26-0366_Environmental Review_11B 10114 6P (1).pdf

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

U.S. Army Garrison-Fort Bliss, Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Division (DPW-ED)-NEPA Office Bldg. 624, Fort Bliss, TX 79916 Office Number: 915-568-3782

RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION (REC)

Date Received: 4/23/2026 NEPA Log#:26-0366 Review Expires: 5/12/2027

Pursuant to the 30 June 2025 DoD NEPA Procedures and AR 200-1, the project proponent is responsible for fulfilling the environmental compliance requirements documented in Section III. This review identifies the specific regulations and actions necessary for the proponent to safeguard the installation and ensure projects remain on schedule and within budget.

1. Scope Limitation: This analysis applies exclusively to the work described in the submitted Work Order and supporting documents.

2. Proponent Responsibility: The Project Manager/Proponent must resolve all environmental issues prior to project award. Concurrence is predicated on full adherence to this guidance.

3. Review Scope: This document identifies potential environmental impacts but does not constitute technical approval of final plans, specifications, or drawings.

4. Legal Compliance: The Proponent is responsible for complying with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, and Army policies, regardless of whether they are specifically cited herein.

5. Validity & Resubmission: Approval is contingent upon an unchanged Scope of Work.

o Work must be completed within 365 days of the review date.

o Package resubmission is required if the project scope changes or the review expires.

o The Proponent must submit complete documentation to DPW-Environmental to mitigate regulatory risks and secure project funding.

6. No Regulatory Relief: Completion of this checklist and any resulting NEPA determination (Categorical Exclusion, Finding of No Significant Impact, or Record of Decision) does not constitute a waiver of, nor does it relieve the Proponent of, the legal obligation to comply with all other applicable federal, state, and local environmental statutes, regulations, and permit requirements.

o The Proponent shall be liable for any imposed fines or penalties.

7. Record-Keeping: This documentation serves as the formal administrative record of the Department of Defense (DoD) environmental review process.

95% Design Review 11B 10114 6P Install kitchenettes in building 2472. On the first floor includes the installation of a new kitchenette including new finished metal stud walls to deck, removal and replacement of ceiling tiles, new base and wall cabinets, countertops and tile backsplash, new resilient wall base, removal and replacement of mini blinds, new range hood suppression system, new plumbing work above the ceiling and below the floor to the basement for new sink faucet and waste disposal, new range hood through wall exhaust duct and vent, new electrical panel, wiring and conduit. Work on the second and third level existing kitchenettes includes sanding and staining of existing wall and base cabinets, new cabinet hardware, new countertops, removal and replacement of mini blinds, removal and replacement of kitchen sink, faucet, new waste disposals, new electric drinking fountain with bottle filler, removal and replacement of resilient wall base and new paint.

4/29/2026

Section III contains essential details the project manager/proponent must follow to keep the proposed action in compliance. This includes items like equipment specs, cleanup or protection plans (abatement/mitigation), and storm water plans (SWPPPs).

*** Asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and/or lead-based paint (LBP) for Building 2472***

Section III: Provides Environmental Review and Environmental Screening Checklist:

For DPW-ED Subject Matter (SME) Expert Use Only POC FOR THIS ACTION: Candice Reyes candice.v.reyes.civ@army.mil

Alternate/DPW POC: NA

Previously Reviewed Action: YES Previous NEPA Log#:26-0230 SME Comment Directions

1. Each review comment should be succinct and focused on one area for resolution. The five key parts (a-e) of a quality review comment normally include:

a. Concern Identification – Identify the location of the concern by Specification Section, Drawing Plan Sheet, Drawing Plan Detail, or Document Reference Number. Include paragraph numbers, sentence, and/or line numbers as appropriate.

Section I: Outlines Proponent Responsibilities

BLUF:

Anticipated Start Date:

Section II: Project Title and Description of Proposed Action:

mailto:candice.v.reyes.civ@army.mil

DPW-ED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NEPA LOG #26-0366

SCLMR#: NA WO#/Doc ID# #: 11B 10114 6P Doc TYPE#: 95% Design Review Location/Building 2472

b. Basis for concern – Cite the appropriate law, policy, design criteria, guidance, procedure, risk.

c. Significance of concern – Indicate the importance of the concern regarding its potential impact on the project (plan selection, operations, efficiency, cost, effectiveness, risk, safety, Federal interest, or public acceptability).

d. Resolution of concern Provide the specific action or change required to resolve the issue. If the solution is not yet clear, request follow-up coordination to determine the necessary steps.

e. Attachments: Reference any supporting documentation provided, such as surveys, technical data, or required forms, to assist in the resolution.

