63134 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 1997 / Notices

operation of production vehicles and

their eventual demilitarization.

Potential environmental Impacts of

these life-cycle stages may include Air

Quality, Noise, Water, Soil and

Groundwater, Hazardous Materials and

Hazardous Wastes, and Flora, Fauna

and Threatened or Endangered Species

at each of these life-cycle phases.

c. Additional Findings

Impacts from the proposed action

would be minimal and not significant

for the following reasons:

(1) The ASV will be used in its

intended environment. This intended

environment includes vehicle

production and some testing at the

Contractor’s facility, and the remainder

of life-cycle activities at Army

installations and facilities.

(2) The ASV is very similar to

vehicles produced commercially and

vehicles already in the Army inventory.

It is being produced in low to moderate

quantities and will not significantly

increase the vehicle population at Army

installations and facilities.

(3) The overall environmental risk

associated with the ASV is very low. It

does not introduce any new

technologies or processes. Vehicle life

cycle activities do not introduce any

potential environmental impacts that

are not already currently mitigated by

Army policy and procedures.

(4) The ASV Project Manager has

ensured that the Contractor producing

the vehicle is environmentally

compliant, has no permit violations, and

has commercial practices for Hazardous

Material Management and Pollution

Prevention in production of the ASV.

(5) The ASV Product Manager

recognizes that Army installations and

facilities have environmental plans and

measures in place to address vehicle life

cycle activities very similar to that of

the ASV to prevent, mitigate and

remediate environmental damage

caused by vehicle operation. Vehicle

operations at these Army installations

and facilities are in conjunction with

normal activities that are already

addressed in their site specific

environmental impact statements.

d. Determination

It is therefore concluded that this

program:

(1) Is not a major federal action

significantly affecting the quality of

human environment.

(2) Will not have a significant impact

on the environment.

(3) Is not likely to be environmentally

controversial.

(4) Will not likely result in litigation

based on environmental quality issues.

(5) Does not require an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS).

Phillip O. Meengs,

Project Manager, Light Tactical Vehicles.

[FR Doc. 97–31036 Filed 11–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Corps of Engineers

Atlantic Coast of Long Island, From

Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, New

York (Reach 1—Fire Island Inlet to

Moriches Inlet Interim Plan for Storm

Damage Protection)

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

DoD.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The New York District of the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is

beginning preparation of a Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

for proposed measures for interim storm

damage protection for Reach 1—Fire

Island Inlet to Moriches Inlet (study

area) of the Atlantic Coast of Long

Island, from Fire Island Inlet to

Montauk Point, New York. A Notice of

Intent for the preparation of a DEIS for

the Atlantic Coast of Long Island, from

Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, New

York Reformulation Study, a long-term

solution for the entire 83 mile study

area, has also been published in the

Federal Register dated July 28, 1997

(Volume 62, Number 144). For this

Notice of Intent, the Corps is

considering interim protection measures

to address critical areas due to recent

storm activity which has resulted in

continual erosion leading to a decrease

in the width of beach and a loss of

beach material. Due to the continued

erosion and a lack of sufficiently high

beaches, berms or dune systems,

residential and commercial

developments have become increasingly

susceptible to storm damage from

flooding and wave attack and may need

to be addressed prior to completion of

the Reformulation Study. The EIS will

be prepared according to the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers procedures for

implementing the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as

amended, (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (C),

and consistent with the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers’ policy to facilitate

public understanding and scrutiny of

agency proposals. This notice of intent

is published as required by the

President’s Council on Environmental

Quality regulations implementing the

provisions of NEPA, 40 CFR Parts 1500–

1508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Stephen A. Couch, Study Manager,

(212) 264–9077; Mr. Peter M. Weppler,

EIS Coordinator, (212) 264–4663;

Planning Division, Corps of Engineers,

New York District, 26 Federal Plaza,

New York, New York 10278–0090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

overall Fire Island Inlet to Montauk

Point, New York, Combined Beach

Erosion Control and Hurricane

Protection Project was authorized by the

River and Harbor Act of 1960 in

accordance with the recommendations

of the Chief of Engineers in House

Document No. 425, 86th Congress dated

June 21, 1960. The original authorized

project provided for beach erosion

control and hurricane protection along

five reaches by means of widening the

beaches along the developed areas,

raising the dunes by artificial placement

of suitable sand, grass planting on the

dunes, and construction of interior

drainage structures at Mecox Bay,

Sagaponack Lake, and Georgica Pond.

The project authorized construction of

50 groins subject to determination of

their actual need. The authorization was

subsequently modified by Section 103

of the River and Harbor Act of October

12, 1962, Section 31 of the Water

Resources Development Act of 1974,

Section 502 of the Water Resources

Development Act of 1986, and Section

102 of the Water Resources

Development Act of 1992. These

modifications were made primarily to

adjust the cost sharing provisions of the

authorized project.

1. Location of Proposed Action

The project area is located entirely in

Suffolk County, Long Island, New York,

along the Atlantic and bay shore of the

towns of Babylon, Islip, and

Brookhaven. The study area is

approximately 30 miles long. The study

area includes Great South Bay which is

connected to the Atlantic Ocean through

Fire Island Inlet, a federal navigation

channel. Great South Bay is connected

to Moriches Bay by a narrow channel

behind the barrier island. The

westernmost portion of the study area,

Fire Island Inlet, is located

approximately 52 miles by water east of

the Battery, New York. The project area

includes the Atlantic Ocean and Great

South Bay, Fire Island proper, Moriches

Inlet, barrier beaches, the mainland of

Long Island fronted by Fire Island

Proper, as well as suitable offshore

borrow areas that will supply material

for beach construction and

replenishment.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 1997 / Notices 63135

2. Description of Proposed Action

The basic design of the interim plan

consists of beachfill with a minimum

berm width of 90 feet (ft) at elevation

+9.5 ft NGVD, and a minimum 25 ft

wide dune at elevation +15 ft NGVD.

