PROPOSAL DIA/CIA COLLOCATION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP81M00980R001400090014-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 29, 2004
• Sequence Number: 14
• Publication Date: November 20, 1978
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2004/12/22: CIA-RDP81 M00980R001410O'90O 4=3 YX
} N14
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Administration
VIA:
STAT FROM:
Director of Logistics
Chief, Real Estate and Construction
Division, OL
SUBJECT: Proposed DIA/CIA Collocation
REFERENCES: (a) MFR dtd 9 Nov 78 fm DCI, Subject:
Conversation with Deputy Secretary
of Defense Duncan, 8 November 1978
(paragraph 6)
(b) Memo dtd 17 Nov 78 to A-DDA fm
C/RECD/OL, Subject: Proposed DIA/CIA
Collocation
1. The DCI, in Reference (a), requested more detailed
information on the subject of the "clearances" needed before
construction of a DIA building on the Langley compound could
commence. This subject can be roughly divided into two
categories: legislative and executive. By prior agreement,
OLC has offered to provide a separate paper to the DCI
containing more specific information on the legislative
aspects of this problem. An initial OL opinion is, however,
that a host of Congressional committees would become involved
in this particular situation, including those responsible
for.appropriations, defense, intelligence, and, most probably,
public works.
2. By way of background to a discussion of executive
level coordination required., several comments should be made
concerning the preliminary Master Plan for the Langley site
and on the National Environmental Protection Act. Our
preliminary Master Plan was approved by the National Capital
Planning Commission (NCPC) in 1972. Our current plan limits
the gross square footage for any given structure to a maximum
STAT of gross square feet (considerably less than that
Approved For Release 2004/12/22 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R001400090014-3
 li. 81 M00980R001400090014-3
SUBJECTAPP"OP(Fx FeNPAV9%k4W 46 Lr-[A-.
needed to accommodate the PTA complement envisioned in
Reference (b)) and limits total employee growth to no more
than 0. Moreover, the 1972 plan was adopted by NCPC in
executive session at the request of the Agency. Thus, it
has never been circulated outside NCPC for comment by federal,
state, or local authorities who must, in the final analysis,
give their blessing to any construction on the compound. The
combination of these factors leads to the conclusion that
the existing preliminary Master Plan of 1972 may have to be
discarded and a new Master Plan required unless either the
DCI's influence or other appropriate executive level pressure
is applied. Another situation which will have an impact on
the clearance process is the National Environmental Protection
Act (NEPA) of 1969. In May 1977, President Carter amended
the existing Executive Order on this subject and directed
the Council on Environmental Quality.(CI,Q) to issue legally
binding regulations implementing NEPA's procedural provisions.
Under existing law, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
is required for any federal action which is determined to
have a "significant" impact upon environmental quality. The
Agency has yet to file an ETS for any project, and discreet
inquiries at CEQ indicate some chance, however minimal in
this particular case, of getting by with merely an Environ-
mental Assessment - a much less complicated procedure wherein
negative environmental impact is determined by the sponsoring
agency. An EIS runs to 150 pages, requires the use of
outside consultants to complete, must be filed with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and involves public
hearings. Recent dealings with local authorities on such
minor projects as installation of the incinerator reinforces
our belief that, barring direct DCI influence or intervention,
it maybe necessary to file an EIS to preclude subsequent
litigation in approving construction of the magnitude intended.
In sum, although there is some hope that filing of an EIS
could be avoided, the risk of adversary action is so great
that we recommend filing an EIS in order to protect our
flanks and forestall inordinate delays once the project is
underway.
3. With the foregoing background in mind, the following
steps could be required:
a. Prepare and submit to NCPC a new Master Plan
for the Langley compound.
Approved For Release 2004/12/22 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R001400090014-3
 SUBJECT; Proposed DIA/CIA Collocation
Approved For Release 2004/12/22 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R001400090014-3
b. Prepare and submit to NCPC a preliminary site
and building plan for the proposed. building.
c. Contract for, file with EPA, and circulate for
comment, an EIS.
Steps a and b would be separated by some 60-90 days to allow
time for NCPC to obtain approval of the Master Plan. Step c
would run concurrently so that all obstacles could be over-
come and the necessary approvals, or clearances, obtained
more or less simultaneously. NCPC will act as a clearing-
house for steps a and b by circulating the plan and proposal,
conducting hearings, summarizing findings, and, finally,
voting to approve the plan and project. In this clearinghouse
role, NCPC will coordinate with the following agencies:
Health, Education and Welfare (UEIV - employment oppor-
tunities for handicapped, minorities
ILousing and Urban Development (HUD) - availability of
low-cost housing
Metropolitan l;'ashin ton Transportation Authority (MWTA) -
traffic density on access roads
Fine Arts Commission (PAC) -- conformance with Potomac
River skyline an
y (and an
influential factor in aesthetics of
all Metropolitan Washington Area. (MWA) construction)
Local Government - Fairfax County Planning Commission,
Northern Virginia Regional Planning Commission, the State
Clearinghouse (Richmond, VA), and the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments (COG) - sewage treatment, highway
congestion, access roads, drainage, effluents, ad infinitum.
While the Agency would have to defend its proposals and be
prepared to compromise if necessary, at least in this portion
of the process, NCPC would act as the agent and carry the
bulk of the administrative load. The EIS submission presents
a different problem because the Agency must accomplish
everything itself--prepare or have prepared the EIS, file
with EPA, circulate for comments, and hold public hearings
if necessary to determine measures to minimize any significant
impact of the proposed construction upon the environment.
Assuming that no major obstacles are encountered, NCPC/EPA
approval would normally be completed within 18 months from
the time the Master Plan and EIS are prepared and submitted
for comment/approval.
Approved For Release 2004/12/22 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R001400090014-3
 SIJBJI C'i' :Apnrg FgrdRqjq s 210ic4Cl3q 2QCC!4 ?81 M00980R001400090014-3
4. The information provided above on clearance proce-
dures is responsive to the DCI's specific request, but there
are also potential problems in the funding and implementation
of a project of this magnitude with which the DCI should be
familiar. Described below arc several different approaches
to funding and implementation and a brief description of the
problems associated with each.
a. The first and perhaps most expedient at this
point in time would be to get OMB and Congressional
approval to utilize the construction funds currently
included in the FY-80 Military Construction appropria-
tion for construction at Langley rather than Bolling
and to use the Navy (DIA's construction agent) and
their Architect-Engineer to accomplish the project at
Langley. GSA can be expected to object to this approach
since the original construction at Headquarters and all
subsequent maintenance, operation, and new construction
has been effected by them. On the other hand, they
have done so at the invitation of the Agency because
money for the original construction and most subsequent
construction was appropriated directly to the Agency,
not GSA. This may well become a legal/jurisdictional
issue which would have to be resolved by the Office of
the General Counsel (OGC).
b. A second and less desirable approacT would be
to have the Agency seek specific legislation approving
and funding Langley construction and accomplish the
work by direct contract between the Agency and a "turn-
key contractor" who would perform both design and
construction. Obviously, the legislative process is
lengthy and requires considerable coordination. More-
over, direct contracting by the Agency, particularly if
it was to be accomplished on a sole-source, negotiated
basis to minimize delay, would require the DCI to
utilize his extraordinary operational authorities as
contained in the CIA Act of 1949. This approach would
require investigation by OGC and, if not authorized,
then a direct contract could only be written with a
specific delegation from the Administrator of GSA, an
unlikely event considering their role as major "construction
agency". It should also be noted that this approach
would require the full-time services of an additional
number of Agency personnel to manage the project.
Approved For Release 2004/12/22 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R001400090014-3
 SUBJECTAppr~v&d)P6t4*elP i'0b4/1(2P2J21.CMA M1 M00980R001400090014-3
c. The only other alternative, the GSA/prospectus
route, is considered unacceptable because it so obviously
exceeds the time frame already established.
S. The additional information provided above is intended
simply to introduce all the possible issues which must be
resolved before construction could proceed at Langley.
Should the DCI desire a more definitive discussion of these
alternative courses of action, it is recommended that a
group comprising OLC, OGC, Comptroller, and OL facilities
representatives be tasked. to develop same.
6. Please let me know the DCI's desires in this matter.
cc: OLC
OGC
0/Compt
Approved For Release 2004/12/22 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R001400090014-3
 STAT Approved For Release 2004/12/22 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R001400090014-3
Approved For Release 2004/12/22 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R001400090014-3