Notice of Public Meeting on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Basewide Water Infrastructure and Stuart Mesa Bridge Replacement at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, CA, 76389-76392 [2011-31344]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 7, 2011 / Notices
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) of the
proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, e.g., the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they will also become a matter of public
record.
Dated: December 2, 2011.
Susan K. Fawcett,
Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011–31356 Filed 12–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark
Office
[Docket No. PTO–C–2011–0081]
Extension of Comment Period
Regarding Comments on Intellectual
Property Enforcement in China
United States Patent and
Trademark Office, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of extension of public
comment period.
AGENCY:
To provide interested parties
with the opportunity to comment
further to the original request for public
comment (see https://www.gpo.gov/
fdsys/pkg/FR–2011–10–17/pdf/2011–
26757.pdf), The United States Patent
and Trademark Office (‘‘USPTO’’) is
extending the period for public
comment regarding any challenges that
U.S. inventors and companies are facing
with the judicial and/or administrative
patent enforcement systems of the
People’s Republic of China.
USPTO invites any member of the
public to submit written comments on
China’s patent enforcement system,
including, but not limited to, the
following five topics: acquisition and
enforcement of utility model and design
patents; evidence collection and
preservation in Chinese courts;
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Dec 06, 2011
Jkt 226001
obtaining damages and injunctions;
enforceability of court orders and
judgments; and administrative patent
enforcement. The USPTO would like to
resolve rights holders’ concerns by
working with them to identify problems
regarding these and other areas of
China’s patent enforcement system so
that it can then address these issues
with the Chinese Government. To help
the USPTO address these issues, it
encourages interested members of the
public to respond to this request.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before December 21,
2011.
Written comments should
be sent by electronic mail message via
the Internet addressed to
IP.Policy@uspto.gov. Comments may
also be submitted by mail addressed to:
Mail Stop OPEA, United States Patent
and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450,
Alexandria, VA 22313–1450, Attn:
Elizabeth Shaw. Although comments
may be submitted by mail, the USPTO
prefers to receive comments via the
Internet. If you would like to submit
confidential business information that
supports your comments, please contact
Elizabeth Shaw at
elizabeth.shaw2@uspto.gov, or 571–
272–8494.
The written comments will be
available for public inspection by
appointment only at the Office of Policy
and External Affairs in the Executive
Library located in the Madison West
Building, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany
Street, Alexandria, Virginia, 22314.
Contact: Elizabeth Shaw at
elizabeth.shaw2@uspto.gov, or 571–
272– 8494.
Because comments will be made
available for public inspection,
information that is not desired to be
made public, such as an address or
phone number should not be included
in the comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Shaw, Office of Policy and
External Affairs, by phone 571–272–
8494, by facsimile to 571–273–0123, by
email at elizabeth.shaw2@uspto.gov, or
by mail addressed to: Mail Stop OPEA,
United States Patent and Trademark
Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria,
Virginia 22313–1450, Attn: Elizabeth
Shaw.
ADDRESSES:
On
October 17, 2011, the USPTO published
a Request for Comments on Intellectual
Property Enforcement in China. See 76
FR 64075, Oct. 17, 2011. More
specifically, the USPTO invited
members of the public to comment on
their patent enforcement experiences in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
76389
China. Of concern were the two primary
avenues of patent enforcement in China:
the judiciary; and the State Intellectual
Property Office (SIPO). In regard to the
former, concerns over China’s judiciary
(such as lack of adequate discovery
powers, evidentiary burdens, and low
damages rewards) have been cited as
reasons why U.S. and foreign companies
do not file more patent suits in Chinese
courts. In regard to the latter, limited
investigative powers of the agency and
ineffectual penalties for infringement
have been cited as reasons for the
weakness of this enforcement route.
The notice invited the public to
submit written comments on China’s
patent enforcement system, including,
but not limited to, the following five
topics: (1) Acquisition and enforcement
of utility model and design patents; (2)
evidence collection and preservation in
Chinese courts; (3) obtaining damages
and injunctions; (4) enforceability of
court orders; and (5) administrative
patent enforcement. The USPTO is now
extending the period for submission of
public comments until December 21,
2011.
Dated: November 30, 2011.
David J. Kappos,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2011–31305 Filed 12–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Notice of Public Meeting on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for
Basewide Water Infrastructure and
Stuart Mesa Bridge Replacement at
Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton,
CA
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Pursuant to Section
(102)(2)(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 United States Code [U.S.C.]
