U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Farm Service Agency
DRAFT Supplemental Environmental Assessment
For the
Colorado Republican River Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
Prepared By Farm Service Agency
United States Department of Agriculture
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 1 of 70
TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...... 4 Acronyms and Abbreviations ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5
1. Introduction ...... 6 1.1 Background ...... 6 1.1.1 Conservation Reserve Program ...... 7 1.1.2 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program ...... 7 1.1.3 Current Republican River CREP Agreement ...... 7 1.1.4 Proposed Changes to the Colorado Republican River CREP Agreement ...... 8 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ...... 9 1.3 Decisions to Be Made ...... 9 1.4 Regulatory Compliance ...... 9 1.5 Public Involvement and Consultation ...... 10 1.5.1 Internal Scoping ...... 10 1.5.2 External Scoping – Public Involvement ...... 10 1.6 Organization of Supplemental EA ...... 11 2. Description of Alternatives ...... 12 2.1 No Action Alternative – Current Colorado Republican River CREP ...... 12 2.1.1 Table 1 – Current CRP Acreage within the Colorado Republican River Basin ...... 12 2.2 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 13 2.3 Table 2 – Alternatives Comparison ...... 15 2.4 History of Controversy Associated with the Colorado Republican River CREP ...... 17 2.4.1 Background ...... 17 2.4.2 FSA Addresses Controversy ...... 19 2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis ...... 21 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts ...... 23 3.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions ...... 23 3.2 Resources Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ...... 24 3.3 Resources Considered with Detailed Analysis ...... 26 3.3.1 Wildlife and Habitat ...... 27 3.3.2 Nationwide Rivers Inventory ...... 28 3.3.3 Wetlands ...... 30 3.3.4 Water Quality...... 31
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 2 of 70
4. List of Preparers and Persons and Agencies Contacted...... 34 5. References ...... 35 6. EA Determination and Signatures ...... 37 7. APPENDICES ...... 39 7.1 Appendix A – Maps ...... 39 7.1.1 Map 1 – Republican River Basin ...... 40 7.1.2 Map 2 – Current Republican River CREP Area ...... 41 7.1.3 Map 3 – Proposed Action, Proposed CREP Project Area ...... 42 7.1.4 Map 4 – South Fork Republican River 1-Mile Boundary from Live Stream ...... 43 7.1.5 Map 5 – North Fork Republican River 1-Mile Boundary from Live Stream ...... 44 7.1.6 Map 6 – Arikaree River 1-Mile Boundary from Live Stream ...... 45 7.1.7 Map 7 – Closest Wilderness Area to the Republican River CREP Area = 82.751 miles ..... 46 7.1.8 Map 8 – Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers in Proximity to Republican River CREP Area 47 7.1.9 Map 9 – South Republican State Wildlife RR CREP Area and Location of Arikaree River (on Nationwide Rivers Inventory) ...... 48 7.2 Appendix B – Proposed Amendment to the Republican River CREP Agreement ...... 49 7.3 Appendix C – Colorado Residential Well Permit Application ...... 50 7.4 Appendix D – USFWS IPaC Report ...... 52 7.5 Appendix E – Notice of Availability ...... 67 7.6 Appendix F – National Natural Landmarks ...... 68
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 3 of 70
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Proposed The Farm Service Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture proposes to Action: approve the requested changes to the Colorado Republican River Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (“Proposed Action”). For purposes of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA), the Proposed Action would allow new permits for limited water uses, enlarge the project area, increase the total acres that could be enrolled, and change irrigation history requirements for purposes of determining eligibility. Type of This is a Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment to the Programmatic Document: Environmental Assessment for the Republican River Basin and High Plains Region Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Agreements for Colorado and Finding of No Significant Impact (USDA 2006) and the Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the Republican River Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and Finding of No Significant Impact (USDA 2012). Lead Agency: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) Further Info.: Corey Pelton, Colorado State Environmental Coordinator, (720)544-2880 Comments: This Draft SEA was prepared in accordance with USDA FSA National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures found in 7 CFR 799, as well as the NEPA of 1969, 42 USC 4321-4347, as amended, and CEQ’s Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508).
The comment period for this Draft SEA is open from: June 20, 2018, to July 20, 2018.
Hard copy comments must be postmarked by July 20, 2018, and mailed to the address below to be considered in the Final SEA: Republican River CREP Comments USDA-Farm Service Agency Attn: CREP Program Manager, Stop 8108 2312 East Banister Rd Kansas City, MO 64133-3011
The Draft SEA and related material can be viewed in hard copy, photocopied, or requested to be mailed from the FSA offices below: Colorado FSA State Office* Lincoln Co. FSA Office Washington Co. FSA Office 6th and Kipling 316 5th St 26924 US Highway 34 Gate 1, Building 56, Room 2760 Hugo, CO 80821 Akron, CO 80720 Denver, CO 80225 (719)743-2408 (970)345-2364 (720)544-2876 *Please note that there is a guard at Gate 1 and in Building 56. All visitors will be escorted through the building past the Building 56 guard.
The Draft SEA can be found on FSA’s National Current NEPA Documents webpage – https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/environmental-cultural- resource/nepa/current-nepa-documents/index
And on the Colorado FSA State Office webpage – https://www.fsa.usda.gov/state- offices/Colorado/index
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 4 of 70
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CPs Conservation Practices
CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
CRP Conservation Reserve Program
EA Environmental Assessment
ESA Endangered Species Act
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
FSA Farm Service Agency
IPaC Information Planning and Conservation (USFWS)
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
NRI Nationwide Rivers Inventory
RRWCD Republican River Water Conservation District
SEA Supplemental Environmental Assessment
SWA State Wildlife Area
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 5 of 70
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) proposes to approve changes to the Colorado Republican River Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) in the State of Colorado. The Proposed Action was requested by officials acting on behalf of the Republican River Water Conservation District (RRWCD). The Proposed Action is to: 1) Allow the State to approve new permits for limited use of water for watering of livestock on range and pasture, and single family dwellings, in accordance with State law, for wells that have had the permit for irrigation purposes cancelled and the irrigation water retired under the Colorado Republican River CREP; these uses of water will be allowed during and after the term of the CRP contract. 2) Expand the current Colorado Republican River CREP project area to include the portions of Lincoln and Washington counties that are within the Republican River Basin. 3) Increase the total number of acres that may be enrolled under the Colorado Republican River CREP to 60,000 acres. 4) Change the irrigation history requirements (time period) used to determine eligibility of acres to reflect more current irrigation activity.
Map 1 depicts the boundaries of the Republican River Basin; Map 2 provides the counties and portions of counties that comprise the current Colorado Republican River CREP project area; and Map 3 provides the proposed expanded Colorado Republican River CREP project area, including the portions of Washington and Lincoln counties that are covered by the Proposed Action. Since the Proposed Action has the potential to change the environmental impacts evaluated in earlier analyses of the current Colorado Republican River CREP, this Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) has been prepared.
In 1943, the states of Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas entered into the Kansas-Nebraska-Colorado Republican River Compact (“the Compact”) to allocate the waters of the Republican River Basin above the junction of the Republican and Smoky Hill rivers in Kansas. There are six major purposes of the Republican River Compact: (1) to provide the most efficient use of the waters of the Republican River Basin for multiple purposes; (2) to provide for an equitable division of such waters; (3) to remove all causes, present and future, which might lead to controversies; (4) to promote interstate comity; (5) to recognize that the most efficient utilization of the waters within the basin is for beneficial consumptive use; and (6) to promote joint actions by the States and the United States in the efficient use of water and the control of destructive floods.
In 2002, Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas entered into a Final Settlement Stipulation to resolve pending litigation regarding claims that Colorado and Nebraska had violated the Republican River Compact. In 2004, the Republican River Water Conservation District (RRWCD) was established and includes the area in Colorado of Phillips and Yuma Counties, and those portions of Kit Carson, Lincoln, Logan, Sedgwick, and Washington Counties generally within the topographic boundaries of the Republican River Basin. The RRWCD was established for the purpose of cooperating with and assisting the State of Colorado in meeting the State’s responsibilities under the Republican River Compact and was given authority to carry out this purpose.
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 6 of 70
1.1.1 Conservation Reserve Program
FSA administers the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which is a voluntary program that supports the implementation of long-term conservation measures designed to improve the quality of ground and surface waters, control soil erosion, and enhance wildlife habitat on environmentally sensitive agricultural land. CRP is one of the Federal government’s largest private land environmental improvement programs. The environmental impacts of CRP were evaluated most recently in the 2014 Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (USDA 2015).
To implement CRP (and CREP), FSA utilizes the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) conservation planning process. For each CRP contract (which includes all contracts under a CREP), NRCS completes a site-specific Conservation Plan and environmental evaluation (form CPA-052). As part of this evaluation, when determined to be necessary, NRCS recommends that FSA complete consultations with regulatory entities, such as the State and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As such, every CRP contract has a site-specific environmental evaluation, with consultations if needed, to ensure environmental impacts are within acceptable parameters and that the site contributes to the overall success of the CRP.
1.1.2 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) was established in 1997 under the authority of CRP to target high-priority conservation concerns identified by the State. USDA partners with a State and Federal funds are supplemented with non-federal funds to address the conservation concerns and goals identified by the State. CREP is a voluntary program under which land is removed from agricultural production, enrolled in CRP, and devoted to permanent resource conserving vegetation, such as approved grasses and trees, to control erosion, improve water quality and enhance wildlife habitat.
