Agency Master Plan (AMP)

Programmatic 

Environmental Assessment

December 2023

Office of Strategic Infrastructure

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, D.C. 20546
Contents i

Contents

Section 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action .....................................................1

1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................1

1.2 Organization of this Programmatic Environmental Assessment .................................2

1.3 Background ...............................................................................................................2

1.4 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action...........................................................3

1.5 Tier I Programmatic Environmental Assessment .......................................................5

1.6 Future Tier II Project-Specific NEPA Assessments....................................................6

1.7 Public and Stakeholder Involvement..........................................................................6

Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative ..........................8

2.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................8

2.1.1 NASA Centers, Support Facilities, and Mission Directorates ........................8

2.1.2 Plans and Systems Considered in AMP Development................................10

2.1.3 Asset Categories ........................................................................................12

2.1.4 AIA Methodology, Bucket Actions, and Metrics...........................................13

2.1.5 AIA Findings ...............................................................................................18

2.2 No Action Alternative ...............................................................................................22

Section 3: Affected Environment...........................................................................................23

3.1 Ames Research Center ...........................................................................................28

3.2 Armstrong Flight Research Center...........................................................................28

3.3 Glenn Research Center...........................................................................................29

3.4 Goddard Space Flight Center ..................................................................................30

3.4.1 Greenbelt Campus......................................................................................30

3.4.2 Wallops Flight Facility .................................................................................31

3.4.3 White Sands Complex ................................................................................31

3.4.4 Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility ............................................................32

3.4.5 Goddard Institute for Space Studies ...........................................................32

3.4.6 Katherine Johnson Independent Verification and Validation Facility ...........33

3.4.7 GSFC Foreign Facilities..............................................................................33

3.5 Jet Propulsion Laboratory........................................................................................33

3.5.1 Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex.....................................34

3.5.2 JPL Foreign Facilities .................................................................................34

3.6 Johnson Space Center ............................................................................................34

3.6.1 White Sands Test Facility ...........................................................................35

3.7 John F. Kennedy Space Center...............................................................................36

3.8 Langley Research Center ........................................................................................36
Contents ii

3.9 George C. Marshall Space Flight Center .................................................................37

3.9.1 Michoud Assembly Facility..........................................................................38

3.10 John C. Stennis Space Center.................................................................................39

Section 4: Environmental Consequences .............................................................................40

4.1 Potential Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative.......................43

4.2 Potential Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action..............................43

4.2.1 Land Use ....................................................................................................45

4.2.2 Soils and Geology.......................................................................................46

4.2.3 Air Quality...................................................................................................47

4.2.4 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases ...................................................49

4.2.5 Noise, Sonic Boom, and Vibration ..............................................................51

4.2.6 Hazardous Materials and Waste.................................................................52

4.2.7 Transportation ............................................................................................54

4.2.8 Utilities........................................................................................................56

4.2.9 Water Resources........................................................................................57

4.2.10 Coastal Zone Management.........................................................................60

4.2.11 Biological Resources ..................................................................................61

4.2.12 Cultural Resources .....................................................................................64

4.2.13 Environmental Justice.................................................................................66

4.3.14 Socioeconomics .........................................................................................67

4.3 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................68

Section 5: Distribution............................................................................................................71

Section 6: References.............................................................................................................72

Section 7: List of Preparers....................................................................................................77

Appendix A: AMP/AIA Overview Presentation....................................................................A-1

Appendix B: Regulations, Guidance, and Policy................................................................B-1
Exhibits iii

Exhibits

Exhibit 1-1. Vision and Goals of the AMP................................................................................... 5

Exhibit 1-2. Collaboration During AMP Development ................................................................. 7

Exhibit 2-1. NASA’s U.S. Centers and Mission Support Facilities............................................... 9

Exhibit 2-2. Collaborative AIA Development Process ................................................................14

Exhibit 2-3. AIA Methodology ....................................................................................................15

Exhibit 2-4. Asset Bucket Assignment – Mission/Condition Relevance Matrix..........................16

Exhibit 2-5. Agencywide Asset Bucket Assignments ................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Exhibit 2-6. Agencywide AIA Results ........................................................................................20

Exhibit 2-7. Examples of Assets and Asset Bucket Type...........................................................21

Exhibit 3-1. Overview of NASA Centers and Support Facilities .................................................24

Exhibit 3-2. Existing Conditions Based on Center ERDs ...........................................................25

Exhibit 3-3. Ames Research Center ..........................................................................................28

Exhibit 3-4. Armstrong Flight Research Center .........................................................................29

Exhibit 3-5. Glenn Research Center – Lewis Field Campus ........ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Exhibit 3-6. Glenn Research Center – Armstrong Test Facility (Plum Brook Station) ................30

Exhibit 3-7. GSFC – Greenbelt, MD ..........................................................................................30

Exhibit 3-8. GSFC – Wallops Flight Facility ...............................................................................31

Exhibit 3-9. GSFC – White Sands Complex ..............................................................................32

Exhibit 3-10. GSFC – Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility ........................................................32

Exhibit 3-11. GSFC – Goddard Institute for Space Studies .......................................................32

Exhibit 3-12. GSFC – Katherine Johnson Independent Verification and Validation Facility .......33

Exhibit 3-13. Jet Propulsion Laboratory.....................................................................................33

Exhibit 3-14. Table Mountain Facility.........................................................................................32

Exhibit 3-15. Johnson Space Center........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Exhibit 3-16. JSC – White Sands Test Facility ............................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Exhibit 3-17. Kennedy Space Center .......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Exhibit 3-18. Langley Research Center....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Exhibit 3-19. Marshall Space Flight Center ................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Exhibit 3-20. Michoud Assembly Facility ..................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Exhibit 3-21. Stennis Space Center............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Exhibit 4-1. Potential Effect Rating Scale ..................................................................................41

Exhibit 4-2. NASA NEPA Resources Links................................................................................41

Exhibit 4-3. Proposed Action – Typical Actions by Bucket Type................................................42

Exhibit 4-4. Potential Effects by Bucket Type ............................................................................44

Exhibit 7-1. List of Preparers.....................................................................................................77
Acronyms iv

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Acronym Definition

AFRC Armstrong Flight Research Center

AIA Asset Inventory Assessment

AMP Agency Master Plan

ARC Ames Research Center

ATF Armstrong Test Facility

CAA Clean Air Act

CatEx Categorical Exclusion

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CIPP Capital Investment Program Plan

CMP Center Master Plan

CWA Clean Water Act

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERD Environmental Resource Document

FCI Facility Condition Index

FDC Future Development Concept

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FRED Facilities and Real Estate Division

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies

GRC Glenn Research Center

GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center

IT Information Technology

JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory

JSC Johnson Space Center

KSC Kennedy Space Center

LaRC Langley Research Center

MDI Mission Dependency Index

MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Acronyms v

Acronym Definition

NHL National Historic Landmark

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPD NASA Procedural Directive

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPR NASA Procedural Requirement

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

O&M Operations and maintenance

OSI Office of Strategic Infrastructure

PEA Programmatic Environmental Assessment

PM Particulate Matter

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

REC Record of Environmental Consideration

ROD Record of Decision

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SIP State Implementation Plan

SSC Stennis Space Center

U.S.C. United States Code

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

WFF Wallops Flight Facility

WOTUS Waters of the United States

WSC White Sands Complex

WSTF White Sands Test Facility
Section 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 1

SECTION 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

1.1 Introduction

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is preparing this Programmatic 

Environmental Assessment (PEA) to analyze the general environmental effects of implementing

the NASA Agency Master Plan (AMP). The agency is updating its master planning process by 

developing an Agency Master Plan upon which all 10 of NASA’s centers will base their centerspecific master plans. Previously, the agency’s master planning process was decentralized; each 

center was responsible for developing its own Center Master Plan (CMP), primarily based on 

center-specific missions, goals, resources, and needs. The Agency Master Plan will consolidate 

the framework of the agency’s overarching operational needs for the next 20 years, prioritizing 

current and future NASA requirements and missions. At the Headquarters level, the Agency 

Master Plan will allow NASA to effectively:

• Manage the entirety of its assets and capabilities from a top-down, mission-driven 

perspective,

• Provide a unified approach to institutional planning and decision making,

• Allocate resources and funding based on agencywide, prioritized needs to create an 

affordable infrastructure portfolio,

• Proactively deploy sustainable best practices,

• Reduce current and future infrastructure-related risks and redundancies,

• Ensure future actions take into consideration environmental constraints at the planning 

level where opportunities to avoid and minimize effects are the greatest, and

• Ensure compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations; 

Executive Orders (EOs); and agency policy directives.

This PEA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 

as amended (United States Code [U.S.C.] Title 42, Section 4321, et seq.); the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA 

(Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Title 40, Parts 1500 through 1508), effective May 20, 2022; 

EO 12114 (Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions); NASA’s agency-specific 

NEPA implementing regulations (14 CFR Subpart 1216.3); and NASA’s NEPA procedural 

requirement (NASA Procedural Requirement [NPR] 8580.1A). 

CEQ NEPA regulations encourage federal agencies to analyze the potential environmental effects 

of similar actions in a single programmatic document (40 CFR Section 1500.4). A programmatic 

document provides a broad NEPA review from which subsequent NEPA documents can be tiered, 

focusing on the issues specific to the subsequent action. Programmatic NEPA documents may be 

prepared for broad federal actions, such as a proposed program, policy, plan, or suite of projects 

that address actions occurring over large areas or systems. Programmatic NEPA documents may 

also include groupings of similar actions or repeating actions over longer periods of time than other 

NEPA reviews. In accordance with this directive, NASA has prepared this PEA to provide an 

efficient analysis under NEPA for implementation of the Agency Master Plan.
Section 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 2

1.2 Organization of this Programmatic Environmental Assessment

This PEA is organized as follows: 

• Section 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 

Provides a description of how the document is organized, background information about 

the Proposed Action, the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action, a description of 

the programmatic and tiered NEPA evaluation process, and a brief description of public 

outreach and stakeholders involved. 

• Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative

Presents detailed descriptions of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. 

• Section 3: Affected Environment

Provides a description of the NASA centers, including their contexts and physical 

settings.

• Section 4: Environmental Consequences

Provides a description of the regulatory setting for each resource, as well as a broad 

overview of potential effects, by resource, under the Proposed Action and No Action 

Alternative.

• Section 5: Distribution

Provides a list of internal stakeholders who participated in the development of the 

Agency Master Plan and who will be receiving the draft PEA for review and comment.

• Section 6: References

Provides a list of references used in preparing this PEA. 

• Section 7: List of Preparers

Provides a list of the names and qualifications of the document preparers. 

1.3 Background

As early as 2011, NASA began integrating and optimizing operations across centers and mission 

support facilities (i.e., technical capability facilities) to reduce costs and revitalize the capabilities 

required to enable NASA’s portfolio of missions (NASA 2011, 26). In 2015, the Executive Office of 

the President distributed Management Procedures Memorandum No. 2015-01, tasking federal 

agencies to “move aggressively to dispose of surplus properties held by the federal government, 

make more efficient use of the government’s real property assets, and reduce the total square 

footage of their domestic office and warehouse inventory relative to an established baseline (OMB 

2015).” This directive set agency footprint reduction planning goals that were disseminated to 

centers.

Through the Agency Master Plan process, NASA has identified the need to expand portfolio 

optimization efforts in addition to footprint reduction goals. To better achieve a mission-driven and

affordable portfolio, NASA proposes to implement a centralized and standardized Agency Master 

Plan administrative process. This Proposed Action would help ensure program management and 

planning efforts are aligned across all mission areas and geographically separate centers and 

facilities and would implement a consistent and cost-effective set of processes, systems, and tools 

for enterprise-wide master planning. The Proposed Action is supported by NASA’s 2018 Strategic 

Plan, which recommended NASA develop an Agency Master Plan that identifies agency facility 

priorities over a 20-year timeframe (NASA 2018a). The development of an Agency Master Plan
Section 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 3

will provide a framework upon which each NASA center would then develop its own CMP, thereby 

allowing the agency to meet its overall infrastructure management targets, more efficiently (i.e., 

cost-effectively) achieve its mission, and accomplish sustainment and infrastructure reduction 

goals. 

The NASA 2022 Strategic Plan defines the agency’s broad vision, mission, and values, building 

upon the goals and objectives presented in its 2011 and 2018 Strategic Plans (NASA 2022b). 

Within the 2022 Strategic Plan, NASA identified four strategic goals to strengthen its ability to 

accomplish the statutory mission and contribute to maintaining American leadership in space, 

aeronautics, climate research, and innovation while driving economic growth in the civil space 

sector (NASA 2022b, 6). These strategic goals are to: 

1. DISCOVER

NASA’s enduring purpose of scientific discovery 

2. EXPLORE

NASA’s push to expand the boundaries of human presence in space 

3. INNOVATE

NASA’s broad mandate to promote the technologies of tomorrow 

4. ADVANCE

NASA’s capabilities, workforce, and facilities that allow NASA to achieve its mission 

NASA’s pursuit of implementing a centralized Agency Master Plan upon which future CMPs would 

be based aligns with the fourth strategic goal to advance capabilities and facilities that allow NASA 

to achieve its mission. To address challenges associated with aging infrastructure, NASA is 

aggressively managing its facility portfolio to consolidate and modernize into fewer, more efficient, 

sustainable facilities. Through a systematic assessment of service areas, NASA is consolidating 

and improving operations to balance risks across services and activities and provide safe and 

reliable mission-aligned infrastructure.

NASA’s Office of Strategic Infrastructure (OSI) proposes to implement NASA’s first mission-driven 

Agency Master Plan. The Agency Master Plan is tied to the development and execution of a new 

agencywide Asset Inventory Assessment (AIA) with mission-aligned future state recommendations 

for all real property assets across NASA’s centers and support facilities. The AIA results from each 

center are rolled into an agency-prioritized database tied to a single Capital Investment Program 

Plan (CIPP). This prioritization process is intended to form the foundation for the Agency Master 

Plan’s implementation. 

NASA has also identified the need to ensure environmental stewardship is incorporated into the 

Agency Master Plan including NEPA and regulatory compliance in energy and water management, 

air quality, water resources, hazardous materials, cultural resources, natural resources, 

sustainability, and climate adaptation. Providing clear environmental guidance in the Agency 

Master Plan will assist in a consistent execution of the 2022 Strategic Plan across the agency. This 

PEA will provide center master planners with a framework for subsequent NEPA compliance, 

identifying the processes and decisions in this PEA as a Tier I parent document from which the 

centers can prepare subsequent Tier II NEPA compliance documentation.

1.4 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

The NASA Handbook for Master Planning defines a CMP as a center’s “statement of its concept 

for the orderly management and future development of the center’s real property assets, including 

land, buildings, physical resources, and infrastructure. It provides a narrative, statistical, and 
Section 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 4

graphic record of current capabilities and conditions (natural features, buildings, structures, utilities, 

transportation systems, and other improvements), as well as necessary changes to support 

program and institutional activities and NASA’s strategic and business planning” (NASA 2013a, 1).

Centers currently conduct their individual master planning efforts in accordance with center-specific 

missions. As described in the NASA Handbook, each center’s master planning process occurs 

interactively with NASA Headquarters to synchronize master planning across the agency. Under 

the previous master planning approach, evaluation of an asset’s Mission Dependency Index (MDI) 

relative to its Facility Condition Index (FCI) helped planners determine the future state of that asset. 

The difficulty with this approach is the data lacked agencywide stakeholder adjudication and the

level of fidelity needed for planners to truly understand the significance and conditions of that asset. 

Additionally, the needs of support programs and institutional activities were primarily evaluated at 

the individual center level only, rather than at an overall agency level. Under this previous asset 

evaluation approach, the MDI did not reflect stakeholder-adjudicated asset use nor future need, 

and the FCI did not incorporate deferred maintenance and maintenance costs, making the 

planning effort disjointed and inconsistent.

The previous method of prioritizing operations and maintenance, new construction, and demolition

at a center level versus agency level has proved to be inefficient and ineffective due to diminishing 

funding and competing priorities. The large number of property holdings of the agency, overall 

aging infrastructure, and a federal funding gap mean that many center planning objectives cannot 

be met when balanced against the priorities of the agency. Thus, a more integrated approach is 

needed. Affordability challenges for the agency’s current operations and maintenance (O&M) 

budget limit the amount the agency can allocate to centers. This leaves NASA with a funding gap 

of approximately $259 million less in maintenance dollars than what is needed to maintain aging 

infrastructure in support of mission requirements (NASA 2022j). 

The purpose of the Agency Master Plan is to establish an agencywide and mission-driven 

approach that ensures critical assets are mission-ready, reliable, and affordable. The Agency 

Master Plan is needed to align NASA’s planning process with its 2022 Strategic Plan, providing a 

clear path for NASA’s future mission success and financial stability over the next 20 years. Exhibit 

1-1 outlines the vision and goals of the Agency Master Plan.

The Agency Master Plan includes all real property assets on NASA’s federal property footprint and 

is based on a data-driven methodology for determining how to address assets in a manner that 

best supports current and future NASA missions. The Agency Master Plan is intended to serve as 

the foundation on which NASA’s investment allocations support long-term asset health, 

sustainability, and physical footprint reductions. Because the Agency Master Plan focuses on a 

mission-oriented approach, using data-driven and risk-informed methodologies, it ensures NASA 

will have a clearly defined path to fulfill its agencywide priorities of: 

• Sustainment of and investment in mission-critical infrastructure by renewing and 

rebuilding modern and sustainable infrastructure to support future mission success;

• Divestment of unneeded infrastructure by demolishing and eliminating obsolete facilities, 

thereby reducing overall physical footprint, resource consumption, maintenance costs, 

and aging infrastructure risk; and 

• Leasing of assets to commercial partners to enhance cooperation in space and stimulate 

commercial activities in low Earth orbit.

The implementation of the Agency Master Plan would enable NASA’s mission by providing the 

facilities, tools, and services required to efficiently manage and sustain the infrastructure necessary 

to meet agencywide mission objectives.
Section 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 5

Exhibit 1-1. Agency Master Plan Mission

(NASA 2023a)

1.5 Tier I Programmatic Environmental Assessment

This PEA is a Tier I NEPA evaluation of the broad effects associated with implementing an Agency 

Master Plan versus maintaining the status quo of a CMP-specific master planning process. As a 

Tier I NEPA document, this PEA addresses the broad-scale implications of instituting the Agency 

Master Plan. Because the Proposed Action is policy and plan-oriented, the effect analysis in this 

PEA is general and qualitative in nature. NASA is taking a programmatic approach to analyzing the 

environmental consequences of the proposed development of an Agency Master Plan because of 

the broad geographic scope and diversity of missions between NASA centers and facilities. This is 

appropriate as it allows the agency to consider the likely environmental effects of its decision

making, but also allows deferment of site-specific environmental effect analysis until such time as 

specific center-level projects are proposed. This programmatic approach allows for near-term focus 

on issues ripe for decision making and establishes a foundation for follow-on NEPA document 

development for future center-specific actions. Depending on NASA’s decision related to the 

Agency Master Plan, future tiered NEPA analysis would occur before center-specific infrastructure 

development or demolition actions are taken.

Sustainability Best Practices
Section 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 6

In Section 4, Environmental Consequences, the typical considerations associated with 

investment, sustainment, divestment, and outgranting of assets are explored by resource and 

regulatory requirements. This information sets the stage for subsequent, detailed Tier II NEPA 

assessments for center- and project-specific actions.

1.6 Future Tier II Project-Specific NEPA Assessments

Future, center-specific actions identified through the Agency Master Plan process may be subject 

to additional NEPA review. Prior to a center-level decision on the disposition of any specific NASA 

infrastructure asset, the future action must be considered within the context of NEPA to identify and 

analyze the site-specific environmental effects of proposed infrastructure management projects. 

Future center-level infrastructure management decisions would be informed by site-specific 

environmental effect analysis that considers the unique conditions that exist at each location (e.g., 

presence of natural and cultural resources, effects to specific media [air, water], presence of 

wetlands, activity within designated coastal zone). This analysis could take the form of a 

Categorical Exclusion (CatEx) with Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) (in cases where 

the Proposed Action, either individually or cumulatively, normally does not have a significant effect 

on the human environment), or an Environmental Assessment – Finding of No Significant Impact

(EA/FONSI), or an Environmental Impact Statement – Record of Decision (EIS/ROD). The 

appropriate level of NEPA would be determined on a case-by-case basis considering the sitespecific characteristics of the proposed project and its location. For projects located outside the 

United States, its territories, and possessions, significant effects would be addressed in 

accordance with EO 12114 (Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions).

1.7 Public and Stakeholder Involvement

CEQ’s guidance on programmatic NEPA documents notes that it may not be appropriate to 

address certain issues and programs that are included in traditional EAs and EISs (CEQ 2014, 40). 

For example, necessary information for analysis may not be available or the timing of a Proposed 

Action is too far in the future. Instead, these issues and programs can be deferred to a subsequent,

tiered NEPA analysis where they can be addressed in detail when the Proposed Action is ripe for 

consideration. These deferred issues may need to be addressed in additional tribal consultations or 

a National Historic Preservation Act NSection 106 consultation, Endangered Species Act Section 7 

consultation, or other determinations and consultations (CEQ 2014, 40). In the case of this PEA, 

the aforementioned issues and programs would be deferred until subsequent Tier II NEPA reviews 

are initiated at the center level. 

A draft of this PEA has not been made publicly available for review and comment. Release of draft 

EAs is not required by CEQ and NASA’s Environmental Management Division (EMD) -

Headquarters agreed on not releasing the draft PEA for public comment. Distribution and comment 

on the Agency Master Plan will be limited to internal personnel at the center and Headquarters 

levels and includes those who worked on development of the Agency Master Plan (see Exhibit 1-

2). However, the final PEA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be made available to 

the public via a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register and on NASA’s public facing NEPA 

website.

Input from more than 600 internal NASA stakeholders, including but not limited to management 

oversight, mission directorates, technical capability leaders, center leads, and infrastructure 

stakeholders, helped establish the framework and asset management assignments of the 

Proposed Action. These stakeholders will continue to be engaged throughout this PEA process 

and throughout the implementation of the Agency Master Plan, if the Proposed Action is 
Section 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 7

implemented. Internal stakeholders from across NASA have collaboratively identified assets to be 

tracked and prioritized as part of the AIA process during data calls, workshops, and community of 

practice meetings. This collaborative effort has been critical in aligning prior center planning efforts

and existing plans with needs and will continue to be critical to achieve long-term consistency and 

success of the Agency Master Plan.

Exhibit 1-2. Collaboration During AMP Development

(NASA 2022i)
Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative 8

SECTION 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND 

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

2.1 Proposed Action

The Proposed Action analyzed in this PEA is NASA’s implementation of the Agency Master Plan. 

