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
<![CDATA[
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
https://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 https://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