Once eligible lands are offered for enrollment, site-specific environmental reviews and consultation with and permitting from other Federal agencies are completed, as appropriate. Eligible land criteria are set forth by the CRP implementing regulations in 7 CFR Part 1410, detailed in the FSA Handbook 2-CRP, Agricultural Resource Conservation Program for State and County Offices, and through the agreement entered into between USDA and the State. As discussed in the previous section, CREP participants are also required to adhere to a NRCS-developed Conservation Plan that details the establishment and maintenance of CPs to ensure that no adverse impacts are anticipated and that the goals of CREP are met throughout the life of the CRP contract.
1.1.3 Current Republican River CREP Agreement
The Colorado Republican River CREP was first proposed in 2005. A Programmatic EA, Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Republican River Basin and High Plains Region Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Agreements for Colorado, was prepared to evaluate alternatives and the anticipated impacts, and was completed in May 2006, with a Finding of No Significant Impact (USDA 2006). A Supplemental Environmental Assessment was subsequently completed to add an additional 20,000 acres to the Colorado Republican River CREP project area and to assess environmental impacts of also adding portions of Washington and Lincoln counties into the project area; the Final Supplemental
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 7 of 70
Environmental Assessment for the Republican River Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and FONSI were completed in 2012 (USDA 2012). These previous analyses are summarized throughout this SEA and are incorporated by reference.
The current Colorado Republican River CREP, which is the “No Action Alternative” and is further defined later in Section 2.1, has an enrollment goal of 35,000 acres and includes all of Phillips and Yuma counties and those portions of Kit Carson, Logan, and Sedgewick counties that overlie the Ogallala Aquifer within the Republican River Basin (Map 2). All participants enrolling eligible irrigated cropland under the current Colorado Republican River CREP agree to permanently retire the irrigation water associated with the irrigated land being enrolled. The primary objectives of the current Colorado Republican River CREP are to: • Reduce soil erosion, • Reduce fertilizer and pesticide application, • Establish native grasses, • Restore degraded wetlands, • Restore and enhance riparian habitat, • Reduce agricultural use of the Ogallala Aquifer, • Ensure adequate stream flow to accommodate the life requirements of target fish species, • Reduce use of electricity by reductions in groundwater pumping, and • Reduce number of groundwater wells containing nitrogen levels above United States Environmental Protection Agency standards.
1.1.4 Proposed Changes to the Colorado Republican River CREP Agreement
The State of Colorado has requested changes to the current Colorado Republican River CREP Agreement. These proposed changes are the “Proposed Action Alternative” and are further defined later in Section 2.2. The Proposed Action would: 1. Increase the program enrollment goal of 35,000 acres by another 25,000 acres for a total enrollment of 60,000 acres,
2. Expand the Colorado Republican River CREP project area to include portions of Washington and Lincoln counties, which were enrolled to the maximum extent in CRP at the time of the original Colorado Republican River CREP Agreement was approved.
3. Allow the State to approve new permits for limited use of water for watering livestock on range and pasture, and single family dwellings, in accordance with State law, for wells that have had the permit for irrigation purposes cancelled and the irrigation water retired under the Colorado Republican River CREP; these uses of water would be allowed during and after the term of the CRP contract.
4. Change the irrigation history requirements (time period) used to determine eligibility of acres from four out of six of the years 1996-2001, to four out of the six years immediately prior to the date the land is offered for enrollment; if the land offered was irrigated in the calendar year the land was offered for enrollment, that calendar year shall be included in the six year period.
The impetus for the Proposed Action is to meet the goals and objectives of the Colorado Republican River CREP for the improvement of water quality and water quantity, restoration of native vegetation,
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 8 of 70
and improvement of wildlife habitat. Presently, interest in the current Colorado Republican River CREP has lagged such that the project is not meeting its ultimate identified goals. The Proposed Acton is intended, in part, to help stimulate interest and participation in the Colorado Republican River CREP, to meet the intended conservation metrics, while helping to allay existing landowner concerns about permanently relinquishing access to water from the well(s) used for irrigation. Specifically, the Proposed Action is needed to increase the amount of reduction of agricultural use of the Ogallala Aquifer, meet Colorado’s existing Republican River Compact obligations, restore and enhance wetlands, and increase stream flows in the Republican River Basin.
Other changes to the current Colorado Republican River CREP were proposed by the State; however, those changes do not have any potential to change any environmental impacts. Therefore, those changes are not part of the analysis of this SEA. For example, the process for obtaining documentation of the cancellation of a well permit may change, as well as the type and amount of payments provided by the State to participants. Such changes have no potential to impact the human environment, and therefore, are not part of this SEA analysis.
1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action The purpose for the Proposed Action is to increase the incentives for and the area in which eligible producers remove irrigated cropland from production and establish conservation practices to meet the conservation goals identified for the Republican River Basin by FSA and Colorado, in consultation with their State Technical Committee. The need for the Proposed Action is FSA’s responsibility to respond to Colorado’s requested changes to the Colorado Republican River CREP in an effort to take cropland out of production and put it into the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) by means of the CREP.
1.3 Decisions to Be Made FSA’s decisions are whether to: • Approve the requested Proposed Action and amend the current CREP Agreement (Appendix B). • Approve the requested Proposed Action or another alternative with as-yet-unidentified revisions, clarifications, or mitigation. • Deny the requested Proposed Action and take No Action to update the current CREP Agreement, as signed on April 21, 2006.
1.4 Regulatory Compliance This SEA is prepared to satisfy the requirements of NEPA (42 United States Code 4321 et seq.); its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508); and FSA implementing regulations, Environmental Quality and Related Environmental Concerns – Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (7 CFR 799). The intent of NEPA is to consider alternatives to federal actions and evaluate the anticipated impacts to the human environment to ensure well-informed Federal decisions. A variety of laws, regulations, and Executive Orders (EO) apply to actions undertaken by Federal agencies and form the basis for this SEA.
This SEA is supplementing the previous NEPA analyses completed for the Colorado Republican River CREP, specifically, the Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Republican River Basin and High Plains Region Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Agreements for Colorado and Finding of No Significant Impact (USDA 2006) and the Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 9 of 70
Republican River Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and Finding of No Significant Impact (USDA 2012). These documents are summarized throughout this SEA and are incorporated by reference.
1.5 Public Involvement and Consultation Scoping is an early and open process to involve agencies, organizations, and the public in determining the issues to be addressed in the environmental document. Among other tasks, scoping determines important issues and eliminates issues determined not to be important; identifies other permits, surveys and consultations required with other agencies; and creates a schedule that allows adequate time to prepare and distribute the environmental document for public review and comment before a final decision is made. Scoping is a process that seeks opinions and consultation from the interested public, affected parties, and any agency with interests or legal jurisdiction.
In accordance with NEPA, a Federal agency must coordinate with other Federal and state agencies with an interest in the Proposed Action or resources potentially affected by that action as well as concerned public. The Proposed Action was developed in coordination with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the Republican River Water Conservation District.
1.5.1 Internal Scoping
USDA staff of various specialties have been consulted regarding the purpose and need, issues, alternatives, and impact topics appropriate for consideration in this SEA. Additionally, FSA worked with their state CREP partner, through both the Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture and the Colorado Department of Natural Resources.
1.5.2 External Scoping – Public Involvement
To solicit feedback from the public, other agencies, and any other interested parties, a Notice of Availability of the Draft SEA (Appendix E) was published in the daily statewide newspaper, The Denver Post, on June 20, 21, and 22, 2018, and in the following weekly publications covering the impacted area: Akron News Reporter (June 27, and July 4, 2018), Otis Telegraph (June 20, 2018), Limon Leader (June 20, and June 27, 2018), and Eastern Colorado Plainsman on (June 20, and June 27, 2018).
This Draft SEA is available for public review and comment from June 20, 2018 to July 20, 2018. The document can be accessed in the following ways: • Viewed online: o https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/environmental-cultural- resource/nepa/current-nepa-documents/index, OR o https://www.fsa.usda.gov/state-offices/Colorado/index • Viewed in hard copy, photocopied, or requested to be mailed from the FSA offices below: Colorado FSA State Office* Lincoln County FSA Office Washington County FSA Office 6th and Kipling 316 5th St 26924 US Highway 34 Gate 1, Building 56, Room 2760 Hugo, CO 80821 Akron, CO 80720 Denver, CO 80225 (719)743-2408 (970)345-2364 (720)544-2876 *Please note that there is a guard at Gate 1 and in Building 56. All visitors will be escorted through the building past the Building 56 guard.
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 10 of 70
Hard copy* comments must be postmarked by July 20, 2018, and mailed to the address below to be considered in the Final SEA: Republican River CREP Comments USDA-Farm Service Agency Attn: CREP Program Manager, Stop 8108 2312 East Banister Rd Kansas City, MO 64133-3011
*Please note that emailed comments will not be accepted or considered.
1.6 Organization of Supplemental EA This SEA identifies reasonable alternatives and evaluates the potential impacts to the environment anticipated to result from the implementation of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives. • Chapter 1 provides background information, defines the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action, and identifies the scoping process for this SEA. • Chapter 2 defines the two alternatives, the No Action and the Proposed Action, as well as those alternatives considered but not fully evaluated. • Chapter 3 includes the Affected Environment (i.e., existing conditions) and defines the Environmental Consequences (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts) anticipated to result from the implementation of each alternative. • Chapter 4 provides the list of individuals and agencies who collaborated to complete the SEA. • Chapter 5 includes the references utilized in this SEA’s preparation. • Chapter 6 will be completed when the document is finalized (not in the Draft SEA). • Chapter 7 includes the appendices: o Maps (Appendix A), o Proposed Amendment to the Republican River CREP (Appendix B – will be included in the Final SEA (not in the Draft SEA)), o Colorado Residential Well Permit Application (Appendix C), o USFWS’ IPaC Report (Appendix D), o Notice of Availability posted in Colorado newspapers (Appendix E), and o List of National Natural Landmarks (Appendix F).