Sections 4321–4370h); the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations for implementing the
procedural provisions of NEPA (Title 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts
1500–1508); Department of the Navy
Procedures for Implementing NEPA (32
CFR part 775); and Marine Corps NEPA
directives (Marine Corps Order
P5090.2A), the Marine Corps (USMC)
has prepared and filed with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM
07DEN1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
76390
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 7, 2011 / Notices
(EIS) that evaluates the potential
environmental consequences that may
result from implementing the Basewide
Water Infrastructure and Stuart Mesa
Bridge Replacement projects at Marine
Corps Base Camp Pendleton (MCBCP).
The proposed action would involve the
construction, operation, and
maintenance of infrastructure upgrades,
expansions, and improvements to the
Basewide water system and replacement
of a critical link in the Base roadway
system. The projects would include a
northern Advanced Water Treatment
(AWT) plant and associated facilities,
connection of the Base’s northern and
southern water systems, and
replacement of the bridge on Stuart
Mesa Road over the Santa Margarita
River (Stuart Mesa Bridge). A Notice of
Intent to prepare this EIS was published
in the Federal Register on March 31,
2010 (Vol. 75, No. 61, p. 16080).
With the filing of the Draft EIS, the
Department of the Navy (DoN) is
initiating a 45-day public comment
period and has scheduled a public open
house meeting to receive oral and
written comments on the Draft EIS.
Federal, State, and local agencies and
interested individuals are invited to be
present or represented at the public
meeting. This notice announces the date
and location of the public meeting, and
supplementary information about the
environmental planning effort.
DATES: The Draft (EIS) public review
period will begin December 2, 2011, and
end on January 17, 2012. The USMC is
holding an informational open house
style public meeting to inform the
public about the proposed action and
the alternatives under consideration,
and to provide an opportunity for the
public to comment on the Draft EIS.
USMC and DoN representatives will be
on hand to discuss the proposed action,
the NEPA process and the findings
presented in the Draft EIS. The meeting
will be held from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
in the Ole Hanson Fireside Room at the
San Clemente Community Center, 100
North Calle Seville, San Clemente,
California 92672 on January 5, 2012.
The Draft EIS was distributed to
Federal, State, and local agencies,
elected officials, and other interested
parties and individuals on December 2,
2011. The document can be viewed
online and downloaded from
www.marines.mil/unit/
basecamppendleton/Pages/
BaseStaffandAgencies/Environmental/
EAEIS/Home.aspx.
Copies of the Draft EIS are available
for public review at the following public
libraries: Oceanside Civic Center
Library, 330 North Coast Highway,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Dec 06, 2011
Jkt 226001
Oceanside, California 92054; San
Clemente Library, 242 Avenida del Mar,
San Clemente, California 92672; and
Fallbrook Branch, San Diego County
Public Library, 124 S. Mission Road,
Fallbrook, California 92028.
A copy of the Draft EIS will be made
available upon written request to Mr.
Jesse Martinez, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command (NAVFAC)
Southwest, 1220 Pacific Highway, San
Diego, CA 92132–5190, (619) 532–3844.
Comments
Attendees will be able to submit
written comments at the public meeting;
a stenographer will also be present to
transcribe oral comments. Equal weight
will be given to oral and written
statements. Comments may be mailed to
Mr. Jesse Martinez, NAVFAC
Southwest, 1220 Pacific Highway, San
Diego, CA 92132–5190. Comments may
be submitted during the 45-day public
review period. All comments must be
postmarked or electronically dated on or
before January 17, 2012, to be sure they
become part of the public record. All
statements, oral transcription and
written, submitted during the public
review period will become part of the
public record on the Draft EIS and will
be responded to in the Final EIS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Jesse Martinez, NAVFAC Southwest,
(619) 532–3844. Please submit requests
for special assistance, sign language
interpretation for the hearing impaired,
or other auxiliary aids at the public
meeting to Mr. Martinez.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
proposed action evaluated in the Draft
EIS is the construction and operation,
including maintenance, of three
infrastructure projects entirely within
MCBCP and funded by Military
Construction (MILCON) program
appropriation. These projects include an
advanced water treatment plant and
associated facilities in the northern part
of the Base (MILCON Project Number
P–1044); connection of the Base’s
northern and southern water systems
(P–1045); and replacement of the Stuart
Mesa Bridge over the Santa Margarita
River and associated roadway/flood
control improvements (P–1039). Each
project is a separate, distinct, and
independently complete and usable
action. Full environmental analyses for
four action alternatives, and a No Action
Alternative are presented in the Draft
EIS.
Purpose and Need
The proposed action is needed to
modernize and expand the capacity and
capability of MCBCP’s aging (1960s era)
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
potable water system and roadway
infrastructure.
The current potable water piping and
treatment system is outdated and
undersized. Higher quality drinking
water through advanced water treatment
is needed in the northern portion of the
Base because the current water
treatment processes do not meet the
secondary drinking water standards for
total dissolved solids and may not meet
the pending Federal Safe Drinking
Water Act Stage 2 Disinfectant
Byproducts Rule. In addition, the two
Base water systems, the northern system
and the southern system, are not
connected. The independent systems
have resulted in service interruptions to
portions of the Base during maintenance
and natural disasters.
In the case of the roadway system, the
Stuart Mesa Bridge, together with
nearby roadway segments and the
adjacent intersection of Stuart Mesa
Road and Vandegrift Boulevard,
represents a critical roadway connection
on the main internal north-south
connector in the southern and western
portions of MCBCP. The roadway link
has been severed in the past by flooding,
underscoring the need for an all-weather
solution.
The purpose of the proposed action is
to enhance the ability of MCBCP to
efficiently meet its mission by
developing new or upgraded, reliable,
and compliant infrastructure systems
necessary to sustain military training
and operations and quality of life
services on MCBCP. The purpose is to
provide: (1) Improved water treatment
capabilities, capacity, and drinking
water system redundancy to deliver
higher quality water in the north; (2)
water security and a connected, more
comprehensive system for the delivery
of Basewide water services during
periods of scheduled, unscheduled, and
emergency system interruption; and (3)
improved traffic flow and efficient allweather traffic accessibility to key
training and non-training areas in the
southern portion of MCBCP that are
now severed during periodic flooding in
the vicinity of the Stuart Mesa Bridge.
Alternatives
The EIS evaluates three MILCON
projects (P–1044, P–1045, and P–1039)
and four alternatives for each MILCON
for a total of 12 action alternatives. As
the environmental and engineering
assessment developed for the proposed
action, a combination of alternatives
were identified as the preferred
alternative based on operational,
environmental, economic, and military
sustainability reasons. The preferred
alternatives are P–1044 Alternative 1;
E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM
07DEN1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 7, 2011 / Notices
P–1045 Alternative 3; and P–1039
Alternative 4. Each is identified and
discussed below.
Advanced Water Treatment (AWT)
North and Associated Facilities
(MILCON P–1044). Four alternatives
involving a combination of two AWT
plant sites and two pipeline routes were
evaluated. All alternatives include
construction of an 8.6 million gallon per
day AWT facility, new and replacement
water lines, pump stations with
emergency generators, connection to
existing reservoirs and distribution
system, a brine disposal system, and
plant access improvements. Raw water,
treated water, and brine would be
conveyed via new proposed lines. Raw
water lines would extend from the
existing wells to the AWT facility.
Treated water lines would extend from
the AWT facility to the west to serve the
San Onofre Housing Areas and the 51
Area (San Onofre), 62 Area (San Mateo),
63 Area (Cristianitos), 64 Area (Talega),
52 Area (School of Infantry), and 53
Area (Horno). Trenchless construction
to extend lines beneath San Onofre
Creek and San Mateo Creek or
suspension of the pipelines over the
creeks would be incorporated to
minimize impacts. Following water
treatment at the AWT, brine would be
disposed via ocean outfall and injection
wells. The ocean outfall disposal would
use the existing decommissioned San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
(SONGS) 12-foot-diameter, 3,200-footlong cooling water intake structure
located on the Pacific Ocean floor. Two
deep injection well fields
(approximately 750 feet deep) would
also be used. One would be located at
the existing San Onofre percolation
ponds and the other would be located
northwest of the San Onofre Surf Beach
area of San Onofre State Beach. The
proposed AWT facility would include
micro-filtration and liquid granulated
activated carbon/reverse osmosis.
Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative).
Under this alternative the AWT facility
would be constructed at a location south
of San Onofre Creek. A portion of the
conveyance lines would be located
within Basilone Road. The brine
disposal line would extend from the
AWT facility to the south to connect to
the proposed injection wells and to the
existing SONGS ocean intake pipeline.
The line to SONGS would extend
beneath Interstate-5 (I–5) via trenchless
construction.
Alternative 2. Under this alternative,
raw water, treated water, and brine
would be conveyed via three proposed
new pipelines located primarily in El
Camino Real instead of Basilone Road as
proposed under Alternative 1.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Dec 06, 2011
Jkt 226001
Alternative 3. Under this alternative,
the AWT facility would be located south
of Basilone Road. Water conveyance
pipelines would be the same as
Alternative 1.
Alternative 4. Under this alternative,
the AWT facility would be located south
of Basilone Road. Water conveyance
pipelines would be the same as
Alternative 2.
Connection of North and South Water
Systems (MILCON P–1045). Four
alternatives involving different pipeline
routes were evaluated.
Alternative 1. Under this alternative,
approximately 188,000 linear feet (LF)
of potable water lines sized up to 36
inches in diameter would connect the
northern and southern water systems of
MCBCP. The water line would start at
the new AWT North facility (P–1044)
and extend south on an alignment using
El Camino Real to Stuart Mesa Road.
Dividing at the junction of Stuart Mesa
Road and Las Pulgas Road, one branch
would run north along Las Pulgas Road
to an existing reservoir in the 43 Area
(Las Pulgas). This lateral pipeline would
be approximately 10 to 14 inches in
diameter. The other branch would
continue along Stuart Mesa Road before
splitting again into two more branches.
One of these branches would extend
northeast on the west side of the Santa
Margarita River along North River Road,
passing east of the 32 Area (Marine Air
Control Squadron-1) and 33 Area
(Margarita) and west of the 23 Area
(Marine Corps Air Station Camp
Pendleton) to Basilone Road and on to
connect to the AWT South facility at
Haybarn Canyon as well as several
reservoirs along a ridge above the AWT
South. The second branch would
continue south along Stuart Mesa Road,
crossing under or suspending over the
Santa Margarita River and then north
along Vandegrift Boulevard to an
existing pump station and several
existing reservoirs in the Wire Mountain
area. The construction and operation of
a new 4-million-gallon water reservoir
in the Wire Mountain area is proposed
along with associated water line
connections to serve the new Naval
Hospital Camp Pendleton (currently
under construction) and the 21 Area
(Del Mar). The pipelines would use
trenchless construction under or
suspended over San Onofre Creek, Las
Flores Creek, Aliso Canyon drainage,
French Creek, and two locations on the
Santa Margarita River to avoid impacts
to these areas. The project would also
include the construction and operation
of three pump stations along the
alignment. Maintenance access/
recreation corridors could also be
included.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
76391
Alternative 2. The proposed northsouth pipeline would start at the new
AWT North facility (P–1044) and extend
south in El Camino Real to Las Pulgas
Road and run north in Las Pulgas Road
to Basilone Road. The water line would
extend along Basilone Road to
Vandegrift Boulevard and run east to
connect to the AWT South at Haybarn
Canyon as well as several reservoirs
along a ridge above the AWT South.
This alternative would require an
additional pump station and would be
approximately 165,000 LF.
Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative).
This alternative would be similar to
Alternative 1 except it would not
include the segment on the west side of
the Santa Margarita River along North
River Road. The new 4-million-gallon
water reservoir and connections to the
new Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton
and the 21 Area (Del Mar) would be
included. This alternative would be
approximately 137,000 LF.
Alternative 4. This alternative would
be similar in alignment to Alternative 3,
with an additional pipe segment
extending further on Vandegrift
Boulevard east of the 22 Area (Chappo)
before connecting to the AWT South at
Haybarn Canyon as well as several
reservoirs along a ridge above the AWT
South. This alternative would be
approximately 179,000 LF.
Stuart Mesa Bridge Replacement and
Flood Control Improvements (P–0139).
Four alternatives including a
combination of two flood control
methods and the use of a temporary
bridge during construction were
evaluated. All alternatives include
demolition of the existing Stuart Mesa
Bridge and construction of a new four
lane bridge and flood protection
measures.
Alternative 1. Construction would
consist of a new cast-in-place
prestressed concrete bridge
(approximately 1,200 feet long by
56 feet wide) with pile foundations, new
approach road and bridge abutments,
earthwork and grading, rock protection
and revetment, bridge deck, guard rails,
night lighting, asphalt pavement, and
pavement marking and signs. The
project includes ‘‘100-year storm’’ flood
protection control measures to protect
Stuart Mesa Road and Vandegrift
Boulevard. Flood control facilities
consist of levees, levee scour protection,
and a storm water drain system. Under
this alternative, no temporary
replacement bridge would be
constructed over the Santa Margarita
River and traffic would need to utilize
alternate existing routes during
construction.
E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM
07DEN1
76392
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 7, 2011 / Notices
Alternative 2. Under this alternative,
a temporary use bridge would be
constructed to allow vehicular traffic
along Stuart Mesa Road to continue to
cross the Santa Margarita River. Bridge
construction would be the same as
Alternative 1.
Alternative 3. Under this alternative,
flood walls would be constructed rather
than levees. The flood walls, while
having a smaller construction footprint,
would provide the same flood control
protection. No temporary replacement
bridge would be constructed over the
Santa Margarita River. Bridge
construction would be the same as
Alternative 1.
Alternative 4 (Preferred Alternative).
This alternative would be similar to
Alternative 3, with the exception of a
construction phase temporary use
bridge, which would allow traffic along
Stuart Mesa Road to continue to cross
the Santa Margarita River during
demolition of the existing bridge and
construction of the new bridge.
Environmental Issues
The Draft EIS evaluates the potential
environmental effects associated with
each of the alternatives. Issues
addressed include: Geology and soils,
hydrology and water quality, biological
resources, cultural resources, land use,
visual resources, socioeconomics and
environmental justice, traffic, air
quality, noise, public health and safety,
services and utilities, and coastal zone
resources, and marine resources.
Relevant and reasonable measures that
could alleviate environmental effects
have been considered.
Schedule
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
A 45-day public comment period will
start upon publication of the EPA Notice
of Availability in the Federal Register.
Comments on the Draft EIS must be
received by January 17, 2012. The DoN
will consider and respond to all
comments received on the Draft EIS
when preparing the Final EIS. The DoN
expects to issue the Final EIS in June
2012, at which time a Notice of
Availability (NOA) will be published in
the Federal Register and local print
media. A Record of Decision is expected
in August 2012.
Dated: November 29, 2011
L.R. Almand,
Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S.
Navy.
[FR Doc. 2011–31344 Filed 12–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Dec 06, 2011
Jkt 226001
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
respondents, including through the use
of information technology.
Notice of Proposed Information
Collection Requests
Dated: December 2, 2011.
Darrin King,
Director, Information Collection Clearance
Division, Privacy, Information and Records
Management Services, Office of Management.
Department of Education.
Comment Request.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of Education
(the Department), in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)),
provides the general public and Federal
agencies with an opportunity to
comment on proposed and continuing
collections of information. This helps
the Department assess the impact of its
information collection requirements and
minimize the reporting burden on the
public and helps the public understand
the Department’s information collection
requirements and provide the requested
data in the desired format. The Director,
Information Collection Clearance
Division, Privacy, Information and
Records Management Services, Office of
Management, invites comments on the
proposed information collection
requests as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before February
6, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Comments regarding burden
and/or the collection activity
requirements should be electronically
mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or
mailed to U.S. Department of Education,
400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ,
Washington, DC 20202–4537. Please
note that written comments received in
response to this notice will be
considered public records.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that
Federal agencies provide interested
parties an early opportunity to comment
on information collection requests. The
Director, Information Collection
Clearance Division, Regulatory
Information Management Services,
Office of Management, publishes this
notice containing proposed information
collection requests at the beginning of
the Departmental review of the
information collection. The Department
of Education is especially interested in
public comment addressing the
following issues: (1) Is this collection
necessary to the proper functions of the
Department; (2) will this information be
processed and used in a timely manner;
(3) is the estimate of burden accurate;
(4) how might the Department enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (5) how
might the Department minimize the
burden of this collection on the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Institute of Education Sciences
Type of Review: Revision.
Title of Collection: Integrated
Evaluation of ARRA Funding,
Implementation and Outcomes.
OMB Control Number: 1850–0877.
Agency Form Number(s): N/A.
Frequency of Responses: Annually;
Once.
Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal
Government.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 5,551.
Total Estimated Annual Burden
Hours: 5,039.
Abstract: On February 17, 2009,
President Obama signed the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
into law (Pub. L. 111–50). ARRA
supports investments in innovative
strategies that are intended to lead to
improved results for students, long-term
gains in school and local education
agency (LEA) capacity for success, and
increased productivity and
effectiveness.
This evaluation will focus on
answering three sets of policy/research
questions:
• To what extent did ARRA funds go
to the intended recipients?
• Is ARRA associated with the
implementation of the key reform
strategies it promoted?
• What implementation supports and
challenges are associated with ARRA?
The integrated evaluation will draw
on existing data, including ED data
collections, ED ARRA program files,
ARRA required reporting, and databases
of achievement and other outcomes. The
evaluation will also collect new
information through surveys of (1) The
50 states and the District of Columbia,
(2) a nationally representative sample of
school districts, and (3) a nationally
representative sample of schools within
the sampled school districts. Surveys
were conducted in spring 2011 and are
planned for spring 2012.
A report will be prepared to describe
the distribution of funding. A report and
state tabulations will be prepared after
each annual survey. The first report,
based on the 2011 surveys, will focus on
early ARRA implementation and
strategies. The second report, based on
the 2012 surveys, will expand upon
strategies implemented under ARRA.
