Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project, Barnstable County, MA; Record of Decision, 76633-76634 [E6-21847]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Notices
This notice of meeting is given
pursuant to section 10 of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
General Conference Committee of the
National Poultry Improvement Plan;
Meeting
Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of
December 2006.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E6–21841 Filed 12–20–06; 8:45 am]
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Docket No. APHIS–2006–0187]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
AGENCY:
We are giving notice of a
meeting of the General Conference
Committee of the National Poultry
Improvement Plan.
DATES: The meeting will be held on
January 24, 2007, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Georgia World Congress Center, 285
Andrew Young International Boulevard,
NW., Atlanta, GA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Andrew R. Rhorer, Senior Coordinator,
National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS,
APHIS, 1498 Klondike Road, Suite 101,
Conyers, GA 30094, (770) 922–3496.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
General Conference Committee (the
Committee) of the National Poultry
Improvement Plan (NPIP), representing
cooperating State agencies and poultry
industry members, serves an essential
function by acting as liaison between
the poultry industry and the Department
in matters pertaining to poultry health.
In addition, the Committee assists the
Department in planning, organizing, and
conducting the NPIP Biennial
Conference.
Topics for discussion at the upcoming
meeting include:
1. H5/H7 low pathogenic avian
influenza program for commercial
layers, broilers, and turkeys;
2. Compartmentalization of notifiable
avian influenza free zones;
3. National animal identification
program for poultry; and
4. Cleaning, disinfection, and bird
disposal costs for commercial poultry
flocks.
The meeting will be open to the
public. However, due to time
constraints, the public will not be
allowed to participate in the discussions
during the meeting. Written statements
on meeting topics may be filed with the
Committee before or after the meeting
by sending them to the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. Written statements may also
be filed at the meeting. Please refer to
Docket No. APHIS–2006–0187 when
submitting your statements.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:01 Dec 20, 2006
Jkt 211001
Natural Resources Conservation
Service
Cape Cod Water Resources
Restoration Project, Barnstable
County, MA; Record of Decision
1. Purpose—As State conservationist
for the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), I am the Responsible
Federal Official (RFO) for all NRCS
projects in Massachusetts.
The recommended plan for the Cape
Cod Watershed involves works of
improvement to be installed under
authorities administered by NRCS. This
areawide planning Project 1 includes 26
salt marsh restoration projects, 24 fish
passage remediation projects, and 26
stormwater remediation projects.
The Cape Cod Watershed plan was
prepared under the authority of the
Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act (Public Law 566, 83rd
Congress, 68 Stat. 666, as amended) by
the Cape Cod Conservation District,
Barnstable County Commissioners, the
15 towns of Barnstable County, and the
Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs. The scoping
meeting, held during May 2005,
established the NRCS, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, as lead agency.
2. Measures taken to comply with
national environmental policies—The
Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration
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
Cape Cod Watershed plan is consistent
with national goals and policies.
The interdisciplinary environmental
evaluation of the Cape Cod Water
Resources Restoration Project was
conducted by the sponsoring local
organizations, cooperating agencies, and
the NRCS. Information was obtained
from many groups and agencies. An
1 We use ‘‘Project’’ in this ROD and the Plan-EIS
to refer to the areawide Cape Cod Water Resources
Restoration Project and ‘‘project’’ to refer to
individual site restoration or remediation activities;
the Project comprises 76 projects.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
76633
inventory and evaluation of
environmental and socioeconomic
conditions were prepared by
Massachusetts NRCS and EA
Engineering, Science, and Technology
under a contract with NRCS. Reviews
were held with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National
Park Service, Massachusetts Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs, State
Historic Preservation Officer, and the
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer of
the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head
(Aquinnah). Inputs from these reviews
were included in the EIS.
A public meeting was held on May
18, 2005, 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 400 parties were notified by mail
of the joint public meetings. Meeting
notes are on file at the NRCS State
Office.
Testimony and recommendations
were received relative to the following
subjects:
a. Support for projects to treat
stormwater runoff as a means for
improving water quality and keeping
shellfish beds open for recreational and
commercial use.
b. Support for projects to restore fish
passageways on local streams.
c. Support for projects to restore tidal
flushing to salt marshes with restricted
tidal openings.
A draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) was prepared in August
2006 and made available for public
review. The recommendations and
comments obtained from the public
meeting held during Project planning
and assessment were considered in the
preparation of the draft EIS.
The draft EIS was distributed to
agencies, conservation groups,
organizations, and individuals for
comment. Copies were also placed in
the libraries of all 15 towns in the
watershed, and the draft EIS was made
available on the Massachusetts NRCS
Web site. The draft EIS was filed with
the Environmental Protection Agency
on August 3, 2006, and notices of the
availability of the draft EIS for public
review were published in the Federal
Register by NRCS on August 1, 2006,
and by EPA on August 11, 2006.
E:\FR\FM\21DEN1.SGM
21DEN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
76634
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Notices
Existing data and information
pertaining to the Project’s probable
environmental consequences were
obtained with assistance from other
scientists and engineers. Documentary
information as well as the views of
interested Federal, State, and local
agencies and concerned individuals and
organizations having special knowledge
of, competence over, or interest in the
Project’s environmental impacts were
sought. This process continued until it
was felt that all the information
necessary 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 these phases of
evaluation, it became apparent that
there are legitimate conflicts of
scientific theory and conclusions
leading to differing views of the
Project’s environmental impact. In such
cases, after consulting with persons
qualified in the appropriate disciplines,
those theories and conclusions
appearing to be the most reasonable,
and having scientific acceptance were
adopted.
The consequences of a full range of
reasonable and viable alternatives to
specific improvements were considered,
studied, and analyzed. In reviewing
these alternatives, all 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
reasonable alternatives to accomplish
the project’s objectives were (1) Water
Resources Restoration Alternative, (2)
No Action Alternative.
3. Conclusions—The following
conclusions were reached after carefully
reviewing the proposed Cape Cod Water
Resources Restoration Project in light of
all 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 Cape Cod Water Resources
Restoration Project will employ
reasonable and practicable means that
are consistent with the National
Environmental Policy Act while
permitting the application of other
national policies and interests. These
means include, but are not limited to, a
Project planned and designed to
minimize adverse effects on the natural
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:01 Dec 20, 2006
Jkt 211001
environment while accomplishing an
authorized Project purpose. Project
features designed to preserve existing
environmental values for future
generations include: (1) Replacement of
inadequately sized or failed culverts
with larger culverts or bridges to restore
tidal flushing to salt marshes; (2)
reconstruction of failed fish
passageways, replacement of collapsed
or improperly aligned curves, or
removing restrictions at bridges to
provide full access to upstream
spawning and nursery areas for
anadromous fish; and (3) installation of
catch basins and infiltration systems or
other cost-effective alternatives to treat
stormwater runoff, reduce bacteria
loading to tidal receiving waters, and
help keep shellfish beds open.
b. The Cape Cod Water Resources
Restoration Project was planned using a
systematic interdisciplinary approach
involving integrated uses of the natural
and social sciences and environmental
design arts. All conclusions concerning
the environmental impact of 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 all
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 the Project 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 Cape Cod
Water Resources Restoration Project,
every effort was made to express all
significant environmental values
quantitatively and to identify and give
appropriate weight and consideration of
nonquantifiable environmental values.
d. Wherever legitimate conflicts of
scientific theory and conclusions
existed and conclusions led to different
views, persons qualified in the
appropriate environmental disciplines
were consulted. Theories and
conclusions appearing to be most
reasonable scientifically acceptable, or
both, were adopted.
e. Every possible effort has been made
to identify those adverse environmental
effects that cannot be avoided if the
Project is constructed.
f. The long-term and short-term
resource uses, long-term productivity,
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and the irreversible and irretrievable
commitment of resources are described
in the final EIS.
g. All 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 the
Federal water resource development
legislation under which the Project was
planned. Each possible 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.
h. I conclude, therefore, that the
proposed Project will be 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 Cape Cod
Water Resources Restoration 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 EIS 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’s sponsoring local organizations,
I propose to implement the Cape Cod
Water Resources Restoration Project.
Christine Clarke,
State Conservationist, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
[FR Doc. E6–21847 Filed 12–20–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–16–P
E:\FR\FM\21DEN1.SGM
21DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 245 (Thursday, December 21, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76633-76634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-21847]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project, Barnstable County,
MA; Record of Decision
1. Purpose--As State conservationist for the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), I am the Responsible Federal Official
(RFO) for all NRCS projects in Massachusetts.
The recommended plan for the Cape Cod Watershed involves works of
improvement to be installed under authorities administered by NRCS.
This areawide planning Project \1\ includes 26 salt marsh restoration
projects, 24 fish passage remediation projects, and 26 stormwater
remediation projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We use ``Project'' in this ROD and the Plan-EIS to refer to
the areawide Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project and
``project'' to refer to individual site restoration or remediation
activities; the Project comprises 76 projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cape Cod Watershed plan was prepared under the authority of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 566, 83rd
Congress, 68 Stat. 666, as amended) by the Cape Cod Conservation
District, Barnstable County Commissioners, the 15 towns of Barnstable
County, and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs. The scoping meeting, held during May 2005, established the
NRCS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, as lead agency.
2. Measures taken to comply with national environmental policies--
The Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration 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 Cape Cod Watershed plan is consistent with national
goals and policies.
The interdisciplinary environmental evaluation of the Cape Cod
Water Resources Restoration Project was conducted by the sponsoring
local organizations, cooperating agencies, and the NRCS. Information
was obtained from many groups and agencies. An inventory and evaluation
of environmental and socioeconomic conditions were prepared by
Massachusetts NRCS and EA Engineering, Science, and Technology under a
contract with NRCS. Reviews were held with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Park
Service, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, State
Historic Preservation Officer, and the Tribal Historic Preservation
Officer of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah). Inputs from
these reviews were included in the EIS.
A public meeting was held on May 18, 2005, 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 400 parties
were notified by mail of the joint public meetings. Meeting notes are
on file at the NRCS State Office.
Testimony and recommendations were received relative to the
following subjects:
a. Support for projects to treat stormwater runoff as a means for
improving water quality and keeping shellfish beds open for
recreational and commercial use.
b. Support for projects to restore fish passageways on local
streams.
c. Support for projects to restore tidal flushing to salt marshes
with restricted tidal openings.
A draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared in August
2006 and made available for public review. The recommendations and
comments obtained from the public meeting held during Project planning
and assessment were considered in the preparation of the draft EIS.
The draft EIS was distributed to agencies, conservation groups,
organizations, and individuals for comment. Copies were also placed in
the libraries of all 15 towns in the watershed, and the draft EIS was
made available on the Massachusetts NRCS Web site. The draft EIS was
filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on August 3, 2006, and
notices of the availability of the draft EIS for public review were
published in the Federal Register by NRCS on August 1, 2006, and by EPA
on August 11, 2006.
[[Page 76634]]
Existing data and information pertaining to the Project's probable
environmental consequences were obtained with assistance from other
scientists and engineers. Documentary information as well as the views
of interested Federal, State, and local agencies and concerned
individuals and organizations having special knowledge of, competence
over, or interest in the Project's environmental impacts were sought.
This process continued until it was felt that all the information
necessary 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 these phases of evaluation, it became
apparent that there are legitimate conflicts of scientific theory and
conclusions leading to differing views of the Project's environmental
impact. In such cases, after consulting with persons qualified in the
appropriate disciplines, those theories and conclusions appearing to be
the most reasonable, and having scientific acceptance were adopted.
The consequences of a full range of reasonable and viable
alternatives to specific improvements were considered, studied, and
analyzed. In reviewing these alternatives, all 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 reasonable alternatives to accomplish
the project's objectives were (1) Water Resources Restoration
Alternative, (2) No Action Alternative.
3. Conclusions--The following conclusions were reached after
carefully reviewing the proposed Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration
Project in light of all 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 Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project will employ
reasonable and practicable means that are consistent with the National
Environmental Policy Act while permitting the application of other
national policies and interests. These means include, but are not
limited to, a Project planned and designed to minimize adverse effects
on the natural environment while accomplishing an authorized Project
purpose. Project features designed to preserve existing environmental
values for future generations include: (1) Replacement of inadequately
sized or failed culverts with larger culverts or bridges to restore
tidal flushing to salt marshes; (2) reconstruction of failed fish
passageways, replacement of collapsed or improperly aligned curves, or
removing restrictions at bridges to provide full access to upstream
spawning and nursery areas for anadromous fish; and (3) installation of
catch basins and infiltration systems or other cost-effective
alternatives to treat stormwater runoff, reduce bacteria loading to
tidal receiving waters, and help keep shellfish beds open.
b. The Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project was planned
using a systematic interdisciplinary approach involving integrated uses
of the natural and social sciences and environmental design arts. All
conclusions concerning the environmental impact of 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
all 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 the Project 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 Cape
Cod Water Resources Restoration Project, every effort was made to
express all significant environmental values quantitatively and to
identify and give appropriate weight and consideration of
nonquantifiable environmental values.
d. Wherever legitimate conflicts of scientific theory and
conclusions existed and conclusions led to different views, persons
qualified in the appropriate environmental disciplines were consulted.
Theories and conclusions appearing to be most reasonable scientifically
acceptable, or both, were adopted.
e. Every possible effort has been made to identify those adverse
environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the Project is
constructed.
f. The long-term and short-term resource uses, long-term
productivity, and the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
resources are described in the final EIS.
g. All 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 the Federal water resource development
legislation under which the Project was planned. Each possible 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.
h. I conclude, therefore, that the proposed Project will be 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 Cape Cod
Water Resources Restoration 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 EIS 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's
sponsoring local organizations, I propose to implement the Cape Cod
Water Resources Restoration Project.
Christine Clarke,
State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
[FR Doc. E6-21847 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P