[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28677-28685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-13802]
[[Page 28677]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
Environmental Impact Statement for the Relocation of the U.S.
Army Chemical School and the U.S. Army Military Police School to Fort
Leonard Wood, Missouri--Record of Decision
AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.
ACTION: Notice of record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
1. Decision
2. Proposed Action
3. Alternatives
4. Selection of the Army's Preferred Alternative
5. Impacts and Mitigation Commitments
6. Conclusion
1. Decision
In my capacity as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Installations, Logistics and Environment, and based on the analysis
contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the
Relocation of the U.S. Army Chemical School and the U.S. Army Military
Police School and their associated units and support elements to Fort
Leonard Wood (FLW), Missouri, I have determined the FEIS adequately
assesses the impacts of the proposed action and related alternatives on
the biological, physical, and cultural environment. Therefore, in
accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990,
Public Law 101-510, the Army will proceed with construction of
facilities at FLW to support the relocation of the Chemical School and
Military Police School and shall relocate the schools, their associated
units and support elements, and associated personnel to FLW in
accordance with the Army's Preferred Alternative and the general
implementation schedules described in the FEIS.
The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (1990 Base
Closure Act), Public Law 101-510, requires the closing of Fort
McClellan (FMC), Alabama, and the relocation of the Chemical School and
Military Police School to FLW. In addition, the 1990 Base Closure Act
requires the Chemical Defense Training Facility (CDTF) to continue to
operate at FMC until the capability to operate a replacement facility
at FLW has been achieved.
The 1990 Base Closure Act also exempts the Commission's decision-
making process from provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). The law also relieves the Department of Defense (DoD) from the
NEPA requirement to consider the need for closing, realigning or
transferring functions, and from looking at alternative installations
to close or realign. However, the Department of the Army must evaluate
the environmental impact of implementing actions that are necessary to
relocate specified missions and operations. The environmental and
socioeconomic impacts of facility construction and future training and
operations must be analyzed and documented. Therefore, my decision to
approve implementation was based on consideration of whether or not the
Army has adequately considered the environmental effects of
implementing the relocation decision. In addition, my review considered
whether the Army has developed and considered an alternative to avoid
or minimize environmental impacts and has or will comply with all
environmental laws and regulations during the implementation. The Army
will conduct fog oil training within the constraints of the existing
Missouri Department of Natural Resources Air Quality Permit #0695-010,
or other permits in existence at the time the training takes place,
until such time a permit is issued that will accommodate the full
implementation of the preferred alternative.
My decision considered: the mitigation commitments outlined in the
FEIS; transcripts of the scoping meeting; the public hearing on the
Draft EIS; all written comments received during the public comment and
the 30-day post-filing periods; and the National Academy of Sciences
Committee report (see paragraph 5.14). In addition, I have considered
the results of continued coordination with interested federal, state
and local agencies and public interest groups in making my decision.
I have reviewed the FEIS for the Relocation of the U.S. Army
Chemical and the U.S. Army Military Police Schools to Fort Leonard
Wood, Missouri, and associated correspondence received in response to
coordination of this document, and have decided that the plan as
recommended in the FEIS should be executed and that the construction
associated with the proposed action should proceed. I find the plan
outlined in the Executive Summary of the FEIS to be technically sound,
environmentally sustainable, socially and economically acceptable, and
in agreement with the 1990 Base Closure Act. Any new or additional
missions will be evaluated in compliance with NEPA and all other
federal, state, and local laws and regulations prior to deciding to
implement at FLW.
2. Proposed Action
The proposed action is described in the FIS in the context of three
primary elements including: (1) Training missions to be relocated to
FLW; (2) facilities required to support the relocated missions; and (3)
the population to be relocated to FLW as a result of the action. The
Military Police School and the Chemical School have the mission to
provide education and training of selected U.S. military, foreign
military and civilian personnel. Chemical School students are trained
to: detect and identify Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) agents;
protect themselves and others from harm caused by NBC agents; employ
smoke and other obscurants to increase soldier combat effectiveness and
survivability; and construct and detonate flame field expedient
deterrents to protect our troops in battle. Military Police School
students are trained in traditional police functions as well as
specialized military operations such as battlefield circulation, area
security, and prisoner-of-war handling.
The action also includes relocation of units and missions to FLW
that are required to support the Chemical School and Military Police
School. All activities evaluated in the FEIS are considered ``directed
relocations'' which are specifically identified by, or required to
implement, the 1990 Base Closure Act requirements. Additional
facilities (buildings, specialized training facilities, and designated
training land areas) are required at FLW to meet the needs of the
Chemical School and Military Police School. Implementation of the
action results in completion of approximately $200 million in military
construction projects, and an increase of approximately 9,000 persons,
including permanent party military personnel and dependent family
members, military and civilian student trainees, and civilian
employees.
3. Alternatives
In accordance with NEPA and Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations, the Army developed and evaluated a reasonable range of
alternatives for implementing the mandated BRAC at FLW. Alternatives
were developed for each of the primary elements of the action including
relocation of training missions, provisions of required support
facilities, and relocation of related personnel. A summary of
alternatives considered in the FEIS is provided below.
[[Page 28678]]
3.1 Training Alternatives
The FEIS alternatives formulation process was initiated with a
review of over 70 Programs of Instruction (POIs) that define training
activities of the Chemical School and Military Police School. Training
activities were grouped into 11 categories, which included a total of
43 specific training goals. The EIS team then identified and considered
a total of 204 training method alternatives for accomplishing these
training goals at FLW. Volume IV of the FEIS provides information
regarding alternative training methods considered, and the rationale
that led to selection of those methods to be analyzed in detail in the
FEIS. This alternative formulation process resulted in further
considered of a No Action Alternative, and three training goal
implementation alternatives. The training implementation alternatives
included the: 1) Relocate Current Practice (RCP) Alternative; 2)
Optimum Training Method (OPTM) Alternative; and 3) Environmentally
Preferred Training Method (EPTM) Alternative.
