Natural Resources Conservation Service – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

The NRCS has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for a stream restoration project on a private landowner's land on McDonald Creek. A copy of the FONSI and the final Environmental Assessment (EA) is available for public review at the following locations: NRCS Office, 10507 N. McAlister Road, OR 97850. Grande Ronde Model Watershed, 1114 J Avenue, La Grande, OR 97850. La Grande Public Library, 2006 Fourth Street, La Grande, OR 97850. Additional copies may be obtained by contacting Greg Kuehl, NRCS, 541-963-4178, ext. 107.

Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Guidelines (7 CFR Part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an Environmental Impact Statement is not being prepared for the North Fork Powell River Watershed in Lee County, Virginia.

Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Guidelines (7 CFR Part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, has decided to subordinate its rights, acquired under the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), to allow the Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) to cross NRCS held conservations easements associated with the East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project (Project) in Madison Parish, Red River Parish, Richland Parish and Ouachita Parish, LA. On September 1, 2006, Gulf South filed, in Docket No. CP04-446-000, an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to construct and operate its proposed project. The proposed project consists of 241.9 miles of pipeline, and 110,604 horsepower (hp) of compression that will connect Gulf South's existing facilities in DeSoto Parish, Louisiana to Gulf South's pipeline in Simpson County, Mississippi. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS) to fulfill requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The purpose of this document was to make public the analysis of the environmental impacts that would likely result from the construction and operation of the proposed Project. The NRCS participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS. The project will affect approximately 16 NRCS held Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) easements by creating a 60 ft. permanent right of way (within a 100 ft. construction right of way) that extends for approximately 241.9 miles of which 12.5 miles is over lands encumbered under WRP easements located in Madison, Red River, Richland and Ouachita Parishes, Louisiana. Of the 34,584 acres encumbered by WRP easements in Madison Parish, Louisiana 76.43 acres will be affected; Of the 513 acres encumbered by WRP easements in Red River Parish, Louisiana 4.61 acres will be affected; of the 7,285 acres encumbered by WRP easements in Richland Parish, Louisiana 6.36 acres will be affected; of the 3,716 acres encumbered by WRP easements in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana 1.82 acres will be affected.

Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Regulations (7 CFR Part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the rehabilitation of Multiple Purpose Dam No. 3 of the Muddy Fork of the Illinois River Watershed, Washington County, Arkansas.

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 standard: 382, Fence. This practice will be used to plan and install conservation practices on cropland, pastureland, woodland, and wildlife land.

Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Regulations (7 CFR part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the Florence Flood Retarding Structure (FRS) Supplemental Watershed Plan, Pinal County, Arizona.

Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Regulations (7 CFR part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the rehabilitation of Floodwater Retarding Structure No. 15 of the Nolan Creek Watershed, Bell County, Texas.

Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Guidelines (7 CFR Part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the Marysville Irrigation Company, Gravity Pressurized, Irrigation Delivery System, Fremont County, Idaho.

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: 647, Early Successional Habitat Development Management, 511, Forage Harvest Management, 655, Forest Trails and Landings and 512, Pasture and Hay Planting. These practices will be used to plan and install conservation practices on cropland, pastureland, woodland, and wildlife land.

It has been determined by the NRCS State Conservationist for Tennessee that changes must be made in the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide, specifically in practice standards Residue and Tillage Management, Mulch Till; Residue and Tillage Management, No-till/Strip Till/Direct Seed; and Residue and Tillage Management, Ridge Till to account for improved technology. These practice standards can be used in conservation systems designed to treat highly erodible cropland.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has prepared a plan and environmental assessment (EA) consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. Funding for salinity control projects is available through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program which is covered by a programmatic EA. The Manila- Washam plan and EA were developed to more specifically evaluate the effects associated with this type of water quality activity. Upon review of the information in the Manila-Washam EA, the Utah NRCS State Conservationist made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and the determination was made that no environmental impact statement is required to support the Manila-Washam Plan. Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Regulations (7 CFR part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the Manila-Washam Salinity Control Project, Daggett County, Utah; and Sweetwater County, Wyoming. Written comments regarding this action may be submitted to: Sylvia Gillen, State Conservationist, USDA/NRCS, Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building, 125 South State Street, Room 4402, Salt Lake City, UT 84138-1100. Comments must be received no later than 30 days after this notice is published.

Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Regulations (7 CFR Part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the rehabilitation of Floodwater Retarding Structure No. 8 of the Poteau River Watershed, Scott County, Arkansas.

The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Coal Creek Flood Control and Parkway Final Environmental Impact Statement is now available to the public. On September 1, 2006, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) published 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. A notice of availability for the ROD was previously published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2006. Availability was delayed due to additional information about the proximity of Utah prairie dogs, a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The NRCS is now completing formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). No construction will begin until the NRCS has received a biological opinion from the FWS. The ROD authorizes implementation of Alternative C (Replace Main Street diversion/drop structure) in conjunction with the North Field Canal Option and Parkway Option C1.

Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Regulations (7 CFR part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the rehabilitation of Floodwater Retarding Structure No. 6 of the Big Creek Watershed, Craighead County, Arkansas.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) published in the Federal Register notice of October 24, 2006, (71 FR 62246) a document with an incorrect URL. The incorrect URL is located in the SUMMARY section on page 62247. This notice corrects the previously published document. The Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRC seeks comments on the proposed revision of the ``Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Programs ManualPart 513: Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Program.'' USDA asks for comments from RC&D Council members and individuals from tribal, State, and local governments and organizations involved in either natural resource conservation or community development groups. These comments will assist USDA in policy development and implementation of the RC&D Program. This manual is used by NRCS, other USDA staff members, RC&D Council members, and others that either develop RC&D applications or participate in the RC&D Program. This revision of the manual reflects changes in the NRCS organizational structure, incorporates new area planning requirements, provides guidelines for the RC&D Program Operations Information Tracking System, and incorporates additional exhibits to increase clarity. It is available for download at https://policy.nrcs.usda.gov/ scripts/lpsiis.dll/NB/NB39071a.pdf.

The Agricultural Air Quality Task Force (AAQTF) will meet to continue discussions on air quality issues relating to agriculture.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) prepared an Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended. Pursuant to the implementing regulations for NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); the USDA Departmental Policy for the NEPA (7 CFR part 1b); the Natural Resources Conservation Service Regulations (7 CFR part 650); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service policy (General Manual Title 190, Part 410); the Natural Resources Conservation Service gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the rehabilitation of grade stabilization Structure 2 in Turtle Creek Watershed, Sarpy County Nebraska. The Environmental Assessment was developed in coordination with the sponsoring local organization (Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources District) for a federally assisted action to address grade stabilization in the Turtle Creek Watershed and the status of grade stabilization dam Structure 2. Upon consideration of the affected environment, alternatives, environmental consequences, and comments and coordination with concerned public and agencies, the State Conservationist for NRCS, Nebraska found that based on the significance and context and intensity that the proposed action is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Thus, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was made.

Pursuant to section 102[2][c] of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations [40 CFR part 1500]; and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Regulations [7 CFR part 650]; the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the rehabilitation of Pohick Creek Watershed Dam No. 4, Fairfax County, Virginia.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Kentucky State Office, gives notice that a draft supplemental watershed plan/environmental assessment for the rehabilitation of Plum Creek FRS 18 is now available for public review and comment.

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.

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 AlternativeConservation/Surface Source AlternativeCanals 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.

Notice is hereby given of the intention of NRCS to issue a series of new or revised conservation practice standards in its National Handbook of Conservation Practices. These standards include: ``Stream Habitat Improvement and Management (Code 395),'' ``Fish Passage (Code 396),'' and ``Fishpond Management (Code 399).'' NRCS State Conservationists who choose to adopt these practices for use within their States will incorporate them into Section IV of their respective electronic Field Office Technical Guides (eFOTG). These practices may be used in conservation systems that treat highly erodible land or on land determined to be wetland.