Draft DYESS AIR FORCE BASE AND ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE FORCE STRUCTURE CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT United States Air Force Air Combat Command March 2002 Acronyms and Abbreviations AFB Air Force Base MR_NMAP MOA-Range Noise Map AFI Air Force Instruction MSL mean sea level AGL above ground level MTR military training route AICUZ Air Installation Compatible Use Zones NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards AOP Asbestos Operating Plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act APZ accident potential zone NM nautical miles ATCAA Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace NO nitrogen dioxide 2 AQCR Air Quality Control Region NO nitrogen oxides x BAI Backup Aircraft Inventory NRHP National Register of Historic Places BASH Bird/Wildlife-Aircraft Strike Hazard NTTR Nevada Test and Training Range CAA Clean Air Act O ozone 3 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality OT&E Operational Test and Evaluation CFR Code of Federal Regulations Pb lead CO carbon monoxide PM particulate matter < 10 microns in diameter 10 CWA Clean Water Act PMAI Primary Mission Aircraft Inventory CZ clear zone PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration dB decibel PTAI Primary Training Aircraft Inventory dBA A-weighted decibel RBTI Realistic Bomber Training Initiative DNL day-night average sound level RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act DoD Department of Defense ROI region of influence DRMO Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office SEL sound exposure level EA environmental assessment SDDOL South Dakota Department of Labor EO Executive Order SIP State Implementation Plan EIS environmental impact statement SO Sulfur Dioxide 2 ERP Environmental Restoration Program SO Oxides of Sulfur x ESA Endangered Species Act TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act FAA Federal Aviation Administration TWC Texas Work Force Commission FIC Flight Instructor Course USCB U.S. Census Bureau FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture FY Fiscal Year USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency IFR instrument flight rules USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IICEP Interagency and Intergovernmental UTTR Utah Test and Training Range Coordination for Environmental Planning VFR visual flight rules IR instrument routes VOC volatile organic compound L day-night average sound level VR visual routes dn L adjusted monthly day-night average sound level WS Weapons School dnmr MOA military operations area DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 1.0 NAME OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Dyess Air Force Base and Ellsworth Air Force Base B-1 Force Structure Changes. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES The U.S. Air Force, Headquarters Air Combat Command (ACC) proposes to implement force structure changes associated with B-1 aircraft actions at Dyess Air Force Base (AFB), Texas and Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota. These changes focus on reorganizing and relocating of B-1 missions at the two bases, as well as decreasing the total inventory of B-1 aircraft. The proposed action would consolidate B-1 training and testing activities at Dyess AFB and relocate most B-1 operational activities to Ellsworth AFB. This force structure change would implement the President’s Budget Decision to reduce the overall size of the B-1 fleet to allow upgrading the remaining B-1 aircraft. Implementation of the proposed action would improve mission capabilities and supportability of the remaining B-1 aircraft. The proposed action (Alternative A) at Dyess and Ellsworth AFBs would involve the following five components: 1) relocation of the B-1 Weapons School (WS) and Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) program from Ellsworth AFB to Dyess AFB; 2) mission redesignation of one squadron of six B-1 aircraft at Dyess AFB from Primary Mission Aircraft Inventory (PMAI) to Primary Training Aircraft Inventory (PTAI) to support the Flight Instructor Course, the WS, and the OT&E program; 3) redesignation of six B-1 PTAI aircraft at Ellsworth AFB to PMAI aircraft to support consolidation of combat mission aircraft at that base; 4) removal of six B-1 aircraft from Dyess AFB; and 5) reduction of 58 personnel at Dyess AFB and 5 personnel at Ellsworth AFB. Implementing the proposed action would decrease the number of B-1 aircraft at Dyess AFB from 36 to 30. At Ellsworth AFB, the total number of B-1 aircraft would not change from 24, although missions would be redesignated from training to combat. The Air Force has also identified an action alternative (Alternative B). Under Alternative B, 12 PMAI B-1 aircraft at Dyess AFB would be relocated to Ellsworth AFB. The components of the proposed action involving mission changes and removal of six B-1 aircraft would be implemented as well. At Dyess AFB, personnel would decrease by 469; personnel at Ellsworth AFB would increase by 406. In addition, the Air Force is required to analyze the no-action alternative (Alternative C). Under the no-action alternative, the Air Force would not implement any force structure changes at Dyess AFB or Ellsworth AFB. 3.0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This Environmental Assessment provides an analysis of the potential environmental consequences resulting from implementing the proposed action, Alternative B, the no-action alternative, and the cumulative environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives relative to past, present, and foreseeable future actions. Several resource categories received a thorough interdisciplinary analysis to identify potential impacts. According to the analysis in this EA, implementing the proposed action or any of the alternatives would not significantly affect existing conditions at either Dyess AFB or Ellsworth AFB or in their associated training airspace units. The following summarizes the results of the analysis by resource category. Airspace Management and Aircraft Safety: Changes in the B-1 inventory under the proposed action would not result in any changes in airfield or airspace operations at either base. Under Alternative B, the number of B-1 aircraft would decrease at Dyess AFB and would increase at Ellsworth AFB, but these reductions and increases would not affect airspace management. The increase of 1,040 B-1 airfield sorties per year at Ellsworth AFB would not change air traffic management at the base. Aircraft would use the same airfield procedures currently in existence and would not alter established flight patterns at and around the base. The existing approach and departure procedures, as well as established flight patterns and controls, would accommodate the increase in sorties generated at the base. Aircraft safety conditions would not change measurably as a result of implementing the proposed action or Alternative B. Neither the proposed action nor Alternative B would result in a significant increase in bird-aircraft strikes in either of the base environments or in any of the training airspace. Under the no-action alternative, no changes to airspace management and aircraft safety would occur compared to baseline conditions. Noise and Land Use: Implementation of the proposed action would not change the noise conditions at either base or in the training airspace. Increased noise under Alternative B would affect primarily agriculture or rangeland at Ellsworth AFB. Affected residences are in areas already subject to military flight activity. In Ellsworth AFB training airspace, the minimal increase in noise levels under Alternative B would not be perceptible to human hearing and would not likely increase the number of people annoyed by noise in the region underlying the Powder River A and B MOAs and Hays MOA. In addition, due to the size of the MOAs and the rural nature of underlying areas, the change in noise levels would not have significant impacts to land use. Under the no-action alternative, no change to noise or land use would occur compared to baseline conditions. Socioeconomics: Implementation of the proposed action would result in employment loss of less than 1 percent at Dyess and Ellsworth AFBs. This change would not adversely affect local and regional economics, population, or employment. Under Alternative B, there would be an employment loss of 1 percent of the total work force associated with Dyess AFB, and the increases in employment and earnings at Ellsworth AFB would be less than 1 percent of the total work force. The area surrounding Ellsworth AFB would be able to accommodate the increased housing demand; therefore, no significant housing impacts would occur. Environmental Justice: Local economic decreases and increases near Dyess and Ellsworth AFBs would uniformly affect local areas. Therefore, the proposed action and Alternative B would not disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Alternative B would result in increased noise levels at and surrounding Ellsworth AFB, in areas currently exposed to regular aircraft activity. This change in the noise environment would not disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations or increase environmental health and safety risks to children. Further, children would not be exposed to increased health or safety risks with regard to airfield safety, aircraft mishap potential or hazardous materials management. Under the no-action alternative, no changes to human resources would occur compared to baseline conditions. Air Quality: Implementation of the proposed action or Alternative B would not noticeably change the air quality conditions at either base or in the training airspace. Under the proposed action, a decrease in emissions would occur due to the reduction of commuting personnel. For Alternative B, a decrease in emissions at Dyess AFB would result from the reduction of B-1 aircraft and loss of personnel. An increase in emissions at Ellsworth AFB would result from the additional B-1s and increase of 406 commuting personnel. However, total emissions would constitute less than 1 to 2 percent of the total regional emissions; therefore, air emissions would not adversely affect regional conditions surrounding the base. Hazardous Materials and Waste: There would be no impacts to hazardous materials and waste generation, management, or storage with implementation of the proposed action or Alternative B. Under the proposed action, there would be an overall reduction in the annual amount of hazardous waste generated at Dyess AFB and no change to baseline conditions at Ellsworth AFB. Under Alternative B, the annual increase of hazardous waste production associated with the additional B-1 aircraft at Ellsworth AFB would be minimal and would not affect Ellsworth AFB's hazardous waste generator status. The two on-base 90-day accumulation points have adequate capacity to meet the increased demand. In addition, no changes to hazardous waste streams would be created, and no new hazardous waste disposal procedures or new permits would be required under the proposed action or Alternative B. Any asbestos-containing materials or lead- based paint removed from existing buildings during facility improvements at either base would be disposed of at a permitted hazardous waste disposal facility. Construction of the proposed parking lot at Dyess AFB would occur less than 200 feet from the fenced, active ERP site 23; however, the ERP site would not be disturbed during construction activities. In addition, site 23 is currently near closure status (Air Force 2002d). Earth Resources: Some ground-disturbing construction would occur at Dyess AFB (Under Alternative A) and Ellsworth AFB (under Alternative B). No significant impacts to soil or water resources would occur. Under the no-action alternative, no changes to physical resources would occur compared to baseline conditions. Natural Resources: Implementation of the proposed action and Alternative B would not result in adverse effects to natural resources. Ground-disturbing construction at either base would not result in long-term impacts to wildlife populations. Under Alternative B, increased noise at Ellsworth AFB would not have a significant impact to biological resources. The number of B-1 flight operations in airspace associated with Ellsworth AFB would increase. However, noise levels would only increase by approximately 1 dBA and would remain below 45 DNL; no new land areas would be overflown. Therefore, Alternative B would not adversely impact wildlife or sensitive species under the training airspace associated with Ellsworth AFB. Under the no-action alternative, no changes to natural resources would occur compared to baseline conditions. Cultural Resources: There would be no adverse effects to National Register-listed or eligible cultural resources with implementation of the proposed action or Alternative B. Ground- disturbing construction at either base would occur in previously disturbed areas. The facilities proposed for improvements at Dyess and Ellsworth AFBs do not represent a unique resource to the bases or regionally and do not meet one or more criteria as defined in 36 CFR 60.4 for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Under the no-action alternative, no changes to cultural resources would occur compared to baseline conditions. 4.0 CONCLUSION On the basis of the findings of the Environmental Assessment, no significant impact to human health or the natural environment would be expected from implementation of the proposed action or action alternatives. Therefore, issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact is warranted, and preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190) is not required. ________________________________ __________________ GREGORY PERKINSON, Lt Col, USAF Date Chairperson, ACC Environmental Leadership Board COVER SHEET Dyess Air Force Base and Ellsworth AFB B-1 Force Structure Changes Draft Environmental Assessment Responsible Agency: United States Air Force, Air Combat Command Proposed Action: To implement force structure changes associated with B-1 aircraft at Dyess Air Force Base (AFB) in Texas, and Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota. These changes focus on reorganizing and relocating B-1 missions at the two bases, as well as reducing the total inventory of B-1 aircraft. The basic change involves consolidating B-1 training and testing activities at Dyess AFB and most operational B-1 activities at Ellsworth AFB. This force structure change is proposed to support implementation of the President’s Budget Decision to reduce the overall size of the B-1 fleet while upgrading remaining B-1 aircraft. In this way, the mission capabilities and supportability of the remaining B-1 aircraft would be improved. Implementing of the proposed action would improve mission capabilities and supportability of the remaining B-1 aircraft. Written comments and inquiries regarding this document should be directed to: HQ ACC/CEVP 129 Andrews St., Ste 102 Langley AFB, VA 23665-2769 ATTN: Ms. Sheryl Parker In addition, the document can be viewed on and downloaded from the world wide web at www.cevp.com. Designation: Draft Environmental Assessment Abstract: This Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the potential environmental consequences resulting from a United States Air Force (Air Force) proposal to implement force structure changes associated with B-1 aircraft actions at Dyess AFB, Texas and Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota. The proposed action (Alternative A) at Dyess and Ellsworth AFBs would involve the following five components: 1) relocation of the B-1 Weapons School (WS) and Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) program from Ellsworth AFB to Dyess AFB; 2) mission redesignation of one squadron of six B-1 aircraft at Dyess AFB from Primary Mission Aircraft Inventory (PMAI) to Primary Training Aircraft Inventory (PTAI) to support the Flight Instructor Course, the WS, and the OT&E program; 3) redesignation of six B-1 PTAI aircraft at Ellsworth AFB to PMAI aircraft to support consolidation of combat mission aircraft at that base; 4) removal of six B-1 aircraft from Dyess AFB; and 5) reduction of 58 personnel at Dyess AFB and 5 personnel at Ellsworth AFB. Implementing the proposed action would decrease the number of B-1 aircraft at Dyess AFB from 36 to 30. At Ellsworth AFB, the total number of B-1 aircraft would not change from 24, although missions would be redesignated from training to combat. The Air Force has also identified an action alternative (Alternative B). Under Alternative B, 12 PMAI B-1 aircraft at Dyess AFB would be relocated to Ellsworth AFB. The components of the proposed action involving mission changes and removal of six B-1 aircraft would be implemented as well. At Dyess AFB, personnel would decrease by 469; personnel at Ellsworth AFB would increase by 406. In addition, the Air Force is required to analyze the no-action alternative (Alternative C). Under the no-action alternative, the Air Force would not implement any force structure changes at Dyess AFB or Ellsworth AFB. Draft DYESS AIR FORCE BASE AND ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE FORCE STRUCTURE CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT United States Air Force Air Combat Command April 2002