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 11 of 70
2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
2.1 No Action Alternative – Current Colorado Republican River CREP The current Colorado Republican River CREP, which is the “No Action Alternative,” has an enrollment goal of 35,000 acres and includes all of Phillips and Yuma counties and those portions of Kit Carson, Logan, and Sedgewick counties that overlie the Ogallala Aquifer within the Republican River Basin (Map 2). All participants enrolling eligible irrigated cropland under the current Colorado Republican River CREP agree to permanently retire the irrigation water associated with the irrigated land being enrolled. Under the No Action Alternative, otherwise eligible land located within the current Colorado Republican River CREP project area would continue to be enrolled (Section 2.1.1, Table 1). Further, no water from the well(s) used to irrigate the enrolled land is allowed to be used for any purpose.
Under the No Action Alternative, the current Colorado Republican River CREP would remain in place, the total number of acres that can be enrolled under the Colorado Republican River CREP would not be increased and land physically located in Washington and Lincoln counties would continue to be ineligible for enrollment.
2.1.1 Table 1 – Current CRP Acreage within the Colorado Republican River Basin
Total CRP Enrollment Colorado Republican River CREP County Name Cropland Acres (Acres) (Acres)
Kit Carson 927,561 87,194 12,876
Lincoln 594,495 108,427 NA
Logan 559,179 68,008 0
Phillips 376,654 20,303 1,140
Sedgwick 225,949 14,276 0
Washington 953,513 123,932 NA
Yuma 718,558 89,256 9,669
Total Acreage 4,355,909 511,396 23,685
Source: USDA Farm Service Agency 05/24/2018
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 12 of 70
2.2 Proposed Action Alternative As introduced in Section 1.1.4, the Proposed Action Alternative would result in changes to the current Colorado Republican River CREP Agreement, as requested by the State of Colorado. The Proposed Action would: • Increase the total acre enrollment goal of 35,000 acres by another 25,000 acres, for a total enrollment of 60,000 acres. • Expand the current Colorado Republican River CREP project area to include the portions of Lincoln and Washington counties that are within the Republican River Basin. • Allow the wells – that have had the permit for irrigation purposes cancelled and the irrigation water retired under the Colorado Republican River CREP – to be converted and subsequently permitted to allow the State to approve new permits for limited use of water for: (1) watering of livestock on range and pasture, and (2) single family dwellings, in accordance with State law; These uses of water would be allowed during and after the term of the CRP contract. • Change the irrigation history requirements (time period) used to determine eligibility of acres from four out of six of the years 1996-2001, to four out of the six years immediately prior to the date the land is offered for enrollment; if the land offered was irrigated in the calendar year the land was offered for enrollment, that calendar year would be included in the six year period.
The primary goals of the Proposed Action, with full enrollment of 60,000 acres, would be to: • Reduce irrigation water use for agricultural purposes from the Ogallala Aquifer by up to six and one-half percent; • Reduce irrigation water use by 49,800 to 69,200 acre-feet a year through the purchase of landowners permanent water rights and cancellation of the well permit for irrigation purposes; • Reduce soil erosion from approximately 751,633 tons to an estimated 259,395 tons per year, a total reduction for all acres enrolled of 492,238 tons per year; • Reduce annual fertilizer and pesticide application by a minimum of 3,865 tons per year from 2004 levels; • Reduce the number of groundwater wells in the project area containing nitrogen levels above United States Environmental Protection Agency standards by approximately ten percent from 2004 levels; and • Reduce the total use of electricity by 2.76 million kilowatt hours through reductions in groundwater pumping.
While the Proposed Action would increase the enrollment goal by 25,000 acres for a total of 60,000 acres, this SEA will address the 5,000 additional acres that were not evaluated in the 2012 USDA EA/FONSI; however, the geographic area and scope do not change from the 2012 USDA EA/FONSI. Because that EA/FONSI were never acted on or implemented, the Colorado Republican River CREP total acreage enrollment cap remained set at 35,000, but the analysis completed to expand the acreage to 55,000 in this same area in 2012 continues to be valid.
As with the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would reduce ground and surface water use and reduce the amount of electricity used for irrigation. But the amount of reduction in groundwater use is less under the Proposed Action than under the No Action Alternative because of the allowed use of groundwater for watering livestock and single family dwellings. However, the reduction of ground/surface water use under the Proposed Action remains substantial in comparison with the
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 13 of 70
amount of ground and surface water used to irrigate the land for production agriculture (refer to Table 2, in Section 2.3, and Table 3, in Section 3.3.4.1), as it could be without the Colorado Republican River CREP. The establishment of permanent vegetative covers on the land enrolled would reduce non-point sources of contaminants, thereby enhancing associated wildlife habitat, both terrestrial and aquatic. Should the Proposed Action be approved by FSA, the enrollment goals would be: • Up to 500 acres enrolled as CP22 (riparian buffers), CP23 (wetland restoration), or CP23A (wetland restoration, non-floodplain) – note that this is a decrease from the current goals for these CPs, which is 1,500 acres total, but is due to the success of other conservation efforts and the remaining unprotected acreage; and • Up to 59,500 acres enrolled in CP2 (permanent native grasses) and CP4D (permanent wildlife habitat, non-easement), a 26,000 acre increase compared to the current goal.
No more than 5,000 acres of non-irrigated center-pivot corners (non-irrigated dryland cropland) may be enrolled under the Colorado Republican River CREP. The non-irrigated center-pivot corners must be enrolled at the same time and under the same CRP contract as the associated irrigated center-pivot acres. This is not a change from the current provisions of the Colorado Republican River CREP Agreement.
The Proposed Action does not propose to change how eligible land is enrolled under the Colorado Republican River CREP. Like with the current Colorado Republican River CREP, irrigated cropland would only be eligible for enrollment in the when producers submit a completed and signed State certification agreement, which certifies that the producer would cease applying irrigation water on all irrigated cropland acres accepted for enrollment. While this process of certification may change over time, the retirement of irrigation water for enrolled acres would not. What is proposed to be changed is that the Proposed Action would allow the State to approve a new permit for certain limited uses of the water from a well once the permit for irrigation use has been cancelled. The well permit for irrigation use must be cancelled before any new use permit may be approved. New permits only for the following uses, in accordance with State law, would be allowed: (1) watering of livestock on range and pasture, and (2) single family dwellings. The non-irrigation use permits are subject to State law1 for water use restriction, diameter of pipe in wells, and pump size. Commercial water use permits would not be authorized. Water use enforcement activities are handled by the Colorado Division of Water Resources, which has four water enforcement officers who are responsible for ensuring that water use does not exceed permitted amounts.
The maximum cropland acreage that may be enrolled in CRP and the wetland reserve easements of the Wetland Reserve Program and the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program may not exceed 25 percent of the total cropland in a county, except for certain CPs and/or unless the restriction is waived by the FSA Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs. At the time the current Colorado Republican River CREP Agreement was signed, enrollment of cropland in the applicable programs in Washington and Lincoln counties had met the 25 percent restriction. For this reason, the choice was made by FSA at that
1This amended CREP Agreement would apply the State water limitations in effect on the date of the CREP Agreement’s signature, to ensure the water conservation would not decrease over time to authorize additional water use for any purpose.
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 14 of 70
time to not include those counties. Since they are no longer meeting that restriction, they are proposed for inclusion under the Proposed Action. In addition to the federal payment, all participants in the Colorado Republican River CREP are eligible for annual non-federal payments per acre enrolled (Direct State Partner Payment). The State annual payments to eligible participants vary depending on the location of the water source and the type of water source. The State’s annual payments will be for only the irrigated acres enrolled, the State will make no payment for any non-irrigated land enrolled. The State annual payments are determined by: (1) For land irrigated with groundwater, the location of the well used to irrigate the cropland enrolled to determine the operative distance from the Arikaree River and the South Fork and the North Fork of the Republican River, as applicable. It is the distance of the well, not the cropland being enrolled, from the applicable river that is used to determine the amount of the State’s annual payment. (2) For land irrigated with surface water, any surface water that has a point of diversion directly from the Arikaree River or the South Fork or North Fork of the Republican River.
The varying payments based on location and type of water source are intended to reflect the varying conservation value achieved from ceasing use of the water for irrigation purposes and the relative water recharging value to the applicable river and aquifer. The proposed changes in the type and amount of State payments to participants under the Colorado Republican River CREP are intended to encourage participation in the project, and are provided below in Table 2, Alternatives Comparison.
2.3 Table 2 – Alternatives Comparison No Action Alternative: Proposed Action Alternative: Current Republican River CREP Acreage 35,000 acres Increase 25,000 = 60,000 total acres Enrollment Limit Geographic All of Phillips and Yuma counties Add the portions of Washington and Lincoln counties Area and portions of Kit Carson, Logan, that are within the Republican River Basin and Sedgwick counties CRP • CP2, Establishment of No change in the CRP Conservation Practices Conservation permanent native grasses Authorized. Practices • CP4D, Permanent wildlife habitat, non-easement CP2 + CP4D = 59,500 acres total (26,000 acre increase) • CP2 + CP4D = 33,500 acres total CP22 + CP23 + CP23A = 500 acres total (1,000 acre • CP22, Riparian buffer decrease) • CP23, Wetland restoration • CP23A, Wetland restoration – non- floodplain • CP22 + CP23 + CP23A = 1,500 acres total Temporary Allowed for 12 months for cover No change Irrigation establishment
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 15 of 70
No Action Alternative: Proposed Action Alternative: Current Republican River CREP Payment A. Direct payment of $100 to $600 A. $300 per acre for cropland irrigated only with Schedule depending on location and surface water from the Arikaree River or the South irrigation source. Fork or North Fork of the Republican River; surface water from the Arikaree River or the South Fork or B. Cost-share payment from 5% to North Fork of the Republican River includes any 30%, depending on the type of surface water that has a point of diversion directly practice enrolled. from the Arikaree River or the South Fork or North Fork of the Republican River; C. One-time bonus payment of $10 to $120/ac for irrigated B. $55 per acre for cropland irrigated with acres based on distance from groundwater from a well that is located within the Republican River, and water “0 to 1 Mile from the South Fork Republican River source. live stream selection” area identified in Map 4; the South Fork Republican River live stream selection D. Annual rental payment of $10- area is a 1 mile wide area from a specific segment $50/ac for irrigated acres of the South Fork of the Republican River; depending on distance from Republican River, and water C. $35 per acre for cropland irrigated with source. groundwater from a well that is located within the “South Fork Republican River Sub Basin” but not located within the “South Fork Republican River live stream selection” area, each of which is identified in Map 4;
D. $20 per acre for cropland irrigated with groundwater from a well that is located: i. Within the “0 to 1 Mile from the North Fork Republican River live stream” area identified in Map 5; the North Fork Republican River live stream area is a 1 mile wide area from a specific segment of the North Fork of the Republican River; or
ii. Within the “0 to 1 Mile from the Arikaree River live stream” area identified in Map 6; the Arikaree River live stream area is a 1 mile wide area from a specific segment of the Arikaree River; and
E. $6 per acre for cropland irrigated with groundwater from a well that is located within the Colorado Republican River CREP project area but not within the: i. “South Fork Republican River Sub Basin” identified in Map 4;
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 16 of 70
No Action Alternative: Proposed Action Alternative: Current Republican River CREP ii. “0 to 1 Mile from the North Fork Republican River live stream” area identified in Map 5; or
iii. “0 to 1 Mile from the Arikaree River live stream” area identified in Map 6. Irrigated Cropland must have been irrigated The land must have been irrigated at a rate of not less Cropland at the rate of not less than ½ acre than ½ acre-foot per acre per year for four out of the History foot per acre for four out of the six six years immediately prior to the date the land is years between 1996 and 2001. offered for enrollment. If the land offered was irrigated in the calendar year the land was offered for enrollment, that calendar year shall be included in the six year period. Water Use Permanent well retirement upon The State must cancel the well permit for the well State’s approval of a request to used to irrigate the acreage enrolled under the cancel well permit. Colorado Republican River CREP or change the water right from agricultural use to in-stream use for surface water used to irrigate the acreage enrolled, as applicable.
The State may allow participants who cancelled their well permits to be approved for a new permit to use the well for watering of livestock on range and pasture or single family dwellings, in accordance with current State law at the time the proposed CREP Amendment is signed2.
2.4 History of Controversy Associated with the Colorado Republican River CREP CREPs are not typically controversial, as they support mutually held conservation values between USDA and the State. That said, CREP agreements involve the payment of money to landowners and others, and that in turn, can result in perceived inequities. What follows is this history of the controversy associated with the Colorado Republican River CREP and how FSA is addressing any existing/remaining controversy.
2.4.1 Background
The Republican River CREP originally authorized enrollment of up to 35,000 acres of cropland throughout the northeastern corner of Colorado. To participate, landowners that seek compensation for ceasing groundwater irrigation are required to cancel their well permits, seal their wells, and implement
2 In other words, if the State law changed to allow more water to be used, the Colorado Republican River CREP Agreement would still apply the limitations in effect on the date the Amendment is signed, so the water conservation would not decrease to authorize additional water use for any purpose.
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 17 of 70
practices intended to restore their land to its natural state.3 Landowners who retire wells adjacent to either of two river branches in the Republican River basin deemed critical for improving water quality and wildlife habitat receive extra incentive payments in addition to the base pay rate.
In 2007, the Republican River Water Conservation District (RRWCD) proposed an amendment to the conservation program. In general, the amendment would expand the conservation program, increasing the enrollment area to 55,000 acres, adding two participating counties, increasing program funding, and authorizing incentive payments for land adjacent to a third critical river branch.
In addition, the amendment would create a so-called “target zone” within the original program boundaries.4 In that zone, different rules would apply. First, although the zone is not adjacent to a critical river branch, landowners would be entitled to extra incentive payments for enrolled acres. Second, rather than retiring the wells on those acres, landowners could instead participate in the program by conveying their groundwater rights to the RRWCD, which would use the water to help satisfy Colorado’s obligations under the Compact.
The Compact allocates water from the Republican River among the states of Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas. As of 2007, Colorado was out of compliance with the compact’s stream flow requirements. To address the state’s noncompliance, the RRWCD planned to transport water pumped from the target zone through a pipeline and release it into the North Fork of the Republican River (“the North Fork”) just shy of the state border. Accordingly, in 2008, the RRWCD preemptively purchased groundwater rights from the predominant landowner in the target zone.5 The RRWCD also began construction (since completed) on the pipeline.
FSA initially expressed concern over whether the target zone would serve the conservation program’s environmental goals, inasmuch as there was no guarantee the neighboring states receiving the groundwater would put it to an environmentally beneficial use. Nonetheless, in an October 2009 letter, the FSA notified the RRWCD that it generally supported the amendment as a whole. As required by NEPA, FSA began preparing a supplemental environmental assessment of the program amendment.
While preparing the assessment, FSA encountered public opposition to the target zone in the form of emails, letters, phone calls, a signed petition, and formal comments on the circulated draft assessment. Local citizens and nearby water districts objected to the target zone because they believed it would inure solely to the benefit of the predominant landowner, whom it was believed was poised to obtain a windfall by receiving program payments for ceasing to use water that it had already sold to the RRWCD for a large sum. Moreover, because the “conserved” water would not contribute to replenishment of the overdrawn aquifer underlying the Republican River Basin, but rather would be pumped to neighboring states, opposing parties doubted that any local environmental or economic benefits would be realized.
3 Required practices can include planting native grasses, restoring wetlands, and increasing riparian buffers. 4 The target zone, approximately fifty square miles of land, would be situated north of Wray, Colorado, near the Nebraska border. 5 Actually, the RRWCD paid approximately $50 million for landowner’s groundwater rights, but immediately leased the rights back to the landowner, provisioned on landowner’s obligation to terminate the lease upon the successful enrollment of its cropland in the conservation program.
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 18 of 70
In November 2010, FSA published its supplemental environmental assessment of the proposed amendment. The assessment concluded that the proposed amendment would have no significant negative environmental impacts; instead, the resulting surface and groundwater savings would have overall beneficial long term effects on water resources, wildlife, and wildlife habitat in the region. The assessment acknowledged the public’s input regarding the alleged inequity and inefficacy of the target zone, but concluded that it raised issues beyond the scope of the assessment’s environmental inquiry.6
At that point, the NEPA process stalled. FSA delayed issuing a formal Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) while it considered how to handle the public opposition to the target zone. Finally, in April 2012, after considering various options, the agency issued a Finding of No Significant Impact that applied only to the proposed amendment without the target zone.
The parties involved agreed that the target zone component of the proposed amendment could not proceed unless it was authorized by a FONSI. The predominant landowner expressed the concern that, without target zone eligibility, the cropland on which it sold groundwater rights to the RRWCD could not be enrolled in the CRP. With the NEPA process thus resolved against its interests, the predominant landowner filed suit, contending that the FSA’s decision not to include the target zone in the FONSI violated NEPA. In 2016, the case was decided in in favor of the agency.
Additionally, and separate from the above controversy, on February 22, 2018, Colorado agreed to a settlement in which it would pay Nebraska $4 million to resolve disputes regarding Colorado’s use of water under the Republican River Compact. This settlement requires Colorado to approve the funding by December 31, 2018. As FSA understands it, both Nebraska and Kansas are supportive of the Proposed Action.
2.4.2 FSA Addresses Controversy
FSA is very aware of the controversy associated with the previously proposed amendment to the Colorado Republican River CREP Agreement – CREP Agreements, and amendments thereto, do not typically result in lawsuits. As FSA prepared this analysis, it was determined that addressing this controversy head-on in a transparent fashion was needed to address any lingering animosity or controversy, to the extent possible. What follows are the particular items that FSA identified as being potentially controversial and explains how the agency would attempt to resolve those issues through the Proposed Action.
1) Expansion Area – The portions of Washington and Lincoln counties that are not currently included in the Colorado Republican River CREP project area are the largest portions of the Republican River Basin in Colorado that are not included in the current Colorado Republican River CREP project area. The reason for this is that, when the Colorado Republican River CREP Agreement was signed, those counties were above the CRP County limitations relative to the allowed percentage of land allowed to be enrolled in CRP. As they are no longer exceeding that limitation and are part of the Republican River Basin, the Proposed Action would add the portions of Washington and Lincoln counties that are within the Republican River Basin.
6 However, in response to the public’s opposition, the RRWCD voted to decrease the proposed target zone incentive payments.
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 19 of 70
2) Retroactivity – As discussed in more detail in the next Section (2.5), land for which the water rights for irrigation have been sold, leased, or legally transferred are not eligible for enrollment under the Colorado Republican River CREP, even if the water is leased back to the landowner. Landowners must own and control the water rights associated with all the irrigated cropland to be enrolled. To be eligible under the Proposed Action, consistent with the current Colorado Republican River CREP Agreement, the participants must: (A) For land irrigated with groundwater, cancel the well permit for irrigation use; or (B) For land irrigated with surface water, be approved for a change of water right from agricultural irrigation to in-stream use, and dedicate the use of the water right to the State for in-stream flow purposes, or the RRWCD for compliance with the Republican River Compact to increase in-stream flow in the Republican River Basin.
