Big Cedar Creek Watershed, Floyd and Polk County, GA, 40309-40311 [05-13716]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Notices and concluded the notice requires no further environmental review as funds will be applied against existing debt and no additional funds are being advanced for production or expansion. No extraordinary circumstances or other unforeseeable factors exist which would require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. A copy of the environmental evaluation is available for inspection and review upon request. Signed at Washington, DC, on June 30, 2005. James R. Little, Administrator, Farm Service Agency. Exhibit 1—Alaska Dairy Fund Certification I lllll hereby certify that I (or my entity which I have the authority to represent) meet the definition of an eligible farmer, as shown below, and will accept proceeds made available by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, according to FSA calculations up to the total amount of my FSA Farm Loan Programs debt: Definitions: Eligible farmer is an individual or entity who is an established dairy farmer in the State of Alaska and is indebted to the Secretary of Agriculture through the Farm Loan Programs of the Farm Service Agency. Established dairy farmer is an individual or entity who has been continuously producing and selling milk commercially for three or more full calendar years (including 2002–2004) and continued to produce milk to sell commercially on May 11, 2005. I further certify that I am aware that there could be tax consequences if I accept these funds and may consult a tax professional or the IRS if I have any questions regarding these consequences. lllllllllllllllllllll Signature lllllllllllllllllllll Signature Exhibit 2—Notification of 2005 Alaska Dairy Fund Production Records Dear (Borrower’s Name): Pursuant to Section 5104 of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Pub. L. 109–13), and the Notice of Funding Availability implementing that law, the Farm Service Agency has determined the distribution of funds from the Alaska Dairy Fund. All records available to the FSA indicate that your milk production sold commercially from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2004 was llll. Using this as a basis for calculation, your share of the 2005 Alaska Dairy fund would be approximately $llll. This is an estimated projection only. Any correction in the production amounts used for receipt of these funds could change this amount. Therefore, at this time, 80 percent of this amount, or $llll, will immediately be applied to your FSA Farm Loan Program account. VerDate jul<14>2003 19:23 Jul 12, 2005 Jkt 205001 You have 30 days from receipt of this notice to appeal if you believe that FSA’s decision is incorrect. Information on how to appeal is included with this notification. At the conclusion of the appeal period for all eligible farmers, the remaining balance, as calculated by FSA, will be applied to your account. Funds first will be applied toward any FLP delinquency and then as an extra payment on your account. Please consult with your FSA Office regarding any changes to your future payment schedule. If you have any questions, please contact the Alaska State FSA Office at (907)761– 7738. lllllllllllllllllllll Sincerely, State Executive Director Alaska Farm Service Agency BILLING CODE 3410–05–P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Madera County Resource Advisory Committee Forest Service, USDA. Notice of Resource Advisory Committee Meeting. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92–463) and under the secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–393) the Sierra National Forest’s Resource Advisory Committee for Madera County will meet on Monday, July 18, 2005. The Madera Resource Advisory Committee will meet at the Bass Lake Ranger District Office, North Fork, CA, 93643. The purpose of the meeting is: review the procedures for accepting FY 2005 RAC proposals and the draft public announcement for a call for project proposals on the Sierra National Forest. DATES: The Madera Resource Advisory Committee meeting will be held Monday, July 18th, 2005. The meeting will be held from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. ADDRESSES: The Madera County RAC meeting will be held at the Bass Lake Ranger District Office, 57003 Road 225, North Fork, CA 93643. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Martin, U.S.D.A., Sierra National Forest, Bass Lake Ranger District, 57003 Road 225, North Fork, CA, 93643 (559) 877–2218 ext. 3100; e-mail: dmartin05@fs.fed.us. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Review of procedures for accepting FY 2005 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 RAC proposals; (2) draft public announcement. Dated: July 7, 2005. David Martin, District Ranger, Bass Lake Ranger District, Sierra National Forest. [FR Doc. 05–13735 Filed 7–12–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–11–M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service Big Cedar Creek Watershed, Floyd and Polk County, GA Natural Resources Conservation Service. ACTION: Notice of a finding of no significant impact. AGENCY: [FR Doc. 05–13751 Filed 7–12–05; 8:45 am] PO 00000 40309 SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Regulations (7 CFR part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the Big Cedar Creek Watershed Floyd and Polk County, Georgia. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cran Upshaw, Economist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Federal Building, 355 East Hancock Avenue, Athens, Georgia 30601, Telephone (706) 546– 2277, E-Mail cran.upshaw@ga.usda.