Copies of the proposed information
collection request may be accessed from
E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM
07DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76389-76392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31344]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Notice of Public Meeting on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for Basewide Water Infrastructure and Stuart Mesa Bridge
Replacement at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, CA
AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section (102)(2)(c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] Sections
4321-4370h); the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for
implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (Title 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 1500-1508); Department of the Navy
Procedures for Implementing NEPA (32 CFR part 775); and Marine Corps
NEPA directives (Marine Corps Order P5090.2A), the Marine Corps (USMC)
has prepared and filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
[[Page 76390]]
(EIS) that evaluates the potential environmental consequences that may
result from implementing the Basewide Water Infrastructure and Stuart
Mesa Bridge Replacement projects at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton
(MCBCP). The proposed action would involve the construction, operation,
and maintenance of infrastructure upgrades, expansions, and
improvements to the Basewide water system and replacement of a critical
link in the Base roadway system. The projects would include a northern
Advanced Water Treatment (AWT) plant and associated facilities,
connection of the Base's northern and southern water systems, and
replacement of the bridge on Stuart Mesa Road over the Santa Margarita
River (Stuart Mesa Bridge). A Notice of Intent to prepare this EIS was
published in the Federal Register on March 31, 2010 (Vol. 75, No. 61,
p. 16080).
With the filing of the Draft EIS, the Department of the Navy (DoN)
is initiating a 45-day public comment period and has scheduled a public
open house meeting to receive oral and written comments on the Draft
EIS. Federal, State, and local agencies and interested individuals are
invited to be present or represented at the public meeting. This notice
announces the date and location of the public meeting, and
supplementary information about the environmental planning effort.
DATES: The Draft (EIS) public review period will begin December 2,
2011, and end on January 17, 2012. The USMC is holding an informational
open house style public meeting to inform the public about the proposed
action and the alternatives under consideration, and to provide an
opportunity for the public to comment on the Draft EIS. USMC and DoN
representatives will be on hand to discuss the proposed action, the
NEPA process and the findings presented in the Draft EIS. The meeting
will be held from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the Ole Hanson Fireside
Room at the San Clemente Community Center, 100 North Calle Seville, San
Clemente, California 92672 on January 5, 2012. The Draft EIS was
distributed to Federal, State, and local agencies, elected officials,
and other interested parties and individuals on December 2, 2011. The
document can be viewed online and downloaded from www.marines.mil/unit/basecamppendleton/Pages/BaseStaffandAgencies/Environmental/EAEIS/Home.aspx.
Copies of the Draft EIS are available for public review at the
following public libraries: Oceanside Civic Center Library, 330 North
Coast Highway, Oceanside, California 92054; San Clemente Library, 242
Avenida del Mar, San Clemente, California 92672; and Fallbrook Branch,
San Diego County Public Library, 124 S. Mission Road, Fallbrook,
California 92028.
A copy of the Draft EIS will be made available upon written request
to Mr. Jesse Martinez, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC)
Southwest, 1220 Pacific Highway, San Diego, CA 92132-5190, (619) 532-
3844.
Comments
Attendees will be able to submit written comments at the public
meeting; a stenographer will also be present to transcribe oral
comments. Equal weight will be given to oral and written statements.
Comments may be mailed to Mr. Jesse Martinez, NAVFAC Southwest, 1220
Pacific Highway, San Diego, CA 92132-5190. Comments may be submitted
during the 45-day public review period. All comments must be postmarked
or electronically dated on or before January 17, 2012, to be sure they
become part of the public record. All statements, oral transcription
and written, submitted during the public review period will become part
of the public record on the Draft EIS and will be responded to in the
Final EIS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jesse Martinez, NAVFAC Southwest,
(619) 532-3844. Please submit requests for special assistance, sign
language interpretation for the hearing impaired, or other auxiliary
aids at the public meeting to Mr. Martinez.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed action evaluated in the Draft
EIS is the construction and operation, including maintenance, of three
infrastructure projects entirely within MCBCP and funded by Military
Construction (MILCON) program appropriation. These projects include an
advanced water treatment plant and associated facilities in the
northern part of the Base (MILCON Project Number P-1044); connection of
the Base's northern and southern water systems (P-1045); and
replacement of the Stuart Mesa Bridge over the Santa Margarita River
and associated roadway/flood control improvements (P-1039). Each
project is a separate, distinct, and independently complete and usable
action. Full environmental analyses for four action alternatives, and a
No Action Alternative are presented in the Draft EIS.
Purpose and Need
The proposed action is needed to modernize and expand the capacity
and capability of MCBCP's aging (1960s era) potable water system and
roadway infrastructure.
The current potable water piping and treatment system is outdated
and undersized. Higher quality drinking water through advanced water
treatment is needed in the northern portion of the Base because the
current water treatment processes do not meet the secondary drinking
water standards for total dissolved solids and may not meet the pending
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act Stage 2 Disinfectant Byproducts Rule.
In addition, the two Base water systems, the northern system and the
southern system, are not connected. The independent systems have
resulted in service interruptions to portions of the Base during
maintenance and natural disasters.
In the case of the roadway system, the Stuart Mesa Bridge, together
with nearby roadway segments and the adjacent intersection of Stuart
Mesa Road and Vandegrift Boulevard, represents a critical roadway
connection on the main internal north-south connector in the southern
and western portions of MCBCP. The roadway link has been severed in the
past by flooding, underscoring the need for an all-weather solution.
The purpose of the proposed action is to enhance the ability of
MCBCP to efficiently meet its mission by developing new or upgraded,
reliable, and compliant infrastructure systems necessary to sustain
military training and operations and quality of life services on MCBCP.
The purpose is to provide: (1) Improved water treatment capabilities,
capacity, and drinking water system redundancy to deliver higher
quality water in the north; (2) water security and a connected, more
comprehensive system for the delivery of Basewide water services during
periods of scheduled, unscheduled, and emergency system interruption;
and (3) improved traffic flow and efficient all-weather traffic
accessibility to key training and non-training areas in the southern
portion of MCBCP that are now severed during periodic flooding in the
vicinity of the Stuart Mesa Bridge.
Alternatives
The EIS evaluates three MILCON projects (P-1044, P-1045, and P-
1039) and four alternatives for each MILCON for a total of 12 action
alternatives. As the environmental and engineering assessment developed
for the proposed action, a combination of alternatives were identified
as the preferred alternative based on operational, environmental,
economic, and military sustainability reasons. The preferred
alternatives are P-1044 Alternative 1;
[[Page 76391]]
P-1045 Alternative 3; and P-1039 Alternative 4. Each is identified and
discussed below.
Advanced Water Treatment (AWT) North and Associated Facilities
(MILCON P-1044). Four alternatives involving a combination of two AWT
plant sites and two pipeline routes were evaluated. All alternatives
include construction of an 8.6 million gallon per day AWT facility, new
and replacement water lines, pump stations with emergency generators,
connection to existing reservoirs and distribution system, a brine
disposal system, and plant access improvements. Raw water, treated
water, and brine would be conveyed via new proposed lines. Raw water
lines would extend from the existing wells to the AWT facility. Treated
water lines would extend from the AWT facility to the west to serve the
San Onofre Housing Areas and the 51 Area (San Onofre), 62 Area (San
Mateo), 63 Area (Cristianitos), 64 Area (Talega), 52 Area (School of
Infantry), and 53 Area (Horno). Trenchless construction to extend lines
beneath San Onofre Creek and San Mateo Creek or suspension of the
pipelines over the creeks would be incorporated to minimize impacts.
Following water treatment at the AWT, brine would be disposed via ocean
outfall and injection wells. The ocean outfall disposal would use the
existing decommissioned San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS)
12-foot-diameter, 3,200-foot-long cooling water intake structure
located on the Pacific Ocean floor. Two deep injection well fields
(approximately 750 feet deep) would also be used. One would be located
at the existing San Onofre percolation ponds and the other would be
located northwest of the San Onofre Surf Beach area of San Onofre State
Beach. The proposed AWT facility would include micro-filtration and
liquid granulated activated carbon/reverse osmosis.
Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Under this alternative the
AWT facility would be constructed at a location south of San Onofre
Creek. A portion of the conveyance lines would be located within
Basilone Road. The brine disposal line would extend from the AWT
facility to the south to connect to the proposed injection wells and to
the existing SONGS ocean intake pipeline. The line to SONGS would
extend beneath Interstate-5 (I-5) via trenchless construction.
Alternative 2. Under this alternative, raw water, treated water,
and brine would be conveyed via three proposed new pipelines located
primarily in El Camino Real instead of Basilone Road as proposed under
Alternative 1.
Alternative 3. Under this alternative, the AWT facility would be
located south of Basilone Road. Water conveyance pipelines would be the
same as Alternative 1.
Alternative 4. Under this alternative, the AWT facility would be
located south of Basilone Road. Water conveyance pipelines would be the
same as Alternative 2.
Connection of North and South Water Systems (MILCON P-1045). Four
alternatives involving different pipeline routes were evaluated.
Alternative 1. Under this alternative, approximately 188,000 linear
feet (LF) of potable water lines sized up to 36 inches in diameter
would connect the northern and southern water systems of MCBCP. The
water line would start at the new AWT North facility (P-1044) and
extend south on an alignment using El Camino Real to Stuart Mesa Road.
Dividing at the junction of Stuart Mesa Road and Las Pulgas Road, one
branch would run north along Las Pulgas Road to an existing reservoir
in the 43 Area (Las Pulgas). This lateral pipeline would be
approximately 10 to 14 inches in diameter. The other branch would
continue along Stuart Mesa Road before splitting again into two more
branches. One of these branches would extend northeast on the west side
of the Santa Margarita River along North River Road, passing east of
the 32 Area (Marine Air Control Squadron-1) and 33 Area (Margarita) and
west of the 23 Area (Marine Corps Air Station Camp Pendleton) to
Basilone Road and on to connect to the AWT South facility at Haybarn
Canyon as well as several reservoirs along a ridge above the AWT South.
The second branch would continue south along Stuart Mesa Road, crossing
under or suspending over the Santa Margarita River and then north along
Vandegrift Boulevard to an existing pump station and several existing
reservoirs in the Wire Mountain area. The construction and operation of
a new 4-million-gallon water reservoir in the Wire Mountain area is
proposed along with associated water line connections to serve the new
Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton (currently under construction) and the 21
Area (Del Mar). The pipelines would use trenchless construction under
or suspended over San Onofre Creek, Las Flores Creek, Aliso Canyon
drainage, French Creek, and two locations on the Santa Margarita River
to avoid impacts to these areas. The project would also include the
construction and operation of three pump stations along the alignment.
Maintenance access/recreation corridors could also be included.
Alternative 2. The proposed north-south pipeline would start at the
new AWT North facility (P-1044) and extend south in El Camino Real to
Las Pulgas Road and run north in Las Pulgas Road to Basilone Road. The
water line would extend along Basilone Road to Vandegrift Boulevard and
run east to connect to the AWT South at Haybarn Canyon as well as
several reservoirs along a ridge above the AWT South. This alternative
would require an additional pump station and would be approximately
165,000 LF.
Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative). This alternative would be
similar to Alternative 1 except it would not include the segment on the
west side of the Santa Margarita River along North River Road. The new
4-million-gallon water reservoir and connections to the new Naval
Hospital Camp Pendleton and the 21 Area (Del Mar) would be included.
This alternative would be approximately 137,000 LF.
Alternative 4. This alternative would be similar in alignment to
Alternative 3, with an additional pipe segment extending further on
Vandegrift Boulevard east of the 22 Area (Chappo) before connecting to
the AWT South at Haybarn Canyon as well as several reservoirs along a
ridge above the AWT South. This alternative would be approximately
179,000 LF.
Stuart Mesa Bridge Replacement and Flood Control Improvements (P-
0139). Four alternatives including a combination of two flood control
methods and the use of a temporary bridge during construction were
evaluated. All alternatives include demolition of the existing Stuart
Mesa Bridge and construction of a new four lane bridge and flood
protection measures.
Alternative 1. Construction would consist of a new cast-in-place
prestressed concrete bridge (approximately 1,200 feet long by 56 feet
wide) with pile foundations, new approach road and bridge abutments,
earthwork and grading, rock protection and revetment, bridge deck,
guard rails, night lighting, asphalt pavement, and pavement marking and
signs. The project includes ``100-year storm'' flood protection control
measures to protect Stuart Mesa Road and Vandegrift Boulevard. Flood
control facilities consist of levees, levee scour protection, and a
storm water drain system. Under this alternative, no temporary
replacement bridge would be constructed over the Santa Margarita River
and traffic would need to utilize alternate existing routes during
construction.
[[Page 76392]]
Alternative 2. Under this alternative, a temporary use bridge would
be constructed to allow vehicular traffic along Stuart Mesa Road to
continue to cross the Santa Margarita River. Bridge construction would
be the same as Alternative 1.
Alternative 3. Under this alternative, flood walls would be
constructed rather than levees. The flood walls, while having a smaller
construction footprint, would provide the same flood control
protection. No temporary replacement bridge would be constructed over
the Santa Margarita River. Bridge construction would be the same as
Alternative 1.
Alternative 4 (Preferred Alternative). This alternative would be
similar to Alternative 3, with the exception of a construction phase
temporary use bridge, which would allow traffic along Stuart Mesa Road
to continue to cross the Santa Margarita River during demolition of the
existing bridge and construction of the new bridge.
Environmental Issues
The Draft EIS evaluates the potential environmental effects
associated with each of the alternatives. Issues addressed include:
Geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, biological resources,
cultural resources, land use, visual resources, socioeconomics and
environmental justice, traffic, air quality, noise, public health and
safety, services and utilities, and coastal zone resources, and marine
resources. Relevant and reasonable measures that could alleviate
environmental effects have been considered.
Schedule
A 45-day public comment period will start upon publication of the
EPA Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. Comments on the
Draft EIS must be received by January 17, 2012. The DoN will consider
and respond to all comments received on the Draft EIS when preparing
the Final EIS. The DoN expects to issue the Final EIS in June 2012, at
which time a Notice of Availability (NOA) will be published in the
Federal Register and local print media. A Record of Decision is
expected in August 2012.
Dated: November 29, 2011
L.R. Almand,
Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Judge
Advocate General, U.S. Navy.
[FR Doc. 2011-31344 Filed 12-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