The Agency Master Plan is intended to provide foundational guidance to NASA Headquarters, 

documenting an agencywide, collaborative assessment of all real property and capability assets 

across NASA’s federal property footprint. At its core, the Agency Master Plan will provide 

standardized planning guidance for the treatment of infrastructure and assets based on missioncritical needs, resource conditions and readiness, risk minimization, and budgetary constraints for a 

20-year period. The Agency Master Plan is intended to be updated every four to five years. With

the implementation of the Agency Master Plan, NASA would implement agencywide prioritized 

investment and divestment lists and recommended actions for each asset across all centers and 

support facilities. Implementation of the Agency Master Plan would align NASA’s statutory mission 

objectives with NASA’s 2022 Strategic Plan and CIPP. 

The Agency Master Plan is the product of multiple inputs, asset prioritization efforts, and

prioritization metrics for funding allocation and risk minimization, and documents final 

recommendations for the treatment of each asset. The key actions of the Agency Master Plan

development process include, but are not limited to:

• Gathering asset and mission-related information from NASA centers, support facilities, 

and mission directorates;

• Considering NASA’s planning and systems guidance;

• Understanding NASA’s real property categories and assets;

• Developing metrics of prioritization and subsequent bucket actions; and 

• Presenting NASA’s final AIA and recommendations.

A summary of these actions is presented in this section. Greater detail on the Agency Master Plan

development and final recommendations will be available in the Agency Master Plan. 

2.1.1 NASA Centers, Support Facilities, and Mission Directorates

As a federal agency, NASA does not operate in a single location with a single mission. Instead, 

NASA is spread out across the globe with 10 centers in the United States supported by more than 

five mission support facilities (i.e., technical capability facilities) and six mission directorates; all of 

which are as diverse as the many different elements of the agency’s missions (see Exhibit 2-1). 

Each center and mission support facility are home to different areas of expertise that support 

different elements of their respective missions. This PEA uses the term “centers” in reference to the 

10 NASA centers. All other national and international facilities fall under the leadership of at least 

one of these centers.
Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative 9

Exhibit 2-1. NASA’s U.S. Centers and Mission Support Facilities

(NASA 2022b, 1)
Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative 10

The 10 NASA centers and their primary functions are:

• Ames Research Center (ARC)

Air traffic management, entry systems, advanced computing and IT systems, 

intelligent/adaptive systems, cost-effective space missions, aerosciences, astrobiology 

and life sciences, space and earth sciences

• Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC)

Flight research and testing

• John H. Glenn Research Center (GRC)

Aeropropulsion and communications technologies

• Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)

Earth, solar system, and universe observations, as well as space communications and 

navigation

• Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)

Robotic exploration of the solar system and Earth observations

(Note: The JPL is not a NASA center; it is operated under the management of the 

California Institute of Technology. However, it is frequently included as one of NASA’s 

10 centers.)

• Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC)

Human space exploration

• John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC)

Preparation for and launch of missions around the Earth and beyond

• Langley Research Center (LaRC)

Aviation, space technology, and Earth science

• George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)

Space transportation and propulsion technologies

• John C. Stennis Space Center (SSC)

Rocket propulsion testing and remote sensing technology

Expanding on the center functions listed above, NASA clusters its activities into six mission 

directorates: Aeronautics Research, Science, Space Technology, Exploration Systems 

Development, Space Operations, and Mission Support. 

2.1.2 Plans and Systems Considered in AGENCY MASTER PLAN Development

The Agency Master Plan is incorporating multiple existing plans and systems to manage assets

and allocate resources consistently across centers. Implementation of the Agency Master Plan 

would set forth an agencywide planning and resource allocation process, but centers would still be 

required to prepare a NEPA document for their CMPs, analyzing environmental impacts on all 

affected resources for specific projects. Centers could prepare action-specific Tier II NEPA 

evaluations, as warranted, pulling from this Tier I PEA. This would help meet the proposed Agency 

Master Plan goal of providing a unified approach to institutional planning and decision making. If 

the Agency Master Plan is to achieve consistency across all agencywide planning efforts, it will be 

critical to align existing planning efforts, including CMPs and center CIPPs, under the umbrella of 
Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative 11

the Agency Master Plan. The concepts, plans, and systems intended to guide the development of 

a comprehensive Agency Master Plan are listed below.

• Agency Capital Investment Program Plan (CIPP). The Agency CIPP provides a 

comprehensive list of institutional and programmatic projects aligned with AIA findings, 

as well as details including costs, schedules, and other business case data that record 

baselines and outcome projections (see Section 2.1.5). 

• Center Framework Presentations (FPs). Center FPs are interim presentations to 

NASA Headquarters that centers complete in-house prior to the development of their

CMPs. The Center FP is intended to serve as an early blueprint for a CMP, providing an 

overview of the intended implementation of the Agency Master Plan to achieve missiondriven and affordability metrics and asset disposition results over a 20-year planning 

horizon.

Under the umbrella of an implemented Agency Master Plan’s asset assignments, 

centers would tie AIA prioritized assets to projects in their FPs to inform the Agency 

CIPP. Gaps would be identified and addressed through stakeholder engagement.

• Existing Center Master Plans (CMPs). CMPs are the culmination of center-level

planning processes. CMPs describe the intent, circumstances, and characteristics of the 

5-, 10-, and 20-year real property plan for each center. If the Agency Master Plan is 

implemented, CMPs would be developed using the framework set forth in this Agency 

Master Plan PEA, taking into account site-specific environmental baseline conditions 

(e.g., resources described in the center's natural and cultural resource management 

plans). CMPs also address the current NASA Strategic Plan, the NASA Asset 

Management Plan for real property, current NASA policies and guidance, applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements, and other federal government performance 

objectives and initiatives. 

With Agency Master Plan implementation, completed CMPs would be updated 

accordingly to reflect AIA findings and Agency Master Plan guidance. Full, detailed 

updates and revisions of CMPs would occur every eight years, unless a mission change 

warrants a full update sooner. NASA would update NPR and NPD 8810 Master Planning 

guidance to include agency- and center-level master planning. 

• Climate Action Plan. NASA facilities, vehicles, equipment, and infrastructure face 

threats related to climate change. According to the 2021 NASA Climate Action Plan, 

approximately two-thirds of agency assets, when measured by replacement value, are 

located within 16 feet of mean sea level along America’s coasts (NASA 2021c, 1). Some 

of these assets are in areas already experiencing high water levels and other effects 

from sea level rise. Temperature, precipitation, and extreme weather events are 

expected to affect others (Ibid.). NASA’s OSI is working with the Science Mission 

Directorate to assess the agency’s carbon footprint, support center sustainability plans, 

and track the resilience of NASA infrastructure in the face of climate change (NASA 

2023b). The Agency Master Plan would follow the directives of the current and future

Climate Action Plans. 

• Agency Resilience Plan. NASA is developing an Agency Resilience Plan that 

evaluates risks to mission and identifies mitigation strategies. The Agency Master Plan

would integrate any real property-related findings in this plan.
Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative 12

• Integrated Risk Management Plan. At the center level, integrated risk management 

combines risk-informed decision making and continuous risk management to ensure all 

risks are identified, captured, and communicated in a common way across the center. 

The integrated risk management process provides bottom-up, detailed, continuous 

assessment of risk; provides support for the identification and mitigation of institutional 

risks; and integrates risk management activities within each center while supporting riskinformed decision-making capabilities center-wide.

• Sustainability Plan. NASA’s plan for sustainability is documented in NASA’s 2020 

Sustainability Report and Implementation Plan (NASA 2022f). The plan promotes, 

maintains, and pioneers sustainable practices in all aspects of the agency’s mission. 

Typical Sustainability Plan goals are intended to:

o Reduce greenhouse gas emissions,

o Design, build, and maintain sustainable buildings, facilities, and infrastructure,

o Leverage clean and renewable energy,

o Increase water conservation,

o Improve fleet and vehicle efficiency and management,

o Purchase sustainable products and services,

o Minimize waste and prevent pollution,

o Implement performance contracts for federal buildings,

o Manage electronic equipment and data centers responsibly, and

o Pursue climate change resilience.

The following systems exist within NASA to compile, assess, and/or assign real property assets 

and conditions. These are being considered in the development of the Agency Master Plan

leverage and integrate existing asset data to develop a strong business case for actions proposed.

• Real Property Management System. The Real Property Management System 

establishes uniformity in maintaining the agency’s real property records. The Real 

Property Management System is the definitive source of NASA real property information 

and was heavily relied upon during Agency Master Plan development.

• Deferred Maintenance System. The Deferred Maintenance System is updated annually 

to determine the level of deferred maintenance and the Facility Condition Index (FCI) 

rating for each real property asset within NASA’s facilities inventory. In the Agency 

Master Plan, deferred maintenance and FCI were considered in the overall condition 

score of an asset and provide meaningful indicators as to the level of stewardship 

required for real property assets across the agency’s portfolio.

• Mission Relevance System. The Mission Relevance (MR) System is a numeric score 

given to all real property assets that is used to gauge each real property asset’s mission 

criticality to NASA. It is derived from utilization (capacity, demand) and requirement 

(mission need, redundancy, interruptability) data. MR scores are updated with mission 

changes or every four years.

2.1.3 Asset Categories

This PEA does not consider project-specific activities and does not include a list of mission-critical 

agency assets. Instead, a list of general asset categories is provided. The following list of asset 

categories captures all real property at NASA. The list is not intended to identify the specific 
Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative 13

projects needed to mitigate deficiencies nor is it a prioritized list. Not all centers have each of the 

asset categories listed; some have more than others, depending on their size and function. All real 

property (buildings, vertical infrastructure, and horizontal infrastructure) was assessed in the AIA 

effort. This PEA evaluates the future state actions (“buckets”) assigned to these assets/asset 

categories if the Agency Master Plan were implemented.

• administrative facilities (office buildings)

• engine testing facilities (test stands)

• fabrication and assembly facilities

• ground improvements facilities (groundskeeping)

• housing and community facilities (amenities)

• launch facilities (launch pads)

• liquid fuel infrastructure and facilities

• maintenance facilities

• operational facilities

• propellant infrastructure and facilities

• research, development, and testing facilities

• storage facilities

• utilities, infrastructure, and facilities (e.g., water, electrical, gas, IT, sewer, storm sewer, 

roadway)

• wind tunnel facilities

The Agency Master Plan does not consider empty land as an asset; as such, it has not been

dispositioned in the AIA process.

2.1.4 AIA Methodology, Bucket Actions, and Metrics

The AIA process involved four phases: data call, asset bucketing, adjudication of selected actions, 

and NASA stakeholder workshops. Exhibit 2-2 illustrates the breadth and depth of the 

collaborative AIA development process. Exhibit 2-3 illustrates the AIA methodology for prioritizing

assets. 

2.1.4.1 AIA Phase 1: Data Call

The phase was the AIA data gathering effort: a pre-decisional data call to survey real property

assets and gather relevant information. More than 600 internal stakeholders from across NASA 

collaboratively identified 1,416 capability assets and 5,623 real property assets (e.g., buildings, 

vertical infrastructure, horizontal infrastructure) to be tracked as part of the AIA process. The key 

output of the data call phase was completion of updated Center Asset Sheets for the next AIA

phase: asset bucketing. 

2.1.4.2 AIA Phase 2: Asset Bucketing

In the asset bucketing phase, the AIA team grouped all real property assets into one of four “bucket 

actions,” specifically: invest, sustain, divest, and outgrant. Mission-critical assets were identified by 

reviewing detailed data behind every asset category listed in Section 2.1.3 and using existing 

plans and systems presented in Section 2.1.2. Data managers provided the initial asset bucket 
Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative 14

assignments, followed by centers reconciling and revising those assignments. This AIA bucketing 

effort provided the core data set informing the Agency Master Plan. 

Exhibit 2-2. Collaborative AIA Development Process

(NASA 2022i)
Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative 15

Exhibit 2-3. AIA Methodology

(NASA 2022i)
Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative 16

An asset’s assignment to one of 

the four bucket actions was 

based on its mission relevance

score and condition score (see 

Exhibit 2-4). This differs from 

the current CMP use of FCI and 

MDI scores overviewed in 

Section 1. To develop an 

agencywide prioritized list of 

assets, a mission relevance

score for each asset was 

calculated by evaluating

utilization (capacity, demand) 

and relevance to mission 

requirements (mission need, 

redundancy, interruptability). The 

resulting mission relevance score provided a gauge of the asset’s criticality to achieving NASA’s 

mission. Additionally, each asset was evaluated by a condition score, which included the existing 

FCI, cost model maintenance costs, and deferred maintenance estimate. A high condition score 

indicates the asset is in sound shape. A low condition score indicates the asset needs attention. A 

high mission relevance score indicates the asset is necessary to carry out critical NASA actions. A 

low mission relevance score indicates the asset is not necessary to carry out critical NASA actions.

The four asset bucket actions are not all-inclusive. A decision may be made that is not reflected in 

the categories below. However, this PEA only evaluates effects of the following bucket actions:

• Sustain. Real property assets bucketed as “sustain” have high mission and acceptable 

condition scores and would be maintained to their current condition.

• Invest. Real property assets bucketed as “invest” have a high mission relevance score 

and a low condition score. These assets need investments beyond planned sustainment 

to continue to meet mission requirements in the future. Assets most critical to the 

mission directorates, capability portfolios, centers, and OSI are prioritized for investment. 

Typical treatment of assets in the invest bucket would involve:

Repair. Fixing the degraded asset.

Renovate. Modernizing by revitalizing existing capabilities or recapitalizing by 

replacing (e.g., demolishing) degraded assets and replacing with new assets.

New Asset. Constructing new capabilities or assets (e.g., new building).

To be Determined (TBD). Determining which treatment is best for the asset.

In the event a renovation project calls for the demolition or divestment of an asset, that 

asset would be moved to the divest bucket.

• Divest. Real property assets bucketed as “divest” have a low mission relevance and low 

condition scores. This bucket may include demolishing, mothballing, abandoning, or 

transferring an asset. Demolishing or transferring an asset eliminates or reduces real 

property assets no longer required by NASA. Mothballing an asset entails providing the 

least level of maintenance necessary to maintain the functionality of the asset for 

possible future use. Abandoning an asset entails eliminating any future maintenance of 

that asset.

Exhibit 2-4. Asset Bucket Assignment –

Mission Relevance-Condition Matrix
Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative 17

Certain historic and potentially historic properties in the divest bucket that may require 

additional consideration are on the “path to divestment – historic” list. Prior to 

divestment, any currently unevaluated assets subsequently determined to be historic will 

be automatically moved to the path to divestment – historic list.

• Outgrant. Real property assets bucketed as “outgrant” have a low mission relevance 

score and an acceptable condition score. Assets in this bucket need further 

evaluation/discussion through the adjudication process to determine if they should be 

outgranted, repurposed, consolidated, or sustained. If an outgrant opportunity is not 

identified within two to three years, the asset should be reevaluated. 

Outgranting is the non-permanent transfer of real property rights from NASA to others by 

means of lease (or any other form of acceptable legal instrument that recognizes NASA 

as the landlord and the lessee as the tenant); permit; easement; right of way; license; 

Space Act Agreement; or agreement such as memorandum of understanding, 

memorandum of agreement, or concessionaire agreement. In situations where NASA 

assets are occupied by tenants, the following bucket assignments are applied:

Path to Divestment. Certain properties that may require additional consideration are 

categorized as “Path to Divestment”. This includes assets with unique functions.

Existing Tenant (High Condition). Real property assets bucketed as “Existing 

Tenant (High Condition)” are identified as existing outgranted assets that have 

high condition scores and are recommended to be maintained to their current 

condition.

Existing Tenant (Low Condition). Real property assets initially bucketed as 

“Existing Tenant (Low Condition)” are identified as existing outgranted assets 

that have a low condition score and would benefit from investments to reduce 

their deferred maintenance, improve their FCI to 3.6 or higher, and/or ensure

regulatory compliance.

Existing Tenant (No Condition). Real property assets initially bucketed as “Existing 

Tenant (No Condition)” are identified as existing outgranted assets that have no 

condition rating.

• Asset Bucket TBD. Assets for which the final disposition have yet to be determined. 

The comprehensive development and prioritization of mission-critical agency assets helps meet the 

Agency Master Plan goal of allocating resources and funding based on agencywide, prioritized 

needs. The key output of the asset bucketing phase was Bucketed Center Asset Data Sheets for 

the next AIA phase – data adjudication.

2.1.4.3 AIA Phase 3: Adjudication of Selected Actions

In the adjudication phase, asset rankings and classifications identified in the asset bucketing phase 

were adjudicated between the centers, mission directorates, and capability portfolios. In this phase, 

the mission directorates reviewed the mission scoring and bucketing, then the data managers 

coordinated with capability portfolios and centers to finalize the adjudication outcomes. In addition, 

with NASA’s Institutional GIS and center input, resource constraints (e.g., environmental, historic, 

energy) associated with each asset were taken into consideration as part of the adjudication effort. 

The key output of this phase was the completion of Adjudicated Center Asset Data files ready for

the stakeholder workshops.
Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative 18

2.1.4.4 AIA Phase 4: Stakeholder Workshops

In the stakeholder workshops phase, all stakeholders met to develop a prioritized assets list based 

on mission relevance that aligned with prioritization requirements. The key output of this phase was 

stakeholder agreement on each asset’s future state, as well as prioritized invest, divest, and 

outgrant lists.

2.1.4.5 AIA Follow-on Efforts

The Agency Master Plan effort included a follow-on study to the AIA process. An agencywide

Duplicate and Obsolete Capabilities Assessment was conducted to identify additional assets

suitable for divestment. A Leadership Summit was held to gain consensus on the divestments. The 

Agency Master Plan effort also includes Center and Portfolio Framework Plans that illustrate 

alignment to the AIA bucket assignments and the overarching Agency Master Plan. 

2.1.4.6 Stakeholder Collaboration

The AIA methodology was designed to maximize stakeholder collaboration throughout the process, 

with relevant stakeholders convened for each phase. For the data call and asset bucketing phases, 

the Agency Master Plan team worked with each center to identify assets and collect condition and 

mission relevance data, which was used provide an initial future state for each asset based on the 

collected data. For the adjudication phase, center stakeholders and the Agency Master Plan team 

were joined by representatives from the Mission Directorates, Capability Portfolios, and Institutional 

GIS to adjudicate rankings and classifications for the assets. In the final Workshop phase, this 

larger stakeholder group met again (minus the Institutional GIS representative) to prioritize assets 

by mission relevancy, resulting in a final list reviewed and agreed upon by all parties: master 

planners, centers, Mission Directorates, and Capability Portfolios. 

The highly inclusive process started with in-depth data calls to the centers, where participants 

included not just facility managers, but also users. The collaborative adjudication process that 

followed allowed for inputs and debate from a diverse group of institutional (Capability Portfolio 

Managers, centers) and programmatic (Mission Directorates, facilities/real property planners) 

authorities, as well as subject matter experts. The AIA drew on these broad perspectives to identify 

the data to review, review this data, and voice disagreement or reach consensus, ensuring all 

options would be evaluated from multiple perspectives and the right one selected. 

When asked to provide feedback on the new methodology, participants cited multiple positive 

evolutions: inclusion of mission relevance, a more engaged Mission Directorate voice, heightened 

collaboration, and more transparent dialogue. Previously, these functions had been performed 

primarily by institutional representatives, with programmatic representatives only reviewing the 

outcomes. The new approach allowed all group members to be involved as participants, not just 

reviewers. The process also ensured many alternatives were considered, in addition to the initial 

future state indicated by the facility condition and mission relevance scores. Furthermore, once the 

result was documented, group members could submit requests for reconsideration if they felt a 

change to the data or the outcome was warranted. The requested asset would go through the 

adjudication process again, ensuring full and thorough consideration of all variables that may affect 

the ideal future state for each asset from multiple relevant perspectives. The feedback provided by 

participants will allow the Agency Master Plan team to refine the process further for future 

iterations. 
Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative 19

2.1.5 AIA Findings 

Bucketing is an ongoing effort for NASA, with asset assignments evolving to meet changing 

mission needs. The current AIA effort evaluated 5,623 real property assets across all of NASA. Of 

those, 5,187 assets were assigned to bucket action categories of sustain, invest, divest, or outgrant 

based on mission criticality, condition, risk, and cost. The final disposition (i.e., bucket assignment) 

of an additional 77 assets remains TBD. Final disposition of these assets could not be determined 

during the final center AIA workshops but will be addressed in the future. Bucket assignments for 

the remaining 359 assets are not possible for a variety of reasons, such as reclassification of the 

asset as personal property or the asset having been disposed of previously. 

Overall, the results of the AIA effort show the direction of future management of NASA assets.

Upon implementation of the Agency Master Plan, agencywide assets would be allocated as shown

in Exhibit 2-5 and Exhibit 2-6. Exhibit 2-7 lists examples of typical asset treatment by bucket 

assignment.

Notable results from the AIA effort include:

• Over 60% of all assets were assigned to the sustain bucket.

• Approximately 12% of all assets were assigned to the invest bucket, and these account 

for 47% of all deferred maintenance.

• 65% of invest bucket assets are horizontal infrastructure.

• $53M+ identified as risk reduction potential through combined divest and outgrant 

buckets (18%).

• $8M+ in additional FY 2025 

outgrant proceeds were 

identified.

As stated in Section 1, the purpose 

of the Agency Master Plan is to 

establish an agencywide and 

mission-driven approach that 

ensures critical capabilities and 

assets are mission-ready, reliable, 

and affordable. The AIA bucket 

assignments provide all centers with 

a clear path that will help them 

develop their respective CMPs to

best support current and future 

NASA missions.

