National Environmental Policy Act; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact; NASA Shared Services Center (NSSC), 7520-7524 [05-2812]

Download as PDF 7520 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 29 / Monday, February 14, 2005 / Notices Form Numbers: CM–933; CM–933b; CM–988; CM–1159; and CM–2907. Frequency: On occasion. Type of Response: Reporting. Affected Public: Business and other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions. Number of Respondents: 17,500. Number of annual responses Form Average response time (hours) Annual burden hours CM–933 ....................................................................................................................................... CM–933b ..................................................................................................................................... CM–988 ....................................................................................................................................... CM–1159 ..................................................................................................................................... CM–2907 ..................................................................................................................................... 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 0.08 0.05 0.50 0.25 0.33 292 175 1,750 875 1,167 Total: ..................................................................................................................................... 17,500 ........................ 4,259 Total Annualized capital/startup costs: $0. Total Annual Costs (operating/ maintaining systems or purchasing services): $0. Description: The Black Lung Act Benefits Act of 1977 as amended, 30 U.S.C. 901 et seq. and 20 CFR 718.102 set forth criteria for the administration and interpretation of x-rays. When a miner applies for benefits, the Division of Coal Mine Workers’ Compensation is required to schedule a series of four diagnostic tests to help establish eligibility for black lung benefits. Each of the diagnostic tests has its own form that sets forth the medical results. The forms are: CM–933, Roentgenographic Interpretation; CM–933b, Roentgenographic Quality Rereading; CM–988, Medical History and Examination for Coal Mine Workers’ Pneumoconiosis; CM–1159, Report of Arterial Blood Gas Study; and CM– 2907, Report of Ventilatory Study. The Department of Labor seeks the approval of this information in order to carry out its responsibility to determine eligibility for black lung benefits. Ira L. Mills, Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. 05–2789 Filed 2–11–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–23–P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice (05–024)] National Environmental Policy Act; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact; NASA Shared Services Center (NSSC) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of availability of Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact. AGENCY: SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as VerDate jul<14>2003 15:28 Feb 11, 2005 Jkt 205001 amended (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA, and NASA’s implementing regulations, the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, NASA regulations for implementing Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management, and EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and the NASA Environmental Justice Strategy (1994) for implementing EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; NASA has made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the three proposed alternatives including: the Proposed and Preferred Action (Alternative A, lease and operation of the NASA Shared Services Center (NSSC) at any of the following three sites: NASA Stennis Space Center, Mississippi, Aerospace Technology Park, Brook Park, Ohio, and Cummings Research Park, Huntsville, Alabama); Alternative B (Virtual Consolidation); and Alternative C (No Action). Accordingly, an environmental impact statement is not required. DATES: Comments in response to this notice must be received in writing by NASA, no later than March 16, 2005, or March 17, 2005, whichever is later. ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to: Dr. Ann H. Clarke, NASA Environmental Program Manager, Environmental Management Division (Code LD020), NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., Washington DC 20546– 0001; phone: 202–358–0007; e-mail: ann.h.clarke@nasa.gov The Environmental Assessment (EA Phase 2) for the NSSC Facility that supports this FONSI may be reviewed on the NSSC Web site http:// nssc.nasa.gov, or at the NASA Headquarters Library, 300 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20546. A limited number of copies of the EA are available by contacting Dr. Ann H. Clarke, NASA Environmental Program PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Manager, Environmental Management Division (Code LD020), NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., Washington DC 20546–0001; phone: 202–358–0007; e-mail: ann.h.clarke@nasa.gov or the following NASA Center NEPA Document Managers: NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC): Ms. Trudy F. Kortes, 216–433–3632. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC): Ms. Donna L. Holland, 256– 544–7201. NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC): Ms. Carolyn D. Kennedy, 228–688– 1445. NASA is proposing to consolidate certain transactional functions currently performed across NASA Centers to a new business unit known as the NASA Shared Services Center (NSSC) (NASA Shared Services Center (NSSC) Implementation Plan Report (NSSC– RPT–02 Volume 1, September 2003, recommending continued planning for early implementation of the NSSC) (Implementation Plan), available at http://nssc.nasa.gov. The purpose of the Proposed Action (Alternative A), which is also the Preferred Alternative, is to locate the NSSC consistent with the recommendations of the Implementation Plan addressing the need for NASA to improve the use of resources and foster greater efficiencies at reduced costs for transactional functions. The Proposed Action would create a functionally and environmentally efficient NSSC to meet the need for a single shared-services facility, consistent with and furthering other goals for the NSSC. The Virtual NSSC (Alternative B) would consolidate the same functions into an NSSC, but in a virtual environment. The No Action NSSC (Alternative C) would allow continued administrative reorganization, but not into a consolidated NSSC. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 29 / Monday, February 14, 2005 / Notices Alternative A (Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative) The Proposed Action (and Preferred Alternative) (Alternative A) would be to consolidate and co-locate certain currently dispersed transactional and administrative activities performed at NASA Centers in human resources, procurement, financial management, and information technology (IT) and identified in the NSSC Implementation Plan. IT functions consolidated to NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) would remain at MSFC and be consolidated organizationally into the NSSC. Other types of functional activities or services may be consolidated into the NSSC in the future. The NSSC would become operational on or about October 2005 and employ approximately 500 civil service employees and contractors at full transition after five years and may expand later by up to 40 percent. Most personnel currently performing the functional activities at existing Centers would remain at their respective Centers to concentrate on Center mission activities. Some personnel would leave due to normal attrition, while other personnel would be relocated to the NSSC. In addition to labor cost and availability, NASA siting criteria included workforce diversity, local transportation access, access by other NASA Centers, safe and healthful working conditions, opportunities for further employee development in the vicinity of the proposed NSSC, and opportunities for partnering with local educational institutions, including minority institutions. The NSSC would require Class A office space in a facility comparable to a mid-size office building of approximately 