However, the Proposed Action would allow the State to approve new permits for limited use of water for watering of livestock on range and pasture, and single family dwellings, in accordance with State law7, for wells that have had the permit for irrigation purposes cancelled and the irrigation water retired under the Colorado Republican River CREP; these uses of water would be allowed during and after the term of the CRP contract. Wells for which the water rights were permanently retired under the current Colorado Republican River CREP would not be allowed to have new permits for any water use (i.e., the Proposed Action is not retroactive), as that would diminish the conservation value already gained.
3) Payment Schedule –There is no “target zone” under the Proposed Action, as was proposed by the State in the previous amendment; however, there are different payment schedules for different areas within the project area, including the proposed expanded project area. But the key difference is that the payment schedule under the Proposed Action is based on the hydrological benefits of the acreage involved and the water to be retired, and are valued commensurate to that hydrological and conservation value.
4) Small Capacity Water Use Permits – As discussed under the Proposed Action in Section 2.2, FSA long-deliberated on the proposal to authorize this kind of water use, as there were concerns that the agreement would no longer meet the identified water conservation goals. As shown in the Water Conservation Table in Section 3.3.4, with the additional 25,000 acres, even with the proposed authorization of water use permits for the existing well structure in the CREP (for watering of livestock on range and pasture, and for single family dwellings), the Colorado Republican River CREP meets its ultimate conservation goals, as defined in Section 2.2.
Additionally, it is acknowledged that relinquishing irrigation water can be a stressful decision for a producer, particularly given the costs to install a large capacity well, only to have to pay to retrofit it into a small capacity well to be eligible for a permit to water livestock on range and
7 The amended CREP Agreement (Proposed Action) would apply the State water limitations in effect on the date of the CREP Agreement’s signature, to ensure the water conservation would not decrease over time to authorize additional water use for any purpose.
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 20 of 70
pasture, and for single family dwellings. Producers have a realistic fear of “giving up” all of their irrigation water rights, so interest in enrollment under the Colorado Republican River CREP has waned. As such, allowing the State to approve limited use permits in the existing irrigation well structure may increase a person’s willingness to participate and cancel the well permit for irrigation purposes.
While these efforts may not completely eliminate controversy associated with the Proposed Action, it is FSA’s goal to demonstrate transparency in our process. There is no silver bullet – water quality and quantity are complex and controversial, as all of our lives and livelihoods rely on them and there is not enough supply to meet the many, and sometimes conflicting, demands. FSA does not suggest that the Proposed Action would resolve all of the issues involved with the many competing interests for the Republican River, but this is one proposed effort to try to better balance these interests in some measure in the Republican River Basin.
2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis CEQ regulations (40 CFR §1501.7) state that the lead agency shall identify and eliminate from detailed study the alternatives which have been determined to not meet the identified Purpose and Needs (Section 1.2), narrowing the discussion in the document to a brief presentation of why they would not meet the Purpose and Needs.
Through deliberative discussions between FSA and the State of Colorado from 2016 through 2018, as well as with the states of Kansas and Nebraska, the following preliminary alternative measures were considered but eliminated from further consideration for not meeting the stated Purpose and Needs:
• Retroactive changes – Producers who have already relinquished their irrigation rights are not eligible for the Colorado Republican River CREP. Producers who have already relinquished their irrigation rights under the current Colorado Republican River CREP are not eligible for the water use permits described above under the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, only producers who have current irrigation water rights to relinquish are eligible for the Colorado Republican River CREP and for subsequent water use permits for watering livestock on range and pasture, and for single family dwellings. It was determined that retroactivity would not meet the Purpose and Needs for FSA, as it would diminish the conservation benefits already gained.
• Commercial water use permits – The State of Colorado initially requested that the proposed changes defined herein include an authorization for commercial water use permits, in addition to permits for the watering of livestock on range and pasture, and for single family dwellings, through the use of the existing well structures enrolled in CREP. This was determined not to meet the Purpose and Needs, as the water conservation would have been diminished below an acceptable threshold and would not allow Colorado to meet their identified goals.
• Continue cap of 35,000 acres – As this is the acreage enrollment cap under the current Colorado Republican River CREP (the No Action Alternative), it was an issue of much discussion. Colorado is currently approximately 11,000 acres below this enrollment cap – so FSA initially questioned the need for the increase. For Colorado to meet its commitments under the Republican River
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 21 of 70
Compact with Kansas and Nebraska, which is a driving factor in their support for the Proposed Action, an additional 25,000 acres were needed. Therefore, to increase the probability that Colorado could meet its Republican River Compact obligations and FSA would continue to have water conservation benefits to at least the same degree originally envisioned, it was determined that leaving the current cap of 35,000 acres would not meet the Purpose and Needs for both Colorado and FSA.
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 22 of 70
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The potential impacts to a number of protected resources, as defined in FSA Handbook 1-EQ (Revision 3) Environmental Quality Programs for State and County Offices, are evaluated in this SEA. Some resources are eliminated from detailed analysis following CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1501.7), which state that:
“The lead agency shall identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues that are not significant or that have been covered by prior environmental review, narrowing the discussion of these issues in the document to a brief presentation of why they would not have a significant effect on the human or natural environment.”
Resources that are not eliminated are carried forward for detailed analysis. The table below shows the resources that are eliminated from detailed analysis and those carried forward. Section 3.2 contains discussions of those resources eliminated from detailed analysis. Section 3.3 describes the existing conditions for resources carried forward for detailed analysis and the anticipated impacts to those resources resulting from the alternatives.
Resource Eliminated Carried Forward Wildlife and Habitat X Cultural Resources X Coastal Barriers X Coastal Zones X Wilderness Areas X Wild and Scenic Rivers X Nationwide Rivers Inventory X National Natural Landmarks X Sole Source Aquifers X Floodplains X Wetlands X Soils X Water Quality X Air Quality X Noise X Important Land Resources X Socioeconomics X Environmental Justice X
3.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions While the proposed expanded project area (portions of Washington and Lincoln counties) was previously considered in the 2012 EA/FONSI, and the CRP/CREP environmental evaluation process is defined above in Section 1.1.1, the following is provided as background for the reader.
Washington County – The 2015 population was an estimated 4,864, yielding over 320 acres for every man, woman, and child. Most of the land is dedicated to farming and ranching. The county is a leader of all of the Colorado counties in wheat production. Akron is the county seat and the southern part of
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 23 of 70
the county is the ‘high point’ on the great plains between Denver, Colorado and Akron, Ohio. (https://www.colorado.gov/washingtoncounty)
Lincoln County – Geographically, the county forms a backward block L, which is 72 miles long and 48 miles wide in the south, but only 30 miles wide in the north. The population is approximately 5,557. The total area of Lincoln County is 2,593 square miles of rolling prairie with several river valleys and numerous sand hills. Lincoln County geographically is part of the high plains portion of the Colorado Piedmont, and as such the terrain is quite flat and ranges in elevation from 4,500 feet in the southeast to approximately 5,400 feet in the northwest. (http://www.lincolncountyco.us/)
CRP/CREP Environmental Evaluation Process – For each CRP contract, NRCS completes a site-specific Conservation Plan and environmental evaluation (form CPA-052). As part of this evaluation, when determined to be necessary, NRCS recommends that FSA complete consultations with regulatory entities, such as the State and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As such, every CRP contract has a site-specific environmental evaluation, with consultations if needed, to ensure environmental impacts are within acceptable parameters and that the site contributes to the success of the overall CRP and CREP.
3.2 Resources Eliminated from Detailed Analysis All of the protected resources were evaluated in previous environmental analyses for the Colorado Republican River CREP Agreement, beginning in 2006. While the oldest of the analyses is 12 years old, these analyses remain valid and, unless noted, are representative of the current situation. FSA is evaluating in this document only those resources that have the potential to be impacted by the Proposed Action Alternative, i.e., the changes proposed to the Colorado Republican River CREP. Below, FSA has identified the resources that will not be analyzed in detail for the reasons provided. Coastal Barrier Resources System Coastal barriers are eliminated from detailed analysis as there are no designated Coastal Barriers in the State of Colorado. Coastal Zone Management Areas Coastal Zone Management Areas are eliminated from detailed analysis because there are no Coastal Zone Management Areas in the State of Colorado. Cultural Resources While there is potential for soil disturbance below the existing level of soil disturbance (a possible trigger requiring a cultural resource consultation), the previously described CRP/CREP environmental evaluation process is completed for every offer, ensuring each contract has a site-specific review to determine any potential impacts that warrant further evaluation and/or consultation with regulatory authorities (i.e., State/Tribal Historic Preservation Officers and/or Tribes). With limited exceptions, FSA would adhere to the guidance provided by these regulatory authorities to ensure any adverse impacts would be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. Given that these site-specific reviews are completed for every offer, it is not anticipated that there would be any impacts to cultural resources. As such, this resource topic is not evaluated further in this SEA.
