Record of Decision for the Little Red River Irrigation Project Environmental Impact Statement, 41760-41762 [E6-11728]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Natural Resources Conservation Service

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 141 (Monday, July 24, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41760-41762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-11728]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Record of Decision for the Little Red River Irrigation Project 
Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.

ACTION: Record of decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice presents the Record of Decision (ROD) regarding 
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) implementation for a 
Water Management Project located in White County, Arkansas, that 
provides agricultural water for irrigation, and the enhancement of fish 
and wildlife habitat. NRCS prepared a Final Plan/Environmental Impact 
Statement (FPEIS) in cooperation with the Little Red River Regional 
Irrigation Water District. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Little 
Red River Irrigation Project FPEIS was published in the Federal 
Register on May 26, 2006, and all agencies and persons on the FPEIS 
distribution list were notified individually as well. Printed and CD-
ROM versions of the FPEIS were made available and delivered to all 
those who requested. This Decision Notice summarizes the environmental, 
social, and economic impacts of the Little Red River Irrigation Project 
alternatives identified in the FPEIS that were considered in making 
this decision, and explains why NRCS selected the Preferred 
Alternative--Conservation/Surface Source Alternative--Canals and 
Pipelines (Alternative 4) for providing supplemental irrigation water 
and better utilizing the existing water resources while improving the 
overall environmental quality of the project area.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kalven Trice, USDA/NRCS Room 3416, 
Federal Building, 700 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201, 
(501) 301-3100 or e-mail: Kalven.Trice@ar.usda.gov.

Record of Decision--Little Red River Irrigation Project; White County, 
Arkansas

    1. Purpose--As state conservationist for the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, I am the Responsible Federal Official for all 
Natural Resources Conservation Service projects in Arkansas.
    The recommended plan for the Little Red River Irrigation Project 
involves works of improvement to be installed by the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service. This project includes the installation of a 
pumping station, 38 miles of canal, 41 miles of pipeline, and 
associated land treatment practices, such as tailwater recovery 
systems, irrigation storage reservoirs, pumping plants, irrigation 
pipelines and water control structures.
    The Little Red River Irrigation Project plan was prepared as a 
program neutral plan by the Natural Resources Conservation Service in 
cooperation with the Little Red River Regional Irrigation Water 
District. A scoping meeting, held on August 15, 2002, established the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, as lead agency, with the Arkansas Natural Resource 
Commission, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Arkansas Natural 
Heritage Commission, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as contributing 
agencies.
    2. Measures taken to comply with national environmental policies--
The Little Red River Irrigation project has been planned in accordance 
with existing Federal legislation concerned with the preservation of 
environmental values. The following actions were taken to ensure that 
the Little Red River Irrigation Project plan is consistent with 
national goals and polices.
    A preliminary environmental evaluation was completed by an 
interdisciplinary team under the direction of NRCS in 2002 before the 
scoping meeting. It concluded that significant impacts on the human 
environment might occur because of the complexity and public interest 
of the proposed action. As RFO, I directed that a draft environmental 
impact statement (EIS) be prepared.
    The interdisciplinary environmental evaluation of the Little Red 
River Irrigation project was conducted by NRCS with the assistance of 
the NRCS National Water Management Center, and with input from the 
contributing agencies. The interdisciplinary team included engineers, 
biologists,

[[Page 41761]]

economists, conservationists, an ecologist, and an environmental 
specialist. Preliminary alternatives were developed by the 
interdisciplinary team, with limited input from other local, State and 
Federal agencies. These preliminary alternatives were presented to the 
Sponsor, landowners, agencies, environmental groups, and other 
interested parties at public meetings. Comments, suggestions, and 
proposed modifications to the alternatives were considered, evaluated, 
and included, when considered to improve the overall project plan.
    Public Meetings were held on July 18, 2002, August 15, 2002, 
September 4, 2003, and August 17, 2004 to solicit public participation 
in the environmental evaluation, to assure that all interested parties 
had sufficient information to understand how their concerns are 
affected by water resource problems, to afford local interests the 
opportunity to express their views regarding the plans that can best 
solve these problems, and to provide all interests an opportunity to 
participate in the plan selection. More than 50 parties were notified 
by mail of the joint public meetings. The records of the meetings were 
developed and are on file.
    Testimony and recommendations were received relative to the 
following subjects:
    a. The Little Red River Irrigation Water District was commended for 
their collaboration efforts with other agencies and organizations, 
which allowed their interest to be considered during the scoping 
process.
    b. Careful consideration of environmental impacts was requested 
during identification of the problems and the development of the 
purpose of the project.
    c. Additional financial assistance for more on-farm management, 
water conservation, water savings and improved rice management 
techniques was recommended with consideration of eliminating the main 
pumping station.
    d. Alternative funding sources for land retirement and restoration 
was recommended which would allow farmers to enroll land with 
critically low water levels into such programs.
    e. Development of the Little Red River Irrigation Project as a 
model project of farm efficiency, irrigation efficiency, profits, and 
environmental sustainability was recommended.
    A draft environmental impact statement was prepared in February 
2006 and made available for public review. The recommendations and 
comments obtained from public meetings held during project planning and 
assessment were considered in the preparation of the statement. 
Projects of other agencies were included only when they related to the 
Little Red River Irrigation project, and they were not evaluated with 
regard to their individual merit.
    More than 40 copies of the draft environmental impact statement 
were distributed to agencies, conservation groups, organizations, and 
individuals for comment. The Notice of Availability (NOA) of the draft 
environmental impact statement was published by the Environmental 
Protection Agency on March 10, 2006. The comment period ended April 24, 
2006. Additional comments received after the comment period have been 
addressed and filed in the administrative record.
    The NOA of the final environmental impact statement was published 
by the Environmental Protection Agency on May 26, 2006. The waiting 
period ended on June 26, 2006.
    Existing data and information pertaining to the project's probable 
environmental consequences were obtained from numerous agencies, 
independent organizations and individuals. The views of interested 
Federal, State, and local agencies, concerned individuals and 
organizations were sought. This process continued until the information 
for a comprehensive, reliable assessment had been gathered.
    A complete picture of the project's current and probable future 
environmental setting was assembled to determine the proposed project's 
impact and identify unavoidable adverse environmental impacts that 
might be produced. During this phase of the evaluation, it became 
apparent that there were differences of opinion and conclusions leading 
to differing views of the project's environmental impact. After 
consulting with persons qualified in the appropriate disciplines, the 
most reasonable scientific theories and conclusions were adopted.
    The consequences of a full range of reasonable and viable 
alternatives to specific project features were considered, studied, and 
analyzed. In reviewing these alternatives, courses of action that could 
reasonably accomplish the project purposes were considered. Attempts 
were made to identify the economic, social, and environmental values 
affected by each alternative. Both structural and nonstructural 
alternatives were considered.
    The alternatives considered to be reasonable and to accomplish the 
project's objectives were (1) A surface water diversion (import) 
alternative, (2) a combination conservation/surface water diversion 
(import) alternative, utilizing pipeline conveyance, (3) the NED plan--
a combination of conservation/surface water diversion (import) 
alternative utilizing canal and flume conveyance. Other project 
alternatives analyzed but not fully developed include the ``no 
project'' alternative, alternative crops alternative, and cropland 
``retirement'' alternative. These alternatives were eliminated early in 
the planning process due to economic considerations, physical 
limitations and/or acceptability concerns. Variations of these 
alternatives were included in the alternatives selected for final 
analysis.
    3. Conclusion--The following conclusions were reached after 
carefully reviewing the proposed Little Red River Irrigation Project in 
light of national goals and policies, particularly those expressed in 
the National Environmental Policy Act, and after evaluating the overall 
merit of possible alternatives to the project:
    a. The Little Red River Irrigation Project will employ reasonable 
and practicable means to meet the project's objectives and remain 
consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act. These means 
include, but are not limited to, the development of a project planned 
to minimize adverse effects on the natural environment while 
accomplishing the authorized project purpose. Project features to 
preserve existing environmental values for future generations include: 
(1) Providing a source of agricultural water while conserving ground 
water resources; (2) implementing on-farm conservation practices that 
capture runoff, reducing loss of water resources; (3) creating 
artificial wetlands by constructing surface water storage reservoirs 
which may be utilized by migrating waterfowl; (4) enhancing 2,650 acres 
of cropland annually for wintering waterfowl use; (5) enhancing an 
additional 3,000 acres of wildlife habitat, including wetlands within 
the Raft Creek Wildlife Management Area; (6) ensuring on-farm 
operations are in compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 
and that wetlands are avoided to the maximum extent practicable; and 
(7) mitigating unavoidable losses to wetlands per the guidelines and 
regulatory statutes of the Clean Water Act, potentially enhancing and/
or creating wildlife corridors within the project area.
     b. The Little Red River Irrigation Project was planned using a 
systematic interdisciplinary approach involving integrated uses of the 
natural, social and environmental sciences. All conclusions concerning 
the environmental impact of

