SP060014R0501_0005.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment your desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION

NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO.

IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

The solicitation is hereby amended to incorporate the attached Environmental Assessment.

All other terms and conditions of the solicitation remain unchanged.

DLA Energy-FESAB/ ATTN: Owen Hassig 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 2495 Ft. Belvoir, Va, 22060-6222 Phone: 703-767-8486 Fax: 703-767-9338 Owen.Hassig@dla.mil

Same As Block 6

SP0600-14-0604

SP0600-14-R-0501

Ft. Bliss, TX

1 64

02/26/2014

11/27/2013

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

IMPLEMENTATION OF A MILITARY VEHICLE FUELING

PLAN ON FORT BLISS, TEXAS AND NEW MEXICO

Prepared For:

Defense Logistics Agency - Energy

Prepared by:

Installation Management Command and

Fort Bliss

DPW-Environmental

Bldg. 624

Pleasonton Road.

Fort Bliss, TX 79916

April 2012

Environmental Assessment Implementation of Fueling Plan

Acronyms and Abbreviations Fort Bliss, Texas

April 2012 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION

1.3 DECISION TO BE MADE

1.4 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

1.5 APPLICABLE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

1.5.1 Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination

1.5.2 Permits

1.5.3 Other Regulatory Requirements

CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ... 7

2.1 SELECTION CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

2.4 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.2 VALUED ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS ADDRESSED IN DETAIL

3.3 VEC ANALYSIS

3.3.1 Land Use

3.3.2 Infrastructure

3.3.3 Earth Resources

3.3.4 Air Quality

3.3.5 Water Resources

3.3.6 Biological Resources

3.3.7 Cultural Resources

3.3.8 Noise

3.3.9 Safety

3.3.10 Hazardous Materials and Items of Special Concern

3.4 VECS ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS

CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 INTRODUCTION

4.2 PROPOSED ACTION

4.2.1 Land Use

4.2.2 Infrastructure

4.2.3 Earth Resources

4.2.4 Air Quality

4.2.5 Water Resources

4.2.6 Biological Resources

April 2012 Page ii

4.2.7 Cultural Resources

4.2.8 Noise

4.2.9 Safety

4.2.10 Hazardous Materials and Items of Special Concern

4.3 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

CHAPTER 5 MITIGATION MEASURES

CHAPTER 6 LIST OF PREPARERS

CHAPTER 7 REFERENCES

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Site Vicinity

Figure 2-1 Main Cantonment, Biggs Army Airfield, and IBCT Area Facilities

Figure 2-2 IBCT Area Facility

Figure 2-3 Doña Ana Facility

Figure 2-4 Orogrande Facility

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Fueling Plan Facility Requirements

Table 2-1 Fuel Tanks at the Proposed New Fueling Facilities

Table 4-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts

Table 5-1 Summary of Mtigation Measures to Minimize Impact

LISTS OF APPENDICIES

Appendix A, Summary of Fort Bliss Fueling Plan

Appendix B, Interagency and Public Coordination

April 2012 Page iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act

AQCR Air Quality Control Region

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act

AST Aboveground Storage Tank

AT/FP Anti-Terrorism Force Protection

B2 Bio Diesel Fuel

BAAF Biggs Army Airfield

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMPs Best Management Practices

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

CAB Combat Aviation Brigade

CC Compliance-Related Cleanup

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CIRRP Capital Improvements and Renewals and Replacements Plan

COCO Contractor Owned/Contractor Operated

CWA Clean Water Act dB Decibels dBA “A-weighted” Decibel

DoD Department of Defense

DLA-E Defense Logistics Agency - Energy

DNL Day-Night Average Sound Level

DOL Directorate of Logistics

DPW-MP Directorate of Public Works - Master Planning

DS2 Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel

April 2012 Page iv

E85 Fuel Blend 85% Gasoline and 15% Ethanol

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act

EMU Ecological Management Units

EO Executive Order

EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal

EPWU El Paso Water Utilities

ESA Endangered Species Act

FBTC Fort Bliss Training Complex

FORSCOM United States Army Forces Command

GHGs Greenhouse Gases

GOCO Government Owned/Contractor Operated

GSA General Services Administration

GUR Gasoline

HWSF Hazardous Waste Storage Facility

IBCT Infantry Brigade Combat Team

ICRMP Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan

IICEP Intergovernmental and Interagency Coordination for Environmental Planning

INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

IRP Installation Restoration Program

JP8 Jet Propulsion 8 Fuel kV Kilovolt

LUA Limited-use Areas mgd Million Gallons per Day

MMRP Military Munitions Response Program

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

April 2012 Page v

MSA Mutual Support Agreement

MW Megawatts

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFPA National Fire Protection Association

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMDGF New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

NMED New Mexico Environmental Department

NRHP National Register of Historic Properties

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

P2 Pollution Prevention

PA Programmatic Agreement

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

SGM Sergeant Major

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

SPL Sound Pressure Level

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

TAs Training Areas

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

TMP Transportation Motor Pool

TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act

UFC Unified Facilities Criteria

USC United States Code

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

April 2012 Page vi

UST Underground Storage Tanks

UXO Unexploded Ordnance

VECs Valued Environmental Components

WSMR White Sands Missile Range

Purpose and Need for Action Fort Bliss, Texas

April 2012 Page 1

CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Fort Bliss, a US Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) installation encompasses approximately

1.12 million acres of land in the extreme western part of Texas and the south-central area of New

Mexico. The Cantonment Area of Fort Bliss is located in El Paso, Texas, while 90 percent of the training lands and several base camps are located in New Mexico.

