14966 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Notices 

response to concerns of the resource 

agencies the applicant modified Borrow 

Area X to relocate the landward edge of 

the borrow area further seaward to 

minimize any potential modification to 

the ebb tidal delta of New Topsail Inlet 

and the adjacent oceanfront and 

estuarine shorelines. The modified 

impact area within Borrow Area X was 

reduced to 127 acres, and minimized 

the proposed EFH impacts by 24 acres. 

A summary of the modifications to 

Borrow Area X include: (1) The 

landward cuts (cuts one (1) and two (2)) 

have been eliminated, (2) the landward 

edge of cut three (3) has been moved 

100 feet seaward in order to further 

avoid and minimize potential impacts to 

the ebb-tidal delta, and (3) cut six (6) 

has been added seaward of cut three (3) 

to account for the loss of volume. Cut 

six contains 126,950 cy of beach 

compatible sand which would result in 

a net loss of 42,566 cy from Borrow Area 

X. The total volume of material in 

Borrow Area X once modifications are 

taken into account totals 1,583,236 cy. 

However, the volume needed to 

maintain the design beach fill totals 

1,286,000 cy. 

Geotechnical Investigations. The 

offshore sand search investigations 

included bathymetric surveys, sidescan 

sonar surveys, seismic surveys, cultural 

resource surveys, vibracore collection 

and analysis, and ground-truth diver 

surveys to verify existence or nonexistence of hard bottoms. The results of 

the offshore investigations coupled with 

the compatibility of the sand resource 

area, native beach sand, and Essential 

Fish Habitat (EFH) were used to define 

the selected borrow area. The applicants 

preferred borrow area, Borrow Area X, 

was further modified to reflect resource 

agency comments. All sediment 

compatibility assessments were based 

on State of North Carolina sediment 

compatibility standards that went into 

effect in February 2007. 

Beach Fill Surveys & Design. Typical 

cross-sections of the beach along the 

Topsail Beach project area was 

surveyed. Nearshore profiles will extend 

seaward to at least the 30-foot NAVD 

depth contour. The total volume of 

beach fill to be placed in front of the 

existing development and infrastructure 

will be based on an evaluation of 

erosion of the project area from 2002 

through the expected construction date 

of the Federal project. Additional 

offshore and inshore data for Lea/Hutaff 

Island were also obtained along the 

northern 5,000 feet of the island. This 

data was used in the evaluation of 

possible impacts associated with the 

removal of sediment from the selected 

offshore borrow area and for future 

impact evaluations following project 

implementation through the use of 

numerical modeling. 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE 

COORDINATION & PERMITTING. The 

USACE prepared a General 

Reevaluation Report—Environmental 

Impact Statement (GRR–EIS) for the 

larger Federal shore protection project 

(June 2006). The Final GRR and EIS 

were released for public and agency 

review and comment in the summer of 

2008. The interim beach fill project will 

be subject to Section 10 of the Rivers 

and Harbors Act, Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act and the North 

Carolina’s State Environmental Policy 

Act (SEPA). 

Preliminary coordination with the 

USACE—Wilmington District resulted 

in a determination that a Department of 

the Army Individual Permit will be 

needed for project compliance with 

Sections 10 and 404. Similarly, 

coordination with the North Carolina 

Division of Coastal Management 

(NCDCM) determined that the project 

would require evaluation through SEPA. 

A Major Permit under the Coastal Area 

Management Act was issued by the 

North Carolina Division of Coastal 

Management on February 27, 2009. 

2. Issues of particular concern. There 

are several potential environmental 

issues that are addressed in the FSEIS. 

Additional issues may be identified 

during the public review process. Issues 

initially identified as potentially 

significant include: 

a. Potential impact to marine 

biological resources (benthic organisms, 

passageway for fish and other marine 

life) and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), 

particularly hardbottoms. 

b. Potential impact to Federally 

threatened and endangered marine 

mammals, birds, fish, and plants. 

c. Potential impacts to water quality. 

d. Potential increase in erosion rates 

to adjacent beaches. 

e. Potential impacts to navigation, 

commercial and recreational. 

f. Potential impacts to private and 

public property. 

g. Potential impacts on public health 

and safety. 

h. Potential impacts to recreational 

and commercial fishing. 

i. The compatibility of the material for 

nourishment. 

j. Potential economic impacts. 

4. Alternatives. Several alternatives 

were considered for the proposed 

project. These alternatives were further 

formulated and developed during the 

scoping process and an appropriate 

range of alternatives, including the No 

Action and Non Structural alternative, 

are considered in the Final 

Supplemental EIS. 

5. Scoping Process. Project Delivery 

Team meetings were held to receive 

comments and assess concerns 

regarding the appropriate scope and 

preparation of the FSEIS. Federal, State, 

and local agencies and other interested 

organizations and persons participated 

in these Project Delivery Team 

meetings. 

The COE also consulted with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service under the 

Endangered Species Act and the Fish 

and Wildlife Coordination Act, and with 

the National Marine Fisheries Service 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 

Endangered Species Act. The FSEIS has 

been revised in accordance with the 

comments submitted by these agencies. 

Additionally, the FSEIS has assessed the 

potential water quality impacts 

pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean 

Water Act, and is being coordinated 

with NCDCM to determine the projects 

consistency with the Coastal Zone 

Management Act. 

6. Availability of the Final 

Supplemental EIS (FSEIS). The FSEIS 

has been published and circulated, and 

is available for review at the office of 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Wilmington District, Regulatory 

Division Office located at 69 Darlington 

Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina. 

Brenda S. Bowen, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–7380 Filed 4–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

Notice of Cancellation of Partially 

Closed Meeting of the Secretary of the 

Navy Advisory Panel 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Navy 

Advisory Panel hereby cancels its notice 

to receive ethics training and discuss 

top areas of concern that the Secretary 

of the Navy should address, as 

published in the Federal Register, 

March 18, 2009 (74 FR number 50), page 

11358. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Colonel Caroline Simkins-Mullins, 

SECNAV Advisory Panel, Office of 

Program and Process Assessment, 1000 

Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350, 

telephone: 703–697–9154. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Notices 14967 

Dated: March 27, 2009. 

A.M. Vallandingham, 

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate 

General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register 

Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–7368 Filed 4–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P 

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN 

COMMISSION 

Proposal To Amend Fees for the 

Review of Projects in Accordance With 

Section 3.8 and Article 10 of the 

Delaware River Basin Compact 

AGENCY: Delaware River Basin 

Commission (DRBC). 

ACTION: Notice of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: The DRBC will hold a public 

hearing during its regularly scheduled 

business meeting to hear comment on a 

proposal to amend the Commission’s 

fees for the review of projects in 

accordance with Section 3.8 and Article 

10 of the Delaware River Basin 

Compact. Existing project review fees 

are proposed to be increased, effective 

July 1, 2009, for the first time since June 

of 2003. The increases are needed in 

order to partly close a significant gap 

between annual project review fee 

revenue and the cost of the 

Commission’s project review function. 

DATES: All comments must be received 

on or before the close of the public 

hearing on May 6, 2009. The hearing 

will commence at 1:30 p.m. and is 

expected to end by 2:30 p.m., but will 

continue until all those who wish to 

comment have had an opportunity to do 

so. The Commission would appreciate 

receiving written comments in advance 

of the hearing date in order to have an 

opportunity to review them prior to the 

hearing. 

ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be 

held in the Goddard Room of the 

Commission’s office building at 25 State 

Police Drive in West Trenton, New 

Jersey. Mail written comments to Ms. 

Paula Schmitt, Delaware River Basin 

Commission, P.O. Box 7360, 25 State 

Police Drive, West Trenton, NJ 08628– 

0360; fax to Attn: Paula Schmitt, 

Delaware River Basin Commission, 609– 

883–9500 ext. 224; or send electronic 

submissions to 

paula.schmitt@drbc.state.nj.us. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for proper 

labeling of submissions. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Current Fee Schedule. The 

Commission’s current fee schedule for 

the review of projects in accordance 

with Section 3.8 and Article 10 of the 

Delaware River Basin Compact is set 

forth in Resolution No. 2005–1 as 

amended (also, ‘‘schedule’’ or ‘‘current 

fee schedule’’), which is posted on the 

Commission’s Web site at http:// 

www.state.nj.us/drbc/Res2005–1rev.pdf. 

Numbered paragraph 3 of the schedule 

(‘‘paragraph 3’’) contains a matrix that 

establishes review fees based on total 

project cost. Fees set forth in the matrix 

range from $250 for publicly sponsored 

projects costing $250,000 or less to a 

maximum of $50,000 for a public or 

private project costing over $10,000,000. 

