General Plan Environmental Assessment Hurlburt Field Florida

1
General Plan Environmental Assessment Hurlburt
Field Florida

• Phillip Pruitt, Hurlburt Field Florida
• Carl T. Hoffman, Hurlburt Field Florida
• Jerry T. Lang, Woolpert, Inc.

2
Hurlburt Field Context

• Special Operations Command Installation
• Rapidly growing area
• 6,634-acres in the Florida Panhandle
• Diversity of special operations-related missions
• Fixed-wing and rotary wing flying units
• Wetlands cover 52 of installation
• Densely developed cantonment area
• Strong planning tradition
• Long-term planning team relationship

3
Composite Natural Resources Constraints, Hurlburt
Field Florida
4
The Planning Foundation
5
The Key Underlying Planning Documents

• Land Use Plan
• Broad recommendations on future facility siting
  (avoidance of constraints, general
  compatibility)
• Long-range Facilities Development Plan
• Articulates site-specific conditions, addresses
  consolidation/adjacency rqts., reflects design
  and construction stds.
• Capital Improvements Plan
• Begins describing facility specifics, 1391s,
  project numbers, category codes
• The what, when and where

6
NEPA Part of the Planning Process

• NEPA is NOT
• A document
• A process for preparing a document
• An analysis of environmental impacts
• NEPA IS
• A comprehensive planning and decision-making
  process
• A tool to provide the basis for informed, planned
  and carefully considered decisions
• Intended to make agencies look before they leap

7
NEPA and Planning

• The challenge of timing and scale
• Too early vs too late
• CEQ regulations
• 40 CFR 1501.2 integrate NEPA process with
  other planning at the earliest possible time
• 40 CFR 1502.5 the process will not be used to
  rationalize decisions already made
• The challenge of identifying cumulative impacts
• The big picture requirement
• Using an ecosystem-based organizing principle

8
The Streamlined Approach Used at Hurlburt

• Bundled 53 multi-year projects under one EA
  umbrella
• Preferred project sitings reflected earlier
  multiple planning screens
• Criteria use in determining what projects to
  consider in the EA
• Up-to-date GIS is essential
• Stopping the moving target
• No-action and feasible/reasonable alternatives

9
Locations of Capital Improvements Program
Projects for FYs 06-11 Hurlburt Field Florida
10
(No Transcript)
11
Preferred Alternative Locations of Capital
Improvements Program Projects in Storm Water
Sub-basin 11, Hurlburt Field Florida
12
Project Site Map with Constraints
13
Project Site Map with Constraints
14
A Change in NEPA Philosophy

• Traditional approach
• Predict, mitigate, and implement
• New approach
• Predict, mitigate, monitor, adapt, implement,
  monitor
• Continually updated GIS
• continues guiding planning, design and
  construction to keep impacts at or below NEPA
  predicted levels

15
The Essential Ingredients

• Solid detailed planning documentation (AFI
  32-7062)
• Use NEPA guidance in AFI 32-7061
• Develop, maintain, and use up-to-date GIS layers
  - pursue GeoBase goals of HQ USAF/IL Memo 7 Oct
  2002
• Link project siting and environmental information
  to ACES

16
Document Development Details

• Heavily reliant on supporting graphics/mapping
  details
• Provided side-by-side comparisons of alternative
  sitings
• Hierarchical analysis
• Project sub-basin installation
• Detailed appendices with supporting information

17
(No Transcript)
18
Bottom Line Advantages

• Better analyses with cumulative impacts
• Integrates NEPA earlier in the planning process
• Allows easier future monitoring of impacts
• SAVES DOCUMENTATION TIME AND MONEY
• Provides a substantial NEPA document for future
  tiering

19
QUESTIONS?

• THANK YOU!