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Environmental Assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, James E. Tillman Sr., State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement is not needed for this project. The project purpose is continued flood prevention. The planned works include measures for the control of agricultural animal waste related pollution. The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact [FONSI] has been forwarded to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and to various Federal, State, and local agencies and interest parties. A limited number of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment are on file and may be E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM 13JYN1 40310 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Notices reviewed by contacting Cran Upshaw at the above number. No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the Federal Register. James E. Tillman, Sr., State Conservationist. Effects of Recommended Action (This activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under 10.904, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention, and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernment consultation with State and local officials). Finding of No significant Impact for Big Cedar Creek Watershed, Floyd and Polk Counties, GA, July 2005 Introduction The Big Cedar Creek Watershed is a federally assisted action authorized for planning under Public Law 83–566, the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act. An environmental assessment was undertaken in conjunction with the development of the revised watershed plan. This assessment was conducted in consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies as well as with interested organizations and individuals. Data developed during the assessment are available for public review at the following location: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 355 East Hancock Avenue, Athens, Georgia 30601. Recommended Action This document describes a revised plan for Watershed Protection and improvement of water quality and includes measures for the control of agricultural animal waste related pollution. The revised plan reduces excessive animal waste and associated nutrients and bacteria entering waterways from about 37 beef and 4 dairy operations. The plan also provides measures to reduce nutrient runoff and improve forage quality on 1,700 acres of pastureland. This will be accomplished by providing financial and technical assistance through a local sponsor. The principal project measures are to: 1. Develop and install approximately 41 animal waste management systems covering 1,700 acres of pastureland and adjoining stream banks which will include all or parts of the following: fencing, cross fencing with gates, alternative livestock water supply with piping and troughs, stream crossings, filter strips, and heavy use protection areas on 37 beef and 4 dairy operations to control and utilize manure. VerDate jul<14>2003 17:40 Jul 12, 2005 Conservation management with nutrient and grazing land management practices will be used when applying animal waste. 2. The measures will be planned and installed by developing long-term contracts with landowners. Jkt 205001 Installation of animal waste management measures and grazing land practices will reduce offsite nutrient, bacteria, sediment and chemical damages and increase utilization of nutrients onsite. The results will be a significant reduction in current impairments to the area’s water quality, biological habitats, recreational opportunities and improvement of longterm productivity and quality of pastureland in the watershed. Installation of the selected plan will also provide local and regional employment, promote rural economic development in the drainage area, and assist local land users in complying with the conservation provision of the Food Security Act of 1985. The project measures will reduce agricultural related nutrients, bacteria and sediment entering watershed streams, the Big Cedar Creek embayment of Weiss Lake in Alabama and also minimize the impact on surface and ground water quality by: —Reducing the 53 tons of nitrogen and 11 tons of phosphorus from animal waste delivered annually by an average of 42%. —Providing a significant reduction in the amount of fecal coliform and sediment delivered annually to area waterways, thus improving biological habitats, recreational opportunities, and real estate values. Grazing land practices will increase forage productivity through improved management and utilizing waste more efficiently. This will reduce stream enrichment and conserve the nutrients for plant production. The proposed plan will also encourage and promote the agricultural enterprises in the watershed through improved efficiency. Wildlife habitat will not be disturbed during installation of animal waste systems and grazing land practices. No wetlands, wildlife habitat, fisheries, prime farmland, or cultural resources will be destroyed or threatened by this project. Conversions to permanent vegetation will provide a more diverse upland game habitat. The value of woodland habitat will not decline. Fishery habitats will also be maintained. No endangered or threatened plant or animal species will be adversely affected by the project. PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 There are no wilderness areas in the watershed. Scenic values will be complemented with improved riparian quality and cover conditions resulting from the installation of conservation animal waste management system and grazing land practices. Alternatives Three alternative plans, that included 49 combinations of systems and practices, were considered in project planning. No significant adverse environmental impacts are anticipated from installation of the selected alternative. Also, the planned action is the most practical and cost effective means of protecting the watershed by managing animal waste and stabilizing pasture land. Consultation—Public Participation Water quality concerns in the Big Cedar Creek Watershed were expressed by local citizens, Coosa River Soil and Water Conservation District, other regional residents. NRCS personnel in partnership with interagency team members from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (F&WS), Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Environmental Protection Division (EPD), the Georgia Cooperative Extension Service (CES) made a watershed assessment and evaluated existing water quality data. The team determined that agricultural related water quality problems were negatively effecting the watershed and the region’s air, plant, animal, soil, and water resources. With these concerns identified, the team agreed that a watershed approach to provide assistance to operators would help solve the problems. The Sponsors requested NRCS planning assistance under PL–566 authority for a revised plan. Requests were also made to other USDA agencies to assist in reducing the growing water quality problems. The Georgia Cooperative Extension Service (CES) has been asked to assist in developing nutrient and pesticide management plans. At the initiation of the planning process, meetings were held with key farmers and District representatives from the watershed area to discuss problem identification, conservation systems and PL–566 requirements. A public meeting was held in April 4, 2003 to scope the problems and concerns and to explain impacts of the PL–566 program initiatives relative