Intent To Prepare Environmental Impact Statements for Realignment Actions Resulting From the 2005 Base Closure and Realignment Commission's Recommendations, 70793-70795 [05-23162]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Notices
ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE
SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND
THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:
In addition to those disclosures
generally permitted under 5 U.S.C.
552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records
or information contained therein may
specifically be disclosed outside the
DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows: The
‘Blanket Routine Uses’ published at the
beginning of the Air Force’s compilation
of record system notices apply to this
system.
POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING,
RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND
DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
STORAGE:
Maintained in file folders, note books/
binders, in computers and on computer
output products.
RETRIEVABILITY:
Retrieved by name, Social Security
Number and detachment number.
SAFEGUARDS:
Records are accessed by person(s)
responsible for servicing the record
system in performance of their official
duties and by authorized personnel who
are properly screened and cleared for
need-to-know. records are stored in
locked rooms and cabinets. Those in
computer storage devices are protected
by computer system software.
RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:
Records at unit of assignment are
destroyed one year after acceptance of
commission or one year after
disenrollment. Records at HQ AFROTC
for disenrolled cadets are destroyed
after three years. Computer records are
destroyed when no longer needed.
Records are destroyed by tearing into
pieces, shredding, pulping, macerating
or burning. Computer records are
destroyed by erasing, deleting or
overwriting.
SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:
Director of Senior Program, Air Force
Reserve Officer Training Corps, 551 East
Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force
Base, AL 36112–6110, and Commander
of appropriate AFROTC detachment.
Official mailing addresses are
published as an appendix to the Air
Force’s compilation of systems of
records notices.
NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:
Individuals seeking to determine
whether this system of records contains
information on them should address
inquiries to the AFROTC Detachment
Commander at location of assignment.
Official mailing addresses are published
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:33 Nov 22, 2005
Jkt 208001
as an appendix to the Air Force’s
compilation of system of records
notices.
Request for information involving an
investigation for disenrollment should
be addressed to Commander, Air Force
Reserve Officer Training Corps, 551 East
Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force
Base, AL 36112–6110. Requests should
include full name and SSN.
RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:
Individuals seeking to access records
about themselves contained in this
system should address requests to the
AFROTC Detachment Commander at
location of assignment. Official mailing
addresses are published as an appendix
to the Air Force’s compilation of
systems of records notices.
Request for information involving an
investigation for disenrollment should
be addressed to Commander, Air Force
Reserve Officer Training Corps, 551 East
Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force
Base, AL 36112–6110. Requests should
include full name and SSN.
CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:
The Air Force rules for accessing
records, and for contesting contents and
appealing initial agency determinations
are published in Air Force Instruction
33–332; 32 CFR part 806b; or may be
obtained from the system manager.
RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
Sources of records in the system are
educational institutions, secondary and
higher learning; government agencies;
civilian authorities; financial
institutions; previous employer;
individual recommendations,
interviewing officers; and civilian
medical authorities.
EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:
Portions of this system may be exempt
under the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552a(k)(5), as applicable, but only to the
extent that disclosure would reveal the
identity of a confidential source.
Parts of this system may be exempt
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only
to the extent that disclosure would
reveal the identity of a confidential
source.
[FR Doc. 05–23131 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–M
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
70793
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
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of intent.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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 decisionmaking 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
E:\FR\FM\23NON1.SGM
23NON1
70794
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Notices
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:33 Nov 22, 2005
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 redcockaded 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
E:\FR\FM\23NON1.SGM
23NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Notices
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:33 Nov 22, 2005
Jkt 208001
70795
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.
8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 2533,
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060–6221.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Susan Salus at (703) 767–6183.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Defense Logistics Agency notices for
systems of records subject to the Privacy
Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended,
have been published in the Federal
Register and are available from the
address above.
The proposed system report, as
required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the
Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was
submitted on October 5, 2005, to the
House Committee on Government
Reform, the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, and the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) pursuant to
paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB
Circular No. A–130, ‘Federal Agency
Responsibilities for Maintaining
Records About Individuals,’ dated
February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61
FR 6427).
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]
Director, Information Operations,
Headquarters Defense Logistics Agency,
ATTN: J–6, 8725 John J. Kingman Road,
Stop 6226, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060–
6221, and the Defense Logistics Agency
field activities. Official mailing
addresses are published as an appendix
to DLA’s compilation of systems of
records notices.
BILLING CODE 3710–08–M
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of
Records
Defense Logistics Agency.
Notice to add a system of
AGENCY:
records.
The Defense Logistics Agency
proposes to add a system of records
notice to its inventory of record systems
subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5
U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
DATES: This action will be effective
without further notice on December 23,
2005 unless comments are received that
would result in a contrary
determination.
SUMMARY:
Send comments to the
Privacy Act Officer, Headquarters,
Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DP,
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SYSTEM NAME:
Information Technology Access and
Control Records.
SYSTEM LOCATION:
CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE
SYSTEM:
Defense Logistics Agency
ACTION:
Dated: November 17, 2005.
L.M. Bynum,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
civilian and military personnel,
contractor employees, and individuals
requiring access to DLA-controlled
networks, computer systems, and
databases.
CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
System contains documents relating
to requests for and grants of access to
DLA computer networks, systems, or
databases. The records contain the
individual’s name; social security
number; citizenship; physical and
electronic addresses; work telephone
numbers; office symbol; contractor/
employee status; computer logon
addresses, passwords, and user
identification codes; type of access/
permissions required; verification of
need to know; dates of mandatory
E:\FR\FM\23NON1.SGM
23NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 23, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70793-70795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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
