Technical_Exhibit_3_INRMP_June2014.pdf

FINAL

FORT BUCHANAN U.S. ARMY GARRISON

INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES

MANAGEMENT PLAN (INRMP)

FY15-FY20

Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico

June 2014

Fort Buchanan INRMP FY15–FY20

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... ES-1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.2 Purpose and Need

1.3 Goals and Management Approach

1.4 Regulatory Framework

1.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act

1.4.2 Sikes Act

1.4.3 U.S. Army Environmental Strategy in the 21st Century

1.4.4 32 CFR Part 651, Environmental Analysis of Army Actions

1.4.5 Army Regulation (AR) 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement

1.4.6 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)

1.5 Responsible Parties for INRMP Implementation

1.6 Relationship of This Update to Previous Iterations

2 NEPA COMPLIANCE AND INTEGRATION

2.1 INRMP and NEPA Integration

2.2 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.3 Scope of Analysis

2.4 Agency Coordination and Public Participation

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT: FORT BUCHANAN

3.1 Installation History

3.1.1 Military Mission

3.2 Location and Land Use

3.2.1 Current and Future Development

3.3 Physical Environment

3.3.1 Topography

3.3.2 Climate

3.3.3 Air Quality

3.3.4 Noise

3.3.5 Geology

3.3.6 Soils

3.3.7 Hydrology and Water Resources

3.3.8 Petroleum and Minerals

3.4 Ecosystems and Biotic Environment

3.4.1 Terrestrial Habitats

3.4.2 Special Natural Areas

3.4.3 Aquatic and Riparian Habitats

3.4.4 Wildlife

3.4.5 Endangered, Threatened, and Species of Special Concern

3.5 Cultural Resources

3.5.1 Archaeological Resources

3.5.2 Architectural Resources

3.5.3 NRHP-Eligible District

3.6 Socioeconomics

3.6.1 Population and Demographics

3.6.2 Housing

3.6.3 Economic Development

3.6.4 Environmental Justice

i

3.6.5 Protection of Children

3.7 Facilities

3.7.1 Future Development Plans

3.7.2 Transportation and Circulation

3.7.3 Utilities

3.7.4 Hazardous and Toxic Materials

4 EXISTING PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT PLANS

4.1 Real Property Master Plan (RPMP)

4.2 Sustainability and Environmental Management System (SEMS)

4.3 Environmental Management Action Plans (EMAPs)

4.4 Ecological Management Plan (EMP)

4.4.1 Soils

4.4.2 Water Quality and Aquatic/Riparian Habitats

4.4.3 Wetlands

4.4.4 Terrestrial Habitats/Special Natural Areas

4.4.5 Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern

4.4.6 Pest and Invasive Species

4.5 Endangered Species Management Plan (ESMP)

4.6 Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)

4.7 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC)

4.8 Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP)

4.9 Land Use Control Plan (LUCP)

4.10 Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP)

4.11 Installation Action Plans (IAP)

4.12 Urban Forest Management Plan

4.13 Facilities Maintenance

4.14 Community Involvement Plan

5 STATUS OF FY10-FY14 MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND ACTIONS

5.1 All Management Areas

5.1.1 Management Goals

5.1.2 Management Measures

5.1.3 Management Actions

5.2 Soils

5.2.1 Management Goals

5.2.2 Management Measures

5.2.3 Management Actions

5.3 Water Quality and Aquatic/Riparian Habitats

5.3.1 Management Goals

5.3.2 Management Measures

5.4 Stormwater Management

5.4.1 Management Goals

5.4.2 Management Measures

5.5 Wetlands

5.5.1 Management Goals

5.5.2 Management Measures

5.5.3 Management Actions

5.6 Terrestrial Habitats

5.6.1 Management Goals

5.6.2 Management Measures

5.6.3 Management Actions

ii

5.7 Special Natural Areas

5.7.1 Management Goals

5.7.2 Management Measures

5.8 Wildlife

5.8.1 Management Goals

5.8.2 Management Measures

5.9 Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species

5.9.1 Management Goals

5.9.2 Management Measures

5.9.3 Management Actions

5.10 Cultural Resources

5.10.1 Management Goals

5.10.2 Management Measures

5.11 Pest Management

5.11.1 Management Goals

5.11.2 Management Measures

5.12 Summary of FY10–FY14 Management Actions

6 FY15–FY20 MANAGEMENT PERIOD

6.1 Staff and Funding

6.2 FY15–FY20 New Management Actions

6.2.1 Soils

6.2.2 Water Quality and Aquatic/Riparian Habitats

6.2.3 Stormwater Management

6.2.4 Wetlands

6.2.5 Terrestrial Habitats

6.2.6 Special Natural Areas

6.2.7 Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species

6.2.8 Energy

6.2.9 Cultural Resources

6.2.10 Pest Management

6.2.11 Hazardous and Toxic Materials

6.3 Summary of FY15–FY20 Management Actions

6.4 Resource Conservation Initiatives

6.5 Implementation of Funding Options

6.6 Command Support and Plan Review

7 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

7.1 No Action Alternative

7.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative)

7.3 Cumulative Effects

7.4 Summary of Potential Environmental Effects

8 CONCLUSIONS

9 REFERENCES/PERSONS CONSULTED

10 LIST OF PREPARERS (FY15–FY20 UPDATE)

11 DISTRIBUTION LIST (FY15–FY20 UPDATE)

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Responsible Parties at Fort Buchanan for INRMP Implementation Table 1-2 INRMP Organization and Main Topics Covered Table 2-1 Required NEPA Analysis Elements and Corresponding INRMP Sections Table 3-1 Soil Types and Characteristics within Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico Table 3-2 Invasive/Exotic Species at Fort Buchanan, Guaynabo, Puerto Rico Table 3-3 Reported Puerto Rican Boa Sightings between 2003 and 2012 Table 3-3 Summary of Measurements Taken on Individual Swamp Bloodwood Trees Table 3-4 Fort Buchanan NRHP-Eligible Architectural Properties Table 3-5 Proposed New Construction by Year and Associated Square Footage Table 4-1 Pest Management Program Roles and Responsibilities Table 5-1 “High Priority” Summary of Status FY10–FY14 Management Actions Table 5-2 “Important” FY10–FY14 Management Actions Table 6-1 Fort Buchanan Natural Resources Management Staff Table 6-2 “High Priority” FY15–FY20 Management Actions Table 6-3 “Important” FY15–FY20 Management Actions Table 6-4 Resource Conservation Initiatives Table 7-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Effects iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Endangered Species Coordination Act Figure 3-1 Fort Buchanan and Adjacent Land Use Figure 3-2 FY13-FY15 Demolition and New Construction Figure 3-3 Proposed Racetrack Locations Figure 3-4 Surface Geology Figure 3-5 USGS Topographic Map Figure 3-6 Soil Types Figure 3-7 Areas of Special Concern Erosion and Sedimentation Figure 3-8 Surface Water, Wetlands, Drainage, and Relief Figure 3-9 Pictures Depicting Variability in Volume and Velocity of Flow Before and After a

Rain Event on El Toro Creek Figure 3-10 Vegetation Community Map Figure 3-11 Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat and Special Natural Areas Figure 3-12 Photos of Caribbean Petroleum Company’s Facilities Explosion and Impacts on

Nearby Wetlands, November 2009 Figure 3-13 Pictures Depicting Existing Conditions of Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Figure 3-14 2012 Boa Sightings Figure 3-15 2007-2013 Boa Sightings Figure 3-16 Restoration Sites Figure 3-17 Compliance Restoration Sites Figure 4-1 Framework for Sustainability and Environmental Management Figure 5-1 Examples of Soil Erosion and Potential Problem Areas along Creeks and

Stormwater Drainage Ditches Figure 5-2 Monitoring Well Locations Figure 5-3 Potential Riparian Enhancement Areas Figure 5-4 Pictures Depicting Potential Riparian Enhancement Areas Figure 6-1 2006 Swamp Bloodwood Survey Figure 6-2 2013 Swamp Bloodwood Survey/Wetland Area v

APPENDICES

Appendix A 2003 Final Plant Community and Soil Survey for Fort Buchanan (electronic only) Appendix B List of Fauna Observed within Fort Buchanan Boundaries Appendix C Memorandum of Agreement for the Palo de Rosa Appendix D Information Paper – Amelia Industrial Park Wastewater Outfall Appendix E Urban Forest Management Plan, Tree Management SOPs, and Inventory Form Appendix F FY15-FY20 Fund Requirements for Implementation of INRMPs and

Management Actions at Fort Buchanan Appendix G Agency Comment Letters vi

ACRONYMS, INITIALISMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS

AAFES Army Air Force Exchange Service ACM asbestos-containing materials AFH Army Family Housing AQCR Air Quality Control Region AR Army Regulation AST above-ground storage tanks BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics BMP Best Management Practices CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMS Corrective Measure Study DD Decision Document DDESS Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools DoD Department of Defense DOE Department of Energy DPW Directorate of Public Works EA Environmental Assessment EBS Environmental Baseline Survey ECF Environmental Conservation Funds ECM Energy Conservation Measure EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMAP Environmental Management Action Plan EMP Ecological Management Plan EMS Environmental Management System EPA Environmental Protection Agency EQB Environmental Quality Board EQCC Environmental Quality Control Committee ESA Endangered Species Act ESMP Endangered Species Management Plan ESPC Energy Savings Performance Contract FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FORSCOM U.S. Army Forces Command FY fiscal year GIS geographic information system HQDA Headquarters, Department of the Army IAP Installation Action Plans ICRMP Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan IMA U.S. Army Installation Management Agency INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan IPM integrated pest management IPMC Installation Pest Management Coordinator IPMP Integrated Pest Management Plan LBP lead-based paint LUC Land Use Control LUCP Land Use Control Plan vii