12,150 square meters (m2) (135,000 square feet (ft2) with associated infrastructure, parking, and temporary swing space. No new computer ‘‘data centers’’ are planned. NASA would construct or lease the facility in partnership with State or local agencies or commercial partners. All proposals under Alternative A would include swing space in existing facilities during construction of the NSSC facility. In addition to facility size, NASA required nominations to comply with NASA’s sustainable design policy for new and renovated facilities (NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 8820.3, Facility Sustainable Design, NASA 2003, and NASA Memorandum on Policy for LEED() Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Ratings for NASA New Facilities Projects, NASA Facilities VerDate jul<14>2003 15:28 Feb 11, 2005 Jkt 205001 Engineering Division, September 5, 2003). NASA also committed to designating a part or full-time NASA NSSC Environmental Manager and NASA NSSC Energy Manager and developing or applying an Environmental Management System (EMS) (NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8553.1, NASA Environmental Management System, developed in response to EO 13148, Greening the Government Through Environmental Leadership), and would develop an Environmental Justice Strategy for the NSSC in response to NASA’s Environmental Justice Strategy and EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. Additional siting criteria included location of the NSSC in accordance with the priorities and procedures established in the Rural Development Act (RDA) of 1972, as amended (requiring Federal agencies to implement policies and procedures for giving first priority to rural areas); EO 12072, Federal Space Management (requiring Federal agencies to locate facilities according to listed criteria); EO 13006, Locating Federal Facilities on Historic Properties in Our Nation’s Central Cities (directing Federal agencies to give priority to locating in historic properties and districts); other applicable Federal, State, Tribal, and local requirements; and the ability of local communities to provide adequate housing, schools, health care, recreational opportunities, and other amenities. To demonstrate efficiencies not only in functional performance, but also in facility management supporting the NSSC, and to meet the timetable for implementing the NSSC, NASA’s siting criteria included the ability to mitigate environmental impacts in the design and operation of the NSSC to below applicable significance levels. NASA invited each NASA Center to nominate one proposed site according to NASA siting criteria. The proposed sites could be located on a NASA Center or off Center and use existing facilities or propose new construction. Six sites were nominated, all involving new construction by the partner(s) and lease to NASA. No existing buildings, historic sites, or facilities within historic districts were identified that could meet the technical requirements for the NSSC. After review, NASA decided to retain all six site nominations for further consideration in the Phase 2 EA. As a result of the subsequent service provider procurement process, three of the six PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 7521 sites were incorporated by prospective service providers and retained by NASA for consideration as the decision-making process proceeds. The retained sites under Alternative A include NASA Stennis Space Center, Mississippi; Aerospace Technology Park, Brook Park, Ohio; and Cummings Research Park, Huntsville, Alabama. Alternative B (Virtual Consolidation) Under Alternative B, NASA would consolidate the functions into an NSSC in a virtual environment. Under this alternative, NASA would reorganize and relocate personnel and equipment and make minor upgrades or modifications to facilities and equipment. Alternative C (No Action) Under the No Action alternative (Alternative C), NASA would not consolidate functions into an NSSC but may continue to reorganize and relocate personnel and equipment and make minor upgrades or modifications to facilities and equipment in its on-going effort to improve administrative performance. Summary of Environmental Assessment Under NASA’s NEPA implementing regulations, the administrative reorganization and facility selection and operation associated with implementing the proposed NSSC may qualify as a categorical exclusion (14 CFR 1216.305(d)(7) or (8)), i.e., actions that may not require more detailed environmental analysis after review of any unique or extraordinary circumstances, public controversy on environmental grounds, and risks to public health and safety. However, because the proposed action may, depending on the circumstances, lead to proposals that would normally require more detailed environmental analysis, NASA initiated a phased environmental evaluation process, beginning with a Phase 1 EA, in accordance with section 102(2)(E) of NEPA and NASA implementing regulations. The Phase 1 EA was used internally as a resource in developing the site nomination guidelines to minimize the potential for environmental impacts, and all nominations were required to include a NASA Environmental Checklist and draft Record of Environmental Consideration (REC). The Phase 2 EA, incorporating by reference the Phase 1 EA, NASA Environmental Checklists, and draft REC’s, has been prepared in accordance with the above regulatory requirements and NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8580.1, Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Executive E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 7522 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 29 / Monday, February 14, 2005 / Notices Order 12114 (November 2001), and NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 8500.1A, NASA Environmental Management (April 2004), which require NASA to consider environmental factors throughout the lifecycle of an action, including planning, development, and operations. Six NASA Centers proposed sites for the NSSC, all of which involve new construction by the partner(s) and lease to NASA. Alternatives A.1 and A.3, using existing facilities on a NASA Center and outside of a NASA Center, respectively, thus, were not carried forward for analysis in the site-specific Phase 2 EA. The Phase 1 EA, NASA Environmental Checklists, and draft RECs were incorporated by reference into the EA Phase 2. As a result of the procurement process in which prospective service providers had the flexibility of incorporating any one of the six sites into their respective proposals, NASA announced on January 7, 2005, as this draft EA was being completed, that three sites under Alternative A would be carried forward (A.2.2 (Stennis Space Center), A.4.1 (Aerospace Technology Park), and A.4.4 (Cummings Research Park)). These latter three alternative sites will remain under consideration (in italics); along with Alternatives B and C, as the decisionmaking process proceeds. Alternative A: Consolidation and CoLocation of Functions at an NSSC On an existing NASA Center, new construction required (Alternative A.2 in Phase 1 EA): A.2.1 NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Clear Lake, Texas. A.2.2 NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC) in Hancock County, Mississippi. Not on an existing NASA Center, new construction required (Alternative A.4 in Phase 1 EA): A.4.1 Aerospace Technology Park, City of Brook Park, Ohio, nominated by the Glenn Research Center (GRC). A.4.2 Central Florida Research Park (CFRP) in Orlando, Florida, nominated by the Kennedy Space Center (KSC). A.4.3 City Center at Oyster Point, in Newport News Virginia, nominated by the Langley Research Center (LaRC). A.4.4 Cummings Research Park (CRP) in Huntsville, Alabama, nominated by the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). Alternative B: Consolidation of Functions Into a Virtual NSSC Alternative C: No Consolidation of Functions Into an NSSC (No Action Alternative) The analysis and findings of the alternatives and planned mitigation VerDate jul<14>2003 15:28 Feb 11, 2005 Jkt 205001 considered in EA Phase 1 are incorporated by reference and summarized in this FONSI. Findings On the basis of the EA Phase 2, NASA has determined that the environmental impacts associated with this project under any of the proposed alternatives are negligible or can be easily prevented and mitigated, and no individual or cumulatively significant effect, either direct or indirect, on the quality of the environment would occur. Alternative A (Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative) Issues commonly associated with construction or modification and operation of a mid-size office building include air emissions from site clearing and construction; noise during construction and operation; impacts to cultural resources, stormwater drainage, wetlands, floodplains, and wildlife due to site clearing, excavation, and increased traffic and other human activity; aesthetic or other impacts to historic properties; and changes in local traffic patterns and levels. NASA required all nominations to include a completed NASA Environmental Checklist and draft REC. For all new construction alternatives at existing Centers, NASA also reviewed environmental baseline information and other relevant information. For those alternatives requiring construction of new facilities off-Center, NASA reviewed information from Federal, State, and local planning and environmental agencies and other relevant sources. Table 1 summarizes the key findings and planned mitigation. None of the alternatives (Alternatives A (A.2.2, NASA Stennis Space Center, A.4.1, Aerospace Technology Park, and A.4.4, Cummings Research Park), B, and C) would affect floodplains or the coastal zone. Under Alternative A, development of the NSSC at the Aerospace Technology Park site may require a wetlands permit, which is anticipated to result in wetlands mitigation off site comparable to mitigation required for the expansion of the adjacent Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport, but on a much smaller scale. All sites would comply with stormwater management plans and permits. The Cummings Research Park site would require a State-approved stormwater management plan. No federally listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitat or other federally protected species would be affected under any Alternative. NASA would require pre-construction PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 surveys for migratory birds and the Indiana bat at the Aerospace Technology Park site. If the presence of these species is indicated, NASA would consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mitigation may include adjusting the construction schedule. At any of the sites, if threatened or endangered species or other protected species are discovered during construction, NASA would consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in accordance with the applicable statutes and regulations. Traffic and associated air quality impacts are expected to be minimal due to site locations near major arterials and the availability of traffic management options. NASA would require that precautions be taken to minimize dust and noise impacts at all sites. Level 1 Site Assessments for contamination were completed at the Cummings Research Park site and an extensive Center-wide survey was conducted at NASA Stennis Space Center. None of these assessments indicated that contamination was likely or that a Level 2 Site Assessment would be needed. Based on current information available to NASA, contamination is also not anticipated at the Aerospace Technology Park site, but NASA would require a confirmatory Level 1 Site Assessment prior to contract or lease for this site. If contamination requiring remediation is discovered at a site and NASA decides to proceed with development of the NSSC at the site, NASA would require that a remediation plan be developed and implemented prior to construction. Similarly, if contamination requiring remediation is discovered during construction, NASA would require development and implementation of a remediation plan. Cultural resources surveys have been completed for the Cummings Research Park site and for NASA Stennis Space Center, and the proposed action would not affect cultural resources at or in the vicinity of these proposed sites. Based on current information available for the Aerospace Technology Park site and surrounding areas, no historic structures would be affected and NASA does not anticipate the presence of major archeological resources, but would require confirmatory test borings for archeological resources prior to lease or contract as recommended by the Ohio Historic Preservation Office. If archeological resources are discovered at a site prior to construction or unanticipated discovery occurs during construction, NASA would consult with the respective State Historic Preservation Officer. If NASA decided E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 7523 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 29 / Monday, February 14, 2005 / Notices to proceed with implementation of the NSSC at the site and mitigation is required, NASA would develop and implement a mitigation plan. A mitigation plan may include adjusting the footprint, phasing construction, recovering data, curating artifacts, and providing the public with information about the site’s history. The proposed action would not result in disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts on minority or low-income populations or affect children’s environmental health or safety. NASA would develop an environmental justice strategy for the NSSC. NASA would implement an EMS for the NSSC to prevent any potentially adverse impacts during operations. Alternative B (Virtual Consolidation) Under Alternative B, NASA would consolidate functions in a virtual environment without co-locating employees and contractors to a new location. NASA would relocate some personnel and equipment among existing Centers and require minor upgrades in facilities and equipment at existing Centers. Virtual consolidation, however, is unlikely to result in substantial direct, indirect, or cumulative environmental impacts not covered under existing Center permits and environmental reviews. In specific instances, and depending upon the circumstances, minor modifications of a facility at a Center could result in additional environmental review and permitting. NASA would continue to implement Center EMSs to prevent any potentially adverse impacts during operation of a Virtual NSSC. Alternative B would not fully meet the purpose and need for the NSSC. Alternative C (No Action Alternative) Under the No Action Alternative, NASA would not create an NSSC but may continue to relocate personnel and equipment among existing Centers and require minor upgrades in facilities and equipment at existing Centers as part of its on-going effort to improve efficiency and performance of its administrative operations. Such efforts are unlikely to result in substantial direct, indirect, or cumulative environmental impacts that are not covered under existing Center permits and environmental reviews. However, in specific instances, and depending upon the circumstances, minor modifications of a facility at a Center could result in additional environmental review and permitting. NASA would continue to implement Center EMSs to prevent any potentially adverse impacts during on-going operations. The No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the NSSC. Based on these findings, NASA has determined that neither the Proposed Action under Alternative A to locate the NSSC at any of the three sites currently under consideration (A.2.2 (NASA Stennis Space Center), A.4.1 (Aerospace Technology Park), and A.4.4 (Cummings Research Park), Alternative B (Virtual Consolidation), nor Alternative C (No Action) would have a significant impact on the environment, and thus, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The above draft FONSI is herby provided for public review and comment and in no way is meant to indicate that NASA has made a final decision on the environmental impact of the proposed project. Olga Dominguez, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Infrastructure, Management and Headquarters Operations. TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES A, B, AND C [Mitigation indicated in footnotes] Alternative A: Consolidation Resource 1 A.2.1 NASA Johnson Space Center NSSC Location. Clear Lake, TX. Construction Required 2. Transportation and Traffic. Solid and Hazardous Waste Generation and Management. Public Services and Utilities 9. Communication. Land Use ..... Noise ............ Air Quality .... Water Resources. Soils and Geology. VerDate jul<14>2003 A.2.2 NASA Stennis Space Center A.4.1 Aerospace Technology Park (by GRC) A.4.2 Central Florida Research Park (CFRP) by KSC) A.4.3 City Center at Oyster Point (by LaRC) A.4.4 Cummings Research Park (CRP) (by MSFC) Alternative B: Virtual consolidation Alternative C: No action Brook Park, OH. Orlando, FL .. Newport News, VA. Huntsville, AL Yes, on-site .. Hancock County, MS. Yes, on-site .. Yes, off-site .. Yes, off-site .. Yes, off-site .. Yes, off-site ... No ................ No. Low impact .. Low impact .. Low impact .. Low impact .. Low impact .. Low impact .... No impact .... No impact. Low to no impact 3. Low to no impact 4. Low to no impact 5. Low to no impact 6. Low to no impact 7. Low to no impact 8. No impact .... No impact. Low to no impact. Low to no impact. Low to no impact. Low to no impact. Low to no impact.. Low to no impact. Low to no impact. No impact. Low to no impact. Low impact .. Low impact .. Low to no impact 11. Low to no impact. Low to no impact. Low to no impact. Low impact .. Low impact .. Low to no impact. Low to no impact. Low to no impact. Low to no impact. Low impact .. Low impact 10 Low to no impact. Low to no impact. Low to no impact. Low to no impact. Low impact .. Low impact .. Low to no impact. Low to no impact 12. Low to no impact. Low to no impact. Low impact .. Low impact .. Low to no impact. Low to no impact. Low to no impact. Low to no impact. Low impact .... Low impact .... Low to no impact. Low to no impact 13. Low to no impact. Low to no impact. No impact .... No impact .... No impact .... No impact. No impact .... No impact. No impact .... No impact. 15:28 Feb 11, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 ................. No impact. No impact. No impact. 7524 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 29 / Monday, February 14, 2005 / Notices TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES A, B, AND C—Continued [Mitigation indicated in footnotes] Alternative A: Consolidation Resource 1 A.2.1 NASA Johnson Space Center A.2.2 NASA Stennis Space Center Biological Resources 14. Ecological Resources. Low to no impact 15. No impact .... Low to no impact. No impact .... Cultural and Low to no imHistoric Repact 19. sources 18. Environmenta- No adverse l Justice 23. impact. No impact .... No adverse impact. A.4.1 Aerospace Technology Park (by GRC) Alternative B: Virtual consolidation Alternative C: No action No impact ...... No impact .... No impact. No impact .... No impact ...... No impact .... No impact. Low to no impact 22. No impact ...... No impact .... No impact. No adverse impact. No adverse impact. No adverse impact. No adverse impact. A.4.2 Central Florida Research Park (CFRP) by KSC) A.4.3 City Center at Oyster Point (by LaRC) A.4.4 Cummings Research Park (CRP) (by MSFC) Low to no im- Low to no impact 16. pact. Wetlands im- No impact .... pact to be mitigated 17. Low to no im- Low to no impact 20. pact 21. No impact .... No adverse impact. No adverse impact. 1 Alternative A: NASA NSSC Environmental Management System to be developed and full- or part-time NASA NSSC Environmental Manager to be designated. Alternatives B and C: Current NASA Center EMS would apply. 2 Alternative A: All nominations required consistency with NASA’s sustainable facilities policy. 3 No Level/Phase 1 Site Assessment. Available information does not indicate contamination likely. Confirmatory Environmental Site Assessment for contamination required prior to lease or contract. 4 Center-wide survey completed. No contamination indicated at the proposed site. State of Mississippi concurred. 5 No Level/Phase 1 Site Assessment. Available information does not indicate contamination likely. Confirmatory Environmental Site Assessment for contamination required prior to lease or contract. 6 No LevelPhase 1 Site Assessment. Available information does not indicate contamination likely. Confirmatory Environmental Site Assessment for contamination required prior to lease or contract. 7 Level/Phase 1 Site Assessment completed. Level 2 Site Assessment not indicated. 8 Level/Phase 1 Site Assessment completed. Level 2 Site Assessment not indicated. 9 Alternative A: NASA NSSC Energy Manager, full- or part-time, to be designated. Alternatives B and C: Current on-site NASA Center Energy Manager. 10 Noise impacts from adjoining airport to be mitigated in accordance with occupational health and safety regulations and local noise codes. 11 Confirmatory Clean Air Act General Conformity Determination (NO X and VOCs) may be required; construction scheduling adjustment and other mitigation may be required if results for relevant emissions exceed de minimus levels. Preliminary analysis indicated that levels would be well below de minimus levels. 12 State Environmental Resources Permit would be required. 13 State approved stormwater management plan would be required. 14 All: If protected species are subsequently discovered on site or species on site are later designated for protection, NASA will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 15 Pre-construction survey required for migratory birds and, if results indicate presence, adjustment of construction schedule may be required. 16 Pre-construction survey required for migratory birds and Indiana bat and if results indicate presence, adjustment of construction schedule may be required. 17 Clean Water Act sec. 404 wetlands permit from the Army Corps of Engineers required; wetlands mitigation planned off-site. 18 Alternative A: If unanticipated discovery occurs during excavation or construction, consultation with SHPO would be required to development mitigation plan if needed that may include adjustment of the footprint or construction schedule, data recovery, curation, and public education display. 19 No impact to National Historic Landmarks at JSC. Confirmatory site testing for archeological resources may be required, and if results indicate presence, consultation with SHPO would be required to development mitigation plan if needed that may include adjustment of the footprint or construction schedule, data recovery, curation, and public education display. 20 Site testing for archeological resources would be required as recommended by SHPO, and if results indicate presence, consultation with SHPO would be required to development mitigation plan if needed that may include adjustment of the footprint or construction schedule, data recovery, curation, and public education display. 21 Confirmatory site testing for archeological resources may be required, and if results indicate presence, consultation with SHPO would be required to development mitigation plan if needed that may include adjustment of the footprint or construction schedule, data recovery, curation, and public education display. 22 Confirmatory site testing for archeological resources may be required, and if results indicate presence, consultation with SHPO would be required to development mitigation plan if needed that may include adjustment of the footprint or construction schedule, data recovery, curation, and public education display. 23 Alternative A: NASA NSSC EJ Strategy would be developed. Alternatives B and C: Current NASA Center EJ Strategy would apply. [FR Doc. 05–2812 Filed 2–11–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510–13–P NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION Notice of Meeting; Sunshine Act 10 a.m., Thursday, February 17, 2005. TIME AND DATE: VerDate jul<14>2003 15:28 Feb 11, 2005 Jkt 205001 Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–3428. STATUS: Open. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Quarterly Insurance Fund Report. 2. Final Rule: Section 701.21(e), (f), and (g) of NCUA’s Rules and Regulations, Loans to Members and Lines of Credit to Members. PLACE: PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, telephone: 703–518–6304. Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 05–2889 Filed 2–10–05; 1:03 pm] BILLING CODE 7535–01–M E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 29 (Monday, February 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7520-7524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2812]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (05-024)]


National Environmental Policy Act; Environmental Assessment and 
Finding of No Significant Impact; NASA Shared Services Center (NSSC)

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of availability of Draft Environmental Assessment and 
Draft Finding of No Significant Impact.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 
amended (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for 
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA, and NASA's implementing 
regulations, the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, NASA 
regulations for implementing Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain 
Management, and EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and the NASA 
Environmental Justice Strategy (1994) for implementing EO 12898, 
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 
Populations and Low-Income Populations; NASA has made a Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI) for the three proposed alternatives 
including: the Proposed and Preferred Action (Alternative A, lease and 
operation of the NASA Shared Services Center (NSSC) at any of the 
following three sites: NASA Stennis Space Center, Mississippi, 
Aerospace Technology Park, Brook Park, Ohio, and Cummings Research 
Park, Huntsville, Alabama); Alternative B (Virtual Consolidation); and 
Alternative C (No Action). Accordingly, an environmental impact 
statement is not required.

DATES: Comments in response to this notice must be received in writing 
by NASA, no later than March 16, 2005, or March 17, 2005, whichever is 
later.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to:
    Dr. Ann H. Clarke, NASA Environmental Program Manager, 
Environmental Management Division (Code LD020), NASA Headquarters, 300 
E Street, SW., Washington DC 20546-0001; phone: 202-358-0007; e-mail: 
ann.h.clarke@nasa.gov
    The Environmental Assessment (EA Phase 2) for the NSSC Facility 
that supports this FONSI may be reviewed on the NSSC Web site http://
nssc.nasa.gov, or at the NASA Headquarters Library, 300 E Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20546.
    A limited number of copies of the EA are available by contacting 
Dr. Ann H. Clarke, NASA Environmental Program Manager, Environmental 
Management Division (Code LD020), NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., 
Washington DC 20546-0001; phone: 202-358-0007; e-mail: 
ann.h.clarke@nasa.gov or the following NASA Center NEPA Document 
Managers:
    NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC): Ms. Trudy F. Kortes, 216-433-
3632.
    NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC): Ms. Donna L. Holland, 
256-544-7201.
    NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC): Ms. Carolyn D. Kennedy, 228-688-
1445.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NASA is proposing to consolidate certain 
transactional functions currently performed across NASA Centers to a 
new business unit known as the NASA Shared Services Center (NSSC) (NASA 
Shared Services Center (NSSC) Implementation Plan Report (NSSC-RPT-02 
Volume 1, September 2003, recommending continued planning for early 
implementation of the NSSC) (Implementation Plan), available at http://
nssc.nasa.gov.
    The purpose of the Proposed Action (Alternative A), which is also 
the Preferred Alternative, is to locate the NSSC consistent with the 
recommendations of the Implementation Plan addressing the need for NASA 
to improve the use of resources and foster greater efficiencies at 
reduced costs for transactional functions. The Proposed Action would 
create a functionally and environmentally efficient NSSC to meet the 
need for a single shared-services facility, consistent with and 
furthering other goals for the NSSC. The Virtual NSSC (Alternative B) 
would consolidate the same functions into an NSSC, but in a virtual 
environment. The No Action NSSC (Alternative C) would allow continued 
administrative re-organization, but not into a consolidated NSSC.

[[Page 7521]]

Alternative A (Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative)

    The Proposed Action (and Preferred Alternative) (Alternative A) 
would be to consolidate and co-locate certain currently dispersed 
transactional and administrative activities performed at NASA Centers 
in human resources, procurement, financial management, and information 
technology (IT) and identified in the NSSC Implementation Plan. IT 
functions consolidated to NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) 
would remain at MSFC and be consolidated organizationally into the 
NSSC. Other types of functional activities or services may be 
consolidated into the NSSC in the future.
    The NSSC would become operational on or about October 2005 and 
employ approximately 500 civil service employees and contractors at 
full transition after five years and may expand later by up to 40 
percent. Most personnel currently performing the functional activities 
at existing Centers would remain at their respective Centers to 
concentrate on Center mission activities. Some personnel would leave 
due to normal attrition, while other personnel would be relocated to 
the NSSC. In addition to labor cost and availability, NASA siting 
criteria included workforce diversity, local transportation access, 
access by other NASA Centers, safe and healthful working conditions, 
opportunities for further employee development in the vicinity of the 
proposed NSSC, and opportunities for partnering with local educational 
institutions, including minority institutions.
    The NSSC would require Class A office space in a facility 
comparable to a mid-size office building of approximately 12,150 square 
meters (m2) (135,000 square feet (ft2) with 
associated infrastructure, parking, and temporary swing space. No new 
computer ``data centers'' are planned. NASA would construct or lease 
the facility in partnership with State or local agencies or commercial 
partners. All proposals under Alternative A would include swing space 
in existing facilities during construction of the NSSC facility.
    In addition to facility size, NASA required nominations to comply 
with NASA's sustainable design policy for new and renovated facilities 
(NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 8820.3, Facility Sustainable Design, NASA 
2003, and NASA Memorandum on Policy for LEED([reg]) Leadership in 
Energy and Environmental Design Ratings for NASA New Facilities 
Projects, NASA Facilities Engineering Division, September 5, 2003). 
NASA also committed to designating a part or full-time NASA NSSC 
Environmental Manager and NASA NSSC Energy Manager and developing or 
applying an Environmental Management System (EMS) (NASA Procedural 
Requirements (NPR) 8553.1, NASA Environmental Management System, 
developed in response to EO 13148, Greening the Government Through 
Environmental Leadership), and would develop an Environmental Justice 
Strategy for the NSSC in response to NASA's Environmental Justice 
Strategy and EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.
    Additional siting criteria included location of the NSSC in 
accordance with the priorities and procedures established in the Rural 
Development Act (RDA) of 1972, as amended (requiring Federal agencies 
to implement policies and procedures for giving first priority to rural 
areas); EO 12072, Federal Space Management (requiring Federal agencies 
to locate facilities according to listed criteria); EO 13006, Locating 
Federal Facilities on Historic Properties in Our Nation's Central 
Cities (directing Federal agencies to give priority to locating in 
historic properties and districts); other applicable Federal, State, 
Tribal, and local requirements; and the ability of local communities to 
provide adequate housing, schools, health care, recreational 
opportunities, and other amenities.
    To demonstrate efficiencies not only in functional performance, but 
also in facility management supporting the NSSC, and to meet the 
timetable for implementing the NSSC, NASA's siting criteria included 
the ability to mitigate environmental impacts in the design and 
operation of the NSSC to below applicable significance levels.
    NASA invited each NASA Center to nominate one proposed site 
according to NASA siting criteria. The proposed sites could be located 
on a NASA Center or off Center and use existing facilities or propose 
new construction.
    Six sites were nominated, all involving new construction by the 
partner(s) and lease to NASA. No existing buildings, historic sites, or 
facilities within historic districts were identified that could meet 
the technical requirements for the NSSC. After review, NASA decided to 
retain all six site nominations for further consideration in the Phase 
2 EA. As a result of the subsequent service provider procurement 
process, three of the six sites were incorporated by prospective 
service providers and retained by NASA for consideration as the 
decision-making process proceeds. The retained sites under Alternative 
A include NASA Stennis Space Center, Mississippi; Aerospace Technology 
Park, Brook Park, Ohio; and Cummings Research Park, Huntsville, 
Alabama.

