Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
SUBJECT CATEGORY: Notice of Availability of a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Implementation of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 and Transformation Actions at Fort Benning, GA
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: The Department of the Army announces the availability of the ROD, which summarizes the decision for implementing BRAC actions as directed by the 2005 Base Closure and Realignment Commission and DoD Transformation Actions at Fort Benning, Georgia.
SUMMARY: Base realignment and closure—; Fort Benning, GA,
Special consideration was given to the effects of Alternative A and Alternative B (the Preferred Alternative) of the Proposed Action on the natural and human environment. Mitigation measures have been adopted to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the selected alternative. Mitigation measures, as described in the ROD, will be implemented to minimize, avoid, or compensate for the significant adverse effects identified in the EIS at Fort Benning for transportation, noise, water resources, geology and soils, biological resources, cultural resources, and safety. In addition, the Army evaluated national defense needs, the synergistic relationship between BRAC, AMF, GDPR, and stationing actions, as well as meeting the purpose and need for the BRAC 2005 recommendations to include the creation of the Maneuver Center of Excellence.
The ROD states that implementing the Preferred Alternative reflects
a proper balance between initiatives for protection of the environment,
appropriate mitigation, and actions to achieve the Army's requirements.
There are no differences in impacts to resources such as aesthetics and
visual, socioeconomics, transportation, utilities, noise, hazardous and
toxic materials and waste, utilities, and safety between Alternatives A
and B. Alternative A does impact fewer acres, thus disturbing a lesser
area of soils (and indirectly producing less fugitive dust that impacts
air quality). Biological resources such as vegetation, wildlife,
aquatic habitats, and unique ecological areas would also be impacted to
a lesser degree, and fewer cultural resources would be affected.
Nevertheless, under Alternative A there would be a greater number of
RCWs impacted if it were implemented. In the Biological Opinion, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred that the preferred alternative
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the RCW and
relict trillium. Moreover, the Preferred Alternative does not introduce
any greater impacts to other resources that cannot be mitigated when compared to Alternative A.
Dated: December 3, 2007.
Addison D. Davis, IV,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Environment, Safety and Occupational Health).
[FR Doc. 076014 Filed 121107; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 371008M
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Mr. John Brent at (706) 545-2180.
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 50 CFR Part 679 47 CFR Part 73 26 CFR Part 1 40 CFR Part 180 33 CFR Part 117 50 CFR Part 17 44 CFR Part 67 50 CFR Part 648 14 CFR Part 97 40 CFR Part 63 33 CFR Part 100 50 CFR Part 622 50 CFR Part 660 26 CFR Part 301 44 CFR Part 65 39 CFR Part 111 40 CFR Part 300 6 CFR Part 5 40 CFR Part 271 47 CFR Part 64 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 50 CFR Part 665 10 CFR Part 50 44 CFR Part 64 49 CFR Part 571 39 CFR Part 3020