![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Head Start and Early Head Start Grantees; Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: January 25, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 17)]
[Notices]
[Page 7768-7770]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25ja01-37]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
Head Start and Early Head Start Grantees; Preliminary Finding of
No Significant Impact
AGENCY: Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), ACF,
DHHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Administration for Children and Families published a
Notice in the Federal Register on November 9, 2000 (65 FR 67377)
notifying interested parties that a Draft Programmatic Environmental
Assessment issued by ACF was available for review and comment. The
document assesses the environmental impacts of activities undertaken by
Head Start and Early Head Start grantees
[[Page 7769]]
when purchasing, renovating or constructing child care facilities with
grant funds. This document was prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the regulations of the
Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and the
Revised General Administration Manual, HHS Part 30, Environmental
Protection. ACF received no comments on the Draft Programmatic
Environmental Assessment. The Agency has reviewed the conclusion of the
Environmental Assessment (EA), and agrees with its findings. ACF has
made a preliminary determination that regulations governing the
purchase, construction and renovation of Head Start and Early Head
Start child care centers will not have a significant impact on the
quality of the human environment and that preparation of an
environmental impact statement will not be necessary. A final finding
of no significant impact will not be made until at least 30 days from
the publication of this notice.
DATES: Written comments on this preliminary finding of no significant
impact should be received February 26, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to comment on this finding of no significant
impact may respond to writing to: Head Start PEA Team, The Mangi
Environmental Group, 701 West Broad Street, Suite 205, Falls Church,
Virginia 22046.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Klafehn, Acting Associate
Commissioner, Head Start Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and
Families, 330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20447; (202) 205-8572.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Head Start and Early Head Start are
authorized under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.). It is a
national program providing comprehensive developmental services to low-
income preschool children, primarily from age three to the age of
compulsory school attendance, and their families. Early Head Start
programs enroll children from birth to three years old and pregnant
women. To help enrolled children achieve their full potential, Head
Start and Early Head Start programs provide comprehensive health,
nutritional, educational, social and educational services. ACF has
proposed amendments to existing Head Start regulations (44 CFR part
1309) to establish procedures for grantees to apply to use grant funds
to cover the cost of constructing and making major renovations to Head
Start and Early Head Start facilities and the steps necessary to
protect the federal interest in those facilities. The regulations at 45
CFR part 1309 currently establish procedures for grantees to request to
use Head Start and Early Head Start grant funds to purchase facilities
and to protect the federal interest in those facilities. The authority
for use of Head Start and Early Head Start grant funds to purchase,
construct or undertake major renovations is found in section 644 (f)
and (g) of the Head Start Act.
ACF prepared and published for comment a Draft Environmental
Assessment on November 9, 2000 (65 FR 67377). The alternative assessed
included the Proposed Action, which would include the full range of
authorized activities including facility purchase, new construction and
major renovation. The Alternative Action to the Proposed Action
assessed a more restrictive alternative in which only minor
construction and renovations would be conducted. The No Action
Alternative under which only incidental alterations and renovations
would be conducted was also assessed. The assessment considered the
Proposed Action, Alternative Action and the No Action Alternative and
the effects of each on water quality, air quality, noise, land use,
transportation, waste management, human health and safety, soils,
vegetation and wildlife, wetlands, cultural resources, socioeconomic
factors, environmental justice, recreation, aesthetics, public services
and utilities.
ACF has chosen to implement the Proposed Action. Environmental
resources may be affected by implementing the Proposed Action and these
impacts are analyzed in the Programmatic Environmental Assessment.
Given the nationwide nature of this Assessment and the variety of
possible environmental conditions it was not deemed prudent to define
the affected environment for all possible sites. Instead, the
Assessment identifies circumstances which may result in significant
impacts which must be avoided or mitigated when costs of purchasing,
constructing or making major renovations to a Head Start or Early Head
Start facility are met with grant funds. In the course of implementing
the Proposed Action, there will be some impacts to environmental
resources. Most of these impacts, however, are expected to be minimal,
largely due to mitigating measures during the site selection,
construction, operation and decommissioning phases. In many cases
compliance with state, local and tribal regulations will lead to the
avoidance of significant impacts, simply by requiring mitigation or by
leading the grantee to select a different site.
