Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS) has been prepared for the U.S. Air Force (USAF) Air
Combat Command’s (ACC) Realistic Bomber Training Initiative (RBTI) Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). This survey satisfies the requirements for an EBS as outlined in AFI 32-7066,
Environmental Baseline Surveys in Real Estate Transactions and involves only those tasks stated
in Section 2.0, Survey Methodology, of this report. Disclosure of information in this EBS is
prohibited without prior notification of the USAF.
RBTI proposes to develop interrelated airspace and ground training components to support
realistic training within approximately 600 nautical miles (NM) of Dyess and Barksdale AFBs.
The EIS analyzes four alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative and three action
alternatives (B, C, or D). Under the No-Action Alternative, no changes to current facilities or
airspace would occur. The three action alternatives would establish electronic emitter and
scoring sites under Military Training Routes (MTRs) and Military Operating Areas (MOAs) in
west Texas or northeast New Mexico. Specifically, under any of the three actions alternatives,
electronic emitters and two electronic scoring sites would be built and two existing electronic
scoring sites in La Junta, Colorado and Harrison, Arkansas would be decommissioned. The Air
Force identified a total of 42 sites to provide flexibility choice. Only 12 sites would be needed
for the Proposed Action. Each of these sites was designated by a site number and analyzed. The
two decommissioned sites were also surveyed and can be found in Appendix B and Appendix C.
In addition, cultural and biological resource surveys were conducted and the findings are found
in separate reports.
Site assessments were generated by conducting a visual inspection of the candidate sites,
interviewing available landowners, and reviewing all available data on potential contamination
sources. Properties of potential concern include:
•
Site 60 (Alternatives B and C) - two above-ground storage tanks (AST); one propane and
the other potentially water; as well as associated piping;
•
Site 61 Dyess AFB former Transmitter site (Alternatives B, C, and D) - one 1,000-gallon
diesel AST (removed in October 1999 after initial survey) and confirmed presence of
lead-based paint (LBP);
•
Site 62 Dyess AFB former Receiver site (Alternatives B, C, and D) - one 50-gallon diesel
AST (removed in October 1999 after initial survey) and confirmed presence of LBP;
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
ES-1
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
Should site 60 be selected to establish an emitter site, the portion of the parcel containing the
ASTs is recommended to be eliminated from the real estate transaction. ACC/XOR and 7
OSS/OSTA have indicated there is adequate area to shift the emitter site perimeter and remain in
the surveyed area. Should the portion of land containing the ASTs be included in any real estate
transaction, confirmation of the water contents of the ASTs would be in order. Also, it should be
confirmed with the landowner that no underground storage tanks or hazardous substance spills
have ever been associated with the site. The landowner was not available during the initial
survey to answer specific questions regarding this assessment, the observed tanks and piping on
the site, or the property's historical use. Repeated attempts to contact the landowner have been
unsuccessful and his whereabouts remains unknown.
Although surveys performed on 61 and 62 confirmed that ACM and LBP are present on the
property, establishment of the scoring site at either site would not affect the existing buildings. If
the decision is made to utilize the existing buildings at either site, further evaluation of both the
ACM and LBP would be necessary. Further, since the initial survey, the ASTs on both sites have
been removed and the stained soil removed.
.
Properties of interest due to adjacent properties include:
•
Site 64 (Alternative B) - one oil/gas well (not currently functioning) located immediately
adjacent to the site; and
•
Site 79 (Alternative C) - one oil/gas well (currently functioning) and one 1,000-gallon
AST located on the site.
These sites were categorized as Category 2 where only storage has occurred.
Based on the information and recommendations contained in this EBS, there appear to be no
known environmental liabilities associated with the USAF proposed use, lease or purchase of the
following sites for implementing Alternative B/IR-178, Lancer MOA in support of the Realistic
Bomber Training Initiative: Sites 54, 59, 64, 72, 81, 82, 93, and 95.
ES-2
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Under the provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7066, Environmental Baseline Surveys in
Real Estate Transactions, 25 April 1994, the United States Air Force must conduct an
Environmental Baseline Survey for all real property that is located within the United States, its
territories, or its possessions that is identified for acquisition, lease, sale, or transfer to, from, or
with a party other than the USAF. Upon identification of the proposed transaction, the USAF
requires that the appropriate Command or installation conduct the EBS.
This report will be used in support of an environmental impact statement for (EIS) RBTI that will
comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Council on Environmental
Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500 et. seq.) implementing NEPA, AFI 32-7061, and other
applicable federal and state-delegated environmental regulations. RBTI would consist of an
interrelated set of airspace and ground-based training assets, or an Electronic Scoring Site system
(ESS system). This system would include ten, 15-acre electronic emitters, two Electronic
Scoring Sites, and airspace consisting of an MTR and MOA with overlying Air Traffic Control
Assigned Airspace (ATCAA) in either west Texas or northeast New Mexico.
Proposed Action
The Air Combat Command has prepared this Environmental Baseline Survey concurrently and in
conjunction with the RBTI EIS, a Biological Resources Survey, and a Cultural Resources
Survey. RBTI proposes to develop interrelated airspace and ground training components that
would support realistic training within approximately 600 nautical miles (NM) from Dyess and
Barksdale Air Force Base (AFBs). These assets and capabilities would include:
•
An MTR allowing flight down to 300 feet above ground level in some segments, offering
variable terrain, overlying lands capable of supporting electronic threat emitters and
electronic scoring sites, and linked to a MOA;
•
A MOA and overlying ATCAA measuring at least 40 by 80 NM with a floor (lower)
altitude of 3,000 feet above ground level and an available ceiling (upper) altitude up to
40,000 feet mean sea level;
•
An array of five sites (15 acres each) for placing electronic emitters under or near the
MTR corridor and five additional sites (15 acres each) for placing electronic emitters
under or near the MOA; and
•
Two Electronic Scoring Sites co-located with operations and maintenance centers, one
under or near the MTR corridor and the other enroute from the training airspace to
Barksdale and Dyess AFBs.
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
1
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
The EIS analyzes four alternatives: the No-Action Alternative and three action alternatives (B, C,
or D). The three action alternatives could fulfill the need defined under the Proposed Action.
None are considered the preferred alternative at this time, and it is expected that the Air Force
will not define a preferred or environmentally preferred alternative until after the Draft EIS and
public comment period are concluded.
ALTERNATIVE A: NO-ACTION
The No-Action Alternative would not establish interrelated training facilities, and use of existing
airspace would remain the same. Under the No-Action Alternative, no new land acquisition or
construction of emitter or scoring sites would occur.
ALTERNATIVE B: INSTRUMENT ROUTE (IR)-178/LANCER MOA
To accommodate training requirements for RBTI, an ESS system would be established. Table 11 shows the elements of the ESS system. For RBTI, the Air Force would use portable emitters
under or near the MTR and MOA. These emitters would be located on 15-acre parcels of land
and remotely programmed. The emitters are carried on a medium-sized travel trailer and are
about 17 feet high, including an antenna.
RBTI proposes a total of ten emitter sites associated with the MTR and MOA, and two scoring
sites (Table 1-1). However, to provide greater flexibility with regard to potential environmental
impacts, the Air Force analyzed 42 sites. Final sites would be chosen after the analysis is
complete.
Table 1-1 Elements of the Electronic Scoring Site System
Facility
2
Sites Required
MTR Emitters
5
MOA Emitters
5
Scoring Site/Operations and Maintenance Center
2
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
Alternative B is located almost wholly in west Texas, with only a small portion extending into
southeastern New Mexico. All ground sites are located in Texas. Figure 1 presents the proposed
locations of the emitter and scoring sites identified for Alternative B.
Land Acquisition. Prior to construction, the Air Force would acquire the necessary 15-acre
parcels through lease or purchase. With the exception of the two scoring sites at Dyess AFB, all
the sites are on private property.
Construction. Construction activities would include clearing and grading of the site,
development of a gravel or asphalt pad near its center, and construction of chain-link fence
around the site perimeter. For emitter sites, an emitter would be linked to existing power and
telephone lines and sit on a 0.25-acre gravel pad. For the scoring sites, a 3-acre asphalt parking
lot would surround a 7,000 square-foot building. Table 1-2 summarizes the type of construction
needed.
Table 1-2 Construction Features of Emitter and Scoring Sites
Facility
Additional
Features
Size
Site Preparation
Construction
MTR
emitters
15 acres/
800x800 ft.
Grading of central
0.25-acre pad and
driveway
Chain-link perimeter
fence, 0.25-acre
gravel pad in center,
emitter placement
Gravel driveway,
power/telephone
lines
MOA
emitters
15 acres/
800x800 ft.
