Implementation of Energy Security Measures Fort Irwin, California

An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared for the U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Irwin, California to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of implementing energy security measures at Fort Irwin. The EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Section 102(2)(C); the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA; Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Parts 1500 through 1508 (CEQ, 1978); and Environmental Analysis of Army Actions, 32 CFR Part 651.

Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to enhance the energy security of Fort Irwin and the National Training Center (NTC) mission. The need for the Proposed Action arises from several existing vulnerabilities to Fort Irwin’s energy supply. Electricity is supplied to the base by a single, overhead transmission line that is approximately 40 miles long. The route of this transmission line goes through areas that are prone to flooding and washout. A disruption anywhere along this line can cause a total loss of electric power at Fort Irwin. Moreover, Fort Irwin’s primary heating fuel is liquified petroleum gas (LPG) that is delivered to the base by tanker truck. In the winter, daily deliveries are sometimes necessary. The delivery trucks must travel a single-lane highway for 35 miles to reach Fort Irwin, and delivery can be interrupted by natural disasters, traffic incidents, or other disruptions along the road.

Description of the Proposed Action

Southwest Gas, in partnership with Ameresco, conducted an assessment at Fort Irwin and identified a set of beneficial energy security measures to be implemented by the U.S. Army (Army). Southwest Gas proposes to increase Fort Irwin’s energy security and resilience through infrastructure improvements by facilitating a base-wide fuel switch from LPG, which is currently brought into the base via fuel tanker trucks along Fort Irwin Road, to natural gas delivered via new six-inch-diameter steel pipeline. With the new pipeline and dedicated natural gas service, further resiliency will be achieved by installing distributed energy assets including a combined heat and power (CHP) plant, solar photovoltaic (PV) array, and a battery energy storage system (BESS). These assets will allow Fort Irwin to provide onsite generation of electricity and continue critical and essential operations during a loss of utility electric power.

The Proposed Action would include installation of a 21-mile gas pipeline from the existing Kern River Gas Transmission Line (100 feet from the southeast NTC/Bureau of Land Management (BLM) border within a utility corridor) into the cantonment area. All other aspects of the Proposed Action would occur inside the cantonment area. The dedicated, 24/7 availability of natural gas would allow NTC to generate its own electricity at all times of day, via the CHP plant. The CHP plant would allow the NTC to maintain power to its critical and essential buildings indefinitely during an electrical utility outage.

This suite of activities, including the pipeline, fuel switch, and onsite generation, would be implemented through a Utility Energy Services Contract between Southwest Gas and U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command/Fort Irwin. As a result, Fort Irwin considers each individual action as a component of the cumulative effect as though all the actions would be implemented. All the actions will be implemented within three years of Task Order issuance.

Alternatives

A key principle of NEPA is that agencies consider a range of alternatives to a proposed action. Considering alternatives helps to avoid unnecessary impacts and allows analysis of reasonable ways to achieve the stated purpose. To warrant detailed evaluation, an alternative must be reasonable. To be considered reasonable, an alternative must be affordable, capable of implementation, and satisfactory with respect to meeting the purpose of and need for the action. The Proposed Action, as described above is the preferred action alternative. The following subsections identify alternatives considered by the Army and indicate whether the alternatives are reasonable and, therefore, subject to detailed evaluation in this EA.

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would maintain existing conditions at Fort Irwin. Under the No Action Alternative, no energy security, energy conservation, or water conservation measures as described in Section 2.1 would be implemented.

The No Action Alternative would not meet the Proposed Action purpose and need. However, inclusion of the No Action Alternative serves as a benchmark for evaluation of the potential effects of the Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative is therefore evaluated in detail in this EA

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated

Two alternative routes for the natural gas line from the existing Kern River natural gas transmission line to the cantonment area were initially considered. Section 2.3 of the EA provides a detailed description and maps identifying the location of these eliminated routes and the reasons for eliminating them from consideration.

Environmental Consequences

The EA contains a comprehensive evaluation of the existing conditions and environmental consequences of implementing the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative for each of the resources identified as potentially affected. These resources include land use, soils, biological resources, water resources, air quality, cultural resources, noise, utilities, hazardous materials, health and safety, aesthetics, and transportation. Resources that would not be affected and were therefore not evaluated in detail include recreation; environmental justice and protection of children; and geology, mineral resources, and seismicity; topography; and airspace.

Based on the analyses presented in the EA, implementing the Proposed Action is anticipated to result in direct and/or indirect adverse effects on environmental resources, including: land use, soils, biological resources, water resources, air quality, noise, socioeconomics, human health and safety, transportation, utilities, and aesthetics. Measures would be implemented to ensure that adverse environmental effects from construction and operation of the Proposed Action would be avoided or minimized. These measures would be incorporated into the final design, implemented by the construction contractor, and included in the contract documents. With the measures proposed, effects to the impacted resources are expected to be less than significant. Additionally, there would be negligible or no adverse impacts to cultural resources and from hazardous and toxic substances. No effects would occur under the No Action Alternative.

Cumulative effects on soils, biological resources, traffic, and air quality from the Proposed Action could occur, but would be temporary and minimal with the use of project design measures. No long-term cumulative effects would result from the Proposed Action.

To further protect the environment, the EA identifies project design measures (Table 4-4) to be implemented to reduce environmental effects of construction and operation of the Proposed Action.

Public Review and Comment

Public participation opportunities with respect to this EA and decision making on the Proposed Action are guided by 32 CFR Part 651. The Final EA and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) will be made available to the public for comment for a period of 30 days. At the end of the 30-day public review, the Army will consider all comments submitted by individuals, agencies, and organizations (these comments will be included as an appendix to this EA). As appropriate, the Army may then execute the FNSI and proceed with implementation of the Proposed Action. If implementing the Proposed Action is determined to result in significant effects, then the Army will publish a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register to prepare an environmental impact statement or will not take the action.

Throughout this process, the public may obtain information on the status and progress of the Proposed Action and the EA through Mr. David Housman, Fort Irwin Directorate of Public Works (DPW), Environmental Division, Building 602, P.O. Box 105085, Fort Irwin, California, 92310-5085 or via email to david.c.housman.civ@mail.mil.

Conclusion

Based on the findings of t he EA, and with the implementation of t he project design measures identified in the EA, no significant impacts on the human or natural environment would result and the Army may proceed with the Proposed Action and preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required. Therefore, a FNSI is issued for the Proposed Action.