MC Munitions Constituent MEC Munitions Explosives of Concern mgd million gallons per day MMRP Military Munitions Response Program MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOU Memorandum of Understanding MRS Munitions Response Sites MSL mean sea level NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOA Notice of Availability NRHP National Register of Historic Properties PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls POL petroleum, oil, and/or lubricants PRASA Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority PRDNER Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources PREPA Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority PX Post Exchange RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RFI Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Investigation RI remedial investigation RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study RPMP Real Property Master Plan SEMS Sustainability and Environmental Management System SERO Southeast Region Office SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SI Site Investigation SOP standard operating procedure SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan SQG Small Quantity Generator SWMP Stormwater Management Plan SWMU Solid Waste Management Units TCE trichloroethylene U.S.C. United States Code USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACHPPM U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine USAEHA U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency USAG U.S. Army Garrison USAR U.S. Army Reserve USARC U.S. Army Reserve Center USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UST underground storage tank viii

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR IMPLEMENTING THE

INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN FY15-FY20

FORT BUCHANAN AND U.S. ARMY RESERVE CENTERS, PUERTO RICO

Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4321 et seq.) and Army Regulation 200-1 (Environmental Protection and Enhancement), Fort Buchanan has conducted an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the potential effects associated with implementing an updated Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) for the management period of Fiscal Year 2015 (FY15) through FY20. Fort Buchanan has prepared this INRMP in accordance with the provisions of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a et seq.).

Proposed Action. Fort Buchanan proposes to implement an INRMP for FY15-FY20 that supports the management of natural resources by putting into practice, to the maximum extent practicable, the management actions presented in this plan. Implementation of the Proposed Action would support the Army’s continuing need to meet mission and community support requirements, practice sound resource stewardship, and comply with environmental policies and regulations.

Alternatives. The development of proposed management actions for the INRMP included a screening analysis of resource-specific alternatives. The screening analysis involved the use of accepted criteria, standards, and guidelines, when available, and best professional judgment to identify management practices for achieving Fort Buchanan’s natural resources management area objectives. Consistent with the intent of NEPA, this process focused on considering a reasonable range of resource-specific management alternatives and dropping from detailed analysis the management alternatives that were deemed to be infeasible. From the selected actions a management plan was developed that could be implemented as a whole in the foreseeable future. The EA, integrated into this document, formally addresses only two alternatives, the Proposed Action (implementation of this INRMP FY15–FY20 and all of the preferred resources management actions) and the No Action Alternative (Status Quo).

Implementation of the No Action Alternative means that the proposed management measures set forth in the INRMP FY15-FY20 would not be implemented. Current management measures for natural resources identified in the INRMP FY10-FY14 would remain in effect, and existing conditions would continue. This document refers to the continuation of existing (baseline) conditions of the affected environment, without implementation of the Proposed Action, as the No Action Alternative. Inclusion of a No Action Alternative is prescribed by CEQ regulations and serves as a benchmark against which the Proposed Action can be evaluated.

Factors Considered in Determining that No Environmental Impact Statement Is Required. The EA, which is incorporated by reference into this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), examines the potential effects of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative on resources and areas of environmental concern that could be affected by implementing the INRMP FY15-FY20. These include environmental setting; climate; air quality;

noise; topography; geology; petroleum and minerals; water resources; wetlands; riparian habitats; terrestrial habitats; flora; fauna; special natural areas; endangered, threatened, and rare species; cultural resources; land use; facilities; hazardous and toxic materials;

socioeconomic resources; and environmental justice. Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in short- and long-term beneficial effects on identified resources and areas of environmental concern.

Findings. Based on the results of the EA, it is determined that implementation of the Proposed Action would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on the quality of the natural or human environment. Implementation of the INRMP FY15-FY20 would result in either no effects or minor beneficial effects on each resource area. Over time, the Proposed Action would enable Fort Buchanan to achieve its goal of maintaining ecosystem viability and sustaining the military mission. Because no significant effects would result from implementing the Proposed Action, preparing an EIS is not required.

Comments on the INRMP and this FONSI by any interested party may be submitted to Department of Army, Directorate of Public Works ATTN: Environmental Division (Mr. Aníbal Negrón), 34 South Gate Rd, Fort Buchanan, PR 00934. The deadline for receipt of comments is 30 days from publication of a Notice of Availability of the document in El Nuevo Día. The INRMP is available for public review at the installation library (Building 223, Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico) and the C Doctora Pilar Barbosa Municipal Library (7 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Bayamon, Puerto Rico).

Date: _______________________________ ______________________________________ Caryn S. Heard Colonel, Commanding Officer Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico

FORT BUCHANAN REVIEW

John D. Cushman ___________________________________ Colonel, LG Commanding Office ___________________________________ Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico Date

Pascual A. Quiñones, P.E. ___________________________________ Director of Public Works ___________________________________

Aníbal Negrón, P.G., REM ___________________________________ Chief, Environmental Division ___________________________________

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans (INRMPs) are planning documents that allow Department of Defense (DoD) installations to manage their natural resources while coordinating with various stakeholders. INRMPs are extremely important management tools that ensure that military operations and natural resource conservation are integrated and consistent with stewardship and legal requirements.

The U.S. Army Garrison (USAG) at Fort Buchanan includes Fort Buchanan itself and 11 U.S.

