APPENDIX A PUBLIC NOTICE AND SCOPING MATERIAL PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING HANDOUT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Proposed ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQRIWKH1DWLRQDO*XDUG%XUHDX¶V Updated Training Plan 60-1, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona The National Guard Bureau (NGB), issued in 1978 to address the new Air National Guard (ANG) has activities occurring under OSB at recently updated their Training Plan DMAFB. Another NEPA document (TP) 60-1. This updated plan prepared since that time that DGGUHVVHV WKH 1*%¶V PDQDJHPHQW included analysis of OSB activities of Operation Snowbird (OSB) at was the 2002 Final Environmental Davis-Monthan Air Force Base Assessment for the West Coast (DMAFB), Arizona. OSB is a Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) SURJUDP WKDW LV PDQDJHG E\ $1*¶V Beddown. Thus, that 2002 EA will be 162nd Fighter Wing (162 FW), used as the baseline for the EA to be Detachment 1 (Det 1). Separate prepared to assess the potential from OSB, routine ANG activities are impacts on the human and natural conducted by the 162 FW out of the environment of the proposed Tucson International Airport (TIA). implementation of the NGB TP 60-1 at DMAFB. OSB has been in existence since 1975 and was originally designed DMAFB provides all of the facilities and implemented to allow ANG units and assets essential to the success from bases located in northern RI 1*%¶V WUDLQLQJ PLVVLRQ 7KHVH ODWLWXGHV RU³QRUWKHUQWLHU´ WRWUDLQLQ include but are not limited to: optimal weather conditions and vast airspace over southern Arizona, Facilities and Administration primarily during the winter months. x 13,643-foot runway The OSB program is headquartered Live Ordnance Loading Area out of DMAFB, which is one of the x Live munitions storage and 86 $LU )RUFH¶V $LU &RPEDW build-up facilities Command (ACC) bases. The 162 FW Det 1 OSB is considered a x Bulk Fuel Storage/Loading tenant at DMAFB, and the OSB Area activities discussed in this x On-base medical, lodging, Environmental Assessment (EA) in and dining facilities accordance with the National x On-base master Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of mechanics/maintenance for 1969 are being addressed by the A-10 and F-16 aircraft Headquarters (HQ), ACC. The 355th Fighter Wing (355 FW) completed an EA and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was Infrastructure Assets conditions and present use, and potential cumulative effects to x Secure communications socioeconomic and environmental Data link infrastructure x concerns. x Dedicated aerospace ground equipment (AGE) The public scoping meeting is being x Access to existing engine conducted to provide a forum that analysis laboratory allows the public to make comments x Existing, dedicated ramp and provide input relevant to the space proposed action, alternatives and proposed areas of analysis. In Safety and Operational Assets addition, the meeting provides a x Crash/Fire/Rescue response forum for the Air Force to discuss the unit NEPA process and the alternatives x Immediate access to currently being considered. hydrazine storage and emergency response for F-16 The public is invited to attend the aircraft informal meeting and ask questions x Existing Anti-terrorism and or provide comments regarding the Force Protection systems proposed alternatives. It is requested that all comments be provided x Close proximity to available military airspace and comments either be provided on the enhanced electronic tactical attached comment sheet, or sent via ranges e-mail to DMAFB at [email protected]. All comments The NGB and ACC, through the U.S. will be considered during the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), preparation of the EA. Please refer Sacramento District intends to questions to officials attending the prepare an Environmental public meeting. Written comments Assessment (EA) to address the following the public meeting will be potential effects of the accepted through 26 October 2011 implementation of the NGB TP 60-1 and can be sent to the DMAFB at DMAFB. The EA will assess the Public Affairs Office at the following environmental and socioeconomic address: impacts, adverse and beneficial, of all reasonable alternatives that ATTN: OSB EA COMMENT SUBMITTAL, 355th Fighter Wing satisfy the 1*%¶Vpurpose and need for the training mission. The No Public Affairs, 3180 S. First Street, Action Alternative, as required by Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ 85707 NEPA, will also be considered in the EA. The No Action Alternative would maintain the level and types of aircraft that were analyzed in the 2002 EA. The EA will provide information on all reasonable alternatives with regards to existing PUBLIC COMMENTS ON 2012 DRAFT EA From: MARYLOU AND NORM FEIGER [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 3:22 PM To: 355 FW/PA 355th FW