The United States Army is in the process of investing significant force structure at Fort Bliss.

The 2005 Base Realignment and Closure requirements realigned Fort Bliss by relocating Air

Defense Artillery units to Fort Sill and relocating the 1 st Armored Division from Germany to

Fort Bliss. Due to this move, Fort Bliss is expanding its training facilities and capabilities, which is creating a need for additional infrastructure to include fueling facilities for tactical vehicles in the training areas. To meet this additional infrastructure requirement, the Fort Bliss Directorate of Public Works Master Planning (DPW-MP) office, in partnership with the Defense Logistics

Agency – Energy Division (DLA-E) and Directorate of Logistics (DOL), has generated a Fueling

Plan for Fort Bliss. The Fueling Plan will be a living document that can be changed per requirements and as such is subject to additional environmental review as needed. The current plan is designed to provide for Fort Bliss’ fueling requirements until the end of year 2013 and can be viewed at the Office of the Fort Bliss DPW-MP.

1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION

The purpose of the Fueling Plan (Appendix A) is to address tactical and non-tactical vehicle fuel facility shortfalls identified by an Optimization Study conducted by the Army Petroleum Center in 2009. Tactical vehicles are generally war-fighting vehicles such as tanks, HUMVEES, and others, while non-tactical refers to government-owned vehicles such as General Service

Administration (GSA) cars and SUVs. The Optimization Study identified the need to construct new facilities, renovate inadequate facilities, and demolish out-dated facilities as outlined in

Table 1-1.

The Fueling Plan especially addresses the requirements for additional facilities within the training range complex. Additional fueling facilities are needed to provide a cost effective manner to supply both JP8 and retail fuel to Soldiers training on Fort Bliss especially in the field.

Presently, fuel is hauled via tanker trucks to training sites, a hazardous and inefficient operation.

Transporting fuel and containment devices to the field by Soldiers in training presents a logistical problem and risks fuel spillages and catastrophic accidents. Currently Fort Bliss has no fueling facilities at Orogrande Range Camp or the Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) area. Doña

Ana Range Camp has an out-dated and undersized fueling facility, while McGregor Range Camp has an out-dated but currently adequate facility.

Fort Bliss would use the regulated method of dispensing fuel per current United States

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED), April 2012 Page 2

Table 1-1 Fueling Plan Facility Requirements

FACILITY LOCATION STATUS OWNER/OPERATOR

Loop 375 Bulk IBCT area of East Biggs New COCO1

Loop 375 Retail IBCT area of East Biggs New COCO

Biggs AAF

Combat Aviation

Brigade Area, Biggs

AAF3

Existing facility to be leased for Contractor operation

GOCO2

Hot Refueling Biggs AAF

Government owned, currently under construction

GOCO

Doña Ana Range Doña Ana Range Camp Old facility will be replaced by new

GOCO

Orogrande

(Bulk and retail) Orogrande Range Camp New

GOCO – Bulk

COCO - Retail

McGregor McGregor Range Camp Existing GOCO GOCO

Building 2642 Main Cantonment Existing GOCO. To be renovated

GOCO

COCO = Contractor-owned/Contractor-operated

GOCO = Government-owned/Contractor-operated

AAF = Army Air Field and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) standards; store fuel in regulated containers with secondary containments and leak detection devices; and provide a professional operation where fuel facilities would be managed by trained professionals. The facilities would dispense gasoline – unleaded regular (GUR), Jet Propulsion 8 (JP8), E85 (a blend of 85% gasoline and 15% ethanol), DS2 (ultra low sulfur Diesel), and B2 (Bio Diesel). JP8 fuel is jet fuel used in government diesel-fueled vehicles including nearly all tactical ground vehicles.

Retail fuel is used for GSA and other official vehicles, and does not include personnel vehicles or retail sales to the public.

1.3 DECISION TO BE MADE

This analysis evaluates the potential environmental consequences from the implementation of the

Fueling Plan on Fort Bliss to include the demolition of out-dated, renovation of existing marginally adequate, and construction of new facilities. The plan includes leasing real property to a Contractor(s) for a period of approximately 25 years to build and operate facilities (COCO), as well as the leasing of government-owned, existing facilities to a Contractor(s) to operate for an as yet undetermined period (GOCO). Based on this analysis, the U.S. Army will determine whether to allow implementation of the Proposed Action (the Fueling Plan) or take no action

(No-action Alternative). As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations, preparation of an environmental document must precede final decisions regarding the proposed project, and must be available to inform decision-makers of the potential environmental impacts of selecting the Proposed Action or the No Action Alternative.