Army Reserve Centers (USARCs) that are located throughout Puerto Rico. USAG Fort Buchanan serves as a Power Support Platform to plan, prepare, and execute mobilization of the U.S. Army Reserve units in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The purpose of this INRMP is to guide the natural resources management program at Fort Buchanan for Fiscal Years 2015 through 2020 (FY15–FY20). The INRMP documents the current status of natural resources management at Fort Buchanan and identifies management goals to be implemented during the next 5 years. This INRMP will help Fort Buchanan sustain its military missions and maintain natural resources. In addition, it will ensure that natural resources conservation measures and Army activities on Fort Buchanan are integrated and are consistent with federal stewardship requirements. In accordance with regulations guiding natural resource management, the Army has integrated the installation’s INRMP and associated Environmental Assessment (EA) for implementing the INRMP into this single document.

Environmental Compliance Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and Army Regulation 200-1, Environmental Enhancement and Protection, Fort Buchanan has conducted an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the potential effects associated with implementing an INRMP for the management period of FY15-FY20. Fort Buchanan has prepared this INRMP in accordance with the provision of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C.

670a et seq.) and applicable Army regulations.

The EA scope of analysis is based on identifying, documenting, and evaluating potential effects of implementing the INRMP for Fort Buchanan. The EA examines the Army’s Preferred Alternative (Proposed Action) and a No Action Alternative.

Proposed Action. The Proposed Action, which is the Army’s preferred alternative, is to implement this INRMP FY15–FY20 for Fort Buchanan. An INRMP is meant to be a “living” document and modified over time as the needs and mission of the installation change. The Proposed Action focuses on a 5-year management period, which is consistent with the time frame for the management actions described in this INRMP FY15–FY20. Implementing this INRMP FY15–FY20 involves putting into practice, to the maximum extent practicable, the management actions presented in this plan. Additional environmental analyses may be required as new management actions are developed within the FY15–FY20 management period.

Implementing some INRMP-related management actions also may require evaluation to determine the need for and appropriate level of NEPA documentation.

ES-1

No Action Alternative. This document refers to the continuation of existing (baseline) conditions of the affected environment, without implementing this INRMP FY15–FY20, as the No Action Alternative. Selection of the No Action Alternative would mean that natural resources at Fort Buchanan would continue as the status quo, and no new management actions presented in this INRMP would be implemented. Including a No Action Alternative is prescribed by CEQ regulations; the No Action Alternative serves as a benchmark against which proposed federal actions can be evaluated.

FY15-FY20 Management Actions The natural resources management program at Fort Buchanan will be responsible for implementation of the management actions identified in the INRMP FY15-FY20. Those management actions that require funding will proceed only when funding is obtained. Subject to the availability of funding, the following management actions are scheduled for implementation during the FY15-FY20 management period for Fort Buchanan. A summary of management actions for Fort Buchanan is provided below.

“High Priority” FY15–FY20 Management Actions

Management Area Management Action Related Management Areas Soils Implement erosion control measures.

Areas include:

600 Area Perimeter Road Marker #108 Malaria Control Canal

• Water Quality

• Aquatic/Riparian Habitats

• Stormwater

• Facilities Maintenance

Stormwater Update and implement SWMP, as required. • Soils

• Water Quality

• Aquatic/Riparian Habitats

• Wetlands

• Facilities Maintenance

• Public Awareness/ Education

Wetlands Designate swamp bloodwood populations/habitat as conservation areas.

• Special Natural Areas

• Aquatic/Riparian Habitats

• Wetlands

Terrestrial Habitats Update SOP for planting, maintaining, and removing trees and develop a tree policy.

• Facilities Maintenance

Implement the Tree Management and Reforestation Plan

• Facilities Maintenance

Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species

Establish a MOA that addresses both endangered species at Fort Buchanan.

• Special Natural Areas

• Terrestrial Habitats

Energy Construct a containment area and place a spill kit at each of the wind turbines.

• Facilities Maintenance

• Soils

• Water Quality

Cultural Resources Update and implement ICRMP, as required. • Facilities Maintenance

• Master Planning

ES-2

Management Area Management Action Related Management Areas Pest Management Update and implement IPMP, as required. • Water Quality

• Aquatic/Riparian Habitats

• Terrestrial Habitats

• Special Natural Areas

• Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species

• Facilities Maintenance

Hazardous and Toxic Materials and Environmental Restoration Management

Update and implement an MEC Awareness Program, as required

• Facilities Maintenance

• Terrestrial Habitats Update and implement LUCPs for Fort

Buchanan’s Environmental Restoration Program to include but not be limited to the MMRP, as required Update and implement IAPs, as required Update and implement EMAPs, as required

“Important” FY15–FY20 Management Actions

Soils Periodically monitor areas of erosion and take action as necessary. Areas include:

Haystack Hills Drainage Ditches (golf course, CEMEX Lake, wetland area) Swamp bloodwood area Perimeter Road

• Water Quality

• Aquatic/Riparian Habitats

• Wetlands

• Special Natural Areas

• Facilities Maintenance

Water Quality/Aquatic and Riparian Habitats

Create a riparian enhancement area pilot demonstration project.

• Soils

• Water Quality

• Public Awareness/Education Continue community outreach initiatives to educate residents about water quality and conservation.

Continue stormwater drain marking efforts.

Stormwater Continue to monitor discharges from Amelia Industrial Park.

• Water Quality

• Stormwater

Wetlands Establish a cooperate agreement with the PRDNER to propagate swamp bloodwood.

• Wetlands

• Special Natural Areas

• Aquatic and Riparian Habitats

Follow USFWS recommendations for wetland enhancement using swamp bloodwood and other native species.

Terrestrial Habitats Use native plants in landscaped areas. • Facilities Maintenance Special Natural Areas Periodically monitor and restrict access to haystack hills, southern forested areas, wetlands, and swamp bloodwood areas.

• Soils

• Endangered, Threatened, and

Rare Species

• Wetlands

ES-3

Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species

Continue boa tagging and monitoring program.

• Terrestrial Habitats

• Special Natural Areas

Implement habitat management and protection measures identified in the ESMP to help maintain and manage the existing Puerto Rican boa and palo de rosa population.

Energy Plant a vegetative buffer along the fenceline where the wind turbine is located to help improve residents’ viewshed.

• Facilities Maintenance

• Terrestrial Habitats

Conduct a bird survey to document any impacts as a result of the wind turbines.

Environmental Effects The EA evaluates potential environmental consequences of implementing the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Army’s Preferred Alternative, would mean that selected management actions presented in Section 6 would be adopted and implemented to the extent practicable given funding and manpower constraints.

Overall, compared to the No Action Alternative, the Preferred Alternative would improve environmental conditions related to natural resources at Fort Buchanan.

Resource Area/ Environmental Condition

Environmental Effects No Action Proposed Action

Environmental Setting None None Climate None None Air Quality None None Noise None None Topography and Slope Stability Adverse Minor Adverse Soils Minor Adverse Minor Beneficial Petroleum and Minerals None None Water Resources Minor Adverse Minor Beneficial Wetlands Minor Adverse Minor Beneficial Riparian Habitats Minor Adverse Minor Beneficial Terrestrial Habitats Minor Adverse Minor Beneficial Wildlife Minor Adverse Minor Beneficial Special Natural Areas Minor Adverse Minor Beneficial Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species Minor Adverse Minor Beneficial Cultural Resources None Minor Beneficial Land Use Control Minor Adverse Beneficial Land Use None None Facilities None None Hazardous and Toxic Materials None None Socioeconomic Resources None None Environmental Justice None None Cumulative Effects None Minor Minor Beneficial

ES-4

Summary This INRMP reflects the commitment set forth by the Army to conserve, protect, and enhance the natural resources on its installations. This document presents a plan that will guide the natural resources management program at Fort Buchanan for the management period FY15- FY20. Implementation of this INRMP will achieve multiple objectives, including meeting natural resources management goals, supporting the military mission, and complying with environmental policies and regulations. In addition, the NEPA analysis required for undertaking this major federal action (implementation of this plan) is embodied within the INRMP FY15- FY20. This document includes a comprehensive description, evaluation, and assessment of current environmental conditions and natural resources at Fort Buchanan. Command support is essential for implementation of this INRMP and the management actions described herein. This INRMP has the full support of the Installation Commander and other personnel in command positions at Fort Buchanan.

ES-5

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans (INRMPs) are planning documents that allow Department of Defense (DoD) installations to manage their natural resources while coordinating with various stakeholders. INRMPs are extremely important management tools that ensure that military operations and natural resource conservation are integrated and consistent with stewardship and legal requirements.

INRMPs are based, to the maximum extent practicable, on ecosystem management principles and provide for the management of natural resources, including fish, wildlife, and plants; allow multipurpose uses of resources; and provide public access necessary and appropriate for those uses without any net loss in the capability of an installation to support its military mission. To the extent appropriate and applicable for a given installation, an INRMP

• Integrates conservation measures and military operations.

• Reflects cooperation between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), state1, and installation relative to the proper management of fish and wildlife resources.

• Documents requirements for the natural resources budget.

• Is a principal information source for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents.

• Aids planners and facility managers.

• Guides the use and conservation of natural resources on lands and waters under DoD control.

• Balances the management of natural resources unique to each installation with mission requirements and other land-use activities affecting an installation’s natural resources.

• Identifies and prioritizes actions required to implement goals and objectives.

• Integrates all of the installation’s Environmental Management Action Plans (EMAPs).

The INRMP provides a comprehensive approach to ecosystem management. Natural resources are looked at holistically on a watershed or physiographic basis. INRMPs are living documents that provide direction for daily natural resources management activities and are the foundation for sustained military training. All traditional component areas of natural resources management are integrated through the INRMP planning process, which also takes into account military mission requirements, installation master planning, environmental planning, and outdoor recreation. The focus of current INRMPs on involving all appropriate stakeholders in addressing installation requirements and regional issues will provide for more efficient and effective management of natural resources on a landscape basis while maintaining military readiness.

