Availability of the Draft Finding of No Significant Impact and Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Army 2020 Force Structure Realignment, 4134-4135 [2013-01003]
Download as PDF
4134
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2013 / Notices
quality control program, phase-in, and in the
event of contingency, perform all required
tasks to include cooking to ensure continued
service.
Deletion
The following service is proposed for
deletion from the Procurement List:
Service
Service Type/Location: Facilities
Maintenance, Yakima Training Center
(YTC) and Multipurpose Range Complex,
Multipurpose Training Range, Yakima,
WA.
NPA: Skookum Educational Programs,
Bremerton, WA.
Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army,
W6QM MICC–JB Lewis-MC Chord, Fort
Lewis, WA
Barry S. Lineback,
Director, Business Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013–01028 Filed 1–17–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Notice of Intent To Prepare An
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
On the Proposal To Relocate the 18th
Aggressor Squadron From Eielson Air
Force Base (EAFB), Alaska to Joint
Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER),
Alaska and Rightsizing the Remaining
Wing Overhead/Base Operating
Support at Eielson AFB, AK
Pacific Air Forces, United
States Air Force, DOD.
ACTION: Notice of Intent.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321, et
seq.), the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) Regulations for
Implementing the Procedural Provisions
of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), and
Air Force policy and procedures (32
CFR part 989), the Air Force is issuing
this notice to advise the public of its
intent to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) considering a
proposal to relocate the 18th Aggressor
Squadron from Eielson AFB to Joint
Base Elmendorf-Richardson and
rightsizing the remaining Wing
Overhead/Base Operating Support at
Eielson.
Proposed Action: The Air Force
proposes to relocate the 18th Aggressor
Squadron (18 AGRS) from Eielson AFB
(EAFB) to Joint Base ElmendorfRichardson (JBER); 18 AGRS consists of
18 assigned F–16 aircraft and 3 back-up
F–16s. This proposed relocation
includes removing 623 military
personnel from EAFB, transferring
approximately 542 positions to JBER,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:52 Jan 17, 2013
Jkt 229001
and eliminating 81 positions. The Air
Force proposes to reduce military and
civilian authorizations at EAFB
appropriate to the command structure
required for the remaining operations.
Current planning estimates call for an
end-state of approximately 769
appropriated funds personnel at EAFB
after FY15 (559 military and 210
civilian personnel).
EAFB will continue to host Red Flag
and Distant Frontier training exercises
with the 18 AGRS operating out of JBER
under one of two possible alternatives:
Alternative 1: 18 AGRS would deploy
to EAFB for the duration of the Red Flag
exercises.
Alternative 2 The 18 AGRS F–16
aircraft would fly to and from the Joint
Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC)
Military Operations Areas (MOAs) in
the vicinity of EAFB on a daily basis
during exercises, requiring aerial
refueling. The participating F–16
aircraft would not routinely land at
EAFB for refueling.
Both Alternatives would operate in
the same air space as currently used for
Red Flag and Distant Frontier exercises.
Transient aircraft and personnel from
outside of Alaska participating in these
exercises would continue to deploy to
and operate out of EAFB.
This EIS will also evaluate the
impacts of the No Action Alternative:
Keeping the 18 AGRS stationed at
EAFB.
Scoping: In order to effectively define
the full range of issues to be evaluated
in the EIS, the Air Force will determine
the scope of the analysis by soliciting
comments from interested local, state
and federal agencies, as well as
interested members of the public.
The Air Force intends to hold scoping
meetings as follows:
Dates
Locations
February 4–5, 2013
February 6–7, 2013
Anchorage and MatSu Boroughs, AK.
Fairbanks and North
Pole, AK.
All meetings will be held from 6 p.m.
to 8 p.m., AST. Specific dates, times,
and locations for the scoping meetings
will be published in local media a
minimum of 15 days prior to the
scoping meeting dates.
Public scoping comments will be
accepted either verbally or in writing at
the scoping meetings. Additional
scoping comments will be accepted at
any time during the EIS process.
However, in order to ensure the Air
Force has sufficient time to consider
public input, scoping comments should
arrive at the address below by March 1,
2013.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Mr.
