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 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