DRAFT Finding of No Significant Impact For Converting and Stationing an Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) to an Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] Section 4321 et seq.) requires federal agencies to consider potential environmental prior to undertaking a course of action. The Department of the Army (Army) has prepared a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) in accordance with NEPA, the regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508 (40 CFR 1500-1508), and the Army s procedures for implementing NEPA, published in 32 CFR 651, Environmental Analysis of Army Actions. This PEA is titled Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) Conversion to an Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) and Stationing. This PEA is incorporated by reference in this Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI), and addresses environmental effects of the proposed conversion and stationing of an Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) into an Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT). The intent of the conversion is to increase the Total Army s ABCT capacity. The PEA provides a broad and programmatic analysis to determine potential on the environmental and socioeconomic areas of concern at each of the five installations under consideration. The PEA also considers the general capacity of each installation to support an ABCT given their existing baseline conditions. The programmatic approach is designed to allow for early planning, coordination, and flexibility throughout implementation of the Army's process of stationing an ABCT. 1 Proposed Action The purpose of the Army s Proposed Action is to increase the Active Army s ABCT capacity by one brigade (from 10 to 11), increasing the Total Army s number of ABCTs from 15 to 16 FNSI-1
(including ARNG units), and to station the ABCT at an existing installation in the United States. To achieve the increase, the Proposed Action is to convert Fort Carson s 2 nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, (4 th Infantry Division [ID] IBCT) into a sixteenth ABCT. This would occur by assigning the IBCT to one of five installations as identified in the alternatives, converting it to an ABCT, and stationing the ABCT at that installation. The Proposed Action does not include any acquisition of real property on Army lands. 2 Alternatives This PEA looks at five action Alternatives and a No Action Alternative. The alternatives considered and analyzed in the PEA are: 2.1 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative is required by CEQ regulations and provides baseline conditions and a benchmark against which to compare environmental from the Proposed Action alternatives (40 CFR 1502.14[d]). Under the No Action Alternative, conversion of an IBCT into an ABCT would not occur. Force structure, personnel, and equipment would not change at any of these installations as a result of this initiative. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would not address the Army s needs for Brigade Combat Team (BCT) realignment, and no growth of an additional ABCT would occur. It should be noted that there might be other major changes to the Army s force structure and total strength. These could be based on a variety of factors, including the world situation, evolving threats, and operation of the Budget Control Act of 2011. 2.2 Action Alternatives The Proposed Action is to convert Fort Carson s 2 nd IBCT into the sixteenth ABCT as described above. The conversion would meet current and projected future national security and defense requirements and take place in Fiscal Year 2019. The ABCT stationing would occur at one of the following installations: Fort Carson, CO (Alternative 1), Fort Bliss, TX (Alternative 2), Fort Hood, TX (Alternative 3), Fort Riley, KS (Alternative 4), or Fort Stewart, GA (Alternative 5). Implementation of the conversion at one of these locations would require unit stationing (e.g., unit realignment or inactivation); garrison and demolition; live-fire ; and maneuver. The Proposed Action does not require or propose land expansion. FNSI-2
2.2.1 Alternative 1 Convert Fort Carson, CO IBCT into ABCT Implementation of Alternative 1 would take the assigned IBCT, convert it into an ABCT, and station the ABCT at Fort Carson. This would realign the BCT force structure, and result in one Stryker BCT (SBCT) and two ABCTs stationed at Fort Carson. Fort Carson s Soldier population would decrease by 21 Soldiers under Alternative 1. The existing facilities and infrastructure on Fort Carson can largely accommodate the additional ABCT. To bring Fort Carson s facilities up to the current Army standard, however, some garrison for cantonment infrastructure improvements would be required including administrative, supply, and maintenance facilities for two battalion-sized elements. 2.2.2 Alternative 2 Reassign Fort Carson, CO IBCT to Fort Bliss, TX and Convert to ABCT Under Alternative 2, the Army would reassign Fort Carson s IBCT to Fort Bliss, convert it into an ABCT, and station it at Fort Bliss. Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the BCT force structure, resulting in one SBCT and three ABCTs stationed at Fort Bliss. Fort Bliss Soldier population would increase by 4,182 under Alternative 2. To assign the IBCT to the garrison, and convert the IBCT to ABCT at the installation, no new garrison would be required for the conversion process; however, infrastructure improvements would be required to bring Fort Bliss's facilities up to the current Army standard for an ABCT. Construction of administrative, supply, and maintenance facilities for two battalion-sized elements would be required on Fort Bliss. New and improvements would predominantly occur within existing developed areas and areas of maintained landscaping. Fort Carson would lose an IBCT under Alternative 2. This would result in a loss of 4,203 BCT Soldiers at Fort Carson. 2.2.3 Alternative 3 Reassign Fort Carson, CO IBCT to Fort Hood, TX and Convert to ABCT Under Alternative 3, the Army would reassign Fort Carson s IBCT to Fort Hood, convert it into an ABCT, and station it at Fort Hood. Implementation of Alternative 3 would increase the BCT force structure, resulting in one SBCT and four ABCTs stationed at Fort Hood. Fort Hood s Soldier population would increase by 4,182 under Alternative 3. The planned inactivation of the 85 th Civil Affairs Brigade (CA BDE) in 2018, as well as the previous inactivation of 4/1 Cavalry Division (CD) in 2013, set conditions for facility support for the additional ABCT. To assign the FNSI-3
IBCT to the garrison, and convert the IBCT to ABCT at the installation, no new garrison would be required for the conversion process; however, infrastructure improvements would be required to bring Fort Hood's facilities up to the current Army standard for an ABCT. Construction requirements include vehicle maintenance shops; barracks; company, battalion, and brigade HQs; unit storage, and classrooms. New and improvements would predominantly occur within existing developed areas and areas of maintained landscaping. Fort Carson would lose an IBCT under Alternative 3. This would equate to a loss of 4,203 BCT Soldiers at Fort Carson. 2.2.4 Alternative 4 Reassign Fort Carson, CO IBCT to Fort Riley, KS and Convert to ABCT Under Alternative 4, the Army would reassign Fort Carson s IBCT to Fort Riley, convert it into an ABCT, and station it at Fort Riley. Implementation of Alternative 4 would increase the BCT force structure, resulting in three ABCTs stationed at Fort Riley. Fort Riley s Soldier population would increase by 4,182 under Alternative 4. To assign the IBCT to the garrison, and convert the IBCT to ABCT at the installation, no new garrison would be required for the conversion process; however, infrastructure improvements would be required to bring Fort Riley's facilities up to the current Army standard for an ABCT. Construction requirements include vehicle maintenance shops; barracks; company, battalion, and brigade HQs; unit storage and classrooms; a tactical unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) hangar; and petroleum, oil, and lubricant (POL) storage. Fort Riley would utilize new relocatable buildings as an interim stationing solution until new permanent facilities are constructed. No building removal would be required and new would predominantly occur within existing developed areas and areas of maintained landscaping. Fort Carson would lose an IBCT under Alternative 4. This would equate to a loss of 4,203 BCT Soldiers at Fort Carson. 2.2.5 Alternative 5: Reassign Fort Carson, CO IBCT to Fort Stewart, GA and Convert to ABCT Under Alternative 5, the Army would reassign Fort Carson s IBCT to Fort Stewart, convert it into an ABCT, and station it at Fort Stewart. Implementation of Alternative 5 would increase the BCT force structure, resulting in three ABCTs, and a CAB stationed at Fort Stewart. Fort FNSI-4
Stewart s Soldier population would increase by 4,182 under Alternative 5. To assign the IBCT to the garrison, and convert the IBCT to ABCT at the installation, no new garrison would be required for the conversion process; however, infrastructure improvements would be required to bring Fort Stewart's facilities up to the current Army standard for an ABCT. Fort Stewart would predominantly reutilize existing facilities for personnel and equipment, although two buildings would require renovation and relocation. Construction requirements include vehicle maintenance shops; barracks; company, battalion, and brigade HQs; unit storage and classrooms; a tactical UAV hangar; and petroleum, oil, and lubricant (POL) storage on Fort Stewart. New would predominantly occur within existing developed areas and areas of maintained landscaping. To provide support for three ABCTs, Fort Stewart requires a Targetry Range Automated Control and Recording (TRACR) upgrade to instrumentation and Targetry; replacement of legacy Multipurpose Range Complex (MPRC) Heavy; and an additional conduct of fire and call for fire trainer simulation facility. Fort Carson would lose an IBCT under Alternative 5. This would equate to a loss of 4,203 BCT Soldiers at Fort Carson. 3 Summary of Environmental Effects No significant are anticipated as a result of implementing any of the alternatives proposed in this PEA. Each of the resource areas identified in the appendix to this FNSI was analyzed for potential resulting from implementing the Proposed Action for each Alternative. Potential were broken down into categories including: beneficial, no, and potential (negligible, minor, moderate/ less, or significant). These are summarized in Table 1 (located in the appendix). Impacts are anticipated to be minimized through avoidance, and the implementation of existing environmental protection measures. Avoidance strategies depend on the installation selected, the increase in the number of Soldiers at the installation, recent downsizing at the installations, modified plans or permits, and when activities are scheduled. Examples of environmental protection measures would include implementing erosion and stormwater control measures during ; maintaining vehicles and equipment; and sustaining vegetation cover at the site. No new mitigation measures are needed nor have any been identified. The Army will continue to adhere to legal and regulatory requirements, and FNSI-5
continue to implement its approved management plans, standard operation procedures, and best management practices. 4 Public Review and Interagency Coordination This PEA and draft FNSI were made available for public, agency, and Tribal review on March, 2018 when a Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register. That same day, an electronic copy of the PEA and draft FNSI was made available for download from the United States Army Environmental Command website at: https://aec.army.mil/index.php?cid=352. Comments could also be submitted at U.S. Army Environmental Command, ATTN: Public Comments, 2450 Connell Road (Building 2264), Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-7664, by email to: usarmy.jbsa.aec.nepa@mail.mil, or by phone at 210-466-1590 or tollfree 855-846-3940. The Army invited public, agency, and Tribal participation in the NEPA process. The Army received comments as a result of the 30-day public comment period. The comments contained the following major themes: 1. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 2. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 3. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 4. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX The analyses performed for this PEA applies to the conversion of an IBCT at Fort Carson to an ABCT and stationing the ABCT at one of five installations. Additional ABCT stationing actions at these installations may tier from the PEA. Additional NEPA analysis may be required for a given proposed alternative once an installation has been selected and installation-specific planning occurs to finalize stationing at the chosen installation In summary, (some/major/no) edits are needed, [and ] were made, to the PEA, dated May 2018, in response to the comments received. FNSI-6
5 Conclusion Based on a careful review of the PEA, which is incorporated by reference, and comments received as a result of the March 2018 Notice of Availability publication, I have concluded that no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative to the human or natural environment are anticipated as a result of implementation of any of the Alternatives. I conclude that the Proposed Action and Alternatives are not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA; an environmental impact statement is not required, and will not be prepared. My decision is based on potential environmental and socioeconomic associated with the Proposed Action and alternatives, as analyzed in the PEA. This decision complies with legal requirements and has been made after taking into account all submitted information and considering a full range of reasonable alternatives. Lieutenant General Joseph Anderson, Date Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7, United States Army FNSI-7
Appendix to FNSI May 2018 Appendix FNSI-8
Appendix to FNSI May 2018 Table 1. Summary of the Potential Effects on the Evaluated Alternatives Resource Area No Action Alternative Alternative 1: Fort Carson Alternative 2: Fort Bliss Alternative 3: Fort Hood Alternative 4: Fort Riley Alternative 5: Fort Stewart Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Minor to moderate/ less Minor to moderate/ less Minor to moderate/ less to minor Biological Resources FNSI-9
Appendix to FNSI May 2018 Resource Area No Action Alternative Alternative 1: Fort Carson Alternative 2: Fort Bliss Alternative 3: Fort Hood Alternative 4: Fort Riley Alternative 5: Fort Stewart Cultural Resources for for for for for Geology and Soils Socioeconomics Overall negligible long-term beneficial to receiving installation/ long term moderate to Fort Carson beneficial to receiving installation/ long term moderate to Fort Carson beneficial to receiving installation/ long term moderate to Fort Carson beneficial to receiving installation/ long term moderate to Fort Carson FNSI-10
Appendix to FNSI May 2018 Resource Area No Action Alternative Alternative 1: Fort Carson Alternative 2: Fort Bliss Alternative 3: Fort Hood Alternative 4: Fort Riley Alternative 5: Fort Stewart Water Resources Impact for for for for Traffic and Transport Minor to less than significant Minor to moderate/ less Cumulative Minor to less than significant negligible to socio-economic Less than significant beneficial to socioeconomic Less than significant beneficial to socioeconomic Less than significant beneficial to socioeconomic Less than significant beneficial to socioeconomic FNSI-11