Draft

Environmental Assessment

for the Nationwide Fielding of the Nuclear Biological 

Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV) and 

Mine Protected Clearance Vehicle (MPCV) Buffalo 

National Guard Bureau

ARNG-RMQ-CS

111 S. George Mason Dr.

Arlington, VA 22204

August 2015 

Printed on 30% Post-Consumer Recycled Paper
NATIONWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ORGANIZATION

This Nationwide Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates potential environmental and cultural effects of 

the proposed nationwide fielding and home stationing of the Stryker Nuclear Biological Chemical 

Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV) and the Mine Protected Clearance Vehicle (MPCV) Buffalo by the Army 

National Guard (ARNG) to 33 state ARNG units. It is the intent of this Nationwide EA to address the potential 

to field both vehicles to all 54 ARNG States and Territories (S/Ts). To allow analysis of potential effects to 

each state ARNG, the analysis of the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo are presented separately and in 

combination.

As required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 United States Code [USC] 4321 et 

seq.), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA 

(40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), and 32 CFR Part 651 (Environmental Analysis of Army 

Actions, Final Rule) the potential effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives are analyzed. This

Nationwide EA will facilitate the decision-making process regarding the Proposed Action and is organized as 

follows:

• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Describes the Proposed Action; summarizes anticipated environmental

and cultural consequences; and compares potential effects associated with the two considered 

alternatives.

• SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION: Summarizes the purpose 

of and need for the Proposed Action, provides relevant background information, and describes 

the scope of the EA.

• SECTION 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES: Describes

substantive elements of the Proposed Action and project alternatives, including a comparison of 

key differentiators between evaluated scenarios. 

• SECTION 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT: Describes the existing environmental and cultural 

setting typical of existing ARNG units and training areas. 

• SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES: Identifies individual and cumulative potential 

environmental and cultural effects of implementing the Proposed Action and alternatives, and 

identifies proposed mitigation measures, if necessary. 

• SECTION 5 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND CONCLUSIONS: Compares the 

environmental effects of the considered alternatives and summarizes the significance of individual 

and expected cumulative effects of these alternatives.

• SECTION 6 REFERENCES: Provides bibliographical information for cited sources.

• SECTION 7 GLOSSARY: Defines terms used in the Nationwide EA. 

• SECTION 8 LIST OF PREPARERS: Identifies document preparers and their areas of expertise.

• SECTION 9 AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED: Lists agencies and individuals 

consulted during preparation of the Nationwide EA. 

• APPENDICES:

APPENDIX A. Agency Consultation

APPENDIX B. SHPO and NAC Correspondence/ Memorandum for Record

APPENDIX C. Record of Environmental Consideration 

APPENDIX D. NBCRV Specifications and Training Requirements

APPENDIX E. MPCV Buffalo Specifications and Training Requirements

 Funding Source: NGB

 Proponent: Army National Guard 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page i

Draft - August 2015
NATIONWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TITLE PAGE

LEAD AGENCY: Army National Guard Environmental Programs Division (ARNG-ILE)

COOPERATING AGENCIES: None

TITLE OF PROPOSED ACTION: Nationwide Environmental Assessment for the Fielding of the Nuclear 

Biological Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV) and Mine Protected

Clearance Vehicle (MPCV) Buffalo at Multiple Locations 

AFFECTED JURISDICTION: 54 ARNG States and Territories

POINT OF CONTACT: Mr. Ray Bosserman 

National Guard Bureau, ARNG-RMQ-CS

111 S. George Mason Dr., Arlington, VA 22204 

Telephone: (703) 601-7839

PROPONENT: Army National Guard (ARNG)

REVIEWED BY: REVIEWED BY: REVIEWED BY:

[[TBD]] [[TBD]] [[TBD]]

REVIEWED BY: REVIEWED BY: 

[[TBD]] [[TBD]]

DOCUMENT DESIGNATION: Draft Nationwide Environmental Assessment (EA)

ABSTRACT: This Nationwide Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to identify, document, and 

address the potential physical, environmental, and cultural effects of the Army National Guard (ARNG) proposal 

for new equipment fielding and home stationing of two distinct vehicles, the Stryker Nuclear, Biological, Chemical 

Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV) and the Mine Protected Clearance Vehicle (MPCV) Buffalo (hereafter referred 

to as the MPCV Buffalo) at approximately 33 state ARNG units. The ARNG proposes fielding 84 NBCRVs to 18 

state ARNGs and 76 MPCV Buffalos to 26 state ARNGS; of these, 11 state ARNGs would be receiving both the 

NBCRV and the MPCV. However, the intent of this Nationwide EA is to facilitate the potential to field both of the 

vehicles to all 54 ARNG States and Territories (S/Ts) by presenting a representative analysis of anticipated 

regulatory requirements and environmental impacts. The Proposed Action is needed to ensure the ARNG units 

are able to accomplish the requisite training in order to maintain parallel capabilities to Department of the Army 

(U.S. Army) Soldiers. This Nationwide EA evaluates the individual and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action 

(training, maintenance, and storage of the NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo) and the No-Action Alternative, with 

respect to the following criteria: air quality; noise; water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and 

hazardous and toxic materials/wastes. The evaluation performed in this Nationwide EA concludes there would 

be no significant adverse impacts, either individually or cumulatively, to the environment or quality of life 

associated with implementing the Proposed Action. 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page ii

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Executive Summary

1 Executive Summary

2 NATIONWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

3 FOR THE FIELDING OF THE NUCLEAR BIOLOGICAL CHEMICAL RECONNAISSANCE 

4 VEHICLE (NBCRV) AND MINE PROTECTED CLEARANCE VEHICLE (MPCV) BUFFALO AT 

5 MULTIPLE LOCATIONS

6 

7 This Nationwide Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates potential environmental and cultural 

8 effects of the proposed nationwide fielding and home stationing of the Stryker Nuclear Biological 

9 Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV) and the Mine Protected Clearance Vehicle (MPCV) 

10 Buffalo by the Army National Guard (ARNG) to 33 state ARNG units. It is the intent of this 

11 Nationwide EA to address the potential to field both vehicles to all 54 ARNG States and Territories 

12 (S/Ts). This Nationwide EA provides the necessary information to properly and fully assess the 

13 potential effects of proposed fielding and operation of these facilities as required under the 

14 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 United States Code [USC] 

15 4321 et seq.); the President’s Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 Code of 

16 Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508); and 32 CFR Part 651.

17 The ARNG is preparing this Nationwide EA for the NBCRV to minimize overall NBCRV program 

18 costs. However, the Michigan Army National Guard (MIARNG) prepared a separate EA in-house 

19 for the proposed fielding of 12 NBCRVs to Camp Grayling Joint Maneuver Training Center 

20 (CGJMTC). ARNG-RMQ supports this course of action because it will: (1) maintain the ARNG21 RMQ’s NBCRV fielding schedule, (2) minimize vehicle storage costs, and (3) minimize costs 

22 associated with performing the NBCRVs’ required analytical equipment maintenance and 

23 calibration while the vehicles are stored until the Nationwide EA is completed.

24 Overview of Project Purpose and Need

25 The ARNG proposes new equipment fielding and home stationing of two distinct vehicles, the 

26 NBCRV and the MPCV Buffalo. The ARNG proposes fielding 84 NBCRVs to 18 state ARNGs and 

27 76 MPCV Buffalos to 26 state ARNGS; of these, 11 state ARNGs would be receiving both the 

28 NBCRV and the MPCV. However, the intent of this Nationwide EA is to facilitate the potential to 

29 field both of the vehicles to all 54 ARNG S/Ts by presenting a representative analysis of 

30 anticipated regulatory requirements and environmental impacts. To allow analysis of the potential 

31 effects to each state ARNG, the analysis of the NBCRV and the MPCV Buffalo are presented 

32 separately and in combination.

33 The NBCRV is an all-weather, eight-wheeled platform that provides situational awareness and 

34 detection via cooperative chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) networks and 

35 reconnaissance to increase the combat power of the deployed force, and to minimize force36 effectiveness degradation under CBRN conditions. It serves an essential passive role, conducting 

37 CBRN analysis of the battle space environment. The MPCV Buffalo is an all-terrain, all-weather, 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page iii

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Executive Summary

1 six-wheeled, heavily armored vehicle with an articulating arm mounted on the front of the vehicle; 

2 the articulating arm is equipped with a rake head that assists in the location of explosive hazards.

3 The NBCRV would be transported to each receiving location by land, sea, rail, and/or air (C-17 

4 and C-5). However, it is foreseeable that some NBCRVs (on a state-by-state basis and depending 

5 on the time of year) would also be driven on highways to and from training areas and armories. 

6 The MPCV Buffalo is an all-terrain, all-weather, six-wheeled, heavily armored vehicle that 

7 provides a blast-protected platform capable of transporting Soldiers and locating, interrogating, 

8 and classifying suspected explosive hazards, including improvised explosive devices (IEDs). An 

9 articulating arm mounted on the front of the vehicle is equipped with a rake head that assists in 

10 the location of explosive hazards. This equipment is necessary for force modernization to fulfill 

11 the ARNG training mission to maintain operational readiness. 

12 The purpose of the proposed fielding of the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo is to provide the requisite 

13 training and proficiency for ARNG units in order to maintain parallel capabilities to Department of 

14 the Army (U.S. Army) Soldiers. In order to station the NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo, each location 

15 and receiving unit is required to provide adequate training scenarios and facilities. Adequate 

16 facilities include the provision of administrative, maintenance, and logistical support.

17 The need for the proposed NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo fielding is to ensure the ARNG provides 

18 equipment necessary to maintain proficiency for its units, attain and maintain a full readiness 

19 posture consistent with the active duty U.S. Army, and meet mission training objectives. The Army 

20 trains in accordance with the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) model, which is the 

21 structured progression of increased unit readiness over time, resulting in recurring periods of 

22 availability of trained, ready, and cohesive units. These requirements support the prioritization 

23 and synchronization of resourcing, equipping, training, sustaining, mobilizing, and deploying 

24 cohesive units more effectively and efficiently (U.S. Army 2007). Mission training objectives are

25 defined in National Guard Regulation 350-1, Army National Guard Training (2009), which guide 

26 the creation of forces trained in the latest technological equipment to continue the Army’s ongoing 

27 transformation process designed to provide the Nation with combat forces that are more 

28 responsive, deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, survivable, and sustainable (National Guard 

29 Bureau [NGB] 2005).

30 Alternatives Development – Screening Criteria

31 The ARNG planners developed and applied the following screening criteria to evaluate potential 

32 alternatives that would meet the purpose of and need for the proposed fielding and home 

33 stationing of the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo. 

34 To be carried forward for consideration, the fielding alternative under consideration must meet all 

35 of the following screening criteria: 

36 1) Ensure no net loss in the capacity of the ARNG to support the federal and state 

37 military missions

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page iv

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Executive Summary

1 2) Be fielded to a location within an existing ARNG owned or controlled facility to 

2 avoid land acquisition costs 

3 3) Avoid excessive travel times and costs for ARNG units to be trained 

4 4) Utilize established maneuver and training areas to minimize land commitment and 

5 allow for other required training to occur now and in the future 

6 5) Minimize potential environmental issues. 

7 After an examination of active-duty, National Guard, and Army Reserve installations in the United 

8 States, the ARNG identified 33 state ARNG units that met all of the selection criteria needed to 

9 provide the required TC 25-8 standard range training and other proposed training support facilities 

10 for either (or both) the NBCRV and the MPCV Buffalo. 

11 Overview of Considered Project Alternatives

12 NEPA, CEQ regulations, and 32 CFR 651 require all reasonable alternatives to be explored and 

13 objectively evaluated. Alternatives that are eliminated from detailed study must be identified along 

14 with a brief discussion of the reasons for eliminating them. For purposes of analysis, an alternative 

15 was considered “reasonable” only if it would enable the ARNG to accomplish the primary mission 

16 of sustaining quality military training and maintaining and improving units’ readiness postures 

17 nationwide to meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. “Unreasonable” alternatives 

18 would not enable the ARNG to meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. The ARNG 

19 considered the following alternatives: (1) Use Other Existing ARNG Facilities; (2) Establish New 

20 Training Sites; (3) Reduced Scale; and (4) Vehicles Operate Only on Installation’s Paved 

21 Roadways. These alternatives were eliminated from further consideration because they did not 

22 meet one or more of the screening criteria.

23 This EA examines in-depth the Preferred Action Alternative and the No-Action Alternative defined 

24 as follows.

25 • Preferred Action Alternative – Under the Preferred Action Alternative, the NBCRV and/or 

26 MPCV Buffalo would be fielded to the identified 33 state ARNG units that met all of the 

27 selection criteria. The fielding locations identified contain existing range facilities and 

28 maneuver areas, maintenance facilities, and staffing. This alternative effectively provides 

29 the best combination of fielding locations to establish and sustain quality military training 

30 and maintain and improve units’ readiness postures nationwide.

31 • No-Action Alternative – With selection of the No-Action Alternative, neither the NBCRV 

32 nor the MPCV Buffalo would be fielded at the proposed ARNG installations in the United 

33 States. This alternative would limit the capability of the ARNG to carry out its assigned 

34 mission to provide adequate training facilities and the purpose of and need for the 

35 Proposed Action described in Section 1.0 would not be met. This would result in the

36 continuation of existing conditions that place the affected ARNG units at risk for not 

37 meeting training requirements for CBRN or IED removal, potentially resulting in an inability 

38 to meet proficiency standards.

39 This EA evaluates the individual and cumulative effects associated with implementation of the 

40 Preferred Action Alternative and the No-Action Alternative with respect to the following criteria: air 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page v

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Executive Summary

1 quality; noise; water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and hazardous and toxic 

2 materials/wastes.

3 Environmental Resource Issues, Areas, and Effects

4 The Proposed Action would not be anticipated to result in significant impacts and would therefore 

5 not be anticipated to contribute to adverse cumulative impacts within the region where the 

6 vehicles are fielded. Cumulative impacts by resource are described below and summarized in 

7 Table ES-1. 

8 Air Quality and Noise. The Preferred Action Alternative would not contribute significantly to 

9 cumulative increases in air quality and noise in the vicinity of installations’ areas. As the vehicles 

10 would be fielded to existing military training areas, the Preferred Action Alternative would not 

11 substantially change the intensity, not the type of use. The ARNG would continue to work with 

12 local government agencies and communities identifying potential noise and land use 

13 incompatibility and addressing possible noise issues of nearby residences or other sensitive 

14 receptors along the installation boundaries. Noise from existing range activity is already a part of 

15 the local noise environment. Fielding of the NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo would not be 

16 anticipated to change the location or timing of noise-generating events within each installation 

17 (i.e., in areas where night-time training does not already occur, the Proposed Action would not 

18 introduce new night-time training). Noise from the Proposed Action Alternative training operation 

19 would slightly elevate existing noise levels in the immediate area and result in a minor, adverse 

20 cumulative impact. However, in context with the overall region, these activities would be

21 consistent with existing activities and anticipated to result in only negligible cumulative impacts.

22 Water Resources. No significant impacts would be anticipated as no construction would be 

23 required that would affect water resources. Avoidance of headwater streams and adherence to 

24 permit conditions and implementation of standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) for soil 

25 erosion, sedimentation, and management of spent ammunition would protect regional water 

26 resources.

27 Biological Resources. The Preferred Action Alternative would not require substantial 

28 construction of new facilities, roads, or training areas and would therefore not result in conversion 

29 of habitat. Training operations would occur within established ranges, which operate consistent 

30 with each installations INRMP, where applicable, to minimize impacts to biological resources. The 

31 noise and vibration associated with vehicles, including off-road use, would be generally consistent 

32 with that generated by currently fielded vehicles at the proposed sites. Therefore, the Proposed 

33 Action would not contribute to cumulative conversion of habitat within an installation or region.

34 Measures to protect federally threatened and endangered species would continue to be 

35 implemented, where applicable. Therefore, no significant cumulative effects to biological 

36 resources would be anticipated.

37 Cultural Resources. The Preferred Action Alternative would not require substantial construction 

38 of new facilities, roads, or training areas and would therefore not result in excavation or conversion 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page vi

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Executive Summary

1 of structures that could cumulatively impact cultural resources. Training operations would occur 

2 within established ranges, which operate consistent with each installations Integrated Cultural 

3 Resources Management Plan (ICRMP), where applicable, to minimize impacts to cultural 

4 resources. No cumulative impacts to known archaeological sites or cemeteries at installations

5 would be anticipated. 

6 Hazardous Toxic Materials and Waste (HTMW). The ARNG would adhere to regulatory 

7 requirements and implement standard BMPs. The project would not contribute to a significant 

8 cumulative increase in HTMW. 

Table ES-1. Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts on Fully Evaluated Resources

Technical 

Resource Area Preferred Action Alternative No-Action Alternative

Air Quality

Short-term less-than-significant impact due to the 

potential for dust generation from training 

activities on unpaved roads and vehicle operation. 

Long-term, less-than-significant impact from 

increased site emissions. 

No impact attributable to ARNG 

action. Ongoing emissions would 

continue.

Noise

Short-term less-than-significant adverse impact by 

increasing the frequency of noise associated with 

vehicle use during training. Occasional use of 

0.50-caliber of the NBCRV would occur within 

existing training ranges.

No impact attributable to ARNG 

action. 

Water 

Resources

Long-term less-than-significant adverse impacts 

to surface waters due to potential soil erosion and 

sedimentation during training near or across 

surface waters. Long-term, less-than-significant 

adverse impact from potential disturbance to 

water resources. BMPs would be implemented 

and operations would be consistent with each 

training location’s resource protection and 

regulatory requirements. 

No impact attributable to ARNG 

action. 

Biological 

Resources

Long-term less-than-significant adverse impacts 

due to noise, dust, and presence of vehicles 

associated with training operations within existing 

ranges, which would be minor on a regional scale. 

No impact attributable to ARNG 

action. 

Cultural 

Resources

No adverse effect on cultural resources. National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible 

resources would be avoided within utilized training 

areas and no training would occur within sensitive 

cultural areas consistent with each training 

location’s resource protection and regulatory 

requirements. 

No impact attributable to ARNG 

action. 

Hazardous 

Toxic Materials 

and Waste 

(HTMW)

Long-term less-than-significant direct impacts due 

to HTMW use/generation from increased 

operational activities. Impacts would be controlled 

through ongoing regulatory compliance and 

BMPs. 

No impact attributable to ARNG 

action. 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page vii

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Executive Summary

1 Conclusion

2 The Proposed Action would not be anticipated to result in significant adverse effects. The NGB 

3 and ARNG would maintain their stewardship posture by implementing the BMPs discussed in 

4 Section 4.7 for each resource area.

5 The analyses conducted to support preparation of this Nationwide EA conclude there would be 

6 no significant adverse impact, either individually or cumulatively, to the environment or quality of 

7 life associated with the implementation of the Preferred Action Alternative. Therefore, an 

8 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is unnecessary for implementation of the Preferred Action 

9 Alternative, and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) is appropriate. 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page viii

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Section Page

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................xiii

FIELDING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ORGANIZATION ............................................... i

FIELDING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TITLE PAGE..................................................... ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................iii

SECTION 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action.............................................. 1-1

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................... 1-3

1.3 Scope of the Nationwide EA........................................................................................ 1-4

1.4 Decision-making.......................................................................................................... 1-5

1.5 Public and Agency Involvement .................................................................................. 1-5

1.5.1 Public Review ................................................................................................ 1-6

1.5.2 Agency Coordination...................................................................................... 1-6

1.5.3 Native American Consultation/Coordination .................................................. 1-6

1.6 Related NEPA, Environmental, and Other Documents and Processes ...................... 1-7

1.7 Regulatory Framework ................................................................................................ 1-7

SECTION 2: Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives .................................. 2-1

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Proposed Action.......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle Fielding .................. 2-2

2.2.1.1 Description of the NBCRVs .............................................................. 2-3

2.2.1.2 Mission and Capabilities of the NBCRV ........................................... 2-3

2.2.1.3 Unit and Soldier Training Operations................................................ 2-5

2.2.1.4 Maintenance ..................................................................................... 2-6

2.2.1.5 Storage ............................................................................................. 2-7

2.2.2 Mine Protected Clearance Vehicle Buffalo Fielding....................................... 2-7

2.2.2.1 Description of the MPCV Buffalo ...................................................... 2-7

2.2.2.2 Mission and Capabilities of the MPCV Buffalo ................................. 2-9

2.2.2.3 Unit and Soldier Training Operations.............................................. 2-10

2.2.2.4 Maintenance ................................................................................... 2-11

2.2.2.5 Storage ........................................................................................... 2-12

2.3 Alternatives Considered ............................................................................................ 2-12

2.3.1 Alternatives Development – Screening Criteria ........................................... 2-12

2.3.2 Alternatives Evaluated ................................................................................. 2-13

2.3.2.1 Preferred Action Alternative............................................................ 2-13

2.3.2.2 No-Action Alternative ...................................................................... 2-13

2.3.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration..................................... 2-13

2.3.3.1 Use Other Existing Active Duty, ARNG, or Reserve Facilities........ 2-14

2.3.3.2 Establish New Training Sites .......................................................... 2-14

2.3.3.3 Reduced Scale ............................................................................... 2-15

2.3.3.4 Vehicles Operate Only on Installation’s Paved Roadways ............. 2-15

2.3.4 Alternatives’ Impacts Comparison Matrix..................................................... 2-15

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page ix

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Table of Contents

Table of Contents (continued)

SECTION PAGE

SECTION 3: Affected Environment...................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Location Description.................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Air Quality.................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.3 Noise ........................................................................................................................... 3-5

3.4 Water Resources......................................................................................................... 3-6

3.5 Biological Resources................................................................................................... 3-7

3.6 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................... 3-9

3.7 Hazardous and Toxic Materials/Wastes (HTMW) ..................................................... 3-10

SECTION 4: Environmental Consequences........................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Air Quality.................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Effects of the Preferred Action Alternative ..................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 Effects of the No-Action Alternative ............................................................... 4-3

4.1.3 Mitigation Measures....................................................................................... 4-4

4.2 Noise ........................................................................................................................... 4-4

4.2.1 Effects of the Preferred Action Alternative ..................................................... 4-4

4.2.2 Effects of the No-Action Alternative ............................................................... 4-5

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures....................................................................................... 4-5

4.3 Water Resources......................................................................................................... 4-5

4.3.1 Effects of the Preferred Action Alternative ..................................................... 4-5

4.3.2 Effects of the No-Action Alternative ............................................................... 4-6

4.3.3 Mitigation Measures....................................................................................... 4-6

4.4 Biological Resources................................................................................................... 4-7

4.4.1 Effects of the Preferred Action Alternative ..................................................... 4-7

4.4.2 Effects of the No-Action Alternative ............................................................... 4-8

4.4.3 Mitigation Measures....................................................................................... 4-8

4.5 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................... 4-8

4.5.1 Effects of the Preferred Action Alternative ..................................................... 4-8

4.5.2 Effects of the No-Action Alternative ............................................................... 4-9

4.5.3 Mitigation Measures....................................................................................... 4-9

4.6 Hazardous and Toxic Materials/ Wastes..................................................................... 4-9

4.6.1 Effects of the Preferred Action Alternative ..................................................... 4-9

4.6.2 Effects of the No-Action Alternative ............................................................. 4-11

4.6.3 Mitigation Measures..................................................................................... 4-11

4.7 Summary of Best Management Practices................................................................. 4-11

4.8 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................... 4-12

4.8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 4-12

4.8.2 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action.................................................. 4-13

4.8.3 Inter-relationship of Cumulative Effects ....................................................... 4-14

SECTION 5: Comparison of Alternatives and Conclusions............................................... 5-1

5.1 Comparison of the Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives ........................ 5-1

5.2 Conclusions................................................................................................................. 5-1

SECTION 6: References ........................................................................................................ 6-1

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page x

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Table of Contents

Table of Contents (continued)

SECTION PAGE

SECTION 7: Glossary ............................................................................................................ 7-1

SECTION 8: List of Preparers............................................................................................... 8-1

SECTION 9: Agencies and Individuals Consulted.............................................................. 9-1

Appendices 

A Agency Consultation

B SHPO and NAC Consultation / Memorandum for Record

C Draft Record of Environmental Consideration

D NBCRV Specifications and Training Requirements

E MPCV Buffalo Specifications and Training Requirements

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page xi

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Table of Contents

List of Figures 

NUMBER TITLE PAGE

Figure 1 – Proposed Fielding Locations .................................................................................... 1-2

Figure 2 – NBCRV System Overview ........................................................................................ 2-4

Figure 3 – MPCV Buffalo System Overview .............................................................................. 2-8

List of Tables

NUMBER TITLE PAGE

Table ES-1. Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts on Fully Evaluated Resources ........vii

Table 2-1. Stryker NBCRV NET Fielding Locations................................................................... 2-2

Table 2-2. Fielding Training Schedule / Requirements.............................................................. 2-6

Table 2-3. MPCV Buffalo NET Fielding Locations ..................................................................... 2-9

Table 2-4. MPCV Buffalo Fielding Training Schedule / Requirements .................................... 2-11

Table 2-5. Summary of Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration........................... 2-14

Table 2-6. Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts on Fully Evaluated Resources ....... 2-16

Table 3-1. Noise Limits for Land Use Compatibility ................................................................... 3-6

Table 4-1. Engine Types and Emission Standards.................................................................... 4-2

Table 5-1. Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts on Fully Evaluated Resources ......... 5-2

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page xii

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Acronyms and Abbreviations

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom 

Act 

APE Area of Potential Effect

AR Army Regulation

ARFORGEN Army Force Generation

ARNG Army National Guard

ARNG-ILE Army National Guard Environmental 

Programs Division

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act 

BCT Brigade Combat Team

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

BMP Best Management Practice(s)

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure

CAA Clean Air Act

CBRN chemical, biological, radiological, and 

nuclear

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CGJMTC Camp Grayling Joint Maneuver 

Training Center

CO Carbon monoxide

CWA Clean Water Act

dB decibel(s)

dBA a-weighted decibel(s)

DNL day-night average sound level

DoD Department of Defense

DoDI Department of Defense Instruction

DPW Directorate of Public Works

DSCA Defense Support of Civil Authorities

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESMC Endangered Species Management 

Component

FEMA Federal Emergency Management 

Agency

FLMNET Field Level Maintenance New 

Equipment Training

FNSI Finding of No Significant Impact

HAP hazardous air pollutants

HTMW Hazardous Toxic Materials and Waste

HWMP Hazardous Waste Management Plans

ICRMP Integrated Cultural Resources 

Management Plan

IED improvised explosive devices

IICEP Interagency and Intergovernmental 

Coordination for Environmental 

Planning

INRMP Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan

ITAM Integrated Training Area Management

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MFR Memorandum for Record

MFT Material Fielding Team

mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter

MPCV Mine Protected Clearance Vehicle

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act

NAI Named Areas of Interest

NBCRV Nuclear Biological Chemical 

Reconnaissance Vehicle

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NET new equipment training

NGB National Guard Bureau

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide

NOA Notice of Availability

NOI Notice of Intent

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

O3 Ozone

PAO Public Affairs Officer

Pb Lead

PdM AMS Product Manager Assured Mobility 

Systems 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page xiii

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Table of Contents

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations (Continued)

REC Record of Environmental 

Consideration

RPTS Regional Pre-Deployment Training 

Site

S/T States and Territories

SBCT Stryker Brigade Combat Team

SDZ Surface Danger Zone

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SPCCP Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasures Plan

SRP Sustainable Range Program

TC Training Circular

TRADOC Training and Doctrine Command

U.S. Army Department of the Army

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC U.S. Code

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VOC volatile organic compound

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page xiv

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 1 

1 SECTION 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

2 1.1 Introduction

3 This Nationwide Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to identify, document, and 

4 address the potential physical, environmental, and cultural effects of the Army National Guard 

5 (ARNG) proposal for new equipment fielding and home stationing of two distinct vehicles, the 

6 Stryker Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV) and the Mine Protected

7 Clearance Vehicle (MPCV) Buffalo (hereafter referred to as the MPCV Buffalo) at approximately 

8 33 state ARNG units (Figure 1). The ARNG proposes fielding 84 NBCRVs to 18 state ARNGs 

9 and 76 MPCV Buffalos to 26 state ARNGS; of these, 11 state ARNGs would be receiving both 

10 the NBCRV and the MPCV Buffalo. However, the intent of this Nationwide EA is to facilitate the 

11 potential to field both of the vehicles to all 54 ARNG States and Territories (S/Ts) by presenting a 

12 representative analysis of anticipated regulatory requirements and environmental impacts. To 

13 allow analysis of the potential effects to each state ARNG, the analysis of the NBCRV and the 

14 MPCV Buffalo are presented separately and in combination.

15 The ARNG is preparing this Nationwide EA for the NBCRV to minimize overall NBCRV program 

16 costs. However, the Michigan Army National Guard (MIARNG) prepared a separate EA in-house 

17 for the proposed fielding of 12 NBCRVs to Camp Grayling Joint Maneuver Training Center 

18 (CGJMTC). ARNG-RMQ supports this course of action because it will: (1) maintain the ARNG19 RMQ’s NBCRV fielding schedule, (2) minimize vehicle storage costs, and (3) minimize costs 

20 associated with performing the NBCRVs’ required analytical equipment maintenance and 

21 calibration while the vehicles are stored until the Nationwide EA is completed.

22 The NBCRV is an all-weather, eight-wheeled platform that provides situational awareness and 

23 detection via cooperative chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) networks and 

24 reconnaissance to increase the combat power of the deployed force, and to minimize force25 effectiveness degradation under CBRN conditions. It serves an essential passive role, conducting 

26 CBRN analysis of the battle space environment. The MPCV Buffalo is an all-terrain, all-weather, 

27 six-wheeled, heavily armored vehicle with an articulating arm mounted on the front of the vehicle; 

28 the articulating arm is equipped with a rake head that assists in the location of explosive hazards. 

29 The MPCV Buffalo provides a blast-protected platform capable of transporting Soldiers and 

30 locating, interrogating, and classifying suspected explosive hazards, including improvised 

31 explosive devices (IEDs). This equipment is necessary for force modernization to fulfill the ARNG 

32 training mission to maintain operational readiness. 

33 This federally proposed action requires analyses of potential impacts as set forth in the National 

34 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 United States Code [USC] 4321 et 

35 seq.); Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations 

36 [CFR] 1500-1508); 32 CFR Part 651, Environmental Analysis of Army Actions (Final Rule, 29

37 March 2002); the 2011 ARNG NEPA Handbook (ARNG 2011); Section 106 of the National 

38

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 1-1

Draft - August 2015
Figure 1. STRYKER NBCRV and MPCV BUFFALO Proposed Fielding Locations

Page 1-2
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 1 

1 Historic Preservation Act (NHPA); Environmental Protection and Enhancement (13 December 

2 2007); and various other federal, state, and Department of Defense (DoD) regulations. This 

3 Nationwide EA will facilitate the decision-making process regarding the Proposed Action and its 

4 alternatives considered by the ARNG

5 1.2 Purpose and Need

6 Stryker Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle

7 The purpose of the proposed fielding of the NBCRV is to provide the requisite training and 

8 proficiency for ARNG units in order to maintain parallel capabilities to Department of the Army 

9 (U.S. Army) Soldiers. In order for ARNG units to accomplish their mission, these units require a 

10 light, highly mobile, and survivable vehicle system to complete route reconnaissance, area/zone 

11 reconnaissance, and surveillance. The NBCRV was developed in response to those 

12 requirements. In order to station the NBCRV, each location and receiving unit is required to 

13 provide adequate training scenarios and facilities. Adequate facilities include the provision of

14 administrative, maintenance, and logistical support.

15 The need for the proposed NBCRV fielding is to ensure the ARNG provides complete training 

16 facilities and equipment proficiency for its units, attains and maintains a full readiness posture 

17 consistent and meets mission training objectives. The Army trains in accordance with the Army 

18 Force Generation (ARFORGEN) model, which is the structured progression of increased unit 

19 readiness over time, resulting in recurring periods of availability of trained, ready, and cohesive 

20 units. These requirements support the prioritization and synchronization of resourcing, equipping, 

21 training, sustaining, mobilizing, and deploying cohesive units more effectively and efficiently (U.S. 

22 Army 2007). Mission training objectives are defined in National Guard Regulation 350-1, Army 

23 National Guard Training (2009), which guide the creation of forces trained in the latest 

24 technological equipment to continue the Army’s ongoing transformation process designed to 

25 provide the Nation with combat forces that are more responsive, deployable, agile, versatile, 

26 lethal, survivable, and sustainable (National Guard Bureau [NGB] 2005). 

27 Mine Protected Clearance Vehicle Buffalo

28 The purpose of the proposed fielding of the MPCV Buffalo is to provide the requisite training and 

29 proficiency for ARNG units in order to maintain parallel capabilities to U.S. Army Soldiers. The 

30 MPCV Buffalo would modernize equipment fielded to Brigade Engineer Battalions in order to 

31 properly train and maintain proficiency on assigned engineer mission essential tasks, including 

32 identifying, neutralizing and/or marking explosive hazards. Further, ARNG unit requirements 

33 include adequate training scenarios and facilities, associated administrative and logistical 

34 support, and areas that would accommodate complete and robust training exercises. 

35 The need for the proposed MPCV Buffalo fielding is to ensure the ARNG provides complete

36 equipment and training facilities for its units, attains and maintains a full readiness posture 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 1-3

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 1 

1 consistent with the ARFORGEN model, and meets mission training objectives with sufficient land 

2 area as defined in National Guard Regulation 350-1, Army National Guard Training (2009). 

3 1.3 Scope of the Nationwide EA

4 This Nationwide EA evaluates potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the currently 

5 proposed fielding and home stationing of the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo at 33 state ARNG units

6 nationwide. However, as stated previously, the intent of the Nationwide EA is to facilitate future 

7 consideration and evaluation of the potential fielding of these vehicles at any of the 54 ARNG 

8 S/Ts. Fielding and home stationing of the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo would modernize ARNG 

9 equipment to allow ARNG units to maintain parallel capabilities to U.S. Army Soldiers. A detailed 

10 description of the Proposed Action is provided in Section 2.2. The ARNG developed screening 

11 criteria (described in Section 2.3.1) to determine potential sites that would meet the purpose of

12 and need for the fielding and home stationing of the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo. A summary of 

13 these alternative fielding scenarios and the evaluation process that resulted in the identification 

14 of the locations determined to be most suitable for full analyses is provided in Section 2.3. 

15 This Nationwide EA provides a comparative analysis of two alternatives: the Preferred Action 

16 Alternative and No-Action Alternative. Environmental resource categories described in Section 

17 3.0 and evaluated in Section 4.0 include: air quality; noise; water resources; biological resources; 

18 cultural resources; and hazardous and toxic materials and wastes. Per 40 CFR Part 1501.7 (a)(3), 

19 the CEQ recommends agencies identify and eliminate from detailed study any issues that are not 

20 significant. Resource areas not evaluated in this Nationwide EA include: land use, geology, 

21 topography, and soils, socioeconomics, environmental justice, and infrastructure. A brief 

22 discussion of resources determined not to be significant is provided in Section 3.0. 

23 This Nationwide EA identifies, documents, and evaluates, on a nationwide level, the 

24 environmental effects of fielding the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo to all 54 ARNG S/Ts. The 

25 Nationwide EA evaluates the Proposed Action’s expected common effects on environmental 

26 resources and lays the foundation for subsequent installation-specific analyses and decision 

27 making by the S/T ARNGs proposed to receive the NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo vehicles. S/T 

28 ARNGs would conduct additional analyses, as appropriate, to address site-specific effects prior 

29 to ARNG’s fielding of vehicles to the S/T's installations. Although in some instances preparation 

30 of an Environmental Assessment (EA) may be deemed necessary, the ARNG anticipates that S/T 

31 ARNGs would find preparation of a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) to be the most 

32 appropriate course of action pursuant to Title 32 CFR Part 651. 

33 To ensure proper utilization of this Nationwide EA, and to facilitate compliance with the President’s 

34 CEQ guidance (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and the Army’s NEPA rule (32 CFR Part 651), example 

35 REC and accompanying Checklist forms are included and provide a framework for assessing 

36 installation-specific environmental impacts for fielding and home stationing of the NBCRV and/or 

37 MPCV Buffalo (Appendix C). If conditions outlined in the checklist are met, and if procedures and 

38 mitigations are adopted at the installation level, a REC may be prepared that references this 

39 Nationwide EA and the Proposed Action may proceed. 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 1-4

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 1 

1 As specified under NEPA and CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), a monetary cost-benefit 

2 analysis is not required as part of the EA. The Proposed Action and its alternatives have been 

3 developed based on military training needs and mission requirements. As such, no quantitative 

4 financial assessment has been performed as part of this EA. 

5 1.4 Decision-making

6 The primary legislation affecting the decision-making process is NEPA, which requires that federal 

7 agencies consider potential environmental consequences of their proposed actions. The law’s 

8 intent is to protect, restore, or enhance the environment through well-informed federal decisions

9 with public input. The CEQ was established under NEPA for the purpose of implementing and 

10 overseeing federal policies as they relate to this process. In 1978, the CEQ issued Regulations 

11 for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the NEPA (40 CFR §1500-1508 [CEQ 1978]). 

12 These regulations specify that an EA be prepared to:

13 • Briefly provide sufficient analysis and evidence for determining whether to prepare an 

14 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI), the 

15 latter of which is the “decision document” that closes the EA process when no unavoidable 

16 significant impacts are identified;

17 • Aid in an agency’s compliance with NEPA when no EIS is necessary; and

18 • Facilitate preparation of an EIS when one is necessary.

