Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 

This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) examines the potential impacts of the Fort Stewart Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-14 range and Garrison construction projects on the environmental and socioeconomic resources present on Post, in addition to their potential impacts to surrounding lands and/or local communities.  Current mission impacts are discussed primarily as part of the No Action Alternative, as Fort Stewart is an active military Installation and hosts various training activities, land rehabilitation efforts, and range repairs and maintenance on a daily basis.  Fort Stewart’s master planning process assisted in the siting of the range and Garrison projects needed to support and improve the Fort Stewart mission accomplishment.

All proposed range and Garrison facilities and their alternatives are discussed in Section 2.1.  The projects considered in this EIS were identified on Fort Stewart’s future years development plan (FYDP) and will occur in FYs 11-14.  The Army’s FY runs from October 1 to September 30.  These projects have a preferred and alternate siting.  Proposed projects on the FYDP with no proposed sitings were deemed insufficiently developed for analysis, but are discussed, if applicable, in Chapter 5, Cumulative Effects, as reasonably foreseeable future actions.   It should be noted, however, that funding limitations may preclude the full execution of all projects in alternatives discussed in the EIS and eventually selected as part of the Record of Decision (ROD) for this EIS.  The Army will work within its programmed budget to prioritize projects and allocate funding accordingly.  A brief description of each alternative is presented below.

Description of the Proposed Action
The Army has a need to construct and modernize training ranges on Fort Stewart.  This need falls into two general but somewhat overlapping categories: modernization and capacity.  Several range projects proposed are needed to modernize ranges to create a more realistic training environment.  The other range projects proposed will increase the capacity of available ranges required to serve the number of Soldiers and using Fort Stewart as a training platform.  This Draft EIS analyzes the following 12 ranges: Multipurpose Machine Gun Range, Modified Record Fire Ranges (one in FY11 and one in FY13), Qualification Training Range, Combat Pistol Qualification Range, Fire and Movement Range, 10/25 meter Zero Range, Infantry Platoon Battle Course, Infantry Squad Battle Course, Digital Multipurpose Training Range, Known Distance Range, and Convoy Live Fire Range.  A full description of these ranges is in Section 2.4.  With the exception of the Digital Multipurpose Training Range, all of these ranges utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition (cartridges with a bullet diameter, or caliber, of up to 0.75 inch).  The table below presents each range and Garrison construction project’s overall footprint; details concerning associated facilities located within these footprints are in Appendix H of the Draft EIS.

Two Garrison support projects are also analyzed in this Draft EIS.  One involves construction of facilities to support a stationing action involving an (as-yet undetermined) unit to operate the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System (UAVS) associated with the Sky Warrior System, prior to its arrival in fiscal year 2011.   The second involves construction of facilities to support the stationing action that involved the 10th Engineer Battalion (EN BN), and now could involve a similar-size unit (as discussed in Chapter 1), referred to in this EIS as the EN BN.

The facilities required for stationing the EN BN include company operation facilities with covered hardstand, battalion headquarters with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking.  The Sky Warrior UAVS system is a remotely controlled unmanned aerial vehicle that enables the Army to engage several different weapon systems in a coordinated attack against an enemy target with accuracy and precision without placing a large number of Soldiers in harm’s way.  It and its unit have very specific facility requirements, including having its hangar facilities next to an airfield.

Due to Army Transformation, Army Modularity, GDPR, BRAC, and GTA initiatives, the Army needs to construct additional Garrison support facilities on Fort Stewart to support the increased number of Soldiers and Civilian Employees working there.  As stated above, there are not adequate facilities on Fort Stewart to support its mission.

Alternatives
Alternative A: No Action
The No Action Alternative consists of continuing the current mission and support activities at Fort Stewart, using existing or previously programmed ranges and facilities.  Inclusion of the No-Action Alternative is required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations and is the benchmark against which the environmental impacts of the action alternatives are evaluated.  Maintenance and repair of Fort Stewart’s existing infrastructure would continue and Fort Stewart will continue to use its land and airspace training resources as it does currently.  Construction proposed under the action alternatives (B and C) would not occur.  The No-Action Alternative specifically consists of the following:

• Army Transformation, Army Modularity, BCRC, GDPR, and GTA actions are occurring, under which  Fort Stewart is receiving relocated units;
• Training on existing ranges and established maneuver areas, plus construction and use of new ranges for which NEPA is complete;
• Cantonment construction for which NEPA is complete;
• Minor Fort Stewart road improvements (intersection improvements, signal replacement, new signage, etc.) for which NEPA is complete or in process; and
• Continuing Fort Stewart’s management plans (such as the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, etc.).

Alternative B Siting (Preferred)
Under Alternative B, the Army would construct, operate, and maintain the projects identified in the above table and indicated on the figure below at the sites preferred by the Army for operational reasons, while avoiding and mitigating impacts to the environment.



Alternative C Sitings
Alternative C differs from Alternative B only in the siting of the projects, as indicated on the figure below.   Alternative C is not preferred by the Army because it does not allow the Army to construct, operate, and maintain the ranges and Garrison support facilities at the sites currently preferred by the Army for operational and environmental reasons, but which are nonetheless feasible.