Natural Resources Conservation Service August 2006 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

It has been determined by the NRCS State Conservationist for Virginia that changes must be made in the NRCS State Technical Guide specifically in practice standards: 328, Conservation Crop Rotation, 329, Residue and Tillage Management No Till/Strip Till/Direct Seed, 345, Residue and Tillage Management Mulch Till, 528, Prescribed Grazing and 612, Tree/Shrub Establishment. These practices will be used to plan and install conservation practices on cropland, pastureland, woodland, and wildlife land.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, to disclose potential effects to the human environment resulting from proposed flood-control improvements to Coal Creek in Cedar City, Utah. The section of Coal Creek that traverses Cedar City, Utah, has channel stability and capacity deficiencies that pose a threat to existing infrastructure and development due to flooding. The NRCS proposes to modify the Coal Creek channel to safely convey floodwaters from a 100-year flood event. Also as part of this project, Cedar City proposes to improve and expand an existing parkway along Coal Creek to enhance aesthetic values and provide recreational opportunities for community residents and visitors. The Final EIS presents detailed analyses for three alternatives. Alternative ANo Action, would continue the frequency and level of dredging and other management actions as they are currently planned. Existing channel and structural deficiencies would not be corrected. Recreational opportunities associated with the creek would remain as they currently exist. Because of the purpose and need of the project, several proposed elements are common to both of the action alternatives (Alternatives B and C). Both action alternatives include modifying channel cross sections, altering the stream gradient in particular sub-reaches, stabilizing actively eroding banks, and constructing levees. Bank stabilization would be accomplished by laying the river banks back to a stable slope that supports channel stabilization methods and then armoring the banks via the use of rock (riprap), vegetation, soil cement, erosion control fabric, or some combination of these items. Existing riparian habitat and vegetation would be preserved on the streambanks, where possible. It is anticipated that both sides of the channel would be armored with riprap through the suburban corridor from Center Street to I-15 to prevent bank erosion from high stream velocities during flood events. Elements unique to each action alternative are listed below. Alternative BRelocate Main Street Diversion, would remove the Main Street diversion/drop structure currently in use and relocate it to near 200 East. Implementation of this alternative would require approximately 3,550 feet of pipeline to be installed, flood and slope/ grading-related channel modifications from Center Street to I-15, and the continuation of periodic dredging as necessary. A sedimentation basin would be constructed to remove gravels from diverted irrigation water. The Woodbury diversion/drop structure would be reconstructed. Under this alternative, the parkway would be extended west to Airport Road and landscaped. Parkway Option B1 proposes a crosswalk at the Main Street Bridge. Parkway Option B2 proposes to access existing sidewalks from the pedestrian bridge at 400 North to cross Main Street and avoid additional property acquisition. Alternative CReplace Main Street Diversion, would replace the Main Street diversion/drop structure by constructing a new structure that would have approximately half the drop. Implementation of this alternative would require the installation of approximately 4,900 feet of pipeline, flood and slope/grading-related channel modifications from Center Street to west of I-15, and the continuation of periodic dredging as necessary. Two sedimentation basins would be constructed to remove gravels from diverted irrigation water. Additionally, the Woodbury diversion/drop structure would be reconstructed to allow for the safe passage of floodwaters. Under this alternative, the parkway would be extended to Airport Road and landscaped. In addition, a historic pedestrian truss bridge would be removed to prevent channel constriction and potential flooding. Parkway Option C1 would construct an elevated pedestrian pathway under the Main Street Bridge. Parkway Option C2 would construct a large box culvert for pedestrian use just north of the bridge and under Main Street. In response to public comment on the Draft EIS and to alleviate localized flooding tied to Coal Creek discharge levels, an additional option (the North Field Canal Option) was analyzed in the Final EIS. Under Alternative C, this option would construct a subgrade pipeline for several hundred feet along the southern portion of the North West Field Canal. It would traverse undeveloped city-owned property west of the Cedar City Cemetery, and follow the North Field Canal corridor from a point just south of 900 North Street to 1045 North Street. Water would be piped east and west along 1045 North Street to both the Union Field and Northwest Field Canals. As required by the NRCS for water projects, the National Economic Development (NED) benefit-cost process was used to determine benefit- cost ratios for each alternative. All of the action Alternative/Option combinations have a benefit-cost ratio of 1.9:1 and are all considered viable NED Alternatives. The sole exception to this is Alternative C when coupled with Parkway Option C2 and the North Field Canal Option, which has a benefit-cost ratio of 1.8:1. This indicates that the costs and benefits of all of the alternatives are relatively consistent. Under CEQ regulations and the NRCS National Environmental Compliance Handbook, Section 610.38Distribution and Publication of Environmental Documents, a Record of Decision (ROD) cannot be prepared until the Final EIS has been available to the public for at least 30 days. Comments will be accepted on the FEIS during this period. Following this review period, notice of the ROD's availability will be published in the Federal Register. Effective Date: September 1, 2006.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has prepared a Draft Areawide Environmental Impact Statement consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, to disclose potential effects to the human environment. The Watershed Plan and Areawide Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project are combined into a single document. The purposes of the Project are to restore degraded salt marshes, restore anadromous fish passages, and improve water quality for shellfishing areas. Specifically, sponsors wish to: 1. Improve tidal flushing in salt marshes where man-made obstructions (i.e., road culverts) have restricted tidal flow. This will help restore native plant and animal communities in salt marshes, and improve biotic integrity. 2. Restore fish ladders and other fish passages that have deteriorated. This will allow greater numbers of anadromous fish (which spend most of their adult lives in salt water and migrate to freshwater streams, rivers, and lakes to reproduce; for example, alewife, blueback herring) to gain access to spawning areas, and support greater populations of other species (for example, striped bass, bluefish, weakfish, largemouth bass, chain pickerel) that depend on them for food. 3. Maintain and improve water quality affecting shellfish beds by treating stormwater runoff. This will help ensure that shellfish beds which are threatened with closure remain open, and maintain or extend the current shellfishing season for beds whose use is restricted during certain times of year. This Project is needed because human activity on Cape Cod has degraded its natural resources, including salt marshes, anadromous fish runs, and water quality over shellfish beds. The development of Cape Cod has required the construction of extensive road and railroad networks. Along the coast, culverts or bridges were needed for these networks to cross tidal marshes, and many of the openings through these structures are not large enough to allow adequate tidal flushing. When the culverts or bridges constrict flow, the tidal regime changes, which results in vegetation changes over time; what was once a thriving salt marsh can become a brackish or fresh water wetland dominated by invasive species. Together with funding from the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM), the Cape Cod Commission and the Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program identified over 182 sites where salt marshes have been altered by human activity. Human activity on Cape Cod has also resulted in damming or diverting streams, causing anadromous fish to lose access to spawning grounds. In addition, water flow may have been altered by cranberry growers and other farmers. Fish ladders and other fish passage facilities have been built to help ensure that fish get access to spawning areas, but these structures deteriorate over time (end of design life), or they may be of obsolete design and need replacement to function properly. The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) identified 93 fish passage obstructions on Cape Cod. Cape Cod's economy depends on good water quality. Shellfishing, a multi-million dollar industry on the Cape, is only allowed in areas with excellent water quality. As land is developed, and more areas are paved, stormwater runoff may become contaminated with nutrients, metals, fertilizers, bacteria, etc. This runoff may carry enough fecal coliform bacteria to affect water quality in shellfishing areas, thus leading to closure of shellfishing areas, or restrictions on the periods when the beds can remain open. DMF and town officials identified over 160 stormwater discharge points into shellfishing areas. By controlling sources of runoff, separating clean water from contamination sources, and capturing and treating the most heavily contaminated runoff through a variety of measures (e.g., infiltration, constructed wetlands). Two alternatives were considered: Proposed Action/Recommended Plan and the No action alternative. No Action would continue the declining trend of water quality of shellfish waters, impaired anadromous fish runs and degraded salt marshes. The recommended plan is the Proposed Action (Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project) because it maximizes ecological benefits and is the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Plan. The Recommended Plan achieves the desired level of improvement for the least cost. For each project type (shellfish, fish passage, and salt marsh), the Restoration Project would provide a greater number of habitat units and greater other environmental benefits than the No Action Alternative. NRCS has developed a list of 76 projects that will meet the sponsors' objectives. All of these projects have received a planning-level analysis to ensure that they appear feasible and capable of providing the habitat benefits sought through this areawide Project. When the Project is authorized and funded, the sponsors will propose specific projects to NRCS. NRCS will review each project in more detail to determine the most cost-effective practice for that site and to verify that the habitat objectives will be achieved. The recommended plan would help to maintain or improve water quality in up to 26 shellfish areas affecting 7,300 acres of shellfish beds. Current laws and regulations require stormwater management for all new developments, which prevents or minimizes new development from causing the same water quality impairments that occurred in the past. The Project is expected to improve tidal flushing at 26 sites enhancing 1,500 acres of salt marsh. Current design guidelines prevent or minimize road or railroad construction from causing the same hydrological restrictions that occurred in the past. And through this Project it is expected that 24 fish passages on Cape Cod would be restored to full function improving access to 4,200 acres of spawning habitat. Written comments regarding this Draft Areawide EIS should be mailed to: Cecil B. Currin, Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project EIS, USDA-NRCS, 451 West Street, Amherst, MA 01002. Comments may also be submitted by sending a facsimile to (413) 253-4395 or by e-mail to cecil.currin@ma.usda.gov. Please include CCWRRP in the subject line. Project information is also available on the Internet at https:// www.ma.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/CCWRRP.