Proposed dune slopes are 1V:5H to

Mean Low Water (MLW), and 1V:30H

below MLW.

Variations of this basic design plan

occur between Kismet and Point

O’Woods and at Old Inlet in the Federal

Wilderness Area. The dune and berm

elevations from Kismet to Point

O’Woods were increased to 18 ft NGVD

and 11.5 ft NGVD, respectively to

provide a 44 year level of protection.

This modification is necessitated by the

low elevations north of the dune in

these areas.

Due to the environmental sensitivity

of the Wilderness Area, and concerns

raised by the Department of the Interior,

fill in Old Inlet has been deferred. The

District instead recommends use of a

feeder beach and stockpile at Smith

Point County Park. The deferred

construction could be analyzed and

implemented in the future, to minimize

the negative environmental impacts

associated with repeated breach closure

efforts.

3. Reasonable Alternative Actions

In addition to the ‘‘No Action’’

alternative, the interim storm damage

protection study will consider

variations of the beach fill alternative to

identify a short term solution to the

severe erosion that has occurred within

the study area and which continues to

threaten the mainland communities

with increased exposure to storm

damages.

4. Scoping Process

a. Public Involvement

Additional scoping correspondence

detailing the proposed plan will be

distributed to all interested public and

private agencies and organizations with

the intent of receiving opinions all from

interested parties.

b. Scoping Meetings

The scoping meetings are intended to

assist in defining the focus of the EIS

issues. A public notice issued at a later

date will provide the dates, times and

places of the scoping meetings. Further,

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will

provide ample opportunity for public

participation in defining the issues to be

addressed in the EIS and in reviewing

and commenting on the draft EIS.

Additions to this mailing list can be

made by notifying the project EIS

coordinator.

c. Significant Issues Requiring In-Depth

Analysis

1. Water Quality Impacts; 2.

Archaeological and Cultural Resources

Impacts; 3. Aquatic and Terrestrial

Resources Impacts; 4. Impacts to

Shorebird Populations; 5. Recreational

Impacts; 6. Economic Impacts; 7.

Impacts to Longshore Sand Transport.

d. Environmental Review and

Consultation

Review will be conducted as outlined

in the Council on Environmental

Quality regulations dated November 29,

1983 (40 CFR parts 1500–1508) and U.S.

Army Corps of Engineer regulation ER

200–2–2 dated March 4, 1988.

e. Federal Agency Participation in the

EIS Process

Federal agencies with an interest in

this EIS effort are requested to

participate as cooperating agencies

pursuant to 40 CFR Part 1501.6. All

interested federal agencies are requested

to submit a letter of intent to Colonel

Gary Thomas, District Engineer at the

above address.

5. Estimated Date of DEIS Availability

June 1998.

Gregory D. Showalter,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–31039 Filed 11–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–06–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Corps of Engineers; Department of the

Army

Notice of Intent To Prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

for the Stabilization of the Bluff Toe at

Norco Bluffs

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

DoD.

ACTION: Correction.

SUMMARY: In previous Federal Register

notice (Vol 62, No. 105, page 29719)

Monday, June 2, 1997, make the

following corrections:

On Page 29719 in column two,

Summary paragraph, lines six through

eleven, the sentence should be changed

to read ‘‘The purpose of the proposed

project is to stabilize the toe of the bluff

parallel to Shadow Canyon Circle,

Alahambra Street, and River Ridge

Drive, as far upstream as Crest Drive, in

the City of Norco, and thereby maintain

the location of the 566 foot elevation

line.’’

On Page 29719 in column three,

Availability of the Draft EIS paragraph,

change the date from ‘‘September 1997’’

to ‘‘March 1998.’’

The above corrections are required to

clarify the location of the proposed

project which has been expanded to

cover areas immediately upstream and

downstream of the originally proposed

project, and to inform individuals of the

change in the availability of the draft

EIS for publication and circulation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any

comments on this increase in project

area should be sent to Mr. Alex Watt,

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los

Angeles district, Programs and Project

Management Division at (213) 452–

3860.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None.

Gregory D. Showalter,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–31037 Filed 11–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–KF–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Corps of Engineers

Availability of a Proposed Plan for the

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial

Action Program (FUSRAP)

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

DoD.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: During the 1940s, 1950s, and

1960s, the Ashland 1 (including Seaway

Area D) and Ashland 2 Sites became

contaminated as a result of disposal and

relocation of residues from uranium

processing, performed in support of the

nation’s early atomic energy program, at

the Linde Site. The sites are being

addressed under the Formerly Utilized

Sites Remedial Action Program

(FUSRAP). In December 1989, the U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE) published

a Notice of Intent to complete a

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility

Study-Environmental Impact Statement

(RI/FS–EIS) for the Tonawanda

(Ashland 1, 2, Seaway D, and Linde)

Site. Since the issuance of that notice,

DOE established a policy in June 1994

of incorporating National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

values into Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation

and Liability Act (CERCLA)

documentation. In accordance with that

policy, likewise, the Corps does not

intend to issue a separate

Environmental Impact Statement for the

Tonawanda Site. The Proposed Plan

summarizes the findings of the

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility