57488 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 2006 / Notices 

consider the potential benefits of larger 

main lock chambers at EDM. 

d. Additional concerns at EDM 

involve the structural integrity of the 

aged concrete lock walls. Internal cracks 

throughout the concrete lock walls may 

eventually propagate through entire 

wall sections and lead to significant 

movements of wall sections. A major 

cause of cracking is concrete 

deterioration. Because these three locks 

and dams were constructed prior to the 

advent of air-entrainment in concrete, 

the concrete has been particularly 

susceptible to weathering and freezethaw damage. Another source of 

concern is that concrete construction 

practices of the 1920’s and 1930’s, 

including mix-design, placement, 

consolidation, curing, and cold/hot 

weather protection, were much less 

stringent compared to the quality 

control tolerances required for a similar 

project constructed today. Still another 

contributing factor is the raising of the 

Emsworth Dams and pool in 1938, 

which increased the head between the 

upper and lower pools and increased 

structural loads on the concrete lock 

walls. 

e. Major rehabilitations on the EDM 

lock and approach walls undertaken in 

the 1980s addressed short-term issues, 

but there remains a concern about their 

long-term effectiveness. Prior to these 

major rehabilitation efforts, lock wall 

surfaces were in advanced stages of 

deterioration and there were concerns 

about the stability of various wall 

sections. Degraded concrete surfaces 

were removed, and a 12-inch overlay of 

new concrete was provided in an 

attempt to retard deterioration rates by 

preventing water from reaching the 

interior concrete. However, despite 

these efforts, water is apparently still 

reaching the interior concrete and 

causing it to become saturated and 

susceptible to additional deterioration. 

f. Following years of different 

attempts at estimating concrete 

structural reliability, including the 

possible development of analytical 

models and expert opinion, it was 

decided that a condition assessment of 

these three projects and expert opinion 

were the appropriate tools to complete 

this essential task. In September of 2000 

a five-person panel of experts was 

assembled to estimate the current and 

future reliability of the structures on the 

upper Ohio River. This panel of experts 

established probabilities of failures, the 

potential consequences for various 

failure modes and estimated the impacts 

to the expected service life of several 

repair or replacement options for 

concrete wall sections. 

g. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Great Lakes and Ohio River Division, is 

nearing completion of a system-wide 

study of Ohio river navigation projects. 

The study was initiated in 1995 and is 

referred to as the Ohio River Mainstem 

System Study (ORMSS). ORMSS is 

being conducted by a team of specialists 

from the Corps’ Louisville, Huntington, 

Nashville, and Pittsburgh districts. The 

product of this study is a ‘‘System 

Investment Plan,’’ which will be the 

strategic ‘‘roadmap for reinvestment’’

establishing priorities for expenditure of 

federal funds on the navigation system 

and recommending site-specific 

feasibility studies. 

h. The ORMSS ‘‘System Investment 

Plan’’ identifies the need for new main 

locks at the EDM facilities. The Upper 

Ohio River navigation feasibility study 

of EDM is the site-specific feasibility 

study that could lead to project 

authorization in a future Water 

Resources Development Act. 

i. The ORMSS Report combines plan 

formulation with a programmatic 

environmental impact statement in a 

main report and a series of appendices. 

The ORMSS Environmental Appendix 

includes environmental documentation 

and a system-wide Cumulative Effects 

Assessment (CEA). The CEA evaluates 

past environmental impacts, current 

conditions, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions by the Government and 

others that may impact ‘‘Valued 

Environmental Components’’ or 

resources within and adjacent to the 

Ohio River. 

j. In accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969, the anticipated environmental 

scope and complexity of the Upper Ohio 

River navigation feasibility study in 

Pennsylvania will warrant that the 

NEPA document be a tiered 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

referencing the ORMSS Programmatic 

EIS while anticipating future sitespecific, supplemental NEPA 

documents for each recommended 

project component. 

3. Public Participation. a. The Corps 

will conduct public meetings to gain 

input from interested agencies, 

organizations, and the general public 

concerning the scope and content of the 

EIS, alternatives that should be 

analyzed, and related issues and 

impacts to be addressed in the EIS (see 

DATES). 

b. The Corps invites full public 

participation to promote open 

communication and better decisionmaking. All persons and organizations 

that have an interest in the Upper Ohio 

Navigation Study, Pennsylvania, are 

urged to participate in this NEPA 

evaluation process. 

c. Public comments are welcomed 

anytime throughout the study process. 

Formal opportunities for public and 

agency participation include: (1) Public 

meetings; (2) correspondence, telephone 

or e-mail at any time throughout the 

NEPA process; (3) review and comment 

on the draft EIS; and (4) review of the 

final EIS. Schedules and locations for 

formal review periods will be 

announced through the study’s mailing 

list and in local news media. Anyone 

who wishes to be included on the 

mailing list for public distribution of 

meeting announcements and documents 

should contact Mr. Conrad Weiser. 

4. Schedule: The draft EIS is 

anticipated to be released for public 

review and comment in May 2012. The 

final report and final EIS are scheduled 

to be completed in October 2012. 

Brenda S. Bowen, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 06–8358 Filed 9–28–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–GM–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army; Corps of 

Engineers 

Intent To Convey the ‘‘Drum Stick’’

Parcel of the Former Fort Ord, Located 

in Monterey County, CA in Return for 

the ‘‘Stillwell Kidney’’ Parcel Owned by 

the City of Seaside 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. 

Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 

2869(d)(1) the Department of the Army 

(Army) is providing notice of its intent 

to convey the ‘‘Drum Stick’’ parcel of 

the former Fort Ord, located in 

Monterey County, CA in return for the 

‘‘Stillwell Kidney’’ parcel owned by the 

City of Seaside. Fort Ord was selected 

for closure by the Base Realignment and 

Closure Commission in 1991. The Drum 

Stick parcel is an undeveloped, denselyvegetated 11.28-acre property adjacent 

to California State Route 1 on the former 

Fort Ord. the Stillwell Kidney parcel 

currently contains approximately 400 

abandoned housing units. Under 10 

U.S.C. 2869, the Army is authorized to 

enter into an agreement to convey real 

property, including any improvements 

thereon, located on a military 

installation that is closed or realigned 

under a Base Realignment and Closure 

(BRAC) Act to any person who agrees to 

convey to the Army real property of at 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 2006 / Notices 57489 

least equal value. The Army has 

concluded that the Stillwell Kidney 

parcel has a fair market value that is at 

least equal to that of the Drum Stick 

parcel. 

ADDRESSES: U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Norfolk District, ATTN: 

CENAO–CO, 803 Front Street, Norfolk, 

VA 23510–1096. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Todd Waldman, Esquire, (757) 201–

7202. 

Dated: September 21, 2006. 

Joseph R. Loschi, 

District Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 06–8357 Filed 9–28–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–EN–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/ 

Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement (OEIS) for Atlantic Fleet 

Active Sonar Training and To 

Announce Public Scoping Meetings 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) 

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) of 1969, as implemented by 

the Council on Environmental Quality 

Regulations (40 CFR pts 1500–1508), 

and Executive Order (EO) 12114, 

‘‘Environmental Effects Abroad of Major 

Federal Actions’’ (44 Fed. Reg. 62,18722 

(Mar. 29, 1979)), the Department of the 

Navy (DON) announces its intent to 

prepare a combined NEPA EIS and EO 

12114, OEIS, to evaluate the potential 

environmental consequences associated 

with mine warfare (MIW) and 

antisubmarine warfare (ASW) active 

sonar training exercises along the east 

coast and Gulf of Mexico. The MIW/ 

ASW sonar training exercises include 

Independent Unit Level Training, 

Coordinated Unit Level Training, and 

Strike Group Training exercises. These 

active sonar training exercises include 

air, surface, and subsurface sonar 

platforms that are manned by personnel 

who require training in order to 

maintain certification and readiness for 

deployment. Additionally, effective 

MIW and ASW are dependent on 

training involving coordination among 

these platforms. The EIS/OEIS will 

consider two Action Alternatives to 

accomplish these objectives, in addition 

to the No Action Alternative. 

DATES: Public scoping meetings will be 

held at the following seven sites to 

receive comments on environmental 

concerns that should be addressed in 

the EIS/OEIS: 

New London, CT; Chesapeake, VA; 

Morehead City, NC; Charleston, SC; 

Jacksonville, FL; Panama City, FL; and 

Corpus Christi, TX, on the following 

dates: 

1. Monday, October 23, 2006, 5 p.m.–8 

p.m., Chesapeake Conference Center, 

900 Greenbrier Circle, Chesapeake, 

VA. 

2. Thursday, October 26, 2006, 5 p.m.–

8 p.m., American Bank Center, 1901 

North Shoreline Boulevard, Corpus 

Christi, TX. 

3. Thursday, November 2, 2006, 5 p.m.–

8 p.m., Radisson Hotel New London, 

35 Governor Winthrop Boulevard, 

New London, CT. 

4. Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 5 p.m.–

8 p.m., Ramada Inn Mandarin, 3130 

Hartley Road, Jacksonville, FL. 

5. Thursday, November 9, 2006, 5 p.m.–

8 p.m., Marriott Bay Point Resort, 

4200 Marriott Drive, Panama City, FL. 

6. Tuesday, November 14, 2006, 

5 p.m.–8 p.m., National Guard 

Armory, 3609 Bridge Street, 

Morehead City, NC. 

7. Thursday, November 16, 2006, 5 

p.m.–8 p.m., Town and Country Inn 

and Conference Center, 2008 

Savannah Highway, Charleston, SC. 

Each of the seven scoping meetings 

will consist of an informal, open house 

session with information stations staffed 

by DON representatives. Additional 

information concerning the meetings 

will be available on the EIS/OEIS Web 

page located at: http:// 

www.AFASTEIS.GCSAIC.COM. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Atlantic Division Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command, Attn: Code 

EV21 (Atlantic Fleet Sonar PM), 6506 

Hampton Blvd., Norfolk, Virginia 

23508–1278; telephone 1–757–322–

4767; Fax 757–322–4894. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Navy 

currently uses active sonar for ASW and 

MIW training associated with ongoing 

Independent Unit Level Training (single 

unit events including sonar 

maintenance), Coordinated Unit Level 

Training (Intermediate and Squadron 

events), and Strike Group Training 

(Composite Training Unit Exercise, 

Expeditionary Strike Group Exercises, 

and Joint Task Force Exercises) along 

the east coast and Gulf of Mexico. The 

proposed action is to identify areas in 

which to conduct ASW and MIW active 

sonar training along the east coast and 

Gulf of Mexico. The proposed EIS/OEIS 

will address the potential consequences 

to the marine environment associated 

with ASW and MIW active sonar 

training along the east coast and Gulf of 

Mexico. 

The purpose of the proposed action is 

to provide and maintain the long-term 

viability of Navy active sonar training 

for the U.S. Atlantic Fleet ship, 

submarine, and aircraft crews to meet 

deployment requirements and maintain 

proficiency of ASW and MIW skills, 

while protecting human health and the 

environment. The need for the proposed 

action is to meet the legal mandate for 

the Chief of Naval Operations to 

organize, equip, and train all naval 

forces for combat as directed in 10 

U.S.C. 5062. Navy forces must train to 

deal with the threat of modern quiet 

submarines; the most effective detection 

technology available is active sonar 

detection. In addition, Navy forces must 

train to detect mines which can prevent 

access to strategic areas, damage fleet 

forces, and disrupt commerce. 

Three alternatives, which each meet 

the requirement to train and maintain 

combat-ready Navy forces, will be 

analyzed in the EIS/OEIS. The No 

Action Alternative is the continuation of 

year-round training within and adjacent 

to current Navy East Coast and Gulf of 

Mexico Operating Areas. Two action 

alternatives evaluate the capability of 

fixed and seasonal active sonar training 

areas along the east coast and Gulf of 

Mexico to meet operational criteria and 

provide year-round training capacity 

and fidelity, include short notice and 

surge deployments of U.S. Atlantic Fleet 

units. Additionally, the EIS/OEIS may 

also incorporate other reasonable 

alternatives that meet the Navy’s 

purpose and need as informed by the 

public scoping process. 

All alternatives would consider the 

protective measures used during Navy 

training to minimize potential effects to 

the marine environment. 

The EIS/OEIS will evaluate the 

potential environmental effects of ASW 

and MIW active sonar training 

associated with each alternative. Effects 

to be addressed will include, but not be 

limited to, the following: 

(1) Physical environment—air and 

water quality and ambient sound levels. 

(2) Biological resources—wildlife, 

including threatened and endangered 

species and otherwise protected wildlife 

such as marine mammals and migratory 

birds, fish and fisheries, including 

analysis of essential fish habitat, coastal, 

marine, and benthic communities, and 

special biological resource areas. 

(3) Socioeconomic resources—

including recreational, commercial and 

industrial activities, safety and 

occupational health and hazardous 

materials, airspace, artificial reefs, and 

cultural resources. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES