Notice of Cancellation of Partially Closed Meeting of the Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel, 14966-14967 [E9-7368]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
14966
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Notices
response to concerns of the resource
agencies the applicant modified Borrow
Area X to relocate the landward edge of
the borrow area further seaward to
minimize any potential modification to
the ebb tidal delta of New Topsail Inlet
and the adjacent oceanfront and
estuarine shorelines. The modified
impact area within Borrow Area X was
reduced to 127 acres, and minimized
the proposed EFH impacts by 24 acres.
A summary of the modifications to
Borrow Area X include: (1) The
landward cuts (cuts one (1) and two (2))
have been eliminated, (2) the landward
edge of cut three (3) has been moved
100 feet seaward in order to further
avoid and minimize potential impacts to
the ebb-tidal delta, and (3) cut six (6)
has been added seaward of cut three (3)
to account for the loss of volume. Cut
six contains 126,950 cy of beach
compatible sand which would result in
a net loss of 42,566 cy from Borrow Area
X. The total volume of material in
Borrow Area X once modifications are
taken into account totals 1,583,236 cy.
However, the volume needed to
maintain the design beach fill totals
1,286,000 cy.
Geotechnical Investigations. The
offshore sand search investigations
included bathymetric surveys, sidescan
sonar surveys, seismic surveys, cultural
resource surveys, vibracore collection
and analysis, and ground-truth diver
surveys to verify existence or nonexistence of hard bottoms. The results of
the offshore investigations coupled with
the compatibility of the sand resource
area, native beach sand, and Essential
Fish Habitat (EFH) were used to define
the selected borrow area. The applicants
preferred borrow area, Borrow Area X,
was further modified to reflect resource
agency comments. All sediment
compatibility assessments were based
on State of North Carolina sediment
compatibility standards that went into
effect in February 2007.
Beach Fill Surveys & Design. Typical
cross-sections of the beach along the
Topsail Beach project area was
surveyed. Nearshore profiles will extend
seaward to at least the 30-foot NAVD
depth contour. The total volume of
beach fill to be placed in front of the
existing development and infrastructure
will be based on an evaluation of
erosion of the project area from 2002
through the expected construction date
of the Federal project. Additional
offshore and inshore data for Lea/Hutaff
Island were also obtained along the
northern 5,000 feet of the island. This
data was used in the evaluation of
possible impacts associated with the
removal of sediment from the selected
offshore borrow area and for future
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:43 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
impact evaluations following project
implementation through the use of
numerical modeling.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE
COORDINATION & PERMITTING. The
USACE prepared a General
Reevaluation Report—Environmental
Impact Statement (GRR–EIS) for the
larger Federal shore protection project
(June 2006). The Final GRR and EIS
were released for public and agency
review and comment in the summer of
2008. The interim beach fill project will
be subject to Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act, Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and the North
Carolina’s State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA).
Preliminary coordination with the
USACE—Wilmington District resulted
in a determination that a Department of
the Army Individual Permit will be
needed for project compliance with
Sections 10 and 404. Similarly,
coordination with the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM) determined that the project
would require evaluation through SEPA.
A Major Permit under the Coastal Area
Management Act was issued by the
North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management on February 27, 2009.
2. Issues of particular concern. There
are several potential environmental
issues that are addressed in the FSEIS.
Additional issues may be identified
during the public review process. Issues
initially identified as potentially
significant include:
a. Potential impact to marine
biological resources (benthic organisms,
passageway for fish and other marine
life) and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH),
particularly hardbottoms.
b. Potential impact to Federally
threatened and endangered marine
mammals, birds, fish, and plants.
c. Potential impacts to water quality.
d. Potential increase in erosion rates
to adjacent beaches.
e. Potential impacts to navigation,
commercial and recreational.
f. Potential impacts to private and
public property.
g. Potential impacts on public health
and safety.
h. Potential impacts to recreational
and commercial fishing.
i. The compatibility of the material for
nourishment.
j. Potential economic impacts.
4. Alternatives. Several alternatives
were considered for the proposed
project. These alternatives were further
formulated and developed during the
scoping process and an appropriate
range of alternatives, including the No
Action and Non Structural alternative,
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
are considered in the Final
Supplemental EIS.
5. Scoping Process. Project Delivery
Team meetings were held to receive
comments and assess concerns
regarding the appropriate scope and
preparation of the FSEIS. Federal, State,
and local agencies and other interested
organizations and persons participated
in these Project Delivery Team
meetings.
The COE also consulted with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service under the
Endangered Species Act and the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, and with
the National Marine Fisheries Service
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and
Endangered Species Act. The FSEIS has
been revised in accordance with the
comments submitted by these agencies.
Additionally, the FSEIS has assessed the
potential water quality impacts
pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act, and is being coordinated
with NCDCM to determine the projects
consistency with the Coastal Zone
Management Act.
6. Availability of the Final
Supplemental EIS (FSEIS). The FSEIS
has been published and circulated, and
is available for review at the office of
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District, Regulatory
Division Office located at 69 Darlington
Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina.
Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–7380 Filed 4–1–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720–58–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Notice of Cancellation of Partially
Closed Meeting of the Secretary of the
Navy Advisory Panel
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Navy
Advisory Panel hereby cancels its notice
to receive ethics training and discuss
top areas of concern that the Secretary
of the Navy should address, as
published in the Federal Register,
March 18, 2009 (74 FR number 50), page
11358.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Colonel Caroline Simkins-Mullins,
SECNAV Advisory Panel, Office of
Program and Process Assessment, 1000
Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350,
telephone: 703–697–9154.
E:\FR\FM\02APN1.SGM
02APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Notices
Dated: March 27, 2009.
A.M. Vallandingham,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate
General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register
Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–7368 Filed 4–1–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN
COMMISSION
Proposal To Amend Fees for the
Review of Projects in Accordance With
Section 3.8 and Article 10 of the
Delaware River Basin Compact
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
AGENCY: Delaware River Basin
Commission (DRBC).
ACTION: Notice of public hearing.
SUMMARY: The DRBC will hold a public
hearing during its regularly scheduled
business meeting to hear comment on a
proposal to amend the Commission’s
fees for the review of projects in
accordance with Section 3.8 and Article
10 of the Delaware River Basin
Compact. Existing project review fees
are proposed to be increased, effective
July 1, 2009, for the first time since June
of 2003. The increases are needed in
order to partly close a significant gap
between annual project review fee
revenue and the cost of the
Commission’s project review function.
DATES: All comments must be received
on or before the close of the public
hearing on May 6, 2009. The hearing
will commence at 1:30 p.m. and is
expected to end by 2:30 p.m., but will
continue until all those who wish to
comment have had an opportunity to do
so. The Commission would appreciate
receiving written comments in advance
of the hearing date in order to have an
opportunity to review them prior to the
hearing.
ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be
held in the Goddard Room of the
Commission’s office building at 25 State
Police Drive in West Trenton, New
Jersey. Mail written comments to Ms.
Paula Schmitt, Delaware River Basin
Commission, P.O. Box 7360, 25 State
Police Drive, West Trenton, NJ 08628–
0360; fax to Attn: Paula Schmitt,
Delaware River Basin Commission, 609–
883–9500 ext. 224; or send electronic
submissions to
paula.schmitt@drbc.state.nj.us. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for proper
labeling of submissions.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Current Fee Schedule. The
Commission’s current fee schedule for
the review of projects in accordance
with Section 3.8 and Article 10 of the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:43 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
Delaware River Basin Compact is set
forth in Resolution No. 2005–1 as
amended (also, ‘‘schedule’’ or ‘‘current
fee schedule’’), which is posted on the
Commission’s Web site at https://
www.state.nj.us/drbc/Res2005–1rev.pdf.
Numbered paragraph 3 of the schedule
(‘‘paragraph 3’’) contains a matrix that
establishes review fees based on total
project cost. Fees set forth in the matrix
range from $250 for publicly sponsored
projects costing $250,000 or less to a
maximum of $50,000 for a public or
private project costing over $10,000,000.
Project review fees calculated in
accordance with the matrix are doubled
for projects resulting in out-of-basin
diversions. In addition to the fees
calculated in accordance with the
matrix in paragraph 3, the current fee
schedule provides in relevant part for
the following: (a) Fees of $250 and $500
respectively for the review of project
renewals involving no substantial
revisions or modifications (par. 4); (b) a
fee of $500 for the transfer of a docket
upon a change of ownership (par. 6); (c)
and an incremental charge of $1,000 for
the review of any renewal application
submitted less than 120 calendar days
in advance of the docket expiration date
(or after such other date specified in the
docket or permit for filing a renewal
application) (par. 12).
Proposed Fee Schedule. The matrix in
paragraph 3 of the current schedule is
proposed to be revised as follows: For
projects costing $250,000 or less, the
proposed fee is $500 for publicly
sponsored projects (increased from
$250) and $1,000 for privately
sponsored projects (increased from
$500). For all projects costing between
$250,001 and $10,000,000, the proposed
fee is 0.4 percent (increased from 0.2
percent) of project cost. The review of
projects costing over $10,000,000 is
proposed to carry a revised fee of 0.4
percent of project cost (increased from
0.2 percent) up to the first $10,000,000
plus 0.12 percent of project cost
(increased from 0.06 percent) above
$10,000,000, not to exceed $75,000
(increased from $50,000). Fees
calculated in accordance with the
revised matrix will continue to be
doubled for projects resulting in out-ofbasin diversions. In addition to the fees
calculated in accordance with the
matrix in paragraph 3 as revised, the
proposed revised fee schedule includes:
(a) Fees of $500 and $1,000 respectively
for the review of public and private
project renewals involving no
substantial revisions or modifications
(increased from $250 and $500
respectively) (par. 4); (b) a fee of $1,000
for the transfer of a docket upon a
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14967
change of ownership (increased from
$500) (par. 6); and (c) an incremental
charge of $2,000 for the review of any
renewal application submitted less than
120 calendar days in advance of the
docket expiration date (or after such
other date specified in the docket or
permit for filing a renewal application)
(increased from $1,000) (par. 12).
Other Aspects Unchanged. With
minor exceptions, including the
deletion of paragraphs for which the
applicable dates have passed, other
aspects of the Commission’s current
project review fee schedule will remain
unchanged, including but not limited to
provisions of current paragraph 4
allowing the Executive Director to
determine the fee for review of a project
revision not involving an increase in
costs; and paragraph 8, authorizing the
Executive Director to impose, in
addition to the initial project review fee,
a fee in an amount equal to up to 100
percent of project review costs deemed
by the Executive Director to be
exceptional.
Basis for Proposed Increases. The
proposed fee increases are needed to
address significant revenue shortfalls
and maintain adequate levels of service
in reviewing projects in accordance
with Section 3.8 and Article 10 of the
Delaware River Basin Compact. The
annual average sum of project review
fees collected by the DRBC in Fiscal
Years 2005 through 2008 was
approximately half the annual cost of
the project review function to the
agency.
Copy of Proposed Revised Fee
Schedule. A copy of this notice, along
with the proposed revised fee schedule
with changes noted, can be viewed on
the Commission’s Web site, drbc.net.
Effective Date. The revised fee
schedule is proposed to become
effective on July 1, 2009, the first day of
the Commission’s 2010 fiscal year.
Labeling of Written Submissions.
Please use ‘‘Project Review Fee
Changes’’ in the subject line for all
written submissions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Pamela M. Bush, Commission Secretary
and Assistant General Counsel, DRBC,
609–883–9500 ext. 203,
pamela.bush@drbc.state.nj.us, or Chad
Pindar, Project Review Supervisor, 609–
883–9500 ext. 204,
chad.pindar@drbc.state.nj.us.
Dated: March 27, 2009.
Pamela M. Bush,
Commission Secretary & Assistant General
Counsel.
[FR Doc. E9–7447 Filed 4–1–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6360–01–P
E:\FR\FM\02APN1.SGM
02APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 62 (Thursday, April 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14966-14967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7368]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Notice of Cancellation of Partially Closed Meeting of the
Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel
AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel hereby cancels its
notice to receive ethics training and discuss top areas of concern that
the Secretary of the Navy should address, as published in the Federal
Register, March 18, 2009 (74 FR number 50), page 11358.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colonel Caroline Simkins-Mullins,
SECNAV Advisory Panel, Office of Program and Process Assessment, 1000
Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350, telephone: 703-697-9154.
[[Page 14967]]
Dated: March 27, 2009.
A.M. Vallandingham,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-7368 Filed 4-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
