[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 23, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70793-70795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23162]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Intent To Prepare Environmental Impact Statements for Realignment 
Actions Resulting From the 2005 Base Closure and Realignment 
Commission's Recommendations

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Commissions 
were established by Public Law 101-510, the Defense Base Closure and 
Realignment Act of 1990 (BRAC Law), to recommend military installations 
for realignment and closure. The 2005 Commission's recommendations were 
included in a report which was presented to the President on September 
8, 2005. The President approved and forwarded this report to Congress 
on September 16, 2005. Since a joint resolution to disapprove these 
recommendations did not occur within the statutorily provided time 
period, these recommendations have become law and must be implemented 
in accordance with the requirements of the BRAC Law.
    The BRAC Law exempts the decision-making process of the Commission 
from the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA). The Law also relieves the Department of Defense from the NEPA 
requirement to consider the need for closing, realigning, or 
transferring functions and from looking at alternative installations to 
close or realign. Nonetheless, the Department of the Army must still 
prepare environmental impact analyses during the process of property 
disposal, and during the process of relocating functions from a 
military installation being closed or realigned to another military 
installation after the receiving installation has been selected but 
before the functions are relocated. These analyses will include 
consideration of the direct and indirect environmental and 
socioeconomic effects of these actions and the cumulative impacts of 
other reasonably foreseeable actions affecting the installations.
    The Department of the Army intends to prepare individual 
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of 
NEPA, regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500-
1508), and the Army NEPA regulation (32 CFR 651 et seq.) for each of 
the actions listed below.
    Opportunities for public participation will be announced in the 
respective local newspapers. The public will be

[[Page 70794]]

invited to participate in scoping activities for each EIS and comments 
from the public will be considered before any action is taken to 
implement these actions.
    Environmental Impact Statements are planned for each of the 
following realignment actions:
    a. Fort Meade, Maryland. The BRAC realignment action will co-locate 
and consolidate Department of Defense information and information 
technology missions at Fort Meade.
    (1) EIS alternatives could include evaluating siting locations for 
structures and related projects within Fort Meade that involve new 
building construction only or new building construction combined with 
renovation of existing facilities. The alternatives would evaluate 
areas to provide for construction of, but not be limited to, six to 
eight 4-story administration buidlings, a full day care child 
development center, a standard-design Whole Barracks Complex, and a 
physical fitness center.
    (2) The proposed BRAC action may have significant environmental 
impacts due to the infrastructure and facilities construction that will 
be required to accommodate an estimated increase of over 5,500 
personnel. Significant issues to be analyzed in the EIS may include 
potential impacts to air quality from increased vehicle emissions, 
installation and regional traffic increases, land use changes, natural 
resources, water use, solid waste, cultural resources, and cumulative 
impacts from increased burdens to the facility based on projected 
growth.
    b. Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Maryland. APG will be receiving 
numerous Army, Navy and Air Force activities to transform it into a 
full spectrum research, development, acquisition center for Command, 
Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and 
Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Defense Chemical and Biological Systems. The 
Army Test and Evaluation Command Headquarters and Civilian Personnel 
Offices will also be consolidated at APG.
    (1) Alternatives to be examined in the EIS could include 
alternative distribution of new activities between APG and the Edgewood 
Area for military field training exercises; alternative siting schemes 
for placement of buildings and related infrastructure to accommodate an 
increase of about 15,000 Army personnel within the APG and Edgewood 
Area. These may include siting schemes for new building construction 
only, or new building construction combined with renovation of existing 
facilities.
    (2) The proposed BRAC action may have significant environmental 
impacts due to the large amount of infrastructure and facilities 
construction that will be required to accommodate an increase of 
personnel and military training operations. Significant issues to be 
analyzed in the EIS will include on-post and local air quality 
conditions, on-post and regional traffic conditions, housing, 
socioeconomics, noise due to increased vehicle use, threatened and 
endangered species to include bald eagle habitat, historic buildings 
and archeological resources, wetlands, biological resources, land use, 
and community facilities and services.
    c. Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Fort Belvoir will be receiving numerous 
Department of Defense activities from leased space within the National 
Capital Region (NCR); National Geospatial Intelligence Agency units 
from various NCR leased locations and Bethesda, Maryland; primary and 
secondary medical care functions from Walter Reed Medical Center to a 
new, expanded DeWitt Army Hospital; and inventory control point 
functions for consumable items to the Defense Logistics Agency from the 
Naval Support Activist, Mechanisburg and Wright-Patterson Air Force 
Base, Ohio.
    (1) EIS alternatives may consist of moving all activities to the 
Fort Belvoir Main Post, moving all activities to the Engineer Proving 
Ground (EPG), or moving a portion of the activities to the Main Point 
and a portion to the EPG. Other alternatives could include alternative 
land locations for specific projects within Fort Belvoir, within the 
EPG, or a combination of both; new construction only; new construction 
combined with renovation of existing facilities; alternative facility 
siting schemes, or other modifications of specific projects.
    (2) The proposed BRAC action may have significant environmental 
impacts due to the large amount of infrastructure and facilities 
construction that will be required to accommodate an estimated increase 
of over 18,000 personnel. Significant issues to be analyzed in the EIS 
will include potential impacts to air quality condition in the Northern 
Virginia region, transportation systems in the Northern Virginia 
region, traffic conditions with Fort Belvoir, threatened and endangered 
species, historic buildings and archeological resources, wetlands, 
biological resources, land use, and community facilities and services.
    d. Fort Lee, Virginia. Fort Lee will receive the Transportation 
Center and School from Fort Eustis, Virginia, and the Ordnance Center 
and School from Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. These functions will 
be consolidated with the Quartermaster Center and School, the Army 
Logistics Management College, and Combined Arms Support Command to 
establish a Combat Service Support Center at Fort Lee.
    (1) Alternatives to be examined in the EIS may include the usage of 
only Fort Lee for field training exercises, the usage of other military 
installations (Fort A.P. Hill) for field training exercises, or a 
combination of both; alternative land locations for specific projects 
with Fort Lee and Fort A.P. Hill; new construction only; new 
construction combined with renovation of existing facilities; 
alternative facility siting schemes, or other modifications of specific 
projects.
    (2) The proposed BRAC action may have significant environmental 
impacts due to the large amount of infrastructure and facilities 
construction that will be required to accommodate an estimated increase 
of over 7,000 personnel. Significant issues to be analyzed in the EIS 
will include air quality conditions, traffic conditions, noise due to 
increased training activities, threatened and endangered species, 
historic buildings and archeological resources, wetlands, biological 
resources, land use, and community facilities and services.
    e. Fort Benning, Georgia. Fort Benning will receive the Armor 
Center and School from Fort Knox, Kentucky; 81st Regional Readiness 
Center from Fort Gillem, Georgia; and the U.S. Army Reserve Center from 
Columbus, Georgia.
    (1) Alternatives to be examined by the EIS may consist of 
alternative siting locations with Fort Benning for facility 
construction projects, new construction only, renovation and use of 
existing facilities, or a combination of both new construction and use 
of existing facilities, and usage of alternatives land locations within 
Fort Benning for training activities.
    (2) As a result of new construction and training activities 
associated with moving nearly 10,000 personnel to Fort Benning, the 
BRAC action has the potential to cause significant environmental 
impacts to threatened and endangered species such as the red-cockaded 
woodpecker, archeological sites, wetlands, soil erosion, and increased 
noise impacts to the surrounding public.
    f. Fort Sam Houston, Texas. Navy and Air Force medical training 
activities from various locations within the U.S. and the 59th Medical 
Wing from Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, will move to Fort Sam Houston 
to form a Department of Defense medical training

