Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP)
Federal RegisterJul 15, 1999
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Air Force
32 CFR Part 989
RIN: 0701-AA56
Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP)
AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, DoD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Air Force has revised its instruction to
improve the Air Force process for compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Executive Order (E.O.) 12114,
Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions. The revisions
integrate environmental analysis and align environmental document
approval levels with the Air Force decision-making process. It also
expands Air Force environmental participants and responsibilities of
the Environmental Planning Function (EPF) and the proponent of an
action.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jack C. Bush (HQ USAF/ILEVP), 1260
Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1260, (703) 604-0553.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Air Force has
determined that this rule is not a major rule because it will not have
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The Secretary
of the Air Force has certified that this rule is exempt from the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612,
because this rule does not have a significant economic impact on small
entities as defined by the Act, and does not impose any obligatory
information requirements beyond internal Air Force use.
Responses to Proposed Rule 32 CFR Part 989
Discussion of Major Issues
Comment: Commenters recommend that paragraph (r) in the Discussion
of Major Issues that Secs. 989.18(b), 989.19(c)(3), and Sec. A2.2.8 of
Attachment B\1\ be changed to refer to disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on ``minority or low-
income populations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: Attachments 1, 2, and 3 in the proposed rule published
December 24, 1997 (62 FR 67305) have been redesignated as Appendices
A, B, and C to conform to Federal Register style.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: Accepted. This change is necessary to be consistent with
E.O. 12898 on environmental justice. A population can be low income and
not minority and visa versa.
1. Responsibilities
Comment: Commenters state that the Air Force needed to include a
special provision regarding government-to-government relations with
federally recognized Indian tribes, consistent with the special role
for tribes under the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations, in order to assess the impacts of federal actions on
tribal resources.
Response: Section 989.3(c)(4) includes Tribal governments as key
participants in the Air Force environmental impact analysis process.
Additionally, Sec. 989.1(b) states that the CEQ regulations and this
proposed document must be used together in order to comply with NEPA.
Individually and in combination with the CEQ regulations, this final
rule provides for proper tribal involvement.
2. Requests From Non-Air Force Agencies or Entities
Comment: Commenters recommend clarifying the use of the term
``proponent,'' in particular ``proponents'' that are non-Air Force
entities, in the final rule.
Response: The term ``proponent'' throughout the document, as
defined in Attachment 1, refers to the office, unit, or activity that
proposes to initiate an action. The ``proponent'' may not always be an
Air Force organization. When an action affects Air Force properties or
programs, the ``proponent'' organizations must comply with Sec. 989.7.
However, we changed references from ``proponent'' to ``Air Force'' or
the appropriate Air Force organization in order to clarify
Secs. 989.8(b), 989.14(l), and Sec. 989.19(b).
Comment: Commenters recommend adding the following statement: ``For
EAs the Air Force must make its own evaluation of the environmental
issues and take responsibility for the scope and content of the
Environmental Assessment.''
Response: Accepted. Section 989.7(b) allows the Air Force to ask
the requester to provide an analysis of the environmental impacts.
However, as stated in Sec. 989.7(c), the Air Force must independently
evaluate and approve the scope and content of the analyses before using
the analyses to fulfill environmental impact analysis process
requirements.
Comment: Commenters recommend adding the following statement
related to requests from non-Air Force agencies or entities: ``EISs
must be prepared directly by the Air Force or a contractor selected by
the Air Force or where appropriate under 40 CFR 1501.6(b), a
cooperating agency.''
Response: Accepted. Section 989.7(b) states an EA or EIS can be
prepared by either the Air Force or a contractor that is selected and
supervised by the Air Force.
3. Analysis of Alternatives
Comment: Commenters recommend adding the word ``explicitly'' to the
Sec. 989.8(c) to change the phrase to read: ``Except in those rare
instances where explicitly excused by law . . .''
Response: The language in Sec. 989.8(c), as currently stated,
sufficiently highlights the legally narrow exceptions where the
environmental impacts of no-action alternatives are not considered.
4. Cooperation and Adoption
Comment: Commenters recommend that Sec. 989.9 should include a
requirement for the Air Force to advocate for serving as a cooperating
agency for those environmental documents that it intends to later
adopt. Otherwise, such documents must follow appropriate CEQ guidelines
for recirculating the documents.
Response: The language in Sec. 989.9, as currently stated,
sufficiently addresses the requirement to serve as a cooperating agency
or to otherwise follow the appropriate CEQ guidelines for environmental
documents that the Air Force intends to later adopt.
5. Categorical Exclusion
Comment: Commenters note that Sec. 989.13(e) references
Sec. 989.28. Recommend the reference be made to Sec. 989.30.
Response: Accepted.
Comment: Commenters contend that it is unclear how the Air Force is
determining no significance in terms of categorical exclusions, and
request that the Air Force define existing environment.
Response: The Air Force decided not to define the phrase as
requested. The Air Force agrees that the term ``existing environment''
may have different
[[Page 38128]]
meanings in different circumstances. The term may, for example,
sometimes include expected future conditions as well as existing
conditions. The Air Force prefers that those performing the analysis
apply judgment about this on a case-by-case basis, taking into account
the nature and context of the proposed action. Further, the purpose of
Sec. 989.13(b) is to identify the various characteristics of actions
that usually do not require an EA or an EIS. Section 989.13(b) is
intended to identify those actions that usually do not warrant further
environmental analysis because they do not meaningfully change the
status quo. It would undercut the intent of the paragraph were
``existing environment'' here defined to include something other than
the status quo. Nor is it necessary to do so to avoid overlooking
potentially significant impacts, since Appendix B, Sec. A2.2 already
addresses those extraordinary situations where a normally excluded
action may have a significant environmental effect. For similar
reasons, the Air Force also has decided not to change the wording of
Secs. A2.3.7 and A2.3.11.
6. Environmental Assessment
Comment: Commenters recommend the phrase ``no decision'' in
Sec. 989.14(a) be clarified.
Response: We agree that the phrase ``no decision'' should be
replaced with ``no action.'' We updated Sec. 989.14(a) accordingly.
Comment: Commenters indicate that many Native American interests
may not be adequately represented by working only with Tribal
governments. They recommend broadening involvement of Native Americans
in the EIAP, where appropriate, to consider all Native Americans.
Response: Section 989.14(l) states the Air Force proponent will
involve other federal agencies, state, Tribal, and local governments,
and the public in the preparation of the EAs. As written, the final
rule considers input from Tribal governments and the public as a whole
in the EIAP. This comprehensive engagement provides for broad
involvement of all Native Americans, through both Tribal governments
and individual Native Americans.
Comment: Commenters state that the document uses the word
mitigation, but Appendix A does not include a definition for
mitigation. They recommend clarification of the term mitigation, make
the definition explicit that if it is a mitigated FONSI, that
significant impacts were noted but reduce to the insignificant level.
Response: We adopt the definition of the term mitigation from 40
CFR 1508.20. As defined, mitigation includes avoidance, minimization,
restoration, preservation, and compensation. Additionally, the EA and
unsigned FONSI of an action that is mitigated to insignificance are
made available for public review for at least 30 days before FONSI
approval, in accordance with Sec. 989.15(e)(2)(iv).
7. Finding of No Significant Impact
Comment: Commenters note Sec. 989.15(5)(d) references Sec. 989.23.
Recommend the reference be made to Sec. 989.24.
Response: Accepted.
Comment: Commenters recommend adding the following phrase in
Sec. 989.15(e)(2), ``and appropriate resource agencies be notified.''
Response: The Air Force involves resource agencies as a standard
procedure from the beginning and throughout the entire EIAP process.
Therefore, we read Sec. 989.15(e)(2) to be appropriate as written.
8. Environmental Impact Statement
Comment: Commenters note that Sec. 989.16(b)(1) states that, if
there are public land withdrawals of over 5,000 acres, an EIS is
normally required. They recommend adding the following, ``unless, of
course, if there is significance for under 5,000, then an EIS would be
required.''
Response: Section 989.14(a) states that every EA must lead to
either a FONSI, a decision to prepare an EIS, or no action on the
proposal. Therefore, an EA would include a FONSI, a decision to prepare
EIS, or a decision to take no action on the proposal.
9. Record of Decision (ROD)
Comment: Commenters recommend in Sec. 989.21 that the Air Force
should note the CEQ requirement that no ROD can be issued on a proposed
action until the later of the following dates: (1) 90 days after
publication of the DEIS; or (2) 30 days after publication of the FEIS.
Response: Accepted.
10. Classified Actions (40 CFR 1507.3(c))
Comment: Regarding Sec. 989.26, Classified Actions, commenters
recommend that the Air Force should make the EPA guidance on reviewing
classified NEPA documents available to appropriate Air Force officials
and staff to ensure appropriate EPA staff are included in the
classified review process.
Response: We appreciate this recommendation and will note its merit
in ensuring Air Force officials are aware of and follow appropriate EPA
guidance.
11. Air Quality
Comment: Commenters suggest that the Air Force may want to allow
more flexibility to air quality (Sec. 989.30) conformity analysis to
either be developed parallel with EIAP, or prepared later when the
alternative has been selected.
Response: Air conformity analysis has been a critical component of
the EIAP and is often a significant constraint in Air Force planning.
Therefore, air conformity must remain an integral component of the
EIAP--not as a separate, parallel, or subsequent process.
12. Noise
Comment: Commenters recommend additional or alternative analysis
for noise effects for the special nature of the national parks system
and their special legislative mandates.
Response: The Air Force currently includes analysis on the impacts
of noise during the Environmental Impact Analysis Process. The Air
Force will continue to work with other agencies to address analysis of
specific situations and potential noise impacts in general.
13. Environmental Justice
Comment: Commenters recommended using the phrases ``minority
populations and low-income populations'' or ``minority populations or
low-income populations'' to be consistent with E.O. 12898 on
environmental justice.
Response: Accepted.
14. Appendix B--Categorical Exclusions
Comment: Commenters recommend deleting the last three words of
Sec. A2.1: ``. . . and so on.''
Response: Accepted.
Comment: Commenters recommend the Air Force clarify Sec. A2.3.18 to
account for instances where the administrative transfer may require a
NEPA document.
Response: As the commenters indicate, some actions, normally
categorically excluded, may have a significant environmental impact
that may generate a requirement for further environmental analysis, per
Secs. A2.1 and A2.2. As written, the final rule provides appropriate
guidance for actions, normally categorically excluded, that may have
significant impacts in actuality. The responsibility for performing
additional analysis is incumbent upon the environmental planning
function, which must consider each action on a case by case basis.
[[Page 38129]]
Comment: Commenters recommend the Air Force add a statement about
hazardous waste disposal activities, and clarify how the Air Force
intends to deal with transportation issues associated with hazardous
materials and wastes.
Response: Consideration of hazardous waste disposal sites are
important and require an EA. However, a special provision for
discussion of hazardous waste disposal activities is not a topic that
is appropriate for consideration in this final rule. Per Secs. A2.1,
A2.2, and Sec. A2.3.28, transportation issues associated with hazardous
materials typically qualify for categorical exclusion. However, actions
that may have a significant environmental impact may require further
environmental analysis. As written, the final rule provides for
appropriate discussion of transportation issues associated with
hazardous materials and wastes.
Comment: Commenters recommend the Air Force request written
concurrence from the superintendent of any affected National Park
Service units in determining ``minimal adverse effect on environmental
quality,'' regarding categorical exclusions.
Response: Per Secs. A2.1 and A2.2, actions that qualify for
categorical exclusions must still comply with all other related
environmental requirements, such as regulatory agency review of plans.
Actions, normally categorically excluded, may have a significant
environmental impact that may generate a requirement for further
environmental analysis. As written, the final rule provides for
appropriate involvement of affected agency officials, such as a
superintendent of a National Park Service unit.
