“The tradition among all armed services, are much older than any government, more conservative than any department of government, and more sure to build on a foundation that they are certain of, rather than to take any chance of making a mistake.” --- General William "Billy" Mitchell - United States Army

1. STREAMLINING the BUZZ Word for Defense Spending and United States Army
proposed Drawdown of Forces requires full, total compliance and adherence to the legal
requirements of The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [Title 42 United States
Code §4321 et seq.] and regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) [Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1500-15081]
The shortest pathway, though timesaving and administratively convenient, is, as taken by
the United States Army 2020 Force Structure Realignment - Supplemental Programmatic
Environmental Assessment - Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Assessment for
Army 2020 Force Structure Realignment utilizing an ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT (EA), FINDING NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT is, part, albeit
incomplete, piecemealed portion of the process.
NEPA requires an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) be prepared.
The proposed action of the United States Army is a major federal action significantly
affecting and impacting on the quality of the human environment, existing social and
economic activities and conditions, law enforcement and fire prevention, growth and
development patterns, land use patterns, neighborhood character and cohesiveness,
housing, local utilities, public services, etc.
Army 2020 Force Structure Realignment - Supplemental Programmatic
Environmental Assessment - Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Assessment
for Army 2020 Force Structure Realignment.
“The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires federal agencies to
consider potential environmental impacts prior to undertaking a course of action. NEPA
is implemented through regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500–1508) and within the
United States (U.S.) Department of the Army (Army) by 32 CFR Part 651,
Environmental Analysis of Army Actions. In accordance with these requirements, the
Army has prepared a Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Assessment (SPEA) to
consider environmental effects on installations that could result from implementation of
the Proposed Action to realign Army forces from Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 through FY
2020. The SPEA was prepared as a supplemental NEPA evaluation to the Army’s 2013
Programmatic Environmental Assessment (2013 PEA) due to changes to the Purpose and
Need described in the previous document.”
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) for Army 2020 Force Structure
Realignment - 4 June 2014
Source: http://aec.army.mil/Portals/3/nepa/Army2020SPEA-FNSI.pdf

2. THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) PROCESS
The NEPA process consists of an evaluation of the environmental effects of a federal
undertaking including its alternatives. There are three levels of analysis: categorical
exclusion determination; preparation of an environmental assessment/finding of no
significant impact (EA/FONSI); and preparation of an environmental impact
statement (EIS).
1. Categorical Exclusion: At the first level, an undertaking may be categorically
excluded from a detailed environmental analysis if it meets certain criteria which
a federal agency has previously determined as having no significant
environmental impact. A number of agencies have developed lists of actions
which are normally categorically excluded from environmental evaluation under
their NEPA regulations.
2. EA/FONSI: At the second level of analysis, a federal agency prepares a written
environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether or not a federal undertaking
would significantly affect the environment. If the answer is no, the agency issues
a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). The FONSI may address measures
which an agency will take to mitigate potentially significant impacts.
3. EIS: If the EA determines that the environmental consequences of a proposed
federal undertaking may be significant, an EIS is prepared. An EIS is a more
detailed evaluation of the proposed action and alternatives. The public, other
federal agencies and outside parties may provide input into the preparation of an
EIS and then comment on the draft EIS when it is completed.
If a federal agency anticipates that an undertaking may significantly impact the
environment, or if a project is environmentally controversial, a federal agency may
choose to prepare an EIS without having to first prepare an EA.
After a final EIS is prepared and at the time of its decision, a federal agency will prepare
a public record of its decision addressing how the findings of the EIS, including
consideration of alternatives, were incorporated into the agency's decision-making
process.
Source: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.]
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/basics/nepa.html

3. JACKSON COUNTY V. JONES - No. 77-1739 (8th Cir. February 7, 1978)
“The Eighth Circuit affirms a district court's denial of a motion for a
preliminary injunction against the relocation of personnel and equipment from
Richards-Gebaur Air Base near Kansas City to Scott Air Base near St. Louis.
Treating the case as an appeal on the merits, the court rules that the Air Force's
environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project was adequate and that
the substantive decision to proceed with the base relocation was not arbitrary
and capricious and thus not reversible under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA).
The court finds that the Air Force is not exempt from the statute's mandates and
that the Act is applicable to this relocation because it will directly and
substantially affect the physical and economic environments of the two areas.
The court rejects the contention that the impact statement did not discuss all
feasible alternatives in sufficient detail; although the discussion of alternatives
was less than thorough, it was nevertheless adequate. [Emphasis Supplied]
V. Conclusion
The EIS was adequate and the final decision to proceed with the proposed
action was not arbitrary or capricious. We affirm the district court's denial of
the preliminary injunction. [Emphasis Supplied]
1. McDowell v. Schlesinger, 404 F. Supp. 221 [6 ELR 20224] (W.D. Mo.
1975). No appeal was taken from the district court's judgment.
1
1
“This Court is satisfied that plaintiffs have made the requisite showing that defendants'
proposed action could significantly affect the quality of the human environment. As more
particularly set forth supra at pp. 235-237, plaintiffs have shown that the proposed transfer from
the RGAFB area of approximately 7,500 persons could and will result in significant impacts to
the RGAFB area on, among other things, existing social and economic activities and conditions in
the area; problems relating to law enforcement and fire prevention; growth and development
patterns in the area, including existing land use patterns, and neighborhood character and
cohesiveness, etc.; and aesthetic considerations. With regard to the Scott area, as
particularized supra pp. 237-239, plaintiffs have demonstrated that the proposed relocation of
approximately 10,000 persons to that area could result in significant impacts on that area,
including inter alia impacts on the availability of housing, and the overburdening of local utilities
and other public services. Further, the proposed action will result in unknown, but potentially
significant, environmental impacts caused by the construction of new housing and other
community facilities in the Scott area which will be built to accommodate the incoming
population.

4. 2. The plaintiffs/appellants in this case are: Jackson County, Missouri; Kansas
City, Missouri; the State of Missouri ex rel. John Ashcroft; the State of
Kansas ex rel. Curt T. Schneider; Mid-America Regional Counsel; Cass
County, Missouri; Johnson County, Kansas; Kansas City, Kansas; certain
named employees (and/or their spouses) of the Air Force employed at
Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base; American Federation of Government
Employees (AFL-CIO), Local 2127.
The defendants/appellees in this case are General David C. Jones, United States
Air Force, Chief of Staff; John C. Stetson, Secretary of the Department of the
Air Force; the Department of the Air Force; General George S. Brown, United
States Air Force, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Dr. Harold Brown,
Secretary of the Department of the Defense; the Department of Defense. The
defendants/appellees will be referred to as the Air Force.
3. No issues of national security are before this court. The only such issues
raised before the trial court were resolved in favor of the Air Force. McDowell
v. Schlesinger, supra at 257-59.
While most of these potential impacts may properly be termed "secondary" impacts, they are
within NEPA's ambit. See CEQ Guideline 1500.8(a) (3) (ii), 40 C.F.R. § 1500.8(a) (3) (ii) (1974),
and the discussion of the scope of NEPA supra at pp. 244-246. Where such impacts may be
significant, § 102(2) (C) of NEPA applies to the proposed action, including its requirement of the
preparation of a detailed EIS by the defendant agencies. Thus, under the teachings of M. P. I. R.
G. v. Butz, supra, defendants' proposed action must be considered a "major federal action
significantly affecting *255 the quality of the human environment" within the meaning of §
102(2) (C) of NEPA. The decision of defendants to effect the relocations, realignments and
transfers of Headquarters, AFCS, the ETAC and DCA units, and the Squadron of C-130 aircraft
to Scott Air Force Base will be set aside. Defendants will be directed to specifically comply with
the requirements of § 102(2)(C) of NEPA, including the requirement that an EIS be prepared and
filed, prior to and as an integral part of any reconsideration by the defendant agencies of the
decision to effect these realignments, transfers, and relocations to Scott. An appropriate injunctive
order will be entered. Judgment shall enter accordingly. [Citations Omitted, Emphasis Supplied]
It is so ordered.”
Reference: 404 F.Supp. 221 (1975) - Robert L. McDOWELL et al., Plaintiffs, v. James R.
SCHLESINGER, Secretary of Defense of the United States, et al., Defendants, Jackson County,
Missouri, Intervenor-Plaintiff. No. 75 CV 234 W-4. United States District Court, W. D. Missouri,
W. D. July 9, 1975. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2131578/mcdowell-v-schlesinger/

5. At oral argument before this court, the Air Force asserted for the first time that
other and broader national security issues were involved in the proposed
relocation. These assertions are unsupported by the record. [Emphasis
Supplied]
4. NEPA requires that an EIS be prepared before the federal government or its
agencies proceed with a major action. An EIS should include a detailed
discussion of:
(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,
(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the
proposal be implemented,
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,
(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and
the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and
(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be
involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.
42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(i-v).
5. For a comprehensive discussion of the history of AFCS and its function and
its location at Richards-Gebaur in 1970, see McDowell v. Schlesinger, supra.
6. Alternatives (1) through (4) provided that approximately 91 percent of the
base personnel at Richards-Gebaur be transferred to other Air Force bases, with
most transferred to Scott.
7. In each alternative, the Air Force considered it essential that certain technical
support units, the Detachment 2, 1814 Communications Squadron, 1842
Electronics Engineering Group, and the 1815 Test Squadron be located at the
same base as AFCS. The functions of these technical support units are directly
related to the functions performed by AFCS. In each alternative but (5), the Air
Force retained the option of moving the 37th TAS to Scott or to Pope Air Force
Base in North Carolina. Also proposed was the relocation of the 1866th Facility
Checking Squadron.
8. The Military Airlift Command is headquartered at Scott.

6. 9. These alternatives were proposed by Robert L. McDowell, the original
plaintiff in McDowell v. Schlesinger, supra,at the hearing held by the United
States Senate Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on the
Armed Forces on September 15, 1976. EIS, App. 2, Vol. 2, p. 597.
10. The Air Force advanced the following argument in response to alternative
(11)(a) that we deem to be utterly without merit. They stated that current
Department of Defense regulations do not permit pro rata cost sharing of
facilities jointly used by active and reserve units of the various branches of the
Armed Services. Thus, no savings would be affected by using a portion of
Richards-Gebaur to accommodate Navy and Air Force personnel in space
vacated by the 1840th Air Base Wing (1840 ABW). Any serious cost savings
efforts must disregard antiquated regulations designed to perpetuate artificial
barriers between branches of the Armed Services and between active and
reserve units of the various services.
11. Scott is located near St. Louis, Missouri, which has a large enough supply
of rental and purchase properties to absorb the influx of personnel which will
result from the relocation of AFCS. The parties dispute whether or not certain
portions of the St. Louis metropolitan area are within a one-hour rush hour
commuting distance of Scott. A one-hour commuting distance is that
considered acceptable by the Air Force. We need not determine which party is
correct in this dispute. As discussed earlier in this opinion, we are not to decide
whether the Air Force's decision was the most correct one, but merely whether
all relevant factors were presented to and considered by the decision-making
agency.
12. This estimate was made by McDowell in his testimony before the Senate
Subcommittee, EIS, App. 2, Vol. 2, p. 597. See n.9, supra.
13. See n.11, supra.

7. 14. Richards-Gebaur dependents represent approximately 4,123 (1.9 percent) of
the 219,000 average daily attendance (ADA) in public schools in the three-
county area. However, five districts service 72.3 percent of all Richards-Gebaur
dependents (Table 26). Belton School District No. 124 has the greatest
concentration; 1,524 of 4,313 ADA, or 35 percent, are dependents of Richards-
Gebaur personnel. Next, in order of percentage of ADA, are Consolidated
District No. 4 (areas within Kansas City, Grandview and Lee's Summit), 13
percent; Raymore-Peculiar R-2, 5.3 percent; Harrisonville-Cass R-9, 4.5
percent; and finally Consolidated No. 1, 3.8 percent (areas within Kansas City
and Grandview). The remaining Richards-Gebaur dependents are distributed in
approximately 80 communities. EIS, p. 67.
Source: 8 ELR 20300 | Environmental Law Reporter
http://elr.info/sites/default/files/litigation/8.20300.htm
Footnoted Reference: McDowell v. Schlesinger, 404 F. Supp. 221
(W.D. Mo. 1975) Added for Clarification.