[[Page 41762]]

the project and overall merit of existing plans were based on a review 
of data and information that would be reasonably expected to reveal 
significant environmental consequences of the proposed project. These 
data included studies prepared specifically for the project and 
comments and views of interested Federal, State, and local agencies and 
individuals. The results of this review constitute the basis for the 
conclusions and recommendations. The project will not affect any 
cultural resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of 
Historic Places nor will it affect any species of fish, wildlife, or 
plant or their habitats that have been designated as endangered or 
threatened.
    c. In studying and evaluating the environmental impact of the 
Little Red River Irrigation Project, every effort was made to express 
all significant environmental values quantitatively and to identify and 
give appropriate weight and consideration of non-quantifiable 
environmental values.
    Wherever differences of opinion existed and conclusions led to 
different views, persons qualified in the appropriate disciplines were 
consulted. The most reasonable scientific theories and conclusions were 
adopted.
    d. Every possible effort was made to identify those adverse 
environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the project is 
constructed.
    e. The long-term and short-term resource uses, long-term 
productivity, and the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 
resources are described in the final environmental impact statement.
    f. All known reasonable and viable alternatives to project features 
and to the project itself were studied and analyzed with reference to 
national policies and goals, especially those expressed in the National 
Environmental Policy Act and Federal water resource development 
legislation. Each course of action was evaluated as to its possible 
economic, technical, social, and overall environmental consequences to 
determine the tradeoffs necessary to accommodate all national policies 
and interests. Some alternatives may tend to protect more of the 
present and tangible environmental amenities than the proposed project 
will preserve. However, no alternative or combination of alternatives 
will afford greater protection of the environmental values while 
accomplishing the other project goals and objectives.
    g. I conclude, therefore, that the proposed project is the most 
effective means of meeting national goals and is consistent in serving 
the public interest by including provisions to protect and enhance the 
environment. I also conclude that the recommended plan is the 
environmentally preferable plan.
    4. Recommendations--Having concluded that the proposed Little Red 
River Irrigation Project uses all practicable means, consistent with 
other essential considerations of the national policy, to meet the 
goals established in the National Environmental Policy Act, that the 
project will thus serve the overall public interest, that the final 
environmental impact statement has been prepared, reviewed, and 
accepted in accordance with the provisions of the National 
Environmental Policy Act as implemented by Departmental regulations for 
the preparation of environmental impact statements, and that the 
project meets the needs of the project sponsor, I propose to implement 
the Little Red River Irrigation Project.

    Dated: July 14, 2006.
Kalven L. Trice,
State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture.
 [FR Doc. E6-11728 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P