Analysis of the No Action Alternatives as it relates to the
training element of the FEIS considered the impact of not implementing
individual training goals associated with the Chemical School and
Military Police School missions. Failing to implement any of the 43
training goals identified and considered in the FEIS was not reasonable
because training in each of these goals is essential to meeting mission
requirements. Therefore, the No Action Alternative is not evaluated in
detail in the FEIS. However, the No Action Alternative (the
continuation of ongoing and planned (pre-BRAC) activities at FLW) is
used as the environmental baseline against which the impacts of each
training implementation alternative were evaluated.
The RCP Alternative evaluates relocating all training methods to
FLW as they are currently (at the time of the BRAC decision) conducted
at FMC. The training methods defined in the RCP create a baseline
against which the alternative methods were evaluated. The OPTM
Alternative was formulated to identify and evaluate the impact of
implementing training methods which best met a combination of initial
environmental and training/operating efficiency screening criteria as
documented in Volume IV of the FEIS. The EPTM Alternative was
formulated to evaluate the impact of implementing the combination of
training methods which received the highest score based solely on
consideration of environmental screening criteria.
3.2 Supporting Facility Alternatives
Implementation of the planned BRAC action at FLW will require
facilities to support the training requirements of the relocated
schools and to support the housing, administrative and support
requirements of increased personnel. The Army's analysis for this
action included a detailed review of facility requirements for all
activities. This process resulted in identification of Chemical School
and Military Police School facility requirements in excess of 1.6
million square feet of space and numerous range and training area
requirements. Detailed analysis of existing facilities at FLW resulted
in identification of approximately 800,000 square feet of existing
facility space that could be used to meet approximately half of the
relocation requirements. This left a shortfall of an additional 800,000
square feet of facility space that must be met through new
construction.
The FEIS documents the rationale for consideration of a No Action
Alternative and three facility implementation alternatives. Each of the
implementation alternatives included a unique BRAC Land Use and
Facility Plan (LU&FP) which identified modifications to FLW's existing
approved land use plan required to meet needs of the relocated schools,
and a facility construction program which identified the type, extent,
and location of facility development associated with each alternative.
Under the No Action Alternative for this study element, FLW would
continue to implement its pre-BRAC land use and facility development
plan, but no new facilities would be provided in response to BRAC
actions. The analyses documented in the FEIS, demonstrates that FLW can
support approximately 50 percent of the identified requirements, and
that opportunities to lease space off-post are very limited. None of
the specialized training facilities such as the Chemical Defense
Training Facility, radiation laboratory, crime scenes and other unique
facilities for the two schools are available. Therefore, since BRAC
legislation directs the relocation, the No Action Alternative is not
reasonable, and, therefore, is not analyzed in further detail in the
FEIS, other than to serve as an environmental baseline against which
the impacts of each facilities implementation alternative are
evaluated.
The ``Army's Proposed LU&FP (Combined Headquarters and Instruction)
Alternative'' locates the headquarters for the three schools (existing
Engineer School at FLW, and the Military Police School and Chemical
School to be relocated) in Hoge Hall, Lincoln Hall and a new General
Instruction Facility (GIF) complex. The ``Alternative 1 LU&FP (Combined
Headquarters)'' is based on the concept of collocating the headquarters
for each of the three schools (existing Engineer School at FLW and both
schools to be relocated) in Hoge Hall and Lincoln Hall. However, three
separate ``school houses'' would be provided, thereby allowing the
individual specialty branches to retain more autonomy. The
``Alternative 2 LU&FP (Separate Headquarters)'' would locate the
headquarters for the Chemical School and the Military Police School in
separate buildings, but would consolidate general instruction and
library facilities in the ``800-area'' of the FLW post. The Engineer
School would remain in Hoge, Lincoln and Clark halls.
3.3 Population Relocation Alternatives
The third and final element of the alternative formulation process
involved consideration of the population to be relocated to FLW as a
result of the proposed action. The action is expected to result in a
total population increase of approximately 9000 persons to the FLW
area, including permanent party military personnel and their dependent
family members, military and civilian student trainees, and civilian
employees. The FEIS considered a No Action Alternative and three
implementation alternatives for this element including a: (1) Total
Early Move Alternative; (2) Total Late Move Alternative; and (3) Phased
Move Alternative.
The FEIS concludes the No Action Alternative, as it applies to
relocation of personnel, is not reasonable. However, the No Action
Alternative was used to compare population conditions and related
impacts at the current (pre-BRAC) level at FLW, to those expected to
occur under each of the BRAC action implementation scenarios. Regarding
the three implementation alternatives, the FEIS concludes the Total
Early Move and Total Late Move alternatives were not reasonable because
they resulted in facility utilization problems and disruption of
ongoing training programs. Accordingly, all implementation scenarios
considered in detail in the FEIS are based on the Phased Move
Alternative. The Phased Move Alternative would involve relocation of
personnel (and related missions and equipment) on a phased schedule.
This phrasing is expected to occur over a period of approximately 9
[[Page 28679]]
months, tied to the availability of renovated or new facilities and
completion of training classes at FMC, and startup of the relocated
classes at FLW.
4. Selection of the Army's Preferred Alternative
In accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1505.2), the FEIS and
this ROD identify the Army's Preferred Alternative which includes
implementation of (1) the Optimum Training Method (OPTM) Alternative;
(2) the Army's Proposed LU&FP (Combined Headquarters and Instruction)
Alternative; and (3) the Phased Move Alternative. As stated above, the
Army determined that the only reasonable method for relocating the
personnel associated with the Chemical School and the Military Police
School was as described under the Phased Move Alternative. Therefore,
that element is part of the Army's preferred method for implementing
the total action. The rationale for the selection of the Army's
Preferred Alternative relative to the training missions to be relocated
and required support facilities is summarized below, and further
documented in the FEIS.