to a watershed project and discuss possible solutions. E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM 13JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Notices In order to further publicize this planning effort, a public announcement was made to State and Federal agencies by letter and to local landowners through local newspapers to announce the change in project purpose. NRCS scheduled an interdisciplinary, interagency team to work with the Sponsor, landowners, and other interested groups. The team was compiled of specialists from F&WS, EPD, CES, and DNR, along with local operators. The team worked in the watershed area and downstream to Harris Reservoir, to gain insight to the magnitude of the problems and possible solutions. Several meetings, group discussions, and interviews were held with local planners, individuals, government officials and other technical experts. Evaluations and alternative solutions were developed with the Sponsor and other officials. The Recommended Plan was agreed upon. Another public meeting was on March 30, 2004. The results of surveys, studies, field investigations and the Alternatives Plans were presented to the public. The Selected Plan was agreed upon by those in attendance. In early 2003, representatives of the NRCS, F&WS, DNR, EPD, and CES made a field inspection to determine the quality and quantity of resources that would be impacted by selected practices and to consider possible mitigation measures. It was the consensus of the group that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not needed for this project. This agreement was based on the type of practices and systems planned and that each would be installed on previously disturbed land. With this consensus, an Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared accordingly. Upon review of the Big Cedar Creek Watershed Plan-EA, this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was prepared. These documents are being distributed to all concerned agencies, groups, and interested individuals. A Notice of Availability of the FONSI is being published in the Federal Register. Agency consolations and public participation to date has shown no conflicts with the implementation of the selected plan. Conclusion The Environmental Assessment summarized above indicates that this Federal action will not cause significant adverse local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. Therefore, based on the above findings, I have determined that an environmental impact statement for the recommended VerDate jul<14>2003 17:40 Jul 12, 2005 Jkt 205001 Big Cedar Creek Revised Watershed Plan is not required. 40311 will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the Federal Register. Dated: June 28, 2005. James E. Tillman Sr., State Conservationist. [FR Doc. 05–13716 Filed 7–12–05; 8:45 am] John Gleim, Acting State Conservationist. [FR Doc. 05–13717 Filed 7–12–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–16–P BILLING CODE 3410–16–P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service Rural Business-Cooperative Service Caballo Arroyos Site 4 (Wardy˜ Hedgecock Dam), Dona Ana County, NM Request for Proposals: Fiscal Year 2005 Funding Opportunity for 1890 Land Grant Institutions Rural Entrepreneurial Program Outreach Initiative Natural Resources Conservation Service. ACTION: Notice of a finding of no significant impact. AGENCY: SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Rules (7 CFR Part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the rehabilitation of Caballo Arroyos Site 4 (Wardy˜ Hedgecock Dam) in Dona Ana County, New Mexico. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ˜ Rosendo Trevino III; State Conservationist; Natural Resources Conservation Service; 6200 Jefferson, NE.; Albuquerque, NM 87109–3734; telephone 505–761–4400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The environmental assessment (EA) of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national effects on the human environment. As a result of these ˜ findings, Rosendo Trevino III, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this project. The project purpose is flood damage reduction. The action includes the rehabilitation of a floodwater retarding dam. The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency; various Federal, state, and local agencies; and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FNSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the EA are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Rosendo ˜ Trevino III. No administrative action on implementation of the proposed action PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA. ACTION: Initial notice. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Rural BusinessCooperative Service (RBS) announces the availability of a yet undetermined amount of funding in competitive cooperative agreement funds allocated from USDA Rural Development’s fiscal year (FY) 2005 salaries and expense budget. A separate notice will be published when the funding level has been determined. RBS hereby requests proposals from 1890 Land Grant Universities and Tuskegee University (1890 Institutions) for competitively awarded cooperative agreements for projects that support USDA Rural Development’s goals and objectives of providing technical assistance for business creation in economically challenged rural communities, for educational programs to develop and improve upon the professional skills of rural entrepreneurs, and for outreach and promotion of USDA Rural Development’s programs in small rural communities with the greatest economic need. Project proposals must be designed to overcome currently identified economic problems and lead to sustainable economic development. Project proposals that address both traditional and nontraditional business enterprises are encouraged. This initiative seeks to create a working partnership between USDA Rural Development and the 1890 Institutions through cooperative agreements. A cooperative agreement requires substantial involvement of the government agency in carrying out the objectives of the project. Cooperative agreements will be awarded to the project proposals receiving the highest scores as determined by a peer review panel of USDA employees knowledgeable of the subject matter. Awards will be made to E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM 13JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40309-40311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13716]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Big Cedar Creek Watershed, Floyd and Polk County, GA

