WSP11669

• File Number: 8149.100
• Description: Miscellaneous Small Projects and Project Studies - NRCS-Ft Lyon Canal Co Limestone Graveyard Creeks
• State: CO
• Basin: Arkansas
• Water Division: 2
• Date: 9/1/1996
• Author: Bent Soil Conservati
• Title: Limestone-Graveyard Creeks Watershed Bent County Colorado Prowers County Colorado Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: EIS

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

SlN"E OF COLORf\DO

Ii 61(;'

Rov ;fomer. C.,)verncr
Pam 5hwaydl!r, ACln~ E:tecutive Oireaor

Oeaia2d co prcur.;nJ ana imprevinJ che he~icl1 md errvircnrr.e.' 0; d':e peo;;.:e ':Ji Ccjcrado

4]00 C1errv CleeK Or. S. LaooratD'Y Sui/din!
OerNer, Color:acio 80222-1530 4210 E. 11th AVenue
Phone [phone]-~OOO Oenver. Coiorado ao2.2o-J:;~ 6
0031 691....700

Ceiar.ulo De;=:nCllt
afPublic Helm
and. E..""IimlllllCllt

July 31, 1995

Duane L. Johnson, State Conserlationist
Natural Resources Conse=vation S~lice
633 Parfet Street, Rco~ E200C
Lakewocd, co 80215-3317

.,:

~: L~estone-Graveyard Creeks Watershed Plan/Envire~~ental
Assess:ent

Dear Duane:

I appreciate ~~e opportunity to review the draft watershe~
plan/environmental assess:e~t for the Limestone-Graveyard Cre~~s
area on the lower Arkansas River. This area is one we consider a
priority in the Nonpoint Soc=ce Manage:ent Program fer Colorado,
and we are pleased to see the pro-active stance of ~~e lccal soil
conservation districts.

In reviewing ~~e plan, ~ere are several issues I wculd l~~e to
address.

Several ti.Jl1es in the plan ~~e state:le.'1t is made ~~at wetlands
should be enhanced due to i=:::rovE!!:le.'lts in the watar q-.;ality.
However, considering ~~e amcunt of ditch lining and pi:::eli~es
planned for installation, we would anticipate some ne;ative
i.JI1pact to when seepage is reduced. We believe ~~is is a part of
the environmental assess:ent ~~at needs f~~er quantification.

The draft plan makes substa~tial clai.Jl1s to i.JI1prove water q-~ality
(for example, reducing selenium levels in the Arkansas River by
17%; reducing nitrate loading by 3~%; reducing urani~
concentrations by 0.4 ug/l) but there is no monitoring plan to
actually measure the validity of those projections and dete~ine
if the project is a success. We are available to wcrk wi~~ your
s~aff to design a monitoring plan ~t is appropriate for the
goals of ~~is project. Mr. Bob Owen would be the individual to
contact at 692-3579.

On page 64 the draft plan states no land may be contracted with
PL-566 funds if ~~at land is under contract with anot~er federal
land treat::en't progra.J:I. In ~~e ncnpoint source prog:-a:l we have
tried to integ:-ate the varic~s cost-share progra:ls to acco=plish
water quality objectives wi~~ ~~e funds most appropriate fcr the
practice. The draft plan, as written, would not alle~ us to
participate in ~~is watershed with additional funds, should the