DOPAA Programmatic UTTR EA (Final Draft 10.6.21).pdf

PRELIMINARY DRAFT 1

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 3

for an Environmental Assessment addressing updated operations of 4 the 5

UTAH TEST and TRAINING RANGE 6

HILL AIR FORCE BASE, UTAH 7

PREPARED FOR: 13

Utah Test and Training Range 15

Department of the Air Force 16

October 2021 18

Letters or other written comments provided may be published in the Final EA. As required by law, 23 substantive comments will be addressed in the Final EA and made available to the public. Any personal 24 information provided will be kept confidential. Private addresses will be compiled to develop a mailing 25 list for those requesting copies of the Final EA. However, only the names of the individuals making 26 comments and their specific comments will be disclosed. Personal home addresses and phone numbers 27 will not be published in the Final EA. 28

Prepared By: 43 Military Program and Installation Environmental Support 44

Planning Division 45 Sacramento District 46

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 47

Cover Sheet 75 Utah Test and Training Range, Hill Air Force Base, Utah 76

Responsible Agencies: U.S. Air Force (USAF); Headquarters Utah Test and Training Range (HQ UTTR) 78 Affected Location: UTTR, Hill Air Force Base, Utah. 80 Report Designation: Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives (DOPAA). 82 Abstract: This DOPAA supports the USAF’s Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP) for the 84 proposed updated UTTR Range Management Plan (RMP) by providing more current information on range 85 use and evaluating the associated environmental impacts. 86 In 1997, a previous operational analysis was completed (Range Management Plan and Environmental 88 Assessment for the Hill Air Force Range and Wendover Air Force Range of the Utah Test and Training 89 Range (1997 RMP/EA)) and reviewed for accuracy in 2008. While existing base-operations at the UTTR 90 remain consistent with the 1997 RMP/EA, there is a need to address updated partner-support tactics and 91 foreseeable activities. The proposed updated UTTR analysis would facilitate mission continuity through 92 continuation of daily Range operations, in addition to continued support of existing and future national 93 security and defense missions of partnering entities, including air and ground operations. 94 A Major Range Test Facility Base (MRTFB), the UTTR contains the largest block of contiguous overland 96 special-use airspace, measured from surface or near surface, within the continental U.S. Its vast airspace, 97 exceptionally long supersonic corridors, extensive shoot box, large safety footprint area, varying terrain, 98 and remote location make the UTTR an invaluable national asset in terms of both its current and future 99 mission support capabilities for the DOD, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and 100 other partnering entities. 101 The Proposed Action assumes the need for ongoing customer requirements and increasing demand for 103 activities that are not specifically predictable but are within the UTTR current mission and objectives, which 104 are to continue to provide unique training and testing facilities that enable the DOD to maintain skilled 105 personnel and state-of-the-art equipment ready to be used in testing, training, and support services 106 associated with weapon systems. As the largest MRTFB and the only installation with sufficient land mass 107 to safely perform testing and evaluation of numerous weapons platforms, the UTTR provides unique 108 capabilities that enable the testing of new programs and training of pilots and ground support troops in as 109 close to a real-world scenario as possible. As such, continued range operations and mission support at the 110 UTTR are necessary and critical in providing vital information on improved national security and defense 111 capabilities. 112 This DOPAA would become Sections 1 and 2 of an Environmental Assessment, should USAF proceed 114 with that level of the EIAP for the Proposed Action. Written comments and inquiries regarding this 115 document should be directed by email to Mr. Michael Shane at Michael.shane.2@us.af.mil, or by postal 116 mail at the following address: 117 Mr. Michael Shane 119

HQ UTTR 120

5948 South Gate Avenue 121 Hill AFB, UT 84056 122 mailto:Michael.shane.2@us.af.mil

UTTR PRELIMINARY DRAFT DOPAA Page 1-1 October 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION .................................................... 1-4 3

1.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1-4 4

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED .............................................................................................................. 1-4 5

1.3 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 1-5 6

Basic Boundaries ............................................................................................................. 1-7 7 Subranges ......................................................................................................................... 1-7 8

1.4 INTERAGENCY/INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION AND 9

CONSULTATIONS .................................................................................................................. 1-10 10

Interagency Coordination and Consultations ................................................................. 1-10 11 Government to Government Consultations ................................................................... 1-10 12 Other Agency Consultations .......................................................................................... 1-10 13

1.5 PUBLIC AND AGENCY REVIEW OF EA ........................................................................... 1-10 14

1.6 DECISION TO BE MADE ...................................................................................................... 1-11 15

1.7 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ............................................................ 1-11 16

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ......................... 2-1 17

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................................ 2-1 18

2.2 SELECTION STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 2-1 19

2.3 SCREENING OF THE ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................. 2-2 20

2.4 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION ....................... 2-2 21

2.5 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD ........... 2-2 22

PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE: Implementation of Updated RMP ................. 2-3 23 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................................... 2-6 24

3.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 3-7 25

4.0 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 4-8 26

LIST OF FIGURES 29

Figure 1: Location of the UTTR North and South Ranges ........................................................................ 1-7 31 Figure 2: Location of the UTTR Air and Hill AFB Air and Ground Spaces ............................................. 1-8 32 Figure 3: The UTTR and Neighboring Land Ownership ........................................................................... 1-9 33

LIST OF TABLES 36

Table 1: Screening of the Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 2-2 38

UTTR PRELIMINARY DRAFT DOPAA Page 1-2 October 2021

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 42

ACC Air Combat Control AFB Air Force Base AFMC Air Force Materiel Command AICUZ Air Installation Compatible Use Zone ALCM Air Launched Cruise Missile ATCAA Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace BLM Bureau of Land Management CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations DPG Dugway Proving Ground DOD Department of Defense DOPAA Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives EA Environmental Assessment EIAP Environmental Impact Analysis Process EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act FAA Federal Aviation Administration FONPA Finding of No Practicable Alternative FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact HAFR Hill Air Force Range HQ UTTR Headquarters Utah Test and Training Range IDEA Installation Development Environmental Assessment IDP Installation Development Plan JASSM Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile JASSM-ER Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile: Extended Range LRSOW Long Range Stand Off Weapon MAJCOM Major Command MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MOA Military Operations Area MRTFB Major Range Test Facility Base NASA National Air and Space Agency NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOA Notice of Availability OO-ALC Ogden Air Logistics Complex PREIAP Planning Requirements for the Environmental Impact Analysis Process RMP Range Management Plan ROD Record of Decision SAC Strategic Air Command SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SITLA School and Institutional Trust Lands SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit SSOC Space Station Operations Center TAC Tactical Air Command UFC United Facilities Criteria USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USAF United States Air Force USC United States Code

UTTR PRELIMINARY DRAFT DOPAA Page 1-3 October 2021

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service UTTR Utah Test and Training Range WAAB Wendover Army Air Base WAFB Wendover Air Force Base

WAFR

Wendover Air Field Range/Wendover Bombing and Gunnery Range/Wendover Weapons Range

WEG Weapons Evaluation Group

UTTR PRELIMINARY DRAFT DOPAA Page 1-4 October 2021

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 44

1.1 INTRODUCTION 45

This Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives (DOPAA) addresses mission continuity in terms of 46 base-operations and partner-support by the Headquarters Utah Test and Training Range (HQ UTTR) for 47 the development of an updated UTTR Range Management Plan (RMP) and associated Environmental 48 Assessment (EA). The UTTR current mission is to provide unique training and testing facilities that enable 49 the evaluation of state-of-the-art equipment ready to be used by skilled personnel and support associated 50 weapon systems. 51 The UTTR is administered and maintained by the U.S. Air Force (USAF) HQ UTTR, formerly known as 53 the 388th Range Squadron (388RANS) stationed at Hill Air Force Base (AFB), Utah. A U.S. Department 54 of Defense (DOD) Major Range Test Facility Base (MRTFB), the UTTR contains the largest block of 55 contiguous overland special-use airspace, measured from surface or near surface, within the continental 56 U.S. Its vast airspace, exceptionally long supersonic corridors, extensive shoot box, large safety footprint 57 area, varying terrain, and remote location make the UTTR an invaluable national asset in terms of both its 58 current and future mission support capabilities for both DOD and non-DOD governmental agencies, 59 including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), as well as other partnering entities. 60

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED 61

In 1997, a previous updated operational programmatic analysis, incorporated herein, was completed for the 62 UTTR, Range Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Hill Air Force Range and 63 Wendover Air Force Range of the Utah Test and Training Range (1997 RMP/EA), and reviewed for 64 accuracy in 2008. The 1997 RMP/EA updated the 1975 Preliminary Range Management Plan for the 65 Ogden Air Logistics Center Test Range (Ogden ALC Directorate of Operations 1975) by providing more 66 current information on range uses and included information on environmental resources and considerations 67 regarding range uses. 68 While existing base-operations at the UTTR remain consistent with the 1997 RMP/EA, there is a need to 70 document and assess updated partner-support tactics and foreseeable activities on the UTTR, as well as 71 describe their environmental settings. Because these activities might have environmental consequences, an 72 EA that evaluates these potential consequences is also an integral component of this document. 73 This updated UTTR programmatic analysis would facilitate mission continuity through continuation of 75 daily range operations, and support of existing and future national security and defense missions of 76 partnering entities, including air and ground operations. 77 The Proposed Action is the implementation of the updated RMP component of this document and assumes 79 the need for ongoing customer requirements and increasing demand for activities that are not specifically 80 predictable but are within the UTTR current mission and include the following planning objectives for 81 future use: 82

• Continued provision of space and facilities for complex air-to-air, air-to-ground, and ground 83 exercises involving bombers, fighters, and ground troops having multiple roles and particularly 84 emphasizing those testing operations and training missions that are most benefited by the 85 remoteness, topography, size, and undeveloped land provided by the UTTR. 86

• Increased communication and coordination among user groups to provide interactive and cost-87 effective testing and training opportunities. 88

UTTR PRELIMINARY DRAFT DOPAA Page 1-5 October 2021

• Continued provision of test facilities for both manned and unmanned aircraft, munitions, and 89 advanced weapons systems. 90

• Continued provision of cruise missile testing operations. 91 While the components of the Proposed Action are not specifically predictable, the Action Alternative would 93 implement this RMP, thereby incorporating information on the environmental resources and current uses 94 of the UTTR into the management of the Range. 95 With its capacity to provide a vast area of realistic terrain to safely perform world-class test and training 97 scenarios and evaluation of numerous weapons platforms, the continued Range operations and mission 98 support at the UTTR are necessary and critical in providing vital information on improved national security 99 and defense capabilities. 100

1.3 BACKGROUND 101

As a military installation, the UTTR has a long history of use beginning in 1940 when Congress 102 appropriated funds for the acquisition of land for bombing and gunnery ranges with the establishment of 103 the Wendover Bombing and Aerial Gunnery Range. In 1941, the Army Air Corps received 1.8 million acres 104 when a bombing and gunnery range detachment arrived at Wendover, Nevada. In 1942, President Roosevelt 105 withdrew an initial 126,720 acres of land from public domain for use by the War Department and 106 established Dugway Proving Ground (DPG). In March 1942 the Army Air Force activated Wendover Army 107 Air Field and also assigned the research and development of guided missiles, pilotless aircraft, and 108 remotely-controlled bombs to the site. 109 Wendover Army Air Base (WAAB) was activated in 1942 as a B-17 and B-24 heavy bombardment training 111 base and bombing range. The new base was supplied and serviced by the Ogden Air Depot at Hill Field. In 112 1944, P-47 fighter aircraft pilot training began and shortly thereafter B-29s began staging out of WAAB. 113 In 1945, WAAB was transferred to the Ogden Air Technical Service Command (Ogden Air Logistics 114 Complex/OO-ALC) and continued as a bombing and gunnery practice range as well as a location to test 115 captured German rockets. The training of B-29 aircrews and the testing of prototype atom bombs was the 116 last major contribution of Wendover during World War II. 117 After World War II, Wendover was used for training exercises, gunnery range, and as a research facility. 119 In the summer of 1946, the Ogden Air Technical Service Command assumed jurisdiction over all operations 120 at Wendover Field except engineering and technical projects. Transferred to the Strategic Air Command 121 (SAC) in 1947, Wendover was used by bombardment groups deploying on maneuvers. With the 122 establishment of the USAF as an independent service, the installation was renamed Wendover Air Force 123 Base (WAFB) in 1947, inactivated in 1949 and retained in a caretaker status. It was transferred to the Ogden 124 Air Material Area at Hill AFB in 1950 and the range continued to be used for bombing and gunnery practice. 125 Tactical Air Command (TAC) reactivated the base in 1954 and tactical units deployed there for exercises, 126 utilizing the base for the next four years during which time TAC invested several million dollars renovating 127 facilities. In 1955, the USAF assigned its air munitions functions to OO-ALC. 128 Wendover was transferred back to Ogden in 1958 and renamed Wendover Air Force Auxiliary Field which 130 was closed by the USAF in 1969, and the base given to Wendover City in 1977 (Tooele County assumed 131 ownership of the airport and base buildings in 1998). While the Wendover Bombing and Gunnery Range 132 was redesignated the Wendover Weapons Range (WAFR), and the Newfoundland Mountain Air Force 133 Range was redesignated as the Hill Air Force Range (HAFR). Construction of a munitions/missile test 134 facility at Oasis on the North Range was completed in 1964. In the early 1970s, an air-to-ground scoreable 135

UTTR PRELIMINARY DRAFT DOPAA Page 1-6 October 2021 gunnery range was constructed to train fighter and bomber crews. Air Force Systems Command assumed 136 control of the range in 1979 and re-designated the Wendover/Hill/Dugway Range complexes as the UTTR. 137 The UTTR mission was to test and evaluate cruise missiles as well as provide weapons testing and support. 139 In 1997, Air Combat Command (ACC) assumed responsibility for the UTTR as a result of the 1995 Base 140 Realignment and Closure decision. The 388th Range Squadron was formed to carry out the UTTR’s mission 141 to provide open-air training and test to support day-to-day training, large force training exercises, large 142 footprint weapons testing, and to fulfill the requirement as the daily manager of range scheduling. In August 143 of 2012, the 388th Range Squadron was re-designated the HQ UTTR maintaining the overall management 144 function. The Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) performs a support function for the operation of the 145 UTTR as represented by the Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Division, environmental management 146 (EM), safety (SE), industrial health monitoring (SGB), and missile and motor dissection (LM). 147 The UTTR continues to operate primarily as a world class test range in support of DOD and non-DOD 149 governmental agencies, while also serving as a superior training range in support of Air Force, Army, Navy, 150 and Marine units, as well as a host of foreign nations. Through its many years and many associated units, a 151 wide variety of high explosive and inert/practice ordnance have been delivered at the UTTR in support of 152 both test and training missions. 153 Located approximately 80 miles (130 km) west of Salt Lake City, Utah, in the West Desert of northwestern 155 Utah and eastern Nevada, the current UTTR is comprised of portions of land from the former WAFR and 156 HAFR, which now identify as the UTTR North and South ranges separated by a 15-mile-wide corridor to 157 accommodate Interstate 80. The UTTR Mission Control facilities are located off-site at Hill AFB, 158 approximately 30 miles north of Salt Lake City, and at Dugway Proving Grounds (DPG). 159 The UTTR has a ground space footprint of 2,675 square miles of largely flat expanse, and over 19,000 161 square miles (207 x 122 nautical miles) of airspace (Figure 1), 6,000 square miles of which are restricted. 162 Its airspace covers from surface or 100 feet AGL to 58,000 feet MSL in most places, and is composed of 163 restricted airspace (RA), military operating areas (MOA), and Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace 164 (ATCAA) (Figure 2). 165 Encompassing 1.8 million acres of DOD lands (2,624 nautical sq mi), the Range includes 1,490 of USAF-167 managed and 1,134 Army-managed lands. Too, the UTTR is surrounded by portions of DPG, Bureau of 168 Land Management (BLM), and Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands (SITLA), which provide 169 additional boundaries and safety buffers around the Range property and prevent many encroachment 170 concerns (Figure 3). 171 As such, the UTTR is an ideal location as the largest MRTFB and the only installation with sufficient land 173 mass to safely perform operational test and evaluation for weapons requiring a large safety footprint such 174 as the Air Launch Cruise Missile and next Gen standoff weapons. The UTTR is used in a training capacity 175 for air-to-air-combat, air-to-ground inert and live practice bombing and gunnery training by DoD aircrews. 176 With state-of-the-art equipment and facilities, the UTTR provides unique capabilities that enable the testing 177 of new programs and training of pilots and ground support troops in as close to a real-world scenario as 178 possible. 179 Range Uses and Associated Considerations: The North and South ranges are owned, managed, and 181 primarily used by the DoD for military personnel training, weapons system testing, and for disposal of 182 ordnance and other materials. These direct uses may occur in the UTTR airspace or at specific developed 183 facilities, such as targets, test pads, and pads used for testing, training, or disposal of munitions and missiles. 184 Related to these direct uses are support infrastructure and support services. Infrastructure uses include 185 instrumentation for measurement or scoring, communication networks, storage areas, and transportation 186

UTTR PRELIMINARY DRAFT DOPAA Page 1-7 October 2021 infrastructure. Support services include those activities that are required for the primary direct uses to be 187 accomplished, but that cannot be allocated to a single direct use. Examples include scheduling, safety, 188 facility maintenance, and construction. 189

Basic Boundaries 190

The UTTR is comprised of North and South airspace. The North range is made up of restricted airspace R-191 6404 A, R-6404 B and R-6404 C, North of our range is the Lucin A, B, C, D and E Military Operations 192 Areas (MOA). The South Range is composed of Restricted Air Space R-6406 A, R-6406 B, R-6405, R-193 6407. Airspace R-6402A and R-6402 B which is located over DPG (US ARMY) is controlled by HQ 194 UTTR. South of the range are the Sevier A, B, C and D Military Operations Areas (MOA). To the west 195 of the UTTR is airspace composed of the Currie/Tippet ATCAA and the White Elk MOA. 196

Subranges 197

To ease scheduling and de-confliction, the basic range boundaries are further subdivided into a series of 198 more-easily managed subranges. Do we want to add subrange map? Figure xx 199

Figure 1: Location of the UTTR North and South Ranges 202

UTTR PRELIMINARY DRAFT DOPAA Page 1-8 October 2021

Figure 2: Location of the UTTR Air and Hill AFB Air and Ground Spaces 205

UTTR PRELIMINARY DRAFT DOPAA Page 1-9 October 2021

Figure 3: The UTTR and Neighboring Land Ownership 208

UTTR PRELIMINARY DRAFT DOPAA Page 1-10 October 2021

1.4 INTERAGENCY/INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION AND 210

CONSULTATIONS 211

Interagency Coordination and Consultations 212

Scoping is an early and open process for developing the breadth of issues to be addressed in the EA and for 213 identifying significant concerns related to a Proposed Action. Per the requirements of the Intergovernmental 214 Cooperation Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 4231[a]) and EO 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal 215 Programs, as amended by EO 12416, federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction that could be 216 affected by the Proposed Actions will be notified during the development of this EA. The notification 217 process will provide these relevant stakeholders the opportunity to cooperate with USAF and provide 218 comments on the Proposed Action and alternatives. 219 Appendix XX identifies the agencies consulted during this analysis and copies of correspondence. 221

Government to Government Consultations 222

EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, directs Federal agencies to 223 coordinate and consult with Native American tribal governments whose interests might be directly and 224 substantially affected by activities on Federally administered lands. Consistent with that executive order, 225 DoDI 4710.02, Interactions with Federally-Recognized Tribes, and AFI 90-2002, Air Force Interaction 226 with Federally-recognized Tribes, Federally-recognized tribes that are historically affiliated with the UTTR 227 geographic region will be invited to consult on all proposed undertakings that have a potential to affect 228 properties of cultural, historical, or religious significance to the tribes. The government-to-government 229 tribal consultation process is distinct from NEPA consultation or the interagency coordination process, and 230 it requires separate notification of all relevant tribes. The timelines for tribal consultation are also distinct 231 from those of other consultations. The UTTR point-of-contact for Native American tribes is the 75th ABW 232 Commander. 233

A brief summary of comments received will be included below. Appendix XX identifies the Native 234 American tribal governments agencies consulted with during this analysis and copies of correspondence. 235

Other Agency Consultations 236

Per the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and implementing 237 regulations (36 CFR Part 800), Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and implementing 238 regulations (50 CFR Part 17) including 16 U.S.C. §§ 703–712 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 239 and 16 U.S.C. 668-668d of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, findings of effect and a request for 240 concurrence will be transmitted to the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the United 241 States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and USACE. 242 Concurrence indicating a preliminary finding of (no potential to cause effects, no historic properties 244 affected, adverse effect) as received from the SHPO on TBD DATE will be recorded. Concurrence 245 indicating a primary finding of (will not affect, may affect, not likely to adversely affect, or likely to 246 adversely affect) received from the USFWS will be recorded on TBD DATE. A brief summary of comments 247 received will be included below. A list of agencies consulted with during this analysis and copies of 248 correspondence regarding the findings and concurrence and resolution of any adverse effect to be included 249 in Appendix XX. 250

1.5 PUBLIC AND AGENCY REVIEW OF EA 251

A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be 252 published in the newspapers of record (listed below), announcing the availability of the EA for review on 253

UTTR PRELIMINARY DRAFT DOPAA Page 1-11 October 2021

DAY MONTH YEAR. The publication of the NOA will invite the public to review and comment on the 254 Draft EA and will initiate a 30-day public and agency review period (end on DAY MONTH YEAR). At 255 the close of the review period, applicable comments from the general public and interagency and 256 intergovernmental coordination/consultation will be incorporated into the analysis of potential 257 environmental impacts performed as part of the EA, where applicable. Once the Final EA has been approved 258 and the EA process concluded, an NOA of the approved FONSI/FONPA will be published in the newspaper 259 of record and online. 260 The NOA and public and agency comments will be provided in Appendix XX. 262 The NOA will be published in the following newspapers: 264

Copies of the Draft EA and FONSI/FONPA will also be made available for review at the following 266 locations: 267

West Wendover City Hall 1111 N. Gene L. Jones Way

West Wendover, Nevada 89883

Wendover City Hall 920 E. Wendover Blvd.

Wendover, UT 84083

Online: http://

1.6 DECISION TO BE MADE 270

This EA is a planning and decision-making tool that will be used to guide the HQ UTTR in implementing 271 the Proposed Action in a manner consistent with USAF standards for environmental stewardship. The EA 272 evaluates whether the Proposed Action would result in significant impacts on the human or natural 273 environments. If significant impacts are identified, the UTTR would either undertake mitigation to reduce 274 impacts to below the level of significance; undertake the preparation of an EIS addressing the proposed 275 action; or abandon the proposed action. If no significant impacts would occur, a Finding of No Significant 276 Impact (FONSI) would be appropriate. 277 If the execution of any of the Proposed Action would involve “construction” in a wetland as defined in EO 279 11990, Protection of Wetlands, or “action” in a floodplain under EO 11988, Floodplain Management as 280 amended by EO 13690, Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for 281 Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input, a Finding of No Practicable Alternative (FONPA) 282 would be prepared in conjunction with the FONSI. Final decisions regarding this EA will be made by 283 USAF, as described in 32 CFR § 989 (as amended), Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP). 284

1.7 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 285

The scope of the EA will include the actions proposed; alternatives considered; a description of the existing 286 environment; and direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. The scope of the Proposed Action and the range 287 of alternatives to be considered are presented in Section 2. In accordance with CEQ regulations 288 implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508) and the USAF EIAP implementing regulations, the No Action 289

Wendover Weekly Street

City, State Zip

SLC Tribune

UTTR PRELIMINARY DRAFT DOPAA Page 1-12 October 2021

Alternative will be analyzed as a baseline against which the environmental impacts of implementing the 290 Proposed Action can be compared. 291 Per CEQ regulations (40 CFR § 1501.7[a][3]), this EA will analyze and discuss the potential environmental 293 impacts from implementation of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative on the following affected 294 resource areas: Airspace Management, Noise, Land Use, Visual Resources, Air Quality, Climate Change, 295 Water Resources, Geological Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Infrastructure, 296 Hazardous Materials and Wastes, Safety, and Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice. 297

UTTR PRELIMINARY DRAFT DOPAA Page 2-1 October 2021

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 1

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION 2

The Proposed Action is the implementation of the updated RMP component of this operational 3 programmatic analysis. As the last RMP for the UTTR was prepared and analyzed in 1997, an updated 4 RMP is needed to describe current and anticipated future activities on the UTTR, as well as their 5 environmental setting. Because these activities might have environmental consequences, an EA that 6 evaluates these potential consequences is also an integral component of this document. 7