34.1 Training Element Decision
For the training element of the proposed action, the FEIS impact
analysis documents that the RCP Alternative would result in
substantially higher adverse environmental impacts (taken as a whole)
than either the OPTM Alternative or the EPTM Alternative, and that the
RCP Alternative would result in a lower level of training effectiveness
than the OPTM Alternative. Therefore, the RCP Alternative was dropped
from further consideration prior to completion of the cumulative impact
analysis section of the FEIS. This focused the decision on how to
conduct training at FLW between the OPTM and EPTM alternatives.
The analysis indicates selection of the EPTM Alternative would
reduce the annual quantity of fog oil used, thereby reducing the extent
of impacts on the environment (including some reduction in the degree
of impact to air quality and threatened and endangered species).
However, significant adverse impacts to both air quality and threatened
and endangered species may still occur under both the OPTM and EPTM
alternatives, and the nature and extent of mitigation required under
the OPTM and EPTM alternatives are very similar. Furthermore,
implementation of the EPTM Alternative would reduce the overall
training effectiveness relative to the OPTM Alternative in six of 43
training goals as discussed in the FEIS. The most significant reduction
in training effectiveness under the EPTM Alternative would be
associated with Training Goal 7.4 (Fog Oil Training Field Proficiency
Test), where the reduced levels of fog oil usage would result in
soldiers that are not as highly trained under realistic field
conditions as the OPTM Alternative provides. Proficiency in deployment
and maintenance of smoke screen cover over specified areas under
battlefield conditions is critically important to the successful
performance of certain military missions, and to protect our troops and
defend our national interests and those of our allies. In consideration
of these factors, and all other information provided by the FEIS
analysis, I selected the OPTM Alternative as the preferred method of
implementing training activities to be conducted by the Chemical School
and the Military Police School at FLW.
4.2 Supporting Facility Element Decision
The FEIS analysis revealed the environmental impacts of the
Alternative 2 LU&FP (Separate Headquarters) were clearly more adverse
than either the Army's Proposed LU&FP (Combined Headquarters and
Instruction) or the Alternative 1 LU&FP (Combined Headquarters).
Furthermore, the Alternative 2 LU&FP did not provide any significant
operational advantages over the other two alternatives. Therefore, the
Alternative 2 LU&FP was dropped from further consideration prior to
completion of the cumulative impact analysis section of the FEIS. The
analysis also showed that the Army's Proposed LU&FP (Combined
Headquarters and Instruction) has less overall adverse environmental
impacts than the Alternative 1 LU&FP. In addition, the FEIS analysis
documents that the Army's Proposed LU&FP (Combined Headquarters and
Instruction): (1) is the most effective plan with regard to utilization
of existing available facilities at FLW to meet requirements; (2) has
the lowest construction cost of any of the implementation alternatives;
(3) provides the highest degree of collocation of similar facilities;
(4) provides the greatest long-term operational cost savings; and (5)
provides the highest potential for synergistic training activities at
FLW. In consideration of these factors, and all information provided by
the FEIS analysis, I selected the Army's Proposed LU&FP (Combined
Headquarters and Instruction) as the preferred method for providing
facilities required to support the relocation of the Chemical School
and the Military Police School to FLW.
5. Impacts and Mitigation Commitments
Fifteen natural, cultural, sociological, and economic resource
categories, plus a category to consider the operational efficiency of
planned actions, were established to provide a framework for
identifying baseline conditions and determining the impact of
alternatives in the FEIS. A summary of the type and extent of impacts
anticipated as a result of implementing the Army's Preferred
alternative at FLW is provided below for each analysis category.
Impacts discussed represent the cumulative impact of implementing all
elements of the Army's Preferred Alternative, in association with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions as discussed in
detail in the FEIS. Where appropriate, this subsection of the ROD
identifies mitigation measures that will be taken by the Army to avoid
or minimize adverse environmental impacts.
Several of the following impact discussions will refer to Volume
III, Appendix K (Summary of Monitoring Programs) which documents the
intent of monitoring programs that will be implemented by FLW to ensure
impacts associated with the Army's Preferred Alternative are consistent
with those predicted in the FEIS and in full compliance with applicable
laws, regulations and permit conditions. Specifically, Appendix K
describes monitoring program elements, associated adaptive management
strategies, and compliance schedules for six distinct monitoring
programs including: (1) Air Quality; (2) Soils and Vegetation; (3)
Human Health; (4) Endangered Species; (5) Biological Indicators; and
(6) Water Quality.
5.1 Land Use and Training Areas
The FEIS concludes implementation of the Army's Preferred
Alternative will not require change in the previously approved land use
pattern for the non-cantonment training areas at FLW. Existing non-
cantonment training areas will remain in use for training, and no
additional areas will be converted to this land use, although the type
of training conducted at several of the training areas will change. All
such changes are compatible with adjacent training activities.
Implementation will result in some adjustments to the existing land use
plan within the FLW cantonment area. However, these changes are minimal
in relation to the total land area involved, and each of
[[Page 28680]]
these changes will result in improved functional relationships and
efficiency of post operations. The action will also modify existing
off-post land use patterns associated with development of additional
civilian residential and commercial activities in areas surrounding
FLW.
Land Use and Training Area Impact Mitigation Commitments
None of the land use or training area impacts identified in the
FEIS are significant, and no mitigation is required. The Army will
construct BRAC related facilities and conduct related training and
support operations in full compliance with the existing installation
Master Plan, and those modifications to the Master Plan described as
part of the Army's Preferred Alternative.
5.2 Air Quality
Recognizing that environmental agencies and members of the public
are concerned about impacts of proposed fog oil obscurant training on
the air quality within and around FLW, the Army conducted an in-depth
evaluation of this issue and has fully documented the results in the
FEIS. The FEIS air quality analysis was modified, in response to
comments received on the Draft EIS, to clarify several issues and to
provide additional details concerning impacts on air quality. This
additional information is presented in subsections 5.2.2.3 and 5.5.5 of
the FEIS, Appendix J (Air Permit #0695-010) to Volume III of the FEIS,
and in a separate ``Air Quality Technical Reference Document:
Relocation of the US Army Chemical School and US Army Military Police
School to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri,'' which was included in each the
11 public repositories identified in the FEIS.
