News Alert
Lawsuit Over Military Air Traffic Intensification
On March 13, 2025, Anglers of the Au Sable sued both the United States Air Force and the National Guard Bureau challenging the decision of the National Guard Bureau to rely on a mere Environmental Assessment (EA) which concluded that the proposed massive expansion of vertical and horizontal airspace for low-altitude training by military aircraft over the eastern half of Michigan’s lower peninsula would have no significant impact.
This proposed expansion would allow the National Guard to fly jets in low altitude training over the eastern half of the lower peninsula of Michigan, including the Au Sable River watershed, and would dramatically increase the number and geographic scope of such flights, adding an additional 1,633 nautical square miles to its current 11,042 square nautical mile Alpena Special Use Airspace Complex, stretching from east of I-75 near Grayling up to Huron Beach, through the thumb of Port Sanilac, and into Lake Huron airspace.
Near Grayling, this would create a new permanent, expanded airspace of 918 square miles, with major increases in the number of flights and the amount of time planes spend flying there. Some planes would fly as low as 500 feet. This permanent airspace would replace an 869 square mile temporary airspace that currently does not allow flights under 5000 feet. Another flight path between the Grayling Air Gunnery Range and the Alpena Center would allow planes to fly as low as 300 feet.
Previously, Anglers commented and attempted to administratively appeal the deficiencies, but were essentially ignored The Anglers objections include:
The EA failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Air Force, FAA, and other regulations. This proposal is incompatible with recreational values, the outdoor economy, and real estate values of these areas. It fails to provide a complete assessment of the potential impacts for both individual and cumulative effects, including direct and indirect ecological effects that will result, including elevated sound, increased atmospheric shockwaves, discharge of chaff, flares, and munitions, as well as electronic measures/countermeasures. These activities will likely result in significant negative effects on both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
More specifically the lawsuit identifies these problems with the government's "analysis":
-
The EA uses a flawed population model, relying on what it claims to be a decreasing and aging population of the affected area. This fails to account for tens of thousands of seasonal residents, hikers, bikers, hunters, fishers, and outdoor lovers who support the local economies and whose lives, outdoor experience, and property values would be adversely affected.
-
The proposal will result in a dramatic increase in noise, with up to a tenfold increase in flights of ear-splitting jets.
-
The proposal will result in an increase of various pollutants, raining down on the headwaters of the Au Sable. This pollution will also enter the lands, air, and waters used by wildlife, permanent residents, seasonal residents, and participants in outdoor activities for which the area is justly famous and desired. The EA inadequately addresses the magnitude and effect of this increased pollution on land and water. For example, chaff cartridges, which contain aluminum foil particles or aluminum coated glass fibers, will increase by about 20%. Flares will also increase. Made with magnesium and other chemicals, which combust, flares produce a variety of tiny particles that are then inhaled, causing irritation to skin, eyes, and the respiratory system. Jet fuel combustion produces CO2, CO, C, NOx, SOx, metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and other toxic and carcinogenic compounds. Unburned jet engine lubrication oil is another toxic emission.
-
The EA contains inadequate information as to how waste will be disposed with the increased airspace.
-
Visible and audible encounters between aircraft and wildlife cause animals to exhibit stress responses. Spring and fall bird migrations are likely to coincide with training activities. There are several endangered and/or threatened species in the area, including the Indiana and Northern long-eared bat, Karner blue butterfly, monarch butterfly, Kirkland warbler, bald eagle, Hine’s emerald dragon fly, and Hungerford’s water beetle.
-
The EA inadequately addresses the cumulative effects of the proposal when combined with the Army National Guard’s land expansion.
-
Insufficient analysis of alternatives as required by law, including the availability of other airspace in less sensitive environments that are already in use for such training.
-
Inadequate analysis of a variety of other impacts, including: The reduction in flight height; dramatic increase in the number of sorties; use of unmanned aircraft; electromagnetic warfare; and military activities that use electromagnetic energy; increased detonation of munitions that discharge perchlorate and other toxic and carcinogenic compounds; impacts to wetlands and surface waters; and economic impacts.
The lawsuit incorporated these concerns in the separate claims of the lawsuit:
-
Failure to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, thus violating NEPA by preparing only an EA and concluding there would be no significant impact.
-
Failure to take a hard look and adequately disclose and analyze environmental impacts. The EA fails to adequately analyze the direct and indirect effects of the proposal.
-
The EA fails to mention and fails to adequately analyze the cumulative effects of the proposed land expansion by the Army National Guard and this proposal.
-
Defendants failed to meaningfully consider the “no action” alternative (required by NEPA) and did not consider alternatives of using other airspace in the United States, already in use for these training missions, that involve less sensitive environments.
-
Defendants violated the public participation and notice requirements of NEPA and implementing regulations by failing to allow for meaningful and timely public involvement.
So, the Anglers are asking for the Court to declare all of these various violations occurred. They are also requesting an order preventing the defendants and all others acting in concert with them from carrying on or permitting any of the proposed expansion activities until the defendants prepare a supplemental environmental assessment and/or an environmental impact statement, which sufficiently analyze the impacts of the proposed activities.
There is a Scheduling Order which details the parties’ obligations for the various pre-trial activities. We will continue to monitor the progress of the lawsuit and report as events warrant.
Neil Wallace