using nepa to improve property management decisionmaking presentation for the property management...

Using NEPA to Improve Property Management Decisionmaking

Presentation for the Property Management Workshop May 21, 2013

Carol Borgstrom, DirectorOffice of NEPA Policy and Compliance

2

Outline

A. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Overview

B. Determining appropriate level of NEPA Review

C. NEPA and land use planning

D. NEPA and property transfers

E. Resources

F. Conclusion

Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance

Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance 3

A. NEPA Overview

Basic national charter for protection of the environment (Jan. 1, 1970)

Policy goals

Encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment

Promote efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the environment

Procedural requirements (environmental impact statements)

Directs federal agencies to take into account, and publicly disclose, the environmental consequences of proposed actions

Established Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

Purpose = Better Decisions


A. NEPA Overview

Better decisionmaking based on understanding alternatives and environmental impacts

Full disclosure

Public involvement: input and scrutiny

Expert review and comment

Explore all reasonable alternatives

“Heart” of the NEPA process

Rigorous, objective evaluation (QA/QC)

Include “no action” alternative (even if not reasonable)

Basic Principles


Assess environmental impacts Level of analysis commensurate with significance of impacts/issues

(“sliding scale”)

“Reasonably foreseeable” impacts

Worst-case analysis not required

Include low-probability, high-consequence accidents and terrorism/intentional destructive acts

Consider mitigation Ways to avoid/reduce/compensate for adverse environmental impacts

Weigh options and explain decisions Balance environmental, technical, cost, and other considerations

Need not select environmentally “best” alternative

A. NEPA Overview

Basic Principles (cont.)


Categorical Exclusion (CX) actions that DOE has determined normally would not have the

potential for significant environmental impact Classes of action listed in DOE NEPA regulations DOE determination that proposal fits within a listed class

of actions, absence of extraordinary circumstances

Environmental Assessment (EA) brief analysis to determine if an EIS is required

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Decision to prepare an EIS

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if environmental impacts may be significant

Detailed analysis Record of Decision

A. NEPA Overview (cont.)

Levels of NEPA Review

7

B. Determining appropriate level of NEPA Review

DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021)

List actions normally requiring CXs, EAs, EISs

Potential for significant environmental impact

What are the baseline (pre-development/pre-transfer) environmental conditions and uses of the property (raw/undisturbed land, light industrial, etc.)?

Will the new proposed use entail changes from the current use?

Are potential environmental impacts controversial?

Is there uncertainty regarding the potential effects or do the effects involve unique or unknown risks?


8

Clarity of proposed future use What is reasonably foreseeable (i.e., what are proposed

or possible uses of land post transfer)?

Having a specific proposal makes it easier to complete the NEPA review; however, need to maintain some flexibility.

More options/uncertainty may require more complex analysis and increase chance for delay to accommodate changes in proposal; also may need to supplement NEPA analysis.

DOE’s discretion What decisions can DOE make about future use?

What can DOE control about future actions on the property?

May consider mitigation (e.g., design, access restrictions; deed restrictions) enforced/imposed by DOE.


B. Determining appropriate level of NEPA review


Site-wide EISs (SWEISs):

Programmatic EIS that assesses the individual and cumulative impacts of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions at a DOE site (e.g., large, multiple-facility site). The DOE NEPA regulations require DOE to evaluate site-wide NEPA documents

at least every 5 years by preparing a supplement analysis (SA). Based on the SA, DOE shall determine whether the existing EIS remains adequate or whether to prepare a new SWEIS or supplement the existing SWEIS, as appropriate.

SWEIS examples: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory SWEISs (1992, 2005)

Los Alamos National Laboratory SWEISs (1999, 2008)

Nevada National Security Site SWEISs (1996, 2013)

Pantex Plant SWEISs (1983, 1996) (5 SAs; most recent in 2012)

Sandia National Laboratories – New Mexico SWEISs (1999; new SWEIS in preparation)

Y-12 National Security Complex SWEISs (2001, 2011)




Example

Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan EIS (1999)

An EIS for a 50-year land use plan at the Hanford Site. Alternatives included unrestricted uses (including residential and agricultural); uses with limitations, such as on groundwater use; and exclusive future use by DOE (for waste management and buffer zones)

Solicited input from stakeholder working group (included citizen groups), 9 cooperating agencies and 2 consulting Tribal governments.

Multiple agencies reached consensus on land use category definitions, a framework for the environmental analyses, and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan’s policies and implementing procedures.


11



DOE sites that have completed NEPA reviews for property transfers

Number of Completed EAs Number of Completed EISs

Oak Ridge 9 0

Hanford Site 1 0

Los Alamos 2 1

Other Sites* 6 1

Total 18 2

*Other sites include:• 6 completed EAs for Pinellas Plant, Mound Plant, Strategic Petroleum Reserve Weeks Island

Facility, Grand Junction Office, Kirtland Air Force Base; and Kansas City Plant.• 1 completed EIS for Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1

12

Categorical Exclusions

B1.24 - Property Transfers Transfer, lease, disposition, or acquisition of interests in personal property

(including, but not limited to, equipment and materials) or real property (including, but not limited to, permanent structures and land), provided that under reasonably foreseeable uses (1) there would be no potential for release of substances at a level, or in a form, that could pose a threat to public health or the environment and (2) the covered actions would not have the potential to cause a significant change in impacts from before the transfer, lease, disposition, or acquisition of interests.

B1.25 - Real Property Transfers for Cultural Resources Protection, Habitat Preservation, and Wildlife Management Transfer, lease, disposition, or acquisition of interests in land and associated

buildings for cultural resources protection, habitat preservation, or fish and wildlife management, provided that there would be no potential for release of substances at a level, or in a form, that could pose a threat to public health or the environment.



13

Categorical Exclusions - Examples

B1.24 - Property Transfers Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) transferred ownership of Lakeside Radio Station

to the Central Lincoln People's Utility District. “The transfer in ownership to Central Lincoln would not change the use of the equipment and would not have the potential to release substances at a level or in a form that could pose a threat to public health or the environment.” CX determination: 12/27/2012.

BPA sold 2.3 acres of land to Washington State DOT (WSDOT) for WSDOT to build I-205 on and off ramps. (BPA retained an easement for the land because of nearby existing transmission lines owned and operated by BPA.) WSDOT did its own separate environmental review of their highway project, which included activities in addition to acquiring BPA fee-owned lands. CX determination: 10/1/2012.

B1.25 - Real Property Transfers for Cultural Resources Protection, Habitat Preservation, and Wildlife Management Legacy Management transferred by quitclaim (deed) the surface rights of the Salmon,

Mississippi, Site (formerly known as the Tatum Salt Dome Test Site) to the State of Mississippi Forestry Commission for use as a wildlife refuge and working demonstration forest. DOE retained all subsurface rights. CX determination: 3/2/2010.




DOE/EA-1212 – Lease of Land for Development of a Research Park at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico (1997). Proposed action was to lease approximately 60 acres of undeveloped land to the County for private sector use as a research park.

DOE/EA-1260 – Transfer of 1100 Area, Southern Rail Connection and Rolling Stock, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (1998). Proposed action was to transfer ownership (due to downsizing and consolidation of resources) of the 1100 Area (768 acres), the southern rail connection (16 miles), and rolling stock to a non-federal entity.

DOE/EA-1575 – Oak Ridge Science and Technology Project at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (2008). Proposed action was to lease underutilized facilities and parcels within the Central Campus area of the lab to tenants to support R&D and light manufacturing.

DOE/EA-1640 – Transfer of Land and Facilities within the East Tennessee Technology Park and Surrounding Area, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (2011). Proposed action was to convey up to 1,800 acres of DOE property at East Tennessee Technology Park and surrounding area for mixed use economic development.

DOE/EA-1947 - Transfer of the Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri (2013). Proposed action was to transfer the Kansas City Plant (via sale or lease of the property in whole or in part) to one or more entities for a use that is different than its current use.


Environmental Assessments


DOE/EIS-0158-S2 – Supplemental EIS/Program Environmental Impact Report for Sale of Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1 at Elk Hills, California (1997). Proposed action: sale of all rights, title, and interest of the United States in NPR-1 – one or more private entities would purchase NPR-1 and continue to develop and operate it as a commercial oil and gas field for at least the next 40 years.

DOE/EIS-0293 – Conveyance and Transfer of Certain Land Tracts Administered by the DOE and Located at Los Alamos National Laboratory (1999). Proposed action: 7 tracts to be conveyed or transferred in full, and 3 tracts to be conveyed or transferred in part, based on DOE’s continuing or future need for an individual tract, or a portion of the tract, to meet the national security mission support function at LANL, to either Los Alamos County or the Secretary of the Interior, in trust for San Ildefonso Pueblo.

Environmental Impact Statements



Ongoing NEPA reviews

DOE/EA-1856 – Conveyance of Land and Facilities at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant for Economic Development Purposes, Piketon, Ohio.

DOE/EA-1915 – Conveyance of Approximately 1,641 Acres of Unimproved Land to the Tri-City Development Council, the Local Community Reuse Organization, Richland, Washington.

DOE/EA-1927 – Transfer of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Paducah, Kentucky.

DOE/EA-1956 – Site-wide EA for the Divestiture of the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center and Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 3, Casper, Wyoming.


17

E. Resources

DOE NEPA Website: www.energy.gov/nepa NEPA News/Lessons Learned Quarterly Reports (LLQRs)

EIS/EA Status Chart

Electronic Archive of DOE NEPA Documents

DOE, EPA, and CEQ Requirements and Guidance Council on Environmental Quality NEPA Regulations

(40 CFR Parts 1500-1508)

DOE NEPA Regulations (10 CFR Part 1021)

DOE Order 451.1B, NEPA Compliance Program

Directory of NEPA Compliance Officers

NEPA Office Staff Directory

[email protected]



F. Conclusion

NEPA is a planning and decisionmaking tool, not just another hurdle.

DOE has an excellent NEPA track record.

We get into trouble when we start late and try to cut corners. Litigation is costly and time-consuming.

Good NEPA compliance builds DOE credibility and enables DOE to accomplish its mission.

Questions?