NASA nasa 1(8) NEPA.pdf

FY 2019 Facilities Management Branch Program REC 1

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Goddard Space Flight Center Wallops Flight Facility Wallops Island, VA 23337

June 5, 2019 Reply to Attn of: 228

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

FROM: 228/Head, Facilities Management Branch

SUBJECT: Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) for the 2019 Facilities Management

Branch (FMB) Program at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF)

This REC has been prepared by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center’s (GSFC) WFF in accordance with its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Policy and Procedures (14 CFR 1216.3) and NASA NEPA Management Requirements (NASA Procedural Requirements 8580.1A). The purpose of this document is to assess both the potential environmental effects and the NEPA documentation requirements of proposed Calendar Year (CY) 2019 facility construction, renovation, and demolition projects. The actions considered in this document include WFF’s Center-Funded, Construction of Facilities, and Multi-Year funded projects.

1.0 Proposed Action

1.1 Projects Previously Analyzed

The following projects, which have been assessed in previous NEPA documents (and, therefore, are not considered further in this REC), are still under construction or in final engineering plan review stages:

Project NEPA Document

Airfield Repairs 2014 FMB REC

B-129 Water Intrusion 2016 FMB REC

Stockpile Aggregate at Pad 5 2017 FMB REC

Drainage and Parking Renovations at Building X-079 2017 FMB REC

MARS Payload Processing Facility 2017 MARS PPF REC

Demolition/Reconstruction of Building Z-041 2018 FMB REC

Roof Repair/Replacement at Multiple Buildings 2018 FMB REC

FY 2019 Facilities Management Branch Program REC 2

Project NEPA Document

Drainage Repairs at F-010, F-019, D-001 and X-035 2018 FMB REC

IT Room Fire Suppression System 2018 FMB REC

Install Rain Canopy at Building Y-025 2018 FMB REC

Wallops HVAC Efficiency Project 2018 FMB REC

Wallops Airfield Solar Project 2018 Solar REC

Demolition of E-005 and J-017 2018 FMB REC

Island Gate Redesign 2018 Island Gate REC

PFAS GAC Building 2018 TOC PFAS GAC REC

FlexDAR Tower 2018 FlexDAR REC

Wallops Shoreline Protection 2019 Shoreline EA

1.2 Center-Funded Project Description

Center-Funded projects are those that are funded by GSFC and have an estimated cost of less than $1,000,000.

1.2.1 ASR-8 Modifications

This project would include repairs to conform to certain building code requirements and include the installation of a platform for a shipping container (e.g., Conex) box to house equipment at Building V-137 (i.e., ASR-8 antenna) on north Wallops Island. Existing wooden platforms supporting heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment would be demolished and replaced with an elevated steel platform to allow for installation of new HVAC equipment. Stair and railings repairs and HVAC modifications would also be included in the project. Construction would occur within an identified Cultural Resource Management zone and, therefore, prior to any site activities, a consultation would be completed to determine the possible presence of any culturally significant features.

1.2.2 Causeway Bridge Repairs

The existing Wallops Island Causeway bridge would undergo maintenance and repairs including sealing of concrete deck and approach slabs including the installation of carbon fiber strengthening, removal of shotcrete from the base of the beams and replacement with high early strength concrete, cleaning and resealing beam ends, repair of pier caps, painting the top 8 feet of some of the pier columns, repairing spalls in the superstructure, repair of a previously damaged pier column, and other miscellaneous work. Repairs would require minimal ground disturbance for the installation of warning signs. No vegetation clearance or permanent impacts below the

FY 2019 Facilities Management Branch Program REC 3 mean high water level are anticipated. All repairs would either be accomplished from the bridge deck or from in-water barges.

1.2.3 11.3 Meter Antenna

This project would include the installation of a concrete foundation pad and new utility lines to support a new 11.3 meter antenna south of Building N-162 and east of Building N-167. The square concrete pad would measure no more than 40 feet in width and 40 feet in length. A radome housing would be constructed to enclose the antenna. Underground communications and electric utilities would be directionally bored from existing services to the antenna site. Construction would avoid nearby culturally sensitive areas and would not encroach on the glide slopes surrounding the airfield. Upon completion and testing of the antenna, there may be a need to selectively remove the tops of specific trees south of Building N-167. All tree removal would be done in direct consultation with the WFF Environmental Office.

1.2.4 Demolition of X-091

This project would include the demolition of a concrete backstop at A-27, a former pistol firing range, and an unused fire pump house, X-091, adjacent to building X-015. Demolition debris would be recycled to the maximum extent practicable. Disturbed areas would be stabilized and seeded upon completion of demolition.

1.2.5 Construction of Remote Boiler for Building V-055

This project would include the construction of a remote boiler building to serve the Payload Processing Facility adjacent to Building V-055. Two propane-fired boilers would be installed in to provide redundancy for critical operations. The existing boiler in V-055 would be removed from service. A closed-loop system containing a 30% glycol solution would be installed underground from the proposed building to V-055. The construction of a remote building would allow adequate space for both a primary and back-up boiler and would provide increased safety by removing the existing boiler from the interior of the hypergol fueling facility. The building would measure approximately 9 feet by 21 feet and would not impact nearby wetland areas. Construction would occur within an identified Cultural Resource Management zone and, therefore, a consultation would be performed prior to any activities, to determine the possible presence of any culturally significant features.