19 Per amendments to 10 USC 10501, described in DoD Directive 5105.77 (21 May 2008), the NGB 

20 is a joint activity of the DoD. NGB serves as a channel of communication and funding between 

21 the U.S. Army and state National Guard organizations in the 54 ARNG S/Ts. The ARNG is a 

22 Directorate within NGB. ARNG’s Environmental Program Division (ARNG-ILE) is the division 

23 within ARNG that is responsible for ARNG environmental matters, including the ARNG’s 

24 compliance with NEPA. As ARNG is the federal decision-maker concerning this Proposed Action 

25 and controls the federal funds that would be used for its implementation, this is a federal Proposed 

26 Action. 

27 1.5 Public and Agency Involvement

28 The ARNG invites public participation in decision-making on new proposals through the NEPA 

29 process. Public participation with respect to decision-making on the Proposed Action is guided by 

30 32 CFR Part 651, the Army’s policy for implementing NEPA. Consideration of the views of and 

31 information provided by all interested persons promotes open communication and ultimately 

32 facilitates better decision-making. Agencies, organizations, and members of the public with a 

33 potential interest in the Proposed Action, including minority, low-income, disadvantaged, and 

34 Native American groups, are encouraged to participate. Section 9 of the EA presents a list of the 

35 potentially interested agencies and federally recognized tribes invited to consult during 

36 preparation of this Nationwide EA. A record of public involvement, agency coordination, and 

37 Native American consultation associated with this EA will be included in Appendices A and B. 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 1-5

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 1 

1 1.5.1 Public Review

2 Public involvement is another important component of the EA process, and includes regulatory 

3 agencies and interested members of the public and other non-governmental organizations. The 

4 ARNG, as the proponent of the Proposed Action, will publish and distribute the EA and FNSI for 

5 a 30-day public review and comment period, as announced by a Notice of Availability (NOA) via 

6 a display advertisement published in the USA Today, New York Times, Denver Post, Chicago 

7 Tribune, Hawai`i Tribune-Herald, Seattle Times, Los Angeles Times, New Orleans Times8 Picayune, and the Washington Post. If deemed necessary, the NGB Public Affairs office (PAO) 

9 will be responsible for reviewing notices for distribution within local newspapers, and will be the 

10 primary contact for local news media inquiries. Comments and concerns submitted during the 

11 review process will be incorporated and responded to as part of an updated Nationwide EA and 

12 a draft FNSI. If it is determined that implementation of the Proposed Action would result in 

13 significant impacts, the ARNG will either not implement this action as proposed, or will publish in 

14 the Federal Register a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS. 

15 1.5.2 Agency Coordination

16 Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination for Environmental Planning (IICEP) is a federally 

17 mandated process for informing and coordinating with other governmental agencies regarding 

18 proposed actions. As detailed in 40 CFR § 1501.4(b), CEQ regulations require intergovernmental 

19 notifications prior to making any detailed statement of environmental impacts. Through the IICEP 

20 process, the ARNG notifies relevant federal, state, and local environmental agencies and allows 

21 them sufficient time to make known their environmental concerns specific to a Proposed Action. 

22 Comments and concerns submitted by these agencies during the IICEP process are subsequently 

23 incorporated into the analysis of potential environmental impacts conducted as part of the EA. 

24 This coordination fulfills requirements under Executive Order (EO) 12372 (superseded by EO 

25 12416, and subsequently supplemented by EO 13132), which requires federal agencies to 

26 cooperate with and consider state and local views in implementing a federal proposal. 

27 Agencies consulted during preparation of this EA are listed in Section 9. Initial scoping letters, 

28 dated 15 April 2015, were distributed to potentially interested agencies. Scoping responses 

29 received from interested parties on or before 10 June 2015 have be included in Appendix A and 

30 agency information and comments have been included or addressed within the Preliminary Draft 

31 EA. All responses received after this date will be addressed in the Final EA, along with any agency 

32 or public comments received during the 30-day review period for the Draft EA. The Final EA and 

33 draft FNSI will also be distributed to interested agencies and members of the public that request 

34 a copy during the public comment period for the Draft EA. 

35 1.5.3 Native American Consultation/Coordination

36 The ARNG is conducting consultation with federally recognized Native American tribes as 

37 required under Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 4710.02 (DoD Interactions with 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 1-6

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 1 

1 Federally Recognized Tribes), which implements the Annotated DoD American Indian and Alaska 

2 Native Policy (dated 27 October 1999); Army Regulation 200-1 (AR 200-1), Environmental 

3 Protection and Enhancement; NEPA; the NHPA; and the Native American Graves and Protection 

4 and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Tribes were invited to participate in the EA and NHPA Section 

5 106 processes as Sovereign Nations per EO 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian 

6 Tribal Governments). A sample of the letter sent to the tribes and their responses are provided in 

7 Appendix B. All correspondence was conducted by U.S. Postal Service Priority Mail with tracking 

8 service. A Memorandum for the Record (MFR) summarizing the consultation efforts by the ARNG 

9 is included in Appendix B. 

10 1.6 Related NEPA, Environmental, and Other Documents and Processes

11 Three documents completed over the past several years provided resource material used in 

12 shaping and defining this Nationwide EA. These previously prepared NEPA-compliant

13 documents, listed below, are complete and have been publicly circulated.

14 • Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Stryker Family of Vehicles; 2003.

15 • Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Buffalo Mine Protected Clearance 

16 Vehicle System; 2006.

17 • Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Fielding and Use of Mine Resistance 

18 Ambush Protected Vehicles at Army Installations in the United States; 2009.

19 These documents provide useful information regarding vehicle development, fielding, and 

20 training; however, they were determined to not sufficiently address potential impacts associated 

21 with the potential nationwide fielding and home stationing of the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo. As 

22 such, these documents were not sufficiently applicable from which to tier analyses of potential 

23 impacts associated with this Proposed Action, but they are referenced in this Nationwide EA, as 

24 applicable. 

25 1.7 Regulatory Framework

26 This EA has been prepared under the provisions of, and in accordance with NEPA (42 USC 4321 

27 et seq.), CEQ Regulations, 32 CFR 651, and Army National Guard NEPA Handbook, Guidance 

28 on Preparing Environmental Documentation for Army National Guard Actions in Compliance with

29 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (ARNG 2011). In addition, the U.S. Army operates 

30 under numerous regulations and requirements, including AR 350-19, further discussed below. 

31 The effects of range use by military vehicles are managed through the Army’s Sustainable Range 

32 Program (SRP), which is mandated by AR 350-19, The Army Sustainable Range Program (U.S. 

33 Army 2005). This regulation establishes the objectives, responsibilities, and policies for the Army’s 

34 SRP to achieve optimal and sustainable use of Army training lands. This comprehensive program 

35 requires Army installations to implement a uniform land management regimen, including the 

36 integration of training requirements with land carrying capacity, education of land users to 

37 minimize adverse impacts, and the provision of required training land rehabilitation and 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 1-7

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 1 

1 maintenance. The SRP’s training constraints overlay is a tool used to manage training lands and 

2 control training area land use. This overlay, provided to each military unit using military training 

3 lands, identifies areas off-limits to training and off-limits to vehicle maneuvers (U.S. Army 2005). 

4 The off-limits areas prohibit Soldier training or vehicle operations, such as operation of the 

5 NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo, based on the presence of cultural resources, threatened or 

6 endangered species, critical habitat, or training lands in various stages of restoration or re-growth. 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 1-8

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 2 

1 SECTION 2: Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

2 2.1 Introduction

3 Implementation of the Proposed Action as currently envisioned would consist of fielding and 

4 stationing of new equipment for units of the ARNG at locations nationwide. The following sections 

5 provide a detailed description of the Proposed Action and alternatives considered to meet the 

6 purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. 

7 2.2 Proposed Action

8 The ARNG proposes to field, equip, and train Soldiers with two distinct vehicles, the Stryker 

NBCRV and the MPCV Buffalo. The Basis of Issue1 9 , consistent with AR 71-32 Force Development 

10 and Documentation (2013a), is the method by which the U.S. Army issues equipment, vehicles, 

11 and weapons systems to individuals and units to facilitate accomplishment of mission 

12 requirements. The proposed Basis of Issue for the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo is based on 

13 regional training locations at major installations upon release of assets by the U.S. Army. 

14 Prior to issuance of the NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo, the Program Manager’s Fielding 

15 Coordinator for every ARNG state unit/installation would conduct site surveys approximately 180 

16 days in advance of equipment arrival to ascertain availability of required maintenance and training 

17 space. If additional facilities were needed, each state unit would be responsible for providing 

18 “bridge” structures (e.g., temporary maintenance “tents”) until more permanent structures can be 

19 assessed in a tiered EA or REC and subsequently built; however, based on site selection criteria, 

20 it is anticipated that virtually all locations would be able to receive and support these vehicles, as 

21 a primary criterion for candidacy was that each location have a mission similar to and compatible 

22 with these vehicles (e.g., Chemical/NBCRV and Engineering/Buffalo). Proposed fielding locations 

23 are depicted in Figure 1 and described in greater detail in Section 2.2.1 and Section 2.2.2, 

24 below.

25 The NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo fielding would allow units to properly train and maintain 

26 proficiency on assigned mission essential tasks within established training ranges and maneuver 

27 areas at S/T ARNGs. The equipment would be stationed and operated in accordance with

28 Training Circular (TC) 25-8, Training Ranges (2004); National Guard Regulation 350-1, Army 

29 National Guard Training (2009); and AR 350-19, Army Sustainable Range Program (2005), and 

30 would address a training need not currently met with existing equipment stationing at ARNG 

31 facilities.

1 Basis of Issue Plans (BOIPs) are US Army requirements documents. BOIPs support equipment acquisition and 

materiel development by identifying and documenting both personnel and equipment requirements. They are 

developed for new or improved items of equipment, describing in detail the item, its capabilities, component items of 

equipment, where the item is to be used, and the associated support items of equipment and personnel. 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 2-1

Draft - August 2015

 
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 2 

1 2.2.1 Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle Fielding

2 The proposed Basis of Issue for the fielding of the NBCRV is based on regional training locations 

3 at major installations upon release (i.e., provision) of assets by the U.S. Army. This allows 

4 flexibility for selective use of vehicle variants for mobilization, new equipment training (NET), and 

5 unit sustainment training at the regional ARNG pre-deployment training centers prior to collective 

6 training at the larger Combat Training Centers (CTCs). The Regional Pre-Deployment Training 

7 Site (RPTS) training strategy is supported by NET teams and on-site field service representatives, 

8 as further described in Section 2.2.1.3. The NBCRV would be transported to each receiving 

9 location by land, sea, rail, and/or air (C-17 and C-5). However, it is foreseeable that some 

10 NBCRVs (on a state-by-state basis and depending on the time of year) would also be driven on 

11 highways to and from training areas and armories. In order to drive the NBCRV on a highway, a 

12 United States Government Motor Vehicle Operator’s Identification Card (OF346) and a 

13 Commercial Driver License Class B or better would be required. Lead and trail vehicles would 

14 follow the NBCRVs with hazard lights and flashing beacons.

15 The NBCRV replaces and supplements the capabilities of the M93A1/M93A1P1 Fox Vehicle, 

16 which has been retired by the ARNG and was only fielded to three locations nationwide. 

17 The Basis of Issue Plan for the NBCRV is provided in Table 2-1. 

Table 2-1. Stryker NBCRV NET Fielding Locations

Fielding Location Receiving State ARNG Quantity

Indiantown Gap, PA *** PA 6

Indiantown Gap, PA *** MD 4

Camp Shelby, MS ** MS 3

Camp Shelby, MS ** AL 12

Fort Drum, NY NY 4

Yakima, WA *** WA 7

Orchard Combat Training Center, ID ID 3

Camp Shelby, MS TN 3

Camp Shelby, MS KY 4

Camp Grayling, MI MI 4

Fort Bragg, NC NC 3

Camp Ripley, MN MN 3

Fort McCoy, WI WI 4

Marseilles, IL and Sparta, IL IL 8

Fort A.P. Hill, VA MD 4

Eastover, SC SC 4

Fort William Henry Harrison, MT MT 4

Camp Meade, NE NE 4

Camp Roberts, CA CA 4

** Record of Environmental Consideration already in place

*** Approved Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement already exists

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 2-2

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 2 

1 2.2.1.1 Description of the NBCRVs

2 The NBCRV is an all-weather, eight-wheeled platform that provides situational awareness and 

3 detects to warn via cooperative CBRN networks and reconnaissance to increase the combat 

4 power of the deployed force, and to minimize the degradation of force effectiveness under CBRN 

5 conditions (Figure 2). The NBCRV is the CBRN reconnaissance configuration of the infantry 

6 carrier vehicle in Cavalry Squadrons, Chemical Companies, and Special Troops Battalions 

7 assigned to Brigade Combat Teams. The NBCRV Sensor Suite consists of a dedicated system 

8 of CBRN detection, warning, and biological-sampling equipment on the high-speed, highly mobile, 

9 armored Stryker vehicle. The NBCRV detects chemical, radiological, and biological contamination 

10 in its immediate environment through the Chemical Biological Mass Spectrometer (CBMS), 

11 Automatic Chemical Agent Detector Alarm (ACADA), AN/VDR-2 Radiac Detector, AN/UDR-13 

12 Radiac Detector, Joint Biological Point Detection System (JBPDS), and at a distance, through the 

13 use of the Joint Service Lightweight Standoff Chemical Agent Detector (JSLSCAD). The NBCRV 

14 utilizes these detectors to integrate contamination information with input from onboard navigation 

15 and meteorological systems, and transmits digital NBC warning messages through the vehicle’s 

16 command and control equipment to warn follow-on forces, as further described in Section 2.2.1.2. 

17 The NBCRV also contains a 0.50-caliber machine gun for self-defense. Additional information 

18 regarding NBCRV specifications and training requirements are provided in Appendix D. 

19 2.2.1.2 Mission and Capabilities of the NBCRV

20 The mission of the NBCRV is to detect and identify chemical, biological, and radiological hazards.

21 The NBCRV warns units of contamination, reports the location of hazards, marks areas of 

22 contamination, locates and marks clean bypass routes, and collects and transports samples of 

23 radiological, biological, and chemical material for later analysis. CBRN reconnaissance is a 

24 contamination avoidance measure that provides commanders with information on CBRN hazards

25 in an area of operation (AO). CBRN reconnaissance elements perform five critical tasks—

26 detection, identification, marking, reporting, and sampling, in order to provide an increased 

27 situational awareness and freedom of movement on the battlefield. The NBCRV accomplishes 

28 these functions by performing Route Reconnaissance, Area/Zone Reconnaissance, and 

29 Surveillance. 

The NBCRV performs five mission-critical tasks:

 Detection: Detection is required for the timely warning of units.

 Identification: Identification supports protection level selection, preventive 

measures, and casualty treatment.

 Marking: Marking allows friendly forces to avoid the hazard.

 Reporting: Reporting allows resource status assessment, mission asset 

assignment, and early warning.

 Sampling: Sampling aids the identification process. 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 2-3

Draft - August 2015

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 2 

1 Unique capabilities of the NBCRV include its ability to provide on-the-move, stand-off, and static 

2 detection of chemical vapor, ground chemical liquid, point chemical vapor, radiological and 

3 biological hazards. The NBCRV automatically integrates contamination information from 

4 detectors with input from onboard navigation and meteorological systems and transmits digital 

5 NBC warning messages through the vehicle’s command and control equipment to warn follow-on 

6 forces. The NBCRV can also collect samples for follow-on analysis.

7 2.2.1.3 Unit and Soldier Training Operations

8 Training is the process that melds human and material resources to acquire and maintain required 

9 capabilities. Upon receipt of the NBCRV, each unit would have a Material Fielding Team (MFT) 

10 perform joint Technical Inspections on the vehicles and a joint inventory of associated items (i.e., 

11 maintenance tools). This “de-processing” would ensure that vehicles are in good working order 

12 and all necessary materials for maintenance and training have been provided. The NET for the 

13 fielding of the NBCRV would include Operator New Equipment Training (OPNET), Field Level 

14 Maintenance New Equipment Training (FLMNET), and De-Processing, which would provide 

15 training to operators, maintainers, and unit leaders at the unit or designated regional location. The 

16 NET would be provided to the receiving units and appropriate Training and Doctrine Command 

17 (TRADOC) schools and would be taught using the “train the trainer” method of instruction. The 

18 NET would include all associated tools, equipment, and Electronic Technical Manuals (ETMs), 

19 used by the operator and maintenance personnel receiving the NBCRV. The NET would include 

20 tactics, techniques, and procedures instruction by the material developer and proponent school 

21 training developer. All classroom, maintenance, and range training would occur within existing 

22 facilities and ranges. Individual ARNG units would train with two to four NBCRV during training 

23 operations. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not require construction of new 

24 facilities. An overview of typical requirements for NET for the NBCRV is provided in Table 2-2. 

25 Upon completion of NET, the NBCRV training of Stryker Brigade Combat Teams, Heavy Brigade 

26 Combat Teams, and chemical companies would be accomplished through performance of typical 

27 missions at designated training areas. Unit training would occur within existing, established 

28 training ranges that are capable of supporting and equipped to support NBCRV operations. These 

29 are locations where the U.S. Army or other hosting agency currently maintain and regularly 

30 conduct training operations that include the use of similar vehicles. It is not anticipated that training 

31 requirements for the NBCRV would increase infrastructure requirements at any of the identified 

32 training locations; if such requirements were identified, additional environmental analyses would 

33 be prepared and/or alternate locations would be evaluated.

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 2-5

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 2 

Table 2-2. Fielding Training Schedule / Requirements

De-Processing (16 Training Days)

Office space for five (5) Material Fielding Team 

personnel (2) Maintenance Bays with 7.5-ton lift

1,000 square feet of secure storage Hazardous Materials and Petroleum, Oil, and 

Lubricants (HAZMAT-POL) support

One (1) 4-6-ton Fork Lift

OPNET (36 Training Days)

Office space for ten (10) instructors Classroom for forty (40) Students (includes 1 

observer per vehicle)

Driving / Gunnery Ranges (.50 Caliber & Ammo) HAZMAT-POL support

FLMNET (16 Training Days)

Office space for ten (10) instructors (1) Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck

Wrecker and (1) Forward Repair System

Eight (8) Maintenance Bays with 7.5-ton lift HAZMAT-POL support

Classroom for thirty (30) students

1 Success in battle is a direct result of realistic, challenging training scenarios (U.S. Army 2008). 

2 Army Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) and the units that comprise them conduct maneuver 

3 training to ensure that all of the units’ capabilities can be integrated and synchronized to execute 

4 missions under stressful operational conditions. Maneuver training consists of subordinate units 

5 of Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCTs) working together to integrate their combined 

6 capabilities and skills as a larger unit to carry out a mission. The NBCRV would perform its mission 

7 of CBRN reconnaissance, search, surveillance, and survey throughout various maneuver training 

8 missions. Typical missions of which the NBCRV would be a component include: traffic control 

9 points; escort missions; Named Areas of Interest (NAI) monitoring; convoy security; and mounted 

10 site assessment. A secondary training component would be Defense Support of Civil Authorities 

11 (DSCA). Although DSCA is not a primary reason for fielding the equipment, units would conduct 

12 DSCA training at assigned facilities. 

13 2.2.1.4 Maintenance

14 The NBCRV would require before, during, and after operation Preventative Maintenance Checks 

15 and Service (PMCS). These would consist of weekly operations and scheduled PMCS. Weekly 

16 maintenance and testing of the NBCRV’s CBRN detection, warning, and biological-sampling 

17 equipment requires the use of seven (7) detergents and approximately six (6) to eight (8) hours 

18 each week while a computer-based diagnostic test of all systems is completed. Additional details 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 2-6

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 2 

1 regarding testing equipment and requirements are provided in Appendix D. This regular 

2 maintenance is required in order to maintain the NBCRV’s readiness and increase the probability 

3 of the equipment being fully mission capable in the least amount of time.

4 2.2.1.5 Storage

5 Fielding locations were selected in part due to the presence of facilities or available space needed 

6 to store, maintain, and utilize the NBCRV. Each vehicle requires approximately 2,000 square feet 

7 for storage. Most locations selected presently contain large vehicle storage areas and negligible

8 construction would be required for storing the NBCRV. Any construction that would occur as a 

9 result of implementing the Proposed Action would be assessed during preparation of the site10 specific REC and Checklist or subsequent NEPA analysis that would occur at each of the S/T

11 ARNG locations. 

12 2.2.2 Mine Protected Clearance Vehicle Buffalo Fielding

13 The Basis of Issue for the MPCV Buffalo is based on regional training locations at major 

14 installations upon release of assets by the U.S. Army. This allows flexibility for selective use of 

15 vehicles for mobilization, NET and unit sustainment training at the RPTS prior to collective training 

16 at the CTCs. The RPTS training strategy is supported by new equipment training teams and on 

17 site field service representatives. The MPCV Buffalo is not authorized for travel on civilian 

18 roadways and would be transported to each receiving location by land, sea, rail, and/or air (C-17 

19 and C-5). The MPCV Buffalo provides new capabilities not previously provided by vehicles in the 

20 ARNG, and represents a consolidation of functions that are currently carried out by individual 

21 Soldiers. 

22 The Basis of Issue locations for the MPCV Buffalo are provided in Table 2-3. 

23 2.2.2.1 Description of the MPCV Buffalo

24 The MPCV Buffalo is an all-terrain, all-weather, six-wheeled, heavily armored vehicle with an 

25 articulating arm mounted on the front of the vehicle with a rake head that assists in the locating 

26 of explosive hazards (Figure 3). The MPCV Buffalo provides a blast-protected platform to 

27 transport Soldiers and allow Soldiers to dismount in order to neutralize and/or mark explosive 

28 hazards. The MPCV Buffalo provides deployed forces with an effective and reliable blast29 protected vehicle capable of interrogating and classifying suspected explosive hazards, including 

30 IEDs. The MPCV Buffalo has an articulating arm with a digging/lifting attachment and camera to 

31 remotely investigate and evaluate a suspected explosive hazard and allow the crew to confirm, 

32 deny, and/or classify the explosive hazard. Seating capacity allows for the driver and troop 

33 commander plus up to 12 personnel. There is no weapons system mounted on this vehicle. The 

34 MPCV Buffalo is a new system that has been developed to close a capability gap and does not 

35 replace any other system or vehicle. Additional information regarding MPCV Buffalo specifications 

36 and training requirements are provided in Appendix E. 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 2-7

Draft - August 2015

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 2 

Table 2-3. MPCV Buffalo NET Fielding Locations

Fielding Location Receiving State ARNG Quantity

Camp Crowder, MO * MO 6

McGrady Training Center, Fort Jackson, SC * SC 6

Fort McCoy, WI * WI 6

Camp Bowie, TX * TX 10

Camp Riley, MN MN 2

Indiantown Gap, PA PA 6

Kilauea Military Camp, HI HI 2

Camp Atterbury, IN IN 2

Camp Roberts, CA CA 2

Orchard Combat Training Center, ID ID 2

Yakima, WA WA 2

Camp Shelby, MS MS 2

Fort Campbell, KY TN 2

Fort Stewart, GA GA 2

Fort Dix, NJ NJ 2

Decatur, IL IL 2

Rutland, VT VT 2

Fort Drum, NY NY 2

Camp Gruber, OK OK 2

Camp Dodge, IA IA 2

Camp Rilea, OR OR 2

Camp Robinson or Fort Chaffee Joint Maneuver 

Training Center, AR

AR 2

Camp Blanding, FL FL 2

Fort Pickett, VA VA 2

Camp Ravenna, OH OH 2

Fort Polk, LA LA 2

* Fielding initiated

1 2.2.2.2 Mission and Capabilities of the MPCV Buffalo

2 This type of vehicle is tasked with the mission to support operations in urban and other 

3 restricted/confined spaces, to include mounted patrols, reconnaissance, communications, and 

4 command and control. The MPCV Buffalo would provide small units conducting typical 

5 counterinsurgency missions with protected mobility. Squads and platoons use MPCV Buffalo 

6 vehicles to conduct both mounted and dismounted missions. The MPCV Buffalo would be used 

7 by Clearance Companies and Horizontal Engineer Companies for Route Clearance and Area 

8 Clearance operations to detect and defeat explosive hazards. Typical mission sets supported by 

9 the MPCV Buffalo include the following:

10 • Cordon and search, 

11 • Convoy security, 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 2-9

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 2 

1 • Escort, and

2 • Protected personnel transport.

3 The MPCV Buffalo is capable of traveling with combat loads at speeds up to 60 miles per hour on 

4 improved roads. It can also travel on unimproved roads, and is capable of working on rough, soft, 

5 unimproved ground (i.e., off-road) at reduced speeds. This allows the crew the ability to identify 

6 any explosive hazards while operating in a safe environment. 

7 2.2.2.3 Unit and Soldier Training Operations

8 Upon receipt of the MPCV Buffalo, each unit would have a MFT perform joint Technical 

9 Inspections on the vehicles and a joint inventory of associated items (i.e., maintenance tools). 

10 This “de-processing” would ensure that vehicles are in good working order and all necessary 

11 materials for maintenance and training have been provided. The 40 hours of training for each 

12 system would be required for the de-processing and hands-on training. Training land utilized 

13 during MPCV Buffalo NET would be entirely within the existing boundary of established training 

14 ranges and maneuver areas at S/T ARNGs; therefore, no Real Property transaction would be 

15 necessary to support the training syllabus for the MPCV Buffalo. A maximum of two MPCV 

16 Buffalos would be used during each training event. Classroom and range training would occur 

17 within existing facilities and ranges. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not require 

18 construction of new facilities. 

19 All systems fielded would require NET. The NET for the MPCV Buffalo would provide training for

20 operators and unit leaders in the home stationing and use of the MPCV Buffalo. The NET would 

21 be given to the receiving units and appropriate TRADOC schools. The NET would include all 

22 associated tools, equipment, and ETM used by the operator personnel receiving the MPCV 

23 Buffalo. The NET would also include the Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures instruction

24 (Table 2-4). 

25 Each unit receiving the MPCV Buffalo would also receive Interim Contractor Logistical Support 

26 (ICLS) for the first two years after receiving the vehicles. The ICLS would provide troubleshooting, 

27 maintenance and repair support on the MPCV Buffalos. ICLS would provide support for both the 

28 field and sustainment level of repairs that are required to render the vehicle back to the Army 

29 10/20 standard, as defined in AR 750-1, Army Maintenance Policy (2013b). The ICLS would be 

30 the primary maintenance support until either publication of the maintenance manual, or the 

31 Maintenance Training Support Package is available in order to provide units with the capability of 

32 maintenance that supports the FLMNET. 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 2-10

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 2 

Table 2-4. MPCV Buffalo Fielding Training Schedule / Requirements

De-Processing (16 Training Days)

Office space for five (5) Material Fielding Team 

personnel (2) Maintenance Bays with 7.5-ton lift

1,000 square feet of secure storage HAZMAT-POL support

One (1) 4-6-ton Fork Lift

OPNET (5 Training Days)

Office space for two (2) instructors Classroom for ten (10) Students 

Training Area and Driving Route HAZMAT-POL support

ICLS (FLMNET)

No FLMNET occurs as part of MPCV Buffalo fielding. Instead, each unit would receive Interim 

Contractor Logistical Support (ICLS) for the first two years after receiving the vehicles. This would be 

a full-time contractor who would be assigned to each unit to assist with training, maintenance, and 

logistical coordination (further described below).

1 The MPCV Buffalo would be used by Clearance Companies and Horizontal Engineer Companies

2 for Route Clearance and Area Clearance training within designated training areas. Unit training 

3 would occur within existing, established training ranges in accordance with the location’s SRP. 

4 These are locations that maintain and regularly conduct training operations that include the use 

5 of similar vehicles. It is not anticipated that training requirements for the MPCV Buffalo would 

6 increase infrastructure requirements at training locations. 

7 Success in battle is a direct result of realistic and challenging training scenarios (U.S. Army 2008). 

8 Army BCTs and the units that comprise them conduct maneuver training to ensure that all of the 

9 units’ capabilities can be integrated and synchronized to execute missions under stressful 

10 operational conditions. Maneuver training consists of subordinate SBCT units working together to 

11 integrate their combined capabilities and skills as a larger unit to carry out a mission. In maneuver 

12 operations, the MPCV Buffalo would provide Soldiers with an effective and reliable blast-protected 

13 vehicle capable of interrogating and classifying suspected explosive hazards throughout various 

14 maneuver training missions including cordon and search; convoy security; and escort. A 

15 secondary training component is DSCA; however, DSCA use is not a primary reason for fielding 

16 the equipment. 

17 2.2.2.4 Maintenance

18 Each unit receiving the MPCV Buffalo would also receive ICLS for the first two years after 

19 receiving the vehicles in lieu of FLMNET. The ICLS would provide troubleshooting, maintenance 

20 and repair support on the MPCV Buffalos. ICLS would provide support for both the field and 

21 sustainment level of repairs that are required to render the vehicle back to the Army 10/20 

22 standard, as defined in AR 750-1, Army Maintenance Policy (2013b). Product Manager Assured 

23 Mobility Systems (PdM AMS) would provide full-time interim ICLS for the MPCV Buffalo and would 

24 provide all troubleshooting, maintenance, and repair support. PdM AMS has outlined its ICLS as 

25 defined in Chapter 6 of AR-700-127. The ICLS would be the primary maintenance support until 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 2-11

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 2 

1 either publication of the maintenance manual, or the Maintenance Training Support Package is 

2 available in order to provide units with the capability of maintenance that supports the FLMNET.

3 This regular maintenance is required in order to maintain the MPCV Buffalo’s readiness and 

4 increase the probability of the equipment being fully mission capable in the least amount of time.

5 2.2.2.5 Storage

6 Fielding locations were selected in part due to the presence of facilities or available space needed 

7 to store, maintain, and utilize the MPCV Buffalo. Most selected locations presently contain large 

8 vehicle storage areas and negligible construction would be required for storing the MPCV Buffalo. 

9 Any construction that would occur as a result of implementing the Proposed Action would be 

10 assessed during preparation of the site-specific REC and Checklist or subsequent NEPA analysis 

11 that would occur at each of the S/T ARNG locations.

12 2.3 Alternatives Considered

13 NEPA, CEQ regulations, and 32 CFR 651 require all reasonable alternatives to be explored and 

14 objectively evaluated. Alternatives that are eliminated from detailed study must be identified along 

15 with a brief discussion of the reasons for eliminating them. For purposes of analysis, an alternative 

16 was considered “reasonable” only if it would enable the ARNG to meet the purpose of and need 

17 for the Proposed Action. “Unreasonable” alternatives are those would not enable the ARNG to 

18 meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action.

19 2.3.1 Alternatives Development – Screening Criteria

20 Several potential alternatives were initially identified that could support vehicle fielding and home 

21 stationing and variations in allowable training operations. The ARNG planners developed and 

22 applied the following screening criteria to evaluate potential alternatives that would meet the 

23 purpose of and need for the proposed fielding and home stationing of the NBCRV and MPCV 

24 Buffalo. 

25 To be carried forward for consideration, the fielding alternative under consideration must meet all 

26 of the following screening criteria: 

27 1) Ensure no net loss in the capacity of the ARNG to support the federal and state military 

28 missions

29 2) Be fielded to a location within an existing ARNG owned or controlled facility to avoid land 

30 acquisition costs 

31 3) Avoid excessive travel times and costs for ARNG units to be trained 

32 4) Utilize established maneuver and training areas to minimize land commitment and allow 

33 for other required training to occur now and in the future 

34 5) Minimize potential environmental issues. 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 2-12

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 2 

1 2.3.2 Alternatives Evaluated

2 2.3.2.1 Preferred Action Alternative

3 The Preferred Action Alternative best meets all selection criteria, listed in Section 2.3.1. After an 

4 examination of active-duty, National Guard, and Army Reserve installations in the United States, 

5 the ARNG identified 33 state ARNG units that met all of the selection criteria needed to provide 

6 the required TC 25-8 standard range training area and other proposed training support facilities 

7 for either (or both) the NBCRV and the MPCV Buffalo. The fielding locations identified in Table 

8 2-1 and Table 2-3 contain existing range facilities and maneuver areas, maintenance facilities, 

9 and staffing. This alternative effectively provides the best combination of fielding locations to 

10 establish and sustain quality military training and maintain and improve units’ readiness postures 

11 nationwide.

12 2.3.2.2 No-Action Alternative

13 Pursuant to NEPA and CEQ regulations, the No-Action Alternative must be considered to provide 

14 a comparative baseline analysis. With selection of the No-Action Alternative, neither the NBCRV 

15 nor the MPCV Buffalo would be fielded at the proposed ARNG installations in the United States. 

16 This alternative would limit the capability of the ARNG to carry out its assigned mission to provide 

17 adequate training facilities and the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action described in 

18 Section 1.0 would not be met. This would result in the continuation of existing conditions that 

19 place the affected ARNG units at risk for not meeting training requirements for CBRN detection 

20 or IED removal, potentially resulting in an inability to meet proficiency standards. 

21 2.3.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration

22 Alternatives that are eliminated from detailed study must be identified along with a brief discussion 

23 of the reasons for eliminating them. For purposes of this analysis, an alternative was considered 

24 “unreasonable” if it would not enable the ARNG to meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed 

25 Action. The ARNG considered the following alternatives: (1) Use Other Existing ARNG Facilities; 

26 (2) Establish New Training Sites; (3) Reduced Scale; and (4) Vehicles Operate Only on 

27 Installation’s Paved Roadways. These alternatives were eliminated from further consideration 

28 because they did not meet one or more of the screening criteria included in Section 2.3.1, as 

29 summarized in Table 2-5. For additional information on eliminated alternatives, refer to the 

30 following sections.

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 2-13

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 2 

Table 2-5. Summary of Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration

Alternatives Eliminated Section

Screening Criteria (see Section 2.3.1) 

that would not be met

1 2 3 4 5

Use Other Existing ARNG 

Facilities

2.3.3.1 

Establish New Training Sites 2.3.3.2   

Reduced Scale 2.3.3.3  

Vehicles Operate Only on 

Installation’s Paved Roadways

2.3.3.4 

Selection Criteria:

1. No net loss in the capacity of the ARNG to support the federal and state military missions

2. Fielded to a location within an existing ARNG owned or controlled facility to avoid land acquisition costs 

3. Avoid excessive travel times and costs for ARNG units to be trained 

4. Utilize established maneuver/training areas to minimize land commitment and allow other training to occur 

5. Minimize potential environmental issues

1 2.3.3.1 Use Other Existing Active Duty, ARNG, or Reserve Facilities

2 In accordance with Army planning policy and regulations, the ARNG evaluated other existing 

3 active-duty, National Guard, and Army Reserve installations nationwide to determine their 

4 potential suitability for supporting the needs associated with the Proposed Action. The use of 

5 other potentially available sites would limit the capability of the ARNG to carry out its assigned 

6 mission to provide adequate training facilities and the purpose of and need for the Proposed 

7 Action described in Section 1.0. Due to range scheduling conflicts, distance, and limited 

8 maneuvering space, the use of other sites would potentially cause ARNG units to risk not meeting 

9 training requirements and to lose valuable training time. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated 

10 from further consideration because it does not meet screening criterion #3, as outlined in Section 

11 2.3.1. 

12 2.3.3.2 Establish New Training Sites 

13 This alternative was considered but eliminated due to the fact that, as a primary component of 

14 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), the DoD is eliminating and/or consolidating many 

15 installations throughout the United States. As sufficient maneuver and training areas are available 

16 at identified locations to accommodate the Proposed Action, the ARNG determined that, in 

17 accordance with DoD directives and vision, establishment of a new training center was neither 

18 feasible nor necessary. Further, this alternative does not meet screening criteria #2, #4, or #5, as 

19 outlined in Section 2.3.1. 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 2-14

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 2 

1 2.3.3.3 Reduced Scale

2 The ARNG considered and evaluated the potential for a reduced-scale alternative was considered 

3 and evaluated by the ARNG. In accordance with Army planning policy and regulations, the ARNG 

4 evaluated whether utilizing fewer other existing active-duty, National Guard, and Army Reserve 

5 installations nationwide could support the training needs associated with and accomplished via 

6 implementation of the Proposed Action. The use of fewer available training locations would limit 

7 the capability of the ARNG to carry out its assigned mission to provide adequate training facilities 

8 and the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action described in Section 1.0 would be 

9 compromised. Use of fewer sites would potentially cause ARNG units to risk not meeting training

10 requirements, as well as excessive training time lost during travel to and from appropriate training 

11 centers and ranges. The reduced-scale alternative does not meet screening criteria #1 or #3 in 

12 Section 2.3.1, and, therefore, was removed from further consideration. 

13 2.3.3.4 Vehicles Operate Only on Installation’s Paved Roadways

14 The ARNG also evaluated the potential to allow the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo to operate only

15 on paved roadways within identified installations. Operations, including those in ranges and 

16 training areas, on both unpaved roads and off-road would be prohibited. Prohibition of use of 

17 unpaved roads or off-road would cause ARNG units to risk not meeting training requirements. 

18 Additionally, AR 350-19 Army Sustainable Range Program (2005), requires installations to identify 

19 areas off-limits to training, and off-limits to vehicle maneuver based on the presence of cultural 

20 resources, threatened or endangered species, or critical habitat; therefore, prohibiting vehicles 

21 from operating in areas approved for off-road and unpaved road use would unnecessarily limit 

22 training to support mission requirements. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further 

23 consideration because it does not meet screening criterion #1, as outlined in Section 2.3.1. 

24 2.3.4 Alternatives’ Impacts Comparison Matrix

25 To comply with 40 CFR Part 1502.14, the ARNG has developed an impacts comparison matrix 

26 for the federal decision-maker and public to emphasize the issues and options associated with 

27 each alternative considered. Table 2-6 summarizes the differences in potential environmental 

28 effects between the Preferred Action Alternative and No-Action Alternative. 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 2-15

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 2 

Table 2-6. Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts on Fully Evaluated Resources

Technical 

Resource Area Preferred Action Alternative No-Action Alternative

Air Quality

Short-term, less-than-significant impact due to 

the potential for dust generation from training 

activities on unpaved roads and vehicle 

operation. Long-term, less-than-significant 

impact from increased site emissions. 

No impact attributable to ARNG 

action. Ongoing emissions would 

continue.

Noise

Short-term, less-than-significant adverse 

impact by increasing the frequency of noise 

associated with vehicle use during training. 

Occasional use of 0.50-caliber of the NBCRV 

would occur within existing training ranges.

No impact attributable to ARNG 

action. 

Water 

Resources

Long-term, less-than-significant adverse 

impacts to surface waters due to potential soil 

erosion and sedimentation during training near 

or across surface waters. Long-term, lessthan-significant adverse impact from potential 

disturbance to water resources. BMPs would 

be implemented and operations would be 

consistent with each training location’s 

resource protection and regulatory 

requirements. 

No impact attributable to ARNG 

action. 

Biological 

Resources

Long-term, less-than-significant adverse 

impacts due to noise, dust, and presence of

vehicles associated with training operations 

within existing ranges, which would be minor 

on a regional scale. 

No impact attributable to ARNG 

action. 

Cultural 

Resources

No adverse effect on cultural resources. 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-

eligible resources would be avoided within 

utilized training areas and no training would 

occur within sensitive cultural areas consistent 

with each training location’s resource 

protection and regulatory requirements. 

No impact attributable to ARNG 

action. 

Hazardous 

Toxic Materials 

and Waste 

(HTMW)

Long-term, less-than-significant direct impacts 

due to HTMW use/generation from increased 

operational activities. Impacts would be 

controlled through ongoing regulatory 

compliance and BMPs. 

No impact attributable to ARNG 

action. 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 2-16

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 3 

1 SECTION 3: Affected Environment

2 A program resource area is a resource area that is applicable to all, or nearly all, locations at 

3 which the NBCRV and/or the MPCV Buffalo would be used. Program resource areas analyzed in 

4 this EA include air quality, noise, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and 

5 hazards and toxic materials.

6 Social and environmental issues not carried forward for detailed analysis – and the rationale for 

7 their dismissal – are summarized briefly below.

8 Land Use. Fielding and home stationing of the NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo would not be anticipated 

9 to result in changes to existing land use within established DoD training locations. Sites initially 

10 proposed to receive these vehicles maintain adequate lands and facilities to operate, maintain, and 

11 store these vehicles and any changes to facilities or land use would be assessed in a tiered EA or 

12 REC and Checklist. Vehicles would not operate outside of existing installations or training ranges and 

13 would be operated, maintained, and stored consistent with all applicable land use plans and policies. 

14 Geology, Topography, and Soils. Proposed fielding and home stationing may involve minor

15 construction or facilities modification. If construction were required, it would be minor and would

16 not have the potential to affect site geology or topography. Minor soil disturbance may occur within 

17 established training ranges; however, disturbance would be consistent with ongoing use of 

18 vehicles and would be limited to established ranges and on soils determined capable of 

19 supporting training operations.

20 Socioeconomics / Environmental Justice. While fielding and home stationing of these vehicles 

21 could have short-term economic benefits associated with minor construction, but localized long22 term beneficial impacts would be negligible on a regional scale. Similarly, because all elements 

23 of the Proposed Action would be implemented at established and active training facilities, there 

24 would be no potential for minority or impoverished populations to be disproportionately affected 

25 by its implementation.

26 Infrastructure. The ARNG identified S/T ARNGs that met all of the selection criteria needed to 

27 provide the required TC 25-8 standard range training and training support facilities for either (or 

28 both) the NBCRV and the MPCV Buffalo. The fielding locations identified in Table 2-1 and Table 

29 2-3 contain existing range facilities and maneuver areas, maintenance facilities, and staffing, 

30 which would minimize the need for new or modified infrastructure. Any changes to infrastructure 

31 at each location would be assessed in a tiered EA or REC. 

32 3.1 Location Description

33 The proposed fielding locations identified in Table 2-1 and Table 2-3 are established DoD 

34 installations that contain most existing facilities and training areas needed to operate, store, and 

35 maintain the NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo. These installations include regional ARNG preNationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 3-1

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 3 

1 deployment training centers and Combat Training Centers (CTCs), which vary in size based upon 

2 the operational and training requirements of each location. Many of these installations offer large 

3 maneuver areas and opportunities to train on mission-essential tasks and wartime missions. 

4 Training ranges typically include a system of improved and unimproved roadways with targetry 

5 and/or obstacles to train against an opposing force under realistic and demanding conditions. 

6 These installations are also often equipped with sophisticated systems that provide real-time 

7 assessments of the unit's performance. 

Example of large range that vehicles would 

utilize for maneuver training (Camp Shelby, MS) 

Example of improved road within an existing 

training range (Camp Shelby, MS) 

Example of unimproved road within an existing 

training range (Camp Shelby, MS)

Example of off-road vehicle use within existing 

training range (Yakima Training Center, WA). 

Photo by U.S. Army

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 3-2

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 3 

1 3.2 Air Quality

2 Air quality refers to the amount of air pollution within an area. The Clean Air Act (CAA) regulates

3 air pollution sources, with the objective of protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation’s air 

4 resources. The CAA, the primary federal statute regulating air emissions, applies to the Army and 

5 all of its activities. The CAA has historically regulated air pollution sources through three primary 

6 programs: (1) ambient air quality regulation of new and existing sources through emission limits 

7 contained in states implementation plans (SIPs); (2) more stringent control technology and 

8 permitting requirements for new sources; and (3) specific pollution problems, including hazardous 

9 air pollution and visibility impairment. The 1990 amendments to the CAA (CAAA-90) not only 

10 modified these three programs but also addressed new air pollutants and added a fourth 

11 category – a comprehensive operating permit program. The comprehensive operating permit 

12 program helps to establish in one place all CAA requirements that apply to a given stationary 

13 source of air emissions.

14 The CAA categorizes regions of the United States as non-attainment areas if air quality within 

15 those areas does not meet the required ambient air quality levels set by the National Ambient Air 

16 Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS consists of primary and secondary standards for 

17 “criteria air pollutants”: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, lead, and 

18 particulate matter. Implementation of the CAA’s requirements, for the purpose of achieving 

19 NAAQS, is achieved primarily through SIPs and various federal programs. States have the 

20 authority to establish emission source requirements to achieve attainment of the NAAQS. The 

21 CAA requires states to develop SIPs that establish requirements for the attainment of NAAQS 

22 within their geographic areas. SIPs must identify major sources of air pollution, determine the 

23 reductions from each source necessary to attain NAAQS, establish source specific and pollution24 specific requirements as necessary for the area, and demonstrate attainment of NAAQS by the 

25 applicable deadlines established in the CAA. To be approved as federally enforceable measures 

26 in a SIP, the requirements must be consistent with the CAA. Source emission requirements in 

27 SIPs may be established for stationary and mobile sources. If a state fails to submit a SIP that 

28 attains the NAAQS, then the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) imposes a federal 

29 implementation plan for that region. 

30 In addition to ambient air standards, the CAA establishes standards and requirements to control 

31 other air pollution problems. Standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), an acid rain reduction 

32 program, and a program to phase out the manufacture and use of ozone-depleting chemicals are 

33 the other major programs regulating emissions of air pollutants. The prevention of accidental 

34 release and minimization standards including, but not limited to, the substances published under 

35 the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 are also required under the 

36 CAA. 

37 The Army has broad compliance responsibilities under the CAA. It must comply with all federal, 

38 state, interstate, and local requirements; administrative authorities; and processes and sanctions 

39 in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity. This compliance 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 3-3

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 3 

1 requirement includes any reporting, recordkeeping, permitting requirements, and payment of 

2 service charges and fees set forth in regulations or statutes. It also includes cooperating with EPA 

3 or state inspections. Federal facilities must comply with the applicable provisions of a valid 

4 automobile inspection and maintenance program, although military tactical and combat vehicles, 

5 such as the NBCRV and the MPCV Buffalo, are exempt. 

6 Installations must consider the effects that planned projects and activities would have on air 

7 quality both on and off post. There are two independent legal requirements that address air quality 

8 management: (1) NEPA, and (2) the general conformity provision of the CAA section 176(c), 

9 including EPA’s implementation, of the General Conformity Rule (40 CFR 6, 51, and 93). 

10 Applicability of the two requirements must be considered separately. Exemption from one 

11 requirement does not automatically exempt the action from the other requirement, nor does 

12 fulfillment of one requirement constitute fulfillment of the other. Although installations should 

13 integrate compliance efforts to save time and resources, the two requirements are very different, 

14 necessitating separate analyses and documentation. 

15 Under NEPA, the impact of air emissions on sensitive members of the population is a special 

16 concern. Sensitive receptor groups include children, the elderly, and the acutely and chronically 

17 ill. NEPA requires consideration and mitigation of effects of adverse air quality to sensitive 

18 receptors, particularly in locations where these groups are concentrated including residences, 

19 schools, playgrounds, daycare centers, convalescent homes, and hospitals. Under Section 176(c) 

20 of the CAA, the Army is prohibited from engaging in, supporting, providing assistance for, or 

21 approving activities (e.g., issuing a license or permit) that are inconsistent with SIP requirements. 

22 Activities must conform to an implementations plan’s purpose of “eliminating or reducing the

23 severity and number of violations” of NAAQS and achieving “expeditious attainment” of such 

24 standards. Such activities must not cause or contribute to a new violation; increase the frequency 

25 or severity of an existing violation; or delay timely attainment of any standard, required interim 

26 emission reduction, or other milestone. Depending on the action and the air quality conformity 

27 attainment status of the installation (or other affected property), an installation might have to 

28 complete a separate conformity analysis to ensure that state air quality standards would not be 

29 exceeded and that the action would comply fully with the SIP (40 CFR Sec. 51.850[a]). The 

30 proponent compares the emission levels of a proposed action to current baseline emissions. 

31 Where increases in emission levels exceed thresholds established in the General Conformity 

32 Rule, a conformity determination must be prepared. In support of the conformity determination, 

33 additional air quality modeling may be required to illustrate the proposed action’s impacts on air 

34 quality in the region (40 CFR 6, 51, and 93). 

35 The DoD strategy for air quality compliance includes prevention, control, and abatement of air 

36 pollution from stationary and mobile sources. The CAAA-90 provides the framework for the 

37 majority of air quality regulations and guidelines with which Army installations must comply. The 

38 CAAA-90 is implemented by detailed federal, state and local regulations. The CAAA-90 

39 requirements are incorporated within AR 200-1 (U.S. Army 2007). The Air Pollution Abatement 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 3-4

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 3 

1 Program in AR 200-1 includes activities to control emissions and cooperation with appropriate 

2 regulatory agencies. The Air Pollution Abatement Program objectives are to:

3 • Identify and monitor air pollution sources, determine types and amounts of pollutant 

4 emissions, control pollutant levels to those specified in the applicable regulations or to 

5 protect health; 

6 • Procure commercial equipment and vehicles with engines that meet applicable standards 

7 and regulations and that do not present a health hazard (exceptions are those vehicles or 

8 engines specifically excluded or exempted by EPA regulations or agreements); 

9 • Ensure that each piece of military equipment is designed, operated, and maintained so 

10 that it meets applicable regulations;

11 • Monitor ambient air quality in the vicinity or Army activities per applicable regulations; and,

12 • Cooperate with EPA and state authorities to achieve the requirements of the CAA and 

13 applicable regulations issued according to this act, applicable state and local air pollution 

14 regulations, air pollution control provisions in other federal and state environmental laws 

15 and regulations, including Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as 

16 amended, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, CERCLA of 1980, 

17 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Acts of 1986 (SARA of 1986), and 

18 applicable state and local environmental regulations. 

19 The facilities and military installations involved with the NBCRV and MCPV Buffalo Program are 

20 required to comply with AR 200-1 to ensure compliance with the CAA standards and state 

21 regulatory requirements.

22 3.3 Noise

23 Noise is unwanted or unwelcome sound usually caused by human activity and added to the 

24 natural acoustic setting of a locale. It is further defined as sound that disrupts normal activities or 

25 that diminishes the quality of the environment. Community response to noise is generally not 

26 based on a single event, but on a series of events over time. Factors that have been found to 

27 affect the subjective assessment of the daily noise environment include the noise levels of 

28 individual events, the number of events per day, and the times of the day at which noise29 generating events occur. 

30 Sound is usually measured using the decibel (dB). The descriptor of a 24-hour noise environment 

31 is the day-night average sound level (DNL). DNL is an average measure of sound, taking into 

32 account the loudness of a sound-producing event, the number of times the event occurs and the 

33 time of day. Night noise is weighed more heavily because it is assumed to be more annoying. 

34 The DNL descriptor is accepted by federal agencies as a standard for estimated impact and 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 3-5

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 3 

1 establishing guidelines for compatible land use. The use of average noise levels over a protracted 

2 time period usually does not adequately assess the probability of community noise complaints.

3 Military noise consists of noise from vehicle equipment and tool operations, high-amplitude noise 

4 from artillery and armor firing, and noise from small arms firing. Installations have noise reduction 

5 and hearing protection programs to reduce the noise impacts on the environment and human 

6 health. AR 200-1 Section 14-4 defines land use compatibility concerning environmental noise for 

7 U.S. Army activities, including use of the land use planning zone (LUPZ) contour to better predict 

8 noise impacts levels for operations at large caliber weapons ranges or airfields. Noise-sensitive 

9 land uses, such as housing, schools, medical facilities, etc., are compatible with noise zone I

10 (noise environment of less than 65 DNL), normally not recommended in noise zone II (noise 

11 environment of 65-75 DNL), and not recommended in noise zone III (noise environment of greater 

12 than 75 DNL). A summary of expected noise level thresholds for three general defined noise 

13 zones are presented in Table 3-1. 

Table 3-1. Noise Limits for Land Use Compatibility

Noise

Zone 

Population 

Highly 

Annoyed

Noise Sensitive

Land Use

Small Arms and Transportation 

Average Daily Sound Level

Zone I <15% Acceptable <65 dBA

Zone II 15%-39% Normally Not 

Recommended 65-75 dBA

Zone III >39% Not Recommended >75 dBA

Reference: AR 200-1, Table 14-1, page 44 (U.S. Army 2007)

14 The Operational Noise Management Plan (ONMP) is the primary tool the ARNG uses to analyze 

15 noise impacts and land use compatibility. The ONMP includes noise contour footprints associated 

16 with operations taking into account both location and intensity. Management practices are then 

17 implemented to isolate and minimize noise based on findings within the ONMP. To the extent 

18 feasible, training ranges tend to be located away from installation boundaries and on-post noise 

19 sensitive land uses.

20 3.4 Water Resources

21 Water resources considered in ARNG NEPA analysis include surface water and drainage, flood 

22 hazards, groundwater, wetlands, and water quality. Surface water resources comprise lakes, 

23 rivers, streams, and wetlands and are important for a variety of economic, ecological, recreational, 

24 and human health reasons. Groundwater comprises the subsurface hydrologic resources of the 

25 physical environment and is an essential resource in many areas; groundwater is commonly used 

26 for potable water consumption, agricultural irrigation, and industrial applications. Groundwater 

27 properties are often described in terms of depth to aquifer, aquifer or well capacity, and 

28 surrounding geologic composition. 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 3-6

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 3 

1 The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maintains maps of flood inundation zones 

2 for development restrictions and insurance requirements. EO 11988, Floodplain Management, 

3 requires the ARNG to consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible 

4 developments for any proposed action in a floodplain or, if avoidance is infeasible, to design or 

5 modify the proposed action to minimize potential harm to the floodplain. 

6 Wetlands are defined by the USACE and the EPA as “those areas that are inundated or saturated 

7 by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal 

8 circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil 

9 conditions. As defined in 1984, wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar 

10 areas” (33 CFR 328.3 [b]). Wetlands provide a variety of functions including groundwater recharge 

11 and discharge; flood-flow alteration; sediment stabilization; sediment and toxicant retention; 

12 nutrient removal and transformation; and support of aquatic and terrestrial diversity and 

13 abundance. EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires analyses of potential impacts to wetlands 

14 related to proposed federal actions. Wetlands are protected as a subset of the Waters of the U.S.

15 under Section 404 of the CWA; the USACE requires a permit for any activities crossing wetlands

16 or other Waters of the U.S., including any filling, dredging, or operational disturbance. DoD 

17 Instruction 4715.3, Natural Resources Conservation Program provides guidance concerning how 

18 to mitigate or minimize any net loss of both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands. 

19 Water resources include all surface water bodies, such as streams, rivers, ponds, and lakes within 

20 the potential area of effect of the proposed action as well as potential groundwater resources. 

21 Army installations, and Army operations on training ranges and maneuver areas must comply 

22 with provisions of the CWA, as well as Executive Orders governing wetlands (EO 11990), 

23 floodplains (EO 11988), and off-road vehicles on public lands (EO 11644). AR 200-1 requires that 

24 “installations use a watershed management approach when evaluating projects and programs to 

25 satisfy environmental regulations, facility projects, and master planning that may impact the 

26 quality of water resources. Using a watershed approach means that installations should develop 

27 a framework or plan for coordinating, integrating and managing their mission activities that impact 

28 the quality of water resources located on (and those that migrate off) their installation.” Water 

29 resources protection measures are often also included as a component of an installation’s 

30 Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP). 

31 3.5 Biological Resources

32 Biological resources include native or naturalized plants, fish, wildlife, and the habitats in which 

33 they occur. Sensitive biological resources are defined as those plant, fish, and wildlife species, 

34 and their habitat that are federally and state listed as threatened, endangered, of special concern, 

35 or candidate. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) identifies and lists federally protected 

36 species and habitats; states also identify and list protected species and habitat. The Federal 

37 Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 protects listed species against killing, harming, 

38 harassment, or any action that may damage their habitat. Federal Species of Concern are not 

39 protected under the ESA; however, these species could become listed and protected at any time.

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 3-7

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 3 

1 Additionally, some of the areas considered for vehicle training are state-owned sites (e.g., Camp 

2 Grayling Joint Maneuver Training Center [CGJMTC], Fort Indiantown Gap); therefore, state ESA 

3 and other state environmental laws would apply.

4 Migratory birds, as listed in 50 CFR 10.13, are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 

5 as amended, which was enacted to protect migratory birds from capture, pursuit, hunting, or 

6 removal from natural habitat. Over 800 bird species are currently protected under the MBTA. In 

7 2001, EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, was issued to 

8 ensure that federal agencies consider environmental effects on migratory bird species and, where 

9 feasible, implement policies and programs supporting the conservation and protection of 

10 migratory birds. Additionally, bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden 

11 Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) (16 USC §668a-d), which prohibits taking or harming bald or 

12 golden eagles, their eggs, nests, or young without appropriate permit.

13 Sensitive habitats include those areas designated by the USFWS as critical habitat protected by 

14 the ESA and sensitive ecological areas as designated by state or federal rulings. Sensitive 

15 habitats also include wetlands, sensitive upland communities, plant communities that are unusual 

16 or of limited distribution, and important seasonal use areas for wildlife (e.g., migration routes, 

17 breeding areas, feeding/forage areas, crucial summer/winter habitats). 

18 Each installation and facility contains distinctive biological resources. The ARNG is required by 

19 the ESA to conserve federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) species that occur on its 

20 lands, and to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the ARNG does not 

21 jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 

22 modification of critical habitat. As of October 1, 2006 the Army/ARNG has recorded 174 federally23 listed T&E species on 99 installations. The Army/ARNG has 13 installations with designated 

24 critical habitat occurring for one or more, and two of these installations have unoccupied critical 

25 habitat (Rubinoff et al., 2007). 

26 Due to their importance and sensitivity, impacts to T&E habitats are, as much as practical, avoided 

27 and/or minimized. The Army consults with the USFWS or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

28 Administration – National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on actions that may affect federally 

29 listed species and seeks their assistance in assessing impacts of actions on listed species. 

30 Management and conservation of T&E species and their habitat is accomplished through 

31 implementation of the installations Endangered Species Management Component (ESMC) of the 

32 INRMP, which is required for installations with significant natural resources (Army Regulations 

33 200-1; U.S. Army 2007). The INRMP supports the Sustainable Range Program (SRP) and 

34 Installation Training Area Management (ITAM) program, which are mandated to sustain Army 

35 training and maneuver areas (Army Regulation 350-19; U.S. Army 2005). These programs 

36 implement the conservation measures directly tied to training to avoid or minimize impacts on the 

37 T&E species and their habitat to ensure compliance with the ESA and promote mission 

38 sustainability. All other conservation and protection measures, such as avoiding sensitive 

39 seasonal biological activity, avoiding nighttime operations, maintaining protective buffers, etc. are 

40 the responsibility of the Directorate of Public Works (DPW). 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 3-8

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 3 

1 3.6 Cultural Resources

2 NEPA requires consideration of “important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national 

3 heritage”; yet, no specific definition for these terms has been provided. Therefore for the purposes 

4 of this EA and based on statutory requirements, the term “cultural resource” includes historic 

5 properties, as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA); cultural items, as defined 

6 in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA); archaeological 

7 resources, as defined in the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA); historic and 

8 paleontological resources, as defined by the Antiquities Act; sites that are scientifically significant, 

9 as defined by the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (AHPA); sacred sites, as defined 

10 in EO 13007, to which access and use is provided under the American Indian Religious Freedom 

11 Act (AIRFA); and collections, as defined in 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally Owned and 

12 Administered Collections). Consideration of cultural resources under NEPA includes the 

13 necessity to independently comply with the applicable procedures and requirements of other 

14 federal and state laws, regulations, EOs, presidential memoranda, and ARNG guidance.

15 The NHPA of 1966, as amended (Public Law [PL] 89-665; 16 USC 470), establishes the policy of 

16 the federal government to provide leadership in the preservation of historic properties and 

17 administer federally owned or controlled historic properties. Section 106 of the NHPA requires 

18 federal agencies to consider the effect an undertaking may have on historic properties; its 

19 implementing regulations, 36 CFR Part 800, describe the procedures for identifying and 

20 evaluating historic properties; assessing the effects of federal actions on historic properties; and 

21 consulting to avoid, reduce, or minimize adverse effects. As part of the Section 106 process,

22 agencies are required to consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The Section 

23 106 process requires each undertaking to define an Area of Potential Effect (APE). An APE is 

24 “the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause 

25 changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any properties exist....[and the APE] is 

26 influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of 

27 effects caused by the undertaking” (36 CFR 800.16[d]). The Proposed Action is an undertaking 

28 as defined by 36 CFR 800.3, and is required to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA.

29 The Area of Potential Effect for the Proposed Action includes the entire boundary of the potential 

30 fielding sites. Consideration of cultural resources under NEPA at each installation includes the 

31 necessity to independently comply with the applicable procedures and requirements of other 

32 federal and state laws, regulations, EOs, presidential memoranda, and ARNG guidance.

33 Installations with historic or cultural resources operate under an Integrated Cultural Resources 

34 Management Plan (ICRMP), a five-year plan for compliance with requirements of AR 200-1 

35 Enhancement (U.S. Army 2007). AR 200-1 addresses Army compliance with the NHPA, 

36 NAGPRA, AIRFA, ARPA, AHPA and other federal and state regulations. The ICRMP is an internal 

37 Army compliance and management plan that integrates the entire installation’s cultural resources 

38 management program with ongoing mission activities. The Army’s AR 200-1 policy regarding 

39 cultural resources requires that “installations make informed decisions regarding the cultural 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 3-9

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 3 

1 resources under their control in compliance with public laws, in support of the military mission, 

2 and consistent with sound principles of cultural resources management.” 

3 ICRMPs are typically prepared in consultation with the SHPO and all federally recognized tribes 

4 within the vicinity of the installation. These documents provide detailed guidelines and procedures 

5 to enable the ARNG to meet their legal responsibilities for the identification, evaluation, and 

6 treatment of cultural resources under their jurisdiction in accordance with applicable federal and 

7 state regulations affording protection to cultural resources. The documents contain summaries of 

8 previous cultural resource studies within each installation, a detailed cultural resource 

9 management strategy, an inadvertent discovery response plan, and standard operating 

10 procedures in relation to cultural resources.

11 3.7 Hazardous and Toxic Materials/Wastes (HTMW)

12 Hazardous and toxic materials or substances are generally defined as materials or substances 

13 that pose a risk (through either physical or chemical reactions) to human health or the 

14 environment. Regulated hazardous substances are identified by the Occupational Safety and 

15 Health Administration (OSHA) through a number of federal laws and regulations. The most 

16 comprehensive list is contained in 40 CFR 302, and identifies quantities of these substances that, 

17 when released to the environment, require notification to a federal government agency. 

18 Hazardous wastes, defined in 40 CFR 261.3, are generally discarded materials (solids or liquids) 

19 not otherwise excluded by 40 CFR 261.4 that exhibit a hazardous characteristic (i.e., ignitable, 

20 corrosive, reactive, or toxic), or are specifically identified within 40 CFR 261. Petroleum products 

21 are specifically exempted from 40 CFR 302, but some are also generally considered hazardous 

22 substances due to their physical characteristics (especially fuel products), and their ability to 

23 impair natural resources.

24 The RCRA and state regulatory agencies identify what waste is considered hazardous, and 

25 regulates the generation, storage, treatment and disposal of such waste. Program activities must 

26 comply with federal, state and local hazardous material and waste regulations and laws. For 

27 military vehicles, this primarily relates to the storage and management of hazardous material, 

28 such as Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants (POL) products and waste oil. These materials, when not 

29 properly transported or stored could cause negative effects on human health and the 

30 environment. The U.S. Army, as a used oil generator, must comply with federal regulations (Title 

31 40 CFR, Part 279) which prescribe all aspects of managing used oil and used oil filters. 

32 Hazardous wastes shall not be disposed of in drains, dumpsters, training areas, wash racks, oil33 water separators, or landfills. HW must be disposed in coordination with the Installation’s 

34 Environmental Division and the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO). Hazardous 

35 wastes are typically brought from designated satellite accumulation points to a designated central 

36 accumulation point, for appropriate disposal. 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 3-10

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 3 

1 Additionally, information on chemical hazards and required safety equipment shall be posted in 

2 all work areas. This information is available on the product’s Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), 

3 required to be supplied by the supplier of non-household hazardous materials.

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 3-11

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 4 

1 SECTION 4: Environmental Consequences

2 This section describes the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of implementing the 

3 Proposed Action or the No-Action Alternative, as well as BMPs that would further reduce the 

4 severity of identified adverse impacts. BMPs are considered integral to project implementation, 

5 and they are not considered separate from the Proposed Action. Implementation of the Proposed 

6 Action includes use of the NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo vehicles in unit and Soldier training as 

7 well as routine maintenance and storage. As described in Section 1.3, Scope of the Nationwide 

8 EA, this Nationwide EA evaluates the fielding of the NBCRV and the MPCV Buffalo on a 

9 programmatic level and assesses the potential impacts common to all (or nearly all) 33 state 

10 ARNG unit locations where proposed activities would occur. However, the intent of this 

11 Nationwide EA is to facilitate future analyses of impacts – likely via a REC and Checklist – related 

12 to the potential fielding of either or both of the vehicles to any of the 54 ARNG S/Ts by presenting 

13 a representative analysis of anticipated regulatory requirements and environmental impacts. As 

14 described previously, all classroom, maintenance, and range training would occur within existing 

15 facilities and ranges – where expansion of any facility would be required, it would be anticipated 

16 to be small-scale (e.g., addition of a work bay at an existing maintenance facility). These ARNG 

17 facilities and ranges have previously been evaluated with regard to environmental impacts of their 

18 operations, and all locations have plans in place that help ensure environmental stewardship is a 

19 priority on par with achievement of the military mission. 

20 Depending on the requirements of each installation, site-specific impacts associated with the 

21 NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo vehicle training operations and maneuver activities, maintenance, 

22 and storage, and facilities expansion would be assessed at each installation in a tiered EA or REC

23 and Checklist. ARNG personnel at each receiving location would be responsible for site-specific 

24 NEPA documentation that addresses the actions at their installations. 

25 4.1 Air Quality

26 4.1.1 Effects of the Preferred Action Alternative

27 Unit and Soldier Training Operations

28 Potential effects on air quality resulting from implementation of the Proposed Action would 

29 primarily be a result of engine combustion emissions from vehicles and dust generation from 

30 vehicle maneuvers on unpaved and unimproved roadways. Combustion emissions resulting from 

31 training activities would be considered mobile sources and would produce localized short-term 

32 elevated air pollutant concentrations that should not result in any sustained significant impacts on 

33 regional air quality. The NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo meet the EPA definition of a combat vehicle; 

34 therefore, as outlined in Title 40 CFR 85.1703 and 89.908, their engines are exempt from both 

35 on‐highway and non‐road diesel engine emission standards. Although exempt, each of the 

36 engines is certified to a particular EPA emission standard. Table 4-1 lists the engine types and 

37 emission standards to which the engines have been certified.

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 4-1

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 4 

Table 4-1. Engine Types and Emission Standards

Vehicle Engine hp Emission Standards

NBCRV Caterpillar 3126 Turbo Diesel 350 EPA 2004 On-Highway

MPCV Buffalo Turbocharged Caterpillar C13 

Inline Six-cylinder Diesel

470 EPA 2007 On-Highway

Refer to Appendices D and E

1 Unit and Soldier training operations require the operation of the NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo on 

2 cross‐country trails. Typically unpaved, these trails include unhardened surfaces contain soil that 

3 could become airborne due to vehicle movement. The volume of dust generated at fielding 

4 locations would depend on the types of soil present, the extent and type of vegetation cover, 

5 precipitation, and vehicle speed. Vehicle operators would comply with installation requirements 

6 and procedures (e.g., traveling at or below maximum allowable speeds) to minimize the 

7 generation of airborne particulate matter. Since NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo training operations 

8 would be located on existing military facilities that are relatively remote from population areas, 

9 and operations would take place on established ranges with a limited number of vehicles, there 

10 is little potential for excessive amounts of dust generation. 

11 Given the wide distribution of emissions, it would not be anticipated that regional air quality would 

12 be significantly affected; however, the installation environmental office should evaluate the 

13 potential effects of using NBCRVs and/or MPCV Buffalo, based on the proposed operational use 

14 of these vehicles and the local and regional air quality conditions. In particular, installations with 

15 air emissions inventories that document pollutant levels approaching current regulatory 

16 thresholds would have to incorporate potential vehicle emissions into their inventory of mobile 

17 emissions and monitor the potential effects the vehicles might have on the local airshed. Other 

18 BMPs (e.g., postponing training activities during high wind conditions) would also limit the 

19 potential for training to result in adverse offsite air quality impacts (see Section 4.7). 

20 Analyses prepared for site- and project-specific fielding and home stationing would include full 

21 compliance with the General Conformity Rule (40 CFR 6, 51, and 93). Installations classified as 

22 major sources of air pollutants in NAAQS nonattainment or maintenance areas are regulated by 

23 the General Conformity Rule. Installation personnel would perform an air conformity analysis, as 

24 required by the rule, to ensure that the introduction of additional vehicles and activities associated 

25 with those vehicles would not impact conformance to the air quality initiatives established in the 

26 applicable SIP. Even if the Proposed Action meets the definition of one of the exemptions or in 

27 situations where emissions would not exceed de minimis thresholds, Army policy requires 

28 preparation of a Record of Non-Applicability (RONA) to reflect a proponent’s consideration of the 

29 General Conformity Rule’s requirements.

30 Army installations are required to maintain appropriate programs to ensure and document 

31 compliance with local and state air quality requirements. The Air Pollution Abatement Program

32 established in AR 200-1 outlines programs and activities intended to control emissions and ensure 

33 cooperation with appropriate regulatory agencies. Site-specific analyses and further coordination 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 4-2

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 4 

1 with federal, state, and local regulators may be required at some candidate installations in order 

2 to address emissions, particulate matter, and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. If 

3 analyses show that fielding one or both vehicles at a particular location would not risk violation of 

4 CAA or U.S. EPA standards such as NAAQS or the General Conformity Rule, air quality impacts 

5 would not trigger the need to prepare detailed quantitative analysis as part of a site-specific EA. 

6 Maintenance and Storage

7 Maintenance and repair requirements associated with the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo include the 

8 use of POL, cleaning solvents, and adhesives. A listing of compounds used during NBCRV and 

9 MPCV Buffalo maintenance are found in Appendices D and E, respectively. These compounds 

10 are primarily considered hazardous materials, and are known to emit HAPs and VOCs. Based on 

11 consumable and expendable materials lists for other vehicle systems, the types and amounts of 

12 these materials required for vehicle maintenance are similar to those used during maintenance 

13 activities on other existing ground vehicle systems. MPCV Buffalo maintenance does not require 

14 the use of any unique or new materials or procedures and therefore emissions of criteria 

15 pollutants, VOCs, and HAPs would be similar to those that are currently used in existing 

16 maintenance areas. Regular system tests required for the NBCRV would include the use of 

17 compounds not typically used for other vehicles. These compounds would be used in small 

18 quantities and associated VOCs and/or HAPs would be minimal when used in accordance with 

19 the relevant MSDSs. 

20 There would be no air quality impacts associated with vehicle storage. Ultimately, the impact to 

21 the installations’ air quality due to NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo maintenance and storage would be

22 minimal. 

23 Conclusion of Effect

24 Given the wide spatial distribution of mobile emission sources, fielding and use of the NBCRV 

25 and MPCV Buffalo would be anticipated to have a minor to moderate effect on local air quality

26 conditions. The level of effect largely depends on the regional air quality basin’s current attainment 

27 status (i.e., with regard to NAAQS) near an installation proposed to receive vehicles. There is no 

28 indication there would be a significant change in the numbers of process-related emissions from 

29 maintenance shops or other sources resulting from the proposed fielding. Therefore, impacts 

30 would be anticipated to be short-term and less-than-significant. BMPs for dust suppression would 

31 further reduce any potential impacts resulting from fugitive dust (see Section 4.7). 

32 4.1.2 Effects of the No-Action Alternative

33 Under the No-Action Alternative, fielding of the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo would not occur and 

34 no additional emissions would be produced at ARNG installations. 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 4-3

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 4 

1 4.1.3 Mitigation Measures

2 None.

3 4.2 Noise

4 4.2.1 Effects of the Preferred Action Alternative

5 Unit and Soldier Training Operations

6 Unit and Soldier training operations would occur within the existing boundary of established 

7 training ranges and maneuver areas, generally within Zone II and Zone III noise areas. Training 

8 events using the NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo would occur on a periodic basis and for a limited 

9 duration, often in conjunction with the operation of a variety of other heavy vehicles during 

10 maneuver activities. The NBCRV is equipped with 0.50-caliber machine gun, which would be 

11 used during training operations on ranges that are approved for the use of such weapons. It is 

12 anticipated that the NBCRV munitions would be fired at ranges that currently employs the same 

13 weapons on similar tactical vehicles (e.g., Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected [MRAP] vehicles). 

14 Operations at these training ranges and maneuver areas would be consistent with the 

15 installation’s ONMP, where applicable, which would establish training periods, limit noise impacts, 

16 and maintain land use compatibility. The ONMP includes and depicts noise contour footprints 

17 associated with ongoing and forecast operations, taking into account both location and intensity; 

18 fielding of the NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo would not be anticipated to change the location or 

19 timing of noise-generating events within each installation (i.e., in areas where night-time training 

20 does not already occur, the Proposed Action would not introduce new night-time training), but 

21 would result in minor net increases in noise intensity within these established training areas. The 

22 unit and Soldier NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo training would not be anticipated to significantly 

23 increase ambient noise levels; however, operations near or adjoining sensitive receptors in Zone 

24 I areas (i.e., schools, housing, medical facilities) may have minor noise impacts. Overall Soldier 

25 and unit training impacts would be less-than-significant. Adherence to BMPs outlined within each 

26 ONMP would further reduce adverse noise-related impacts (see Section 4.7). 

27 Maintenance and Storage

28 Maintenance and storage of the NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo would not generate substantial 

29 noise. Weekly testing of the NBCRV would require running the vehicle engine for a period of 

30 several hours, which would incrementally increase noise in the vicinity of the testing location. This 

31 would occur within or in the vicinity of installation maintenance facilities, which are typically and 

32 intentionally located away from noise-sensitive receptors. There would be no noise associated 

33 with storing the NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo. Therefore, maintenance and storage activities 

34 would result in a negligible increase noise at the fielding locations, and impacts would be less35 than-significant.

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 4-4

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 4 

1 Conclusion of Effect

2 Normal operations of the NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo would have minor effects on noise at 

3 receiving installations. Training would occur within established ranges and maneuver areas and 

4 would be conducted in a manner consistent with the installation’s ONMP, where applicable, which 

5 would limit noise impacts and maintain land use compatibility. Therefore noise-related impacts 

6 associated NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo fielding would result in short-term and less-than7 significant noise impacts. Adherence to BMPs outlined within each installation’s ONMP would 

8 further reduce adverse noise-related impacts (see Section 4.7). 

9 4.2.2 Effects of the No-Action Alternative

10 Implementation of the No-Action Alternative would have no effect on the current local noise 

11 environments at ARNG installations. Training and operations at ARNG installations would 

12 continue under current conditions at current locations and levels. 

13 4.2.3 Mitigation Measures

14 None.

15 4.3 Water Resources

16 4.3.1 Effects of the Preferred Action Alternative

17 Unit and Soldier Training Operations

18 Unit and Soldier training operations require the operation of NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo along

19 approved routes on installation roads, and with established ranges and maneuver areas. 

20 Operating these vehicles on paved roads, unpaved roads, and off-road during training operations 

21 would potentially have a minor to moderate effect on surface water quality. These trails can

22 include or cross surface waters; although the majority of operations would be anticipated to occur 

23 on established roadways, the potential for local stream channels and banks to be degraded during 

24 fording operations could occur due to the size and weight of the vehicles. 

25 Monitoring the condition of training lands, and developing and implementing corrective/restorative 

26 actions is required at ARNG installations (U.S. Army 2005). The SRP and its component ITAM

27 program would require an assessment of site-specific risks from NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo 

28 fording operations on natural resources, including surface waters. If the NBCRV and/or MPCV 

29 Buffalo training operations were determined to result in adverse impacts to water resources within 

30 maneuver lands at any fielding location, the SRP and ITAM program would assess the conditions, 

31 and identify corrective actions, and program/fund restoration, as needed. Corrective actions to 

32 address potential Impacts to other areas of the installation would be the responsibility of the DPW.

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 4-5

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 4 

1 In addition, potential water quality impacts can result from storm water runoff and releases into 

2 groundwater, wetlands, and surface waterways from leaking or spilled fluids (e.g., POLs) from the 

3 NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo during training operations. Field maintenance training would require 

4 the use of potentially hazardous materials and could result in an accidental spill of POLs within 

5 range areas. In the event of a spill, installation personnel are trained to isolate and clean-up spills 

6 in accordance with established contingency plans and spill response procedures (i.e., installation7 specific Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan [SPCCP]). Implementation of 

8 standard operating procedures and BMPs would further limit potential adverse effects to water 

9 resources during training operations (see Section 4.7). 

10 Maintenance and Storage

11 Maintenance would occur within existing maintenance facilities and storage would occur within 

12 existing and designated vehicle storage areas. As described above for training operations, 

13 potential water quality impacts could also result from accidental releases of leaking or spilled 

14 fluids (e.g., POLs) from existing maintenance and/or storage facilities. In the event of a spill, 

15 installation personnel are trained to isolate and clean-up spills in accordance with established 

16 contingency plans and spill response procedures (i.e., installation-specific SPCCP). 

17 Implementation of standard operating procedures and BMPs would further limit potential adverse 

18 effects to water resources.

19 Conclusion of Effect

20 Normal operations of the NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo would have minor effects on water 

21 resources at receiving installations. Training activities would occur within established ranges and 

22 maneuver areas and would be anticipated to be conducted consistent with the installation’s SRP

23 and ITAM program, which would limit potential impacts to water quality. Adherence to installation’s

24 SRP and implementation of site-specific measures, as necessary, would ensure NBCRV and/or 

25 MPCV Buffalo fielding would result in long-term less-than-significant impacts to water resources. 

26 4.3.2 Effects of the No-Action Alternative

27 Under the No-Action Alternative, fielding of the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo would not occur, and

28 there would be no effect on the current groundwater or surface water resources at ARNG 

29 installations.

30 4.3.3 Mitigation Measures

31 None.

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 4-6

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 4 

1 4.4 Biological Resources

2 4.4.1 Effects of the Preferred Action Alternative

3 Unit and Soldier Training Operations

4 Unit and Soldier NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo training would have minor localized impacts on 

5 soil compaction, soil erosion, and vegetation resulting from limited off-road operations. However, 

6 off-road NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo operations would occur on existing training ranges and 

7 maneuver areas, which currently support operations of heavy vehicles and the performance of 

8 off-road operations. No direct vegetation or tree removal, particularly for those species that 

9 support T&E or other federally protected species, would be required to support training 

10 operations. Potential indirect soil compaction and erosion and damage to vegetation – and the 

11 habitat it provides – would be similar those resulting from existing vehicle use of these ranges. 

12 Therefore, the impacts of the Proposed Action on listed species and any designated critical habitat 

13 would not be anticipated to increase over baseline levels. 

14 Further training could have the potential to harass wildlife and result in injury or death of wildlife 

15 through collision, crushing, or in the case of subterranean habitat, collapse of burrows (see Illinois 

16 Department of Natural Resources scoping response dated 12 May 2015 in Appendix A). 

17 However, use of these training ranges and maneuver areas would be consistent with operations

18 covered by and management procedures outlined in the relevant, site-specific INRMP, where 

19 applicable, which would limit impacts to natural resources and T&E species (e.g., federally 

20 endangered Indiana bat and federally threatened northern long-eared bat within the State of Ohio) 

21 as well as migratory birds and species protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

22 (BGEPA). The INRMP supports the SRP and ITAM Program, which fund and execute identified

23 conservation and restoration measures directly tied to training to avoid or minimize impacts on 

24 the T&E species and their habitat to ensure compliance with the ESA and promote mission 

25 sustainability. All other conservation and protection measures are the responsibility of the 

26 Directorate of Public Works (DPW). These measures can include restrictions on the location and 

27 types of training in sensitive locations or seasons (i.e., nesting or breeding season). For actions 

28 that may affect listed species, and in accordance with their INRMP, installations would seek 

29 assistance and concurrence from the USFWS and/or NMFS as well as state wildlife agencies on 

30 ways to avoid and/or minimize impacts to ensure the action would not be likely to affect the listed 

31 species. Operation consistent with installation natural resources protection and avoidance 

32 measures would limit potential effects associated with off-road vehicle use (e.g., see avoidance 

33 measures provided by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources in Appendix A); therefore, 

34 NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo training would be anticipated to have minor effect on biological 

35 resources, including native vegetation, T&E species, and sensitive habitat areas. 

36 Maintenance and Storage

37 Maintenance would occur within existing maintenance facilities; therefore, no impacts to biological

38 resources would be anticipated. Storage would also occur within designated vehicle storage 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 4-7

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 4 

1 areas. Any facility modifications or construction necessary would be assessed at each installation 

2 for potential impacts to biological resources in a tiered EA or REC and Checklist. 

3 Conclusion of Effect

4 Normal operations of the NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo would have minor effects on biological 

5 resources at receiving installations. Training would occur within established ranges and maneuver 

6 areas that would continue to be managed and operated in a manner consistent with the 

7 established INRMP, where applicable, which would limit potential impacts to sensitive habitats 

8 and T&E species. Adherence to installation’s SRP and ITAM Program, and implementation of 

9 site-specific measures, as necessary, would ensure NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo fielding would 

10 result in long-term less-than-significant impacts to biological resources. 

11 4.4.2 Effects of the No-Action Alternative

12 Under the No-Action Alternative, fielding of the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo would not occur. No 

13 habitat disturbance or impacts to T&E species beyond that which is currently taking place would 

14 occur within the proposed fielding, home stationing, and training locations. Therefore, 

15 implementation of the No-Action Alternative would have no effect on biological resources.

16 4.4.3 Mitigation Measures

17 None.

18 4.5 Cultural Resources

19 4.5.1 Effects of the Preferred Action Alternative

20 Native American Consultation

21 A robust Native American Consultation (NAC) in support of this Nationwide EA has been initiated 

22 by the ARNG in accordance with NEPA, NHPA, NAGPRA, ARPA, and DoDI 4710.02, which 

23 implements the Annotated DoD American Indian and Alaska Native Policy (dated 27 October 

24 1999); EO 13175; and AR 200-1. Potentially affected federally recognized tribes have been invited 

25 to participate in the Nationwide EA and NHPA Section 106 processes as Sovereign Nations per 

26 EO 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments). A sample of the NAC 

27 letter sent to the tribes and copies of responses received are provided in Appendix B. All 

28 correspondence was conducted by certified mail. The Memorandum for the Record (MFR) 

29 generated by the ARNG and summarizing consultation efforts is also included in Appendix B. 

30 Unit and Soldier Training Operations

31 Normal operations of the NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo – within the boundaries of well32 established training and maneuver areas – should have no effect on historic and cultural 

33 resources. Operations of these vehicles would be consistent with each S/Ts’ formalized ICRMPs,

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 4-8

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 4 

1 where applicable, which include measures to avoid and/or minimize impacts to known or potential 

2 archaeological sites. Operation of NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo vehicles on paved or unpaved 

3 roadways would not result in the potential for disturbance of historical or cultural resources. Off4 road operations of the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo could result in disturbance to subsurface 

5 archaeological resources; however, at most installations, existing training and maneuver areas

6 have been used by other and heavier tactical vehicles. In the unlikely event areas proposed by 

7 use by the NBCRV and/or NPCV Buffalo have not undergone NHPA review, the ARNG would

8 complete the consultation process in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA before off-road 

9 vehicle use can be initiated, and consultation would be documented in a tiered EA or REC.

10 Maintenance and Storage

11 Maintenance of these vehicles would occur within existing maintenance facilities; therefore, no 

12 impacts to cultural resources would be anticipated. Storage would also occur within designated 

13 vehicle storage areas. Because no major facilities construction, demolition, or renovation is would 

14 be required to support implementation of the Proposed Action, no impacts to historic buildings or 

15 structures would be anticipated. Any required minor facility modifications or construction to 

16 accommodate fielded vehicles would be assessed in a tiered EA or REC and Checklist. 

17 Conclusion of Effect

18 Normal operations of the NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo would have no adverse effects on cultural 

19 resources at receiving installations. Training would occur within established ranges and maneuver 

20 areas that would be operated in a manner consistent with the established ICRMP, where 

21 applicable, which would limit potential impacts to sensitive cultural resources. Adherence to the 

22 ICRMP and implementation of site-specific measures, as necessary, would ensure NBCRV 

23 and/or MPCV Buffalo fielding would result in no adverse effect to cultural resources. 

24 4.5.2 Effects of the No-Action Alternative

25 Under the No-Action Alternative, fielding of the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo would not occur, and 

26 no impacts to cultural resources at ARNG installations would result. 

27 4.5.3 Mitigation Measures

28 None.

29 4.6 Hazardous and Toxic Materials/ Wastes

30 4.6.1 Effects of the Preferred Action Alternative 

31 Unit and Soldier Training Operations

32 Hazardous materials utilized associated with the NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo are used within 

33 closed systems and are changed only during maintenance operations or are consumed (i.e., 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 4-9

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 4 

1 diesel fuel). No hazardous materials or wastes would be generated or released associated with 

2 training operations. In the event of a spill, installation personnel are trained to isolate and clean 

3 up spills in accordance with contingency plans and spill response procedures (i.e., the 

4 installation’s SPCCP). 

5 Field training using the NBCRV may include the use of fog-oils or smoke to train Soldiers in the 

6 use of the onboard chemical sensors. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

7 (OSHA) and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) have 

8 established a Threshold Limit Value (TLV) time-weighted average of 5 milligrams per cubic meter

(mg/m3 9 ) for exposures to fog-oil mists of 8 hours per day, 5 days per week (National Research 

10 Council 1997). Compliance with allowable exposure levels and the appropriate handling and use 

11 of fog-oils or smokes are part of standard operating procedures in training exercises; carefully 

12 monitoring the storage, management, and use of these training tools would ensure they would 

13 have a minor effect to human health and the environment. 

14 Maintenance and Storage

15 Regularly scheduled preventive maintenance services associated with the NBCRV and/or the 

16 MPCV Buffalo would generate additional hazardous waste. The principal hazardous wastes are 

17 engine oil and hydraulic fluid, as well as solvents used to clean vehicle parts (Appendix D and 

18 Appendix E). Rags are used liberally in maintenance procedures and upon completion of 

19 maintenance activities, spent fluids and rags are collected and stored for disposal in accordance 

20 with regulatory requirements. NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo vehicles use many of the same POL 

21 products as other tactical vehicles; therefore, the presence of a limited number of NBCRV and/or 

22 MPCV Buffalos on an installation would cause a proportional increase in the waste oil generated, 

23 petroleum products required to service and maintain the vehicle, and the volume of POL products, 

24 rags, and waste oil an installation has to manage. This increase would not require an installation 

25 to develop new education or environmental compliance programs, but may require an installation 

26 to provide either additional storage or facilitate more frequent collection of wastes. 

27 Implementation of existing hazardous waste management requirements, such as consistency 

28 with installation Hazardous Waste Management Plans (HWMPs) required by ARNG 200-1, would 

29 continue to limit the potential for adverse impacts associated with generation of additional waste

30 to occur. As a large-quantity generator of used oil, installations must comply with provision of 40 

31 CFR, Part 279, Standards for Management of Used Oil. This regulation prescribes all aspects of 

32 managing waste oil and waste oil filters. Standard operating procedures used to control the 

33 release of POL products include using drip pans to prevent fluids from falling on the ground. 

34 Conclusion of Effect

35 NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo vehicles use many of the same POL products as other tactical 

36 vehicles; therefore, the presence of a limited number of NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalos on an 

37 installation would cause a proportional increase in the waste oil generated, petroleum products 

38 required to service and maintain the vehicle, and the volume of POL products, rags, and waste 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 4-10

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 4 

1 oil an installation has to manage. Implementation of existing hazardous waste management 

2 procedures such as those outlined in existing HWMPs, would reduce the impacts associated with 

3 generation of additional waste. Therefore, fielding and home stationing the NBCRV and/or MPCV 

4 Buffalo would result in long-term less-than-significant direct effects from the storage, transport, 

5 and use of hazardous and toxic materials and wastes. 

6 4.6.2 Effects of the No-Action Alternative

7 Implementation of the No-Action Alternative would have no effect with respect to HTMW at 

8 installations. 

9 4.6.3 Mitigation Measures

10 None.

11 4.7 Summary of Best Management Practices

12 In accordance with established protocols, procedures, and requirements, the ARNG would

13 implement BMPs and would satisfy all applicable regulatory requirements relevant to the 

14 operation, maintenance, and storage of the NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo at receiving 

15 installations. These “management measures” are described in this EA, and are included as 

16 components of the Proposed Action. Management measures are defined as routine BMPs and/or 

17 Regulatory Compliance measures that the ARNG regularly implements as part of their activities, 

18 as appropriate, at each installation. These are different from “mitigation measures,” which are 

19 defined as project-specific requirements that are not routinely implemented by the ARNG but are

20 necessary to reduce identified potentially significant adverse environmental impacts to less-than21 significant levels. The Proposed Action would not result in significant adverse impacts to the 

22 environmental setting and no project-specific mitigation measures would be required to reduce 

23 impacts to less-than-significant levels.

24 Air Quality. Vehicle operators would comply with installation requirements and procedures to 

25 minimize the generation of airborne particulate matter, such as obeying speed limits. BMPs for 

26 dust suppression would be implemented to minimize fugitive dust.

27 Noise. Training would occur within established ranges and maneuver areas and would be 

28 conducted in a manner consistent with the installation’s ONMP, where applicable, which would

29 limit noise impacts and maintain land use compatibility through adherence to installation-specific 

30 BMPs. 

31 Water Resources. Vehicle operations would be consistent with operations covered by and 

32 management procedures outlined in the relevant ITAM program. If the NBCRV and/or MPCV 

33 Buffalo training operations were determined to result in adverse impacts to water resources at 

34 any fielding location, the SRP and ITAM program would assess the conditions, and identify 

35 corrective actions, and program/fund restoration, as needed. In the event of a spill, installation 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 4-11

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 4 

1 personnel are trained to isolate and clean-up spills in accordance with established contingency 

2 plans and spill response procedures (i.e., installation-specific SPCCP). 

3 Biological Resources. Vehicle operations would be consistent with operations covered by and 

4 management procedures outlined in the relevant, site-specific INRMP, where applicable. The 

5 INRMP supports the SRP and ITAM Program, which fund and execute identified conservation 

6 and restoration measures that can include restrictions on the location and types of training in 

7 sensitive locations or seasons (i.e., nesting or breeding season). For actions that may affect listed 

8 species, and in accordance with their INRMP, installations would seek assistance from the 

9 USFWS and/or NMFS on ways to avoid and/or minimize impacts. 

10 Cultural Resources. Vehicle operations would be consistent with the installations’ formalized 

11 ICRMPs, where applicable, which include Standard Operating Procedures to avoid, minimize, or 

12 mitigate impacts to known or potential archaeological sites. In the unlikely event areas proposed 

13 for use by the NBCRV and/or NPCV Buffalo have not previously been inventoried to identify and 

14 document cultural resources, appropriate inventory and evaluation would be necessary before 

15 off-road vehicle use can be initiated. 

16 HTMW. Units would comply with hazardous waste management requirements, such as 

17 consistency with installation HWMPs required by ARNG 200-1. As a large-quantity generator of 

18 used oil, installations must comply with provision of 40 CFR, Part 279, Standards for Management 

19 of Used Oil. Standard operating procedures used to control the release of POL products include 

20 using drip pans to prevent fluids from falling on the ground. 

21 4.8 Cumulative Effects

22 4.8.1 Introduction

23 As defined by CEQ regulations in 40 CFR Part 1508.7, cumulative impacts are those that “result 

24 from the incremental impact of the Proposed Action when added to other past, present and 

25 reasonably foreseeable future actions, without regard to the agency (federal or non-federal) or 

26 individual who undertakes such other actions.” The analysis of cumulative impacts captures the 

27 effects that result from the Proposed Action(s) in combination with the effects of other actions in 

28 the same geographic area. Because of myriad other activities that influence and affect resources

29 both within the Proposed Action areas and outside the boundary, cumulative effects are the most 

30 difficult to analyze.

31 NEPA requires analysis of cumulative environmental effects of a Proposed Action, or set of 

32 actions, on resources that may often be manifested only at the cumulative level, such as impacts 

33 on air quality, noise, biological resources, cultural resources, utility system capacities, and others.

34 This qualitative cumulative impacts analysis is based on the potential effects of the Proposed 

35 Action when added to similar impacts from other projects in the region. As this Nationwide EA

36 comprises a programmatic-level of analysis, no geographic area is identified that can be assessed 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 4-12

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 4 

1 for cumulative projects; however, an explanation of why cumulative effects as a result of the 

2 Proposed Action are unlikely to be significant, is provided below. 

3 4.8.2 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action

4 The Preferred Action Alternative would result in the impacts identified throughout Section 4.0. 

5 These include potential less-than-significant adverse impacts to air quality, water resources, 

6 biological resources, cultural resources and HTMW. Implementation of the Proposed Action would

7 not be anticipated to result in significant impacts and would therefore not be anticipated to 

8 contribute to adverse cumulative impacts within the region where the vehicles are fielded. The 

9 Proposed Action would not contribute significantly to cumulative increases in air pollutant 

10 emissions or nuisance noise levels in the vicinity of the affected installations. The project would 

11 not contribute to a cumulatively significant increase in the storage, transport, use, or generation 

12 of HTMW. These impacts would be further reduced through implementation of standard BMPs as 

13 identified in Section 4.0. 

14 As the vehicles would be fielded to and operated within existing military training areas, the 

15 Proposed Action would increase the frequency and intensity of activities, but would not change 

16 the type of use at the installations and ranges. The ARNG would continue to work with local 

17 government agencies and communities in an effort to identify potential noise and land use 

18 incompatibility and addressing possible noise issues raised by nearby community members or 

19 other sensitive receptors near installation boundaries. Noise from existing range activity is already 

20 a component of the local noise environment. Noise from training operations associated with the 

21 Preferred Action Alternative would elevate existing noise levels in the immediate area of such 

22 operations and result in a localized, minor adverse cumulative impact. However, in the context of

23 the overall region and ongoing operations, these activities would result in only negligible 

24 cumulative impacts.

25 Similarly, no significant cumulative impacts would be anticipated as no construction would be

26 required that would affect water resources or result in permanent loss or conversion of habitat. 

27 Avoidance of headwater streams and adherence to established permit conditions and 

28 implementation of BMPs addressing soil erosion, sedimentation, and management of spent 

29 ammunition would protect local and regional water resources. Training operations would occur 

30 within established ranges, which operate consistent with each installation’s INRMP, where 

31 applicable, which establishes management and restorative programs that minimize or offset 

32 impacts to biological resources. Measures to protect T&E species and their habitat would continue 

33 to be implemented. 

34 Implementation of the Proposed Action would not require substantial expansion of facilities and 

35 would therefore not result in excavation or construction of structures that could cumulatively 

36 impact cultural resources. Training operations would occur within established ranges, which are 

37 managed and operated in a manner consistent with each installation’s ICRMP, where applicable, 

38 which establishes procedures and protocols that minimize impacts of ongoing operations to 

39 cultural resources. As such, cumulative impacts would remain less-than-significant.

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 4-13

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 4 

1 Under the No-Action Alternative, the ARNG would not field the NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo and 

2 would continue with training operations as currently conducted. ARNG units would remain as 

3 under current conditions and continue to operate under current, effective environmental 

4 management plans. 

5 4.8.3 Inter-relationship of Cumulative Effects

6 Installations must ensure that Proposed Actions are compatible with the surrounding area and 

7 region, including regional needs for land to accommodate an area’s increasing population and 

8 economic development (i.e., additional industrial uses, businesses, homes, and related services 

9 and infrastructure). In combination with military land use requirements, regional development 

10 could produce environmental effects. Interrelated cumulative impacts place demands on the local 

11 region, planning organizations, and the military’s natural resource management, cultural resource 

12 management, and public work personnel. Through sound, integrated, long-range planning, these 

13 impacts are minimized.

14 No significant adverse cumulative impacts to the environment, induced by changes under the 

15 Proposed Action, would be anticipated within the region. Close coordination between the ARNG 

16 installations and local planning authorities and community representatives would serve to 

17 ameliorate any identified potential future land use conflicts. Implementation of land use and 

18 resource management plans would serve to control the extent of environmental impacts, and 

19 proper planning would ensure that future conditions maintain the quality of life that area residents 

20 currently enjoy. Implementation of effective environmental management plans and programs 

21 should minimize or eliminate any potential cumulative degradation of the natural ecosystem.

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 4-14

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 5 

1 SECTION 5: Comparison of Alternatives and Conclusions

2 This Nationwide EA has evaluated the potential environmental and cultural impacts associated 

3 with the proposed training operations, maintenance, and storage of the NBCRV and MPCV 

4 Buffalo as summarized in Section 4. Two alternatives were evaluated: the Preferred Action 

5 Alternative and No-Action Alternative.

6 5.1 Comparison of the Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives 

7 As summarized in Table 5-1, the Preferred Action Alternative would result in generally minor 

8 impacts to installations and ranges programmed to receive the NBCRV and/or MPCV Buffalo. As 

9 identified throughout Section 4, adverse impacts would be minimized by adhering to regulatory 

10 requirements and implementing site- and resource-specific BMPs. 

11 The No-Action Alternative was not found to satisfy the purpose of and need for the Proposed 

12 Action. This alternative would not enable the ARNG to conduct required training.

13 5.2 Conclusions

14 As described in Section 1.3, Scope of the Nationwide EA, the intent of this Nationwide EA is to 

15 facilitate future analyses of impacts – likely via a REC and Checklist – related to the potential 

16 fielding of either or both of the vehicles to any of the 54 ARNG S/Ts by presenting a representative 

17 analysis of anticipated regulatory requirements and environmental impacts. As described 

18 previously, all classroom, maintenance, and range training would occur within existing facilities 

19 and ranges – where expansion of any facility would be required, it would be small-scale (e.g., 

20 addition of a work bay at an existing maintenance facility). Based upon the programmatic 

21 evaluation performed in this Nationwide EA, there would be no significant adverse impact, either 

22 individually or cumulatively, to the local environment or quality of life as a result of implementing 

23 the Preferred Action Alternative. Therefore, this Nationwide EA’s analysis determines an EIS is 

24 unnecessary for implementing the Proposed Action, and that a FNSI is appropriate. 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 5-1

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 5 

Table 5-1. Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts on Fully Evaluated Resources

Technical 

Resource Area Preferred Action Alternative No-Action Alternative

Air Quality

Short-term, less-than-significant impact due to 

the potential for dust generation from training 

activities on unpaved roads and vehicle 

operation. Long-term, less-than-significant 

impact from increased site emissions. 

No impact attributable to ARNG 

action. Ongoing emissions would 

continue.

Noise

Short-term, less-than-significant adverse 

impact by increasing the frequency of noise 

associated with vehicle use during training. 

Occasional use of 0.50-caliber of the NBCRV 

would occur within existing training ranges.

No impact attributable to ARNG 

action. 

Water 

Resources

Long-term, less-than-significant adverse 

impacts to surface waters due to potential soil 

erosion and sedimentation during training near 

or across surface waters. Long-term, lessthan-significant adverse impact from potential 

disturbance to water resources. BMPs would 

be implemented and operations would be

consistent with each training location’s 

resource protection and regulatory 

requirements. 

No impact attributable to ARNG 

action. 

Biological 

Resources

Long-term, less-than-significant adverse 

impacts due to noise, dust, and presence of 

vehicles associated with training operations 

within existing ranges, which would be minor 

on a regional scale. 

No impact attributable to ARNG 

action. 

Cultural 

Resources 

No adverse effect on cultural resources. 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-

eligible resources would be avoided within 

utilized training areas and no training would 

occur within sensitive cultural areas consistent 

with each training location’s resource 

protection and regulatory requirements. 

No impact attributable to ARNG 

action. 

Hazardous 

Toxic Materials 

and Waste 

(HTMW)

Long-term, less-than-significant direct impacts 

due to HTMW use/generation from increased 

operational activities. Impacts would be 

controlled through ongoing regulatory 

compliance and BMPs. 

No impact attributable to ARNG 

action. 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 5-2

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 6 

SECTION 6: References

42 USC 4321-4347, Public Law 91-190. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended. 1 January 1970.

Anderson, A.B., P. Ayers, A. Palazzo, J. Fehmi, S. Shoop, and P. Sullivan, 2005. Assessing the 

Impacts of Military Vehicle Traffic on Natural Areas. Journal of Terramechanics 42 (143-

158). 2005. 

Army National Guard (ARNG), 2011. Practitioner’s Guide to NEPA. Prepared by the ARNG with 

support from PlanIt, Inc. 1 October 2011.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 1978. Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

Parts 1500-1508, Regulations for Implementing NEPA.

CEQ, 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act.

President’s Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President. 

Washington, D.C., January.

Executive Order (EO) 11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands. Executive Office of 

the President of the United States. 24 May 1977.

EO 11988, Floodplain Management. Executive Office of the President of the United States. 24 

May 1977.

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands. Executive Office of the President of the United States. 24 May 

1977.

EO 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. Executive Office of the President of 

the United States. 1 October 1983. 

EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. Executive Office of 

the President of the United States. 6 November 2000.

EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. Executive Office of 

the President of the United States. 10 January 2001.

National Guard Bureau (NGB), 2005. Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment of 

Modularization of Army National Guard Forces. Prepared by National Guard Bureau and 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. May 2005.

NGB, 2009. National Guard Regulation 350-1, Army National Guard Training. Department of the 

Army and Air Force. National Guard Bureau. Arlington, VA. 4 August 2009.

National Research Council, 1997. Toxicity of Military Smokes and Obscurants (Volume 1).

National Academy Press. Washington, D.C., 1997.

Rubinoff, J. H. Sekscienski, B. Woodson, and T. Wills, 2007. Installation Summaries from the 

FY2006 Survey of Threatened and Endangered Species on Army Lands, U.S. Army 

Environmental Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 6-1

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 6 

Title 32, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 651. Environmental Effects of Army Actions. 

Federal Register 15290. 29 March 2002.

Title 40, CFR, Part 279. Standards for Management of Used Oil. 10 September 1992.

Title 40, CFR, Part 1500-1508. Regulations for Implementing NEPA, as amended. 1 July 2011.

U.S. Army, 2003. Stryker Family of Vehicles, Programmatic Environmental Assessment. 27

February 2003.

U.S. Army, 2004. Training Circular 25-8: Training Ranges. Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, Washington DC. 15 March 2004.

U.S. Army, 2005. Army Regulation 350-19, The Army Sustainable Range Program. Headquarters, 

Department of the Army, Washington, DC. September 30, 2005.

U.S. Army, 2006. Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Buffalo Mine Protected 

Clearance Vehicle System. Prepared by Prospective Technology, Incorporated, 

Columbia, MD. 2 December 2006.

U.S. Army, 2007. Army Regulation 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement. 

Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC. August 28, 2007.

U.S. Army, 2008. Field Manual 7-0. Training for Full Spectrum Operations. Headquarters 

Department of the Army. Washington, D.C., 12 December 2008.

U.S. Army, 2009. Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Fielding and Use of Mine 

Resistance Ambush Protected Vehicles at Army Installations in the United States. 

Prepared by the Environmental Planning Support Branch. Aberdeen Proving Grounds, 

MD. September 2009. 

U.S. Army, 2012. Department of the Army Pamphlet 350-38: Standards in Training Commission. 

Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington DC. 19 November 2012.

U.S. Army, 2013a. Army Regulation 71-32, Force Development and Documentation. Department 

of the Army Headquarters. Washington, D.C., 1 July 2013.

U.S. Army, 2013b. Army Regulation 750-1, Army Maintenance Policy. Department of the Army 

Headquarters. Washington, D.C., 12 September 2013.

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 6-2

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 7 

SECTION 7: Glossary

100-year Flood – A flood event of such magnitude that it 

occurs, on average, every 100 years; this equates to a 

one percent chance of its occurring in a given year.

Ambient - The environment as it exists around people, 

plants, and structures.

Ambient Air Quality Standards - Those standards 

established according to the CAA to protect health and 

welfare (AR 200-1).

Aquifer - An underground geological formation 

containing usable amounts of groundwater which can 

supply wells and springs.

Archaeological Resource – Any material of human life 

or activities that is at least 100 years of age and is of 

archaeological interest (32 CFR 229.3(a)).

Area of Potential Effect (APE) – The geographical area 

within which the undertaking may cause changes in the 

character of or use of historic properties, if any such 

properties exist. The APE may change according to the 

regulation under which it is being applied and should be 

established in coordination with consulting parties.

Asbestos - Incombustible, chemical-resistant, fibrous 

mineral forms of impure magnesium silicate used for 

fireproofing, electrical insulation, building materials, 

brake linings, and chemical filters. Asbestos is a 

carcinogenic substance.

Attainment Area - Region that meets the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for a criteria 

pollutant under the CAA.

Bedrock - the solid rock that underlies all soil, sand, 

clay, gravel and loose material on the earth's surface.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) - Methods, 

measures, or practices to prevent or reduce the 

contributions of pollutants to United States waters. Best 

management practices may be imposed in addition to, or 

in the absence of, effluent limitations, standards, or 

prohibitions (AR 200-1).

Collections - Material remains that are excavated or 

removed during a survey, excavation or other study of a 

prehistoric or historic resource, and associated records 

that are prepared or assembled in connection with the 

survey, excavation or other study. §79.4 provides 

detailed definitions of the kinds of material remains that 

fall under the regulation.

Commercial land use – land use that includes private 

and public businesses (retail, wholesale, etc.), 

institutions (schools, churches, etc.), health services 

(hospitals, clinics, etc.) and military buildings and 

installations.

Compaction - The packing of soil together into a firmer, 

denser mass, generally caused by the pressure of great 

weight.

Contaminants - Any physical, chemical, biological or 

radiological substances that have an adverse effect on 

air, water or soil.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) - An 

Executive Office of the President composed of three 

members appointed by the President, subject to 

approval by the Senate. Each member shall be 

exceptionally qualified to analyze and interpret 

environmental trends; to appraise programs and 

activities of the federal government. Members are to be 

conscious of and responsive to the scientific, economic, 

social, aesthetic, and cultural needs of the Nation; and to 

formulate and recommend national policies to promote 

the improvement of the quality of the environment.

Criteria Pollutants - The CAA of 1970 required the 

USEPA to set air quality standards for common and 

widespread pollutants in order to protect human health 

and welfare. There are six "criteria pollutants": ozone 

(O3), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead 

(Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and particulate matter.

Cultural Items – As defined by NAGPRA, human 

remains and associated funerary objects, unassociated 

funerary objects (at one time associated with human 

remains as part of a death rite or ceremony, but no 

longer in possession or control of the federal agency or 

museum), sacred objects (ceremonial objects needed by 

traditional Native American religious leaders for 

practicing traditional Native American religions), or 

objects of cultural patrimony (having ongoing historical, 

traditional, or cultural importance central to a federally 

recognized tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, rather 

than property owned by an individual Native American, 

and which, therefore, cannot be alienated, appropriated, 

or conveyed by any individual of the tribe or group).

Cultural Resources - Historic properties as defined by 

the NHPA; cultural items as defined by NAGPRA; 

archaeological resources as defined by ARPA; sites and 

sacred objects to which access is afforded under AIRFA; 

and collections and associated records as defined in 36 

CFR 79. Included are: traditional cultural properties and 

objects; archaeological sites; historic buildings, 

structures, and districts; and localities with social 

significance to the human community.

Cumulative Impact - The impact on the environment 

that results from the incremental impact of the action 

when added to other past, present, and reasonable 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency 

(federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other 

actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 7-1

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 7 

minor but collectively significant actions taking place 

over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7).

dBA – “A-weighted” non-impulse noise measurement in 

decibels, weighted to match human hearing frequency 

response.

Decibel (dB) - A unit of measurement of sound pressure 

level.

Direct Impact - A direct impact is caused by a Proposed 

Action, and occurs at the same time and place.

Elevation - Raising a building and placing it on a higher 

foundation so the first or lowest floor is above flood 

levels.

Emission - A release of a pollutant.

Endangered Species - Any species which is in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range.

Environmental Assessment (EA) - An EA is a 

publication that provides sufficient evidence and analysis 

to show whether a proposed system would adversely 

affect the environment or be environmentally 

controversial.

Ephemeral Stream – A stream the flows only during and 

immediately after a rainfall event.

Erosion - The wearing away of the land surface by 

detachment and movement of soil and rock fragments 

through the action of moving water and other geological 

agents.

Farmland - Cropland, pastures, meadows, and planted 

woodland.

Fauna - Animal life, especially the animal characteristics 

of a region, period, or special environment.

Fielding – Process of providing new weapons or 

equipment and their required support materiel systems 

to using units.

Flora - Vegetation; plant life characteristic of a region, 

period, or special environment.

Floodplain - The relatively flat area or lowlands 

adjoining a river, stream, ocean, lake, or other body of 

water that is susceptible to being inundated by 

floodwaters.

FNSI - Finding of No Significant Impact, a NEPA 

document.

Fugitive Dust - Particles light enough to be suspended 

in air, which are not caught in a capture or filtering 

system. For this document, this refers to particles put in 

the air by moving vehicles and air movement over 

disturbed soils at construction sites.

Geology - Science which deals with the physical history 

of the earth, the rocks of which it is composed, and 

physical changes in the earth.

Groundwater - Water found below the ground surface. 

Groundwater may be geologic in origin and as pristine as 

it was when it was entrapped by the surrounding rock or 

it may be subject to daily or seasonal effects depending 

on the local hydrologic cycle. Groundwater may be 

pumped from wells and used for drinking water, irrigation 

and other purposes. It is recharged by precipitation or 

irrigation water soaking into the ground. Thus, any 

contaminant in precipitation or irrigation water may be 

carried into groundwater.

Hazardous Substance - Hazardous materials are 

defined within several laws and regulations to have 

certain meanings. For this document, a hazardous 

material is any one of the following: 

Any substance designated pursuant to section 311 (b)(2) 

(A) of the Clean Water Act.

Any element, compound, mixture, solution or substance 

designated pursuant to Section 102 of Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA).

Any hazardous as defined under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

Any toxic pollutant listed under Toxic Substances Control 

Act. 

Any hazardous air pollutant listed under Section 112 of 

CAA. 

Any imminently hazardous chemical substance or 

mixture with respect to which the EPA Administrator has 

taken action pursuant to Subsection 7 of Toxic 

Substances Control Act. 

The term does not include: 1) Petroleum, including crude 

oil or any thereof, which is not otherwise specifically 

listed or designated as a hazardous substance in a 

above. 2) Natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied 

natural gas, or synthetic gas usable for fuel (or mixtures 

of natural gas and such synthetic gas). c. A list of 

hazardous substances is found in 40 CFR 302.4.

Hazardous Waste - A solid waste, which when 

improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of 

poses a substantial hazard to human health or the 

environment. Hazardous wastes are identified in 40 CFR 

261.3 or applicable foreign law, rule, or regulation (see 

also solid waste).

Hazardous Waste Storage - As defined in 40 CFR 

260.10, ". . . the holding of hazardous waste for a 

temporary period, at the end of which the hazardous 

waste is treated, disposed of, or stored elsewhere".

Historic Property – Any material or human life or 

activities that is at least 50 years of age and is of cultural 

interest.

Historic resources – Any real or personal property, 

record, or lifeway. Includes: historic real property such as 

archaeological and architectural places, monuments, 

designed landscapes, works of engineering or other 

property that may meet the criteria for inclusion in the 

NRHP; historic personal property such as any artifact or 

relic; historic records to include any historical, oralNationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 7-2

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 7 

historical, ethnographic, architectural, or other document 

that provides a record of the past; and community 

resources/lifeways to include any resource that a 

community or interested group ascribes cultural value 

(references to historic real or personal property such as 

natural landscapes and cemeteries; references to real 

property such as vistas or viewsheds; or, references to 

the nonmaterial such as certain aspects of folklife, 

cultural or religious practices, languages, or traditions).

Indirect Impact - An indirect impact is caused by a 

Proposed Action, but occurs later in time or farther 

removed in distance, but is still reasonably foreseeable. 

Indirect impacts may include induced changes in the 

pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, 

and related effects on air, water, and other natural and 

social systems. For example, referring to the possible 

direct impacts described above, the clearing of trees for 

new development may have an indirect impact on area 

wildlife by decreasing available habitat.

Industrial Land Use – Land uses of a relatively higher 

intensity that are generally not compatible with 

residential development. Examples include light and 

heavy manufacturing, mining, and chemical refining.

Intermittent Stream – A stream that flows only portions 

of the year, typically during and after the regional rainy 

season.

Isolated Wetland – Areas that meet the wetland 

hydrology, vegetation, and hydric soil characteristics, but 

do not have a direct connection to the Waters of the 

United States. 

Jurisdictional wetland – Areas that meet the wetland 

hydrology, vegetation, and hydric soil characteristics, 

and have a direct connection to the Waters of the United 

States. These wetlands are regulated by the USACE.

Listed Species - Any plant or animal designated as a 

state or federal threatened, endangered, special 

concern, or candidate species.

Major Impact - An impact which would be particularly 

large in magnitude, considering both context and 

intensity.

Minor Impact - An impact which would be of a smaller 

scale or would be more readily mitigated than impacts 

categorized as major.

Mitigation - Measures taken to reduce adverse impacts 

on the environment.

Mobile Sources - Vehicles, aircraft, watercraft, 

construction equipment, and other equipment that use 

internal combustion engines for energy sources.

Monitoring – A process of inspecting and recording the 

progress of mitigation measures implemented.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) - 

Nationwide standards set up by the USEPA for 

widespread air pollutants, as required by Section 109 of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). Currently, six pollutants are 

regulated by primary and secondary NAAQS: carbon 

monoxide (CO), lead, (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 

ozone (O3), particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide (SO2). 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) – United 

States statute that requires all federal agencies to 

consider the potential effects of Proposed Actions on the 

human and natural environment.

Nonattainment Area - An area that has been 

designated by the EPA or the appropriate state air 

quality agency as exceeding one or more national or 

state ambient air quality standards.

Parcel - A plot of land, usually a division of a larger area.

Particulates or Particulate Matter - Fine liquid or solid 

particles such as dust, smoke, mist, fumes or smog 

found in air.

Physiographic Region - A portion of the Earth's surface 

with a basically common topography and common 

morphology.

Pollutant - A substance introduced into the environment 

that adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.

Potable Water - Water which is suitable for drinking.

Real Property – A building, the land on which it sits, and 

any permanent improvements or fixtures made to the 

property (for example, addition of built-in bookshelves).

Remediation - A long-term action that reduces or 

eliminates a threat to the environment.

Riparian Areas - Areas adjacent to rivers and streams 

that have a high density, diversity and productivity of 

plant and animal species relative to nearby uplands.

River Basin - The land area drained by a river and its 

tributaries.

Sacred Site – Any specific, discrete, narrowly delineated 

location on federal land that is identified by an Indian 

tribe, or Indian individual determined to be an 

appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian 

religion, as sacred by virtue of its established religious 

significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian 

religion, provided that the tribe or appropriately 

authorized representative of an Indian religion has 

informed the agency of the existence of such a site. 

Further, EO 13007 directs each executive branch to 

(1) accommodate access to and ceremonial use of 

Indian sacred sites by Indian practitioners and (2) 

avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such 

sacred sites. Agency heads also are directed to 

report actions and activities related to sacred sites on 

their property.

Sensitive Receptors - Include, but are not limited to, 

asthmatics, children, and the elderly, as well as specific 

facilities, such as long-term health care facilities, 

rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement 

homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, and childcare 

centers.

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 7-3

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 7 

Surface Danger Zone (SDZ) – The area where 

projectiles fired on a range would land. Size of SDZ is 

based on the types of weapons and ammunition used.

Significant Impact - According to 40 CFR 1508.27, 

"significance" as used in NEPA requires consideration of 

both context and intensity.

Context. The significance of an action must be analyzed 

in several contexts such as society as a whole (human, 

national), the affected region, the affected interests, and 

the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the 

Proposed Action. For instance, in the case of a sitespecific action, significance would usually depend upon 

the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a 

whole. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant.

Intensity. This refers to the severity of impact. 

Responsible officials must bear in mind that more than 

one agency may make decisions about partial aspects of 

a major action.

Soil - The mixture of altered mineral and organic 

material at the earth's surface that supports plant life.

Solid Waste - Any discarded material that is not 

excluded by section 261.4(a) or that is not excluded by 

variance granted under sections 260.30 and 260.3 1.

Threatened species - Any species that is likely to 

become an endangered species within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Topography - The relief features or surface 

configuration of an area.

Toxic Substance - A harmful substance which includes 

elements, compounds, mixtures, and materials of 

complex composition.

Traditional Cultural Property – A property that is 

eligible for inclusion in the NRHP because of its 

association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living 

community that (a) are rooted in that community’s 

history, and (b) are important in maintaining the 

continuing cultural identity of the community. In order for 

a traditional cultural property to be found eligible for the 

NRHP, it must meet the existing criteria for eligibility as a 

building, site, structure, object, or district.

Undertaking – “An undertaking is a project, activity, or 

program funded in whole or in part under the direct or 

indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including those 

carried out by or on behalf of a federal agency; those 

carried out with federal financial assistance; those 

requiring a federal permit, license, or approval; and 

those subject to state or local regulation administered 

pursuant to a delegation or approval by a federal 

agency” (36 CFR 800.16{y]).

Waters of the United States include the following: 

(1) All waters which are currently used, or were used in 

the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or 

foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject 

to the ebb and flow of the tide. (2) All interstate waters 

including interstate wetlands. (3) All other waters such as 

intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent 

streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie 

potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, 

the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect 

interstate or foreign commerce.

Watershed - The region draining into a particular 

stream, river, or entire river system.

Wetlands - Areas that are regularly saturated by surface 

or groundwater and, thus, are characterized by a 

prevalence of vegetation that is adapted for life in 

saturated soil conditions. Examples include swamps, 

bogs, fens, marshes and estuaries.

Wildlife Habitat - Set of living communities in which a 

wildlife population lives.

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 7-4

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 8 

SECTION 8: List of Preparers

Amec Foster Wheeler (Lead Office)

104 West Anapamu Street

Suite 204A

Santa Barbara, California 93101

Name Role Highest Degree

Years of 

Experience

Aaron Goldschmidt Project Principal M.A. Geography 25

Doug McFarling Program Manager,

Quality Assurance/Control

B.A. Environmental 

Studies 23

Nick Meisinger Project Manager B.S. Environmental 

Science 5 

Benjamin Botkin NEPA Analyses B.A. Environmental 

Studies 6 

Brian Cook Noise B.S. Biology 12

Jason Cooper, RPA

Cultural Resources and 

Native American 

Consultation

M.A. Anthropology 

(Archaeology) 15

Henry McKelway, Ph.D.

Cultural Resources and 

Native American 

Consultation

Ph.D. Anthropology 30

Ryan Peterson

Cultural Resources and 

Native American 

Consultation

M.A. Anthropology 

(Archaeology) 15

Jennifer Warf Peer Review M.S. Environmental 

Studies 10

Sam White NEPA Analyses B.A. Environmental 

Studies 2 

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 8-1

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 

SECTION 9: Agencies and Individuals Consulted

Copies of all correspondence, including sample data request letters and responses are included 

in Appendix A. 

State and Federal Government Agencies

Lance LeFleur

Director

Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management

P. O. Box 301463

Montgomery, AL 36130-1463

N. Gunter Guy Jr.

Commissioner of Conservation

Alabama Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources

64 North Union Street

Montgomery, AL 36130

William Pearson

Field Supervisor (Daphne office) 

USFWS Alabama Ecological Services Field 

Office contact

1208 Main Street

Daphne, AL 36526-4419

Larry Lincoln

Director, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center

US EPA Region 4 Office of External Affairs

61 Forsyth Street SW

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960

Tad Zebryk

Wetlands Section

USACE Mobile District

PO Box 2288

Mobile, AL 36628-0001

Benjamin Thiel

Regional Office Director

USDA Washington Region

11707 E Sprague Ave., Suite 201

Spokane Valley, WA 99206-6125

Kent Whitworth

Executive Director

Kentucky Historical Society

100 W. Broadway

Frankfort, KY 40601

Dr. Len Peters

Cabinet Secretary

Kentucky Department of Natural Resources

500 Mero Street, 5th Floor Capital Plaza 

Towers

Frankfort, KY 40601

Greg Johnson

Commissioner

Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Resources

#1 Sportsman's Lane

Frankfort, KY 40601

Lee Andrews

KY Ecological Service Field Office 

Supervisor

US FWS Kentucky Region

330 West Broadway

Frankfort, KY 40601-8670

Mary J Wilkes

Regional Council & Director, Office of 

Environmental Accountability

US EPA Kentucky Region

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960

COL Luke T. Leonard

Commander, Louisville District

USACE Kentucky Region

P.O. Box 59

Louisville, KY 40201-0059

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 9-1

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 

Karen Woodrich

State Conservationist

USDA Kentucky Region

771 Corporate Dr., Ste. 210

Lexington, KY 40503

Richard Josephson

Director of Planning Services

Maryland Department of Planning

301 West Preston Street, Suite 1101

Baltimore, MD 21201

Kristin F. Jones

Chief of Staff

Maryland Department of the Environment, 

Water Management Administration

6 Bladen Street

Annapolis, MD 21401

Richard D. Norling

Legislative Director

Maryland Department of Natural Resources

580 Taylor Avenue

Annapolis, MD 21401

Elizabeth Hughes

Acting Director/State Historic Preservation 

Officer

Maryland Historical Trust

100 Community Place, 3rd Floor

Crownsville, MD 21032

The Office of the Adjutant General

State of Maryland Military Department, 

Environmental Office

5th Regiment Armory, 29th Division Street

Baltimore, MD 21210

Steve Minkkinen

Project Leader

US FWS Maryland Region

177 ADMIRAL COCHRANE DRIVE

Annapolis, MD 21401-7307

Nicholas DiPasquale

Director

US EPA Maryland Region - Chesapeake 

Bay Program Office

410 Severn Avenue, Suite 112

Annapolis, MD 21403

Jeff Dodd

Environmental Science Center

US EPA Maryland Region -Environmental 

Science Center

701 Mapes Road

Fort Meade, MD 20755

Michael Schuster

Chief of Environmental - Baltimore Branch

USACE Maryland Region

10 South Howard St

Baltimore, MD 21201

Bill McGowan

State Director

USDA Maryland Region

1221 College Park Drive, Suite 200

Dover, DE 19904

Jim Kasprzak

Division Chief

Michigan Department of Environmental 

Quality

P.O. Box 30473

Lansing, MI 48909-7973

Keith Creagh

Director

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

P.O. Box 30028

Lansing, MI 48909

Brian Conway

State Historic Preservation Officer

Michigan State Historic Preservation Office

702 West Kalamazoo Street

Lansing, MI 48909

Scott Hicks

Ecological Services Field Office Director

US FWS Michigan Region

2651 Coolidge Rd., Suite 101

East Lansing, MI 48823

Alan Walts

Director

US EPA Michigan Region

77 W. Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 9-2

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 

Charles Uhlarik

Chief, Environmental Analysis

USACE Michigan Region

477 Michigan Ave.

Detroit, MI 48226

Garry Lee

State Conservationist

USDA Michigan Region

3001 Coolidge Road, Suite 250

Lansing, MI 48823

Mark Baumler

State Historic Preservation Officer

Montana State Historic Preservation Office

1410 8th Avenue

Helena, MT 59620

Tom Livers

Director

Montana Department of Environmental

Quality

1520 E. 6th Avenue

Helena, MT 59620-0901

Jeff Hagener

Director

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and 

Parks

1420 East Sixth Avenue

Helena, MT 59620-0701

John Tubbs

Director

Montana Department of Natural Resources 

and Conservation

1625 11th Avenue

Helena, MT 59601

Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Office

US FWS Montana Region

4052 Bridger Canyon Road

Bozeman, MT 59715-8433

Julia DalSoglio

Montana Operations Region 8

US EPA Montana Region

10 West 15th Street, Suite 3200

Helena, MT 59626

USACE Montana Region

10 West 15th Street, Suite 2200

Helena, MT 59626

Eric Bashore

Billings Montana Regional Office

USDA Montana Region

3490 Gabel Road, Suite 100

Billings, MT 59102

Kevin Cherry

Deputy Secretary

North Carolina Department of Cultural 

Resources

109 East Jones Street MSC 4601

Raleigh, NC 27699-4601

John Skvarla

Secretary

North Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources

1601 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1601

Gordon Myers

Executive Director

North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission

1701 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1601

Cindy Dohner

Director

US FWS North Carolina Region

1875 Century Blvd., Suite 400

Atlanta, GA 30345

Heather McTeer Toney

Regional Administrator

US EPA North Carolina Region

61 Forsyth St. SW

Atlanta, GA 30303-3104

Major R.J. Hughes

Deputy Commander

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers North 

Carolina Region

69 Darlington Ave

Wilmington, NC 28403

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 9-3

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 

Raleigh Service Center

US Dept. of Agriculture North Carolina 

Region

4001 Carya Dr.

Raleigh, NC 27610-2916

State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)

North Carolina State Clearinghouse, Dept. of 

Administration

1301 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1301

Tricia Roller

NCA Manager

Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey 

NCA

3948 Development Ave.

Boise, ID 83705

Megan Leatherman

Ada County Development Services

200 West Front Street

Boise, ID 83702

Rick Ward

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, SW 

Region

3101 S. Powerline Road

Nampa, ID 83686

IDEQ, Director’s Office

1410 N. Hilton

Boise, ID 83706

Greg Martinez

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Boise Office

720 Park Blvd. Ste. 255

Boise, ID 83712

Travis Pitkin

Deputy SHPO and Compliance Officer

210 Main Street

Boise, ID 83702

Christina Reichgott

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 10

ETPA - 088, 1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

Mark Robertson

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho State 

Office

1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368

Boise, ID 83709

Sue Sullivan

Idaho Transportation Department, 

Development Division

3311 W. State Street

Boise, ID 83707-1129

Catherine Shannon

Deputy Director

Illinois Historic Preservation Agency

1 Old State Capitol Plaza

Springfield, IL 62701-1507

Lisa Bonnett

Director

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Marc Miller

Director

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

1 Natural Resources Way

Springfield, IL 62702-1271

Matt Mangan

Fish and Wildlife Biologist

US FWS Illinois Region

8588 Route 148

Marion, IL 62959

David Turpin

US EPA Illinois Region

77 West Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

Mike Petersen

Public Affairs Officer

USACE Illinois Region

1222 Spruce Street

St. Louis, MO 63103-2833

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 9-4

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 

Andrew Schlichting

District Conservationist

USDA Illinois Region

313 W. Belmont Street

Sparta, IL 62286

Jeffery Keirn

Regional Engineer

Illinois Department of Transportation-District 

8 

2300 South Dirksen Parkway

Springfield, IL 62764

Barbara Mitchell Howard

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer

Minnesota State Historic preservation Office

345 Kellogg Blvd. W.

St. Paul, MN 55102-1903

Tom Landweher

Commissioner

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

500 Lafayette Road

St. Paul, MN 55155

Susan Haigh

Council Chair

Minnesota Metropolitan Council 

Environmental Services

390 Robert St. North

St. Paul, MN 55101-1805

John Jaschke

Executive Director

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil 

Resources

520 Lafayette Road N.

St. Paul, MN 55155

Margaret Rheude

Biologist

US FWS Minnesota Region

4101 East 80th St.

Bloomington, MN 55425

Susan Hedman

Administrator of Region 5

US EPA Minnesota Region

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604

Lewis Nabity

Real Estate Division

USACE Minnesota Region

1616 Capitol Avenue, Suite 9000

Omaha, NE 68102-4901

Don Baloun

State Conservationist

USDA Minnesota Region

375 Jackson Street, Suite 600

Saint Paul, MN 55101

Gary Rikard

Executive Director

Mississippi Department of Environmental 

Quality

515 E. Amite Street

Jackson, MS 39201

H.T. Holmes

State Historic Preservation Officer

Mississippi Department of Archives and 

History

100 South State Street

Jackson, MS 39201

Sam Polles

Executive Director

Mississippi Department of Wildlife Fisheries 

and Parks

1505 Eastover Dr.

Jackson, MS 39211

Steve Ricks

Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office

US FWS Mississippi Region

6578 Dogwood View parkway, Suite A

Jackson, MS 39213-7856

Heinz Mueller

NEPA Region 4 Director

US EPA Mississippi Region

61 Forsythe Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 9-5

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 

Jon Chytka

USACE Mobile District Commander

USACE Mississippi Region

109 Saint Joseph St.

Mobile, AL 36628

Kurt Readus

State Conservationist

NRCS Mississippi Region

100 West Capitol Street

Jackson, MS 39269

Joe Martens

Commissioner

New York Department of Environmental 

Conservation

625 Broadway

Albany, NY 12233

Angus Eaton

Bureau Director

New York Bureau of Water Resource 

Management

625 Broadway

Albany, NY 12233

Ruth Pierpont

Deputy Commissioner

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, 

& Historic Preservation (SHPO)

Peebles Island

Waterford, NY 12188 0189

Jared Snyder

Director

New York DEC Division of Air Resources

625 Broadway

Albany, NY 12233

Robyn Niver

New York Ecological Services Field Office

US FWS New York Region

3817 Luker Road

Cortland, NY 13045-9349

Kathleen Malone

Federal Facilities Program Manager

US EPA New York Region

290 Broadway

New York, NY 10007-1866

Amy Gitchell

Chief, Upstate New York Section

USACE Upstate Regulatory Field Office, 

Watervliet Arsenal

Building 10, 3rd Fl. North, 1 Buffington St

Watervliet, NY 12189-4000

Greg Kist

State Conservationist

USDA New York Region

441 South Salina St., Suite 357

Syracuse, NY 13202

Alvin Taylor

Director

1000 Assembly Street

Columbia, SC 29201

Elizabeth Johnson

Deputy SHPO

South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources

8301 Parklane Road

Columbia, SC 29223

Jay Herrington

South Carolina Ecological Service Field 

Office

South Carolina Department of Archives and 

History

176 Croghan Spur Road, Suite 200

Charleston, SC 29407-7558

Paul Gagliano

NEPA Program Office

US FWS South Carolina Region

61 Forsyth St. SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Leneesha Scott

Regulatory Division

US EPA South Carolina Region

Piedmont Station, 1950 Adamson Parkway, 

Suite 200

Morrow, GA 30260

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 9-6

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 

Ann English

State Conservationist

USACE South Carolina Region

Strom Thurmond Federal Building, 1835 

Assembly Street

Room 950

Columbia, SC 29201

Heather Robbins

NEPA Manager

USDA South Carolina Region

955 Park Street

Columbia, SC 29202

Carl Richardson

Director of Engineering

South Carolina Department of Transportation

2600 Bull Street

Columbia, SC 29201

Patrick Metts

Environmental Division, NEPA Program

South Carolina Department of Health & 

Environmental Control

Building 2563 Essayons Way

Columbia, SC 29207

Jeffrey Logan

Executive Deputy Secretary

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection

400 Market Street

Harrisburg, PA 17101

Ellen Ferretti

Secretary

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation 

and Natural Resources

400 Market Street, 5th Floor

Harrisburg, PA 17101

Doug McLearen

Division Chief, Archaeology and Protection

Pennsylvania Bureau of Historic 

Preservation

400 North Street

Harrisburg, PA 17120

David Densmore

Supervisor, Pennsylvania Field Office

US FWS Pennsylvania Region

315 South Allen Street, Suite 322

State College, PA 16801-4850

Jeffrey Lape

NEPA Coordinator

US EPA Pennsylvania Region III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

Regulatory Office (CENAB-OP-R)

USACE Pennsylvania Region Baltimore 

District

PO Box 1715

Baltimore, MD 21201

Karl Brown

USDA Pennsylvania Region

2301 North Cameron St.

Harrisburg, PA 17110

Anthony Ross

Wildlife Impact Review Coordinator

Pennsylvania Game Commission

2001 Elmerton Avenue

Harrisburg, PA 17110-9797

Division of Environmental Services

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

450 Robinson Lane

Bellefonte, PA 16823-9620

Dave McKinney

Environmental Chief

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

440 Hogan Road

Nashville, TN 37211

Joe Garrison

Historic Preservation Specialist

Tennessee Historical Commission

2941 Lebanon Road

Nashville, TN 37243

Mary Jennings

Field Supervisor

US FWS Tennessee Region

446 Neal Street

Cookeville, TN 38501-4027

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 9-7

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 

Division of Water Pollution Control

Tennessee Department of Environment and 

Conservation

7th Floor L&C Tower / 401 Church Street

Nashville, TN 37243

Division of Air Pollution Control

Tennessee Department of Environment and 

Conservation

9th Floor, L&C Tower / 401 Church Street

Nashville, TN 37243

Regulatory Branch

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

PO Box 1070

Nashville, TN 37202

US EPA Region 4

61 Forsyth Street

Atlanta, GA 30303-3104

Jessica Gonzales

Manager

US FWS - Central Washington Field Office

214 Melody Lane Suite 119

Wenatchee, WA 98801

Thomas Eaton

Director

US EPA Washington Region

300 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102

Lacey, WA 98503

Environmental Review Coordinator

USACE - Seattle District

4735 E. Marginal Way South

Seattle, WA 98124-3755

Janice Roderick

State Environmental Coordinator

USDA Washington Region

1835 Black Lake Blvd., Suite B

Olympia, WA 98512

Steven Landino

Director, Washington State Habitat

NOAA Fisheries

510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 103

Lacey, WA 98503-1263

Dale Bambrick

Eastern Washington Branch Chief

NOAA Fisheries - Eastern Washington 

Branch

304 South Water Street Suite 201

Ellensburg, WA 98926

Mark Miller

Manager

USFWS Spokane Ecological Services Office

11103 East Montgomery Drive Suite 2

Spokane Valley, WA 99206

Allyson Brooks, Ph.D.

Director

Washington State Department of 

Archaeology and Historic Preservation

P.O. Box 48343

Olympia, WA 98504-8343

Eric Bartrand

Area Habitat Biologist

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

1701 South 24th Avenue

Yakima, WA 98902-5720

Maia Bellon

Director

Washington State Department of Ecology

P.O. Box 47600

Olympia, WA 98504-7600

Gwen Clear

Regional Coordinator

Washington State Department of Ecology, 

Central Regional Office

15 West Yakima Avenue, Suite 200

Yakima, WA 98902

Gary Pruitt

Executive Director

Yakima Clean Air Regional Agency

329 North First Street

Yakima, WA 98901

Todd Welker

Regional Manager

Washington Department of Natural 

Resources Southeast Region

713 Bowers Road

Ellensburg, WA 98926-9301

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 9-8

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 

John Gamon

Program Manager

Department of Natural Resources - Natural 

Heritage Program

P.O. Box 47014

Olympia, WA 98504-7014

Bill Sauriol

Environmental Manager

Washington State Department of 

Transportation - South Central Regional 

Office

2809 Rudkin Road

Union Gap, WA 98903

Ryan Haugo

The Nature Conservancy - South Central 

Washington Office

32 North 3rd Street, Suite 310

Yakima, WA 98901

Andy Stepniewski

Yakima Valley Audubon Society

P.O. Box 2823

Yakima, WA 98907-2823

Mark Clark

Executive Director

Washington State Conservation Commission

P.O. Box 47721

Olympia, WA 98504-7721

Mike Tobin

District Manager

North Yakima Conservation District

1606 Perry Street, Suite C

Yakima, WA 98902-5769

Anna Lael

District Manager

Kittitas County Conservation District

2211 West Dolarway Road, Suite 4

Ellensburg, WA 98926

Grant County Public Utility District

30 C Street SW

Ephrata, WA 98823

Steven Erickson

Yakima County Planning and Development - 

Planning Services

128 North Second Street

Yakima, WA 98901

Kirk Holmes

Director

Kittitas County Community Development 

Services

411 North Ruby Street, Suite 2

Ellensburg, WA 98926

Rich Elliott

City Mayor

City of Ellensburg

501 North Anderson Street

Ellensburg, WA 98926

Micah Cawley

City Mayor

City of Yakima

129 North Second Street

Yakima, WA 98901

John Gawlik

City Mayor

City of Selah

115 West Naches Avenue,

Selah, WA 98942

Linda Huber

City Mayor

City of Kittitas

207 North Main Street

Kittitas, WA 98934

Dan Newhouse

Congressman

U.S. House of Representatives - 4th 

Congressional District

16421 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Adam Smith

U.S. House of Representatives - 9th 

Congressional District

2264 Rayburn Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 9-9

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 

Margaret Taafe

Environmental Program Manager

Yakima Training Center-Department of 

Public Works Environmental

Bldg. 810, Yakima Training Center

Yakima, WA 98901-9399

Lynette Johnson

Library Manager

Kittitas Public Library

P.O. Box 800

Kittitas, WA 98934

Michael Martin

Community Library Supervisor

Yakima Regional Library (Selah Library)

106 South Second Street

Selah, WA 98942

Annie Szvetecz

SEPA Unit Policy Lead

Washington Department of Ecology - 

Environmental Review Section

P.O. Box 47703

Olympia, WA 98504-7703

Lisa Wood

SEPA/NEPA Coordinator

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

600 Capitol Way North

Olympia, WA 98501

Chris Regan

NEPA/SEPA Coordinator

Washington State Department of 

Transportation

310 Maple Park Avenue SE

Olympia, WA 98504-7331

Chip Brown

Government Assistance & Training Specialist

Wisconsin Historical Society

816 State Street

Madison, WI 53706

Karen Kalvelage

Environmental Review & Analysis Specialist, 

DNR Service Center, La Crosse

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

3550 Mormon Coulee Road

La Crosse, WI 544601

Mark Brouder

Project Leader, Ashland Fish and wildlife 

Conservation Office

US FWS Wisconsin Region

2800 Lake Shore Drive East suite B

Ashland, WI 54806-2427

Kenneth Westlake

NEPA, US EPA - Region 5

US EPA Wisconsin Region

77 West Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

Kyle Zibung

Lead Project Manager, USACE Stevens 

Point Field Office

USACE Wisconsin Region

1314 Contractor Blvd.

Plover, WI 54467

Kim Wagner

NEPA Coordinator - USDA Wildlife Services

USDA Wisconsin Region

732 Lois Drive

Sun Prairie, WI 53590

Aaron Yaeger

Environmental Protection Specialist - Fort 

McCoy, WI

Fort McCoy U.S. Army Reserve NEPA

Bldg. 2171, South 8th Ave.

Fort McCoy, WI 54656

Frances McSwain

AHPP Director

Arkansas Historic Preservation Program

1500 Tower Bldg.

Little Rock, AR 72201

Becky Keogh Benefield

ADEQ Director

Arkansas Department of Environmental 

Quality

5301 Northshore Drive

North Little Rock, AR 72118-5317

Lindsey Lewis

Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office

US FWS Arkansas Region

110 South Amity Suite 300

Conway, AR 72032-8975

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 9-10

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 

Mike Jansky

Environmental Review Coordinator

US EPA Arkansas Region

1445 Ross Ave. 12th floor, Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

COL Courtney Paul

District Commander

USACE Arkansas Region

700 West Capital, CESWL-RD

Little Rock, AR 72201-3221

Lawrence McCullough

State Director

USDA Arkansas Region

700 West Capital, Room 3416

Little Rock, AR 72201-3225

Lauren Milligan

Environmental Consultant (State 

Clearinghouse and Comp Plan Review)

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection

3900 Commonwealth Blvd M.S. 47

Tallahassee, FL 32399

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission

620 S. Meridian Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600

Deena Woodward

Community Assistance Consultant

Florida Department of State Historical 

Resources

500 South Bronough Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399

Jay Herrington

Field Supervisor

US FWS Washington Region (North Florida 

Ecological Field Office)

7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200

Jacksonville, FL 32256-7517

Elizabeth Wilde

US EPA Region 4

US EPA Washington Region

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960

Interagency and International 

Services/Military Projects

USACE Washington Region (USACE 

Jacksonville District)

4070 Boulevard Center, Suite 201

Jacksonville, FL 32207

Judson Turner

Director

Georgia Department of Natural ResourcesEnvironmental Protection Division

2 Martin Luther King Jr. Dr., Suite 1152 East 

Tower

Atlanta, GA 30334

David Crass

Division Director & Deputy State Historic 

Preservation Officer

Georgia Department of Natural Resources - 

Historic Preservation Division

32 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 1600

Atlanta, GA 30303

Jim Ozier

Nongame Program Manager

Georgia Department of Natural Resources - 

Wildlife Resources

116 Rum Creek

Forsyth, GA 31029

Kelie Moore

Federal Consistency Coordinator

Georgia Department of Natural Resources - 

Coastal Resources Division

One Conservation Way, Suite 300

Brunswick, GA 31520-8687

Strant Colwell

Supervisory Biologist

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Wildlife Drive NE

Townsend, GA 31331

Paul Gagliano

Watershed Coordinator

US Environmental Protection Agency

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303-3104

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 9-11

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 

Mark Padgett

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

100 W Oglethorpe Avenue

Savannah, GA 31401

David Keys

National Marine Fisheries Service

263 13th Avenue South

St Petersburg, FL 33701

George Bain

Director

US Forest Service

200 East Broadway

Missoula, MT 7669

Jim Lathem

Acting State Soil Scientist

USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service

355 East Hancock Avenue

Athens, GA 30601

Anna Yellin

Environmental Review Coordinator

Georgia Department of Natural Resources - 

Non-Game Wildlife & Natural Heritage 

Section

2065 US Highway 278 SE

Social Circle, GA 30025

Sonny Timmerman

Director

Liberty Consolidated Planning Commission

100 Main Street, Suite 7520 

Hinesville, GA 31313

Steve King

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer

Iowa State Historic Preservation Office

600 East Locust, 3-Floor East

Des Moines, IA 50319

Charles Gipp

Director

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Wallace State Office Building, 502 East 9th 

Street

Des Moines, IA 50319

Kraig McPeek

Field Office Supervisor

US FWS Iowa Region

Rock Island Ecological Services Field Office, 

1511 47th Ave.

Moline, IL 61265

Karl Brooks

Regional Administrator

US EPA Iowa Region

11201 Renner Blvd. 

Lenexa, KS 66219

ATTN: Regulatory Branch, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers

USACE Iowa Region

1500 Rock Island Drive

Rock Island, IL 61201

Diane Rosen

Regional Director

BIA Midwest Region

Norman Pointe II Building, 5600 W. 

American Blvd., Suite 500

Bloomington, MN 55437

Sara Parker Pauley

Director

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

1101 Riverside Drive

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176

Mark Miles

Director

Missouri State Historic Preservation Office

1101 Riverside Drive

Jefferson City, MO 65102

Bob Ziehmer

Director

Missouri Department of Conservation

2901 W. Truman Blvd

Jefferson City, MO 65109

Amy Salveter

Field Supervisor

US FWS Missouri Region

101 Park Deville, Suite A

Columbia, MO 65203-0057

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 9-12

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 

Scott Brubaker

Permit Coordination and Review

New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection

401 East State Street, Mail Code: 401-07J

Trenton, NJ 08625

Kelly Davis

Biologist

New Jersey DEP Division of Fish & Wildlife

501 E. State St., 3rd Floor

Trenton, NJ 08625

Richelle Wormley

Interim Director

New Jersey DEP Division of Air Quality

401 E. State Street

Trenton, NJ 08625

Daniel Saunders

Deputy Historic Preservation Officer

New Jersey DEP Historic Preservation Office

501 E. State St., Plaza Building 5, 4th Floor

Trenton, NJ 08625

Ron Popowski

New Jersey Ecological Services Field Office

US FWS New Jersey Region

927 North Main Street Building D

Pleasantville, NJ 08232

Grace Musumeci

Region 2 Section Chief

US EPA New Jersey Region

290 Broadway Ave

New York, NY 10007

Todd Hoernemann

Biologist

USACE Philadelphia District Region

100 Penn Square East

Philadelphia, PA 19107

Carrie Mosley

State Conservationist

USDA New Jersey Region

220 Davidson Ave 4th Floor

Somerset, NJ 08873

David Sholtis

Acting Division Manager

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

50 West Town Street, Suite 700

Columbus, OH 43215

Kurt Princic

Chief NEDO

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

2110 East Aurora Road

Twinsburg, OH 44087

Amanda Schraner Terrell

Division Director

Ohio Historic Preservation Office

800 East 17th Avenue 

Columbus, OH 43211

Mark Epstein

Dept. Head, Resource Protection and 

Review

Ohio Historic Preservation Office

800 East 17th Avenue

Columbus, OH 43211

James Zehringer

Director

Ohio Department of Natural Resources

2045 Morse Road

Columbus, OH 43229

Director 

Ecological Services Field Office

US FWS Ohio Region

4625 Morse Road, Suite 104

Columbus, OH 43230-8355

James Bierlair

Supervisor

Portage Soil and Water Conservation District

6970 State Route 88

Ravenna, OH 44266

Mike Wilson

Supervisor

Trumbull Soil and Water Conservation 

District

520 W. Main Street, Suite 3

Cortland, OH 44410

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 9-13

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 

Roger Roper

Deputy SHPO

Oregon State Historic Preservation Office

725 Summer St. NE, Suite C

Salem, OR 97301

Curt Melcher

Interim Director

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

4034 Fairview Industrial Dr. SE

Salem, OR 97302

Dick Pederson

Director

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

811 SW 6th Avenue

Portland, OR 97204-1390

Jim Rue

Director

Oregon Department of Land Conservation 

and Development

635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150

Salem, OR 97301

Paul Henson

State Supervisor, Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Office

USFWS Oregon Region

2600 SE 98th Ave., Suite 100

Portland, OR 97266

Anthony Barber

Director, Oregon Operations Office

US EPA Oregon Region

805 SW Broadway, Suite 500

Portland, OR 97205

COL Jose Aguilar

Commander, Portland District

USACE Oregon Region

P.O. Box 2946

Portland, OR 97208-2946

David Mears

Commissioner

Vermont Department of Environmental 

Conservation

1 National Life Drive, Main 2

Montpelier, VT 05620

Laura Trieschmann

State Historic Preservation Officer

Vermont Division for Historic Preservation

National Life Building, Drawer 2

Montpelier, VT 05620

Deb Markowitz

Agency Secretary

Vermont Agency for Natural Resources

1 National Life Drive, Davis 2

Montpelier, VT 05620

Jim Groveman

Chair

Vermont Natural Resources Board

Dewey Building 1, National Life Drive

Montpelier, VT 05620

John Warner

Assistant Supervisor Federal Activities/End 

Species

US FWS Vermont Region

70 Commercial Street, Suite 300

Concord, NH 03301

Anne Fenn

Federal Facilities Program Manager

USEPA Vermont Region

1 Congress Street, Suite 1100, Mail: SPP

Boston, MA 02114-2023

Mike Adams

USACE Vermont Region

11 Lincoln Street, RM 210

Essex Junction, VT 05452

John Thurgood

District Conservationist

USDA Vermont Region

300 Interstate Corporate Center, Suite 200

Williston, VT 05495

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 9-14

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 

Native American Tribes

Governor Edwina Butler-Wolfe

Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma

2015 South Gordon Cooper Dr.

Shawnee, OK 74801

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) 

Joseph Blanchard

Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma

2025 S Gordon Cooper

Shawnee, OK 74801

Chief Colabe III Clem Fain Sylestine

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas

571 State Park Rd 56

Livingston, TX 77351

THPO Bryant Celestine

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas

571 State Park Rd 56

Livingston, TX 77351

First Chief Tarpie Yargee

Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town of 

Oklahoma

101 E. Broadway

187

Wetumka, OK 74883

Tribal Chairman Lynman Guy

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma

620 East Colorado Drive

P.O. Box 1330

Anadarko, OK 73005

EPA Director Ernest Redbird III

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma

620 East Colorado Drive

P.O. Box 1330

Anadarko, OK 73005

THPO Review Board Chair Donna Lynk

Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of

Chippewa

P.O. Box 39

Odanah, WI 54861

THPO Officer Wanda Perron

Bay Mills Indian Community of Michigan

12140 W. Lakeshore Drive

Brimley, MI 49715

Chairman Harry Barnes

Blackfeet Nation

All Chiefs Square

P.O. Box 850

Browning, MT 59417

Governor Kevin Leecy

Bois Forte Tribal Government-Nett Lake

5344 Lakeshore Drive

Nett Lake, MN 55772

Chairperson Charlotte Roderique

Burns Paiute Tribe

100 Pasigo Street

Burns, OR 97720

Chairperson Tamara Cichele

Caddo Nation

117 Memorial Ln.

P.O. Box 487

Binger, OK 73009

THPO Robert Cast

Caddo Nation

117 Memorial Ln.

P.O. Box 487

Binger, OK 73009

Chief William Harris

Catawba Indian Nation

996 Avenue of the Nations

Rock Hill, SC 29730

Chief William Jacobs

Cayuga Nation of Indians

2540 SR-89

P.O. Box 803

Seneca Falls, NY 13148

Principal Chief Bill John Baker

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma

WW Keeler Tribal Complex

P.O. Box 948

Tahlequah, OK 74465

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 9-15

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 

Chairman William Blind

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma

100 Red Moon Circle

P.O. Box 38

Concho, OK 73022

Tribal Chairman Kevin Keckler, Sr.

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

P.O. Box 590

Eagle Butte, SD 57625

Governor Bill Anoatubby

Chickasaw Nation

520 E. Arlington

P.O. Box 1548

Ada, OK 74820

Governor Richard Morsette

Chippewa Cree Tribe

31 Agency Square

P.O. Box 544

Box Elder, MT 59521

Chairman John Paul Darden

Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana

P.O. Box 661

Charenton, LA 70523

THPO Ian Thompson

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 1210

Durant, OK 74702

Chairperson John Barrett

Citizen Potawatomi Nation

1601 South Gordon Cooper Drive

Shawnee, OK 74801

Historic Preservation Officer Jimmy W. 

Arterberry

Comanche Nation

#6 SW 'D' Avenue, Suite A

P.O. Box 908

Lawton, OK 73507

Chairman Vernon Finley

Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes

P.O. Box 278

Pablo, MT 59855

Chairman JoDe L. Goudy

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the 

Yakama Nation

401 Fort Road

P.O. Box 151

Toppenish, WA 98948

Tribal Chair Reynold Leno

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde

9615 Grand Ronde Road

Grand Ronde, OR 97347

Tribal Chair Delores Pigsley

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians

1322 N. Larchwood

P.O. Box 549

Salem, OR 97303

Chairperson Eugene Greene Jr.

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs

1233 Veterans Street

P.O. Box C

Warm Springs, OR 97761

Governor Kevin Sickey

Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana

1940 CC Bel Road

P.O. Box 818

Elton, LA 70532

Chairwoman Roxanne Sazue

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe

P.O. Box 50

Fort Thompson, SD 57339

Chairman Darrin Old Coyote

Crow Nation

Baacheeitche Avenue

P.O. Box 159

Crow Agency, MT 59022

President Clifford Peacock

Delaware Nation

P.O. Box 825

Anadarko, OK 73005

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 9-16

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 

Director/THPO Brice Obermeyer

Delaware Tribe of Indians

Delaware Tribe Historic Preservation Office - 

Roosevelt Hall, Room 212 - 1200 

Commercial St.

Emporia, KS 66801

Principal Chief Michell Hicks

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

P.O. Box 455

Cherokee, NC 28719

Chief Glenna J. Wallace

Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma

127 W. Oneida St.

P.O. Box 350

Seneca, MO 64865

President Tony Reider

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe

603 W Broad Ave

P.O. Box 283

Flandreau, SD 57028

Chairwoman Karen Diver

Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa

1720 Big Lake Road

Cloquet, MN 55720

Chairperson Harold "Gus" Frank

Forest County Potawatomi

5416 Everybody's Rd.

P.O. Box 340

Crandon, WI 54520

Governor Mark Azure

Fort Belknap Assiniboine & Gros Ventre 

Tribes

656 Agency Main Street

Harlem, MT 59526

Chairman Tildon Smart

Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe

P.O. Box 457

McDermitt, NV 89421

Chairman A.T. Stafne

Fort Peck Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes

501 Medicine Bear Road

P.O. Box 1027

Poplar, MT 59255

Chairman Jeff Haozous

Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma

43187 US Hwy 281

Apache, OK 73006

Chairman DesChampe

Grand Portage Band of Chippewa

P.O. Box 428

Grand Portage, MN 55605

Chairman Ron Yob

Grand River Band of Ottawa Indians

1251 Plainfield NE, Suite 2B

Grand Rapids, MI 49501

Chairman Al Pedwaydon

Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa 

Indians of Michigan

2605 NW Bayshore Drive

Peshawbestown, MI 49682

Chairperson Kenneth Meshiguad

Hannahville Indian Community Council

N14911 Hannahville B1 Road

Wilson, MI 49896

Chairperson Timothy Rhodd

Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska

3345 B. Trasher Road

White Cloud, KS 66439

Chairman Gary Pratt

Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma

335588 E. 750 Road

Perkins, OK 74059

Governor B. Cheryl Smith

Jena Band of Choctaw Indians

P.O. Box 14

Jena, LA 71342-0014

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 9-17

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 

Chairwoman Elaine Daily Hutch

Kaw Nation

698 Grandview Dr.

P.O. Box 50

Kaw City, OK 74641

President Donald Shalifoe, Sr.

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community

107 Beartown Road

Baraga, MI 49908

Mekko Hon. Jeremiah Hobia

Kialegee Tribal Town

P.O. Box 332

Wetumka, OK 74883

Chairman Juan Garza

Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas

162 Chick Kazen St

Eagle Pass, TX 78852

Chairman Lester Randall

Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas

1107 Goldfinch Rd.

Horton, KS 66439

Chairperson Gilbert Salazar

Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 70

McCloud, OK 74851

Chairman Amber Toppah

Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma

100 Kiowa Way

Carnegie, OK 73105

President Peter Defoe

Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma

Box 217

Cass Lake, MN 56633

Chairman Louis Taylor

Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Ojibwe

13394 West Trepania, Bldg. No. 1

Hayward, WI 54843

Governor James Williams, Jr.

Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa

P.O. Box 249

Watersmeet, MI 49969

Chairwoman Carri Jones

Leech Lake Reservation

115 Sixth Street NE, Suite E

Cass Lake, MN 56633

Ogema Larry Romanelli

Little River Band of Ottawa

P.O. Box 469

Manistee, MI 49660

Chairman Gerald Gray

Little Shell Chippewa Tribe

625 Central Avenue West

P.O. Box 543

Great Falls, MT 59401

Tribal Chairman Fred Kiogima

Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians

7500 Odawa Circle

Harbor Springs, MI 49740

President Denny Prescott

Lower Sioux Indian Community

39527 Res. Highway 1

P. O. Box 308

Morton, MN 56270

Chairperson David K. Sprague

Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of 

Pottawatomi

P.O. Box 218

Dorr, MI 49323

THPO Melinda Young

Mescalero Apache

838 Whitefeather Street

Lac du Flambeau, WI 54538

President Danny Breuninger

Mescalero Apache

108 Old Mescalero Blvd

227

Mescalero, NM 88340

Chief Douglas G. Lankford

Miami Tribe of Oklahoma

202 S Eight Tribes Trail,

P.O. Box 1326

Miami, OK 74355

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 9-18

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 

Governor Colley Billie

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida

P.O. Box 440021

Miami, FL 33194

Chief Executive Melanie Benjamin

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe

43408 Oodena Drive

Onamia, MN 56539

Chief Executive Melanie Benjamin

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe

P.O. Box 217

Cass Lake, MN 56633

Chief Phyliss Anderson

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians

101 Industrial Road

P.O. Box 6010

Choctaw, MS 39350

Chief Bill Follis

Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma

418 G Street SE

Miami, OK 74354

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Emmon Spain

Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma

Cultural Preservation Office

P.O. Box 580

Okmulgee, OK 74447

Principal Chief George Tiger

Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 580 Hwy 75 & Loop 56

Okmulgee, OK 74447

President Llevando Fisher

Northern Cheyenne Tribe

600 Cheyenne Avenue

P.O. Box 128

Lame Deer, MT 59043

Chairman Homer Mandoka

Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi

2221-1 1/2 Mile Road

Fulton, MI 49052

THPO Mitchell Parker 

Omaha Tribe of Oklahoma

Macy, NE 68039

Governor Ray Halbritter

Oneida Indian Nation of New York

2037 Dream Catcher Plaza

Oneida, NY 13421

Chairman Richard G. Hill

Oneida Nation of Wisconsin

P.O. Box 365

Oneida, WI 54155

Chairwoman Cristina Danforth

Oneida Nation of Wisconsin

P.O. Box 365

Oneida, WI 74641

Chief Irving Powless Jr.

Onondaga Nation

3951 Route 11 Onondaga Nation

Nedrow, NY 13120

Principal Chief Geoffrey Standing Bear

Osage Nation

627 Grandview Ave

Pawhuska, OK 74056

Chairman John Shotton 

Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Oklahoma

8151 Highway 177

Red Rock, OK 74651

Chief Ethel E. Cook

Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma

13 S. 69 A

P.O. Box 110 

Miami, OK 74354

President Marshall Gover

Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma

881 Little Dee Drive

P.O. Box 170

Pawnee, OK 74058

Chief John P. Froman

Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma

118 S. Eight Tribes Trail

P.O. Box `1527

Miami, OK 74354

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 9-19

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 

Tribal Chair Stephanie Brian

Poarch Band of Creek Indians

5811 Jack Springs Road

Atmore, AL 36502

Governor John Warren

Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians

58620 Sink Road

P.O. Box 180

Dowagiac, MI 49047

Chairman Douglas Rhodd

Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma

20 White Eagle Drive

Ponca City, OK 74601

Executive Director of Tribal Affairs Thomas 

Wright II

Ponca Tribe of Nebraska

P.O. Box 288

Niobara, NE 68760

Chairperson Lianna Onnen

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation

16281 Q Road

Mayetta, KS 66509

President Ronald Johnson

Prairie Island Indian Community

5636 Sturgeon Lake Road

Welch, MN 55089

THPO Everett Brandy

Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma

5681 South 630 Road,

Quapaw, OK 74363

Chairperson Rose Gurnoe-Soulier

Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa

88385 Pike Road

Bayfield, WI 54814

Chairman Darrell Seki Sr.

Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians

P.O. 550

Red Lake, MN 56671

Chairwoman Brigette Robidoux

Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and 

Nebraska

305 N. Main Street

Reserve, KS 66434

Chairwoman Judith Bender

Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa

349 Meskwaki Road

Tama, IA 52339

Governor George Thurman

Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma

920883 S. Hwy 99 Bldg A

Stroud, OK 74079

THPO Charmaine Shawana

Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of MI

6650 East Broadway

Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858

Chairman Vincent Armenta

Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians

100 Via Juana Lane

Santa Ynez, CA 93460

Tribal Chairman Roger Trudell

Santee Sioux Nation

425 Frazier Ave N. Suite 2

Niobara, NE 68760

Tribal Chairman Aaron A. Payment

Sault Saint Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians 

of Michigan

523 Ashmun Street

Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783

Principal Chief Leonard Harjo

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 1498

Wewoka, OK 74884

President Tony Sanchez Jr.

Seminole Tribe of Florida

6300 Stirling Road

Hollywood, FL 33024

President Maurice A. John Sr.

Seneca Nation of Indians

12837 Route 438

Irving, NY 14081

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 9-20

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 

Chief LeRoy Howard

Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma

23701 S. 655 Road

Grove, OK 74344

Chairman Charlie Vig

Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community 

of Minnesota

2330 Sioux Trail NW

Prior Lake, MN 58335

Governor Ron Sparkman

Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma

29 Highway 69A

P.O. Box 189

Miami, OK 74355

Chairman Nathan Small

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

P.O. Box 306

Fort Hall, ID 83203

Chairman Lindsey Manning

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley 

Indian Reservation

P.O. Box 219

Owyhee, NV 89832

Tribal Chairman Robert Shepherd

Sisseton/Wahpeton Oyate

45657 Veterans Memorial Drive

Sisseton, SD 57262

Chairman Chris McGeshick

Sokaogon Chippewa Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa

3051 Sand Lake Rd

Crandon, WI 54520

Governor Eddie Hamilton

Southern Cheyenne

100 Red Moon Circle

Concho, OK 73022

Tribal Chairperson Myra Pearson

Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe

P.O. Box 359

Fort Totten, ND 58335

President David Merrill

St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin

24663 Angeline Ave

Webster, WI 54893

Chief Paul O. Thompson

St. Regis Mohawk Tribe

412 State Route 37

Akwesasne, NY 13655

Chief Beverly Cook

St. Regis Mohawk Tribe

412 State Route 37

Akwesasne, NY 13655

Governor Dave Archambault II

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

Bldg. #1 N Standing Rock Ave.

P.O. Box D

Fort Yates, ND 58538

President Wally Miller

Stockbridge-Munsee Band of the Mohican 

Nation

P.O. Box 70

Bowler, WI 54416

Town King George Scott

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town

109095 Okemah St

P. O. Box 188

Okemah, OK 74859

THPO George Coleman

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town

109095 Okemah St

P. O. Box 188

Okemah, OK 74859

Chief Roger Hill

Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New 

York

7027 Meadville Road

Basom, NY 14013

Chief Roger Hill

Tonawanda Band of Seneca Nation

7027 Meadville Road

Basom, NY 14013

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 9-21

Draft - August 2015
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 

President Don Patterson

Tonkawa Tribe

1 Rush Buffalo Road

Tonkawa, OK 74653

Tribal Chairman Earl Barbry, Jr.

Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe of Louisiana

151 Melacon Drive

Markville, LA 71351

Chairman David Brien

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa

P.O. Box 900

Belcourt, ND 58316

Chief Leo Henry

Tuscarora Nation

2006 Mt Hope Road

Lewiston, NY 14092

Governor George Wickliffe

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee 

Indians

4444 S. Whittmore Lane

P.O. Box 746

Talequah, OK 74465

Chairman Kevin Jensvold

Upper Sioux Community of Minnesota

5722 Travelers Lane

P.O. Box 147

Granite Falls, MN 

Title Spokesperson Dennis Gill

Wahpekute Band of Dakota

3322 Gill Road

Waubay, SD 57273

Grant County Public Utility District Rex Buck

Wanapum Band

15655 Wanapum Village Lane SW

Beverly, Washington 99321

Chairperson Erma Vizenor

White Earth Nation

P.O. Box 418

White Earth, MN 56591

President Terry Parton

Wichita & Affiliated Tribes

P.O. Box 729

Anadarko, OK 73005

Chairman John Blackhawk

Winnebago Tribal Council

100 Bluff Street

P.O. Box 687

Winnebago, NE 68071

Chief Billy Friend

Wyandotte Nation

64790 E. Highway 60

P.O. Box 250

Wyandotte, OK 74370

Nationwide EA for Proposed NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Page 9-22

Draft - August 2015
APPENDIX A 

AGENCY CONSULTATION 
NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

111 SOUTH GEORGE MASON DRIVE 

ARLINGTON VA 22204-1373 

SAMPLE LETTER

Environmental Program Division, Army National Guard

[Address]

Dear [Contact]: 

The Army National Guard (ARNG) is submitting this letter to solicit comments 

regarding plans to field and station two distinct vehicles, the Stryker Nuclear, Biological, 

Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV) and the Mine Protective Clearance 

Vehicle (MPCV) Buffalo. The ARNG Materiel Programs Division (ARNG-RMQ) is 

preparing a nationwide Fielding Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate potential 

physical, environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic effects associated with the 

Proposed Action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as 

amended (42 U.S. Code (USC) § 4321 et seq.), Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), and 32 

CFR Part 651.

This Fielding EA will identify, document, and evaluate, on a nationwide level, the 

environmental effects of locating the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo and associated training 

at approximately 32 State and Territory ARNG locations (Figure 1; Table 1); however, 

the intent of this Fielding EA will be to address the potential to field both vehicles to all 

54 ARNG States and Territories. The Fielding EA will evaluate the Proposed Action’s 

expected common effects on environmental resources and will lay the foundation for 

subsequent installation-specific analyses and decision making by the State or Territory 

ARNGs ultimately assigned to receive the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo vehicles. . A 

primary criterion for selection of the 32 State and Territory ARNG locations was that 

each location is an established ARNG training installation that currently supports ARNG 

reconnaissance, surveillance, and engineering vehicle training. These installations can 

accommodate the training, maintenance, and storage of the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo 

vehicles, thereby eliminating the need for new facilities to accommodate vehicle 

training, maintenance, and storage operations. No new training areas would be 

developed associated with the Proposed Action. State and Territory ARNGs will conduct 

additional analyses, as appropriate, pursuant to 32 CFR Part 651, to address sitespecific effects prior to ARNG’s fielding the vehicles to each State or Territory's 

installation.
In accordance with Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs, we request your assistance in identifying key issues or regulatory 

requirements to be addressed in the Fielding EA. At this time, we are requesting that you 

provide us with any comments relevant to the Proposed Action and resources to be 

analyzed in the Fielding EA. Please provide any comments, concerns, information, 

studies, or other data you and/or your staff may have regarding the Proposed Action 

within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter. All responses shall be considered for 

incorporation into the draft Fielding EA. Please direct your correspondence to:

Ms. Anna Hudson

c

/o Amec Foster Wheeler

104 West Anapamu Street

Suite 204A

Santa Barbara, CA 93101

(703) 601-7980

or via email to ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffalo-ea@mail.mil. Upon written request, a 

copy of the draft Fielding EA and/or Finding of No Significant Impact (if applicable) will be 

provided. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely, 

MAJ Samuel A. Harris

Chief, Assessments and 

 Evaluations Branch

Environmental Program Division

Enclosures:

Figure 1. Stryker NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Proposed Fielding Locations

Table 1. Stryker NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Proposed Fielding Locations
NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

111 SOUTH GEORGE MASON DRIVE 

ARLINGTON VA 22204-1373 

SAMPLE LETTER

Environmental Program Division, Army National Guard

[Address]

Dear [Contact]: 

The Army National Guard (ARNG) is submitting this letter to solicit comments 

regarding plans to field and station two distinct vehicles, the Stryker Nuclear, Biological, 

Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV) and the Mine Protective Clearance 

Vehicle (MPCV) Buffalo. The ARNG Materiel Programs Division (ARNG-RMQ) is 

preparing a nationwide Fielding Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate potential 

physical, environmental, and cultural effects associated with the Proposed Action 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 

U.S. Code (USC) § 4321 et seq.), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations 

(40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), and 32 CFR Part 651.

This Fielding EA will identify, document, and evaluate, on a nationwide level, the 

environmental effects of locating the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo and associated training 

at approximately 32 State and Territory ARNG locations (Figure 1; Table 1); however, 

the intent of this Fielding EA will be to address the potential to field both vehicles to all 

54 ARNG States and Territories. The Fielding EA will evaluate the Proposed Action’s 

expected common effects on environmental resources and will lay the foundation for 

subsequent installation-specific analyses and decision making by the State or Territory 

ARNGs ultimately assigned to receive the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo vehicles. A 

primary criterion for selection of the 32 State and Territory ARNG locations was that 

each location is an established ARNG training installation that currently supports ARNG 

reconnaissance, surveillance, and engineering vehicle training. These installations can 

accommodate the training, maintenance, and storage of the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo 

vehicles, thereby eliminating the need for new facilities to accommodate vehicle 

training, maintenance, and storage operations. No new training areas would be 

developed associated with the Proposed Action. State and Territory ARNGs will conduct 

additional analyses, as appropriate, pursuant to 32 CFR Part 651, to address sitespecific effects prior to ARNG’s fielding the vehicles to each State or Territory's 

installation.

We invite you to join us as a consulting party as we conduct this Fielding EA in 

accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.2, Executive Order (EO) 13175, and Department of 

Defense Instruction (DoDI) 4710.02 – Interactions with Federally Recognized Tribes. 

Please provide any comments, concerns, information, studies, or other data you and/or 

your staff may have regarding the Proposed Action. All responses shall be considered 

for incorporation into the draft Fielding EA. Please direct your correspondence to:
Dr. Rebecca Klein

c

/o Amec Foster Wheeler

104 West Anapamu Street

Suite 204A

Santa Barbara, CA 93101

(703) 607-1176

or via email to ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffalo-ea@mail.mil. Upon written request, a 

copy of the draft Fielding EA and/or Finding of No Significant Impact, if applicable, will 

be provided. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely, 

MAJ Samuel A. Harris

Chief, Assessments and 

 Evaluations Branch

Environmental Program Division

Enclosures:

Figure 1. Stryker NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Proposed Fielding Locations

Table 1. Stryker NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Proposed Fielding Locations



1

Meisinger, Nick

From: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA <ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffaloea@mail.mil>

Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 12:01 PM

To: Meisinger, Nick

Subject: Tenn Div of Water Resources

Attachments: image001.png

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Tom Moss [mailto:Tom.Moss@tn.gov]  

Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 12:12 PM

To: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA

Subject: Stryker and Buffalo vehicles fielding plans

I have received your request for review.  I do not see any particular problem with fielding the vehicles; however, I noted

that there is an East Tennessee location (somewhere in the vicinity of Knoxville) marked on the provided map for a

Stryker location but the enclosed table does not give the actual location.  Could you supply the fielding location for the

vehicle so that I can respond?

  

Thank you.

  

Tom Moss, P.G.

Compliance and Enforcement Unit

Division of Water Resources

William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower

312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 11th Floor

Nashville, TN 37243‐1102

(615) 532‐0170

tom.moss@tn.gov

  

TDEC‐logo_emailsignature <http://www.tn.gov/environment/>  

Sign‐up for the TDEC E‐Newsletter <https://app.e2ma.net/app2/audience/signup/1731878/1718855/?v=a> .  

Tell us how we're doing!  Please take 5‐10 minutes to complete TDEC's Customer Service Survey

<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TDECSurvey> .
Ms. Anna Hudson Electronic Mail

c/o Amec Foster Wheeler May 4, 2015

104 West Anapamu Street

Suite 204A

Santa Barbara, California 93101

Ms. Hudson:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding plans to field and station the Stryker Nuclear, 

Biological, Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV) and the Mine Protective Clearance Vehicle (MPCV) 

Buffalo at approximately 32 State and Territory Army National Guard (ARNG) locations, as identified in Figure 1 

and Table 1 the April 15, 2015 letter submitted by MAJ Samuel A. Harris, with the potential to field both vehicles in

all 54 ARNG States and Territories. Each selected stationing location is an established ARNG training installation 

that currently supports ARNG reconnaissance, surveillance, and engineering vehicle training; no new facility 

developments are planned at this time. We are providing information concerning threatened and endangered 

species. We have the following comments.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal 

agencies not jeopardize federally threatened or endangered species or adversely modify designated critical habitat.

To fulfill this mandate, Federal agencies (or their designated non-federal representative) must consult with the 

Service if they determine their project “may affect” listed species or critical habitat.

In order for you to evaluate the potential effects of your project on federally listed species, you can download a list 

of species listed for the respective county from the Service's Region 3 Technical Assistance website at

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/sppranges/index.html. Habitat descriptions for these species can 

also be found on our website. You may use these descriptions to help you determine if there is suitable habitat 

within your project area. If no suitable habitat exists within your project area or its area of impact, and no species or 

critical habitat is present, it is appropriate to determine the project will have “no effect” on listed species. If you 

determine the action will have “no effect” on listed species or critical habitat, concurrence with that determination 

from the Service is not required. Concurrence for no effect determinations will not be provided by the Rock Island 

Ecological Services Field Office for projects in Iowa or Illinois due to reductions in staff. We recommend you 

maintain a written record of why a “no effect” finding is warranted and include it in your administrative record. An 

example "no effect" memo can be found on our website 

athttp://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/s7process/letters.html. 

If suitable habitat is found in the area of your project, the appropriate determination is that the project “may affect” 

listed species. In some instances surveys may be recommended to help make this determination. Additional 

information on how to make accurate effect determinations and how to document your determination can be found 

on our website athttp://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/s7process/step1.html. 

Additionally, the Service removed bald eagles from protection under the ESA on August 8, 2007. However, they 

remain protected today under the MBTA and the Eagle Act. The Eagle Act prohibits take which is defined as, 

“pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest, or disturb” (50 CFR 22.3).

Disturb is defined in regulations as, “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to 

cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) decrease in its productivity, by 

 

 

 IN REPLY REFER 

 TO:

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Rock Island Field Office

1511 47th Avenue

Moline, Illinois 61265

Phone: (309) 757-5800 Fax: (309) 757-5807
substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by 

substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.”

The Corps of Engineers is the Federal agency responsible for wetland regulation, and we recommend that you 

contact them for assistance in delineating the wetland types and acreage within the project boundary. Priority 

consideration should be given to avoid impacts to these wetland areas. Any future activities in the study area that 

would alter these wetlands may require a Section 404 permit. Unavoidable impacts will require a mitigation plan to 

compensate for any losses of wetland functions and values. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Clock Tower 

Building, P.O. Box 2004, Rock Island, Illinois 61201, should be contacted for information about the permit process.

These comments provide technical assistance only and do not constitute the report of the Secretary of the Interior on 

the project within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, do not fulfill the 

requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, nor do they represent the review comments of the U.S. 

Department of the Interior on any forthcoming environmental statement.

Please be aware comments provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rock Island Ecological Services Field 

Office are only applicable to the states of Iowa and Illinois. The respective U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Offices 

should be contacted for projects occurring outside of Iowa and Illinois.

If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at this email address or the number below.

Sara Schmuecker

Fish & Wildlife Biologist

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Rock Island Ecological Services Field Office

1511 47th Avenue

Moline, IL 61265

(309) 757-5800, ext. 203

(309) 757-5807 Fax

sara_schmuecker@fws.gov 


5 May 2015

Ms. Anna Hudson 

c/o Amec Foster Wheeler 

104 West Anapamu Street 

Suite 204A 

Santa Barbara, CA 93101 

RE: Army National Guard 

 Stryker Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle and Mine Protective 

 Clearance Vehicle Buffalo 

Dear Ms. Hudson: 

The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) has received your request 

for information pertaining to the subject project. Based on the nature of the project, the KDFWR 

does not have any specific comments as they relate to the subject project. If you have questions 

or require additional information, please call me at (502) 564-7109 extension 4453. 

Sincerely, 

Dan Stoelb 

Environmental Scientist 

Cc: Environmental Section File















1

Meisinger, Nick

From: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA <ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffaloea@mail.mil>

Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 12:10 PM

To: Meisinger, Nick

Subject: AL DEM

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Coron, Jeffrey L CTR (US)

Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 12:49 PM

To: Puckett, Heather R NFG NG ALARNG (US)

Subject: RE: Fielding EA for the MPCV Buffalo and Stryker NBCRV (UNCLASSIFIED)

Hi Heather.

Anna Hudson fielded a telephone call re: the Stryker NBCRV fielding to AL.

Call info:

Caller: Ashley Mastin

    Alabama Dept. of Env. Management

    334‐271‐7797

Ms. Mastin asked where in AL will the NBCRVs be located?

Anna Hudson replied that they will be stationed at Camp Shelby, MS, and that if the ALARNG wants to move the vehicles

to AL the ALARNG would prepare additional NEPA documentation prior to the move.

If we receive a written response from ADEM I'll forward it to you.

Jeff

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Puckett, Heather R NFG NG ALARNG (US)

Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 8:51 AM

To: Coron, Jeffrey L CTR (US)

Cc: Cook, Robert J LTC USARMY NG ALARNG (US); Hayes, Gregory S NFG NG ALARNG (US); Robinson, Russell K NFG NG

ALARNG (US); Klein, Rebecca A CIV NG NGB (US); Meisinger, Nick

Subject: RE: Fielding EA for the MPCV Buffalo and Stryker NBCRV (UNCLASSIFIED)

Thank you, Jeff.  

Please be sure to keep us in the loop regarding the fielding of the equipment to AL ARNG at Camp Shelby, Mississippi,

and in Alabama, as we are tracking this for our current Mission EA as well.  

v/r

Heather R Puckett, PhD

Historian / Historical Archaeologist  

Cultural Resources Manager

State Military Environmental Supervisor

Alabama Army National Guard
2

Environmental Program Office

Joint Forces Headquarters

1720 Congressman Dickinson Drive

Montgomery, AL 36109

Office: 334.271.8181

Work Email: heather.r.puckett4.nfg@mail.mil

Personal Cell: 951.522.7326

Personal Email: heather.r.puckett@gmail.com  
1

Meisinger, Nick

From: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA <ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffaloea@mail.mil>

Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 12:07 PM

To: Meisinger, Nick

Subject: WI Fort McCoy Env Div

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Yaeger, Aaron J CIV USARMY USAG (US)  

Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 9:59 AM

To: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA

Subject: Nationwide Fielding EA (UNCLASSIFIED)

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

Ms. Hudson,

Fort McCoy does not have any issues or concerns with the use of these vehicles on our installation. These vehicles are

similar to military vehicles that already operate/train on Fort McCoy so we don't see any additional issues or regulatory

requirements if these vehicles were at Fort McCoy.

We do ask that you send us a copy of the EA and FNSI for our files. Thank you.

Aaron J. Yaeger

DPW ‐ Environmental Division

2171 South 8th Avenue

Fort McCoy, WI 54656

Office: (608)388‐8985

Fax: (608)388‐6235

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED






Office of Real Estate 

Paul R. Baldridge, Chief 

2045 Morse Road – Bldg. E-2 

Columbus, OH 43229 

Phone: (614) 265-6649 

Fax: (614) 267-4764 

May 15, 2014 

Brian P. Riley 

Ohio Army National Guard 

Camp Ravenna Joint Military Training Center 

1438 State Route 534 SW 

Newton Falls, Ohio 44444 

Re: 14-293; Ohio ANG -Draft Updated Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) - Camp 

Ravenna 

Project: The purpose of the updated Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP) is 

to set appropriate and adequate guidelines for conserving and protecting the natural resources of 

Camp Ravenna while facilitating and supporting the military mission. 

Location: The project is located in Ravenna Township, Portage and Trumbull Counties, Ohio. 

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) has completed a review of the above 

referenced project. These comments were generated by an inter-disciplinary review within the 

Department. These comments have been prepared under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the National Environmental 

Policy Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, Ohio Revised Code and other applicable laws and 

regulations. These comments are also based on ODNR’s experience as the state natural resource 

management agency and do not supersede or replace the regulatory authority of any local, state or 

federal agency nor relieve the applicant of the obligation to comply with any local, state or 

federal laws or regulations. 

ODNR has no substantive comments on the revised INRMP. Below, for your reference, we have 

included standard comments for threatened and endangered species for this area of the state. 

Fish and Wildlife: The Division of Wildlife (DOW) has the following comments. 

Camp Ravenna is within the range of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), a state and federally 

endangered species. The following species of trees have relatively high value as potential Indiana 

bat roost trees: Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), Shellbark hickory (Carya laciniosa), Bitternut 

hickory (Carya cordiformis), Black ash (Fraxinus nigra), Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), 

White ash (Fraxinus americana), Shingle oak (Quercus imbricaria), Northern red oak (Quercus 

rubra), Slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), American elm (Ulmus americana), Eastern cottonwood 

(Populus deltoides), Silver maple (Acer saccharinum), Sassafras (Sassafras albidum), Post oak 

(Quercus stellata), and White oak (Quercus alba). Indiana bat habitat consists of suitable trees 

that include dead and dying trees with exfoliating bark, crevices, or cavities in upland areas or 

riparian corridors and living trees with exfoliating bark, cavities, or hollow areas formed from 
broken branches or tops. If suitable trees occur within the project area, the Division of Wildlife 

recommends that these trees be conserved. If suitable habitat occurs on the project area and trees 

must be cut, the Division of Wildlife recommends cutting occur between October 1 and March 

31. If suitable trees must be cut during the summer months, the Division of Wildlife recommends 

a net survey be conducted between June 1 and August 15, prior to cutting. Net surveys should 

incorporate either nine net nights per square 0.5 kilometer of project area, or four net nights per 

kilometer for linear projects. If no tree removal is proposed, a project is not likely to impact this 

species. 

Camp Ravenna is within the range of the eastern massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus), a state 

endangered and a federal candidate snake species. The eastern massasauga uses a range of 

habitats including wet prairies and wetlands, as well as drier upland habitat. 

Camp Ravenna is within the range of the Iowa darter (Etheostoma exile), a state endangered fish, 

the northern brook lamprey (Ichthyomyzon fossor), a state endangered fish, the mountain brook 

lamprey (Ichthyomyzon greeleyi), a state endangered fish, and the lake chubsucker (.Erimyzon 

sucetta), a state threatened fish. The DOW recommends no in-water work in perennial streams at 

least April 15 to June 30 to reduce impacts to indigenous aquatic species and their habitat. If 

there is no in-water work, a project is not likely to impact these species. 

Camp Ravenna is within the range of the clubshell (Pleurobema clava), a state endangered and 

federally endangered mussel, the snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra), a state endangered and 

federally endangered mussel, and the black sandshell (Ligumia recta), a state threatened mussel, 

and the eastern pondmussel (Ligumia nasuta), a state endangered mussel. If there is no in-water 

work, a project is not likely to impact these species. 

Camp Ravenna is within the range of the black bear (Ursus americanus), a state endangered 

species. Due to the mobility of this species, a project is not likely to impact this species. 

Camp Ravenna is within the range of the spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), a state threatened 

species. This species prefers fens, bogs and marshes, but also is known to inhabit wet prairies, 

meadows, pond edges, wet woods, and the shallow sluggish waters of small streams and ditches. 

Camp Ravenna is within the range of the northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), a state endangered 

bird. This is a common migrant and winter species. Nesters are much rarer, although they 

occasionally breed in large marshes and grasslands. Harriers often nest in loose colonies. The 

female builds a nest out of sticks on the ground, often on top of a mound. Harriers hunt over 

grasslands. A statewide survey has not been completed for this species. A lack of records does 

not indicate the species is absent from the area. If this type of habitat will be impacted, 

construction should not occur in this habitat during the species’ nesting period of May 15 to 

August 1. If this habitat will not be impacted, a project is not likely to impact this species. 

Camp Ravenna is within the range of the American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), a state 

endangered bird. A statewide survey has not been completed for this species. A lack of records 

does not indicate the species is absent from the area. Nesting bitterns prefer large undisturbed 

wetlands that have scattered small pools amongst dense vegetation. They occasionally occupy 

bogs, large wet meadows, and dense shrubby swamps. If this type of habitat will be impacted, 

construction must be avoided in this habitat during the species’ nesting period of May 1 to July 

31. If this type of habitat will not be impacted, a project is not likely to impact this species. 
Camp Ravenna is within the range of the upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), a state 

endangered bird. A statewide survey has not been completed for this species. A lack of records 

does not indicate the species is absent from the area. Nesting upland sandpipers utilize dry 

grasslands including native grasslands, seeded grasslands, grazed and ungrazed pasture, hayfields, 

and grasslands established through the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). If this type of 

habitat will be impacted, construction should be avoided in this habitat during the species’ nesting 

period of April 15 to July 31. If this type of habitat will not be impacted, a project is not likely to 

impact this species.

The ODNR Natural Heritage Database has no records for rare or endangered species at this 

project site. We are unaware of any unique ecological sites, geologic features, animal 

assemblages, scenic rivers, state wildlife areas, nature preserves, parks or forests, national 

wildlife refuges or other protected natural areas within the project area. Our inventory program 

does not provide a complete survey of Ohio wildlife, and relies on information supplied by many 

individuals and organizations. Therefore, a lack of records for any particular area is not a 

statement that rare species or unique features are absent from that area. 

ODNR appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact John Kessler at 

(614) 265-6621 if you have questions about these comments or need additional information. 

John Kessler 

ODNR Office of Real Estate 

2045 Morse Road, Building E-2 

Columbus, Ohio 43229-6693 

John.Kessler@dnr.state.oh.us 








1

Meisinger, Nick

From: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA <ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffaloea@mail.mil>

Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:05 AM

To: Meisinger, Nick

Subject: VT DEC

Attachments: image001.jpg; image002.jpg; Army Guard Request .pdf

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Oberkirch, Rick [mailto:Rick.Oberkirch@state.vt.us]  

Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 4:35 PM

To: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA

Subject: NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo location in Vermont

Hello Ms. Anna Hudson,

  

I'm Rick Oberkirch, Permit Specialist in the Rutland Regional Office, of the State of Vermont, Department of

Environmental Conservation.

  

I have received a letter of inquiry regarding the proposed placement of the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo location in

Vermont.   

  

Some additional information regarding the nature of these vehicles would be necessary to evaluate the potential

environmental impacts, if any, that might occur for this project.  

  

The project will occur at the existing Armed Forces Reserve Center consisting of a training center, a vehicle maintenance

shop and storage facility located on Post Road in the Town of Rutland, VT.

  

Let me know when there is an opportunity to talk about this project.

  

Thanks,

  

  

image001
2

  

  

cid:630125714@28122009‐0EA9

Department of Environmental Conservation

  

Rick Oberkirch, Permit Specialist

Environmental Assistance Office

450 Asa Bloomer State Office Building

Rutland, VT 05701

802‐786‐5907  

"note new number below"

802‐282‐6488

  

  

  

  

  
1

Meisinger, Nick

From: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA <ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffaloea@mail.mil>

Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:09 AM

To: Meisinger, Nick

Subject: WI DNR

Attachments: image001.png; image002.jpg; image003.png; image004.jpg; image005.jpg; image006.jpg

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Kalvelage, Karen M ‐ DNR [mailto:Karen.Kalvelage@wisconsin.gov]  

Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 4:37 PM

To: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA

Subject: Fielding EA Ft. McCoy WI resources

Ms. Hudson

  

Your agency has requested comments/concerns from the Department regarding the placement and training use of 2

vehicles at the Fort McCoy base in western Wisconsin.

Ft. McCoy and the surrounding area has well known exceptional natural resources and diverse ecosystems from prairies

to high quality wetlands.  Ft. McCoy also has a  large population of the endangered Karner Blue butterfly.

  

Ft. McCoy has a detailed Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan that our Department is a signatory for.  If the

additional of these vehicles will change the goals, objectives, or natural resource protections the Plan would require

updating or amending.  Please work with the environmental group at Ft. McCoy to verify the intent of the INRMP is met.

  

Please supply a draft copy of the EA or FONSI for our review.

  

Thank you

Karen Kalvelage

  

We are committed to service excellence.

Visit our survey at http://dnr.wi.gov/customersurvey <http://dnr.wi.gov/customersurvey>  to evaluate how I did.

  

Karen Kalvelage
2

Environmental Analysis, Review, and Sustainability Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Karen.Kalvelage@wisconsin.gov <mailto:Karen.Kalvelage@wisconsin.gov>

Phone: (608) 785‐9115

Fax: (608) 785‐9000

cid:image013.png@01CF99DE.D7D05D60 <http://dnr.wi.gov/>  dnr.wi.gov <http://dnr.wi.gov/>  

cid:image014.jpg@01CF99DE.D7D05D60 <http://facebook.com/WIDNR>  cid:image015.png@01CF99DE.D7D05D60

<https://twitter.com/WDNR>  cid:image016.jpg@01CF99DE.D7D05D60 <http://www.flickr.com/photos/widnr/>  

cid:image017.jpg@01CF99DE.D7D05D60 <http://www.youtube.com/user/WIDNRTV>  

cid:image018.jpg@01CF99DE.D7D05D60 <http://dnr.wi.gov/rss/>  

  
1

Meisinger, Nick

From: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA <ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffaloea@mail.mil>

Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:07 AM

To: Meisinger, Nick

Subject: Caddo Nation of OK

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Harris Somier [mailto:somierharriscaddonation@yahoo.com]  

Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 3:52 PM

To: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA

Subject: Fielding EA

MAJ Samuel A. Harris,

The Caddo Nation respectfully request a copy of the draft Fielding EA.  Also, we would like to correct our POC

information for the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma.  Send future correspondence to:

Chairman/Acting THPO, Tamara Francis‐Fourkiller PO Box 487

117 Memorial Lane

Binger, OK 73009

Ph: (405)656‐2344

Fax: (405)656‐2892

Email: tffourkiller.cn@gmail.com

Thank You,

Somier Harris,

EPA/Section 106 Assistant

Caddo Nation

PO Box 487

117 Memorial Lane

Binger, OK 73009

Ph: (405)656‐2344

Fax: (405)656‐2892
1

Meisinger, Nick

From: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA <ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffaloea@mail.mil>

Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:09 AM

To: Meisinger, Nick

Subject: WI DNR

Attachments: image001.png; image002.jpg; image003.png; image004.jpg; image005.jpg; image006.jpg

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Kalvelage, Karen M ‐ DNR [mailto:Karen.Kalvelage@wisconsin.gov]  

Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 4:37 PM

To: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA

Subject: Fielding EA Ft. McCoy WI resources

Ms. Hudson

  

Your agency has requested comments/concerns from the Department regarding the placement and training use of 2

vehicles at the Fort McCoy base in western Wisconsin.

Ft. McCoy and the surrounding area has well known exceptional natural resources and diverse ecosystems from prairies

to high quality wetlands.  Ft. McCoy also has a  large population of the endangered Karner Blue butterfly.

  

Ft. McCoy has a detailed Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan that our Department is a signatory for.  If the

additional of these vehicles will change the goals, objectives, or natural resource protections the Plan would require

updating or amending.  Please work with the environmental group at Ft. McCoy to verify the intent of the INRMP is met.

  

Please supply a draft copy of the EA or FONSI for our review.

  

Thank you

Karen Kalvelage

  

We are committed to service excellence.

Visit our survey at http://dnr.wi.gov/customersurvey <http://dnr.wi.gov/customersurvey>  to evaluate how I did.

  

Karen Kalvelage
2

Environmental Analysis, Review, and Sustainability Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Karen.Kalvelage@wisconsin.gov <mailto:Karen.Kalvelage@wisconsin.gov>

Phone: (608) 785‐9115

Fax: (608) 785‐9000

cid:image013.png@01CF99DE.D7D05D60 <http://dnr.wi.gov/>  dnr.wi.gov <http://dnr.wi.gov/>  

cid:image014.jpg@01CF99DE.D7D05D60 <http://facebook.com/WIDNR>  cid:image015.png@01CF99DE.D7D05D60

<https://twitter.com/WDNR>  cid:image016.jpg@01CF99DE.D7D05D60 <http://www.flickr.com/photos/widnr/>  

cid:image017.jpg@01CF99DE.D7D05D60 <http://www.youtube.com/user/WIDNRTV>  

cid:image018.jpg@01CF99DE.D7D05D60 <http://dnr.wi.gov/rss/>  

  






1

Meisinger, Nick

From: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA <ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffaloea@mail.mil>

Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 12:05 PM

To: Meisinger, Nick

Subject: MT DEQ

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Lovelace, Bonnie [mailto:BLovelace2@mt.gov]  

Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 4:00 PM

To: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA

Subject: Fileding EA

  

                         Ms. Anna Hudson:  Thank you for the opportunity for the Montana Department of Environmental Quality

to comment on your EA.  We have no concerns or comments at this time.   

  

  

Bonnie Lovelace

Regulatory Affairs Manager

Director's Office

Montana Department of Environmental Quality

406‐444‐1760

  

  
1

Meisinger, Nick

From: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA <ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffaloea@mail.mil>

Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 12:02 PM

To: Meisinger, Nick

Subject: NY USFWS

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Niver, Robyn [mailto:robyn_niver@fws.gov]  

Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 4:56 PM

To: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA

Cc: Dobony, Christopher A CIV USARMY (US); Wagner, Jason E CIV USARMY IMCOM ATLANTIC (US)

Subject: Stryker Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle and Mine Protective Clearance Vehicle Buffalo ‐ 

Fort Drum location

Good afternoon,

The Army staff at Fort Drum are the lead federal agency for Endangered Species Act consultation for activities that occur

on Fort Drum Military Installation. Please coordinate with Fort Drum Natural Resources Staff, as well as our office,

during the development of the Environmental Assessment to determine if there may be potential impacts to the Indiana

bat or northern long‐eared bat.   

Thank you,

Robyn

‐‐  

********************************************************************

Robyn A. Niver

Endangered Species Biologist

USFWS

New York Field Office

Cortland, NY  13045

607‐753‐9334

"Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." ‐

Abraham Lincoln
1

Meisinger, Nick

From: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA <ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffaloea@mail.mil>

Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 12:06 PM

To: Meisinger, Nick

Subject: SC USFWS

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Mark Caldwell [mailto:mark_caldwell@fws.gov]  

Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 11:18 AM

To: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA

Subject: ARNG Stryker and Buffalo Fielding EA

Anna Hudson,

  

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has received and reviewed the Army National Guard proposal to field (locate) the

Stryker and Buffalo vehicles at two South Carolina military installations.  With the understanding that the fielding of

these vehicles will utilize existing facilities for storage and not entail development of new training areas we offer no

comments or objections at this time.  The Service reserves the right to submit relevant comments in the future should

the current proposal be modified to include physical impacts to the environment.

  

Mark

  

Mark A. Caldwell

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

South Carolina Ecological Services

176 Croghan Spur Road, Suite 200

Charleston, SC  29407

843‐727‐4707 ext 215

843‐300‐0426 (direct line)

843‐727‐4218 – facsimile

  

This email correspondence and any attachments to and from this sender is subject to the Freedom of Information Act

and may be disclosed to third parties.






1

Meisinger, Nick

From: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA <ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffaloea@mail.mil>

Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:03 AM

To: Meisinger, Nick

Subject: NY SHPO Consultation Token

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: New York State Parks CRIS Application [mailto:cris.web@parks.ny.gov]  

Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:26 AM

To: Coron, Jeffrey L CTR (US)

Subject: SHPO Consultation Token

Thank you for contacting the New York State Historic Preservation Office. Your project has been assigned the following

12 character token to help manage your submission: TPTAN7UKUYI9. This token provides the CRIS user with the

opportunity to return and complete their submission at a later date.

Sincerely,

New York State Historic Preservation Office

________________________________

Please note that this email does NOT require any action on your part at this time. You are receiving this email as part of

an online service recently launched by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation's Division

for Historic Preservation, also known as the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). This new Cultural

Resources Information System (CRIS) is an advanced Geographic Information System program, which provides access to

New York State's vast historic and cultural resource databases and now digitized paper records. In addition, the new

system serves as an interactive portal for agencies, municipalities and the public who use or require consultation with

our agency on historic preservation programs or issues.

Our email to you is in direct response to material that was submitted to our office regarding a project that you were

identified as the primary contact for. Such projects include actions that are reviewable by our agency under the National

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Section 106), the New York State Historic Preservation Act (Section 14.09 NYSPRHPL),

or the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).

If you did not enter this project directly into CRIS, you are receiving this notification as our office has entered it into our

system. You will receive future correspondence for this submission via e‐mail.
1

Meisinger, Nick

From: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA <ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffaloea@mail.mil>

Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:04 AM

To: Meisinger, Nick

Subject: NY SHPO response

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: New York State Parks CRIS Application [mailto:cris.web@parks.ny.gov]  

Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:48 AM

To: Coron, Jeffrey L CTR (US)

Subject: SHPO Effect Finding Letter for Project: 15PR02376

Thank you for requesting the comments of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). A letter has been generated

that contains the comments of SHPO regarding project‐ (7MG8MRRN9CW4) / Vehicle stationing: Stryker NBCRV & Mine

Protective Clearance Vehicle @ Fort Drum (15PR02376). The letter can be found via the link below.

https://cris.parks.ny.gov/?type=PR&id=7MG8MRRN9CW4

If further correspondence is required regarding this project, please be sure to refer to the OPRHP Project Review (PR)

number noted above.

Sincerely,

New York State Historic Preservation Office

________________________________

This email has been sent from an unmonitored email address. Please do not reply to this email. If you have any

questions or comments please call (518) 237‐8643 during normal business hours.

You are receiving this email as part of an online service recently launched by the New York State Office of Parks,

Recreation and Historic Preservation's Division for Historic Preservation, also known as the New York State Historic

Preservation Office (SHPO). This new Cultural Resources Information System (CRIS) is an advanced Geographic

Information System program, which provides access to New York State's vast historic and cultural resource databases

and now digitized paper records. In addition, the new system serves as an interactive portal for agencies, municipalities

and the public who use or require consultation with our agency on historic preservation programs or issues.

Our email to you is in direct response to material that that was submitted to our office regarding a project that you were

identified as the primary contact for. Such projects include actions that are reviewable by our agency under the National

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Section 106), the New York State Historic Preservation Act (Section 14.09 NYSPRHPL),

or the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).

In an effort to move our programs away from paper‐based submissions, we are asking you to consider using CRIS to

continue the consultation for the above action. To access to this new system and retrieve information sent to you by our

office you should:

1. Click the token number above and you will be brought to the CRIS log‐in screen, where you will have two

options to proceed.
2

2. You may enter the CRIS system as a GUEST user by simply selecting the Proceed as Guest log‐in option. As Guest,

you will have limited access to information, but will be able to complete the project review with our office.

3. Or you may enter using a NY.GOV log‐in credential by selecting the Sign In option. The NY.GOV account affords

the user the opportunity to leverage the full functionality of the CRIS Application, including access to an individualized

dashboard, which provides user specific metrics such as "my projects," "my reviews," and "my resources." If you do not

already have a NY.GOV password, which can be used with all New York State agencies, you can sign up for a password by

selecting the Sign Up Now option.
1

Meisinger, Nick

From: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA <ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffaloea@mail.mil>

Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:05 AM

To: Meisinger, Nick

Subject: VT DEC

Attachments: image001.jpg; image002.jpg; Army Guard Request .pdf

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Oberkirch, Rick [mailto:Rick.Oberkirch@state.vt.us]  

Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 4:35 PM

To: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA

Subject: NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo location in Vermont

Hello Ms. Anna Hudson,

  

I'm Rick Oberkirch, Permit Specialist in the Rutland Regional Office, of the State of Vermont, Department of

Environmental Conservation.

  

I have received a letter of inquiry regarding the proposed placement of the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo location in

Vermont.   

  

Some additional information regarding the nature of these vehicles would be necessary to evaluate the potential

environmental impacts, if any, that might occur for this project.  

  

The project will occur at the existing Armed Forces Reserve Center consisting of a training center, a vehicle maintenance

shop and storage facility located on Post Road in the Town of Rutland, VT.

  

Let me know when there is an opportunity to talk about this project.

  

Thanks,

  

  

image001
2

  

  

cid:630125714@28122009‐0EA9

Department of Environmental Conservation

  

Rick Oberkirch, Permit Specialist

Environmental Assistance Office

450 Asa Bloomer State Office Building

Rutland, VT 05701

802‐786‐5907  

"note new number below"

802‐282‐6488

  

  

  

  

  


1

Meisinger, Nick

To: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA

Subject: RE: draft Fielding EA

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA [mailto:ng.ncr.ngb‐arng.mbx.nbcrv‐buffalo‐ea@mail.mil]  

Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 8:30 AM

To: Garrison, Gabriela; NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA

Cc: Meisinger, Nick; Coron, Jeffrey L CTR (US)

Subject: RE: draft Fielding EA

Gabriela.

Ms. Hudson is on leave and I'm her backup. A copy of the draft EA will be made available to you this summer.

Meanwhile, please feel free to contact me to discuss the proposed NBCRV fielding at Fort Bragg.  

v/r

Jeff Coron

Gryphon Environmental, LLC

NEPA Special Projects & Equipping Program Manager ARNG Environmental Programs Division, Assessments & Evaluation

Branch (ARNG‐ILE‐AE)

111 South George Mason Drive

Arlington, VA 22204

Tel: 703‐607‐9157

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Garrison, Gabriela [mailto:gabriela.garrison@ncwildlife.org]

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 3:05 PM

To: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA

Subject: draft Fielding EA

Hello Ms. Hudson,  

  

I am a wildlife biologist with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.  I review projects in the Eastern

Piedmont of NC.  I recently received a notice about plans to field and station the Stryker NBCRV at Fort Bragg.  Would

you be able to email me a copy of the draft Fielding EA?   

  

Thank you,  

  

Gabriela Garrison

Eastern Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
2

NC Wildlife Resources Commission

PO Box 149; Hoffman, NC  28347

Cell: 910‐409‐7350

gabriela.garrison@ncwildlife.org <mailto:gabriela.garrison@ncwildlife.org>  

  

________________________________

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third

parties.
1

Meisinger, Nick

From: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA <ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffaloea@mail.mil>

Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 8:56 AM

To: Meisinger, Nick

Subject: Choctaw Nation of OK and ARNG response

Attachments: Table 1_NBCRV-MPCV_FieldingLocations_Choctaw_Nation_OK.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

Nick ‐ you should have already received Dr. Klein's response below and attachment but it did not include the Choctaw's

original scoping letter response. This message captures everything.

Jeff

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 

Good morning Lindsay,

Attached please find the list of fielding locations for the Stryker NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo vehicles. The installations that

lie within the Choctaw Nation's area of interest are highlighted.

Feel free to contact me if you would like additional information; however, note that I am leaving ARNG at the end of the

month, and will be in and out of the office until 26 June. If you do not get a timely response from me, please contact Jeff

Coron, NEPA Program Manager, or my replacement, Eric Beckley, both of who, are cc'd on this email.

Thank you,

Rebecca

Rebecca Klein, Ph.D.

Cultural Resources Program Manager

Archaeologist, Tribal Consultation POC

Army National Guard Directorate

ATTN: ARNG‐ILE‐CN

111 S. George Mason Dr.  

Arlington, VA 22204

Tel: 703‐607‐1176

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Lindsey Bilyeu [mailto:lbilyeu@choctawnation.com]  

Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 3:57 PM

To: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA

Subject: RE: Draft Fielding EA

Dr. Klein,

  

The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma thanks the Army National Guard for the correspondence regarding the above

referenced project.  The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma requests to be a consulting party on this project.  Please forward

our office the locations that lie in Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee and

Kentucky.

If you have any questions, please contact me.
2

Thank you,

Lindsey D. Bilyeu

NHPA Senior Section 106 Reviwer

Historic Preservation Department

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 1210

Durant, OK 74701

580‐924‐8280 ext. 2631

lbilyeu@choctawnation.com

________________________________

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information

that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you have received this message in error, you are hereby

notified that we do not consent to any reading, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message. If you have

received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the transmitted information.

Please note that any view or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily

represent those of the Choctaw Nation.
Table 1. Stryker NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Fielding Locations 

Fielding Location Receiving State ARNG Quantity

Stryker NBCRV 

Indiantown Gap, PA PA 6

Indiantown Gap, PA MD 4

Camp Shelby, MS MS 3

Camp Shelby, MS AL 12 

Fort Drum, NY NY 4

Yakima, WA WA 7

Orchard Combat Training Center, ID ID 3

Fort Campbell, KY TN 3

Fort Knox, KY KY 4

Camp Grayling, MI MI 4

Fort Bragg, NC NC 3

Camp Ripley, MN MN 3

Fort McCoy, WI WI 4

Marseilles, IL and Sparta, IL IL 8

Eastover, SC SC 4

Fort William Henry Harrison, MT MT 4

Camp Meade, NE NE 4

Camp Roberts, CA CA 4

MPCV Buffalo 

Camp Crowder, MO MO 6

McGrady Training Center, Fort Jackson, SC SC 6

Fort McCoy, WI WI 6

Camp Bowie, TX TX 10 

Camp Riley, MN MN 2

Indiantown Gap, PA PA 6

Kilauea Military Camp, HI HI 2

Camp Atterbury, IN IN 2

Camp Roberts, CA CA 2

Orchard Combat Training Center, ID ID 2

Yakima, WA WA 2

Camp Shelby, MS MS 2

Fort Campbell, KY TN 2

Fort Stewart, GA GA 2

Fort Dix, NJ NJ 2

Decatur, IL IL 2

Rutland, VT VT 2

Fort Drum, NY NY 2

Camp Gruber, OK OK 2

Camp Dodge, IA IA 2

Camp Rilea, OR OR 2

Camp Robinson or Fort Chaffee Joint 

Maneuver Training Center, AR 

AR 2 

Camp Blanding, FL FL 2

Fort Pickett, VA VA 2

Camp Ravenna, OH OH 2

Fort Polk, LA LA 2


1

Meisinger, Nick

From: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA <ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffaloea@mail.mil>

Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 9:09 AM

To: Meisinger, Nick

Subject: VT USACE

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Adams, Michael S NAE [mailto:Michael.S.Adams@usace.army.mil]  

Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 2:47 PM

To: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA

Subject: MPCV Buffalo, Rutland, Vermont (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

Ms. Hudson:

This is in reference to your letter concerning the Army National Guard's plans to field and station the Mine

Protective Clearance Vehicle (MPCV) Buffalo at the Rutland Armed Forces Reserve Center off Post Road in Rutland,

Vermont.   

Our regulatory jurisdiction encompasses all work in or affecting navigable waters of the United States under

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the discharge of dredged or fill material into all waters of the

United States, including adjacent wetlands, as well as discharges associated with excavation and grading within those

waters, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.    

Based on your letter it does not appear that the project will involve any new work in waters of the U.S.  

Therefore, a Department of the Army permit would not be required.   

If you have any questions please contact me at (802) 872‐2893.

Best Regards,

Mike  

Michael S. Adams

Senior Project Manager

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

New England District

11 Lincoln Street, Room 210

Essex Junction, Vermont 05452

(802) 872‐2893 OR (978) 318‐8860

In order for us to better serve you, we would appreciate your completing our Customer Service Survey located at  

http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=regulatory_survey
2

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE
1

Meisinger, Nick

From: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA <ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffaloea@mail.mil>

Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 8:59 AM

To: Meisinger, Nick

Subject: Rutland Town, Vermont

Attachments: image005.jpg; image006.jpg; Project Review Sheet Cover Letter.pdf; Armed Forces Reserve 

Center - MPCV Buffalo, PRS, Rutland Town 2015.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Oberkirch, Rick [mailto:Rick.Oberkirch@state.vt.us]  

Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 3:39 PM

To: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA

Subject: Attention Jeff Coron, Project Review Sheet, U.S. Armed Forces Reserve Center, Rutland Town, Vermont

Hello to all,

I'm Rick Oberkirch, Permit Specialist in the Rutland Regional Office.  Attached is a Project Review Sheet for a project in

Rutland Town.  No requirements for environmental permits were identified during my review of the proposed project.

Department of Environmental Conservation

Rick Oberkirch, Permit Specialist

Environmental Assistance Office

450 Asa Bloomer State Office Building

Rutland, VT 05701

802‐786‐5907  

"note new number below"

802‐282‐6488

  

  

  
YERMONT 

State of Vermont 

Departn1ent of Environmental Conservation 

Subject: Project Review Sheet 

Agency of Natural Resources 

Environmental Assistance Office 

450 Asa Bloomer State Office Bid. 

Rutland , VT 05701-5903 

802-282-6488 

Rick Oberkirch 

Permit Specialist 

When an application for a Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Permit is submitted to 

this office for review, or upon request from an individual, we complete a Project Review Sheet 

when needed. The Project Review Sheet identifies other State permits or approvals that might be 

required for your proposed project. If you or your consultant have not contacted the other agencies 

and your Town officials as marked, I urge you to do so. Please do not hesitate to call me if you 

have any questions or comments concerning this Project Review Sheet. 

Sincerely, 

j!J~~ 

Rick Oberkirch 

Permit Specialist 

Regional Offices - Barre/Essex .Jct./Rutland/Springfield/St.Johnsbury 
ePRS ver. 3.4 · rev. 5/7/2015

Project Review Sheet Page 1 of 2

Department of Environmental Conservation & Natural Resources Board 

Project Review Sheet

 Date Initiated 5/5/15 ANR PIN# RU10-0207 WW Project# WW-1-2155 Pre-application Review

THIS IS NOT A PERMIT

Project Information

General Information

PROJECT NAME (if applicable)

U.S. Army National Guard - Field 2 MPCV Buffalo vehicles at the existing U.S. Armed Forces Reserve Center

PROJECT TOWN

Rutland Town

PROJECT LOCATION (911 address if available)

2143 Post Road

Contact(s)

CONTACT TYPE

Landowner

NAME

Jeff Coron, Army National Guard

EMAIL

ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffalo-ea@mail.mil

ORGANIZATION NAME (if applicable)

National Guard Bureau, Environmental Program Division 

PHONE CELL PHONE

703-607-9157

ZIP

22204-1373

STATE

VA

TOWN

Arlington

ADDRESS

111 South George Mason Drive

Project Description

ENTERED BY

Rick Oberkirch

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Army National Guard (ARNG) will place 2 "Mine Protective Clearance Vehicle - Buffalo" at the existing U.S. Armed Forces Reserve Center on 

Post Road in Rutland Town. This established facility currently supports ARNG reconnaissance, surveillance and engineering vehicle training. 

This Rutland facility can accommodate the training, maintenance and storage operations that are required for the 2 vehicles. No new training 

areas would be developed associated with the proposed action. 

INFORMATION SOURCE DATE ENTERED

Individual

DEC Prior Permits

PERMIT TYPE

Wastewater System & Potable Water Supply

PERMIT NUMBER

WW-1-2155 see (Lot #3)

Jurisdictional Opinion(s) for permits that may be needed from the District Environmental Office PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION

This is a jurisdictional opinion issued pursuant to 10 V.S.A.§ 6007(c) and Act 250 Rule 3(A). A request for reconsideration by the district coordinator, pursuant to 

Act 250 Rule 3(B), must be sent to the district coordinator at the address below within 30 days of the mailing of this opinion. Effective July 1, 2013, no appeal 

may be taken from a jurisdictional opinion or coordinator's decision on reconsideration without reconsideration by the Natural Resources Board. Requests for 

reconsideration by the Board must be submitted to the Board within 30 days of the mailing of this decision or a coordinator's decision on reconsideration.

Act 250 Jurisdictional Opinion

HAS THE LANDOWNER SUBDIVIDED BEFORE?

Yes No

REQUESTOR TYPE

Permit Specialist

PERSON REQUESTING JURISDICTIONAL OPINION

Rick Oberkirch

ACT 250 PERMIT NUMBER (if any)

IS AN ACT 250 PERMIT REQUIRED? COPIES SENT TO STATUTORY PARTIES?

Yes No Yes No

TYPE OF PROJECT (check all that apply)

Commercial Residential Agricultural Municipal State Federal

BASIS FOR DECISION

1R0968 issued to Orin Thomas for the creation of 6 lots within 5 years. ACT 250 jurisdiction is preempted for the U.S. Armed Forces Reserve 

Center on Lot #3
ePRS ver. 3.4 · rev. 5/7/2015

Project Review Sheet Page 2 of 2

DISTRICT COORDINATOR SIGNATURE William Burke, Coordinator

[phone] 802-786-5923 [email] william.burke@state.vt.us

Natural Resources Board 

District 1 Environmental Commission 

440 Asa Bloomer Office Bldg., Rutland, VT 05701-5903

Wastewater System & Potable Water Supply Permit Jurisdictional Opinion

IS A WASTEWATER SYSTEM & POTABLE WATER SUPPLY PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRED? PERMIT NOT REQUIRED?

Yes

No Notice of Permit Requirement

Home Occupation

Clean Slate

Permit application currently under review Boundary Line Adjustment

Permit issued on

BASIS FOR DECISION

The proposal does not appear to include any "permit triggers" as specified in §1-303(a) of Chapter 1 of the Environmental Protection Rules.

REGIONAL OFFICE STAFF SIGNATURE Dave Swift, Regional Engineer

[phone] 802-345-7493 [email] dave.swift@state.vt.us

Department of Environmental Conservation 

Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division - Rutland Regional Office 

450 Asa Bloomer Office Bldg., Rutland, VT 05701-5903

The following are preliminary, non-binding determinations made by DEC Permit Specialists identifying other permits that may be needed 

PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION

Preliminary, Non-binding Determination of the Applicability of Other State Permits

Note: Fact Sheet numbers below refer to permit fact sheets available at: http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/permit_hb/tableofcontents.htm

PERMIT SPECIALIST SIGNATURE Rick Oberkirch, Permit Specialist

[phone] 802-786-5907 [email] rick.oberkirch@state.vt.us

Department of Environmental Conservation 

Environmental Assistance Office - Rutland Regional Office 

450 Asa Bloomer Office Bldg., Rutland, VT 05701-5903

2015.06.01 

08:09:48 -04'00'

2015.05.22 

12:57:55 -04'00'

2015.06.01 

08:54:42 -04'00'
APPENDIX B 

SHPO and NAC CONSULTATION / 

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 

 
Governor Pat McCrory 

Secretary Susan Kluttz 

May 14,2015 

Anna Hudson 

Amec Poser Wheeler 

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources 

State Historic Preservation Office 

Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator 

104 West Anapamu Street, Suite 204A 

Santa Barbara, CA 93101 

Office of Archives and History 

Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry 

Re: Army National Guard Plant to Field and Station the Stryker Nuclear, Biological, Chemical 

Reconnaissance Vehicle, Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, ER 15-1033 

Dear Ms. Hudson: 

We have received notification concerning the above project. 

We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by 

the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed. 

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR 

Part 800. 

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, 

contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or 

en ironmental.re ic\v@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above 

referenced tracking number. 

Sincerely, 

amana M. Bartos 

Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: (919) 807-6570/807-6599 
1

Meisinger, Nick

From: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA <ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffaloea@mail.mil>

Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:07 AM

To: Meisinger, Nick

Subject: Caddo Nation of OK

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Harris Somier [mailto:somierharriscaddonation@yahoo.com]  

Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 3:52 PM

To: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA

Subject: Fielding EA

MAJ Samuel A. Harris,

The Caddo Nation respectfully request a copy of the draft Fielding EA.  Also, we would like to correct our POC

information for the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma.  Send future correspondence to:

Chairman/Acting THPO, Tamara Francis‐Fourkiller PO Box 487

117 Memorial Lane

Binger, OK 73009

Ph: (405)656‐2344

Fax: (405)656‐2892

Email: tffourkiller.cn@gmail.com

Thank You,

Somier Harris,

EPA/Section 106 Assistant

Caddo Nation

PO Box 487

117 Memorial Lane

Binger, OK 73009

Ph: (405)656‐2344

Fax: (405)656‐2892
1

Meisinger, Nick

From: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA <ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffaloea@mail.mil>

Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:03 AM

To: Meisinger, Nick

Subject: NY SHPO Consultation Token

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: New York State Parks CRIS Application [mailto:cris.web@parks.ny.gov]  

Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:26 AM

To: Coron, Jeffrey L CTR (US)

Subject: SHPO Consultation Token

Thank you for contacting the New York State Historic Preservation Office. Your project has been assigned the following

12 character token to help manage your submission: TPTAN7UKUYI9. This token provides the CRIS user with the

opportunity to return and complete their submission at a later date.

Sincerely,

New York State Historic Preservation Office

________________________________

Please note that this email does NOT require any action on your part at this time. You are receiving this email as part of

an online service recently launched by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation's Division

for Historic Preservation, also known as the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). This new Cultural

Resources Information System (CRIS) is an advanced Geographic Information System program, which provides access to

New York State's vast historic and cultural resource databases and now digitized paper records. In addition, the new

system serves as an interactive portal for agencies, municipalities and the public who use or require consultation with

our agency on historic preservation programs or issues.

Our email to you is in direct response to material that was submitted to our office regarding a project that you were

identified as the primary contact for. Such projects include actions that are reviewable by our agency under the National

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Section 106), the New York State Historic Preservation Act (Section 14.09 NYSPRHPL),

or the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).

If you did not enter this project directly into CRIS, you are receiving this notification as our office has entered it into our

system. You will receive future correspondence for this submission via e‐mail.
1

Meisinger, Nick

From: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA <ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffaloea@mail.mil>

Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:04 AM

To: Meisinger, Nick

Subject: NY SHPO response

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: New York State Parks CRIS Application [mailto:cris.web@parks.ny.gov]  

Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:48 AM

To: Coron, Jeffrey L CTR (US)

Subject: SHPO Effect Finding Letter for Project: 15PR02376

Thank you for requesting the comments of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). A letter has been generated

that contains the comments of SHPO regarding project‐ (7MG8MRRN9CW4) / Vehicle stationing: Stryker NBCRV & Mine

Protective Clearance Vehicle @ Fort Drum (15PR02376). The letter can be found via the link below.

https://cris.parks.ny.gov/?type=PR&id=7MG8MRRN9CW4

If further correspondence is required regarding this project, please be sure to refer to the OPRHP Project Review (PR)

number noted above.

Sincerely,

New York State Historic Preservation Office

________________________________

This email has been sent from an unmonitored email address. Please do not reply to this email. If you have any

questions or comments please call (518) 237‐8643 during normal business hours.

You are receiving this email as part of an online service recently launched by the New York State Office of Parks,

Recreation and Historic Preservation's Division for Historic Preservation, also known as the New York State Historic

Preservation Office (SHPO). This new Cultural Resources Information System (CRIS) is an advanced Geographic

Information System program, which provides access to New York State's vast historic and cultural resource databases

and now digitized paper records. In addition, the new system serves as an interactive portal for agencies, municipalities

and the public who use or require consultation with our agency on historic preservation programs or issues.

Our email to you is in direct response to material that that was submitted to our office regarding a project that you were

identified as the primary contact for. Such projects include actions that are reviewable by our agency under the National

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Section 106), the New York State Historic Preservation Act (Section 14.09 NYSPRHPL),

or the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).

In an effort to move our programs away from paper‐based submissions, we are asking you to consider using CRIS to

continue the consultation for the above action. To access to this new system and retrieve information sent to you by our

office you should:

1. Click the token number above and you will be brought to the CRIS log‐in screen, where you will have two

options to proceed.
2

2. You may enter the CRIS system as a GUEST user by simply selecting the Proceed as Guest log‐in option. As Guest,

you will have limited access to information, but will be able to complete the project review with our office.

3. Or you may enter using a NY.GOV log‐in credential by selecting the Sign In option. The NY.GOV account affords

the user the opportunity to leverage the full functionality of the CRIS Application, including access to an individualized

dashboard, which provides user specific metrics such as "my projects," "my reviews," and "my resources." If you do not

already have a NY.GOV password, which can be used with all New York State agencies, you can sign up for a password by

selecting the Sign Up Now option.



1

Meisinger, Nick

From: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA <ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffaloea@mail.mil>

Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 8:24 AM

To: Emman Spain

Cc: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA; Klein, Rebecca A CIV NG NGB (US); 

Beckley, Eric R CIV NG NGB ARNG (US); Meisinger, Nick; Coron, Jeffrey L CTR (US)

Subject: RE: Army National Guard plans to field station NBCRV and MPCV.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

Mr. Spain.

On behalf of Dr. Klein, thank you for your reply. A copy of the draft EA will be made available to you this summer and the

FNSI will be made available to you this fall.  

Dr. Klein is leaving that ARNG at the end of the month. Please feel free to contact her replacement, Mr. Eric Beckley, cc'd

on this email, or me, if you have any questions about the equipment fielding.

v/r

Jeff Coron

Gryphon Environmental, LLC

NEPA Special Projects & Equipping Program Manager ARNG Environmental Programs Division, Assessments & Evaluation

Branch (ARNG‐ILE‐AE)

111 South George Mason Drive

Arlington, VA 22204

Tel: 703‐607‐9157

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Emman Spain [mailto:ESpain@MCN‐NSN.gov]

Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 3:25 PM

To: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA

Subject: Army National Guard plans to field station NBCRV and MPCV.

Dear Dr. Klein,

The Muscogee (Creek) Nation has received the Army National Guard notice to prepare a nationwide Fielding

Environmental Assessment to field and station the Stryker Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV)

and the Mine Protective Clearance Vehicle (MPCV). At this time the Muscogee Nation has no concerns regarding this

action. In addition, we would like to request a copy of the draft fielding EA and/or Finding of No Significant Impact when

available. Thank you.

  

Emman Spain, THPO

Cultural Preservation Office

Muscogee (Creek) Nation

P. O. Box 580
2

Okmulgee, OK 74447

espain@mcn‐nsn.gov

(918) 732‐7678

  
NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

1tT SOUT}I GEORGE TUIASON DRIVE

ARLIiIGTOil V A 22204-1 37 3

t*i rue cEii/EI-;

i!4A' {i 4 ?t)ii)

.. _-r,.r' Di Vis iu:i FOR

15 April 2015

Environmental Program Division, Army National Guard

Laura Trieschmann

State Historic Preservation Officer

Vermont Division for Historic Preservation

National Life Building, Drawer 2

Montpelier, VT 05620

Dear Ms. Trieschmann:

NO HISTORIC

PROPERTIES AFFECTTD

Vermont Division fo, Historic Preservation

E-SIGNED by James

on 2015{6-03 17 15:

State Historic Preseilation

rll5T0RrC pRESERVATIOA

=-',13:-J

The Army National Guard (ARNG) is submitting this letter to solicit comments

regarding plans to field and station two distinct vehicles, the Stryker Nuclear, Biological,

Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV) and the Mine Protective Clearance

Vehicle (MPCV) Buffalo. The ARNG Materiel Programs Division (ARNG-RMQ) is

preparing a nationwide Fielding EnvironmentalAssessment (EA) to evaluate potential

physical, environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic effects associated with the

Proposed Action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as

amended (42 U.S. Code (USC) S 4321 et seq.), Council on Environmental Quality

(CEO) Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), and 32

CFR Part 651.

This Fielding EA will identify, document, and evaluate, on a nationwide level, the

environmental effects of locating the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo and associated training

at approximately 32 State and Territory ARNG locations (Figure 1, Table 1); however,

the intent of this Fielding EA will be to address the potential to field both vehicles to all

54 ARNG States and Territories. The Fielding EA will evaluate the Proposed Action's

expected common effects on environmental resources and will lay the foundation for

subsequent installation-specific analyses and decision making by the State or Territory

ARNGs ultimately assigned to receive the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo vehicles. . A

primary criterion for selection of the 32 State and Territory ARNG locations was that

each location is an established ARNG training installation that currently supports ARNG

reconnaissance, surveillance, and engineering vehicle training. These installations can

accommodate the training, maintenance, and storage of the NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo

vehicles, thereby eliminating the need for new facilities to accommodate vehicle

training, maintenance, and storage operations. No new training areas would be

developed associated with the Proposed Action. State and Territory ARNGs will conduct

additional analyses, as appropriate, pursuant to 32 CFR Part 651, to address sitespecific effects prior to ARNG's fielding the vehicles to each State or Territory's

installation.
ln accordance with Executive Order 12372, lntergovemmental Review of Federal

Programs, we request your assistance in identifoing key issues or regulatory

requirements to be addressed in the Fielding EA. At this time, we are requesting that you

provide us with any comments relevant to the Proposed Action and resources to be

analyzed in the Fielding EA. Please provide any comments, concerns, information,

studies, or other data you and/or your staff may have regarding the Proposed Action

within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter. All responses shall be considered for

incorporation into the draft Fielding EA. Please direct your correspondence to:

Ms. Anna Hudson

t/o Amec Foster Wheeler

104 West Anapamu Street

Suite 2044

Santa Barbara, CA 93101

(703) 601-7980

or via emailto ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.nbcrv-buffalo-ea@mail.mil. Upon written request, a

copy of the draft Fielding EA andlor Finding of No Significant lmpact (if applicable) will be

provided. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

JqdL MAJ SamuelA. Harris i

Chief, Assessments and I

Evaluations Branch /

Environmental Progffi Division

Enclosures:

Figure 1. Stryker NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Proposed Flelding Locations

Table 1. Stryker NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo Proposed Fielding Locations
1

Meisinger, Nick

To: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA

Subject: RE: Osage Nation

Mr. Fox.

On behalf of Dr. Klein, thank you for your reply. The ARNG will include the Osage Nation as a consulting party on this

equipment fielding action. A copy of the draft EA will be made available to you this summer and the FNSI will be made

available to you this fall.  

Dr. Klein is leaving that ARNG at the end of the month. Please feel free to contact her replacement, Mr. Eric Beckley, cc'd

on this email, or me, if you have any questions about the equipment fielding.

v/r

Jeff Coron

Gryphon Environmental, LLC

NEPA Special Projects & Equipping Program Manager ARNG Environmental Programs Division, Assessments & Evaluation

Branch (ARNG‐ILE‐AE)

111 South George Mason Drive

Arlington, VA 22204

Tel: 703‐607‐9157

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: John Fox [mailto:jfox@osagenation‐nsn.gov]  

Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 3:37 PM

To: NG NCR NGB ARNG Mailbox NBCRV Buffalo EA

Cc: Andrea Hunter; Meyer, Regina M NFG NG MOARNG (US)

Subject: National Guard Bureau Fielding EA

Dear Dr. Klein,

The Osage Nation Historic Preservation Office has received the notification regarding plans to field and station the

Stryker NBCRV and MPCV Buffalo.  Please find the Osage Nation's comments on the project attached.  We will also mail

a copy to you.

Thank you for consulting with the Osage Nation,

John Fox

Archaeologist

Osage Nation Historic Preservation Office

627 Grandview

Pawhuska, OK  74056

(918)287‐5274

jfox@osagenation‐nsn.gov <mailto:jfox@osagenation‐nsn.gov>  

IMPORTANT: This email message may contain confidential or legally privileged information and is intended only for the

use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any

action in reliance on the information herein is prohibited. Emails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error‐

free. They can be intercepted, amended, or contain viruses. Anyone who communicates with us by email is deemed to

have accepted these risks. Osage Nation is not responsible for errors or omissions in this message and denies any
2

responsibility for any damage arising from the use of email. Any opinion and other statement contained in this message

and any attachment are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Osage Nation.

  

APPENDIX C 

DRAFT RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSIDERATION 
11. POC:

18. Was the project adequately addressed in a separate environmental review? Do not include Environmental 

Baseline Surveys (EBSs).

5. Describe the environmental setting, including past and present use of the site.

Explain any YES answers.

4. Has the proposed type of equipment (tracked or wheeled) been operated on the site before?

If NO, what NEPA document covers this action? 

Provide copy of REC, FNSI, or ROD. This does 

not include EBSs.

Document Title:

Preparing Agency:

Date (dd-mmm-yy):

PART B - HISTORICAL INFORMATION

1. Is the agency undergoing, or has it undergone, legal action for NEPA issues? 

2. Has there been previous ARNG training, construction, or similar proposals on the site? 

3. Are there any known contentious environmental issues currently associated with the site?

If YES, fill out and 

attach copy of the 

decision document:

Document Title:

Reviewing Agency:

Date of Review: (dd-mmm-yy):

15. DSN VOICE:

16. DSN FAX: 17. EMAIL:

13. COMM VOICE: 14. COMM FAX:

10. PROPONENT/UNIT NAME:

12. PROPONENT/UNIT ADDRESS:

7. STATE/ORGANIZATION: 8. SERVICE COMPONENT:

9. ADDRESS:

4. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION:

5. START DATE (dd-mmm-yy): 6. END DATE (dd-mmm-yy):

ARNG ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

PART A - BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Enter information in the yellow shaded areas.

1. PROJECT NAME:

2. PROJECT NUMBER: 3. DATE:

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

ARNG REC Form Jun 06 Previous Editions Are Obsolete Page 1
If YES

Unit Unit

e. Wild/Scenic River

f. Coastal Zones

g. Floodplain

a. Is the proposed action in a non-attainment/maintenance area?

During proposed action

During normal operations after 

proposed action is completed

TYPE

b. Will the proposed action result in the generation of or increase in vehicular traffic?

d. Will the proposed action expose sensitive receptors 

(threatened or endangered plants or animals, or 

children) to pollutants?

During proposed action

Explain any YES answers and/or planned mitigation here.

2. TRAFFIC

a. Will the proposed action result in generation of or increase in aircraft activity/traffic?

TYPE Distance

3. Number of acres to be disturbed: 

PART D - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

c. Sole-Source Aquifer

a. Prime/Unique Farmland

c. Will the proposed action release objectionable odors, 

smoke, dust, suspended particles, or noxious gases into 

the air?

During proposed action

During normal operations after 

proposed action is completed

4. How is the site 

currently zoned?

1. AIR

Distance

5. Briefly describe the surrounding area land uses (e.g., undeveloped, recreation, residential, etc):

b. Wilderness Area/National Park

6. Provide distances to ALL environmentally sensitive areas:

1. The proposed 

action will involve 

(check all that 

apply):

Document Title: Date (dd-mmm-yy):

2. Has any related real estate action been addressed in a separate environmental 

document within the last 5 years?

Attach a General Conformity Determination or Record of Non-Applicability (RONA) for Military Construction 

activities in non-attainment/maintenance areas. 

During normal operations after 

proposed action is completed

b. Will the proposed action require an air emissions permit, 

registration, license, etc?

d. Wetlands

PART C - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT/ACTION

Include a map with the site clearly marked

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

Training Activities/Areas

Maintenance/Repair/Rehabilitation

EBS Preparation

Construction

Lease or License

Reorganization/Restationing

Environmental Plans/Surveys

Other (Explain):

YES NO

Residential Commercial Industrial Park

Other (Explain):

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

ARNG REC Form Jun 06 Previous Editions Are Obsolete Page 2
Unit Unit

d. Will the proposed action create barriers to prevent the migration or movement of animals?

5. NATURAL RESOURCES

NOTE- A subject matter expert from the State/Territory ARNG Environmental Office must confirm the answers to these 

questions by signing the signature page.

a. Will the proposed action change the diversity or numbers of any species including mammals, birds, 

reptiles, amphibians, fish, trees, shrubs, grasses, crops, microflora, or aquatic plants?

b. Will the proposed action introduce any non-native species into the area?

c. Will the proposed action impact any plants or animals that are listed or candidates for 

threatened, unique, rare, or endangered status?

Explain any YES answers.

4. EARTH

a. Will the proposed action result in long-term disruptions, displacements, compaction, or overcovering 

of soil, a permanent change in topography, or ground surface relief features?

b. Is the proposed action close to any civilian activity where noise might affect the 

population (add any not listed in the spaces provided)? Include distances for all types:

(6) Wilderness Area

b. Will the proposed action result in a long-term increase in wind or water soil erosion, on 

or off the site, after the proposed action is completed?

3. NOISE

During proposed action

During normal operations after 

proposed action is completed

a. Will the proposed action result in an increase in noise 

levels?

TYPE Distance TYPE Distance

(1) Residence/Home (5) Library

(2) Church

(3) School

During normal operations after 

proposed action is completed

(4) Hospital

c. Will the proposed action use and/or construct 

unimproved roads?

During proposed action

During normal operations after 

proposed action is completed

Explain any YES answers.

Explain any YES answers and/or planned mitigation here. Include aircraft types, number of sorties, and flight schedules (if 

applicable).

c. Will the proposed action involve aircraft?

d. Will the proposed action involve night (10 pm to 7 am) 

operations?

During proposed action

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

ARNG REC Form Jun 06 Previous Editions Are Obsolete Page 3
c. Does the proposed action involve a real estate action (e.g., purchase, lease, permit, or license)?

(1) Has an EBS been completed? If YES, attach the EBS.

(2) Require an increase of acreage/amendment to an existing lease or license?

(3) Require new purchase of additional acres using federal, state, or other funds?

c. Does the proposed action require a permit to 

accumulate hazardous waste or materials at the site?

During proposed action

During normal operations after 

proposed action is completed

b. Will the proposed action store and/or prepare for the 

disposal of hazardous waste or materials?

7. SOLID WASTE

6. LAND USE

a. Will the proposed action alter the present land use of the site?

b. Who owns the 

property?

8. HAZARDOUS WASTE

e. Will the proposed action require the presence of 

trained personnel to handle and dispose of hazardous 

and/or toxic waste/materials?

During proposed action

During normal operations after 

proposed action is completed

Answer the 

following if 

you 

answered 

YES above: (4) Require a new lease, license, and/or land use permit?

(5) Replace or dispose of existing facilities?

Explain any YES answers.

d. Does the proposed action have an increased risk for 

explosion, spill, or the release of hazardous waste or 

materials (including but not limited to pesticides, 

chemicals, or radiation)?

During proposed action

During normal operations after 

proposed action is completed

a. Will the proposed action generate hazardous waste?

Explain a YES answer.

During proposed action

During normal operations after 

proposed action is completed

a. Will the proposed action generate solid wastes that must be disposed of on or off site?

Explain any YES answers.

e. Will the proposed action deteriorate, alter, or destroy existing fish or wildlife habitat?

f. Will the proposed action deplete any non-renewable natural resources?

g. Will the proposed action alter, destroy, or significantly impact environmentally sensitive areas 

(wetlands, coastal zones, etc.)?

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

Federal/DOD State City/Town/County Private

Other (Explain):

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

ARNG REC Form Jun 06 Previous Editions Are Obsolete Page 4
h. Does the proposed action involve the construction of a water or wastewater treatment 

system (oil water separators, grease traps, etc)?

d. Does the proposed action have the potential to 

accidentally spill hazardous or toxic materials in or near 

a body of water?

During proposed action

During normal operations after 

proposed action is completed

e. Does the proposed action have the need for a Spill 

Control and Countermeasure Plan, and/or Installation 

Spill Contingency Plan (SPCC and/or ISCP)?

During normal operations after 

proposed action is completed

c. Will the proposed action change the quality and/or quantity of ground waters, either through direct 

additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?

Explain any YES answers.

a. Will the proposed action change currents, course, or direction of water movements in marine or 

fresh waters?

f. Will the proposed action construct facilities or 

implement actions within floodplains and/or wetlands? 

During proposed action

During normal operations after 

proposed action is completed

f. Will the proposed action involve the opportunity for 

hazardous material minimization and recycling?

During proposed action

During normal operations after 

proposed action is completed

Explain any YES answers.

g. Do you have a plan describing procedures for the 

proper handling, storage, use, disposal, and cleanup of 

hazardous and/or toxic materials?

During proposed action

During normal operations after 

proposed action is completed

During normal operations after 

proposed action is completed

b. Will the proposed action discharge sediments, liquids, During proposed action

or solid wastes into surface waters, or alter the surface 

water quality?

Explain any NO answers.

9. WATER

g. Does the proposed action require an NPDES stormwater or wastewater discharge permit?

During proposed action

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

ARNG REC Form Jun 06 Previous Editions Are Obsolete Page 5
(6) Solid waste disposal?

(2) Drinking water?

(3) Wastewater treatment?

(4) Sewer collection system?

(5) Wash racks?

(1) Electrical power, fossil fuel or other (specify):

Explain any YES answers.

c. Are there any Environmental Justice issues associated with the proposed action? 

Reference: Executive Order 12898.

12. INFRASTRUCTURE

a. Will the proposed action result in the need for new systems or substantial alterations to the following 

utilities:

b. Will the proposed action affect children? 

Reference: Executive Order 13045

During proposed action

During normal operations after 

proposed action is completed

a. Will the proposed action alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human 

population of an area?

b. Does the proposed action involve ground disturbance? (Reference: 36 CFR 800.161[y])

10. CULTURAL RESOURCES

d. Has the state contacted the SHPO for comments?

11. POPULATION

If YES to Question a, has an architectural inventory/evaluation been completed to 

determine eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places?

If YES to Question b, did the state contact any Federally-recognized Tribes to comment on 

the proposed action?

If YES to Question b, has an archaeological inventory been completed to determine if 

there are any archaeological sites present?

a. Does the proposed action involve an undertaking (Reference: 36 CFR 800.161[y]) to a 

building/structure 50 years or older? 

c. Does the proposed action fall under any Federal or Nationwide Programmatic Agreement or 

Programmatic Comment? If YES, reference it below.

Explain any YES answers.

e. Does the proposed action have the potential to affect any traditional cultural properties or sacred 

sites? If YES, attach coordination with Federally-recognized Tribes.

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

ARNG REC Form Jun 06 Previous Editions Are Obsolete Page 6
b. TITLE:

i. EMAIL:

j. TYPE:

RANK: NAME:

e. COMM VOICE:

Explain any YES answers.

PART E - INNOVATIVE READINESS TRAINING (IRT)

Skip this portion if this is not an IRT Project

a. REQUESTER NAME:

f. COMM FAX:

k. SUPPORT TYPE 

REQUESTED:

g. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF HOURS 

REQUIRED TO COMPLETE PROJECT:

h. PERSONNEL 

REQUIRED:

OFFICER ENLISTED

f. PROJECT ASSESSMENT (Give detailed assessment of project requirements. Review project requirements against the screening criteria in 

Section 651.29 of 32 CFR Part 651. If the project qualifies for a Categorical Exclusion, indicate the Categorical Exclusion code).

e. SITE VISIT DATE (dd-mmm-yy

c. UNIT ADDRESS:

d. PROJECT OFFICER

2. ASSIGNED UNIT INFORMATION (Filled out by assigned National Guard unit)

a. UNIT ASSIGNED PROJECT:

1. REQUESTER INFORMATION

h. DSN FAX:

b. SERVICE COMPONENT:

d. AGENCY ADDRESS:

g. DSN VOICE:

c. AGENCY NAME:

FEDERAL STATE LOCAL/MUNICIPAL YOUTH/CHARITABLE

ENGINEER

COMMUNICATION

OTHER (SPECIFY):

TRANSPORTATION

ADMINISTRATIVE

TECH ASSISTANCE

CEREMONIAL

LOGISTICAL

PARADE

ARNG REC Form Jun 06 Previous Editions Are Obsolete Page 7
Concurrence:

Concurrence (as needed):

b. Does the proposed action have the potential for cumulative impacts on environmental quality when 

the effects are combined with those of other Federal/State actions, or when the action is of lengthy 

duration?

c. Does the proposed action have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on 

the human or natural environment, either directly or indirectly?

PART F - DETERMINATION

a. Does the proposed action have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the 

diversity of the environment?

Date Signed

An Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS) and a new checklist once the EBS is completed.

A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC).

An Environmental Assessment (EA).

IAW 32 CFR 651 Appendix B, the proposed action qualifies for a Categorical Exclusion (CX) that 

does not require a Record of Environmental Consideration.

Printed Name of Env. Program Manager

Date Signed

Printed Name of Proponent (Requester)

On the basis of this initial evaluation, the following is appropriate (check one):

A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Signature of Proponent (Requester) Environmental Program Manager

Signature of Landowner Signature of Commander

Printed Name of Landowner Printed Name of Commander

Date Signed Date Signed

Signature of Facilities Officer Signature of Plans & Operations Officer

Date Signed Date Signed

Printed Name of Facilities Officer Printed Name of Plans & Operations Officer

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

ARNG REC Form Jun 06 Previous Editions Are Obsolete Page 8
An existing Environmental Impact Statement adequately covers the scope of this project.

Categorical Exclusion Code:

Concurrence:

EA Date (dd-mmm-yy) Conducted By:

EIS Date (dd-mmm-yy Conducted By:

Cite superseding law:

This project is exempt from NEPA requirements under the provisions of:

After reviewing the screening criteria and completing the ARNG Environmental Checklist, this project qualifies for 

a Categorical Exclusion (select one below).

See 32 CFR 651 App. B

2. PROJECT NUMBER: 3. DATE:

An existing Environmental Assessment adequately covers the scope of this project.

0-Jan-00

0 0-Jan-00

6. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION:

8. REMARKS:

ARNG RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

1. PROJECT NAME:

0

4. PROJECT START DATE (dd-mmm-yy): 0-Jan-00

0

7. CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

5. PROJECT END DATE (dd-mmm-yy):

Printed Name of Env. Program Manager

Date Signed Date Signed

Signature of Proponent (Requester) Environmental Program Manager

Printed Name of Proponent (Requester)

ARNG REC Form Jun 06 Previous Editions Are Obsolete Page 9
APPENDIX D 

NBCRV SPECIFICATIONS AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS 
UNITED STATES ARMY

ACQUISITION PHASE

Nuclear Biological Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV)-

Stryker Sensor Suites 

INVESTMENT COMPONENT

Recapitalization

Modernization

Maintenance

 Technology Development Engineering and Manufacturing Development Production and Deployment Operations and Support

MISSION

Performs nuclear, biological, and chemical 

(NBC) reconnaissance and locates, 

identifies, marks, samples, and reports 

NBC contamination on the battlefield.

DESCRIPTION

The Nuclear Biological Chemical 

Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV)-

Stryker is the chemical, biological, 

radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) 

reconnaissance configuration of the 

infantry carrier vehicle in Stryker Brigade 

Combat Teams, Heavy Brigade Combat 

Teams, and chemical companies. 

The NBCRV-Stryker Sensor Suite 

consists of a dedicated system of CBRN 

detection, warning, and biologicalsampling equipment on a Stryker 

vehicle (high speed, high mobility, 

armored carrier). The NBCRV detects 

chemical, radiological, and biological 

contamination in its immediate 

environment through the Chemical 

Biological Mass Spectrometer (CBMS), 

Automatic Chemical Agent Detector 

Alarm (ACADA), AN/VDR-2 Radiac 

Detector, AN/UDR-13 Radiac Detector, 

Joint Biological Point Detection 

System (JBPDS), and at a distance, 

through the use of the Joint Service 

Lightweight Standoff Chemical Agent 

Detector (JSLSCAD). It automatically 

integrates contamination information 

from detectors with input from 

onboard navigation and meteorological 

systems and transmits digital NBC 

warning messages through the vehicle’s 

command and control equipment to 

warn follow-on forces. NBCRV can 

collect samples for follow-on analysis.

SYSTEM INTERDEPENDENCIES

In this Publication 

Stryker Family of Vehicles, 

Joint Biological Point Detection 

System (JBPDS)

Other Major Interdependencies 

ACADA, AN/UDR-13 Radiac Detector, 

CBMS, Chemical Vapor Sampler 

System (CVSS), JSLSCAD, Nuclear 

Biological Chemical Sensor Processing 

Group (NBCSPG)

PROGRAM STATUS

• 1QFY11-2QFY11: NBCRV Platform 

Operational Testing

• 3QFY11: Platform Live Fire Testing

PROJECTED ACTIVITIES

• 1QFY12: Full-Rate Production

• 1QFY12: Full Materiel Release

266
WEAPON SYSTEMS 2012

Nuclear Biological Chemical 

Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV)-

Stryker Sensor Suites 

FOREIGN MILITARY SALES

None

CONTRACTORS

Prime Vehicle:

General Dynamics Land Systems (Sterling 

Heights, MI)

Sensor Software Integrator:

CACI Technologies (Manassas, VA)

267
PREPARED ON 29-OCT-2014 11:17 

PAGE 1

Pr. LIN: N96543 BOIP: G050AA Title: NUCLEAR BIO CHEM RECON 

VEH: (NBC RV)

Approved: Published: System 

Date: 30-OCT-03

Milestone: Projected: Type 

Class: 31-DEC-03

APC: AL: 2 First Unit 

Equip: 30-OCT-03

Proponent: 136 CARDS: 0387 

RIC: AKZ

Cost: $4,394,803.00 NSN: 

SSN: G8510000K00

 NETP:

 APPROVED NARRATIVE

BOIP: G050AA, LIN: N96543

Approved: 26 May 2009

Amendment 2 Approved: 28 September 2011

Revised: 21 August 2014

A. Description: The Stryker Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV) will include instruments 

necessary

for CBRN hazard detection and identification, ground surface sampling, meteorological data collection, communication, 

warning and

reporting, marking of hazard areas, and vehicle mounted global positioning/navigational devices.

Physical Characteristics:

Length: 322 inches

Height: 126 inches

Width: 150 inches

Weight: 40,833 pounds

Cube: 3,522 cubic feet

Component Major Items:

NSN/PN Nomenclature Ratio

4240-01-363-1311 M48A1 Gas Filtration, (Overpressure Collective 1:1

Protection)

6665-00-964-9061 M13A1 Gas Particulate Filter Unit (GPFU), 2:1

No NSN Vehicular Intercom System (VIS), VIC-3, Without Cables 2:1

6665-00-438-6959 Mounting Kit, M281-M22 ACADA 1:1

5820-01-355-7459 Installation Kit, MK 2719/VDR-2 1:1

No NSN Mount UDR-13 1:1

No NSN Chemical Bio Spectrometer II (CBMS)(Sensor) 1:1

6665-01-475-6787 JSLSCAD (SENSOR) 1:1

6665-01-452-9644 JBPDS XM97 (Sensor) 1:1

No NSN Chemical Vapor Sampler System (CVSS), (Sensor) 1:1

No NSN NBCSPG (Computers) 1:1

No NSN Double Wheel Sampler System (DWSS) 1:1

5340-01-222-1374 AN/VDR Mounts (MT-6123/VDR-2) Formerly, LIN Z45047 1:1

7310-01-387-1305 Mounted Water Ration Heater (MWRH) 1:1

B. Capabilities: The NBCRV is capable of hosting existing and planned CBRN detection capabilities. It provides 

situational

awareness and detects to warn via cooperative CBRN networks and Recon

naissance (RECCE) to increase the combat power of the deployed force, and to minimize force effectiveness degradation 

under CBRN

conditions. The NBCRV performs CBRN RECCE (route, area, and zone), CBRN surveys (to determine extent of 

contamination), CBRN

surveillance, and CBRN sampling in support of early entry and full spectrum operations. The NBCRV is an organic 

vehicle to Heavy

and Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) and Combat Support CBRN Co's and helps maximize commonality of the platform 

while

simultaneously reducing the maintenance footprint and variety of logistic support.

C. Employment: Employed in brigade and echelons above brigade. The NBCRV will perform CBRN RECCE (Route/Area/Zone 

RECCE on primary

and secondary roads and cross country), CBRN surveys to determine limits of contamination and CBRN surveillance as 

directed by the

maneuver force commander to shield forces deployed within the theater battle space and obtain CBRN/Toxic Industrial 

Material (TIM)

information within the Area of Operations (AO).

D. Basis of Issue: Per requirement to conduct CBRN detection and surveillance; to supply battlefield visualization of 

CBRN

hazards; to conduct CBRN RECCE, surveys, surveillance, and sampling. Normally:
1. Three per Stryker BCT in the CBRN RECCE Platoon.

2. Three per CBRN RECCE Platoon, HHC, BEB, ABCT.

3. Three per CBRN RECCE Platoon, HHC, BEB, SBCT.

4. Two per Heavy BCT in the CBRN RECCE Platoon.

5. Six per CBRN RECON Platoon (Armored).

6. Two per Heavy BCT in Army Pre-positioned Stock.

7. Six per CBRN Company (Maneuver Support) in Army Pre-positioned Stock.

TDA:

7. Nine per TRADOC (CBRN School).

8. Five per AMC/PM/TEST Community.

E. Power Requirements: None.

F. Transportation Requirements: This is a self-propelled vehicle. The item may also be transportable by land, sea, 

rail or air

(C-130, C-17, and C-5).

G. Personnel/Maintenance Impacts:

1. OPERATOR(S):

a. Crew size/MOS: Four MOS 74D per system.

b. Training Requirements: As required. Training requirements available at 

http://www.amtas.army.mil/amtasweb/scripts/login.cfm.

2. MAINTAINER(S):

a. Field Level: MOS 25U, 91C, 91S, (94F - required to have ASI F6).

b. Sustainment Level: None.

H. Special Notes:

1. This item replaces the following LIN: R41282.

2. This BOIP does not increase or decrease personnel.

3. This item requires the following Associated Support Items of Equipment (ASIOE):

LIN Nomenclature Ratio

A33020 Alarm: Chemical Agent Automatic M22 1:1

C05701 Monitor Chemical Agent 1:1

C18378 Computer Set Digital: AN/UYK-128 1:1

F99520 Freq Hoping Multiplex: TD-1456VRC 1:1

L91975 Machine Gun Caliber .50: HB Flexible (Ground and Vehicle) W/E 1:1

M75577 Mount Tripod Machine Gun: Heavy Caliber 50 1:1

N05482 Night Vision: Goggle 4:1

N96248 Navigation Set: Satellite Signals AN/PSN-13 1:1

P49587 Radio Set: AN/VSQ-2D(V) 1:1

R20684 RADIAC Set: AN/VDR-2 1:1

R31061 RADIAC Set: AN/UDR-13 1:1

R44999 Radio Set: AN/VRC-89F(C) 1:1

R68044 Radio Set: AN/VRC-90F(C) 1:1

S90603 Heavy Weapon Thermal Sight (HWTS): AN/PAS-13(V)3 1:1

T92889 Maintenance Support Device 1:1
PREPARED ON 29-OCT-2014 11:17 

PAGE 2

Pr. LIN: N96543 BOIP: G050AA Title: NUCLEAR BIO CHEM RECON 

VEH: (NBC RV)

Approved: Published: System 

Date: 30-OCT-03

Milestone: Projected: Type 

Class: 31-DEC-03

APC: AL: 2 First Unit 

Equip: 30-OCT-03

Proponent: 136 CARDS: 0387 

RIC: AKZ 

Cost: $4,394,803.00 NSN: 

SSN: G8510000K00

 NETP:

 APPROVED NARRATIVE

NON LIN ASIOE

NSN/PN Nomenclature Ratio

1010-01-383-4114 M6 Smoke Grenade Dischargers 4:1

4. Amendment 2 changed BOI to include 2 per Heavy BCT CBRN RECCE Platoon; 6 per CBRN RECON Platoon (Armored); 2 per 

Heavy BCT Army

Pre-positioned stock; and 6 per CBRN Co. (Combat Support) Army Pre-positioned stock. Increased the Training and 

Doctrine Command

(TRADOC) Chemical School requirement from 5 to 9.

5. Revision dated June 2013 updates the format in accordance with current standards.

6. Revision dated 23 April 2014 updates the format in accordance with (IAW) current Business Rule standards, and 

adjusts BOI IAW

currently approved TOE requirements, to include BEB requirements.
PREPARED ON 29-OCT-2014 11:17 

PAGE 1

Pr. LIN: N96543 BOIP: G050AA Title: NUCLEAR BIO CHEM RECON 

VEH: (NBC RV)

Approved: Published: System 

Date: 30-OCT-03

Milestone: Projected: Type 

Class: 31-DEC-03

APC: AL: 2 First Unit 

Equip: 30-OCT-03

Proponent: 136 CARDS: 0387 

RIC: AKZ

Cost: $4,394,803.00 NSN: 

SSN: G8510000K00

 NETP:

 EQUIPMENT REMARKS

RMK DESCRIPTION

--- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------

REA SUPPORTS CHEMICAL SCHOOL TRAINING OF INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE

 TASKS THAT SUPPORT AWARD OF NEW ASI
PREPARED ON 29-OCT-2014 11:17 

PAGE 1

Pr. LIN: N96543 BOIP: G050AA Title: NUCLEAR BIO CHEM RECON 

VEH: (NBC RV)

Approved: Published: System 

Date: 30-OCT-03

Milestone: Projected: Type 

Class: 31-DEC-03

APC: AL: 2 First Unit 

Equip: 30-OCT-03

Proponent: 136 CARDS: 0387 

RIC: AKZ

Cost: $4,394,803.00 NSN: 

SSN: G8510000K00

 NETP:

 PERSONNEL REMARKS

RMK DESCRIPTION

--- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------

 NO PERSONNEL REMARKS FOUND!

 
NSN P/N LIN SOS NOMENCLATURE UI QTY SPEC / 

6810-00-223-2739 SMS ACETONE, TECHNICAL GL 55 A-A-5266850-00-664-1409 GSA ANTIFREEZE GL 55 A-A-5268030-00-286-5453 GSA ANTISEIZE COMPOUND CN 5 MIL-A-9

6810-00-286-3783 O-B-41 SMS BATTERY WATER GL 1 O-B-41F 

BIOCIDE ADDITIVE, DIESEL FUEL MIL-S-5

6850-00-965-2332 GSA CARBON REMOVING COMPOUND GL 5 P-C-111 

9150-01-102-1473 SMS CLEANER, LUBRICANT AND PRESERVATIVE OZ 0.5 MIL-PRF

9150-01-079-6124 SMS CLEANER, LUBRICANT AND PRESERVATIVE OZ 4 MIL-PRF

9150-01-053-6688 SMS CLEANER, LUBRICANT COMPOUND GL 1 MIL-PRF6850-00-224-6657 SMS CLEANING COMPOUND RIFLE BORE OZ 8 MIL-PRF

6850-00-227-1887 SMS CLEANING COMPOUND, OPTICAL LENS A-A-591

6850-00-224-6663 SMS CLEANING COMPOUND, RIFLE BORE GL 1 MIL-PRF

6850-00-224-6656 MIL-PRF-372 SMS CLEANING COMPOUND, RIFLE BORE OZ 2 MIL-PRF

COOLANT, ADDITIVE

7930-00-559-9616 PD220 GSA DETERGENT, GENERAL PURPOSE 2 P-D-220 9140-00-286-5294 JDF FUEL OIL, DIESEL BLK A-A-525

1560-00-774-8903 1-3421 SG9 FUEL STABILIZER MIL-S-59150-01-197-7689 SMS GREASE, AUTO AND ARTY CN 6.5 MIL-G-1

9150-21-883-3326 HYDRAULIC FLUID, AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION9150-00-223-4134 SMS HYDRAULIC FLUID, PETROLEUM GL 1 MIL-H-5

9150-00-754-0064 S9G LUBRICANT, SOLID, FILM OZ 12 MIL-L-239150-01-178-4725 SMS LUBRICATING OIL, ENGINE MIL-PRF

9150-21-578-3035 LUBRICATING OIL, GEAR MIL-PRF9150-00-273-2389 SMS LUBRICATING OIL, GENERAL PURPOSE, MEDIUM OZ 4 MIL-PRF

9150-00-292-9689 SMS LUBRICATING OIL, WEAPONS QT 1 MIL-L-14

9150-00-889-3522 8436793 SMS LUBRICATING OIL, WEAPONS, SEMI-FLUID OZ 4 8436793 6830-00-782-2641 A-A-59503-1B1187 SMS NITROGEN, TECHNICAL HMS8030-01-137-6964 GSA SEALING COMPOUND ML 50 

SIMPLE GREEN 

6850-00-281-3061 SMS SOLVENT DRY CLEANING MIL-PRF

6850-00-285-8011 SMS SOLVENT, DRY CLEANING GL 55 MIL-PRF

6850-00-286-5435 SMS WINDSHIELD WASHER FLUID GL 1 TTY-I-736850-00-286-5435 SMS WINDSHIELD WASHER FLUID GL 1 TTY-1-7
APPENDIX E 

MPCV BUFFALO SPECIFICATIONS AND 

TRAINING REQUIREMENTS 
UNITED STATES ARMY

ACQUISITION PHASE

Mine Protection Vehicle Family (MPVF) 

INVESTMENT COMPONENT

Recapitalization

Modernization

Maintenance

 Technology Development Engineering and Manufacturing Development Production and Deployment Operations and Support

MISSION

Provides blast-protected platforms 

capable of locating, interrogating, and 

classifying suspected explosive hazards, 

including improvised explosive devices 

(IEDs).

DESCRIPTION

The Mine Protection Vehicle Family 

(MPVF) consists of the Medium Mine 

Protected Vehicle (MMPV), the Vehicle 

Mounted Mine Detection (VMMD) 

system, and the Mine Protected 

Clearance Vehicle (MPCV). Each of 

the systems in the MPVF has a blastdeflecting, V-shaped hull, and each 

conducts specific missions.

The MMPV system is a blast-protected 

command and control vehicle platform 

that operates in explosive hazardous 

environments and is adaptable to 

a wide range of security and force 

protection activities. The MMPV will 

support Engineer Units in route and 

area clearance operations and Explosive 

Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Companies 

as the rapid response vehicle for EOD. 

The MMPV will also support Chemical 

Biological Response Teams.

The VMMD is a blast-protected, 

vehicle-mounted mine-detection and 

lane-proofing system capable of finding 

and marking metallic explosive hazards, 

including metallic-encased IEDs and 

anti-tank mines on unimproved roads. 

It consists of two mine detection 

“Husky” vehicles, and a set of three 

mine detonation trailers used for 

proofing. The Husky detection platform 

detects, locates, and marks suspected 

metallic explosive hazards over a threemeters-wide path. The Husky provides 

protection against mine blasts under 

the wheels and under the centerline, in 

addition to ballistic protection of the 

operator cab. The system is designed to 

be quickly repairable in the field after a 

mine blast. 

The MPCV provides deployed 

forces with an effective and reliable 

blast-protected vehicle capable of 

interrogating and classifying suspected 

explosive hazards, including IEDs. The 

MPCV has an articulating arm with a 

digging/lifting attachment and camera 

to remotely interrogate a suspected 

explosive hazard and allow the crew 

to confirm, deny, and/or classify the 

explosive hazard. It provides a blastprotected platform to transport Soldiers 

and allows them to dismount to mark 

and/or neutralize explosive hazards.

SYSTEM INTERDEPENDENCIES

None

PROGRAM STATUS

MPCV: 

• 4QFY11: Full Materiel Release/Type 

Classification Standard and Full-Rate 

Production Decision 

• 1QFY12: First Unit Equipped 

VMMD: 

• 4QFY11: Full Materiel Release/Type 

Classification Standard and Full-Rate 

Production Decision 

• 1QFY12: First Unit Equipped

PROJECTED ACTIVITIES

MMPV: 

• 2QFY13: Full Materiel Release/Type 

Classification Standard 

• 3QFY13: First Unit Equipped

242
WEAPON SYSTEMS 2012

Mine Protection Vehicle Family 

(MPVF)

FOREIGN MILITARY SALES

MPCV: 

United Kingdom 

VMMD: 

Australia, Canada, Kenya, Saudi Arabia

CONTRACTORS

MMPV:

BAE Systems (York, PA)

MPCV:

Force Protection Industries Inc. (Ladson, 

SC)

VMMD:

Critical Solutions International Inc. (Dallas, 

TX)

243
PREPARED ON 17-JUL-2014 19:47 PAGE 1

Pr. LIN: M05004 BOIP: K154AA Title: MINE PROTECTED CLEARANCE VEHICLE:

Approved: 23-FEB-08 Published: System Date:

Milestone: Projected: Type Class: 01-JUN-07

APC: AL: 2 First Unit Equip: 01-OCT-06

Proponent: 124 CARDS: 06036 RIC: AKZ

Cost: $971,923.00 NSN: SSN: D0290300K00

 NETP: TAC05014

 APPROVED NARRATIVE

BOIP: K154AA, LIN: M05004

Approved: 23 February 2008

Revised: 08 January 2014

A. Description: The Mine Protected Clearance Vehicle (MPCV) is an all terrain, all weather, wheeled armored vehicle with an articulating arm mounted on the front of the 

vehicle with a rake head that assists in the locating of explosive hazards. The vehicle has six wheels and is heavily armored. The windows are armored glass to increase 

visibility without reducing the safety of the soldiers. There are also firing ports located throughout the vehicle. The MPCV has six hatches topside for visual inspections,

and one entrance door located at the rear of the vehicle. The vehicle's articulating arm has digging and lifting attachments and is coupled with a camera system that allows 

personnel to remotely interrogate a suspected explosive hazard, allows the crew to confirm, deny and/or classify the explosive hazard. Seating capacity allows for driver and 

troop commander plus up to 12 personnel. A weapons system is not mounted on this vehicle.

Physical Characteristics:

Length: 323 inches

Width: 97 inches

Height: 117 inches

Weight: 73,000 pounds

Cube: 2,121.4 cubic feet

B. Capabilities: The MPCV is capable of traveling with combat loads at speeds up to sixty miles per hour on improved roads. It can travel on unimproved roads, and is capable 

of working on rough, soft, unimproved ground at reduced speeds. This allows the crew the ability to identify any explosive hazards while operating in a safe environment. This 

vehicle is a new system to close a capability gap and does not replace any other system or vehicle. The vehicle is designed to survive antitank blasts up to fifteen pounds of 

2, 4, 6 Trinitrotoluene (TNT). It provides soldier protection against 7.62 millimeter North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Ball Standard munitions.

C. Employment: The MPCV will be used in the Clearance Company for Route Clearance and Area Clearance operations to defeat explosive hazards. It will also be used as C2 

platforms for oversight of operations involving the Interim Vehicle Mounted Mine Detections systems operations and/or the Medium Mine Protected Vehicle (MMPV). This vehicle 

operates across all Logic Regions.

D. Basis of Issue: Per requirement to support military operations in an explosive hazard environment. 

Normally:

1. One per Route Clearance Squad, Combat Engineer Company, BEB, ABCT, IBCT, SBCT and IBCT (ABN).

2. One per Engineer Squad, Route Clearance Platoon.

TDA:

3. Four per US Army Engineer School.

4. Four per Combat Maneuver Training center.

5. Four per National Training Center.

6. Four per Joint Readiness Training Center.

7. One per US Army Ordnance School (Fort Jackson).

8. One per US Army Ordnance School (Aberdeen Proving Ground).

E. Power Requirements: There are no external power requirements. Internal requirements are dual 12/24 volt systems designed for 300 amperes capabilities.

F. Transportation Requirements: This is a self-propelled vehicle. The item may also be transportable by land, sea, rail or air (C-17 and C-5). This vehicle is not air 

droppable.
PREPARED ON 17-JUL-2014 19:47 PAGE 2

Pr. LIN: M05004 BOIP: K154AA Title: MINE PROTECTED CLEARANCE VEHICLE:

Approved: 23-FEB-08 Published: System Date:

Milestone: Projected: Type Class: 01-JUN-07

APC: AL: 2 First Unit Equip: 01-OCT-06

Proponent: 124 CARDS: 06036 RIC: AKZ

Cost: $971,923.00 NSN: SSN: D0290300K00

 NETP: TAC05014

 APPROVED NARRATIVE

G. Personnel/Maintenance Impacts:

1. OPERATOR(S):

a. Crew size/MOS: Two MOS 12B.

b. Training Requirements: As required. Training requirements available at http://www.amtas.army.mil/amtasweb/scripts/login.cfm.

2. MAINTAINER(S):

a. Field Level: MOS 91B, 91C, 94E, and 94F.

b. Sustainment Level: MOS 91C and 94F.

H. Special Notes:

1. This item does not replace any LINs.

2. This BOIP does not increase or decrease personnel.

3. MODPATH KAM240 is used in the application of this BOIP.
PREPARED ON 17-JUL-2014 19:47 PAGE 2

Pr. LIN: M05004 BOIP: K154AA Title: MINE PROTECTED CLEARANCE VEHICLE:

Approved: 23-FEB-08 Published: System Date:

Milestone: Projected: Type Class: 01-JUN-07

APC: AL: 2 First Unit Equip: 01-OCT-06

Proponent: 124 CARDS: 06036 RIC: AKZ

Cost: $971,923.00 NSN: SSN: D0290300K00

 NETP: TAC05014

 APPROVED NARRATIVE

4. This item requires no Associated Support Items of Equipment (ASIOE).

5. Diesel fuel #2 is required. JP8 is not compatible for consumption.

6. Maintenance man hours for this equipment is based on surrogate data and will change.

7. Revision dated 08 January 2014 updates the format in accordance with current standards.
PREPARED ON 17-JUL-2014 19:47 PAGE 1

Pr. LIN: M05004 BOIP: K154AA Title: MINE PROTECTED CLEARANCE VEHICLE:

Approved: 23-FEB-08 Published: System Date:

Milestone: Projected: Type Class: 01-JUN-07

APC: AL: 2 First Unit Equip: 01-OCT-06

Proponent: 124 CARDS: 06036 RIC: AKZ

Cost: $971,923.00 NSN: SSN: D0290300K00

 NETP: TAC05014

 EQUIPMENT REMARKS

RMK DESCRIPTION

--- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 NO EQUIPMENT REMARKS FOUND!
PREPARED ON 17-JUL-2014 19:47 PAGE 1

Pr. LIN: M05004 BOIP: K154AA Title: MINE PROTECTED CLEARANCE VEHICLE:

Approved: 23-FEB-08 Published: System Date:

Milestone: Projected: Type Class: 01-JUN-07

APC: AL: 2 First Unit Equip: 01-OCT-06

Proponent: 124 CARDS: 06036 RIC: AKZ

Cost: $971,923.00 NSN: SSN: D0290300K00

 NETP: TAC05014

 PERSONNEL REMARKS

RMK DESCRIPTION

--- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 NO PERSONNEL REMARKS FOUND!