Environmental Review Form.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: 5/4/2026 NEPA Log#:26-0380 Review Expires: 5/14/2027

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 10112 6P Remove/ replace kitchenette at 1st level and install kitchenette at 2nd and 3rd level (if space is available). Work to include new ceilings for kitchen use, upper and base cabinets, counter tops, sink, garbage disposal, range hood, drinking fountain and associated/ incidental electrical, plumbing, exhaust work, and wall repair/ paint. New ceilings for kitchen use, upper and base cabinets, counter tops, sinks, garbage disposals and drinking fountains at 3rd level if space is available.

5/8/2026

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).

***ACM and LBP survey for Building 2903***

Section III: Provides Environmental Review and Environmental Screening Checklist:

For DPW-ED Subject Matter (SME) Expert Use Only POC FOR THIS ACTION: Evelyn Torruella evelyn.torruella.civ@army.mil

Alternate/DPW POC: NA

Previously Reviewed Action: YES Previous NEPA Log#:26-0228 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.

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.

Section I: Outlines Proponent Responsibilities

BLUF:

Anticipated Start Date:

Section II: Project Title and Description of Proposed Action:

mailto:evelyn.torruella.civ@army.mil

DPW-ED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NEPA LOG #26-0380

SCLMR#: NA WO#/Doc ID# #: 11B 10112 6P Doc TYPE#: 95% Design Review Location/Building 2903

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: 5/4/2026

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: 5/5/2026

PROGRAM: Natural Resources REVIEWER: Gabriel Ramirez CONCURRENCE: YES- WITH COMMENTS

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

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

SCLMR#: NA WO#/Doc ID# #: 11B 10112 6P Doc TYPE#: 95% Design Review Location/Building 2903

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- WITH REQUIREMENTS

ATTACHMENT: NA FINALIZED DATE: 5/12/2026

Proponent shall ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, American Water Works Association (AWWA) Standards, and 30 TAC 290 Public Drinking Water Texas Rules, Regulations and Fees. CROSS-CONNECTION/BACK-FLOW PREVENTERS: There shall be no cross-connection, open or potential, between a system furnishing potable water and a system furnishing non-potable water. Responsible authorities must implement, administer, and maintain ongoing back-flow prevention and cross‐connection control programs to prevent back-flow; protect public water systems from the actual or potential hazards originating on the premises of end user building owners or end users; and protect public water systems from temporary connections that may impair or alter the water.

The return of any water to the public system after the water has been delivered to the end user at the point of connection is an unacceptable public health concern and is opposed by AWWA. NEW CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION OF SECONDARY WATER SYSTEM (TX): For new construction it is required to follow the plumbing code for the state of Texas before they can connect to secondary water system. A customer service inspection (CSI) certificate shall be completed prior to providing continuous water service to new construction, on any existing service either when the water purveyor has reason to believe that cross-connections or other potential contaminant hazards exist, or after any material improvement, correction, or addition to the private water distribution facilities. Any customer service inspection certificate form which varies from the format found in commission Form 20699 must be approved by the executive director prior to being placed in use. Individuals with the following credentials shall be recognized as capable of conducting a customer service inspection certification: 1) Plumbing Inspectors and Water Supply Protection Specialists licensed by the Texas State Board of Plumbing Examiners.

2) CSI who have completed a commission-approved course, passed an examination administered by the executive director, and holds a current professional license as a customer service inspector. 3) After successful completion of the inspection, the original Form 20699 shall be turned into the Utility Provider, FBWSC. Coordinate submission of the form with Mr. Gilbert Mesa, Gilbert.Mesa@asusinc.com, or Mr. Ruben Contreras, Ruben.Contreras@asusinc.com.

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

ATTACHMENT: NA FINALIZED DATE: 5/6/2026

Water Quality – Wastewater Q.b. as Maybe as they may install kitchen grease trap.

Proponent shall ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act and refer to 30 TAC 217.

Dispose of any project-related wastewater off Government property in accordance with 40 CFR 403, state, regional, and local laws, and regulations. Water discharges into the sewer system as a result of this project shall abide by the conditions and requirements of El Paso Water (EPW) Rules 9 and 15. No foreign items, construction debris, chemicals, nor oils shall be introduced into the sanitary sewer collection system.

New Kitchen: Grease interceptors/traps shall be constructed to prevent fats, oils or greases from entering the sanitary

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

SCLMR#: NA WO#/Doc ID# #: 11B 10112 6P Doc TYPE#: 95% Design Review Location/Building 2903 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

A Sanitary Sewer Overflow (Sewage spill) shall be reported immediately to DPW regardless of volume.

SEWAGE SPILL CLEAN-UP:

1. Stop or mitigate the flow as soon as possible.

2. Contain the spill whenever possible.

3. Return as much of the spilled wastewater to the collection system or treatment facility as possible.

4. Remove and properly dispose of all solids.

5. Treat and disinfect the affected area as necessary (if using chemicals, be sure to follow the manufacturer’s guidelines).

6. Act quickly to reduce any threat to human health and the environment.

7. Assess any impact to the environment by taking laboratory samples.

CONTACT: Rebecca Navarrette at rebecca.d.navarrette.civ@army.mil or (915)568-3472.

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

ATTACHMENT: NA FINALIZED DATE: 5/6/2026

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

Does not impact DERA Program. This project is in an existing building, however, lies directly north of a closed landfill. If any soil discoloration, odors, rubbish and/or environmental concerns are discovered, activity at the site of the discovery shall be suspended and the Directorate of Public Works-Environmental Division shall be notified immediately of the findings at (915) 568-3782.

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

LAND USE-STORMWATER ANSWER CHOICES

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).

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

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

☒ YES ☐ NO ☐ MAYBE

SCLMR#: NA WO#/Doc ID# #: 11B 10112 6P Doc TYPE#: 95% Design Review Location/Building 2903

vii. Waste & Recyclables Management.

(a). Construction Waste Management. The DoD Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan (SSPP) (reference 1.q) requires that at least 60% of construction and demolition debris be diverted from the waste stream by FY2015. However, it is the Army’s intent to manage waste with the goal of Net Zero waste disposal in landfills. Therefore, projects that involve the removal of existing buildings or structures will evaluate the feasibility of deconstruction and salvage rather than conventional demolition and will implement deconstruction wherever markets or on-site reuse opportunities exist or are anticipated.

All project generated waste must be disposed of by contractor according to Fort Bliss requirements and regulations. Any solid waste generated (non-hazardous or construction debris related) shall be disposed of and by the contractor, its subcontractor or the project proponent. All solid waste that cannot be recycled shall be disposed of at a permitted landfill or other authorized facility. Burning or burying (land disposal) is strictly prohibited by state laws, and any evidence of such will be addressed properly, and the contractor, its subcontractors and the proponent will be responsible for cleaning and removing all debris, trash and contaminated soils, water or other impacted materials, and replacing the materials, equipment or other infrastructure at the proponents, contractors and its subcontractors costs. All weight tickets and manifests for waste and diverted or recycled materials shall be submitted to the government project manager (PM) or contracting officer representative (COR). The government PM or COR will provide DPW Environmental Division and Pollution Prevention Branch with the diversion records. Please contact Solid Waste Program Manager Cynthia Hernandez at cynthia.m.hernandez38.civ@army.mil for additional information and guidance.

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

ATTACHMENT: Asbestos Lead Survey_Bldg-2903_20120214 FINALIZED DATE: 5/5/2026

PROPONENT SHALL FOLLOW THESE REQUIREMENTS:

1. The Proponent confirmed with the DPW-ED Lead and Asbestos Program Manager that no Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACM) or Lead-Based Paint (LBP) identified in Building 2903 will be affected by this project. For reference, the ACM and LBP survey for Building 2903 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.

PROGRAM: Hazardous Materials REVIEWER: Samuel Del Toro CONCURRENCE: YES

PROGRAM: Hazardous Waste REVIEWER: Michelle Brennan CONCURRENCE: YES collection/disposal agreements/contracts? If ‘Yes’ or ‘Maybe’, summarize encumbrances and, as appropriate, provide applicable references.

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

HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES ANSWER CHOICES

(EXPLAIN IF = YES/MAYBE)

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

SCLMR#: NA WO#/Doc ID# #: 11B 10112 6P Doc TYPE#: 95% Design Review Location/Building 2903

Upgrades, construction or repair activities that will generate any regulated waste, asbestos and/or lead waste, disposal shall be coordinated with DPW-ED. Disposal costs shall be charged to the project or related contract as applicable. A copy of the waste profile issued by the disposal facility should be provided to DPW-ED. Waste manifests must use the Fort Bliss Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number, and only DPW-ED personnel appointed in writing by the Garrison Commander are authorized to sign the manifests on behalf of Fort Bliss. The original manifests signed by the disposal facilities shall be provided to DPW-ED.

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

PROGRAM: SPCC REVIEWER: Isaac Trejo CONCURRENCE: YES

PROGRAM: Air REVIEWER: Victor Garcia CONCURRENCE: YES

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?

☐ YES ☒ NO ☐ MAYBE

AIR QUALITY ANSWER CHOICES

(EXPLAIN IF = YES/MAYBE)

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.

SCLMR#: NA WO#/Doc ID# #: 11B 10112 6P Doc TYPE#: 95% Design Review Location/Building 2903

PROGRAM: NEPA REVIEWER: Constance Parra CONCURRENCE: YES

ATTACHMENT: NA FINALIZED DATE: 5/14/2026

LAND USE-NOISE ANSWER CHOICES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCLMR#: NA WO#/Doc ID# #: 11B 10112 6P Doc TYPE#: 95% Design Review Location/Building 2903

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.

Constance Parra Date NEPA Program Manager

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 10112 6P Doc TYPE#: 95% Design Review Location/Building 2903

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)