[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 122 (Friday, June 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36371-36372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-15457]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Addressing Campus
Development at Fort Meade, MD
AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Notice of availability; notice of public meeting; request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Defense (DOD) announces the availability of
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as part of the
environmental planning process for a Campus Development Project at Fort
George G. Meade, Maryland (hereafter referred to as Fort Meade). The
DOD proposes the development of a portion of Fort Meade (referred to as
``Site M'') as an operational complex and to construct and operate
consolidated facilities to meet the National Security Agency's (NSA)
continually evolving requirements and for Intelligence Community use.
The purpose of the proposed action is to provide facilities that are
fully-supportive of the Intelligence Community's mission. The action is
driven by the need to co-locate key partnering organizations to ensure
required capabilities for current and future missions are achieved.
This notice announces a 45-day comment period and provides
information on how to participate in the public review process. The
public comment period for the Draft EIS will officially end 45 days
after publication of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of
Availability in the Federal Register.
DATES: There will be an open house beginning at 4:30 p.m. followed by a
public meeting from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on July 21, 2010 (see ADDRESSES
for meeting location). The public meeting
[[Page 36372]]
may end earlier or later than the stated time depending on the number
of persons wishing to speak. All materials that are submitted in
response to the Draft EIS should be received by August 13, 2010, to
provide sufficient time to be considered in preparation of the Final
EIS.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Draft EIS are available for your review at the
Fort Meade Main Post Library, 4418 Llewellyn Avenue, Fort Meade, MD
20755. You may also call (301) 688-2970 or send an e-mail to
[email protected] to request a copy of the Draft EIS.
The open house and scoping meeting will be held at the Fort Meade
Middle School, 1103 26th Street, Fort Meade, Maryland 20755. Oral and
written comments will be accepted at the scoping meeting. You can also
submit written comments to ``Campus Development EIS'' c/o
HDR[bond]e\2\M, 2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, VA 22031 or
submitted by e-mail to [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeffrey Williams at (301) 688-
2970, or e-mail [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: The NSA is a tenant DOD agency on Fort Meade. NSA is a
high-technology organization that is on the frontier of communications
and data processing. In order to meet evolving mission requirements,
the development of a modern operational complex is needed at the NSA
campus on Fort Meade.
Proposed Action and Alternatives: The Campus Development Project
was initiated to provide a modern operational complex to meet the
evolving mission requirements of NSA and the Intelligence Community.
Development is proposed for a portion of Fort Meade (referred to as
``Site M'') adjacent to the NSA campus. Site M is divided into northern
(Site M-1, 137 acres) and southern (Site M-2, 90 acres) portions. DOD
proposes that development of Site M occur in three option phases over a
horizon of approximately 20 years.
Proposed Action (Phase I). Development would occur in the
near term (approximately 2012 to 2014) on the eastern half of Site M-1,
supporting 1.8 million square feet (ft\2\) of facilities for NSA to
consolidate mission elements, enabling services, and support services
across the campus based on function; servicing the need for more
collaborative environment and optimal adjacencies, including associated
infrastructure (e.g., electrical substation and generator plants
providing 50 megawatts of electricity) and administrative functions for
up to 6,500 personnel. This phase would also include a steam and
chilled water plant, water storage tower, and electrical substations
and generator facilities capable of supporting the entire operational
complex on Site M.
Alternative 1 (Phases I and II). Alternative 1 would
include the implementation of the Proposed Action (Phase I) along with
Phase II. Phase II would occur in the mid-term (approximately 2020) on
the western half of Site M-1, supporting 1.2 million ft\2\ of
administrative facilities.
Alternative 2 (Phases I, II, and III). Alternative 2 would
include the implementation of the Proposed Action (Phase I) along with
Phases II and III. Development would occur on Site M-2 in the long term
(approximately 2029), supporting an additional 2.8 million ft\2\ of
administrative facilities, bringing built space to 5.8 million ft\2\
for up to 11,000 personnel.
Alternatives identified include each of the development phases
identified above, as well as three options for redundant emergency
backup power generation and various pollution control systems. The No
Action Alternative (not undertaking the Campus Development Project)
will also be analyzed in detail.
Summary of Environmental Impacts: The level of potential
environmental impacts resulting from the Proposed Action and
alternatives would primarily be dependent on the alternative ultimately
selected. Environmental impacts would generally be more adverse for
Alternatives 1 and 2 than for the Proposed Action due to the increase
in building footprint and the number of additional personnel associated
with the alternatives.
Generally, construction and demolition activities would be expected
to result in some amount of ground disturbance. Short-term adverse on-
site impacts on soil and water resources as a result of sedimentation,
erosion, and storm water runoff are unavoidable. Construction and
demolition activities also generate solid waste. These kinds of impacts
would be expected regardless of the alternative chosen. Long-term
operation of the complex would be expected to result in negligible to
moderate impacts on land use, transportation, noise, air quality,
biological resources, infrastructure, hazardous materials and waste,
and socioeconomic resources. Potential significant impacts on cultural
resources could occur under Alternative 2 if potentially historic
properties are not treated as a design constraint and avoided.
Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures. The Proposed
Action has the potential to result in adverse environmental impacts.
The Proposed Action includes best management practices, mitigation
measures, and design concepts to avoid adverse impacts to the extent
practicable. Unavoidable impacts would be minimized or compensated for,
to the extent practicable. In accordance with Council on Environmental
Quality regulations, mitigation measures must be considered for adverse
environmental impacts. Once a particular impact associated with a
proposed action is considered significant, then mitigation measures
must be developed where it is feasible to do so.
Copies of the Draft EIS are available for public review at local
repositories and by request (see ADDRESSES). The DOD invites public and
agency input on the Draft EIS. Please submit comments and materials
during the 45-day public review period to allow sufficient time for
consideration in development of the Final EIS (see DATES).
Dated: June 22, 2010.
Mitchell S. Bryman,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010-15457 Filed 6-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P