Alternative B (Virtual Consolidation)

    Under Alternative B, NASA would consolidate the functions into an 
NSSC in a virtual environment. Under this alternative, NASA would 
reorganize and relocate personnel and equipment and make minor upgrades 
or modifications to facilities and equipment.

Alternative C (No Action)

    Under the No Action alternative (Alternative C), NASA would not 
consolidate functions into an NSSC but may continue to reorganize and 
relocate personnel and equipment and make minor upgrades or 
modifications to facilities and equipment in its on-going effort to 
improve administrative performance.

Summary of Environmental Assessment

    Under NASA's NEPA implementing regulations, the administrative 
reorganization and facility selection and operation associated with 
implementing the proposed NSSC may qualify as a categorical exclusion 
(14 CFR 1216.305(d)(7) or (8)), i.e., actions that may not require more 
detailed environmental analysis after review of any unique or 
extraordinary circumstances, public controversy on environmental 
grounds, and risks to public health and safety. However, because the 
proposed action may, depending on the circumstances, lead to proposals 
that would normally require more detailed environmental analysis, NASA 
initiated a phased environmental evaluation process, beginning with a 
Phase 1 EA, in accordance with section 102(2)(E) of NEPA and NASA 
implementing regulations. The Phase 1 EA was used internally as a 
resource in developing the site nomination guidelines to minimize the 
potential for environmental impacts, and all nominations were required 
to include a NASA Environmental Checklist and draft Record of 
Environmental Consideration (REC). The Phase 2 EA, incorporating by 
reference the Phase 1 EA, NASA Environmental Checklists, and draft 
REC's, has been prepared in accordance with the above regulatory 
requirements and NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8580.1, 
Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Executive

[[Page 7522]]

Order 12114 (November 2001), and NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 8500.1A, 
NASA Environmental Management (April 2004), which require NASA to 
consider environmental factors throughout the lifecycle of an action, 
including planning, development, and operations.
    Six NASA Centers proposed sites for the NSSC, all of which involve 
new construction by the partner(s) and lease to NASA. Alternatives A.1 
and A.3, using existing facilities on a NASA Center and outside of a 
NASA Center, respectively, thus, were not carried forward for analysis 
in the site-specific Phase 2 EA. The Phase 1 EA, NASA Environmental 
Checklists, and draft RECs were incorporated by reference into the EA 
Phase 2. As a result of the procurement process in which prospective 
service providers had the flexibility of incorporating any one of the 
six sites into their respective proposals, NASA announced on January 7, 
2005, as this draft EA was being completed, that three sites under 
Alternative A would be carried forward (A.2.2 (Stennis Space Center), 
A.4.1 (Aerospace Technology Park), and A.4.4 (Cummings Research Park)). 
These latter three alternative sites will remain under consideration 
(in italics); along with Alternatives B and C, as the decision-making 
process proceeds.

Alternative A: Consolidation and Co-Location of Functions at an NSSC

    On an existing NASA Center, new construction required (Alternative 
A.2 in Phase 1 EA):
    A.2.1 NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Clear Lake, Texas.
    A.2.2 NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC) in Hancock County, 
Mississippi.
    Not on an existing NASA Center, new construction required 
(Alternative A.4 in Phase 1 EA):
    A.4.1 Aerospace Technology Park, City of Brook Park, Ohio, 
nominated by the Glenn Research Center (GRC).
    A.4.2 Central Florida Research Park (CFRP) in Orlando, Florida, 
nominated by the Kennedy Space Center (KSC).
    A.4.3 City Center at Oyster Point, in Newport News Virginia, 
nominated by the Langley Research Center (LaRC).
    A.4.4 Cummings Research Park (CRP) in Huntsville, Alabama, 
nominated by the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC).

Alternative B: Consolidation of Functions Into a Virtual NSSC

Alternative C: No Consolidation of Functions Into an NSSC (No Action 
Alternative)

    The analysis and findings of the alternatives and planned 
mitigation considered in EA Phase 1 are incorporated by reference and 
summarized in this FONSI.

Findings

    On the basis of the EA Phase 2, NASA has determined that the 
environmental impacts associated with this project under any of the 
proposed alternatives are negligible or can be easily prevented and 
mitigated, and no individual or cumulatively significant effect, either 
direct or indirect, on the quality of the environment would occur.