April 2012 Page 3

1.4 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider environmental consequences in their decision-making process. The President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has issued regulations to implement NEPA that include provisions for both the content and procedural aspects of the required environmental impact analysis. The NEPA process is accomplished through adherence to the procedures set forth in CEQ regulations (40 Code of Federal

Regulations [CFR] Sections 1500-1508), Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 4715.9

Environmental Planning and Analysis, and 32 CFR 651, Environmental Analysis of Army

Actions, 29 March 2002, especially section 651.10 (a). These Federal regulations establish both the administrative process and substantive scope of the environmental impact evaluation designed to ensure that deciding authorities have a proper understanding of the potential environmental consequences of a contemplated course of action.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) identifies, describes and evaluates the potential environmental impacts that are associated with the lease of land and construction of COCO facilities and the construction, renovation, and operation of GOCO fueling facilities at Fort Bliss.

The potential environmental effects of taking no action are also described. It is important to note that a Mission and Master Plan Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) was prepared in 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 2007 EIS) which included analysis of construction of additional fueling facilities to support training at Fort Bliss, however, specific details relating to the fueling facilities were not known at the time the document was prepared.

Since that time, Fort Bliss has identified proposed locations and capacities of the needed fueling facilities. This EA serves to tier from the 2007 EIS and presents a detailed environmental analysis of the proposed construction, renovation, and contractor operated fueling facilities. As such, much of the affected environment descriptions is summarized and incorporated by reference to the 2007 EIS. References are also made to the affected environment section of the

2010 Fort Bliss Army Growth and Force Structure Realignment EIS (hereinafter referred to the

2010 EIS).

1.5 APPLICABLE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

1.5.1 Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination

Federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction that could be affected by the proposed or alternative actions have been notified and consulted. A complete listing of the agencies consulted may be found Appendix B. This coordination fulfills the Intergovernmental

Cooperation Act of 1968 (42 United States Code [USC] 4231(a) and Executive Order (EO)

12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs (14 July 1982), which requires Federal agencies to cooperate with and consider state and local views in implementing a Federal proposal.

April 2012 Page 4

Figure 1-1 Site Vicinity

April 2012 Page 5

This Environmental Assessment (EA) identifies, describes and evaluates the potential environmental impacts that are associated with the lease of land, and construction, renovation, and operation of three COCO and one GOCO fueling facilities at Fort Bliss. The potential environmental effects of taking no action are also described. As appropriate, the affected environment and environmental consequences of the action may be described in terms of a regional overview or a site-specific description. It is important to note that a Mission and Master

Plan Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared in 2007

(hereinafter referred to as 2007 EIS) which included analysis of construction of fueling facilities to support additional Soldiers and their families being stationed at Fort Bliss. This EIS covered a wide range of actions, but specific details relating to the fueling facilities were not known at the time the document was prepared. Since that time, Fort Bliss has identified proposed locations, numbers, and capacities of the needed fueling facilities. This EA serves to tier from the 2007

EIS and presents a detailed environmental analysis of the construction, renovation, and operation of these four proposed fueling facilities. As such, much of the affected environment descriptions will be briefly summarized and then incorporated by reference to the 2007 EIS. References may also be made to the affected environment section of the 2010 Fort Bliss Army Growth and Force

Structure Realignment EIS (hereinafter referred to the 2010 EIS) if the data is applicable to this

EA’s proposed project sites and is more current than the 2007 EIS. If more detailed data is available than what is presented in either of these EISs, it will be presented in this EA.

1.5.2 Permits

All underground utility locations would need to be identified prior to any construction or renovation activities. The contractor would also ensure that a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) is completed and approved before initiating construction and renovation activities.

All applicable Federal, State, and local fuel operation permits will be obtained by the

Contractor(s) prior to initiation of operation and kept up to date as required.

1.5.3 Other Regulatory Requirements

The EA considers all applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to the following:

Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq.)

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) (42 USC 7401 et seq.)

Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC 1251 et seq.)

EO 11988, Floodplain Management (24 May 1977)

Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 USC 1531-1542)

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 USC 703-712)

Pollution Prevention Act (42 USC 13101 and 13102 et seq.)

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) (16 USC 470 et seq.)

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 USC 470)

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) (42 USC 1996)

Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR 800)

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1991 (NAGPRA) (25 USC

3001 et seq.)

April 2012 Page 6

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CFR Parts 240-244, 257, 258, 260 et seq.)

Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) (15 USC 2601 et seq.)

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)

(42 USC 9610)

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Title III (40 CFR 300 et seq.)

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (16 USC 116)

EO 12580, Superfund Implementation (23 January 1987)

Occupation Safety and Health Act (29 USC 651 et seq.)

Energy Independence and Security Act (Public Law 110-140)

EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Populations (11 February 1994)

Oil Pollution Prevention (40 CFR 112)

Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives Fort Bliss, Texas

April 2012 Page 7

CHAPTER 2

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 SELECTION CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES

The alternatives developed for the analysis at Fort Bliss are designed to address the current fueling and storage shortfalls realized by Soldiers training both in the Cantonment Area and in the field. The construction, renovation, and operation of such facilities must:

Comply with Anti-Terrorism Force Protection (AT/FP) requirements, Meet Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC); specifically: UFC 3-460-01

Be accessible to training and maneuver areas, Sufficient space to provide proper application of force protection stand-off measures, Not affect known cultural resources in the area, Not be located in an area with overhead power lines, Be logistically feasible, Provide an increased level of security, Not be located in a limited-use areas (LUAs) such as playas and riparian (arroyo) habitats, Be designed such that tractor-trailer rigs can easily access and maneuver within the fueling station, Not impact mission critical facilities or operations.

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The Proposed Action would involve the implementation of the Fueling Plan and its requirements for demolition, renovation, and construction of fueling facilities. The action covers leasing of

Army land to a Contractor(s) for a period of approximately 25 years for the construction and operation of COCO fueling facilities and contracting the operation of government owned fueling facilities to a private operator(s). These actions are planned to support the growing mission at

Fort Bliss. All new fuel storage tanks would be above ground, double-walled with interstitial leak detection devices, and compliant with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations.

The operator would follow Fort Bliss Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) regards the operation of facilities, to include but not limited to, inventory tracking, leak detection monitoring, and spill reporting requirements. In addition, each site would have a storm water detention pond and surface water would flow through a containment oil/water separator basin prior to discharge into the detention pond. Fuel would be delivered to each facility via commercial tanker trucks operated by civilian professional drivers.

The DLA-E would be responsible for direct management of the fueling contracts, including those for the contractor owned and/or operated facilities per all applicable Department of Defense

(DoD) directives including but not limited to those published in 1994, 2004, and 2010 (see references section of this report). Fort Bliss would provide support as outlined in a

Memorandum of Agreement with the DLA-E to be completed as part of the Fueling Plan implementation.

April 2012 Page 8

The amount of fuel expected to be used on any given day would vary depending on the current mission operational tempo; however, the total amount of fuel to be used would be similar to current conditions. New Fueling and Storage facilities are proposed for locations within the

Cantonment Area and the IBCT area on East Fort Bliss in Texas, and in New Mexico at the

Doña Ana Range Camp and adjacent to the Orogrande Range Camp. All new facilities would be constructed within existing cantonments with the exception of the Orogrande Fueling Facility.

This facility would be located outside the base camp boundary and would require the removal of four acres from training lands. However, the SEIS defined this area as Category A which allows

Mission Support Facilities, such as fueling operations. Therefore, no real changes in land use would occur as a result of the proposed action.

All proposed new construction facility locations would be surveyed for unexploded ordnance

(UXO) prior to construction. Any detected UXO will be either be destroyed in place or removed for demolition on an explosive ordnance disposal range by Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) personnel, as per approved procedures for Fort Bliss. All proposed new facilities would have an administration building and would be equipped with electric, fiber optic, water, and sewer utilities.

The following sites are part of the near term (to end of year 2013) plans as set forth in the

Fueling Plan.

Cantonment Area - The proposed Cantonment Area facility is located at the northwest corner of Carrington Road and Shannon Van Valzah Road (Building 2642) (See

Figure 2-1). This is an existing government-owned facility that would require some site maintenance and equipment upgrades. There are currently three 10,000 gallon JP8 above ground storage tanks (AST) present at this facility. After renovation, there would be one 10,000-gallon

AST for gasoline, and two 10,000-gallon ASTs for ultra low-sulfur diesel. The footprint of the fueling facility would remain the same as currently existing. No ground disturbance would be expected from the renovations. This facility would be utilized for retail only for GSA vehicles and be operated by a contractor.

Infantry Brigade Combat Team Area - The proposed IBCT facility would be located on previously disturbed land east of Loop 375, north of Spur 601 in the southwest corner of the IBCT Area (See Figure 2-2). This area was analyzed in the SEIS for complete development of facilities for the Infantry Brigades and other support structures. The proposed site is substantially disturbed due to established dirt roads and vehicle traverses; however, much of the coppice dune landscape (tops of the dunes) is largely intact. Development would consist of two separate operations – both bulk and retail fueling. The facility would store and dispense all types of bulk and retail fuel, from ten separate ASTs with a minimum total storage capacity of

349,000 gallons.

Biggs Army Airfield - Two government-owned facilities located within BAAF would be turned over to a Contractor(s) for operation (GOCO) (See Figure 2-1). The first, a

Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB) fuel point consists of two 180,000 gallons ASTs each dispensing aviation fuel. The facility includes a flight line fuel stand canopy, offload fill stand canopy, and Pump house building.

April 2012 Page 9

The other is the Hot Fueling facility located on the tarmac of BAAF area and is currently under construction. Once completed, the facility will have the capacity to store and dispense 60,000 gallons of JP8.

Doña Ana Range Camp - The proposed Doña Ana facility, sited on previously disturbed land within the northeast corner of the Doña Ana Range Camp, is located in Doña Ana

North Training Area 3B off of NM 213 (War Highway) in New Mexico (See Figure 2-3). It would store and dispense JP8 and gasoline retail fuel from two ASTs with a total storage capacity of 24,000 gallons.

Orogrande Range Camp - The proposed Orogrande facility, located on desert land within Doña Ana North Training Area 7B, east of Orogrande Range Camp on the south side of WSMR Route 2 in New Mexico (See Figure 2-4). Approximately four acres of undisturbed land would need to be cleared for construction of this facility. This facility would store and dispense JP8 bulk and retail fuel, as well as retail gasoline, from four ASTs with a minimal storage capacity of 124,000 gallons. Electrical, water, sewer, and fiber optic would be installed within the right-of-way of WSMR Rt. 2 and tied-in to existing infrastructure within the camp.

McGregor Range Camp - The McGregor Fuel Point at the McGregor Range

Camp would continue to be operated as a GOCO site. It has the capacity to store 35,000 gallons in two Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and dispenses both GUR and JP8 for retail use.

Decommissioning and Demolition - As part of the Fueling Plan, several facilities would be decommissioned and demolished by the DLA-E. These include the following facilities:

The Cassidy Road Transportation Motor Pool (TMP) Retail Fuel Point (Building

1326) consisting of four (4) 10,000 gallon USTs, one of which is an E85, two are GUR and, and one is JP8. Demolition would include all fuel dispensers and associated piping.

The existing BAAF Bulk Fuel Point located by Biggs gate, off of SGM

Boulevard. This facility consists of one (1) 250,000 gallon AST and three (3) 25,000 ASTs.

The existing Atlantic Aviation Fueling Facility on BAAF. This is a COCO facility and consists of ten (10) 25,000 gallon USTs (9 for JP8 and 1 for GUR).

The existing Doña Ana Fuel Point. This fueling facility consists of two (2) ASTs.

One is a 5,000 gallon JP8 tank and the other a 2,000 gallon GUR.

Decommissioning and demolition of any fuel site would undergo a thorough review for the presence of asbestos and lead-based paint on the structural surfaces, and fuel leaks or spills that may have affected the soil surface. These, if found, would be reported to the state regulatory agencies and remediated per regulatory and Fort Bliss requirements.

Table 2-1, shows the facility type, fuel type, capacity, and number of tanks associated with the proposed new construction fueling facilities.

April 2012 Page 10

Table 2-1 Fuel Tanks at the Proposed New Fueling Facilities

Fueling

Facility Site

Facility

Type Fuel Type

Capacity in

Gallons

# of

Tanks

Total Capacity for Facility in Gallons

Cantonment

Area( Building

2642)

Retail

GUR 10,000 1

30,000

DS2 20,000 2

IBCT Area

Retail

DS2 Min 20,000 1

Min 394,000

GUR Min 20,000 2

E85 12,000 1

JP8 Min 20,000 2

B20 12,000 1

Bulk JP8 125,000 2

GUR Min 20,000 1

Orogrande Retail/Bulk

JP8 50,000 2

Min 124,000 GUR 12,000 1

JP8 12,000 1

Doña Ana Retail

JP8 12,000 1

24,000

GUR 12,000 1

BAAF CAB Bulk JP8 180,000 2 360,000

BAAF Hot

Fuel Retail JP8 30,000 2

60,000

April 2012 Page 11

April 2012 Page 12

Figure 2-1 IBCT Area Facility

April 2012 Page 13

Figure 2-2 Doña Ana Facility

April 2012 Page 14

Figure 2-3 Orogrande Facility

April 2012 Page 15

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The no-action alternative would result in continued fuel facility shortfalls at Fort Bliss. Fuel would continue to be hauled via tanker trucks to training areas. Additionally, secondary spill containment devices would have to be transported to these sites. This is dangerous, inefficient, and can impact soil and water resources if there is a spill. Orogrande Range Camp and the IBCT area would not have a fueling facility and the Doña Ana Range Camp would continue to have an inadequate fuel point. The existing BAAF Fuel Farm near Biggs gate would continue to operate in a dangerous location adjacent to housing. In addition, the manner of supplying fuel to

Soldiers training in the Cantonment Area and in the field would be costly, and the fueling operations would continue to be managed by Soldiers who may not be fully trained to handle, store, transport, and dispense fuel.

2.4 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION

Two alternative actions were considered but eliminated from consideration as follows:

Alternate locations for the Orogrande site - Three other site locations were considered for the Orogrande facility. A site within the Base Camp was not feasible due to the presence of the Special Forces camp that occupies the entire site. One site was eliminated from consideration due to the known presence of cultural resources in the area and the anticipated impacts to those resources as a result of construction activities. The third location was eliminated due to the presence of overhead power lines that can cause a potential for static build-up and was therefore a safety issue.

Use of fuel bladders and fuel trucks - The use of fuel bladders and fuel trucks were considered to provide fuel for the range camps, but this alternative was eliminated due to the danger of spills and ruptures, risk of groundwater contamination, and the potential security threat. Tactical fuel trucks as the main means of providing fuel were eliminated from further consideration due to inefficiency, the risk of spills and accidents, increased vehicle emissions, and increased transportation costs. However, to provide field training, fueling using these types of vehicles will still continue in a limited basis on Fort Bliss.

April 2012 Page 16

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)

Description of the Affected Environment Fort Bliss, Texas

April 2012 Page 17

CHAPTER 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Under NEPA, the analysis of environmental conditions only addresses those areas and environmental resources with the potential to be affected by the Proposed Action. This includes all areas and lands that might be affected and may change depending on how the natural, cultural, and socioeconomic resources they contain or support are affected. Locations and resources with no potential to be affected need not be analyzed. A list of Valued Environmental

Components (VECs) (US Army 2007) was utilized to determine what resources could potentially be affected by the Proposed Action.

3.2 VALUED ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS ADDRESSED IN DETAIL

The following VECs are discussed in detail in the EA:

Land Use

Infrastructure o Electricity o Solid Waste Disposal o Water Supply o Ground Transportation o Storm Water

Earth Resources

Air Quality

Water Resources

Biological Resources

Cultural Resources

Noise

Safety o Ground Safety o Fuel Safety

Hazardous Materials and Items of Special Concern

3.3 VEC ANALYSIS

3.3.1 Land Use

3.3.1.1 Cantonment Area

The Cantonment Area contains the heaviest concentration of facilities and mission support activities on Fort Bliss. The Cantonment Area covers one percent of the total acreage of Fort

April 2012 Page 18

Bliss, and includes all of the installation south and west of Loop 375, and a portion east of Loop

375. It also includes BAAF. Support services in the Cantonment Area include administration, maintenance, service, storage and supply buildings, housing, and medical and community facilities. The Cantonment Area is designated for a single-mixed use land use designation, as opposed to having specific areas designated for individual land use categories. The single mixed use includes light industrial facilities such as fueling facilities.

3.3.1.2 Doña Ana Range-North Training Area

The Doña Ana Range-North Training Area is located in New Mexico west of US 54 and consists of training areas (TAs), firing ranges, impact areas, and two range camps (Doña Ana Range

Camp and Orogrande Range Camp). Land use of Doña Ana Range includes both military and recreational. Military land use includes off-road maneuver, weapons firing, and use of support facilities. State Highway 213 (“War Highway”) is a public access road in the area that serves as the primary link between El Paso and White Sands Missile Range (WSMR).

The proposed Doña Ana fueling facility would be located within the Doña Ana Range Camp boundary, located west of War Highway in TA 3B (Figure 2-3).

The proposed Orogrande fueling facility would be located east of Orogrande Range Camp on the south side of Orogrande Range Camp Road in TA 7B,classified as Land Use Category A (U.S.

Army 2010). Category A allows off-road and on-road vehicle maneuvering for all types of vehicles and equipment, including both tracked and wheeled vehicles; dismounted (foot traffic) maneuvering and training; aircraft operations; mission support facilities; and other activities and uses. Category A also allows non-military, public use in designated areas, provided such use does not conflict with military uses or pose safety risks to the public. Non-military use includes public recreation such as hunting and hiking. Non-military use is controlled by Fort Bliss Range

Operations to ensure safety and compatibility with military activities.

3.3.2 Infrastructure

3.3.2.1 Electricity

The electrical public utility for Fort Bliss is El Paso Electric. Rio Grande Electric COOP is a privatized utility partner on the post maintaining distribution infrastructure. Fort Bliss electricity consumption reported for FY2010 is 30 to 40 megawatts (MW) base load, and 65.8

MW maximum peak load. Projected electrical consumption in 2015 is 80 MW base load, and

130 MW maximum peak load (US Army 2011a). Based upon the existing infrastructure and current consumption rates, capacity exists for expansion.

Electric infrastructure is in place for the Cantonment Area; however electric infrastructure would need to be installed to serve the proposed IBCT, Doña Ana Range Camp, and the Orogrande

Range Camp facilities.

3.3.2.2 Solid Waste Disposal

According to the 2010 EIS, domestic solid waste generated at Fort Bliss is collected and disposed of by a private contractor at a government-owned landfill. This landfill accepts Type I

April 2012 Page 19 waste (refuse) and Type IV waste (construction and demolition waste). The Type IV cell currently accepts approximately 44 tons of waste per day and can accept waste for approximately ten more years. The landfill is governed under TCEQ and EPA rules and regulations.

3.3.2.3 Water Supply

Potable water is provided to Fort Bliss from on-post wells and interconnections with El Paso

Water Utilities (EPWU). Water wells provide potable water for the Range and Cantonment

Areas. Additional capacity can be provided to the Cantonment Area through the EPWU.

The Kay Bailey Hutchison desalination plant was built in 2007 as a joint effort between the

EPWU and Fort Bliss to address water supply demand in the area. At full capacity, the plant is capable of withdrawing approximately 30.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of brackish water from the Hueco Bolson aquifer, and producing 27.5 mgd of potable water. Based on current demand, the plant produces on average 3.5 mgd (EPWU 2011).

Total available water supply available to Fort Bliss is 22.9 mgd (US Army 2007).

Approximately 15.8 mgd is generated from on-post wells, with 4.24 mgd provided from EPWU.

In addition, BAAF has two wells, each capable of providing 1.44 mgd to the airfield and Aero

Vista Housing. If needed, additional potable water sources could be developed from resources within the installation.

3.3.2.4 Ground Transportation

Several highways in the region provide access to Fort Bliss and El Paso. The major east-west access is provided by Interstate 10, which connects the area to western and central Texas to the east, and southern New Mexico and Arizona to the west. Loop 375 crosses the installation and connects with Interstate 10. The proposed IBCT Area Facility location is immediately adjacent to Loop 375 near Spur 601, another key regional roadway. US Highway 54 provides major thoroughfare access to the existing Cantonment Area. Highway 54 is also the nearest major roadway to the proposed Orogrande Facility. The proposed Doña Ana Facility is serviced by

NM 213 (War Highway).

3.3.2.5 Storm Water

In the Main Cantonment area, most storm water runoff is drained through channels and lift stations to the Fort Bliss Sump. From this outlet, storm water drains to a series of basins and connects to the Rio Grande through the City of El Paso’s municipal separate storm sewer system

(MS4) (US Army 2010). There are other small connections with the MS4 at the post boundary, including curb and gutter flows from access roads to the post. Industrial discharges are currently covered by the TCEQ Multi-Sector General Storm Water Permit (TXR050000) and urban discharges are covered under a Phase II Small General Permit (TXR040000) (US Army 2010).

Storm water in the Main Cantonment and Biggs Airfield is managed through drainage into the post sewer system or retention ponds. The other less developed areas in the proposed action have no storm water infrastructure in place. The soil types and nearly level topography at each of the sites promotes infiltration of rainfall, except for heavier rains which sometimes result in surface flow and temporary ponding.

April 2012 Page 20

3.3.3 Earth Resources

Fort Bliss lies within the Basin and Range physiographic province, a region covering much of the western U.S. consisting of prominent north-south-trending mountain ranges separated by expansive, sediment-filled basins. A large portion of Fort Bliss lies within the Tularosa Basin comprised of basin-fill gravels, sands, and finer sediments; relatively coarse alluvial fan deposits along the basin margins; and silty lacustrine deposits in playa lakes.

The proposed IBCT Facility Area (approximate elevation 3,980 feet); Cantonment Area Facility

(approximately 3,880 feet); and Orogrande Area Facility (elevation approximately 4,220 feet), lie atop a thick sequence of basin-fill gravels, sands, silts, and clays, and intermittent fluvial deposits. The proposed Doña Ana project area (approximate elevation of 4,080 feet) is situated on the western edge of the Tularosa Basin on a gently-sloping alluvial fan south of the Organ

Mountains (USGS 1997; 2011).

Soils at the IBCT Area are mapped in the the Elizario-Copia complex, two to five percent (95 percent of project area), and the McNew-Copia-Foxtrot complex, one to five percent slopes (five percent of area) (NRCS 2010). These soils are forming in eolian (wind-deposited) sand dunes which typically overlie older Holocene alluvial deposits. The Cantonment and Biggs area soils are mapped as Cavalry loamy fine sand, 1 to 3% slopes, comprised of moderately deep, well drained, alluvium and/or eolian sands (NRCS 2010).

The Orogrande Area consists of Pendero fine sand, with 2 to 5% slopes, made up of moderately deep, excessively drained, fine eolian sand, mainly as sand sheets. Soils at the Doña Ana Area consist of Reyab silt loam (1 to 3% slopes), which are comprised of moderately deep, well drained, silty loam associated with alluvium derived from limestone. Soils in all four areas are prone to wind erosion (soils blowing hazard) (NRCS 2010).

3.3.4 Air Quality

The USEPA has established primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) under the Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). The CAAA also set emission limits for certain air pollutants from specific sources, set new source performance standards based on best demonstrated technologies, and established national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. The 2007 EIS provides additional details on Federal and local air quality regulations.

The USEPA classifies the air quality within an Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) according to whether the region meets federal primary and secondary air quality standards. An AQCR or portion of an AQCR may be classified as attainment, non-attainment, or unclassified with regard to the air quality standards for each of the criteria pollutants. “Attainment” describes a condition in which standards for one or more of the six criteria pollutants are being met in an area. The

2007 EIS defines criteria pollutants and their corresponding NAAQS. An area is considered an attainment area for only those criteria pollutants for which the NAAQS are being met.

