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

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Natural Resources Conservation Service

[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