Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Training Range and Garrison Support Facilities Construction and Operation at Fort Stewart, GA, 17133-17134 [2010-7452]

Download as PDF jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 64 / Monday, April 5, 2010 / Notices FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Paul M. DeMarco, by e-mail Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil or by telephone at 904–232–1897. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: a. Proposed Action. The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962 gave the Secretary of the Army broad authorization to survey coastal areas of the United States and its possessions in the interest of beach erosion control, hurricane protection and related purposes, provided that surveys of particular areas would be authorized by appropriate resolutions (Pub. L. 87–874, Section 110). As a result, portions of the St. Johns County shoreline experiencing severe erosion were studied extensively. The St. Johns County, Florida General Reevaluation Report (GRR) (USACE 1998), recommended beach nourishment along St. Augustine Beach. Initial fill was completed in January 2003. Authority for the proposed study is House Resolution 2646 adopted June 21, 2000. A Reconnaissance Report completed in March 2004, by the Corps, concluded based on preliminary findings, there was a federal interest in pursuing HSDR for the Vilano Beach and Summer Haven Beach reaches. Subsequent to the completion of that report, South Ponte Vedra Beach experienced severe erosion, was designated as a critically eroded beach by FDEP, and therefore added to the scope of the Federal study. b. Alternatives. Project’s alternatives include no action and various levels of protection along approximately 9.8 miles of coastal shoreline along three reaches designated as critically eroded areas. In addition to various levels of beach nourishment and periodic renourishment, the Corps will consider other management measures such as nearshore placement of sand, breakwaters, submerged artificial reef, groins, revetments, seawalls, dunes/ vegetation, change to the Coastal Construction Control Line, relocation of structures, moratorium on construction, establish a no-growth program, relocation of structures, flood proofing of structures, and condemnation of structures with land acquisition. c. Scoping Process. The scoping process as outlined by the Council on Environmental Quality has been and will continue to be utilized to involve Federal, State, and local agencies, affected Indian tribes, and other interested persons and organizations. Scoping letters were sent to the appropriate parties requesting their comments and concerns on August 17, 2005, for the Summer Haven and Vilano VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:35 Apr 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 Beach reaches of the study area. After that time, FDEP designated the South Ponte Vedra Reach as critically eroding. A second scoping letter was sent out on September 16, 2008, to include the South Ponte Vedra Reach in the study area. Initial comments and concerns have been received. Any additional persons and organizations wishing to participate in the scoping process should contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the above address. Significant issues to be analyzed in the DEIS would include effects on Federally listed threatened and endangered species, and Essential Fish Habitat. Other issues would be health and safety, water quality, aesthetics and recreation, fish and wildlife resources, cultural resources, and socio-economic resources. Issues identified through scoping and public involvement thus far include loss of land and property due to erosion, lack of protection from hurricanes, loss of recreational beach, concern over impacts to sea turtles and shore birds from renourishment, concern over impacts to benthic organisms from mining and fill, concern over protecting surfing spots and the revenue they generate, concern over wasting Federal tax dollars, too much time since the first studies without positive results, and concern that revetments and seawalls harm sea turtle nesting. Any proposed action would be coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and with the State Historic Preservation Officer. The NMFS Habitat Conservation Division (HCD) has accepted cooperating agency status on the study. Any proposed action would also involve evaluation for compliance with guidelines pursuant to section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act; application (to the State of Florida) for Water Quality Certification pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act; certification of state lands, easements, and rights of way; and determination of Coastal Zone Management Act consistency. The FDEP Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (BBCS) has also accepted cooperating agency status on the study. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the non-Federal sponsor, St. Johns County, would provide extensive information and assistance on the resources to be impacted and alternatives. d. Scoping Meetings. Public scoping meetings could be held. Exact dates, times, and locations would be published in local papers. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17133 e. Agency Role. As the cooperating agency, NMFS HCD and FDEP BBCS will provide information and assistance on the resources to be impacted, mitigation measures and alternatives. Other agencies having either regulatory authority or special expertise may also be invited to become a cooperating agency in preparation of the EIS. Specifically, as a Federal agency with jurisdiction to manage resources available on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), the U.S. Minerals Management Service would be invited should potential borrow areas be identified within Federal waters (outside the 3mile State statutory limit). f. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Availability. The study schedule is dependent upon Congressional funding and the current estimate is for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to be available on or after 2012. Dated: March 25, 2010. Eric P. Summa, Chief, Environmental Branch. [FR Doc. 2010–7598 Filed 4–2–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720–58–P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Training Range and Garrison Support Facilities Construction and Operation at Fort Stewart, GA Department of the Army, DoD. Notice of Availability (NOA). AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Department of the Army has prepared a DEIS to analyze the environmental and socioeconomic impacts resulting from the proposed construction of 12 range projects and 2 garrison support facilities at Fort Stewart, Georgia. Completion of these projects will better allow the Army to support Soldier training requirements and will support Fort Stewart’s existing and future units. Construction of these projects will help to ensure Fort Stewart can meet unit training requirements if and when the pace of operational deployments slows. DATES: The public comment period will end 45 days after the publication of an NOA in the Federal Register by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ADDRESSES: For further information regarding the EIS, please contact Mr. Charles Walden, Project Manager, Directorate of Public Works, Prevention and Compliance Branch, Environmental Division, 1550 Frank Cochran Drive, Building 1137–A, Fort Stewart, Georgia E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM 05APN1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 17134 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 64 / Monday, April 5, 2010 / Notices 31314–4928. Written comments may be mailed to this address or e-mailed to Charles.Walden4@us.army.mil. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Dina McKain, Public Affairs Office, at (912) 435–9874 during normal business hours. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To meet the needs of the Soldiers at Fort Stewart, additional ranges and garrison support facilities are required. This DEIS examines the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the construction and operation of 12 ranges and 2 garrison support facilities to be constructed over a 4-year time period. It also examines potential impacts to surrounding lands and/or local communities. The DEIS evaluates the following: A Multipurpose Machine Gun Range, an Infantry Platoon Battle Course, a Known Distance Range, two Modified Record Fire Ranges, a Qualification Training Range, an Infantry Squad Battle Course, a Fire and Movement Range, a Digital Multipurpose Training Range, a 25 Meter Zero Range, a Combat Pistol Range, and a Convoy Live-Fire Course and associated engagement boxes. The Garrison Support Facilities are a Sky Warrior Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) facility and a 10th Engineering Battalion Complex, which would be constructed in the cantonment area. Three alternatives are considered: Alternative A—No Action, and two action alternatives (Alternatives B and C). The No Action Alternative is to continue the current mission and support activities already occurring at Fort Stewart. The action alternatives would greatly enhance Soldier training and overall unit readiness. Alternatives B and C offer different sitings for the ranges and garrison support facilities. Specified screening criteria were applied to each alternative to ascertain and rate the impact, from both an environmental and an operational perspective. Where possible, Alternative B sites tend to utilize footprints of existing ranges, limit the isolation of useful maneuver terrain, be located in relative close proximity to the cantonment area for operational tempo, and utilize the existing impact area without creating any new impact areas. Alternative C sites tend to locate ranges on new ground where there has not been a range in the past. Alternative C sites also have a greater impact on training, range operation, off-site noise, and environmental resources. Overall, Alternative B will not have as severe an environmental impact as Alternative C, although some individual sites may. After consideration of all anticipated VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:35 Apr 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 operational and environmental impacts, Alternative B is the Army’s preferred alternative. Impacts are analyzed for a wide range of environmental resource areas including, but not limited to, air quality, noise, water resources, biological resources (to include protected species), cultural resources, socioeconomics, infrastructure (utilities and transportation), land use, solid and hazardous materials/waste, and cumulative environmental effects. No significant impacts are anticipated on any of these environmental resources. The Army invites the public to comment on the DEIS and to participate in public meetings which will be announced in local news media. The DEIS is available at local libraries surrounding Fort Stewart and the document may also be accessed at http://www.Fortstewart-mmp.eis.com. Comments from the public will be considered before any decision is made regarding implementing the proposed action at Fort Stewart. Dated: March 19, 2010. Addison D. Davis, IV, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Environment, Safety and Occupational Health). [FR Doc. 2010–7452 Filed 4–2–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710–08–P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Broward County Shore Protection Project, North County Line to Hillsboro Inlet (Segment I) General Reevaluation Report, Located in Broward County, FL AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Jacksonville District, intends to prepare a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the Broward County Shore Protection Project(Segment I) General Re-Evaluation Report. The project is being sponsored locally by the city of Deerfield Beach. ADDRESSES: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Planning Division, Environmental Branch, P.O. Box 4970, Jacksonville, FL 32232–0019. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Pat Griffin, by email Patrick.M.Griffin@usace.army.mil or by telephone at (904) 232–2286. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: a. The city of Deerfield Beach has secured the appropriation of Federal funds from Congress in the FY 03 and FY 04 Energy and Water Resources Development Act appropriations, respectively, for the USACE to initiate the preparation of the General Reevaluation Report (GRR). Preparation of a GRR for Segment I was authorized by the Conference Report for FY 2003 Appropriations (H.R. 108–10 pg. 808). The initial authorization for the overall project provided for construction by the local sponsor with reimbursement of the Federal share of eligible costs. This authorization was provided in House Document No. 91/89 dated February 18, 1965, as described in the Chief’s Report dated June 15,1964. b. Objectives. As the local sponsor for this study, it is the city of Deerfield Beach’s expectation and desire that the USACE will in a cost effective manner conduct the GRR and the NEPA document for Segment I (north county line to Hillsboro Inlet), Broward County, FL and associated studies on behalf of the communities of Deerfield Beach and the Town of Hillsboro Beach and citizens of Broward County, FL. The city anticipates that the study will provide valuable economic, hurricane, storm and erosion data and related environmental and biological information regarding Deerfield’s beaches and those in Segment I. This information will assist the city in its ongoing efforts to provide a healthy and sustainable beach to residents and visitors. Additionally, the city expects the GRR and associated studies will provide in-depth analysis on the condition of the beaches within the study area and a determination as to whether or not the beaches within Segment I are eligible to receive Federal funding assistance for on-going and routine beach nourishment and to provide the recommended and appropriate levels and schedule necessary to conduct activities which will maintain a healthy beach profile. c. Alternatives. Alternatives will be developed during this scoping period. Information on the proposed alternatives will be included in future documents and will be available for review during public meetings and document comment periods. Ideas on potential alternatives are welcome and will be considered. d. Issues. The DEIS will consider the possible effects of placing compatible material on the beaches located within the boundaries of Segment I, impacts of dredging materials from an offshore borrow area, coral reefs and other hardbottom communities, as well as E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM 05APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 64 (Monday, April 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17133-17134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7452]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Training Range 
and Garrison Support Facilities Construction and Operation at Fort 
Stewart, GA

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of Availability (NOA).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army has prepared a DEIS to analyze the 
environmental and socioeconomic impacts resulting from the proposed 
construction of 12 range projects and 2 garrison support facilities at 
Fort Stewart, Georgia. Completion of these projects will better allow 
the Army to support Soldier training requirements and will support Fort 
Stewart's existing and future units. Construction of these projects 
will help to ensure Fort Stewart can meet unit training requirements if 
and when the pace of operational deployments slows.

DATES: The public comment period will end 45 days after the publication 
of an NOA in the Federal Register by the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency.

ADDRESSES: For further information regarding the EIS, please contact 
Mr. Charles Walden, Project Manager, Directorate of Public Works, 
Prevention and Compliance Branch, Environmental Division, 1550 Frank 
Cochran Drive, Building 1137-A, Fort Stewart, Georgia

[[Page 17134]]

31314-4928. Written comments may be mailed to this address or e-mailed 
to Charles.Walden4@us.army.mil.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Dina McKain, Public Affairs 
Office, at (912) 435-9874 during normal business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To meet the needs of the Soldiers at Fort 
Stewart, additional ranges and garrison support facilities are 
required. This DEIS examines the potential environmental and 
socioeconomic impacts of the construction and operation of 12 ranges 
and 2 garrison support facilities to be constructed over a 4-year time 
period. It also examines potential impacts to surrounding lands and/or 
local communities.
    The DEIS evaluates the following: A Multipurpose Machine Gun Range, 
an Infantry Platoon Battle Course, a Known Distance Range, two Modified 
Record Fire Ranges, a Qualification Training Range, an Infantry Squad 
Battle Course, a Fire and Movement Range, a Digital Multipurpose 
Training Range, a 25 Meter Zero Range, a Combat Pistol Range, and a 
Convoy Live-Fire Course and associated engagement boxes. The Garrison 
Support Facilities are a Sky Warrior Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) 
facility and a 10th Engineering Battalion Complex, which would be 
constructed in the cantonment area.
    Three alternatives are considered: Alternative A--No Action, and 
two action alternatives (Alternatives B and C). The No Action 
Alternative is to continue the current mission and support activities 
already occurring at Fort Stewart. The action alternatives would 
greatly enhance Soldier training and overall unit readiness. 
Alternatives B and C offer different sitings for the ranges and 
garrison support facilities. Specified screening criteria were applied 
to each alternative to ascertain and rate the impact, from both an 
environmental and an operational perspective. Where possible, 
Alternative B sites tend to utilize footprints of existing ranges, 
limit the isolation of useful maneuver terrain, be located in relative 
close proximity to the cantonment area for operational tempo, and 
utilize the existing impact area without creating any new impact areas. 
Alternative C sites tend to locate ranges on new ground where there has 
not been a range in the past. Alternative C sites also have a greater 
impact on training, range operation, off-site noise, and environmental 
resources. Overall, Alternative B will not have as severe an 
environmental impact as Alternative C, although some individual sites 
may. After consideration of all anticipated operational and 
environmental impacts, Alternative B is the Army's preferred 
alternative.
    Impacts are analyzed for a wide range of environmental resource 
areas including, but not limited to, air quality, noise, water 
resources, biological resources (to include protected species), 
cultural resources, socioeconomics, infrastructure (utilities and 
transportation), land use, solid and hazardous materials/waste, and 
cumulative environmental effects. No significant impacts are 
anticipated on any of these environmental resources.
    The Army invites the public to comment on the DEIS and to 
participate in public meetings which will be announced in local news 
media. The DEIS is available at local libraries surrounding Fort 
Stewart and the document may also be accessed at http://www.Fortstewart-mmp.eis.com. Comments from the public will be 
considered before any decision is made regarding implementing the 
proposed action at Fort Stewart.

    Dated: March 19, 2010.
Addison D. Davis, IV,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Environment, Safety and 
Occupational Health).
[FR Doc. 2010-7452 Filed 4-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-P