Memorandum Opinion and Order - US District Court - Northern ...

of airspace and other assets that support realistic training of bomber aircrews; and (3) to ensureflexibility and variability in the training of support bomber combat missions.The four RBTI alternatives consisted ofAlternative AAlternative BAlternative CAlternative DNo Action;Instrument Route (IR)-178/Lancer Military OperationsArea (MOA), 85 percent existing airspace;IR-178/Texon MOA, 80 percent existing airspace;IR-153/Mt. Dora MOA, 90 percent existing airspace.Under Alternative A, Defendants’ bombers would continue to use existing airspace andexisting Electronic Scoring Sites (“ESS”) at current levels. Alternatives B, C, and D eachinvolve (1) changes in the structure and use of the airspace, including some additional airspaceand some eliminated airspace; (2) decommissioning the ESS at both Harrison, Arkansas, and LaJunta, Colorado; and (3) construction of ten new electronic threat emitter sites and two ESS.Alternatives B and C lie almost wholly in western Texas, while Alternative D is located innortheastern New Mexico.Defendants admit that aircraft noise levels would increase 2-13 decibels (“dB”) inAlternatives B and C airspace and 1-18 dB in Alternative D airspace. The percentage of “highlyannoyed” persons could rise under Alternative B, IR-178, by eight percent, and Defendantsconcede that increases in noise levels from RBTI aircraft could be perceived by some asaffecting their quality of life.Defendants also acknowledge that Alternatives B and C would necessitate overflights oftwo special use land management areas (e.g., state parks, scenic rivers) but point out thatAlternative D would necessitate overflights of thirteen such areas. Both Alternatives B and C4