Exhibit 2-5. Agencywide Asset Bucket Assignments 

(NASA 2023c)
Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative 20

Exhibit 2-6. Agencywide AIA Bucket Assignments

(NASA 2023c)

# Assets % Assets # Assets % Assets

SUSTAIN Sustain 3,193 60.7% 3193 60.7%

Invest - TBD 227 4.3%

Invest - New Building 42 0.8%

Invest - Renovate 35 0.7%

Invest - Repair 351 6.7%

Divest 553 10.5%

Path to Divestment - Historic 59 1.1%

Outgrant 172 3.3%

Outgrant - Path to Divestment 57 1.1%

Tenant - High Condition 316 6.0%

Tenant - Low Condition 174 3.3%

Tenant - No Condition 8 0.2%

ASSET BUCKET TBD Final Disposition Not Determined to Date 77 1.5% 77 1.5%

5,264 100% 5,264 100%

ASSET BUCKET BUCKET ACTION

BUCKET ACTION TOTAL BUCKETS

GRAND TOTAL

655 12.4%

612 11.6%

727 13.8%

INVEST

DIVEST

OUTGRANT
Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative 21

Exhibit 2-7. Examples of Assets and Asset Bucket Type

Examples of Assets Sustain Invest Divest Outgrant

Office Complex, Research Complex, Administrative 

Complex, Laboratory Building X X X X

Fuel Storage Facility X

Avionic Hangar X

Aircraft Parking/Airport Parking Aprons X

Antennas and Support Structures X

Assembly Shops X

Battery Buildings X

Blast Buildings, Bunkers X X

Boat Basin Bulkhead X

Camera Towers, Pads, Platforms X

Flammable Storage X X X

Hazardous Material Storage/Staging Facilities X X X

Conex Box/ Shipping Container X X X

Cooling Tower X X

Substation X X X

Helicopter Pad X X

Water Pump Station/Storage Tank X X X X

Launch Pad and Support Facilities X X X X

Telecommunication Shelter and Buildings X X

Recreational – Basketball/Volleyball/Tennis Court X X

Test Facilities and Test Staging Facilities X X X X

(NASA 2022j)
Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative 22

2.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Agency Master Plan would not be implemented, and centers 

would continue developing FDCs, CIPPs, and CMPs with limited influence from a top-down 

planning approach. Without a holistic review of assets across NASA, asset redundancies would 

likely remain across the agency. Funding for agencywide, mission-critical resources would not be 

allocated based on a holistic view of critical capabilities, asset conditions, or financial risks and 

constraints. Under the No Action Alternative, centers would continue to integrate agency guidance 

to their particular circumstances, environments, resources, and requirements. Finally, with the 

current bottom-up CMP planning process, Headquarters must understand center proposals in 

detail to integrate them coherently and must baseline and monitor progress against the agency’s 

objectives and commitments. 

Currently, some centers do not have a CMP but perform functions under an FDC and CIPP. This 

may be due to center size and staffing. For this reason, even though centers consider 

Headquarters’ guidance, there remains inconsistent approaches and uneven planning efforts 

across centers that may result in unnecessary expenditure of funds or failure to fully consider the 

mission criticality of an asset on an agencywide scale or agencywide economic and environmental 

consequences. Continuing the current method of balancing operations, maintenance, repairs, new 

construction, and demolition would not provide NASA the necessary trade-space to invest in future 

capabilities.

Center-level planning efforts do not have the capability of achieving what the Agency Master Plan

can provide at an agencywide scale. Specifically, center-specific CMPs are ineffective and 

inefficient at an agencywide level in:

• Managing the entirety of NASA’s assets and capabilities;

• Providing a unified approach to institutional planning and decision making;

• Allocating resources and funding based on agencywide, prioritized needs;

• Proactively deploying sustainable practices; and

• Reducing current and future infrastructure-related risks and redundancies.

Center-level planning efforts would not approach planning from an agencywide, mission-aligned 

portfolio nor would the efforts use integrated asset management. Centers would continue efforts 

with consideration to Headquarters direction, but ultimately without collaboratively managing assets 

from an agencywide perspective. For these reasons, the No Action Alternative does not meet the 

project’s purpose and need. However, the No Action Alternative is retained in this PEA to serve as 

a basis for comparison of potential beneficial and adverse effects.
Section 3: Affected Environment 23

SECTION 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

As a Tier I PEA, this document provides, within this section, a broad overview of the affected 

environment (i.e., location, setting, mission) of each of the 10 NASA centers. Exhibit 3-1 provides 

a summary of each center’s location, year established, acreage, and number of employees.

Detailed descriptions of each center’s existing conditions (i.e., affected environment) are 

documented in the center’s respective Environmental Resources Documents (ERDs). Exhibit 3-2

provides a summary of existing conditions, as reported in each center’s most recent ERD. The 

ERDs are incorporated by reference in accordance with 40 CFR Subpart 1501.12. It should be 

noted that the language of Subpart 1501.12 states, “Agencies may not incorporate material by 

reference unless it is reasonably available for inspection by potentially interested persons within the 

time allowed for comment. Agencies shall not incorporate by reference material based on 

proprietary data that is not available for review and comment.” Due to the sensitive and predecisional nature of future Agency Master Plan real property portfolio decision making, NASA has 

not sought public comment on this Tier I PEA. The information and analysis contained in the PEA 

uses, at least in part, the information provided in each center's ERD. When center NEPA managers 

conduct subsequent, project-specific, Tier II NEPA evaluations, NASA expects that a baseline of 

existing natural and cultural resources in the affected area will be established, and the 

environmental impacts of the proposed action will be analyzed. Depending on the level of NEPA 

review required (i.e., CatEx/REC; EA/FONSI; EIS/ROD), public review and comment periods would 

be provided as appropriate.
Section 3: Affected Environment 24

Exhibit 3-1. Overview of NASA Centers and Support Facilities

Centers and Facilities 

(in the United States) State Est. Acreage # Employees

ARC Ames Research Center CA 1939 1,874 1,518

AFRC Armstrong Flight Research Center CA 1954 838 1,250

GRC John H. Glenn Research Center 

(combined)

OH 1941 7,047 3,348

• GRC at Lewis Field Campus OH 1958 307 3,181

• Neil Armstrong Test Facility (ATF)

(formerly Plum Brook Station)

OH 1956 6,740 167

GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center (combined) Multiple 1959 8,395 10,255

• Greenbelt Campus (GSFC central campus) MD 1959 1,270 8,200

• Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) VA 1959 6,580 1,200

• White Sands Complex (WSC) NM 1963 50 380

• Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility (CSBF) TX 1963 483 70

• Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) NY 1961 N/A 130

• Katherine Johnson Independent Verification 

and Validation Facility (IV&V)

WV 1993 12 275

JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory (combined) CA 1958 32,617 6,692

• Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) CA 1958 168 6,500

• Goldstone Deep Space Communications 

Complex (GDSCC)

CA 1958 32,411 178

• Table Mountain Facility (TMF) CA 1961 38 14

JSC Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center 

(combined)

Multiple 1961 28,534 11,789

• Johnson Space Center (JSC) - Houston TX 1961 1,634 11,389

• White Sands Test Facility (WSTF) NM 1962 26,900 400

KSC John F. Kennedy Space Center FL 1958 141,829 10,000

LaRC Langley Research Center VA 1917 767 1,651

MSFC George C. Marshall Space Flight Center 

(combined)

Multiple 1960 2,673 10,142

George C. Marshall Space Flight Center 

(MSFC)

AL 1960 1,841 7,000

Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) LA 1964 832 3,142

SSC John C. Stennis Space Center MS 1962 138,000 4,844
Section 3: Affected Environment 25

Exhibit 3-2. Existing Conditions Based on Center ERDs

Resource Group and Type

CENTER

ARC AFRC GRC GSFC JPL JSC KSC LaRC MSFC SSC

Resource Group Resource Type

Soils & Geology Low Permeability Yes No Yes N/A No Yes Yes No No No

Active Fault Zone N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes

Air Quality -

Compliance

NAAQS Attainment

Nonattainment 

for ozone

Nonattainment 

for ozone

Nonattainment 

for ozone

Nonattainment 

for ozone, 

maintenance 

for carbon 

monoxide

Nonattainment 

for lead, ozone

Nonattainm

ent for 

ozone

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Attainment for PM, 

PM2.5, PM10 Nonattainment 

for PM2.5, PM10

Unclassified / 

attainment 

PM, PM2.5, 

PM10

Yes Yes Nonattainment 

for PM2.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Title V Permit N/A No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

SIP Coordination Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Climate Change GHG and Climate 

Change Program Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Noise Noise, Sonic Boom, 

and Vibration

Soundwall 

between 

highway and 

base

Noise levels in 

nearby 

residential 

areas do not 

exceed land 

use 

compatibility 

standards

Provisions to 

limit hazardous 

noise when 

equal or 

exceed 80 dBA 

or <3ft 

300 ft from 

nearest 

residence, 

operations are 

indoors and 

noise is 

negligible

Noise levels in 

adjacent 

residential 

areas do not 

exceed land 

use 

compatibility 

standards

Sensitive 

receptors 

onsite, no 

records of 

complaint 

from offsite

Rocket 

launches, 

species, and 

adjacent 

areas will 

potentially be 

exposed to 

high noise 

levels

Run-up pad 

with Joint 

Base 

LangleyEustis use 

and National 

Transonic 

Facility

Sound 

buffer 

exists 

between 

base and 

adjacent 

residential 

areas

N/A

Hazardous 

Materials & 

Waste

Contaminants & 

Waste (Structures) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes

Contaminated Areas 

(Land) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Current 

CERCLA/Superfund 

Sites, National 

Priorities List (NPL)

Yes Yes - NPL Yes Yes Yes - NPL N/A Yes Yes - NPL Yes Yes

RCRA/Haz Waste 

Generator Status N/A LQG LQG LQG LQG LQG LQG LQG LQG Yes

Water, Surface 

Water, Hydrology, 

Wetlands, 

WOTUS

NPDES Permits 

(Industrial or 

General)

Yes N/A Yes, Rocky 

River TMDL

Yes, 

Chesapeake 

Bay TMDL

Yes

Yes, 

General 

Permit

Yes

Yes, 

Chesapeake 

Bay

Yes Yes

Presence of 

Wetlands & Streams Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Section 10 

Navigable 

Waterways N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes

Yes, Barge/

Docking 

Facility

N/A

MSFC and 

MAF: Yes, 

Barge/

Docking 

Facility

Yes, Barge/

Docking 

Facility

Table continues on following page. Legend provided at end of table.
Section 3: Affected Environment 26

Resource Group and Type

CENTER

ARC AFRC GRC GSFC JPL JSC KSC LaRC MSFC SSC

Resource Group Resource Type

Coastal Zone 

Mgmt

CZMA Consistency N/A N/A Main site is not 

within CZMA N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A MSFC: N/AMAF: Yes N/A

Coastal Barriers N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes N/A Yes N/A

Wild & Scenic 

Rivers

Presence of Wild & 

Scenic Rivers N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes

Floodplains 100-Year Floodplain 

Areas Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Wildlife/Waterfowl 

Refuge

Federal or State 

Refuge

Adjacent to 

Center N/A N/A Adjacent toCenter N/A Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes

Biological 

Resources

Federal - T/E 

Species Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes

Federal - Critical 

Habitat N/A N/A Yes N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A N/A Yes

State- T/E Species Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Aquatic Preserves N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A

Essential Fish 

Habitat N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A

Presence of Marine 

Mammals N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A N/A N/A

Presence of 

Migratory Birds Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A

Cultural 

Resources

Continues on 

following page.

Listed NRHP Bldgs, 

Structures Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Eligible NRHP 

Bldgs, Structures Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

NRHP Historic 

District Listed Eligible Eligible Listed Eligible No Listed & Eligible

Listed & 

Eligible No Listed

National Historic 

Landmarks Yes Adjacent to Center Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MSFC: Yes Yes

Table continues on following page. Legend provided at end of table.
Section 3: Affected Environment 27

Resource Group and Type

CENTER

ARC AFRC GRC GSFC JPL JSC KSC LaRC MSFC SSC

Resource Group Resource Type

Cultural 

Resources

Continues from

previous page.

Potential for 

Archaeological Sites

Known sites 

with potential 

for more

No

Known sites 

with potential 

for more

NRHP-eligible

sites, with 

potential for 

more

No known 

sites, low 

potential

JSC:

portion of 

Armand 

Bayou 

National 

Archaeologi

cal District

WSTF: 

NRHPeligible sites 

with high 

potential

NRHPeligible sites, 

high to 

moderate 

potential for 

more

NRHPeligible sites, 

high to

moderate 

potential for 

more

MSFC: 

NRHPeligible 

sites with 

potential for 

more

NRHPeligible sites 

with 

potential for 

more

Environmental 

Justice

Low Income 

Populations N/A Yes

N/A onsite, 

present in 

adjacent areas

N/A onsite, 

present in 

adjacent areas

N/A

N/A onsite, 

present in 

adjacent 

areas

N/A Yes Yes N/A

Minority Populations

Yes N/A

N/A onsite, 

present in 

adjacent areas

N/A onsite, 

present in 

adjacent areas

N/A

N/A onsite, 

present in 

adjacent 

areas

N/A Yes Yes N/A

Recreation Public Parks or 

Recreation Areas Not public Yes, 

but Not Public

Yes, 

but Not Public

Yes,

but Not Public

Adjacent to 

Center Yes Yes

Yes, 

but Not 

Public

Yes,

but Not 

Public

Yes

Legend:

Yes indicates resource or condition is present, as documented in center's ERD.

No indicates resource or condition is not present, as documented in center's ERD.

N/A indicates the resource category is not applicable to the center or not included in center's ERD.

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (i.e., Superfund)

CZMA = Coastal Zone Management Act

GHG = Greenhouse Gases

LQG = Large Quantity Generator (of hazardous waste)

NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRHP = National Register of Historic Places

PM = Particulate Matter

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (for proper management of hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste)

SIP = State Implementation Plan (for air quality)

T/E = Threatened or Endangered Species

TMDL = Total Maximum Daily Load

WOTUS = Waters of the United States
Section 3: Affected Environment 28

3.1 Ames Research Center

ARC is home to unique facilities and capabilities including the world’s largest wind tunnel, NASA’s 

fastest supercomputers, NASA’s only arc jet facility for re-entry testing, and the world’s largest 

motion-based flight simulator. ARC has led NASA in conducting world-class research and 

development in nanotechnology, information technology, fundamental space biology, 

biotechnology, thermal protection systems, and human factors research. ARC is a world-class 

research and development campus with partners from academia, industry, and non-profit 

corporations. 

Located in California’s Silicon Valley, 

ARC is 40 miles south of San Francisco 

and 12 miles north of San Jose. ARC, 

including Moffett Federal Airfield on the 

southeasternmost reach of San 

Francisco Bay, is directly bordered to 

the north by experimental salt ponds of 

the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge and the 

Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study 

Area Preserve. The center is 

surrounded to the southeast, south, and 

southwest by urban land use typical of 

Bay Area communities, including dense 

urban residential and commercial 

development. Exhibit 3-3 provides an 

aerial image of the ARC campus.

Within the ARC are federally protected species and habitat, wetland areas, and 100-year 

floodplains, and the site is underlain by extensive contamination plumes. Also within the ARC are 

two Historic Districts listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Multiple buildings 

and structures are individually listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP and/or contributing elements 

to one of the Historic Districts. ARC also has four designated National Historic Landmarks (NHLs). 

Known archaeological sites are located at ARC, and although these have been evaluated as 

ineligible for listing in the NRHP, the potential exists for future archaeological discoveries. A full 

description of all existing resources at ARC is provided in the ARC’s ERD, incorporated here by 

reference (NASA 2015b).

3.2 Armstrong Flight Research Center

AFRC is NASA’s primary center for atmospheric flight research and test projects. AFRC's mission 

is to advance technology and science through flight which includes the following mission elements: 

perform flight research and technology integration to revolutionize aviation and pioneer aerospace 

technology; validate space exploration concepts; and conduct airborne remote sensing and 

science missions. AFRC is a civilian tenant organization within the boundaries of Edwards Air 

Force Base in the western Mojave Desert, approximately 100 miles northeast of Los Angeles, 

California. Exhibit 3-4 is an aerial image of AFRC. AFRC is surrounded by Edwards Air Force 

Base and abuts Rogers Dry Lake Preserve to the east. Edwards Air Force Base is in the Antelope 

Valley, a 3,000-square-mile high desert closed basin. With the San Gabriel Mountains to the south 

and the Tehachapi Mountains to the west, the lakebeds are among the lowest points in the 

Antelope Valley. A wide range of plants and animals inhabit the area. 

Exhibit 3-3. Ames Research Center

(NASA 2012a)
Section 3: Affected Environment 29

Rogers Dry Lake, within Edwards Air 

Force Base, is a 44-square-mile playa 

lake used for aviation research and test 

operations. AFRC has one NRHPeligible Historic District and one 

individually NRHP-eligible asset. Rogers 

Dry Lake, outside of but adjacent to the 

eastern boundary of AFRC, has been 

designated an NHL and is listed on the

NRHP because of its role in the 

development of the nation’s space 

program and in the development of 

aerospace systems. AFRC has no 

identified NRHP-eligible archaeological 

sites. A full description of the existing 

environment at AFRC is provided in 

AFRC’s ERD, incorporated here by 

reference (NASA 2017a).

3.3 Glenn Research Center

The GRC’s mission is to drive 

research, technology, and systems to 

advance aviation, expand human 

presence across the solar system, 

enable exploration of the universe, 

and improve life on Earth. Its 

laboratories, test facilities, and 

capabilities provide the program, 

technical, and mission support 

leadership necessary to meet these 

challenges. The GRC comprises two 

facilities: the NASA GRC located at Lewis Field (referred to as the Lewis Field Campus) in 

Cleveland, Ohio (Exhibit 3-5), and the Neil A. Armstrong Test Facility (formerly known as Plum 

Brook Station), located in Sandusky, Ohio, approximately 47 miles west of the Lewis Field 

Campus.

The Lewis Field Campus is the main GRC campus. It is approximately 6 miles south of Lake Erie, 

bounded to the north and west by the deciduous woodlands surrounding the Rocky River and the 

Rocky River Reservation. It is bounded to the south and east by the Cleveland Hopkins 

International Airport. As is typical of urban settings, dense residential and commercial land uses 

dominate the surrounding area. Within the Lewis Field Campus, there are multiple sites where 

remedial action is occurring to address environmental contamination. Portions of the campus are 

within 100-year flood zones. A portion of the GRC is an NRHP-eligible Historic District with multiple 

assets that qualify as individually eligible as well as contributing elements. One building in the 

Historic District is also a designated NHL. There are identified archaeological sites at GRC, but 

they have not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility. A full description of the existing environment at 

GRC’s Lewis Field Campus is provided in the GRC’s ERD, incorporated here by reference (NASA 

2018b).

Exhibit 3-4. Armstrong Flight Research Center

(NASA 2022g)

Exhibit 3-5. Glenn Research Center – Lewis Field 

Campus

(NASA 2022d)
Section 3: Affected Environment 30

The Armstrong Test Facility (ATF), 

formerly the Plum Brook Station, is a 

remote test facility for the GRC Lewis 

Field Campus (Exhibit 3-6). It houses 

the largest and most powerful space 

simulation and spacecraft test facilities 

in the world. It is also a multi-tenant 

facility surrounded by rural agricultural 

land to the east, south, and west and 

suburban land use associated with the 

community of Sandusky to the north. 

The area is dominated by a mix of 

woodlands, scrub-shrub vegetation, and 

fields. Within the facility’s boundary, 

multiple bird, turtle, snake, moth, and 

rare plant species are located as are 

multiple sites where remedial action is 

occurring to address environmental 

contamination. Several buildings are 

individually eligible for listing in the 

NRHP, and one property is a designated NHL. Archaeological, primarily prehistoric, sites have 

been identified at ATF. A full description of the existing environment at GRC’s ATF is provided in 

the GRC’s ERD, incorporated here by reference (NASA 2018b).

3.4 Goddard Space Flight Center

GSFC in Greenbelt, Maryland, plays a pivotal role across all aspects of the agency’s missions, 

from development to de-orbit. GSFC’s missions support multiple scientific disciplines, including 

Earth science, solar science, the Sun-Earth environment, planetary studies, and astrophysics.

GSFC includes six campuses and multiple remote sites that contribute to the GSFC mission. Each 

of these campuses/facilities is described in the text that follows. 

3.4.1 Greenbelt Campus

Located in Greenbelt, Maryland, in 

Prince George’s County, approximately 

6.5 miles northeast of Washington, D.C., 

the Greenbelt Campus is the main 

campus of GSFC (Exhibit 3-7). It is 

home to the nation’s largest organization 

of scientists, engineers, and 

technologists who build spacecraft, 

instruments, and new technology to 

study the Earth, Sun, our solar system, 

and the universe (NASA 2022a). It is 

also the operational home of the Hubble 

Space Telescope. 

The campus is convenient to NASA 

Headquarters and other allied 

professional organizations and 

Exhibit 3-6. Glenn Research Center – Armstrong Test 

Facility (Plum Brook Station)

(NASA 2019b)

Exhibit 3-7. GSFC – Greenbelt, MD

(NASA 2021e)
Section 3: Affected Environment 31

universities. It consists of 1,270 acres within five distinct land areas and uses, situated in a natural 

setting marked by gently rolling topography and woodlands. Within the boundaries of the Greenbelt 

Campus are large areas of wetlands and areas within a 100-year flood zone. GSFC has one 

designated NHL and one asset that is individually eligible for listing in the NRHP. Numerous 

buildings, facilities, and structures are contributing elements to the NASA GSFC Historic District. 

One NRHP-eligible pre-historic archaeological site is present at GSFC. A full description of the 

existing environment at GSFC’s Greenbelt Campus is provided in the GSFC’s ERD, incorporated 

here by reference (NASA 2018c).

3.4.2 Wallops Flight Facility

Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) maintains 

a diverse tenant agency population 

consisting of scientific research, 

commercial industry, and military 

mission activities. Located on the 

Eastern Shore of Virginia, in Accomack 

County, the WFF Campus provides 

launch capability for NASA and other 

U.S. government and commercial 

partners (Exhibit 3-8).

WFF consists of three campuses 

adjacent to the woodlands and 

saltmarshes of the Wallops Island 

National Wildlife Refuge and open 

ocean areas along the Eastern Shore. 

The natural areas of the three 

campuses are dominated by saltmarshes with pine, scrub-shrub, and maritime grasslands present 

primarily along the shoreline. Federally endangered sea turtles and their nests occur along the 

shoreline. Multiple bald eagle nesting sites are present. The natural setting allows access to open 

oceanic areas compatible with its operational role. A large number of buildings have been identified 

as having asbestos-containing materials, and there are multiple hazardous waste storage locations 

and disposal sites within the WFF boundaries. The 1936 Wallops Beach Life Saving Station and 

associated observation tower are eligible for listing in the NRHP. WFF has identified NRHP-eligible 

archaeological sites and there are areas of the center where additional intact archaeological sites 

may be present. A full description of the existing environment at WFF is provided in the GFSC‘s 

WFF ERD, incorporated here by reference (NASA 2017b).

3.4.3 White Sands Complex 

NASA’s White Sands Complex (WSC) comprises facilities operated by GSFC (NASA’s JSC in 

Houston manages the White Sands Test Facility [WSTF] within the WSC) and serves as one of 

NASA’s ground stations for the Tracking and Data Relay Satellites and ground-based antennas 

for the critical link between Earth and space. The WSC is 11 miles from Las Cruces, New Mexico. 

The WSC sits in the Chihuahuan Desert, in the foothills of the Organ Mountains (Exhibit 3-9). 

Major vegetation in the area includes a combination of woody shrubs and grasses characteristic of 

the Chihuahuan Desert Scrub Biotic Community. A description of the existing environment at the 

WSC is provided in the WSTF ERD, incorporated here by reference (NASA 2015c).

Exhibit 3-8. GSFC – Wallops Flight Facility

(NASA 2021e)
Section 3: Affected Environment 32

3.4.4 Columbia Scientific 

Balloon Facility

The Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility 

provides NASA centers and universities 

around the world the services of 

launching large, unmanned, high 

altitude research balloons and tracking 

and recovering the scientific 

experiments suspended beneath them. 

The facility is adjacent to the Palestine 

Municipal Airport, approximately 5 miles 

from the community of Palestine, Texas 

(Exhibit 3-10). The surrounding 

environment consists primarily of rolling 

sandy hills dominated by Post Oak 

Savannah Ecoregion with primary land 

uses of mixed rural and agricultural 

activities and harvested timberlands. A 

rich variety of wildlife can be found 

within the area.

3.4.5 Goddard Institute for 

Space Studies

Research at the Goddard Institute for 

Space Studies (GISS) emphasizes a 

broad study of global change and an 

interdisciplinary initiative addressing 

natural and man-made changes in the 

environment affecting the habitability of 

Earth. GISS occupies five of seven 

floors in Columbia University’s 

Armstrong Hall in Manhattan’s 

Morningside Heights neighborhood 

(Exhibit 3-11).

Exhibit 3-9. GSFC – White Sands Complex

(NASA 2021e)

Exhibit 3-10. GSFC – Columbia Scientific 

Balloon Facility

(NASA 2015d)

Exhibit 3-11. GSFC – Goddard Institute for 

Space Studies

(NASA 2021e)
Section 3: Affected Environment 33

3.4.6 Katherine Johnson 

Independent Verification 

and Validation Facility

The Katherine Johnson Independent 

Verification and Validation program is 

responsible for ensuring NASA’s safetyand mission-critical systems and 

software operate reliably, safely, and 

securely. The facility is in the 

Monongahela Valley in Fairmont, West 

Virginia (Exhibit 3-12). The facility 

consists of a single, NASA-owned 

building situated in a business park 

setting, surrounded by rural and 

suburban land uses.

3.4.7 GSFC Foreign Facilities

• Antarctica Long Duration Balloon Facility (McMurdo Station, Antarctica)

• Ascension Island Bilateration Ranging Transponder Facility (Atlantic Ocean)

• Australia Balloon Launch Facility (Alice Springs, Australia)

• Australia Yarragadee Mobile Laser Site (Dongara, Australia)

• Wanaka Balloon Launch Facility (Wanaka, New Zealand)

• Bermuda Spaceflight Tracking/Data Network Station (Cooper’s Island Nature Reserve, 

Bermuda)

• Tahiti Mobile Laser Site (Papeete, Tahiti)

3.5 Jet Propulsion Laboratory

The JPL is NASA’s only research and 

development center federally funded by 

NASA but managed by the California 

Institute of Technology. The JPL is in the 

City of La Cañada Flintridge, California,

at the southern foot of the San Gabriel 

Mountains, approximately 5 miles 

northwest of the city of Pasadena

(Exhibit 3-13). To the east and south, 

the JPL is adjacent to the Hahamongna

Watershed Park, a natural park between 

mountain and plain. To the west, south,

and east beyond the park, dense

suburban land use stretches into the 

matrix of dense suburban communities 

north of Los Angeles. JPL has two 

Exhibit 3-12. GSFC – Katherine Johnson Independent 

Verification and Validation Facility

(NASA 2021e)

Exhibit 3-13. Jet Propulsion Laboratory

(NASA 2016a)
Section 3: Affected Environment 34

NHLs, several individually NRHP-eligible buildings, and an NRHP-eligible Historic District. The 

archaeological potential at JPL is low.

3.5.1 Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex

The Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex (GDSCC) is in the Mojave Desert, near 

Goldstone, California. The giant dish antennas of NASA’s Deep Space Network (DSN)―built and 

managed by the JPL―send and receive data from nearly all spacecraft traveling beyond the Moon.

The DSN includes one designated NHL and one individually NRHP-eligible structure. A full 

description of the existing environment at the JPL is provided in the JPL’s ERD, incorporated here 

by reference (NASA 2015a).

3.5.2 Table Mountain Facility

The Table Mountain Facility is an asset of the 

JPL. At an elevation of 7,500 feet, the facility 

is located near the town of Wrightwood, CA, in 

the San Gabriel Mountains within Angeles 

National Forest, approximately 1.5 hours-drive 

from the main JPL lab in Pasadena (Exhibit 

3-14). Its remote location, altitude, climate, 

and lack of light contamination make it one of 

the best places in the United States for 

cloudless nighttime skies. Scientific and 

engineering research at the facility includes 

astronomy, atmospheric remote sensing, light 

detection and ranging (LiDAR), and related

projects for universities and colleges (NASA

2023d).

3.5.3 JPL Foreign Facilities

• Canberra Deep Space Communications Complex (Tidbinbilla, Australia)

• Madrid Deep Space Communications Complex (Madrid, Spain)

3.6 Johnson Space Center

The JSC is the home of NASA’s Mission Control Center and astronaut training (Exhibit 3-15). It 

serves as the lead NASA center for the International Space Station, is home to NASA’s Astronaut 

Corps, and is responsible for training space explorers from the United States and space station 

partner nations. It is the principal training site for astronauts for NASA and commercial space 

companies. JSC leads NASA’s flight-related scientific and medical research efforts. Additionally, 

the center manages the development, testing, production, and delivery of hardware supporting 

spacecraft functions including life support systems and all human spacecraft-related functions. The 

latter include life support systems, power systems, crew equipment, electrical power generation 

and distribution, navigation and control, cooling systems, structures, flight software, robotics, and 

spacesuits and spacewalking equipment. 

Exhibit 3-14. Table Mountain Facility

(NASA 2023d)
Section 3: Affected Environment 35

JSC is in Houston, Texas. To the west, 

south, and east, the JSC is surrounded 

by dense suburban and commercial 

development. Also to the east is Clear 

Lake, which connects to Galveston Bay, 

providing access to the Gulf of Mexico. 

To the north, land use is a mix of woods, 

fields, and pastures. Forested wetlands 

are present near the Center’s northern 

boundary. The easternmost portion of 

JSC is within a special flood hazard 

area. The entirety of the JSC campus in 

Houston is a designated NRHP Historic 

District. Within the Historic District, two 

buildings are NHLs and numerous 

buildings, structures, and facilities are 

individually eligible for the NRHP. JSC is 

considered to have a low potential for 

intact archaeological sites. A full 

description of the existing environment at JSC is provided in the JSC ERD, incorporated here by 

reference (NASA 2019a).

3.6.1 White Sands Test Facility

The WSTF is a self-contained facility with medical, fire, and hazardous rescue personnel. It houses 

unique and comprehensive testing and analysis capabilities for evaluating material, component, 

and system behaviors in hazardous 

environments. Testing and evaluations 

include composite pressure systems, 

propellants and aerospace, and 

materials flight acceptance (Exhibit 3-

16). While WSTF is a tenant of the WSC

in Las Cruces, New Mexico, it is a 

component of the JSC.

The affected environment of the WSTF

is similar to the WSC. The WSTF is 11 

miles from Las Cruces, New Mexico, in

the Chihuahuan Desert, in the foothills 

of the Organ Mountains. Major 

vegetation in the area includes a 

combination of woody shrubs and 

grasses characteristic of the 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub Biotic 

Community. A large pollution plume is in 

the western portion the WSTF. WSTF has two NRHP-eligible Historic Districts. Additional buildings 

are individually eligible and/or contributing elements to the WSTF Historic District. WSTF is 

particularly rich in archaeological sites―95 sites have been identified at the Center, some of which 

are NRHP-eligible. A description of the existing environment at the WSTF is provided in the WSTF 

ERD, incorporated here by reference (NASA 2015c).

Exhibit 3-15. Johnson Space Center

(NASA 2022h)

Exhibit 3-16. JSC – White Sands Test Facility

(NASA 2022c)
Section 3: Affected Environment 36

3.7 John F. Kennedy Space Center

KSC is NASA’s premier multiuser 

spaceport with more than 90 privatesector partners and nearly 250 

partnership agreements (NASA 2020a). 

KSC is NASA’s main launch site and is 

home to facilities that research and 

develop innovative solutions for

government and commercial space 

ventures. Located on Merritt Island, 

Florida, KSC is north and west of Cape 

Canaveral. The two locations are 

primarily separated from each other by 

the Banana River. To the east, a portion 

of KSC is bounded by the Atlantic 

Ocean and to the west by the Indian 

River. KSC is about an hour’s drive from 

Orlando on Florida’s eastern coast 

(Exhibit 3-17). 

The area is geographically 

characterized by its low elevation and its 

mix of land and lagoon waters. Within its 

boundaries, KSC contains the Merritt 

Island National Wildlife Refuge. Most of 

Canaveral National Seashore is located 

on the northern part of Merritt Island, on 

the east coast of Central Florida. KSC 

has a varied habitat including coastal 

dunes, saltwater estuaries and marshes, 

freshwater impoundments, scrub, pine flatwoods, and hardwood hammocks. These habitats 

provide refuge to more than 1,500 species of plants and animals. Of these, there are 33 animals 

that are federally and/or state listed as threatened or endangered and 39 plants listed as 

threatened, endangered, or species of special concern within KSC boundaries. Most of KSC is 

within a 100-year floodplain. 

KSC contains multiple historic properties including historic buildings, structures, districts, objects,

and sites that are listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP. Historic property types include

buildings, launch pads, and objects that are on display at the KSC Visitors Center. KSC also owns 

a few historic properties within the adjacent Cape Canaveral Air Force Station NHL Historic District. 

Many NRHP-eligible archaeological sites have been identified at KSC, but most of the land

remains unsurveyed. Archaeological probability models created in the 1990s and early 2000s aid in 

the identification of areas with high or moderate potential for archaeological sites. A full description 

of the existing environment at the KSC is provided in the KSC ERD, incorporated here by reference 

(NASA 2020b).).

3.8 Langley Research Center

LaRC supports NASA’s goals for aeronautics exploration, science, and space technology with a 

variety of flight simulators, wind tunnels, labs, and computational software. LaRC is in the City of

Exhibit 3-17. Kennedy Space Center

(NASA 2020a)
Section 3: Affected Environment 37

Hampton, Virginia, adjacent to Joint Base Langley-Eustis on the Chesapeake Bay (Exhibit 3-18). It 

is the oldest of NASA’s centers. 

The surrounding land use is primarily suburban with interspersed woodlands to the southwest.

Vegetation is a mix of maintained grass, shrubbery, and woodlands. Large areas of forested, 

estuarine, and marine wetlands are present. Most of LaRC is within a special flood hazard area.

Branches of the Back River directly border LaRC and Joint Base Langley-Eustis to the northeast 

and east. The center is a NRHP-listed Historic District. Three NHLs are located at LaRC and there 

are many built resources contributing to the historic district and individually eligible for listing on the 

NRHP. The adjacent Langley Air Force Base is eligible as a Historic District. Historic-era and prehistoric era archaeological sites are present at LaRC, including sites eligible for listing and listed on 

the NRHP. A full description of the existing environment at the LaRC is provided in the LaRC ERD, 

incorporated here by reference (NASA 2021b).

Exhibit 3-18. Langley Research Center

(NASA 2012b)

3.9 George C. Marshall Space Flight Center

MSFC’s core capabilities and services include providing propulsion technology and testing, 

materials and testing, space transportation systems, space systems, and scientific research

(Exhibit 3-19). Situated in Huntsville, Alabama, the MSFC is encompassed by the 38,300-acre

U.S. Army Redstone Arsenal (RSA). On site, MSFC is bordered to the west and south by the 

sprawling Wheeler National Refuge and Wheeler Lake (a.k.a., Indian Creek), portions of which are 

within the MSFC. Redstone Army Airfield is to the north of the center. Oak-hickory forests dominate 

the wooded areas. To the north of MSFC, suburban land use becomes increasingly urban from 

west to east, culminating in the small urban center of Huntsville. Portions of MSFC are within a 

100-year floodplain. Within MSFC’s boundaries there are multiple hazardous material areas, 

several potential contamination points, and several sites where remedial action is occurring to 

address environmental contamination. MSFC has four designated NHLs and additional assets that 

are individually NRHP-eligible. NRHP-eligible archaeological sites are also present at MSFC. A full 

description of the existing environment at the MSFC is provided in the MSFC ERD, incorporated 

here by reference (NASA 2017c).
Section 3: Affected Environment 38

(NASA 2021a)

3.9.1 Michoud Assembly 

Facility

A component of MSFC, the 

Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF)

is one of the largest manufacturing 

facilities in the world at 829-total 

acres, with 43 acres of 

manufacturing space under one 

roof and a working port with deepwater access that enables

transportation of large space 

systems and hardware. Having 

previously served both the Apollo 

and Space Shuttle programs, the 

facility has adapted to support all 

of NASA’s human space flight missions. Today, MAF is manufacturing and assembling the core 

stages for NASA’s Space Launch System. The MAF site is in southeastern Louisiana, 16 miles 

east of downtown New Orleans. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway bounds MAF to the south, the 

Michoud Canal to the east, warehouse and industrial development to the north, and a commercial 

electricity generating facility and the U.S. Coast Guard Base New Orleans to the west. Solar panels 

cover more than 100 acres of the site near its southern and eastern boundaries.

As shown on Exhibit 3-20, much of the land at the MAF site has been disturbed, with land use 

consisting primarily of buildings, parking lots, solar fields, and mowed grass. Most of MAF is 

outside of a 100-year floodplain and more protected than areas surrounding MAF due to the 

drainage canals. As a manufacturing facility, a variety of wastes are generated at MAF, including 

hazardous, non-hazardous, and industrial solid waste. Multiple pollution sites are located 

throughout the MAF, including sites where remedial action is occurring to address environmental 

contamination. Multiple assets are individually NRHP-eligible. A full description of the existing 

Exhibit 3-19. Marshall Space Flight Center

Exhibit 3-20. Michoud Assembly Facility

(NASA 2010)
Section 3: Affected Environment 39

environment at the MAF is provided in the MAF ERD, incorporated here by reference (NASA 

2016b).

3.10 John C. Stennis Space Center

The SSC is a multidisciplinary facility comprised of NASA and more than 40 other resident 

agencies engaged in space, environmental programs, and national defense, including the U.S. 

Navy’s world-class oceanographic research community. Located on the border of Louisiana and 

Mississippi in Hancock County, Mississippi, SCC is a multi-tenant facility (Exhibit 3-21). It is 

adjacent to the Pearl River, a tributary of the Mississippi River, and surrounded by wooded and 

agricultural land use. Water access provides SSC with the essential ability to transport large rocket 

stages, components, and propellant loads. The Pearl River Wildlife Management Area borders the 

facility directly to the west. The large tracts of forest surrounding the center and considered a 

national asset, provide the 13,800-acre test facility with an acoustical buffer zone of close to 

125,000 acres. Large areas of forested wetlands are present throughout the area, and within the 

SSC boundaries there are 100-year floodplains. 

Multiple pollution sites are located throughout the SSC, including sites where remedial action is 

occurring to address environmental 

contamination such as monitoring wells, 

landfills, and National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

sites. SSC has one designated NHL

District, the Test Complex, which 

includes several contributing properties. 

SSC also has identified NRHP-eligible 

archaeological sites. A full description of 

the existing environment at the SSC is 

provided in the SSC ERD, incorporated 

here by reference (NASA 2016c).

Exhibit 3-21. Stennis Space Center

(NASA 2004)
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 40

SECTION 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

On May 20, 2022, the CEQ issued its update of the NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 CFR 

Parts 1500-1508), including its guidance on determining the significance of a Proposed Action. In 

accordance with 40 CFR Part 1501.3, agencies are instructed to analyze the potentially affected 

environment and the degree of the effects of the action. Agencies are also instructed to consider 

connected actions consistent with 40 CFR Part 1501.9(e)(1). CEQ further defines the updated 

approach to determining effects as follows:

(1) In considering the potentially affected environment, agencies should consider, as 

appropriate to the specific action, the affected area (national, regional, or local) and its 

resources, such as listed species and designated critical habitat under the Endangered 

Species Act. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. For instance, in the 

case of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend only upon the effects in the 

local area. 

(2) In considering the degree of the effects, agencies should consider the following, as 

appropriate to the specific action: 

(i) Both short- and long-term effects. 

(ii) Both beneficial and adverse effects. 

(iii) Effects on public health and safety. 

(iv) Effects that would violate Federal, State, Tribal, or local law protecting the 

environment (40 CFR 1501.3).

The purpose of NEPA is to inform decisionmakers of the likely environmental consequences of a 

Proposed Action. Similarly, while NEPA does not apply extraterritorially, NASA analyzes the effects 

of major federal actions abroad under EO 12114 (Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal 

Actions). Consistent with these requirements, this section identifies the anticipated effects of the No 

Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. The analysis of resource effects focuses on 

environmental issues in proportion to the degree of effect anticipated with actions typical under 

each bucket assignment: sustain, invest, divest, outgrant. Environmental consequences or effects 

described in this PEA are evaluated in terms of the likely or anticipated degree of effect (no effect, 

negligible, minor, moderate, or significant). In the absence of specific projects to be implemented 

(e.g., construction of a new building), it is not possible to provide a quantitative assessment of 

effects. Therefore, the potential effects presented are theoretical and qualitative. These terms are 

further defined in Exhibit 4-1. 

At the Tier II level, when specific projects are proposed, center-level NEPA managers would need 

to determine whether the proposed action falls within the scope of a pre-determined CatEx (14 

CFR 1216.304) or requires preparation of an EA or EIS. To aid in their determination, center-level 

NEPA managers may use the tools and resources (provided via hyperlinks) in Exhibit 4-2.

Regardless of NEPA Tier I or Tier II level of analysis, the center NEPA manager should work with 

the project proponent to consider alternatives that could minimize and/or mitigate potential 

significant effects below the significant threshold, where practicable.

To the extent applicable to the NASA facility, center NEPA managers would need to consider state 

and local regulatory requirements related to each resource discussed in this PEA.
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 41

Exhibit 4-1. Potential Effect Rating Scale

Exhibit 4-2. NASA NEPA Resources Links

External (Public)

CEQ NEPA Regulations

Public NEPA Library

Public NASA Environmental Tracking System (NETS)

Internal (NASA Only)

NASA NEPA Desk Guide

NASA Environmental Review Form (NERF)

Internal NEPA

NETS Module

Environmental Resources Documents (ERDs)

Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plans (ICRMPs)

NASA’s Natural Resource Management Plans (NRMPs)
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 42

For the Proposed Action, potential effects relate to the types of actions associated with each of the 

AIA bucketing categories: invest, sustain, divest, and outgrant (Exhibit 4-3). For the No Action 

Alternative, potential effects relate to similar actions, but in the absence of agencywide mission 

criticality prioritization and condition scores.

Exhibit 4-3. Proposed Action – Typical Actions by Bucket Type

Sustain

For Assets with High Mission Relevance and Acceptable Condition Scores

• Maintain current asset condition.

• Maintain current operational activities.

• Ground-disturbing activities are not common.

Invest

For Assets with High Mission Relevance and Low Condition Scores

• Repair degraded asset.

• Renew by modernizing or replacing degraded asset. Renovation can occur within or outside a 

particular building or facility. 

• Ground-disturbing activities are possible for assets requiring repair or renewal. 

• Infrastructure improvements can involve installation of new utilities and roadways, removal of old utility 

lines and roads, or improvements to existing utility lines and roadways. 

• Build new facilities and structures. Typically involves some amount of ground disturbance (e.g., land 

clearing, grading, pavement removal/addition) depending on the scope and location of the new asset. 

These activities may also involve heavy equipment.

Divest

For Assets with Low Mission Relevance and Low Condition Scores

• Demolish by eliminating or reducing asset or equipment no longer required by NASA. Facility 

demolition includes removal of part or all of a building or facility, up to and including the foundation. 

This activity may involve land disturbance to some extent, as well as the use of heavy equipment. 

• Mothball provides the least level of maintenance required to maintain functionality for possible future 

use of the asset. Very little, if any ground-disturbing activity is involved. 

• Abandon by eliminating any future maintenance of the asset. No ground-disturbing activity is involved.

Outgrant

For Assets with Low Mission Relevance and Acceptable Condition Scores

• These assets need further evaluation to determine final bucketing assignment (outgranted, 

repurposed, consolidated, or sustained).

• Outgranting is the non-permanent transfer of rights by NASA of real property to others by means of 

lease (or any other form of acceptable legal instrument that recognizes NASA as the landlord and the 

lessee as the tenant); permit; easement; right of way; license; Space Act Agreement; or agreement 

such as a memorandum of understanding or concessionaire agreement. 

• If the asset is outgranted, the lessee could sustain the facility, invest in the existing facility, or construct 

a new facility and/or structure.

• Ground-disturbing activity could be possible.
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 43

4.1 Potential Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, NASA would not implement an Agency Master Plan and would 

continue center development actions and operations in accordance with each center’s existing and 

future CMPs. Potential environmental effects would generally be similar to those described under 

the Proposed Action, given that projects implemented under the No Action Alternative would be 

similar to those implemented under the Proposed Action. The main differences between the No 

Action Alternative and the Proposed Action are:

• The No Action Alternative would be less efficient and result in a less effective allocation 

of funding from an agencywide perspective. Institutional funding allocation and which 

projects are implemented would be based on center-driven mission criticality (No Action 

Alternative) versus agency-driven mission criticality and asset condition (Proposed 

Action).

• The No Action Alternative could result in potential redundancy in asset funding and 

treatment across centers while the Proposed Action could potentially reduce redundant 

facility costs.

From a programmatic perspective, center-specific regulatory requirements (federal, state, local), 

center-specific resource constraints, and the degree of effect on resources from asset construction, 

demolition, renovation, maintenance of existing and future operational activities, and/or outgranting

would be similar under the No Action Alternative or the Proposed Action. The range of potential 

effects would be the same as that of the Proposed Action (from no effect to significant effect), and 

appropriate NEPA follow-on studies would be subject to the same criteria, regardless of alternative. 

4.2 Potential Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action 

The following subsections summarize potential effects by resource to ensure the decision-maker 

understands the potential consequences of implementing the Proposed Action. Regulatory 

requirements, potential mitigations, and best management practices are also identified for each 

resource area. Because potential effect determinations in this PEA are notional (as are potential 

projects within asset buckets), discussions of effects are qualitative in nature. Exhibit 4-4 provides 

an overview of the likely range of potential effects to each resource category relative to the typical 

actions anticipated for each asset bucket assignment. Greater detail of potential effects is provided, 

by resource type, in the text that follows.
Agency Master Plan 

Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Section 4: Environmental Consequences 44

Exhibit 4-4. Potential Effects by Bucket Type

Resource Category

Bucket Type and Typical Actions

Sustain Invest Divest Outgrant

Maintain Asset/

Maintain Operational 

Activity

Repair, 

Renovate

Newly 

Created Demolish Mothball Abandon Rights Transfer,Easement, Right of Way

Land Use NE, N NE, N, m m, M, S m, M, S NE, N NE, N NE, N, m, M, S

Soils and Geology NE, N NE, N, m m, M, S m, M NE, N NE, N NE, N, m, M, S

Air Quality NE NE, N, m N, m, M N, m, M, S NE NE NE, N, m, M

Climate Change & 

Greenhouse Gas NE, N NE, N, m N, m, M NE, N NE, N NE, N NE, N, m, M

Noise, Sonic Boom, 

Vibration NE, N NE, N, m NE, N, m, M, S m, M NE NE NE, N, m, M, S

Hazardous Materials & 

Waste NE, N, m m, M m, M N, M, S N, m N, m NE, N, m, M, S

Transportation NE NE, N, m, M m, M, S NE NE NE NE, N, m, M, S

Utilities NE, N NE, N m, M, S NE N NE NE, N, m, M, S

Water Resources NE, N NE, N, m, M, S NE, N, m, M, S m, M, S NE, N, m NE, N, m NE, N, m, M, S

Coastal Zone 

Management

NE, N NE, N m, M, S NE, N NE, N NE, N NE, N, m, M, S

Biological Resources NE NE, N NE, N, m, M, S NE, N, m, M, S NE NE NE, N, m, M, S

Cultural Resources:

Above Ground Structures NE, N, m NE, N, m, M, NE, N, m, M, NE, N, m, M, NE, N, m NE, N, m, M, . NE, N, m, M, 

Cultural Resources: 

Archaeology NE, N NE, N, m NE, N, m, M, NE, N, m NE, N NE, N NE, N, m, M, 

Environmental Justice NE NE NE, N, m NE NE NE NE, N, m

Socioeconomic NE NE NE, N, m, M, S NE, N, m, M, S NE NE NE, N, m, M, S

Potential Effect Rating:

NE = No Effect; N = Negligible Effect; m = Minor Effect; M = Moderate Effect; S = Significant Effect
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 45

4.2.1 Land Use

Land use comprises natural conditions or human-modified activities occurring at a particular 

location. Management plans and zoning regulations determine the type and extent of land use 

allowable in specific areas and are often intended to protect specially designated or 

environmentally sensitive areas. Adverse environmental effects related to land use should be 

minimized or mitigated through consistency with each center’s environmental stewardship 

objectives.

4.2.1.1 Regulatory Setting

Outside of the context of management of federal lands under the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (43 U.S.C 1701 – 1782), there is no overarching federal land use law. As 

discussed in Section 4.2.2.1, the federal government regulates real property development 

activities which may occur on NASA centers through a variety of statutory and regulatory 

authorities (e.g., the Clean Water Act [CWA], the Endangered Species Act, the Coastal Zone 

Management Act [CZMA]). In some cases, implementation of these authorities is delegated to the 

states (e.g., permitting under the CWA; consistency with approved state coastal management 

programs). Centers should be mindful of local, municipal, and state land use/zoning regulations 

and requirements that may apply to areas on- or off-center, but which, either directly or indirectly, 

are related to the Proposed Action.

4.2.1.2 Potential Consequences 

Centers should develop an understanding of their developable and non-developable land and 

environmentally sensitive areas in the consideration of construction, operation, or maintenance 

activities that have the potential to affect existing and future land use. Centers should work closely 

with adjacent land use partners to determine the appropriate methods for, locations of, and 

mitigation options pertaining to proposed projects.

Sustain

Potential effects from actions in the sustain bucket would likely range from no effect to negligible 

effect. Maintaining an asset’s current condition and/or maintaining current operational activities 

would have little, if any, effect on existing and adjacent land uses.

Invest

Potential effects from actions in the invest bucket could range from no effect to significant effect, 

depending on the size and scope of the proposed action. Repairing and/or renewing an asset 

would likely have no effect to minor effect, whereas a newly created asset could have minor to 

significant effects on land use, depending on the size and scope of the proposed action. For 

example, construction of a new facility could result in direct effects to adjacent wetlands or runoff 

caused by the addition of impervious surfaces (e.g., parking lots, sidewalks, installation of 

associated utility infrastructure).

Divest

Abandoning and/or mothballing an asset would likely range from no effects to negligible effects to 

center and adjacent land uses. Demolishing an asset could have a minor to significant effect on 

future land use; the previously used area could be available for future development in a manner not 

consistent with the original facility or structure. The consolidation of operations into a smaller 

geographic footprint would likely, over time, allow NASA to restructure functions and capabilities 
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 46

into more efficient facilities on a smaller footprint. Some possible land use and land cover changes 

would be minor or moderate in scope and beneficial overall.

Outgrant

Depending on the action proposed under an outgrant scenario, potential effects to land use could 

range from no effect to significant effect. If an outgranted asset is sustained by the lessee, little if 

any effect to land use would occur. If a lessee invests in an existing asset or constructs a new 

facility/structure, there could be a moderate to significant effect similar to what could occur under 

the invest or divest buckets.

4.2.2 Soils and Geology

Soils and geological resources typically consist of surface and subsurface materials and their 

inherent properties, such as erosion potential, compaction rates, drainage, and other properties 

that may influence design, construction, and project activities.

4.2.2.1 Regulatory Setting

In the context of this PEA, issues related to redevelopment of NASA facility infrastructure and its 

effects on soils and geology would most likely be addressed through construction-related permit 

requirements (e.g., CWA Section 402 permit for stormwater discharges from a construction activity; 

CWA Section 404 permit for disposal of dredge fill material into Waters of the United States

[WOTUS] including wetlands).

4.2.2.2 Potential Consequences 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service has soil maps and 

data available online. Proposed development should evaluate soil stability, as well as infiltration 

rates, compaction rates, erosion rates, and overall soil health. Best management practices would 

need to be implemented during project activities to prevent or reduce soil erosion and minimize 

adverse soil effects. Disturbed areas would likely need to be re-sodded and revegetated with 

grasses or other vegetation to further minimize erosion over the long-term. Depending on project 

type and size, each center’s natural resource management protocols and/or NPDES stormwater 

construction permit requirements would need to be followed, where applicable.

Development activities could result in effects on soils and geology from clearing, grubbing, grading, 

excavating, filling, etc. Ground-disturbing construction activities could occur in some areas where 

soils have been previously disturbed, but activities could also occur in previously undisturbed 

areas. In these disturbed areas, adverse effects on soils would be considered minimal as soil 

structure and function have already been destroyed or altered. Where disturbance of intact natural 

soils may occur because of project activities, the effects would be greater. The use of heavy 

equipment would be short-term during project activities, and the degree of soil effects would 

depend on the types of soils occurring onsite (e.g., disturbed versus natural, highly permeable, 

hydric), site topography, and the size of the project area. Soil erosion from use of heavy equipment 

could occur, leading to detachment of soils and transport of freshly disturbed surfaces in wind and 

storm flow runoff. Severe soil compaction could also inhibit revegetation in denuded areas. 

Potential indirect effects of soil destabilization and erosion would be dust generation and offsite 

deposition. Additionally, tires and tracks of heavy equipment may potentially erode soils and carry 

sediment from construction sites to paved areas, which would drain into ditches and catch basins 

during rain events or cause dust during dry periods. Disturbance of soils could also create habitat 
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 47

for colonization by invasive species. Finally, spills and leaks of hazardous materials from vehicles 

or equipment during construction could lead to soil contamination and toxicity.

Impacts of proposed project activities on soils and geology could be short-term and/or long-term, 

direct, adverse, and minor-to-moderate, depending on the extent of the project, site topography, 

types of soils occurring onsite, and whether impervious surfaces would be placed over soils and 

geological materials. Depending on project size and each center’s natural resource management 

EO 13112, Invasive Species obligations, centers would re-sod disturbed areas and revegetate

them with non-invasive species of grasses or other vegetation to further minimize erosion over the 

long-term.

Sustain

Potential effects from actions in the sustain bucket would likely range from no effect to negligible 

effect. Maintaining an asset’s current condition and/or maintaining current operational activities 

would have little, if any, effect on soils and geology.

Invest

Potential effects from actions in the invest bucket could range from no effect to significant effect, 

depending on the size and scope of the proposed action. Repairing and/or renewing an asset 

would likely have no effect to minor effect as ground-disturbing activity would be limited. However,

a newly constructed asset could have significant effects on soils and geology, depending on the 

size and scope of the proposed action, as well as the amount of ground-disturbing activity, extent 

of heavy equipment use, the presence of contaminated soils, or the amount of earthwork involved.

Divest

Abandoning and/or mothballing an asset would likely range from no effects to negligible effects to 

center soils and geology. Demolishing an asset could have a minor to moderate effect, depending 

on the extent of heavy equipment use, the presence of contaminated soils, or the amount of 

earthwork involved.

Outgrant

Depending on the action proposed under an outgrant scenario, potential effects to soils and 

geology could range from no effect to significant effect. If an outgranted asset is sustained by the 

lessee, little if any effect to soils and geology would occur. If a lessee invests in an existing asset or 

constructs a new facility/structure, there could be a minor to significant effects, depending on the 

extent of heavy equipment use, the presence of contaminated soils, or the amount of earthwork 

involved.

4.2.3 Air Quality

Air quality is the measure of how clean or polluted the air is in a particular location. A region’s air 

quality is influenced by many factors, including the type and amount of pollutants emitted into the 

atmosphere, the size and topography of the air basin, and the prevailing meteorological conditions.

4.2.3.1 Regulatory Setting

The Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and welfare. The EPA 

established the first set of primary and secondary NAAQS for six air pollutants that are common in 

outdoor air and are considered harmful to public health and the environment. These six “criteria” air 

pollutants are: ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

carbon monoxide (CO), and lead (Pb). In accordance with the CAA, all areas within the United 
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 48

States are designated with respect to the NAAQS. EPA states that, “If the air quality in a 

geographic area meets or is cleaner than the national standard, it is called an attainment area 

(designated “attainment/unclassifiable”); areas that don't meet the national standard are called 

nonattainment areas. In some cases, EPA is not able to determine an area's status after evaluating 

the available information and those areas are designated "unclassifiable." (EPA 2022j). States are 

responsible for designating areas that are attainment, non-attainment, or maintenance for each of 

the criteria pollutants. States are required to develop EPA-approved plans, called State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs), to achieve or maintain the NAAQS within timeframes set under the 

CAA (40 CFR 50).

Title V of the 1990 CAA Amendments is a program administered by the EPA to standardize air 

quality permits and the permitting process for major sources of emissions across the country. 

Title V only applies to “major sources.” EPA defines a major source as a facility that emits or has 

the potential to emit any criteria pollutant or hazardous air pollutant at levels equal to or greater 

than the major source thresholds (40 CFR 70). As shown in Exhibit 3-2, most NASA centers hold 

Title V permits.

4.2.3.2 Potential Consequences 

As shown in Exhibit 3-2, compliance with air quality standards and the status of Title V permits 

vary across the centers. Any future development activities that include additional stationary sources 

of air emissions (e.g., boilers, generators) would need to be added to the center’s Title V permit 

and would have to meet all requirements therein. In addition, new air emission sources would be 

subject to New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants requirements. At centers in non-attainment or maintenance areas, where future 

bucket action projects may generate air emissions, a general conformity analysis would be 

required. In such instances, centers would need to demonstrate that the proposed project would 

not inherently lead to a violation of any federal, state, or local air regulation.

Sustain

Maintaining an asset’s current condition and/or maintaining current operational activities would 

likely have no effect on current air quality levels.

Invest

Repairing and/or renewing an asset would likely have no effect to minor effects on air quality (e.g., 

installing new boilers and generators) and could see a beneficial effect with the replacement of 

more efficient emission-producing equipment and facilities. A newly created asset could have 

negligible to moderate effects to air quality (e.g., new facility that generates additional emissions or 

more launches and test flights) depending on the size and scope of the proposed investment, as 

well as the potential for reduced emissions (e.g., more efficient generators), and the degree of 

ground-disturbing activity and short-term use of heavy equipment. Compliance with applicable air 

quality regulations and permitting requirements must occur prior to constructing, demolishing, 

operating, or modifying any air emission source. This may include obtaining a construction permit 

or modifying a center's Title V Air Operation Permit prior to commencing that activity. Such permits 

include measures for dust control and other air emission controls.

Divest

Abandoning and/or mothballing an asset would likely have no effect, if not an improvement to air 

quality, if the asset had been an emissions generator. Demolishing an asset could have a 

negligible to significant (albeit temporary) effect, depending on the extent of heavy equipment use

(short-term effect), as well as a beneficial effect to air quality by taking a previous source of air 

pollutants permanently offline. Compliance with applicable air quality regulations and permitting 
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 49

requirements must occur prior to constructing, demolishing, operating, or modifying any air 

emission source. This may include obtaining a construction permit or modifying a center's Title V 

Air Operation Permit prior to commencing that activity. Such permits include measures for dust 

control and other air emission controls.

Outgrant

Depending on the action proposed under an outgrant scenario, potential effects to air quality could 

range from no effect to moderate effect. If an outgranted asset is sustained by the lessee, little if 

any effect to air quality would occur. If a lessee invests in an existing asset or constructs a new 

facility/structure that generates additional emissions, there could be a minor to moderate effect to 

air quality.

4.2.4 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases

Global climate change effects include overall warmer temperatures, rising sea levels, a melting 

polar ice cap, changes in rainfall patterns, a greater frequency of extreme weather events (e.g., 

droughts, deluges, severe storms, floods, prolonged heat waves), and other associated, and often 

interrelated, effects. The EPA states that greenhouse gases (GHG) from human activities are the 

most significant driver of observed climate change since the mid-20th century (EPA 2022g). The 

EPA also states that transportation is the largest source of GHG emissions in the United States, 

followed by electricity generation (EPA 2022g).

NASA considers both the impact of climate change on its assets and the impact of its actions on 

climate change. NASA’s 2021 Climate Action Plan states:

A significant portion of NASA’s infrastructure is in low-lying areas along coastal areas of the 

continental United States. Climate change is driving increased exposure to rising sea 

levels, and storm surge and precipitation are causing higher water levels during major 

storm events. Several Centers have already taken action through elevation of assets, 

adjusting new construction siting, and other adaptation measures. Flooding and other 

natural forces exacerbated by climate change continue to pose significant risk to NASA’s 

launch infrastructure and mission. Shorelines continue to erode due to these natural forces.

(NASA 2021c, 3)

Many of these assets cannot be relocated due to their size, specialized characteristics, or strict 

launch safety requirements, which include maintaining adequate distance from communities and 

other safety measures and necessitate the use of coastal or other locations significantly affected by 

climate change (NASA 2021c,1).

4.2.4.1 Regulatory Setting

On December 8, 2021, President Biden authorized EO 14057 on catalyzing American clean 

energy industries and jobs through federal sustainability and approved the accompanying Federal 

Sustainability Plan. The Federal Sustainability Plan establishes federal agency policy, programs, 

operations, and infrastructure to implement adaptive and resilient strategies for future climate 

effects. Federal agencies are now required to develop climate adaptation and resilience plans that 

evaluate the most significant climate-related risks and vulnerabilities for agency operations and 

missions and to identify actions to manage those risks and vulnerabilities (CEQ n.d.). In response 

to the requirements of EO 14057, NASA developed its Climate Action Plan with five Priority 

Adaptation Actions (NASA 2021c, 3): 
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 50

• Priority 1: Ensure Access to Space 

• Priority 2: Integrate Climate Adaptation into Agency and Center Master Plans

• Priority 3: Integrate Climate Risks into Risk Analysis and Agency Resilience Planning

• Priority 4: Update Climate Modeling to Better Understand Agency Threats and 

Vulnerabilities 

• Priority 5: Advance Aeronautics Research on Technologies and Processes that Reduce 

Contributors to Climate Change

4.2.4.2 Potential Consequences 

Based on NASA’s Climate Action Plan Priorities 2 and 3, the AIA process considered climate 

adaptation and the resilience needs of assets when making asset bucket assignments. This effort

would result in agencywide, beneficial effects on assets because risks would be identified at the 

planning stage, enabling NASA to more efficiently accommodate future hardening, relocation, or 

required asset redundancy for inclusion in the Agency Resilience Framework. Relative to climate 

change, the assignment of assets to be sustained, invested, divested, or outgranted was done to 

reduce and/or eliminate risks to assets from existing and future climate change risks.

Sustain

Maintaining an asset’s current condition and/or maintaining current operational activities would

likely have no effect to negligible effect on current GHG emissions and contributions to climate 

change. This is based on the assumption that mission-critical assets threatened by climate change 

are not included in this bucket, as they would instead fall under the invest or divest buckets.

Invest

Repairing and/or renewing an asset would likely have no effect to minor effects on GHG emissions 

and global climate change, whereas a newly created asset could have negligible to moderate 

effects, depending on the size and scope of the proposed action, as well as the frequency, volume, 

and type of new emissions. Part of the AIA process included the identification of mission-critical 

assets whose locations are at risk from climate change. At-risk assets in the invest bucket would 

receive funding to reduce or minimize risks from climate change.

Divest

Demolishing, abandoning, and/or mothballing an asset would likely have no effect to negligible 

effect on GHG emissions. Such actions could result in a reduction of overall GHG emissions, 

contributing to an improvement in global GHG levels because the asset would no longer be 

operational (i.e., no longer generating GHG emissions).

Outgrant

Potential effects to GHG emission levels could range from no effect to moderate effect. If an 

outgranted asset is sustained by the lessee, little if any effect on GHG emissions would likely 

occur. If a lessee invests in an existing asset or constructs a new facility/structure, there could be a 

minor to moderate increase in GHG emissions or there could be a reduction if equipment installed 

is more efficient and effective in capturing emissions. New construction by the lessee would be 

required to comply with NASA’s Climate Action Plan, thereby eliminating or minimizing risks 

associated with climate change.
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 51

4.2.5 Noise, Sonic Boom, and Vibration

Noise is defined as unwanted or annoying sound that interferes with or disrupts normal human 

activities and wildlife. Inadequately controlled noise presents a growing danger to the health and 

welfare of the nation’s population, particularly in urban areas. Under certain conditions, noise 

may cause hearing loss, interfere with human activities, and affect the health and well-being of a 

community. Types and levels of noise can have a damaging effect on natural resource 

populations as well (e.g., avian reproduction and bat sonar). For NASA, major sources of noise 

include but are not limited to transportation vehicles and equipment, machinery, operations, 

launches and landings, rocket engine testing, and test flights. 

4.2.5.1 Regulatory Setting

To encourage the control of noise, Congress passed the Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C.

4901) (EPA 2022h). The Noise Control Act establishes a national policy to promote an

environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health and welfare. While the 

primary responsibility for control of noise rests with state and local governments, federal action is

essential to deal with major noise sources. EPA is directed by Congress to coordinate the 

programs of all federal agencies relating to noise research and noise control (EPA 2022h).

Noise may be a concern when determining potential effects on several resources. These resources 

may include, but are not limited to, onsite employees, wildlife, as well as adjacent parks and 

recreation areas, schools, hospitals, residential areas, and historic and cultural sites.

4.2.5.2 Potential Consequences 

The most common generators of noise are related to vehicle/equipment use during development 

activities and operations. Short-term noise effects could be associated with the continuation of 

many types of operations presently occurring at various centers (e.g., launches, landings, flight 

tests, general operations, support activities). Short-term increases in noise could also result from 

the use of heavy equipment during construction and demolition. Long-term effects would result 

from the addition of stationary sources of noise (e.g., standby generators, changes in vertical and 

horizontal launch activities). Additionally, increases in traffic volumes and changes in traffic patterns 

could result in higher noise levels; however, these effects would be insignificant when compared to 

the overall noise environment. 

Noise levels generated by individual launches, landings, or test flights would vary, depending on 

the type of vehicle, its trajectory, and weather conditions during launch or flight. Launch noise 

would be from the initial rocket ignition and sonic booms as the launch vehicle ascends. Noise 

levels from rocket ignition and test flights could be characterized as very loud in some areas; 

however, launches and test flights are not continual and individual exposure to noise in general 

and sonic booms in particular are very short in duration. Typically, the sonic boom would last no 

more than a few hundred milliseconds. Although the exact nature of future vertical launch and 

landing activities is unknown, future location of operational components, such as launch and 

landing sites, as well as substantive changes in launch platforms or operational tempo, would need 

to be evaluated to identify areas with sensitive noise receptors to determine land use compatibility 

and potential for noise levels loud enough to impact sensitive receptors. It is not expected that 

future vertical launch activities would violate any federal, state, or local noise ordinance, create 

incompatible land uses for nearby areas, or be loud enough to harm human health.
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 52

Sustain

Maintaining an asset’s current condition and/or maintaining current operational activities would 

likely have no effect to negligible effect on current noise levels and sensitive receptors.

Invest

Repairing or renovating an asset would likely have no effect to minor effects on noise levels and 

sensitive receptors, depending on the type of investment action. For instance, installation of new 

equipment (e.g., larger generators or machinery) within an existing facility could increase ambient 

noise levels but not appreciably. Construction of a new asset (e.g., new building) could have no 

effect to significant effects, depending on the proposed action, the existing ambient noise levels, 

and the proximity of sensitive receptors. A new facility could increase traffic volumes or change 

travel patterns, likely creating a minor to moderate increase in noise volumes. Construction of new 

assets (e.g., test flight facilities or launch pads) could have moderate to significant effects, 

depending on the type of new asset. In the case of test flights or rocket launches and landings, the 

increased noise levels would likely be limited in frequency and duration, but significant when 

happening.

Divest

Demolishing, abandoning, and/or mothballing an asset would likely reduce overall noise levels

because the asset would no longer be operational and generating noise. In the short-term, 

demolition of assets could increase noise levels from heavy equipment moving materials at the 

site. Depending on the location of adjacent sensitive noise receptors (i.e., locations potentially 

sensitive to noise and vibration like schools, hospitals, residential areas, natural areas, and public 

rights of way), as well as the location of the demolition activity, this temporary increase in noise 

could range from minor to moderate in its effect.

Outgrant

Depending on the action proposed under an outgrant scenario, potential effects to noise levels 

could range from no effect to significant effect. If an outgranted asset is sustained by the lessee, 

little if any effect to noise levels would likely occur. If a lessee invests in an existing asset or 

constructs a new facility/structure, there could be a minor to significant increase in noise levels. For 

example, commercial space operations could create new launch and landing facilities and/or 

increase the frequency of launches and landings. In either scenario, noise levels would increase 

significantly for the temporary duration of the launch or landing.

4.2.6 Hazardous Materials and Waste

EPA defines hazardous waste as a waste with properties that make it dangerous or capable of 

having a harmful effect on human health or the environment. Hazardous waste is generated from 

many sources, ranging from industrial manufacturing process wastes to batteries and may come in 

many forms, including liquids, solids gases, and sludges (EPA 2022d).

Hazardous materials are defined as substances with strong physical properties of ignitability, 

corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity, which may cause an increase in mortality, serious irreversible 

illness, or incapacitating reversible illness, or pose a substantial threat to human health or to the 

environment. Hazardous wastes are defined as any solid, liquid, contained gaseous, or semisolid 

waste or any combination of wastes that pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human 

health or to the environment (EPA 2022c).
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 53

4.2.6.1 Regulatory Setting

There are many regulations associated with the management of hazardous materials and waste, 

with applicability dependent on the types and amounts of hazardous materials and waste 

associated with the specific processes related to a proposed action. The two main regulations of 

focus relative to this PEA are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. RCRA is the public law that creates the 

framework for the proper management of hazardous and nonhazardous solid waste and is the 

primary regulatory requirement associated with management of hazardous waste. The Emergency 

Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act imposes requirements for federal, state, and local 

governments, tribes, and industry for emergency planning and “Community Right-to-Know” 

reporting on hazardous and toxic chemicals. Its provisions help increase the public's knowledge 

and access to information on chemicals at individual facilities, their uses, and releases into the 

environment. States and communities, working with facilities, can use the information to improve 

chemical safety and protect public health and the environment. This requirement would apply 

specifically to NASA facilities that store any listed hazardous materials in quantities exceeding 

reportable thresholds. Future Tier II center-specific actions would be expected to follow all local, 

state, and federal regulations for use and disposal of hazardous materials and waste.

All NASA facilities that currently treat, store, or dispose of hazardous wastes or plan to do so must 

obtain an RCRA permit. If the permitting authority has been delegated by the EPA, RCRA permits 

are issued by state authorities and prescribe responsibilities, policies, and procedures for 

managing hazardous waste at each center. An RCRA permit is a legally binding document that 

establishes the waste management activities a facility can conduct and the conditions under which 

it can conduct them. The RCRA permit includes applicable EPA regulations from 40 CFR Parts 

260 through 270 (EPA 2022f).

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is responsible for enforcement and 

implementation of federal laws and regulations pertaining to worker health and safety under 29 

CFR Part 1910 and includes the regulation of hazardous materials in the workplace and ensures 

appropriate training in their handling.

4.2.6.2 Potential Consequences 

The use of hazardous materials and the generation of associated wastes are typically related to 

equipment use during development activities and operations. Examples of such materials include

many types of solvents, surface coatings, propellants, and fuels. Potential effects associated with 

the increased or decreased use of hazardous materials and generation of both non-hazardous and 

hazardous waste could be beneficial or adverse depending on the nature of the proposed Tier II 

action. 

Hazardous material (e.g., fuels) handling and storage and hazardous wastes (e.g., waste paint, 

adhesives, solvents) generation at industrial facilities are subject to applicable management 

requirements. These include meeting reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act and management and disposal requirements under RCRA. 

Although the frequency with which hazardous materials and waste are used, handled, transported, 

etc., may increase, every center has procedures for handling, transporting, storing, and disposing 

of hazardous materials and waste. These procedures are regularly reviewed and updated to 

ensure they capture current operations, regulatory requirements, and changes to best practices. 

Additionally, emergency response plans, such as a center’s Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure Plan, would need to be updated to reflect new conditions. While the probability of 

an accidental release may increase due to increased activities and quantity of materials, use of 
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 54

best management practices would ensure this risk is small, with the probability of a major spill kept

at a minimum. Following these measures, the severity of an unplanned event is unlikely to 

increase. Overall, adverse effects resulting from implementation of any of the asset bucket 

assignments, as related to hazardous materials and waste management, would be negligible to 

minor in magnitude. Adherence to proper safety procedures would continue to be a top priority for 

future operations to minimize the risks of accidental release and personnel exposure. Additionally, 

implementation of new or existing engineering and administrative controls would minimize the risks 

associated with the presence of these materials.

Sustain

Potential effects from actions in the sustain bucket would likely range from no effect to minor effect. 

Maintaining an asset’s current condition and/or maintaining current operational activities may 

include replacing a roof or treated wood, repairing or replacing a storage tank, or repainting. These 

and other sustainment process may produce dangerous waste products, lead, or asbestos and 

should be carefully assessed prior to acting. Maintenance of current, applicable permits would be 

necessary.

Invest

Potential effects from actions in the invest bucket would likely range from minor to moderate. 

Investing in an asset through repair, renewal, or new development may include removal or repair of 

dangerous materials like lead, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, mercury-containing fluorescent 

lights, or leaking storage tanks with hazardous contents. When renovating a building that contains 

these materials, centers will need to consider if certain permits are needed and ensure responsible 

disposal methods are arranged prior to acting.

Divest

Potential effects from actions in the divest bucket would likely range from negligible to significant 

effect. Demolishing an asset may have the greatest effect (i.e., significant) to the environment and 

to staff and should include a full property assessment that tests individual waste streams.

Demolition actions have the potential to produce the most waste and, therefore, hold the greatest 

risk for possible contamination of soil or water resources and hazardous chemical exposure to the 

surrounding area. Mothballing or abandoning an asset would likely have negligible to minor effects 

given the limited degree of disturbance associated with each. Before an asset is mothballed or 

abandoned, the asset should be assessed to ensure hazardous materials and wastes are properly 

treated.

Outgrant

Depending on the action proposed under an outgrant scenario, potential effects could range from 

no effect to significant effect. If an outgranted asset is sustained by the lessee, little if any effect to 

hazardous materials or the use of hazardous materials would occur. If a lessee invests in an 

existing asset or constructs a new facility/structure, there could be a significant effect if the asset 

contains hazardous materials, newly generates hazardous materials, or disturbs hazardous 

materials during construction of a new facility/structure. The lessee would need to determine if 

certain permits are needed and ensure responsible disposal methods prior to acting.

4.2.7 Transportation

Impacts to transportation and circulation and must be considered when rendering decisions on 

projects that include construction, operation, or maintenance activities that have the potential to 

affect traffic and circulation. Transportation users include walkers, cyclists, drivers (cars, trucks), 

boats, rail, and air.
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 55

4.2.7.1 Regulatory Setting

While not a regulatory standard, NPR 6200.1D, NASA Transportation and General Traffic 

Management, sets forth transportation and general traffic management responsibilities and 

procedures governing the use of commercial and government transportation resources (NASA

2014, 3). It establishes NASA’s overall transportation responsibilities across centers.

4.2.7.2 Potential Consequences 

The primary transportation effects would likely be related to vehicle/equipment use during 

development activities and operations. Proposed activities would likely result in the continuation of 

many transportation modes presently occurring at the centers, but potentially in greater or lesser 

amounts, depending on the nature of the proposed Tier II action. Short-term increases in traffic 

could occur during construction activities. These effects would be primarily due to construction 

worker commutes and delivery of equipment and materials to and from the construction sites. In 

addition, road closures or detours to accommodate utility system work may occur. Some 

construction activities could affect the level of service at intersections or roadways both on and off 

the facility; however, each center’s Transportation Office/Transportation Manager would be 

involved to ensure NASA’s roadway infrastructure would be sufficient to support the increases from 

construction vehicle traffic. 

Long-term effects would be primarily due to additional worker commutes and potential traffic 

associated with new facility construction, increased launch activities (e.g., more people driving on 

the center to view the launches), and changes in traffic patterns resulting from new buildings and 

facilities. The number of people authorized to access the center to observe launch activities is 

inherently limited. While more launches could result in greater traffic density, the overall increase 

would be negligible. If additional transportation infrastructure (such as future roadways, access 

control points, etc.) would be required, further analyses such as traffic studies may also be 

necessary. The degree of effect on existing and future traffic volumes could range from minor to 

significant, depending on new traffic generators, traffic density, and the existing transportation 

network’s ability to accommodate the increased traffic volumes. Increased traffic volumes and 

changes in traffic patterns could have minor to moderate effects on traffic levels of service, 

depending on changes in traffic density.

Sustain

Potential effects from actions in the sustain bucket would likely have no effect on transportation 

resources or a center’s existing transportation system. Because this bucket calls for maintaining an 

asset or operational activity, it is unlikely that additional traffic would be generated or that traffic 

patterns would change.

Invest

Potential effects from actions in the invest bucket could range from no effect to significant.

Repairing and/or renewing an asset would likely have a minor to moderate short-term effect if 

construction interrupts the flow of traffic or use of transportation facilities. A newly created asset 

(e.g., new facility) could have moderate to significant direct and indirect effects on existing traffic 

circulation depending on the size, scope, and location of the new asset. A new transportation asset 

(e.g., road, bridge) could provide beneficial, long-term consequences if it provides a more efficient 

route for users or provides for alternative transportation methods where none previously existed. A 

new building could generate additional traffic volumes and increase travel times as more workers 

commute to the new building. 
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 56

Divest

Under a divest scenario, changes to transportation resources would likely have no long-term 

negative effects. Demolishing, mothballing, or abandoning an asset would likely improve the 

physical condition of transportation assets and improve traffic flow as the asset would no longer be 

generating traffic. 

Outgrant

Depending on the action proposed under an outgrant scenario, potential effects to transportation 

resources could range from no effect to significant effect. If an outgranted asset is sustained by the 

lessee, little if any effect to transportation would occur. If a lessee invests in an existing asset or 

constructs a new facility/structure, there could be a significant effect if those developments need 

additional parking or access. New construction could also result in increased traffic generation by 

the lessee and offsite visitors. 

4.2.8 Utilities 

NASA utility infrastructure is an important consideration for future decision making related to 

agency and center master planning. Types of utility services NASA may receive include water, 

electrical power, natural gas, wastewater collection and treatment, and communications services. 

Generally speaking, these utility services are provided by publicly held utilities from which NASA 

receives the service in return for payment on a regular billing cycle.

4.2.8.1 Regulatory Setting

A number of applicable statutes and regulations affect the rates, distribution, and development of 

utilities and associated infrastructure (e.g., the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978). These 

authorities are administered by a variety of federal agencies (e.g., Department of Energy/Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, EPA, Federal Communications Commission) and State Public 

Service Commissions. NASA is not responsible for utility rate setting or overall distribution of the 

resource in question but may have responsibilities to ensure appropriate infrastructure is available 

on a particular center (e.g., metering, pipelines, cable conduits). 

4.2.8.2 Potential Consequences 

Under the Proposed Action, NASA is required to consider the current and future status of real 

property infrastructure, including utility services. When deciding whether to sustain, invest, divest, 

or outgrant properties, centers should consider whether any improvements to utility infrastructure

are needed to support that action. Depending on the bucket the action is placed in, the 

environmental impacts of utility infrastructure installation, removal, or leave-in-place alternatives 

may range from no effect to significant effect with short duration/transient impacts to permanent 

adverse or beneficial impacts, depending on the resource affected. 

Overall, impacts from the installation or expansion of utility systems are anticipated to be beneficial 

due to increased efficiency. The magnitude and extent of the impacts would depend on the 

specifics of the utility systems installed and the extent of use. Impacts would be expected to be 

long-term, lasting the duration of the utility system until removed or upgraded.

Sustain

Potential effects from actions in the sustain bucket would likely range from no effect to negligible 

effect. Maintaining an asset’s current condition and/or maintaining current operational activities 

would have little, if any, effect on existing utility systems.
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 57

Invest

Repairing or renovating utilities would likely have no effect to negligible effect as the action would 

be limited to the existing resource. Construction of new or expanded facilities could result in minor 

to significant effects. The effects of investment in new or expanded utilities could range from minor 

to significant, depending on the extent of the improvement. For example, new utilities could require 

additional rights of way, installation of new utility lines or extensions for power, water, and 

telecommunications, and installation or modification of stormwater management systems. The 

effect of such development is typically associated with increased consumption. However, new 

construction and asset renewal could also result in benefits associated with use of renewable 

energy sources and increased energy efficiency. 

If newly constructed facilities require the addition of new or improved stormwater management 

systems, they may require modification of a center’s NPDES stormwater permit for industrial 

activities and associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. The land clearing, trenching, 

excavation, and other activities associated with the preparation of rights of way and installation of 

utilities could have direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with ground disturbance 

and vehicle/equipment use. Over time, the site may consume less energy and water due to the 

achievement of greater efficiency and right-sizing. Centers would need to determine if the capacity 

of existing utility service providers would be exceeded. Decisions pertaining to the expansion or 

creation of utility corridors would need to be made in accordance with each center’s respective 

energy management policy and planning process. 

Divest

Demolishing, abandoning, and/or mothballing an asset may result in a substantial reduction of 

demand on a center’s utility system. All divestment activities would likely result in the cessation or 

minimization of utility services at these locations. Therefore, such actions would likely range from

no negative effect to negligible effect.

Outgrant

For outgranted assets that are sustained by the lessee, there would be no effect to negligible effect 

on a center’s utility system as energy demands would likely remain the same. Should a lessee 

invest in an existing asset by way of expanding or building new facilities, the effect on a center’s 

utility system would be similar to the invest scenario, with effects ranging from minor to significant.

4.2.9 Water Resources

Water resources analyzed in this section relate to drinking water, surface water, groundwater, 

water quality, and floodplains. Surface water resources include lakes, rivers, streams, and 

wetlands. 

4.2.9.1 Regulatory Setting

Safe Drinking Water Act

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was enacted in 1974 “to protect public health by regulating 

the nation’s public drinking water supply” (EPA 2023a).

“The law was amended in 1986 and 1996 and requires many actions to protect drinking water 

and its sources—rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs, and ground water wells. (SDWA does not 

regulate private wells which serve fewer than 25 individuals.) SDWA authorizes the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to set national health-based standards for

drinking water to protect against both naturally-occurring and man-made contaminants that 
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 58

may be found in drinking water. US EPA, states, and water systems then work together to 

make sure that these standards are met.” (EPA 2023a)

Clean Water Act 

The CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the WOTUS 

and regulating quality standards for surface waters. Under the CWA, EPA has implemented 

pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry. EPA has also 

developed national water quality criteria recommendations for pollutants in surface waters (EPA

2022e). The CWA makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source 

into navigable waters unless an NPDES permit is obtained. 

Section 404 of the CWA establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material 

into WOTUS including wetlands. Activities in WOTUS regulated under this program include fill for 

development, water resource projects (such as dams and levees), infrastructure development 

(such as highways and airports), and mining projects. Section 404 requires a permit before 

dredged or fill material may be discharged into WOTUS (EPA 2022e). The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) is responsible for permit decisions.

Section 401 of the CWA provides states and authorized tribes an important tool to help protect the 

water quality of federally regulated waters (i.e., WOTUS) within their borders, in collaboration with 

federal agencies. Under Section 401 of the CWA, a federal agency may not issue a permit or 

license to conduct any activity that may result in any discharge into WOTUS unless a Section 401 

water quality certification is issued, or the certification is waived.

Wetlands

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires each federal agency to “take action to minimize the 

destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, unless there is no practicable alternative, and then 

the Proposed Action must include all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands.” Federal 

agencies must provide an opportunity for early public review of any plans or proposals for new 

construction in wetlands. In accordance with Section 404 of the CWA, the USACE requires a 

permit for all activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material in WOTUS, as well as 

compensatory mitigation.

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires authorization from the Secretary of the 

Army, acting through the USACE, for the construction of any structure in or over any navigable 

WOTUS (33 CFR Part 322). Structures or work outside the limits defined for navigable WOTUS

require a Section 10 permit if the structure or work affects the course, location, or condition of the 

water body. The law applies to any dredging or disposal of dredged materials, excavation, filling, 

rechannelization, or any other modification of a navigable WOTUS, and applies to all structures, 

from the smallest floating dock to the largest commercial undertaking. It further includes, without 

limitation, any wharf, dolphin, weir, boom breakwater, jetty, groin, bank protection (e.g., riprap, 

revetment, bulkhead), mooring structures such as pilings, aerial or subaqueous power transmission 

lines, intake or outfall pipes, permanently moored floating vessel, tunnel, artificial canal, boat ramp, 

aids to navigation, and any other permanent or semi-permanent obstacle or obstruction (USACE

n.d.).

Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

Section 438, Storm Water Runoff Requirements for Federal Development Projects, contained in 

the Energy Independence and Security Act identifies requirements to limit the offsite impacts of 

stormwater runoff. Its Section 438 guidance is applicable if more than 5,000 square feet of land is

being redesigned, reconfigured, or reconstituted in any manner that diverges from the area’s 

present-day use and composition. Maintenance activities, such as pavement resurfacing, parking 
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 59

restriping, or similar activities conducted to ensure that facilities are in good working condition, are 

excluded from complying with this standard.

Floodplains

EO 11988, Floodplain Management, defines a floodplain as "the lowland and relatively flat areas 

adjoining inland and coastal water including flood-prone areas of offshore islands, including at a 

minimum, that area subject to one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year." That 

area is referred to as the base flood or 100-year floodplain. Floodplains are delineated by a flood 

stage elevation on maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The review of a proposed action undertaken that potentially affects floodplains must include an 

evaluation that is consistent with EO 11988. The objective of EO 11988 is to preserve and restore 

the natural and beneficial values floodplains provide. It directs federal agencies to take actions to 

reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize flood impacts on human safety, health, and welfare, and 

restore and preserve floodplain natural and beneficial values. To do this, EO 11988 bans approving 

activities in a floodplain unless no practicable alternative exists and measures to minimize 

unavoidable short-term and long-term impacts are included.

4.2.9.2 Potential Consequences

Water resources are most affected by ground disturbance and vehicle/equipment use associated 

with development activities and operations. Non-point sources could potentially impact surface and 

groundwater quality, such as oil and grease from paved street and road surfaces that wash into a 

water body or are absorbed into the water table. Strict adherence to best management practices

would minimize effects to surface waters. An increase in impervious or semi-impervious surfaces 

could contribute to more surface drainage than currently exists. Section 438 of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act identifies requirements to limit the offsite impacts of stormwater 

runoff. Impacts on water resources from development activities would be minimized with 

implementation of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan requirements and adherence to NPDES 

construction permit conditions. Prior to any ground-disturbing activity, any dredge or fill activities 

into WOTUS and wetlands would require avoidance and minimization efforts demonstrating the 

proposed activity is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative, acquisition of and 

strict adherence to CWA Section 404 permits from the USACE and Section 401 certification from 

the appropriate state agency, as well as compensatory mitigation of impacts such as construction 

of new wetlands to replace lost wetlands.

Sustain

Potential effects to water resources would likely range from no effect to negligible as assets in this 

bucket would be maintained to current conditions and there would be no encroachment into 

floodplains or disturbance of WOTUS or wetlands.

Invest

Potential effects could range from no effect to significant effect, depending on the investment 

option of repairing/renovating versus new construction. The use of heavy equipment for new 

construction could result in substantial ground disturbance, increasing the potential for soil erosion 

and sediment delivery to nearby surface waters and wetlands. Repeated disturbance of vegetation 

and soils (i.e., due to vehicle passes) during project activities may also cause surface erosion. 

Elevated levels of turbidity from erosion could lead to decreases in primary production and 

dissolved oxygen levels. There could also be a short-term increase of fine sediment and loss of 

benthic food resources. The effects to local water quality and hydrology during construction would

likely be short-term, ranging from no effect to significant effect. The degree of effect would depend 

on the extent of the disturbance and proximity to water, as well as the use of best management 
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 60

practices. Depending on size and scope, construction projects may require NPDES Stormwater 

Construction Permits. These permits typically require employment of best management practices

such as silt fences, turbidity barriers, and stormwater management systems to reduce impacts to 

surface waters and offsite runoff to wetlands. A CWA Section 404 permit may be necessary if the 

action involves dredge and fill activities in WOTUS or wetlands.

Divest

Demolishing an asset could have minor to significant effects on water resources. For example, 

depending on the asset and location, permits may be required for pier or pipeline removal, for 

stormwater discharge, and/or for impacts to adjacent waterways and wetlands resulting from

demolition. The long-term, beneficial effect to water resources would be the reduction in impervious 

surface area, thus improving water quality. If appropriate planning takes place, the action of 

demolition would likely cause minimal effect. Overall benefits to floodplains would occur if the 

previously used areas were converted into a natural floodplain buffer and returned to a natural 

state, thereby minimizing risks to adjacent assets. Abandoning and/or mothballing an asset would 

likely range from no effect to minor effects to existing floodplains.

Outgrant

Depending on the action proposed under an outgrant scenario, potential effects could range from 

no effect to significant effect. If an outgranted asset is sustained by the lessee, little if any effect to 

water resources would occur. If a lessee invests in an existing asset or constructs a new 

facility/structure, then effects similar to “invest – newly created” would likely occur (i.e., minor to 

significant effects).

4.2.10 Coastal Zone Management

Coastal zones are those waters and their bordering areas in states along the coastlines of the 

Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the shorelines of the Great Lakes. These 

zones include islands, beaches, transitional and intertidal areas, and salt marshes. The Coastal 

Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 applies to a project that would affect coastal uses or 

resources, even if it falls outside of a state’s designated coastal zone.

4.2.10.1 Regulatory Setting

The CZMA, administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA’s)

Office of Coastal Management, is a national policy designed to preserve, protect, develop, restore, 

and enhance the resources of the nation’s coastal zones. Section 307 of the CZMA and its 

implementing regulations, 15 CFR Part 930, stipulate that all federal agency activities that affect 

any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone must be consistent, to the maximum 

extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of the state’s federally approved management 

program. A Coastal Zone Consistency Determination is prepared by the center proposing an 

action. During the planning stage of project development, centers must determine the applicability 

of the National Coastal Zone Management Program to their areas by contacting their respective 

state coastal management authority.

4.2.10.2 Potential Consequences

Sustain

Potential effects from actions in the sustain bucket would likely range from no effect to negligible 

effect. Maintaining an asset’s current condition and/or maintaining current operational activities 

would have little, if any, effect on existing and adjacent coastal zones.
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 61

Invest

Depending on the action proposed under an invest scenario, potential effects could range from no 

effect to significant effects. Repairing or renovating an asset would likely have no effect to 

negligible effect on coastal zones. However, if new development (e.g., construction of a new 

structure or facility) takes place within a coastal zone, minor to significant effects could occur and 

would require alignment with the state coastal zone management program and issuance of a 

consistency determination.

Divest

Abandoning and/or mothballing an asset would likely range from no effect to negligible effects to 

coastal areas. Demolishing an asset could have no effect to significant effect on coastal zones. If 

appropriate planning takes place, the action of demolition would likely have a negligible effect. 

Overall benefits to the coastal area would occur if the previously used area were converted into a 

natural transition zone between the coast and adjacent upland development. 

Outgrant

Depending on the action proposed under an outgrant scenario, potential effects could range from 

no effect to significant effects. If an outgranted asset is sustained by the lessee, little if any effect to 

coastal zones would occur. If a lessee invests in an existing asset or constructs a new 

facility/structure, the effects would be similar to that of “invest – newly created” (i.e., no effect to 

significant). A CZMA consistency certification could be required depending on the location of the 

action (e.g., within the limits of a coastal zone boundary) and the degree of impact.

4.2.11 Biological Resources

Biological resources include native or naturalized plants and animals and the habitats in which they 

occur. This includes plant and animal species federally and/or state listed as threatened or 

endangered, as well as designated critical habitat.

4.2.11.1 Regulatory Setting

There are multiple federal laws protecting biological resources, including the Endangered Species 

Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act. Strict adherence to all applicable federal and state laws and 

regulations is required. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973

The Endangered Species Act is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and

NOAA Fisheries (formerly known as the National Marine Fisheries Service). The act requires 

federal agencies to ensure their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any federally 

listed endangered or threatened species or adversely modify designated critical habit of such 

species. If federally protected species are present, NASA must consult with the USFWS or NOAA 

Fisheries, as applicable, to determine if a proposed action would affect federally listed endangered 

or threatened species and/or habitat critical to that species (critical habitat). Similar protections 

exist at the state level, with the presence of state-listed rare or unique species or their habitats

requiring similar coordination and consultation efforts.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act establishes federal responsibilities to protect migratory birds. Under 

this act, nearly all species of birds occurring in the United States are protected and it is illegal to 

take (hunt, pursue, wound, kill, possess, or transport by any means) listed bird species or their 
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 62

eggs, feathers, or nests unless otherwise authorized. Numerous common land and shore birds are 

present at center facilities and are protected under this act.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

The USFWS states the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits anyone, without a permit 

issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from "taking" bald or golden eagles, including their parts 

(including feathers), nests, or eggs (50 CFR 22). The Act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, 

poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb." Regulations further define "disturb" as,

“to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, 

based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its 

productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, 

or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering behavior.” (50 CFR 22.6)

Furthermore, the act also covers effects that result from human-induced alterations initiated around 

a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle's return, 

such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death, or nest abandonment.

Executive Order 13186

EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, provides further 

direction to federal agencies on carrying out the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, and 

NEPA. The order states that each federal agency taking actions that have, or are likely to have, a 

measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations is directed to develop and implement, 

within two years, a memorandum of understanding with the USFWS that shall promote the 

conservation of migratory bird populations.

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act prohibits, with certain exceptions, the take (harass, hunt, 

capture, collect, or kill) of marine mammals in WOTUS and by U.S. citizens on the high seas, 

which includes protections for marine mammals may populate the coastal and lagoon waters of 

some center facilities. Three federal entities share responsibility for implementing this act:

“NOAA Fisheries is responsible for the protection of whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, and 

sea lions; the USFWS is responsible for the protection of walrus, manatees, sea otters, and 

polar bears; and the Marine Mammal Commission provides independent, science-based 

oversight of domestic and international policies and actions of federal agencies addressing 

human impacts on marine mammals and their ecosystems.” (NOAA Fisheries 2023)

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is the primary law that 

governs marine fisheries management in U.S. federal waters. The act governs fisheries 

management in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (up to 200 miles offshore). NOAA Fisheries is 

responsible for the stewardship of the nation's ocean resources and their habitat (NOAA Fisheries 

n.d.).

National Marine Sanctuaries Act

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate and 

protect areas of the marine environment with special national significance due to their 

conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, cultural, archaeological, educational, or 

esthetic qualities as national marine sanctuaries. Day-to-day management of national marine 
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 63

sanctuaries has been delegated by the Secretary of Commerce to NOAA’s Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries. The primary objective of this act is to protect marine resources, such as coral 

reefs, sunken historical vessels, or unique habitats (NOAA n.d.).

4.2.11.2 Potential Consequences

Effects to biological resources would primarily be related to ground-disturbing activities and 

vehicle/equipment use during development activities and operations. Disturbance from construction 

may allow invasive plant establishment, soil erosion or compaction, a lessened litter layer, 

decreased soil microbial activity, reduced plant biomass and cover of native species, decreased 

reproductive success, changes in genetic structure of plant populations, and alteration of wildlife 

habitats. Impacts of proposed activities on native upland vegetation could be short-term and/or

long-term, direct, adverse, and negligible to moderate, depending on whether the site is already 

disturbed or not, extent of the project area, and type of vegetation occurring onsite. 

Impacts of proposed project activities on native wetland vegetation would be short-term and/or

long-term, direct and indirect, and minor to moderate. Actions involving impacts to wetlands and 

WOTUS would fall under Section 404 of the CWA. The USACE, which holds permitting authority, 

would require avoidance or compensatory mitigation for construction that results in dredge or fill

activities in wetlands. Construction in previously undisturbed areas could result in removal of native 

vegetation communities (both upland and wetland) and wildlife habitat, where present. Reduction 

of habitat quality could result where new facilities are sited in previously unbroken areas of uniform 

habitat. Fragmentation would be greatest where linear features such as roads or pipeline/cable 

rights of way are cut through larger areas of relatively uniform habitat. Special status terrestrial and 

aquatic species may be adversely impacted by new construction. All applicable consultation 

requirements and permits would be required prior to any ground-disturbing activity.

Sustain

Maintaining an asset’s current condition and/or maintaining current operational activities would 

likely have no effect on existing and adjacent biological resources.

Invest

Repairing and/or renewing an asset would likely have no effect to negligible effect, whereas a 

newly created asset could have effects ranging from no effect to significant effect to biological 

resources, depending on the size and scope of the proposed action under consideration.

Divest

Abandoning and/or mothballing an asset would likely have no effect on biological resources.

Demolishing an asset could have no effect to significant effect on biological resources if the 

proposed action involves tree removal or is located within the range of a sensitive species or their 

critical habitat area (e.g., disturbance of sea turtle habitat). Reducing the overall footprint of 

infrastructure through demolition could be beneficial in reestablishing habitat.

Outgrant

If an outgranted asset is sustained by the lessee, biological resources would likely experience no 

effect to negligible effect. If a lessee invests in an existing asset or constructs a new 

facility/structure, there could be a significant effect, similar to those associated with newly created 

resources in the invest bucket (i.e., effects ranging from no effect to significant effect). 
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 64

4.2.12 Cultural Resources

The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is administered by the National Park Service, 

which defines a cultural resource as, “An aspect of a cultural system that is valued by or 

significantly representative of a culture or that contains significant information about a culture. A 

cultural resource may be a tangible entity or a cultural practice. Tangible cultural resources are 

categorized as districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects eligible for the NRHP and as 

archaeological resources, cultural landscapes, structures, museum objects, and ethnographic 

resources for [National Park Service] management purposes (National Park Service 2023).”

Tangible cultural resources include historic properties as defined by the National Historic 

Preservation Act, cultural items as defined by the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act, archaeological resources as defined by the Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act, sacred sites as defined by EO 13007, to which access is afforded under the American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act, and collections and associated records as defined by 36 CFR 79.

In the United States, effect assessment tends to focus on physical or tangible cultural resources, 

but due to the leadership of international organizations including the United Nations Educational, 

Scientific, and Cultural Organization, there is an increasing awareness of intangible cultural 

heritage being “traditions or living expressions inherited from our ancestors and passed on to our 

descendants, such as oral traditions, performing arts, social practices, rituals, festive events,

knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe or the knowledge and skills to 

produce traditional crafts” (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 2003).

4.2.12.1 Regulatory Setting

Consideration of cultural resources under NEPA includes the necessity to independently 

comply with the applicable procedures and requirements of other federal and state laws, 

regulations, EOs, and presidential memoranda. The National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. §300101 et seq.) is the primary legal driver for the identification 

and management of cultural resources in the United States, having established the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, the State Historic Preservation Offices, and the NRHP. The 

NRHP is a federally maintained list of historic properties significant in American history, 

prehistory, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act requires that federal agencies take into account the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an 

opportunity to comment. The implementing regulations for Section 106 are found in 36 CFR

Part 800, which defines the process by which federal agencies are to consider these effects.

Other laws that govern the treatment of cultural resources in the United States include: the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act of 1990, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, and the Historic 

Sites Act of 1935.

NASA has in place several Section 106 agreements that may come into play as part of the 

implementation of an Agency Master Plan. Five centers have Section 106 programmatic 

agreements that apply to the entire center (i.e., GRC-ATF, KSC, LaRC, MSFC, WFF). These 

legally binding agreements stipulate processes that depart from standard Section 106

processes, and in most cases, apply to built assets, as well as archaeological sites. JSC has a 

programmatic agreement in place that applies to a subset of assets found to be historically 

significant within the context of the Space Shuttle Program. NASA is in the process of 

developing an agencywide programmatic agreement that would apply to those centers not 
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 65

having a centerwide programmatic agreement in place. NASA also has one agencywide

programmatic agreement that applies when an undertaking affects an NHL.

Additionally, each center’s Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan, prepared in 

consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office, provides detailed guidelines and 

procedures to enable NASA to meet legal responsibilities for identification, evaluation, and 

treatment of historic properties under its jurisdiction in accordance with applicable federal and 

state regulations affording protection to cultural resources.

4.2.12.2 Potential Consequences 

Potential impacts to cultural resources from proposed activities may occur by physically altering, 

damaging, or destroying a cultural resource. Generally, the severity of the impact of activities on 

cultural resources (i.e., historic properties) is commensurate with the scale of physical impact to the 

asset. Minor changes to a historic building, for example, would be on the negligible-to-minor end of 

the spectrum, and complete demolition of a building would likely fall into the significant category. A 

high-level assessment of the potential for the various asset paths to adversely impact cultural 

resources is provided below. The treatment of any historic property, regardless of bucket 

assignment, would require compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Compliance includes consideration of options to protect and preserve the historic property, such as 

assessing alternatives that would avoid adverse effects (e.g., the permanent transfer of historic 

property to another entity). Consideration of options such as the permanent transfer of historic 

property typically occurs at the planning stage of a proposed action.

Sustain

Activities carried out to sustain NASA assets include routine repair and maintenance. The effects 

on above ground structures would likely range from no effect to minor effect. For archaeological 

resources, routine repair and maintenance would likely result in little to no ground disturbance;

thus, effects would likely range from no effect to negligible effect.

Invest

Investment activities include major repair, major modification, rehabilitation, and construction of 

new facilities and structures. These activities may affect the historic fabric and character-defining 

features of a historic building or structure. While the asset would remain in active use, the impact of 

repair or renewal on above ground historic properties is expected to range from no effect to minor

effect but could range up to significant depending on the extent of the repair or renewal. Effects to 

archaeological resources would likely involve limited ground-disturbing activity in areas previously 

disturbed during original construction activities. Therefore, the effect on archaeological resources 

from repair or renovation activities would likely have no effect to minor effect. 

The invest category also includes recapitalizing by replacing degraded assets. Replacement of 

historic properties (i.e., demolition of old and replacement with new) could range from no effect to 

significant effect, depending on the extent of replacement and the type of historic property. If 

investment requires ground disturbance, as in the case of the construction of additions or newly 

created facilities and structures, the potential for archaeological historic properties to be adversely 

affected would also range from no effect to significant, depending on the potential for 

archaeological resources to be present and the extent of ground disturbing activities in previously 

undisturbed areas.

Divest

Divestment is likely for those assets that have low mission and low condition scores. Because the 

age of an asset is a consideration in determining these scores, and assets 50 years of age and 
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 66

older are more likely to be historic properties, divestment is the path with the greatest potential to 

adversely impact NASA’s historic buildings and structures. The effect of demolition, permanent 

transfer, or abandonment (which may result in demolition by neglect) ,permanent transfer of above

ground historic structures could range from no effect to significant, depending on the proposed 

action. The impact of mothballing above ground structures may be less, but the effect would likely

be noticeable and, as such, would likely range from no effect to minor.

If an asset is demolished, there is the potential the effect of ground disturbance affecting 

archaeological resources could range from no effect to minor, given that original construction 

activities likely disturbed archaeological resources, if present. Mothballing or abandoning an asset 

would likely have no effect to negligible effect on archaeological resources given that grounddisturbing activities would be minimal for these two actions, if at all.

Outgrant

Outgrant involves the utilization of an asset by an entity other than NASA and that entity may elect 

to carry out activities to sustain or invest in the asset. Because the potential use of the asset 

permitted by NASA ranges from no alteration to demolition, the impact to a historic building or 

structure, or to archaeological sites, could range from no effect to significant effect. 

Individual projects arising from the implementation of the Agency Master Plan would be subject to 

review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and appropriate treatment 

measures developed through the consultation process to resolve adverse effects. Treatment 

measures, however, cannot fully offset the diminishment or loss of historic properties because a 

historic property cannot be recreated. In most cases, NASA’s historic buildings and structures are 

best preserved when they remain relevant and in active use, which requires regular upkeep (i.e., 

sustain) and modification (i.e., invest). Archaeological sites are best preserved through avoidance. 

When adverse effects cannot be avoided, they are resolved through completion of the Section 106 

process. The objective of the Section 106 process is to reduce the impacts to cultural resources to 

“less than significant” under NEPA.

4.2.13 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice is defined as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people 

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” (EPA 2023b). 

4.2.13.1 Regulatory Setting

EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations, directs each federal agency to “make achieving environmental justice part of 

its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income populations,” including tribal populations (EPA 2022a).

EO 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the 

Federal Government, states the federal government, “should pursue a comprehensive approach to 

advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically 

underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality [...] 

Because advancing equity requires a systematic approach to embedding fairness in decisionmaking processes, executive departments and agencies (agencies) must recognize and work to 

redress inequities in their policies and programs that serve as barriers to equal opportunity.”
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 67

4.2.13.2 Potential Consequences 

Compliance with EO 12898 and EO 13985 requires federal agencies to analyze how their actions 

affect low-income and minority populations. Centers should determine whether Tier II proposed 

actions would have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or Indian tribes and indigenous communities. Where available, centers 

can find guidance on how to carry out an environmental justice analysis via center-specific 

Environmental Justice Implementation Plans. If center-specific guidance is not available, the

Stennis Space Center has a plan that provides guidance on appropriate methodologies, 

procedures, outreach, and mitigation (NASA 2022d).

Given that centers are primarily self-contained, and that future treatment of assets would occur 

within a center’s boundary, it is unlikely that disproportionately high and adverse effects would

directly affect these populations. However, indirect effects from noise, pollution, and the effects of 

climate change could occur to these populations.

Sustain

Maintaining an asset or operational activity would likely have no effect (disproportionately or 

adversely) on low-income or minority populations.

Invest

Repairing or renewing an asset would likely have no direct effect. Construction of a new facility or 

structure would likely have no direct effect but could have an indirect effect ranging from no effect

to minor. Such situations could involve additional exposure to noise and pollutants to low-income 

and/or minority populations that may be adjacent to a center.

Divest

Demolishing, mothballing, or abandoning an asset would likely have no effect on low-income 

and/or minority populations. Actions in this bucket would occur within center boundaries and could 

result in beneficial effects with the decommissioning of noise- or pollution-generating assets.

Outgrant

Outgranting an asset could have no effect to minor effects on low-income and/or minority 

populations. If a lessee sustains a resource, there would be no effect. If a lessee expands or 

constructs a new facility, then the potential effects would be similar to those associated with invest 

activities (i.e., no effect to minor effect).

4.3.14 Socioeconomics

Socioeconomics typically refer to the basic attributes and resources associated with the human 

environment, particularly population and economic activity. Human population is affected by 

regional birth and death rates as well as net in- or out-migration. Economic activity typically 

comprises employment, personal income, and industrial growth. Impacts on these fundamental 

socioeconomic indicators can also influence other components such as housing availability and 

public services provision.

4.3.14.1 Regulatory Setting

This resource category does not require federal permits, certifications, or approvals. 
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 68

4.3.14.2 Potential Consequences by Proposed Bucket Action

At the Tier II stage, the analysis of socioeconomics for a proposed action should contain evidence 

of coordination with potentially affected jurisdictions and other interested parties located in the 

affected area. It should provide meaningful data on existing local population distributions, 

infrastructure, utilities, and economic factors that form the basis for analysis.

NASA must evaluate proposed actions to determine the potential to cause induced or secondary 

socioeconomic impacts on surrounding communities. When NASA determines a potential for such 

impacts exists, the environmental document should describe how the proposed project would 

affect communities by addressing shifts in patterns of population movement and growth, public 

service demands, changes in business and economic activities, or other factors identified by the 

public.

Sustain

Maintaining an asset or operational activity would likely have no direct or indirect effect on 

socioeconomic conditions in surrounding areas.

Invest

Repairing or renewing an asset would likely have no effect on an area’s socioeconomic condition. 

Depending on the extent of new construction, the effects of a new facility or complex could range 

from no effect to significant. Construction of a new facility or structure could have beneficial and/or 

negative effects, related to new employment opportunities, additional tax revenue generated by 

community expansion to surrounding communities, or other consequent effects. However, new 

construction could also generate additional noise or pollutants. Additional employment at a center

could indirectly result in increased external (non-center) community demands for services and 

resources (e.g., schools, hospitals, emergency response providers, parks, public water supplies, 

utilities, transportation, communication networks).

Divest

Demolishing, mothballing, or abandoning an asset would occur within center boundaries with the 

effects ranging from no effect to significant effect, depending on the socioeconomic setting of the 

area and the type of asset constructed. Assets in this bucket would be taken offline and possibly 

decommissioned. Divesting of an asset could negatively impact employment opportunities if the 

asset currently is an on-going center operation that is not replaced elsewhere on the center.

Outgrant

Outgranting an asset could have no effect to significant effects on the socioeconomic resources of 

a center’s surrounding communities. If a lessee sustains a resource, there would be no effect. If a 

lessee expands or constructs a new facility, then the potential effects would be similar to those 

associated with invest activities (i.e., no effect to significant effect).

4.3 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are defined in 40 CFR Part 1508.1(g)(3) as the “...effects on the environment 

that result from the incremental effects of the action when added to the effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) 

or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but 

collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.” 

Cumulative impacts are most likely to arise when a relationship exists between a proposed action 

and other actions expected to occur in a similar location or during a similar time period. Actions 

overlapping with or in close proximity to a proposed action would be expected to have more 
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 69

potential for a relationship than those more geographically separated. Similarly, relatively 

concurrent actions would tend to offer a higher potential for cumulative impacts. Consideration of 

other regional development plans (e.g., road expansions, new development adjacent to centers)

provides a more robust understanding of potential cumulative impacts.

Cumulative impacts may occur from multiple actions occurring contemporaneously at centers. 

Potential cumulative impacts will be evaluated at the center level. Centers will strive to avoid 

environmentally sensitive areas such as threatened and endangered species habitat and wetlands. 

When sensitive areas cannot be avoided, centers will consult with the appropriate federal and state 

agencies to mitigate impacts

The Proposed Action is a policy decision: whether or not to implement an agencywide master plan

approach to the treatment of assets and prioritization of projects based on mission criticality and 

asset condition. From a policy perspective, the cumulative effect of the Proposed Action would 

result in: 

• Managing the entirety of NASA assets and capabilities from a top-down, mission-driven 

perspective.

• Providing a unified approach to institutional planning and decision making.

• Allocating resources and funding based on agencywide, prioritized needs to create an 

affordable infrastructure portfolio.

• Proactively deploying sustainable best practices.

• Reducing current and future infrastructure-related risks and redundancies.

• Ensuring future actions take into consideration environmental constraints at the planning 

level where opportunities to avoid and minimize effects are the greatest.

• Ensuring compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations; EOs; 

and agency policy directives.

4.4 Net Effects

Because the proposed action is a policy change that will affect decision making across many 

centers and facilities in potentially unpredictable ways, it is not possible to determine with certainty 

the precise environmental impacts that will result. Therefore, this PEA has primarily summarized

the potential effects that could result from notional facility decisions, providing a baseline for 

centers to use when conducting PEAs for specific proposed actions. At a high level, however, 

NASA believes the transition to the Agency Master Plan will result in more efficiency and less 

redundancy, as stated above. Therefore, it is possible to speculate that over time, enhanced 

efficiency could result in some net effects. While some may disagree on whether these effects will 

occur, or the extent thereof, a few net effects can likely be anticipated. Namely, increased 

efficiency may result in cost avoidance, which could increase availability of funds for deliberate 

facility actions vs. maintenance and sustainment costs. This may favor some facility actions vs. 

their no action alternatives: 

• Increased ability to repair, renovate or newly create vs. sustain, and

• Increased ability to divest via demolition vs. mothballing or abandonment.

Although it is difficult to anticipate the specific impacts of individual decisions and implementation 

decisions may also mitigate or enhance observed effects, the overall effect of increased efficiency 
Section 4: Environmental Consequences 70

may be that assets that would have been otherwise sustained, mothballed, or abandoned due to 

lack of funds can now be repaired, renovated, or demolished. It should be noted that the former 

can be considered to have lower environmental impact (primarily no, negligible, or minor effects), 

while the latter may be higher-impact outcomes (more instances of minor, moderate, or significant 

effects) per Exhibit 4-4. 

This trend toward higher-effect actions may be to some extent mitigated when considering longterm vs. short-term impacts. While short-term environmental impacts may be higher with increased 

investment, such investment may also allow for more energy-efficient buildings, leading to 

improvements in the climate change- and greenhouse gases-related effects. Similarly, newly 

created buildings or facilities may have greater up-front environmental impacts that are outweighed 

by the decreased environmental footprint resulting from more efficient and eco-friendly design. The 

Agency Master Plan process could also foster better integration of green building and 

environmentally conscious decision-making principles, reducing environmental impacts even with 

increased investment. 
Section 5: Distribution 71

SECTION 5: DISTRIBUTION

The following individuals were provided the final draft Agency Master Plan PEA document for 

review and comment.

• Tina Norwood, Environmental Program Manager, NASA Headquarters

• Amy Keith, NEPA Manager, NASA Headquarters

• Curtis Borland, Attorney/Advisor, NASA Headquarters

• Steven Gilmore, Deputy Agency Master Planner, NASA Headquarters

• Carol Caldwell, Chief of Strategic Planning at NASA, NASA Headquarters

• Rebecca Klein, Federal Preservation Officer, NASA Headquarters

• Rena M. Schlachter, Agency Master Planner, NASA Headquarters

• Christopher Canaday, Strategic Integration Program Manager, NASA Headquarters

• Kristy Thompson, Realty Specialist, NASA Headquarters

• Gemma Flores, Executive Officer, Office of Strategic Infrastructure, NASA Headquarters

• Jeff Haught, Deputy Director, Facilities and Real Estate Division, NASA Headquarters

• Erik Weiser, Director of Facilities and Real Estate Division, NASA Headquarters

• Aga Goodsell, Center Operations Director (Acting), ARC

• Soheila Dianati, Center Planner, ARC

• Don Chuck, Center Director, Environmental Management Division, ARC

• Andres Estrada, Center NEPA Program Manager/Natural Resources Manager, ARC

• MaryEllen Ramsey, Center Planner, GSFC/GISS/WFF

• Braulio Ramon Center Planner, GSFC/GISS/WFF

• Justin Taylor, Center Planner, MSFC/MAF

• John Green, Center Planner, MSFC/MAF

• Byron Williams, Center Planner, MSFC/MAF

• Mike Uyeki, Center Planner, JPL

• Maia Durant, Center Planner, JPL

• Jose Flores, Center Planner, JPL

• David Thorpe, Center Planner, KSC

• Jennifer Krouchick, Center Planner, KSC

• Heath Ford, Center Planner, JSC

• Perry Bennett, Center Planner, JSC

• Tom Yohe, Center Planner, GRC

• Salah Ahmed, Center Planner, GRC

• Rachel Harrison-Woodard, Center Planner, SSC

• Timothy Pierce, Center Planner, SSC

• Matt Kenney, Center Planner, WSTF

• James T. Kaufman, Center Planner, WSTF

• Peter Castricone, Center Planner, AFRC

• Dan Mullen, Real Property Accountable Officer, AFRC

• Pete Van Dyke, Center Planner, LaRC

• Holly Workman, Planner, The Urban Collaborative, LLC

• Mark Gillem, Director, The Urban Collaborative, LLC

• Zoe Anton, Program Director, The Urban Collaborative, LLC
Section 6: References 72

SECTION 6: REFERENCES

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). n.d. "Climate Resilient Infrastructure and Operations.” 

Office of the Federal Chief Sustainability Officer Council on Environmental Quality website. 

Accessed on January 2, 2023. 

https://www.sustainability.gov/federalsustainabilityplan/resilience.html.

CEQ. 2014. “Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA Reviews.” December 14, 2014. 

https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-regulations-andguidance/Effective_Use_of_Programmatic_NEPA_Reviews_Final_Dec2014_searchable.pdf.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2022a. "Environmental Justice and National 

Environmental Policy Act." Environmental Justice page. EPA website. Last updated on April 

13, 2022. Accessed on January 6, 2023. 

https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/environmental-justice-and-national-environmentalpolicy-act.

EPA. 2022b. “Permit Program under CWA Section 404.” Section 404 of the Clean Water Act page. 

EPA website. Last updated on April 20, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/permit-programunder-cwa-section-404.

EPA. 2022c. “Defining Hazardous Waste Listed, Characteristic and Mixed Radiological Wastes.” 

Hazardous Waste page. EPA website. Last updated on June 15, 2022. Accessed on January 

2, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/hw/defining-hazardous-waste-listed-characteristic-and-mixedradiological-wastes.

EPA. 2022d. “Learn the Basics of Hazardous Waste,” Hazardous Waste page. EPA website. Last 

updated July 6, 2022. Accessed on January 2, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/hw/learn-basicshazardous-waste.

EPA. 2022e. “Summary of the Clean Water Act.” Laws & Regulations page. EPA website. Last 

updated on July 6, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act.

EPA. 2022f. "What is a Hazardous Waste Permit?" A Hazardous Waste page. EPA website. Last 

updated on July 9, 2022. Accessed on January 2, 2023. 

https://www.epa.gov/hwpermitting/what-hazardous-waste-permit.

EPA. 2022g. “Climate Change Indicators: Greenhouse Gases.” Climate Change Indicators page. 

EPA website. Last updated August 1, 2022. Access on January 4, 2023. 

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/greenhouse-gases.

EPA. 2022h. "Summary of the Noise Control Act: 42 U.S.C. Part 4901 et seq. (1972)” Laws & 

Regulations page. EPA website. Last updated on September 12, 2022. Accessed on January 

2, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-noise-control-act.

EPA. 2022i. "EPA and Army Finalize Rule Establishing Definition of WOTUS and Restoring 

Fundamental Water Protections." News Releases: Headquarters - Water (OW) page. EPA 

website. Last updated on December 30, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-andarmy-finalize-rule-establishing-definition-wotus-and-restoring-fundamental.

EPA. 2022j. "NAAQS Designations Process.” Criteria Air Pollutants page. EPA website. Last 

updated on November 29, 2022. Accessed on May 14, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-airpollutants/naaqs-designations-process.
Section 6: References 73

EPA. 2023a. “Overview of the Safe Drinking Water Act.” Safe Drinking Water Act page. EPA 

website. Last updated on March 30, 2023. Accessed on May 15, 2023.

https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/overview-safe-drinking-water-act.

EPA. 2023b. “Environmental Justice.” EPA website. Last updated on January 10, 2023. Accessed 

on January 16, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.

Executive Office of the President. 2015. Memorandum. "Implementation of OMB Memorandum M12-12 Section 3: Reduce the Footprint, March 25, 2015." 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/financial/memos/implementation

-reduce-the-footprint.pdf.

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). n.d. “About OSI.” Office of Strategic 

Infrastructure. Accessed October 25, 2022. https://www.nasa.gov/offices/osi/about.

NASA. n.d. “Facilities and Real Estate Division (FRED).” Facilities and Real Estate Division. 

Accessed October 25, 2022. https://www.nasa.gov/offices/FRED.

NASA. 2004. “Aerial shows Stennis test stands.” NASA Image Library. NASA ID: SSC-20040416-

S02983. April 16, 2004. Accessed on December 5, 2022. https://images.nasa.gov/detailsSSC-20040416-S02983.

NASA. 2010. “NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility.” NASA Image Library. NASA ID: 2010.11.24 

MAF Aerials-city 8x10. Accessed on February 11, 2023. 

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/167090main_maf_aerial4.jpg.

NASA. 2011. NASA 2011 Strategic Plan. 

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516579main_NASA2011StrategicPlan.pdf.

NASA. 2012a. “Destination Innovation: Episode 4 CheMin.” Image of Ames Research Center. 

NASA Image Library. NASA ID: ARC-20120802-AAV2504. Accessed on 12/05/2022 at 

https://images.nasa.gov/details-ARC-20120802-AAV2504.

NASA. 2012b. “Aerial of NASA Langley Research Center.” NASA Image Library. NASA ID: LRC2013-B701_P-00137. June 19, 2012. Accessed on December 5, 2022. 

https://images.nasa.gov/details-LRC-2013-B701_P-00137. 

NASA. 2012c. NASA Procedural Requirement 8580.1A Implementing the National Environmental 

Policy Act and Executive Order 12114 (Revalidated with Change 1 on 9/6/2017). 

https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=8580&s=1A.

NASA. 2013a. NASA Handbook for Master Planning. 

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codej/codejx/Assets/Docs/2015/NASA_HandbookForMasterPl

anning-2_TAGGED.pdf.

NASA. 2013b. NASA Procedural Requirement 8810.1A Center Master Planning. 

https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=8810&s=1A.

NASA. 2014. "NASA Transportation and General Traffic Management". Office of Strategic 

Infrastructure. NPR6200.1D. Accessed on January 5, 2023. 

https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/npg_img/N_PR_6200_001D_/N_PR_6200_001D_.pdf.

NASA. 2015a. Environmental Resources Document: NASA Jet Propulsion Lab. February 2015. 

Accessed on December 28, 2022. https://nasa.sharepoint.com/sites/EMENEPA/Environmental%20Resource%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx.
Section 6: References 74

NASA. 2015b. Environmental Resources Document: Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA. 

March 2015. Accessed on December 31, 2022. https://nasa.sharepoint.com/sites/EMENEPA/Environmental%20Resource%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

NASA. 2015c. Environmental Resources Document: NASA Johnson Space Center White Sands 

Test Facility. April 2015. Accessed December 30, 2022. 

https://nasa.sharepoint.com/sites/EMENEPA/Environmental%20Resource%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

NASA. 2015d. “The Saucer Ride.” NASA Library Image. NASA ID: PIA17799. November 5, 2015. 

Accessed on December 12, 2022. https://images-assets.nasa.gov/image/PIA17799/ 

PIA17799~orig.jpg.

NASA. 2016a. “Jet Propulsion Laboratory Nestled in Hillside.” NASA Image Library. NASA ID: 

PIA22555. Photographer: Thomas A. Dutch Slager. January 7, 2016. Accessed on December 

5. 2022. https://images.nasa.gov/details-PIA22555.

NASA. 2016b. NASA Environmental Resources Document: Michoud Assembly Facility, New 

Orleans, Louisiana. May 2016. https://nasa.sharepoint.com/sites/EMENEPA/Environmental%20Resource%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

NASA. 2016c. John C. Stennis Space Center Environmental Resources Document. April 2016. 

NASA ID: SCWI-8500-0026-ENV, Rev G. April 2016. Accessed on December 28, 2022. 

https://nasa.sharepoint.com/sites/EMENEPA/Environmental%20Resource%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

NASA. 2017a. Armstrong Flight Research Center Plan, Environmental Office – Environmental 

Resource Document. Accessed on December 29, 2022. 

https://nasa.sharepoint.com/sites/EMENEPA/Environmental%20Resource%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

NASA. 2017b. NASA Environmental Resources Document: Goddard Space Flight Center –

Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Virginia 23337. August 2017. Accessed on December 

30, 2022. https://nasa.sharepoint.com/sites/EMENEPA/Environmental%20Resource%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

NASA. 2017c. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center 2017 Environmental Resources Document. 

Final. October 2017. Accessed on December 28, 2022. 

https://nasa.sharepoint.com/sites/EMENEPA/Environmental%20Resource%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

NASA. 2018a. NASA Strategic Plan 2018. 

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_2018_strategic_plan.pdf.

NASA. 2018b. Final Environmental Resources Document for National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA): Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field and Plum Brook Station. April 

2018. Accessed on December 30, 2022. https://nasa.sharepoint.com/sites/EMENEPA/Environmental%20Resource%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

NASA. 2018c. Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Maryland: Environmental Resource 

Document. November 2018. Accessed on December 30, 2022. 

https://nasa.sharepoint.com/sites/EMENEPA/Environmental%20Resource%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx.
Section 6: References 75

NASA. 2019a. Environmental Resources – Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center. Rev. B – March 

2019. Accessed on December 31, 2022. https://nasa.sharepoint.com/sites/EMENEPA/Environmental%20Resource%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

NASA. 2019b. “GRC-2019-C-12356.” NASA Image Library. NASA ID: GRC-2019-C-12356. 

November 26, 2019. Accessed on December 12, 2022. https://images.nasa.gov/details-GRC2019-C-12356.

NASA. 2020a. Kennedy Space Center Vision Plan. 95% Final Draft. Pp 37. Report prepared by the 

Urban Collaborative, LLC. Accessed on December 5, 2022. 

https://netspublic.grc.nasa.gov/main/KSC%202020%20Vision%20Plan%20and%20Draft%20

EA.pdf.

NASA. 2020b. “John F. Kennedy Space Center: Environmental Resources Document.” August 

2020. Accessed on December 28, 2022. https://nasa.sharepoint.com/sites/EMENEPA/Environmental%20Resource%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

NASA. 2021a. “Marshall Space Flight Center from Test Stand 4693.” NASA Image Library. NASA 

ID: MSFC-202100182. Accessed on December 5, 2022. https://images.nasa.gov/detailsMSFC-202100182.

NASA. 2021b. “NASA Langley Research Center: Environmental Resource Document 2021 

Update.” June 2021. Accessed on December 30, 2022. 

https://nasa.sharepoint.com/sites/EMENEPA/Environmental%20Resource%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

NASA. 2021c. NASA Climate Action Plan. NP-2021-082979-HQ. September 2021. Accessed via 

Sustainability.gov. https://www.sustainability.gov/pdfs/nasa-2021-cap.pdf.

NASA. 2021d. John C. Stennis Space Center (SSC) Integrated Cultural Resources Management 

Plan (ICRMP): FY 2022-2027. September 2021. https://nasa.sharepoint.com/sites/EMENEPA/Environmental%20Resource%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

NASA. 2021e. “Goddard Installations.” Goddard Space Flight Center page. NASA website. Last 

updated April 9, 2021. Accessed on December 12, 2022. 

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/home/installations.html.

NASA. 2022a. "About the Goddard Space Flight Center." Goddard Space Flight Center page. 

NASA website. Last updated February 9, 2022. Accessed on January 1, 2023. 

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/index.html

NASA. 2022b. NASA 2022 Strategic Plan. March 28, 2022. 

https://explorers.larc.nasa.gov/2023APPROBE/pdf_files/Strat01.%20NASA%20%20Strategic

%20Plan%202022.pdf. 

NASA. 2022c. “Propulsion Qualification Module Installed at White Sands Test Facility.” NASA 

Library. NASA ID: jsc2022e045186. May 10, 2022. Accessed on December 12, 2022. 

https://images.nasa.gov/details-jsc2022e04518.6.

NASA. 2022d. “John C. Stennis Space Center: Environmental Justice Implementation Plan.” NASA 

Library: NASA ID: SPLN-8500-0071, Revision C. March 2022.

NASA. 2022e. “AMP/AIA Overview: Mission and Data-Driven Strategic Process.” AMP/AIA Center 

Workshop. July 8, 2022. 
Section 6: References 76

NASA. 2022f. NASA Sustainability Plan 2022. October 7, 2022. 

https://www.sustainability.gov/pdfs/nasa-2022-sustainability-plan.pdf.

NASA. 2022g. “Armstrong’s Capabilities and Facilities.” Armstrong Flight Research Center image. 

NASA website. Page last updated on June 1, 2021. Accessed on May 14, 2023. 

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/ec01-0264-

14_nasa_afrc_aerial_0.jpg.

NASA 2022h. “Johnson Space Center.” NASA website. October 18, 2022. Accessed on December 

12, 2022. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/home/index.html.

NASA. 2022i. “AMP Presentation to NASA’s Strategic Infrastructure Board (SIB) on November 2, 

2022.” Facilities Real Estate Division, Office of Strategic Infrastructure. November 2, 2022.

NASA. 2023a. “AMP Presentation to NASA’s Mission Support Council (MSC).” PowerPoint 

presentation. Facilities and Real Estate Division (FRED), Office of Strategic Infrastructure. 

Facilities and Real Estate Division. July 2022.

NASA. 2023b. “Advancing NASA’s Climate Strategy.” Office of the Chief Scientist. March 29, 2023. 

Accessed on May 17, 2023. 

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/advancing_nasas_climate_strategy_2023.p

df.

NASA. 2023c. “New AIA Bucket List_April_21_2023.” Excel file. Facilities and Real Estate Division 

(FRED), Office of Strategic Infrastructure. April 21, 2023. Internal Communications. 

NASA. 2023d. "NASA Table Mountain: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of 

Technology." Accessed on May 29, 2023. https://tmf.jpl.nasa.gov/tmf-web/index.html.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). n.d. "The Marine Sanctuaries Act." 

NOAA Legislation. National Marine Sanctuaries website. Accessed on January 6, 2023. 

https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/about/legislation/.

NOAA Fisheries. n.d. “NOAA Fisheries: About Us.” NOAA Fisheries website. Accessed on 

2/13/2023 at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/about-us.

NOAA Fisheries. 2023. “Mammal Protection Act Policies, Guidance, and Regulations.” NOAA 

Fisheries website. Last updated by Office of Protected Resources on February 6, 2023. 

OMB (Office of Management and Budget). 2015. “Implementation of OMB Memorandum M-12-12 

Section 3: Reduce the Footprint.” Management Procedures Memorandum No. 2015-01.

March 25, 2015.

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).” United Nations 

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. 2003. “What is Intangible Cultural Heritage.” 

UNESCO Text of the Convention. October 17, 2003. Accessed on January 4, 2023. 

https://ich.unesco.org/en/what-is-intangible-heritage-00003.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). n.d. "Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.” Los 

Angeles District page. USACE website. Accessed on January 4, 2023. 

https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Jurisdictional-Determination/Section-10-

of-the-Rivers-Harbors-Act/.
Section 7: List of Preparers 77

SECTION 7: LIST OF PREPARERS

The NASA NEPA staff and contractors responsible for preparing this document are listed in 

Exhibit 7-1.

Exhibit 7-1. List of Preparers

Name Role Experience

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Tina Norwood NASA Headquarters 

NEPA Lead 

M.S. Ecology; B.S. Animal Science; 37 years of 

experience

Amy Keith NASA NEPA Manager M.S. Environmental Engineering; B.S. Electrical 

Engineering; 36 years of experience 

Curtis Borland NASA Headquarters 

Environmental 

Attorney

LL.M. Environmental Law; J.D. Doctor of Law; B.A. 

History; 30 years of experience

Rena Schlachter NASA Headquarters 

Master Planner

M.S. Landscape Architecture; B.S. Fine Arts and Biology; 

15 years of experience

Christopher Canaday NASA Headquarters 

Strategic Integration 

Program Manager

B.S. Mechanical Engineering; M.S. Marine Sciences –

Physical Oceanography; 3 years of experience

Herndon Solutions Group (HSG)

Susan Manes NEPA Technical Lead M.S., Natural Resources; B.A., Economics; 35 years of 

NEPA document experience 

Kelley Junco NEPA Specialist B.A., Technical Writing; M.S., Graduate Certificate for 

National Environmental Policy Act; 4 years of NEPA 

experience

Jennifer Bailey NEPA Specialist M.S. Environmental Geography; B.S. Biology; 3 years of 

NEPA experience

Vicki White Project Manager M.B.A. Business Administration, B.S. Business 

Administration and Management; 30 years of experience

Emily Dabashinsky NEPA and NASA 

Technical Expert

B.S. Biology; 6 years of NEPA experience

Leidos

Carmen Ward, P.E., 

PMP

Reviewer, NEPA 

Subject Matter Expert

M.S., Environmental Engineering; B.S., Chemical 

Engineering; 30 years of NEPA experience

Gray & Pape, Inc. 

Carrie Albee Cultural Resource 

Specialist

M.A., Architectural History; B.A., History; 25 years of 

Cultural Resource experience

WordStyle, Inc. 

Suzanne Leonard Technical Editor M.A. and B.S. in English, 24 years of technical editing 

experience 

ANSER

Frances Veasey Technical and Copy 

Editor

M.S., Biohazardous Threat Agents and Emerging 

Infectious Diseases, B.S., Biology; 21 years of technical 

writing and copy-editing experience; 6 years of 

experience with NASA real property planning
Appendix A: Agency Master Plan PPT A-1

APPENDIX A: AMP/AIA OVERVIEW PRESENTATION
Appendix B: Regulations, Guidance, and Policy B-1

APPENDIX B: REGULATIONS, GUIDANCE, AND POLICY

Additional procedures and guidance documents can be found under the Emergency Management 

Directorate’s Functional and Principal Area webpages.

NASA Procedural Directives (NPDs) and NASA Procedural Requirements (NPRs)

• NPD 1000.0C NASA Governance and Strategic Management Handbook (Effective Date: 

January 29, 2020; Expiration Date: January 29, 2025)

• NPR 1000.3E The NASA Organization w/Change 96 (Effective Date: April 15, 2015; 

Expiration Date: April 15, 2026)

• NPD 1001.0D 2011 NASA Strategic Plan (Effective Date: March 28, 2022, Expiration 

Date: March 28, 2027)

• NPR 4310.1A Identification and Disposition of NASA Artifacts (Effective Date: May 12, 

2014; Expiration Date: May 12, 2024)

• NPR 8000.4C Agency Risk Management Procedural Requirements (Effective Date: April 

19, 2022; Expiration Date: April 19, 2027)

• NPD 8500.1C NASA Environmental Management (Effective Date: December 2, 2013;

Expiration Date: December 2, 2023)

• NPR 8530.1B Affirmative Procurement Program and Plan for Environmentally Preferable 

Products (Effective Date: August 29, 2016; Expiration Date: August 29, 2023)

• NPR 8553.1C NASA Environmental Management System (Effective Date: July 20, 2020;

Expiration Date: July 20, 2025)

• NPR 8570.1B Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation (Effective Date: July 20, 2020;

Expiration Date: July 20, 2025)

• NPR 8580.1A Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Executive Order 

12114 (Effective Date: August 1, 2012; Expiration Date: August 1, 2023)

• NPR 8590.1A NASA Environmental Compliance and Restoration (ECR) Program

(Effective Date: July 18, 2011; Expiration Date: July 18, 2023)

• NPR 8810.1A NASA Center Master Planning (Effective Date: February 13, 2013;

Expiration Date: November 23, 2023)

• NPD 8810.2A Master Planning for Real Property (Effective Date: December 9, 2009;

Expiration Date: November 23, 2023)

• NPR 9260.1A Revenue, Unfunded Liabilities and Other Liabilities (Effective Date: 

February 09, 2015; Expiration Date: February 09, 2025)

Federal Laws

• 43 U.S.C. 2101 et seq. Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987

• H.R. 2454 American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
Appendix B: Regulations, Guidance, and Policy B-2

• 16 U.S.C. 431-433 American Antiquities Act of 1906

• 42 U.S.C. 1996 American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978

• 16 U.S.C. 469-469c Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974

• 16 U.S.C. 470aa-470mm Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979

• 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Clean Air Act

• S.1733 The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act

• 33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq. Clean Water Act

• 42 U.S.C 9601 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act

• 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq. Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

(EPCRA)

• 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. Endangered Species Act

• PL 110-140 Energy Independence & Security Act (EISA) of 2007

• 42 U.S.C. 13201 et seq. Energy Policy Act of 2005

• 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

• H.R.5037 National Energy Conservation Policy Act

• 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

• 16 U.S.C. 470-470w-6 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

• 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 

October 1990

• 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq. Occupational Safety and Health

• 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. Oil Pollution Act

• 42 U.S.C. 6901 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

• 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq Safe Drinking Water Act

• 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. Toxic Substances Control Act

Federal Regulations

• 10 CFR 433, 435, 436 Building Efficiency Design Performance and Life-Cycle Costing

• 36 CFR Part 65 National Historic Landmarks Program

• 36 CFR Part 67 Standards for Evaluating Significance within Registered Historic Districts

• 36 CFR Part 79 Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archaeological 

Collections
Appendix B: Regulations, Guidance, and Policy B-3

• 36 CFR Part 800 Protection of Historic Properties

• 40 CFR Protection of Environment

• 41 CFR Part 102-38-295 Public Contracts and Property Management

• 43 CFR Part 7 Protection of Archaeological Resources

• 43 CFR Part 10 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Regulations

• 48 CFR Part 23 Environment, Energy and Water Efficiency, Renewable Energy 

Technologies, Occupational Safety, And Drug-Free Workplace

• 48 CFR Subpart 23.9 Contractor Compliance with Environmental Management Systems

• FAR Case 2004-032 Biobased Products Preference Program

• FAR Subpart 23.4 Use of Recovered Materials

Executive Orders

• EO 13834 Efficient Federal Operations

• EO 13432 Cooperation Among Agencies in Protecting the Environment with Respect to 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles, Nonroad Vehicles, and Nonroad 

Engines

• EO 13423 Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation 

Management

Instructions for Implementing EO 13423

o Establishing Baseline and Meeting Water Conservation Goals of EO 13423

• EO 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

• EO 13016 Amendment to EO 12580 Concerning Exercise of Authority Under CERCLA 

Section 106

• EO 13007 Indian Sacred Sites

• EO 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations

• EO 12580 Superfund Implementation

• EO 12088 Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards

CEQ Guidance

• Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable 

Buildings