Due to the quantity of air emissions associated with the planned
fog oil obscurant training activities, the action is subject to permit
review in compliance with 40 CFR Part 51 and Missouri State Rule 10 CSR
10-6.060. Full implementation of the Army's Preferred Alternative for
fog oil obscurant training requires the use of up to 84,500 gallons of
fog oil per year and up to 1,200 gallons per day. Review of subsection
5.5.3.3.2 (and other air quality subsections of the FEIS) indicate
that, based on conservative assumptions for modeling, full
implementation of the action would result in exceeding the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 24-hour PM-10 (see subsection
5.5.3.3.2 for details). Mitigation is thus required to comply with the
NAAQS and the terms of the existing Missouri Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR) Air Quality Permit #0695-010 for fog oil training at
FLW. Fog oil training will be constrained to the level allowed by the
permits in existence at the time the training occurs. Procedures to be
used to ensure the general public is not exposed to air which does not
meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards because of fog oil
training are described in subsection 5.2.2.15.B of Volume I of the FEIS
and Appendix K of the FEIS.
The cumulative impact analysis included in the FEIS quantifies the
level of mitigation (through reductions in the quantity of fog oil to
be used) necessary to reduce PM-10 air quality impacts to acceptable
levels. The FEIS demonstrates that implementation of the Army's
Preferred Alternative, with fog oil training reduced to conditions and
use limits established by the current MDNR Air Permit #0695-010 (as
included in Appendix J. Volume III of the FEIS), will comply with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM-10.
Because the implementation of fog oil training at the mitigated
(existing MDNR Air Quality Permit #0695-010) level does not provide the
level of training considered optimum by the U.S. Army Chemical School,
the FEIS states that FLW intends to pursue a new or revised air permit
with MDNR after evaluating the assumptions used for the air dispersion
model in conjunction with site-specific (within and immediately
adjacent to FLW) meteorological data that is currently being collected.
The revised permit application may request consideration to use fog oil
quantities up to the maximum levels specified under full implementation
(non-mitigated) of the Army's Preferred Alternative (up to 84,500
gallons per year and up to 1,200 gallons per day). Any such permit
renewal process will be subject to full disclosure and comment per the
conditions and procedures established by MDNR. Additional details
regarding the cumulative impact analysis and other factors relating to
the air permitting process are fully documented in subsection fog
5.5.3.3.3 of the FEIS, and in the separate air quality technical
reference document as referenced above.
Air Quality Impact Mitigation Commitments
Until a new or revised air permit is issued by Missouri Department
of Natural Resources, the Army will comply with and adhere to annual
and daily fog oil use levels specified in the existing MDNR Air Quality
Permit #0695-010 (65,000 gallons per year and approximately 481 gallons
per day) and comply with all terms and conditions established in the
existing MDNR Air Quality Permit #0695-010 including air monitoring.
The air quality monitoring plan includes three types of monitoring
activities: (1) Ambient air quality monitoring of PM-10 and ozone; (2)
meteorological monitoring; and (3) smoke movement monitoring.
Ambient air quality and meteorological monitoring will be conducted
using a network of nine monitoring stations located on and near FLW.
This network include four previously established stations that are only
used to collect meteorological data. In addition, five meteorological
and ambient air monitoring stations have been added at FLW (one at each
of the four fog oil obscurant training areas, and a fifth at Forney
Army Airfield). Meteorological and air quality monitoring will be
conducted for at least 2 years prior to initiation of fog oil training
at FLW to establish baseline conditions, and will continue for at least
2 years after fog oil training is initiated at FLW. Smoke movement
monitoring will be conducted during mobile and field fog oil training
exercises to ensure that training will comply with the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for PM-10. Additional details regarding the air
quality monitoring plan and related adaptive management response is
provided in Appendix K (subsection K.4.1, Volume III) of the FEIS.
Fort Leonard Wood will develop and implement a Public Awareness
Program (as defined in Appendix L, Volume III of the FEIS) to inform
the general public of potential health risks associated with exposures
to fog oil. FLW will continue to adhere to established policies and
procedures that are designed to ensure that the general public does not
enter active training ranges, including those lands to used to support
future smoke training activities. Procedures to be used to ensure that
the general public does not enter active smoke training ranges are
described in subsection 5.2.2.15.A of the FEIS and include: (1)
establishment of appropriate safety zones adjacent to smoke training
areas; (2) daily patrols of all closed or restricted training areas and
related safety zones to ensure that no unauthorized persons enter these
areas; and (3) appropriate signs along with physical barriers (such as
gates or cables) on roads leading into training areas.
5.3 Noise
Elements of the Army's Preferred Alternative that result in direct
and indirect effects to noise include: (1) Expansion of the amount of
exterior
[[Page 28681]]
training activities, including the amount of ammunition, grenades and
explosives to be used; (2) expansion of aircraft operations in and near
Forney Army Airfield; and (3) noise associated with the construction of
BRAC related construction projects. The FEIS concludes that the impacts
of these activities, in association with other past, present and
reasonably foreseeable future actions that could influence noise
levels, are not expected to exceed significance criteria.
Noise Impact Mitigation Commitments
No mitigation is required. However, continued coordination between
the installation and the Regional Commerce and Growth Association in
Pulaski County and adjacent cities will help to ensure that noise
sensitive land uses are avoided in those limited off-post areas that
have previously been (as a result of current, baseline operations at
FLW) and are expected to continue to be exposed to adverse noise
levels.
5.4 Water Resources
Under this evaluation category, the FEIS considers the potential
for impacts to regulatory flood plains, surface water and groundwater
resources. The FEIS concludes that implementation of the Army's
Preferred Alternative will not result in any adverse impact to
regulatory flood plains within or beyond the FLW boundaries. The FEIS
notes that the action may result in minor adverse cumulative impacts to
surface water quality within FLW boundaries; and that minor, adverse
impacts may occur as a result of sediment-laden surface water flowing
into karst features (sinkhole and related rock fractures and openings
that allow for rapid groundwater movement) that occur within
installation boundaries. However, implementation of numerous specific
surface water/sediment control projects (including the construction of
an impermeable liner under the proposed flame training range and
construction of several sediment retention basins) and adherence to
Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are defined as part of the
proposed action will ensure that these impacts do not reach significant
levels.
Water Quality Impact Mitigation Commitments
In addition to continuation of existing (pre-BRAC) water quality
monitoring at FLW (as defined in Volume III, Appendix H of the FEIS),
the Army will implement a BRAC Water Quality Monitoring Plan to ensure
compliance with the revised National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Missouri State Operating Permit MO-117251; the Missouri
Clean Water Law, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and all other
applicable laws, regulations and permits. Subsection K.4.6 of Appendix
K, Volume III of the FEIS describes all substantive elements of the
water quality monitoring program to be implemented at FLW. The Army
will also ensure BRAC construction projects are completed in accordance
with specified erosion and surface water control features. This
includes construction of berms around the flame training range,
construction of water retention ponds to collect water runoff from the
flame range, and construction of an impervious liner to control
groundwater flows beneath the flame training range. FLW will implement
management controls on training in order to avoid potential impacts
associated with in-stream vehicle crossings including: (1) Limiting
high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) stream crossing
training to specifically designated training area with an obstacle
designed to replicate a stream crossing; and (2) limit other instream
crossings associated with maneuver operations and mobile and field
smoke training to areas which have been improved to minimize adverse
impacts. Finally, the Army will continue to conduct all accordance with
approved operating procedures, and use the FLW Installation Spill
Prevention and Response Plan to minimize adverse impact of any spill
that may occur in or near water resources.
5.5 Geology and Soils
The FEIS concludes that implementation of the Army's Preferred
Alternative will result in minor adverse impacts to soils and geologic
resources within FLW boundaries. These impacts include impacts to soils
as a result of erosion on lands disturbed for construction and training
activities, and the potential for impacts as a result of accumulation
of hydrocarbons released at the planned flame training range.
Geology and Soil Impact Mitigation Commitments
The rate of soil erosion will be reduced through the implementation
of BMPs during construction and continued implementation of the FLW
Integrated Training Area Management Plan. Planned construction has been
sited to avoid sensitive geologic areas. As stated above, the Army will
also continue to conduct all training in accordance with approved
operating procedures and use the FLW Installation Spill Prevention and
Response Plan to minimize the adverse impact of any spill that may
occur.
In accordance with Special Conditions 25 through 30 of the existing
MDNR Air Quality Permit #0695-010, the Army will also develop and
implement a Soils and Vegetation Monitoring Plan to monitor if there is
fog oil residue (total petroleum hydrocarbons or TPHs) remaining on
soil and vegetation. Additional information regarding this monitoring
requirement are provided in subsection K.4.2 of Appendix K, Volume III
of the FEIS.
5.6 Infrastructure
The FEIS documents that an increase in traffic volume and delays is
anticipated as a result of the BRAC action; however, the degree of this
traffic impact is not considered to be significant. The proposed action
includes planned improvements relating to utility system distribution
and collection systems. In consideration of these improvements, and the
fact that existing treatment and plant facilities have adequate
capacity to serve all current and reasonably foreseeable future needs,
no significant adverse impacts are expected to occur to on-post utility
systems. Energy, communication systems, and solid waste disposal
provided by outside sources will be adjusted by the suppliers in
accordance with all applicable laws and regulations concerning these
operations, and no significant adverse impacts to these systems were
identified by the EIS process. Energy consumption at FLW will increase,
but energy efficient facility construction, existing facility
renovations, and continued expansion of the natural gas system at FLW
will help to reduce energy usage, and no significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
Infrastructure Impact Mitigation Commitments
The degree of traffic congestion problems will be reduced due to
improvements included as part of the proposed action construction
projects for the Combined Headquarters and Instruction facility plan
(e.g., improvements planned for the intersections of Nebraska Avenue
and First Street and Gate Street at Missouri Avenue). Realignment of
Nebraska Avenue and improving Gate Street will also help offset the
increased traffic volume expected to occur near the new consolidated
Headquarters area. FLW will ensure utility distribution and collection
systems are upgraded as required to accommodate the new facilities as
part of the BRAC
[[Page 28682]]
construction program. All new buildings will meet applicable energy
conservation guidelines and standards.
5.7 Hazardous and Toxic Materials
The addition of BRAC activities to FLW will increase the volume of
hazardous materials used, handled, stored and transported on FLW over
current levels. This increase in hazardous materials will also result
in an increase in the amount of hazardous and special wastes being
removed from FLW for disposal through properly licensed and monitored
contract operations. The FEIS documents that all hazardous and toxic
materials, low-level radioactive materials, regulated medical wastes,
fuels, and special wastes will be handled, stored, transported and
disposed of in a manner which protects the environment and human
health, and in compliance with Army regulations and federal and state
laws and regulations.
The FEIS was expanded to include additional information regarding
the chemical characterization of liquid wastes generated by the
Chemical Defense Training Facility (CDTF), and to further quantify the
potential risks associated with the transportation of decontaminated
special waste by-products associated with the CDTF to off-post disposal
facilities. Information from that analysis is presented in subsection
5.2.2.8.5 (Volume I) and Appendix I (Volume III) of the FEIS.
