Finding of No Significant Impact for Limestone-Graveyard Creeks Watershed Bent and Prowers Counties, CO

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Finding of No Significant Impact for Limestone-Graveyard Creeks

Watershed Bent and Prowers Counties, CO

Introduction

The Limestone-Graveyard Creeks Watershed is a federally assisted

action authorized for planning under Pubic Law 83-566, the Watershed

Protection and Flood Prevention Act. An environmental assessment was

undertaken in conjunction with the development of the watershed plan.

This assessment was conducted in consultation with local, state, and

federal agencies as well as with interested organization and

individuals. Data developed during the assessment are available for

public review at the following location: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 655 Parfet Street,

Suite E200C, Lakewood, CO 80215-5517.

Recommended Action

The recommended plan is composed of management and enduring

conservation practices to reduce deep percolation, runoff and

irrigation induced erosion which will improve water quality of both

surface and groundwater, the Arkansas river, as well as protect the

resource base.

It is expected that 108 long-term land treatment contracts will be

written during the project's life. Approximately 26,700 acres will be

treated through project action.

The primary purposes are: (1) (Watershed protection)--protect the

soil resource base from excessive irrigation induced erosion and

sedimentation and reduce negative water quality impacts to surface and

groundwater, including the Arkansas River from selenium, sediment,

salts, and nitrate loading, (2) (Agricultural water management)--

improve application unformity.

Effects of Recommended Action

Overall improved surface and groundwater quality, improved human

health and safety, significant sediment and erosion reduction, improved

water quality in the Arkansas River, improved wetlands and fisheries

from improved water quality, improved wildlife habitat, reduced

irrigation labor costs, reduced irrigation system operation and

maintenance, and improved irrigation systems and management results in

increased available water supply on and offsite.

The proposed action will reduce selenium, sediments, salts,

nitrates, and other pollutants, in ground water and the Arkansas River,

thereby improving the water quality. It will also protect the watershed

resource base by reducing irrigation induced erosion.

Significant negative effects to wetlands are not expected. However,

if mitigation is necessary, it will be accomplished on a value for

value basis.

A slight improvement of the upland wildlife habitat is expected due

to an increase in forage and water quality.

The proposed project will encourage and promote the agricultural

enterprises in the watershed through education and accelerated

technical and financial assistance. This will help maintain agriculture

as a significant component in the area economy.

A list of the cultural resource sites within the watershed has been

obtained from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Their

relationship to planned conservation measures was evaluated. The survey

concludes that no significant adverse impacts will occur to known

cultural resources in the watershed should the plan be implemented. If

however, during construction of enduring measures a new site is

identified, construction will stop and the (SHPO) will be notified.

There is no wilderness areas in the watershed.

There are no threatened or endangered species known to exist in the

watershed. However, prairie dog towns which could provide habitat for

the black-footed ferret, will not be disturbed during project action.

As stated above, the primary objective of the project is to reduce

the selenium entering the Arkansas River and groundwater. Land

treatment measures will reduce selenium levels to within State and EPA

standards.

Wildlife habitat may be temporarily disturbed in areas where

enduring measures are implemented. They will however, return to at

least their previous value within a short period of time.

The fishery in the Arkansas River will be impacted to a lesser

degree by selenium after the project is complete.

No significant adverse environmental impacts will result from the

installation of conservation measures. Some short-term habitat

disturbances may occur during construction of small erosion control

structures, but they will heal quickly.

Alternatives

The planned action is the most practical means of reducing the

selenium, salts, and sediment entering the Arkansas River and

groundwater, thus protecting the resource base in the watershed. Since

no significant adverse environmental impacts will result from

installation of the measures and no other alternatives could meet the

tests of completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability,

this alternative becomes the only viable candidate plan. The no action

alternative was used for comparison purposes.

Consultation--Public Participation

The Bent and Prowers Soil Conservation Districts requested in

March, 1989, that the watershed be considered for a PL566 watershed

project. A field review was made on March 23, 1989. The review team

found that significant irrigation water management, water quality, and

watershed protection treatment was needed. The Soil Conservation

District and the NRCS Field Office decided that detailed information

collection would be the first priority. Data on water quantity,

quality, and practice needs were gathered. Ninety percent of the

landowners expressed an interest in this project. Significant resource

problems were found and the sponsors made an application for PL566

planning assistance June 16, 1989.

The State Soil Conservation Board formally accepted the application

on September 6, 1989. The Soil Conservation Services' West National

Technical Center (WNTC) made a field reconnaissance October 25, 1989.

They met with the irrigation company personnel, field offices, and

conservation district officials. It was decided further data was needed

to quantify the off-site effects from project action. In January 1993,

the NRCS Field Office, area staff and state staff developed a schedule

to complete a preauthorization plan and plan of work.

On June 24, 1993, a public scoping meeting was held to discuss the

problems, needs, and possible effects from a project. Federal, State,

and local agencies, and the general public were invited. This group

helped give direction to the NRCS planners. A public response analysis

was completed

[[Page 45398]]

on the responses. A summary of those responses is shown on Table C.

An environmental evaluation meeting was also held on June 24, 1993,

to identify environmental concerns and issues and discuss how best to

address those concerns.

Numerous newspaper articles, newsletters, and radio public service

announcements have been aired to provide public information. Public

meetings with the news media in attendance were held to gain input and

inform the public.

A public meeting in the morning and a sponsors meeting in the

afternoon were held December 2, 1993, to determine the desirability of

pursuing a planning authorization and review the preliminary plan. The

sponsors felt that cost shared management practices were essential to

get adequate water quality improvement. Potential alternatives and the

responsibilities of each sponsor and NRCS were stressed in discussions.

The SCDs have the right of eminent domain under authority established

by state law. If needed, they are willing to fulfill their agreements

to see that a plan is formulated and implemented.

The public and sponsors encouraged NRCS to go forth with the

request for planning. Potential practices and alternatives were

reviewed to identify what may be needed. A revised application was

developed and approved by the sponsors to slightly change the watershed

size and sponsors in January 1994.

The sponsors reviewed the preauthorization report in March 1994 and

concurred with the report. However, the sponsors requested cost share

on management practices. NRCS, agreed to pursue cost sharing for

management practices. The preauthorization report was transmitted to

the WNTC in Portland for technical review in April 1994. A review by

the WNTC was completed on June 30, 1994. Comments were incorporated,

and on July 28, 1994, the SCD boards reviewed WNTC comments on the

Preauthorization Plan, and agreed to continue their support of the plan

even though cost sharing for management practices were not approved.

The SCD boards have met regularly and provided positive leadership

to the furthering of conservation and improvement of the watershed.

Ongoing water quality, quantity and management practices are being

installed by a combination of landowner, district and state funds. The

two district boards cooperated in getting a 319 demonstration project,

approved in February 1994, to show the value of surge irrigation and

irrigation water management on six fields in the watershed area.

On September 26, 1994 the watershed was approved for planning. A

meeting was held in December 1994 with field and area staffs, the State

Water Resources Planning staff, and sponsors to review the Plan of Work

and develop assignments to complete the watershed plan. A scoping

meeting and environmental assessment meeting was held at this time.

The Watershed Plan was developed and reviewed with the sponsors at

their board meetings in May, 1995. They requested that NRCS have a

public meeting to present the plan to all interested publics. On June

1, 1995, a public meeting was held in Lamar, Colorado. It was the

consensus of those present to move forward into inter-agency review.

Specific consultation was conducted with the State Historic

Preservation Officer concerning cultural resources in the watershed.

Public meetings were held throughout the planning process to keep

all interested parties informed of the study progress and to obtain

public input to the plan and environmental evaluation.

Agency consultation and public participation to date has shown no

unresolved conflicts related to the project plan.

Conclusion

The Environmental Assessment summarized above indicates that this

federal action will not cause significant local, regional, or national

impact on the environment. Therefore, based on the above findings, I

have determined that an environmental impact statement for the

Limestone-Graveyard Creeks Watershed Plan is not required.

Dated: August 19, 1996.

Stuart N. Simpson,

Assistant State Conservationist.

[FR Doc. 96-22066 Filed 8-28-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-01-M