___ - CLOSURE OF JEFFERSON PROVING GROUND INDIANA AND REALIGNMENT TO YUMA PROVING GROUND ARIZONA li 'J.fI..,o. Pre.1. VOLUME 1 OF 2 *YE=. GI.".] Pre.1. TEXT G,...d Final ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT . I STATEMENT September 1991 - . CLOSURE OF JEFFERSON PROVING GROUND, INDIANA AND REALIGNMENT TO WMA PROVING GROUND, ARIZONA Prepared by: Reviewed by: Louisville District U.S. Amy U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Materiel Command yy\C .- David E. Peixotto William 8. McCrath Colonel, Corps of Engineers Major General, US. Army Commander Chief of Staff Recommended for Approval by: Department of the Army Office of the Chief of Staff William A. Stofft Mabr General, General Staff Director of Management Approved by: Office of the Secretary of the Amy & 6,D& Lewis D. Walker Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Amy (Environment, Safety and Occupational Health) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CLOSURE OF JEFFERSON PROVING GROUND, INDlANA AND REALlGNMENT TO Wh4A PROVING GROUND, ARIZONA LEAD AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S.Amy Materiel Command (AMC); TITLE OFTHE PROPOSED ACTION Closure of Jefferson Proving Ground, Indiana and Realignment to Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona AFFECTED JURISDICTION: Jefferson Proving Ground: Jefferson, Jennings and 1Zipk-y Counties, Indiana. Yuma Proving Ground: Yuma and La Paz Counties, Arizona PREPARED BY David E. Peixotto, Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Commander, US. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District, P.O. Box 59, Louisville, KY 40201-0059 REVIEWED BY: William 8. McCrath, Major General, Chief of Staff, US. Army Matericl Command RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY Williim A. Stofft, Major General, General Staff, Director of Management, Office of the Chief of Staff, Department of the Army APPROVED BY Mr. Lewis D. Walker,, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Ammy (Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health) ABSTRACT The action evaluated in this Final Environmental Impact Statement includes the closure of Jefferson Proving Ground (JPG),Indiana, and realignment of personnel and equipment to Yuma Proving Ground (YE),Arizona. The impacts associated with the alternative methods of implementing the realignment action to YPG are analyzed. The closure and realignment action is in accordance with the Defense Authorimtion Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act, and the Defense Secretary's Commission on Base Realignment and Closure. This EIS considers the effects of the planned action on the natural and human environments at JPG and YPG. The discontinuation of testing activities is considered to be a beneficial environmental impact at JPG because no new contamination caused by firing additional ordnance will occur. The closure of JFC will not change the potential for existing UXO contamination. However, the extent and level of existing contamination are unknown. [Significant adverse economic impacts due to closure of JFG are expected2Implementation of the realignment of JPG to the central Kofa Range at YPG will result in potential adverse impacts to vegetation, wildlife and cultural resources. Surveys will be performed prior to construction and appropriate mitigation measures will be developed where necessary. A recent noise study has determined that there will be no significant impact due to the mission transfer from JPG to WG. Beneficial impacts on the regional economy are expected at YPG due to the realignment action. NO Action will be taken until 30 days from the FElS filing with the Environnicntal Protection Agency and publication of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Rth'' mlrr. Following the 30 day waiting period, on or about September 24, a Record of Deci&on will be filed with the Army Environmental Office. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The Base Realignment and Closure Conimission (The Commission) was c*stiildislicxl by thc Stvrt%iry of Defense on May 3, 1988. Its purpose was to recommend rcalignnient iind c,losiirl, of milit.iry I~,ISC~S within the United States, its commonwealths, territories, and possessions. 'l'lir I >vfcwsr Aii~Ii(ii.i/.,itioii Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act, Public LAW 100-.52h, dntrd Ortolwr 24, IOXH, directed 145 realignments and closures (Appendix A). Based on this dircction, tliv C'oniniission presented its recommendations to the Secretary of Defense on December 29, 11)H8. The Law requires the closure of the US.Army Jefferson Proving Ground (JlC), which is Iocntcd six miles north of Madison, Indiana. Its mission of ammunition acceptance testing lor tho Army is !(I hc relocated to the US.Army Yuma Proving Ground (YE), Yuma, Arizona. The closure of JPC means the discontinuation of operations in preparation for movcmrnt to aiioth~r site. This closure activity will take place in a phased manner from 1991 to 1005. 'I'ht* hiis(, rva1it;iiintmt and closure process is a dynamic process that will rquire continuoits refiiienivnt to iiw*lI hc Ariny's changing needs and circumstances. The closure alternatives considered in this Environmental lmpnct StaLement (1%) includc tlic No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. Although P.L. 100-526 cxcmpts tlic decision to cIos(~Ironi environmental analysis, the No Action Alternative has been established as a benchmark iipiinst which the proposed closure action may be compared. This proposed action is the closiire of JI'C: iind thc realignment of the munitions production acceptance testing mission to YPG. Several realignment implementation alternatives at YPG were considered and some were eliminated from further consideration due to feasibility, cost, or environmental concerns. These included locating the proposcd facilities on the West Arm of YPG, and a phasing alternative. Other implementation alternatives wcw considered including the realignment of JI'G activities to the East Arm of YPG. The proposed realignment action is to intensify the use of the central Kofa Range. The JPC analysis focuses upon the cessation of operations at JPG. Some potential rciisr options arc described but not analyzed. The YM; analysis focuses on the alternatives to iniplemrntntion of th(* realignment action. The environmental consequences of the planned closure at JIY; and impleinrii1;iticiii alternative actions at YPC are reported, as well as general means for minimizing and mitignlinl; unavoidable adverse impacts. This EIS does not address specific actions or impacts associated with potentiiil remedinlion .ic'tivities at JPC. The Army will conduct a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) on thr iirc'ii of JIY; in the cantonment area and clean it up. En addition, a RI/FS will be performed on any othrr area priy to releasing that property from Department of Defense (DOD)contrdl Hazardous matcriills are discussed to the extent that they affect or are affected by closure or realignment. Army rt?quireiiwntr concerning environmental compliance will be met prior to the disposal of any property. Remcdiiih. and reuse planning are interrelated processes. The Army will address the effects of spcrific rws(’ alternatives in separate analyses in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NKI’A). Closure of JF‘G and the realignment of its munitions testing activities at YPC will affect a totiil of 14 military and 407 civilian personnel positions. Three military positions and 135 civilian positions will be eliminated. Closure will require the transfer of 271 civilian personnel positions. No lnilitiiry positions will be realigned to YPG. The remaining personnel shifts include the transfer of one civilian to Fort Shafter, HI and the transfer of 11 members of the Indiana Air National Guard (INAN(;) to an as yet undesignated installation. In addition to the transfer of personnel positions, realignment involves the construction of additional facilities and gun emplacements for direct fire, mortar and depleted uranium (DU) at the cxisting Kofa Range at YPG. There will be construction of associated ammunition handling, storage and trsting facilities as well as additional maintenance and administration facilities. A summary of new construction requirements is provided in Table S1. The estimated cost for facility construction is $82.2 million. One time expenditure estimates are $50.04 million which would result in a total realignment estimate of $132.24 million. This EIS does not address the financial data nor estimated cost savings that were considered by the Commission during the base closure and realignment decision making prows5 JPG Potential Reuse Options Discussed Potential options for reusing surplus JPG property were identified on the basis of consultation with the key participants involved with the closure and reuse process. Options were selected by applying reuse evaluation criteria, including: compatibility with existing land use activities, conditions, policies and restrictions; compatibility with significant M~UAresources located within the boundaries of Jl’G; general market feasibility requirements and current regulatory factors or limitations. General rruse options discussed include: like-kind use, general aviation facility, regional (five county landfill), and correctional facility. The impacts associated with reuse of JPG are not addressed in this document. The impacts will be discussed in follow-on NEPA analysis and documentation. Reuse will be studied by the JPG Regional Development Board in conjunction with the Army and Office of Economic Adjustment. Table 5-1. Summary of new construction required for Proposed Action at YE. Facility AM (in square M) - 1. Direct Fire Ran% Gun Positions Bsrricade 12,000 Communlcatlonr Building