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service.

ACTION: Notice of a finding of no significant impact.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 
(40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
Regulations (7 CFR part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an 
environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the Big Cedar 
Creek Watershed Floyd and Polk County, Georgia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cran Upshaw, Economist, Natural 
Resources Conservation Service, Federal Building, 355 East Hancock 
Avenue, Athens, Georgia 30601, Telephone (706) 546-2277, E-Mail 
cran.upshaw@ga.usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Environmental Assessment of this 
federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause 
significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As 
a result of these findings, James E. Tillman Sr., State 
Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an 
environmental impact statement is not needed for this project.
    The project purpose is continued flood prevention. The planned 
works include measures for the control of agricultural animal waste 
related pollution.
    The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact [FONSI] has been 
forwarded to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and to various 
Federal, State, and local agencies and interest parties. A limited 
number of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the 
above address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment 
are on file and may be

[[Page 40310]]

reviewed by contacting Cran Upshaw at the above number.
    No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be 
taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the Federal 
Register.

James E. Tillman, Sr.,
State Conservationist.

(This activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance under 10.904, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention, 
and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which 
requires inter-government consultation with State and local 
officials).

Finding of No significant Impact for Big Cedar Creek Watershed, Floyd 
and Polk Counties, GA, July 2005

Introduction

    The Big Cedar Creek Watershed is a federally assisted action 
authorized for planning under Public Law 83-566, the Watershed 
Protection and Flood Prevention Act. An environmental assessment was 
undertaken in conjunction with the development of the revised watershed 
plan. This assessment was conducted in consultation with local, State, 
and Federal agencies as well as with interested organizations and 
individuals. Data developed during the assessment are available for 
public review at the following location:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
355 East Hancock Avenue, Athens, Georgia 30601.

Recommended Action

    This document describes a revised plan for Watershed Protection and 
improvement of water quality and includes measures for the control of 
agricultural animal waste related pollution. The revised plan reduces 
excessive animal waste and associated nutrients and bacteria entering 
waterways from about 37 beef and 4 dairy operations. The plan also 
provides measures to reduce nutrient runoff and improve forage quality 
on 1,700 acres of pastureland. This will be accomplished by providing 
financial and technical assistance through a local sponsor.
    The principal project measures are to: 1. Develop and install 
approximately 41 animal waste management systems covering 1,700 acres 
of pastureland and adjoining stream banks which will include all or 
parts of the following: fencing, cross fencing with gates, alternative 
livestock water supply with piping and troughs, stream crossings, 
filter strips, and heavy use protection areas on 37 beef and 4 dairy 
operations to control and utilize manure. Conservation management with 
nutrient and grazing land management practices will be used when 
applying animal waste.
    2. The measures will be planned and installed by developing long-
term contracts with landowners.

Effects of Recommended Action

    Installation of animal waste management measures and grazing land 
practices will reduce offsite nutrient, bacteria, sediment and chemical 
damages and increase utilization of nutrients onsite. The results will 
be a significant reduction in current impairments to the area's water 
quality, biological habitats, recreational opportunities and 
improvement of long-term productivity and quality of pastureland in the 
watershed. Installation of the selected plan will also provide local 
and regional employment, promote rural economic development in the 
drainage area, and assist local land users in complying with the 
conservation provision of the Food Security Act of 1985.
    The project measures will reduce agricultural related nutrients, 
bacteria and sediment entering watershed streams, the Big Cedar Creek 
embayment of Weiss Lake in Alabama and also minimize the impact on 
surface and ground water quality by:

--Reducing the 53 tons of nitrogen and 11 tons of phosphorus from 
animal waste delivered annually by an average of 42%.
--Providing a significant reduction in the amount of fecal coliform and 
sediment delivered annually to area waterways, thus improving 
biological habitats, recreational opportunities, and real estate 
values.

    Grazing land practices will increase forage productivity through 
improved management and utilizing waste more efficiently. This will 
reduce stream enrichment and conserve the nutrients for plant 
production. The proposed plan will also encourage and promote the 
agricultural enterprises in the watershed through improved efficiency.
    Wildlife habitat will not be disturbed during installation of 
animal waste systems and grazing land practices. No wetlands, wildlife 
habitat, fisheries, prime farmland, or cultural resources will be 
destroyed or threatened by this project. Conversions to permanent 
vegetation will provide a more diverse upland game habitat. The value 
of woodland habitat will not decline. Fishery habitats will also be 
maintained.
    No endangered or threatened plant or animal species will be 
adversely affected by the project.
    There are no wilderness areas in the watershed.
    Scenic values will be complemented with improved riparian quality 
and cover conditions resulting from the installation of conservation 
animal waste management system and grazing land practices.

Alternatives

    Three alternative plans, that included 49 combinations of systems 
and practices, were considered in project planning. No significant 
adverse environmental impacts are anticipated from installation of the 
selected alternative. Also, the planned action is the most practical 
and cost effective means of protecting the watershed by managing animal 
waste and stabilizing pasture land.

Consultation--Public Participation

    Water quality concerns in the Big Cedar Creek Watershed were 
expressed by local citizens, Coosa River Soil and Water Conservation 
District, other regional residents. NRCS personnel in partnership with 
interagency team members from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(F&WS), Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Environmental 
Protection Division (EPD), the Georgia Cooperative Extension Service 
(CES) made a watershed assessment and evaluated existing water quality 
data. The team determined that agricultural related water quality 
problems were negatively effecting the watershed and the region's air, 
plant, animal, soil, and water resources. With these concerns 
identified, the team agreed that a watershed approach to provide 
assistance to operators would help solve the problems.
    The Sponsors requested NRCS planning assistance under PL-566 
authority for a revised plan. Requests were also made to other USDA 
agencies to assist in reducing the growing water quality problems. The 
Georgia Cooperative Extension Service (CES) has been asked to assist in 
developing nutrient and pesticide management plans.
    At the initiation of the planning process, meetings were held with 
key farmers and District representatives from the watershed area to 
discuss problem identification, conservation systems and PL-566 
requirements. A public meeting was held in April 4, 2003 to scope the 
problems and concerns and to explain impacts of the PL-566 program 
initiatives relative to a watershed project and discuss possible 
solutions.

[[Page 40311]]

    In order to further publicize this planning effort, a public 
announcement was made to State and Federal agencies by letter and to 
local landowners through local newspapers to announce the change in 
project purpose.
    NRCS scheduled an interdisciplinary, interagency team to work with 
the Sponsor, landowners, and other interested groups. The team was 
compiled of specialists from F&WS, EPD, CES, and DNR, along with local 
operators. The team worked in the watershed area and downstream to 
Harris Reservoir, to gain insight to the magnitude of the problems and 
possible solutions. Several meetings, group discussions, and interviews 
were held with local planners, individuals, government officials and 
other technical experts. Evaluations and alternative solutions were 
developed with the Sponsor and other officials. The Recommended Plan 
was agreed upon.
    Another public meeting was on March 30, 2004. The results of 
surveys, studies, field investigations and the Alternatives Plans were 
presented to the public. The Selected Plan was agreed upon by those in 
attendance.
    In early 2003, representatives of the NRCS, F&WS, DNR, EPD, and CES 
made a field inspection to determine the quality and quantity of 
resources that would be impacted by selected practices and to consider 
possible mitigation measures. It was the consensus of the group that an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not needed for this project. 
This agreement was based on the type of practices and systems planned 
and that each would be installed on previously disturbed land. With 
this consensus, an Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared 
accordingly.
    Upon review of the Big Cedar Creek Watershed Plan-EA, this Finding 
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was prepared. These documents are 
being distributed to all concerned agencies, groups, and interested 
individuals. A Notice of Availability of the FONSI is being published 
in the Federal Register. Agency consolations and public participation 
to date has shown no conflicts with the implementation of the selected 
plan.

Conclusion

    The Environmental Assessment summarized above indicates that this 
Federal action will not cause significant adverse local, regional, or 
national impacts on the environment. Therefore, based on the above 
findings, I have determined that an environmental impact statement for 
the recommended Big Cedar Creek Revised Watershed Plan is not required.

    Dated: June 28, 2005.
James E. Tillman Sr.,
State Conservationist.
[FR Doc. 05-13716 Filed 7-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P