Alternative A (Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative)

    Issues commonly associated with construction or modification and 
operation of a mid-size office building include air emissions from site 
clearing and construction; noise during construction and operation; 
impacts to cultural resources, stormwater drainage, wetlands, 
floodplains, and wildlife due to site clearing, excavation, and 
increased traffic and other human activity; aesthetic or other impacts 
to historic properties; and changes in local traffic patterns and 
levels.
    NASA required all nominations to include a completed NASA 
Environmental Checklist and draft REC. For all new construction 
alternatives at existing Centers, NASA also reviewed environmental 
baseline information and other relevant information. For those 
alternatives requiring construction of new facilities off-Center, NASA 
reviewed information from Federal, State, and local planning and 
environmental agencies and other relevant sources. Table 1 summarizes 
the key findings and planned mitigation.
    None of the alternatives (Alternatives A (A.2.2, NASA Stennis Space 
Center, A.4.1, Aerospace Technology Park, and A.4.4, Cummings Research 
Park), B, and C) would affect floodplains or the coastal zone. Under 
Alternative A, development of the NSSC at the Aerospace Technology Park 
site may require a wetlands permit, which is anticipated to result in 
wetlands mitigation off site comparable to mitigation required for the 
expansion of the adjacent Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport, but 
on a much smaller scale. All sites would comply with stormwater 
management plans and permits. The Cummings Research Park site would 
require a State-approved stormwater management plan.
    No federally listed threatened or endangered species or critical 
habitat or other federally protected species would be affected under 
any Alternative. NASA would require pre-construction surveys for 
migratory birds and the Indiana bat at the Aerospace Technology Park 
site. If the presence of these species is indicated, NASA would consult 
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mitigation may include 
adjusting the construction schedule. At any of the sites, if threatened 
or endangered species or other protected species are discovered during 
construction, NASA would consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service in accordance with the applicable statutes and regulations.
    Traffic and associated air quality impacts are expected to be 
minimal due to site locations near major arterials and the availability 
of traffic management options. NASA would require that precautions be 
taken to minimize dust and noise impacts at all sites.
    Level 1 Site Assessments for contamination were completed at the 
Cummings Research Park site and an extensive Center-wide survey was 
conducted at NASA Stennis Space Center. None of these assessments 
indicated that contamination was likely or that a Level 2 Site 
Assessment would be needed. Based on current information available to 
NASA, contamination is also not anticipated at the Aerospace Technology 
Park site, but NASA would require a confirmatory Level 1 Site 
Assessment prior to contract or lease for this site. If contamination 
requiring remediation is discovered at a site and NASA decides to 
proceed with development of the NSSC at the site, NASA would require 
that a remediation plan be developed and implemented prior to 
construction. Similarly, if contamination requiring remediation is 
discovered during construction, NASA would require development and 
implementation of a remediation plan.
    Cultural resources surveys have been completed for the Cummings 
Research Park site and for NASA Stennis Space Center, and the proposed 
action would not affect cultural resources at or in the vicinity of 
these proposed sites. Based on current information available for the 
Aerospace Technology Park site and surrounding areas, no historic 
structures would be affected and NASA does not anticipate the presence 
of major archeological resources, but would require confirmatory test 
borings for archeological resources prior to lease or contract as 
recommended by the Ohio Historic Preservation Office. If archeological 
resources are discovered at a site prior to construction or 
unanticipated discovery occurs during construction, NASA would consult 
with the respective State Historic Preservation Officer. If NASA 
decided

[[Page 7523]]

to proceed with implementation of the NSSC at the site and mitigation 
is required, NASA would develop and implement a mitigation plan. A 
mitigation plan may include adjusting the footprint, phasing 
construction, recovering data, curating artifacts, and providing the 
public with information about the site's history.
    The proposed action would not result in disproportionately high and 
adverse environmental impacts on minority or low-income populations or 
affect children's environmental health or safety. NASA would develop an 
environmental justice strategy for the NSSC.
    NASA would implement an EMS for the NSSC to prevent any potentially 
adverse impacts during operations.

Alternative B (Virtual Consolidation)

    Under Alternative B, NASA would consolidate functions in a virtual 
environment without co-locating employees and contractors to a new 
location. NASA would relocate some personnel and equipment among 
existing Centers and require minor upgrades in facilities and equipment 
at existing Centers. Virtual consolidation, however, is unlikely to 
result in substantial direct, indirect, or cumulative environmental 
impacts not covered under existing Center permits and environmental 
reviews. In specific instances, and depending upon the circumstances, 
minor modifications of a facility at a Center could result in 
additional environmental review and permitting. NASA would continue to 
implement Center EMSs to prevent any potentially adverse impacts during 
operation of a Virtual NSSC. Alternative B would not fully meet the 
purpose and need for the NSSC.

Alternative C (No Action Alternative)

    Under the No Action Alternative, NASA would not create an NSSC but 
may continue to relocate personnel and equipment among existing Centers 
and require minor upgrades in facilities and equipment at existing 
Centers as part of its on-going effort to improve efficiency and 
performance of its administrative operations. Such efforts are unlikely 
to result in substantial direct, indirect, or cumulative environmental 
impacts that are not covered under existing Center permits and 
environmental reviews. However, in specific instances, and depending 
upon the circumstances, minor modifications of a facility at a Center 
could result in additional environmental review and permitting. NASA 
would continue to implement Center EMSs to prevent any potentially 
adverse impacts during on-going operations. The No Action Alternative 
would not meet the purpose and need for the NSSC.
    Based on these findings, NASA has determined that neither the 
Proposed Action under Alternative A to locate the NSSC at any of the 
three sites currently under consideration (A.2.2 (NASA Stennis Space 
Center), A.4.1 (Aerospace Technology Park), and A.4.4 (Cummings 
Research Park), Alternative B (Virtual Consolidation), nor Alternative 
C (No Action) would have a significant impact on the environment, and 
thus, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
    The above draft FONSI is herby provided for public review and 
comment and in no way is meant to indicate that NASA has made a final 
decision on the environmental impact of the proposed project.

Olga Dominguez,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Infrastructure, Management and 
Headquarters Operations.

                                                        Table 1.--Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts of Alternatives A, B, and C
                                                                               [Mitigation indicated in footnotes]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Alternative A: Consolidation
                                 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                A.4.2  Central                                              Alternative B:    Alternative C:  No
          Resource \1\                A.2.1  NASA         A.2.2  NASA      A.4.1  Aerospace    Florida Research   A.4.3  City Center    A.4.4  Cummings         Virtual             action
                                     Johnson Space       Stennis Space      Technology Park     Park (CFRP) by      at Oyster Point      Research Park       consolidation
                                        Center              Center             (by GRC)              KSC)              (by LaRC)        (CRP) (by MSFC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSSC Location...................  Clear Lake, TX....  Hancock County, MS  Brook Park, OH....  Orlando, FL.......  Newport News, VA..  Huntsville, AL....  ..................  ..................
Construction Required \2\.......  Yes, on-site......  Yes, on-site......  Yes, off-site.....  Yes, off-site.....  Yes, off-site.....  Yes, off-site.....  No................  No.
Transportation and Traffic......  Low impact........  Low impact........  Low impact........  Low impact........  Low impact........  Low impact........  No impact.........  No impact.
Solid and Hazardous Waste         Low to no impact    Low to no impact    Low to no impact    Low to no impact    Low to no impact    Low to no impact    No impact.........  No impact.
 Generation and Management.        \3\.                \4\.                \5\.                \6\.                \7\.                \8\.
Public Services and Utilities     Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  No impact.
 \9\.
Communication...................  Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  No impact.
Land Use........................  Low impact........  Low impact........  Low impact........  Low impact........  Low impact........  Low impact........  No impact.........  No impact.
Noise...........................  Low impact........  Low impact........  Low impact \10\...  Low impact........  Low impact........  Low impact........  No impact.........  No impact.
Air Quality.....................  Low to no impact    Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  No impact.........  No impact.
                                   \11\.
Water Resources.................  Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  Low to no impact    Low to no impact..  Low to no impact    No impact.........  No impact.
                                                                                               \12\.                                   \13\.
Soils and Geology...............  Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  Low to no impact..  No impact.........  No impact.

[[Page 7524]]

 
Biological Resources \14\.......  Low to no impact    Low to no impact..  Low to no impact    Low to no impact..  No impact.........  No impact.........  No impact.........  No impact.
                                   \15\.                                   \16\.
Ecological Resources............  No impact.........  No impact.........  Wetlands impact to  No impact.........  No impact.........  No impact.........  No impact.........  No impact.
                                                                           be mitigated \17\.
Cultural and Historic Resources   Low to no impact    No impact.........  Low to no impact    Low to no impact    Low to no impact    No impact.........  No impact.........  No impact.
 \18\.                             \19\.                                   \20\.               \21\.               \22\.
Environmental Justice \23\......  No adverse impact.  No adverse impact.  No adverse impact.  No adverse impact.  No adverse impact.  No adverse impact.  No adverse impact.  No adverse impact.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Alternative A: NASA NSSC Environmental Management System to be developed and full- or part-time NASA NSSC Environmental Manager to be designated. Alternatives B and C: Current NASA Center
  EMS would apply.
\2\ Alternative A: All nominations required consistency with NASA's sustainable facilities policy.
\3\ No Level/Phase 1 Site Assessment. Available information does not indicate contamination likely. Confirmatory Environmental Site Assessment for contamination required prior to lease or
  contract.
\4\ Center-wide survey completed. No contamination indicated at the proposed site. State of Mississippi concurred.
\5\ No Level/Phase 1 Site Assessment. Available information does not indicate contamination likely. Confirmatory Environmental Site Assessment for contamination required prior to lease or
  contract.
\6\ No LevelPhase 1 Site Assessment. Available information does not indicate contamination likely. Confirmatory Environmental Site Assessment for contamination required prior to lease or
  contract.
\7\ Level/Phase 1 Site Assessment completed. Level 2 Site Assessment not indicated.
\8\ Level/Phase 1 Site Assessment completed. Level 2 Site Assessment not indicated.
\9\ Alternative A: NASA NSSC Energy Manager, full- or part-time, to be designated. Alternatives B and C: Current on-site NASA Center Energy Manager.
\10\ Noise impacts from adjoining airport to be mitigated in accordance with occupational health and safety regulations and local noise codes.
\11\ Confirmatory Clean Air Act General Conformity Determination (NOX and VOCs) may be required; construction scheduling adjustment and other mitigation may be required if results for relevant
  emissions exceed de minimus levels. Preliminary analysis indicated that levels would be well below de minimus levels.
\12\ State Environmental Resources Permit would be required.
\13\ State approved stormwater management plan would be required.
\14\ All: If protected species are subsequently discovered on site or species on site are later designated for protection, NASA will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
\15\ Pre-construction survey required for migratory birds and, if results indicate presence, adjustment of construction schedule may be required.
\16\ Pre-construction survey required for migratory birds and Indiana bat and if results indicate presence, adjustment of construction schedule may be required.
\17\ Clean Water Act sec. 404 wetlands permit from the Army Corps of Engineers required; wetlands mitigation planned off-site.
\18\ Alternative A: If unanticipated discovery occurs during excavation or construction, consultation with SHPO would be required to development mitigation plan if needed that may include
  adjustment of the footprint or construction schedule, data recovery, curation, and public education display.
\19\ No impact to National Historic Landmarks at JSC. Confirmatory site testing for archeological resources may be required, and if results indicate presence, consultation with SHPO would be
  required to development mitigation plan if needed that may include adjustment of the footprint or construction schedule, data recovery, curation, and public education display.
\20\ Site testing for archeological resources would be required as recommended by SHPO, and if results indicate presence, consultation with SHPO would be required to development mitigation
  plan if needed that may include adjustment of the footprint or construction schedule, data recovery, curation, and public education display.
\21\ Confirmatory site testing for archeological resources may be required, and if results indicate presence, consultation with SHPO would be required to development mitigation plan if needed
  that may include adjustment of the footprint or construction schedule, data recovery, curation, and public education display.
\22\ Confirmatory site testing for archeological resources may be required, and if results indicate presence, consultation with SHPO would be required to development mitigation plan if needed
  that may include adjustment of the footprint or construction schedule, data recovery, curation, and public education display.
\23\ Alternative A: NASA NSSC EJ Strategy would be developed. Alternatives B and C: Current NASA Center EJ Strategy would apply.

[FR Doc. 05-2812 Filed 2-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P