Intent To Prepare a Joint Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project Dredged Material Transfer Facility, Marin County, CA, 2855-2856 [05-903]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2005 / Notices
Burden statement: The respondent
burden for this collection is estimated to
average .08 hours per response. These
estimates include the time needed to
review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information
and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a
collection of information; and transmit
or otherwise disclose the information.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 150.
Estimated number of responses: 48
Estimated total annual burden on
respondents: 600 hours.
Frequency of collection: On occasion.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimated or any other aspect of the
information collection, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to
the addresses listed below. Please refer
to OMB Control No. 3038–0026 in any
correspondence.
Lawrence B. Patent, Division of
Clearing and Intermediary Oversight,
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, 1155 21st Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20581 and Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget,
Attention: Desk Officer for CFTC, 725
17th Street, Washington, DC 20503.
Dated: January 11, 2005
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–910 Filed 1–14–05; 8:45 am]
the failure rates of U.S. munitions in
actual combat use; review ongoing
efforts to reduce the amount of
unexploded ordnance resulting from
munitions systems failures, and
evaluate whether there are ways to
improve or accelerate these efforts; and
identify other feasible measures the U.S.
can take to reduce the threat that failed
munitions pose to friendly forces and
noncombatants.
The mission of the Defense Science
Board is to advise the Secretary of
Defense and the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology &
Logistics on scientific and technical
matters as they affect the perceived
needs of the Department of Defense. At
these meetings, the Defense Science
Board Task Force will: conduct a
methodologically sound assessment of
the failure rates of U.S. munitions in
actual combat use; review ongoing
efforts to reduce the amount of
unexploded ordnance resulting from
munitions systems failures, and
evaluate whether there are ways to
improve or accelerate these efforts; and
identify other feasible measures the U.S.
can take to reduce the threat that failed
munitions pose to friendly forces and
noncombatants.
In accordance with section 10(d) of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act,
Public Law 92–463, as amended (5
U.S.C. App. 2), it has been determined
that these Defense Science Board Task
Force meetings concern matters listed in
5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that,
accordingly, these meetings will be
closed to the public.
Dated: January 6, 2005.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 05–867 Filed 1–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–M
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
BILLING CODE 5001–06–M
Defense Science Board
Department of Defense.
ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee
Meeting.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board
Task Force on Munitions System
Reliability will meet in closed session
on January 14, 2005, at SAIC, 4001 N.
Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA, and
February 2–4, 2005, at Naval Air
Warfare Center, China Lake, CA. This
Task Force will review the efforts thus
far to improve the reliability of
munitions systems and identify
additional steps to be taken to reduce
the amount of unexploded ordnance
resulting from munitions failures. The
Task Force will: Conduct a
methodologically sound assessment of
VerDate jul<14>2003
11:51 Jan 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army; Corps of
Engineers
Intent To Prepare a Joint Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report for the
Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project
Dredged Material Transfer Facility,
Marin County, CA
Department of the Army, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
ACTION: Notice of intent.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c)
of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969 as implemented by
the Council on Environmental Quality
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2855
regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508),
the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), and Public Law 102–484
section 2834, as amended by Public Law
104–106 section 2867, the Department
of the Army and the California State
Coastal Conservancy (SCC) hereby give
notice of intent to prepare a joint
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report
(SEIS/EIR) for the Hamilton Wetland
Restoration Project (HWRP), Marin
County, California to consider
alternative methods to transfer dredged
material collected from various
navigational dredging projects within
San Francisco Bay to the HWRP site for
beneficial re-use in the construction of
tidal and seasonal wetlands. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the
lead agency for this project under
NEPA. The SCC is the lead agency for
this project under CEQA.
A pubic scoping meeting will be held
to solicit comments on the
environmental scope of the project and
the appropriate scope of the SEIS/EIR.
DATES: The public scoping meeting will
be held on the 26th of January 2005
from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Bay Model, 2100
Bridgeway, Sausalito, Marin County,
CA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions about the proposed action
and SEIS/EIR can be answered by: Eric
Jolliffe, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
San Francisco District, 333 Market St.,
7th floor, San Francisco, CA 94105,
ejolliffe@spd02.usace.army.mil, (415)
977–8543.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
HWRP is located on the former
Hamilton Army Airfield approximately
25 miles north of San Francisco in
Marin County, CA. The original EIS/EIR
was prepared for the HWRP in 1998.
This project would involve the
beneficial re-use of an estimated 10.6
million cubic yards (MCY) of dredged
material to restore the 988-acre site to
tidal and seasonal wetland, which is
critical habitat for several local
endangered species. Site preparation
construction required prior to dredged
material placement has begun. The first
SEIS/EIR, which described expanding
the project to include the Bel Marin
Keys V (BMK–V) property, was
completed in 2003. Pending
congressional authorization, the
adjacent BMK–V site of approximately
1610 acres will be restored as a part of
the HWRP using approximately 14 MCY
of additional dredged material. The
present notice announces the intent to
prepare a second SEIS/EIR on the
HWRP, which evaluates alternative
methods for delivering dredged material
E:\FR\FM\18JAN1.SGM
18JAN1
2856
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2005 / Notices
to the HWRP site. The goal of the HWRP
as a whole is to create a diverse array
of wetland and wildlife habitats at the
combined Hamilton sites (HWRP &
BMK–V) that benefit endangered species
while facilitating the beneficial re-use of
dredged material.
1. Background. The HWRP is one of
several significantly sized projects to
restore lost wetlands around San
Francisco Bay. The ground elevation of
the HWRP site has subsided since the
site was diked off from the Bay, and fill
material will be sued as part of the
restoration process to construct project
features and to speed formation of tidal
marsh. The Long Term Management
Strategy (LTMS) for the placement of
dredged material in the San Francisco
Bay and Estuary was established
cooperatively by federal, state and local
agencies starting in 1990 to maintain
navigation channels in an economic and
environmentally sound manner, to
maximize the use of dredged materials
as a beneficial resource, and to establish
a cooperative regulatory permitting
framework. The HWRP implements the
LTMS through beneficial re-use and a
reduction of in-Bay disposal. The
alternative transfer facilities proposed
are an attempt to more efficiently meet
the goals of the LTMS.
2. Proposed Action. The original plan
for transfer of dredged material to the
project, as described in the original EIS/
EIR, uses an in-bay hydraulic off-loader.
Based on independent review,
workshops with national experts, and a
value engineering study that considered
environmental, economic and
operational impacts, it is determined
that a more efficient and flexible
method to transfer dredged material
should be evaluated.
3. Project Alternatives. The SEIS/EIR
will include at a minimum the
following alternatives:
a. No Action: The original hydraulic
off-loader. A hydraulic off-loader
facility moored approximately 5 miles
from HWRP in San Pablo Bay would
pump dredged material as slurry
through a submerged pipeline to the
HWRP site. The facility would operate
for 6 to 9 months of the year. Traditional
aquatic disposal of dredged material at
in-bay or offshore disposal sites would
be performed during periods when an
off-loader is not operational, the
wetland construction site is not
available for material placement, or for
dredging projects with incompatible
equipment or scheduling requirements.
An off-loader facility will require an
VerDate jul<14>2003
11:51 Jan 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
operational footprint of between 12 and
16 acres within San Pablo Bay.
b. Confined in-bay aquatic transfer
facility. An enclosed temporary dredged
material storage basin near or coincident
with the authorized disposal area SF–
10, approximately 5 miles offshore of
the Hamilton site in San Pablo Bay,
would allow a greater number of
dredging projects to contribute to
wetland restoration efforts. An aquatic
transfer facility would likely be used in
lieu of open water sites SF–10 and SF–
9 and other in-bay disposal areas during
the 13–19 year construction of the
HWRP. A confined transfer facility
would require between 30 to 40 acres in
San Pablo Bay, as opposed to the 149
acres that SF–9 and SF–10 now occupy.
c. Semi-confined in-bay aquatic
transfer facility. A semi-confined
temporary in-bay aquatic transfer
facility would function similarly to the
confined basin, but would not be
entirely enclosed within a structural
confinement. The general size of the
facility is anticipated to be the same as
the completely confined alternative.
d. Unconfined in-bay aquatic transfer
facility. An unconfined temporary
dredged material storage basin would
function as the confined basin but
would have no containment structure.
An unconfined basin would likely
require a footprint of 40 to 50 acres.
e. Combination of off-loader and
aquatic transfer basin methods.