Project review fees calculated in 

accordance with the matrix are doubled 

for projects resulting in out-of-basin 

diversions. In addition to the fees 

calculated in accordance with the 

matrix in paragraph 3, the current fee 

schedule provides in relevant part for 

the following: (a) Fees of $250 and $500 

respectively for the review of project 

renewals involving no substantial 

revisions or modifications (par. 4); (b) a 

fee of $500 for the transfer of a docket 

upon a change of ownership (par. 6); (c) 

and an incremental charge of $1,000 for 

the review of any renewal application 

submitted less than 120 calendar days 

in advance of the docket expiration date 

(or after such other date specified in the 

docket or permit for filing a renewal 

application) (par. 12). 

Proposed Fee Schedule. The matrix in 

paragraph 3 of the current schedule is 

proposed to be revised as follows: For 

projects costing $250,000 or less, the 

proposed fee is $500 for publicly 

sponsored projects (increased from 

$250) and $1,000 for privately 

sponsored projects (increased from 

$500). For all projects costing between 

$250,001 and $10,000,000, the proposed 

fee is 0.4 percent (increased from 0.2 

percent) of project cost. The review of 

projects costing over $10,000,000 is 

proposed to carry a revised fee of 0.4 

percent of project cost (increased from 

0.2 percent) up to the first $10,000,000 

plus 0.12 percent of project cost 

(increased from 0.06 percent) above 

$10,000,000, not to exceed $75,000 

(increased from $50,000). Fees 

calculated in accordance with the 

revised matrix will continue to be 

doubled for projects resulting in out-ofbasin diversions. In addition to the fees 

calculated in accordance with the 

matrix in paragraph 3 as revised, the 

proposed revised fee schedule includes: 

(a) Fees of $500 and $1,000 respectively 

for the review of public and private 

project renewals involving no 

substantial revisions or modifications 

(increased from $250 and $500 

respectively) (par. 4); (b) a fee of $1,000 

for the transfer of a docket upon a 

change of ownership (increased from 

$500) (par. 6); and (c) an incremental 

charge of $2,000 for the review of any 

renewal application submitted less than 

120 calendar days in advance of the 

docket expiration date (or after such 

other date specified in the docket or 

permit for filing a renewal application) 

(increased from $1,000) (par. 12). 

Other Aspects Unchanged. With 

minor exceptions, including the 

deletion of paragraphs for which the 

applicable dates have passed, other 

aspects of the Commission’s current 

project review fee schedule will remain 

unchanged, including but not limited to 

provisions of current paragraph 4 

allowing the Executive Director to 

determine the fee for review of a project 

revision not involving an increase in 

costs; and paragraph 8, authorizing the 

Executive Director to impose, in 

addition to the initial project review fee, 

a fee in an amount equal to up to 100 

percent of project review costs deemed 

by the Executive Director to be 

exceptional. 

Basis for Proposed Increases. The 

proposed fee increases are needed to 

address significant revenue shortfalls 

and maintain adequate levels of service 

in reviewing projects in accordance 

with Section 3.8 and Article 10 of the 

Delaware River Basin Compact. The 

annual average sum of project review 

fees collected by the DRBC in Fiscal 

Years 2005 through 2008 was 

approximately half the annual cost of 

the project review function to the 

agency. 

Copy of Proposed Revised Fee 

Schedule. A copy of this notice, along 

with the proposed revised fee schedule 

with changes noted, can be viewed on 

the Commission’s Web site, drbc.net. 

Effective Date. The revised fee 

schedule is proposed to become 

effective on July 1, 2009, the first day of 

the Commission’s 2010 fiscal year. 

Labeling of Written Submissions. 

Please use ‘‘Project Review Fee 

Changes’’ in the subject line for all 

written submissions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Pamela M. Bush, Commission Secretary 

and Assistant General Counsel, DRBC, 

609–883–9500 ext. 203, 

pamela.bush@drbc.state.nj.us, or Chad 

Pindar, Project Review Supervisor, 609– 

883–9500 ext. 204, 

chad.pindar@drbc.state.nj.us. 

Dated: March 27, 2009. 

Pamela M. Bush, 

Commission Secretary & Assistant General 

Counsel. 

[FR Doc. E9–7447 Filed 4–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6360–01–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES