 0.51 725.05 

Total 0.29 2.22 2.12 0.12 0.78 0.78 1,001.11 

Table B1-13. Proposed Emissions from Helicopter Transits within the San Diego Air Basin - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Destination/Flight Details VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Trabuco Ranger District

AH-1W/Z 0.01 0.15 0.08 0.01 0.06 0.06 46.39 

CH-46E - - - - - - - 

CH-53 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 33.95 

UH-1N/Y 0.01 0.12 0.12 0.01 0.08 0.08 62.25 

MV-22 72.01 

Subtotal 0.02 0.30 0.29 0.02 0.17 0.17 214.59 

Imperial County - West LZs

AH-1W/Z 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.17 

CH-46E - - - - - - - 

CH-53 0.00 0.04 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.04 59.30 

UH-1N/Y 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.99 

MV-22 260.02 

Subtotal 0.00 0.05 0.16 0.01 0.05 0.05 324.48 

Imperial County - East LZs

AH-1W/Z 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 20.51 

CH-46E - - - - - - - 

CH-53 0.02 0.33 1.27 0.06 0.35 0.35 505.05 

UH-1N/Y 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 27.30 

MV-22 2,248.08 

Subtotal 0.03 0.45 1.36 0.07 0.41 0.41 2,800.94 

Total 0.06 0.80 1.80 0.09 0.62 0.62 3,340.01 

Proposed - Existing Emissions (0.23) (1.42) (0.31) (0.03) (0.15) (0.15) 2,338.90 

Note: Since MV-22 transit operations occur above 3,000 AGL, the analysis does not consider criteria pollutant emissions from this operation.

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Appendix B-1 B1-9
Table B1-14. Existing Emissions from Helicopter Transits within the South Coast Air Basin - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Destination/Flight Details VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Trabuco Ranger District

AH-1W/Z 0.01 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.05 36.36 

CH-46E 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 15.75 

CH-53 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 17.97 

UH-1N/Y 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.04 31.52 

Total 0.03 0.29 0.19 0.01 0.11 0.11 101.61 

Table B1-15. Proposed Emissions from Helicopter Transits in the South Coast Air Basin - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Destination/Flight Details VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Trabuco Ranger District

AH-1W/Z 0.00 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 24.56 

CH-46E - - - - - - - 

CH-53 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 17.97 

UH-1N/Y 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.04 32.95 

MV-22 38.12 

Total 0.01 0.16 0.15 0.01 0.09 0.09 113.61 

Proposed - Existing Emissions (0.02) (0.13) (0.04) (0.00) (0.02) (0.02) 12.00 

Note: Since MV-22 transit operations occur above 3,000 AGL, the analysis does not consider criteria pollutant emissions from this operation.

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Appendix B-1 B1-10
Table B1-16. Existing Emissions from Helicopter Transits within the Imperial County IVPA - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Destination/Flight Details VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

West LZs

AH-1W/Z 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 

CH-46E 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.91 

CH-53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 9.19 

UH-1N/Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 

Subtotal 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 13.04 

East LZs - Within IVPA

AH-1W/Z 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 14.92 

CH-46E 0.09 0.53 0.11 0.01 0.05 0.05 85.96 

CH-53 0.01 0.18 0.68 0.03 0.19 0.19 271.74 

UH-1N/Y 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 12.94 

Subtotal 0.11 0.79 0.84 0.05 0.27 0.27 385.57 

East LZs - Outside IVPA

AH-1W/Z 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 14.84 

CH-46E 0.01 0.25 0.13 0.01 0.10 0.10 75.21 

CH-53 0.01 0.18 0.10 0.01 0.07 0.07 55.95 

UH-1N/Y 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 11.13 

Subtotal 0.03 0.51 0.27 0.02 0.21 0.21 157.12 

Total 0.14 1.33 1.14 0.07 0.49 0.49 555.72 

Table B1-17. Propsed Emissions from Helicopter Transits within the Imperial County IVPA - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Destination/Flight Details VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

West LZs

AH-1W/Z 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 

CH-46E - - - - - - - 

CH-53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 9.19 

UH-1N/Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 

MV-22 40.28 

Subtotal 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 50.27 

East LZs - Within IVPA

AH-1W/Z 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 9.95 

CH-46E - - - - - - - 

CH-53 0.01 0.18 0.68 0.03 0.19 0.19 271.74 

UH-1N/Y 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 13.72 

MV-22 1,191.57 

Subtotal 0.02 0.24 0.73 0.04 0.22 0.22 1,486.99 

East LZs - Outside IVPA

AH-1W/Z 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 13.04 

CH-46E - - - - - - - 

CH-53 0.01 0.18 0.10 0.01 0.07 0.07 55.30 

UH-1N/Y 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 11.89 

MV-22 1,314.57 

Subtotal 0.01 0.26 0.14 0.01 0.10 0.10 1,394.80 

Total 0.03 0.51 0.89 0.05 0.33 0.33 2,932.06 

Proposed - Existing Emissions (0.11) (0.82) (0.25) (0.02) (0.16) (0.16) 2,376.34 

Note: Since MV-22 transit operations occur above 3,000 AGL, the analysis does not consider criteria pollutant emissions from this operation.

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Appendix B-1 B1-11
Table B1-18. Existing Emissions from Helicopter Transits in Imperial County Non-IVPA - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Destination/Flight Details VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

East LZs - Outside IVPA

AH-1W/Z 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.45 

CH-46E 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 9.55 

CH-53 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 28.70 

UH-1N/Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.53 

Total 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.03 0.03 41.22 

Table B1-19. Propsed Emissions from Helicopter Transits in Imperial County Non-IVPA - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Destination/Flight Details VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

East LZs - Outside IVPA

AH-1W/Z 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.27 

CH-46E - - - - - - - 

CH-53 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 28.36 

UH-1N/Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.64 

MV-22 44.88 

Total 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 76.16 

Proposed - Existing Emissions (0.01) (0.06) (0.01) (0.00) (0.01) (0.01) 34.94 

Note: Since MV-22 transit operations occur above 3,000 AGL, the analysis does not consider criteria pollutant emissions from this operation.

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Appendix B-1 B1-12
Table B1-20. Existing Emissions from Aircraft Landing Zone Operations within the South Coast Air Basin - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Aircraft/Operation VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

AH-1W/Z

Pad Landings 0.01 0.28 0.13 0.01 0.10 0.10 79.61 

Fugitive Dust 0.03 0.00 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.01 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.05 35.55 

Subtotal 0.02 0.40 0.20 0.02 0.18 0.16 115.15 

CH-46E

Pad Landings 0.07 0.39 0.08 0.01 0.04 0.04 63.42 

Fugitive Dust 0.06 0.01 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 11.74 

Subtotal 0.09 0.47 0.10 0.01 0.10 0.06 75.16 

CH-53

Pad Landings 0.04 0.14 0.28 0.02 0.08 0.08 121.72 

Fugitive Dust 0.04 0.01 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 19.41 

Subtotal 0.04 0.15 0.33 0.02 0.13 0.10 141.12 

UH-1N/Y

Pad Landings 0.04 0.38 0.51 0.03 0.31 0.31 240.95 

Fugitive Dust 0.04 0.01 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.04 30.54 

Subtotal 0.05 0.44 0.57 0.03 0.39 0.36 271.48 

Total 0.19 1.45 1.19 0.08 0.81 0.67 602.92 

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Appendix B-1 B1-13
Table B1-21. Proposed Emissions from Aircraft Landing Zone Operations within the South Coast Air Basin - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Aircraft/Operation VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

AH-1W/Z

Pad Landings 0.01 0.19 0.09 0.01 0.07 0.07 52.64 

Fugitive Dust 0.02 0.00 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.00 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 24.61 

Subtotal 0.01 0.27 0.13 0.01 0.12 0.10 77.25 

CH-46E

Pad Landings

Fugitive Dust

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties)

Subtotal

CH-53

Pad Landings 0.04 0.14 0.28 0.02 0.08 0.08 121.72 

Fugitive Dust 0.04 0.01 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 19.41 

Subtotal 0.04 0.15 0.33 0.02 0.13 0.10 141.12 

UH-1N/Y

Pad Landings 0.04 0.39 0.52 0.03 0.32 0.32 247.93 

Fugitive Dust 0.04 0.01 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.04 32.47 

Subtotal 0.05 0.45 0.59 0.03 0.41 0.37 280.40 

MV-22

Pad Landings 0.00 0.10 3.20 0.09 0.34 0.34 684.59 

Fugitive Dust 0.32 0.05 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.97 

Subtotal 0.00 0.11 3.22 0.09 0.66 0.39 689.56 

Total 0.10 0.97 4.27 0.15 1.32 0.96 1,188.33 

Proposed - Existing Emissions (0.09) (0.48) 3.08 0.07 0.51 0.29 585.42 

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Appendix B-1 B1-14
Table B1-22. Existing Emissions from Aircraft Landing Zone Operations within the Imperial County IVPA - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Aircraft/Operation VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

AH-1W/Z

Pad Landings 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 9.98 

Fugitive Dust 0.02 0.00 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 4.39 

Subtotal 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.02 14.36 

CH-46E

Pad Landings 0.13 0.68 0.14 0.01 0.07 0.07 110.52 

Fugitive Dust 0.50 0.07 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 16.77 

Subtotal 0.15 0.79 0.16 0.02 0.58 0.15 127.29 

CH-53

Pad Landings 0.16 0.61 1.26 0.07 0.37 0.37 544.79 

Fugitive Dust 0.79 0.12 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.00 0.05 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.05 77.82 

Subtotal 0.17 0.66 1.46 0.08 1.22 0.55 622.61 

UH-1N/Y

Pad Landings 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.04 29.76 

Fugitive Dust 0.02 0.00 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.83 

Subtotal 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.05 33.59 

Total 0.32 1.55 1.72 0.10 1.90 0.77 797.84 

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Appendix B-1 B1-15
Table B1-23. Propsed Emissions from Aircraft Landing Zone Operations within the Imperial County IVPA - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Aircraft/Operation VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

AH-1W/Z

Pad Landings 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 6.44 

Fugitive Dust 0.01 0.00 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.08 

Subtotal 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 9.52 

CH-46E

Pad Landings

Fugitive Dust

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties)

Subtotal

CH-53

Pad Landings 0.16 0.61 1.26 0.07 0.37 0.37 544.79 

Fugitive Dust 0.79 0.12 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.00 0.05 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.05 77.82 

Subtotal 0.17 0.66 1.46 0.08 1.22 0.55 622.61 

UH-1N/Y

Pad Landings 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.04 31.51 

Fugitive Dust 0.02 0.00 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 6.12 

Subtotal 0.01 0.06 0.08 0.00 0.07 0.05 37.63 

MV-22

Pad Landings 0.03 0.99 30.32 0.82 3.21 3.18 6,490.49 

Fugitive Dust 15.15 2.27 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.00 0.01 0.24 0.01 0.03 0.03 59.25 

Subtotal 0.03 1.00 30.55 0.83 18.39 5.48 6,549.74 

Total 0.21 1.76 32.11 0.91 19.71 6.09 7,219.50 

Proposed - Existing Emissions (0.11) 0.21 30.39 0.81 17.81 5.33 6,421.66 

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Appendix B-1 B1-16
Table B1-24. Existing Emissions from Aircraft Landing Zone Operations within the Imperial County Non-IVPA - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Aircraft/Operation VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

AH-1W/Z

Pad Landings 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 6.07 

Fugitive Dust 0.01 0.00 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 4.36 

Subtotal 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.02 10.44 

CH-46E

Pad Landings 0.10 0.55 0.11 0.01 0.06 0.06 88.80 

Fugitive Dust 0.40 0.06 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 16.68 

Subtotal 0.12 0.65 0.14 0.01 0.47 0.13 105.49 

CH-53

Pad Landings 0.13 0.47 0.97 0.05 0.29 0.29 420.25 

Fugitive Dust 0.61 0.09 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.00 0.05 0.19 0.01 0.05 0.05 77.42 

Subtotal 0.13 0.52 1.17 0.06 0.95 0.43 497.67 

UH-1N/Y

Pad Landings 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.03 22.62 

Fugitive Dust 0.02 0.00 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.81 

Subtotal 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.04 26.43 

Total 0.26 1.25 1.38 0.08 1.50 0.61 640.02 

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Appendix B-1 B1-17
Table B1-25. Propsed Emissions from Aircraft Landing Zone Operations within the Imperial County Non-IVPA - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Aircraft/Operation VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

AH-1W/Z

Pad Landings 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 5.76 

Fugitive Dust 0.01 0.00 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.07 

Subtotal 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 8.83 

CH-46E

Pad Landings

Fugitive Dust

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties)

Subtotal

CH-53

Pad Landings 0.12 0.46 0.95 0.05 0.28 0.28 411.55 

Fugitive Dust 0.60 0.09 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.00 0.05 0.19 0.01 0.05 0.05 77.42 

Subtotal 0.13 0.51 1.15 0.06 0.93 0.42 488.97 

UH-1N/Y

Pad Landings 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.03 24.36 

Fugitive Dust 0.02 0.00 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.99 

Subtotal 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.04 26.35 

MV-22

Pad Landings 0.03 0.79 24.01 0.65 2.54 2.52 5,140.88 

Fugitive Dust 12.00 1.80 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.01 28.62 

Subtotal 0.03 0.79 24.13 0.65 14.56 4.33 5,169.51 

Total 0.16 1.37 25.35 0.72 15.57 4.81 5,693.66 

Proposed - Existing Emissions (0.10) 0.12 23.97 0.64 14.07 4.20 5,053.65 

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Appendix B-1 B1-18
Table B1-26. Emissions Summary for Aircraft Operations within the San Diego Air Basin - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Scenario/Activity VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Existing Conditions

Transit to CNF 0.06 0.55 0.36 0.02 0.21 0.21 192 

Transit to Imperial County West LZs 0.02 0.17 0.18 0.01 0.06 0.06 84 

Transit to Imperial County East LZs 0.21 1.50 1.58 0.09 0.51 0.51 725 

Subtotal 0.29 2.22 2.12 0.12 0.78 0.78 1,001 

Proposed Action

Transit to CNF 0.02 0.30 0.29 0.02 0.17 0.17 215 

Transit to Imperial County West LZs 0.00 0.05 0.16 0.01 0.05 0.05 324 

Transit to Imperial County East LZs 0.03 0.45 1.36 0.07 0.41 0.41 2,801 

Subtotal 0.06 0.80 1.80 0.09 0.62 0.62 3,340 

Proposed - Existing Emissions (0.23) (1.42) (0.31) (0.03) (0.15) (0.15) 2,339 

SDAB NEPA Thresholds 100 100 100 250 250 250 NA

Table B1-27. Emissions Summary for Aircraft Operations within the South Coast Air Basin - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Scenario/Activity VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Existing Conditions

Transit to CNF 0.03 0.29 0.19 0.01 0.11 0.11 102 

Pad Landings 0.17 1.19 1.01 0.06 0.54 0.54 506 

Fugitive Dust 0.16 0.02 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.02 0.26 0.19 0.01 0.11 0.11 97 

Subtotal 0.22 1.74 1.38 0.09 0.92 0.78 705 

Proposed Action

Transit to CNF 0.01 0.16 0.15 0.01 0.09 0.09 114 

Pad Landings 0.09 0.81 4.09 0.14 0.81 0.81 1,107 

Fugitive Dust 0.41 0.06 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.01 0.16 0.18 0.01 0.09 0.09 81 

Subtotal 0.11 1.13 4.42 0.16 1.41 1.05 1,302 

Proposed - Existing Emissions (0.11) (0.61) 3.04 0.07 0.49 0.27 597 

SCAB NEPA Thresholds 100 10 10 250 70 100 NA

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Appendix B-1 B1-19
Table B1-28. Emissions Summary from Aircraft Operations within the Imperial County IVPA - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Scenario/Activity VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Existing Conditions

Transit to West LZs 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 13 

Transit to East LZs - Within IVPA 0.11 0.79 0.84 0.05 0.27 0.27 386 

Transit to East LZs - Outside IVPA 0.03 0.51 0.27 0.02 0.21 0.21 157 

Pad Landings 0.30 1.37 1.49 0.09 0.49 0.49 695 

Fugitive Dust 1.33 0.20 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.02 0.18 0.23 0.01 0.07 0.07 103 

Subtotal 0.46 2.88 2.86 0.17 2.39 1.25 1,354 

Proposed Action

Transit to West LZs 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 50 

Transit to East LZs - Within IVPA 0.02 0.24 0.73 0.04 0.22 0.22 1,487 

Transit to East LZs - Outside IVPA 0.01 0.26 0.14 0.01 0.10 0.10 1,395 

Pad Landings 0.20 1.67 31.66 0.89 3.64 3.60 7,073 

Fugitive Dust 15.98 2.40 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.01 0.09 0.45 0.02 0.09 0.09 146 

Subtotal 0.24 2.27 33.00 0.96 20.04 6.42 10,152 

Proposed - Existing Emissions (0.22) (0.61) 30.14 0.79 17.65 5.17 8,798 

IC IVPA NEPA Thresholds NA NA NA NA 70 100 NA

Table B1-29. Emissions Summary from Aircraft Operations within the Imperial County Non-IVPA - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Scenario/Activity VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Existing Conditions

Transit to East LZs - Outside IVPA 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.03 0.03 41 

Pad Landings 0.23 1.08 1.15 0.07 0.38 0.38 538 

Fugitive Dust 1.04 0.16 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.02 0.18 0.23 0.01 0.07 0.07 102 

Subtotal 0.27 1.34 1.47 0.09 1.52 0.64 681 

Proposed Action

Transit to East LZs - Outside IVPA 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 76 

Pad Landings 0.16 1.30 25.03 0.71 2.87 2.84 5,583 

Fugitive Dust 12.63 1.89 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.00 0.07 0.32 0.01 0.07 0.07 111 

Subtotal 0.16 1.40 25.42 0.72 15.59 4.83 5,770 

Proposed - Existing Emissions (0.11) 0.06 23.96 0.64 14.07 4.19 5,089 

IC Non-IVPA NEPA Thresholds NA NA NA NA 250 250 NA

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Appendix B-1 B1-20
Table B1-30. Emissions Summary from Aircraft Operations within Imperial County - Proposed USMC Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations

Scenario/Activity VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Existing Conditions

Transit 0.15 1.42 1.23 0.07 0.51 0.51 597 

Pad Landings 0.53 2.45 2.63 0.16 0.88 0.88 1,233 

Fugitive Dust - - - - 2.37 0.36 - 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.05 0.35 0.46 0.03 0.15 0.15 205 

Subtotal 0.73 4.22 4.32 0.26 3.91 1.89 2,035 

Proposed Action

Transit 0.03 0.54 0.97 0.05 0.35 0.35 3,008 

Pad Landings 0.36 2.97 56.68 1.60 6.50 6.44 12,656 

Fugitive Dust - - - - 28.61 4.29 - 

Cruise (Non CAL Sorties) 0.01 0.16 0.77 0.03 0.17 0.17 257 

Subtotal 0.40 3.67 58.42 1.68 35.63 11.26 15,921 

Proposed - Existing Emissions (0.33) (0.55) 54.10 1.43 31.72 9.36 13,887 

IC IVPA NEPA Thresholds 100 250 100 250 NA NA NA Metric Tons

Total Project Baseline Annual CO2 3,740 3,400

Total Alternative 1 Annual CO2 20,563 18,694

Proposed Net Change Annual CO2 Emissions 16,823 15,294

US 2009 Annual CO2 Inventory - Metric Tons 5,618,200,000

Proposed Net Change % of Baseline 450

Proposed Net Change % of US Inventory 0.00027

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Appendix B-1 B1-21
APPENDIX B-2 

Clean Air Act Conformity Record of Non-Applicability (RONA) 




APPENDIX C 

Noise 
APPENDIX C-1 

Aircraft Noise Modeling Data 

(Wyle 2011) 
Noise Tables

Note: LZ Canary and LZ PC3 Option, which were addressed in the 

Public Draft EA, have been subsequently dropped from further consideration. 

Some noise tables include information about these dropped LZs. 
Potential Annual Sorties for Noise Analysis for SoCal Rotary-Wing Training EA

Aircraft Type / 

Group

Sortie 

Category

Day

(0700-

1900)

Evening

(1900-

2200)

Night

(2200-

0700) Total

Day

(0700-1900)

Evening

(1900-

2200)

Night

(2200-

0700) Total

CAL 63 80 13 156 - - - - 

Non CAL 52 35 12 99 - - - - 

CAL 12 5 1 18 - - - - 

Non CAL 1 0 0 1 - - - - 

CAL 0 0 0 0 1,033 700 120 1,853 

Non CAL 0 0 0 0 28 27 12 67 

CAL 43 72 10 125 42 72 10 124 

Non CAL 35 50 11 96 35 50 11 96 

CAL 49 29 6 84 53 29 5 87 

Non CAL 44 28 7 79 43 33 8 84 

CAL 89 51 9 149 62 34 5 101 

Non CAL 74 45 9 128 47 36 7 90 

115 115 25 255 - - - - 

13 5 1 19 - - - - 

- - - - 728 1,060 1,920 132

78 122 21 221 122 21 220 77

93 57 13 163 96 62 13 171 

163 96 18 277 109 70 12 191 

462 395 78 935 1,010 1,314 178 2,502 

Notes:

1) Busiest Month is 1.4 times the ops of the Average Month

2) 20 flying days per busiest month

Baseline (CY10; derived) Prospective (CY16)

Sub Totals

CH-46E

CH-46E FRS

MV-22B

CH-53

UH-1N/Y

AH-1W/Z

AH-1W/Z

TOTAL

CH-46E

CH-46E FRS

MV-22B

CH-53

UH-1N/Y

Appendix C-1 C1-1
Aircraft Type 

/ Group El Centro Cleveland Total

CH-46E 75% 25% 100%

CH-46E FRS 100% 0% 100%

MV-22B 95% 5% 100%

CH-53 90% 10% 100%

UH-1N/Y 20% 80% 100%

AH-1W/Z 20% 80% 100%

LZ Group Day/Evening/Night Utilization Percentages for All 

Sortie Types by Aircraft Type

Group of LZs

Appendix C-1 C1-2
El Centro Cleveland Total El Centro Cleveland Total

CH-46E 186 68 254 0 0 0

CH-46E FRS 20 0 20 0 0 0

MV-22B 0 0 0 1814 106 1920

CH-53 197 24 221 196 24 220

UH-1N/Y 31 132 163 33 138 171

AH-1W/Z 49 228 277 37 154 191

 Totals 483 452 935 2080 422 2502

Baseline 

(CY10 Sorties)

Proposed 

(CY16 Sorties) Aircraft Type 

/ Group

LZ Group Utilization for All Sortie Types by Aircraft Type

Appendix C-1 C1-3
Day/Evening/Night LZ Utilization Percentages for all Sortie Types and Applicable Airframes

LZ Group Subgroup Subgroup % LZ ID

Include = 

1

LZ 

Utilization 

Bull 1 33.3%

Sparrow 1 33.3%

Pelican 1 33.4%

IP1 Option 1 9.1%

PC3/ Option 1 9.1%

Cupcake 1 9.1%

Mallard 1 9.1%

PM3 0 0.0%

Canary 1 9.1%

MW1/ Option 1 9.1%

Eider 1 9.1%

MW4/ Option 0 0.0%

Wolf 1 9.1%

ME3 Option 1 9.1%

C1 1 9.0%

3 1 14.3%

5 1 14.3%

7 1 14.3%

8 1 14.3%

9 1 14.3%

9 alt 0 0.0%

10 1 14.3%

11 1 14.2%

6 0 0.0%

6 alt 1 100.0%

El Centro

Cleveland NF

no pad

pad

Bull/Sparrow/

Pelican

Other

60%

40%

45%

55%

Appendix C-1 C1-4
Day/Evening/Night LZ CAL Flight Profiles within Modeled Flight Areas

Duration 

(minutes per 

sortie)

0- 

200

200-

300

300-

1000

1000-

3000 CAL (1,2)

CH-46 (fleet & FRS) 80 3% 95% 2% - 45

MV-22 (proposed) 210 1% 2% 95% 2% 45

CH-53 80 3% 95% 2% - 45

AH-1 80 5% 45% 50% - 45

UH-1 80 5% 45% 50% - 45

Notes: (1) The CAL-High includes all activity at an altitude of 200 feet or greater modeled in larger areas

Day/Evening/Night LZ Non-CAL Flight Profiles within Modeled Flight Areas

Duration 

(minutes per 

sortie)

0- 

200

200-

300

300-

1000

1000-

3000 Non-CAL (3)

CH-46 (fleet & FRS) 80 - 98% 2% - 15

MV-22 (proposed) 210 - 2% 96% 2% 15

CH-53 80 - 98% 2% - 15

AH-1 80 - 47% 53% - 15

UH-1 80 - 47% 53% - 15

Notes: (1) The Non-CAL soties do not include the landing portion (altitude below 200 feet)

Aircraft Type / 

Group

Avg 

Airspeed 

(KIAS)

Altitude 

(ft above LZ Elevation) 

at LZ (area model)

Avg 

Airspeed 

(KIAS)

Altitude 

(ft above LZ Elevation) Aircraft Type / 

Group

at LZ (area model)

(2) The CAL-Low includes the portion of the sortie below an altitude 

 of 200 feet and is modeled in the 750 ft diameter area at each LZ

Appendix C-1 C1-5
Modeled Flight Areas for each LZ 

Group Airframe Sortie Type Shape Dimension

CAL-High Circular 5 nm radius

CAL-Low Circular 750 ft diameter

Non-CAL Circular 5 nm radius

CAL-High Circular 1.5 nm radius

CAL-Low Circular 750 ft diameter

Non-CAL Circular 5 nm radius

CAL-High Rectangle 10 nm length, 2 nm width

CAL-Low Circular 750 ft diameter

Non-CAL Rectangle 10 nm length, 2 nm width

CAL-High Rectangle 3 nm length, 1 nm width

CAL-Low Circular 750 ft diameter

Non-CAL Rectangle 3 nm length, 1 nm width

Notes: 1) CAL - High represents the portion of the CAL sortie at higher altitudes

Cleveland

El Centro

2) CAL - Low represents the portion of the sortie that takes place in the direct

 vicinity of the LZ and contains the Hover and/or Land activity

Helicopters

MV-22

Helicopters

MV-22

Appendix C-1 C1-6
Cleveland Modeled Profiles ‐ Baseline Scenario

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

ST 3 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 3 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.2 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 3 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 3 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 3 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 3 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 3 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.69 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 3 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.39 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 3 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.07 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 3 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.38 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 3 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 3 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 3 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.13 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 3 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.09 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 3 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 3 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 3 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 3 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 3 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.57 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 3 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.33 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 3 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.07 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 3 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.33 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 3 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 3 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.05 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 5 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.2 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 5 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 5 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 5 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 5 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 5 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.69 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.39 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.07 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.38 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.13 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 5 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.09 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 5 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 5 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 5 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 5 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 5 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.57 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.33 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.07 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.33 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.05 15 0 47 53 0 100

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE

ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFTID

SPEED

(KIAS)

POWER

Description

Appendix C-1 C1-7
Cleveland Modeled Profiles ‐ Baseline Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

ST 6 ALT CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.8 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 6 ALT CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 1 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 6 ALT CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.17 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 6 ALT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.23 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 6 ALT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.37 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 6 ALT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.07 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 6 ALT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 3.47 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 6 ALT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 1.97 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 6 ALT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.33 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 6 ALT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 1.9 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 6 ALT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 1.07 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 6 ALT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.23 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 6 ALT CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.67 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 6 ALT CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.43 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 6 ALT CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.13 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 6 ALT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.17 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 6 ALT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.27 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 6 ALT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.07 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 6 ALT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 2.83 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 6 ALT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 1.67 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 6 ALT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.33 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 6 ALT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 1.63 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 6 ALT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 1.03 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 6 ALT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.27 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 7 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.2 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 7 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 7 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 7 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 7 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 7 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.69 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.39 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.07 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.38 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.13 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 7 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.09 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 7 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 7 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 7 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 7 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 7 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.57 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.33 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.07 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.33 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.05 15 0 47 53 0 100

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE

ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFTID

SPEED

(KIAS)

POWER

Description

Appendix C-1 C1-8
Cleveland Modeled Profiles ‐ Baseline Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

ST 8 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 8 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.2 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 8 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 8 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 8 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 8 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 8 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.69 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 8 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.39 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 8 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.07 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 8 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.38 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 8 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 8 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 8 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.13 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 8 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.09 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 8 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 8 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 8 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 8 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 8 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.57 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 8 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.33 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 8 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.07 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 8 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.33 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 8 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 8 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.05 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 9 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.2 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 9 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 9 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 9 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 9 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 9 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.69 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.39 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.07 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.38 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.13 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 9 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.09 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 9 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 9 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 9 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 9 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 9 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.57 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.33 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.07 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.33 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.05 15 0 47 53 0 100

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE

ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFTID

SPEED

(KIAS)

POWER

Description

Appendix C-1 C1-9
Cleveland Modeled Profiles ‐ Baseline Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

ST 10 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 10 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.2 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 10 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 10 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 10 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 10 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 10 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.69 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 10 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.39 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 10 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.07 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 10 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.38 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 10 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 10 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 10 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.13 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 10 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.09 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 10 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 10 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 10 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 10 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 10 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.57 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 10 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.33 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 10 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.07 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 10 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.33 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 10 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 10 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.05 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 11 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.2 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 11 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 11 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 11 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 11 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 11 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.69 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.39 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.07 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.38 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.13 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 11 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.09 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 11 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 11 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 11 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 11 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 11 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.57 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.33 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.07 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.33 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.05 15 0 47 53 0 100

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE

ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFTID

SPEED

(KIAS)

POWER

Description

Appendix C-1 C1-10
Cleveland Modeled Profiles ‐ Baseline Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

ST 3B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 3B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.2 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 3B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.69 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.39 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.07 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.38 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.2 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.69 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.39 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.07 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.38 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.8 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 1 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.17 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.23 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.37 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.07 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 3.47 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 1.97 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.33 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 1.9 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 1.07 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.23 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.2 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.69 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.39 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.07 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.38 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE

ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFTID

SPEED

(KIAS)

POWER

Description

Appendix C-1 C1-11
Cleveland Modeled Profiles ‐ Baseline Scenario (concluded)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

ST 8B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 8B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.2 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 8B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 8B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 8B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 8B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 8B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.69 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 8B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.39 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 8B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.07 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 8B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.38 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 8B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 8B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.2 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.69 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.39 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.07 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.38 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.2 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.69 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.39 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.07 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.38 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.2 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.69 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.39 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.07 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.38 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE

ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFTID

SPEED

(KIAS)

POWER

Description

Appendix C-1 C1-12
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Baseline Scenario

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

MW1‐BOE CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.31 43 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐BOE CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.32 43 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐BOE CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐BOE CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 43 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐BOE CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 43 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐BOE CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐BOE AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 42 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐BOE AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐BOE AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 42 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐BOE UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐BOE UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 42 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐BOE UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 42 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐BOE CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 15 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐BOE CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.13 15 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐BOE CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.04 15 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐BOE CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 15 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐BOE CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.23 15 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐BOE CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐BOE AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.07 15 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐BOE AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐BOE AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 15 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐BOE UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐BOE UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 15 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐BOE UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 15 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.15 43 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.16 43 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 43 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.1 43 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.17 43 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 43 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.04 42 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 42 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 42 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.02 42 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 42 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 42 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.1 15 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.06 15 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.02 15 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.08 15 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.11 15 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.02 15 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 15 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.02 15 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 15 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 15 0 47 53 0 100

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

POWER

Setting

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID

AIRCRAFT

ID

SPEED

(KIAS)

POWER

Description

Appendix C-1 C1-13
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Baseline Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

PC3 OPT CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.15 43 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 OPT CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.16 43 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 OPT CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 43 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 OPT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.1 43 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 OPT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.17 43 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 OPT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 43 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 OPT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.04 42 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 OPT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 42 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 OPT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 42 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 OPT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.02 42 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 OPT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 42 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 OPT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 42 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 OPT CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.1 15 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 OPT CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.06 15 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 OPT CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.02 15 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 OPT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.08 15 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 OPT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.11 15 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 OPT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

PC3 OPT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 OPT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.02 15 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 OPT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 15 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 OPT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.02 15 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 OPT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 15 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 OPT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 1.15 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ SPAR CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 1.21 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ SPAR CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.19 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ SPAR CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.74 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ SPAR CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 1.26 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ SPAR CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.19 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ SPAR AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.33 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.19 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.17 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.1 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.03 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.75 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ SPAR CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.49 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ SPAR CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.16 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ SPAR CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.61 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ SPAR CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.85 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ SPAR CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.2 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ SPAR AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.26 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.16 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.15 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.1 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.03 15 0 47 53 0 100

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID

AIRCRAFT

ID

SPEED

(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-14
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Baseline Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

LZ MALL CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.31 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ MALL CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.32 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ MALL CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ MALL CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ MALL CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ MALL CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ MALL AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ MALL AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ MALL AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ MALL UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ MALL UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ MALL UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ MALL CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ MALL CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.13 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ MALL CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.04 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ MALL CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ MALL CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.23 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ MALL CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ MALL AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.07 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ MALL AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ MALL AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ MALL UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ MALL UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ MALL UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.31 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ EIDER CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.32 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ EIDER CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ EIDER CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ EIDER CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ EIDER CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ EIDER AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ EIDER CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.13 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ EIDER CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.04 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ EIDER CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ EIDER CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.23 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ EIDER CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ EIDER AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.07 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 15 0 47 53 0 100

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID

AIRCRAFT

ID

SPEED

(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-15
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Baseline Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

LZ CAN CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.31 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ CAN CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.32 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ CAN CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ CAN CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ CAN CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ CAN CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ CAN AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ CAN AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ CAN AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ CAN UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ CAN UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ CAN UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ CAN CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ CAN CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.13 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ CAN CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.04 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ CAN CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ CAN CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.23 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ CAN CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ CAN AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.07 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ CAN AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ CAN AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ CAN UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ CAN UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ CAN UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 15 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.15 43 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.16 43 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 43 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.1 43 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.17 43 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 43 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.04 42 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 42 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 42 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.02 42 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 42 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 42 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.1 15 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.06 15 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.02 15 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.08 15 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.11 15 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.02 15 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 15 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.02 15 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 15 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 15 0 47 53 0 100

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID

AIRCRAFT

ID

SPEED

(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-16
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Baseline Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

IP1 OPT CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.15 43 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.16 43 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 43 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.1 43 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.17 43 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 43 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.04 42 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 42 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 42 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.02 42 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 42 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 42 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.1 15 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.06 15 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.02 15 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.08 15 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.11 15 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.02 15 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 15 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.02 15 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 15 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 1.15 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ PEL CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 1.21 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ PEL CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.19 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ PEL CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.74 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ PEL CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 1.26 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ PEL CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.19 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ PEL AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.33 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.19 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.17 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.1 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.03 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.75 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ PEL CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.49 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ PEL CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.16 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ PEL CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.61 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ PEL CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.85 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ PEL CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.2 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ PEL AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.26 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.16 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.15 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.1 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.03 15 0 47 53 0 100

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID

AIRCRAFT

ID

SPEED

(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-17
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Baseline Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

CUPCAKE CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.31 43 0 98 2 0 100

CUPCAKE CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.32 43 0 98 2 0 100

CUPCAKE CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

CUPCAKE CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 43 0 98 2 0 100

CUPCAKE CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 43 0 98 2 0 100

CUPCAKE CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

CUPCAKE AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 42 0 47 53 0 100

CUPCAKE AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

CUPCAKE AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 42 0 47 53 0 100

CUPCAKE UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

CUPCAKE UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 42 0 47 53 0 100

CUPCAKE UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 42 0 47 53 0 100

CUPCAKE CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 15 0 98 2 0 100

CUPCAKE CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.13 15 0 98 2 0 100

CUPCAKE CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.04 15 0 98 2 0 100

CUPCAKE CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 15 0 98 2 0 100

CUPCAKE CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.23 15 0 98 2 0 100

CUPCAKE CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

CUPCAKE AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.07 15 0 47 53 0 100

CUPCAKE AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

CUPCAKE AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 15 0 47 53 0 100

CUPCAKE UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

CUPCAKE UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 15 0 47 53 0 100

CUPCAKE UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 1.15 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ BULL CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 1.21 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ BULL CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.19 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ BULL CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.74 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ BULL CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 1.26 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ BULL CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.19 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ BULL AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.33 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.19 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.17 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.1 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.03 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.75 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ BULL CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.49 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ BULL CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.16 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ BULL CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.61 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ BULL CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.85 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ BULL CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.2 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ BULL AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.26 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.16 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.15 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.1 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.03 15 0 47 53 0 100

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID

AIRCRAFT

ID

SPEED

(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-18
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Baseline Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

ME3 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.31 43 0 98 2 0 100

ME3 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.32 43 0 98 2 0 100

ME3 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

ME3 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 43 0 98 2 0 100

ME3 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 43 0 98 2 0 100

ME3 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

ME3 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 42 0 47 53 0 100

ME3 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

ME3 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 42 0 47 53 0 100

ME3 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

ME3 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 42 0 47 53 0 100

ME3 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 42 0 47 53 0 100

ME3 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 15 0 98 2 0 100

ME3 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.13 15 0 98 2 0 100

ME3 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.04 15 0 98 2 0 100

ME3 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 15 0 98 2 0 100

ME3 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.23 15 0 98 2 0 100

ME3 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

ME3 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.07 15 0 47 53 0 100

ME3 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

ME3 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 15 0 47 53 0 100

ME3 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

ME3 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 15 0 47 53 0 100

ME3 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 15 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.31 43 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐MCI CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.32 43 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐MCI CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐MCI CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 43 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐MCI CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 43 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐MCI CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐MCI AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 42 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 42 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 42 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 42 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 15 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐MCI CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.13 15 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐MCI CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.04 15 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐MCI CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 15 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐MCI CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.23 15 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐MCI CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐MCI AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.07 15 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 15 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 15 0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 15 0 47 53 0 100

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID

AIRCRAFT

ID

SPEED

(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-19
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Baseline Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

PM3B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.31 2 100 0 0 0 100

PM3B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.32 2 100 0 0 0 100

PM3B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

PM3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 2 100 0 0 0 100

PM3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 2 100 0 0 0 100

PM3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

PM3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 3 100 0 0 0 100

PM3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

PM3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

PM3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

PM3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 3 100 0 0 0 100

PM3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

PC3B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.15 2 100 0 0 0 100

PC3B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.16 2 100 0 0 0 100

PC3B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 2 100 0 0 0 100

PC3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.1 2 100 0 0 0 100

PC3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.17 2 100 0 0 0 100

PC3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 2 100 0 0 0 100

PC3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.04 3 100 0 0 0 100

PC3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 3 100 0 0 0 100

PC3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 3 100 0 0 0 100

PC3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.02 3 100 0 0 0 100

PC3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

PC3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 3 100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.15 2 100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.16 2 100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 2 100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.1 2 100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.17 2 100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 2 100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.04 3 100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 3 100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 3 100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.02 3 100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 1.15 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 1.21 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.19 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.74 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 1.26 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.19 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.33 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.19 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.17 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.1 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.03 3 100 0 0 0 100

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID

AIRCRAFT

ID

SPEED

(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-20
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Baseline Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

LZ MALLB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.31 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ MALLB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.32 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ MALLB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ MALLB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ MALLB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ MALLB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ MALLB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ MALLB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ MALLB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ MALLB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ MALLB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ MALLB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.31 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.32 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.31 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.32 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.15 2 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.16 2 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 2 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.1 2 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.17 2 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 2 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.04 3 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 3 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 3 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.02 3 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 3 100 0 0 0 100

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE

ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFTID

SPEED

(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-21
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Baseline Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

IP1 OPTB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.15 2 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.16 2 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 2 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.1 2 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.17 2 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 2 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.04 3 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 3 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 3 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.02 3 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 1.15 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 1.21 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.19 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.74 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 1.26 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.19 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.33 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.19 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.17 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.1 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.03 3 100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.31 2 100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.32 2 100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 2 100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 2 100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 3 100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 3 100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 1.15 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 1.21 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.19 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.74 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 1.26 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.19 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.33 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.19 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.17 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.1 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.03 3 100 0 0 0 100

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID

AIRCRAFT

ID

SPEED

(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-22
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Baseline Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

ME3B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.31 2 100 0 0 0 100

ME3B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.32 2 100 0 0 0 100

ME3B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

ME3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 2 100 0 0 0 100

ME3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 2 100 0 0 0 100

ME3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

ME3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 3 100 0 0 0 100

ME3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

ME3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

ME3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

ME3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 3 100 0 0 0 100

ME3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.31 2 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.32 2 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 2 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 2 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 3 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 3 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.31 2 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.32 2 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 2 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 2 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 3 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 3 100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

C1 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.31 43 0 98 2 0 100

C1 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.32 43 0 98 2 0 100

C1 CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

C1 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 43 0 98 2 0 100

C1 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 43 0 98 2 0 100

C1 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

C1 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 42 0 47 53 0 100

C1 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

C1 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 42 0 47 53 0 100

C1 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

C1 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 42 0 47 53 0 100

C1 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 42 0 47 53 0 100

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID

AIRCRAFT

ID

SPEED

(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-23
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Baseline Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

C1 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 15 0 98 2 0 100

C1 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.13 15 0 98 2 0 100

C1 CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.04 15 0 98 2 0 100

C1 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 15 0 98 2 0 100

C1 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.23 15 0 98 2 0 100

C1 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

C1 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.07 15 0 47 53 0 100

C1 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

C1 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 15 0 47 53 0 100

C1 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

C1 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 15 0 47 53 0 100

C1 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.31 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ WOLF CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.32 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ WOLF CH‐46 CH CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ WOLF CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ WOLF CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ WOLF CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

LZ WOLF AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ WOLF CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.13 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ WOLF CH‐46 NC CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.04 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ WOLF CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ WOLF CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.23 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ WOLF CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

LZ WOLF AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.07 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.04 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 15 0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 15 0 47 53 0 100

C1B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.31 2 100 0 0 0 100

C1B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.32 2 100 0 0 0 100

C1B CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

C1B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 2 100 0 0 0 100

C1B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 2 100 0 0 0 100

C1B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

C1B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 3 100 0 0 0 100

C1B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

C1B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

C1B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

C1B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 3 100 0 0 0 100

C1B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID

AIRCRAFT

ID

SPEED

(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-24
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Baseline Scenario (concluded)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

LZ WOLFB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.31 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ WOLFB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA evening 0.32 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ WOLFB CH‐46 CL CH‐46E 110 CRUISE POWER 79 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ WOLFB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ WOLFB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ WOLFB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

LZ WOLFB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ WOLFB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ WOLFB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ WOLFB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ WOLFB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 3 100 0 0 0 100

LZ WOLFB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 3 100 0 0 0 100

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID

AIRCRAFT

ID

SPEED

(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-25
Cleveland Modeled Profiles ‐ Proposed Scenario

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

ST 3 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 0.73 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 3 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 1.07 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 3 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.12 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 3 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 3 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 3 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 3 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.47 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 3 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.25 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 3 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 3 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.41 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 3 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 3 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.04 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 3 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 0.03 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 3 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 0.03 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 3 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.01 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 3 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 3 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 3 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 3 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.35 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 3 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.27 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 3 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.05 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 3 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.32 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 3 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.25 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 3 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.06 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 0.73 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 5 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 1.07 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 5 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.12 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 5 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 5 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 5 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 5 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.47 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.25 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.41 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.04 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 0.03 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 5 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 0.03 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 5 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.01 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 5 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 5 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 5 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 5 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.35 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.27 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.05 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.32 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.25 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 5 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.06 15 0 47 53 0 100

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

POWER

Setting

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

AIRSPACE

ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFT ID SPEED(KIAS)

POWER

Description

Appendix C-1 C1-26
Cleveland Modeled Profiles ‐ Proposed Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

ST 6 ALT MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 3.63 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 6 ALT MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 5.33 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 6 ALT MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.6 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 6 ALT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.23 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 6 ALT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.37 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 6 ALT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.07 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 6 ALT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 2.37 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 6 ALT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 1.27 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 6 ALT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.2 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 6 ALT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 2.07 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 6 ALT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 1.07 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 6 ALT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.2 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 6 ALT MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 0.13 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 6 ALT MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 0.13 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 6 ALT MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.07 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 6 ALT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.17 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 6 ALT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.27 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 6 ALT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.07 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 6 ALT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 1.77 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 6 ALT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 1.33 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 6 ALT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.27 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 6 ALT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 1.6 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 6 ALT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 1.23 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 6 ALT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.3 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 0.73 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 7 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 1.07 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 7 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.12 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 7 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 7 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 7 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 7 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.47 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.25 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.41 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.04 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 0.03 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 7 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 0.03 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 7 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.01 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 7 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 7 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 7 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 7 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.35 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.27 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.05 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.32 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.25 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 7 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.06 15 0 47 53 0 100

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE

ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFT ID SPEED(KIAS)

POWER

Description

Appendix C-1 C1-27
Cleveland Modeled Profiles ‐ Proposed Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

ST 8 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 0.73 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 8 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 1.07 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 8 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.12 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 8 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 8 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 8 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 8 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.47 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 8 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.25 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 8 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 8 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.41 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 8 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 8 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.04 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 8 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 0.03 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 8 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 0.03 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 8 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.01 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 8 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 8 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 8 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 8 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.35 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 8 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.27 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 8 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.05 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 8 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.32 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 8 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.25 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 8 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.06 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 0.73 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 9 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 1.07 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 9 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.12 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 9 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 9 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 9 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 9 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.47 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.25 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.41 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.04 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 0.03 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 9 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 0.03 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 9 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.01 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 9 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 9 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 9 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 9 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.35 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.27 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.05 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.32 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.25 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 9 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.06 15 0 47 53 0 100

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE

ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFT ID SPEED(KIAS)

POWER

Description

Appendix C-1 C1-28
Cleveland Modeled Profiles ‐ Proposed Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

ST 10 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 0.73 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 10 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 1.07 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 10 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.12 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 10 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 10 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 10 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 10 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.47 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 10 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.25 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 10 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 10 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.41 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 10 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 10 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.04 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 10 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 0.03 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 10 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 0.03 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 10 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.01 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 10 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 10 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 10 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 10 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.35 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 10 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.27 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 10 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.05 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 10 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.32 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 10 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.25 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 10 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.06 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 0.73 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 11 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 1.07 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 11 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.12 44 0 2 96 2 100

ST 11 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 11 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 11 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 43 0 98 2 0 100

ST 11 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.47 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.25 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.41 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.04 42 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 0.03 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 11 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 0.03 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 11 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.01 15 0 2 96 2 100

ST 11 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.03 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 11 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.05 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 11 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 15 0 98 2 0 100

ST 11 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.35 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.27 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.05 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.32 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.25 15 0 47 53 0 100

ST 11 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.06 15 0 47 53 0 100

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE

ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFT ID SPEED(KIAS)

POWER

Description

Appendix C-1 C1-29
Cleveland Modeled Profiles ‐ Proposed Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

ST 3B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 0.73 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 3B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 1.07 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 3B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.12 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.47 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.25 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.41 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.04 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 0.73 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 1.07 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.12 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.47 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.25 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.41 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 5B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.04 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 3.63 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 5.33 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.6 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.23 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.37 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.07 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 2.37 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 1.27 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.2 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 2.07 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 1.07 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 6 ALTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.2 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 0.73 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 1.07 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.12 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.47 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.25 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.41 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 7B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.04 3 100 0 0 0 100

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE

ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFT ID SPEED(KIAS)

POWER

Description

Appendix C-1 C1-30
Cleveland Modeled Profiles ‐ Proposed Scenario (concluded)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

ST 8B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 0.73 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 8B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 1.07 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 8B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.12 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 8B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 8B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 8B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 8B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.47 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 8B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.25 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 8B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 8B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.41 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 8B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 8B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.04 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 0.73 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 1.07 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.12 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.47 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.25 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.41 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 9B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.04 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 0.73 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 1.07 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.12 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.47 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.25 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.41 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 10B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.04 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 daytime 0.73 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 evening 1.07 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 110 79 VC10 nighttime 0.12 1 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.05 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.07 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.01 2 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.47 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.25 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.04 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.41 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.21 3 100 0 0 0 100

ST 11B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.04 3 100 0 0 0 100

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE

ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFT ID SPEED(KIAS)

POWER

Description

Appendix C-1 C1-31
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Proposed Scenario

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

MW1‐BOE MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 3.44 44             0 2 96 2 100

MW1‐BOE MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 5.07 44             0 2 96 2 100

MW1‐BOE MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.59 44             0 2 96 2 100

MW1‐BOE CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 43             0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐BOE CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 43             0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐BOE CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43             0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐BOE AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.06 42             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐BOE AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 42             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐BOE AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 42             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐BOE UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 42             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐BOE UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 42             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐BOE UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 42             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐BOE MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 0.13 15             0 2 96 2 100

MW1‐BOE MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 0.13 15             0 2 96 2 100

MW1‐BOE MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.06 15             0 2 96 2 100

MW1‐BOE CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 15             0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐BOE CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.23 15             0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐BOE CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 15             0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐BOE AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.04 15             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐BOE AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 15             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐BOE AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 15             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐BOE UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.04 15             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐BOE UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 15             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐BOE UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 15             0 47 53 0 100

PC3 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 1.72 44             0 2 96 2 100

PC3 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 2.53 44             0 2 96 2 100

PC3 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.29 44             0 2 96 2 100

PC3 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.1 43             0 98 2 0 100

PC3 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.17 43             0 98 2 0 100

PC3 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 43             0 98 2 0 100

PC3 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.03 42             0 47 53 0 100

PC3 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.02 42             0 47 53 0 100

PC3 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 42             0 47 53 0 100

PC3 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.03 42             0 47 53 0 100

PC3 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 42             0 47 53 0 100

PC3 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 42             0 47 53 0 100

PC3 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 0.07 15             0 2 96 2 100

PC3 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 0.06 15             0 2 96 2 100

PC3 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.03 15             0 2 96 2 100

PC3 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.08 15             0 98 2 0 100

PC3 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.11 15             0 98 2 0 100

PC3 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 15             0 98 2 0 100

PC3 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.02 15             0 47 53 0 100

PC3 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.02 15             0 47 53 0 100

PC3 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 15             0 47 53 0 100

PC3 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.02 15             0 47 53 0 100

PC3 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 15             0 47 53 0 100

PC3 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 15             0 47 53 0 100

POWER

Setting AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFT ID SPEED

(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-32
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Proposed Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

PC3 OPT MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 1.72 44             0 2 96 2 100

PC3 OPT MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 2.53 44             0 2 96 2 100

PC3 OPT MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.29 44             0 2 96 2 100

PC3 OPT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.1 43             0 98 2 0 100

PC3 OPT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.17 43             0 98 2 0 100

PC3 OPT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 43             0 98 2 0 100

PC3 OPT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.03 42             0 47 53 0 100

PC3 OPT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.02 42             0 47 53 0 100

PC3 OPT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 42             0 47 53 0 100

PC3 OPT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.03 42             0 47 53 0 100

PC3 OPT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 42             0 47 53 0 100

PC3 OPT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 42             0 47 53 0 100

PC3 OPT MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 0.07 15             0 2 96 2 100

PC3 OPT MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 0.06 15             0 2 96 2 100

PC3 OPT MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.03 15             0 2 96 2 100

PC3 OPT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.08 15             0 98 2 0 100

PC3 OPT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.11 15             0 98 2 0 100

PC3 OPT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 15             0 98 2 0 100

PC3 OPT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.02 15             0 47 53 0 100

PC3 OPT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.02             15 0 47 53 0 100

PC3 OPT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 15             0 47 53 0 100

PC3 OPT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.02 15             0 47 53 0 100

PC3 OPT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 15             0 47 53 0 100

PC3 OPT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 12.9 44             0 2 96 2 100

LZ SPAR MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 19 44             0 2 96 2 100

LZ SPAR MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 2.2 44             0 2 96 2 100

LZ SPAR CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.74 43             0 98 2 0 100

LZ SPAR CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 1.26 43             0 98 2 0 100

LZ SPAR CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.19 43             0 98 2 0 100

LZ SPAR AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.22 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.12 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01            42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.19 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.1 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 0.5 15             0 2 96 2 100

LZ SPAR MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 0.49 15             0 2 96 2 100

LZ SPAR MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.24 15             0 2 96 2 100

LZ SPAR CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.61 15             0 98 2 0 100

LZ SPAR CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.85 15             0 98 2 0 100

LZ SPAR CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.2 15             0 98 2 0 100

LZ SPAR AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.16 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.12 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.03 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.15 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.11 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ SPAR UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.03 15             0 47 53 0 100

POWER

Setting AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFT ID SPEED(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-33
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Proposed Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

LZ MALL MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 3.44 44             0 2 96 2 100

LZ MALL MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 5.07 44             0 2 96 2 100

LZ MALL MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.59 44             0 2 96 2 100

LZ MALL CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 43             0 98 2 0 100

LZ MALL CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 43             0 98 2 0 100

LZ MALL CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43             0 98 2 0 100

LZ MALL AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.06 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ MALL AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ MALL AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ MALL UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ MALL UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ MALL UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ MALL MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 0.13 15             0 2 96 2 100

LZ MALL MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 0.13 15             0 2 96 2 100

LZ MALL MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.06 15             0 2 96 2 100

LZ MALL CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 15             0 98 2 0 100

LZ MALL CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.23 15             0 98 2 0 100

LZ MALL CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 15             0 98 2 0 100

LZ MALL AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.04 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ MALL AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ MALL AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ MALL UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.04 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ MALL UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ MALL UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 3.44 44             0 2 96 2 100

LZ EIDER MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 5.07 44             0 2 96 2 100

LZ EIDER MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.59 44             0 2 96 2 100

LZ EIDER CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 43             0 98 2 0 100

LZ EIDER CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 43             0 98 2 0 100

LZ EIDER CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43             0 98 2 0 100

LZ EIDER AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.06 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 0.13 15             0 2 96 2 100

LZ EIDER MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 0.13 15             0 2 96 2 100

LZ EIDER MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.06 15             0 2 96 2 100

LZ EIDER CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 15             0 98 2 0 100

LZ EIDER CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.23 15             0 98 2 0 100

LZ EIDER CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 15             0 98 2 0 100

LZ EIDER AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.04 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.04 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ EIDER UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 15             0 47 53 0 100

POWER

Setting AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFT ID SPEED(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-34
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Proposed Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

LZ CAN MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 3.44 44             0 2 96 2 100

LZ CAN MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 5.07 44             0 2 96 2 100

LZ CAN MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.59 44             0 2 96 2 100

LZ CAN CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 43             0 98 2 0 100

LZ CAN CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 43             0 98 2 0 100

LZ CAN CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43             0 98 2 0 100

LZ CAN AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.06 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ CAN AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ CAN AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ CAN UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ CAN UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ CAN UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ CAN MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 0.13 15             0 2 96 2 100

LZ CAN MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 0.13 15             0 2 96 2 100

LZ CAN MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.06 15             0 2 96 2 100

LZ CAN CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 15             0 98 2 0 100

LZ CAN CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.23 15             0 98 2 0 100

LZ CAN CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 15             0 98 2 0 100

LZ CAN AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.04 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ CAN AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ CAN AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ CAN UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.04 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ CAN UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ CAN UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 15             0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 1.72 44             0 2 96 2 100

IP1 OPT MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 2.53 44             0 2 96 2 100

IP1 OPT MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.29 44             0 2 96 2 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.1 43             0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.17 43             0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 43             0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.03 42             0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.02 42             0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 42             0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.03 42             0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 42             0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 42             0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 0.07 15             0 2 96 2 100

IP1 OPT MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 0.06 15             0 2 96 2 100

IP1 OPT MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.03 15             0 2 96 2 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.08 15             0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.11 15             0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 15             0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.02 15             0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.02 15             0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 15             0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.02 15             0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 15             0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 15             0 47 53 0 100

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE

ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFT ID SPEED(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-35
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Proposed Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

IP1 OPT MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 1.72 44             0 2 96 2 100

IP1 OPT MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 2.53 44             0 2 96 2 100

IP1 OPT MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.29 44             0 2 96 2 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.1 43             0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.17 43             0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 43             0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.03 42             0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.02 42             0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 42             0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.03 42             0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 42             0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 42             0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 0.07 15             0 2 96 2 100

IP1 OPT MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 0.06 15             0 2 96 2 100

IP1 OPT MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.03 15             0 2 96 2 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.08 15             0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.11 15             0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 15             0 98 2 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.02 15             0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.02             15 0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 15             0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.02 15             0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 15             0 47 53 0 100

IP1 OPT UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 12.9 44             0 2 96 2 100

LZ PEL MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 19 44             0 2 96 2 100

LZ PEL MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 2.2 44             0 2 96 2 100

LZ PEL CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.74 43             0 98 2 0 100

LZ PEL CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 1.26 43             0 98 2 0 100

LZ PEL CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.19 43             0 98 2 0 100

LZ PEL AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.22 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.12 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01            42 0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.19 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.1 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 0.5 15             0 2 96 2 100

LZ PEL MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 0.49 15             0 2 96 2 100

LZ PEL MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.24 15             0 2 96 2 100

LZ PEL CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.61 15             0 98 2 0 100

LZ PEL CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.85 15             0 98 2 0 100

LZ PEL CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.2 15             0 98 2 0 100

LZ PEL AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.16 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.12 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.03 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.15 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.11 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ PEL UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.03 15             0 47 53 0 100

POWER

Setting AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFT ID SPEED(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-36
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Proposed Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

CUPCAKE MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 3.44 44             0 2 96 2 100

CUPCAKE MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 5.07 44             0 2 96 2 100

CUPCAKE MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.59 44             0 2 96 2 100

CUPCAKE CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 43             0 98 2 0 100

CUPCAKE CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 43             0 98 2 0 100

CUPCAKE CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43             0 98 2 0 100

CUPCAKE AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.06 42             0 47 53 0 100

CUPCAKE AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 42             0 47 53 0 100

CUPCAKE AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 42             0 47 53 0 100

CUPCAKE UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 42             0 47 53 0 100

CUPCAKE UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 42             0 47 53 0 100

CUPCAKE UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 42             0 47 53 0 100

CUPCAKE MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 0.13 15             0 2 96 2 100

CUPCAKE MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 0.13 15             0 2 96 2 100

CUPCAKE MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.06 15             0 2 96 2 100

CUPCAKE CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 15             0 98 2 0 100

CUPCAKE CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.23 15             0 98 2 0 100

CUPCAKE CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 15             0 98 2 0 100

CUPCAKE AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.04 15             0 47 53 0 100

CUPCAKE AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 15             0 47 53 0 100

CUPCAKE AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 15             0 47 53 0 100

CUPCAKE UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.04 15             0 47 53 0 100

CUPCAKE UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 15             0 47 53 0 100

CUPCAKE UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 12.9 44             0 2 96 2 100

LZ BULL MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 19 44             0 2 96 2 100

LZ BULL MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 2.2 44             0 2 96 2 100

LZ BULL CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.74 43             0 98 2 0 100

LZ BULL CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 1.26 43             0 98 2 0 100

LZ BULL CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.19 43             0 98 2 0 100

LZ BULL AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.22 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.12 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.19 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.1 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 0.5 15             0 2 96 2 100

LZ BULL MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 0.49 15             0 2 96 2 100

LZ BULL MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.24 15             0 2 96 2 100

LZ BULL CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.61 15             0 98 2 0 100

LZ BULL CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.85 15             0 98 2 0 100

LZ BULL CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.2 15             0 98 2 0 100

LZ BULL AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.16 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.12 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.03 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.15 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.11 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ BULL UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.03 15             0 47 53 0 100

POWER

Setting AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFT ID SPEED(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-37
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Proposed Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

ME3 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 3.44 44             0 2 96 2 100

ME3 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 5.07 44             0 2 96 2 100

ME3 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.59 44             0 2 96 2 100

ME3 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 43             0 98 2 0 100

ME3 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 43             0 98 2 0 100

ME3 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43             0 98 2 0 100

ME3 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.06 42             0 47 53 0 100

ME3 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 42             0 47 53 0 100

ME3 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 42             0 47 53 0 100

ME3 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 42             0 47 53 0 100

ME3 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 42             0 47 53 0 100

ME3 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 42             0 47 53 0 100

ME3 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 0.13 15             0 2 96 2 100

ME3 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 0.13 15             0 2 96 2 100

ME3 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.06 15             0 2 96 2 100

ME3 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 15             0 98 2 0 100

ME3 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.23 15             0 98 2 0 100

ME3 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 15             0 98 2 0 100

ME3 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.04 15             0 47 53 0 100

ME3 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 15             0 47 53 0 100

ME3 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 15             0 47 53 0 100

ME3 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.04 15             0 47 53 0 100

ME3 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 15             0 47 53 0 100

ME3 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 15             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 3.44 44             0 2 96 2 100

MW1‐MCI MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 5.07 44             0 2 96 2 100

MW1‐MCI MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.59 44             0 2 96 2 100

MW1‐MCI CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 43             0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐MCI CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 43             0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐MCI CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 43             0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐MCI AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.06 42             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 42             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 42             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 42             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 42             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 42             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 0.13 15             0 2 96 2 100

MW1‐MCI MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 0.13 15             0 2 96 2 100

MW1‐MCI MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.06 15             0 2 96 2 100

MW1‐MCI CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.16 15             0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐MCI CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.23 15             0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐MCI CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 15             0 98 2 0 100

MW1‐MCI AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.04 15             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 15             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 15             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.04 15             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 15             0 47 53 0 100

MW1‐MCI UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 15             0 47 53 0 100

POWER

Setting AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFT ID SPEED(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-38
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Proposed Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

PM3B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 3.44 1                100 0 0 0 100

PM3B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 5.07 1                100 0 0 0 100

PM3B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.59 1                100 0 0 0 100

PM3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 2                100 0 0 0 100

PM3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 2                100 0 0 0 100

PM3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2                100 0 0 0 100

PM3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.06 3                100 0 0 0 100

PM3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 3                100 0 0 0 100

PM3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 3                100 0 0 0 100

PM3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 3                100 0 0 0 100

PM3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 3                100 0 0 0 100

PM3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 3                100 0 0 0 100

PC3B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 1.72 1                100 0 0 0 100

PC3B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 2.53 1                100 0 0 0 100

PC3B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.29 1                100 0 0 0 100

PC3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.1 2                100 0 0 0 100

PC3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.17 2                100 0 0 0 100

PC3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 2                100 0 0 0 100

PC3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.03 3                100 0 0 0 100

PC3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.02 3                100 0 0 0 100

PC3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 3                100 0 0 0 100

PC3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.03 3                100 0 0 0 100

PC3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 3                100 0 0 0 100

PC3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 3                100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 1.72 1                100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 2.53 1                100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.29 1                100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.1 2                100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.17 2                100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 2                100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.03 3                100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.02 3                100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 3                100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.03 3                100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 3                100 0 0 0 100

PC3 OPTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 12.9 1                100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 19 1                100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 2.2 1                100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.74 2                100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 1.26 2                100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.19 2                100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.22 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.12 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.19 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.1 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ SPARB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 3                100 0 0 0 100

POWER

Setting AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFT ID SPEED(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-39
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Proposed Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

LZ MALLB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 3.44 1                100 0 0 0 100

LZ MALLB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 5.07 1                100 0 0 0 100

LZ MALLB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.59 1                100 0 0 0 100

LZ MALLB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 2                100 0 0 0 100

LZ MALLB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 2                100 0 0 0 100

LZ MALLB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2                100 0 0 0 100

LZ MALLB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.06 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ MALLB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ MALLB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ MALLB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ MALLB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ MALLB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 3.44 1                100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 5.07 1                100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.59 1                100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 2                100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 2                100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2                100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.06 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ EIDERB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 3.44 1                100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 5.07 1                100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.59 1                100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 2                100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 2                100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2                100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.06 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ CANB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 3                100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 1.72 1                100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 2.53 1                100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.29 1                100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.1 2                100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.17 2                100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 2                100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.03 3                100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.02 3                100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 3                100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.03 3                100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 3                100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 3                100 0 0 0 100

POWER

Setting AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFT ID SPEED(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-40
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Proposed Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

IP1 OPTB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 1.72 1               100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 2.53 1               100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.29 1               100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.1 2               100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.17 2               100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.03 2               100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.03 3               100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.02 3               100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 3               100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.03 3               100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.01 3               100 0 0 0 100

IP1 OPTB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 3               100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 12.9 1               100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 19 1               100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 2.2 1               100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.74 2               100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 1.26 2               100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.19 2               100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.22 3               100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.12 3               100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 3               100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.19 3               100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.1 3               100 0 0 0 100

LZ PELB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 3               100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 3.44 1               100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 5.07 1               100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.59 1               100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 2               100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 2               100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2               100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.06 3               100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 3               100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 3               100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 3               100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 3               100 0 0 0 100

CUPCAKEB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 3               100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 12.9 1               100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 19 1               100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 2.2 1               100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.74 2               100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 1.26 2               100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.19 2               100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.22 3               100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.12 3               100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 3               100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.19 3               100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.1 3               100 0 0 0 100

LZ BULLB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 3               100 0 0 0 100

POWER

Setting

AIRSPACE

ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFT ID SPEED(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-41
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Proposed Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

ME3B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 3.44 1                100 0 0 0 100

ME3B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 5.07 1                100 0 0 0 100

ME3B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.59 1                100 0 0 0 100

ME3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 2                100 0 0 0 100

ME3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 2                100 0 0 0 100

ME3B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2                100 0 0 0 100

ME3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.06 3                100 0 0 0 100

ME3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 3                100 0 0 0 100

ME3B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 3                100 0 0 0 100

ME3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 3                100 0 0 0 100

ME3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 3                100 0 0 0 100

ME3B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 3                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 3.44 1                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 5.07 1                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.59 1                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 2                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 2                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.06 3                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 3                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 3                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 3                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 3                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐MCIB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 3                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 3.44 1                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 5.07 1                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.59 1                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.2 2                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 2                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.05 2                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.06 3                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.03 3                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0 3                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.05 3                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.03 3                100 0 0 0 100

MW1‐BOEB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0 3                100 0 0 0 100

C1 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 5.16 44             0 2 96 2 100

C1 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 7.6 44             0 2 96 2 100

C1 MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.88 44             0 2 96 2 100

C1 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.29 43             0 98 2 0 100

C1 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.5 43             0 98 2 0 100

C1 CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.08 43             0 98 2 0 100

C1 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 42             0 47 53 0 100

C1 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 42             0 47 53 0 100

C1 AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 42             0 47 53 0 100

C1 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.08 42             0 47 53 0 100

C1 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.04 42             0 47 53 0 100

C1 UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 42             0 47 53 0 100

POWER

Setting AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFT ID SPEED

(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-42
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Proposed Scenario (continued)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

C1 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 0.2 15             0 2 96 2 100

C1 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 0.19 15             0 2 96 2 100

C1 MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.09 15             0 2 96 2 100

C1 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.25 15             0 98 2 0 100

C1 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 15             0 98 2 0 100

C1 CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.08 15             0 98 2 0 100

C1 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.07 15             0 47 53 0 100

C1 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 15             0 47 53 0 100

C1 AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 15             0 47 53 0 100

C1 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.06 15             0 47 53 0 100

C1 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.05 15             0 47 53 0 100

C1 UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 5.16 44             0 2 96 2 100

LZ WOLF MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 7.6 44             0 2 96 2 100

LZ WOLF MV‐22 CH TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.88 44             0 2 96 2 100

LZ WOLF CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.29 43             0 98 2 0 100

LZ WOLF CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.5 43             0 98 2 0 100

LZ WOLF CH‐53 CH CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.08 43             0 98 2 0 100

LZ WOLF AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF AH‐1 CH AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.08 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.04 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF UH‐1 CH UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 42             0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 0.2 15             0 2 96 2 100

LZ WOLF MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 0.19 15             0 2 96 2 100

LZ WOLF MV‐22 NC TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.09 15             0 2 96 2 100

LZ WOLF CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.25 15             0 98 2 0 100

LZ WOLF CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.34 15             0 98 2 0 100

LZ WOLF CH‐53 NC CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.08 15             0 98 2 0 100

LZ WOLF AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.07 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF AH‐1 NC AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.06 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.05 15             0 47 53 0 100

LZ WOLF UH‐1 NC UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 15             0 47 53 0 100

C1B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 5.16 1                100 0 0 0 100

C1B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 7.6 1                100 0 0 0 100

C1B MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.88 1                100 0 0 0 100

C1B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.29 2                100 0 0 0 100

C1B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.5 2                100 0 0 0 100

C1B CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.08 2                100 0 0 0 100

C1B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 3                100 0 0 0 100

C1B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 3                100 0 0 0 100

C1B AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 3                100 0 0 0 100

C1B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.08 3                100 0 0 0 100

C1B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.04 3                100 0 0 0 100

C1B UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 3                100 0 0 0 100

POWER

Setting AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFT ID SPEED

(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-43
El Centro Modeled Profiles ‐ Proposed Scenario (concluded)

0 200 300 1000

200 300 1000 3000

LZ WOLFB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 daytime 5.16 1                100 0 0 0 100

LZ WOLFB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 evening 7.6 1                100 0 0 0 100

LZ WOLFB MV‐22 CL TAKEOFF PO 210 210 VC10 nighttime 0.88 1                100 0 0 0 100

LZ WOLFB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA daytime 0.29 2                100 0 0 0 100

LZ WOLFB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA evening 0.5 2                100 0 0 0 100

LZ WOLFB CH‐53 CL CH‐53E 120 CRUISE POWER 68 %Q‐BPA nighttime 0.08 2                100 0 0 0 100

LZ WOLFB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS daytime 0.09 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ WOLFB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS evening 0.05 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ WOLFB AH‐1 CL AH‐1G 100 LFO LITE 100 KTS 100 KNOTS nighttime 0.01 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ WOLFB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM daytime 0.08 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ WOLFB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM evening 0.04 3                100 0 0 0 100

LZ WOLFB UH‐1 CL UH‐1N 80 FLT AT 80 KTS 100 % RPM nighttime 0.01 3                100 0 0 0 100

POWER

Setting AIRSPACE ID MISSION ID AIRCRAFT ID SPEED(KIAS)

POWER

Description

POWER

Unit

PERIOD OF

Day

BUSY

Month

Sorties

TIME PER

Sortie

(minutes)

TIME (% in Altitude Range; Feet AGL)

Total

Appendix C-1 C1-44
LZ Group Subgroup LZ ID Baseline Alternative 1

Change 

relative to 

Baseline

Bull 68 72 +4

Sparrow 68 71 +3

Pelican 68 72 +4

IP1 Option 60 64 +4

PC3 63 66 +3

Cupcake 62 66 +4

Mallard 62 66 +4

MW1 / MW1 Option 64 68 +4

Eider 63 67 +4

Wolf 63 68 +5

ME3 Option 63 66 +3

C1 63 68 +5

3 65 64 -1

5 65 64 -1

7 65 64 -1

8 64 64 0

9 / 9 alt 64 64 0

10 65 64 -1

11 64 64 0

pad 6 / 6 alt 72 71 -1

All levels greater than 70 dB occur within 500 ft of the LZ

Number of LZ Sites by CNELmr Band for Baseline and Alternative 1

Baseline Alternative 1 Baseline Alternative 1

65-70 3 8 4 0

70-75 0 3 1 1

75-80 0 0 0 0

80-85 0 0 0 0

85+ 0 0 0 0

Total (65+) 3 11 5 1

El Centro Cleveland NF CNELmr 

(dBA)

Maximum CNELmr at Modeled Landing Zones in BLM El Centro and Cleveland NF

Cleveland NF no pad

Bull / Sparrow / 

Pelican

Other

El Centro

Appendix C-1 C1-45
Noise Figures 

Note: LZ Canary and LZ PC3 Option, which were addressed in the 

Public Draft EA, have been subsequently dropped from further consideration. 

Some figures note the location of these dropped LZs. 
Figure C1-1. Modeled Flight Areas for Helicopters in Cleveland National Forest

Appendix C-1 C1-47
Figure C1-2. Modeled Flight Areas for Helicopters in BLM El Centro Managed-Land

Appendix C-1 C1-48
Figure C1-3. Modeled Flight Areas for Helicopters in BLM El Centro Managed-Land

Appendix C-1 C1-49
Figure C1-4. Modeled Flight Areas for MV-22 in Cleveland National Forest

Appendix C-1 C1-50
Figure C1-5. Modeled Flight Areas for MV-22 in BLM El Centro Managed-Land

Appendix C-1 C1-51
Figure C1-6. Modeled Flight Areas for MV-22 in BLM El Centro Managed-Land

Appendix C-1 C1-52
Existing Conditions

CNEL Contour (dB)

Proposed CNEL Contour (dB)

Landing Zone Boundary

Figure C1-7. Aircraft Noise Contours from Operations at LZ Site 6/6 Alt

Scale

0 100

0 300

Meters

Feet

N

65

70

65

LZ 6

LZ 6 Alt

70

70

Appendix C-1 C1-53
Existing Conditions

CNEL Contour (dB)

Proposed CNEL Contour (dB)

Landing Zone Boundary

Figure C1-8. Aircraft Noise Contours from Operations at LZ Bull

Scale

0 100

0 300

Meters

Feet

N

65

70

65

LZ Bull

70

Appendix C-1 C1-54
APPENDIX C-2 

 Discussion of Noise and Its Effect on the Environment 

(Wyle) 
Appendix C-2 C2-1 

C.1 Basics of Sound 

Noise is unwanted sound. Sound is all around us; sound becomes noise when it interferes with 

normal activities, such as sleep or conversation. 

Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, such 

as air, and are sensed by the human ear. Whether that sound is interpreted as pleasant (e.g., music) or 

unpleasant (e.g., jackhammers) depends largely on the listener’s current activity, past experience, and 

attitude toward the source of that sound. 

The measurement and human perception of sound involves three basic physical characteristics: 

intensity, frequency, and duration. First, intensity is a measure of the acoustic energy of the sound 

vibrations and is expressed in terms of sound pressure. The greater the sound pressure, the more 

energy carried by the sound and the louder the perception of that sound. The second important 

physical characteristic of sound is frequency, which is the number of times per second the air vibrates 

or oscillates. Low-frequency sounds are characterized as rumbles or roars, while high-frequency 

sounds are typified by sirens or screeches. The third important characteristic of sound is duration or 

the length of time the sound can be detected.

The loudest sounds that can be detected comfortably by the human ear have intensities that are a 

trillion times higher than those of sounds that can barely be detected. Because of this vast range, using 

a linear scale to represent the intensity of sound becomes very unwieldy. As a result, a logarithmic 

unit known as the decibel (abbreviated dB) is used to represent the intensity of a sound. Such a 

representation is called a sound level. A sound level of 0 dB is approximately the threshold of human 

hearing and is barely audible under extremely quiet listening conditions. Normal speech has a sound 

level of approximately 60 dB; sound levels above 120 dB begin to be felt inside the human ear as 

discomfort. Sound levels between 130 to 140 dB are felt as pain (Berglund and Lindvall 1995). 

Because of the logarithmic nature of the decibel unit, sound levels cannot be arithmetically added or 

subtracted and are somewhat cumbersome to handle mathematically. However, some simple rules are 

useful in dealing with sound levels. First, if a sound’s intensity is doubled, the sound level increases 

by 3 dB, regardless of the initial sound level. For example: 

60 dB + 60 dB = 63 dB, and 

80 dB + 80 dB = 83 dB. 

Second, the total sound level produced by two sounds of different levels is usually only slightly more 

than the higher of the two. For example: 

60.0 dB + 70.0 dB = 70.4 dB. 

Because the addition of sound levels is different than that of ordinary numbers, such addition is often 

referred to as “decibel addition” or “energy addition.” The latter term arises from the fact that what 

we are really doing when we add decibel values is first converting each decibel value to its 

corresponding acoustic energy, then adding the energies using the normal rules of addition, and 

finally converting the total energy back to its decibel equivalent. 
Appendix C-2 C2-2 

The minimum change in the sound level of individual events that an average human ear can detect is 

about 3 dB. On average, a person perceives a change in sound level of about 10 dB as a doubling (or 

halving) of the sound’s loudness, and this relation holds true for loud and quiet sounds. A decrease in 

sound level of 10 dB actually represents a 90 percent decrease in sound intensity but only a 50 percent 

decrease in perceived loudness because of the nonlinear response of the human ear (similar to most 

human senses). 

Sound frequency is measured in terms of cycles per second (cps), or hertz (Hz), which is the standard 

unit for cps. The normal human ear can detect sounds that range in frequency from about 20 Hz to 

about 15,000 Hz. All sounds in this wide range of frequencies, however, are not heard equally by the 

human ear, which is most sensitive to frequencies in the 1,000 to 4,000 Hz range. Weighting curves 

have been developed to correspond to the sensitivity and perception of different types of sound. 

A-weighting and C-weighting are the two most common weightings. A-weighting accounts for 

frequency dependence by adjusting the very high and very low frequencies (below approximately 500 

Hz and above approximately 10,000 Hz) to approximate the human ear’s lower sensitivities to those 

frequencies. C-weighting is nearly flat throughout the range of audible frequencies, hardly 

de-emphasizing the low frequency sound while approximating the human ear’s sensitivity to higher 

intensity sounds. The two curves shown in Figure C-1 are also the most adequate to quantify 

environmental noises. 

31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000

Frequency (Hertz)

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

Relative Le

vel (de

cibel)

A-weighted

C-weighted

Source: ANSI S1.4A -1985 “Specification of Sound Level Meters”

Figure C-1. Frequency Response Characteristics of A- and C-Weighting Networks
Appendix C-2 C2-3 

C.1.1 A-weighted Sound Level 

Sound levels that are measured using A-weighting, called A-weighted sound levels, are often denoted 

by the unit dBA or dB(A) rather than dB. When the use of A-weighting is understood, the adjective 

“A-weighted” is often omitted and the measurements are expressed as dB. In this report (as in most 

environmental impact documents), dB units refer to A-weighted sound levels. 

Noise potentially becomes an issue when its intensity exceeds the ambient or background sound 

pressures. Ambient background noise in metropolitan, urbanized areas typically varies from 60 to 70 

dB and can be as high as 80 dB or greater; quiet suburban neighborhoods experience ambient noise 

levels of approximately 45 to 50 dB (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 1978). 

Figure C-2 is a chart of A-weighted sound levels from typical sounds. Some noise sources (air 

conditioner, vacuum cleaner) are continuous sounds which levels are constant for some time. Some 

(automobile, heavy truck) are the maximum sound during a vehicle pass-by. Some (urban daytime, 

urban nighttime) are averages over extended periods. A variety of noise metrics have been developed 

to describe noise over different time periods, as discussed below. 

Aircraft noise consists of two major types of sound events: aircraft takeoffs and landings, and engine 

maintenance operations. The former can be described as intermittent sounds and the latter as 

continuous. Noise levels from flight operations exceeding background noise typically occur beneath 

main approach and departure corridors, in local air traffic patterns around the airfield, and in areas 

immediately adjacent to parking ramps and aircraft staging areas. As aircraft in flight gain altitude, 

their noise contribution drops to lower levels, often becoming indistinguishable from the background. 

C.1.2 C-weighted Sound Level 

Sound levels measured using a C-weighting are most appropriately called C-weighted sound levels 

(and denoted dBC). C-weighting is nearly flat throughout the audible frequency range, hardly 

de-emphasizing the low frequency. This weighting scale is generally used to describe impulsive 

sounds. Sounds that are characterized as impulsive generally contain low frequencies. Impulsive 

sounds may induce secondary effects, such as shaking of a structure, rattling of windows, inducing 

vibrations. These secondary effects can cause additional annoyance and complaints. 

The following definitions in the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) Report S12.9, Part 4 

provide general concepts helpful in understanding impulsive sounds (ANSI 1996). 

Impulsive Sound: Sound characterized by brief excursions of sound pressure (acoustic impulses) that 

significantly exceeds the ambient environmental sound pressure. The duration of a single impulsive 

sound is usually less than one second (ANSI 1996). 

Highly Impulsive Sound: Sound from one of the following enumerated categories of sound sources: 

small-arms gunfire, metal hammering, wood hammering, drop hammering, pile driving, drop 

forging, pneumatic hammering, pavement breaking, metal impacts during rail-yard shunting 

operation, and riveting. 
Appendix C-2 C2-4 

 SOURCE: Handbook of Noise Control, C.M. Harris, Editor McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1979, and FICAN 1997 

Figure C-2. Typical A-weighted Sound Levels of Common Sounds 

High-energy Impulsive Sound: Sound from one of the following enumerated categories of sound 

sources: quarry and mining explosions, sonic booms, demolition and industrial processes that use 

high explosives, military ordnance (e.g., armor, artillery and mortar fire, and bombs), explosive 

ignition of rockets and missiles, explosive industrial circuit breakers, and any other explosive source 

where the equivalent mass of dynamite exceeds 25 grams. 
Appendix C-2 C2-5 

C.2 Noise Metrics 

In general, a metric is a statistic for measuring or quantifying. A noise metric quantifies the noise 

environment. There are three families of noise metrics described herein – one for single noise events 

such as an aircraft flyby, one for cumulative noise events such as a day’s worth of aircraft activity and 

one which quantifies the events or time relative to single noise events. 

Within the single noise event family, metrics described below include Peak Sound Pressure Level, 

Maximum Sound Level and Sound Exposure Level. Within the cumulative noise events family, 

metrics described below include Equivalent Sound Level, Day-Night Average Sound Level and 

several others. Within the events/time family, metrics described below include Number of Events 

Above a Threshold Level and Time Above a Specified Level. 

C.2.1 Maximum Sound Level (Lmax) 

The highest A-weighted integrated sound level measured during a single event in which the sound 

level changes value with time (e.g., an aircraft overflight) is called the maximum A-weighted sound 

level or Maximum Sound Level. 

During an aircraft overflight, the noise level starts at the ambient or background noise level, rises to 

the maximum level as the aircraft flies closest to the observer, and returns to the background level as 

the aircraft recedes into the distance. The Lmax indicates the maximum sound level occurring for a 

fraction of a second. For aircraft noise, the “fraction of a second” over which the maximum level is 

defined is generally one-eighth of a second, and is denoted as “fast” response (ANSI 1988). Slowly 

varying or steady sounds are generally measured over a period of one second, denoted “slow” 

response. The Lmax is important in judging the interference caused by a noise event with 

conversation, TV or radio listening, sleep, or other common activities. Although it provides some 

measure of the intrusiveness of the event, it does not completely describe the total event, because it 

does not include the period of time that the sound is heard. 

C.2.2 Peak Sound Pressure Level (Lpk) 

The Peak Sound Pressure Level, is the highest instantaneous level obtained by a sound level 

measurement device. The Lpk is typically measured using a 20 microseconds or faster sampling rate, 

and is typically based on unweighted or linear response of the meter. 

C.2.3 Sound Exposure Level (SEL) 

Sound Exposure Level is a composite metric that represents both the intensity of a sound and its 

duration. Individual time-varying noise events (e.g., aircraft overflights) have two main 

characteristics: a sound level that changes throughout the event and a period of time during which the 

event is heard. SEL provides a measure of the net impact of the entire acoustic event, but it does not 

directly represent the sound level heard at any given time. During an aircraft flyover, SEL would 

include both the Lmax and the lower noise levels produced during onset and recess periods of the 

overflight. 
Appendix C-2 C2-6 

SEL is a logarithmic measure of the total acoustic energy transmitted to the listener during the event. 

Mathematically, it represents the sound level of a constant sound that would, in one second, generate 

the same acoustic energy as the actual time-varying noise event. For sound from aircraft overflights, 

which typically lasts more than one second, the SEL is usually greater than the Lmax because an 

individual overflight takes seconds and the Lmax occurs instantaneously. SEL represents the best 

metric to compare noise levels from overflights. 

C.2.4 Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) 

A cumulative noise metric useful in describing noise is the Equivalent Sound Level. Leq is the 

continuous sound level that would be present if all of the variations in sound level occurring over a 

specified time period were smoothed out as to contain the samed total sound energy. 

Just as SEL has proven to be a good measure of the noise impact of a single event, Leq has been 

established to be a good measure of the impact of a series of events during a given time period. Also, 

while Leq is defined as an average, it is effectively a sum over that time period and is, thus, a measure 

of the cumulative impact of noise. For example, the sum of all noise-generating events during the 

period of 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. could provide the relative impact of noise generating events for a school 

day. 

C.2.5 Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldn) and Community Noise Equivalent 

Level (CNEL) 

Day-Night Average Sound Level and Community Noise Equivalent Level are composite metrics that 

account for all noise events in a 24-hour period. In order to account for increased human sensitivity to 

noise at night, a 10 dB penalty is applied to nighttime events (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. time period). A 

variant of the DNL, the CNEL includes a 5 dB penalty on noise during the 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. time 

period, and a 10 dB penalty on noise during the 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. time period. The notations 

DNL and Ldn are both used for Day-Night Average Sound Level and are equivalent. 

Like Leq, DNL and CNEL without their penalties are average quantities, mathematically representing 

the continuous A-weighted or C-weighted sound level that would be present if all of the variations in 

sound level that occur over a 24-hour period were smoothed out so as to contain the same total sound 

energy. These composite single-measure time-average metrics account for the SELs, Lmax, the 

duration of the events (sorties or operations), and the number of events that occur over a 24-hour 

period but do not provide specific informatation on the number of noise events or the individual 

sound levels that occur during the 24-hour day. Like SEL, neither DNL nor CNEL represent the 

sound level heard at any particular time, but quantifies the total sound energy received. While it is 

normalized as an average, it represents all of the sound energy, and is therefore a cumulative 

measure. 

The nighttime penalties in both DNL and CNEL account for the added intrusiveness of sounds that 

occur during normal sleeping hours, both because of the increased sensitivity to noise during those 

hours and because ambient sound levels during nighttime are typically about 10 dB lower than 

during daytime hours. The evening penalty in CNEL accounts for the added intrusiveness of sounds 

during that period. 
Appendix C-2 C2-7 

The inclusion of daytime, evening and nighttime periods in the computation of the DNL and CNEL 

reflects their basic 24-hour definition. They can, however, be applied over periods of multiple days. 

For application to civil airports, where operations are consistent from day to day, DNL and CNEL are 

usually applied as an annual average. 

The logarithmic nature of the decibel unit causes the noise levels of the loudest events to control the 

24-hour average. A DNL of 65 dB could result from a very few noisy events or a large number of 

quieter events. 

As a simple example of this characteristic, consider a case in which only one aircraft overflight occurs 

during the daytime over a 24-hour period, creating a sound level of 100 dB for 30 seconds. During the 

remaining 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 30 seconds of the day, the ambient sound level is 50 dB. The 

DNL for this 24-hour period is 65.9 dB. Assume, as a second example, that 10 such 30-second 

overflights occur during daytime hours during the next 24-hour period, with the same ambient sound 

level of 50 dB during the remaining 23 hours and 55 minutes of the day. The DNL for this 24-hour 

period is 75.5 dB. Clearly, the averaging of noise over a 24-hour period does not ignore the louder 

single events and tends to emphasize both the sound levels and number of those events. 

Daily average sound levels are typically used for the evaluation of community noise effects (i.e., longterm annoyance), and particularly aircraft noise effects. In general, scientific studies and social 

surveys have found a high correlation between the percentages of groups of people highly annoyed 

and the level of average noise exposure measured in DNL (EPA 1978 and Schultz 1978). 

C.2.6 Onset-Rate Adjusted Monthly Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldnmr) and OnsetRate Adjusted Monthly Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNELmr) 

Military aircraft utilizing Special Use Airspace (SUA) such as Military Training Routes (MTRs), 

Military Operating Areas (MOAs) and Restricted Areas/Ranges generate a noise environment that is 

somewhat different from that associated with airfield operations. As opposed to patterned or 

continuous noise environments associated with airfields, flight activity in SUAs is highly sporadic, 

and often seasonal ranging from ten per hour to less than one per week. Individual military overflight 

events also differ from typical community noise events in that noise from a low-altitude, highairspeed flyover can have a rather sudden onset, exhibiting a rate of increase in sound level (onset 

rate) of up to 150 dB per second. 

To represent these differences, the conventional SEL metric is adjusted to account for the “surprise” 

effect of the sudden onset of aircraft noise events on humans with an adjustment ranging up to 11 dB 

above the normal SEL (Stusnick, et al. 1992). Onset rates between 15 to 150 dB per second require an 

adjustment of 0 to 11 dB, while onset rates below 15 dB per second require no adjustment. The 

adjusted SEL is designated as the onset-rate adjusted sound exposure level (SELr). 

Because of the sporadic characteristic of SUA activity and so as not to dilute the resultant noise 

exposure, the month with the most operations or sorties from a yearly tabulation for the given SUA is 

examined -- the so-called busiest month. The cumulative exposure to noise in these areas is computed 

by DNL over the busy month, but using SELr instead of SEL. This monthly average is denoted Ldnmr. 

If onset rate adjusted DNL is computed over a period other than a month, it would be designated Ldnr

and the period must be specified. In the state of California, a variant of the Ldnmr includes a penalty 

for evening operations (7 p.m. to 10 p.m) and is denoted CNELmr. 
Appendix C-2 C2-8 

C.2.7 Number-of-Events Above (NA) a Threshold Level (L) 

The Number-of-events Above metric (NA) provides the total number of noise events that exceed the 

selected noise level threshold during a specified period of time. Combined with the selected 

threshold level (L), the NA metric is symbolized as NAL. The threshold L can be defined in terms of 

either the SEL or Lmax metric, and it is important that this selection is reflected in the nomenclature. 

When labeling a contour line or point of interest (POI) on a map the NAL will be followed by the 

number of events in parentheses for that line or POI. For example, the noise environment at a location 

where 10 events exceed an SEL of 90 dB, over a given period of time, would be represented by the 

nomenclature NA90SEL(10). Similarly, for Lmax it would be NA90Lmax(10). The period of time can be 

an average 24-hour day, daytime, nighttime, school day, or any other time period appropriate to the 

nature and application of the analysis. 

NA can be portrayed for single or multiple locations, or by means of noise contours on a map similar 

to the common DNL contours. A threshold level is selected that best meets the need for that situation. 

An Lmax threshold is normally selected to analyze speech interference, whereas an SEL threshold is 

normally selected for analysis of sleep disturbance. 

The NA metric is the only supplemental metric that has been developed that combines single-event 

noise levels with the number of aircraft operations. In essence, it answers the question of how many 

aircraft (or range of aircraft) fly over a given location or area at or above a selected threshold noise 

level. 

C.2.8 Time Above (TA) a Specified Level (L) 

The Time Above (TA) metric is a measure of the total time that the A-weighted aircraft noise level is at 

or above a defined sound level threshold. Combined with the selected threshold level (L), the TA 

metric is symbolized as TAL. TA is not a sound level, but rather a time expressed in minutes. TA 

values can be calculated over a full 24-hour annual average day, the 15-hour daytime and 9-hour 

nighttime periods, a school day, or any other time period of interest, provided there is operational 

data to define the time period of interest. 

TA has application for describing the noise environment in schools, particularly when comparing the 

classroom or other noise sensitive environments for different operational scenarios. TA can be 

portrayed by means of noise contours on a map similar to the common DNL contours. 

The TA metric is a useful descriptor of the noise impact of an individual event or for many events 

occurring over a certain time period. When computed for a full day, the TA can be compared 

alongside the DNL in order to determine the sound levels and total duration of events that contribute 

to the DNL. TA analysis is usually conducted along with NA analysis so the results show not only 

how many events occur above the selected threshold(s), but also the total duration of those events 

above those levels for the selected time period. 
Appendix C-2 C2-9 

C.3 Noise Effects 

This noise effects section includes discussions of annoyance, speech interference and sleep 

disturbance, and the effects of noise on hearing, health, performance, learning, animals, property 

values, terrain and archaeological sites. 

C.3.1 Annoyance 

The primary effect of aircraft noise on exposed communities is one of long-term annoyance, defined 

by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as any negative subjective reaction on the part of an 

individual or group. The scientific community has adopted the use of long-term annoyance as a 

primary indicator of community response because it attempts to account for all negative aspects of 

effects from noise, e.g., increased annoyance due to being awakened the previous night by aircraft and 

interference with everyday conversation. 

Numerous laboratory studies and field surveys have been conducted to measure annoyance and to 

account for a number of variables, many of which are dependent on a person’s individual 

circumstances and preferences. Laboratory studies of individual response to noise have helped isolate 

a number of the factors contributing to annoyance, such as the intensity level and spectral 

characteristics of the noise, duration, the presence of impulses, pitch, information content, and the 

degree of interference with activity. Social surveys of community response to noise have allowed the 

development of general dose-response relationships that can be used to estimate the proportion of 

people who will be highly annoyed by a given noise level. The results of these studies have formed 

the basis for criteria established to define areas of compatible land use. 

A wide variety of responses have been used to determine intrusiveness of noise and disturbances of 

speech, sleep, audio/video entertainment, and outdoor living; but the most useful metric for assessing 

peoples’ responses to noise is the percentage of the population expected to be “highly annoyed.” The 

concept of “percent highly annoyed” has provided the most consistent response of a community to a 

particular noise environment. In his synthesis of several different social surveys that employed 

different response scales, Schultz (1978) defined “highly annoyed” respondents as those respondents 

whose self-described annoyance fell within the upper 28 percent of the response scale where the scale 

was numerical or un-named. For surveys where the response scale was named, Schultz counted those 

who claimed to be highly annoyed, combining the responses of “very annoyed” and “extremely 

annoyed.” Schultz’s definition of “percent highly annoyed” (%HA) became the basis for the Federal 

policy on environmental noise. Daily average sound levels are typically used for the evaluation of 

community noise effects, such as long-term annoyance. 

In general, scientific studies and social surveys have found a correlation between the percentages of 

groups of people highly annoyed and the level of average noise exposure. Thus, the results are 

expressed as the average %HA at various exposure levels measured in DNL. The classic analysis is 

Schultz's original 1978 study, whose results are shown in Figure C-3. This figure is commonly referred 

to as the Schultz curve. It represents the synthesis of a large number of social surveys (161 data points 

in all), that relates the long-term community response to various types of noise sources, measured 

using the DNL metric. 
Appendix C-2 C2-10 

Figure C-3. Community Surveys of Noise Annoyance 

An updated study of the original Schultz data based on the analysis of 400 data points collected 

through 1989 essentially reaffirmed this relationship. Figure C-4 shows an updated form of the curve 

fit in comparison with the original Schultz curve (Finegold 1994). The updated fit, which does not 

differ substantially from the original, is the preferred form in the U.S. The relationship between %HA 

and DNL is: 

%HA = 100/[1+ exp(11.13 – 0.141Ldn)] 
Appendix C-2 C2-11 

Schultz (1978) 

Finegold, et al. 

SOURCE:(Schultz 1978) andCurrent (Finegold, et al. 1994) Curve Fits 

Figure C-4. Response of Communities to Noise; Comparison of Original 

In general, correlation coefficients of 0.85 to 0.95 are found between the percentages of groups of 

people highly annoyed and the level of average noise exposure. However, the correlation coefficients 

for the annoyance of individuals are relatively low, on the order of 0.5 or less. This is not surprising, 

considering the varying personal factors that influence the manner in which individuals react to noise. 

A number of non-acoustic factors have been identified that may influence the annoyance response of 

an individual. Newman and Beattie (1985) divided these factors into emotional and physical variables. 

Emotional Variables: 

•Feelings about the necessity or preventability of the noise; 

•Judgment of the importance and value of the activity that is producing the noise; 

•Activity at the time an individual hears the noise; 

•Attitude about the environment; 

•General sensitivity to noise; 

•Belief about the effect of noise on health; and 

•Feeling of fear associated with the noise. 
Appendix C-2 C2-12 

Physical Variables: 

•Type of neighborhood; 

•Time of day; 

•Season; 

•Predictability of noise; 

•Control over the noise source; and 

•Length of time an individual is exposed to a noise. 

The low correlation coefficients for individuals’ reactions reflect the large amount of scatter among the 

data drawn from the various surveys and point to the substantial uncertainty associated with the 

equation representing the relationship between %HA and DNL. Based on the results of surveys it has 

been observed that noise exposure can explain less than 50 percent of the observed variance in 

annoyance, indicating that non-acoustical factors play a major role. As a result, it is not possible to 

accurately predict individual annoyance in any specific community based on the aircraft noise 

exposure. Nevertheless, changes in %HA can be useful in giving the decision maker more information 

about the relative effects that different alternatives may have on the community. 

The original Schultz curve and the subsequent updates do not separate out the annoyance from 

aircraft noise and other transportation noise sources. This was an important element, in that it allowed 

Schultz to obtain some consensus among the various social surveys from the 1960s and 1970s that 

were synthesized in the analysis. In essence, the Schultz curve assumes that the effects of long-term 

annoyance on the general population are the same, regardless of whether the noise source is road, rail, 

or aircraft. In the years after the classical Schultz analysis, additional social surveys have been 

conducted to better understand the annoyance effects of various transportation sources. 

Miedema & Vos (1998) present synthesis curves for the relationship between DNL and percentage 

“Annoyed” and percentage “Highly Annoyed” for three transportation noise sources. Separate, nonidentical curves were found for aircraft, road traffic, and railway noise. Table C-1 illustrates that, for a 

DNL of 65 dB, the percent of the people forecasted to be Highly Annoyed is 28 percent for air traffic, 

18 percent for road traffic, and 11 percent for railroad traffic. For an outdoor DNL of 55 dB, the 

percent highly annoyed would be close to 12 percent if the noise is generated by aircraft operations, 

but only 7 percent and 4 percent, respectively, if the noise is generated by road or rail traffic. 

Comparing the levels on the Miedema & Vos curve to those on the updated Schultz curve indicates 

that the percentage of people highly annoyed by aircraft noise may be higher than previously thought 

when the noise is solely generated by aircraft activity.
Appendix C-2 C2-13 

Table C-1. Percent Highly Annoyed for Different Transportation Noise Sources 

Air Road Rail

55 12 7 4 3

60 19 12 7 6

65 28 18 11 12

70 37 29 16 22

75 48 40 22 36

Schultz 

Combined

Miedema and Vos

Percent Hightly Annoyed (%HA) DNL        

(dB)

 Source: Miedema & Vos 1998 

As noted by the World Health Organization (WHO), even though aircraft noise seems to produce a 

stronger annoyance response than road traffic, caution should be exercised when interpreting 

synthesized data from different studies (WHO 2000). The WHO noted that five major parameters 

should be randomly distributed for the analyses to be valid: personal, demographic, and lifestyle 

factors, as well as the duration of noise exposure and the population experience with noise. 

The FICON found that the updated Schultz curve remains the best available source of empirical 

dosage effect information to predict community response to transportation noise without any 

segregation by transportation source (FICON 1992); a position held by the FICAN in 1997 (FICAN 

1997). However, FICON also recommended further research to investigate the differences in 

perceptions of aircraft noise, ground transportation noise (highways and railroads), and general 

background noise. 

C.3.2 Speech Interference 

Speech interference associated with aircraft noise is a primary cause of annoyance for communities. 

The disruption of routine activities such as radio or television listening, telephone use, or family 

conversation gives rise to frustration and irritation. The quality of speech communication is 

particularly important in classrooms and offices. In industrial settings it can cause fatigue and vocal 

strain in those who attempt to communicate over the noise. 

The disruption of speech in the classroom is a primary concern, due to the potential for adverse effects 

on children’s learning ability. There are two aspects to speech comprehension: 

1. Word Intelligibility - the percent of words transmitted and received. This might be important for 

students in the lower grades who are learning the English language, and particularly for 

students who have English as a Second Language. 

2. Sentence Intelligibility – the percent of sentences transmitted and understood. This might be 

important for high-school students and adults who are familiar with the language, and who 

do not necessarily have to understand each word in order to understand sentences. 

For teachers to be clearly understood by their students, it is important that regular voice 

communication is clear and uninterrupted. Not only does the background sound level have to be low 

enough for the teacher to be clearly heard, but intermittent outdoor noise events also need to be 

minimized. It is therefore important to evaluate the steady background level, the level of voice 

communication, and the single-event level due to aircraft overflights that might interfere with speech. 
Appendix C-2 C2-14 

Several research studies have been conducted and guideline documents been developed resulting in a 

fairly consistent set of noise level criteria for speech interference. This section provides an overview of 

the results of these studies. 

U.S. Federal Criteria for Interior Noise 

In 1974, the EPA identified a goal of an indoor 24-hour average sound level Leq(24) of 45 dB to 

minimize speech interference based on the intelligibility of sentences in the presence of a steady 

background noise (EPA 1974). Intelligibility pertains to the percentage of speech units correctly 

understood out of those transmitted, and specifies the type of speech material used, i.e. sentences or 

words . The curve displayed in Figure C-5 shows the effect of steady indoor background sound levels 

on sentence intelligibility. For an average adult with normal hearing and fluency in the language, 

steady background sound levels indoors of less than 45 dB Leq are expected to allow 100 percent 

intelligibility of sentences. 

 

 

 Source: EPA 1974 

Figure C-5. Speech Intelligibility Curve 
Appendix C-2 C2-15 

The curve shows 99 percent sentence intelligibility for background levels at a Leq of 54 dB, and less 

than 10 percent intelligibility for background levels above a Leq of 73 dB. Note that the curve is 

especially sensitive to changes in sound level between 65 dB and 75 dB - an increase of 1 dB in 

background sound level from 70 dB to 71 dB results in a 14 percent decrease in sentence intelligibility, 

whereas a 1 dB increase in background sound level from 60 dB to 61 dB results in less than 1 percent 

decrease in sentence intelligibility. 

Classroom Criteria 

For listeners with normal hearing and fluency in the language, complete sentence intelligibility can be 

achieved when the signal-to-noise ratio (i.e., the difference between the speech level and the level of 

the interfering noise) is in the range 15-18 dB (Lazarus 1990). 

Both the ANSI and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHLA) recommend at 

least a 15 dB signal-to-noise ratio in classrooms, to ensure that children with hearing impairments and 

language disabilities are able to enjoy high speech intelligibility (ANSI 2002; ASHLA 1995). As such, 

provided that the average adult male or female voice registers a minimum of 50 dB Lmax in the rear of 

the classroom, the ANSI standard requires that the continuous background noise level indoors must 

not exceed a Leq of 35 dB (assumed to apply for the duration of school hours). 

The WHO reported for a speaker-to-listener distance of about 1 meter, empirical observations have 

shown that speech in relaxed conversations is 100 percent intelligible in background noise levels of 

about 35 dB, and speech can be fairly well understood in the presence of background levels of 45 dB. 

The WHO recommends a guideline value of 35 dB Leq for continuous background levels in classrooms 

during school hours (WHO 2000). 

Bradley suggests that in smaller rooms, where speech levels in the rear of the classroom are 

approximately 50 dB Lmax, steady-state noise levels above 35 dB Leq may interfere with the 

intelligibility of speech (Bradley 1993). 

For the purposes of determining eligibility for noise insulation funding, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) guidelines state that the design objective for a classroom environment is 45 dB 

Leq resulting from aircraft operations during normal school hours (FAA 1985). 

However, most aircraft noise is not continuous and consists of individual events where the sound 

level exceeds the background level for a limited time period as the aircraft flies over. Since speech 

interference in the presence of aircraft noise is essentially determined by the magnitude and frequency 

of individual aircraft flyover events, a time-averaged metric alone, such as Leq, is not necessarily 

appropriate when evaluating the overall effects. In addition to the background level criteria described 

above, single-event criteria, which account for those sporadic intermittent outdoor noisy events, are 

also essential to specifying speech interference criteria. 

In 1984, a report to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey recommended utilizing the 

Speech Interference Level (SIL) metric for classroom noise criteria (Sharp and Plotkin 1984). This 

metric is based on the maximum sound levels in the frequency range (approximately 500 Hz to 2,000 

Hz) that directly affects speech communication. The study identified an SIL (the average of the sound 

levels in the 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz octave-bands) of 45 dB as the desirable goal, which was estimated 

to provide 90 percent word intelligibility for the short time periods during aircraft over-flights. 

Although early classroom level criteria were defined in terms of SIL, the use and measurement of Lmax

as the primary metric has since become more popular. Both metrics take into consideration the Lmax

associated with intermittent noise events and can be related to existing background levels when 
Appendix C-2 C2-16 

determining speech interference percentages. An SIL of 45 dB is approximately equivalent to an Aweighted Lmax of 50 dB for aircraft noise (Wesler 1986). 

In 1998, a report also concluded that if an aircraft noise event’s indoor Lmax reached the speech level 

of 50 dB, 90 percent of the words would be understood by students seated throughout the classroom 

(Lind, Pearsons, and Fidell 1998). Since intermittent aircraft noise does not appreciably disrupt 

classroom communication at lower levels and other times, the authors also adopted an indoor Lmax of 

50 dB as the maximum single-event level permissible in classrooms. Note that this limit was set based 

on students with normal hearing and no special needs; at-risk students may be adversely affected at 

lower sound levels. 

Bradley recommends SEL as a better indicator of indoor estimated speech interference in the presence 

of aircraft overflights (Bradley 1985). For acceptable speech communication using normal vocal 

efforts, Bradley suggests that the indoor SEL be no greater than 64 dB. He assumes a 26 dB outdoorto-indoor noise reduction that equates to 90 dB SEL outdoors. Aircraft events producing outdoor SEL 

values greater than 90 dB would result in disruption to indoor speech communication. Bradley’s work 

indicates that, for speakers talking with a casual vocal effort, 95 percent intelligibility would be 

achieved when indoor SEL values did not exceed 60 dB, which translates approximately to an Lmax of 

50 dB. 

In the presence of intermittent noise events, ANSI states that the criteria for allowable background 

noise level can be relaxed since speech is impaired only for the short time when the aircraft noise is 

close to its maximum value. Consequently, they recommend when the background noise level of the 

noisiest hour is dominated by aircraft noise, the indoor criteria (35 dB Leq for continuous background 

noise) can be increased by 5 dB to an Leq of 40 dB, as long as the noise level does not exceed 40 dB for 

more than 10 percent of the noisiest hour. (ANSI 2002). 

The WHO does not recommend a specific indoor Lmax criterion for single-event noise, but does place 

a guideline value at Leq of 35 dB for overall background noise in the classroom. However, WHO does 

report that “for communication distances beyond a few meters, speech interference starts at sound 

pressure levels below 50 dB for octave bands centered on the main speech frequencies at 500 Hz, 

1kHz, and 2 kHz.” (WHO 2000). One can infer this can be approximated by an Lmax value of 50 dB. 

The United Kingdom Department for Education and Skills (UKDFES) established in its classroom 

acoustics guide a 30-minute time-averaged metric [Leq(30min)] for background levels and LA1,30 min for 

intermittent noises, at thresholds of 30-35 dB and 55 dB, respectively. LA1,30 min represents the Aweighted sound level that is exceeded one percent of the time (in this case, during a 30 minute 

teaching session) and is generally equivalent to the Lmax metric (UKDFES 2003). 

Summary 

As the previous section demonstrates, research indicates that it is not only important to consider the 

continuous background levels using time-averaged metrics, but also the intermittent events, using 

single-event metrics such as Lmax. Table C-2 provides a summary of the noise level criteria 

recommended in the scientific literature. 
Appendix C-2 C2-17 

Table C-2. Indoor Noise Level Criteria Based on Speech Intelligibility 

Source Metric/Level (dB) Effects and Notes 

U.S. FAA (1985) Leq(during school hours) = 45 dB Federal assistance criteria for school sound insulation; 

supplemental single-event criteria may be used 

Lind et al. (1998), 

Sharp and Plotkin (1984), 

Wesler (1986) 

Lmax = 50 dB / 

SIL 45 Single event level permissible in the classroom 

WHO (1999) Leq = 35 dB 

Lmax = 50 dB 

Assumes average speech level of 50 dB and recommends signal to 

noise ratio of 15 dB 

U.S. ANSI (2002) Leq = 40 dB, Based on Room Volume Acceptable background level for continuous noise/ relaxed criteria 

for intermittent noise in the classroom 

U.K. DFES (2003) Leq(30min) = 30-35 dB 

Lmax = 55 dB 

Minimum acceptable in classroom and most other learning 

environs 

When considering intermittent noise caused by aircraft overflights, a review of the relevant scientific 

literature and international guidelines indicates that an appropriate criteria is a limit on indoor 

background noise levels of 35 to 40 dB Leq and a limit on single events of 50 dB Lmax. 

C.3.3 Sleep Disturbance 

The disturbance of sleep is a major concern for communities exposed to nighttime aircraft noise. There 

have been numerous research studies that have attempted to quantify the complex effects of noise on 

sleep. This section provides an overview of the major noise-induced sleep disturbance studies that 

have been conducted, with particular emphasis placed on those studies that have influenced U.S. 

federal noise policy. The studies have been separated into two groups: 

1. Initial studies performed in the 1960s and 1970s, where the research was focused on laboratory 

sleep observations. 

2. Later studies performed in the 1990s up to the present, where the research was focused on field 

observations, and correlations to laboratory research were sought. 

Initial Studies 

The relationship between noise levels and sleep disturbance is complex and not fully understood. The 

disturbance depends not only on the depth of sleep, but also on the previous exposure to aircraft 

noise, familiarity with the surroundings, the physiological and psychological condition of the 

recipient, and a host of other situational factors. The most readily measurable effect of noise on sleep 

is the number of arousals or awakenings, and so the body of scientific literature has focused on 

predicting the percentage of the population that will be awakened at various noise levels. 

Fundamentally, regardless of the tools used to measure the degree of sleep disturbance (awakenings, 

arousals, etc.), these studies have grouped the data points into bins to predict the percentage of the 

population likely to be disturbed at various sound level thresholds. 

FICON produced a guidance document that provided an overview of the most pertinent sleep 

disturbance research that had been conducted throughout the 1970s (FICON 1992). Literature reviews 

and meta-analysis conducted between 1978 and 1989 made use of the existing datasets that indicated 

the effects of nighttime noise on various sleep-state changes and awakenings (Lukas 1978; Griefahn 

1978; Peasons et. al. 1989). FICON noted that various indoor A-weighted sound levels – ranging from 
Appendix C-2 C2-18 

25 to 50 dB were observed to be thresholds below which significant sleep effects were not expected. 

Due to the large variability in the data, FICON did not endorse the reliability of the results. 

However, FICON did recommend the use of an interim dose-response curve—awaiting future 

research—which predicted the percent of the exposed population expected to be awakened as a 

function of the exposure to single event noise levels expressed in terms of SEL. This curve was based 

on the research conducted for the U.S. Air Force (Finegold 1994). The dataset included most of the 

research performed up to that point, and predicted that ten percent of the population would be 

awakened when exposed to an interior SEL of approximately 58 dB. The data utilized to derive this 

relationship were primarily the results of controlled laboratory studies. 

Recent Sleep Disturbance Research – Field and Laboratory Studies 

It was noted in the early sleep disturbance research that the controlled laboratory studies did not 

account for many factors that are important to sleep behavior, such as habituation to the environment 

and previous exposure to noise and awakenings from sources other than aircraft noise. In the early 

1990s, field studies were conducted to validate the earlier laboratory work. The most significant 

finding from these studies was that an estimated 80 to 90 percent of sleep disturbances were not 

related to individual outdoor noise events, but were instead the result of indoor noise sources and 

other non-noise-related factors . The results showed that there was less of an effect of noise on sleep in 

real-life conditions than had been previously reported from laboratory studies . 

FICAN 

The interim FICON dose-response curve that was recommended for use in 1992 was based on the 

most pertinent sleep disturbance research that was conducted through the 1970s, primarily in 

laboratory settings. After that time, considerable field research was conducted to evaluate the sleep 

effects in peoples’ normal, home environment. Laboratory sleep studies tend to show higher values of 

sleep disturbance than field studies because people who sleep in their own homes are habituated to 

their environment and, therefore, do not wake up as easily (FICAN 1997). 

Based on the new information, FICAN updated its recommended dose-response curve in 1997, 

depicted as the lower curve in Figure C-6. This figure is based on the results of three field studies 

(Ollerhead 1992; Fidell et. al. 1994; Fidell et al. 1995a and 1995b), along with the datasets from six 

previous field studies. 

The new relationship represents the higher end, or upper envelope, of the latest field data. It should 

be interpreted as predicting the “maximum percent of the exposed population expected to be 

behaviorally awakened” or the “maximum percent awakened” for a given residential population. 

According to this relationship, a maximum of 3 percent of people would be awakened at an indoor 

SEL of 58 dB, compared to 10 percent using the 1992 curve. An indoor SEL of 58 dB is equivalent to 

outdoor SEL’s of 73 and 83 dB respectively assuming 15 and 25 dB noise level reduction from outdoor 

to indoor with windows open and closed, respectively. 

 
Appendix C-2 C2-19 

Figure C-6. FICAN’s 1997 Recommended Sleep Disturbance Dose-Response Relationship 

The FICAN 1997 curve is represented by the following equation: 

Percent Awakenings = 0.0087 x [SEL – 30]1.79

Note the relatively low percentage of awakenings to fairly high noise levels. People think they are 

awakened by a noise event, but usually the reason for awakening is otherwise. For example, the 1992 

UK CAA study found the average person was awakened about 18 times per night for reasons other 

than exposure to an aircraft noise – some of these awakenings are due to the biological rhythms of 

sleep and some to other reasons that were not correlated with specific aircraft events. 

Number of Events and Awakenings 

In recent years, there have been studies and one proposal that attempted to determine the effect of 

multiple aircraft events on the number of awakenings. The German Aerospace Center (DLR) 

conducted an extensive study focused on the effects of nighttime aircraft noise on sleep and other 

related human performance factors (Basner 2004). The DLR study was one of the largest studies to 

examine the link between aircraft noise and sleep disturbance and involved both laboratory and inhome field research phases. The DLR investigators developed a dose-effect curve that predicts the 

number of aircraft events at various values of Lmax expected to produce one additional awakening 

over the course of a night. The dose-effect curve was based on the relationships found in the field 

studies. 

In July 2008 ANSI and the Acoustical Society of America (ASA) published a method to estimate the 

percent of the exposed population that might be awakened by multiple aircraft noise events based on 

statistical assumptions about the probability of awakening (or not awakening) (ANSI 2008). This 

method relies on probability theory rather than direct field research/experimental data to account for 

multiple events. 
Appendix C-2 C2-20 

Figure C-7 depicts the awakenings data that form the basis and equations of ANSI S12.9-2008. The 

curve labeled ‘Eq. (B1)’ is the relationship between noise and awakening endorsed by FICAN in 1997. 

The ANSI recommended curve labeled ‘Eq. (1)’ quantifies the probability of awakening for a 

population of sleepers who are exposed to an outdoor noise event as a function of the associated 

indoor SEL in the bedroom. This curve was derived from studies of behavioral awakenings associated 

with noise events in “steady state” situations where the population has been exposed to the noise long 

enough to be habituated. The data points in Figure C-7 come from these studies. Unlike the FICAN 

curve, the ANSI 2008 curve represents the average of the field research data points. 

 Source: ANSI 2008 

Figure C-7. Plot of Sleep Awakening Data versus Indoor SEL 

In December 2008, FICAN recommended the use of this new estimation procedure for future analyses 

of behavioral awakenings from aircraft noise. In that statement, FICAN also recognized that 

additional sleep disturbance research is underway by various research organizations, and results of 

that work may result in additional changes to FICAN’s position. Until that time, FICAN recommends 

the use of ANSI S12.9-2008. 

C.3.4 Noise-Induced Hearing Impairment 

Residents in surrounding communities express concerns regarding the effects of aircraft noise on 

hearing. This section provides a brief overview of hearing loss caused by noise exposure. The goal is 

to provide a sense of perspective as to how aircraft noise (as experienced on the ground) compares to 

other activities that are often linked with hearing loss. 
Appendix C-2 C2-21 

Hearing Threshold Shifts 

Hearing loss is generally interpreted as a decrease in the ear’s sensitivity or acuity to perceive sound; 

i.e. a shift in the hearing threshold to a higher level. This change can either be a Temporary Threshold 

Shift (TTS), or a Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) (Berger 1995) . 

TTS can result from exposure to loud noise over a given amount of time, yet the hearing loss is not 

necessarily permanent. An example of TTS might be a person attending a loud music concert. After 

the concert is over, the person may experience a threshold shift that may last several hours, 

depending upon the level and duration of exposure. While experiencing TTS, the person becomes less 

sensitive to low-level sounds, particularly at certain frequencies in the speech range (typically near 

4,000 Hz) . Normal hearing ability eventually returns, as long as the person has enough time to 

recover within a relatively quiet environment. 

PTS usually results from repeated exposure to high noise levels, where the ears are not given 

adequate time to recover from the strain and fatigue of exposure. A common example of PTS is the 

result of working in a loud environment such as a factory. It is important to note that a temporary 

shift (TTS) can eventually become permanent (PTS) over time with continuous exposure to high noise 

levels. Thus, even if the ear is given time to recover from TTS, repeated occurrence of TTS may 

eventually lead to permanent hearing loss. The point at which a Temporary Threshold Shift results in 

a Permanent Threshold Shift is difficult to identify and varies with a person’s sensitivity. 

Criteria for Permanent Hearing Loss 

Considerable data on hearing loss have been collected and analyzed by the scientific/medical 

community. It has been well established that continuous exposure to high noise levels will damage 

human hearing (EPA 1978). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation 

of 1971 standardizes the limits on workplace noise exposure for protection from hearing loss as an 

average level of 90 dB over an 8-hour work period or 85 dB over a 16-hour period (the average level is 

based on a 5 dB decrease per doubling of exposure time) (US Department of Labor 1970). Even the 

most protective criterion (no measurable hearing loss for the most sensitive portion of the population 

at the ear’s most sensitive frequency, 4,000 Hz, after a 40-year exposure) is an average sound level of 

70 dB over a 24-hour period. 

The US EPA established 75 dB for an 8-hour exposure and 70 dB for a 24-hour exposure as the average 

noise level standard requisite to protect 96 percent of the population from greater than a 5 dB PTS 

(EPA 1978). The National Academy of Sciences Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and 

Biomechanics identified 75 dB as the minimum level at which hearing loss may occur (CHABA 1977). 

Finally, the WHO has concluded that environmental and leisure-time noise below an Leq24 value of 70 

dB “will not cause hearing loss in the large majority of the population, even after a lifetime of 

exposure” (WHO 2000). 

Hearing Loss and Aircraft Noise 

The 1982 EPA Guidelines report specifically addresses the criteria and procedures for assessing the 

noise-induced hearing loss in terms of the Noise-Induced Permanent Threshold Shift (NIPTS), a 

quantity that defines the permanent change in hearing level, or threshold, caused by exposure to noise 

(EPA 1982). Numerically, the NIPTS is the change in threshold averaged over the frequencies 0.5, 1, 2, 

and 4 kHz that can be expected from daily exposure to noise over a normal working lifetime of 40 

years, with the exposure beginning at an age of 20 years. A grand average of the NIPTS over time (40 

years) and hearing sensitivity (10 to 90 percentiles of the exposed population) is termed the Average 
Appendix C-2 C2-22 

NIPTS, or Ave NIPTS for short. The Average Noise Induced Permanent Threshold Shift (Ave. NIPTS) 

that can be expected for noise exposure as measured by the DNL metric is given in Table C-3. 

Table C-3. Ave. NIPTS and 10th Percentile NIPTS as a Function of DNL 

For example, for a noise exposure of 80 dB DNL, the expected lifetime avereage value of NIPTS is 2.5 

dB, or 6.0 dB for the 10th percentile. Characterizing the noise exposure in terms of DNL will usually 

overestimate the assessment of hearing loss risk as DNL includes a 10 dB weighting factor for aircraft 

operations occuring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. If, however, flight operations between the hours of 

10 p.m. and 7 a.m. account for 5 percent or less of the total 24-hour operations, the overestimation is 

on the order of 1.5 dB. 

From a civilian airport perspective, the scientific community has concluded that there is little 

likelihood that the resulting noise exposure from aircraft noise could result in either a temporary or 

permanent hearing loss. Studies on community hearing loss from exposure to aircraft flyovers near 

airports showed that there is no danger, under normal circumstances, of hearing loss due to aircraft 

noise (Newman and Beattie 1985). The EPA criterion (Leq24 = 70 dBA) can be exceeded in some areas 

located near airports, but that is only the case outdoors. Inside a building, where people are more 

likely to spend most of their time, the average noise level will be much less than 70 dBA (Eldred and 

von Gierke 1993). Eldred and von Gierke also report that “several studies in the U.S., Japan, and the 

U.K. have confirmed the predictions that the possibility for permanent hearing loss in communities, 

even under the most intense commercial take-off and landing patterns, is remote.” 

With regard to military airbases, as individual aircraft noise levels are increasing with the 

introduction of new aircraft, a 2009 DoD policy directive requires that hearing loss risk be estimated 

for the at risk population, defined as the population exposed to DNL greater than or equal to 80 dB 

and higher (DoD 2009). Specifically, DoD components are directed to “use the 80 Day-Night AWeighted (DNL) noise contour to identify populations at the most risk of potential hearing loss”. This does not 

preclude populations outside the 80 DNL contour, i.e. at lower exposure levels, from being at some 

degree of risk of hearing loss. However, the analysis should be restricted to populations within this 

contour area, including residents of on-base housing. The exposure of workers inside the base 

boundary area should be considered occupational and evaluated using the appropriate DoD 

component regulations for occupational noise exposure. 

DNL Ave. NIPTS 

dB*

10th 

Percentile 

NIPTS dB*

75-76 1.0 4.0

76-77 1.0 4.5

77-78 1.6 5.0

78-79 2.0 5.5

79-80 2.5 6.0

80-81 3.0 7.0

81-82 3.5 8.0

82-83 4.0 9.0

83-84 4.5 10.0

84-85 5.5 11.0

 * Rounded to the nearest 0.5 dB
Appendix C-2 C2-23 

With regard to military airspace activity, studies have shown conflicting results. A 1995 laboratory 

study measured changes in human hearing from noise representative of low-flying aircraft on MTRs 

(Nixon, et al. 1993). The potential effects of aircraft flying along MTRs is of particular concern because 

of maximum overflight noise levels can exceed 115 dB, with rapid increases in noise levels exceeding 

30 dB per second. In this study, participants were first subjected to four overflight noise exposures at 

A-weighted levels of 115 dB to 130 dB. Fifty percent of the subjects showed no change in hearing 

levels, 25 percent had a temporary 5 dB increase in sensitivity (the people could hear a 5 dB wider 

range of sound than before exposure), and 25 percent had a temporary 5 dB decrease in sensitivity 

(the people could hear a 5 dB narrower range of sound than before exposure). In the next phase, 

participants were subjected to a single overflight at a maximum level of 130 dB for eight successive 

exposures, separated by 90 seconds or until a temporary shift in hearing was observed. The temporary 

hearing threshold shifts showed an increase in sensitivity of up to 10 dB. 

In another study of 115 test subjects between 18 and 50 years old in 1999, temporary threshold shifts 

were measured after laboratory exposure to military low-altitude flight noise (Ising, et al. 1999). 

According to the authors, the results indicate that repeated exposure to military low-altitude flight 

noise with Lmax greater than 114 dB, especially if the noise level increases rapidly, may have the 

potential to cause noise induced hearing loss in humans. 

Summary 

Aviation and typical community noise levels near airports are not comparable to the occupational or 

recreational noise exposures associated with hearing loss. Studies of aircraft noise levels associated 

with civilian airport activity have not definitively correlated permanent hearing impairment with 

aircraft activity. It is unlikely that airport neighbors will remain outside their homes 24 hours per day, 

so there is little likelihood of hearing loss below an average sound level of 75 dB DNL. Near military 

airbases, average noise levels above 75 dB may occur, and while new DoD policy dictates that NIPTS 

be evaluated, no research results to date have definitively related permanent hearing impairment to 

aviation noise.

C.3.5 Nonauditory Health Effects 

Studies have been conducted to determine whether correlations exist between noise exposure and 

cardiovascular problems, birth weight, and mortality rates. The nonauditory effect of noise on 

humans is not as easily substantiated as the effect on hearing. The results of studies conducted in the 

United States, primarily concentrating on cardiovascular response to noise, have been contradictory 

(Cantrell 1974). Cantrell concluded that the results of human and animal experiments show that 

average or intrusive noise can act as a stress-provoking stimulus. Prolonged stress is known to be a 

contributor to a number of health disorders. Kryter and Poza (1980) state, “It is more likely that 

noise-related general ill-health effects are due to the psychological annoyance from the noise 

interfering with normal everyday behavior, than it is from the noise eliciting, because of its intensity, 

reflexive response in the autonomic or other physiological systems of the body.” Psychological 

stresses may cause a physiological stress reaction that could result in impaired health. 

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and EPA commissioned CHABA in 1981 to 

study whether established noise standards are adequate to protect against health disorders other than 

hearing defects. CHABA’s conclusion was that: 

Evidence from available research reports is suggestive, but it does not provide definitive answers to 

the question of health effects, other than to the auditory system, of long-term exposure to noise. It 
Appendix C-2 C2-24 

seems prudent, therefore, in the absence of adequate knowledge as to whether or not noise can 

produce effects upon health other than damage to auditory system, either directly or mediated 

through stress, that insofar as feasible, an attempt should be made to obtain more critical evidence. 

Since the CHABA report, there have been more recent studies that suggest that noise exposure may 

cause hypertension and other stress-related effects in adults. Near an airport in Stockholm, Sweden, 

the prevalence of hypertension was reportedly greater among nearby residents who were exposed to 

energy averaged noise levels exceeding 55 dB and maximum noise levels exceeding 72 dB, 

particularly older subjects and those not reporting impaired hearing ability (Rosenlund, et al. 2001). A 

study of elderly volunteers who were exposed to simulated military low-altitude flight noise reported 

that blood pressure was raised by Lmax of 112 dB and high speed level increase (Michalak, et al. 1990). 

Yet another study of subjects exposed to varying levels of military aircraft or road noise found no 

significant relationship between noise level and blood pressure (Pulles, et al. 1990). 

 The U.S. Department of the Navy prepared a programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA) for the 

continued use of non-explosive ordnance on the Vieques Inner Range. Following the preparation of 

the EA, it was learned that research conducted by the University of Puerto Rico, Ponce School of 

Medicine, suggested that Vieques fishermen and their families were experiencing symptoms 

associated with vibroacoustic disease (VAD) (U.S. Department of the Navy 2002). The study alleged 

that exposure to noise and sound waves of large pressure amplitudes within lower frequency bands, 

associated with Navy training activities—specifically, air-to-ground bombing or naval fire support—

was related to a larger prevalence of heart anomalies within the Vieques fishermen and their families. 

The Ponce School of Medicine study compared the Vieques group with a group from Ponce Playa. A 

1999 study conducted on Portuguese aircraft-manufacturing workers from a single factory reported 

effects of jet aircraft noise exposure that involved a wide range of symptoms and disorders, including 

the cardiac issues on which the Ponce School of Medicine study focused. The 1999 study identified 

these effects as VAD. 

Johns Hopkins University (JHU) conducted an independent review of the Ponce School of Medicine 

study, as well as the Portuguese aircraft workers study and other relevant scientific literature. Their 

findings concluded that VAD should not be accepted as a syndrome, given that exhaustive research 

across a number of populations has not yet been conducted. JHU also pointed out that the evidence 

supporting the existence of VAD comes largely from one group of investigators and that similar 

results would have to be replicated by other investigators. In short, JHU concluded that it had not 

been established that noise was the causal agent for the symptoms reported and no inference can be 

made as to the role of noise from naval gunfire in producing echocardiographic abnormalities (U.S. 

Department of the Navy 2002). 

Most studies of nonauditory health effects of long-term noise exposure have found that noise 

exposure levels established for hearing protection will also protect against any potential nonauditory 

health effects, at least in workplace conditions. One of the best scientific summaries of these findings 

is contained in the lead paper at the National Institutes of Health Conference on Noise and Hearing 

Loss, held on 22 to 24 January 1990 in Washington, D.C.: 
Appendix C-2 C2-25 

“The nonauditory effects of chronic noise exposure, when noise is suspected to act as one of 

the risk factors in the development of hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and other nervous 

disorders, have never been proven to occur as chronic manifestations at levels below these 

criteria (an average of 75 dBA for complete protection against hearing loss for an 8-hour day). 

At the recent (1988) International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, most studies 

attempting to clarify such health effects did not find them at levels below the criteria 

protective of noise-induced hearing loss, and even above these criteria, results regarding such 

health effects were ambiguous. Consequently, one comes to the conclusion that establishing 

and enforcing exposure levels protecting against noise-induced hearing loss would not only 

solve the noise-induced hearing loss problem, but also any potential nonauditory health effects 

in the work place” (von Gierke 1990). 

Although these findings were specifically directed at noise effects in the workplace, they are equally 

applicable to aircraft noise effects in the community environment. Research studies regarding the 

nonauditory health effects of aircraft noise are ambiguous, at best, and often contradictory. Yet, even 

those studies that purport to find such health effects use time-average noise levels of 75 dB and higher 

for their research. 

For example, two UCLA researchers apparently found a relationship between aircraft noise levels 

under the approach path to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and increased mortality rates 

among the exposed residents by using an average noise exposure level greater than 75 dB for the 

“noise-exposed” population (Meacham and Shaw 1979). Nevertheless, three other UCLA professors 

analyzed those same data and found no relationship between noise exposure and mortality rates 

(Frerichs, et al. 1980). 

As a second example, two other UCLA researchers used this same population near LAX to show a 

higher rate of birth defects for 1970 to 1972 when compared with a control group residing away from 

the airport (Jones and Tauscher 1978). Based on this report, a separate group at the Center for Disease 

Control performed a more thorough study of populations near Atlanta’s Hartsfield International 

Airport (ATL) for 1970 to 1972 and found no relationship in their study of 17 identified categories of 

birth defects to aircraft noise levels above 65 dB (Edmonds, et al. 1979). 

In summary, there is no scientific basis for a claim that potential health effects exist for aircraft timeaverage sound levels below 75 dB. 

The potential for noise to affect physiological health, such as the cardiovascular system, has been 

speculated; however, no unequivocal evidence exists to support such claims (Harris 1997). 

Conclusions drawn from a review of health effect studies involving military low-altitude flight noise 

with its unusually high maximum levels and rapid rise in sound level have shown no increase in 

cardiovascular disease (Schwartze and Thompson 1993). Additional claims that are unsupported 

include flyover noise producing increased mortality rates and increases in cardiovascular death, 

aggravation of post-traumatic stress syndrome, increased stress, increase in admissions to mental 

hospitals, and adverse affects on pregnant women and the unborn fetus (Harris 1997). 
Appendix C-2 C2-26 

C.3.6 Performance Effects 

The effect of noise on the performance of activities or tasks has been the subject of many studies. Some 

of these studies have established links between continuous high noise levels and performance loss. 

Noise-induced performance losses are most frequently reported in studies employing noise levels in 

excess of 85 dB. Little change has been found in low-noise cases. It has been cited that moderate noise 

levels appear to act as a stressor for more sensitive individuals performing a difficult psychomotor 

task. 

While the results of research on the general effect of periodic aircraft noise on performance have yet to 

yield definitive criteria, several general trends have been noted including: 

•A periodic intermittent noise is more likely to disrupt performance than a steady-state 

continuous noise of the same level. Flyover noise, due to its intermittent nature, might be 

more likely to disrupt performance than a steady-state noise of equal level. 

•Noise is more inclined to affect the quality than the quantity of work. 

•Noise is more likely to impair the performance of tasks that place extreme demands on 

theworker. 

C.3.7 Noise Effects on Children 

In response to noise-specific and other environmental studies, Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (1997), requires federal agencies to 

ensure that policies, programs, and activities address environmental health and safety risks to identify 

any disproportionate risks to children. 

A review of the scientific literature indicates that there has not been a tremendous amount of research 

in the area of aircraft noise effects on children. The research reviewed does suggest that environments 

with sustained high background noise can have variable effects, including noise effects on learning 

and cognitive abilities, and reports of various noise-related physiological changes. 

Effects on Learning and Cognitive Abilities 

In 2002 ANSI refers to studies that suggest that loud and frequent background noise can affect the 

learning patterns of young children (ANSI 2002). ANSI provides discussion on the relationships 

between noise and learning, and stipulates design requirements and acoustical performance criteria 

for outdoor-to-indoor noise isolation. School design is directed to be cognizant of, and responsive to 

surrounding land uses and the shielding of outdoor noise from the indoor environment. The ANSI 

acoustical performance criteria for schools include the requirement that the one-hour-average 

background noise level shall not exceed 35 dBA in core learning spaces smaller than 20,000 cubic-feet 

and 40 dBA in core learning spaces with enclosed volumes exceeding 20,000 cubic-feet. This would 

require schools be constructed such that, in quiet neighborhoods indoor noise levels are lowered by 15 

to 20 dBA relative to outdoor levels. In schools near airports, indoor noise levels would have to be 

lowered by 35 to 45 dBA relative to outdoor levels (ANSI 2002). 
Appendix C-2 C2-27 

The studies referenced by ANSI to support the new standard are not specific to jet aircraft noise and 

the potential effects on children. However, there are references to studies that have shown that 

children in noisier classrooms scored lower on a variety of tests. Excessive background noise or 

reverberation within schools causes interferences of communication and can therefore create an 

acoustical barrier to learning (ANSI 2002). Studies have been performed that contribute to the body of 

evidence emphasizing the importance of communication by way of the spoken language to the 

development of cognitive skills. The ability to read, write, comprehend, and maintain attentiveness, 

are, in part, based upon whether teacher communication is consistently intelligible (ANSI 2002). 

Numerous studies have shown varying degrees of effects of noise on the reading comprehension, 

attentiveness, puzzle-solving, and memory/recall ability of children. It is generally accepted that 

young children are more susceptible than adults to the effects of background noise. Because of the 

developmental status of young children (linguistic, cognitive, and proficiency), barriers to hearing can 

cause interferences or disruptions in developmental evolution. 

Research on the impacts of aircraft noise, and noise in general, on the cognitive abilities of school-aged 

children has received more attention in recent years. Several studies suggest that aircraft noise can 

affect the academic performance of schoolchildren. Although many factors could contribute to 

learning deficits in school-aged children (e.g., socioeconomic level, home environment, diet, sleep 

patterns), evidence exists that suggests that chronic exposure to high aircraft noise levels can impair 

learning. 

Specifically, elementary school children attending schools near New York City’s two airports 

demonstrated lower reading scores than children living farther away from the flight paths (Green, 

et al. 1982). Researchers have found that tasks involving central processing and language 

comprehension (such as reading, attention, problem solving, and memory) appear to be the most 

affected by noise (Evans and Lepore 1993; Hygge 1994; and Evans, et al. 1998). It has been 

demonstrated that chronic exposure of first- and second-grade children to aircraft noise can result in 

reading deficits and impaired speech perception (i.e., the ability to hear common, low-frequency 

[vowel] sounds but not high frequencies [consonants] in speech) (Evans and Maxwell 1997). 

The Evans and Maxwell (1997) study found that chronic exposure to aircraft noise resulted in reading 

deficits and impaired speech perception for first- and second-grade children. Other studies found that 

children residing near the Los Angeles International Airport had more difficulty solving cognitive 

problems and did not perform as well as children from quieter schools in puzzle-solving and 

attentiveness (Bronzaft 1997; Cohen, et al. 1980). Children attending elementary schools in high 

aircraft noise areas near London’s Heathrow Airport demonstrated poorer reading comprehension 

and selective cognitive impairments (Haines, et al. 2001a, and 2001b). Similarly, a 1994 study found 

that students exposed to aircraft noise of approximately 76 dBA scored 20% lower on recall ability 

tests than students exposed to ambient noise of 42-44 dBA (Hygge 1994). Similar studies involving the 

testing of attention, memory, and reading comprehension of school children located near airports 

showed that their tests exhibited reduced performance results compared to those of similar groups of 

children who were located in quieter environments (Evans, et al. 1998; Haines, et al. 1998). The Haines 

and Stansfeld study indicated that there may be some long-term effects associated with exposure, as 

one-year follow-up testing still demonstrated lowered scores for children in higher noise schools 

(Haines, et al. 2001a, and 2001b). In contrast, a 2002 study found that although children living near the 

old Munich airport scored lower in standardized reading and long-term memory tests than a control 

group, their performance on the same tests was equal to that of the control group once the airport was 

closed. (Hygge, et al. 2002). 
Appendix C-2 C2-28 

Finally, although it is recognized that there are many factors that could contribute to learning deficits 

in school-aged children, there is increasing awareness that chronic exposure to high aircraft noise 

levels may impair learning. This awareness has led the World Health Organization and a North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization working group to conclude that daycare centers and schools should not 

be located near major sources of noise, such as highways, airports, and industrial sites (World Health 

Organization 2000; North Atlantic Treaty Organization 2000). 

Health Effects 

Physiological effects in children exposed to aircraft noise and the potential for health effects have also 

been the focus of limited investigation. Studies in the literature include examination of blood pressure 

levels, hormonal secretions, and hearing loss. 

As a measure of stress response to aircraft noise, authors have looked at blood pressure readings to 

monitor children’s health. Children who were chronically exposed to aircraft noise from a new airport 

near Munich, Germany, had modest (although significant) increases in blood pressure, significant 

increases in stress hormones, and a decline in quality of life (Evans, et al. 1998). Children attending 

noisy schools had statistically significant average systolic and diastolic blood pressure (p<0.03). 

Systolic blood pressure means were 89.68 mm for children attending schools located in noisier 

environments compared to 86.77 mm for a control group. Similarly, diastolic blood pressure means 

for the noisier environment group were 47.84 mm and 45.16 for the control group (Cohen, et al. 1980). 

Although the literature appears limited, studies focused on the wide range of potential effects of 

aircraft noise on school children have also investigated hormonal levels between groups of children 

exposed to aircraft noise compared to those in a control group. Specifically, two studies analyzed 

cortisol and urinary catecholamine levels in school children as measurements of stress response to 

aircraft noise (Haines, et al. 2001b and 2001c). In both instances, there were no differences between the 

aircraft-noise-exposed children and the control groups. 

Other studies have reported hearing losses from exposure to aircraft noise. Noise-induced hearing 

loss was reportedly higher in children who attended a school located under a flight path near a 

Taiwan airport, as compared to children at another school far away (Chen, et al. 1997). Another study 

reported that hearing ability was reduced significantly in individuals who lived near an airport and 

were frequently exposed to aircraft noise (Chen and Chen 1993). In that study, noise exposure near 

the airport was reportedly uniform, with DNL greater than 75 dB and maximum noise levels of about 

87 dB during overflights. Conversely, several other studies that were reviewed reported no difference 

in hearing ability between children exposed to high levels of airport noise and children located in 

quieter areas (Fisch 1977; Andrus, et al. 1975; Wu, et al. 1995). 

C.3.8 Effects on Domestic Animals and Wildlife 

Hearing is critical to an animal’s ability to react, compete, reproduce, hunt, forage, and survive in its 

environment. While the existing literature does include studies on possible effects of jet aircraft noise 

and sonic booms on wildlife, there appears to have been little concerted effort in developing 

quantitative comparisons of aircraft noise effects on normal auditory characteristics. Behavioral effects 

have been relatively well described, but the larger ecological context issues, and the potential for 

drawing conclusions regarding effects on populations, has not been well developed. 
Appendix C-2 C2-29 

The relationships between potential auditory/physiological effects and species interactions with their 

environments are not well understood. Manci, et al. (1988), assert that the consequences that 

physiological effects may have on behavioral patterns is vital to understanding the long-term effects 

of noise on wildlife. Questions regarding the effects (if any) on predator-prey interactions, 

reproductive success, and intra-inter specific behavior patterns remain. 

The following discussion provides an overview of the existing literature on noise effects (particularly 

jet aircraft noise) on animal species. The literature reviewed here involves those studies that have 

focused on the observations of the behavioral effects that jet aircraft and sonic booms have on animals. 

A great deal of research was conducted in the 1960’s and 1970’s on the effects of aircraft noise on the 

public and the potential for adverse ecological impacts. These studies were largely completed in 

response to the increase in air travel and as a result of the introduction of supersonic jet aircraft. 

According to Manci, et al. (1988), the foundation of information created from that focus does not 

necessarily correlate or provide information specific to the impacts to wildlife in areas overflown by 

aircraft at supersonic speed or at low altitudes. 

The abilities to hear sounds and noise and to communicate assist wildlife in maintaining group 

cohesiveness and survivorship. Social species communicate by transmitting calls of warning, 

introduction, and other types that are subsequently related to an individual’s or group’s 

responsiveness. 

Animal species differ greatly in their responses to noise. Noise effects on domestic animals and 

wildlife are classified as primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary effects are direct, physiological 

changes to the auditory system, and most likely include the masking of auditory signals. Masking is 

defined as the inability of an individual to hear important environmental signals that may arise from 

mates, predators, or prey. There is some potential that noise could disrupt a species’ ability to 

communicate or could interfere with behavioral patterns (Manci, et al. 1988). Although the effects are 

likely temporal, aircraft noise may cause masking of auditory signals within exposed faunal 

communities. Animals rely on hearing to avoid predators, obtain food, and communicate with, and 

attract, other members of their species. Aircraft noise may mask or interfere with these functions. 

Other primary effects, such as ear drum rupture or temporary and permanent hearing threshold 

shifts, are not as likely given the subsonic noise levels produced by aircraft overflights. Secondary 

effects may include non-auditory effects such as stress and hypertension; behavioral modifications; 

interference with mating or reproduction; and impaired ability to obtain adequate food, cover, or 

water. Tertiary effects are the direct result of primary and secondary effects, and include population 

decline and habitat loss. Most of the effects of noise are mild enough that they may never be 

detectable as variables of change in population size or population growth against the background of 

normal variation (Bowles 1995). Other environmental variables (e.g., predators, weather, changing 

prey base, ground-based disturbance) also influence secondary and tertiary effects, and confound the 

ability to identify the ultimate factor in limiting productivity of a certain nest, area, or region (Smith, 

et al. 1988). Overall, the literature suggests that species differ in their response to various types, 

durations, and sources of noise (Manci, et al. 1988). 

Many scientific studies have investigated the effects of aircraft noise on wildlife, and some have 

focused on wildlife “flight” due to noise. Apparently, animal responses to aircraft are influenced by 

many variables, including size, speed, proximity (both height above the ground and lateral distance), 

engine noise, color, flight profile, and radiated noise. The type of aircraft (e.g., fixed wing versus 

rotor-wing [helicopter]) and type of flight mission may also produce different levels of disturbance, 
Appendix C-2 C2-30 

with varying animal responses (Smith, et al. 1988). Consequently, it is difficult to generalize animal 

responses to noise disturbances across species. 

One result of the 1988 Manci, et al., literature review was the conclusion that, while behavioral 

observation studies were relatively limited, a general behavioral reaction in animals from exposure to 

aircraft noise is the startle response. The intensity and duration of the startle response appears to be 

dependent on which species is exposed, whether there is a group or an individual, and whether there 

have been some previous exposures. Responses range from flight, trampling, stampeding, jumping, or 

running, to movement of the head in the apparent direction of the noise source. Manci, et al. (1988), 

reported that the literature indicated that avian species may be more sensitive to aircraft noise than 

mammals. 

Domestic Animals 

Although some studies report that the effects of aircraft noise on domestic animals is inconclusive, a 

majority of the literature reviewed indicates that domestic animals exhibit some behavioral responses 

to military overflights but generally seem to habituate to the disturbances over a period of time. 

Mammals in particular appear to react to noise at sound levels higher than 90 dB, with responses 

including the startle response, freezing (i.e., becoming temporarily stationary), and fleeing from the 

sound source. Many studies on domestic animals suggest that some species appear to acclimate to 

some forms of sound disturbance (Manci, et al. 1988). Some studies have reported such primary and 

secondary effects as reduced milk production and rate of milk release, increased glucose 

concentrations, decreased levels of hemoglobin, increased heart rate, and a reduction in thyroid 

activity. These latter effects appear to represent a small percentage of the findings occurring in the 

existing literature. 

Some reviewers have indicated that earlier studies, and claims by farmers linking adverse effects of 

aircraft noise on livestock, did not necessarily provide clear-cut evidence of cause and effect 

(Cottereau 1978). In contrast, many studies conclude that there is no evidence that aircraft overflights 

affect feed intake, growth, or production rates in domestic animals. 

Cattle 

In response to concerns about overflight effects on pregnant cattle, milk production, and cattle safety, 

the U.S. Air Force prepared a handbook for environmental protection that summarizes the literature 

on the impacts of low-altitude flights on livestock (and poultry) and includes specific case studies 

conducted in numerous airspaces across the country. Adverse effects have been found in a few 

studies but have not been reproduced in other similar studies. One such study, conducted in 1983, 

suggested that 2 of 10 cows in late pregnancy aborted after showing rising estrogen and falling 

progesterone levels. These increased hormonal levels were reported as being linked to 59 aircraft 

overflights. The remaining eight cows showed no changes in their blood concentrations and calved 

normally (U.S. Air Force 1994b). A similar study reported abortions occurred in three out of five 

pregnant cattle after exposing them to flyovers by six different aircraft (U.S.Air Force 1994b). Another 

study suggested that feedlot cattle could stampede and injure themselves when exposed to low-level 

overflights (U.S. Air Force 1994b). 

A majority of the studies reviewed suggests that there is little or no effect of aircraft noise on cattle. 

Studies presenting adverse effects to domestic animals have been limited. A number of studies 

(Parker and Bayley 1960; Casady and Lehmann 1967; Kovalcik and Sottnik 1971) investigated the 

effects of jet aircraft noise and sonic booms on the milk production of dairy cows. Through the 
Appendix C-2 C2-31 

compilation and examination of milk production data from areas exposed to jet aircraft noise and 

sonic boom events, it was determined that milk yields were not affected. This was particularly evident 

in those cows that had been previously exposed to jet aircraft noise. 

A study examined the causes of 1,763 abortions in Wisconsin dairy cattle over a one-year time period 

and none were associated with aircraft disturbances (U.S.Air Force 1993). In 1987, Anderson contacted 

seven livestock operators for production data, and no effects of low-altitude and supersonic flights 

were noted. Three out of 43 cattle previously exposed to low-altitude flights showed a startle response 

to an F/A-18 aircraft flying overhead at 500 feet above ground level and 400 knots by running less 

than 10 meters. They resumed normal activity within one minute (U.S.Air Force 1994b). Beyer (1983) 

found that helicopters caused more reaction than other low-aircraft overflights, and that the 

helicopters at 30 to 60 feet overhead did not affect milk production and pregnancies of 44 cows and 

heifers in a 1964 study (U.S. Air Force 1994b). 

Additionally, Beyer reported that five pregnant dairy cows in a pasture did not exhibit fright-flight 

tendencies or disturb their pregnancies after being overflown by 79 low-altitude helicopter flights and 

4 low-altitude, subsonic jet aircraft flights (U.S. Air Force 1994b). A 1956 study found that the 

reactions of dairy and beef cattle to noise from low-altitude, subsonic aircraft were similar to those 

caused by paper blowing about, strange persons, or other moving objects (U.S. Air Force 1994b). 

In a report to Congress, the U. S. Forest Service concluded that “evidence both from field studies of 

wild ungulates and laboratory studies of domestic stock indicate that the risks of damage are small 

(from aircraft approaches of 50 to 100 meters), as animals take care not to damage themselves (U.S. 

Forest Service 1992). If animals are overflown by aircraft at altitudes of 50 to 100 meters, there is no 

evidence that mothers and young are separated, that animals collide with obstructions (unless 

confined) or that they traverse dangerous ground at too high a rate.” These varied study results 

suggest that, although the confining of cattle could magnify animal response to aircraft overflight, 

there is no proven cause-and-effect link between startling cattle from aircraft overflights and abortion 

rates or lower milk production. 

Horses 

Horses have also been observed to react to overflights of jet aircraft. Several of the studies reviewed 

reported a varied response of horses to low-altitude aircraft overflights. Observations made in 1966 

and 1968 noted that horses galloped in response to jet flyovers (U.S. Air Force 1993). Bowles (1995) 

cites Kruger and Erath as observing horses exhibiting intensive flight reactions, random movements, 

and biting/kicking behavior. However, no injuries or abortions occurred, and there was evidence that 

the mares adapted somewhat to the flyovers over the course of a month (U.S. Air Force 1994b). 

Although horses were observed noticing the overflights, it did not appear to affect either survivability 

or reproductive success. There was also some indication that habituation to these types of 

disturbances was occurring. 

LeBlanc, et al. (1991), studied the effects of F-14 jet aircraft noise on pregnant mares. They specifically 

focused on any changes in pregnancy success, behavior, cardiac function, hormonal production, and 

rate of habituation. Their findings reported observations of “flight-fright” reactions, which caused 

increases in heart rates and serum cortisol concentrations. The mares, however, did habituate to the 

noise. Levels of anxiety and mass body movements were the highest after initial exposure, with 

intensities of responses decreasing thereafter. There were no differences in pregnancy success when 

compared to a control group. 
Appendix C-2 C2-32 

Swine 

Generally, the literature findings for swine appear to be similar to those reported for cows and horses. 

While there are some effects from aircraft noise reported in the literature, these effects are minor. 

Studies of continuous noise exposure (i.e., 6 hours, 72 hours of constant exposure) reported influences 

on short-term hormonal production and release. Additional constant exposure studies indicated the 

observation of stress reactions, hypertension, and electrolyte imbalances (Dufour 1980). A study by 

Bond, et al. (1963), demonstrated no adverse effects on the feeding efficiency, weight gain, ear 

physiology, or thyroid and adrenal gland condition of pigs subjected to observed aircraft noise. 

Observations of heart rate increase were recorded, noting that cessation of the noise resulted in the 

return to normal heart rates. Conception rates and offspring survivorship did not appear to be 

influenced by exposure to aircraft noise. 

Similarly, simulated aircraft noise at levels of 100 dB to 135 dB had only minor effects on the rate of 

feed utilization, weight gain, food intake, or reproduction rates of boars and sows exposed, and there 

were no injuries or inner ear changes observed (Manci, et al. 1988; Gladwin, et al. 1988). 

Domestic Fowl 

According to a 1994 position paper by the U.S. Air Force on effects of low-altitude overflights (below 

1,000 ft) on domestic fowl, overflight activity has negligible effects (U.S. Air Force 1994a). The paper 

did recognize that given certain circumstances, adverse effects can be serious. Some of the effects can 

be panic reactions, reduced productivity, and effects on marketability (e.g., bruising of the meat 

caused during “pile-up” situations). 

The typical reaction of domestic fowl after exposure to sudden, intense noise is a short-term startle 

response. The reaction ceases as soon as the stimulus is ended, and within a few minutes all activity 

returns to normal. More severe responses are possible depending on the number of birds, the 

frequency of exposure, and environmental conditions. Large crowds of birds, and birds not 

previously exposed, are more likely to pile up in response to a noise stimulus (U.S. Air Force 1994a). 

According to studies and interviews with growers, it is typically the previously unexposed birds that 

incite panic crowding, and the tendency to do so is markedly reduced within five exposures to the 

stimulus (U.S. Air Force 1994a). This suggests that the birds habituate relatively quickly. Egg 

productivity was not adversely affected by infrequent noise bursts, even at exposure levels as high as 

120 to 130 dBA. 

Between 1956 and 1988, there were 100 recorded claims against the Navy for alleged damage to 

domestic fowl. The number of claims averaged three per year, with peak numbers of claims following 

publications of studies on the topic in the early 1960s (U.S. Air Force 1994a). Many of the claims were 

disproved or did not have sufficient supporting evidence. The claims were filed for the following 

alleged damages: 55% for panic reactions, 31% for decreased production, 6% for reduced hatchability, 

6% for weight loss, and less than 1% for reduced fertility (U.S. Air Force 1994a). 

Turkeys 

The review of the existing literature suggests that there has not been a concerted or widespread effort 

to study the effects of aircraft noise on commercial turkeys. One study involving turkeys examined 

the differences between simulated versus actual overflight aircraft noise, turkey responses to the 

noise, weight gain, and evidence of habituation (Bowles, et al. 1990a). Findings from the study 

suggested that turkeys habituated to jet aircraft noise quickly, that there were no growth rate 
Appendix C-2 C2-33 

differences between the experimental and control groups, and that there were some behavioral 

differences that increased the difficulty in handling individuals within the experimental group. 

Low-altitude overflights were shown to cause turkey flocks that were kept inside turkey houses to 

occasionally pile up and experience high mortality rates due to the aircraft noise and a variety of 

disturbances unrelated to aircraft (U.S. Air Force 1994a). 

Wildlife 

Studies on the effects of overflights and sonic booms on wildlife have been focused mostly on avian 

species and ungulates such as caribou and bighorn sheep. Few studies have been conducted on 

marine mammals, small terrestrial mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and carnivorous mammals. 

Generally, species that live entirely below the surface of the water have also been ignored due to the 

fact they do not experience the same level of sound as terrestrial species (National Park Service 1994). 

Wild ungulates appear to be much more sensitive to noise disturbance than domestic livestock 

(Manci, et al. 1988). This may be due to previous exposure to disturbances. One common factor 

appears to be that low-altitude flyovers seem to be more disruptive in terrain where there is little 

cover (Manci, et al. 1988). 

Mammals 

Terrestrial Mammals. Studies of terrestrial mammals have shown that noise levels of 120 dBA can 

damage mammals’ ears, and levels at 95 dBA can cause temporary loss of hearing acuity. Noise from 

aircraft has affected other large carnivores by causing changes in home ranges, foraging patterns, and 

breeding behavior. One study recommended that aircraft not be allowed to fly at altitudes below 2,000 

feet above ground level over important grizzly and polar bear habitat (Dufour 1980). Wolves have 

been frightened by low-altitude flights that were 25 to 1,000 feet off the ground. However, wolves 

have been found to adapt to aircraft overflights and noise as long as they were not being hunted from 

aircraft (Dufour 1980). 

Wild ungulates (American bison, caribou, bighorn sheep) appear to be much more sensitive to noise 

disturbance than domestic livestock (Weisenberger, et al. 1996). Behavioral reactions may be related to 

the past history of disturbances by such things as humans and aircraft. Common reactions of reindeer 

kept in an enclosure exposed to aircraft noise disturbance were a slight startle response, raising of the 

head, pricking ears, and scenting of the air. Panic reactions and extensive changes in behavior of 

individual animals were not observed. Observations of caribou in Alaska exposed to fixed-wing 

aircraft and helicopters showed running and panic reactions occurred when overflights were at an 

altitude of 200 feet or less. The reactions decreased with increased altitude of overflights, and, with 

more than 500 feet in altitude, the panic reactions stopped. Also, smaller groups reacted less strongly 

than larger groups. One negative effect of the running and avoidance behavior is increased 

expenditure of energy. For a 90-kg animal, the calculated expenditure due to aircraft harassment is 64 

kilocalories per minute when running and 20 kilocalories per minute when walking. When conditions 

are favorable, this expenditure can be counteracted with increased feeding; however, during harsh 

winter conditions, this may not be possible. Incidental observations of wolves and bears exposed to 

fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters in the northern regions suggested that wolves are less disturbed 

than wild ungulates, while grizzly bears showed the greatest response of any animal species 

observed. 

It has been proven that low-altitude overflights do induce stress in animals. Increased heart rates, an 

indicator of excitement or stress, have been found in pronghorn antelope, elk, and bighorn sheep. As 
Appendix C-2 C2-34 

such reactions occur naturally as a response to predation, infrequent overflights may not, in and of 

themselves, be detrimental. However, flights at high frequencies over a long period of time may cause 

harmful effects. The consequences of this disturbance, while cumulative, is not additive. It may be 

that aircraft disturbance may not cause obvious and serious health effects, but coupled with a harsh 

winter, it may have an adverse impact. Research has shown that stress induced by other types of 

disturbances produces long-term decreases in metabolism and hormone balances in wild ungulates. 

Behavioral responses can range from mild to severe. Mild responses include head raising, body 

shifting, or turning to orient toward the aircraft. Moderate disturbance may be nervous behaviors, 

such as trotting a short distance. Escape is the typical severe response. 

Marine Mammals. The physiological composition of the ear in aquatic and marine mammals exhibits 

adaptation to the aqueous environment. These differences (relative to terrestrial species) manifest 

themselves in the auricle and middle ear (Manci, et al. 1988). Some mammals use echolocation to 

perceive objects in their surroundings and to determine the directions and locations of sound sources 

(Simmons 1983 in Manci, et al. 1988). 

In 1980, the Acoustical Society of America held a workshop to assess the potential hazard of manmade 

noise associated with proposed Alaska Arctic (North Slope-Outer Continental Shelf) petroleum 

operations on marine wildlife and to prepare a research plan to secure the knowledge necessary for 

proper assessment of noise impacts (Acoustical Society of America 1980). Since 1980 it appears that 

research on responses of aquatic mammals to aircraft noise and sonic booms has been limited. 

Research conducted on northern fur seals, sea lions, and ringed seals indicated that there are some 

differences in how various animal groups receive frequencies of sound. It was observed that these 

species exhibited varying intensities of a startle response to airborne noise, which was habituated over 

time. The rates of habituation appeared to vary with species, populations, and demographics (age, 

sex). Time of day of exposure was also a factor (Muyberg 1978 in Manci, et al. 1988). 

Studies accomplished near the Channel Islands were conducted near the area where the space shuttle 

launches occur. It was found that there were some response differences between species relative to the 

loudness of sonic booms. Those booms that were between 80 and 89 dBA caused a greater intensity of 

startle reactions than lower-intensity booms at 72 to 79 dBA. However, the duration of the startle 

responses to louder sonic booms was shorter (Jehl and Cooper 1980 in Manci, et al. 1988). 

Jehl and Cooper (1980) indicated that low-flying helicopters, loud boat noises, and humans were the 

most disturbing to pinnipeds. According to the research, while the space launch and associated 

operational activity noises have not had a measurable effect on the pinniped population, it also 

suggests that there was a greater “disturbance level” exhibited during launch activities. There was a 

recommendation to continue observations for behavioral effects and to perform long-term population 

monitoring (Jehl and Cooper 1980). 

The continued presence of single or multiple noise sources could cause marine mammals to leave a 

preferred habitat. However, it does not appear likely that overflights could cause migration from 

suitable habitats as aircraft noise over water is mobile and would not persist over any particular area. 

Aircraft noise, including supersonic noise, currently occurs in the overwater airspace of Eglin, 

Tyndall, and Langley AFBs from sorties predominantly involving jet aircraft. Survey results reported 

in Davis, et al. (2000), indicate that cetaceans (i.e., dolphins) occur under all of the Eglin and Tyndall 

marine airspace. The continuing presence of dolphins indicates that aircraft noise does not discourage 

use of the area and apparently does not harm the locally occurring population. 
Appendix C-2 C2-35 

In a summary by the National Parks Service (1994) on the effects of noise on marine mammals, it was 

determined that gray whales and harbor porpoises showed no outward behavioral response to 

aircraft noise or overflights. Bottlenose dolphins showed no obvious reaction in a study involving 

helicopter overflights at 1,200 to 1,800 feet above the water. Neither did they show any reaction to 

survey aircraft unless the shadow of the aircraft passed over them, at which point there was some 

observed tendency to dive (Richardson, et al. 1995). Other anthropogenic noises in the marine 

environment from ships and pleasure craft may have more of an effect on marine mammals than 

aircraft noise (U.S. Air Force 2000). The noise effects on cetaceans appear to be somewhat attenuated 

by the air/water interface. The cetacean fauna along the coast of California have been subjected to 

sonic booms from military aircraft for many years without apparent adverse effects (Tetra Tech, Inc. 

1997). 

Manatees appear relatively unresponsive to human-generated noise to the point that they are often 

suspected of being deaf to oncoming boats [although their hearing is actually similar to that of 

pinnipeds (Bullock, et al. 1980)]. Little is known about the importance of acoustic communication to 

manatees, although they are known to produce at least ten different types of sounds and are thought 

to have sensitive hearing (Richardson, et al. 1995). Manatees continue to occupy canals near Miami 

International Airport, which suggests that they have become habituated to human disturbance and 

noise (Metro-Dade County 1995). Since manatees spend most of their time below the surface and do 

not startle readily, no effect of aircraft overflights on manatees would be expected (Bowles, et al. 

1991b). 

Birds 

Auditory research conducted on birds indicates that they fall between the reptiles and the mammals 

relative to hearing sensitivity. According to Dooling (1978), within the range of one to five kHz, birds 

show a level of hearing sensitivity similar to that of the more sensitive mammals. In contrast to 

mammals, bird sensitivity falls off at a greater rate to increasing and decreasing frequencies. Passive 

observations and studies examining aircraft bird strikes indicate that birds nest and forage near 

airports. Aircraft noise in the vicinity of commercial airports apparently does not inhibit bird presence 

and use. 

High-noise events (like a low-altitude aircraft overflight) may cause birds to engage in escape or 

avoidance behaviors, such as flushing from perches or nests (Ellis, et al. 1991). These activities impose 

an energy cost on the birds that, over the long term, may affect survival or growth. In addition, the 

birds may spend less time engaged in necessary activities like feeding, preening, or caring for their 

young because they spend time in noise-avoidance activity. However, the long-term significance of 

noise-related impacts is less clear. Several studies on nesting raptors have indicated that birds become 

habituated to aircraft overflights and that long-term reproductive success is not affected (Grubb and 

King 1991; Ellis, et al. 1991). Threshold noise levels for significant responses range from 62 dB for 

Pacific black brant (Branta bernicla nigricans) (Ward and Stehn 1990) to 85 dB for crested tern (Sterna 

bergii) (Brown 1990). 

Songbirds were observed to become silent prior to the onset of a sonic boom event (F-111 jets), 

followed by “raucous discordant cries.” There was a return to normal singing within 10 seconds after 

the boom (Higgins 1974 in Manci, et al. 1988). Ravens responded by emitting protestation calls, 

flapping their wings, and soaring. 

Manci, et al. (1988), reported a reduction in reproductive success in some small territorial passerines 

(i.e., perching birds or songbirds) after exposure to low-altitude overflights. However, it has been 
Appendix C-2 C2-36 

observed that passerines are not driven any great distance from a favored food source by a 

nonspecific disturbance, such as aircraft overflights (U.S. Forest Service 1992). Further study may be 

warranted. 

A recent study, conducted cooperatively between the DoD and the USFWS, assessed the response of 

the red-cockaded woodpecker to a range of military training noise events, including artillery, small 

arms, helicopter, and maneuver noise (Pater, et al. 1999). The project findings show that the redcockaded woodpecker successfully acclimates to military noise events. Depending on the noise level 

that ranged from innocuous to very loud, the birds responded by flushing from their nest cavities. 

When the noise source was closer and the noise level was higher, the number of flushes increased 

proportionately. In all cases, however, the birds returned to their nests within a relatively short period 

of time (usually within 12 minutes). Additionally, the noise exposure did not result in any mortality 

or statistically detectable changes in reproductive success (Pater, et al. 1999). Red-cockaded 

woodpeckers did not flush when artillery simulators were more than 122 meters away and SEL noise 

levels were 70 dBA. 

Lynch and Speake (1978) studied the effects of both real and simulated sonic booms on the nesting 

and brooding eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) in Alabama. Hens at four nest sites 

were subjected to between 8 and 11 combined real and simulated sonic booms. All tests elicited 

similar responses, including quick lifting of the head and apparent alertness for between 10 and 20 

seconds. No apparent nest failure occurred as a result of the sonic booms. 

Twenty-one brood groups were also subjected to simulated sonic booms. Reactions varied slightly 

between groups, but the largest percentage of groups reacted by standing motionless after the initial 

blast. Upon the sound of the boom, the hens and poults fled until reaching the edge of the woods 

(approximately 4 to 8 meters). Afterward, the poults resumed feeding activities while the hens 

remained alert for a short period of time (approximately 15 to 20 seconds). In no instances were poults 

abandoned, nor did they scatter and become lost. Every observation group returned to normal 

activities within a maximum of 30 seconds after a blast. 

Raptors. In a literature review of raptor responses to aircraft noise, Manci, et al. (1988), found that 

most raptors did not show a negative response to overflights. When negative responses were 

observed they were predominantly associated with rotor-winged aircraft or jet aircraft that were 

repeatedly passing within 0.5 mile of a nest. 

Ellis, et al. (1991), performed a study to estimate the effects of low-level military jet aircraft and midto high-altitude sonic booms (both actual and simulated) on nesting peregrine falcons and seven other 

raptors (common black-hawk, Harris’ hawk, zone-tailed hawk, red-tailed hawk, golden eagle, prairie 

falcon, bald eagle). They observed responses to test stimuli, determined nest success for the year of the 

testing, and evaluated site occupancy the following year. Both long- and short-term effects were noted 

in the study. The results reported the successful fledging of young in 34 of 38 nest sites (all eight 

species) subjected to low-level flight and/or simulated sonic booms. Twenty-two of the test sites were 

revisited in the following year, and observations of pairs or lone birds were made at all but one nest. 

Nesting attempts were underway at 19 of 20 sites that were observed long enough to be certain of 

breeding activity. Reoccupancy and productivity rates were within or above expected values for selfsustaining populations. 

Short-term behavior responses were also noted. Overflights at a distance of 150 m or less produced 

few significant responses and no severe responses. Typical responses consisted of crouching or, very 

rarely, flushing from the perch site. Significant responses were most evident before egg laying and 
Appendix C-2 C2-37 

after young were “well grown.” Incubating or brooding adults never burst from the nest, thus 

preventing egg breaking or knocking chicks out of the nest. Jet passes and sonic booms often caused 

noticeable alarm; however, significant negative responses were rare and did not appear to limit 

productivity or reoccupancy. Due to the locations of some of the nests, some birds may have been 

habituated to aircraft noise. There were some test sites located at distances far from zones of frequent 

military aircraft usage, and the test stimuli were often closer, louder, and more frequent than would 

be likely for a normal training situation. 

Manci, et al. (1988), noted that a female northern harrier was observed hunting on a bombing range in 

Mississippi during bombing exercises. The harrier was apparently unfazed by the exercises, even 

when a bomb exploded within 200 feet. In a similar case of habituation/non-disturbance, a study on 

the Florida snail-kite stated the greatest reaction to overflights (approximately 98 dBA) was “watching 

the aircraft fly by.” No detrimental impacts to distribution, breeding success, or behavior were noted. 

Bald Eagle. A study by Grubb and King (1991) on the reactions of the bald eagle to human 

disturbances showed that terrestrial disturbances elicited the greatest response, followed by aquatic 

(i.e., boats) and aerial disturbances. The disturbance regime of the area where the study occurred was 

predominantly characterized by aircraft noise. The study found that pedestrians consistently caused 

responses that were greater in both frequency and duration. Helicopters elicited the highest level of 

aircraft-related responses. Aircraft disturbances, although the most common form of disturbance, 

resulted in the lowest levels of response. This low response level may have been due to habituation; 

however, flights less than 170 meters away caused reactions similar to other disturbance types. Ellis, 

et al. (1991), showed that eagles typically respond to the proximity of a disturbance, such as a 

pedestrian or aircraft within 100 meters, rather than the noise level. Fleischner and Weisberg (1986) 

stated that reactions of bald eagles to commercial jet flights, although minor (e.g., looking), were twice 

as likely to occur when the jets passed at a distance of 0.5 mile or less. They also noted that helicopters 

were four times more likely to cause a reaction than a commercial jet and 20 times more likely to cause 

a reaction than a propeller plane. 

The USFWS advised Cannon AFB that flights at or below 2,000 feet AGL from October 1 through 

March 1 could result in adverse impacts to wintering bald eagles (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serice 1998). 

However, Fraser, et al. (1985), suggested that raptors habituate to overflights rapidly, sometimes 

tolerating aircraft approaches of 65 feet or less. 

Osprey. A study by Trimper, et al. (1998), in Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada, focused on the reactions of 

nesting osprey to military overflights by CF-18 Hornets. Reactions varied from increased alertness 

and focused observation of planes to adjustments in incubation posture. No overt reactions (e.g., 

startle response, rapid nest departure) were observed as a result of an overflight. Young nestlings 

crouched as a result of any disturbance until they grew to 1 to 2 weeks prior to fledging. Helicopters, 

human presence, float planes, and other ospreys elicited the strongest reactions from nesting ospreys. 

These responses included flushing, agitation, and aggressive displays. Adult osprey showed high nest 

occupancy rates during incubation regardless of external influences. 

The osprey observed occasionally stared in the direction of the flight before it was audible to the 

observers. The birds may have been habituated to the noise of the flights; however, overflights were 

strictly controlled during the experimental period. Strong reactions to float planes and helicopter may 

have been due to the slower flight and therefore longer duration of visual stimuli rather than noiserelated stimuli. 
Appendix C-2 C2-38 

Red-tailed Hawk. Anderson, et al. (1989), conducted a study that investigated the effects of low-level 

helicopter overflights on 35 red-tailed hawk nests. Some of the nests had not been flown over prior to 

the study. The hawks that were naïve (i.e., not previously exposed) to helicopter flights exhibited 

stronger avoidance behavior (nine of 17 birds flushed from their nests) than those that had 

experienced prior overflights. The overflights did not appear to affect nesting success in either study 

group. These findings were consistent with the belief that red-tailed hawks habituate to low-level air 

traffic, even during the nesting period. 

Migratory Waterfowl. A study of caged American black ducks was conducted by Fleming, et al. in 

1996. It was determined that noise had negligible energetic and physiologic effects on adult 

waterfowl. Measurements included body weight, behavior, heart rate, and enzymatic activity. 

Experiments also showed that adult ducks exposed to high noise events acclimated rapidly and 

showed no effects. 

The study also investigated the reproductive success of captive ducks, which indicated that duckling 

growth and survival rates at Piney Island, North Carolina, were lower than those at a background 

location. In contrast, observations of several other reproductive indices (i.e., pair formation, nesting, 

egg production, and hatching success) showed no difference between Piney Island and the 

background location. Potential effects on wild duck populations may vary, as wild ducks at Piney 

Island have presumably acclimated to aircraft overflights. It was not demonstrated that noise was the 

cause of adverse impacts. A variety of other factors, such as weather conditions, drinking water and 

food availability and variability, disease, and natural variability in reproduction, could explain the 

observed effects. Fleming noted that drinking water conditions (particularly at Piney Island) 

deteriorated during the study, which could have affected the growth of young ducks. Further 

research would be necessary to determine the cause of any reproductive effects. 

Another study by Conomy, et al. (1998) exposed previously unexposed ducks to 71 noise events per 

day that equaled or exceeded 80 dBA. It was determined that the proportion of time black ducks 

reacted to aircraft activity and noise decreased from 38 percent to 6 percent in 17 days and remained 

stable at 5.8 percent thereafter. In the same study, the wood duck did not appear to habituate to 

aircraft disturbance. This supports the notion that animal response to aircraft noise is species-specific. 

Because a startle response to aircraft noise can result in flushing from nests, migrants and animals 

living in areas with high concentrations of predators would be the most vulnerable to experiencing 

effects of lowered birth rates and recruitment over time. Species that are subjected to infrequent 

overflights do not appear to habituate to overflight disturbance as readily. 

Black brant studied in the Alaska Peninsula were exposed to jets and propeller aircraft, helicopters, 

gunshots, people, boats, and various raptors. Jets accounted for 65% of all the disturbances. Humans, 

eagles, and boats caused a greater percentage of brant to take flight. There was markedly greater 

reaction to Bell-206-B helicopter flights than fixed wing, single-engine aircraft (Ward, et al. 1986). 

The presence of humans and low-flying helicopters in the Mackenzie Valley North Slope area did not 

appear to affect the population density of Lapland longspurs, but the experimental group was shown 

to have reduced hatching and fledging success and higher nest abandonment. Human presence 

appeared to have a greater impact on the incubating behavior of the black brant, common eider, and 

Arctic tern than fixed-wing aircraft (Gunn and Livingston 1974). 

Gunn and Livingston (1974) found that waterfowl and seabirds in the Mackenzie Valley and North 

Slope of Alaska and Canada became acclimated to float plane disturbance over the course of three 

days. Additionally, it was observed that potential predators (bald eagle) caused a number of birds to 
Appendix C-2 C2-39 

leave their nests. Non-breeding birds were observed to be more reactive than breeding birds. 

Waterfowl were affected by helicopter flights, while snow geese were disturbed by Cessna 185 flights. 

The geese flushed when the planes were under 1,000 feet, compared to higher flight elevations. An 

overall reduction in flock sizes was observed. It was recommended that aircraft flights be reduced in 

the vicinity of premigratory staging areas. 

Manci, et al. 1988 reported that waterfowl were particularly disturbed by aircraft noise. The most 

sensitive appeared to be snow geese. Canada geese and snow geese were thought to be more sensitive 

than other animals such as turkey vultures, coyotes, and raptors (Edwards, et al. 1979). 

Wading And Shore Birds. Black, et al. (1984), studied the effects of low-altitude (less than 500 feet AGL) 

military training flights with sound levels from 55 to 100 dBA on wading bird colonies (i.e., great 

egret, snowy egret, tricolored heron, and little blue heron). The training flights involved three or four 

aircraft, which occurred once or twice per day. This study concluded that the reproductive activity--

including nest success, nestling survival, and nestling chronology--was independent of F-16 

overflights. Dependent variables were more strongly related to ecological factors, including location 

and physical characteristics of the colony and climatology. Another study on the effects of circling 

fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter overflights on wading bird colonies found that at altitudes of 195 to 

390 feet, there was no reaction in nearly 75 percent of the 220 observations. Ninety percent displayed 

no reaction or merely looked toward the direction of the noise source. Another 6 percent stood up, 3 

percent walked from the nest, and 2 percent flushed (but were without active nests) and returned 

within 5 minutes (Kushlan 1978). Apparently, non-nesting wading birds had a slightly higher 

incidence of reacting to overflights than nesting birds. Seagulls observed roosting near a colony of 

wading birds in another study remained at their roosts when subsonic aircraft flew overhead (Burger 

1981). Colony distribution appeared to be most directly correlated to available wetland community 

types and was found to be distributed randomly with respect to military training routes. These results 

suggest that wading bird species presence was most closely linked to habitat availability and that they 

were not affected by low-level military overflights (U.S. Air Force 2000). 

Burger (1986) studied the response of migrating shorebirds to human disturbance and found that 

shorebirds did not fly in response to aircraft overflights, but did flush in response to more localized 

intrusions (i.e., humans and dogs on the beach). Burger (1981) studied the effects of noise from JFK 

Airport in New York on herring gulls that nested less than 1 kilometer from the airport. Noise levels 

over the nesting colony were 85 to 100 dBA on approach and 94 to 105 dBA on takeoff. Generally, 

there did not appear to be any prominent adverse effects of subsonic aircraft on nesting, although 

some birds flushed when the concorde flew overhead and, when they returned, engaged in aggressive 

behavior. Groups of gulls tended to loaf in the area of the nesting colony, and these birds remained at 

the roost when the Concorde flew overhead. Up to 208 of the loafing gulls flew when supersonic 

aircraft flew overhead. These birds would circle around and immediately land in the loafing flock 

(U.S. Air Force 2000). 

In 1970, sonic booms were potentially linked to a mass hatch failure of Sooty Terns on the Dry 

Tortugas (Austin, et al. 1970). The cause of the failure was not certain, but it was conjectured that 

sonic booms from military aircraft or an overgrowth of vegetation were factors. In the previous 

season, Sooties were observed to react to sonic booms by rising in a “panic flight,” circling over the 

island, then usually settling down on their eggs again. Hatching that year was normal. Following the 

1969 hatch failure, excess vegetation was cleared and measures were taken to reduce supersonic 

activity. The 1970 hatch appeared to proceed normally. A colony of Noddies on the same island 

hatched successfully in 1969, the year of the Sooty hatch failure. 
Appendix C-2 C2-40 

Subsequent laboratory tests of exposure of eggs to sonic booms and other impulsive noises (Bowles, 

et al. 1991a; Bowles, et al. 1994; Cottereau 1972; Cogger and Zegarra 1980) failed to show adverse 

effects on hatching of eggs. A structural analysis (Ting, et al. 2002) showed that, even under 

extraordinary circumstances, sonic booms would not damage an avian egg. 

Burger (1981) observed no effects of subsonic aircraft on herring gulls in the vicinity of JFK 

International Airport. The Concorde aircraft did cause more nesting gulls to leave their nests 

(especially in areas of higher density of nests), causing the breakage of eggs and the scavenging of 

eggs by intruder prey. Clutch sizes were observed to be smaller in areas of higher-density nesting 

(presumably due to the greater tendency for panic flight) than in areas where there were fewer nests. 

Fish, Reptiles, and Amphibians 

The effects of overflight noise on fish, reptiles, and amphibians have been poorly studied, but 

conclusions regarding their expected responses have involved speculation based upon known 

physiologies and behavioral traits of these taxa (Gladwin, et al. 1988). Although fish do startle in 

response to low-flying aircraft noise, and probably to the shadows of aircraft, they have been found to 

habituate to the sound and overflights. Reptiles and amphibians that respond to low frequencies and 

those that respond to ground vibration, such as spadefoots (genus Scaphiopus), may be affected by 

noise. Limited information is available on the effects of short-duration noise events on reptiles. 

Dufour (1980) and Manci, et al. (1988), summarized a few studies of reptile responses to noise. Some 

reptile species tested under laboratory conditions experienced at least temporary threshold shifts or 

hearing loss after exposure to 95 dB for several minutes. Crocodilians in general have the most highly 

developed hearing of all reptiles. Crocodile ears have lids that can be closed when the animal goes 

under water. These lids can reduce the noise intensity by 10 to 12 dB (Wever and Vernon 1957). On 

Homestead Air Reserve Station, Florida, two crocodilians (the American Alligator and the Spectacled 

Caiman) reside in wetlands and canals along the base runway suggesting that they can coexist with 

existing noise levels of an active runway including DNLs of 85 dB. 

Summary 

Some physiological/behavioral responses such as increased hormonal production, increased heart 

rate, and reduction in milk production have been described in a small percentage of studies. A 

majority of the studies focusing on these types of effects have reported short-term or no effects. 

The relationships between physiological effects and how species interact with their environments 

have not been thoroughly studied. Therefore, the larger ecological context issues regarding 

physiological effects of jet aircraft noise (if any) and resulting behavioral pattern changes are not well 

understood. 

Animal species exhibit a wide variety of responses to noise. It is therefore difficult to generalize 

animal responses to noise disturbances or to draw inferences across species, as reactions to jet aircraft 

noise appear to be species-specific. Consequently, some animal species may be more sensitive than 

other species and/or may exhibit different forms or intensities of behavioral responses. For instance, 

wood ducks appear to be more sensitive and more resistant to acclimation to jet aircraft noise than 

Canada geese in one study. Similarly, wild ungulates seem to be more easily disturbed than domestic 

animals. 

The literature does suggest that common responses include the “startle” or “fright” response and, 

ultimately, habituation. It has been reported that the intensities and durations of the startle response 

decrease with the numbers and frequencies of exposures, suggesting no long-term adverse effects. 
Appendix C-2 C2-41 

The majority of the literature suggests that domestic animal species (cows, horses, chickens) and 

wildlife species exhibit adaptation, acclimation, and habituation after repeated exposure to jet aircraft 

noise and sonic booms. 

Animal responses to aircraft noise appear to be somewhat dependent on, or influenced by, the size, 

shape, speed, proximity (vertical and horizontal), engine noise, color, and flight profile of planes. 

Helicopters also appear to induce greater intensities and durations of disturbance behavior as 

compared to fixed-wing aircraft. Some studies showed that animals that had been previously exposed 

to jet aircraft noise exhibited greater degrees of alarm and disturbance to other objects creating noise, 

such as boats, people, and objects blowing across the landscape. Other factors influencing response to 

jet aircraft noise may include wind direction, speed, and local air turbulence; landscape structures 

(i.e., amount and type of vegetative cover); and, in the case of bird species, whether the animals are in 

the incubation/nesting phase. 

C.3.9 Property Values 

Property within a noise zone (or Accident Potential Zone) may be affected by the availability of 

federally guaranteed loans. According to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD), Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and Veterans Administration (VA) guidance, sites 

are acceptable for program assistance, subsidy, or insurance for housing in noise zones of less than 65 

dB DNL, and sites are conditionally acceptable with special approvals and noise attenuation in the 65 

to 75 dB DNL noise zone and the greater than 75 dB DNL noise zone. HUD’s position is that noise is 

not the only determining factor for site acceptability, and properties should not be rejected only 

because of airport influences if there is evidence of acceptability within the market and if use of the 

dwelling is expected to continue. Similar to the Navy’s and Air Force’s Air Installation Compatible 

Use Zone Program, HUD, FHA, and VA recommend sound attenuation for housing in the higher 

noise zones and written disclosures to all prospective buyers or lessees of property within a noise 

zone (or Accident Potential Zone). 

Newman and Beattie (1985) reviewed the literature to assess the effect of aircraft noise on property 

values. One paper by Nelson (1978), reviewed by Newman and Beattie, suggested a 1.8 to 2.3 percent 

decrease in property value per decibel at three separate airports, while at another period of time, they 

found only a 0.8 percent devaluation per decibel change in DNL. However, Nelson also noted a 

decline in noise depreciation over time which he theorized could be due to either noise sensitive 

people being replaced by less sensitive people or the increase in commerical value of the property 

near airports; both ideas were supported by Crowley (1978). Ultimately, Newman and Beattie 

summarized that while an effect of noise was observed, noise is only one of the many factors that is 

part of a decision to move close to, or away from, an airport, but which is sometimes considered an 

advantage due to increased opportunities for employment or ready access to the airport itself. With all 

the issues associated with determining property values, their reviews found that decreases in 

property values usually range from 0.5 to 2 percent per decibel increase of cumulative noise exposure. 

More recently Fidell, et al. (1996) studied the influences of aircraft noise on actual sale prices of 

residential properties in the vicinity of two military facilities and found that equations developed for 

one area to predict residential sale prices in areas unaffected by aircraft noise worked equally well 

when applied to predicting sale prices of homes in areas with aircraft noise in excess of 65 dB DNL. 

Thus, the model worked equally well in predicting sale prices in areas with and without aircraft noise 

exposure. This indicates that aircraft noise had no meaningful effect on residential property values. In 

some cases, the average sale prices of noise exposed properties were somewhat higher than those 
Appendix C-2 C2-42 

elsewhere in the same area. In the vicinity of Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson, AZ, Fidell found the 

homes near the AFB were much older, smaller and in poorer condition than homes elsewhere. These 

factors caused the equations developed for predicting sale prices in areas further away from the base 

to be inapplicable with those nearer the AFB. However, again Fidell found that, similar to other 

researchers, differences in sale prices between homes with and without aircraft noise were frequently 

due to factors other than noise itself. 

C.3.10 Noise Effects on Structures 

Normally, the most sensitive components of a structure to airborne noise are the windows and, 

infrequently, the plastered walls and ceilings. An evaluation of the peak sound pressures impinging 

on the structure is normally used to determine the possibility of damage. In general, with peak sound 

levels above 130 dB, there is the possibility of the excitation of structural component resonances. 

While certain frequencies (such as 30 Hz for window breakage) may be of more concern than other 

frequencies, conservatively, only sounds lasting more than one second above a sound level of 130 dB 

are potentially damaging to structural components (Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and 

Biomechanics 1977). 

Noise-induced structural vibration may also cause annoyance to dwelling occupants because of 

induced secondary vibrations, or rattling of objects within the dwelling such as hanging pictures, 

dishes, plaques, and bric-a-brac. Window panes may also vibrate noticeably when exposed to high 

levels of airborne noise. In general, such noise-induced vibrations occur at peak sound levels of 110 

dB or greater. Thus, assessments of noise exposure levels for compatible land use should also be 

protective of noise-induced secondary vibrations. 

C.3.11 Noise Effects on Terrain 

It has been suggested that noise levels associated with low-flying aircraft may affect the terrain under 

the flight path by disturbing fragile soil or snow, especially in mountainous areas, causing landslides 

or avalanches. There are no known instances of such effects, and it is considered improbable that such 

effects would result from routine, subsonic aircraft operations. 

C.3.12 Noise Effects on Historical and Archaeological Sites 

Because of the potential for increased fragility of structural components of historical buildings and 

other historical sites, aircraft noise may affect such sites more severely than newer, modern structures. 

Particularly in older structures, seemingly insignificant surface cracks initiated by vibrations from 

aircraft noise may lead to greater damage from natural forces (Hanson, et al. 1991). There are few 

scientific studies of such effects to provide guidance for their assessment. 

One study involved the measurements of sound levels and structural vibration levels in a superbly 

restored plantation house, originally built in 1795, and now situated approximately 1,500 feet from the 

centerline at the departure end of Runway 19L at Washington Dulles International Airport. These 

measurements were made in connection with the proposed scheduled operation of the Concorde 

airplane at Dulles (Wesler 1977). There was special concern for the building’s windows, since roughly 

half of the 324 panes were original. No instances of structural damage were found. Interestingly, 

despite the high levels of noise during Concorde takeoffs, the induced structural vibration levels were 

actually less than those induced by touring groups and vacuum cleaning. 
Appendix C-2 C2-43 

As noted above for the noise effects of noise-induced vibrations of conventional structures, 

assessments of noise exposure levels for normally compatible land uses should also be protective of 

historic and archaeological sites. 
Appendix C-2 C2-44 

C.4 References 

Acoustical Society of America. 1980. San Diego Workshop on the Interaction Between Manmade Noise and Vibration 

and Arctic Marine Wildlife. Acoustical Society of Ameri., Am. Inst. Physics, New York. 84 pp. 

American National Standards Institute. 1980. Sound Level Descriptors for Determination of Compatible Land Use. 

ANSI S3.23-1980. 

American National Standards Institute. 1985. Specification for Sound Level Meters. ANSI S1.4A-1985 

Amendment to ANSI S1.4-1983 

American National Standards Institute. 1988. Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of 

Environmental Sound: Part 1. ANSI S12.9-1988. 

American National Standards Institute. 1996. Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of 

Environmental Sound: Part 4. ANSI S12.9-1996. 

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 2002. Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements, and 

Guidelines for Schools. ANSI S12.60-2002. 

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 2008. Methods for Estimation of Awakenings with Outdoor Noise 

Events Heard in Homes. ANSI S12.9-2008/Part6. 

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. 1995. Guidelines for Acoustics in Educational Environments, 

V.37, Suppl. 14, pgs. 15-19. 

Anderson, D.E., O.J. Rongstad, and W.R. Mytton. 1989. Responses of Nesting Red-tailed Hawks to Helicopter 

Overflights. The Condor, Vol. 91, pp. 296-299. 

Andrus, W.S., M.E. Kerrigan, and K.T. Bird. 1975. Hearing in Para-Airport Children. Aviation, Space, and 

Environmental Medicine, Vol. 46, pp. 740-742. 

Austin, Jr., O.L., W.B. Robertson, Jr., and G.E. Wolfenden. 1970. Mass Hatching Failure in Dry Tortugas Sooty 

Terns (Sterna fuscata). Proceedings of the XVth International Arnithological Congress, The Hague, The 

Netherlands. August 30 through September 5. 

Basner, M., H., Buess, U. Miller, G. Platt, , A. Samuel. Aircraft Noise Effects on Sleep: Final Results of DLR 

Laboratory and Field Studies of 2240 Polysomnographically Recorded Subject Nights, August 2004. 

Berger, E. H., W.D. Ward, J.C. Morrill, and L.H. Royster. 1995. Noise And Hearing Conservation Manual, Fourth 

Edition. American Industrial Hygiene Association, Fairfax, Virginia. 

Berglund, B., and T. Lindvall, eds. 1995. Community Noise. Institute of Environmental Medicine. 

Beyer, D. 1983. Studies of the Effects of Low-Flying Aircraft on Endocrinological and Physiological Parameters in 

Pregnant Cows. Veterinary College of Hannover, München, Germany. 

Black, B., M. Collopy, H. Percivial, A. Tiller, and P. Bohall. 1984. Effects of Low-Altitude Military Training Flights 

on Wading Bird Colonies in Florida. Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Technical 

Report No. 7. 
Appendix C-2 C2-45 

Bond, J., C.F. Winchester, L.E. Campbell, and J.C. Webb. 1963. The Effects of Loud Sounds on the Physiology and 

Behavior of Swine. U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service Technical Bulletin 

1280. 

Bowles, A.E. 1995. Responses of Wildlife to Noise. In R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds., “Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research,” Island Press, Covelo, California, 

pp.109-156. 

Bowles, A.E., F.T. Awbrey, and J.R. Jehl. 1991a. The Effects of High-Amplitude Impulsive Noise On Hatching 

Success: A Reanalysis of the Sooty Tern Incident. SD-TP-91-0006. 

Bowles, A.E., B. Tabachnick, and S. Fidell. 1991b. Review of the Effects of Aircraft Overflights on Wildlife. Volume 

II of III, Technical Report, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado. 

Bowles, A.E., C. Book, and F. Bradley. 1990a. Effects of Low-Altitude Aircraft Overflights on Domestic Turkey 

Poults. USAF, Wright-Patterson AFB. AL/OEBN Noise Effects Branch. 

Bowles, A.E., M. Knobler, M.D. Sneddon, and B.A. Kugler. 1994. Effects of Simulated Sonic Booms on the 

Hatchability of White Leghorn Chicken Eggs. AL/OE-TR-1994-0179. 

Bowles, A.E., P. K. Yochem, and F. T. Awbrey. 1990b. The Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Booms on Domestic 

Animals: A Preliminary Model and a Synthesis of the Literature and Claims (NSBIT Technical Operating 

Report Number 13). Noise and Sonic Boom Impact Technology, Advanced Development Program 

Office, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. 

Bradley J.S. 1985. Uniform Derivation of Optimum Conditions for Speech in Rooms, National Research Council, 

Building Research Note, BRN 239, Ottawa, Canada. 

Bradley, J.S. 1993. NRC-CNRC NEF Validation Study: Review of Aircraft Noise and its Effects, National Research 

Council Canada and Transport Canada, Contract Report A-1505.5. 

Bronzaft, A.L. 1997. Beware: Noise is Hazardous to Our Children’s Development. Hearing Rehabilitation 

Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1. 

Brown, A.L. 1990. Measuring the Effect of Aircraft Noise on Sea Birds. Environment International, Vol. 16, 

pp. 587-592. 

Bullock, T.H., D.P. Donning, and C.R. Best. 1980. Evoked Brain Potentials Demonstrate Hearing in a Manatee 

(Trichechus inunguis). Journal of Mammals, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 130-133. 

Burger, J. 1981. Behavioral Responses of Herring Gulls (Larus argentatus) to Aircraft Noise. Environmental 

Pollution (Series A), Vol. 24, pp. 177-184. 

Burger, J. 1986. The Effect of Human Activity on Shorebirds in Two Coastal Bays in Northeastern United States. 

Environmental Conservation, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 123-130. 

Cantrell, R.W. 1974. Prolonged Exposure to Intermittent Noise: Audiometric, Biochemical, Motor, Psychological, and 

Sleep Effects. Laryngoscope, Supplement I, Vol. 84, No. 10, p. 2. 
Appendix C-2 C2-46 

Casady, R.B., and R.P. Lehmann. 1967. Response of Farm Animals to Sonic Booms. Studies at Edwards Air Force 

Base, June 6-30, 1966. Interim Report, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland, p. 8. 

Chen, T., S. Chen, P. Hsieh, and H. Chiang. 1997. Auditory Effects of Aircraft Noise on People Living Near an 

Airport. Archives of Environmental Health, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 45-50. 

Chen, T., and S. Chen. 1993. Effects of Aircraft Noise on Hearing and Auditory Pathway Function of School-Age 

Children. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, Vol. 65, No. 2, 

pp. 107-111. 

Cogger, E.A., and E.G. Zegarra. 1980. Sonic Booms and Reproductive Performance of Marine Birds: Studies on 

Domestic Fowl as Analogues. In Jehl, J.R., and C.F. Cogger, eds., “Potential Effects of Space Shuttle Sonic 

Booms on the Biota and Geology of the California Channel Islands: Research Reports,” San Diego 

State University Center for Marine Studies Technical Report No. 80-1. 

Cohen, S., G.W. Evans, D.S. Krantz, and D. Stokols. 1980. Physiological, Motivational, and Cognitive Effects of 

Aircraft Noise on Children: Moving from Laboratory to Field. American Psychologist, Vol. 35, pp. 231-243. 

Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics. 1977. Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Impact 

Statements on Noise. The National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. 

Conomy, J.T., J.A. Dubovsky, J.A. Collazo, and W. J. Fleming. 1998. Do Black Ducks and Wood Ducks Habituate 

to Aircraft Disturbance? Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 1135-1142. 

Cottereau, P. 1972. Les Incidences Du 'Bang' Des Avions Supersoniques Sur Les Productions Et La Vie Animals. 

Revue Medicine Veterinaire, Vol. 123, No. 11, pp. 1367-1409 

Cottereau, P. 1978. The Effect of Sonic Boom from Aircraft on Wildlife and Animal Husbandry. In “Effects of Noise 

on Wildlife,” Academic Press, New York, New York, pp. 63-79. 

Crowley, R.W. 1978. A Case Study of the Effects of an Airport on Land Values. Journal of Transportation 

Economics and Policy, Vol. 7. May. 

Davis, R.W., W.E. Evans, and B. Wursig, eds. 2000. Cetaceans, Sea Turtles, and Seabirds in the Northern Gulf of 

Mexico: Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Associations. Volume II of Technical Report, prepared by 

Texas A&M University at Galveston and the National Marine Fisheries Service. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, USGS/BRD/CR-1999-0006 and 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, Louisiana, OCS Study 

MMS 2000-003. 

Dooling, R.J. 1978. Behavior and Psychophysics of Hearing in Birds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Supplement 1, Vol. 65, 

p. S4. 

Dufour, P.A. 1980. Effects of Noise on Wildlife and Other Animals: Review of Research Since 1971. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Edmonds, L.D., P.M. Layde, and J.D. Erickson. 1979. Airport Noise and Teratogenesis. Archives of 

Environmental Health, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 243-247. 
Appendix C-2 C2-47 

Edwards, R.G., A.B. Broderson, R.W. Harbour, D.F. McCoy, and C.W. Johnson. 1979. Assessment of the 

Environmental Compatibility of Differing Helicopter Noise Certification Standards. U.S. Dept. of 

Transportation, Washington, D.C. 58 pp. 

Eldred, K, and H. von Gierke. 1993. Effects of Noise on People, Noise News International, 1(2), 67-89, June. 

Ellis, D.H., C.H. Ellis, and D.P. Mindell. 1991. Raptor Responses to Low-Level Jet Aircraft and Sonic Booms. 

Environmental Pollution, Vol. 74, pp. 53-83. 

Evans, G.W., and L. Maxwell. 1997. Chronic Noise Exposure and Reading Deficits: The Mediating Effects of 

Language Acquisition. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 638-656. 

Evans, G.W., and S.J. Lepore. 1993. Nonauditory Effects of Noise on Children: A Critical Review. Children’s 

Environment, Vol. 10, pp. 31-51. 

Evans, G.W., M. Bullinger, and S. Hygge. 1998. Chronic Noise Exposure and Physiological Response: A Prospective 

Study of Children Living under Environmental Stress. Psychological Science, Vol. 9, pp. 75-77. 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 1985. Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Handbook, Order No. 100.38. 

Federal Interagency Committee On Noise (FICON). 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise 

Analysis Issues. August 1992. 

Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN). 1997. Effects of Aviation Noise on Awakenings from 

Sleep. June 1997. 

Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise (FICUN). 1980. Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land-Use 

Planning and Control. U.S. Government Printing Office Report #1981-337-066/8071, Washington, D.C. 

Fidell, S., D.S. Barber, and T.J. Schultz. 1991. Updating a Dosage-Effect Relationship for the Prevalence of Annoyance 

Due to General Transportation Noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 89, No. 1, pp. 

221-233. January. 

Fidell, S., K. Pearsons, R. Howe, B. Tabachnick, L. Silvati, and D.S. Barber. 1994. Noise-Induced Sleep 

Disturbance in Residential Settings. USAF, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: AL/OE-TR-1994-0131. 

Fidell, S., K. Pearsons, B. Tabachnick, R. Howe, L. Silvati, and D.S. Barber. 1995a. “Field Study of Noise-Induced 

Sleep Disturbance,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America Vol. 98, No. 2, pp. 1025-1033. 

Fidell, S., R. Howe, B. Tabachnick, K. Pearsons, and M. Sneddon. 1995b. Noise-induced Sleep Disturbance in 

Residences near Two Civil Airports (Contract NAS1-20101) NASA Langley Research Center. 

Fidell, S., B. Tabachnick, and L. Silvati. 1996. Effects of Military Aircraft Noise on Residential Property Values. 

BBN Systems and Technologies, BBN Report No. 8102. 

Finegold, L.S., C.S. Harris, and H.E. von Gierke. 1994. Community Annoyance and Sleep Disturbance: Updated 

Criteria for Assessing the Impact of General Transportation Noise on People. Noise Control Engineering 

Journal, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 25-30. 

Fisch, L. 1977. Research Into Effects of Aircraft Noise on Hearing of Children in Exposed Residential Areas Around an 

Airport. Acoustics Letters, Vol. 1, pp. 42-43. 
Appendix C-2 C2-48 

Fleischner, T.L., and S. Weisberg. 1986. Effects of Jet Aircraft Activity on Bald Eagles in the Vicinity of Bellingham 

International Airport. Unpublished Report, DEVCO Aviation Consultants, Bellingham, WA. 

Fleming, W.J., J. Dubovsky, and J. Collazo. 1996. An Assessment of the Effects of Aircraft Activities on Waterfowl at 

Piney Island, North Carolina. Final Report by the North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit, North Carolina State University, prepared for the Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry 

Point. 

Fraser, J.D., L.D. Franzel, and J.G. Mathiesen. 1985. The Impact of Human Activities on Breeding Bald Eagles in 

North-Central Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 49, pp. 585-592. 

Frerichs, R.R., B.L. Beeman, and A.H. Coulson. 1980. Los Angeles Airport Noise and Mortality: Faulty Analysis 

and Public Policy. Am. J. Public Health, Vol. 70, No. 4, pp. 357-362. April. 

Gladwin, D.N., K.M. Manci, and R. Villella. 1988. Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Booms on Domestic Animals 

and Wildlife. Bibliographic Abstracts. NERC-88/32. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Ecology 

Research Center, Ft. Collins, Colorado. 

Green, K.B., B.S. Pasternack, and R.E. Shore. 1982. Effects of Aircraft Noise on Reading Ability of School-Age 

Children. Archives of Environmental Health, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 24-31. 

Griefahn, B. 1978. Research on Noise Disturbed Sleep Since 1973, Proceedings of Third Int. Cong. On Noise as a 

Public Health Problem, pp. 377-390 (as appears in NRC-CNRC NEF Validation Study: (2) Review of 

Aircraft Noise and Its Effects, A-1505.1, p. 31). 

Grubb, T.G., and R.M. King. 1991. Assessing Human Disturbance of Breeding Bald Eagles with Classification Tree 

Models. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 500-511. 

Gunn, W.W.H., and J.A. Livingston. 1974. Disturbance to Birds by Gas Compressor Noise Simulators, Aircraft, and 

Human Activity in the MacKenzie Valley and the North Slope. Chapters VI-VIII, Arctic Gas Biological 

Report, Series Vol. 14. 

Haines, M.M., S.A. Stansfeld, R.F. Job, and B. Berglund. 1998. Chronic Aircraft Noise Exposure and Child 

Cognitive Performance and Stress. In Carter, N.L., and R.F. Job, eds., Proceedings of Noise as a Public 

Health Problem, Vol. 1, Sydney, Australia University of Sydney, pp. 329-335. 

Haines, M.M., S.A. Stansfeld, R.F. Job, B. Berglund, and J. Head. 2001a. A Follow-up Study of Effects of Chronic 

Aircraft Noise Exposure on Child Stress Responses and Cognition. International Journal of Epidemiology, 

Vol. 30, pp. 839-845. 

Haines, M.M., S.A. Stansfeld, R.F. Job, B. Berglund, and J. Head. 2001b. Chronic Aircraft Noise Exposure, Stress 

Responses, Mental Health and Cognitive Performance in School Children. Psychological Medicine, Vol. 31, 

pp.265-277. February. 

Haines, M.M., S.A. Stansfeld, S. Brentnall, J. Head, B. Berry, M. Jiggins, and S. Hygge. 2001c. The West London 

Schools Study: the Effects of Chronic Aircraft Noise Exposure on Child Health. Psychological Medicine, 

Vol. 31, pp. 1385-1396. November. 

Hanson, C.E., K.W. King, M.E. Eagan, and R.D. Horonjeff. 1991. Aircraft Noise Effects on Cultural Resources: 

Review of Technical Literature. Report No. HMMH-290940.04-1, available as PB93-205300, sponsored by 

National Park Service, Denver CO. 
Appendix C-2 C2-49 

Harris, C.M. 1979. Handbook of Noise Control. McGraw-Hill Book Co. 

Harris, C.S. 1997. The Effects of Noise on Health. USAF, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, AL/OE-TR-1997-0077. 

Hygge, S. 1994. Classroom Experiments on the Effects of Aircraft, Road Traffic, Train and Verbal Noise Presented at 66 

dBA Leq, and of Aircraft and Road Traffic Presented at 55 dBA Leq, on Long Term Recall and Recognition in 

Children Aged 12-14 Years. In Vallet, M., ed., Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on Noise as 

a Public Health Problem, Vol. 2, Arcueil, France: INRETS, pp. 531-538. 

Hygge, S., G.W. Evans, and M. Bullinger. 2002. A Prospective Study of Some Effects of Aircraft Noise on Cognitive 

Performance in School Children. Psychological Science Vol. 13, pp. 469-474. 

Ising, H., Z. Joachims, W. Babisch, and E. Rebentisch. 1999. Effects of Military Low-Altitude Flight Noise I 

Temporary Threshold Shift in Humans. Zeitschrift fur Audiologie (Germany), Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 118-127. 

Jehl, J.R., and C.F. Cooper, eds. 1980. Potential Effects of Space Shuttle Sonic Booms on the Biota and Geology of the 

California Channel Islands. Research Reports, Center for Marine Studies, San Diego State University, 

San Diego, CA, Technical Report No. 80-1. 246 pp. 

Jones, F.N., and J. Tauscher. 1978. Residence Under an Airport Landing Pattern as a Factor in Teratism. Archives of 

Environmental Health, pp. 10-12. January/ February. 

Kovalcik, K., and J. Sottnik. 1971. Vplyv Hluku Na Mliekovú Úzitkovost Kráv [The Effect of Noise on the Milk 

Efficiency of Cows]. Zivocisná Vyroba, Vol. 16, Nos. 10-11, pp. 795-804. 

Kryter, K.D. 1984. Physiological, Psychological, and Social Effects of Noise. NASA Reference Publication 1115. July. 

Kryter, K.D., and F. Poza. 1980. Effects of Noise on Some Autonomic System Activities. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 

Vol. 67, No. 6, pp. 2036-2044. 

Kushlan, J.A. 1978. Effects of Helicopter Censuses on Wading Bird Colonies. Journal of Wildlife Management, 

Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 756-760. 

Lazarus H. 1990. New Methods for Describing and Assessing Direct Speech Communication Under Disturbing 

Conditions, Environment International, 16: 373-392. 

LeBlanc, M.M., C. Lombard, S. Lieb, E. Klapstein, and R. Massey. 1991. Physiological Responses of Horses to 

Simulated Aircraft Noise. U.S. Air Force, NSBIT Program for University of Florida. 

Lind S.J., Pearsons K., and Fidell S. 1998. Sound Insulation Requirements for Mitigation of Aircraft Noise Impact on 

Highline School District Facilities, Volume I, BBN Systems and Technologies, BBN Report No. 8240. 

Lukas, J.S. 1978. Noise and Sleep: A Literature Review and a Proposed Criterion for Assessing Effect. In Darly N. 

May, ed., “Handbook of Noise Assessment,” Van Nostrand Reinhold Company: New York, pp. 313-

334. 

Lynch, T.E., and D.W. Speake. 1978. Eastern Wild Turkey Behavioral Responses Induced by Sonic Boom. In “Effects 

of Noise on Wildlife,” Academic Press, New York, New York, pp. 47-61. 
Appendix C-2 C2-50 

Manci, K.M., D.N. Gladwin, R. Villella, and M.G Cavendish. 1988. Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Booms on 

Domestic Animals and Wildlife: A Literature Synthesis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Ecology 

Research Center, Ft. Collins, CO, NERC-88/29. 88 pp. 

Meecham, W.C., and N. Shaw. 1979. Effects of Jet Noise on Mortality Rates. British Journal of Audiology, Vol. 13, 

pp. 77-80. August. 

Metro-Dade County. 1995. Dade County Manatee Protection Plan. DERM Technical Report 95-5. Department of 

Environmental Resources Management, Miami, Florida. 

Miedema HM, Vos H. Exposure-response relationships for transportation noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998 

Dec;104(6):3432–3445 

Michalak, R., H. Ising, and E. Rebentisch. 1990. Acute Circulatory Effects of Military Low-Altitude Flight Noise. 

International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, Vol. 62, No. 5, pp. 365-372. 

Miller, J.D. 1974. Effects of Noise on People, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Volume 56, No. 3, pp. 729-764. 

National Park Service. 1994. Report to Congress: Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park 

System. Prepared Pursuant to Public Law 100-91, The National Parks Overflights Act of 1987. 

12 September. 

Nelson, J.P. 1978. Economic Analysis of Transportation Noise Abatement. Ballenger Publishing Company, 

Cambridge, MA. 

Newman, J.S., and K.R. Beattie. 1985. Aviation Noise Effects. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Aviation Administration Report No. FAA-EE-85-2. 

Nixon, C.W., D.W. West, and N.K. Allen. 1993. Human Auditory Responses to Aircraft Flyover Noise. In Vallets, 

M., ed., Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on Noise as a Public Problem, Vol. 2, Arcueil, 

France: INRETS. 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 2000. The Effects of Noise from Weapons and Sonic Booms, and the Impact on 

Humans, Wildlife, Domestic Animals and Structures. Final Report of the Working Group Study 

Follow-up Program to the Pilot Study on Aircraft Noise, Report No. 241. June. 

Ollerhead, J.B., C.J. Jones, R.E. Cadoux, A. Woodley, B.J. Atkinson, J.A. Horne, F. Pankhurst, L. Reyner, K.I. 

Hume, F. Van, A. Watson, I.D. Diamond, P. Egger, D. Holmes, and J. McKean. December 1992. Report 

of a Field Study of Aircraft Noise and Sleep Disturbance. Commissioned by the UK Department of 

Transport for the 36 UK Department of Safety, Environment and Engineering, London, England: Civil 

Aviation Authority. 

Parker, J.B., and N.D. Bayley. 1960. Investigations on Effects of Aircraft Sound on Milk Production of Dairy Cattle, 

1957-58. U.S. Agricultural Research Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Technical Report 

Number ARS 44-60. 

Pater, L.D., D.K. Delaney, T.J. Hayden, B. Lohr, and R. Dooling. 1999. Assessment of Training Noise Impacts on 

the Red-cockaded Woodpecker: Preliminary Results – Final Report. Technical Report. U.S. Army, Corps of 

Engineers, CERL, Champaign, IL, Report Number 99/51, ADA Number 367234. 
Appendix C-2 C2-51 

Pearsons, K.S., D.S. Barber, and B.G. Tabachick. 1989. Analyses of the Predictability of Noise-Induced Sleep 

Disturbance. USAF Report HSD-TR-89-029, October. 

Pearsons, K.S., D.S. Barber, B.G. Tabachnick, and S. Fidell. 1995. Predicting Noise-Induced Sleep Disturbance. 

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 97, No. 1, pp. 331-338. January. 

Pearsons, K.S., D.S. Barber, and B.G. Tabachnick. 1989. Analyses of the Predictability of Noise-Induced Sleep 

Disturbance. USAF Report HSD-TR-89-029. October. 

Pulles, M.P.J., W. Biesiot, and R. Stewart. 1990. Adverse Effects of Environmental Noise on Health : An 

Interdisciplinary Approach. Environment International, Vol. 16, pp. 437-445. 

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic 

Press, San Diego, CA. 

Reyner L.A, Horne J.A. 1995. Gender and Age-Related Differences in Sleep Determined by Home-Recorded Sleep Logs 

and Actimetry from 400 Adults, Sleep, 18: 127-134. 

Rosenlund, M., N. Berglind, G. Bluhm, L. Jarup, and G. Pershagen. 2001. Increased Prevalence of Hypertension in 

a Population Exposed to Aircraft Noise. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 58, No. 12, 

pp. 769-773. December. 

Schultz, T.J. 1978. Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise Annoyance. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 377-

405. August. 

Schwarze, S., and S.J. Thompson. 1993. Research on Non-Auditory Physiological Effects of Noise Since 1988: Review 

and Perspectives. In Vallets, M., ed., Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on Noise as a Public 

Problem, Vol. 3, Arcueil, France: INRETS. 

Sharp, B.H., and Plotkin, K.J. 1984. Selection of Noise Criteria for School Classrooms, Wyle Research Technical 

Note TN 84-2 for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, October. 

Smith, D.G., D.H. Ellis, and T.H. Johnston. 1988. Raptors and Aircraft. In R.L Glinski, B. Gron-Pendelton, M.B. 

Moss, M.N. LeFranc, Jr., B.A. Millsap, and S.W. Hoffman, eds., Proceedings of the Southwest Raptor 

Management Symposium. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C., pp. 360-367. 

State of California. 1990. Administrative Code Title 21. 

Stusnick, E., D.A. Bradley, J.A. Molino, and G. DeMiranda. 1992. The Effect of Onset Rate on Aircraft Noise 

Annoyance, Volume 2: Rented Home Experiment. Wyle Laboratories Research Report WR 92-3. March. 

Tetra Tech, Inc. 1997. Final Environmental Assessment Issuance of a Letter of Authorization for the Incidental Take of 

Marine Mammals for Programmatic Operations at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. July. 

Ting, C., J. Garrelick, and A. Bowles. 2002. An Analysis of the Response of Sooty Tern eggs to Sonic Boom 

Overpressures. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 111, No. 1, Pt. 2, pp. 562-568. 

Trimper, P.G., N.M. Standen, L.M. Lye, D. Lemon, T.E. Chubbs, and G.W. Humphries. 1998. Effects of Lowlevel Jet Aircraft Noise On the Behavior of Nesting Osprey. Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 35, 

pp. 122-130. 
Appendix C-2 C2-52 

United Kingdom Department for Education and Skills (UKDfES). 2003. Building Bulletin 93, Acoustic Design of 

Schools - A Design Guide, London: The Stationary Office. 

U.S. Air Force. 1993. The Impact of Low Altitude Flights on Livestock and Poultry. Air Force Handbook. Volume 8, 

Environmental Protection. 28 January. 

U.S. Air Force. 1994a. Air Force Position Paper on the Effects of Aircraft Overflights on Domestic Fowl. Approved by 

HQ USAF/CEVP. 3 October. 

U.S. Air Force. 1994b. Air Force Position Paper on the Effects of Aircraft Overflights on Large Domestic Stock. 

Approved by HQ USAF/CEVP. 3 October. 

U.S. Air Force. 2000. Preliminary Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Homestead Air Force Base 

Closure and Reuse. Prepared by SAIC. 20 July. 

U.S. Department of Defense. 2009. Memorandum from the Under Secretary of Defense, Ashton B. Carter, re: 

“Methodology for assessing Hearing Loss Risk and Impacts in DoD Environmental Impact Analysis,” 

16 June. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration, Occupational Noise Exposure, 

Standard No. 1910.95, 1971 

U.S. Department of the Navy. 2002. Supplement to Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Continued Use 

with Non-Explosive Ordnance of the Vieques Inner Range, to Include Training Operations Typical of Large 

Scale Exercises, Multiple Unit Level Training, and/or a Combination of Large Scale Exercises and Multiple 

Unit Level Training. March. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect 

Public Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of Safety. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Report 550/9-74-004. March. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Protective Noise Levels. Office of Noise Abatement and Control, 

Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report 550/9-79-100. November. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Guidelines for Noise Impact Analysis. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Report 550/9-82-105. April. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Consultation Letter #2-22-98-I-224 Explaining Restrictions on 

Endangered Species Required for the Proposed Force Structure and Foreign Military Sales Actions at 

Cannon AFB, NM. To Alton Chavis HQ ACC/CEVP at Langley AFB from Jennifer Fowler-Propst, 

USFWS Field Supervisor, Albuquerque, NM. 14 December. 

U.S. Forest Service. 1992. Report to Congress: Potential Impacts of Aircraft Overflights of National Forest System 

Wilderness. U.S. Government Printing Office 1992-0-685-234/61004, Washington, D.C. 

von Gierke, H.E. 1990. The Noise-Induced Hearing Loss Problem. NIH Consensus Development Conference on 

Noise and Hearing Loss, Washington, D.C. 22–24 January. 

Ward, D.H., E.J. Taylor, M.A. Wotawa, R.A. Stehn, D.V. Derksen, and C.J. Lensink. 1986. Behavior of Pacific 

Black Brant and Other Geese in Response to Aircraft Overflights and Other Disturbances at Izembek Lagoon, 

Alaska. 1986 Annual Report, p. 68. 
Appendix C-2 C2-53 

Ward, D.H., and R.A. Stehn. 1990. Response of Brant and Other Geese to Aircraft Disturbances at Izembek Lagoon, 

Alaska. Final Technical Report, Number MMS900046. Performing Org.: Alaska Fish and Wildlife 

Research Center, Anchorage, AK. Sponsoring Org.: Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, AK, 

Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office. 

Weisenberger, M.E., P.R. Krausman, M.C. Wallace, D.W. De Young, and O.E. Maughan. 1996. Effects of 

Simulated Jet Aircraft Noise on Heart Rate and Behavior of Desert Ungulates. Journal of Wildlife 

Management, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 52-61. 

Wesler, J.E. 1977. Concorde Operations At Dulles International Airport. NOISEXPO ’77, Chicago, IL. March. 

Wesler, J.E. 1986. Priority Selection of Schools for Soundproofing, Wyle Research Technical Note TN 96-8 for the 

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, October. 

Wever, E.G., and J.A. Vernon. 1957. Auditory Responses in the Spectacled Caiman. Journal of Cellular and 

Comparative Physiology, Vol. 50, pp. 333-339. 

Wilson, C.E. 1994. Noise Control: Measurement, Analysis, and Control of Sound and Vibration”. Kreiger Publishing 

Company. 

World Health Organization. 2000. Guidelines for Community Noise. Berglund, B., T. Lindvall, and D. Schwela, 

eds. 

