This EIS was prepared by the Air Force in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321 et seq.), as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7061, The Environmental Impact Analysis Process (as promulgated in 32 CFR 989). This EIS assessed the environmental consequences of the alternatives on the following resource categories: airspace management and use, noise, air quality, safety, soils and water, vegetation and wildlife, wetlands and aquatic communities, threatened and endangered species, cultural resources land use and recreation, socioeconomics, environmental justice, infrastructure, transportation, and hazardous materials and waste. Analysis established that no substantial adverse impacts on the following resource categories would result from implementing any of the alternatives or associated aircraft scenarios: airspace management and use, air quality (except for the Boise AGS 72-aircraft scenario), soils and water, vegetation and wildlife, wetlands and aquatic communities, land use and recreation, transportation, or hazardous materials and waste. Training overflights may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, threatened and endangered species. At Boise AGS, Luke AFB, and Tucson AGS, noise levels generated by the F-35A in the vicinity of the main airfields would adversely impact the exposed population, subsequently resulting in potentially adverse impacts on residents, property values, and environmental justice communities, including children. Noise generated at the Roswell International Air Center, El Paso International Airport, and Biggs Army Airfield auxiliary airfields would generate adverse impacts under the Holloman AFB alternative. Low-level training overflights in some locations could result in increased annoyance for persons under the training airspace.