Comment: Commenters indicate in Secs. A2.3.35 and A2.3.36 that it
cannot always be assumed that flights at 3,000 feet or higher above
ground level will have insignificant impacts on federal lands. This is
especially true if ``above ground level'' is interpreted literally,
rather than ``above the highest rims of canyons or valleys'' as in FAA
Advisory Circular 91-36C, and if it does not include a horizontal
separation in addition to the vertical separation. Recommend adding,
``except where Federal lands are involved, unless the Federal land
manager agrees in writing that a categorical exclusion is
appropriate.''
Response: Per Secs. A2.1 and A2.2, actions that qualify for
categorical exclusions must still comply with all other related
environmental requirements, such as regulatory agency review of plans.
Actions, normally categorically excluded, may have a significant
environmental impact that may generate a requirement for further
environmental analysis. As written, the final rule provides for
appropriate involvement of affected agency officials, such as Federal
land managers.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 989
Environmental Protection, Environmental Impact Statements.
Therefore 32 CFR Part 989 is revised to read as follows:
PART 989--ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PROCESS (EIAP)
Sec.
989.1 Purpose.
989.2 Concept.
989.3 Responsibilities.
989.4 Initial considerations.
989.5 Organizational relationships.
989.6 Budgeting and funding.
989.7 Requests from Non-Air Force agencies or entities.
989.8 Analysis of alternatives.
989.9 Cooperation and adoption.
989.10 Tiering.
989.11 Combining EIAP with other documentation.
989.12 AF Form 813, Request for Environmental Impact Analysis.
989.13 Categorical exclusion.
989.14 Environmental assessment.
989.15 Finding of no significant impact.
989.16 Environmental impact statement.
989.17 Notice of intent.
989.18 Scoping.
989.19 Draft EIS.
989.20 Final EIS.
989.21 Record of decision (ROD).
989.22 Mitigation.
989.23 Contractor prepared documents.
989.24 Public notification.
989.25 Base closure and realignment.
989.26 Classified actions (40 CFR 1507.3(c)).
989.27 Occupational safety and health.
989.28 Airspace and range proposals.
989.29 Force structure and unit move proposals.
989.30 Air quality.
989.31 Pollution prevention.
989.32 Noise.
989.33 Environmental justice.
989.34 Special and emergency procedures.
989.35 Reporting requirements.
989.36 Waivers.
989.37 Procedures for analysis abroad.
989.38 Requirements for analysis abroad.
Appendix A to Part 989--Glossary of References, Abbreviations,
Acronyms, and Terms.
Appendix B to Part 989--Categorical Exclusions.
Appendix C to Part 989--Procedures for Holding Public Hearings on
Draft Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).
Authority: 10 U.S.C. 8013.
Sec. 989.1 Purpose.
(a) This part implements the Air Force Environmental Impact
Analysis Process (EIAP) and provides procedures for environmental
impact analysis both within the United States and abroad. Because the
authority for, and rules governing, each aspect of the EIAP differ
depending on whether the action takes place in the United States or
outside the United States, this part provides largely separate
procedures for each type of action. Consequently, the main body of this
part deals primarily with environmental impact analysis under the
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
(Public Law 91-190, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) Sections 4321
through 4347), while the primary procedures for environmental impact
analysis of actions outside the United States in accordance with
Executive Order (E.O.) 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major
Federal Actions, are contained in Secs. 989.32 and 989.33.
(b) The procedures in this part are essential to achieve and
maintain compliance with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the
NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508, referred to as the ``CEQ
Regulations''). Further requirements are contained in Department of
Defense Directive (DoDD) 4715.1, Environmental Security, Department of
Defense Instruction (DoDI) 4715.9, Environmental Planning and Analysis,
DoDD 5000.1, Defense Acquisition, and Department of Defense Regulation
5000.2-R, Mandatory Procedures for Major Defense Acquisition Programs
and Major Automated Information Systems.\1\ To comply with NEPA and
complete the EIAP, the CEQ Regulations and this part must be used
together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Copies of the publications are available, at cost, from the
National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Air Force activities abroad will comply with this part, E. O.
12114, and 32 CFR Part 187 (DoDD 6050.7, Environmental Effects Abroad
of Major Department of Defense Actions, March 31, 1979). To comply with
E.O. 12114 and complete the EIAP, the Executive Order, 32 CFR Part 187,
and this part must be used together.
(d) Appendix A is a glossary of references, abbreviations,
acronyms, and terms. Refer to 40 CFR 1508 for definitions of other
terminology used in this part.
Sec. 989.2 Concept.
(a) This part provides a framework on how to comply with NEPA and
E.O. 12114 according to Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 32-70 \2\.
The Air Force specific procedures and requirements in
[[Page 38130]]
this part are intended to be used by Air Force decision-makers to fully
comply with NEPA and the EIAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Major commands (MAJCOM) provide additional implementing
guidance in their supplemental publications to this part. MAJCOM
supplements must identify the specific offices that have implementation
responsibility and include any guidance needed to comply with this
part. All references to MAJCOMs in this part include the Air National
Guard Readiness Center (ANGRC) and other agencies designated as
``MAJCOM equivalent'' by HQ USAF.
Sec. 989.3 Responsibilities.
(a) Office of the Secretary of the Air Force:
(1) The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Environment, Safety and Occupational Health (SAF/MIQ):
(i) Develops environmental planning policy and provides oversight
of the EIAP program.
(ii) Determines the level of environmental analysis required for
especially important, visible, or controversial Air Force proposals and
approves selected Environmental Assessments (EAs) and all Environmental
Impact Statements (EISs) prepared for Air Force actions, whether
classified or unclassified, except as specified in paragraph (c)(3) of
this section.
(iii) Is the liaison on environmental matters with Federal agencies
and national level public interest organizations.
(iv) Ensures appropriate offices in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense are kept informed on EIAP matters of Defense-wide interest.
(2) The General Counsel (SAF/GC). Provides final legal advice to
SAF/MI, HQ USAF, and HQ USAF Environment, Safety and Occupational
Health Committee (ESOHC) on EIAP issues.
(3) Office of Legislative Liaison (SAF/LL):
(i) Assists with narrowing and defining key issues by arranging
consultations with congressional delegations on potentially sensitive
actions.
(ii) Distributes draft and final EISs to congressional delegations.
(iii) Reviews and provides the Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD) with analyses of the Air Force position on proposed and enrolled
legislation and executive department testimony dealing with EIAP
issues.
(4) Office of Public Affairs (SAF/PA):
(i) Reviews and clears environmental documents in accordance with
Air Force Instruction (AFI) 35-205, Air Force Security and Policy
Review \3\ prior to public release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Assists the environmental planning function and the Air Force
Legal Services Agency, Trial Judiciary Division (AFLSA/JAJT), in
planning and conducting public scoping meetings and hearings.
(iii) Ensures that public affairs aspects of all EIAP actions are
conducted in accordance with this part and AFI 35-202, Environmental
Community Involvement.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) The National Guard Bureau, Office of Public Affairs (NGB-PA),
will assume the responsibilities of SAF/PA for the EIAP involving the
National Guard Bureau, Air Directorate.
(b) Headquarters U.S. Air Force (HQ USAF). The Civil Engineer (HQ
USAF/ILE) is responsible for execution of the EIAP program. The
National Guard Bureau Air Directorate (NGB-CF) oversees the EIAP for
Air National Guard actions.
(c) MAJCOMs, the Air National Guard, Field Operating Agencies
(FOAs), and Single Manager Programs. These organizations establish
procedures that comply with this part wherever they are the host unit
for preparing and using required environmental documentation in making
decisions about proposed actions and programs within their commands or
areas of responsibility.
(1) Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE). The
AFCEE Environmental Conservation and Planning Directorate (AFCEE/EC) is
available to provide technical assistance and has the capability to
provide contract support to the proponent, EPF, and MAJCOMs in
developing EIAP documents.
(2) Air Force Regional Environmental Offices (REOs). REOs review
non-Air Force environmental documents that may have an impact on the
Air Force. Requests for review of such documents should be directed to
the proper REO (Atlanta, Dallas, or San Francisco) along with any
relevant comments. The REO:
(i) Notifies the proponent, after receipt, that the REO is the
single point of contact for the Air Force review of the document.
(ii) Requests comments from potentially affected installations,
MAJCOMs, the ANG, and HQ USAF, as appropriate.
(iii) Consolidates comments into the Air Force official response
and submits the final response to the proponent.
(iv) Provides to HQ USAF/ILEVP and the appropriate MAJCOMs and
installations a copy of the final response and a complete set of all
review comments.
(3) Single Manager Acquisition Programs (system-related NEPA). The
proponent Single Manager (i.e., System Program Director, Materiel Group
Managers, and Product Group Managers) for all programs, regardless of
acquisition category, shall comply with DoD Regulation 5000.2-R. SAF/
AQR, as the Air Force Acquisition Executive Office, is the final
approval authority for all system-related NEPA documents. SAF/AQR is
responsible for accomplishing appropriate Headquarters EPC/ESOHC
review. The Single Manager will obtain appropriate Product Center EPC
approval prior to forwarding necessary EIAP documents (i.e., Notices of
Intent (NOIs) and preliminary draft and final EAs and EISs) to SAF/AQR.
The Single Manager will allow for concurrent review of EIAP documents
by HQ AFMC/CEV and the Operational Command (HQ ACC, HQ AMC, HQ AFSPC,
etc.) The Single Manager is responsible for budgeting and funding EIAP
efforts, including EIAP for research, development, testing, and
evaluation activities.
(4) Key Air Force environmental participants. The EIAP must be
approached as an integrated team effort including key participants
within the Air Force and also involving outside federal agencies,
state, Tribal, and local governments, interested outside parties,
citizens groups, and the general public. Key Air Force participants may
include the following functional areas, as well as others:
Proponent
Civil Engineers/Environmental Planning Function
Staff Judge Advocate
Public Affairs
Medical Service (Bioenvironmental Engineer)
Safety Office
Range and Airspace Managers
Bases and Units
Plans and Programs
Logistics
Personnel
Legislative Liaison
(d) Proponent. Each office, unit, single manager, or activity at
any level that initiates Air Force actions is responsible for:
(1) Complying with the EIAP and shall ensure integration of the
EIAP during the initial planning stages of proposed actions so that
planning and decisions reflect environmental values, delays are avoided
later in the process, and potential conflicts are precluded.
(2) Notifying the EPF of a pending action and completing Section I
of AF Form 813, Request for Environmental
[[Page 38131]]
Impact Analysis. Prepare the Description of Proposed Action and
Alternatives (DOPAA) through an interdisciplinary team approach
including the EPF and other key Air Force participants.
(3) Identifying key decision points and coordinating with the EPF
on EIAP phasing to ensure that environmental documents are available to
the decision-maker before the final decision is made and ensuring that,
until the EIAP is complete, resources are not committed prejudicing the
selection of alternatives nor actions taken having an adverse
environmental impact or limiting the choice of reasonable alternatives.
(4) Determining, with the EPF, as early as possible whether to
prepare an EIS. The proponent and the EPF will conduct an early
internal scoping process as part of the EIAP process. The internal
scoping process should involve key Air Force environmental participants
(see Sec. 989.3(c)(4)) and other Air Force offices as needed and
conclude with preparation of a DOPAA. For complex or detailed EAs or
EISs, an outside facilitator trained in EIAP may be used to focus and
guide the discussion. Department of the Air Force personnel, rather
than contractors, should generally be used to prepare the DOPAA.
(5) Presenting the DOPAA to the EPC for review and comment.
(6) Coordinating with the EPF, Public Affairs, and Staff Judge
Advocate prior to organizing public or interagency meetings which deal
with EIAP elements of a proposed action and involving persons or
agencies outside the Air Force.
(7) Subsequent to the decision to prepare an EIS, assisting the EPF
and Public Affairs Office in preparing a draft NOI to prepare an EIS.
All NOIs must be forwarded through the MAJCOM EPF to HQ USAF/ILEV for
review and publication in the Federal Register. Publication in the
Federal Register is accomplished in accordance with AFI 37-120, Federal
Register.\5\ (See Sec. 989.17.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(8) Ensuring that proposed actions are implemented as described in
the final EIAP decision documents.
(e) Environmental Planning Function (EPF). At every level of
command, the EPF is one of the key Air Force participants responsible
for the EIAP. The EPF can be the environmental flight within a civil
engineer squadron, a separate environmental management office at an
installation, the CEV at MAJCOMs, or an equivalent environmental
function located with a program office. The EPF:
(1) Supports the EIAP by bringing key participants in at the
beginning of a proposed action and involving them throughout the EIAP.
Key participants play an important role in defining and focusing key
issues at the initial stage.
(2) At the request of the proponent, prepares environmental
documents using an interdisciplinary approach, or obtains technical
assistance through Air Force channels or contract support. Assists the
proponent in obtaining review of environmental documents.
(3) Assists the proponent in preparing a DOPAA and actively
supports the proponent during all phases of the EIAP.
(4) Evaluates proposed actions and completes Sections II and III of
AF Form 813, subsequent to submission by the proponent and determines
whether a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) applies. The responsible EPF
member signs the AF Form 813 certification.
(5) Identifies and documents, with technical advice from the
Bioenvironmental Engineer and other staff members, environmental
quality standards that relate to the action under evaluation.
(6) Supports the proponent in preparing environmental documents, or
obtains technical assistance through Air Force channels or contract
support and adopts the documents as official Air Force papers when
completed and approved.
(7) Ensures the EIAP is conducted on base-level and MAJCOM-level
plans, including contingency plans for the training, movement, and
operations of Air Force personnel and equipment.
(8) Prepares the NOI to prepare an EIS with assistance from the
proponent and the Public Affairs Office.
(9) Prepares applicable portions of the Certificate of Compliance
for each military construction project according to AFI 32-1021,
Planning and Programming of Facility Construction Projects.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(10) Submits one hard copy and one electronic copy of the final EA/
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and EIS/Record of Decision
(ROD) to the Defense Technical Information Center.
(f) Environmental Protection Committee (EPC). The EPC helps
commanders assess, review, and approve EIAP documents in accordance
with AFI 32-7005, Environmental Protection Committees.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g) Staff Judge Advocate (SJA). The Staff Judge Advocate:
(1) Advises the proponent, EPF, and EPC on CATEX determinations and
the legal sufficiency of environmental documents.
(2) Advises the EPF during the scoping process of issues that
should be addressed in EISs and on procedures for the conduct of public
hearings.
(3) Coordinates the appointment of the independent hearing officer
with AFLSA/JAJT and provides support for the hearing officer in cases
of public hearings on the draft EIS. The proponent pays administrative
and Temporary Duty (TDY) costs. The hearing officer presides at
hearings and makes final decisions regarding hearing procedures.
(4) Promptly refers all matters causing or likely to cause
substantial public controversy or litigation through channels to AFLSA/
JACE (or NGB-JA).
(h) Public Affairs Officer. This officer:
(1) Advises the EPF, the EPC, and the proponent on public affairs
activities on proposed actions and reviews environmental documents for
public involvement issues.
(2) Advises the EPF of issues and competing interests that should
be addressed in the EIS or EA.
(3) Assists in preparation of and attends public meetings or media
sessions on environmental issues.
(4) Prepares, coordinates, and distributes news releases and other
public information materials related to the proposal and associated
EIAP documents.
(5) Notifies the media (television, radio, newspaper) and purchases
advertisements when newspapers will not run notices free of charge. The
EPF will fund the required advertisements.
(6) Determines and ensures Security Review requirements are met for
all information proposed for public release.
(7) For more comprehensive instructions about public affairs
activities in environmental matters, see AFI 35-202.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Medical Service. The Medical Service, represented by the
Bioenvironmental Engineer, provides technical assistance to EPFs in the
areas of environmental health standards, environmental effects, and
environmental monitoring capabilities. The Air Force Armstrong
Laboratory, Occupational and Environmental Health Directorate, provides
additional technical support.
(j) Safety Office. The Safety Office provides technical review and
assistance to EPFs to ensure consideration of safety standards and
requirements.
[[Page 38132]]
Sec. 989.4 Initial considerations.
Air Force personnel will:
(a) Consider and document environmental effects of proposed Air
Force actions through AF Forms 813, EAs, FONSIs, EISs, RODs, and
documents prepared according to E.O. 12114.
(b) Evaluate proposed actions for possible CATEX from environmental
impact analysis (appendix B).
(c) Make environmental documents, comments, and responses,
including those of other federal agencies, state, Tribal, and local
governments, and the public, part of the record available for review
and use at all levels of decisionmaking.
(d) Review the specific alternatives analyzed in the EIAP when
evaluating the proposal prior to decisionmaking.
(e) Ensure that alternatives to be considered by the decisionmaker
are both reasonable and within the range of alternatives analyzed in
the environmental documents.
(f) Pursue the objective of furthering foreign policy and national
security interests while at the same time considering important
environmental factors.
(g) Consider the environmental effects of actions that affect the
global commons.
(h) Determine whether any foreign government should be informed of
the availability of environmental documents. Formal arrangements with
foreign governments concerning environmental matters and communications
with foreign governments concerning environmental agreements will be
coordinated with the Department of State by the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Environment, Safety, and Occupational
Health (SAF/MIQ) through the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Environmental Security). This coordination requirement does not apply
to informal working-level communications and arrangements.
Sec. 989.5 Organizational relationships.
(a) The host EPF manages the EIAP using an interdisciplinary team
approach. This is especially important for tenant-proposed actions,
because the host command is responsible for the EIAP for actions
related to the host command's installations.
(b) The host command prepares environmental documents internally or
directs the host base to prepare the environmental documents.
Environmental document preparation may be by contract (requiring the
tenant to fund the EIAP), by the tenant unit, or by the host.
Regardless of the preparation method, the host command will ensure the
required environmental analysis is accomplished before a decision is
made on the proposal and an action is undertaken. Support agreements
should provide specific procedures to ensure host oversight of tenant
compliance, tenant funding or reimbursement of host EIAP costs, and
tenant compliance with the EIAP regardless of the tenant not being an
Air Force organization.
(c) For aircraft beddown and unit realignment actions, program
elements are identified in the Program Objective Memorandum. Subsequent
Program Change Requests must include AF Form 813.
(d) To ensure timely initiation of the EIAP, SAF/AQ forwards
information copies of all Mission Need Statements and System
Operational Requirements Documents to SAF/MIQ, HQ USAF/ILEV (or ANGRC/
CEV), the Air Force Medical Operations Agency, Aerospace Medicine
Office (AFMOA/SG), and the affected MAJCOM EPFs.
(e) The MAJCOM of the scheduling unit managing affected airspace is
responsible for preparing and approving environmental analyses.
Sec. 989.6 Budgeting and funding.
Contract EIAP efforts are proponent MAJCOM responsibilities. Each
year, the EPF programs for anticipated out-year EIAP workloads based on
inputs from command proponents. If proponent offices exceed the budget
in a given year or identify unforeseen requirements, the proponent
offices must provide the remaining funding.
Sec. 989.7 Requests from Non-Air Force agencies or entities.
(a) Non-Air Force agencies or entities may request the Air Force to
undertake an action, such as issuing a permit or outleasing Air Force
property, that may primarily benefit the requester or an agency other
than the Air Force. The EPF and other Air Force staff elements must
identify such requests and coordinate with the proponent of the non-Air
Force proposal, as well as with concerned state, Tribal, and local
governments.
(b) Air Force decisions on such proposals must take into
consideration the potential environmental impacts of the applicant's
proposed activity (as described in an Air Force environmental
document), insofar as the proposed action involves Air Force property
or programs, or requires Air Force approval.
(c) The Air Force may require the requester to prepare, at the
requester's expense, an analysis of environmental impacts (40 CFR
1506.5), or the requester may be required to pay for an EA or EIS to be
prepared by a contractor selected and supervised by the Air Force. The
EPF may permit requesters to submit draft EAs for their proposed
actions, except for actions described in Sec. 989.16(a) and (b), or for
actions the EPF has reason to believe will ultimately require an EIS.
For EISs, the EPF has the responsibility to prepare the environmental
document, although responsibility for funding remains with the
requester. The fact that the requester has prepared environmental
documents at its own expense does not commit the Air Force to allow or
undertake the proposed action or its alternatives. The requester is not
entitled to any preference over other potential parties with whom the
Air Force might contract or make similar arrangements.
(d) In no event is the requester who prepares or funds an
environmental analysis entitled to reimbursement from the Air Force.
When requesters prepare environmental documents outside the Air Force,
the Air Force must independently evaluate and approve the scope and
content of the environmental analyses before using the analyses to
fulfill EIAP requirements. Any outside environmental analysis must
evaluate reasonable alternatives as defined in Sec. 989.8.
Sec. 989.8 Analysis of alternatives.
(a) The Air Force must analyze reasonable alternatives to the
proposed action and the ``no action'' alternative in all EAs and EISs,
as fully as the proposed action alternative.
(b) ``Reasonable'' alternatives are those that meet the underlying
purpose and need for the proposed action and that would cause a
reasonable person to inquire further before choosing a particular
course of action. Reasonable alternatives are not limited to those
directly within the power of the Air Force to implement. They may
involve another government agency or military service to assist in the
project or even to become the lead agency. The Air Force must also
consider reasonable alternatives raised during the scoping process (see
Sec. 989.18) or suggested by others, as well as combinations of
alternatives. The Air Force need not analyze highly speculative
alternatives, such as those requiring a major, unlikely change in law
or governmental policy. If the Air Force identifies a large number of
reasonable alternatives, it may limit alternatives selected for
detailed environmental analysis to a reasonable range or to a
reasonable number of examples covering the full spectrum of
alternatives.
[[Page 38133]]
(c) The Air Force may expressly eliminate alternatives from
detailed analysis, based on reasonable selection standards (for
example, operational, technical, or environmental standards suitable to
a particular project). In consultation with the EPF, the appropriate
Air Force organization may develop written selection standards to
firmly establish what is a ``reasonable'' alternative for a particular
project, but they must not so narrowly define these standards that they
unnecessarily limit consideration to the proposal initially favored by
proponents. This discussion of reasonable alternatives applies equally
to EAs and EISs.
(d) Except in those rare instances where excused by law, the Air
Force must always consider and assess the environmental impacts of the
``no action'' alternative. ``No action'' may mean either that current
management practice will not change or that the proposed action will
not take place. If no action would result in other predictable actions,
those actions should be discussed within the no action alternative
section. The discussion of the no action alternative and the other
alternatives should be comparable in detail to that of the proposed
action.
Sec. 989.9 Cooperation and adoption.
(a) Lead and cooperating agency (40 CFR 1501.5 and 1501.6). When
the Air Force is a cooperating agency in the preparation of an EIS, the
Air Force reviews and approves principal environmental documents within
the EIAP as if they were prepared by the Air Force. The Air Force
executes a ROD for its program decisions that are based on an EIS for
which the Air Force is a cooperating agency. The Air Force may also be
a lead or cooperating agency on an EA using similar procedures, but the
MAJCOM EPC retains approval authority unless otherwise directed by HQ
USAF. Before invoking provisions of 40 CFR 1501.5(e), the lowest
authority level possible resolves disputes concerning which agency is
the lead agency.
(b) Adoption of EA or EIS. The Air Force, even though not a
cooperating agency, may adopt an EA or EIS prepared by another entity
where the proposed action is substantially the same as the action
described in the EA or EIS. In this case, the EA or EIS must be
recirculated as a final EA or EIS but the Air Force must independently
review the EA or EIS and determine that it is current and that it
satisfies the requirements of this part. The Air Force then prepares
its own FONSI or ROD, as the case may be. In the situation where the
proposed action is not substantially the same as that described in the
EA or the EIS, the Air Force may adopt the EA or EIS, or a portion
thereof, by circulating the EA or EIS as a draft and then preparing the
final EA or EIS.
Sec. 989.10 Tiering.
The Air Force should use tiered (40 CFR 1502.20) environmental
documents, and environmental documents prepared by other agencies, to
eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and to focus on the
issues relating to specific actions. If the Air Force adopts another
Federal agency's environmental document, subsequent Air Force
environmental documents may also be tiered.
Sec. 989.11 Combining EIAP with other documentation.
(a) The EPF combines environmental analysis with other related
documentation when practicable (40 CFR 1506.4) following the procedures
prescribed by the CEQ regulations and this part.
(b) The EPF must integrate comprehensive planning (AFI 32-7062, Air
Force Comprehensive Planning 9) with the requirements of the
EIAP. Prior to making a decision to proceed, the EPF must analyze the
environmental impacts that could result from implementation of a
proposal identified in the comprehensive plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 989.12 AF Form 813, Request for Environmental Impact Analysis.
The Air Force uses AF Form 813 to document the need for
environmental analysis or for certain CATEX determinations for proposed
actions. The form helps narrow and focus the issues to potential
environmental impacts. AF Form 813 must be retained with the EA or EIS
to record the focusing of environmental issues. The rationale for not
addressing environmental issues must also be recorded in the EA or EIS.
Sec. 989.13 Categorical exclusion.
(a) CATEXs define those categories of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have potential for significant effect on
the environment and do not, therefore, require further environmental
analysis in an EA or an EIS. The list of Air Force-approved CATEXs is
in Appendix B. Supplements to this part may not add CATEXs or expand
the scope of the CATEXs in Appendix B.
(b) Characteristics of categories of actions that usually do not
require either an EIS or an EA (in the absence of extraordinary
circumstances) include:
(1) Minimal adverse effect on environmental quality.
(2) No significant change to existing environmental conditions.
(3) No significant cumulative environmental impact.
(4) Socioeconomic effects only.
(5) Similarity to actions previously assessed and found to have no
significant environmental impacts.
(c) CATEXs apply to actions in the United States and abroad.
General exemptions specific to actions abroad are in 32 CFR part 187.
The EPF or other decision-maker forwards requests for additional
exemption determinations for actions abroad to HQ USAF/ILEV with a
justification letter.
(d) Normally, any decision-making level may determine the
applicability of a CATEX and need not formally record the determination
on AF Form 813 or elsewhere, except as noted in the CATEX list.
(e) Application of a CATEX to an action does not eliminate the need
to meet air conformity requirements (see Sec. 989.30).
Sec. 989.14 Environmental assessment.
(a) When a proposed action is one not usually requiring an EIS but
is not categorically excluded, the EPF supports the proponent in
preparing an EA (40 CFR 1508.9). Every EA must lead to either a FONSI,
a decision to prepare an EIS, or no action on the proposal.
(b) Whenever a proposed action usually requires an EIS, the EPF
responsible for the EIAP may prepare an EA to definitively determine if
an EIS is required based on the analysis of environmental impacts.
Alternatively, the EPF may choose to bypass the EA and proceed with
preparation of an EIS.
(c) An EA is a written analysis that:
(1) Provides analysis sufficient to determine whether to prepare an
EIS or a FONSI.
(2) Aids the Air Force in complying with the NEPA when no EIS is
required.
(d) The length of an EA should be as short and concise as possible,
while matching the magnitude of the proposal. An EA briefly discusses
the need for the proposed action, reasonable alternatives to the
proposed action, the affected environment, the environmental impacts of
the proposed action and alternatives (including the ``no action''
alternative), and a listing of agencies and persons consulted during
preparation. The EA should not contain long descriptions or lengthy,
detailed data. Rather, incorporate by reference background data to
support the concise discussion of the proposal and relevant issues.
[[Page 38134]]
(e) The format for the EA may be the same as the EIS. The
alternatives section of an EA and an EIS are similar and should follow
the alternatives analysis guidance outlined in Sec. 989.8.
(f) The EPF should design the EA to facilitate rapidly transforming
the document into an EIS if the environmental analysis reveals a
significant impact.
(g) EAs for actions where the Air Force has wetlands or floodplains
compliance responsibilities (E.O. 11988 and E.O. 11990) require SAF/MIQ
approval. As a finding contained in the draft FONSI, a Finding of No
Practicable Alternative (FONPA) must be submitted (five hard copies and
an electronic version) through the MAJCOM EPF to HQ USAF/ILEVP when the
alternative selected is located in wetlands or floodplains, and must
discuss why no other practicable alternative exists to avoid impacts.
See AFI 32-7064, Integrated Natural Resources Management.
(h) EAs and accompanying FONSIs that require the Air Force to make
Clean Air Act General Conformity Determinations shall be submitted
(five hard copies and an electronic version) through the MAJCOM EPF to
HQ USAF/ILEVP for SAF/MIQ approval. SAF/MIQ signs all General
Conformity Determinations and will also sign the companion FONSIs, when
requested by the MAJCOM (see Sec. 989.30).
(i) In cases potentially involving a high degree of controversy or
Air Force-wide concern, the MAJCOM, after consultation with HQ USAF/
ILEVP, may request HQ USAF ESOHC review and approval of an EA, or HQ
USAF may direct the MAJCOM to forward an EA (five hard copies and an
electronic version) for HQ USAF ESOHC review and approval.
(j) As a minimum, the following EAs require MAJCOM approval because
they involve topics of special importance or interest. Unless directed
otherwise by HQ USAF/ILEVP, the installation EPF must forward the
following types of EAs to the MAJCOM EPF, along with an unsigned draft
FONSI: (MAJCOMs can require other EAs to receive MAJCOM approval in
addition to those types specified here.)
(1) All EAs on non-Air Force proposals that require an Air Force
decision, such as use of Air Force property for highways, space ports,
and joint-use proposals.
(2) EAs where mitigation to insignificance is accomplished in lieu
of initiating an EIS (Sec. 989.22(c)).
(k) A few examples of actions that normally require preparation of
an EA (except as indicated in the CATEX list) include:
(1) Public land withdrawals of less than 5,000 acres.
(2) Minor mission realignments and aircraft beddowns.
(3) New building construction on base within developed areas.
(4) Minor modifications to Military Operating Areas (MOAs), air-to-
ground weapons ranges, and military training routes.
(l) The Air Force will involve other federal agencies, state,
Tribal, and local governments, and the public in the preparation of EAs
(40 CFR 1501.4(b) and 1506.6). The extent of involvement usually
coincides with the magnitude and complexity of the proposed action and
its potential environmental effect on the area. For proposed actions
described in Sec. 989.15(e)(2), use either the scoping process
described in Sec. 989.18 or the public notice process in Sec. 989.24.
Sec. 989.15 Finding of no significant impact.
(a) The FONSI (40 CFR 1508.13) briefly describes why an action
would not have a significant effect on the environment and thus will
not be the subject of an EIS. The FONSI must summarize the EA or,
preferably, have it attached and incorporated by reference, and must
note any other environmental documents related to the action.
(b) If the EA is not incorporated by reference, the FONSI must
include:
(1) Name of the action.
(2) Brief description of the action (including alternatives
considered and the chosen alternative).
(3) Brief discussion of anticipated environmental effects.
(4) Conclusions leading to the FONSI.
(5) All mitigation actions that will be adopted with implementation
of the proposal (see Sec. 989.22).
(c) Keep FONSIs as brief as possible. Only rarely should FONSIs
exceed two typewritten pages. Stand-alone FONSIs without an attached EA
may be longer.
(d) For actions of regional or local interest, disseminate the
FONSI according to Sec. 989.24. The MAJCOM and NGB are responsible for
release of FONSIs to regional offices of Federal agencies, the state
single point of contact (SPOC), and state agencies concurrent with
local release by the installations.
(e) The EPF must make the EA and unsigned FONSI available to the
affected public and provide the EA and unsigned FONSI to organizations
and individuals requesting them and to whomever the proponent or the
EPF has reason to believe is interested in the action, unless
disclosure is precluded for security classification reasons. Draft EAs
and unsigned draft FONSIs will be clearly identified as drafts and
distributed via cover letter which will explain their purpose and need.
The EPF provides a copy of the documents without cost to organizations
and individuals requesting them. The FONSI transmittal date (date of
letter of transmittal) to the state SPOC or other equivalent agency is
the official notification date.
(1) Before the FONSI is signed and the action is implemented, the
EPF should allow sufficient time to receive comments from the public.
The time period will reflect the magnitude of the proposed action and
its potential for controversy. The greater the magnitude of the
proposed action or its potential for controversy, the longer the time
that must be allowed for public review. Mandatory review periods for
certain defined actions are contained in Sec. 989.15(e)(2). These are
not all inclusive but merely specific examples. In every case where an
EA and FONSI are prepared, the proponent and EPF must determine how
much time will be allowed for public review. In all cases, other than
classified actions, a public review period should be the norm unless
clearly unnecessary due to the lack of potential controversy.
(2) In the following circumstances, the EA and unsigned FONSI are
made available for public review for at least 30 days before FONSI
approval and implementing the action (40 CFR 1501.4(e)(2)):
(i) When the proposed action is, or is closely similar to, one that
usually requires preparation of an EIS (see Sec. 989.16).
(ii) If it is an unusual case, a new kind of action, or a
precedent-setting case in terms of its potential environmental impacts.
(iii) If the proposed action would be located in a floodplain or
wetland.
(iv) If the action is mitigated to insignificance in the FONSI, in
lieu of an EIS (Sec. 989.22(c)).
(v) If the proposed action is a change to airspace use or
designation.
(vi) If the proposed action would have a disproportionately high
and adverse environmental effect on minority populations and low-income
populations.
(f) As a general rule, the same organizational level that prepares
the EA also reviews and recommends the FONSI for approval by the EPC.
MAJCOMs may decide the level of EA approval and FONSI signature, except
as provided in Sec. 989.14(g), (h), (i), and (j).
[[Page 38135]]
Sec. 989.16 Environmental impact statement.
(a) Certain classes of environmental impacts normally require
preparation of an EIS (40 CFR 1501.4). These include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Potential for significant degradation of the environment.
(2) Potential for significant threat or hazard to public health or
safety.
(3) Substantial environmental controversy concerning the
significance or nature of the environmental impact of a proposed
action.
(b) Certain other actions normally, but not always, require an EIS.
These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Public land withdrawals of over 5,000 acres (Engle Act, 43
U.S.C. 155 through 158).
(2) Establishment of new air-to-ground weapons ranges.
(3) Site selection of new airfields.
(4) Site selection of major installations.
(5) Development of major new weapons systems (at decision points
that involve demonstration, validation, production, deployment, and
area or site selection for deployment).
(6) Establishing or expanding supersonic training areas over land
below 30,000 feet MSL (mean sea level).
(7) Disposal and reuse of closing installations.
Sec. 989.17 Notice of intent.
The EPF must furnish, through the MAJCOM, to HQ USAF/ILEV the NOI
(40 CFR 1508.22) describing the proposed action for congressional
notification and publication in the Federal Register. The EPF, through
the host base public affairs office, will also provide the approved NOI
to newspapers and other media in the area potentially affected by the
proposed action. The EPF must provide copies of the notice to the SPOC
and must also distribute it to requesting agencies, organizations, and
individuals. Along with the draft NOI, the EPF must also forward the
completed DOPAA, through the MAJCOM, to HQ USAF for information.