Wu, Trong-Neng, J.S. Lai, C.Y. Shen, T.S Yu, and P.Y. Chang. 1995. Aircraft Noise, Hearing Ability, and 

Annoyance. Archives of Environmental Health, Vol. 50, No. 6, pp. 452-456. November-December. 
APPENDIX D 

Landing Zone Figures 
LZ Site 3

Aerial Imagery Source: Bing Maps

Landing Zone

Figure D-1. Aerial View of LZ Site 3, Cleveland National Forest

Scale

0 200

0 60

Feet

Meters

N

Black Star Canyon Road

Black Star Canyon Road

Appendix D D1-1
LZ Site 5

Landing Zone

Figure D-2. Aerial View of LZ Site 5, Cleveland National Forest

Aerial Imagery Source: Bing Maps

Scale

0 200

0 60

Feet

Meters

N

North Main Divide Road

!< Wind Sock Pole

Main Divide Truck RoadMain Divide Truck Road

Appendix D D1-2
LZ Site 6

Aerial Imagery Source: Bing Maps

Landing Zone

Figure D-3. Aerial View of LZ Site 6, Cleveland National Forest

N

North Main Divide RoadNorth Main Divide Road

Scale

0 200

0 60

Feet

Meters

Appendix D D1-3
Figure D-4. Aerial View of LZ Site 6 Alt, Cleveland National Forest

LZ Site 6 Alt

North Main Divide RoadNorth Main Divide Road

Eagle

Truck Road

Eagle

Truck Road

Aerial Imagery Source: Bing Maps

Landing Zone N

Scale

0 200

0 60

Feet

Meters

Appendix D D1-4
LZ Site 7

Aerial Imagery Source: Bing Maps

Landing Zone

Figure D-5. Aerial View of LZ Site 7, Cleveland National Forest

Scale

0 200

0 60

Feet

Meters

N

!<

Wind Sock Pole

Silverado TrailSilverado Trail

Appendix D D1-5
Figure D-6. Aerial View of LZ Site 8, Cleveland National Forest

LZ Site 8

!< Wind Sock Pole

North Main Divide Road

Aerial Imagery Source: Bing Maps

Landing Zone N

Scale

0 200

0 60

Feet

Meters

Appendix D D1-6
Figure D-7. Aerial View of LZ Site 9, Cleveland National Forest

LZ Site 9

North Main Divide RoadNorth Main Divide Road

Aerial Imagery Source: Bing Maps

Landing Zone N

Scale

0 200

0 60

Feet

Meters

Appendix D D1-7
LZ Site 9 Alt

Aerial Imagery Source: Bing Maps

Landing Zone

Figure D-8. Aerial View of LZ Site 9 Alt, Cleveland National Forest

Scale

0 200

0 60

Feet

Meters

N

N

orth Main Divide

R

o

ad N

orth Main Divide

R

o

ad

Appendix D D1-8
LZ Site 10

Aerial Imagery Source: Bing Maps

Landing Zone

Figure D-9. Aerial View of LZ Site 10, Cleveland National Forest

Scale

0 200

0 60

Feet

Meters

N

Appendix D D1-9
LZ Site 11

Aerial Imagery Source: Bing Maps

Landing Zone

Figure D-10. Aerial View of LZ Site 11, Cleveland National Forest

Scale

0 200

0 60

Feet

Meters

N

Harding Truck Trail RoadHarding Truck Trail Road

Wind Sock Pole !<

Appendix D D1-10
Landing Zone

Figure D-11. Aerial View of LZ Bull, BLM El Centro

LZ Bull

Airphoto Source: USGS 2008

Scale

0 250

0 75

Feet

Meters N

Appendix D D1-11
B

L

M 191 BLM 191

LZ C1

Figure D-12. Aerial View of LZ C1, BLM El Centro

Airphoto Source: USGS 2008

Landing Zone

BLM Road

N

Scale

0 250

0 75

Feet

Meters

Appendix D D1-12
BLM 746

BLM 830

BLM 830

BLM 622

LZ Cupcake

Figure D-13. Aerial View of LZ Cupcake, BLM El Centro

Airphoto Source: USGS 2008

Landing Zone

BLM Road

Scale

0 150

0 50

Feet

Meters N

Appendix D D1-13
LZ Eider

Figure D-14. Aerial View of LZ Eider, BLM El Centro

Landing Zone

Airphoto Source: USGS 2008

Scale

0 300

0 100

Feet

Meters

N

Appendix D D1-14
BLM 616

BLM 652

BLM 676

LZ I P1

Figure D-15. Aerial View of LZ IP1 Option, BLM El Centro

Option

Landing Zone

BLM Road

Airphoto Source: USGS 2008

Scale

0 300

0 100

Feet

Meters

N

Appendix D D1-15
LZ Mallard Mallard

Figure D-16. Aerial View of LZ Mallard, BLM El Centro

Scale

0 250

0 75

Feet

Meters

N

Airphoto Source: USGS 2008

Landing Zone

Appendix D D1-16
BLM 728

LZ ME3 Option

Figure D-17. Aerial View of LZ ME3 Option, BLM El Centro

Airphoto Source: USGS 2008

N

Scale

0 250

0 75

Feet

Meters

Landing Zone

BLM Road

Appendix D D1-17
LZ MW1 Option

LZ MW1 BLM 724

BLM 723

Figure D-18. Aerial View of LZ MW1 and LZ MW1 Option, BLM El Centro

Airphoto Source: USGS 2008

Scale

0 300

0 100

Feet

Meters

N

Landing Zone

BLM Road

Appendix D D1-18
BLM 659 BLM 659

Landing Zone

BLM Road

Figure D-19. Aerial View of LZ PC3, BLM El Centro

Airphoto Source: USGS 2008

Scale

0 250

0 75

Feet

Meters

N

L PC3 Z

Appendix D D1-19
Figure D-20. Aerial View of LZ Pelican, BLM El Centro

LZ Pelican

BLM 640

Airphoto Source: USGS 2008

Landing Zone

BLM Road

Scale

0 150

0 50

Feet

Meters

N

Appendix D D1-20
BLM 539

LZ Sparrow

BLM 539

Figure D-21. Aerial View of LZ Sparrow, BLM El Centro

Landing Zone

BLM Road

Airphoto Source: USGS 2008

Scale

0 300

0 100

Feet

Meters

N

Appendix D D1-21
Figure D-22. Aerial View of LZ Wolf, BLM El Centro

LZ Wolf

Airphoto Source: USGS 2008

Landing Zone

BLM Road

Scale

0 500

0 150

Feet

Meters

N

BLM 207

Appendix D D1-22
APPENDIX E 

Risk of Fire from V-22 Exhaust Memo 







APPENDIX F 

Public Draft EA Comments and Public Outreach 
APPENDIX F-1 

Public Draft EA Comments and Responses 
Appendix F-1 F1-1
Appendix F-1 F1-2
Appendix F-1 F1-3
Appendix F-1 F1-4
Appendix F-1 F1-5
Appendix F-1 F1-6
Appendix F-1 F1-7
Appendix F-1 F1-8
Appendix F-1 F1-9
Appendix F-1 F1-10
Appendix F-1 F1-11
Appendix F-1 F1-12
Appendix F-1 F1-13
Appendix F-1 F1-14
Appendix F-1 F1-15
Appendix F-1 F1-16
Appendix F-1 F1-17
West Coast Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training

 emoH mroF tnemmoC

Comments Received 

 sserddA emaN tnemmoC

 oruD esoR Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians

Culture Committee PO BOX 68 

Valley Center, CA 92082 

2127 E. Adams Avenue Orange, 

California 92867 

225 Wake Ave #211 El Centro, CA

92243

Kenneth Domer

Gunny Champagne

July 31, 2012 Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest Attn: Ms. Kelly

Finn, NEPA Project Manager 1220 Pacific Highway Building 1, Central IPT San 

Diego, CA 92132 Re: Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment for 

U.S. Marine Corps Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations on Public Lands in 

Southern California Dear Ms. Kelly Finn, This letter is written on behalf of the Rincon 

Band of Luiseño Indians. Thank you for inviting us to submit comments on the above

named project. The Rincon Band has concerns for impacts, disturbances, and 

destruction to historic properties, cultural resources, and findings of significant value 

that are considered culturally important to the Luiseño people. This is to inform you that 

some of the identified landing zone locations are situated within the Aboriginal Territory 

of the Luiseño people, especially those indicated as being within the Trabuco Ranger 

District. There are numerous known and yet to be discovered cultural sites within

our Traditional Use Area, also referred to previously as the Luiseno Aboriginal Territory. 

We support the training of U.S. troops, and we are also concerned for the protection of 

cultural resources, especially any inadvertent archaeological discoveries that could be 

made or uncovered at the various aircraft landing sites. We do recommend avoidance 

as a strategy to minimize impacts to known cultural sites close to landing zones. Thus, 

if a landing zone was found to coincide with a cultural site, we would recommend 

moving the landing zone locale away to a non-impacting distance so as to avoid

damaging the cultural location. We also suggest that you contact the Native American 

Heritage Commission regarding information on other Tribes in the various project 

areas. Additionally, we request that you would provide us with updates regarding the 

project. If you have any questions, please contact (760) 297-2635. Thank you for this 

opportunity to protect and preserve our cultural assets. Sincerely, Rose Duro Rincon 

Culture Committee Chair

I have read and reviewed the draft EA for the proposed training operations and am in 

full support of the proposed training operaitons and designated sites for the landing

zones. As a frequent hiker within the Cleveland National Forest, I greatly appreciated

the USMC consideration of environmental factors and believe they have developed a 

more than adequate program in which to protect environmental assets while 

conducting much needed and critical to our national protection training. 

Two comments: Off-roaders will, much of the time, be without communications and

need prior information of training sites that should be avoided. (2) Coordination with 

Off-Road-Race committees might be advisable. Semper Fi 

Appendix F-1 F1-18
Peterson Reporting Video & Litigation

Page 1

 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR

 U.S. MARINE CORPS ROTARY WING AND

 TILT-ROTOR TRAINING OPERATIONS

 PUBLIC HEARING

 WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2012

 4:30 P.M. TO 8:00 P.M.

 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

REPORTED BY: MARIE T. MELLGREN, CSR No. 9442

Appendix F-1 F1-19
Peterson Reporting Video & Litigation

Page 2

1 JULY 25, 2012, CORONA, CALIFORNIA

2 4:30 P.M. TO 8:00 P.M.

3

4 MS. RIDENOUR: I would like to commend Karen

5 Foster for answering my questions and Kelly Finn for

6 providing the information that I needed and going out

7 of their way to provide -- I don't know what you call

8 this -- a map, I guess.

9 Mike Hamilton was very influential with the

10 environmental and archeological information. And I

11 don't know what to call those guys. The Marine pilots

12 were very influential.

13 And I feel comfortable that this will turn out

14 to be a good project.

15 How does that sound?

16 (Proceedings concluded at 8:00 p.m.)

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Appendix F-1 F1-20
Peterson Reporting Video & Litigation

Page 3

1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

2

3

4 I, Marie T. Mellgren, a Certified Shorthand

5 Reporter for the State of California, do hereby certify:

6 That said proceedings was taken before me at the

7 time and place set forth herein and was taken by me in

8 shorthand and thereafter transcribed into typewriting

9 using computer-aided transcription, and I hereby certify

10 that the said deposition is a full, true and correct

11 transcript of my shorthand notes so taken.

12 I further certify that I am neither counsel for

13 nor related to any party to said action nor in any way

14 interested in the outcome thereof.

15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed my name

16 this day of August, 2012.

17

18

19

 ________________________________________

20 Marie T. Mellgren

 CSR No. 9442

21

22

23

24

25

Appendix F-1 F1-21
1 Response to Comments

2 Letter A ­ State of California Department of Transportation

3 Response to Comment A‐1. Thank you for your review of the Public Draft Environmental

4 Assessment (EA).  If there is a change in the proposed action that may affect the State Highway System,

5 the United States Marine Corps (USMC) will forward copies of the revised action as requested.

6 Letter B ­ Department of Toxic Substances Control

7 Response to Comment B‐1. As described in Section 2.3 (Resource Areas Eliminated from Detailed

8 Consideration) in the Public Draft EA, the proposed aircraft flight activity would not include new

9 construction or improvements within the Cleveland National Forest or on Bureau of Land Management

10 (BLM) lands; therefore, there would be no storage or removal of hazardous materials and waste.    In

11 addition, aircraft would not be maintained or fueled at any landing zone (LZ).    Ongoing fueling and

12 maintenance operations would be conducted on Department of Defense‐controlled lands (not

13 addressed in this EA); therefore, operational impacts would not occur with respect to hazardous

14 materials in association with proposed aircraft flight activity.    Based on these components of the

15 proposed action, impacts due to hazardous materials and waste were considered negligible or non‐

16 existent and not analyzed in‐depth in the Public Draft EA.

17 Response to Comment B‐2. Environmental investigations, sampling, and/or remediation are not

18 required for the proposed action.  Please see response to Comment B‐1.

19 Response to Comment B‐3. Environmental investigations, sampling, and/or remediation are not

20 required for the proposed action.  Please see response to Comment B‐1.

21 Response to Comment B‐4. There are no planned demolitions of buidlings, other structures, asphalt,

22 or concrete‐paved surface areas; therefore, no investigations are required.

23 Response to Comment B‐5. The proposed action does not include new construction or demolition

24 activities.  Therefore, no soil excavation or imports of fill soil are required.

25 Response to Comment B‐6. This comment is not relevant because the proposed action does not

26 include construction or demolition activities.

27 Response to Comment B‐7. The proposed action would not generate hazardous wastes.  Please see

28 response to Comment B‐1.

29 Response to Comment B‐8. The proposed action does not include new construction or demolition

30 activities.

31 Response to Comment B‐9. No cleanup activities are anticipated for the proposed action.

Appendix F-1 F1-22
1 Letter C – Native American Heritage Commission

2 Response to Comment C‐1. As described in Section 3.8 (Cultural Resources) of the Final EA, the

3 proposed action would have no adverse effect on a historic property or tribal cultural resource, and no

4 significant impacts would occur under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).    Therefore,

5 preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required.

6 Response to Comment C‐2.   Archaeological surveys were conducted for the entire Area of Potential

7 Effects (APE) for both the Cleveland National Forest and BLM lands (SAIC 2011, 2012c).  As part of the

8 archaeological survey effort, a request for a Sacred Lands File Search was submitted on 1 June 2011 to

9 the Native American Heritage Commission.  A response was received on 16 June 2011, and the results

10 were incorporated into the archaeological survey report.    In addition, the USMC, in cooperation with

11 BLM and Untied States Forest Service (USFS), consulted with federally recognized and non‐federally

12 recognized Indian tribes affiliated with lands involved in this action (see Section 2.6, Agency Consultation

13 and Approvals, and Section 3.8, Cultural Resources, of the Final EA).    The USMC coordinated with

14 interested groups to determine if any other sensitive cultural sites, besides the archaeological sites

15 located during surveys, are within the APE.  No other resources were identified during this consultation

16 effort.

17 Response to Comment C‐3. As a federal undertaking on federal lands, the proposed action is not

18 subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.  However, the USMC understands that the Native

19 American Heritage Commission has special expertise on issues concerning California Native American

20 communities.

21 Response to Comment C‐4. As described in Section 2.6 (Agency Consultation and Approvals) and

22 Section 3.8 (Cultural Resources) of the Final EA, the USMC, in cooperation with BLM and USFS, consulted

23 with federally recognized and non‐federally recognized Indian tribes affiliated with lands involved in this

24 action.  Seventy‐two letters were sent in April 2012 to initiate the consultation process.  Responses were

25 received from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, Cabazon

26 Band of Mission Indians, Cocopah Indian Tribe, Pala Band of Mission Indians, Quechan Indian Tribe, Rincon

27 Band of Luiseño Indians, and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians.  The USMC, in cooperation with BLM and

28 USFS, conducted follow‐on coordination with interested groups via phone calls, emails, and face‐to‐face

29 meetings.

30 Additionally, records and literature searches of the California Historical Resources Information System

31 (CHRIS) were conducted at the South Coastal Information Center, South Central Coastal Information

32 Center, and Eastern Information Center as part of the archaeological investigations associated with the

33 proposed action.  A summary of the records searches was provided in the Public Draft EA (Section 3.8,

34 Cultural Resources).

35 Response to Comment C‐5. During consultations with culturally‐affiliated tribes, the USMC took into

36 consideration concerns made by groups on potential effects on archaeological resources, and dropped

37 some LZs from further consideration and redesigned two others to minimize impacts on nearby

38 archaeological sites.    For example, LZ Canary and LZ PC3 Option, which were addressed in the Public

Appendix F-1 F1-23
1 Draft EA, were subsequently dropped from further consideration at the request of the Quechan Indian

2 Tribe.

3 The USMC, in cooperation with the USFS and BLM, also consulted with the California State Historic

4 Preservation Office (SHPO) in accordance with 36 Code of Federal Regulations 800, regulations

5 implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended (16

6 United States Code 70‐470x‐6).    The California SHPO reviewed the proposed undertaking (File No.  

7 USMC 120802A) and concurred that the proposed undertaking would have no adverse effect on the

8 identified historic properties.

9 Response to Comment C‐6. The proposed action does not include new construction or demolition

10 activities.  The USMC will follow all applicable regulations regarding inadvertent discoveries of human

11 remains.

12 Letter D – Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians

13 Response to Comment D‐1. Thank you for your review of the Public Draft EA.  Per your request, the

14 USMC will notify you of any inadvertent cultural resources discoveries.

15 Letter E – Pala Tribal Historic Preservation Office

16 Response to Comment E‐1. Thank you for your review of the Public Draft EA.  The USMC will keep

17 you on their on‐going tribal consultation list, and will notify you of any changes to the proposed action

18 that would extend the project boundaries beyond what is currently proposed.

19 Letter F – Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians

20 Response to Comment F‐1. Thank you for your review of the Public Draft EA and your support of

21 the U.S. troops.  The USMC acknowledges your concerns about the preservation of resources that are

22 culturally‐sensitive to the Luiseño people.

23 Response to Comment F‐2. The USMC, in support of this EA, has conducted detailed archaeological

24 surveys of the proposed LZs in the Cleveland National Forest and on BLM lands.   This effort included

25 contacting the Native American Heritage Commission in June 2011.  The USMC, in cooperation with BLM

26 and USFS, also consulted with federally recognized and non‐federally recognized Indian tribes affiliated

27 with lands involved in this action.  During consultations with culturally‐affiliated tribes, the USMC took

28 into consideration concerns made by groups on potential effects on archaeological resources, and

29 dropped some LZs from further consideration and redesigned two others to avoid adverse effects on

30 nearby archaeological sites.  For example, LZ Canary and LZ PC3 Option, which were addressed in the

31 Public Draft EA, were subsequently dropped from further consideration at the request of the Quechan

32 Indian Tribe.  As a result, the proposed action would have no adverse effect on a historic property or

33 tribal cultural resource (see Section 3.8, Cultural Resources, of the Final EA).

Appendix F-1 F1-24
1 Letter G – Orange County Community Resources

2 Response to Comment G‐1.   As indicated in your letter, the proposed training operations are not

3 located within the Irvine Ranch Open Space.  The USMC has no plans to use the closed Fremont or Black

4 Star Landing Zones and recognize that they are not available for use at this time.

5 Letter H – Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians (website comment)

6 Response to Comment H‐1.   Please see response to Comments F‐1 and F‐2.

7 Letter I – Kenneth Domer (website comment)

8 Response to Comment I‐1.   We appreciate your support of the project.

9 Letter J – Gunny Champagne (website comment)

10 Response to Comment J‐1.   Regarding off‐road races on BLM lands, BLM would coordinate with the

11 USMC prior to any permitted event that may conflict with USMC activities to ensure that any potential

12 conflicts are avoided.  For USFS lands, squadron scheduling personnel would notify Cleveland Emergency

13 Services Dispatch (Cleveland Dispatch) and the Special Use Coordinator to schedule landing operations

14 typically two weeks in advance, which should help deconflict activities.   Pilots would also contact the

15 Cleveland Dispatch when checking into and out of the area.  Pilots would also perform clearance passes

16 of each LZ before landing, and pilots would not land, or attempt to land, if civilians are present,

17 consistent with standard avoidance measures used to minimize annoyance of persons on the ground.  

18 See Section 2.2.1.3 (Flight Activity within the Cleveland National Forest) and Section 2.2.1.4 (Flight

19 Activity within BLM El Centro Managed Lands) for more information.

20 Letter K – Ms. Ridenour (oral comment)

21 Response to Comment K‐1.   Thank you for your feedback on our public outreach efforts.

22 Response to Comment K‐2.   We appreciate your support of the project.

Appendix F-1 F1-25
APPENDIX F-2 

Public Outreach Summary (August 2012) 
ROTARY WING AND TILT‐ROTOR OPERATIONS DRAFT EA   Page 1 of 6

Summary of Public Involvement Activities        

U.S. Marine Corps Rotary Wing and Tilt‐Rotor Training Operations  

on Public Lands in Southern California  

Environmental Assessment

Public Involvement Activities Summary Report

August 2012

The U.S. Marine Corps (Marine Corps), in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS),

conducted public notification and involvement activities in support of the Rotary Wing and Tilt‐

Rotor Training Operations on Public Lands in Southern California Draft Environmental

Assessment (EA). The purpose of these efforts was to actively inform the public, organizations,

government agencies, federally recognized tribes and elected officials about the Marine Corps’

proposed action and to receive public comments on the accuracy and adequacy of the analysis

presented in the Draft EA. The Marine Corps held two open house public meetings in Southern

California on 17 and 25 July 2012.

Efforts to notify interested stakeholders about the availability of the Draft EA and the open

house public meetings were conducted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) and the Public Involvement Plan developed for the Rotary Wing and Tilt‐Rotor

Operations EA.  

This summary report includes detailed information about public notification, involvement and

outreach activities conducted by the Marine Corps, in cooperation with the USFS, during the

public review and comment period from 02 July 2012 to 31 July 2012.

Summary of Public Scoping Activities

The USFS issued 204 public scoping letters for the proposed action in March 2012 for a 30‐day

scoping period that ended on 15 April 2012.  No comments were received in response to the

scoping letters.

Summary of Activities Conducted During Public Comment Period

A. Notification Activities

The following notifications were developed to inform the public of the availability of the Draft

EA and open house public meetings.

Notification Letter

A notification letter (Exhibit A), signed by Patrick Christman, Assistant Chief of Staff G‐7, was

mailed to 369 federal, state and local elected officials, government agencies, tribal chairs and

other interested stakeholders on 29 June 2012. The letter provided information about the

proposed action, Study Area, project website, commenting channels, and the locations, dates

and times of the open house public meetings.
ROTARY WING AND TILT‐ROTOR OPERATIONS DRAFT EA   Page 2 of 6

Summary of Public Involvement Activities        

Additionally, 72 letters were sent in April 2012 to initiate the consultation process with federally

recognized tribes, and follow‐up phone calls were made to each group. The Marine Corps is

currently coordinating with interested groups to address their concerns.

Project Website

A project‐specific public website was created to provide project‐related information, such as

fact sheets, posters and notification of the open house public meetings, to the public. It also

includes links to electronic versions of the Draft EA and other related official announcements

and information. The website was activated concurrently with the release of the Draft EA. The

contractor, upon approval, added, and will continue to add, information about the Rotary Wing

and Tilt‐Rotor Operations EA to the project website, throughout the life of the project. The

website address is www.rotarywingnepa.com.

Newspaper Display Advertisements

Display advertisements (Exhibit B) announcing the availability of the Draft EA were published in

four local newspapers. The series of display advertisements ran for three consecutive days in

The Orange County Register, The Press Enterprise, the Imperial Valley Press and the Adelante

Valle, a Spanish language newspaper. The ad included information on the proposed action;

purpose and need; how to submit comments; open house public meetings, including format,

dates, times and locations; and information repository locations. Due to a misprint in the

Orange County Register, the newspaper ran the advertisement a fourth time at no cost to the

Marine Corps.

Table 1: Display Advertisement Run Dates

COVERAGE NEWSPAPER DATES OF

ADVERTISEMENT

Orange County The Orange County Register  

29 June 2012

30 June 2012

1 July 2012

7 July 2012

Riverside and

San Bernardino

Counties

The Press‐Enterprise

29 June 2012

30 June 2012

1 July 2012

Imperial

County Imperial Valley Press

29 June 2012

30 June 2012

1 July 2012

Imperial

County Adelante Valle

29 June 2012

6 July 2012

13 July 2012

News Release

A news release (Exhibit C) was distributed by the Commander, Marine Corps Installations West

Public Affairs Office to media outlets, elected officials and other potentially interested parties
ROTARY WING AND TILT‐ROTOR OPERATIONS DRAFT EA   Page 3 of 6

Summary of Public Involvement Activities        

concurrently with the release of the Draft EA on 02 July 2012. The news release announced the

availability of the Draft EA and included information about the proposed action, purpose and

need, public meeting locations, dates and times, project website and comment submittal

information.

Postcard Mailer

A postcard mailer (Exhibit D) announcing the availability of the Draft EA, describing the

proposed action and purpose and need, and providing information on how to submit comments,

the project website and the open house public meeting locations, dates and times was sent to

649 individuals.  

Draft EA Distribution

The Draft EA was available for download on the project website, and hard copy (paper) and/or

electronic (CD‐ROM) format was available to regulatory agencies, elected officials, federally

recognized tribes and other interested parties upon request. The Draft EA was also available at

the information repositories.

B. Pre‐Meeting Training and Public Meeting Dry Run

A 90‐minute, pre‐meeting training and dry run were held on 17 July 2012 at Southwest High

School in El Centro, Calif., to prepare the project team for addressing stakeholder and media

inquiries, and interfacing with the public and media at the open house public meetings. A

staffing plan (Exhibit E) indicated which team members would be at each poster station. Topics

included a review of key messages, rules of engagement, and an overview of the public meeting

format and poster stations. The dry run gave staff the opportunity to review poster content and

potential questions in preparation for the public meetings.  

C. Open House Public Meetings

The two open house public meetings were held at the following locations, dates and times.

Table 2: Open House Public Meeting Information

MEETING

LOCATION VENUE DATE TIME

El Centro, Calif.

Central Union High School District

Southwest High School  

Multipurpose Room

2001 Ocotillo Drive

17 July 2012 5 to 8 p.m.

Corona, Calif.

Corona Parks and Community

Services

Historic Community Room  

815 W. Sixth St.  

25 July 2012 5 to 8 p.m.

The public meetings were held in an informal open‐house format (Figure 1) where members of

the public could arrive at any time during the three‐hour event. There were no formal

presentations or oral comment sessions. Staff members at the welcome station greeted guests
ROTARY WING AND TILT‐ROTOR OPERATIONS DRAFT EA   Page 4 of 6

Summary of Public Involvement Activities        

and encouraged meeting attendees to sign in on a sign‐in sheet (Exhibit F) to receive project

information and future notifications. A bound fact sheet booklet (Exhibit G) and a comment

form (Exhibit H) were distributed to attendees, along with verbal direction about the

organization and flow of the poster stations around the room.  

Fact sheet booklets were provided to all attendees and covered the following topics:  

• Poster station overview

• Landing zone map

• Proposed action and alternatives

• Environmental resource areas

• NEPA process and community involvement

For both meetings, a separate two‐page Spanish fact sheet (Exhibit I) provided a general

overview of the Draft EA and proposed action.  

Posters (Exhibit J) covered the following topics:  

• Welcome  

• NEPA process and community involvement

• Aircraft and proposed training operations

• Map of landing zones

• Proposed action and alternatives

• Environmental resource areas

Subject matter experts from the Marine Corps, USFS and contractors staffed each poster station

to answer questions and provide project information. Each poster station included at least one

poster, the fact sheet booklet and comment forms.

The open house public meetings also included a video demonstration that addressed noise

comparisons. The video provided information about noise generated by rotary wing and tilt‐

rotor aircraft as well as comparisons of aircraft noise to that of daily activities. The video was set

up at the environmental resource areas poster station.

A comment collection station, which included tables, chairs, pens, comment forms and a digital

voice recorder for oral comments in languages other than English, was also set up to facilitate

the submission of written and oral comments from interested members of the public. A court

reporter was available to receive oral comments in English. Meeting attendees were encouraged

to fill out public comment forms to ensure comments were submitted as part of the official

record for the development of the Draft EA. Individuals could submit completed forms at the

meetings or mail them to the address provided on the comment form. Attendees were also

informed that they could submit comments online via the project website at

www.rotarywingnepa.com.

   
ROTARY WING AND TILT‐ROTOR OPERATIONS DRAFT EA   Page 5 of 6

Summary of Public Involvement Activities        

Figure 1. Open House Public Meeting Internal Room Layout

   
ROTARY WING AND TILT‐ROTOR OPERATIONS DRAFT EA   Page 6 of 6

Summary of Public Involvement Activities        

Attendance

Meeting attendees were encouraged to sign in at the welcome table. The information below

reflects the number in attendance. In total, eight (8) people attended the open house public

meetings.

• El Centro, Calif.: Zero (0) people signed in; there were no media, elected officials,

community representatives or interested members of the public in attendance.

• Corona, Calif.: Eight (8) people signed in; local government representation included the

treasurer for the city of Corona; military representation included a member from the Los

Alamitos Army Airfield.

D. Public Comment Period

The 30‐day comment period was from 02 July 2012 to 31 July 2012. A total of ten (10)

comments were received: three (3) website comments, one (1) oral comment received during

the meetings and six (6) mailed in written comments. Below is a summary of the comments

received during this comment period. Table 3 provides a breakdown of areas of public concern

based on comments received during the public review and comment period. The summary is not

meant to capture all aspects of the comments or to serve as a legal record.

Summary of Public Comments Received By Resource Area

Cultural Resources: Comments expressed concern for impacts, disturbances and destruction to

historic properties, cultural resources and findings of significant value that are considered

culturally important. Avoidance of known cultural sites and consultation with Native American

tribes to identify current designated sites was recommended.

Environmental Resources: Comments expressed appreciation to the Marine Corps for

consideration of environmental factors and protection of environmental assets.

Public Health and Safety: Comments expressed concern for the need to inform off‐roaders

beforehand of what training sites should be avoided.  

Transportation: The California Department of Transportation provided a comment asking to be

informed of any future updates to the EA that would affect Interstate 5.  

NEPA Process: Comments expressed appreciation to the team for addressing public concerns

and providing additional information when requested.

Table 3: Public Meeting Comment Summary

Issue Number of times issue raised

Cultural Resources 5

Environmental Resources 1

Public Health and Safety 2

Transportation 1

NEPA Process 1

E. Media Coverage

   

There were no articles published regarding the Rotary Wing and Tilt‐Rotor Operations EA or

open house public meetings.  
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 1 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 

U.S. Marine Corps Rotary Wing and Tilt-Rotor Training Operations 

on Public Lands in Southern California 

Environmental Assessment 

Public Involvement Activities Summary Report 

Exhibits 

August 2012
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 2 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 

Exhibit A - Stakeholder Letter
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 3 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 4 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 5 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 6 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 

Exhibit B – Display Advertisement
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 7 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 

Exhibit C – News Release
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 8 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 9 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 

Exhibit D – Postcard Mailer
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 10 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 

Exhibit E - Open House Staffing Plan
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 11 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 12 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 

Exhibit F – Sign-in Sheet
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 13 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 

Exhibit G - Fact Sheet Booklet 
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 14 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 15 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 16 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 17 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 18 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 19 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 20 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 21 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 

Exhibit H – Comment Form
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 22 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 

Exhibit I – Spanish Fact Sheet
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 23 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 24 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 

Exhibit J – Posters
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 25 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 26 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 27 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 28 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities 
ROTARY WING AND TILT-ROTOR OPERATIONS EA Page 29 of 29

Summary of Public Involvement Activities