Army seeks public feedback on its plan to field AMPVs

The Army announced today it has completed an analysis of the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of fielding Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicles and is seeking public review and input of that analysis.

"The Army invites all interested members of the public, federally recognized Native American tribes, and federal, state and local agencies to review the analysis and findings and provide comments by April 3, 2023," a service statement reads.

The AMPV is the Army's replacement for the M113 armored personnel carrier and will improve the safety and survivability of soldiers and provide improved integrated network capability and interoperability, according to the statement. The Army’s intent is to field the AMPV to both active and reserve armored brigade combat teams, as well as other Army units in the United States, consistent with the Army Modernization Strategy.

In a Federal Register notice issued this morning, the Army said the programmatic environmental assessment for the proposed fielding, operation and maintenance of the AMPV at active and reserve units, along with the draft finding of no significant impacts, are now available for review.

"The PEA identified the potential impacts on the human and natural environments related to fielding, operating and maintaining the AMPV as compared to the conditions if the Army took no action," the notice states. "The PEA did not identify any significant environmental impacts from replacing the M113 armored personnel carrier with the AMPV."

The Army noted that it won't be doing a full-on environmental impact statement.

"The draft FONSI concludes that preparing an environmental impact statement is not required and, therefore, one will not be prepared," the notice reads.

The bases that were considered for fielding the AMPV in the PEA and draft FONSI are: Ft. Benning, GA; Ft. Bliss, TX; Ft. Bragg, NC; Ft. Campbell, KY; Ft. Carson, CO; Ft. Gordon, GA; Ft. Hood, TX; Ft. Irwin, CA; Ft. Jackson, SC; Ft. Lee, VA; Ft. Riley, KS; Ft. Sill, OK; Ft. Stewart, GA; Joint Base Lewis McChord-Yakima Training Center, WA; Joint Base San Antonio-Ft. Sam Houston and Joint Base San Antonio-Camp Bullis, TX (Army Support Activity); Camp Dawson-Kingwood, WV; Camp McCain, MS; Orchard Combat Training Center, ID; Camp Perry, OH; James A. Garfield Joint Military Training Center, OH; Camp Ravenna, OK; Camp Ripley, MN; Camp Shelby, MS; Ft. Indiantown Gap, PA; Ft. Pickett, VA; Gowen Field, ID; McCrady Training Site, SC; MTA Limestone Hills, MT, and the Volunteer Training Site, TN.

"The Army will not make decisions on fielding the AMPV until after decision makers consider all public comments received during the 30-day public comment period held in compliance with" the National Environmental Policy Act, the service statement reads.

According to the Defense Department's latest Selected Acquisition Report released last September: "The AMPV program requirements are stable, and funding is adequate to meet cost, schedule and performance objectives. To date, AMPV has executed within its threshold APB cost, schedule and performance parameters. The program mitigated the schedule risk identified in last year's SAR by meeting the three criteria identified to close the risk (weld rework, second source cable supplier and delivery of all Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (10T&E) vehicles)."

Further, the program "does not have any current schedule risks and no schedule risks were identified at previous key events."