[Federal Register: November 23, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 225)]
[Notices]
[Page 70793-70795]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23no05-60]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
Intent To Prepare Environmental Impact Statements for Realignment
Actions Resulting From the 2005 Base Closure and Realignment
Commission's Recommendations
AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.
ACTION: Notice of intent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Commissions
were established by Public Law 101-510, the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (BRAC Law), to recommend military installations
for realignment and closure. The 2005 Commission's recommendations were
included in a report which was presented to the President on September
8, 2005. The President approved and forwarded this report to Congress
on September 16, 2005. Since a joint resolution to disapprove these
recommendations did not occur within the statutorily provided time
period, these recommendations have become law and must be implemented
in accordance with the requirements of the BRAC Law.
The BRAC Law exempts the decision-making process of the Commission
from the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA). The Law also relieves the Department of Defense from the NEPA
requirement to consider the need for closing, realigning, or
transferring functions and from looking at alternative installations to
close or realign. Nonetheless, the Department of the Army must still
prepare environmental impact analyses during the process of property
disposal, and during the process of relocating functions from a
military installation being closed or realigned to another military
installation after the receiving installation has been selected but
before the functions are relocated. These analyses will include
consideration of the direct and indirect environmental and
socioeconomic effects of these actions and the cumulative impacts of
other reasonably foreseeable actions affecting the installations.
The Department of the Army intends to prepare individual
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of
NEPA, regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500-
1508), and the Army NEPA regulation (32 CFR 651 et seq.) for each of
the actions listed below.
Opportunities for public participation will be announced in the
respective local newspapers. The public will be
[[Page 70794]]
invited to participate in scoping activities for each EIS and comments
from the public will be considered before any action is taken to
implement these actions.
Environmental Impact Statements are planned for each of the
following realignment actions:
a. Fort Meade, Maryland. The BRAC realignment action will co-locate
and consolidate Department of Defense information and information
technology missions at Fort Meade.
(1) EIS alternatives could include evaluating siting locations for
structures and related projects within Fort Meade that involve new
building construction only or new building construction combined with
renovation of existing facilities. The alternatives would evaluate
areas to provide for construction of, but not be limited to, six to
eight 4-story administration buidlings, a full day care child
development center, a standard-design Whole Barracks Complex, and a
physical fitness center.
(2) The proposed BRAC action may have significant environmental
impacts due to the infrastructure and facilities construction that will
be required to accommodate an estimated increase of over 5,500
personnel. Significant issues to be analyzed in the EIS may include
potential impacts to air quality from increased vehicle emissions,
installation and regional traffic increases, land use changes, natural
resources, water use, solid waste, cultural resources, and cumulative
impacts from increased burdens to the facility based on projected
growth.
b. Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Maryland. APG will be receiving
numerous Army, Navy and Air Force activities to transform it into a
full spectrum research, development, acquisition center for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Defense Chemical and Biological Systems. The
Army Test and Evaluation Command Headquarters and Civilian Personnel
Offices will also be consolidated at APG.
(1) Alternatives to be examined in the EIS could include
alternative distribution of new activities between APG and the Edgewood
Area for military field training exercises; alternative siting schemes
for placement of buildings and related infrastructure to accommodate an
increase of about 15,000 Army personnel within the APG and Edgewood
Area. These may include siting schemes for new building construction
only, or new building construction combined with renovation of existing
facilities.
(2) The proposed BRAC action may have significant environmental
impacts due to the large amount of infrastructure and facilities
construction that will be required to accommodate an increase of
personnel and military training operations. Significant issues to be
analyzed in the EIS will include on-post and local air quality
conditions, on-post and regional traffic conditions, housing,
socioeconomics, noise due to increased vehicle use, threatened and
endangered species to include bald eagle habitat, historic buildings
and archeological resources, wetlands, biological resources, land use,
and community facilities and services.
c. Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Fort Belvoir will be receiving numerous
Department of Defense activities from leased space within the National
Capital Region (NCR); National Geospatial Intelligence Agency units
from various NCR leased locations and Bethesda, Maryland; primary and
secondary medical care functions from Walter Reed Medical Center to a
new, expanded DeWitt Army Hospital; and inventory control point
functions for consumable items to the Defense Logistics Agency from the
Naval Support Activist, Mechanisburg and Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base, Ohio.
(1) EIS alternatives may consist of moving all activities to the
Fort Belvoir Main Post, moving all activities to the Engineer Proving
Ground (EPG), or moving a portion of the activities to the Main Point
and a portion to the EPG. Other alternatives could include alternative
land locations for specific projects within Fort Belvoir, within the
EPG, or a combination of both; new construction only; new construction
combined with renovation of existing facilities; alternative facility
siting schemes, or other modifications of specific projects.
(2) The proposed BRAC action may have significant environmental
impacts due to the large amount of infrastructure and facilities
construction that will be required to accommodate an estimated increase
of over 18,000 personnel. Significant issues to be analyzed in the EIS
will include potential impacts to air quality condition in the Northern
Virginia region, transportation systems in the Northern Virginia
region, traffic conditions with Fort Belvoir, threatened and endangered
species, historic buildings and archeological resources, wetlands,
biological resources, land use, and community facilities and services.
d. Fort Lee, Virginia. Fort Lee will receive the Transportation
Center and School from Fort Eustis, Virginia, and the Ordnance Center
and School from Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. These functions will
be consolidated with the Quartermaster Center and School, the Army
Logistics Management College, and Combined Arms Support Command to
establish a Combat Service Support Center at Fort Lee.
(1) Alternatives to be examined in the EIS may include the usage of
only Fort Lee for field training exercises, the usage of other military
installations (Fort A.P. Hill) for field training exercises, or a
combination of both; alternative land locations for specific projects
with Fort Lee and Fort A.P. Hill; new construction only; new
construction combined with renovation of existing facilities;
alternative facility siting schemes, or other modifications of specific
projects.
(2) The proposed BRAC action may have significant environmental
impacts due to the large amount of infrastructure and facilities
construction that will be required to accommodate an estimated increase
of over 7,000 personnel. Significant issues to be analyzed in the EIS
will include air quality conditions, traffic conditions, noise due to
increased training activities, threatened and endangered species,
historic buildings and archeological resources, wetlands, biological
resources, land use, and community facilities and services.
e. Fort Benning, Georgia. Fort Benning will receive the Armor
Center and School from Fort Knox, Kentucky; 81st Regional Readiness
Center from Fort Gillem, Georgia; and the U.S. Army Reserve Center from
Columbus, Georgia.
(1) Alternatives to be examined by the EIS may consist of
alternative siting locations with Fort Benning for facility
construction projects, new construction only, renovation and use of
existing facilities, or a combination of both new construction and use
of existing facilities, and usage of alternatives land locations within
Fort Benning for training activities.
(2) As a result of new construction and training activities
associated with moving nearly 10,000 personnel to Fort Benning, the
BRAC action has the potential to cause significant environmental
impacts to threatened and endangered species such as the red-cockaded
woodpecker, archeological sites, wetlands, soil erosion, and increased
noise impacts to the surrounding public.
f. Fort Sam Houston, Texas. Navy and Air Force medical training
activities from various locations within the U.S. and the 59th Medical
Wing from Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, will move to Fort Sam Houston
to form a Department of Defense medical training
[[Page 70795]]
center. The Army Installation Management Agency (IMA) Headquarters from
Virginia, the Northwest IMA Regional office from Illinois, and the Army
Environmental Center from Maryland will also move to Fort Sam Houston.
(1) Alternatives to be examined in the EIS could consist of
alternative locations within Fort Sam Houston for siting facility
construction, new construction only, renovation and use of existing
facilities (to include historic buildings), or a combination of both
new construction and use of existing facilities, and usage of
alternative locations within Camp Bullis, a sub-post of Fort Sam
Houston, for training activities.
(2) As a result of moving approximately 9,000 new personnel to Fort
Sam Houston and associated new construction, renovation and training
activities, implementing the proposed BRAC action could have potential
significant impacts to traffic on and off post, air quality and
historic properties, to include contributing elements of the Fort Sam
Houston National Historic Landmark District.
g. Fort Carson, Colorado. Fort Carson will receive a Heavy Brigade
Combat team and a Unit of Employment Headquarters from Fort Hood,
Texas, and the inpatient care services from the U.S. Air Force Academy,
Colorado. Another Infantry Brigade Combat Team from overseas could also
be transferred to Fort Carson as a result of the BRAC recommendation.
(1) Alternatives that may be considered in the Fort Carson EIS
could include phasing movement of units to the fort, alternative siting
locations within the post of placement of new facilities, construction
of only new facilities, utilization and renovation of existing
facilities, a combination of new construction and utilization of
existing facilities, and utilization of alternative locations within
Fort Carson for training activities.
(2) Fort Carson will gain approximately 10,000 Army personnel as a
result of the BRAC action. Construction of new facilities, renovation
of existing infrastructure and additional training activities could
have significant environmental impacts on Fort Carson and its environs.
Impacts could concur to local air and water quality, archaeological
resources, noise and traffic.
h. Pinion Canyon Maneuver Site, Colorado. Pinion Canyon Maneuver
Site (PCMS) is a subpost of Fort Carson and a primary training area for
units stationed at Fort Carson and other Army posts. The new combat
units stationed at Fort Carson will increase the training tempo at the
PCMS.
(1) The EIS to be prepared for the PCMS will examine a number of
implementation alternatives that could include alternative placement of
new construction projects, alternative locations within the PCMS for
training activities, and alternative timing for units to conduct
training activities at the PCMS.
(2) The Fort Carson BRAC action has the potential to significantly
impact natural resources at the PCMS since the approximately 10,000 new
personnel to be stationed there will now be training at the PCMS on a
regular basis. New construction and increased training activities at
the PCMS could have an impact on archaeological resources, natural
resources, air and water quality, and soil erosion.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Public Affairs Office of the affected
installations or the appropriate higher headquarters as indicated: (1)
Fort Meade, MD--(301) 677-1301; (2) Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD--(410)
278-1147; (3) Fort Belvoir, VA--(703) 805-2583; (4) Fort Lee, VA--(804)
734-6862; (5) Fort Benning, GA--(706) 545-3438; (6) Fort Sam Houston,
TX--(210) 221-1099; (7) Fort Carson and Pinion Canyon Maneuver Site,
CO--(910) 396-2122/5600.
Dated: November 18, 2005.
Addison D. Davis IV,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Environment, Safety and
Occupational Health), OASA(I&E).
[FR Doc. 05-23162 Filed 11-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M