The Programmatic Environmental Assessment described the following
possible significant impacts and means for mitigating them.
(a) Water Quality--An impact would be considered significant if
effluent or pollutant emissions result in exposure of people, wildlife,
or vegetation to surface or ground waters that do not meet the
standards established under the Clean Water Act, or interfere with
state water quality standards. Significant impacts on the environment
from operation, construction or renovation will be mitigated by
grantees adhering to all state, local and tribal regulations regarding
zoning, planning and construction.
(b) Air Quality--An impact would be considered significant if
pollutant emissions result in exposure of people, wildlife, or
vegetation to ambient air that does not meet the standards established
under the Clean Air Act, or interfere with state ambient air quality
standards. Significant impacts on the environment will be mitigated by
grantees adhering to all state, local and tribal regulations regarding
construction and operational emissions.
(c) Noise--An impact would be considered significant if it resulted
in exposure of sensitive receptors to a Day-Night Level (DNL) of
greater than 65 A-weighted decibels (dBA). A significant impact on the
environment from operation, renovation or construction sites can be
mitigated by maintaining normal daylight hours for construction and
normal operation. Significant impacts on the environment will be
mitigated by grantees adhering to all state, local and tribal noise
regulations.
(d) Land Use--An impact would be considered significant if the
proposed action conflicted with any federal, regional, state, or local
land use plans. If land use patterns are changed in the immediate
project area due to the proposed action, the impact would also be
considered significant. Significant impacts can be mitigated by
requiring grantees to comply with state, local and tribal land use
plans and ordinances.
(e) Transportation-- An impact would be considered significant if
there is a traffic increase, which is predicted to upset the normal
flow of traffic, create the need for major road repair as a result of
the action, or generate traffic levels requiring the expansion of
existing roadways or facilities. Significant impacts can be mitigated
by using flaggers on busy roads during construction phases. Transit can
be subsidized if a facility is on a major road to discourage automobile
use.
[[Page 7770]]
(f) Waste Management-- An impact would be considered significant if
there an increase in the generation of solid or hazardous waste beyond
the present facility capacity or new facility capacity to safely handle
and dispose of that waste. Significant impacts will be mitigated by
grantees adhering to state, local and tribal regulations and ordinances
for waste management.
(g) Human Heath and Safety--An impact would be considered
significant if there is inadequate protection against serious injury to
any worker or user during construction, maintenance, or operation of
the project. Exposure to hazardous compounds or fumes at concentrations
above health-based levels would be a significant impact. Significant
impacts can be mitigated by making use of Head Start provided design
guides, and by following state, local and tribal licensing
requirements. Grantees will avoid new construction at sites with a
history of hazardous material use or storage or sites near pollution
sources. As required under 45 CFR 1304.22 all Head Start grantees must
establish and implement policies and procedures to respond to medical
and dental health emergencies with which all staff are familiar and
trained. In addition all grantees are required to post emergency
evacuation routes and other procedures for emergencies which are
practiced regularly.
(h) Soils--An action would cause of significant impact if soil
erosion produced gullying, damage to vegetation, or a sustained
increase in sedimentation in streams. An action would also constitute a
significant impact if the action causes ground fracturing, folding,
subsistence or instability. Impacts associated with soil contamination
would be significant if the affected area was no longer able to support
its current function or vegetable cover. Significant impacts will be
mitigated by grantees adhering to all applicable state, local and
tribal regulations.
(i) Vegetation and Wildlife--An action would cause a significant
impact if the degradation or loss of habitat sufficient to cause
indigenous populations to leave or avoid the area occurred. Significant
impacts will be avoided by Head Start and Early Head Start grantees
choosing sites which do not raise substantial biological concerns.
(j) Wetlands--An action would cause a significant impact if the
soil structure, or water related hydrologic features or the vegetation
of more than acre (1/10 ha) of a wetland would be altered, or a
floodplain area is altered enough to present a reasonable flood danger
to the area, or causes the degradation or loss of habitat for
populations indigenous to the floodplain area, or prohibits farming
activities. Significant impacts will be avoided by Head Start and Early
Head Start grantees choosing sites other than wetlands.
(k) Cultural Resources--An impact would be significant if an effect
on a historic property occurs that may diminish the integrity of the
historic property's location, design, setting, workmanship, feeling or
association as set forth in 36 CFR 800.9. Significant impacts will be
avoided by Head Start and Early Head Start grantees choosing sites
which are not historic sites.
(l) Socioeconomics--A change of more than 2 percent of the
previously projected level of local employment, population, or gross
domestic product would be considered a significant impact. Also, if
school populations decrease by more than 2 percent, revenues decrease
by more than 2 percent and if the vacancy rate increased by more than 2
percent that would constitute a significant impact. Mitigation of
significant impacts are not expected to be likely as the impacts in
this area are considered to be positive.
(m) Environmental Justice--A significant impact would occur if a
disproportionate number of minority and/or low income populations were
adversely affected by the project. Mitigation of significant impacts
are not expected to be necessary because facilities are not expected to
have significant adverse environmental impacts.
(n) Recreation--Significant impacts on recreation facilities and
resources would occur when the project conflicts with local, state or
tribal recreation plans for the community, or a physical invasion by
the project prevents current and/or future recreational use of adjacent
properties. Significant impacts will be mitigated by including
recreation sites in plans for child care centers to reduce reliance on
public resources.
(o) Aesthetics--A significant impact would be the addition, into a
predominantly natural setting, of incongruous human-made elements such
as structures, noise, trash or pollutants, to the extent that they
degrade the enjoyment of the setting for a majority of visitors or
residents. Significant impacts will be mitigated by grantees adhering
to with local or tribal ordinances and regulations on building
appearance.
(p) Public Services--An impact would be considered significant if
the proposed project inhibited the public services by preventing fire,
police, emergency or social services from responding to calls in a
timely way or if the project would impose excessive demands on public
services. Significant impacts will be mitigated by grantees using
public services in appropriate and responsible ways and by complying
with state, local or tribal licensing regulations to reduce dangers of
fires or other emergencies.
(q) Utilities--Significant impacts would occur where the proposed
project would inhibit the use of such services by any other property
owner, or if the project created an unreasonable demand on utility
companies. Significant impacts will be mitigated by incorporating
energy efficient features in building design.
(r) Cumulative Effects--Considered on a nationwide scale,
activities related to the purchase, construction and major renovation
of Head Start and Early Head Start facilities are expected to have a
negligible cumulative impact.
In the course of implementing the Proposed Action, there will be
some impacts to environmental resources. ACF believes that compliance
by grantees with State, local or tribal requirements will prevent
significant impacts by requiring mitigation or will lead grantees to
select other sites for their projects which do not raise issues of
environmental impact. When existing requirements do not fully address
the need for mitigation of environmental impacts, ACF will require the
grantee to take additional steps.
ACF does not contemplate approving the purchase, construction or
major renovation of Head Start or Early head Start facilities located,
or to be located, on wet lands or floodplains, at sites where the
project would affect significantly sensitive natural habitats, or at
sites where the project would significantly affect historic properties.
This policy reflects concern not only with the adverse effects on the
environment that selection of such sites would have but also in
recognition of the prohibitive costs which would likely be incurred in
mitigating significant impacts at those sites.
Dated: January 16, 2001.
Olivia A. Golden,
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
[FR Doc. 01-2219 Filed 1-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-M