[Memorandum of Meeting: Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, July 12, 2005] Page: 3 of 4
This text is part of the collection entitled: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
DCN: 4982
Dyess Litigation
* As a result of a class action lawsuit, there are currently training range restrictions at Dyess.
Dyess' primary low-level training route (IR-178) and the Lancer MOA, together known as
the Realistic Bomber Training Initiative (RBTI), is controlled by a District court order. For
example, flying is only allowed at 500 ft. or above for low-level routes. According to Gen.
Loh, low-level training is necessary. Specifically, low-level entry training (at 100 ft.) to
avoid detection is still very important.
* The litigation was likely brought forth because of noise complaints, environmental problems,
and structural problems. As a result, the training assets mentioned above are subject to such
court imposed restrictions until the USAF prepares a supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
* Officials claim that DoD's deliberative documents do not include information regarding the
Dyess AFB litigation. Such an omission calls into question Dyess AFB's military value
scores related to proximity to Airspace Supporting Mission and Low Level Routes under the
Current and Future Mission category. According to a summary document provided by
officials, "the over-inflation of Dyess' assessed military value in this category - in
comparison to Ellsworth AFB - was a principle determining factor in placing Ellsworth on
the closure list. Therefore, DoD substantially deviated from its evaluation of military criteria
and the recommended consolidation of the B-1 fleet at Dyess AFB should be rejected."
* Senator Thune added (via phone) that should the operating restrictions remain in effect for
some time, Dyess AFB's missions would have to be flown at Ellsworth's Powder River
Training Complex. Over time, such a commute would add significant costs.
* In 50 years, the difference between Ellsworth AFB and Dyess AFB boils down to federal
land at Ellsworth versus private land at Dyess. According to officials, there is a certain
amount of risk accepted on federal land that is not accepted on private land.
Encroachment
* In terms of encroachment, Gen. Loh said that DoD should be projecting 50 years into the
future. If that were done, according Gen. Loh, Ellsworth would outrank other bases. Gen.
Loh said he did not understand why Luke AFB or Oceana were not on the closure list given
their encroachment issues.
* Gen. Loh said that if DoD wants to put all of the B-1s at one base, a better move would have
been to put them at Ellsworth. He said Ellsworth has good ranges, great facilities, and is a
tremendous base for new missions. He believes Ellsworth was ranked #1 for the UAV
mission. In addition, officials said that according to severe weather reports (provided),
tornadoes and damaging winds are more likely to occur at Dyess AFB in Texas than at
Ellsworth AFB in South Dakota.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
United States. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. [Memorandum of Meeting: Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, July 12, 2005], text, July 12, 2005; (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc18282/m1/3/: accessed April 20, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.