Highline Breaks Watershed, Otero & Pueblo Counties, CO

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Highline Breaks Watershed, Otero & Pueblo Counties, CO

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), DOA.

ACTION: Notice of a finding of no significant impact.

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

SUMMARY: 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 NRCS Regulations (7 CFR Part 560); the

NRCS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an

environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the Highline

Breaks Watershed, Otero and Pueblo Counties, Colorado.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen F. Black, State

Conservationist, 655 Parfet St., Room E200C, Lakewood, CO 80215-5517.

(303) 236-2886, Extension 202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The environmental assessment of this

federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause

significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As

a result of these findings, Stephen Black, State Conservationist, has

determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact

statement are not needed for this project.

The project purpose is a plan for agricultural water management

watershed protection. The planned works of improvement include

accelerated technical assistance for implementing land treatment

practices such as nutrient management, residue management, irrigation

water management, and enduring practices to reduce deep percolation to

improve water quality and protect the resource base.

The Notice of Finding No Significant Impact (FONSI), has been

forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various

Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited

number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy

requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the

environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting

Stuart N. Simpson.

No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be

taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the Federal

Register.

Stephen F. Black,

State Conservationist.

(This activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance under NO. 10.904, Watershed Protection and Flood

Prevention, and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order

12372, which required intergovernmental consultation with State and

local officials).

Finding of No Significant Impact for Highline Breaks Watershed

Otero and Pueblo Counties, Colorado

Introduction

The Highline Breaks Watershed is a federally assisted action

authorized for planning under Public 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 organizations and

individuals. Data developed during the

[[Page 59277]]

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 250 long-term land treatment contracts will be

written during the project's life. Approximately 31,000 acres will be

treated through project action.

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

soil resource base from excessive irrigation induced erosion,

sedimentation, and reduce negative water quality impacts to surface and

groundwater, including the Arkansas River, from nitrate loading,

selenium, sediment, and salts; (2) (agriculture water management)--

improve application uniformity.

Effects of Recommended Action

Expected impacts include: improved surface and groundwater quality,

improved human health and safety, significant cropland erosion

reduction, reduced sediment delivered to surface water bodies, reduced

pollutant loading of wetlands, fishery habitat impairment reduced,

improved wildlife habitat, reduced irrigation labor costs, reduced

fertilizer use, reduced irrigation system operation and maintenance

costs, greater irrigation effectiveness.

The proposed action will reduce nitrates, sediments, salts, and

other pollutants leached into the ground water and delivered to 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 function for

function basis.

Potentially, a slight improvement of the upland wildlife habitat is

expected due to an increase in cover, 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. Their

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 are 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 nitrates and selenium entering the Arkansas River and groundwater.

Land treatment measures will reduce nitrate loading to ground and

surface waters in the watershed as well as maintaining selenium levels

within State and EPA standards.

Wildlife habitat may be temporarily disturbed in areas where

enduring measures are implemented. It will recover however, within a

short period of time.

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

degree by nitrates, selenium, and sediment 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 enduring practices on

irrigated cropland.

Alternatives

The recommended action is the most practical means of reducing the

nitrates, 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

test 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 West and East Otero Soil Conservation Districts requested in

March, 1989, that the watershed be considered for a Public Law 566

watershed project. A field review was made on March 22, 1989. The

review team found that improved irrigation effectiveness, water

quality, and watershed protection 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. The sponsors made an

application for Public Law 566 planning assistance May 1, 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 November,

1994, the NRCS Field Office, area staff and state staff developed a

schedule to complete a preauthorization plan and plan of work. A

revised application was developed in June, 1995. As a result, a water

quality plan was developed for the area.

On June 26, 1995, 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 on the responses.

An environmental evaluation meeting was also held on June 26, 1995,

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 meeting was held with the Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) field office, area staff, and sponsors in March, 1996, on the

preauthorization report. A sponsors meeting was held in June, 1996, to

determine the desirability of pursuing a planning authorization and

review the preliminary plan. Potential alternatives and the

responsibilities of each sponsor and NRCS were stressed in discussions.

The SCD's 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. Planning

[[Page 59278]]

authorization was requested July 17, 1996.

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 HUA and 319 demonstration

project, approved in FY-91, to show the value of surge irrigation and

irrigation water management in the watershed area. The projects were

enthusiastically accepted by the farmers.

In September, 1996, the watershed was approved for planning. A

meeting was held in October, 1996, 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 on May 14, 1997. They requested that NRCS have a

public meeting to present the plan to all interested parties. On

December 3, 1997, a public meeting was held in Rocky Ford, 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 Highline

Breaks Watershed Plan is not required.

Dated: October 28, 1998.

Stephen F. Black,

State Conservationist.

[FR Doc. 98-29379 Filed 11-2-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-16-M