“Nonattainment” describes a condition in which standards for one or more of the six pollutants are not being met in an area. “Unclassified” indicates that air quality in the area cannot be classified and the area is treated as attainment. An area may have all three classifications for different criteria pollutants. The proposed fueling facilities are all located in attainment areas for

April 2012 Page 21 all criteria pollutants; therefore, General Conformity does not apply to this project. The 2007

EIS details the requirements of General Conformity and its applicability.

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gasses that trap heat in the atmosphere. They include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. The major GHG producing sectors include transportation, coal and gas powered electrical power plants, agricultural, and industry (California Energy Commission 2007). Any GHG release would result from the delivery fuel trucks and vehicles utilizing the facilities, as GHG emissions are the result of combustion of fuels, not the fuel itself.

3.3.5 Water Resources

Main Cantonment Area freshwater is supplied mainly from wells in the Hueco Bolson aquifer and a smaller portion from the Rio Grande through El Paso Water Utilities.. Aquifers primarily on the flanks of the Organ Mountains supply water for the Doña Ana and Orogrande range camps.

Precipitation is historically low throughout the region, with the average annual range being 8 to

13 inches. A portion of this precipitation in the Main Cantonment, IBCT, and BAAF areas becomes runoff to the Rio Grande. Doña Ana and Orogrande areas are located in a closed basin that has no external drainage. No floodplains or wetlands are present (US Army 2011b).

The Kay Bailey Hutchison desalination plant protects fresh groundwater resources from brackish water intrusion. Existing water supplies are now augmented by the plant, ensuring that sufficient water is available for growth and development in the region for 50 years (EPWU 2011).

3.3.6 Biological Resources

The fuel facilities are located within the Basin Aeolian (Cantonment, IBCT and Orogrande) and

Basin Alluvial (Doña Ana) Ecological Management Units (EMU) (US Army 2010). Plants common throughout these areas include honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia saothrae), creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), sandsage (Artemisia filfolia), fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), and mesa dropseed (Sporobolus flexuosous)

(US Army 2010). Surveys to detect and control exotic and noxious weed species such as African rue (Peganum harmala) are ongoing at selected localities (US Army 2001). No wetlands or arroyo-riparian drainages were identified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) at the proposed fuel facilities (USFWS 2011). A complete list of the plants making up the vegetative categories found on Fort Bliss can be found in the Fort

Bliss Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) (US Army 2001).

Various invertebrates, reptiles, birds, and mammals occur on Fort Bliss (US Army 2010).

Detailed lists of these species are available in previous Fort Bliss environmental documentation

(US Army 2000; US Army 2005; US Army 2001) and in a Resource Management Plan

Amendment prepared by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (BLM 2005). Fort Bliss also supports hunting of both large and small game species on the Doña Ana Range-North Training

Areas and on the McGregor Range following New Mexico and Texas laws and regulations.

April 2012 Page 22

Federal and state-protected plant and animal species are known to occur or could potentially occur on Fort Bliss (US Army 2010). A total of approximately 57 species are currently protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 USC 1531 et seq.). Protected species are highly unlikely to be found within the project areas except for the Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma hernandezil), a Texas state threatened species which is relatively common in the Fort Bliss region. Potential migratory birds on Fort Bliss protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of

1918 (16 USC 703-712) are detailed in the 2010 EIS (US Army 2010).

3.3.7 Cultural Resources

Cultural resources at Fort Bliss include prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, traditional cultural properties, sacred sites, buildings, structures, artifacts, cultural landscapes, and historic districts. Specific definitions of these resources and a detailed prehistoric and historic background of Fort Bliss are provided in the 2010 EIS (US Army 2010). Currently, Fort Bliss manages this cultural resources under the Fort Bliss Integrated Cultural Resources Management

Plan 2008-2012 (ICRMP) released in April of 2008 (US Army, 2008) and plans and legal historic preservation requirements including the Archeological Resources Protection Act

(ARPA) of 1979, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) or 1966 (16 USC 470 et seq.), and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NABPRA) of 1990. Pursuant to

Army Regulation AR 200-1, the GC at Fort Bliss is responsible for managing the cultural resources on the installation in compliance with all Federal laws, regulations, and standards

This project has been evaluated for impacts to historic and archeological properties. It complies with both the NHPA and the Programmatic Agreement (PA) entered into by Fort Bliss Garrison

Command, the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer, the New Mexico State Historic

Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the Management of

Historic Properties on Fort Bliss.

3.3.8 Noise

Noise is defined as a sound that can induce hearing loss or interfere with ordinary daily activities. Sound is a series of vibrations (energy) transmitted through a medium that are perceived by a receiver. Sound varies in intensity and frequency. Sound pressure level (SPL), described in decibels (dB) is used to quantify sound intensity.