Grading of central
0.25-acre pad and
driveway
Chain-link perimeter
fence, 0.25 acre
gravel pad in center,
emitter placement
Gravel driveway,
power/telephone
lines
Scoring
Site/
Operations
Facilities
15 acres/
800x800 ft.
Grading of central
3-acre pad and
driveway
Chain-link perimeter
fence, 3-acre asphalt
pad in center, 7,000
sq. ft. 1-story
building
Asphalt driveway,
power/ telephone
lines, septic tank,
potable water
storage tank
At some sites, additional power lines or telephone cables from existing lines to the proposed
location may be needed. These could include power poles and/or underground cables.
Operations and Maintenance. Use of the scoring site would occur primarily during weekdays,
with only occasional use on weekends. Maintenance on the emitters would occur monthly and
when required for emergency repairs.
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
3
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
I
~- .__ _-I--..- -~I
1
. . . ..*.............y.........y....*
i
‘*1
Lancer
’
I
NEW MEXICO /
-..-..-..-..
..e..-..-..T
TEXAS
-
Candidate Electronic Scorine
Sites
MEXICO
:’
.
MEXKO
LEGEND
,
+I
\)’
Proposed IR-178
A
Can&date Eminn
Proposed 1R- I78 Corridor
*
Candidate Electroruc Scoring Site
Site
State Boundary
/Y/
County Boundary
. . . . . . .
MOA
Proposed location of Candidate Emitters and Electronic Scoring Sites for
Alternative B: IR- 178/Lancer MOA
4
Figure 1
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
--..
_-.
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
Personnel. Approximately 30 personnel would be present at each of the two operations facilities
when aircraft are scheduled to use the system. The MTR and MOA emitters would operate in
response to scheduled use, but no personnel would be on-site. The unmanned emitters would be
remotely activated and programmed from the operational centers during periods of aircraft use.
Depending upon the training scenario and expected threats, not all emitters would be used all the
time.
ALTERNATIVE C: IR-178/TEXON MOA
Alternative C would use an ESS system established with the same land acquisition processes,
construction, operations, maintenance, and personnel as described under Alternative B.
Alternative C airspace lies almost wholly in west Texas, with only a small portion of airspace
extending into southeastern New Mexico. All emitter sites are located in west Texas. Figure 2
presents the proposed locations of the sites identified for Alternative C.
ALTERNATIVE D: IR-153/MT. DORA MOA
Alternative D would establish an ESS system with the same land acquisition processes,
construction, operations, maintenance, and personnel as described under Alternative B.
Alternative D airspace is almost wholly in northeastern New Mexico. The MTR and MOA
emitters and one scoring site would be located in New Mexico. The second scoring site would
be at Dyess AFB. Figure 3 presents the proposed locations of the sites identified for Alternative
D.
1.1
Purpose of Survey
The purpose of this EBS is to assess the present environmental conditions of properties identified
as potential locations for the ground-based electronic scoring site system. This is done prior to
real estate transactions to lease or purchase properties. This EBS includes the following:
•
a description of the nature, magnitude, and extent of environmental contamination of the
sites;
•
a definition of potential environmental contamination liabilities associated with the sites;
•
a compilation of information to assess health and safety risks and to ensure protection of
human health and the environment;
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
5
NEW MWCO
/
‘t
\
’
y%
- - l+cpedlR-178
I- IR-178 conidw
CandIdate
*
Candidate Electronic Site
Emitter
I
I$es+W
*I1
/
LEGEND
A
_ Candidate Electronic Scoringjittgittwmi
.L ..-.- - - - - - -;
I
,
\
\
‘r- -.- -..
Site
stale Boru~
,“‘\J
.......
County~
MOA
Proposed location of Candidate Emitters and Electronic Scoring Sites for
Alternative C: IR-17%Texon MOA
6
Figure 2
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
. _ - . “ l
- - - -
_ _
Realistic Bomber Training Xnitiative
AREA SHOWN
COLORADO
OKLAHOMA
Candidate
Propo,cd IR-153 Corridor
Candidate Elcctron~ Scorq Ste
,,-,/ County Boundary
Proposed location of Candidate Emitter and Elecronic Scoring Sites for
Alternative D: IR-153iMt. Dora MOA
Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
Figure 3
7
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
•
information to assist in determining possible effects on property valuation from any
contamination discovered; and
•
information necessary for notice of type, quantity, and time frame of any storage, release,
or disposal of a hazardous substance on the sites when required by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Appendix A contains a glossary of EBS terms.
1.2
Scope of Survey
This EBS documents the environmental conditions of the candidate sites as observed in April and
May of 1998. Information was obtained in the following ways:
•
visiting the subject sites;
•
reviewing existing environmental data;
•
reviewing available chain-of-title information;
•
analyzing records concerning environmental condition and use of hazardous materials,
and the generation and disposal of hazardous waste; and
•
interviewing property landowners who have knowledge of current and past
environmental conditions and hazardous materials handling practices.
The results of this study are limited to a visual surface investigation. Subsurface, waste
characterization, air quality, asbestos, lead-based paint (LBP), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB),
and radon samples were deemed unnecessary due to lack of sufficient evidence of contamination
in existing documentation.
1.3
La Junta, Colorado and Harrison, Arkansas
The La Junta and Harrison electronic scoring sites were separately assessed following the survey
methods above. Appendices B and C contain the EBS for these sites.
8
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
1.4
Site Description
A total of 42 proposed sites were surveyed. Refer to Figures 1, 2, and 3 for the locations of the
proposed emitter sites for Alternatives B, C, and D. Table 1-3 lists each candidate site, with a
location description including the state and county, a legal description, and latitude/longitude
coordinates. Current land features are minimal, as most sites are privately owned and located on
agricultural or grazing lands. Properties 61 and 62 are currently owned by the Air Force and an
unused building is located on each of the sites.
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
9
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
Table 1-3 Site Descriptions
SITE
#
Alt
State
County
Proposed Site Use
Coordinates
Legal Descriptions
2
D
NM
Guadalupe
MTR Emitter
35° 03 12.52N 105° 12 35.94W Anton Chico Land Grant T10R16 35NW
6
D
NM
Guadalupe
MTR Emitter
34° 50 44.28N 104° 15 40.12W T7N R25E 11 NW
7
D
NM
Guadalupe
MTR Emitter
34° 51 25.63N 104° 19 46.27W T7NR25E 06 NE
14
D
NM
Harding
Mt Dora MOA Emitter 35° 59 49.06N 104° 12 53.81W R26 T20 6 NE
15
D
NM
Colfax
Mt Dora MOA Emitter 36° 18 10.16N 104° 11 43.08W T24 N R26E 21 NE
16
D
NM
Colfax
Mt Dora MOA Emitter 36° 17 50.98N 104° 10 07.85W T24N R26E 21 NE
17
D
NM
Union
Mt Dora MOA Emitter 36° 17 02.14N 103° 49 44.20W T24N R29E 27NE
20
D
NM
Union
Mt Dora MOA Emitter 38° 03.3N
21
D
NM
Union
Mt Dora MOA Emitter 36° 22 36.91N 103° 11 22.59W T25N R35E 27 NE
24
D
NM
Guadalupe
28
D
NM
Harding
MTR ESS
35° 48 04.78N 103° 57 52.24W T18N R28E 09SE
33
D
NM
Union
MTR ESS
35° 51 13.71N 103° 20 45.85W T19N R34E 20 SE
MTR ESS
35° 37 22.39N 103° 09 25.84W T16N R36E 07SW
MTR Emitter
103° 42 57.07W T28N R30E 26 NW
34° 58 37.18N 105° 03 40.84W Anton Chico Land Grant T9 R18 30SW
34
D
NM
Quay
35
D
NM
Harding
Mt Dora MOA Emitter 35° 54 0.31N
Mt Dora MOA Emitter 35° 56 19.07N 104° 07 25.83W T20N R26E 25NE
103° 56 57.90W T19N R28E 3SE
36
D
NM
Harding
37
D
NM
Guadalupe
MTR Emitter
35° 01 53.56N 104° 55 41.48W Anton Chico Land Grant T9 R19 4
38
D
NM
Guadalupe
MTR Emitter
34° 55 06.66N 104° 24 50.30W T8N R24E 17NE
39
D
NM
Guadalupe
MTR Emitter
34° 55 03.20N 104° 20 57.81W T8N R24E 13SW
40
D
NM
Mora
MTR Emitter
35° 56 08.25N 104° 45 21.97W Mora Grant T20 R21 30&31
41
D
NM
Mora
MTR Emitter
35° 53 47.95N 104° 44 44.51W Mora Grant T19 R21 7NW
54
B/C
TX
Brewster
MTR Emitter
29° 34 33.16N 103° 33 10.88W B217 ST9
55
B/C
TX
Presidio
MTR Emitter
29° 85 04.54N 104° 00 44.57W B338 S582
59
B/C
TX
Reeves
MTR ESS
31°9N 103° 37 59.46W
60
B/C
TX
Reeves
MTR ESS
31° 11 54.44N 103° 39 33.67W B54 S17,18
61
B/C/D
TX
Taylor
Enroute ESS
32° 26 27.53N 99° 52 09.23W
Tract A - 109
62
B/C/D
TX
Taylor
Enroute ESS
32° 24 58.93N 99° 52 38.59W
Tract A - 108
BC-4 S8
64
B
TX
Scurry
Lancer MOA Emitter
32° 46 02.92N 100° 59 39.59W B97 S293 ANW
65
B
TX
Borden
Lancer MOA Emitter
32° 37 38.40N 101° 12 11.19W B25 S94 AH&TC
66
B
TX
Borden
Lancer MOA Emitter
32° 49 59.47N 101° 36 06.94W B32 S39 AH&OB
67
B
TX
Borden
Lancer MOA Emitter
32° 42 07.37N 101° 27 59.81W B31 S3 AT&P4N
72
B
TX
Garza
Lancer MOA Emitter
32° 59 114N 101° 09 163W
78
C
TX
Upton
Texon MOA Emitter
31° 21 47.11N 101° 56 23.21W BY S54 A20
79
C
TX
Schleicher
Texon MOA Emitter
30° 58 17.10N 100° 48 56.64W BA S36 A1619
80
C
TX
Upton
Texon MOA Emitters
31° 07 21.23N 101° 58 54.90W S6 BA MK&T
81
B/C
TX
Brewster
82
B/C
TX
Pecos
88
C
TX
Reagan
Texon MOA Emitter
31° 10 59.88N 101° 24 15.11W B1 S226 T&P
89
C
TX
Reagan
Texon MOA Emitter
31° 13 29.63N 101° 27 55.55W Section 10 GC & SF
91
B/C
TX
Pecos
93
B/C
TX
Pecos
MTR Emitter
94
C
TX
Irion
Texon MOA Emitter
31° 19 44.28N 100° 48 06.06W B2 S25 H & TC
95
B
TX
Scurry
Lancer MOA Emitter
32° 45 17.36N 100° 41 17.68W B3 S11 H&TC
10
MTR Emitter
MTR Emitter
MTR Emitter
B6 S14 ASE
31° 14 39.87N 102° 38 55.03W Bl C S 11 Massy
31° 14 39.87N 102° 38 55.03W B3 S3 SE1/2 H&TC
30° 38 23.46N 102° 38 45.51W B136 S3 TS&TL
30° 37 41.34N 102° 40 08.62W
B136 S4 TS&TL
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
2.0
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Survey methodologies included document reviews, on-site investigations, and landowner
interviews.
2.1
Documents Reviewed
The documents reviewed consisted of environmental databases from federal and state regulatory
agencies, aerial photographs, historic maps, site plans, floor plans, and chain-of-title information.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) was contracted to perform a search of federal and
state environmental databases for locations of landfills, hazardous waste disposal sites, treatment
facilities, hazardous materials, and/or waste operations near the 42 sites. A detailed table
defining the search databases, compiled by EDR, is included as Appendix D.
Aerial photography interpretation allows identification of evidence of potential environmental
concerns associated with prior uses of the property and adjacent properties. Aerial photographs
of the sites were available for review at the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS),
Farm Service Agency (FSA) county offices, and EDR. Sources used by EDR to obtain aerial
photographs included the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (renamed Farm
Service Agency in 1995) and United States Geological Survey.
Topographic and soil survey maps were reviewed to identify natural and man-made site features.
These maps were used to determine elevation, surface water flow, shallow groundwater flow,
sensitive ecological areas, existing and historical land use, and land ownership. Local title
companies were contracted to research chain-of-title information through review of County Deed
Books and plat maps pertaining to the candidate sites.
2.2
Property Inspection
Candidate site inspections and reconnaissance of the surrounding areas were conducted in April
and May of 1998. The inspection incorporated American Society for Testing and Materials
standard practices E1528-96, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments:
Transaction Screen Process and E1527-97, Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. Photographs of each of the
candidate sites were taken and representative photos are included in Appendix E.
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
11
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
Each site was visually inspected to assess the contamination potential from on- and off-site
sources, including the presence of hazardous activities or materials, stained soil, stressed
vegetation, leaking electrical transformers, and any signs of excavation or burial. Summary
information on the soil type, biological resources, and potential wetland information may be
found in Section 3 of this report. Further details may be found in the Draft Natural Resource
Report in Support of the Realistic Bomber Training Initiative, July 1999.
2.3
Personal Interviews
State and local government personnel and property owners were interviewed to determine the
past potential for hazardous material/hazardous waste spills, regulatory violations, and the
presence of hazardous materials at each site. Information was also gathered on past and present
handling practices for hazardous substances and presence of natural and cultural resources. If
available, documents were reviewed to validate interview information. A list of persons
interviewed and summaries of the interviews are presented in Appendix F.
2.4
Sampling
The results of this study are limited to a visual surface investigation. Subsurface, waste
characterization, air quality, asbestos, LBP, PCB, and radon samples were not taken because
interviews and available documentation did not show sufficient evidence of contamination to
warrant sampling.
12
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
3.0
FINDINGS
This section summarizes the findings of the EBS and provides the environmental conditions of
the candidate emitters and electronic scoring sites. This includes investigation of hazardous
materials and waste handling practices, location of utilities, determination of surface water runoff
patterns, identification of natural and cultural resources, and review of ownership history. Table
3-1 summarizes the findings at each site. If no findings on a topic were discovered at any of the
sites, then there is no further text discussion.
EBS findings for the existing Harrison and La Junta electronic scoring sites are found in
Appendix B and C. Findings included hazardous materials such as mixed fuels and antifreeze at
the Harrison site. Findings at the La Junta site included a small container of used oil leaking,
however, it was contained within a pallet. Neither site has undergone radon testing.
3.1
Site History and Current Use
3.1.1
Historic Ownership
Chain-of-title information was reviewed for all sites to determine past ownership and land uses.
Two of the sites, 61 and 62, are USAF-owned and do not require this review. Title search
companies, local to the subject sites, were contracted to research the chain-of-titles through deed
books and plat maps from their respective counties. The legal descriptions, current ownership,
and title search status for all sites are presented in Table 3-2.
Alternative B: IR-178/Lancer MOA
Chain-of-title documents were reviewed for all sites. Nothing was identified through this
documentation that indicates any negative environmental impacts to these properties. Previous
owners have used these properties for grazeland or farm use only. No liens were identified in
conjunction with any of these properties.