2.2 SELECTION STANDARDS 8

The NEPA and the CEQ regulations mandate the consideration of reasonable alternatives for the Proposed 9 Action. “Reasonable alternatives” are those that also could be utilized to meet the purpose of and need for 10 the Proposed Action. Per the requirements of the USAF EIAP regulations, selection standards are used to 11 identify alternatives for meeting the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. Selection standards 12 enable HQ UTTR to critically evaluate whether all reasonable alternatives are included in the analysis. 13

In selecting alternatives for the Proposed Action, the USAF used the following selection standards: 14

• Mission Compatibility – Alternatives must support the mission and objectives of the UTTR. The 15 selected alternative must be compatible with the existing and ongoing military activities at the 16 UTTR and other DoD installations in the area. 17

• Purpose and Need - Alternatives must meet the purpose and need of the UTTR continuing to carry 18 out range operations over the next 20 to 25 years. 19

• Land Use and Infrastructure Compatibility – Alternatives must be compatible with existing 20 infrastructure and development at the UTTR and its vicinity. More specifically: 21 o Adequate land space impinged upon by urban/suburban encroachment. 22 o Adequate land space to provide the capability to accommodate large mission footprints. 23 o Availability of adequate airspace with existing FAA approved flight corridors. 24 o Availability of existing facilities, instrumentation, and range support. 25 o Minimal impact to range facilities of the host range, and adequate capacity to support 26 additional test and training workloads. 27 o Minimal impacts to endangered, threatened, or otherwise environmentally sensitive areas 28 and habitats. 29 o Compliant with existing permits and regulatory requirements. 30

• Regulation and Policy Conformance –The selected alternative must be compliant with existing 31 permits and regulatory requirements, and consistent with applicable DoD installation master 32 planning criteria (UFC 2-100-01, Installation Master Planning) and the 2011 Air Force Civil 33 Engineering Strategic Plan. 34

• Feasibility - Alternatives must be capable of being implemented. 35

UTTR PRELIMINARY DRAFT DOPAA Page 2-2 October 2021

2.3 SCREENING OF THE ALTERNATIVES 39

Table 2.3-1 presents those alternatives that were identified as potentially meeting the purpose of and need 40 for the proposed action and whether or not each one would meet the selection standards presented in Section 41

2.2. 42 Table 1: Screening of the Alternatives 44

Alternative Descriptions

Selection Standards

M is si on

C om pa tib ili ty

L an d U se a nd In fr as tr uc tu re

C om pa tib

R eg ul at io n an d

Po lic y C on fo rm an ce

Fe as ib

Pu rp os e an d

N ee d

A B C D E

Alternative 1- Proposed Action

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Alternative 2 – No Action

Partially Partially Yes No No

2.4 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 46

Although several ranges successfully satisfy a portion of the above criteria, no single alternate range 47 sufficiently meets these criteria such that operation could be moved without a serious setback to the current 48 level of mission support provided HQ UTTR. Therefore, the selection of an alternate range is deemed to be 49 unfeasible and will not be considered further. 50 Other alternatives, considered but eliminated, would involve the removal of specific types of testing or 52 training activities or their transfer from the UTTR to other DOD facilities. It was considered extremely 53 unlikely that all current activities would be transferred from the UTTR given its unique characteristics, and 54 beyond the scope of this EA to consider complete elimination of testing or training activities from the USAF 55 program. 56

2.5 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD 57

NEPA and the CEQ regulations mandate the consideration of reasonable alternatives to the Proposed 58 Action. “Reasonable alternatives” are those that also could be utilized to meet the purpose of and need for 59 the Proposed Action. No alternatives to the proposed action were identified as there is no reasonable 60 alternative capable of answering the Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action and meet the Selection 61 Criteria. The Proposed Action satisfies applicable USAF, DOD, State and/or Federal requirements, and 62 supports current and future mission requirements. The NEPA process is intended to support flexible, 63 informed decision-making; the analysis provided by this EA and feedback from the public and other 64 agencies will inform decisions made about whether, when and how to execute the Proposed Action. Among 65

UTTR PRELIMINARY DRAFT DOPAA Page 2-3 October 2021 the alternatives evaluated is a No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative will substantively analyze 66 the consequences of not undertaking the Proposed Action, not simply conclude no impact, and will serve 67 to establish a comparative baseline for analysis. 68 Because the Proposed Action is the continuation of current activities, some of which are not specifically 70 predictable but rather are responsive to the needs of various customers, it was not possible to define other 71 action alternatives based on specific alternative future use scenarios. Therefore, as the Proposed Action 72 Alternative is the only viable alternative that meets all of the Selection Standards, it will be considered and 73 carried forward for analysis together with the No Action Alternative. 74 One alternative, the Proposed Action, was found to answer the purpose of and need for the action and to 76 satisfy the selection standards. That and the No Action Alternative are carried forward for detailed analysis. 77 Based on the screening criteria, HQ UTTR proposes to implement the updated RMP for the UTTR provided 78 as an integral component of this document, described in sub-section 2.5.1 below. The No Action 79 Alternative, described in Section 2.5.2, would reject this Plan and continue to operate under the 1997 RMP. 80

PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE: Implementation of Updated RMP 81

The Proposed Action is the implementation of the updated RMP component of this document and assumes 82 the need for ongoing customer requirements and increasing demand for activities that are not specifically 83 predictable but are within the UTTR current mission and include the following Planning Objectives for 84 future use: 85

(1) Continued provision of space and facilities for complex air-to-air, air-to-ground, and ground 86 exercises involving bombers, fighters, and ground troops having multiple roles, and particularly 87 emphasizing those testing operations and training missions that are most benefited by the 88 remoteness, topography, size, and undeveloped land provided by the UTTR. 89

(2) Increased communication and coordination among user groups to provide interactive and cost-90 effective testing and training opportunities. 91

(3) Continued provision of test facilities for both manned and unmanned aircraft, munitions, and 92 advanced weapons systems. 93

(4) Continued provision of cruise missile testing operations. 94 Under this alternative, the HQ UTTR proposes to evaluate programmatic current and future operations and 96 has identified a series of routine and programmatic actions to carry forward for analysis which satisfy the 97 HQ UTTR mission and the above listed Planning Objectives. The current and future activities at the UTTR 98 are to occur based on the next generation weapons development and mission type operations, to include the 99 use of the 86th Weapons Evaluation Group (WEG) on the Range. 100 The updated RMP would allow programmatic actions to include current operations on the UTTR and 102 evaluations of advanced systems including: 5th/6th generation flight operations and weapons deployments; 103 next generation threat emitters; unmanned aerial systems (UASs); hypersonic weapons deployment; 104 directed energy deployment; support of NASA missions; large scale air operations; military movement 105 ground operations coinciding with air operations; cruise missile (CM) operations; advanced stand-off 106 weapons programs; and additional WEG operations/events. These actions are intended to sustain, enhance, 107 and modernize existing HQ UTTR missions. 108 Under the Proposed Action, proposed activities would be conducted at the UTTR over the next 25-years in 110 a manner that would enhance the mission of HQ UTTR, improve the efficiency of the environmental review 111 process, and ensure that adequate environmental protection occurs. HQ UTTR is the lead NEPA agency 112

UTTR PRELIMINARY DRAFT DOPAA Page 2-4 October 2021 undertaking the Proposed Action. Table 1-1 identifies state and federal agencies that have regulatory 113 permitting authority over the Proposed Action. 114

INSERT TABLE 1-1 115

Candidate projects and/or activities would be reviewed by the HQ UTTR staff to ensure compliance with 116 the AFI 13-212 and the criteria set forth in this Proposed Action. Candidate projects that do not meet the 117 criteria and therefore do not qualify under this Decision would be treated as separate standalone actions and 118 analyzed in compliance with NEPA. 119

Routine and programmatic actions on the UTTR fall into three (3) major classifications: 1) test functions, 120

2) training exercises, and 3) support services. Targets and other resources on the UTTR are generally 121 dedicated to, and classified as, either testing or training. 122

2.5.1.1 Testing 123

Testing is an on-going activity at the UTTR; many of the target areas are dedicated exclusively to specific 124 target functions and use of ordnance and munitions specifically allowed for that target. Testing involves the 125 launching, deployment, or ignition of weapons systems or components, and the subsequent monitoring of 126 their performance. Testing may be broadly classified as to whether they are air-to-ground, air-to-air, 127 ground-based, or airspace-based. Although the uses of the UTTR have changed since 1997 as new 128 technology and systems have developed, all of these testing categories remain strongly represented at the 129

UTTR. 130

The testing of advanced standoff weapons and programs at the UTTR relies on the large safety footprint 132 available, including air launch cruise missiles (ALCMs) specifically, and UASs such as subscale aerial 133 targets. Generally, these tests involve the release or launch of a weapons system that are either tracked as 134 an air target or follows a predetermined course to a ground target. A variety of time-space-position 135 information (TSPI), photo, and other tracking instruments are used; more than 60 ground stations supply 136 the TSPI data. Air-to-ground precision-guided munitions (PGM) tests use air-launched guided weapons 137 against ground targets. Subscale aerial targets are controlled remotely and are used as targets for air-to-air 138 training. These tests are fully instrumented to provide TSPI across the entire Range and beyond. 139

Air-to-Ground Testing 140

Air-to-ground involves the evaluations of a weapons system being released from an aircraft to a 141 predetermined ground target. This could include deploying either an inert or live munition onto a specific 142 target area. The evaluation of the weapons system is fully evaluated by using the infrastructure that is 143 provided by the UTTR on its Range. The tracking of a munition from the aircraft release to the ground 144 impact uses live-feed video, telemetry tracking, and TISPI to evaluate the system as employed. This 145 programmatic evaluation follows for all testing evaluations. 146 For air-to-ground testing, ground testing, and munitions testing, specific targets are used. For tests of 148 accuracy or effect, the targets differ primarily in their electronic scoring capabilities and in the target objects 149 they provide. For munitions testing, these targets differ in configuration and type of pad. 150

Air-to-Air Testing 151

Air-to-air testing involves the evaluation of a weapons system or program that is deployed from an aircraft 152 to another airborne system. The UTTR uses subscale aerial targets as its target system. These are flown 153 remotely and are engaged by an attacking aircraft. The evaluation of the weapons system is fully evaluated 154 by using the infrastructure that is provided by the UTTR on its Range. The tracking of a munition from the 155 release from the aircraft to the air target using live feed video, telemetry tracking, TSPI to evaluate the 156 system as it is employed. This programmatic evaluation follows for all testing evaluations. 157

UTTR PRELIMINARY DRAFT DOPAA Page 2-5 October 2021

Ground Testing 158

Ground testing includes rocket/missile motor testing, study, and analysis; tests of advanced weapons 159 systems; HE tests; and munitions (including rocket/missile motor) disposal. Each of these types of testing 160 is conducted in a specific area and the range of testing activities is supported by a large number of diverse 161 targets. Munitions disposal is included, even though it is not a direct test use and is under different 162 regulations, because it shares some similarities with testing activities from an impact perspective. 163

Air Testing 164

Testing in the airspace may be manned or unmanned and may optionally include munitions testing. The 165 testing of missiles and UASs in the UTTR airspace relies on the large safety footprint available at the entire 166 complex. Open-air testing and evaluation of CM systems is the core testing mission of the UTTR, which is 167 the USAF’s primary overland range for testing CM systems. Air testing relies on a highly sophisticated 168 network of electronic instrumentation that accurately records locational data and speed, enabling precise 169 interpretation of aircraft performance. This electronic network extends beyond the UTTR complex to 170 interconnect with other USAF installations so that an unmanned aircraft can fly from one installation to 171 another, finally ending up at a target on the North or South range. Several types of air testing, such as tests 172 of air-to-ground conventional, advanced munitions and weapons systems, and the shelf-life of munitions, 173 bridge the gap between air and ground testing. 174

2.5.1.2 Training 175

Training uses of the Range may be generally classified based on the land and/or air resources they require. 176 Training missions simulate actual combat missions where aircrews and ground troops are able to conduct 177 operations against targets and simulated aggressors using the same ordnance and weapons systems that 178 would be available to them in wartime. 179 The following types of training missions are common at the UTTR: air-to-ground, air-to-air, and ground 181 troop training. These types of training missions may each be conducted independently or combined into 182 complex missions. 183

Air-to-Ground Training 184

Air-to-ground involves bomber and/or fighter aircraft releasing or simulating the release of weapons on 185 land-based targets. Air-to-ground training uses the restricted airspace and military operating areas for 186 ingress to and egress from the target. Direct use of the airspace is supplemented with ground-based tracking 187 or data acquisition systems, various Electronic Combat (EC) threat simulators, and electronic and 188 photographic or visual scoring systems. These data are sent to Mission Control Center for analysis and 189 interpretation by the pilots. Live and simulated training exercises occur at about the same frequency. Live 190 exercises include all situations where munitions come off the aircraft, such as inert practice or live 191 munitions. The weapon systems may be either conventional, simulated nuclear munitions, or advanced. 192 The UTTR also allows strafing, and the discharge of devices, such as chaff and flares, for defensive practice. 193 Specific targets are authorized for certain types of ordnance. 194

Air-to-Air Training 195

Air-to-air training, in contrast to air-to-ground training, is a simulated battle of two or more aircraft against 196 each other. Air-to-air training exercises utilize the airspace over North and South and additional controlled 197 airspace as needed. Specified types of maneuvers involving a single aircraft or multiple aircraft are 198 practiced. These operations take place in various levels of the airspace, and several missions can occur 199 simultaneously at different altitudes. 200

UTTR PRELIMINARY DRAFT DOPAA Page 2-6 October 2021

Ground Troop Training 202

Ground troop training consists of various exercises (ground assault training, communications exercises, and 203 mobile radar unit training) that use ground-based troops and equipment. The exercises include movement 204 exercises, live-fire exercises, and joint air attack tactics. The primary ground troop users are DOD 205 personnel. 206

Training Missions 207

The above-described training, targets, and airspace can be used for a number of training activities, which 208 can be minimally combined in a typical daily training mission or complexly combined into a single 209 combined force training (CFT) mission. The components of a typical daily training mission provide a small 210 portion of a larger mission in which more than 20 aircraft can play diverse roles and in which the fighters 211 and bombers may be hitting different targets simultaneously. The goal of the CFT mission is to include as 212 many players as possible to increase its realism. The biggest difference between a CFT and a typical daily 213 mission is complexity, not just in the number of aircraft and roles, but also in the multiplicity of roles for a 214 single pilot. 215

2.5.1.3 Support Services / Services Supporting Range Uses 216

In order to keep the UTTR functioning effectively and be able to meet the current and future mission need 217 capabilities of the users, including that of the DOD, NASA, and other partnering entities, support services 218 are required on an ongoing basis. The primary support services provided by the UTTR are communications, 219 audio/visual documentation, realistic threats, construction and maintenance of targets, and range cleanup 220 including explosive ordnance disposal. 221

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 222

The No-Action Alternative cannot be considered a reasonable course of action as it fails to address the 223 purpose of and need for the action as described in Chapter 1.