INRMPs identify specific actions required to attain natural resource management goals.

Although there is some variation among the different military services, a basic INRMP includes

• A description of the installation, its history, and its current mission.

1 As used in this document, the word state applies also to U.S. territories and commonwealths.

• Management goals and associated timeframes.

• Projects to be implemented and estimated costs.

• A discussion of how military mission and training requirements are supported while protecting the environment.

• Legal requirements and biological needs of the natural resources.

• The role of the installation’s natural resources in the context of the surrounding ecosystem.

• Input from USFWS, state fish and wildlife agency, and the general public.

1.2 Purpose and Need

The purpose of this INRMP is to guide the natural resources management program at Fort Buchanan Fiscal Years 2015 through 2020 (FY15–FY20). U.S. Army Garrison Fort Buchanan serves as a Power Support Platform to plan, prepare, and execute mobilization of the U.S. Army Reserve units in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The INRMP documents the current status of natural resources management at Fort Buchanan and identifies management goals to be implemented during the next 5 years. This INRMP will help Fort Buchanan sustain its military missions and maintain natural resources. In addition, it will ensure that natural resources conservation measures and Army activities on Fort Buchanan are integrated and are consistent with federal stewardship requirements. In accordance with regulations guiding natural resource management, the Army has integrated the installation’s INRMP and associated Environmental Assessment (EA) for implementing the INRMP into this single document.

Applicable regulations are discussed in Section 1.4.

1.3 Goals and Management Approach

The overall goal of this INRMP is to conform to those outlined in the Army Environmental Strategic Action Plan. Those general goals include the following:

• To ensure the long-term sustainability of the lands to support the military mission.

• To protect the natural resources.

• To protect the cultural resources.

• To provide appropriate recreational opportunities.

• To accommodate tenant uses of the land.

To achieve these goals and long-term success, the natural resources management program must remain flexible by incorporating adaptive management techniques into the program.

Adaptive management is a process by which new information is used to evaluate the success and appropriateness of current management measures and to make any necessary changes in the management approach. The natural resources management program might also be required to adapt to unforeseen changes in military mission and legal requirements.

Fort Buchanan consists primarily of developed and landscaped grounds and buildings, but it also has some natural areas within and/or adjacent to the property boundaries. Fort Buchanan is in a highly developed urban area where the natural resources components are somewhat limited;

however, even on developed lands there is an opportunity for management that takes the local flora and fauna and the regional ecological context into account.

Although the focus of this INRMP FY15–FY20 is on managing the natural areas that remain on Fort Buchanan, attention is also given to managing all installation grounds and facilities for the benefit of the natural environment. Site-specific management actions have been developed for Fort Buchanan based on the current conditions of the natural resources as well as on the military mission and activities as they are anticipated.

DoD’s overall goal regarding ecosystem management is “…to preserve, improve, and enhance ecosystem integrity. Over the long term, this approach will maintain and improve the sustainability and biological diversity of terrestrial and aquatic (including marine) ecosystems while supporting sustainable economies and communities.” The specific principles and guidelines DoD has identified to achieve this goal are reflected in the management actions and measures set forth in Sections 5 and 6 of this plan.

1.4 Regulatory Framework

1.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act

Under NEPA, federal agencies take into consideration the environmental consequences of proposed major actions. The intent of NEPA is to protect, restore, or enhance the environment through well-informed federal decisions. This act is based on the assumption that providing timely information to decision-makers and the public concerning the potential environmental consequences of Proposed Actions will improve the quality of federal decisions. Thus, the NEPA process includes a systematic, interdisciplinary evaluation of potential environmental consequences expected to result from implementing a Proposed Action.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was established under NEPA to implement and oversee federal policy in this decision-making process. To this end, CEQ has issued Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508).

The CEQ regulations specify that an EA must be prepared to

• Briefly provide evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

• Aid in an agency’s compliance with NEPA when an EIS is unnecessary.

• Facilitate preparation of an EIS when one is necessary.

In addition, according to CEQ regulations [40 CFR 1500.2(c)], NEPA’s requirements should be integrated “with other planning and environmental review procedures required by law or by agency practice so that all such procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively.”

1.4.2 Sikes Act

DoD, with the assistance of USFWS and the states, is responsible under the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C.

670a-670f, as amended) for carrying out programs and implementing management strategies to conserve and rehabilitate natural resources on its lands. Congress established the Sikes Act in 1960 to manage military lands for wildlife conservation and human access. The Sikes Act was amended in 1997 to develop and implement mutually agreed upon INRMPs through voluntary cooperative agreements between the DoD installation, USFWS, and the respective state fish and wildlife agencies.

According to 16 U.S.C. 670a(b) of the Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997, to the extent appropriate and applicable, this INRMP FY15–FY20 provides for the following:

• Fish and wildlife management, land management, forest management, and fish- and wildlife-oriented recreation.

• Fish and wildlife habitat enhancement or modifications.

• Wetlands protection, enhancement, and restoration where necessary for support of fish, wildlife, or plants.

• Integration of and consistency among the various activities conducted under the plan.

• Establishment of specific natural resources management goals and objectives and time frames for proposed actions.

• Sustainable use by the public of natural resources to the extent that the use is not inconsistent with the needs of the fish and wildlife resources.

• Public access to the military installation that is necessary and appropriate for the use described above, subject to requirements necessary to ensure safety and military security.

• Enforcement of applicable natural resource laws and regulations.

• No net loss in the capability of military installation lands to support the military mission of the installation.

1.4.3 U.S. Army Environmental Strategy in the 21st Century

The United States Army Environmental Strategy into the 21st Century (HQDA 1992) provides the framework to ensure that environmental considerations are integral to the Army mission and that an environmental stewardship ethic governs all Army activities. The Army’s environmental strategy is depicted in a model of a building with a foundation and four pillars supporting the overall vision of environmental stewardship. The strategy’s goals focus on the four pillars, which represent compliance, restoration, prevention, and conservation.

The general goal of the conservation pillar is to conserve, protect, and enhance environmental and natural and cultural resources using all practical means consistent with Army missions so present and future generations can use and enjoy them. Resources management in the conservation pillar is focused on conservation and preservation. Conservation involves the responsible management of Army lands to ensure long-term natural resource productivity so the Army can achieve its mission. Conservation balances the need for long-term resource use and resource protection. Preservation focuses on resource protection by limiting use by the Army community. Preservation is essential for ensuring the future integrity of valuable national resources, such as wetlands, endangered species habitat, and historic and cultural sites.

1.4.4 32 CFR Part 651, Environmental Analysis of Army Actions This Department of Army regulation dated March 29, 2002, is designed to provide policy, responsibilities, and procedures for integrating environmental considerations into Army planning and decision-making. It establishes criteria for determining which type of environmental document should be prepared.

1.4.5 Army Regulation (AR) 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement

This Department of Army regulation dated March 29, 2002, sets forth policy that covers environmental protection and enhancement and provides the framework for the Army Environmental Management System (EMS) (HQDA 2001). This regulation implements federal, state, and local environmental laws and DoD policies for preserving, protecting, conserving, and restoring the quality of the environment.

The Army is committed to environmental stewardship in all actions as an integral part of its mission and to ensure sustainability. This regulation supports the Army Strategy for the Environment (October 1, 2004), which presents the Army’s environmental vision as sustainable operations, installations, systems, and communities enabling the Army mission. Under the strategy, the Army’s environmental mission is to sustain the environment to enable the Army mission and secure the future.

AR 200-1 requires installations to establish an Environmental Quality Control Committee (EQCC) chaired by the Garrison Commander. The EQCC helps to plan, execute, and monitor actions and programs with environmental implications. The committee identifies issues, makes recommendations, and advises the Garrison Commander.

1.4.6 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) requires all federal agencies to conserve listed species. Conservation, as defined by the ESA, means the use of all methods and procedures necessary to bring any listed species to the point where ESA protections are no longer necessary. The ESA specifically requires agencies not to “take” or “jeopardize” the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or destroy or adversely modify habitat critical to any endangered or threatened species. Under ESA Section 9, take means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” and harm refers to significant habitat modification or degradation, which would actually kill or injure wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Under Section 7, jeopardize means to engage in any action that would be expected to “reduce appreciably the likelihood of the survival and recovery of a listed species by reducing its reproduction, numbers, or distribution.”

On September 28, 1994, the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) signed a multi-agency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on implementing the ESA. The purpose of the MOU was to establish a general framework for greater cooperation and participation among the agencies exercising their responsibilities under the ESA. The MOU states that the departments will work together to achieve the common goals of (1) conserving listed species,

(2) using existing federal authorities and programs to further the purposes of the ESA, and

(3) improving the efficiency and effectiveness of interagency consultations conducted pursuant to Section 7(a) of the ESA. Each signatory agreed to

1. Use its authorities to further the purposes of the ESA by carrying out programs for the conservation of federally listed species, including implementing appropriate recovery actions identified in recovery plans.

2. Identify opportunities within existing programs and authorities to conserve federally listed species and the ecosystems on which they depend.

3. Determine whether its respective planning processes effectively help conserve threatened or endangered species.

4. Use existing programs, or establish a program, to evaluate and reward the performance of personnel who are responsible for planning or implementing programs to conserve or recover listed species or the ecosystems on which they depend.

Figure 1-1 presents the coordination procedures followed by installation personnel when evaluating the potential impacts of any action conducted on the installation on rare, threatened, or endangered species or their habitats. As the figure illustrates, USFWS and the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (PRDNER) are consulted with respect to any actions on the installation that may potentially affect endangered species.

1.5 Responsible Parties for INRMP Implementation

The success of the management of the natural resources located on Fort Buchanan grounds and the implementation of this INRMP require a cooperative effort among the parties directly responsible. The level of success can be enhanced by developing partnerships among other parties that have a vested interest in the responsible management of the natural resources at Fort Buchanan. In 2013, an updated MOU was established to further a cooperative relationship between the DoD, USFWS, and state fish and wildlife agencies in preparing, reviewing, revising, updating, and implementing INRMPs for military installations. The MOU addresses the responsibilities of the parties to facilitate optimum management of natural resources on military installations.