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
13
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
14
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
LUSTs w/in 0.5 mile
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
no findings in EDS
X
X
X
X
X X
Soil Contamination
Lead-based Paint
Radon
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Asbestos
Drinking water Supply
Disposal
Collection
Treatment
Groundwater Contamination
Solid Waste
Radioactive Waste
Ordnance
Medical and Biohazardous Waste
Pesticides and Herbicides
Oil/Water Separator
Pipelines, Hydrants, Transfer Systems
Underground Storage Tanks
Above Ground Storage Tanks
Installation Restoration Program
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
B/C
B/C
B/C
B/C
B/C/D
B/C/D
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
B/C
B/C
C
C
B/C
B/C
C
B
Hazardous and Petroleum Waste
Alternative
NM - Guadalupe
NM - Guadalupe
NM - Guadalupe
NM - Harding
NM - Colfax
NM - Colfax
NM - Union
NM - Union
NM - Union
NM - Guadalupe
NM - Harding
NM - Union
NM - Quay
NM - Harding
NM - Harding
NM - Guadalupe
NM - Guadalupe
NM - Guadalupe
NM - Mora
NM - Mora
TX - Brewster
TX - Presidio
TX - Reeves
TX - Reeves
TX - Taylor
TX – Taylor
TX - Scurry
TX - Borden
TX - Borden
TX - Borden
TX - Garza
TX - Upton
TX - Schleicher
TX - Upton
TX - Brewster
TX - Pecos
TX - Reagan
TX - Reagan
TX - Pecos
TX - Pecos
TX - Irion
TX - Scurry
Hazardous Materials / Petroleum Products
State - County
02
06
07
14
15
16
17
20
21
24
28
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
54
55
59
60
61
62
64
65
66
67
72
78
79
80
81
82
88
89
91
93
94
95
Environmental Database Summary (EDS)
Site
Table 3-1 Environmental Hazards Summary
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
TABLE 3-2 Site Ownership And Legal Descriptions
Site
State - County
Alternative
B/C/D
Current Owner
Private
or Public
Title Search
02
NM - Guadalupe
D
Mr. Peterson
Private
Complete
Anton Chico Land
Grant T10R16 35NW
06
07
14
15
NM - Guadalupe
NM - Guadalupe
NM - Harding
NM - Colfax
D
D
D
D
Mr. Pettigrew
Mr. J.B. and Mrs. Wanda Autrey
Mr. John A. Mahoney
Mr. Sciles/Deaf Smith County Grain
Private
Private
Private
Private
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
T7N R25E 11 NW
T7NR25E 06 NE
R26 T20 6 NE
T24 N R26E 21 NE
16
NM - Colfax
D
Mr. Sciles/Deaf Smith County Grain
Private
Complete
T24N R26E 21 NE
17
20
21
24
NM - Union
NM - Union
NM - Union
NM - Guadalupe
D
D
D
D
Triple M Cattle
Mr. Vincent/Springhill Corp
Mr. Edward Walker
Mr. Tom Payne
Private
Private
Private
Private
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
T24N R29E 27NE
T28N R30E 26 NW
T25N R35E 27 NE
Anton Chico Land
Grant T9 R18 30SW
28
33
NM - Harding
NM - Union
D
D
Mr. Lyell and Mr. Jimmie Hazen
Hutchison Family Limited
Partnership
Private
Private
Complete
Complete
T18N R28E 09SE
T19N R34E 20 SE
34
35
36
37
NM - Quay
NM - Harding
NM - Harding
NM - Guadalupe
D
D
D
D
Mr. Ralph Fort
Mr. Lewis
Mr. Hilario Ebell
Mr. Chris Marquez
Private
Private
Private
Private
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
T16N R36E 07SW
T19N R28E 3SE
T20N R26E 25NE
Anton Chico Land
Grant T9 R19 4
38
39
40
NM - Guadalupe
NM - Guadalupe
NM - Mora
D
D
D
Mr. Charles and Mrs. Judy Beford
Mr. Charles and Mrs. Judy Beford
Mr. Walter Wiggins
Private
Private
Private
Complete
Complete
Complete
T8N R24E 17NE
T8N R24E 13SW
Mora Grant T20 R21
30&31
41
NM - Mora
D
Mr. David Krush
Private
Complete
Mora Grant T19 R21
7NW
54
55
59
60
61
TX - Brewster
TX - Presidio
TX - Reeves
TX - Reeves
TX - Taylor
B/C
B/C
B/C
B/C
B/C/D
Mr. Richard Allen
Mr. James Harnett
Mr. Kevin Lanaham
Mr. Ronnie Terrell
Dyess AFB Transmitter Site
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
USAF-owned
since 1955
B217 ST9
B338 S582
BC-4 S8
B54 S17,18
Tract A-109
62
TX - Taylor
B/C/D
Dyess AFB Receiver Site
Private
USAF-owned
since 1955
Tract A-108
64
65
66
67
72
78
79
80
81
82
88
89
91
93
94
95
TX - Scurry
TX - Borden
TX - Borden
TX - Borden
TX - Garza
TX - Upton
TX - Schleicher
TX - Upton
TX - Brewster
TX - Pecos
TX - Reagan
TX - Reagan
TX - Pecos
TX - Pecos
TX - Irion
TX - Scurry
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
B/C
B/C
C
C
B/C
B/C
C
B
Mr. Wesley Graves
Mr. Max Von Roeder
Mr. C.C. Nunnally
Mr. Norman Clark
Mr. Hickmann
Mr. DeWayne Lindsey
Mr. Horace H. Linthicum
Mr. George Poage
Mr. Bill Ivey
Mr. Andy Freudenrich
Mr. Jim McCoy
Mr. Bill Schneeman
Camaron and Bunger
Mr. Dick Henderson
Mr. Richie Cravens
Mr. Glenn Williamson
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Pending
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
Legal Descriptions
B97 S293 ANW
B25 S94 AH&TC
B32 S39 AH&OB
B31 S3 AT&P4N
B6 S14 ASE
BY S54 A20
BA S36 A1619
S6 BA MK&T
Bl C S 11 Massy
B3 S3 SE1/2 H&TC
B1 S226 T&P
Section 10 GC & SF
B136 S3 TS&TL
B136 S4 TS&TL
B2 S25 H & TC
B3 S11 H&TC
15
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
Alternative C: IR-178/Texon MOA
Chain-of-title documents have been reviewed for all sites. Nothing was identified at any site that
indicates any past potential contamination or negative environmental impacts to these properties.
The previous owners used these properties for grazing and/or farming. No liens were identified
in conjunction with any of these properties.
Alternative D: IR-153/Mt. Dora MOA
Chain-of-title documents have been reviewed for all sites. Nothing was identified that indicates
any past environmental impacts to these properties, or that they have ever been used for anything
more than grazing and/or farming. No liens were identified in conjunction with any of these
properties.
3.1.2
Historic Property Review
Please refer to the document Draft Cultural Report in Support of the Realistic Bomber Training
Initiative, July 1999, prepared concurrently with this EBS for details of all findings mentioned in
this EBS.
Of the 42 candidate emitters and electronic scoring sites assessed, archeological sites were
identified on 7, 34, 38, 39, 61, and 94. Isolated artifacts were observed on sites 2, 37, 54, 62, 64,
72, and 81. These artifacts have not been evaluated by the State Historical Preservation Offices,
however, preliminary examination of the isolates found were determined to not be significant or
eligible for the National Register. Table 3-3 presents a summary of cultural resources.
Alternative B: IR-178/Lancer MOA
Under this alternative, candidate site 61 contained a prehistoric lithic scatter potentially eligible
for listing in the Natural Register. However, this site is located on a small portion of an existing
Dyess AFB facility and could be avoided by constructing the electronic scoring site on another
portion of this property. Prehistoric isolates were found on sites 54, 62, 64, 72, and 81, but are
not eligible for the National Register.
16
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
Table 3-3 Summary of Cultural Resources Sites
Property
Alt.
Concerns
2
D
1 prehistoric isolate
7
D
1 prehistoric site – lithic and tool scatter
34
D
1 historic site
37
D
Prehistoric isolates
38
D
Prehistoric site – lithic scatter
39
D
Prehistoric site – lithic scatter
54
B/C
61
B/C/D
Prehistoric site – lithic scatter / quarry
62
B/C/D
Prehistoric isolates
64
B
Prehistoric isolates
72
B
Prehistoric isolates
81
B/C
Prehistoric isolates
94
C
Prehistoric isolate
Historic site, 2 prehistoric isolates
Alternative C: IR-178/Texon MOA
Under this alternative, the two properties, 61 and 94, contain sites with the potential for National
Register listing. Site 61 is already discussed under Alternative B. At site 94, a dump was found.
Non-eligible, prehistoric isolates were found on properties 54, 62, and 81.
Alternative D: IR-153/Mt. Dora MOA
Archeological sites on properties 7, 34, 38, 39, and 61 were identified as potentially eligible for
listing in the National Register. Archeological site 7 is a prehistoric lithic and tool scatter
containing two discrete clusters of flakes and two tools. The site integrity is poor. The
archeological site at 34 is located on high ground and contains materials from a homestead,
reportedly established around 1915. The archeological site on 38 was a previously recorded
other scatter/quarry of unknown age. The site on 39 is a small lithic scatter, interpreted as a short
term hunting camp. Site 61 has already been discussed in Alternative B.
3.1.3
Aerial Photographs
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
17
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
Aerial photographs of the sites illustrated that historic land conditions were similar to their
current condition. Nothing was identified that would indicate that potential contamination might
have resulted from an on- or off-site source. Table 3-4 presents a summary of sites assessed by
aerial photography and the years reviewed.
Table 3-4 Aerial Photography Review
Site
2
Alternative 1996 1992 1990 1985 1983 1981 1980 1978 1977 1976 1973 1964 1960 1956 1940 1937 Source
D
x
x
x
NRCS
6
D
x
x
x
x
NRCS
7
D
14
D
17
D
x
NRCS
20
D
x
NRCS
21
D
x
NRCS
24
D
28
D
33
D
x
NRCS
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
NRCS
x
x
x
x
x
x
NRCS
NRCS
NRCS
34
D
35
D
36
D
37
D
x
x
x
38
D
x
x
x
NRCS
39
D
x
x
x
NRCS
40
D
x
x
NRCS
41
D
x
x
NRCS
61
B/C/D
x
x
x
EDR
62
B/C/D
x
x
x
EDR
78
C
x
x
FSA
80
C
x
x
FSA
82
B/C
88
C
x
x
FSA
x
x
x
89
C
B,C
93
B,C
94
C
x
95
B
x
x
x
NRCS
x
x
NRCS
x
NRCS
x
91
18
x
x
EDR
FSA
FSA
x
x
FSA
x
FSA
FSA
x
FSA
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
3.1.4
Current Use
At the time of inspections, most of the sites were unimproved rangeland or dormant (fallow) crop
fields. Exceptional cases are noted below in the discussion for each alternative. Table 3-5
presents current uses at the candidate emitters and electronic scoring sites.
Alternative B: IR-178/Lancer MOA
Most of the properties assessed for Alternative B are currently used for grazing livestock.
However, two of the sites (64 and 65) are enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
The CRP is a national program to reduce soil erosion, improve wildlife habitat, and improve
water quality. It is a long-term, voluntary, cropland retirement program that provides annual
income for farmers. Program enrollment is for 10 to 15 years, but may be revoked if the
landowner agrees to repay all government assistance.
Sites 60, 82, and 95 were fallow fields during the on-site assessment. They had been historically
used to grow cotton crops. Two sites, 61 and 62, have existing buildings previously used as a
transmitter and receiver site for Dyess AFB, in Abilene, Texas.
Alternative C: IR-178/Texon MOA
Most of the properties assessed for Alternative C are currently used for grazing livestock with the
exception of sites 60, 61, and 62 – already assessed in Alternative B.
Alternative D: IR-153/Mt. Dora MOA
Most of the properties assessed for Alternative D are currently used for grazing livestock.
However, sites 14 and 28 are enrolled in CRP. Sites 61 and 62 have already been discussed in
Alternative B.
3.1.5
Utilities
Requirements for each of the proposed sites include telephone and electricity. Table 3-6 presents
the known telephone and electric companies nearest to the candidate sites.
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
19
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
Table 3-5 Current Site Use
Site
02
06
07
14
15
16
17
20
21
24
28
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
54
55
59
60
61
62
64
65
66
67
72
78
79
80
81
82
88
89
91
93
94
95
20
State - County
NM - Guadalupe
NM - Guadalupe
NM - Guadalupe
NM – Harding
NM - Colfax
NM - Colfax
NM - Union
NM - Union
NM - Union
NM - Guadalupe
NM - Harding
NM - Union
NM - Quay
NM - Harding
NM - Harding
NM - Guadalupe
NM - Guadalupe
NM - Guadalupe
NM - Mora
NM - Mora
TX - Brewster
TX - Presidio
TX - Reeves
TX - Reeves
TX - Taylor
TX - Taylor
TX - Scurry
TX - Borden
TX - Borden
TX - Borden
TX - Garza
TX - Upton
TX - Schleicher
TX - Upton
TX - Brewster
TX - Pecos
TX - Reagan
TX - Reagan
TX-Pecos
TX-Pecos
TX-Irion
TX-Scurry
Alternative
B/C/D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
B/C
B/C
B/C
B/C
B/C/D
B/C/D
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
B/C
B/C
C
C
B/C
B/C
C
B
Current Use
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
fallow field-CRP
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
fallow field-CRP
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
agriculture
Dyess AFB Transmitter site
Dyess AFB Receiver site
fallow field-CRP
fallow field-CRP
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
agriculture
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
agriculture
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
Table 3-6 Utilities
Site
State - County
Alternative
Electric Company
Electric Distance
From Site Center
Phone Company
02
NM - Guadalupe
D
Central New Mexico Rural Coop 505-425-9544
<1 mile
Eastern New Mexico Rural Coop 505-389-5100
06
NM - Guadalupe
D
Farmers Electric 505-472-5856
120'
Eastern New Mexico Rural Coop 505-389-5100
07
NM - Guadalupe
D
Farmers Electric 505-472-5856
<100'
Eastern New Mexico Rural Coop 505-389-5100
14
NM - Harding
D
Springer Electric REA 505-483-2421
144'
Eastern New Mexico Rural Coop 505-389-5100
15
NM - Colfax
D
Springer Electric REA 505-483-2421
500'
Mountain Bell Telephone 505-445-3621
16
NM - Colfax
D
Springer Electric REA 505-483-2421
450'
Mountain Bell Telephone 505-445-3621
17
NM - Union
D
Springer Electric REA 505-483-2421
400'
Mountain Bell Telephone 505-445-3621
20
NM - Union
D
Springer Electric REA 505-483-2421
400'
Mountain Bell Telephone 505-445-3621
21
NM - Union
D
Springer Electric REA 505-483-2421
400'
Mountain Bell Telephone 505-445-3621
24
NM - Guadalupe
D
Central New Mexico Rural Coop 505-425-9544
1707'
Eastern New Mexico Rural Coop 505-847-2521
28
NM - Harding
D
Springer Electric REA 505-483-2421
527'
Mountain Bell Telephone 505-445-3621
33
NM - Union
D
Springer Electric REA 505-483-2421
1300'
Eastern New Mexico Rural Coop 505-389-5100
34
NM - Quay
D
Springer Electric REA 505-483-2421
2 miles
Eastern New Mexico Rural Coop 505-389-5100
35
NM - Harding
D
Springer Electric REA 505-483-2421
3150'
Eastern New Mexico Rural Coop 505-389-5100
36
NM - Harding
D
Springer Electric REA 505-483-2421
450'
Eastern New Mexico Rural Coop 505-389-5100
37
NM - Guadalupe
D
Eastern New Mexico Rural Coop 505-389-5100
1.4 miles
Central New Mexico Rural Coop 505-425-9544
38
NM - Guadalupe
D
Farmers Electric 505-762-4466
1.4 miles
Eastern New Mexico Rural Coop 505-389-5100
39
NM - Guadalupe
D
Farmers Electric 505-762-4466
2.4 miles
Eastern New Mexico Rural Coop 505-389-5100
40
NM - Mora
D
Mora San Miguel 505-387-2205
1.4 miles
La Jicarita Telephone 505-387-2216
41
NM - Mora
D
Mora San Miguel 505-387-2205
450'
La Jicarita Telephone 505-387-2216
54
TX - Brewster
B/C
West Texas Utilities Company 915-837-3311
700'
Big Bend Telephone 800-592-4781
55
TX - Presidio
B/C
West Texas Utilities Company 915-837-3311
450'
Big Bend Telephone 800-592-4781
59
TX - Reeves
B/C
Texas New Mexico Power 915-445-4501
400'
GTE 800-483-5400
60
TX - Reeves
B/C
Texas New Mexico Power 915-445-4501
400'
GTE 800-483-5400
61
TX - Taylor
B/C/D
Unknown
Service already exists unknown
62
TX - Taylor
B/C/D
Unknown
Service already exists unknown
64
TX - Scurry
B
Unknown
400'
unknown
65
TX - Borden
B
Unknown
450'
unknown
66
TX - Borden
B
Unknown
400'
unknown
67
TX - Borden
B
Unknown
400'
unknown
72
TX - Garza
B
Unknown
400'
unknown
78
TX - Upton
C
Unknown
600'
unknown
79
TX - Schleicher
C
Unknown
450'
unknown
80
TX - Upton
C
Unknown
0.5 mile
unknown
81
TX - Brewster
B/C
West Texas Utilities Company 915-837-3311
<2.0 miles
82
TX - Pecos
B/C
Texas New Mexico Power 915-445-4501
400'
GTE 800-483-5400
88
TX - Reagan
C
Unknown
400'
unknown
89
TX - Reagan
C
Unknown
400'
unknown
91
TX - Pecos
B/C
Unknown
2100'
unknown
93
TX - Pecos
B/C
Unknown
2100'
unknown
94
TX - Irion
C
Unknown
500'
unknown
95
TX - Scurry
B
Unknown
500'
unknown
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
Big Bend Telephone 800-592-4781
21
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
Alternative B: IR-178/Lancer MOA
Electric power and telephone utilities exist adjacent to most of the sites.
Alternative C: IR-178/Texon MOA
Electric power and telephone utilities exist adjacent to most of the sites.
Alternative D: IR-153/Mt. Dora MOA
Electric power and telephone utilities exist near the sites.
3.2
Environmental Setting
The area potentially impacted by RBTI is located in the southern portion of the Great Plains
which include shortgrass prairie, desert grasslands, and mixed prairie regions. The area is arid,
with few trees and gently rolling topography. The thin layers of soils covering the region are
derived from the various parent materials found directly beneath the location where they sit, or
were transported there by erosional forces. As such, it is difficult to generalize about soils
because of the complex interactions between climate, parent material, organisms, and
topography. Table 3.7 lists each site and its associated soil type, including erosion potentials and
site limitations.
No perennial surface waters were found on the candidate sites. Two small perennial streams are
located about 1,900 to 2,300 ft. from sites 24 and 37. In addition to perennial streams,
seasonally intermittent drainages and depressions in the ground surface are found on many of the
sites, and may act as pathways for accidental contamination of surface and ground waters.
Proposed locations of ESS facilities in western Texas and eastern New Mexico are underlain by
geologically permeable parent materials with moderately vulnerable aquifers, some having water
tables less than 200 ft. below the surface (Wilson 1981).
Additional information on biological resources and potential surface water and wetlands, usually
addressed in an EBS, are incorporated into the Draft Natural Resources Report in Support of the
Realistic Training Initiative, July 1999.
22
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
Table 3.7 Soil Types, Erosion Potentials, and Site Limitations
Slope
Soil Map Unit
Erosion
Road/ Building Site
(%)
Potential
Limitations
Alt.
Site #
D
2
0-3
Clovis-Pastura Association 1, 3
wind-moderate
water -slight
slight to severe (cemented
pan, low strength)
D
6
0-5
Tucumcari-Redona Association
wind-mod.-severe
water-slight-mod.
wind-severe
water-moderate
wind-moderate
water-moderate
moderate (clayey and
shrink-swell, low strength)
moderate to severe (slope
and erosion potential)
moderate to severe (mod.
shrink-swell, severe
permeability)
mod. to sev.( mod. shrinkswell clays and severe low
strength)
severe (low strength,
clayey)
moderate (shrink-swell
clay)
severe (shrink-swell clays,
shallow depth to bedrock)
moderate (shrink-swell
clays, shallow depth
indurated caliche)
slight to severe (cemented
pan, low strength)
mod. to sev.( mod. shrinkswell clays and severe due
to slow permeability)
moderate to severe (shrinkswell clays, shallow depth
to indurated caliche)
slight to moderate (blowing
sand, low compactability)
1, 3
D
7
3-15
La Lande-Chispa Complex 1, 3
D
14
0-3
Dumas loam 1, 4
D
15
1-5
Dioxice fine sandy loam 1, 2
wind-high
water-moderate
D
16
0-3
Gruver fine sandy loam 1, 2
D
17
0-5
Colmor silty clay loam 1, 8
D
20
0-3
Torreon silty clay loam 1, 8
D
21
1-5
Spurlock loam 1, 8
wind-high
water-slight
wind-moderate
water-moderate
wind-moderate
water-moderate
wind-moderate
water-moderate
D
24
0-3
Clovis-Pastura Association 1, 3
D
28
0-3
Dioxice loam 1, 4
D
33
0-9
Spurlock-Plack Complex 1, 8
wind-moderate
water-moderate
D
34
0-3
Amarillo fine sandy loam,
Amarillo loamy fine sand 1, 6
D
35
0-3
Tricon loam 1, 4
wind-moderate to
severe
water-slight
wind-moderate
water-moderate
D
36
0-3
Dioxie loam 1, 4
wind-moderate
water-moderate
D
37
0-8
Pastura-Clovis Association 1, 3
D
38
0-2
Redona-Hilken Loams 1, 3
D
39
1-10
D
40
3-45
D
41
1-3
San Jon-Latom Rock Outcrop
Complex 1, 3
Mion-Penrose Varient-Rock
Outcrop Complex 1, 5
Partri loam 1, 5
wind-severe
water-moderate
wind-moderate
water-slight-mod.
wind-severe
water moderate
wind-moderate
water-high
wind-moderate
water-moderate
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
wind-moderate
water -slight
wind-moderate
water-moderate
mod. to severe (med. soil
plasticity, severe shrinkswell)
mod. to sev.( mod. shrinkswell clays and severe due
to slow permeability)
moderate to severe (shallow
depth to cemented pan)
slight to severe (shallow
depth to cemented pan)
moderate to severe (shallow
depth to bedrock)
severe (shallow depth to
bedrock, slope)
moderate to severe (shrinkswell clayey soil)
23
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
Alt.
Table 3.7 Soil Types, Erosion Potentials, and Site Limitations - continued
Site # Slope
Soil Map Unit
Erosion
Road/ Building Site
(%)
Potential
Limitations
B/C
54
3-15
Badland-Vieja Association 1, 3
B/C
55
0-3
Nickel-Canutio Association
B/C
59
5-12
Delnorte-Nickel Association 1, 7
B/C
60
0-1
Hodgins silty clay loam 1, 3
B/C/D
61
1-3
Vernon Clay 1, 7, 10
B/C/D
62
1-3
Tillman clay loam 1, 7, 10
B
64
Mansker series, Olton series 1, 9
B
65
1-3
(est.)
1-3
B
66
Lofton clay loam 1, 2
B
67
0.20.6
2-5
Spade-Latom Complex 1, 2
B
72
1-3
Berda loam 1, 4
C
80
1-8
Ector very gravelly loam 1, 8
B/C
81
B/C
82
1-15
(est.)
0-1
Reagan-Hodgins-Sanderson
Association 1, 3
Reagan silty clay loam, saline 1, 5
B/C
91
20-45
B/C
93
10-30
Ector-Rock Outcrop
Associationsteep 1, 5
Ector Association hilly 1, 5
B
95
1-3
Miles and Cobb fine sandy loam
1, 6
Patricia fine sandy loam 1, 2
1, 9
moderate (est.)
wind-slight
water-slight
wind-slight
water-slight
wind-moderate
water-slight
wind-slight
water-slight-mod.
wind-slight
water-slight
wind-slight
water-moderate
wind-mod. to
high
water- moderate
slight
wind- moderate
water-moderate
wind-slight
water-moderate
wind-slight
water-moderate
moderate (est.)
wind-slight
water-moderate
wind-slight
water-moderate
wind-slight
water-moderate
wind-moderate
water-slight to
mod.
slight to severe (shrinkswell clay)
slight to moderate (stony,
arroyos flood)
slight to severe (rippable
caliche layer, severe
limitations for septics,
slope)
moderate (moderate shrinkswell clay, low strength)
severe (shrink-swell clay,
low strength, clayey)
severe (mod.)-(shrink-swell
clay, low strength)
slight to mod. (mod. shrinkswell clay)
slight to moderate (erosion
and clay loam subsoils)
severe (high shrink-swell
clay, flood hazard)
slight to severe (severe for
septic development)
slight to moderate
severe (shallow depth to
limestone bedrock, slope)
moderate (mod. shrinkswell clay)
severe-too clayey (moderate
shrink-swell clay, low
strength)
severe (shallow depth to
limestone bedrock, slope)
severe (shallow depth to
limestone bedrock, slope)
slight to mod. (slight
shrink-swell clay, mod.
load cap.)
Source:
1. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services. 1999. Natural Resources Report in Support of RBTI. Boise, ID.
2. USDA-SCS. 1975. Soil Survey of Borden County, Texas.
3. USDA-SCS and Texas Agri. Expr’t. Sta. 1973. General Soil Map, Brewster County, Texas.
4. USDA-SCS and Texas Agri. Expr’t. Sta. 1975. Soil Survey of Garza County, Texas.
5. USDA-SCS and Texas Agri. Expr’t. Sta. 1980. Soil Survey of Pecos County, Texas.
6. USDA-SCS and Texas Agri. Expr’t. Sta. 1973. General Soil Map, Presidio County, Texas.
7. USDA-SCS and Texas Agri. Expr’t. Sta. 1979. Soil Survey of Reeves County, Texas.
8. USDA-SCS. Unpublished Soil Survey of Reagan and Upton Counties, Texas.
9. USDA-SCS and Texas Agri. Expr’t. Sta. 1973. Soil Survey of Scurry County, Texas.
10. USDA-SCS and Texas Agri. Expr’t. Sta. 1976. Soil Survey of Taylor County, Texas.
24
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
3.3
Above Ground Storage Tanks (ASTs)
Four of the candidate emitter and electronic scoring sites proposed under Alternatives B, C, and
D were identified as having ASTs. Sites 61 and 62, common to all action alternatives, have
ASTs (removed in October 1999). Two other sites, 60 and 79, in Alternatives B and C, were
observed with ASTs.
Alternative B: IR-178/Lancer MOA
The EDR report did not identify any registered ASTs on any of the candidate sites. However,
based on interviews with available landowners, site inspections, and review of available
documents, ASTs were identified on three of the candidate sites within Alternative B.
Three ASTs (two 10,000 gallon and one 1,000 gallon) exist on 60, however, the exact capacities
and contents of the tanks are unknown since they were not labeled and efforts to contact the
landowner were not successful. Based on the shape of the tanks, surrounding land use,
associated piping, and irrigation ditches adjacent to and in the vicinity of two of 10,000-gallon
tanks, it may be assumed that they were used for water storage. The other AST of approximately
1,000-gallons, may have been used to store propane gas. The pipes may indicate that there is a
UST, however, all efforts to locate the landowner were not successful and the interview of his
son-in-law indicated that he was unsure as to the existence of a UST on the premises.
Two diesel fuel ASTs were identified at site 61, Dyess AFB Transmitter site, including a 35gallon AST in the building’s generator room and a 1,000-gallon AST located approximately 20
feet from the northeast corner of the building. Both of these tanks served an emergency
generator that was removed in 1996. The 1,000-gallon AST was formerly used as the primary
storage tank and the 35-gallon AST was a day tank. Dyess AFB personnel reported that the
1,000-gallon AST has been empty for more than six years. However, at the time of the site visit,
a small area (less than one square foot) was observed to be stained and had a slight petroleum
odor. The vegetation did not appear to be stressed, and it is not anticipated that the soil
contamination beneath the AST is extensive. Two 50-gallon diesel fuel ASTs were identified at
candidate site 62 (Dyess AFB Receiver Site). Since the ASTs at 61 and 62 have not been used in
several years, and neither records nor visual inspection indicated any potential contamination, it
is not anticipated that they pose an environmental hazard. In October 1999, these ASTs at both
sites 61 and 62 were removed and stained soil removed.
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
25
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
Alternative C: IR-178/Texon MOA
The EDR report did not identify any registered ASTs on any of the sites. However, based on
interviews with available landowners, the site inspections, and review of available documents
ASTs were identified on four of the sites within Alternative C.
Three of the sites, 60, 61, and 62, were identified in Alternative B. One AST also exists on
candidate site 79. The landowner reports that the AST is used to store oil that is pumped from a
functioning oil/gas well adjacent to the AST. The AST has a capacity of approximately 1,000
gallons; however, it was not known how much petroleum oil might be in the tank. No stained
soil or stressed vegetation was observed near the AST or the oil/gas well.
Alternative D: IR-153/Mt. Dora MOA
The EDR report did not identify any registered ASTs on any of the sites for Alternative D.
However, based on interviews with available landowners, the site inspections, and review of
available documents, ASTs were identified on sites 61 and 62. Refer to Alternative B of this
section for details.
3.4
Lead-Based Paint (LBP)
Lead-based paint is present in the structures at site 61 and 62, common to all three alternatives.
It is unlikely that LBP is present at any of the other subject properties since there are no
structures on the candidate sites.
Starting in 1978, lead was “banned” in residential paint by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) but the structures on sites 61 and 62 are industrial not residential,
therefore, HUD guidelines do not apply. However, lead is also defined as a CERCLA hazardous
substance and potential soil contamination may occur from LBP flakes reaching the soil surface.
Building 1001 at site 61 does contain LBP, including areas of potential contamination from
deteriorated floor paint in the generator room and flaking/peeling brown paint on the exterior
door leading to the mechanical room. Analyses of 1997 paint samples showed a lead content in
excess of .06%. Deteriorated paint from the mechanical room door and the generator room floor
was found to contain 43,800 mg/kg (4.38 percent) and 31,100 mg/kg (3.1 percent) lead,
respectively. The exterior paint and all other surfaces (e.g., interior wall paint) of Building 1001
26
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
appeared in good condition. These areas had little potential for soil contamination due to their
location.
Building 2001 at site 62 also contained potential LBP areas, including flaking paint on the
exterior entrance stoop, deteriorated floor paint in the generator room, and flaking/peeling gray
paint on the plenum in the mechanical room. Analyses of 1997 samples showed the deteriorated
paint from the stoop outside of the generator room door and the floor of the generator room to
contain 7,010 mg/kg (0.70 percent) and 45,100 mg/kg (4.51 percent) lead, respectively. Because
there is a limited potential for soil contamination from the flaking LBP on the stoop, soil
sampling may be considered an alternative to determine the extent and concentration of potential
soil contamination. The exterior paint and all other surfaces of Building 2001 appeared in good
condition.
USAF policy requires a general and site-specific LBP management plan, dictating how LBP
hazards will be addressed and prevented. Dyess AFB personnel indicated that the Dyess AFB
lead management plan includes all sites, both on and off the main base. However, none of these
pre-existing buildings (1001 and 2001) would be used by RBTI, new buildings would be
constructed. Depending on the candidate site chose, the existing buildings would either be left in
place or dismantled using best management practices to dispose of LBPs.
3.5
Asbestos
Based on interviews with available landowners, site inspections, and review of available
documents, potential asbestos-containing materials (ACM) that were once present at sites 61 and
62, have been removed (confirmed by Dyess AFB personnel). These sites are common to all
three alternatives. ACMs are not present at any of the other locations because there are no
existing structures at any of the candidate sites.
Building 1001, at site 61, has several locations which have potential ACM, including the HVAC
plenum, boiler hot water line, and boiler access door. Building 2001, at 62, also has several
locations that have potential ACM, including the boiler hot water storage tank and the HVAC
Plenum. According to Dyess AFB (7 CES/CEVC), these sites were reviewed as part of the 1993
Dyess AFB asbestos survey. Although these buildings had been positively identified as
containing friable asbestos, there were no plans to conduct renovation or demolition activities
there and the buildings are currently unused. No written ACM operation or management plan for
these facilities have been prepared, although Dyess AFB policy dictates that any actions
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
27
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
impacting asbestos at this facility would be covered under the ACM operations and maintenance
plan developed for the base.
3.6
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
During the site inspections, no pole-mounted transformers were observed on any of the sites that
would potentially contain PCBs. However, pole-mounted transformers were located adjacent to
several candidate sites. At the time of inspections, no stained soil or stressed vegetation related
to possible transformer leads was observed on, or immediately adjacent to the sites.
Dyess AFB PCB inventory indicates that site 61 was surveyed and free of PCB-containing
equipment in 1994.
3.7
Soil Contamination
The candidate site ground surfaces were visually inspected for signs of stained soil, stressed
vegetation, suspicious depressions, and fill or vent pipes. Potential properties which would be
suspect of soil contamination include the following:
•
Site 60 (Alternatives B and C) - two potential water ASTs; one propane AST; and other
associated piping;
•
Site 61 (Alternatives B, C, and D) - one 1,000-gallon diesel AST (removed in October
1999);
•
Site 62 (Alternatives B, C, and D) - one 50-gallon diesel AST (removed in October
1999);
•
Site 64 (Alternative B) - one oil/gas well (not currently functioning) located immediately
adjacent to the site; and
•
Site 79 (Alternative C) - one oil/gas well (currently functioning) and one 1,000-gallon
AST located on the site.
As previously mentioned in Section 3.3, no signs of stained soil or stressed vegetation were
observed at sites 60, 62, or 79. No signs of stained soil or stressed vegetation were observed at
site 64, either. However, as previously mention, a small stain was observed under the 1,000gallon diesel AST at 61. The stain was approximately less than one square foot, and the odor
was faint. The vegetation did not appear to be stressed, and it is not anticipated that the surficial
28
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
soil contamination beneath the AST is extensive. Reportedly, the AST has not been used in more
than six years.
3.8
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
Underground storage tanks (USTs) formerly existed at sites 61 and 62. HQ/ACC CEVR
(Edward Newsome, Chief) confirmed in a memo to HQ ACC/CEVP (September 1999) that these
USTs were at sites 61 and 62. This memo states that the Environmental Restoration Program
(ERP) at Dyess AFB found an unreported number of leaking diesel USTs at both sites. Dyess
AFB removed them in 1991. In 1994 the ERP investigation was completed and “although the
USTs and some soil were removed, most of the contaminated soil remained in place. The Texas
Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) allows closure under their UST Program
if the risk to human health or the environment is at an acceptable level based on anticipated land
use. Therefore, no further action is required and none planned based on projected land use.”
According to the Dyess AFB ST-40 and ST-41 UST Site Assessment Report1, both the total
hazard index calculated for noncarcinogenic health effects and the estimated lifetime excess
cancer risk are below hazard levels. These findings indicate that no health effects are
anticipated, even to sensitive individuals.
Should either site be selected as the permanent
location of the electronic scoring site, the construction contractor would coordinate with 7
CES/CEV and HQ ACC/CEVR on siting and design of the facilities.
1
Compiled in Dyess AFB Administrative Record 369, Disc 4, pages 67-68 and 139-140.
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
29
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
4.0
FINDINGS FOR ADJACENT PROPERTIES
The areas adjacent to the sites were inspected to assess the potential for contamination from offsite sources. This inspection was performed by review of federal and state regulatory databases,
area maps, and visual inspection from public roads and private properties based on permitted
access.
4.1
Land Use
Property immediately surrounding most of the sites within the three alternatives B, C, and D was
rural, agricultural land. Site 61 is located near residential properties and site 62 is located
adjacent to a petroleum storage tank farm. There are no other major commercial or industrial
operations within a 0.5 mile radius of any of the other sites.
4.2
Adjacent Properties
The review of federal and state environmental databases identified two properties of
environmental concern between 0.25 and 0.50 miles from site candidate 61. The State of Texas
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) records show that one LUST is located at a facility
called Contract Paving, more than 0.25 mile southwest of site 61; and one LUST is located at a
facility called Bilbo, approximately 0.5 miles south of 61. Both of these locations are at an
elevation equal to or higher than 61.
The LUST identified at Contract Paving released petroleum product to the subsurface, the
investigation concluded that groundwater was impacted. Investigation also concluded that no
apparent threats or impacts to receptors are expected as a result of the release. The Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission LUST database reports that the status of this LUST
is currently in the clean-up and monitoring phase.
The Bilbo LUST released petroleum product to the subsurface, the investigation concluded that
only soil contamination resulted from the release. The LUST database reports the status of the
investigation is closed after review of a full site assessment.
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
31
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
5.0
APPLICABLE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ISSUES
Federal and state environmental databases were reviewed to determine if any of the sites have
had any documented environmental and/or hazardous material/waste regulatory compliance
issues.
5.1
List of Compliance Issues
Based upon a review of the federal and state environmental databases and interviews with
available landowners, no outstanding notice-of-violation regulatory compliance issues exist for
any of the sites for Alternatives B, C, and D.
5.2
Corrective Actions
There are no compliance issues associated with the sites of all three Alternatives , therefore, no
corrective actions are necessary.
5.3
Cost Estimates of Various Alternatives
There are no corrective actions required, therefore, there are no additional costs for corrective
actions.
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
33
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
6.0
CONCLUSIONS
Information generated for this EBS was accomplished by conducting a visual inspection of the
sites and their surrounding vicinities, conducting personal interviews with available landowners
who have experience with the histories of the sites, and reviewing available data, including
Federal and state environmental databases.
Properties of potential concern include:
•
Site 60 (Alternatives B and C) - two potential water ASTs; one potential propane AST;
and associated piping;
•
Site 61 (Alternatives B, C, and D) - one 1,000-gallon diesel AST (removed in October
1999 after initial survey) and confirmed presence of LBP;
•
Site 62 (Alternatives B, C, and D) - one 50-gallon diesel AST (removed in October 1999
after initial survey) and confirmed presence of LBP;
Properties of interest include:
•
Site 64 (Alternative B) - one oil/gas well (not currently functioning) located immediately
adjacent to the site; and
•
Site 79 (Alternative C) - one oil/gas well (currently functioning) and one 1,000-gallon
AST located on the site.
6.1
Facility Matrix
Based on the findings, AFI 32-7066 requires the EBS to categorize the presence of hazardous
substances, petroleum products, or their derivatives for each property or area. There are seven
categories which cover USAF properties:
1. those with no history of storage, release, or disposal;
2. those where only storage occurred but no release was reported;
3. those with minimal contamination below action levels;
4. those where remedial action has been completed;
5. those where remedial actions are underway;
6. those where response actions have not commenced; and
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
35
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
7. those where further evaluation is recommended.
Table 6-1 summarizes the facility matrix and the property categories.
6.2
Data Gaps
Every reasonable effort was made to collect and review information for this EBS.
36
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
Table 6-1: Facility Matrix of Hazardous Substance Categories
Site
02
06
07
14
15
16
17
20
21
24
28
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
54
55
59
60
61
62
64
65
66
67
72
78
79
80
81
82
88
89
91
93
94
95
Alternative
Alt.
State - County
D
NM - Guadalupe
D
NM - Guadalupe
D
NM - Guadalupe
D
NM - Harding
D
NM - Colfax
D
NM - Colfax
D
NM - Union
D
NM - Union
D
NM - Union
D
NM - Guadalupe
D
NM - Harding
D
NM - Union
D
NM - Quay
D
NM - Harding
D
NM - Harding
D
NM - Guadalupe
D
NM - Guadalupe
D
NM - Guadalupe
D
NM - Quay
D
NM - Quay
B/C
TX - Brewster
B/C
TX - Presidio
B/C
TX - Reeves
B/C
TX - Reeves
B/C/D TX - Taylor
B/C/D TX - Taylor
B
TX - Scurry
B
TX - Borden
B
TX - Borden
B
TX - Borden
B
TX - Garza
C
TX - Upton
C
TX - Schleicher
C
TX - Upton
B/C
TX - Brewster
B/C
TX - Pecos
C
TX - Reagan
C
TX - Reagan
B/C
TX - Pecos
B/C
TX - Pecos
C
TX - Irion
B
TX - Scurry
Findings
Category
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Current Use
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
CRP
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
CRP
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
agriculture
Dyess AFB Transmitter site
Dyess AFB Receiver site
CRP
CRP
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
agriculture
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
livestock grazing
agriculture
Note:
2 - Only storage occurred, but no release was reported
4 - Remedial action taken
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
37
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
7.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the information contained in this EBS, there appear to be no known environmental
liabilities (except as noted) associated with proposed use, lease, or purchase of the sites.
Should site 60 be selected to establish an emitter site, the portion of the parcel containing the
ASTs is recommended to be eliminated from the real estate transaction. ACC/XOR and 7
OSS/OSTA have indicated there is adequate area to shift the emitter site perimeter and remain in
the surveyed area. Should the portion of land containing the ASTs be included in any real estate
transaction, confirmation of the water contents of the ASTs would be in order.
Also, it should
be confirmed with the landownerthat no underground storage tanks or hazardous substance spills
have ever been associated with the site. The landowner was not available during the initial
survey to answer specific questions regarding this assessment, the observed tanks and piping on
the site, or the property's historical use. Repeated attempts to contact the landowner have been
unsuccessful and his whereabouts remains unknown.
Although surveys performed on 61 and 62 confirmed that ACM and LBP are present on the
property, establishment of the scoring site at either site would not affect the existing buildings. If
the decision is made to utilize the existing buildings at either site, further evaluation of both the
ACM and LBP would be necessary. Further, since the initial survey, the ASTs on both sites have
been removed and the stained soil removed.
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
39
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
9.0
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7066. 1994. United States Air Force, Environmental Baseline
Surveys in Real Estate Transactions. April 25.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1996. Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments: Transaction Screen Process,
Practice E1528-96.
__________. 1997. Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Process, Practice E1527-97.
Anderson, George W., Terry E. Hiley, Paul G. Martin, Jr., Charles R. Neal, and Robert S.
Comez. 1982. Soil Survey of Colfax County, New Mexico. Prepared by the United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the New
Mexico Agricultural Experiment Station. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington
D.C.
Conner, Nathaniel, R. 1976. Soil Survey of Taylor county, Texas. Prepared by the United
States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington
D.C.
Dixion, L. Marvin. 1975. Soil Survey of Borden County, Texas. Prepared by the United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation service, in cooperation with Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Dixon, Marvin, L., William H. Dittemore, JR., and Harold W. Hyde. 1973. Soil Survey of
Scurry County, Texas. Prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation service, in cooperation with Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. 1998. EDR-Radius Map and Geocheck Report. Search
of available environmental databases.
Jaco, Hubert B. 1980. Soil Survey of Reeves County, Texas. Prepared by the United States
Department of Agriculture, soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Maxwell, Harold B., Steven P. Shade, Hayden D. Rounsaville, and Abe Stevenson. 1981. Soil
Survey of Union County, New Mexico. Prepared by the United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, and Forest Service, in cooperation with the New
Mexico Agricultural Experiment Station. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington
D. C.
Pease, Douglas S., Norman M. Davis, Parker D. Ingram, Paul Shields, Max V. Hodson, Jess C.
Epple, Jr., David S. Totah, and Lonnie G. Berglan. 1973. Soil Survey of Harding County,
New Mexico. Prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, in cooperation with the New Mexico Agricultural Experiment Station. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Richardson, Wayne E., Darrell G. Grace, and Lee A. Putnam. 1973. Soil Survey of Garza
County, Texas. Prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Rives, Jerry L. 1980. Soil Survey of Pecos County, Texas. Prepared by the United State
Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Ross, James W. and Douglas S. Pease. 1974. Soil Survey of Tucumcari Area, New Mexico,
Northern Quay County. Prepared by the United State Department of Agriculture, Soil
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000
41
Realistic Bomber Training Initiative
Conservation Service, in cooperation with the New Mexico Agricultural Experimental
Station. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C.
Sellnow, Steven L. 1985. Soil Survey of Mora County Area, New Mexico. Prepare by the
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with
the New Mexico Agricultural Experiment Station. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C.
United States Department of Agriculture Farm Services. Aerial photography. Reviewed
parcels and surrounding areas.
United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 1970. Soil Survey of
Butte County, South Dakota. U.S. Government Printing Office.
United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Maps. Reviewed
topography of parcels and surrounding properties.
Wiedenfeld, C. C. 1980. Soil Survey of Schleicher County, Texas. Prepared by the United
States Department of agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Wilson, L. 1981. Potential for Ground-Water Pollution in New Mexico. New Mexico
Geological Society, Special Publication 10:47-54.
42
Final Environmental Baseline Survey
March 2000