2. Screening Criteria Checklist-Any ‘YES’ or ‘MAYBE’ answers need to be explained in the SME comment section.

PROGRAM: Cultural Resources-Archeology REVIEWER: Elia Perez CONCURRENCE: YES

CULTURAL RESOURCES-ARCHEOLOGY ANSWER CHOICES

(EXPLAIN IF = YES/MAYBE)

a. Will there be any land/ground disturbance or will the proposal be in, on, or near a known archaeological site? If ‘Yes’ or ‘Maybe’, specify requirements associated with inadvertent discovery of human remains and archaeological work requirements, if any, needed prior to implementing the proposal (for example, antiquities Act, NAGPRA, NHPA).

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

LAND USE-SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS

a. Will the proposal affect any special designation or recognition area, whether on-post or off-post (for example, National Park, World Heritage Site, and so forth)? If ‘Yes’ or ‘Maybe’, summarize encumbrances and, as appropriate, provide applicable references.

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

b. Is the proposal located in an area with land use encumbrances (for example, archeological zones, and so forth)? If ‘Yes’ or ‘Maybe’, summarize encumbrances and, as appropriate, provide applicable references.

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

ATTACHMENT: NA FINALIZED DATE: 4/24/2026

No comment.

PROGRAM: Cultural Resources-Historic Preservation REVIEWER: Troy Ainsworth CONCURRENCE: YES

CULTURAL RESOURCES-HISTORIC PRESERVATION ANSWER CHOICES

a. Will the proposal involve alterations of existing buildings or structures? ☒ YES ☐ NO ☐ MAYBE

b. Will the proposal affect properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places? If “Yes “or “Maybe” specify if mitigation of adverse effects, if any, are addressed in an existing Program Comment, Memorandum of Agreement, or Army Alternate Procedures issued under NHPA.

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

c. Will the proposal be located within or adjacent to a historic district and/or affect a National Historic Landmark? ☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

d. Will the proposal affect any special designation or recognition area, whether on-post or off-post (for example, World Heritage Site, and so forth)? ☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

LAND USE-SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS

a. Is the proposal located on an area with land use encumbrances (for example, Army-REPI agreement, Historical viewshed, Land Use Controls, and so forth)? If “Yes “or “Maybe”, summarize encumbrances and, as appropriate, provide applicable references.

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

ATTACHMENT: NA FINALIZED DATE: 4/23/2026

PROGRAM: Natural Resources REVIEWER: Joseph McDaniel CONCURRENCE: YES

NATURAL RESOURCES ANSWER CHOICES

(EXPLAIN IF = YES/MAYBE)

a. Will the proposal affect undeveloped areas, require the removal or trimming of trees, occur in areas with known invasive species infestation, and/or involve the removal or control or animals, birds, or insects?

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

b. Will the proposal affect legally protected species (for example, ESA, MBTA, BGEPA, MMPA), affect associated plant or animal critical habitat, take place near any known sensitive or protected area, and/or involve removal of vegetation during bird nesting season? If “Yes “or “Maybe”, specify species and applicable requirements that will need to be completed prior to and/or when implementing the proposal.

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

SCLMR#: NA WO#/Doc ID# #: 11B 10114 6P Doc TYPE#: 95% Design Review Location/Building 2472

ATTACHMENT: NA FINALIZED DATE: 5/7/2026

Work will occur in an existing building, and no natural resource concerns are anticipated.

PROGRAM: Drinking Water REVIEWER: Michelle Brennan CONCURRENCE: YES

ATTACHMENT: NA FINALIZED DATE: 4/28/2026

No additional comments.

PROGRAM: Waste Water REVIEWER: Rebecca Navarrette CONCURRENCE: YES- WITH COMMENTS

ATTACHMENT: NA FINALIZED DATE: 4/29/2026

Proponent shall follow section 2.6.5.1 & 2.6.5.2 of the Scope of Work.

New Kitchen: Grease interceptors/traps shall be constructed to prevent fats, oils or greases from entering the sanitary sewer in concentrations greater than the allowable limit as set forth in Rules and Regulations No. 9 and shall be located so that they are easily accessible for cleaning, maintenance, and inspection. The installation of grease traps or interceptors shall comply with the requirements established by the City of El Paso.

If scope of work is modified, the proponent shall re-submit for review and approval.

PROGRAM: Stormwater REVIEWER: Rebecca Navarrette CONCURRENCE: YES- WITH COMMENTS

c. Will the proposal take place within the 100-year floodplain, affect regulated and/or unregulated wetlands, and/or require a coastal zone consistency determination? If “Yes “or “Maybe”, specify applicable requirements that will need to be completed prior to and/or when implementing the proposal.— If in floodplain and/or wetlands, ensure the E.O.'s Finding of No Practicable Alternative (FONPA) has been approved before approving a CATEX-based REC.

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

d. Will the proposal involve soil deposition or removal? ☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

LAND USE-SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS

a. Is the proposal located on an area with land use encumbrances (for example, agricultural/grazing lease, Army-REPI agreement, LUA, OLA, and so forth)? If “Yes “or “Maybe”, summarize encumbrances and, as appropriate, provide applicable references.

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

LAND USE- DRINKING WATER ANSWER CHOICES

(EXPLAIN IF = YES/MAYBE)

a. Will the proposal require disposal, decommissioning, or alterations to existing utility systems or drainage systems (for example drinking water) or require modification of existing or installing a new well)

☒ YES ☐ NO ☐ MAYBE

b. Will the proposal affect groundwater? For “Yes “or “Maybe”, specify if a sole source aquifer. ☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

LAND USE-WASTEWATER ANSWER CHOICES

(EXPLAIN IF = YES/MAYBE)

a. Will the proposal require disposal, decommissioning, or alterations to existing utility systems or drainage systems (for example wastewater) or require modification of existing or installing a new well?

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

WATER QUALITY-WASTEWATER

b. Will the proposal involve an individual wastewater system (for example, septic tank) or pretreatment unit (for example, oil-water separator or grease trap)?

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

LAND USE-STORMWATER ANSWER CHOICES

(EXPLAIN IF = YES/MAYBE)

a. Will the proposal require decommissioning or alterations to existing stormwater drainage systems or require installation of new stormwater retention or other diversion infrastructure?

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

WATER QUALITY-STORMWATER

a. Will there be any land/ground disturbance (for example, excavating, coring, digging, trenching, grubbing, dredging, excavation, or fence installation)? For “Yes “or “Maybe”, specify total land disturbance acreage and identify applicable permit requirements (for example, CWA section 404).

SCLMR#: NA WO#/Doc ID# #: 11B 10114 6P Doc TYPE#: 95% Design Review Location/Building 2472

ATTACHMENT: NA FINALIZED DATE: 4/29/2026

Project intends to disturb less than an acre of land in accordance to description, therefore no additional documentation is required for the stormwater program. Proponent shall continue to ensure that no contaminants shall enter the stormwater system including sediment, oil and grease from vehicles, mud from tires, paint/stain, soaps/solvents, stucco, cement, sediment from disturbed soil.

Liquid and solid waste from chemical treatment of masonry and pavement or de-scaling of plumbing boilers or other heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment using acid or other chemical additives may not be discharged to the environment and must be recovered for proper disposal.

Contact Rebecca Navarrette at rebecca.d.navarrette.civ@army.mil or (915)568-3472 to provide acreage or for guidance.

PROGRAM: D.E.R.A REVIEWER: Cynthia Hernandez CONCURRENCE: YES

PROGRAM: Solid Waste REVIEWER: Cynthia Hernandez CONCURRENCE: YES- WITH COMMENTS

In section 2.6.3.6, no desk container for recycling provided.

PROGRAM: Lead and Asbestos REVIEWER: Donald J. Sevigny CONCURRENCE: YES- WITH COMMENTS

ATTACHMENT: Asbestos Lead Survey_Bldg-2472_20080617, Ltd Asbestos Survey_Bldg-2472_20090406 FINALIZED DATE: 4/28/2026

PROPONENT SHALL FOLLOW THESE REQUIREMENTS:

1. The Proponent included comments provided by the DPW-ED Lead and Asbestos program into the latest project SOW. For reference, the Asbestos-Containing Materials and Lead-Based Paint survey for Building 2472 is attached above.

2. Point of contact is D.J. Sevigny at (915) 568-3782 or donald.j.sevigny.civ@army.mil. Alternate point of contact is Victor Garcia, PE, Environmental Engineer, 915-568-0794 or victor.h.garcia22.civ@army.mil.

b. Will the total area of new impervious surface be over 5,000 square feet? Stormwater runoff requirements for Federal development projects; reference 42 U.S.C. § 17094 ☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

LAND USE (ENCUMBERANCES, SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS) ANSWER CHOICES

(EXPLAIN IF = YES/MAYBE)

a. Is the proposal located on an area with land use encumbrances such as a CERCLA/RCRA, land fill, contaminated site, permit, long term maintenance or undergoing remediation activities under CERCLA? If ‘Yes’ or ‘Maybe’, summarize encumbrances and, as appropriate, provide applicable references.

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

LAND USE (ENCUMBERANCES, SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS) ANSWER CHOICES

(EXPLAIN IF = YES/MAYBE)

a. Is the proposal located on an area with land use encumbrances (for example, Army-REPI agreement, utility easement, leased facility, privatized facility, privatized housing, CERCLA/RCRA Land Use Controls, and so forth)? If ‘Yes’ or ‘Maybe’, summarize encumbrances and, as appropriate, provide applicable references.

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

b. Will the proposal require disposal of materials from construction, renovations or overall day-to-day operations requiring or alterations to existing utility systems or drainage systems (for example, power, heating/cooling, communications, require modification of existing or installation of a new well, and/or require alternations or additions modifications to solid waste collection/disposal agreements/contracts? If ‘Yes’ or ‘Maybe’, summarize encumbrances and, as appropriate, provide applicable references.

☒ YES ☐ NO ☐ MAYBE

HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES ANSWER CHOICES

(EXPLAIN IF = YES/MAYBE)

a. Will the proposal result in the disturbance of lead-based paint, asbestos containing material? If ‘YES’ or ‘MAYBE’, summarize encumbrances and, as appropriate, provide applicable references.

☐ YES ☐ NO ☒ MAYBE

SCLMR#: NA WO#/Doc ID# #: 11B 10114 6P Doc TYPE#: 95% Design Review Location/Building 2472

PROGRAM: Hazardous Materials REVIEWER: Samuel Del Toro CONCURRENCE: YES- WITH COMMENTS

ATTACHMENT: NA FINALIZED DATE: 4/29/2026

Prior to use of hazardous or regulated material, the Contractor shall provide the COR and DPW Environmental Division a list of methods and materials for review and approval, pertaining to regulated/hazardous materials, storage, and disposal of waste generated. The facility must maintain a list of chemicals stored and/or used for its operation (e.g., POL, paint, adhesives, additives, etc.), including Safety Data Sheets available at or closed to the storage or work site. A monthly inventory is to be provided to DPW-ED with the types and amounts of materials. Contact Samuel Del Toro at 915-568-5396 or samuel.deltoro.civ@army.mil for inventory forms and training.

PROGRAM: Hazardous Waste REVIEWER: Michelle Brennan CONCURRENCE: YES

ATTACHMENT: NA FINALIZED DATE: 4/28/2026

No additional comments.

PROGRAM: AST/UST REVIEWER: Isaac Trejo CONCURRENCE: YES

ATTACHMENT: NA FINALIZED DATE: 4/30/2026

PROGRAM: SPCC REVIEWER: Isaac Trejo CONCURRENCE: YES

ATTACHMENT: NA FINALIZED DATE: 4/30/2026

HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES ANSWER CHOICES

a. Will the proposal result in the storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous materials? If “Yes “or ˜Maybe”, specify type and requirements, including if hazardous material is non-DOD owned and triggers 10 U.S.C. § 2692.

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

b. Will the proposal involve pesticide application (for example, herbicide or insecticide)? ☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

c. Will the proposal result in the disturbance of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)? ☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES ANSWER CHOICES

(EXPLAIN IF = YES/MAYBE)

a. Will the proposal result in an uncontrolled or unpermitted release of hazardous substances as specified in 40 CFR part 302 (Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification) during construction or operations?

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

LAND USE-AST ANSWER CHOICES

(EXPLAIN IF = YES/MAYBE)

a. Will there be a requirement to add a new or remove an existing above or below ground storage tank(s)?

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES-SPCC ANSWER CHOICES

a. Will implementation of the proposal require equipment using petroleum, oil, and/or lubricants?

b. Will the proposal result in an uncontrolled or unpermitted release of hazardous substances as specified in 40 CFR part 112.4 (Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification) during construction or operations?

mailto:samuel.deltoro.civ@army.mil

SCLMR#: NA WO#/Doc ID# #: 11B 10114 6P Doc TYPE#: 95% Design Review Location/Building 2472

PROGRAM: Air REVIEWER: Victor Garcia CONCURRENCE: YES

PROGRAM: NEPA REVIEWER: Joseph McDaniel CONCURRENCE: YES- WITH REQUIREMENTS

AIR QUALITY ANSWER CHOICES

a. Will there be a requirement to construct, reroute or alter roadways and/or railways? (If ‘Yes’ or ‘Maybe’, specify dust suppression measures to be taken.

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

b. Will the proposal require a conformity determination under standards in 40 CFR part 93, subpart B (CAA General Conformity Rule)?

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

c. Will the proposal cause visible air emissions (for example, smoke, dust, fumes, or suspended particles) during construction or operations to include painting, spray painting, sand blasting or laser cutting? If ‘Yes’ or ‘Maybe’, specify if precaution(s) will be taken to prevent visible air emissions and provide precaution(s).

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

d. Will the proposal involve the removal, modification, or addition of a device with the potential to emit any air pollutant (for example, boilers, generators, paint booths, or refrigerant containing equipment)? If ‘Yes’ or ‘Maybe’, specify if an air permit will be required and identify "permit to install/construct" and "permit to operate" requirements, as applicable.

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

LAND USE-NOISE ANSWER CHOICES

(EXPLAIN IF = YES/MAYBE)

a. Will the proposal generate, increase, divert, and/or redirect vehicular traffic? If ‘Yes’ or ‘Maybe’, summarize extent and identify affected area(s).

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

b. Will there be any changes to the numbers, types, and operations of aircraft, vehicles, or weapon systems that could affect the intensity or duration of noise levels?

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

c. Will there be a requirement to construct, reroute or alter roadways and/or railways? ☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

d. Is the proposal located on an area with land use encumbrances (for example, utility easement, leased facility, privatized facility, privatized housing, Land Use Controls, and so forth)? If ‘Yes’ or ‘Maybe’, summarize encumbrances and, as appropriate, provide applicable references.

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

e. Will the proposal affect ranges and training areas? ☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

f. Will the proposal involve painting, spray painting, sand blasting, or laser cutting operations that will generate increased noise levels?

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

PROJECT SCREENING CRITERIA SUPPORTING THE USE OF NATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS

(CATEXS)

ANSWER CHOICES

(EXPLAIN IF ≠ YES)

1. Has the proposal been segmented? (Segmentation can occur when an action is broken down into small parts in order to meet the definition of a CATEX or avoid the appearance of significance of the total action. Segmentation has occurred if one or more other segments(s) of the total requirement, excluded from the proposal, are needed to make the proposal functional with its own independent utility.)

☐ YES ☐ YES-BUT RESOLVED ☐ MAYBE

☒ NO

2. Does the proposal reflect a greater scope or size of project than usual for the category of action proposed?

☐ YES ☐ YES-BUT RESOLVED ☐ MAYBE

☒ NO

3. Does the proposal pose uncertain, unknown, or unique risks to public health, safety, or the environment that are unlike those posed by typical actions in the excluded category?

☐ YES ☐ YES-BUT RESOLVED ☐ MAYBE

4. Does the proposal have the potential to violate applicable Federal, State, Tribal, or local laws and regulations should it be implemented?

☐ YES ☐ YES-BUT RESOLVED ☐ MAYBE

☒ NO

5. Does the proposal require a review of special designation or recognition for extraordinary circumstances that may have a substantial adverse effect on public health, safety, and/or the environment?

☐ YES ☐ YES-BUT RESOLVED ☐ MAYBE

☒ NO

6. Does the proposal require a review for sensitive natural resources extraordinary circumstances that may have a substantial adverse effect on public health, safety, and/or the environment?

☐ YES ☐ YES-BUT RESOLVED ☐ MAYBE

☒ NO

7. Does the proposal require a review for sensitive cultural resources extraordinary circumstances identified that may have a substantial adverse effect on public health, safety, and/or the environment?

☐ YES ☐ YES-BUT RESOLVED ☐ MAYBE

☒ NO

SCLMR#: NA WO#/Doc ID# #: 11B 10114 6P Doc TYPE#: 95% Design Review Location/Building 2472

ATTACHMENT: NA FINALIZED DATE: 5/7/2026

No comments.

Potential environmental impacts have been evaluated and recorded in the preceding checklist. This documentation does not relieve the proponent of the obligation to adhere to all applicable federal, state, and local environmental statutes and regulations.

On the basis of this evaluation the following is appropriate:

This action is covered by CATEX.

☐ Pursuant to environmental analysis, it is hereby determined that the proposed action is not subject to segmentation and that no extraordinary circumstances exist to preclude the application of the identified categorical exclusion (CATEX). This action has either been previously evaluated within an existing Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or qualifies for a CATEX in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.), the Department of Defense National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (dated 30 June 2025), and Army Regulation 200-1. Consequently, the action is eligible for a Categorical Exclusion and does not require the preparation of a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC).

(Skip to the “Approved By” section for NEPA Program Manager signature to compete the document.)

REASONING FOR USING CATEX:

A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) is required.

Ꭓ This action is eligible for a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX); however, extraordinary circumstances exist that require a Record of

Environmental Consideration (REC).

REASONING FOR USING REC: It has been determined that the action qualifies for Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 United States [U.S.] Code Section 4321 et seq.)

requires federal agencies to consider potential environmental impacts prior to undertaking a course of action. In accordance with NEPA, Department of Defense National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, 30 June 2025 and Army Regulation 200-1, the Army has prepared CatEx (f)(1) for the Routine repair of buildings, facilities, launch pads, structures, utility/communication systems, airfields, grounds, parking areas, targetry and other equipment, special hazards (e.g. ACM and/or LBP) are present and for which a Record of Environmental Consideration is required. All screening criteria have been satisfied; therefore, no further action is required.

☐ This action is only partially covered by an existing CATEX, EA, or EIS. Because certain project elements have not been previously analyzed, a supplemental document and a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) are required.

Title of EA or EIS:

☐ The proposed action exceeds the scope of existing CATEXs, EAs, or EISs. Consequently, a supplemental document must be prepared, or a new environmental analysis must be conducted for elements not previously evaluated. An EA or an EIS will be required.

Joseph McDaniel Date NEPA Program Manager

8. Will the proposal result in an uncontrolled or unpermitted release of hazardous substances as specified in 40 CFR part 302 (Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification) and/or cannot meet Clean Air Act (CAA) conformity requirements?

☐ YES ☐ YES-BUT RESOLVED ☒ MAYBE

☒ NO

Section IV: Environmental Analysis Determination

Section V: Approved By (SIGNATORY CONCURRENCE IS CONTINGENT UPON PROPONENT COMPLIANCE WITH GUIDANCE PROVIDED ABOVE)

SCLMR#: NA WO#/Doc ID# #: 11B 10114 6P Doc TYPE#: 95% Design Review Location/Building 2472

The proponent’s signature denotes acceptance of the aforementioned conditions and acknowledgment that adherence to this document does not supersede any applicable federal, state, or local environmental statutes. This documentation serves as a formal administrative record of the Department of Defense (DoD) environmental review process.

Project Proponent (Requestor/Lead) Date Name: Carl Aufdenkampe Title: Division Chief, DPW-ESD

Environmental Officer Date Name: Shane Offutt Title: Division Chief, DPW-ED

Section VI: Concurrence (As needed for Record of Environmental Consideration)