Allen Richmond, AFCEC/CZN, 2261
Hughes Ave., Ste. 155, Lackland AFB,
TX 78236–9853, Telephone: (210) 395–
8555.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tommy W. Lee,
Acting Air Force Federal Register Officer,
DAF.
[FR Doc. 2013–01013 Filed 1–17–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–10–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
Availability of the Draft Finding of No
Significant Impact and Final
Programmatic Environmental
Assessment for Army 2020 Force
Structure Realignment
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of the Army
announces the availability of the draft
Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI)
and final Programmatic Environmental
Assessment (PEA) for Army force
structure realignments that may occur
from Fiscal Years (FYs) 2013–2020. The
Army must achieve force reductions as
it transitions from major combat
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,
while reducing spending without
sacrificing critical national defense
capabilities. The draft FNSI considers a
proposed action under which the
Army’s active duty end-strength would
be reduced from 562,000 at the end of
FY 2012 to 490,000 by FY 2020. The
PEA analyzes two action alternatives:
Alternative 1: Implement force
reductions by inactivating a minimum
of eight Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs)
and realign other combat, combat
support, and service support units
between FY 2013 and FY 2020; and
Alternative 2: Implement Alternative 1,
inactivate additional BCTs, and
reorganize remaining BCTs by adding an
additional combat maneuver battalion
and other units. The PEA also analyzes
a No Action alternative under which the
Army would not reduce the size of the
force. The draft FNSI incorporates the
PEA which does not identify any
significant environmental impacts
associated with either alternative, with
the exception of socioeconomic impacts
at some installations where a BCT is
inactivated and smaller organizations
realigned. The draft FNSI concludes that
preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is not required. Final
decisions as to which installations will
see BCTs inactivated or units realigned
have not been made. Additional site-
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18JAN1.SGM
18JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2013 / Notices
specific NEPA analysis may be required
at some installations, depending on the
size of the force realignment.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
February 19, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should
be sent to: Public Comments USAEC,
Attention: IMPA–AE (Army 2020 PEA),
2450 Connell Road (Bldg 2264), Fort
Sam Houston, Texas 78234–7664; or by
email to
USARMY.JBSA.AEC.MBX@mail.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
(210) 466–1590 or email:
USARMY.JBSA.AEC.MBX@mail.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Implementation of Army force
realignment will occur over the course
of several years to arrive by 2020 at an
optimally configured force, reduced
from an FY 2012 authorized end
strength of 562,000 to 490,000.
Reductions in Army Soldiers will also
be accompanied by some reduction in
civil service employees. These actions
are being undertaken to reshape the
Army’s forces to meet more effectively
national security requirements while
reducing the Army’s end-strength. Force
realignment and some level of force
reduction will impact most major Army
installations. The implementation of
this force rebalancing is necessary to
allow the Army to operate in a reduced
budget climate, while ensuring the
Army can continue to support the
nation’s critical defense missions.
The PEA, upon which the draft FNSI
is based, evaluates the largest potential
force reduction scenarios, as well as
growth scenarios from BCT
restructuring, that could occur at select
installations as a result of Army force
restructuring. This range of potential
installation reduction and growth
(ranging from maximum losses of 8,000
military personnel to maximum
increases of 3,000 at the Army’s largest
installations) was chosen for the
environmental analysis to provide
flexibility as future force structure
realignment decisions are made; the
specific locations where changes will
occur have not been decided.
The PEA provides information to
decision makers concerning potential
environmental impacts, to include
socioeconomic impacts, associated with
stationing actions as these decisions are
made in the coming years. The PEA
analyzed the direct, indirect, and
cumulative environmental impacts that
may occur at 21 installations. These
stationing sites were included in the
PEA as they are sites that could
experience a change in Soldiers and
civilians that exceeds a total of 1,000
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:52 Jan 17, 2013
Jkt 229001
military personnel. The PEA analyzes
the environmental impact of two Action
alternatives to implement force
reduction and realignment: Alternative
1: Implement Army force reductions
and restructuring of BCTs, combat
support units, and civilian support
between FY 2013 and FY 2020; and
Alternative 2: Implement Alternative 1,
inactivate additional BCTs and also
restructure remaining BCTs by adding
an additional combat maneuver
battalion and/or an engineer battalion.
Force reductions that may occur as part
of the proposed action include the
inactivation of BCTs and combat
support and combat service support
units at Army and joint base
installations. This reduction would
include the inactivation of at least eight
BCTs. In addition to these alternatives,
the Army also evaluated a No Action
alternative. The No Action alternative
continues current force structure, and
retains the active Army at the FY 2012
authorized end strength of 562,000. The
No Action alternative allows for a
comparison of baseline conditions with
the environmental impacts of each of
the two Action alternatives.
Environmental impacts associated
with implementation of the two Action
alternatives include impacts to air
quality; airspace; cultural and biological
resources; noise; soil erosion; wetlands;
water resources; facilities;
socioeconomics; energy demand; land
use; hazardous materials and waste; and
traffic and transportation. No significant
environmental impacts are anticipated
as a result of implementing either
alternative associated with the proposed
action, with the exception of
socioeconomic impacts. Socioeconomic
impacts are of particular concern to the
Army because they affect communities
around Army installations. Therefore,
the PEA has a comprehensive analysis
of the socioeconomic impacts to inform
the decision makers and communities.
Impacts could include reduced
employment, income, regional
population, and sales, and some of these
impacts could be significant. An EIS is
not required, however, when the only
significant impacts are socioeconomic.
The draft FNSI finds that there are no
significant environmental impacts with
either Action alternative. Final
decisions as to which alternative will be
implemented or which installations will
see reductions or unit realignments have
not been made. Those decisions will be
made based on mission-related criteria
and other factors in light of the
information contained in the PEA.
An electronic version of the PEA and
draft FNSI is available for download at:
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4135
https://aec.army.mil/usaec/nepa/
topics00.html.
Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013–01003 Filed 1–17–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for the Training Mission and
Mission Support Activities at Fort
Campbell, KY
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of Intent.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of the Army
announces its intent to prepare a
Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (PEIS) to evaluate the impacts
of current and future training and
mission-related activities at Fort
Campbell, Kentucky (portions of Fort
Campbell are also located in Tennessee).
The PEIS is being completed to meet the
requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to
evaluate the environmental impacts of
proposed alternatives for implementing
the training and mission support
activities at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.
The PEIS will assess range construction,
associated training and land
management activities, and adjustments
to military airspace to support Fort
Campbell’s training requirements. This
PEIS analyzes portions of the Range
Complex Master Plan which has been
developed to address training and
training facility requirements over the
next 10 years.
ADDRESSES: Please send written
comments to Mr. Gene Zirkle, NEPA/
Wildlife Program Manager,
Environmental Division, Building 2159
13th Street, Fort Campbell, KY 42223; or
by email to gene.a.zirkle.civ@mail.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Gene Zirkle at (270) 798–9854, during
normal working business hours Monday
through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
C.S.T.; or by email to
gene.a.zirkle.civ@mail.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Fort
Campbell must provide modernized
live-fire ranges, quality maneuver
training areas, the airspace necessary for
the training of Army aviation units and
unmanned aerial systems (UAS), and
modern training facilities. The
requirement to provide quality training
support to Soldiers and units will
continue into the future as mission
requirements, military preparedness,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18JAN1.SGM
18JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 13 (Friday, January 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4134-4135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01003]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
Availability of the Draft Finding of No Significant Impact and
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Army 2020 Force
Structure Realignment
AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Army announces the availability of the
draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) and final Programmatic
Environmental Assessment (PEA) for Army force structure realignments
that may occur from Fiscal Years (FYs) 2013-2020. The Army must achieve
force reductions as it transitions from major combat operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan, while reducing spending without sacrificing critical
national defense capabilities. The draft FNSI considers a proposed
action under which the Army's active duty end-strength would be reduced
from 562,000 at the end of FY 2012 to 490,000 by FY 2020. The PEA
analyzes two action alternatives: Alternative 1: Implement force
reductions by inactivating a minimum of eight Brigade Combat Teams
(BCTs) and realign other combat, combat support, and service support
units between FY 2013 and FY 2020; and Alternative 2: Implement
Alternative 1, inactivate additional BCTs, and reorganize remaining
BCTs by adding an additional combat maneuver battalion and other units.
The PEA also analyzes a No Action alternative under which the Army
would not reduce the size of the force. The draft FNSI incorporates the
PEA which does not identify any significant environmental impacts
associated with either alternative, with the exception of socioeconomic
impacts at some installations where a BCT is inactivated and smaller
organizations realigned. The draft FNSI concludes that preparation of
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. Final
decisions as to which installations will see BCTs inactivated or units
realigned have not been made. Additional site-
[[Page 4135]]
specific NEPA analysis may be required at some installations, depending
on the size of the force realignment.
DATES: Submit comments on or before February 19, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Public Comments USAEC,
Attention: IMPA-AE (Army 2020 PEA), 2450 Connell Road (Bldg 2264), Fort
Sam Houston, Texas 78234-7664; or by email to
USARMY.JBSA.AEC.MBX@mail.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (210) 466-1590 or email:
USARMY.JBSA.AEC.MBX@mail.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Implementation of Army force realignment
will occur over the course of several years to arrive by 2020 at an
optimally configured force, reduced from an FY 2012 authorized end
strength of 562,000 to 490,000. Reductions in Army Soldiers will also
be accompanied by some reduction in civil service employees. These
actions are being undertaken to reshape the Army's forces to meet more
effectively national security requirements while reducing the Army's
end-strength. Force realignment and some level of force reduction will
impact most major Army installations. The implementation of this force
rebalancing is necessary to allow the Army to operate in a reduced
budget climate, while ensuring the Army can continue to support the
nation's critical defense missions.
The PEA, upon which the draft FNSI is based, evaluates the largest
potential force reduction scenarios, as well as growth scenarios from
BCT restructuring, that could occur at select installations as a result
of Army force restructuring. This range of potential installation
reduction and growth (ranging from maximum losses of 8,000 military
personnel to maximum increases of 3,000 at the Army's largest
installations) was chosen for the environmental analysis to provide
flexibility as future force structure realignment decisions are made;
the specific locations where changes will occur have not been decided.
The PEA provides information to decision makers concerning
potential environmental impacts, to include socioeconomic impacts,
associated with stationing actions as these decisions are made in the
coming years. The PEA analyzed the direct, indirect, and cumulative
environmental impacts that may occur at 21 installations. These
stationing sites were included in the PEA as they are sites that could
experience a change in Soldiers and civilians that exceeds a total of
1,000 military personnel. The PEA analyzes the environmental impact of
two Action alternatives to implement force reduction and realignment:
Alternative 1: Implement Army force reductions and restructuring of
BCTs, combat support units, and civilian support between FY 2013 and FY
2020; and Alternative 2: Implement Alternative 1, inactivate additional
BCTs and also restructure remaining BCTs by adding an additional combat
maneuver battalion and/or an engineer battalion. Force reductions that
may occur as part of the proposed action include the inactivation of
BCTs and combat support and combat service support units at Army and
joint base installations. This reduction would include the inactivation
of at least eight BCTs. In addition to these alternatives, the Army
also evaluated a No Action alternative. The No Action alternative
continues current force structure, and retains the active Army at the
FY 2012 authorized end strength of 562,000. The No Action alternative
allows for a comparison of baseline conditions with the environmental
impacts of each of the two Action alternatives.
Environmental impacts associated with implementation of the two
Action alternatives include impacts to air quality; airspace; cultural
and biological resources; noise; soil erosion; wetlands; water
resources; facilities; socioeconomics; energy demand; land use;
hazardous materials and waste; and traffic and transportation. No
significant environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of
implementing either alternative associated with the proposed action,
with the exception of socioeconomic impacts. Socioeconomic impacts are
of particular concern to the Army because they affect communities
around Army installations. Therefore, the PEA has a comprehensive
analysis of the socioeconomic impacts to inform the decision makers and
communities. Impacts could include reduced employment, income, regional
population, and sales, and some of these impacts could be significant.
An EIS is not required, however, when the only significant impacts are
socioeconomic.
The draft FNSI finds that there are no significant environmental
impacts with either Action alternative. Final decisions as to which
alternative will be implemented or which installations will see
reductions or unit realignments have not been made. Those decisions
will be made based on mission-related criteria and other factors in
light of the information contained in the PEA.
An electronic version of the PEA and draft FNSI is available for
download at: https://aec.army.mil/usaec/nepa/topics00.html.
Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-01003 Filed 1-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-P