Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 9, 2009 / Notices 27293 

has changed. For this reason, figures 

and analyses in the EIR and in various 

technical documents show differing 

patterns of included project parcels 

within the Plan area as compared to the 

current proposal. However, because the 

EIR evaluated impacts at a 

programmatic level for the entire Plan 

area, all parcels that are included in the 

current proposal were evaluated by 

DERA in the EIR. 

The Elverta Specific Plan is primarily 

residential in character: It includes 

880.3 acres of urban residential uses and 

551.8 acres of agricultural-residential 

uses with a total of 6,187 residential 

units; 15.0 acres of commercial uses; 4.4 

acres of office/professional uses; 20.2 

acres of school uses; 73.3 acres of park 

uses; 18.4 acres (former landfill site) to 

be designated as open space; and 191.9 

acres to be used for drainageways, 

detention facilities, trails, powerline 

corridor and major roads. Development 

proposed by the Elverta Owners Group 

on the 22 parcels would be consistent 

with these uses. The number of 

residential units has increased from the 

original 4,950 units analyzed previously 

in the EIR. The Sacramento County 

Housing Element 2008–2013 (adopted 

December 2008) allows for a 25% 

density increase for residential 

development projects that meet the 

following two conditions: (1) Result in 

energy savings beyond those obtained 

with conventional design and 

construction techniques, and, (2) The 

amount of increased density is 

proportional to the amount of increased 

energy efficiency achieved that exceeds 

adopted regulations (see Chapter 3, SubStrategy VII–A, Policy HE–59c of the 

Housing Element [page 3–91]). The 

proposed project would meet these 

criteria and therefore the maximum of 

6,187 residential units is proposed. 

The project would result in fill of up 

to 39 acres of waters of the United 

States, including seasonal wetlands, 

vernal pools, intermittent channels, 

swales, and ditches. Some of this fill 

would be permanent and some would 

be temporary. Temporary fill would be 

restored with approximately 15 acres of 

riparian corridors on the project site. 

The riparian enhancements are expected 

to enhance the hydrologic functions and 

biological quality of existing channels. 

Offsite mitigation is also proposed to 

compensate for onsite impacts to 

wetlands and waters. 

The EIS will include an evaluation of 

a reasonable range of alternatives. 

Currently, the following alternatives are 

expected to be analyzed in detail: (1) 

The no action (no development) 

alternative, (2) the no federal action (no 

permit issued) alternative, (3) the 

applicant’s preferred project, (4) the 

approved Specific Plan, and (5) a 

different location (off-site) alternative. 

The no action (no development) 

alternative assumes no development 

would occur on the site. The no federal 

action (no permit issued) alternative 

assumes limited development would 

occur on the site with all waters of the 

United States avoided. The off-site 

alternative assumes the proposed 

project would be developed at a 

different but suitably sized site in the 

region. The Corps will also use the EIS 

to evaluate alternatives under the 

Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, and 

additional alternatives may be 

developed under this evaluation. 

The Corps’ scoping process for the EIS 

includes a public involvement program 

with several opportunities to provide 

oral and written comments. In addition 

to public meetings and notifications in 

the Federal Register, the Corps will 

issue public notices when the draft and 

final EISs are available. Affected 

Federal, State, and local agencies, 

Native American tribes, and other 

interested private organizations and 

parties are invited to participate. 

Potentially significant issues to be 

analyzed in the EIS include, but are not 

limited to: Loss of waters of the United 

States, including wetlands; land use and 

agriculture; population, employment 

and housing; environmental justice and 

socio-economic impacts; drainage, 

hydrology and water quality; utilities 

and service systems; public services; 

geology, soils and mineral resources; 

paleontological resources; cultural and 

historic resources; biological resources; 

visual resources; parks and recreation; 

hazards and hazardous materials; traffic 

and transportation; air quality and 

global climate change; noise; and 

cumulative and growth inducing 

impacts. The Corps is the lead agency 

for preparation of the EIS under the 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 

Corps will coordinate with other 

agencies, such as Sacramento County. 

Other environmental review and 

consultation requirements for the 

proposed action include the need for the 

applicant to obtain water quality 

certification under Section 401 of the 

Clean Water Act from the California 

Central Valley Regional Water Quality 

Control Board. In addition, the federally 

listed vernal pool fairy shrimp 

(Branchinecta lynchi) is known to occur 

in the Plan area. Surveys conducted on 

the majority of the properties within the 

Plan area according to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s protocol requirements 

during the wet seasons of 2000 and 2001 

found B. lynchi at three locations. Dry 

season sampling conducted in 2005 (on 

12 parcels) and 2007 (on 23 parcels) also 

found evidence of the federally listed 

Branchinecta. The Corps will formally 

consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service in accordance with Section 7 of 

the federal Endangered Species Act. The 

Corps will also consult with the State 

Historic Preservation Officer under 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act concerning properties 

listed, or potentially eligible for listing, 

on the National Register of Historic 

Places. 

A public scoping meeting for the EIS 

will be held on June 24, 2009, from 4 

p.m. to 7 p.m. The meeting will be held 

at the Rio Linda Elverta Community 

Center, 810 Oak Lane, Rio Linda, CA 

95673. Interested parties can provide 

oral and written comments at the 

meeting. Interested parties may also 

submit written comments on this notice. 

Scoping comments should be submitted 

before June 29, 2009 but may be 

submitted at any time prior to 

publication of the Draft EIS. 

Interested parties may register for the 

Corps’ public notice e-mail notification 

lists at: http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/ 

organizations/cespk-co/regulatory/

pnlist.html. 

Brenda S. Bowen, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–13473 Filed 6–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Army Science Board Plenary Meeting 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 

U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the 

Sunshine in the Government Act of 

1976 (U.S.C. 552b, as amended) and 41 

Code of the Federal Regulations (CFR 

102–3.140 through 160), the Department 

of the Army announces the following 

committee meeting: 

Name of Committee: Army Science 

Board (ASB). 

Date(s) of Meeting: July 13–23, 2009. 

Time(s) of Meeting: 

0800–1700, July 13, 2009. 

0800–1700, July 14, 2009. 

0800–1700, July 15, 2009. 

0800–1700, July 16, 2009. 

0800–1700, July 17, 2009. 

0800–1700, July 20, 2009. 

0800–1700, July 21, 2009. 

0800–1700, July 22, 2009. 

0800–1400, July 23, 2009. 

27294 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 9, 2009 / Notices 

Location: Beckman Center, 100 

Academy, Irvine, CA 92617. 

Purpose: The purpose of these 

meetings is to generate the reports for 

the 2009 ASB panels—studies (i.e., 

Persistent CSR, Army Installations 2025, 

Generation Y Communications, Armed 

Ground Robotics, and Survivability). 

Proposed Agenda: 

Monday 13 July: 

0800 Kick Off Meeting, schedule, 

logistics, security and 

administrative briefings. 

1000–1700 members break out into 

individual panels to generate study 

report. 

Tuesday 14 July: 

0800–1700 panels (i.e., Persistent 

CSR, Army Installations 2025, 

Generation Communications, 

Armed Ground Robotics, and 

Survivability) meet separately. 

Wednesday 15 July: 

0800–1700 panels meet separately. 

Thursday 16 July: 

0800–1700 panels meet separately. 

Friday 17 July: 

0800–1700 panels meet separately. 

Monday 20 July: 

0800–1700 panels meet separately. 

Tuesday 21 July: 

0800–1700 panels meet separately. 

Wednesday 22 July: 

0800–1700 panels meet separately. 

Thursday 23 July: 

0800–1200 Deliberation and adoption 

by ASB subcommittee findings and 

recommendation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information please contact Mr. Justin 

Bringhurst at 

justin.bringhurst@us.army.mil or (703) 

604–7468 or Carolyn German at 

carolyn.t.german@us.army.mil or (703) 

604–7490. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None. 

Brenda S. Bowen, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–13439 Filed 6–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Western Hemisphere Institute for 

Security Cooperation Board of 

Visitors; Meeting 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice; location change. 

SUMMARY: The location for the Western 

Hemisphere Institute for Security 

Cooperation Board of Visitors meeting 

scheduled for June 18, 2009 that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 (74 FR 26378) has 

changed. The meeting will now be held 

at the Rayburn House Office Building, 

HR 2212, Washington, DC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

WHINSEC Board of Visitors Secretariat 

at (703) 614–1452. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None. 