4. Environmental Considerations. In
all cases, environmental considerations
will include patterns of currents;
suspended sediment transport;
turbidity; impacts to bathymetry and the
benthos; fish entrainment; water quality;
air, noise and aesthetic impacts;
potential benefits and impacts on either
commercial or recreational fishing; and
the temporary suspension or ongoing
use of in-bay dredged material disposal
sites SF–10 and possibly SF–9 as well
as other potential environmental issues
of concern.
5. Scoping Process. The Corps and
SCC are seeking input from interested
federal, state, and local agencies, Native
American representatives, and other
interested private organizations and
parties through provision of this notice
and holding of a scoping meeting (see
DATES). The purpose of this meeting is
to solicit input regarding the
environmental issues of concern and the
alternatives that should be discussed in
the SEIS/EIR. The public comment
period closes February 25, 2005.
6. Availability of SEIS/EIR. The public
will have an additional opportunity to
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
comment on the proposed alternatives
after the draft SEIS/EIR is released to the
public in 2005.
Philip T. Feir,
Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers,
District Engineer.
[FR Doc. 05–903 Filed 1–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710–19–M
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army; Corps of
Engineers
Chief of Engineers Environmental
Advisory Board; Meeting
Department of the Army, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Notice of open meeting.
SUMMARY: In accordance with 10(a)(2) of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(Pub. L. 92–463), announcement is
made of the forthcoming meeting. The
meeting is open to the public.
Name of Committee: Chief of
Engineers Environmental Advisory
Board (EAB).
Date: February 2, 2005.
Location: Embassy Suites Hotel
Alexandria-Old Town, 1900 Diagonal
Road, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, (703)
684–5900.
Time: 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.
Mr.
Norman Edwards, Headquarters, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Washington,
DC 20314–1000; phone: 202–761–1934.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The Board
advises the Chief of Engineers on
environmental policy, identification and
resolution of environmental issues and
missions, and addressing challenges,
problems and opportunities in an
environmentally sustainable manner.
The EAB will be meeting with the
current Chief of Engineers for the first
time. The public meeting will focus on
general issues of national significance
rather than on individual project or
region related topics. Time will be
provided for public comment. Each
speaker will be limited to no more than
three minutes in order to accommodate
as many people as possible within the
limited time available.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 05–902 Filed 1–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710–92–M
E:\FR\FM\18JAN1.SGM
18JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2855-2856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-903]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers
Intent To Prepare a Joint Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Hamilton Wetland
Restoration Project Dredged Material Transfer Facility, Marin County,
CA
AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
ACTION: Notice of intent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as implemented by the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Public Law 102-484
section 2834, as amended by Public Law 104-106 section 2867, the
Department of the Army and the California State Coastal Conservancy
(SCC) hereby give notice of intent to prepare a joint Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/EIR)
for the Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project (HWRP), Marin County,
California to consider alternative methods to transfer dredged material
collected from various navigational dredging projects within San
Francisco Bay to the HWRP site for beneficial re-use in the
construction of tidal and seasonal wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) is the lead agency for this project under NEPA. The
SCC is the lead agency for this project under CEQA.
A pubic scoping meeting will be held to solicit comments on the
environmental scope of the project and the appropriate scope of the
SEIS/EIR.
DATES: The public scoping meeting will be held on the 26th of January
2005 from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Bay Model, 2100 Bridgeway, Sausalito,
Marin County, CA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about the proposed action
and SEIS/EIR can be answered by: Eric Jolliffe, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, San Francisco District, 333 Market St., 7th floor, San
Francisco, CA 94105, ejolliffe@spd02.usace.army.mil, (415) 977-8543.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The HWRP is located on the former Hamilton
Army Airfield approximately 25 miles north of San Francisco in Marin
County, CA. The original EIS/EIR was prepared for the HWRP in 1998.
This project would involve the beneficial re-use of an estimated 10.6
million cubic yards (MCY) of dredged material to restore the 988-acre
site to tidal and seasonal wetland, which is critical habitat for
several local endangered species. Site preparation construction
required prior to dredged material placement has begun. The first SEIS/
EIR, which described expanding the project to include the Bel Marin
Keys V (BMK-V) property, was completed in 2003. Pending congressional
authorization, the adjacent BMK-V site of approximately 1610 acres will
be restored as a part of the HWRP using approximately 14 MCY of
additional dredged material. The present notice announces the intent to
prepare a second SEIS/EIR on the HWRP, which evaluates alternative
methods for delivering dredged material
[[Page 2856]]
to the HWRP site. The goal of the HWRP as a whole is to create a
diverse array of wetland and wildlife habitats at the combined Hamilton
sites (HWRP & BMK-V) that benefit endangered species while facilitating
the beneficial re-use of dredged material.
1. Background. The HWRP is one of several significantly sized
projects to restore lost wetlands around San Francisco Bay. The ground
elevation of the HWRP site has subsided since the site was diked off
from the Bay, and fill material will be sued as part of the restoration
process to construct project features and to speed formation of tidal
marsh. The Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for the placement of
dredged material in the San Francisco Bay and Estuary was established
cooperatively by federal, state and local agencies starting in 1990 to
maintain navigation channels in an economic and environmentally sound
manner, to maximize the use of dredged materials as a beneficial
resource, and to establish a cooperative regulatory permitting
framework. The HWRP implements the LTMS through beneficial re-use and a
reduction of in-Bay disposal. The alternative transfer facilities
proposed are an attempt to more efficiently meet the goals of the LTMS.
2. Proposed Action. The original plan for transfer of dredged
material to the project, as described in the original EIS/EIR, uses an
in-bay hydraulic off-loader. Based on independent review, workshops
with national experts, and a value engineering study that considered
environmental, economic and operational impacts, it is determined that
a more efficient and flexible method to transfer dredged material
should be evaluated.
3. Project Alternatives. The SEIS/EIR will include at a minimum the
following alternatives:
a. No Action: The original hydraulic off-loader. A hydraulic off-
loader facility moored approximately 5 miles from HWRP in San Pablo Bay
would pump dredged material as slurry through a submerged pipeline to
the HWRP site. The facility would operate for 6 to 9 months of the
year. Traditional aquatic disposal of dredged material at in-bay or
offshore disposal sites would be performed during periods when an off-
loader is not operational, the wetland construction site is not
available for material placement, or for dredging projects with
incompatible equipment or scheduling requirements. An off-loader
facility will require an operational footprint of between 12 and 16
acres within San Pablo Bay.
b. Confined in-bay aquatic transfer facility. An enclosed temporary
dredged material storage basin near or coincident with the authorized
disposal area SF-10, approximately 5 miles offshore of the Hamilton
site in San Pablo Bay, would allow a greater number of dredging
projects to contribute to wetland restoration efforts. An aquatic
transfer facility would likely be used in lieu of open water sites SF-
10 and SF-9 and other in-bay disposal areas during the 13-19 year
construction of the HWRP. A confined transfer facility would require
between 30 to 40 acres in San Pablo Bay, as opposed to the 149 acres
that SF-9 and SF-10 now occupy.
c. Semi-confined in-bay aquatic transfer facility. A semi-confined
temporary in-bay aquatic transfer facility would function similarly to
the confined basin, but would not be entirely enclosed within a
structural confinement. The general size of the facility is anticipated
to be the same as the completely confined alternative.
d. Unconfined in-bay aquatic transfer facility. An unconfined
temporary dredged material storage basin would function as the confined
basin but would have no containment structure. An unconfined basin
would likely require a footprint of 40 to 50 acres.
e. Combination of off-loader and aquatic transfer basin methods.
4. Environmental Considerations. In all cases, environmental
considerations will include patterns of currents; suspended sediment
transport; turbidity; impacts to bathymetry and the benthos; fish
entrainment; water quality; air, noise and aesthetic impacts; potential
benefits and impacts on either commercial or recreational fishing; and
the temporary suspension or ongoing use of in-bay dredged material
disposal sites SF-10 and possibly SF-9 as well as other potential
environmental issues of concern.
5. Scoping Process. The Corps and SCC are seeking input from
interested federal, state, and local agencies, Native American
representatives, and other interested private organizations and parties
through provision of this notice and holding of a scoping meeting (see
DATES). The purpose of this meeting is to solicit input regarding the
environmental issues of concern and the alternatives that should be
discussed in the SEIS/EIR. The public comment period closes February
25, 2005.
6. Availability of SEIS/EIR. The public will have an additional
opportunity to comment on the proposed alternatives after the draft
SEIS/EIR is released to the public in 2005.
Philip T. Feir,
Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers, District Engineer.
[FR Doc. 05-903 Filed 1-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-19-M
