OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND REVIEW
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Fielding and Stationing for The Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon System and The Mid-Range Capability Weapon System at Multiple Installations
AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.
ACTION: Notice of Availability.
SUMMARY: The Department of the Army (Army) announces the availability of a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) analyzing the impacts of fielding and stationing the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon System (LRHW) and the Mid-Range Capability Weapon System (MRC) at multiple installations, in accordance with Department of Defense (DoD) and Army guidance. The PEA identifies no significant environmental impacts from implementing the Proposed Action.
DATES: Comments must be received by
Saturday, September 19, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent by mail to:
ATTN: Mail Stop 112 (NEPA)
Public Comments
Commander USAEC
2455 Reynolds Rd
JBSA-Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-7588
Comments can also be sent via email to:
usarmy.jbsa.imcom-aec.mbx.nepa@army.mil with “LRHW/MRC Public Comments” as the subject.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: US Army Environmental Command Public Affairs Office at 520-674-2634 or send email to:
usarmy.jbsa.imcom-aec.mbx.nepa@army.mil for assistance with “LRHW/MRC” as the subject.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Proposed Action is to field and station the LRHW and the MRC as a component of the Army’s Multi-Domain Task Force (MDTF) program. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to field and station the LRHW and MRC at strategically located installations to have Soldiers, equipment, and weapon systems readily available to support the Army’s changing strategy to deal with modern threats. The Proposed Action is needed to shorten mobilization and response times on land, which serves as a deterrent to adversaries, and to ensure that the installations are upgraded with the support facilities and necessary improvements required to ensure that the units will be effective. The need for the Proposed Action is driven by the evolution of the capabilities of near-peer adversaries of the United States. The Proposed Action is needed to provide theater Commanders with a key component to achieve superiority over adversaries' capabilities. These long-range and mid-range weapon systems shorten mobilization and response times on land, serving as a deterrent to adversaries.
The PEA includes a programmatic analysis that is broadly applicable to most installations, as well as installation-specific analyses for the installations currently under consideration for the Proposed Action. This PEA serves as an overview of the LRHW and the MRC and may or may not require additional NEPA analysis at individual installations. The programmatic approach streamlines NEPA analyses, better informs decision makers, and encourages active public involvement in the Army’s planning process.
The installations considered for fielding of the LRHW and the MRC in the PEA and FONSI are: Fort Bliss, TX; Fort Liberty, NC; Fort Campbell, KY; Fort Carson, CO; Fort Drum, NY; Fort Cavazos, TX; Fort Knox, KY; Fort Riley, KS; Fort Stewart, GA; Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA; Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, AK; U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii, HI; Fort Wainwright, AK; Fort Sill, OK; Joint Base Pearl HarborHickam, HI; and Fort Moore, GA.
The PEA analyzes the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with the Proposed Action, including direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. The analysis includes an assessment of potential environmental effects, standard operating procedures, and best management practices routinely employed by the installations to reduce potential adverse effects of the Proposed Action.
The Army identified three reasonable alternatives that would meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. Alternative 1 is to field and station both the LRHW and the MRC at selected installations. Alternative 2 is to field and station only the LRHW at selected installations. Alternative 3 is to field and station only the MRC at selected installations. Alternatives will be considered independently for each installation. The Army proposes to modernize and renovate existing facilities, or build new facilities, to accommodate the fielding and stationing of the LRHW and MRC equipment and operational batteries at Army and joint installations throughout the United States. This includes site improvements to accommodate convoy exercises of the equipment from the motor pool and storage areas to training locations to facilitate successful training exercises. While the Proposed Action includes the stationing of the LRHW and MRC systems and munitions, non-live fire training exercises, and associated operations—the Army is not proposing to fire the LRHW or MRC systems from these installations. The stationing of these systems would require supporting equipment, Soldiers, facilities, and maneuver space for non-live fire training exercises (including virtual, setup, teardown, and mobilization training).
Fielding and stationing both the LRHW and the MRC at a single installation (Alternative 1) would comprise around 130-190 Soldiers and would require approximately 95,735 square feet of space to accommodate the associated equipment, Soldiers, facilities, batteries, and training activities, including space for operational headquarters, maintenance areas, hardstand, and storage for the missiles. These numbers would be reduced under Alternatives 2 and 3. Fielding just the LRHW at a single installation (Alternative 2) would comprise around 60-90 Soldiers and approximately 85,365 sq ft of land for the FSC and LRHW battery footprints. Fielding and stationing just the MRC at a single installation (Alternative 3) would comprise around 70-100 Soldiers and approximately 85,365 sq ft of land for the FSC and MRC battery footprints.
The Army also carried forward a No Action Alternative for detailed analysis in the PEA. While the No Action Alternative would not satisfy the purpose of or need for the Proposed Action, this alternative was retained to provide a comparative baseline against which to analyze the effects of the action alternatives.
Resources analyzed in the PEA include air quality, greenhouse gases, climate change, and sustainability; biological resources; cultural resources; geological and soil resources; hazardous and toxic materials and waste; human health and safety; socioeconomics (including environmental justice and protection of children); transportation and traffic; utilities and infrastructure; and water resources. Based on the analysis presented in the PEA, effects of the Proposed Action on these resources are expected to be none, negligible, less than significant, or significant but mitigatable.
When considering implementing an individual Proposed Action, installations would complete the environmental checklist for LRHW and/or MRC fielding included in the PEA’s appendices to determine whether tiering from the PEA and FONSI would be appropriate and what type of additional site-specific NEPA documentation, if any, would be required. If an installation determines that it requires additional NEPA analysis tiered from the PEA, the installation would be required to complete the appropriate NEPA documentation before making any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources related to that action. Tiering from the PEA, when appropriate, would avoid or reduce the costs of repetitive, similar analyses and enable installations to focus resources on only those site-specific environmental issues that require more in-depth analyses.
Government agencies, Native American Tribes, Alaska Native Tribes, Native Hawaiian Organizations, and the public are invited to submit written comments on the Final FONSI. The public comment period begins with the publication of this Notice of Availability on the
US Army Environmental Command (USAEC) NEPA Documents webpage (
https://aec.army.mil/Outreach/NEPA-Documents/) and will last for 30 days. If you cannot access the document online, please email a request for a printed copy to the U.S. Army Environmental Command at
usarmy.jbsa.imcom-aec.mbx.nepa@army.mil.
All public comments will be included as an attachment to the FONSI and incorporated as needed into supplemental NEPA documentation.
Comments must be received or postmarked by Saturday, September 19, 2026.
The Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon System and The Mid-Range Capability Weapon System