Environmental Assessment for Proposed Demolition and Consolidation, Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery County, Alabama
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information
... perations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. As a result of a memorandum signed by President Obama in June 2010, the Air Force has implemented a ?20/20 by 2020? initiative to reduce both the ?facility footprint? and energy usage by 20 percent by the year 2020. The goal established for Maxwell Air Force Base is to reduce its real property footprint by approximately 1,188,000 square feet by 2020, which averages a reduction of approximately 84,900 square feet annually for the remaining years between 2013 and 2020. The Proposed Action is a Demolition and Consolidation effort for helping to meet these goals. The Proposed Action was formulated based on: facility age, historical significance, general operation and maintenance history, renovations required in the future, whether the facility is suitable for occupants, and how complicated consolidation moves of occupants might be. Approximately 50 facilities have been proposed for demolition, and 8 other properties were identified as potential property transfers. Under the No-Action Alternative, the facilities would continue to age and deteriorate. Occupants would eventually have to be relocated, and the buildings closed. The No-Action Alternative would not work toward agency goals of reducing energy usage and operating and maintenance expenditures. The No-Action Alternative would fail to provide adequate planning for eventual moves and facility disposition.