[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16478-16480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-7338]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families


Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact

AGENCY: Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), ACF, 
DHHS.

ACTION: Final Finding of No Significant Impact.

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

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 assessed the environmental impacts of activities undertaken by 
Head Start and Early Head Start grantees 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 1500-1508), and the Revised General Administration 
Manual, HHS Part 30, Environmental Protection. ACF received no comments 
on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment. ACF reviewed the 
conclusion of the Environmental Assessment (EA), and agreed with its 
findings.
    In the Federal Register on January 25, 2001, (66 FR 7768) ACF 
invited public comment on a preliminary determination that regulates 
governing the purchase, construction and renovation of Head Start and 
Early Head Start child care centers. They 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. ACF received 
no comments on the preliminary determination pertinent to the findings 
of the Environmental Assessment. ACF is therefore issuing a Final 
Finding of No Significant Impact by finding 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. ACF finds that the preparation of an 
environmental impact statement will not be necessary.

DATES: This finding is effective on March 26, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Klafehn, Acting Associate 
Commissioner, Head Start Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and 
Families, P.O. Box 1182, Washington, DC 20013; (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 (45 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 alternatives 
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 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

[[Page 16479]]

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.
    (f) Waste Management--An impact would be considered significant if 
there is 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 Health 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 a significant impact if soil 
erosion produced gulling, 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 vegetative 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 3 acre (1/10 ha) of a wetland would be altered, or a flood 
plain 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 flood plain 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 properties 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 local or tribal ordinances and regulations on building appearance.

[[Page 16480]]

    (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.
    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 wetlands or flood plains, 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: March 19, 2001.
Diann Dawson,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for 
Children and Families.
[FR Doc. 01-7338 Filed 3-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-M