1.2.6 Interior Renovations for Building F-002

This project would include the replacement of existing doors and hardware, relocation of existing kitchen facilities, restroom modifications, ceiling tile replacement, and floor covering repair and replacement. Demolition debris would be recycled to the maximum extent practicable. A survey to determine presence of asbestos would be performed prior to any demolition or construction activities.

FY 2019 Facilities Management Branch Program REC 4

2.0 Environmental Analysis

NASA WFF has prepared a Site-wide Environmental Assessment (Site-wide EA) that provides a framework to evaluate typical, recurring activities undertaken by NASA and customers at WFF, as well as reasonably foreseeable future actions at WFF. The recurring and future actions covered by the Site-wide EA were assessed to ensure that they do not result in any new or substantial environmental or safety concerns. The Proposed Action was to continue existing WFF operations, expand operations, and improve facilities. The Proposed Action consisted of two categories of actions: Institutional Support and Operational Components. Institutional Support incorporated ground disturbance, routine site activities, maintenance, demolition, and construction.

The 2019 FMB Program has been evaluated in accordance with the Site-wide EA through the enclosed NEPA Checklist. Though the impacts from these actions correspond to those analyzed in the Site-wide EA, several resource areas warrant additional discussion, below.

2.1 Topography and Drainage /Surface Water Quality

None of the proposed FMB projects would cause greater than 10,000 square feet of ground disturbance. Therefore, Erosion and Sediment Control (E&SC) Plans would not be required. To protect water quality, Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as silt fencing and reseeding would be implemented where ground disturbance is performed.

2.2 Wetlands

No proposed land disturbing activities considered in this document would be conducted within wetland areas.

2.3 Coastal Zone Management

The 2019 FMB Program is within the scope of the Federal Consistency Determination (FCD) prepared for the Site-wide EA, File No. DEQ 08-152F. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality concurred with that FCD.

2.4 Floodplains

All of Wallops Island is within a floodplain; no practicable alternative exists for projects located on Wallops Island. Therefore, the 2019 FMB Program projects are consistent with the floodplain analysis and public participation performed for the Site Wide EA.

2.5 Air Quality

The subject projects would result in temporary air emissions from construction equipment that would be minor and transient. To minimize dust entrainment, the contractor shall spray water on project sites, as needed.

FY 2019 Facilities Management Branch Program REC 5

2.6 Noise

Use of heavy equipment could expose workers to elevated noise levels. Noise impacts would be temporary, identical to that of construction noise, and would be minor and transient. Workers on site would wear hearing protection in accordance with the project’s approved health and safety plan.

2.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste

The 2019 FMB Program would involve the use, storage, and/or transportation of hazardous materials in the form of diesel fuel and gasoline for powering construction equipment and vehicles, epoxy and latex coatings, and other hazardous materials as may be customarily used in planned construction activities. The projects would manage all hazardous materials in accordance with the WFF Integrated Contingency Plan. If present, the handling, storage, and removal of these hazardous materials would be performed by a licensed contractor in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations.

Any construction debris from demolition would be disposed of according to applicable regulatory requirements and materials salvaged during demolition activities would be recycled to the maximum extent practicable.

Hazardous Wastes generated from 2019 FMB projects would be handled and disposed of according to WFF Hazardous Waste program requirements. Demolition activities would be coordinated with the WFF Toxic Substance program manager to ensure that asbestos, lead based paints, or other toxic substances are either not present at a project site or, if present, are abated and removed according to all applicable regulatory requirements.

2.8 Health and Safety

Health and safety impacts associated with new construction, demolition, and repair/upgrade would be minimized by complying with all federal (e.g., OSHA, NFPA), state, and local safety and health regulations and by employing only trained personnel in accordance with each respective project’s approved health and safety plan. Appropriate signage and fencing would be placed to alert pedestrians and motorists of project activities, as well as any changes in traffic patterns. Signage would be installed to alert personnel of potential health and safety risks associated with hazardous materials where necessary and/or toxic substances present at any project site.

Construction of the 11.3 meter antenna would not encroach on the FAA Part 77 glide slopes surrounding the Main Base airfield.

Causeway bridge repair work with follow a project-specific health and safety plan to avoid injury to motorist or construction worker.

FY 2019 Facilities Management Branch Program REC 6

2.9 Cultural Resources

A Cultural Resources Assessment was conducted for WFF in 2003 that modeled areas of increased archaeological sensitivity around the facility. The proposed boiler building at V-055, as well as the proposed construction at V-137, would disturb ground in an area of increased sensitivity.

Consultation regarding the presence of culturally significant features would be performed prior to the start of construction. Construction of the 11.3 meter antenna is adjacent to, but would avoid, nearby culturally sensitive areas. If suspected archaeological resources are discovered during land disturbance for any of the 2019 FMB projects, the work would halt immediately and the WFF Facilities Preservation Officer would be contacted.

In 2004, an intensive-level survey and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) evaluation of 124 buildings and structures at WFF constructed prior to 1956 was conducted and a historic context for these resources was reported in the Historic Resources and Eligibility Survey (HRES) Report.

In 2011, the HRES was supplemented to include an additional 76 buildings and structures that were constructed between 1956 and 1965. In 2017, the HRES was further supplemented to include and additional 47 buildings and structures that were constructed between 1965 and 1981. As of the date of this document, a final draft of the 2017 HRES report has been submitted by the contractor, with no buildings suggested for inclusion on the NRHP. Building X-091, a fire pump house constructed in 1964, was determined an inadequate resource for evaluation because it is a utility or infrastructure that is ubiquitous to an installation of this nature and not associated with significant events, people, or design. Building A-027 is greater than 50 years and has not been evaluated through an HRES. An HRES and resulting consultation with VDHR is currently scheduled for this potential resource. All other buildings proposed for routine maintenance or modification under the 2019 FMB Program were evaluated during either the 2004, 2011, or 2017 HRES and determined to be ineligible for inclusion on the NRHP.

In accordance with Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act, NASA has developed a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to outline how WFF would manage its cultural resources as an integral part of its operations and missions. The PA establishes the parameters for managing cultural resources at WFF including those activities that have limited potential to affect historic properties and, therefore, would not require individual review under the PA (Appendix G to the PA). All projects in the 2019 FMB Program except for the demolition of Building A-027, fall within these exempt activities and would be summarized in the annual report (Appendix J to the PA) to the SHPO relating exempt actions completed for the year.

2.10 Natural Resources

None of the 2019 FMB projects would be located near known piping plover, red knot, or sea turtle habitat areas. Tree clearing for the 11.3 meter antenna or any other project would not be conducted between June 1 and July 31 to avoid potential impacts to northern long-eared bats. Therefore, the

FY 2019 Facilities Management Branch Program REC 7 proposed 2019 FMB Projects would have no effect on federally-listed species commonly encountered at WFF.

To further ensure that all special-status species at or adjacent to WFF are adequately protected, WFF would continue to coordinate with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and adhere to mitigation and monitoring measures currently in place.

2.11 Phragmites autstralis Control

None of the planned 2019 FMB projects would be conducted in areas where Phragmites australis (common reed) is known to be present. However, if Phragmites is identified at a project site, operations would comply with the 2014 NASA WFF Phragmites Control Plan.

3.0 Conclusion

The CY 2019 FMB Program has been evaluated in accordance with the Site-wide EA through the NEPA Checklist (see Enclosure 1). The impacts from actions associated with the Program correspond to those of typical ground disturbance, routine site activities and maintenance, demolition, and construction analyzed in the Site-wide EA. Based upon the enclosed Checklist, the Proposed Action is consistent with the Site-wide EA with the following project conditions and mitigation measures:

1. Applicable federal, state, and local regulations would be followed during abatement and disposal of asbestos-containing material and materials coated with lead-based paint.

2. Workers on site would wear hearing protection if required in accordance with the project’s approved health and safety plan.

3. Consultation regarding culturally sensitive features would be performed prior to the construction of the proposed boiler building at V-055 and modifications at V-137. .An historic resource evaluation of Building A-027 shall occur prior to demolition and concurrence or conditions shall be completed in consultation with VDHR

4. In accordance with Appendix J of the Programmatic Agreement, an annual summary report would be submitted to the Virginia SHPO.

5. If suspected archeological resources are discovered during land disturbance, the contractor shall halt work immediately and contact the WFF Cultural Resources Manager.

6. All projects would comply with the WFF Integrated Contingency Plan and WFF Hazardous Waste program requirements.

7. All tree clearing would occur outside June 1 to July 31 or a survey would be conducted for northern long eared bat maternal roost trees.

8. All tracked vehicle operations on Wallops Island would comply with the 2014 NASA WFF Phragmites Control Plan.

FY 2019 Facilities Management Branch Program REC 8

In addition to being within the scope of actions assessed in the 2005 Site-wide EA, the projects are also eligible for Categorical Exclusion from further NEPA review per 14 CFR 1216.304 (2) (i), Routine maintenance, minor construction or rehabilitation, minor demolition, minor modification, minor repair, and continuing or altered operations at, or of, existing NASA or NASA-funded or -approved facilities and equipment, such as buildings, roads, grounds, utilities, communication systems, and ground support systems, such as space tracking and data systems.

In conclusion, impacts from these activities at WFF are not considered substantial but are likely to be minor and transient. Changes within the projects, such as scope and location, would need to be reevaluated to determine if additional NEPA documentation would be required. If there are any questions regarding this determination, please contact me at (757) 824-1299.

Glenn D. Lilly, Head Date WFF Facilities Management Branch

Concur:

Shari A. Miller, Lead Date WFF Environmental Planning

Enclosure cc:

220/Mr. P. Bull 228/Mr. R. Stanley 250/Ms. K. Finch 250/Mr. T. Meyer

GSFC 23-76 (11/06)

Wallops Flight Facility Site-Wide Environmental Assessment NEPA Checklist

PROJECT NAME

2019 Facilities Management Branch (FMB) Program at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF)

PROJECT CONTACT

Glenn D. Lilly

PHONE NO.

757-824-1299

MAILSTOP

228.W

PROJECT START DATE

CY 2019

PROJECT LOCATION

Wallops Main Base, Mainland, and Wallops Island

Instructions: This checklist is to be completed for proposed NASA actions at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) to determine if the action is covered by the 2005 NASA Wallops Flight Facility Site Wide Environmental Assessment (Site-Wide EA). If the action is covered by the Site Wide EA (as determined by this checklist) and all applicable sections of this checklist have been completed, a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) will be prepared documenting the determination, and no further NEPA documentation will be required. If the checklist indicates the need for additional analysis or that the action is not adequately covered under the Site-Wide EA, then a REC will be prepared that includes sufficient documentation of the additional analysis to support a determination of no significant impact. An Environmental Assessment (EA) will be completed if substantial additional analysis is required to determine direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts.

