Residents of New Mexico and Arizona Rally Against Air Force Low-Altitude Flight Plans

Silver City, New Mexico, a town known for its mining heritage and proximity to the pristine Gila National Forest, is at the center of a heated debate over proposed changes to military training operations. The U.S. Air Force plans to expand low-level training flights across parts of southern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico, sparking concerns from residents, environmentalists, and tribal communities.

The Air Force’s proposal includes increasing the frequency, speed, and altitude range of training flights over five designated Military Operations Areas (MOAs). In some zones, planes could fly as low as 100 feet above ground at supersonic speeds, generating sonic booms—explosive sounds that mimic thunder and can shake buildings. Additionally, the plan would permit the release of magnesium flares and chaff, materials that pose fire and environmental risks.

Threats to Quiet and Solitude

Silver City residents cherish the tranquility of the Gila Wilderness, the world’s first designated wilderness area, established in 1924. Brett Myrick, a Navy SEAL veteran and wilderness trails technician, described the Gila as a place of “quiet and solitude.” He expressed concerns about the proposed military training, recalling the frightening impact of a low-flying jet’s sonic boom during a hike.

“The explosion of sound blasted down into the canyon where I was,” Myrick said. “It scared me and the animals. The concussion from the sound even caused rockfalls.” He added that such sudden noise could trigger traumatic memories for veterans, including himself.

Retired Vietnam veteran Arthur Ratcliffe, who moved to Silver City for its peaceful atmosphere, echoed similar sentiments. “The sonic booms trigger my PTSD symptoms and cause severe anxiety,” he said, noting past experiences of low-altitude flights shaking his home and even breaking windows.

Environmental and Public Health Concerns

Environmental advocates and government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have raised alarms about the plan’s potential health and environmental impacts. The EPA’s review of the Air Force’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) identified gaps in the analysis, such as insufficient investigation into noise-induced hearing loss, sleep disturbances, and the overall health effects of low-altitude flights.

Chaff, one of the materials proposed for use in training, contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), known as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment. PFAS have been linked to cancer, fertility issues, and developmental delays in children. The release of flares during training also poses a wildfire risk in the arid region.

“Releasing magnesium flares and chaff over a pristine wilderness is an abomination to the sanctity of wilderness,” said Myrick.

Impact on Tribal Communities

The proposed changes also threaten tribal lands and cultures. The Tohono O’odham Nation, San Carlos Apache, and White Mountain Apache tribes criticized the DEIS for inadequate consultation and failure to address the cultural and environmental impacts on their communities.

A Growing Opposition

Community groups, including the Gila Conservation Coalition and Peaceful Gila Skies, have mobilized against the proposal, collecting hundreds of signatures and urging the Air Force to reconsider. U.S. Representative Gabe Vasquez (D-NM) and Arizona Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) have also voiced opposition, citing insufficient transparency and public engagement.

“We fully support the military and the need for proper training,” said Allyson Siwik, executive director of the Gila Conservation Coalition. “But the Draft Environmental Impact Statement failed to justify the necessity of these changes or adequately address their potential harms.”

The Gila region, with its rich biodiversity, cultural significance, and historical wilderness designation, now faces an uncertain future. As the debate continues, residents and advocates are determined to protect the area’s peace, health, and ecological integrity from what many describe as unnecessary risks.

source