Other interested parties in the natural resources management program at the installation include the Southeast Region Office of the Army’s Installation Management Agency (IMA), which is the final approving authority for the INRMP, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District (USACE), which is responsible for real estate issues and the regulatory program (Clean Water Act) on Fort Buchanan. USFWS provides signatory agreement concerning the conservation, protection, and management of the fish and wildlife resources presented in the INRMP. USFWS is also the primary federal agency for issues regarding fish and wildlife management, as well as the regulatory authority for the ESA of 1973 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711).

At the state level, PRDNER is responsible for natural resources management throughout the commonwealth. PRDNER is notified when an activity at Fort Buchanan has the potential to affect the natural resources of the installation or the surrounding areas and provides signatory agreement on such activities.

Fort Buchanan’s Directorate of Public Works (DPW), Environmental Division may also enlist the help of outside contractors to provide technical support for natural resources and environmental management projects. This technical support includes preparing the INRMP, NEPA analyses and documentation, and cultural and biological resource surveys. Fort Buchanan personnel/organizations directly responsible for implementing this INRMP are listed in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1. Responsible Parties at Fort Buchanan for INRMP Implementation

Responsible Parties Responsibilities

Commander Implementation/Enforcement of INRMP

Legal Regulatory Interpretation Off-Base Dispute/Complaint Resolution

Directorate of Public Works

Environmental Conservation Integrated Pest Management Program Wildlife Management Environmental Impact Assessment Process Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Cultural Resources Management Plan Hazardous Materials Management Hazardous Waste Spill Response Plans Solid Waste Environmental Restoration Air Quality Monitoring/Compliance Environmental Management System Pest Control Pollution Prevention

Munitions Explosives of Concern (MEC) Awareness Operations and Maintenance

Facility Maintenance Improved Grounds Maintenance Unimproved Grounds Maintenance Maintenance of Surface Areas

Engineering Facilities Engineering Services Minor Construction Military Construction

Master Planning Installation Master Planning

GIS

Real Property Management Installation Design Guide

Directorate of Morale Welfare and Recreation

Supervise/Direct Golf Course Pest Management Operations

Directorate of Personnel and Community Activities

Promote Organization/Development of Recreational Activities and Facilities

Safety MEC Awareness; MEC incidences within Fort Buchanan and outside Munitions Response Sites (MRS) –Camp Buchanan Training Area

Contracting Access to environmental awareness package to include but not limited to distributing MEC awareness information, boa awareness, EMS materials, pollution prevention and compliance information.

Directorate of Emergency Services Respond to MEC encounters

1.6 Relationship of This Update to Previous Iterations

The INRMP is a living document that builds on previous iterations. Fort Buchanan’s original INRMP was first implemented in 2000 and covered FY00–FY04. It identified management measures and special projects to be implemented during that management period. The next iterations of the INRMP were updated to cover the management periods of FY05–FY09 and FY10-FY14. They identified and addressed changes in baseline data during the previous management periods and proposed new management measures and special projects. The current version of the INRMP covers the next management period of FY15–FY20. It evaluates the status of previous management measures and actions and assesses their applicability for the next management period.

While much of the general information remains the same, several sections have been updated to include more recent information. Updates are summarized below.

• Section 2 – No changes.

• Section 3 – Minor updates to reflect changes in existing conditions or to provide updated information with regard to various surveys that have been conducted since the previous management period.

• Section 5 – Significant updates to reflect the status of FY10-FY14 management measures and actions.

• Section 6 – Significant updates to reflect management actions proposed for the FY15-FY20 management period.

• Section 7 – Minor updates to reflect changes in environmental effects based on current conditions.

• Section 8 – Minor updates to the NEPA conclusions based on current conditions.

Table 1-2 provides a brief description of how the remainder of this document is organized and the main topics covered in each section.

Table 1-2. INRMP Organization and Main Topics Covered

Section Title Subject

2 NEPA Compliance and Integration

This section describes NEPA analysis requirements, the Proposed Action and alternatives, scope of analysis, and coordination.

3 Affected Environment: Fort Buchanan

This section describes existing (baseline) conditions, including physical, biological, social, and cultural resources.

4 Existing Programs and Management Plans

Fort Buchanan has developed several other management plans and programs that are integral and related to natural resource management at Fort Buchanan. This section briefly summarizes the purpose, goals, and objectives of each management plan, particularly as it relates to natural resource management.

5 Status of FY10–FY14 Management Measures and Actions

This section summarizes and updates the status of management measures and actions identified in previous iterations of the INRMP. It defines the management goals for each management area and indicates which management measures and actions have been implemented, are ongoing, have been eliminated, or have been carried forward into the FY15–FY20 management period.

6 FY15–FY20 Management Period

This section describes new management actions to be implemented in the FY15–FY20 management period. It also discusses funding of the natural resources management program at Fort Buchanan.

7 Environmental Effects This section discusses the evaluation of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action…