This checklist and the Site-Wide EA are only applicable to NASA WFF actions and customer actions that use NASA-owned facilities at WFF.

SECTION I. - PROJECT ELIGIBILITY FOR COVERAGE UNDER THE SITE-WIDE

EA

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 2019 Facilities Management Branch (FMB) Program Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) for Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) includes construction projects, routine site activities, and maintenance.

PROJECT OWNER AND LOCATION: Glenn D. Lilly, Code 228, Wallops Flight Facility

For New Construction, Repair/Renovation/Relocation, or Demolition projects, complete Part 1.

For Routine Site Activities and Maintenance projects, complete Part 2.

For Operational projects complete Part 3.

PART 1 – CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Check one: New Construction Repair/Renovation/Relocation Demolition

Would the project involve new construction in the Atlantic Ocean? YES NO

If YES, STOP HERE. This project cannot be covered under the Site-Wide EA. Separate NEPA documentation must be prepared.

If NO, would the project involve construction within an Area of Increased Sensitivity identified on Figures 6a, 6b, or 6c of the Site Wide EA? YES NO

If YES, complete Section II, Parts A through K and Section III of the NEPA checklist and include sufficient documentation with the REC to support a determination of no significant impact on sensitive resources.

If NO, complete Section II, Parts A through K, and Section III of the NEPA checklist.

PART 2 – ROUTINE SITE ACTIVITIES AND MAINTENANCE

Would the project involve one or more of the routine site activities and maintenance operations listed below or discussed in Section 2.1.3 of the Site Wide EA? (Check all project items that apply)

Sea wall repair or enhancement

Causeway fender repair or replacement

Wallops Island shoreline maintenance (Note: for projects involving dock repair/replacement or channel dredging, USACE must complete separate NEPA and environmental documentation).

Wildlife management

Brush and tree clearing for airspace maintenance

Utility infrastructure upgrade, repair, or replacement including storm drainage system, potable water systems, sanitary sewer systems, steam heating lines, electrical lines and generators, telephone systems, or T-3 LAN communication systems.

Transportation infrastructure upgrade, repair, removal or replacement including roads, sidewalks, and parking lots.

Fabrication activities in Building F-7, F-10, and N-159.

Payload processing (Note: Part 3I of Checklist must also be completed)

Fueling, fuel storage, and mobile Liquid Fueling Facility ((Note: Part 3C of Checklist must also be completed and fuel storage and use must be in compliance with the WFF

ICP)

Storage

Safety and security measure upgrades.

Fire suppression system repair, replacement or upgrade.

Other action as described in Section 2.1.3 of the Site-Wide EA. List action here.

If NO, STOP HERE. This project cannot be covered under the Site-Wide EA without Further NEPA Documentation.

If YES, would the project involve new construction (project does not repair or replace an existing structure or system)? YES NO

If YES, Complete PART 1 – CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS above.

If NO, complete Section II, Parts A through K and Section III of the NEPA checklist.

PART 3 – OPERATIONAL PROJECTS

Only projects involving the operations listed below re potentially eligible for coverage under the Site- Wide EA. Complete the appropriate checklist part(s) referenced below for all components of the proposed project to determine eligibility for coverage under the Site-Wide EA.

Proposed Operation Rocket Operations (Orbital, Sounding, or Drones) - Balloons - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Piloted Aircraft - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Autonomous Underwater Vehicles - - - - - - - - - - - - - Payloads - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tracking and Data Systems - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Scientific Research Programs and Facilities - - - - - - Educational Programs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- Open Burn Area - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- Rocket Boosted Projectile Testing - - - - - - - - - - - -

- Airfield Operations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Complete Parts 3A, 3B, and 3C Complete Part 3D Complete Part 3E Complete Part 3F Complete Part 3G Complete Part 3H Complete Part 3I Complete Part 3J If no new construction, no further NEPA documentation required * Complete Part 3K Complete Part 3L If no new construction, no further NEPA documentation required *

*If the project involves new construction, you must complete PART 1 – CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS above

PART 3A: Rockets (Orbital, Sounding or Drones) Would the rocket exceed the solid propellant weight of the Athena-3 (approximately 133.120 kilograms [293.479 pounds]) class vehicle or exceed the launch/mission rate listed below?

Orbital Rockets – 12 launches per year Sounding Rockets – 60 launches per year YES NO Drone Targets – 30 missions per year

If YES, STOP HERE. This project cannot be covered under the Site-Wide EA without Further NEPA Documentation.

If NO, complete Section II, Parts A through K and Section III of the NEPA Checklist and provide documentation with the REC to demonstrate compliance with the orbital rocket envelope above.

PART 3B: Fuel Types Would the project involve the use, storage, or transportation of any fuel not listed below:

(check all fuels that will be involved in action) Heating oil #2 or #6

Jet fuel JP-5 or JPTS

Diesel fuel

Gasoline

Kerosene

Hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene

Ammonium perchlorate/aluminum

Nitrocellulose/nitroglycerine

Liquid oxygen, hydrogen, or nitrogen

Hydrogen Peroxide

Hydrazine or its derivatives

Hybrid mixture If NO, complete Section II, Parts A through K, and Section III of the NEPA Checklist If YES, would the project involve the use of a hybrid fuel? YES NO

If NO, STOP HERE. This project cannot be covered under the Site-Wide EA without further NEPA documentation.

If YES, would the hybrid fuel use exceed the environmental impacts of the safety risks of the solid fuels analyzed in the Site-Wide EA? YES NO (See Section 2.2.1 of the Site Wide EA)

If NO, complete Section II, Parts A through K and Section III of the NEPA Checklist and include sufficient documentation with the REC to demonstrate that the hybrid fuel will not exceed the environmental impacts or the safety risks of the solid fuels analyzed in the Site-Wide EA.

If YES, STOP HERE. This project cannot be covered under the Site-Wide EA without further NEPA documentation.

PART 3C: Motor Types Would the motor(s) proposed for use exceed the enveloped emissions of the Castor 120TM with eight Castor IVTM strap-ons? YES NO

If YES, STOP HERE. This project cannot be covered under the Site-Wide EA without further NEPA documentation.

If NO, complete Section II, Parts A through K, and Section III of the NEPA Checklist and provide documentation with the REC to demonstrate compliance with the motor type envelope above.

PART 3D: Balloons Would the balloon to be launched at WFF be larger than 1,132,673 cubic meters (40,000,000 cubic feet) and have a payload larger than 3,628 kilograms (8,000 pounds)? YES NO

If YES, STOP HERE. This project cannot be covered under the Site-Wide EA without further NEPA documentation.

If NO, complete Section II, Parts A through K, and Section III of the NEPA Checklist.

PART 3E: Piloted Aircraft

Would the project change flight operations by more than 61,000 annual operations or require additional airfield infrastructure for the basing of non-NASA aircraft? YES NO

If additional infrastructure is required for the basing of non-NASA aircraft, and EA or EIS would be required depending on the quantity of aircraft and potential for impacts.

If YES, STOP HERE. This project cannot be covered under the Site-Wide EA without further NEPA documentation.

If NO, complete Section II, parts A through K, and Section III of the NEPA Checklist.

PART 3F: Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles Would the test vehicle be included in the envelopes described in Table 3F (below)?

YES NO

If YES, complete Section II, Parts A through K, and Section III of the NEPA Checklist, and provide documentation with the REc to demonstrate compliance with the envelopes in Table 3F below.

If NO, STOP HERE. This project cannot be covered under the Site-Wide EA without further NEPA documentation.

Table 3F: Uninhabited Aerial Vehicle Envelopes

Size: Does not exceed one-fifth scale Boeing 757.

Thrust: Does not exceed 3,946 kg (8,700 lbs) Fuel: Not more than 8,695 L (2,297 gal.) of Jet-A fuel.

Payload: Maximum 6,550 kg (14,442 lbs.) with total weight of 23,133 kg (51,000 lbs.).

PART 3G: Autonomous Underwater Vehicles Would the test vehicle be included in the envelopes described in Table 3G (below)?

YES NO

If YES, complete Section II, Parts A through K, and Section III of the NEPA Checklist and provide documentation with the REC to demonstrate compliance with the envelopes in Table 3G below.

Table 3G: Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Envelopes

Does not exceed size and depth capability of International Submarine Engineers’ Theseus Vehicle:

Size: Diameter: 1.27 m (4 ft); Length: 10.6 m (35 ft); Weight: 8,618 kg (19,000 lbs.)

Depth Capability: 1,000 m (3,281 ft)

PART 3H: Payloads Would the proposed payload be included in the envelopes described in Table 3H (below)?

YES NO

If YES, complete Section II, Parts A through K, and Section III of the NEPA Checklist.

Table 3H: Payload Envelopes

Component Envelope Additional Documentation Requirement for REC

Radio Frequency

Electromagnetic fields must be within ANSI-recognized acceptable levels as stated in IEEE C95.1-1991.

Radio frequency data confirming compliance

Lasers Meets ANSI Safety standards (ANSI Z136.1-2000 and Z136.6- 2000).

Laser data Confirming compliance

Radioactive Materials

Quantity and Type of radioactive material are within the approval authority level of the NASA Nuclear Flight Safety Assurance Manager.

Copy of Radioactive Materials Report as per NPR 8715.3 Section 5.5.2.

Biological Agents

Biological agents must meet conditions of Biosafety Level 1 of the NIH and CDC Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories.

Laboratory data confirming compliance.

Chemical Release

Must not pose a substantial hazard and cannot have a significant adverse effect on the atmosphere.

Sufficient analysis to support compliance

Orbital Debris Generation

Must comply with the requirements of NPD 8710.3 NASA Policy for Limiting Orbital Debris Generation and NSS 1740.1.

A debris assessment would need to be prepared as required by this policy.

Fuel

Re-entry payload must not exceed 90 kilograms (200 pounds) of fuel. Must comply with the requirements of NPD 8700.2A, NASA Policy for Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) for Experimental Aerospace Vehicle (EAV) (Revalidated 4/28/04)

Sufficient analysis to support compliance.

Misc. Must comply with the requirement of NPD 8700.3A, SMA Policy for NASA Spacecraft, Instruments, and Launch Services.

PART 3I: Tracking and Data Systems Would the radio frequency electromagnetic fields be within ANSI-recognized acceptable levels as stated in

IEEE C95.1-1991?

If YES, complete Section II, Parts A through K, and Section III of the NEPA Checklist.

PART 3J: Scientific Research Programs and Facilities Would the proposed project comply with the envelopes described in Table 3J (below)?

YES NO

If YES, complete Section II, Parts A through K, and Section III of NEPA Checklist.

Table 3J: Scientific Research Programs and Facilities Envelopes

Component Envelope Additional Documentation Requirement for REC

Radio Frequency

Electromagnetic fields must be within ANSI-recognized acceptable levels as stated in IEEE C95.1-1991.

Radio frequency data confirming compliance.

Radioactive Materials

NASA’s Safety Office and the Radiation Safety Committee have been consulted and (for projects involving ionizing radiation) the project would be in compliance with NASA’s NRC license.

Ionizing radiation confirming compliance, for sources submit GSFC Forms 23-61, and 23-28I, for emitting equipment GSFC Forms 23-61D and 23-28ID.

Lasers Meets ANSI Safety Standards (ANSI Z136.1-2000 and Z136.6- 2000)

Laser data confirming compliance

Biological Agents

Biological Agents must meet conditions of Biosafety Level 1 of the NIH and CDC Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories.

Laboratory data confirming compliance

Chemical Release

Must not be ozone-depleting and cannot have significant adverse effect on the atmosphere.

Sufficient analysis to support compliance

PART 3K: Open Burn Area Is the burn operation covered under WFF’s interim VDEQ permit or the final permit (once issued) and would the amount of propellant to be disposed be within the annual limit of 68 metric tonnes (75 tons)?

YES NO

If YES, complete Section II, Parts A through K and Section III of the NEPA checklist.

PART 3L: Rocket Boosted Projectile Testing Would the project exceed 20 projectile tests (missions) per year? YES NO

If YES, STOP HERE. This project cannot be covered under the Site-Wide EA without Further NEPA

If NO, complete Section II, Parts A through K and Section III, of the NEPA Checklist.

SECTION II. - ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST

Complete Sections A through K. Work through each resource section until a box with “RESOURCE EVALUATION COMPLETE” has been checked, or the entire resource section has been completed. If the checklist identifies the need for additional analyses or documentation, these must be completed and described in a REC and the additional analyses must be included with the REC to satisfy NEPA requirements.

A. LAND RESOURCES

Topography and Drainage/Geology and Soil Project would not cause land disturbances such as land clearing, earth moving, and excavation.

RESOURCE EVALUATION COMPLETE

Project would cause land disturbances such as land clearing, earth moving, and excavation.

o Project requires a site-specific Sediment and Erosion Control Plan if it involves:

- 930 square meters (10,000 square feet) or more of land disturbance;

- 30 meters (100 feet) distance from a wetland;

- 15 meters (50 feet) distance from a drainage structure and on a slope > 7%; or

- 30 meters (100 feet) distance from a drainage structure and on a slope < 7% o Project must comply with the WFF Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.

o Project must obtain Virginia Storm Water Management Program (VSMP) Construction Site

Storm Water Permit if it will disturb 0.4 hectare (1 acre) or more of land.

Project will comply with these conditions? Yes RESOURCE EVALUATION COMPLETE No Explain in comments section Comments:

Best Management Practices (BMPs) that comply with the WFF Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP3) shall be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities.

Impact would be Severe Moderate Minimal None Additional analysis and documentation required? Yes No N/A

Land Use

Project would be consistent with existing WFF land use and master plans. RESOURCE EVALUATION

COMPLETE

Project would not be consistent with existing WFF land use and master plans. Explain in comments section. Additional analyses and documentation are required.

Comments:

Impact would be Severe Moderate Minimal None Additional analysis and documentation required? Yes No N/A

B. WATER RESOURCES

Surface Water Quality Consider all potential impacts to surface water quality, temporary and permanent, including indirect impacts such as storm water discharges from construction.

Project would not directly or indirectly impact surface waters. RESOURCE EVALUATION COMPLETE Project would directly or indirectly impact surface waters.

Impacts would be temporary.

BMPs for water quality protection are required and project must comply with the WFF Storm

Water Pollution Prevention Plan. A site-specific Sediment and Erosion Control Plan and VSMP Construction Site Storm Water Permit may be required.

Project will comply with these conditions? Yes RESOURCE EVALUATION COMPLETE (include conditions in Section III) No (explain in comments section)

Impacts would be permanent Explain in comments section. Additional analyses and documentation are required

Comments:

If needed, BMPs that comply with the WFF SWP3 to protect water quality shall be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities.

Impact would be Severe Moderate Minimal None Additional analysis and documentation complete? Yes No N/A

Groundwater Project would not involve modifying, replacing, or adding groundwater supply wells. RESOURCE

EVALUATION COMPLETE

Project would involve modifying, replacing, or adding groundwater supply wells.

Consultation with Virginia DEQ complete? Yes No Permit(s) required? Yes (include in Section III) No

List permit(s) required Are project conditions required by the permit? Yes (include in Section III) No

Comments:

Impact would be Severe Moderate Minimal None Additional analysis and documentation complete? Yes No N/A

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.

Note: “Waters” includes waters subject to ebb and flow of tide, wetlands, streams, impoundments, tributaries, territorial seas, and wetlands adjacent to waters previously identified.

Project would not involve dredging or disposal of dredged material, or excavation, filling or other modifications, or adverse effects to wetlands or waters of the U.S.

AND

Project would not result in piers, wharves, breakwaters, bulkheads, jetties, weirs, transmission lines, or bank stabilization in waters of the U.S. RESOURCE EVALUATION COMPLETE

Project would involve dredging or disposal of dredged material, or excavation, filling or other modifications, or adverse effects to wetlands or waters of the U.S.

AND/OR

Project would result in piers, wharves, breakwaters, bulkheads, jetties, weirs, transmission lines, or bank stabilization in waters of the U.S.

a. Public notification complete? YES NO

b. Are there any practicable alternatives that avoid or minimize wetland/waters impacts?

YES (explain in comments why alternative was not selected) NO

c. Consultation with USACE and VDEQ/VMRC completed YES NO

d. Permit required? YES (include in Section III) NO

List permit(s) required

e. Are project conditions or mitigation required? YES (include in Section III) NO

Comments:

Additional analysis and documentation complete? Yes No N/A

B. WATER RESOURCES cont.

Floodplains

Project would not be not located within the 100-year floodplain or 500-year floodplain (if a critical facility). RESOURCE EVALUATION COMPLETE

Project would be located within the 100-year floodplain or 500-year floodplain (if a critical facility).

a. Public notification complete? YES NO

b. Are there any practicable alternatives that avoid floodplain impacts?

YES (explain in comments why alternative was not selected) NO

c. Beneficial effect on floodplain values? YES NO

d. Agency consultation completed (if required) YES NO

e. Are project conditions required? YES (include in Section III) NO

Comments:

All of Wallops Island is within a floodplain; no practicable alternative exists for projects located on Wallops Island. The 2019 FMB Program projects are consistent with the floodplain analysis and public participation performed for the Site Wide EA.

Impact would be Severe Moderate Minimal None Additional analysis and documentation complete? Yes No N/A

Coastal Zone Management

Project would not affect coastal resources. RESOURCE EVALUATION COMPLETE Project would affect coastal resources.

Project is consistent with CZMA and Virginia VCP Coastal Zone Consistency Determination complete? Yes No

Project is not consistent with CZMA and Virginia VCP Explain in comments section. Additional analyses and documentation are required.

Comments:

Project is covered by the Coastal Zone Consistency Determination performed for the Site-wide EA. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality concurred with the Coastal Zone Consistency Determination File No. DEQ 08-152F.

Impact would be Severe Moderate Minimal None Additional analysis and documentation complete? Yes No N/A

C. AIR QUALITY

Project would not result in air emissions. RESOURCE EVALUATION COMPLETE Project would result in temporary air emissions

Are mitigation measures required to reduce emissions? YES (include in Section III) No Project would result in permanent air emissions Emissions would be in compliance with an existing WFF air permit.

Consultation with relevant agency completed? Yes No Emissions would not be in compliance with an existing WFF air permit and/or would cause WFF to exceed regulated air pollutant criteria. Explain in comments section. Additional analyses and documentation are required

Comments:

Emissions from construction equipment would be minor and transient.

D. NOISE

Project would not generate significant noise impacts. RESOURCE EVALUATION COMPLETE Project would generate short-term noise impacts.

Are mitigation measures required to reduce impacts? YES (include in Section III) No (e.g., hearing protection for workers, public notification)

Project would result in long-term noise impacts Can impacts be mitigated? YES (include mitigation measures in Section III) NO Explain in comments section. Additional analyses and documentation are required Comments:

Noise impacts would be temporary and identical to that of construction noise and would be minor and transient. Workers on site would wear hearing protection in accordance with the project’s approved health and safety plan.

E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTE

Project would not involve the use, transportation, storage, or generation of hazardous materials or hazardous waste and would not involve demolition of a structure listed in Table 3-16 of the Site-Wide

EA. RESOURCE EVALUATION COMPLETE

Project would involve the use, transportation, storage, or generation of hazardous materials or hazardous waste and/or would involve demolition of a structure listed on Table 3-16 of the Site-Wide

EA.

Project activities must be in compliance with the WFF Integrated Contingency Plan, the SPCC Plan, the HAZCOM program, and WFF’s Large Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator permits (as applicable). All handling of hazardous materials and waste must be in compliance with applicable local, state and Federal laws and standard procedures.

Project will comply with these conditions? Yes RESOURCE EVALUATION COMPLETE (include conditions in Section III) No Explain in comments section. Additional analyses and documentation are required Comments:

Project activities would conform with WFF’s Integrated Contingency Plan. All handling of hazardous materials and waste would comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws and standard procedures.

F. RADIATION

Project would not involve any amount of radioactive material and would not require the use or generation of ionizing or non-ionizing radiation (including lasers). RESOURCE EVALUATION

COMPLETE

Project would involve radioactive material and/or would require the use or generation of ionizing or nonionizing radiation (including lasers).

a. Protection guidelines and procedures for radiation sources must be followed.

b. Have NASA’s Safety Office and the Radiation Safety Committee have been consulted and (for projects involving ionizing radiation) would the project be in compliance with NASA’s NRC license?

YES (include mitigation measures in Section III) - RESOURCE EVALUATION COMPLETE NO Explain in comments section. Additional analyses and documentation are required

Comments:

G. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

Terrestrial Wildlife and Migratory Birds Project would not affect terrestrial wildlife or migratory birds. RESOURCE EVALUATION COMPLETE Project would affect terrestrial wildlife or migratory birds.

Project is consistent with or a component of WFF’s aviation safety program for flight operations -

RESOURCE EVALUATION COMPLETE

Project is not consistent with or is not a component of WFF’s aviation safety program for flight operations

a. Consultation with USFWS is complete and on file? Yes No

b. Are project conditions required? YES (include in Section III) NO

Comments:

Impact would be Severe Moderate Minimal None Additional analysis and documentation complete? Yes No N/A

Threatened and Endangered Species Project would not affect the physical environment (land disturbance, vegetation removal, sedimentation, noise/waste/hazardous materials emission into the environment, etc.) RESOURCE EVALUATION

COMPLETE

Project would affect the physical environment.

Threatened or endangered species or habitat not present (Provide confirmation from regulatory agencies or an explanation (in comment section below) to justify determination) - RESOURCE

EVALUATION COMPLETE

Threatened or endangered species or habitat potentially present

a. Review and consultation with USFWS, VDACS, VDGIF, VDCR, and NMFS complete and on file? Yes No

b. Are project conditions required? YES (include in Section III) NO

Comments: None of the 2019 FMB REC projects would be conducted within endangered species habitat on Wallops Island. Any tree clearing would occur outside June 1 to July 31 or a survey would be conducted for northern long eared bat maternal roost trees.

Impact would be Severe Moderate Minimal None Additional analysis and documentation complete? Yes No N/A

Marine Mammals and Fish Project would not affect the marine environment. RESOURCE EVALUATION COMPLETE Project would affect the marine environment.

Project would not involve the use of high strength sonar and/or would be consistent with the July 5, 2000 NASA Memorandum, Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Rocket Launches from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center’s Wallops Flight Facility- RESOURCE EVALUATION

COMPLETE

Project would involve the use of high strength sonar and/or would not be consistent with the July 5, 2000 NASA Memorandum, Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Rocket Launches from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center’s Wallops Flight Facility. Explain in comments section. Additional analyses and documentation are required.

Comments:

H. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Project would not result in a permanent increase or decrease in operations. RESOURCE

EVALUATION COMPLETE

Project would result in a permanent increase in operations, and impacts would be beneficial.

RESOURCE EVALUATION COMPLETE

Project would result in a permanent decrease in operations. Explain in comments section.

Comments:

I. HEALTH AND SAFETY

Project would not result in any health and safety impacts to the public or WFF staff, contractors, or guests. RESOURCE EVALUATION COMPLETE

Project would result in health and safety impacts to the public or WFF staff, contractors, or guests.

Complete all of the following as appropriate:

Health and safety impacts would be associated with new construction, repair/renovation/ relocation, demolition activities, or the upgrade, removal or installation of transportation infrastructure.

Impacts would be minimized by complying with all Federal and state OSHA regulations and by using only trained personnel. Appropriate signage and fencing would be placed to alert pedestrians and motorists of project activities, as well as any changes in traffic patterns.

Project will comply with these conditions?

Yes No Explain in comments section. Additional analyses and documentation are required.

Health and safety impacts would be associated with the use and storage of fuels or the storage of hazardous materials.

NASA would comply with all applicable Federal and state regulations and the guidance provided in the ICP. Project will comply with these conditions?

Yes No Explain in comments section. Additional analyses and documentation are required.

Health and safety impacts would be associated with the expansion of or modifications to the

WFF Security Force or Fire Department.

All fire and security personnel would be properly trained and would be provided appropriate personal protective equipment. Project will comply with these conditions?

Yes No Explain in comments section. Additional analyses and documentation are required.

Health and safety impacts would be associated with orbital and/or suborbital rocket operations.

The range user will submit formal documentation pertaining to the proposed activity to the WFF Range Safety Branch for formal review. Ground and flight safety plans will be developed and approved prior to operation. Project complies with these conditions?

Yes No Explain in comments section. Additional analyses and documentation are required.

Health and safety impacts would be associated with balloon operations, piloted aircraft operations, or uninhabited aerial vehicle operations.

Project would be consistent with WFF’s aviation safety program?

Yes No Explain in comments section. Additional analyses and documentation are required.

Health and safety impacts would be associated with the use of lasers.

Personnel operating lasers or in the vicinity of laser operations would be properly trained and would be provided appropriate personal protective equipment when necessary. Laser use would comply with all Federal and state OSHA regulations?

Yes No Explain in comments section. Additional analyses and documentation are required.

Health and safety impacts would be associated with the use of radioactive materials.

The radioactive materials are within the approval authority of the Nuclear Flight Safety Assurance Manager?

Yes No Explain in comments section. Additional analyses and documentation are required.

Comments: Health and safety impacts shall be minimized by complying with all federal (OSHA), state, and local health and safety regulations and the guidance provided in the ICP. Construction shall be performed by trained personnel in accordance with its project’s approved health and safety plan.

J. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Historic Structures Project would not affect any structure over 50 years old and does not involve construction within 1,000 meters (3,280 feet) of any potentially historic structure identified in the 2004 Historic Resources and Eligibility Report. RESOURCE EVALUATION COMPLETE

Project would affect a structure over 50 years old.

Structure is not eligible for listing in the NRHP (see 2004 Historic Resources and Eligibility

Report) and project does not involve construction within 1,000 meters (3,280 feet) of any potentially historic structure. RESOURCE EVALUATION COMPLETE

Structure is eligible for listing in the NRHP and/or is within 1000 meters (3,280) of any potentially historic structure (see 2004 Historic…