During the late summer of 1989, the Air Force began a thorough review of its force structure, property, and facility requirements needed to support national security policy and future fiscal realities. As a result of this review process, the Secretary of Defense, on 29 January 1990, announced his proposal to close or realign a number of military bases. Myrtle Beach AFB, South Carolina, has been identified as a candidate for closure by early 1993. Prior to closure decisions, studies of strategic, operational, budgetary, fiscal, environmental, and local economic consequences are required under Title 10 USC 2687. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the results of the environmental study are described in this DEIS, which includes analyses of community setting, land use and aesthetics, transportation, utilities, hazardous materials, geology and soils, water resources, air quality, noise, biological resources, and cultural and paleontological resources. Alternatives to closure of Myrtle Beach AFB analyzed in this DEIS include closure of Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, England AFB, Louisiana, and no action. If a decision is made to close any of these bases, a second EIS will be prepared to cover the final disposition/reuse of the excess property. After base closure, but prior to final decisions on reuse, a caretaker force would be established to provide maintenance of buildings, grounds, and essential utility systems, and to restrict access to the base.

Pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Myrtle Beach AFB closed in March 1993. This EIS was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act to analyze the potential environmental consequences of the disposal of the base. Although disposal will create few direct impacts, reuse by others will create indirect impacts. The EIS analyzes the effects a range of reasonable foreseeable alternative reuses may have on the local community; including land use and aesthetics, transportation, utilities, hazardous materials/wastes, geology and soils, water resources, air quality, noise, biological resources, and cultural resources. Preservation covenants within the disposal document could eliminate or reduce any negative environmental effects to a non-adverse level. Because the Air Force is disposing of the property, some of the mitigation measures are beyond Air Force control. Remediation of Installation Restoration Program sites will continue to be the responsibility of the Air Force. jg.