Sec. 989.18 Scoping.
(a) After publication of the NOI for an EIS, the EPF must initiate
the public scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7) to determine the scope of
issues to be addressed and to help identify significant environmental
issues to be analyzed in depth. Methods of scoping range from
soliciting written comments to conducting public scoping meetings (see
40 CFR 1501.7 and 1506.6(e)). The scoping process is an iterative, pro-
active process of communicating with individual citizens, neighborhood,
community, and local leaders, public interest groups, congressional
delegations, state, Tribal, and local governments, and federal
agencies. The scoping process must start prior to official public
scoping meetings and continue through to preparation of the draft EIS.
The purpose of this process is to de-emphasize insignificant issues and
focus the scope of the environmental analysis on significant issues (40
CFR 1500.4(g)). Additionally, scoping allows early and more meaningful
participation by the public. The result of scoping is that the
proponent and EPF determine the range of actions, alternatives, and
impacts to be considered in the EIS (40 CFR 1508.25). The EPF must send
scripts for scoping meetings to AF/ILEV (or ANGRC/CEV) no later than 30
days before the first scoping meeting. Scoping meeting plans are
similar in content to public hearing plans (see Appendix C). Public
scoping meetings should generally be held at locations not on the
installation.
(b) Where it is anticipated the proposed action and its
alternatives will have disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effects on minority populations or low-income
populations, special efforts shall be made to reach these populations.
This might include special informational meetings or notices in
minority and low-income areas concerning the regular scoping process.
Sec. 989.19 Draft EIS.
(a) Preliminary draft. The EPF supports the proponent in
preparation of a preliminary draft EIS (PDEIS) (40 CFR 1502.9) based on
the scope of issues decided on during the scoping process. The format
of the EIS must be in accordance with the format recommended in the CEQ
regulations (40 CFR 1502.10 and 1502.11). The CEQ regulations indicate
that EISs normally contain fewer than 150 pages (300 pages for
proposals of unusual complexity). The EPF provides a sufficient number
of copies of the PDEIS to HQ USAF/ILEV for HQ USAF ESOHC security and
policy review in each member's area of responsibility and to AFCEE/EC
for technical review.
(b) Review of draft EIS. After the HQ USAF ESOHC review, the EPF
assists the appropriate Air Force organization in making any necessary
revisions to the PDEIS and forwards it to HQ USAF/ILEV as a draft EIS
to ensure completion of all security and policy reviews and to certify
releasability. Once the draft EIS is approved, HQ USAF/ILEV notifies
the EPF to print sufficient copies of the draft EIS for distribution to
congressional delegations and interested agencies at least 7 calendar
days prior to publication of the Notice of Availability (NOA) in the
Federal Register. After congressional distribution, the EPF sends the
draft EIS to all others on the distribution list. HQ USAF/ILEV then
files the document with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and provides a copy to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Environmental Security.
(c) Public review of draft EIS (40 CFR 1502.19 and 1506.6): (1) The
public comment period for the draft EIS is at least 45 days starting
from the publication date of the NOA of the draft EIS in the Federal
Register. USEPA publishes in the Federal Register NOAs of EISs filed
during the preceding week. This public comment period may be extended
by the EPF. If the draft EIS is unusually long, the EPF may distribute
a summary to the public with an attached list of locations (such as
public libraries) where the entire draft EIS may be reviewed. The EPF
must distribute the full draft EIS to certain entities, for example,
agencies with jurisdiction by law or agencies with special expertise in
evaluating the environmental impacts, and anyone else requesting the
entire draft EIS (40 CFR 1502.19 and 1506.6).
(2) The EPF sponsors public hearings on the draft EIS according to
the procedures in Attachment 3. Hearings take place no sooner than 15
days after the Federal Register publication of the NOA and at least 15
days before the end of the comment period. Scheduling hearings toward
the end of the comment period is encouraged to allow the public to
obtain and more thoroughly review the draft EIS. The EPF must provide
hearing scripts to HQ USAF/ILEV (or ANGRC/CEV) no later than 30 days
prior to the first public hearing. Public hearings should generally be
held at off-base locations. Submit requests to deviate from procedures
in Attachment 3 to HQ USAF/ILEVP for SAF/MIQ approval.
(3) Where analyses indicate that a proposed action will potentially
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations or low-income populations, the EPF
should make special efforts to ensure that these potentially impacted
populations are brought into the review process.
(d) Response to comments (40 CFR 1503.4). The EPF must incorporate
in the Final EIS its responses to comments on the Draft EIS by
modifying the text and referring in the appendix to where the comment
is addressed or providing a written explanation in the comments
section, or both. The EPF may group comments of a similar nature
together to
[[Page 38136]]
allow a common response and may also respond to individuals separately.
(e) Seeking additional comments. The EPF may, at any time during
the EIS process, seek additional public comments, such as when there
has been a significant change in circumstances, development of
significant new information of a relevant nature, or where there is
substantial environmental controversy concerning the proposed action.
Significant new information leading to public controversy regarding the
scope after the scoping process is such a changed circumstance. An
additional public comment period may also be necessary after the
publication of the draft EIS due to public controversy or changes made
as the result of previous public comments. Such periods when additional
public comments are sought shall last for at least 30 days.
Sec. 989.20 Final EIS.
(a) If changes in the draft EIS are minor or limited to factual
corrections and responses to comments, the proponent and EPF may, with
the prior approval of HQ USAF/ILEV and SAF/MIQ, prepare a document
containing only comments on the Draft EIS, Air Force responses, and
errata sheets of changes staffed to the HQ USAF ESOHC for coordination.
However, the EPF must submit the Draft EIS and all of the above
documents, with a new cover sheet indicating that it is a final EIS (40
CFR 1503.4(c)), to HQ USAF/ILEV for filing with the EPA (40 CFR
1506.9). If more extensive modifications are required, the EPF must
prepare a preliminary final EIS incorporating these modifications for
coordination within the Air Force. Regardless of which procedure is
followed, the final EIS must be processed in the same way as the draft
EIS, including receipt of copies of the EIS by SAF/LLP, except that the
public need not be invited to comment during the 30-day post-filing
waiting period. The Final EIS should be furnished to every person,
organization, or agency that made substantive comments on the Draft EIS
or requested a copy. Although the EPF is not required to respond to
public comments received during this period, comments received must be
considered in determining final decisions such as identifying the
preferred alternative, appropriate mitigations, or if a supplemental
analysis is required.
(b) The EPF processes all necessary supplements to EISs (40 CFR
1502.9) in the same way as the original Draft and Final EIS, except
that a new scoping process is not required.
(c) If major steps to advance the proposal have not occurred within
5 years from the date of the Final EIS approval, reevaluation of the
documentation should be accomplished to ensure its continued validity.
Sec. 989.21 Record of decision (ROD).
(a) The proponent and the EPF prepare a draft ROD, formally staff
it through the MAJCOM EPC, to HQ USAF/ILEV for verification of
adequacy, and forwards it to either SAF/MIQ or SAF/AQR, as the case may
be, for approval and designation of the signator. A ROD (40 CFR 1505.2)
is a concise public document stating what an agency's decision is on a
specific action. The ROD may be integrated into any other document
required to implement the agency's decision. A decision on a course of
action may not be made until the later of the following dates:
(1) 90 days after publication of the DEIS; or
(2) 30 days after publication of the NOA of the Final EIS in the
Federal Register.
(b) The Air Force must announce the ROD to the affected public as
specified in Sec. 989.23, except for classified portions. The ROD
should be concise and should explain the conclusion, the reason for the
selection, and the alternatives considered. The ROD must identify the
course of action, whether it is the proposed action or an alternative,
that is considered environmentally preferable regardless of whether it
is the alternative selected for implementation. The ROD should
summarize all the major factors the agency weighed in making its
decision, including essential considerations of national policy.
(c) The ROD must state whether the selected alternative employs all
practicable means to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental impacts
and, if not, explain why.
Sec. 989.22 Mitigation.
(a) When preparing EIAP documents, indicate clearly whether
mitigation measures (40 CFR 1508.20) must be implemented for the
alternative selected. Discuss mitigation measures in terms of ``will''
and ``would'' when such measures have already been incorporated into
the proposal. Use terms like ``may'' and ``could'' when proposing or
suggesting mitigation measures. Both the public and the Air Force
community need to know what commitments are being considered and
selected, and who will be responsible for implementing, funding, and
monitoring the mitigation measures.
(b) The proponent funds and implements mitigation measures in the
mitigation plan that is approved by the decision-maker. Where possible
and appropriate because of amount, the proponent should include the
cost of mitigation as a line item in the budget for a proposed project.
The proponent must ensure compliance with mitigation requirements,
monitoring their effectiveness, and must keep the EPF informed of the
mitigation status. The EPF reports its status, through the MAJCOM, to
HQ USAF/ILEV when requested. Upon request, the EPF must also provide
the results of relevant mitigation monitoring to the public.
(c) The proponent may ``mitigate to insignificance'' potentially
significant environmental impacts found during preparation of an EA, in
lieu of preparing an EIS. The FONSI for the EA must include these
mitigation measures. Such mitigations are legally binding and must be
carried out as the proponent implements the project. If, for any
reason, the project proponent later abandons or revises in
environmentally adverse ways the mitigation commitments made in the
FONSI, the proponent must prepare a supplemental EIAP document before
continuing the project. If potentially significant environmental
impacts would result from any project revisions, the proponent must
prepare an EIS.
(d) For each FONSI or ROD containing mitigation measures, the
proponent prepares a plan specifically identifying each mitigation,
discussing how the proponent will execute the mitigations, identifying
who will fund and implement the mitigations, and stating when the
proponent will complete the mitigation. The mitigation plan will be
forwarded, through the MAJCOM EPF to HQ USAF/ILEV for review within 90
days from the date of signature of the FONSI or ROD.
Sec. 989.23 Contractor prepared documents.
All Air Force EIAP documents belong to and are the responsibility
of the Air Force. EIAP correspondence and documents distributed outside
of the Air Force should generally be signed out by Air Force personnel
and documents should reflect on the cover sheet they are an Air Force
document. Contractor preparation information should be contained within
the document's list of preparers.
Sec. 989.24 Public notification.
(a) Except as provided in Sec. 989.26, public notification is
required for various aspects of the EIAP.
(b) Activities that require public notification include:
[[Page 38137]]
(1) An EA and FONSI.
(2) An EIS NOI.
(3) Public scoping meetings.
(4) Availability of the draft EIS.
(5) Public hearings on the draft EIS (which should be included in the
NOA for the draft EIS).
(6) Availability of the final EIS.
(7) The ROD for an EIS.
(c) For actions of local concern, the list of possible notification
methods in 40 CFR 1506.6(b)(3) is only illustrative. The EPF may use
other equally effective means of notification as a substitute for any
of the methods listed. Because many Air Force actions are of limited
interest to persons or organizations outside the Air Force, the EPF may
limit local notification to the SPOC, local government representatives,
and local news media. For all actions covered under Sec. 989.15(e)(2),
and for all EIS notices, the public affairs office must purchase with
EPF funds an advertisement in a prominent section of the local
newspaper(s) of general circulation (not ``legal'' newspapers or
``legal section'' of general newspapers).
(d) For the purpose of EIAP, the EPF begins the time period of
local notification when it sends written notification to the state SPOC
or other equivalent agency (date of letter of notification).
Sec. 989.25 Base closure and realignment.
Base closure or realignment may entail special requirements for
environmental analysis. The permanent base closure and realignment law,
10 U.S.C. 2687, requires a report to the Congress when an installation
where at least 300 DoD civilian personnel are authorized to be employed
is closed, or when a realignment reduces such an installation by at
least 50 percent or 1,000 of such personnel, whichever is less. In
addition, other base closure laws may be in effect during particular
periods. Such nonpermanent closure laws frequently contain provisions
limiting the extent of environmental analysis required for actions
taken under them. Such provisions may also add requirements for studies
not necessarily required by NEPA.
Sec. 989.26 Classified actions (40 CFR 1507.3(c)).
(a) Classification of an action for national defense or foreign
policy purposes does not relieve the requirement of complying with
NEPA. In classified matters, the Air Force must prepare and make
available normal NEPA environmental analysis documents to aid in the
decision-making process; however, Air Force staff must prepare,
safeguard, and disseminate these documents according to established
procedures for protecting classified documents. If an EIAP document
must be classified, the Air Force may modify or eliminate associated
requirements for public notice (including publication in the Federal
Register) or public involvement in the EIAP. However, the Air Force
should obtain comments on classified proposed actions or classified
aspects of generally unclassified actions, from public agencies having
jurisdiction by law or special expertise, to the extent that such
review and comment is consistent with security requirements. Where
feasible, the EPF may need to help appropriate personnel from those
agencies obtain necessary security clearances to gain access to
documents so they can comment on scoping or review the documents.
(b) Where the proposed action is classified and unavailable to the
public, the Air Force may keep the entire NEPA process classified and
protected under the applicable procedures for the classification level
pertinent to the particular information. At times (for example, during
weapons system development and base closures and realignments), certain
but not all aspects of NEPA documents may later be declassified. In
those cases, the EPF should organize the EIAP documents, to the extent
practicable, in a way that keeps the most sensitive classified
information (which is not expected to be released at any early date) in
a separate annex that can remain classified; the rest of the EIAP
documents, when declassified, will then be comprehensible as a unit and
suitable for release to the public. Thus, the documents will reflect,
as much as possible, the nature of the action and its environmental
impacts, as well as Air Force compliance with NEPA requirements.
(c) Where the proposed action is not classified, but certain
aspects of it need to be protected by security classification, the EPF
should tailor the EIAP for a proposed action to permit as normal a
level of public involvement as possible, but also fully protect the
classified part of the action and environmental analysis. In some
instances, the EPF can do this by keeping the classified sections of
the EIAP documents in a separate, classified annex.
(d) For Sec. 989.26(b) actions, an NOI or NOA will not be published
in the Federal Register until the proposed action is declassified. For
Sec. 989.26(c) actions, the Federal Register will run an unclassified
NOA which will advise the public that at some time in the future the
Air Force may or will publicly release a declassified document.
(e) The EPF similarly protects classified aspects of FONSIs, RODs,
or other environmental documents that are part of the EIAP for a
proposed action, such as by preparing separate classified annexes to
unclassified documents, as necessary.
(f) Whenever a proponent believes that EIAP documents should be
kept classified, the EPF must make a report of the matter to SAF/MIQ,
including proposed modifications of the normal EIAP to protect
classified information. The EPF may make such submissions at whatever
level of security classification is needed to provide a comprehensive
understanding of the issues. SAF/MIQ, with support from SAF/GC and
other staff elements as necessary, makes final decisions on EIAP
procedures for classified actions.
Sec. 989.27 Occupational safety and health.
Assess direct and indirect impacts of proposed actions on the
safety and health of Air Force employees and others at a work site. The
EIAP document does not need to specify compliance procedures. However,
the EIAP documents should discuss impacts that require a change in work
practices to achieve an adequate level of health and safety.
Sec. 989.28 Airspace and range proposals.
(a) EIAP Review. Airspace and range proposals require review by HQ
USAF/XOO prior to public announcement and preparation of the DOPAA.
Unless directed otherwise, the airspace proponent will forward the
DOPAA as an attachment to the proposal sent to HQ USAF/XOO.
(b) Federal Aviation Administration. The DoD and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) have entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) that outlines various airspace responsibilities.
For purposes of compliance with NEPA, the DoD is the ``lead agency''
for all proposals initiated by DoD, with the FAA acting as the
``cooperating agency.'' Where airspace proposals initiated by the FAA
affect military use, the roles are reversed. The proponent's action
officers (civil engineering and local airspace management) must ensure
that the FAA is fully integrated into the airspace proposal and related
EIAP from the very beginning and that the action officers review the
FAA's responsibilities as a cooperating agency. The proponent's
airspace manager develops the preliminary airspace proposal per
appropriate FAA handbooks and the FAA-DoD MOU. The preliminary
[[Page 38138]]
airspace proposal is the basis for initial dialogue between DoD and the
FAA on the proposed action. A close working relationship between DoD
and the FAA, through the FAA regional Air Force representative, greatly
facilitates the airspace proposal process and helps resolve many NEPA
issues during the EIAP.
Sec. 989.29 Force structure and unit move proposals.
Unless directed otherwise, the MAJCOM plans and programs proponent
will forward a copy of all EAs for force structure and unit moves to HQ
USAF/ILXB for information only at the preliminary draft and preliminary
final stages.
Sec. 989.30 Air quality.
Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 42 U.S.C.
7506(c), establishes a conformity requirement for Federal agencies
which has been implemented by regulation, 40 CFR 93, Subpart B. All
EIAP documents must address applicable conformity requirements and the
status of compliance. Conformity applicability analyses and
determinations are developed in parallel with EIAP documents, but are
separate and distinct requirements and should be documented separately.
To increase the utility of a conformity determination in performing the
EIAP, the conformity determination should be completed prior to the
completion of the EIAP so as to allow incorporation of the information
from the conformity determination into the EIAP. See AFI 32-7040, Air
Quality Compliance.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 989.31 Pollution prevention.
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 13101(b),
established a national policy to prevent or reduce pollution at the
source, whenever feasible. Pollution prevention approaches should be
applied to all pollution-generating activities. The environmental
document should analyze potential pollution that may result from the
proposed action and alternatives and must discuss potential pollution
prevention measures when such measures are feasible for incorporation
into the proposal or alternatives. Where pollution cannot be prevented,
the environmental analysis and proposed mitigation measures should
include, wherever possible, recycling, energy recovery, treatment, and
environmentally safe disposal actions (see AFI 32-7080, Pollution
Prevention Program \11\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 989.32 Noise.
Aircraft noise data files used for analysis during EIAP will be
submitted to HQ AFCEE for review and validation prior to public
release, and upon completion of the EIAP for database entry. Utilize
the current NOISEMAP computer program for air installations and the
Assessment System for Aircraft Noise for military training routes and
military operating areas. Guidance on standardized Air Force noise data
development and analysis procedures is available from HQ AFCEE/EC.
Develop EIAP land use analysis relating to aircraft noise impacts
originating from air installations following procedures in AFI 32-7063,
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone. Draft EIAP aircraft noise/land
use analysis associated with air installations will be coordinated with
the MAJCOM AICUZ program manager.
Sec. 989.33. Environmental justice.
During the preparation of environmental analyses under this
instruction, the EPF should ensure compliance with the provisions of
E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, and Executive
Memorandum of February 11, 1994, regarding E.O. 12898.
Sec. 989.34 Special and emergency procedures.
(a) Special procedures. During the EIAP, unique situations may
arise that require EIAP strategies different than those set forth in
this part. These situations may warrant modification of the procedures
in this part. EPFs should only consider procedural deviations when the
resulting process would benefit the Air Force and still comply with
NEPA and CEQ regulations. EPFs must forward all requests for procedural
deviations to HQ USAF/ILEV (or ANGRC/CEV) for review and approval by
SAF/MIQ.
(b) Emergency procedures (40 CFR 1506.11). Emergency situations do
not exempt the Air Force from complying with NEPA, but do allow
emergency response while completing the EIAP. Certain emergency
situations may make it necessary to take immediate action having
significant environmental impact, without observing all the provisions
of the CEQ regulations or this part. If possible, promptly notify HQ
USAF/ILEV, for SAF/MIQ coordination and CEQ consultation, before
undertaking emergency actions that would otherwise not comply with NEPA
or this part. The immediate notification requirement does not apply
where emergency action must be taken without delay. Coordination in
this instance must take place as soon as practicable.
Sec. 989.35 Reporting requirements.
(a) EAs, EISs, and mitigation measures will be tracked at bases and
MAJCOMs through an appropriate environmental management system.
(b) Proponents, EPFs, and public affairs offices may utilize the
World Wide Web, in addition to more traditional means, to notify the
public of availability of EAs and EISs. When possible, allow
distribution of documents electronically. Public review comments should
be required in writing, rather than by electronic mail.
(c) All documentation will be disposed of according to AFMAN 37-
139, Records Disposition--Standards.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 989.36 Waivers.
In order to deal with unusual circumstances and to allow growth in
the NEPA process, SAF/MIQ may grant waivers to those procedures
contained in this instruction not required by NEPA or the CEQ
Regulations. Such waivers shall not be used to limit compliance with
NEPA or the CEQ Regulations but only to substitute other, more suitable
procedures relative to the context of the particular action. Such
waivers may also be granted on occasion to allow experimentation in
procedures in order to allow growth in the EIAP. This authority may not
be delegated.
Sec. 989.37 Procedures for analysis abroad.
Procedures for analysis of environmental actions abroad are
contained in 32 CFR Part 187. That directive provides comprehensive
policies, definitions, and procedures for implementing E.O. 12114. For
analysis of Air Force actions abroad, 32 CFR Part 187 will be followed.
Sec. 989.38 Requirements for analysis abroad.
(a) The EPF will generally perform the same functions for analysis
of actions abroad that it performs in the United States. In addition to
the requirements of 32 CFR Part 187, the following Air Force specific
rules apply:
(b) For EAs dealing with global commons (geographic areas beyond
the jurisdiction of the United States or any foreign nation), HQ USAF/
ILEV will review actions that are above the MAJCOM approval authority.
In this instance, approval authority refers to the same approval
authority that would apply to an EA in the United States. The EPF
documents a decision not to do an EIS.
[[Page 38139]]
(c) For EISs dealing with the global commons, the EPF provides
sufficient copies to HQ USAF/ILEV for the HQ USAF ESOHC review and
AFCEE/EC technical review. After ESOHC review, the EPF makes a
recommendation as to whether the proposed draft EIS will be released as
a draft EIS.
(d) For environmental studies and environmental reviews, forward,
when appropriate, environmental studies and reviews to HQ USAF/ILEV for
coordination among appropriate federal agencies. HQ USAF/ILEV makes
environmental studies and reviews available to the Department of State
and other interested federal agencies, and, on request, to the United
States public, in accordance with 32 CFR Part 187. HQ USAF/ILEV also
may inform interested foreign governments or furnish copies of studies,
in accordance with 32 CFR Part 187.
Appendix A to Part 989--Glossary of References, Abbreviations,
Acronyms, and Terms
References
Legislative
10 U.S.C. 2687, Base Closures and Realignments
42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
42 U.S.C. 7506(c), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
42 U.S.C. 13101(b), Pollution Prevention Act of 1990
43 U.S.C. 155-158, Engle Act
Executive Orders
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, May 24, 1977
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, May 24, 1977
Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal
Actions, January 4, 1979
Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,
July 14, 1982
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, February
11, 1994
U.S. Government Agency Publications
Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the
Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 40
CFR parts 1500-1508
Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 4715.1, Environmental
Security
Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 6050.7, Environmental Effects
Abroad of Major Department of Defense Actions, March 31, 1979 (32
CFR Part 187)
Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 4715.9, Environmental
Planning and Analysis
DoDD 5000.1, Defense Acquisition
Department of Defense Regulation 5000.2-R, Mandatory Procedures for
Major Defense Acquisition Programs and Major Automated Information
Systems
Air Force Publications
AFPD 32-70, Environmental Quality
AFI 32-1021, Planning and Programming of Facility Construction
Projects
AFI 32-7002, Environmental Information Management System
AFI 32-7005, Environmental Protection Committees
AFI 32-7040, Air Quality Compliance
AFI 32-7062, Air Force Comprehensive Planning
AFI 32-7063, Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Program
AFI 32-7064, Integrated Natural Resources Management
AFI 32-7080, Pollution Prevention Program
AFI 35-202, Environmental Community Involvement
AFI 35-205, Air Force Security and Policy Review Program
AFMAN 37-139, Records Disposition--Standards
Abbreviations and Acronyms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviation or Acronym Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFCEE........................ Air Force Center for Environmental
Excellence
AFCEE/EC..................... Air Force Center for Environmental
Excellence/Environmental Conservation
and Planning Directorate
AFI.......................... Air Force Instruction
AFLSA/JACE................... Air Force Legal Services Agency/
Environmental Law and Litigation
Division
AFLSA/JAJT................... Air Force Legal Services Agency/Trial
Judiciary Division
AFMAN........................ Air Force Manual
AFMOA/SG..................... Air Force Medical Operations Agency/
Aerospace Medicine Office
AFPD......................... Air Force Policy Directive
AFRES........................ Air Force Reserve
ANG.......................... Air National Guard
ANGRC........................ Air National Guard Readiness Center
CATEX........................ Categorical Exclusion
CEQ.......................... Council on Environmental Quality
CFR.......................... Code of Federal Regulations
DoD.......................... Department of Defense
DoDD......................... Department of Defense Directive
DoDI......................... Department of Defense Instruction
DOPAA........................ Description of Proposed Action and
Alternatives
EA........................... Environmental Assessment
EIAP......................... Environmental Impact Analysis Process
EIS.......................... Environmental Impact Statement
E.O.......................... Executive Order
EPA.......................... Environmental Protection Agency
EPC.......................... Environmental Protection Committee
EPF.......................... Environmental Planning Function
ESOHC........................ Environmental Safety and Occupational
Health Committee
FAA.......................... Federal Aviation Administration
FEIS......................... Final Environmental Impact Statement
FOA.......................... Field Operating Agency
FONPA........................ Finding of No Practicable Alternative
FONSI........................ Finding of No Significant Impact
GSA.......................... General Services Administration
HQ AFMC...................... Headquarters, Air Force Materiel Command
HQ USAF...................... Headquarters, United States Air Force
HQ USAF/ILE.................. The Air Force Civil Engineer
MAJCOM....................... Major Command
MGM.......................... Materiel Group Manager
MOA.......................... Military Operating Area
MOU.......................... Memorandum of Understanding
[[Page 38140]]
MSL.......................... Mean Sea Level
NEPA......................... National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NGB-CF....................... National Guard Bureau Air Directorate
NGB-JA....................... National Guard Bureau Office of the Staff
Judge Advocate
NGB-PA....................... National Guard Bureau Office of Public
Affairs
NOA.......................... Notice of Availability
NOI.......................... Notice of Intent
OSD.......................... Office of the Secretary of Defense
OSHA......................... Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
PDEIS........................ Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact
Statement
PGM.......................... Product Group Manager
REO.......................... Air Force Regional Environmental Office
ROD.......................... Record of Decision
SAF/AQR...................... Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force (Science, Technology, and
Engineering)
SAF/GC....................... Air Force General Counsel
SAF/LL....................... Air Force Office of Legislative Liaison
SAF/MI....................... Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Manpower, Reserve Affairs,
Installations, and Environment
SAF/MIQ...................... Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force (Environment, Safety, and
Occupational Health)
SAF/PA....................... Air Force Office of Public Affairs
SJA.......................... Staff Judge Advocate
SM........................... Single Manager
SPD.......................... Single Program Director
SPOC......................... Single Point of Contact
TDY.......................... Temporary Duty
U.S.C........................ United States Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms
Note: All definitions in the CEQ Regulations, 40 CFR part 1508,
apply to this part. In addition, the following definitions apply:
Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives (DOPAA)--An Air
Force document that is the framework for assessing the environmental
impact of a proposal. It describes the purpose and need for the
action, the alternatives to be considered, and the rationale used to
arrive at the proposed action. The DOPAA often unfolds as writing
progresses. The DOPAA can change during the internal scoping and
public scoping process, especially as ideas and issues become
clearer, and as new information makes changes necessary.
Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP)--The Air Force
program that implements the requirements of NEPA and requirements
for analysis of environmental effects abroad under E.O. 12114.
Finding of No Practicable Alternative (FONPA)--Finding contained
in a FONSI or ROD, according to Executive Orders 11988 and 11990,
that explains why there are no practicable alternatives to an action
affecting a wetland or floodplain, based on appropriate EIAP
analysis or other documentation.
Interdisciplinary--An approach to environmental analysis
involving more than one discipline or branch of learning.
Pollution Prevention--``Source reduction,'' as defined under the
Pollution Prevention Act, and other practices that reduce or
eliminate pollutants through increased efficiency in the use of raw
materials, energy, water, or other resources, or in the protection
of natural resources by conservation.
Proponent--Any office, unit, or activity that proposes to
initiate an action.
Scoping--A process for proposing alternatives to be addressed
and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed
action. Scoping includes affirmative efforts to communicate with
other federal agencies, state, Tribal, and local governments, and
the public.
Single Manager--Any one of the Air Force designated weapon
system program managers, that include System Program Directors
(SPDs), Product Group Managers (PGMs), and Materiel Group Managers
(MGMs).
United States--All states, commonwealths, the District of
Columbia, territories and possessions of the United States, and all
waters and airspace subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the
United States. The territories and possessions of the United States
include American Samoa, Guam, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway
Island, Navassa Island, Palmyra Island, the Virgin Islands, and Wake
Island.
Appendix B to Part 984--Categorical Exclusions
A2.1. Proponent/EPF Responsibility
Although a proposed action may qualify for a categorical
exclusion from the requirements for environmental impact analysis
under NEPA, this exclusion does not relieve the EPF or the proponent
of responsibility for complying with all other environmental
requirements related to the proposal, including requirements for
permits, state regulatory agency review of plans, and so on.
A2.2. Additional Analysis
Circumstances may arise in which usually categorically excluded
actions may have a significant environmental impact and, therefore,
may generate a requirement for further environmental analysis.
Examples of situations where such unique circumstances may be
present include:
A2.2.1. Actions of greater scope or size than generally
experienced for a particular category of action.
A2.2.2. Potential for degradation (even though slight) of
already marginal or poor environmental conditions.
A2.2.3. Initiating a degrading influence, activity, or effect in
areas not already significantly modified from their natural
condition.
A2.2.4. Use of unproved technology.
A2.2.5. Use of hazardous or toxic substances that may come in
contact with the surrounding environment.
A2.2.6. Presence of threatened or endangered species,
archaeological remains, historical sites, or other protected
resources.
A2.2.7. Proposals adversely affecting areas of critical
environmental concern, such as prime or unique agricultural lands,
wetlands, coastal zones, wilderness areas, floodplains, or wild and
scenic river areas.
A2.2.8. Proposals with disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority populations or low-
income populations.
A2.3. CATEX List
Actions that are categorically excluded in the absence of unique
circumstances are:
A2.3.1. Routine procurement of goods and services.
A2.3.2. Routine Commissary and Exchange operations.
A2.3.3. Routine recreational and welfare activities.
A2.3.4. Normal personnel, fiscal or budgeting, and
administrative activities and decisions including those involving
military and civilian personnel (for example, recruiting,
processing, paying, and records keeping).
A2.3.5. Preparing, revising, or adopting regulations,
instructions, directives, or guidance documents that do not,
themselves, result in an action being taken.
A2.3.6. Preparing, revising, or adopting regulations,
instructions, directives, or guidance documents that implement
(without substantial change) the regulations,
[[Page 38141]]
instructions, directives, or guidance documents from higher
headquarters or other Federal agencies with superior subject matter
jurisdiction.
A2.3.7. Continuation or resumption of pre-existing actions,
where there is no substantial change in existing conditions or
existing land uses and where the actions were originally evaluated
in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and surrounding
circumstances have not changed.
A2.3.8. Performing interior and exterior construction within the
5-foot line of a building without changing the land use of the
existing building.
A2.3.9. Repairing and replacing real property installed
equipment.
A2.3.10. Routine facility maintenance and repair that does not
involve disturbing significant quantities of hazardous materials
such as asbestos and lead-based paint.
A2.3.11. Actions similar to other actions which have been
determined to have an insignificant impact in a similar setting as
established in an EIS or an EA resulting in a FONSI. The EPF must
document application of this CATEX on AF Form 813, specifically
identifying the previous Air Force approved environmental document
which provides the basis for this determination.
A2.3.12. Installing, operating, modifying, and routinely
repairing and replacing utility and communications systems, data
processing cable, and similar electronic equipment that use existing
rights of way, easements, distribution systems, or facilities.
A2.3.13. Installing or modifying airfield operational equipment
(such as runway visual range equipment, visual glide path systems,
and remote transmitter or receiver facilities) on airfield property
and usually accessible only to maintenance personnel.
A2.3.14. Installing on previously developed land, equipment that
does not substantially alter land use (i.e., land use of more than
one acre). This includes outgrants to private lessees for similar
construction. The EPF must document application of this CATEX on AF
Form 813.
A2.3.15. Laying-away or mothballing a production facility or
adopting a reduced maintenance level at a closing installation when
(1) agreement on any required historic preservation effort has been
reached with the state historic preservation officer and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and (2) no degradation in
the environmental restoration program will occur.
A2.3.16. Acquiring land and ingrants (50 acres or less) for
activities otherwise subject to CATEX. The EPF must document
application of this CATEX on AF Form 813.
A2.3.17. Transferring land, facilities, and personal property
for which the General Services Administration (GSA) is the action
agency. Such transfers are excluded only if there is no change in
land use and GSA complies with its NEPA requirements.
A2.3.18. Transferring administrative control of real property
within the Air Force or to another military department or to another
Federal agency, not including GSA, including returning public domain
lands to the Department of the Interior.
A2.3.19. Granting easements, leases, licenses, rights of entry,
and permits to use Air Force controlled property for activities
that, if conducted by the Air Force, could be categorically excluded
in accordance with this attachment. The EPF must document
application of this CATEX on AF Form 813.
A2.3.20. Converting in-house services to contract services.
A2.3.21. Routine personnel decreases and increases, including
work force conversion to either on-base contractor operation or to
military operation from contractor operation (excluding base closure
and realignment actions which are subject to congressional reporting
under 10 U.S.C. 2687).
A2.3.22. Routine, temporary movement of personnel, including
deployments of personnel on a TDY basis where existing facilities
are used.
A2.3.23. Personnel reductions resulting from workload
adjustments, reduced personnel funding levels, skill imbalances, or
other similar causes.
A2.3.24. Study efforts that involve no commitment of resources
other than personnel and funding allocations.
A2.3.25. The analysis and assessment of the natural environment
without altering it (inspections, audits, surveys, investigations).
This CATEX includes the granting of any permits necessary for such
surveys, provided that the technology or procedure involved is well
understood and there are no adverse environmental impacts
anticipated from it. The EPF must document application of this CATEX
on AF Form 813.
A2.3.26. Undertaking specific investigatory activities to
support remedial action activities for purposes of cleanup of
Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action sites. These
activities include soil borings and sampling, installation, and
operation of test or monitoring wells. This CATEX applies to studies
that assist in determining final cleanup actions when they are
conducted in accordance with legal agreements, administrative
orders, or work plans previously agreed to by EPA or state
regulators.
A2.3.27. Normal or routine basic and applied scientific research
confined to the laboratory and in compliance with all applicable
safety, environmental, and natural resource conservation laws.
A2.3.28. Routine transporting of hazardous materials and wastes
in accordance with applicable Federal, state, interstate, and local
laws.
A2.3.29. Emergency handling and transporting of small quantities
of chemical surety material or suspected chemical surety material,
whether or not classified as hazardous or toxic waste, from a
discovery site to a permitted storage, treatment, or disposal
facility.
A2.3.30. Immediate responses to the release or discharge of oil
or hazardous materials in accordance with an approved Spill
Prevention and Response Plan or Spill Contingency Plan or that are
otherwise consistent with the requirements of the National
Contingency Plan.
A2.3.31. Relocating a small number of aircraft to an
installation with similar aircraft that does not result in a
significant increase of total flying hours or the total number of
aircraft operations, a change in flight tracks, or an increase in
permanent personnel or logistics support requirements at the
receiving installation. Repetitive use of this CATEX at an
installation requires further analysis to determine there are no
cumulative impacts. The EPF must document application of this CATEX
on AF Form 813.
A2.3.32. Temporary (for less than 30 days) increases in air
operations up to 50 percent of the typical installation aircraft
operation rate or increases of 50 operations a day, whichever is
greater. Repetitive use of this CATEX at an installation requires
further analysis to determine there are no cumulative impacts.
A2.3.33. Flying activities that comply with the Federal aviation
regulations, that are dispersed over a wide area and that do not
frequently (more than once a day) pass near the same ground points.
This CATEX does not cover regular activity on established routes or
within special use airspace.
A2.3.34. Supersonic flying operations over land and above 30,000
feet MSL, or over water and above 10,000 feet MSL and more than 15
nautical miles from land.
A2.3.35. Formal requests to the FAA, or host-nation equivalent
agency, to establish or modify special use airspace (for example,
restricted areas, warning areas, military operating areas) and
military training routes for subsonic operations that have a base
altitude of 3,000 feet above ground level or higher. The EPF must
document application of this CATEX on AF Form 813, which must
accompany the request to the FAA.
A2.3.36. Adopting airfield approach, departure, and en route
procedures that are less than 3,000 feet above ground level, and
that also do not route air traffic over noise-sensitive areas,
including residential neighborhoods or cultural, historical, and
outdoor recreational areas. The EPF may categorically exclude such
air traffic patterns at or greater than 3,000 feet above ground
level regardless of underlying land use.
A2.3.37. Participating in ``air shows'' and fly-overs by Air
Force aircraft at non-Air Force public events after obtaining FAA
coordination and approval.
A2.3.38. Conducting Air Force ``open houses'' and similar
events, including air shows, golf tournaments, home shows, and the
like, where crowds gather at an Air Force installation, so long as
crowd and traffic control, etc., have not in the past presented
significant safety or environmental impacts.
Appendix C to Part 989--Procedures for Holding Public Hearings on
Draft Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
A.3.1. General Information
A3.1.1. The Office of the Judge Advocate General, through the
Air Force Legal Services Agency/Trial Judiciary Division (AFLSA/
JAJT) and its field organization, is responsible for conducting
public hearings and assuring verbatim transcripts are accomplished.
A3.1.2. The EPF, with proponent, AFLSA/JAJT, and Public Affairs
support, establishes the date and location, arranges for hiring the
court reporter, funds temporary duty costs for
[[Page 38142]]
the hearing officer, makes logistical arrangements (for example,
publishing notices, arranging for press coverage, obtaining tables
and chairs, etc.).
A3.1.3. The procedures outlined below have proven themselves
through many prior applications. However, there may be rare
instances when circumstances warrant conducting public hearings
under a different format, e.g., public/town meeting, information
booths, third party moderator, etc. In these cases, forward a
request with justification to deviate from these procedures to USAF/
ILEVP for SAF/MIQ approval.
A3.2. Notice of Hearing (40 CFR 1506.6)
A3.2.1. Public Affairs officers:
A3.2.1.1. Announce public hearings and assemble a mailing list
of individuals to be invited.
A3.2.1.2. Distribute announcements of a hearing to all
interested individuals and agencies, including the print and
electronic media.
A3.2.1.3. Place a newspaper display advertisement announcing the
time and place of the hearing as well as other pertinent
particulars.
A3.2.1.4. Distribute the notice in a timely manner so it will
reach recipients or be published at least 15 days before the hearing
date. Distribute notices fewer than 15 days before the hearing date
when you have substantial justification and if the justification for
a shortened notice period appears in the notice.
A3.2.1.5. Develop and distribute news release.
A3.2.2. If an action has effects of national concern, publish
notices in the Federal Register and mail notices to national
organizations that have an interest in the matter.
A3.2.2.1. Because of the longer lead time required by the
Federal Register, send out notices for publication in the Federal
Register to arrive at HQ USAF/CEV no later than 30 days before the
hearing date.
A3.2.3. The notice should include:
A3.2.3.1. Date, time, place, and subject of the hearing.
A3.2.3.2. A description of the general format of the hearing.
A3.2.3.3. The name and telephone number of a person to contact
for more information.
A3.2.3.4. A suggestion that speakers submit (in writing or by
return call) their intention to participate, with an indication of
which environmental impact (or impacts) they wish to address.
A3.2.3.5. Any limitation on the length of oral statements.
A3.2.3.6. A suggestion that speakers submit statements of
considerable length in writing.
A3.2.3.7. A summary of the proposed action.
A3.2.3.8. The location where the draft EIS and any appendices
are available for examination.
A.3.3. Availability of the Draft EIS to the Public.
The EPF makes copies of the Draft EIS available to the public at
an Air Force installation and other reasonably accessible place in
the vicinity of the proposed action and public hearing (e.g., public
library).
A3.4. Place of the Hearing
The EPF arranges to hold the hearing at a time and place and in
an area readily accessible to military and civilian organizations
and individuals interested in the proposed action. Generally, the
EPF should arrange to hold the hearing in an off-base civilian
facility, which is more accessible to the public.
A3.5. Hearing Officer
A3.5.1. The AFLSA/JAJT selects a military trial judge to preside
over hearings. The hearing officer does not need to have personal
knowledge of the project, other than familiarity with the Draft EIS.
In no event should the hearing officer be a judge advocate from the
proponent or subordinate command, be assigned to the same
installation with which the hearing is concerned, or have
participated personally in the development of the project, or have
rendered legal advice or assistance with respect to it (or be
expected to do so in the future). The principal qualification of the
hearing officer should be the ability to conduct a hearing as an
impartial participant.
A3.5.2. The primary duties of the hearing officer are to make
sure that the hearing is orderly, is recorded, and that interested
parties have a reasonable opportunity to speak. The presiding
officer should direct the speakers' attention to the purpose of the
hearing, which is to consider the environmental impacts of the
proposed project. Speakers should have a time limit to ensure
maximum public input to the decision-maker.
A3.6. Record of the Hearing
The EIS preparation team must make sure a verbatim transcribed
record of the hearing is prepared, including all stated positions,
all questions, and all responses. The EIS preparation team should
append all written submissions that parties provide to the hearing
officer during the hearing to the record as attachments. The EIS
preparation team should also append a list of persons who spoke at
the hearing and submitted written comments and a list of the
organizations or interests they represent with addresses. The EIS
preparation team must make sure a verbatim transcript of the hearing
is provided to the EPF for inclusion as an appendix to the Final
EIS. The officer should also ensure that all persons who request a
copy of the transcript get a copy when it is completed. Copying
charges are determined according to 40 CFR 1506.6(f).
A3.7. Hearing Format
Use the format outlined below as a general guideline for
conducting a hearing. Hearing officers should tailor the format to
meet the hearing objectives. These objectives provide information to
the public, record opinions of interested persons on environmental
impacts of the proposed action, and set out alternatives for
improving the EIS and for later consideration.
A3.7.1. Record of Attendees. The hearing officer should make a
list of all persons who wish to speak at the hearing to help the
hearing officer in calling on these individuals, to ensure an
accurate transcript of the hearing, and to enable the officer to
send a copy of the Final EIS (40 CFR 1502.19) to any person,
organization, or agency that provided substantive comments at the
hearing. The hearing officer should assign assistants to the
entrance of the hearing room to provide cards on which individuals
can voluntarily write their names, addresses, telephone numbers,
organizations they represent, and titles; whether they desire to
make a statement at the hearing; and what environmental area(s) they
wish to address. The hearing officer can then use the cards to call
on individuals who desire to make statements. However, the hearing
officer will not deny entry to the hearing or the right to speak to
people who decline to submit this information on cards.
A3.7.2. Introductory Remarks. The hearing officer should first
introduce himself or herself and the EIS preparation team. Then the
hearing officer should make a brief statement on the purpose of the
hearing and give the general ground rules on how it will be
conducted. This is the proper time to welcome any dignitaries who
are present. The hearing officer should explain that he or she does
not make any recommendation or decision on whether the proposed
project should be continued, modified, or abandoned or how the EIS
should be prepared.
A3.7.3. Explanation of the Proposed Action. The Air Force EIS
preparation team representative should next explain the proposed
action, the alternatives, the potential environmental consequences,
and the EIAP.
A3.7.4. Questions by Attendees. After the EIS team
representative explains the proposed action, alternatives, and
consequences, the hearing officer should give attendees a chance to
ask questions to clarify points they may not have understood. The
EIS preparation team may have to reply in writing, at a later date,
to some of the questions. While the Air Force EIS preparation team
should be as responsive as possible in answering questions about the
proposal, they should not become involved in debate with questioners
over the merits of the proposed action. Cross-examination of
speakers, either those of the Air Force or the public, is not the
purpose of an informal hearing. If necessary, the hearing officer
may limit questioning or conduct portions of the hearing to ensure
proper lines of inquiry. However, the hearing officer should include
all questions in the hearing record.
A3.7.5. Statement of Attendees. The hearing officer must give
the persons attending the hearing a chance to present oral or
written statements. The hearing officer should be sure the recorder
has the name and address of each person who submits an oral or
written statement. The officer should also permit the attendees to
submit written statements within a reasonable time, usually two
weeks, following the hearing. The officer should allot a reasonable
length of time at the hearing for receiving oral statements. The
officer may waive any announced time limit at his or her discretion.
The hearing officer may allow those who have not previously
indicated a desire to speak to identify themselves and be recognized
only after those who have previously indicated their intentions to
speak have spoken.
[[Page 38143]]
A3.7.6. Ending or Extending a Hearing. The hearing officer has
the power to end the hearing if the hearing becomes disorderly, if
the speakers become repetitive, or for other good cause. In any such
case, the hearing officer must make a statement for the record on
the reasons for terminating the hearing. The hearing officer may
also extend the hearing beyond the originally announced date and
time. The officer should announce the extension to a later date or
time during the hearing and prior to the hearing if possible.
A3.8. Adjourning the Hearing
After all persons have had a chance to speak, when the hearing
has culled a representative view of public opinion, or when the time
set for the hearing and any reasonable extension of time has ended,
the hearing officer adjourns the hearing. In certain circumstances
(for example, if the hearing officer believes it is likely that some
participants will introduce new and relevant information), the
hearing officer may justify scheduling an additional, separate
hearing session. If the hearing officer makes the decision to hold
another hearing while presiding over the original hearing he or she
should announce that another public hearing will be scheduled or is
under consideration. The officer gives notice of a decision to
continue these hearings in essentially the same way he or she
announced the original hearing, time permitting. The Public Affairs
officer provides the required public notices and directs notices to
interested parties in coordination with the hearing officer. Because
of lead-time constraints, SAF/MIQ may waive Federal Register notice
requirements or advertisements in local publications. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer should inform the
attendees of the deadline (usually 2 weeks) to submit additional
written remarks in the hearing record. The officer should also
notify attendees of the deadline for the commenting period of the
Draft EIS.
Janet A. Long,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 99-17684 Filed 7-14-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.