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 24 of 70
Floodplains While CRP contracts may occur within the floodplain, the previously described CRP/CREP environmental evaluation process is completed for every offer, ensuring each contract has a site-specific review to determine any potential impacts that warrant further evaluation and/or consultation with regulatory authorities (i.e., FEMA). With limited exceptions, FSA would adhere to the guidance provided by regulatory authorities to ensure any adverse impacts would be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. Given that these site-specific reviews are completed for every offer and all CRP-enrolled acres would be devoted to approved CPs, it is not anticipated that there would be any adverse impacts to floodplains. As such, this resource topic is not evaluated further in this SEA. Sole Source Aquifers Sole source aquifers are eliminated from detailed analysis because there are no sole source aquifers or recharge areas in the State of Colorado. Important Land Resources Prime and unique farmland, forestland, and rangeland resources are eliminated from detailed analysis because the proposed action would not result in prime and/or important farmland being converted to a nonagricultural use. While enrolled in CRP, including CREP, land continues to be considered “cropped.” As such, while the specific vegetative cover on a parcel may change for the duration of the CRP contract, no land would be converted to a nonagricultural use. As such, this resource topic is not evaluated further. Soils Soils were assessed on a regional level in the original Colorado Republican River CREP EA/FONSI (USDA 2006), which included the areas proposed for inclusion under the Proposed Action. While that assessment is 12 years old, soils change only on geological time scales. As such, those previous analyses remain current. Additionally, there is the CRP/CREP environmental evaluation process previously described, which would ensure any site-specific adverse impacts to soils would be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. In general, marginally positive impacts are expected to result from establishing authorized CPs on enrolled acreage in place of irrigated crops, including wetland restorations and native plantings, which would stabilize soils, restore wetland hydrology (and, therefore, wetland soils), and reduce soil erosion. For these reasons, soils are not evaluated further in this SEA. Air Quality While air quality could be affected during the cover installation period, it would be temporary, localized, and short-term in nature. Additionally, there is the CRP/CREP environmental evaluation process previously described, which would ensure any site-specific adverse impacts to air quality would be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. As such, air quality is not evaluated further in this SEA. Wilderness Areas Wilderness Areas are eliminated from detailed analysis because the Proposed Action is not located within one mile of a Wilderness Area and would not create a disturbance that could be observed from a Wilderness Area. The nearest Wilderness Area is located 82.75 miles (Map 7) from the project area and would not be impacted.
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 25 of 70
Wild and Scenic Rivers Wild and Scenic Rivers are eliminated from detailed analysis because the proposed action is not located within ¼ mile of a Wild and Scenic River (note that the Arikaree River is included on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, so is evaluated further in Section 3.3 below). The closest river segment designated as Wild and Scenic is along the Cache La Poudre River, which lies north/northwest of Denver, and is not located within or adjacent to the current or proposed project area (Map 8), so it is not evaluated further in this SEA. National Natural Landmarks There are 14 National Natural Landmarks in Colorado (Appendix F). The proposed Republican River CREP Amendment area is not located near any of these and does not threaten to alter or impair them in any way, so they are not considered further in this analysis. Noise Noise has been eliminated from detailed analysis, as there are no state or local noise ordinances that would be triggered or exceeded by implementation of the Proposed Action. The increase in noise level during any well retrofitting, pipe installation for household water use, or installation of pipe to livestock watering tanks would be temporary and short-term, resulting from operation of heavy equipment during normal working hours. Additionally, an analysis of noise would be made and individually analyzed as part of the previously identified CRP environmental evaluation process. As such, no noise impacts are expected to result, so are not evaluated further. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice No impact to population, housing, income, or employment in the region are anticipated to result from the Proposed Action, nor are disproportionate adverse impacts to minority or low income populations anticipated. So while the Proposed Action does provide additional payments to motivate participation, it is not anticipated that this would impart a substantive economic impact on the area. Therefore, socioeconomics and environmental justice are not carried forward for detailed analysis.
3.3 Resources Considered with Detailed Analysis This section describes the resources potentially impacted (directly, indirectly, and cumulatively) by implementation of the alternatives described in Chapter 2. As described above, aspects of the affected environment described in this section focus only on the potentially impacted resources. To summarize, under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented, resulting in the continuation of the current Colorado Republican River CREP and associated resource uses in the current project area. The Proposed Action would: 1) increase the enrollment goal from 35,000 to 60,000, 2) expand the eligible area to include parts of Washington and Lincoln counties, 3) once irrigation wells are closed, authorize the State to issue water use permits for livestock on range or pasture and single family dwellings, and 4) change the irrigation history time period for eligibility.
Additionally, CEQ regulations stipulate that the cumulative impacts analysis within an SEA should consider the potential environmental impacts resulting from “the incremental impacts of the action when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions” (40CFR 1508.7). CEQ guidance in considering cumulative impacts
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 26 of 70
involves defining the scope of the other actions and their interrelationship with the Proposed Action. The scope must consider geographical and temporal overlaps among the Proposed Action and other actions. It must also evaluate the nature of interactions among these actions.
The affected environment for and scope of cumulative impacts in this SEA is the majority of the Republican River Basin within Colorado, including portions of Washington and Lincoln counties. Due to the previous NEPA analysis completed for this CREP (2006/2012), the potential cumulative impacts associated with the No Action Alternative are not re-evaluated in detail herein.
3.3.1 Wildlife and Habitat
Existing Conditions The Republican River Basin spans parts of eastern Colorado, western Kansas, and western Nebraska (Map 1). The Colorado portion of the basin includes the headwaters of the Republican River and lies in Colorado’s northern high plains, a semi-arid ecoregion that receives on average fewer than 13-17 inches of rainfall annually. Land cover is predominantly a combination of cultivated crops and grassland/herbaceous cover (CO 2011).
There is one State Wildlife Area within the Republican River Basin in Colorado, in Yuma County, the South Republican State Wildlife Area (SWA, Map 9). This SWA is 13,268 acres and allows warm water fishing, camping, picnicking, and hunting (bobwhite quail, dove, pheasant, quail, turkey, waterfowl, deer, rabbit, and squirrel) (CO 2018).
Species protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as well as designated critical habitats, were evaluated for the entire CREP project area, including the portions of Washington and Lincoln counties proposed for inclusion under the Proposed Action, in the Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the Republican River Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and Finding of No Significant Impact (USDA 2012). The species assessed included: Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), Piping plover (Charadrius melodus), Least tern (Sterna antillarum), Whooping crane (Grus americana), Pallid sturgeon (Saphirhynchus albus), and Western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara).
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) online resource system Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) was utilized for the entire proposed CREP project area, including Washington and Lincoln counties in addition to Kit Carson, Phillips, Sedgwick, Logan and Yuma counties, and found that the Black-footed ferret is not currently listed under the ESA in those counties. All other species evaluated in the USDA 2012 EA/FONSI were considered and, to date, there are no additional species or critical habitats that have been listed or designated under the ESA in the Republican River Basin in Colorado (IPaC 2018). Impacts of No Action Alternative As described in the original Republican River CREP (USDA 2006), and 2012 EA/FONSI, there is potential for short-term negative impacts to protected species during activities related to installation and maintenance of the approved CPs including grading, leveling, filling, and construction of support features, such as fences. Ground-disturbing activities could impact habitat or create a disturbance if a species is nearby or if the activities occur during the Primary Nesting Season, when most activities are prohibited under CRP to avoid impacts to nesting and brood-rearing birds.
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 27 of 70
In the 2012 EA/FONSI, the impact to these species from the current Colorado Republican River CREP was determined to be “no effect”. But due to the lack of full enrollment, it is not meeting in full its intended wildlife and habitat benefits/goals. Impacts of Proposed Action Alternative The 2012 EA/FONSI evaluated an acreage enrollment cap of 55,000 acres; it is not anticipated that the additional 5,000 acres (to reach the 60,000 total acres under the Proposed Action) would pose an adverse impact (or significant benefit) to these species or habitats. Additionally, the CRP/CREP site- specific environmental evaluations completed for each offer would identify any projects with the potential for impacts, and FSA would appropriately consult with the USFWS (as required under Section 7 of the ESA) to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those impacts to the extent practicable. If informal consultation determined that an adverse impact to protected species would be likely, the land would not be enrolled.
The additional water conservation gained from the increased acreage; anticipated increased participation; the increased acreages of plantings of conservation covers, including native grasses; and required maintenance of the conservation covers, including invasive species management, may provide localized habitat benefits over the contract duration, including to the South Republican SWA, if enrollments occur nearby. That said, continued and ever-increasing competition for Colorado’s limited water resources, as well as participants not maintaining their approved conservation covers or other disturbances during the Primary Nesting Season, would continue to limit the upper potential of such benefits. Given this, the anticipated impact from the Proposed Action to these ESA species/habitats, and to other resident species/habitats, would be anticipated to be “no effect.” Cumulative Impacts While the additional acres converted from irrigated cropland to approved conservation covers could be a benefit to wildlife and habitat for the contract duration, given the scope of the area covered and total acres authorized, it is anticipated that these wildlife and habitat benefits would be relatively diffused throughout the area, even with the State’s proposed payment schedule. Plus, population growth continues in this area, so it is anticipated that further declines to and displacement of wildlife and habitat would occur as that development occurs. As such, the benefits gained by the additional acres planted to approved conservation covers would likely be offset by continuing land use changes throughout the Republican River Basin in Colorado. So, while there would be benefits, it is not anticipated that those benefits rise to the level of being either significant or cumulative, given their context and intensity (per 40 CFR 1508.27). Cumulative adverse impacts are not anticipated to result from the implementation of the Proposed Action.
3.3.2 Nationwide Rivers Inventory
Existing Conditions The Arikaree River (Map 9) is located within the proposed Colorado Republican River CREP project area and is listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory. The Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) is a listing of more than 3,200 free-flowing river segments in the United States that are believed to possess one or more "outstandingly remarkable" natural or cultural values judged to be at least regionally significant.
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 28 of 70
Hence, NRI river segments are potential candidates for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Section 5(d)(1) and related guidance, all Federal agencies must seek to avoid or mitigate actions that would adversely affect NRI river segments. The NPS provides instructions on the process of consulting on projects potentially affecting NRI segments.
The Arikaree River is 51 miles long and is known for its exceptional fish, wildlife, and wetlands habitats.
Description: Exceptional fish and wildlife habitat along river, especially wetlands; highest-valued fishery resource (FWS); significant waterfowl use; historic Beecher Island Indian Massacre site; Jones-Miller Hell Gap Paleo Buffalo Kill-Storage site.
Reach: Alder Creek to NE/KS State line
Outstandingly Remarkable Value: Cultural, Fish, Historic, Wildlife
Year Listed/Updated: 1982
(Source: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/rivers/nationwide-rivers-inventory.htm) Impacts of No Action Alternative Producers in the Republican River Basin in Colorado, as elsewhere, invested financial resources to install their irrigation (large capacity) wells, approximately $10,000 per well (Sullivan 2018). These individuals are understandably reluctant to give these well structures up entirely. Beyond the financial, there are visceral reasons producers are reluctant to retire their irrigation water; in an arid area, in particular, easy access to water is life. Relinquishing the right to use that water permanently without the ability to use the valuable structure for minimal domestic or stock water uses is daunting. For these reasons, reaching the enrollment cap under the Colorado Republican River CREP has been problematic and, as demonstrated earlier, is not without controversy.
So, participation in the original Republican River CREP would be expected to remain unchanged or decrease over time without the additional measures proposed under the Proposed Action. As such, the full water conservation quantity benefits/goals of maximum enrollment would not be achieved. This lack of full enrollment and the opportunity cost of the hydrological benefits not realized could be perceived to be an adverse impact to sensitive water resources, such as the Arikaree River. Impacts of Proposed Action Alternative Given the additional water quality and quantity benefits anticipated under the Proposed Action (see Table 3, Section 3.3.4.1), there would be an expected positive impact to the Arikaree River, albeit a marginal benefit, given other competing uses.
The Proposed Action is not expected to negatively affect the Arikaree River for a number of reasons. Some of these reasons have already been defined in the Wildlife and Habitat section above, such as the conversion of irrigated crops to permanent native grasses. Additionally, because the Proposed Action would remove cropland from agricultural production, use of pesticides and herbicides would be likewise reduced, as they are routinely used in conventional row-cropping operations, and as irrigation/groundwater consumption would be decreased, there could be a slight benefit to the Arikaree River and its fish and wildlife resources. So, for the reasons this river is included on the NRI, including
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 29 of 70
the recreation values, the Proposed Action would provide marginal water quality and water quantity benefits if enrolled acreage occurs within the river’s proximity. Cumulative Impacts Due to the widespread nature of potential enrollments under the Proposed Action, the existing competing uses of the watershed, and the resistance to participation, it is not anticipated that the cumulative impacts, positive or negative, of the Proposed Action would be significant individually or cumulatively on the Arikanee River or its “outstandingly remarkable values.”
3.3.3 Wetlands
Existing Conditions The arid nature of the high plains ecoregion, in which the Republican River Basin lies in Colorado, means the wetlands are all the more critical for providing their many functions, including but not limited to wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge, and pollutant filtration. The issues facing the wetlands in this area are detailed in the table below (CO 2011).
Impacts of No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the goal is enrollment of 1,500 acres of wetlands and riparian buffers. To date, due to the RRWCD’s other conservation efforts, no acres of wetlands or riparian buffers have been restored under the Colorado Republican River CREP. In fact, there are no longer 1,500 acres of wetlands and riparian buffers remaining unprotected within the current and proposed project areas. So Colorado is meeting this goal through other ongoing conservation efforts.
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 30 of 70
Impacts of Proposed Action Alternative The Proposed Action decreases the wetland restoration (and riparian buffer installation) goals down from 1,500 acres to 500 because, as previously stated, the RRWCD’s other conservation efforts have assisted in meeting this goal. So this decrease in acreage is merely reflecting the remaining unprotected acreage and is, therefore, not a significant impact/change from the No Action Alternative. Cumulative Impacts The proposed decrease in acreage for potential wetland restoration is not expected to be cumulatively significant in the basin context, as the original target has largely been met, albeit through mechanisms other than CREP.
3.3.4 Water Quality
Existing Conditions For this analysis, water resources include groundwater, surface water, water quality, and wetlands. Both water quality and quantity are discussed herein simultaneously in recognition of their inextricable connection. The Clean Water Act, The Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Water Quality Act are the primary Federal laws that protect the nation’s waters, including lakes, rivers, aquifers, and wetlands. In addition, the states of Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska are party to the Republican River Compact, which governs the use of waters of the Republican River and its tributaries.
The Republican River Basin is a major contributor to the Ogallala Aquifer, which has been identified as a national concern regarding water quantity and quality. Over 3500 wells within the Republican River Basin in Colorado tap into the Ogallala Aquifer, supplying the basin’s cropland, livestock, municipal, domestic, and commercial entities. Cattle feedlots and ranching, crops (corn and winter wheat), and hogs are dominant agricultural trends in the Republican River Basin. Impacts of No Action Alternative Annual enrollment levels under the Colorado Republican River CREP would likely remain largely the same under the No Action Alternative. However, changes in commodity prices, land values, and other operation costs are major contributors to enrollment levels.
Under the No Action Alternative, no use of water from the well(s) is allowed. All water rights are permanently retired. Under this scenario, it is anticipated that participation under the Colorado Republican River CREP would continue at the present pace, which is currently under its enrollment cap by more than 11,000 acres. With the acreage consistently below the enrollment cap for the current Colorado Republican River CREP, the No Action Alternative is not achieving the full environmental benefits envisioned. Impacts of Proposed Action Alternative Should the Proposed Action Alternative be approved for implementation by FSA, there may be an added incentive for increased participation in the Colorado Republican River CREP by virtue of allowing the
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 31 of 70
State to approve new permits for limited use of water for (1) watering of livestock on range and pasture, and (2) single family dwellings, in accordance with State law8.
Currently, each pivot well is allowed to pump 300-400 acre feet of water per year to irrigate cropland; however, a household use permit would allow a maximum use of 15 gallons per minute (gpm) up to 1/3 of an acre foot per year; domestic use permits and livestock tank permits would each be allowed 1 acre foot at the same maximum pumping volume of 15 gpm. Landowners who seek new permits for limited use of water for (1) watering of livestock on range and pasture, and (2) single family dwellings, would be required to case and pack (retrofit) existing wells and install pumps suited for small capacity water pumping volumes. The amount of water conserved from the retirement of the irrigation water/well retrofit, as compared against the volumes of water potentially permitted for household/livestock, is approximately 300:1 (see 3.3.1, Table 3, Water Conservation Comparison).
Due to the increased acreage involved and the household/livestock permits, it would be anticipated that the Proposed Action would generate greater interest in enrollment and, therefore, be more aligned to meet the proposed goals. The Proposed Action brings the Colorado Republican River CREP into closer consistency with the CREP for the Nebraska portion of the Republican River Basin, which allows water use for livestock, and helps Colorado to better meet its obligations under the Republican River Compact. Kansas and Nebraska are both supportive of the Proposed Action.
The additional acreage and approved CPs, such as permanent native grasses, wetland restoration, and required maintenance efforts to combat invasive species, would have a positive impact on water quality, although the impact would be minimal and localized due to the limits to these acreages.
Under the Proposed Action, unlike the No Action Alternative, wells/water rights used for irrigation would no longer be permanently retired; they could be permitted for limited use of water for watering of livestock on range and pasture, and single family dwellings. The well would not be allowed to revert to a permit for irrigation purposes, even after the end of the CRP contract period.
Additionally, this is one of two CREPs covering a portion of the Republican River Basin (Colorado and Nebraska). Nebraska’s CREP that includes the Republican River allows use of water for livestock, as is included under the Proposed Action; both Kansas and Nebraska are supportive of the Proposed Action.
As demonstrated in Table 3 below, the Proposed Action at full enrollment would have potential water conservation benefits of greater than 14 billion gallons/year. While this is an impressive number on its face, the context of the impact is important to consider: this benefit is wholly dependent on full enrollment, which has proven problematic; the area has persistently arid conditions; the benefits would be dispersed throughout the basin; and competing demands for these water resources are ever- increasing. For these reasons, it is not expected that this positive impact would rise to the level of significance.
8 The amended CREP Agreement (Proposed Action) would apply the State water limitations in effect on the date of the CREP Agreement’s signature, to ensure the water conservation would not decrease over time to authorize additional water use for any purpose.
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 32 of 70
Cumulative Impacts The water resources in the Republican River Basin are extensively studied, modeled, and watched. It is a typical water system in that there are too many uses of too limited a resource and finding a balance is a challenge. While the Proposed Action may help Colorado meet its commitments to Kansas and Nebraska under the Republican River Compact, and would simultaneously provide marginal, albeit important, water conservation benefits (given the context of the entire basin), it is a balance that Colorado wishes to make. By virtue of their requesting the Proposed Action, it is important to the State, who is responsible for ensuring the competing priorities for its water are balanced. As such, the Proposed Action would be intended to ensure adverse impacts to water quality and quantity are not significant, individually or cumulatively.
3.3.4.1 Table 3 – Water Conservation Comparison
No Action Alternative: Proposed Action Alternative Current Republican River CREP Total Acreage Enrollment 35,000 60,000 Cap Total wells (with full 290 wells retired permanently 500 wells retired/retrofitted enrollment) Amount of irrigation water 71.5-107 million gallons/year per 71.5-107 million gallons/year per retired well retired (low end of average well retired. used in this table). 72 million x 500 wells = 36 billion 72 million x 290 wells = 21 billion gallons/year retired gallons/year retired Amount of water allowed to None Producers who have retired be permitted for use for irrigation, are permitted to use watering livestock and single up to 325,849 gal/yr/well family dwellings (livestock and single family use only; 1 acre foot/yr/well; no more than 15 gal/min/well). 325,849 x 500 wells= 0.17 billion gallons/yr Total water conservation 21 billion gallons/year retired 36 billion – 0.17 billion* = 35.83 permanently billion gallons/yr Difference 14.83 billion gallons/year more water conserved under Proposed Action (with full enrollment) when compared against the No Action Alternative *This calculation assumes that every well with a cancelled irrigation permit applies for water withdrawal equal to the current maximum permit (1 af) for domestic and livestock use.
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 33 of 70
4. LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED
List of Preparers and Reviewers Name and Title Education and Experience Nell Fuller, FSA Environmental BS, Agriculture, University of Kentucky Advisor to the Administrator Master of Environmental Management (MEM), Yale University
2013-2018 FSA’s Environmental Advisor/National Environmental Compliance Manager 2000-2012 USFWS NEPA Analyst/Biologist Virgil Ireland, CREP Program 2015-Present CREP Program Manager Manager Corey Pelton, GIS Specialist and BS, Landscape Horticulture, Colorado State University (CSU) State Environmental BS, Horticulture – Business Management, CSU Coordinator for Colorado 2016-Present GIS Specialist/State Environmental Coordinator for Colorado 2013-2016 State Agricultural Program Specialist for Colorado 2008-2013 Agricultural Program Specialist Sheryl Ivanov, Farm Program 2017-Present Environmental Compliance Program Specialist Environmental Compliance 2010-2017 State Agricultural Program Specialist for NY Farm Specialist Programs and NY State Environmental Coordinator 1989-2010 County Farm Program Technician
Persons and Agencies Contacted Name and Title Affiliation Don Brown, Commissioner of Colorado Department of Agriculture Agriculture Mike Sullivan, Republican River Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Watershed Conservation District Michael Gurwitz USDA Office of General Counsel Susan Metzger Kansas Department of Agriculture Mike Thompson Nebraska Department of Agriculture United States Fish and Wildlife IPaC, Wilderness, and Wild and Scenic Rivers reports Service United States National Park National Natural Landmarks, Wilderness Areas, National Wild and Service Scenic Rivers, and Nationwide Rivers Inventory Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Areas, National Wild and Scenic Rivers United States Forest Service Wilderness Areas, National Wild and Scenic Rivers
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 34 of 70
5. REFERENCES
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division (CO 2011). Statewide Water Quality Management Plan: Chapter 12, Republican River Basin Plan. June 13, 2011.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife website (CO 2018). South Republican State Wildlife Area. http://cpw.state.co.us/swa/South%20Republican%20%28Bonny%29. Accessed June 09, 2018.
Colorado Official State Web Portal. Washington County Colorado Website. https://www.colorado.gov/washingtoncounty. Accessed June 09, 2018.
Lincoln County, Colorado Website. http://www.lincolncountyco.us/ Accessed June 09, 2018.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ 1981). Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ 1997). Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ 2005). Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis.
Cure Land, LLC, et al v. United States Department of Agriculture, et al, 833 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 1990).
Sullivan, Mike (Sullivan 2018). Colorado Department of Natural Resources. Conference call with FSA staff. May 23, 2018.
United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (USDA 2006). Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Republican River Basin and High Plains Region Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Agreements for Colorado and Finding of No Significant Impact.
United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (USDA 2012). Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the Republican River Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and Finding of No Significant Impact.
United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (USDA 2015). Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Conservation Reserve Program (December 2014) and Record of Decision (April 17, 2015).
United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (USDA 2016a). 7 CFR 799. FSA Environmental Quality and Related Environmental Concerns – Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. August 3, 2016.
United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (USDA 2016b). FSA Handbook Environmental Quality Programs for State and County Offices (Revision 3). Short Reference 1-EQ. November 4, 2016.
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 35 of 70
United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (USDA 2018). FSA Handbook 2-CRP, Agricultural Resource Conservation Program for State and County Offices (Revision 5). Short Reference 2-CRP. June 1, 2018.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Information, Planning and Conservation System (IPaC 2018). http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/TOMTNPJ3YBCSJOWIGCP3C5N4MQ/resources (USFWS 2018). Report generated on June 08, 2018, for ESA-listed and Sensitive Species in Kit Carson, Lincoln, Logan, Phillips, Sedgewick, Washington, and Yuma counties, Colorado.
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 36 of 70
6. EA DETERMINATION AND SIGNATURES
This section is to be completed when the EA is finalized.
FSA ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION – The FSA preparer of the EA determines:
1. Based on an examination and review of the foregoing information and supplemental documentation attached hereto, I find that this proposed action:
Would have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment and an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared;
Would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an
EIS will not be prepared.
2. I recommend that the Project Approval Official for this action make the following compliance determinations for the below-listed environmental requirements.
Not in In Not compliance compliance applicable National Environmental Policy Act Clean Air Act Clean Water Act Safe Drinking Water Act Endangered Species Act Coastal Barrier Resources Act Coastal Zone Management Act Wild and Scenic Rivers Act/National Rivers Inventory National Historic Preservation Act Subtitle B, Highly Erodible Land Conservation, and Subtitle C, Wetland Conservation, of the Food Security Act Executive Order 11988 and 13690, Floodplain Management Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands Farmland Protection Policy Act Department Regulation 9500-3, Land Use Policy E.O. 12898, Environmental Justice
3. I have reviewed and considered the types and degrees (context and intensity) of adverse environmental impacts identified by this assessment. I have also analyzed the proposal for its consistency with FSA environmental policies, particularly those related to important farmland protection, and have considered the potential benefits of the proposed action. Based upon a consideration of these factors, from an environmental standpoint, this proposed action may:
Be approved without further environmental analysis and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) prepared.
Not be approved because of the reasons identified under item b.
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 37 of 70
Signature of Preparer Date
Name and Title of Preparer (print)
Environmental Determination – FSA State Executive Coordinator determines:
Based on my review of the foregoing Environmental Assessment and related supporting documentation, I have determined:
The appropriate level of environmental review and assessment has been completed, and
substantiates a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI); therefore, an EIS will not be prepared and processing of the requested action may continue without further environmental analysis. A FONSI will be prepared.
The Environmental Assessment is not adequate and further analysis or action is necessary for the following reason(s):
The Environmental Assessment has established the proposed action cannot be approved for the following reason(s):
Additional SEC Comments:
Signature of SEC Date
Printed Name
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 38 of 70
7. APPENDICES
7.1 Appendix A – Maps
Map 1 – Republican River Basin
Map 2 – Current Colorado Republican River CREP Area
Map 3 – Proposed Action (CREP Amendment) Area
Map 4 – South Fork Republican River 1-mile Boundary from Live Stream
Map 5 – North Fork Republican River 1-mile Boundary from Live Stream
Map 6 – Arikaree River 1-mile Boundary from Live Stream
Map 7 – Closest Wilderness Area to the Proposed Action (CREP Amendment) Area
Map 8 – Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers in Proximity to Republican River CREP Area
Map 9 – South Republican SWA and Location of Arikaree River
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 39 of 70
7.1.1 Map 1 – Republican River Basin
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 40 of 70
7.1.2 Map 2 – Current Republican River CREP Area
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 41 of 70
7.1.3 Map 3 – Proposed Action, Proposed CREP Project Area
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 42 of 70
7.1.4 Map 4 – South Fork Republican River 1-Mile Boundary from Live Stream
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 43 of 70
7.1.5 Map 5 – North Fork Republican River 1-Mile Boundary from Live Stream
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 44 of 70
7.1.6 Map 6 – Arikaree River 1-Mile Boundary from Live Stream
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 45 of 70
7.1.7 Map 7 – Closest Wilderness Area to the Republican River CREP Area = 82.751 miles
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 46 of 70
7.1.8 Map 8 – Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers in Proximity to Republican River CREP Area
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 47 of 70
7.1.9 Map 9 – South Republican State Wildlife RR CREP Area and Location of Arikaree River (on Nationwide Rivers Inventory)
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 48 of 70
7.2 Appendix B – Proposed Amendment to the Republican River CREP Agreement
Will be provided in the Final SEA, as the document may change as a result of comments received during the public comment period.
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 49 of 70
7.3 Appendix C – Colorado Residential Well Permit Application
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 50 of 70
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 51 of 70
7.4 Appendix D – USFWS IPaC Report
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 52 of 70
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 53 of 70
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 54 of 70
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 55 of 70
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 56 of 70
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 57 of 70
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 58 of 70
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 59 of 70
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 60 of 70
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 61 of 70
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 62 of 70
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 63 of 70
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 64 of 70
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 65 of 70
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 66 of 70
7.5 Appendix E – Notice of Availability
The following Notice of Availability soliciting comments from the public, other agencies, and other interested parties was published in these newspapers on the dates specified: • Denver Post: June 20, 21, and 22, 2018. • Akron News Reporter: June 27, and July 4, 2018. • Eastern Colorado Plainsman: June 20, and June 27, 2018. • Limon Leader: June 20, and June 27, 2018. • Otis Telegraph: June 20, 2018.
Notice of Availability USDA-Farm Service Agency Colorado Republican River Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment
The US Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency (FSA) announces the availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the Colorado Republican River Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) within the Republican River Basin. The Proposed Action is to amend the existing CREP Agreement to: 1) increase the acreage cap, 2) expand the eligible area to include parts of Washington and Lincoln counties, 3) authorize the state to issue livestock/domestic water use permits once irrigation wells are closed, and 4) change the irrigation history time period for eligibility. Information regarding this Proposed Action can be reviewed either: 1) online at https://www.fsa.usda.gov/state-offices/Colorado/index or 2) in person at or by request from the Lincoln Co. FSA Office, Washington Co. FSA Office, and Colorado State FSA Office. The comment period opens on June 20, 2018 – comments must be postmarked no later than July 20, 2018, and mailed to: Republican River CREP Comments USDA Farm Service Agency Attn: CREP Program Manager, Stop 8108 2312 East Banister Rd Kansas City, MO 64133-3011 .
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 67 of 70
7.6 Appendix F – National Natural Landmarks
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 68 of 70
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 69 of 70
DRAFT Colorado Republican River CREP Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 70 of 70