Brenda S. Bowen, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–13441 Filed 6–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Publication of Revision and 

Consolidation of Military Freight Traffic 

Rules Publications (MFTRP) 1C–R 

(Motor), 10 (Rail), 30 (Barge), 6A 

(Pipeline), 4A (Tank Truck), Military 

Standard Tender Instruction 

Publication (MSTIP) 364D, SpotBid 

Business Rules, and SDDC Military 

Class Rate Publication No. 100A to a 

Consolidation of Procurement 

Requirements for the Purchase of 

Commercial Transportation Services 

Into the Military Freight Traffic Unified 

Rules Publication (MFTURP) No. 1 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DOD. 

SUMMARY: The Military Surface 

Deployment and Distribution Command 

(SDDC) is providing notice that it 

intends to publish its consolidated 

procurement requirements of 

commercial transportation services 

publication, the MFTURP No. 1, which 

governs the purchase of surface freight 

transportation in the Continental United 

States (CONUS) by DOD using Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) exempt 

transportation service contracts. The 

purpose for this new procurement 

procedure is to streamline the 

transportation requirements to reflect 

the current needs of the DOD. 

DATES: This publication will be effective 

July 9, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Dora J. Elias, (757) 878–5379. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A notice proposing this publication 

and an open comment period was 

published in the Federal Register (74 

FR 13423) on Friday, March 27, 2009. In 

response to this notice, a total of six (6) 

comments were received. A summary of 

the comments and SDDC’s responses are 

as follows: 

Comment one (1): It is not believed 

that the unified rules currently provide 

Full Replacement Value (FRV) for 

Household Goods (HHG) Freight All 

Kinds (FAK) shipments correctly. Also 

believes that deletion of verbiage that 

indicates shipper can increase carrier 

liability because it is covered in another 

item. 

Response one (1): SDDC has no 

objection to the revised verbiage 

provided by the commenter and will 

incorporate changes as annotated. 

Comment two (2): For the sake of 

clarity and ease of understanding, SDDC 

is urged to adopt and use uniform 

terminology by referring specifically to 

TSP brokers, freight forwarders and 

logistics companies when that meaning 

is intended. 

Response two (2): SDDC agrees with 

commenter and will incorporate clear 

terminology when referring specifically 

to that segment of transportation service 

providers. 

Comment three (3): Within Section A, 

Part II, Paragraph C.1, there is a 

requirement to provide 24-hour on call 

point of contact information on all 

subcontracted TSPs. Commenter 

believes this information should be with 

the prime contractor, i.e., the broker, 

freight forwarder, or logistic provider. 

Response three (3): SDDC understands 

this might produce more information 

than what is truly needed. As a result, 

SDDC will retain the requirement of the 

broker, freight forwarder or logistic 

company to maintain an electronic 

listing of all subcontracted TSPs it may 

utilize in the transportation of DoD 

freight. However, the requirement to 

also provide the subcontracted TSP’s 

corporate office address, telephone 

numbers and 24-hour point of contact 

will be removed. This information 

should remain with the broker, freight 

forwarder and/or logistic company. 

Comment four (4): Within Section A, 

Part II, Paragraph C.3, contains 

ambiguity in terminology. To clarify 

intent, the first sentence should read: 

‘‘Subcontracted TSP will provide 

sufficient documentation for SDDC to 

verify and confirm that they have been 

engaged by the TSP broker, freight 

forwarder or logistics company named 

on the BL or shipment documentation.’’ 

Response four (4): SDDC agrees, for 

the most part, with the verbiage 

provided by the commenter, with a 

small modification to provide the 

shipper the sufficient documentation to 

verify the subcontracted TSP has been 

engaged by the broker, freight forwarder 

or logistics company named on the BL 

or shipment documentation. 

Comment five (5): In Section A, Part 

II, Paragraph C.8, commenter believes 

that any request for shipment status 

should make clear that such requests be 

made to the prime broker, freight 

forwarder or logistics company. 

Response five (5): SDDC agrees and 

will provide the following verbiage: