[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 212 (Tuesday, November 3, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59276-59278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-29379]


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

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