Hazardous and Toxic Materials Impact Mitigation Commitments
No significant adverse impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation
is required. The Army will continue existing environmental management
programs that are designed to ensure that all such materials are
managed properly. These ongoing management programs and plans include
the FLW Hazardous Waste Minimization Program, Pollution Prevention
Plan, Hazardous Waste Management Plan and the Installation Spill
Prevention and Response Plan. In addition, the Army commits to the
disposal of wastes generated by the CDTF in compliance with guidelines
and criteria included in subsection 5.2.2.8.5.2, Volume I of the FEIS.
5.8 Munitions
Implementation of the Army's Preferred Alternative at FLW will
result in an increase in the type and quantity of live munitions,
obscurants and signals used at the post. The FEIS concludes that no
direct or indirect impacts on munitions storage or operational controls
are expected to occur as a result of this increase. The impacts of
additional munitions usage on the environment (such as impacts to
threatened and endangered species, human health, etc.) were evaluated
under the appropriate resource categories.
Munitions Impact Mitigation Commitments
Because there are no adverse impacts, no mitigation actions are
required under this evaluation category.
5.9 Permits and Regulatory Authority
The FEIS concludes that implementation of the Army's Preferred
Alternative will result in an increase in the number of permit
applications required to conduct training and a directly related
increase in the type and extent of compliance monitoring. This increase
in permit activity will require programming of additional fiscal
resources to prepare and manage all required permits. Compliance with
all permit terms and conditions will ensure that significant adverse
impacts to the environment do not occur.
Permits and Regulatory Authority Mitigation Commitments
The Army commits to the preparation and maintenance of all permits,
current or revised, required to implement and maintain the actions
included as part of the Army's Preferred Alternative (as well as all
ongoing mission permit requirements). Specific permits and regulatory
procedures identified in the FEIS (and summarized in subsection ES.7 of
the FEIS--Volume I) include: (1) MDNR Air Quality Permit #0695-010 for
fog oil operations; (2) compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act; (3) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit; (4) Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Materials
License; (5) Land Disturbance Storm Water Permit; and (6) Nationwide
Permit (NWP) in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA).
5.10.a Biological Resources (Federally-Listed Threatened and
Endangered (T&E) Species)
Federally listed Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species of concern
at FLW include Indiana bats, gray bats, and bald eagles. The FEIS
documents the results of studies conducted to evaluate impacts of
implementing the proposed action at FLW on these species. The U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued a Biological Opinion (BO) on the
Armys Preferred Alternative on February 4, 1997. The BO concluded that
implementation of the Army's Preferred Alternative is likely to
adversely affect Indiana bats, gray bats and bald eagles. These adverse
effects are associated with obscurant training and planned construction
projects. The nature and extent of these effects are based on
conservative assumptions that over estimates risks and are fully
documented in subsection 5.5.3.11 of the FEIS (Volume I) and in the
referenced Biological Assessment (BA) and BO. The USFWS determined
these effect are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the Indiana bat, gray bat, or bald eagle. No critical habitat has been
designated for these species in the action area, therefore, none will
be affected by the action.
Federally-Listed T&E Species Impact Mitigation Commitments
FLW will conserve T&E Species by: (1) Implementing all reasonable
and prudent measures (RPMs) that have been specified by the USFWS to
minimize take of Indiana bats, gray bats, and bald eagles; (2) adhering
to ``project design features'' that are specified as part of the
proposed action; (3) preparing and implementing an Endangered Species
Management Plan; (4) developing and implementing a biomonitoring plan
(as described in Appendix K, Volume III of the FEIS); (5) establishing
bat management zones around Freeman Cave; and (6) establishing a
Landscape-Scale Forest Management Policy for FLW. Compliance with RPMs
will be documented as required by the terms and conditions specified in
the BO.
5.10.b Biological Resources (Other Protected Species)
As defined in the FEIS for the proposed action, Other Protected
Species (OPS) include statelisted birds, mammals, and amphibians as
well as migratory birds including neotropical migrants (NTMs), raptors,
and shorebirds. Studies conducted to evaluate impacts of the proposed
action on representative species are described in subsection 5.2.2.11.B
and other applicable sections of the FEIS. Coordination with the USFWS
included consideration of NTMs. The FEIS concludes that implementation
of the Army's Preferred Action at FLW is likely to result in minor
adverse impacts to OPS. These impacts would be associated with direct
mortality of OPS as a result of vehicle operations, training
activities, and clearing associated with new construction. Impacts may
also be caused by increased forest fragmentation, and increased
disturbance to wildlife from training activities. Although these
impacts are
[[Page 28683]]
identified in the FEIS as adverse, they are not considered to be
significant as discussed in subsection 5.5.3.11.B.3 of the FEIS.
Other Protected Species Impact Mitigation Commitments
Although not required by regulation, FLW will prepare and implement
a Biological Indicators Monitoring Plan as described in subsection
K.4.5 of Appendix K, Volume IV of the FEIS to ensure significant
adverse impacts do not occur to OPS as a result of the planned action.
This Biological Indicators Monitoring Plan will be implemented at least
1 year prior to the commencement of smoke training at FLW and will be
conducted for a minimum of 2 years. Monitoring results will be jointly
reviewed with the regulatory agencies and the determination made if
additional monitoring is necessary using the Adaptive Management
Strategy as defined in Appendix K of the FEIS. FLW will also continue
to coordinate implementation of the planned action concerning measures
that can be implemented to minimize impacts to NTMs.
5.10.c Biological Resources (Wetlands)
Implementation of the Army's Preferred Action is expected to cause
minor adverse impacts to wetlands within FLW boundaries as a result of
physical degradation of wetland vegetation at specified stream
crossings and impacts to 0.14 acres of jurisdictional wetlands at the
CDTF construction site. However, these impacts are not considered to be
significant as discussed in subsections 5.5.3.11.D and 5.5.3.11.E of
the FEIS.
Wetland Impact Mitigation Commitments
FLW will continue to adhere to BMPs and other environmental
controls designed to minimize soil erosion and protect surface waters,
soils and aquatic resources and wetlands during training and
construction (subsections 5.1.4 and 5.5.1.3 of the FEIS). In addition,
the Army will comply with requirements of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act prior to initiation of the construction phase of the range
road stream crossings and the proposed CDTF project.
5.10.d Biological Resources (Other Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources)
The FEIS concludes that implementation of the Army's Preferred
Action may result in minor adverse impacts to other aquatic and
terrestrial resources within FLW boundaries as a result of training and
construction activities. However, these impacts are not considered to
be significant as discussed in (subsections 5.5.3.11.D and 5.5.3.11.E
of the FEIS).
Other Aquatic and Terrestrial Resource Impact Mitigation Commitments
No significant impacts are expected to occur, and no specific
mitigation actions are required. However, continued compliance with
federal, state and local permits and regulations, including Missouri
Clean Water Commission requirements will be maintained through the
continued use of BMPs and other environmental controls as described in
subsection 5.3.2.5.A of the FEIS. In addition, as previously stated in
this ROD (section 5.5) the Army will also develop and implement a Soils
and Vegetation Monitoring Plan to monitor if there is fog oil residue
(total petroleum hydrocarbons or TPHs) remaining on soil and
vegetation. Additional information regarding this monitoring
requirement is provided in subsection K.4.2 of Appendix K, Volume III
of the FEIS. This will provide added assurance that fog oil training
does not result in any significant adverse impact to the general
environment.
5.11 Cultural Resources
Phase I archaeological surveys have been conducted at locations
where BRAC-related training and construction activities will occur on
FLW. The FEIS documents that implementation of the Army's Preferred
Alternative will not result in the alteration, renovation, or
demolition of any historic buildings or structures, and activities will
not impact any known significant (National Register eligible) cultural
resources. Coordination with the Missouri State Historic Preservation
Officer resulted in a finding of no effect for planned construction
activities.
Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Commitments
Training activities will continue to be conducted in accordance
with FLW Regulation 210-14, and the FLW Historic Preservation Plan.
Therefore, if archaeological materials are identified during any future
construction or training activity, the Army commits to stopping the
activity, and contacting the FLW cultural resource specialist to
determine an appropriate course of action consistent with all
applicable cultural resource laws and regulations.
5.12 Sociological Environment
The FEIS documents that the majority of direct sociological
resource impacts will occur in Pulaski County, primarily in the St.
Robert/Waynesville area. Anticipated growth and the associated increase
in demands placed on the public service delivery systems in the area
can be adequately accommodated by existing community resources and
proper planning and programming for expansion. Impacts on school
enrollment will primarily occur within the Waynesville R-VI District,
which has made, or is in the process of making, plans to address the
expanded enrollment anticipated to occur as a result of the planned
action.
Sociological Environmental Impact Mitigation Commitments
No significant adverse impacts are excepted to occur under this
evaluation category, and therefore, no Army mitigation actions are
required. However, mitigation of minor adverse impacts will be
partially accomplished through the phased implementation of the planned
action. The construction program is scheduled to occur over a two year
period, and the BRAC-related population will be relocated to FLW in
phases over a 6-9 month period. In addition, the time between the
announcement of the action to the public, and implementation of the
initial phases of the action is sufficient to provide the opportunity
for infrastructure and land use planning and programming. Planning
assistance, in the form of grant funding under the auspices and
assistance of the DoD Office of Economic Adjustment, will also be
available to the local communities that are potentially impacted by the
planned BRAC action at FLW.
5.13 Economic Development
The FEIS documents the significant beneficial economic impacts of
implementing the Army's Preferred Alternative that will occur within
the nine-county economic Region of Influence (ROI) surrounding FLW.
Economic impacts described in the FEIS relate to incureased income,
employment and business volume. Other major indirect impacts include
expected increases in the area's real property tax base and local tax
revenues. The majority of the direct economic impacts are expected to
occur locally in Pulaski County, primarily in the St. Robert/
Waynesville area.
Economic Development Impact Mitigation Commitments
No adverse economic impacts are expected to occur, and therefore,
no Army mitigation actions are required.
[[Page 28684]]
5.14 Quality of Life/Human Health
Implementation of the Army's Preferred Alternative will result in
an increase in the type and amount of military training activities to
occur within the existing training range areas at FLW, which will
result in increased use of those areas. These increased use levels are
expected to result in an adverse impact by imposing additional
limitations on the recreational use (e.g., hunting, fishing and other
activities) of these areas while training occurs
Elements of the Army action identified in the FEIS that may result
in direct or indirect effects to human health include: (1) Fog oil
obscurant training; (2) training with toxic agents at the CFTF; and (3)
Flame Field Expedient training. The FEIS, and supporting documentation,
provides extensive analysis and consideration of the potential effects
of fog oil obscurant training on military trainers, students, and the
general population within the FLW cantonment area and beyond the
installation boundaries. Based on these analyses, the FEIS concludes
that trainers and fog oil training students will not be adversely
affected because they follow standard Army operating procedures while
conducting training exercises, including the use of protective masks
when exposed to relatively high concentrations of fog oil (in excess of
5 mg/m\3\). The FEIS concludes that human health effects are not
anticipated for the general population within the cantonment area, or
for those individuals beyond the facility boundary. This conclusion is
based on consideration of maximum potential exposure of those
populations as predicted by highly conservative fog oil dispersion
modeling. Also, conditions in the MDNR issued Air Quality Permit #0695-
010 for fog oil obscurant training are specifically designed to reduce
the potential for exposure to the general public. In the unlikely event
that the surrounding public is inadvertently exposed to fog oil, the
exposures are anticipated to be infrequent and of short duration,
thereby avoiding any potential for significant adverse impacts.
At the time the FEIS was published, the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) Subcommittee on Military Smokes and Oscurants of the
Committee on Toxicology (``Committee'') had not completed their
evaluation of the human health effects of fog oil. The NAS Committee
report was, however, released before the completion of this ROD. A
careful review of the Committee report reveals that their conclusions
regarding the health effects of fog oil were very similar to those
describe in the FEIS. The committee developed an 8 hours per day, 5
days per week, Permissible Exposure Guidance Level (PEGL) of 5 mg/m\3\
for soldiers involved in training. The report noted that this level is
often exceeded around the generators when soldiers train, and therefore
recommended careful adherence to the Army's existing respiratory
protection policy.
