Dod deputy general counsel Environment, energy and installations

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CIVILIAN PROPERTY REALIGNMENT ACT AMENDMENT. ACT remains mostly the same as the original Denham proposal – Sections 13 and 14 have been expanded for Congressional.
Advertisements

SAFETEA-LU Efficient Environmental Review Process (Section 6002) Kelly Dunlap.
Civilian Property Realignment Act The need to reform defined.
NEPA Environmental Procedure Pam Truitt, Grants Management Consultant  September 4, 2014.
Summary of NEPA and SEPA Coastal Engineering and Land Use Issues in North Carolina Greenville, NC January 13, 2009 Sean M. Sullivan.
THE BRAC PROCESS – Not Your Usual Brownfields Redevelopment Mary K. Ryan.
BRAC UPDATE DoL Veterans Employment & Training Service Conference August 1, 2006 Bryant Monroe Office of Economic Adjustment Department of Defense.
Property Management Workshop REAL ESTATE SESSION Presented by Nisha Kumar, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for General Law, GC-77.
BRAC: GETTING THE NEXT ROUND RIGHT BASE REDEVELOPMENT FORUM NOVEMBER 2014.
Senior Assistant General Counsel
PMOBRAC Ms. Kimberly Kesler Director, BRAC Program Management Office March
Conservation Commissions and the Kinder Morgan Proposed Gas Pipeline PRESENTATION TO NORTHEAST MUNICIPAL GAS PIPELINE COALITION SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 MASSACHUSETTS.
Program Alternatives under 36 CFR Part 800 Dave Berwick Army Affairs Coordinator Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
FOIA and NEPA Federal Highway Administration Environmental Conference June 2006.
Chapter 56 Workgroup Orientation Session The Road to Chapter 60 June 30, 2007.
KATHRYN SINNIGER ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FOR REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER LIAISON CONFERENCE JUNE 5, 2014 U.S. Department.
UPDATE Base Realignment and Closure Authorization Review of December 2001 Congressional Action Prepared by Gary Bushell & Don Rodman - August 2002.
Disposal of Navy Excess Real Property CNIC N4 – CAPT J. P. Rios
Public Buildings Service Real Property Utilization And Disposal Ralph Conner, Director, Office of Real Property Rich Butterworth, Senior Counsel, Real.
Rail Freight Assistance Program (RFAP) S ETTING THE S TAGE FOR THE F UTURE Rail Transportation Assistance Program (Rail TAP) RFAC Meeting April 28, 2010.
Hanford Site Land Transfer
Defense Communities Town Hall U.S. Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment June 22, 2014 Washington, DC.
I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Headquarters U.S. Air Force 1 “To BRAC or Not to BRAC” What happens if there is not a BRAC? ADC.
General Services Administration Richard R. Butterworth, Jr. Senior Assistant General Counsel Real Property Division U.S. General Services Administration.
EVOLUTION OF AIR FORCE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Thomas Russell, P.E. U.S. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence Partnership for Peace Conference,
Federal Acquisition Service U.S. General Services Administration Property Disposal 101 H Jan Faulkner Regional Deputy Director Personal Property Management.
L O N G B E A C H, C A. Ryk Dunkelberg Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Roles Of Sponsor, Consultant and FAA During NEPA Process L O N G B E.
Other Environmental Issues U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Noise Endangered and Threatened Species Explosive/Flammable Hazards and Underground.
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANNING Charles J. Randel, 1 III, Howard O. Clark, Jr., 2 Darren P. Newman, 2 and Thomas P. Dixon 3 1 Randel Wildlife Consulting,
Page CDBG Recipients' Workshop Community Finance Division NEPA Environmental Procedures.
REAL PROPERTY UTILIZATION & DISPOSAL DIVISION 77 Forsyth Street, SW Suite 130 (4PZ) Atlanta, GA
Institutional Controls for Real Property Disposal Transactions Kevin Legare Realty Specialist General Services Administration Region One, Boston MA
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Current and Planned Management Initiatives for DoD’s Historic Infrastructure Maureen Sullivan Federal Preservation.
Is NEPA Preventing Energy Development? Bryan Hannegan, Ph.D. Associate Director – Energy and Transportation White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Endangered Species Act Section 7 Overview Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001.
1 Overview of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)  Objective: Clarify the roles of NEPA and Negotiated Rulemaking Clarify the roles of NEPA and Negotiated.
Building Strong! 1 US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program Kimberly McLaughlin Program Manager Headquarters Operations and Regulatory Community of.
Cultural Resource Management in the Department of Defense September 29, 2005 Maureen Sullivan Federal Preservation Officer.
EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT MAJOR COMMUNITY ISSUES RELATED TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Board of County Commissioners/ Local Planning Agency Joint Meeting.
Alternative Energy on the Outer Continental Shelf Robert P. LaBelle Deputy Associate Director Offshore Energy and Minerals Management Minerals Management.
INTRODUCTION TO SECTION 4(f) Presented by Ian Chidister Environmental Program Manager FHWA – Wisconsin Division December 4, 2013.
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 “ Efficient Environmental Reviews for Project Decisionmaking”
Implementing the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 2 Background The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612) requires Federal agencies to— –Consider the.
NEPA Environmental Procedure Pam Truitt, Grants Specialist  September 10, 2015.
The Defense Economic Adjustment Program Responding to BRAC 05 The Counselors of Real Estate November 14, 2005 David F. Witschi Associate Director.
1 Overview of Minerals Management Service’s Alternative Energy Program Ocean Law Conference May 22, 2008 Seattle, WA Walter D. Cruickshank Deputy Director.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission The Pre-Filing Process IRWA/AI January 13-14, 2009 IRWA/AI.
Department of Defense Joint Services Environmental Management Conference April 14, 2005 Tampa, FL.
Revisions to Primacy State Underground Injection Control Programs Primacy State Implementation of the New Class V Rule.
1 CDBG and Environmental Review For Local Officials.
Environmental Assessment in British Columbia Forum of Federations Conference September 14, 2009.
International Atomic Energy Agency Roles and responsibilities for development of disposal facilities Phil Metcalf Workshop on Strategy and Methodologies.
CHAPTER 4 ALTERNATIVES. --- “The driving impetus for conducting environmental impact studies is to comparatively present the effects of proposed alternatives.
NRC Environmental Reviews for Uranium Recovery Applicants and Licensees James Park (301)
Overview of Proposed Alaska National Wildlife Refuges Regulatory Changes U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Rulemaking by APHIS. What is a rule and when must APHIS conduct rulemaking? Under U.S. law, a rule is any requirement of general applicability and future.
Chapter 19 Environmental Law Copyright © 2015 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent.
Federal Aviation Administration ARP SOP No SOP for CATEX Determinations Effective Date: Oct. 01, 2014 February 2016.
Special Meeting on Procedures for Information Exchange November 7, 2007 Geneva Session 1 Anne Meininger United States USA WTO TBT Enquiry Point.
Federal Rulemaking Primer January 29, 2016 First Published: April 24, 2013 Producer: Alexander Perry Director: Afzal Bari.
1 Welcome to the Public Scoping Meeting Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Welcome to the Public Scoping Meeting Environmental.
Nisha R. Kumar, Attorney-Advisor Office of the Assistant General Counsel for General Law, GC-56
Welcome to the Public Comment Hearing on the Proposed Regulatory Update to the California Environmental Quality Act AB 52, Gatto (2014) Heather Baugh Assistant.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Program Conserving America’s Birds Addressing Migratory Birds in NEPA Migratory Bird Conservation for Federal.
Texas Military Preparedness Commission
Texas Military Preparedness Commission
Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality Water Resources Division
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Susan Barnes Vice-Chairman Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Current and Planned Management Initiatives
Presentation transcript:

Dod deputy general counsel Environment, energy and installations NEPA and Base Closure Presentation by: Rachel Jacobson Dod deputy general counsel Environment, energy and installations Adc conference June 24, 2015

NEPA Process, General

BRAC and NEPA Selection Phase: NEPA Not Required Secretary of Defense prepares and submits list of recommended installations to Congress and BRAC Commission. (No NEPA; no judicial review) Commission reports to the President accepting, rejecting or modifying recommendations. (No NEPA; no judicial review) President either sends recommendations to Congress, or remands back to the Commission. (No NEPA; no judicial review) If Congress doesn’t disapprove the President’s recommendations, they become law. (No NEPA; no judicial review)

BRAC and NEPA Disposal Phase Requires NEPA If environmental effects are likely, and no CATEX available, must perform additional NEPA analysis. If Service cannot certify in an Environmental Assessment that there will be no significant impact from disposal, it must prepare an EIS with formal public participation. EIS process concludes with a Record Of Decision (ROD) concerning disposal of the base closure (BRAC) property. ROD represents a necessary element of the property conveyance process; disposal and redevelopment cannot begin until ROD has been issued.

BRAC and NEPA Disposal Phase Requires NEPA If EIS is required, Services must consider: Environmental impact of the proposed disposal and the impacts of all reasonably anticipated uses of the property. Alternatives only to the proposed disposal and reuse plan, including the "no-action" alternative. Adverse impacts on the environment under the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and protected resources such as historic buildings and archeological sites under the National Historic Preservation Act. Mitigation actions that would minimize adverse impacts on the environment, including wetlands and habitats for threatened or endangered species, and protected resources such as historic structures.

BRAC and NEPA Disposal Phase requires NEPA Military Services must evaluate under NEPA all reasonable disposal/reuse alternatives - including non-disposal as no-action alternative – and associated environmental consequences before the property can be disposed. In 1996 Congress amended BRAC to require the Military Departments to use the LRA reuse plan as preferred alternative in conducting NEPA analysis.

BRAC and NEPA Disposal Phase Requires NEPA NEPA triggered when reuse application plan submitted to Military Service. Final Agency Action: Decision to apply CATEX, adoption of FONSI, Final EIS/ROD. Under BRAC, any judicial challenges to disposal/reuse decision must be brought within 60 days of Final Agency Action. NO judicial review of actions of Commission, President or Congress in BRAC process.

Sept. 2010: Navy declares NAS-JRB Willow Grove surplus property. Example of BRAC Closed Base: Naval Air Station Joint Base Willow Grove Horsham, PA Sept. 2005: BRAC Commission recommends closure of Naval Air Station Joint Base Willow Grove. Nov. 2005: Recommendation approved by President Bush and accepted by Congress, with September 2011 closure deadline. Sept. 2010: Navy declares NAS-JRB Willow Grove surplus property. Sept. 2011: NAS-JRB Willow Grove officially closed. April 2012: NAS-JRB Willow Grove Redevelopment Plan and Homeless Assistance Submission submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Navy. [Submission triggers NEPA] August 2012: Local Redevelopment Authority approved to implement community redevelopment plan. Jan. 2014: LRA submits Economic Development Conveyance application to Navy. Jan. 2015: LRA selects master developer. March 2015: Navy announces the availability of the Final EIS for the Disposal and Reuse of NAS-JRB Willow Grove in the Federal Register. June 2015: Navy issues ROD for NAS-JRB Willow Grove, published in the Federal Register.

10 U.S.C. § 2687 Under 10 U.S.C. §2687, for military installations at which at least 300 civilian personnel are authorized to be employed, the Secretary of Defense or a secretary of a military department must submit to Congress the following information before taking action to close a military base: 1. Notification of the closure as part of the Department’s annual request for appropriations. 2. Evaluation of the fiscal, local economic, budgetary, environmental, strategic, and operational consequences of the closure. 3. Identification of the criteria used to consider and recommend the military installation for closure, including evaluation of local infrastructure at existing and receiving locations to accommodate the missions, plus costs of transportation improvements. No action to close a military base can be taken for a period of 30 legislative days or 60 calendar days, whichever is longer, following the day on which the notice and evaluation is submitted to Congress.

10 U.S.C. § 2687 Realignment under § 2687 is any action that both reduces and relocates functions and civilian personnel positions. Exempted from the definition of a realignment is a reduction in force resulting from workload adjustments, reduced personnel or funding levels, skill imbalances, or other similar causes. For realignments at installations of at least 300 authorized civilian positions, § 2687 imposes the same restrictions on as a closure if the realignment involves a reduction by more than 1,000, or by more than 50 percent, in the number of civilian personnel.

10 U.S.C.§ 2687 § 2687 bans the preparation of any facility at another military installation intended to accept employees relocated by the closure or realignment until the conditions listed above have been fulfilled. January 2013 amendments to § 2687 prohibit closures and realignments at installations with fewer than 300 authorized DOD civilian personnel for 5 years after the date on which a decision is made to reduce the civilian personnel below 300.

NEPA and 10 U.S.C.§ 2687 No NEPA exemption for base selection process under § 2687. Selection and disposal/reuse decisions both subject to NEPA compliance and judicial review. Pre-disposal congressional reporting requirements are proposed agency actions, arguably triggering NEPA analysis. However, pre-disposal congressional reporting requirements are not final agency actions, thus would not be judicially reviewable. No 60 day limit to challenge final EIS/ROD supporting base disposal and reuse decision; subject instead to six-year default statute of limitations for Administrative Procedures Act challenges. As a practical matter, NEPA analysis is substantially similar to § 2687 congressional reporting requirements.

Conclusions Both processes take a long time. Both processes allow for public input. Both processes allow for disposal/reuse. Both processes require NEPA – albeit at different stages. Both processes are subject to judicial review – albeit at different stages. NEPA analysis substantially similar to pre-disposal reports to Congress required by 10 U.S.C.§ 2687. Observation: Services not using 10 U.S.C.§ 2687 authorities for base closures.

PROPERTY ACT DISPOSAL PROCESS Federal Transfer Discount Conveyance Negotiated Sale Public Sale Excess AGENCY REPORTS PROPERTY EXCESS TO GSA FOR DISPOSITION DETERMINED SURPLUS IF NOT TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER FEDERAL AGENCY PROPERTY AVAILABLE FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC USES UP TO 100% DISCOUNT TO ELIGIBLE PUBLIC BODIES FOR OTHER PUBLIC USES FAIR MARKET VALUE REQUIRED OFFERED TO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PARTIES VIA AUCTION OR SEALED BID FAIR MARKET VALUE REQUIRED HOMELESS* AIRPORT CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION HISTORIC SELF HELP HOUSING PARK & RECREATION PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ENFORCEMENT EMERGENCY RESPONSE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION Regulatory Compliance