[[Page 70795]]

center. The Army Installation Management Agency (IMA) Headquarters from 
Virginia, the Northwest IMA Regional office from Illinois, and the Army 
Environmental Center from Maryland will also move to Fort Sam Houston.
    (1) Alternatives to be examined in the EIS could consist of 
alternative locations within Fort Sam Houston for siting facility 
construction, new construction only, renovation and use of existing 
facilities (to include historic buildings), or a combination of both 
new construction and use of existing facilities, and usage of 
alternative locations within Camp Bullis, a sub-post of Fort Sam 
Houston, for training activities.
    (2) As a result of moving approximately 9,000 new personnel to Fort 
Sam Houston and associated new construction, renovation and training 
activities, implementing the proposed BRAC action could have potential 
significant impacts to traffic on and off post, air quality and 
historic properties, to include contributing elements of the Fort Sam 
Houston National Historic Landmark District.
    g. Fort Carson, Colorado. Fort Carson will receive a Heavy Brigade 
Combat team and a Unit of Employment Headquarters from Fort Hood, 
Texas, and the inpatient care services from the U.S. Air Force Academy, 
Colorado. Another Infantry Brigade Combat Team from overseas could also 
be transferred to Fort Carson as a result of the BRAC recommendation.
    (1) Alternatives that may be considered in the Fort Carson EIS 
could include phasing movement of units to the fort, alternative siting 
locations within the post of placement of new facilities, construction 
of only new facilities, utilization and renovation of existing 
facilities, a combination of new construction and utilization of 
existing facilities, and utilization of alternative locations within 
Fort Carson for training activities.
    (2) Fort Carson will gain approximately 10,000 Army personnel as a 
result of the BRAC action. Construction of new facilities, renovation 
of existing infrastructure and additional training activities could 
have significant environmental impacts on Fort Carson and its environs. 
Impacts could concur to local air and water quality, archaeological 
resources, noise and traffic.
    h. Pinion Canyon Maneuver Site, Colorado. Pinion Canyon Maneuver 
Site (PCMS) is a subpost of Fort Carson and a primary training area for 
units stationed at Fort Carson and other Army posts. The new combat 
units stationed at Fort Carson will increase the training tempo at the 
PCMS.
    (1) The EIS to be prepared for the PCMS will examine a number of 
implementation alternatives that could include alternative placement of 
new construction projects, alternative locations within the PCMS for 
training activities, and alternative timing for units to conduct 
training activities at the PCMS.
    (2) The Fort Carson BRAC action has the potential to significantly 
impact natural resources at the PCMS since the approximately 10,000 new 
personnel to be stationed there will now be training at the PCMS on a 
regular basis. New construction and increased training activities at 
the PCMS could have an impact on archaeological resources, natural 
resources, air and water quality, and soil erosion.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Public Affairs Office of the affected 
installations or the appropriate higher headquarters as indicated: (1) 
Fort Meade, MD--(301) 677-1301; (2) Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD--(410) 
278-1147; (3) Fort Belvoir, VA--(703) 805-2583; (4) Fort Lee, VA--(804) 
734-6862; (5) Fort Benning, GA--(706) 545-3438; (6) Fort Sam Houston, 
TX--(210) 221-1099; (7) Fort Carson and Pinion Canyon Maneuver Site, 
CO--(910) 396-2122/5600.

    Dated: November 18, 2005.
Addison D. Davis IV,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Environment, Safety and 
Occupational Health), OASA(I&E).
[FR Doc. 05-23162 Filed 11-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M