Public Affairs Subject: OSB EA Comment Submittal In Reference to more flyer planes, besides the F15,F16, F etc and etc. I have lived in my house for 30 years, and now I am in my last years of life. I believe I should have a peaceeful life. Jets flying at night, would kill me quickly, as ample sleep is what keeps us alive. I love my home and surroundings, and this would errupt my world. Majority of the homeowners in my area, all believe the same as me. Only they are not knowledgeable to computers. They still ask me what happened the the 4 propellor planes. The EA Misleads the Public. How can the Air Force say that there IS NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOUND. I had a good laugh at this, as with anything that disrupts the quality of living for any age person, THAT IS A SIGNIGICANT IMPACT. I would love to read a report, with the backed up data, in Non-Technical terms, so that I can share this with my wonderful neighborhood. Many changes are made without the corrections being made to the public. Is this all a SECRET? WHAT DOES RUNWAY 12 AND RUNWAY 30 MEAN? I believe this jargon shows the disinterest the air force has in the people who have lived theri lives out in the vacinity of DM. I do not support the OSB EXPANSION PROPOSAL. I don't need to read about a 2007 noise study that was made, indicating NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. When I cannot hear my husband talking right next to me, while the F16's are overhear, how is this bettering the quality of my life. You can laugh at this, but I have perfect hearing, it's the Air Force that tries to lead us to believe that the sounds have no impact. What about the noise levels for all those infants, that will grow up needing hearing airs before they get into first grade. That's where the joke is, what do you think we are, a bunch of dummies? Think this over carefuly. As Tucson Forward will not give up, until the people are satisfied. From: Kathleen Williamson, Esq. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 9:24 PM To: 355 FW/PA 355th FW Public Affairs Subject: OSB EA Comment Submittal ATTN: OSB EA COMMENT SUBMITTAL 355th Fighter Wing Public Affairs 3180 S. First Street Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ 85707 mailto:[email protected] 757-764-5994 (Air Combat Command Public Affairs) or 228-3398 (D-M Public Affairs) (Sent via email rather than telephonically or snail mail) Dear OSB EA Comment Panel: I thoroughly agree with the Tucson Forward position regarding the flaws and biases of the EA recently conducted regarding Operation Snowbird in Tucson. I lived under that flight path for 20 years (4th and Lee area). It has had a bad impact on Tucson all these years but has gotten worse since the early 2000s. Now it threatens to double and include night flights while presenting a skewed EA claiming that these increases would not have a negative impact on Tucson. It already does and the negative impact would double at a minimum. Also, night flights is an obnoxious idea. We have rights to quiet enjoyment of our homes and rights to safety from jet accidents and air pollution caused by over head flights. The US military is the largest consumer of fossil fuels in the world, at taxpayer's expense and is dumping its toxic waste on American citizens. To make matters worse, it allows foreign pilots to train over the homes of American citizens in urban areas like Tucson. Tucs! on has invested tremendous amounts of money in urban planning and historic preservation, all of which suffers under the noise and danger of overhead flights. If our town council and county government cared about citizens at all, they would object to the degredation of our beautiful area and lives due to overhead flights. Do not double the damage you already do to Tucson. Regarding the faulty EA, here are just a few comments: Environmental Justice Cover Letter, lines 47-49 "There would be no additional disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations near DMAFB compared to those impacts associated with No Action Alternative." The Table 2-4 on page 2-13 does identify a minority low-income area that is disproportionately impacted under the OSB "No Action Alternative" and yet it concludes that doubling the number of OSB sorties and adding night flights "would likely be imperceptible to residents." This doesn't make common sense. ES-3-ES-4 "These expansions in the noise contours would be imperceptible to the residents as the changes in contours would be less than 50 feet. Public safety risks would not be measurably increased under any of the alternatives." These conclusions are based on incomplete data used in the noise modeling and noise averaging. Common sense tells us that you can't double the number flights and introduce night flights and have no significant impact on the quality of life and safety of the residents in an area already identified in violation of Environmental Justice Regulation .