The Committee recommended a Permissible Public Exposure Guidance
Level (PPEGL) of 0.5 mg/m\3\ (exposure for 8 hours per day, 5 days per
week), which is considered to be safe for sensitive individuals in the
general public. Extensive air modeling using deconservative assumptions
was completed during the preparation of the application for the air
permit for fog oil training at FLW. Modeling results demonstrated that
fog oil concentrations at the boundary of FLW and at the boundary of
the cantonment area will not exceed short-term and long-term exposure
standards developed by the Committee for the general public. Field and
scientific studies document that of fog oil from smoke training onto
vegetation is minute. As concluded in the FEIS, and supported by
conclusions of the NAS Committee on toxicology, adverse health effects
to the general public are not anticipated to occur to those living or
working within the FLW cantonment area, or those living outside the FLW
boundaries.
Adverse health impacts to the general public as a result of toxic
agent training at the CDTF are not anticipated. As documented in the
FEIS, this training activity is rigidly controlled to protect human
health and safety of the instructors, soldiers that are trained, and
the general public. The FEIS notes that this training activity has been
accomplished for the last 10 years at Fort McClellan without an
incident that threatened the health of any individual either inside or
outside of the CDTF facility.
Quality of Life/Human Health Impact Mitigation Commitments
No significant adverse impacts are expected to occur under the
``Quality of Life'' evaluation category and therefore, no mitigation is
required for the Quality of Life component of this evaluation category.
No significant adverse impacts are expected to occur to human
health as a result of implementation of the Army's Preferred
Alternative. However, in response to comments received from review
agencies and the general public on the Draft EIS, the FEIS identifies a
number of measures that will be implemented by the Army to ensure that
significant adverse impacts do not occur. The Army commits to
constructing and operating the CDTF and flame field expedient training
facilities in full compliance with the protective measures described as
part of the Army's Preferred Alternative. An impervious liner will be
constructed under the flame range area to ensure that groundwater
supplies are not adversely impacted by this training activity.
With regard to fog oil obscurant training, the Army commits to the
full development, coordination and implementation of the Human Health
Monitoring Plan as summarized in subsection 5.2.2.15.A and 5.2.2.15.B
of the FEIS. The Army commits to additional sampling, mutagenicity
testing and chemical analysis of fog oil smoke to confirm that no
significant chemical transformations occur. The methodology used for
testing and analysis may be modified with concurrence of USEPA if it is
determined that other methodologies are more suitable and will produce
more accurate data. The referenced testing and analysis is not expected
to further assist in making an informed choice among the training
alternatives analyzed in the FEIS. However, the results of this
additional testing will be used and evaluated in accordance with the
adaptive management strategy procedure described as part of the Human
Health Monitoring Plan (see reference above). As stated in subsection
5.2.2.15.B.1 of Volume 1 of the FEIS (top of Page 5-138) the Army
commits to completing this additional testing and analysis prior to
implementation of fog oil training at FLW.
If the results of the testing described above result in exceedance
of any established health criteria, the Army commits to developing and
implementing a supplemental air monitoring plan (beyond the
requirements of the Air Monitoring Plan to be implemented in accordance
with the MDNR Air Quality Permit #0695010 for fog oil training) for any
chemical constituents of concern.
The Army will develop a Public Awareness Program to inform the
public in the surrounding community and those living at, working at, or
visiting FLW about fog oil obscurant training, and the potential health
risks associated with exposures to fog oil. Appendix L has been
included as part of Volume III of the FEIS to describe the intent and
general scope of the Public Awareness Program. As stated in Appendix L,
the Public Awareness Program will be implemented a minimum of three
[[Page 28685]]
months prior the initiation of fog oil training at FLW.
5.15 Installation Agreements
The FEIS concludes that implementation of the Army's Preferred
Alternative will result in a requirement to develop new Intraservice
and Interservice Support Agreements among the various components to
conduct operations at FLW. No adverse impacts are anticipated, since
these agreements are designed to ensure that all parties are aware of,
and comply with all applicable procedures governing ongoing operations
at FLW.
Installation Agreement Impact Mitigation Commitments
No adverse impacts are expected, and therefore, no mitigation is
required.
5.16 Operational Efficiency
The collocation and consolidation of the U.S. Army Engineer School
(existing at FLW) with the relocated Chemical School and Military
Police School as specified in the Army's Preferred Alternative provides
for the maximum amount of interaction among the school staff and
students. This increased positive interaction will substantially
improve the synergism (operational efficiency and effectiveness) as
described in applicable sections of the FEIS.
Operational Efficiency Impact Mitigation Commitments
No adverse impacts are expected, and therefore, no mitigation is
required.
6. Conclusions
On behalf of the department of the Army, I have decided to proceed
with actions required to relocate the U.S. Army Chemical School and the
U.S. Army Military police School to FLW. I have carefully considered
the FEIS, supporting studies, all comments provided during formal
comment and waiting periods throughout the EIS process, and the NAS
Committee report. Based on this review, I have determined that the
Army's Preferred Action (including implementation of the Optimum
Training Method Alternative, the Army's Proposed Land Use and Facility
Plan (Combined Headquarters and Instruction), and the Phased Move
Alternative) strikes the proper balance between the necessary
protection of the environment, and the national defense interest of
maintaining the ability of the Chemical School and Military Police
School to complete mission essential training activities. Furthermore,
I have determined that the Army has identified and adopted all
practicable means to avoid or minimize harm to the environment that may
be cased by implementation of the planned action.
Dated: May 15, 1997.
Robert M. Walker,
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, Logistics &
Environment).
[FR Doc. 97-13802 Filed 5-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M