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 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