|
Purpose and Need |
| This chapter describes the following: the setting in which the Federal action occurs and the purpose of and need for the action; an overview of issues and concerns; the relationship among National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), contract renewal, and related processes; legal and regulatory mandates and considerations; the review process; and document organization. |
The Federal action (Project) described and analyzed in this final environmental impact statement (FEIS) is to renew one long-term water service contract and convert four long-term water service contracts to repayment contracts for five irrigation districts in Kansas and Nebraska while attempting to balance the water needs of other resources in the Republican River Basin (Basin).
The Republican River originates in northeastern Colorado near undulating tablelands that gradually descend into western Nebraska and then into the fertile farmlands of central Nebraska and northern Kansas. The 24,900-square-mile drainage basin has a comparatively sparse human population largely dependent on agriculture with a diverse wildlife population ranging from migratory birds using the Central Flyway to deer and a variety of small mammals. Humans have inhabited the area for more than 12,000 years, and resulting archeological sites can be found throughout the Republican River drainage.
The study area for this FEIS includes the Republican River Basin, which contains a network of reservoirs that provide irrigation storage to serve 136,528 acres of farmland and adjacent counties. The reservoir network extends from Bonny Reservoir(1) in extreme eastern Colorado and Enders Reservoir and Swanson, Hugh Butler, Harry Strunk, and Harlan County Lakes in Nebraska, to Keith Sebelius Lake and Lovewell Reservoir in Kansas, as shown on the frontispiece map. Harlan County Lake, the second largest body of water in Nebraska, attracts visitors from across the State and from neighboring States.
Four Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) water resource development divisions of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program are included in the study area for this FEIS. These include the Upper Republican, Frenchman-Cambridge, Kanaska, and Bostwick Divisions. The Frenchman-Cambridge and Frenchman Valley Irrigation Districts are in the Frenchman-Cambridge Division in Nebraska, with water for irrigation supplied from Hugh Butler, Harry Strunk, and Swanson Lakes and Enders Reservoir.
The Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation District, which consists of the Meeker-Driftwood, Red Willow, and Cambridge Units, has requested to convert its long-term water service contract to a repayment contract. The Frenchman Valley Irrigation District, which includes the Frenchman Unit, elected to renew its long-term water service contract.
Bostwick Irrigation District in Nebraska and Kansas No. 2 Irrigation District are in the Bostwick Division, with irrigation water supplied by Harlan County Lake and Lovewell Reservoir in Nebraska and Kansas, respectively. The Bostwick Division in Nebraska consists of the Franklin, Superior-Courtland, and Courtland Units. The Bostwick Division in Kansas consists of the Courtland Unit. Both irrigation districts have requested to convert their long-term water service contracts to repayment contracts.
Almena Irrigation District No. 5 is in the Kanaska Division, with water for irrigation, municipal, and industrial use supplied by Keith Sebelius Lake. The Kanaska Division consists of the Almena Unit. The Almena Irrigation District has requested to convert its long-term water service contract to a repayment contract.
The core study area encompasses 5 counties in Colorado, 16 counties in Nebraska, 14 counties in Kansas, and areas of secondary impact. The Colorado area includes parts of Kit Carson, Phillips, Washington, Lincoln, and Yuma Counties; the Nebraska area includes parts of Chase, Dundy, Franklin, Frontier, Furnas, Gosper, Harlan, Hayes, Hitchcock, Kearney, Lincoln, Nuckolls, Perkins, Phelps, Red Willow, and Webster Counties; and the Kansas area includes parts of Cheyenne, Clay, Cloud, Decatur, Jewell, Norton, Phillips, Rawlins, Republic, Sheridan, Sherman, Smith, Thomas, and Washington Counties.
The purpose of this Federal action is to provide for the continued beneficial use of federally developed water supplies.
The need to examine the beneficial uses of federally developed water supplies is that existing water service contracts are expiring. Reclamation is required by the Reclamation Act of 1956 to provide irrigation districts holding such contracts a first right to a share of the Projects' available water supply while meeting the needs of all applicable laws and policies.
Figure 1-1 - an overview map of the Republican River Basin.
Reclamation water service contracts with the Frenchman-Cambridge and Bostwick Irrigation Districts in Nebraska (Nebraska Bostwick) and the Kansas Bostwick No. 2 and Frenchman Valley (Nebraska) Irrigation Districts expired in 1996 and 1997, respectively, and in 1996 were granted 4-year extensions. The water supply contract with the Almena Irrigation District expires in 2007 and was not extended. Contracts for the five districts are being proposed for renewal under this process. The districts are shown on the accompanying maps.
Because extending the contracts for 4 years may have constituted a major Federal action, Reclamation was required to evaluate the environmental effects of the extension. A draft environmental assessment (EA) was prepared and made available for public review and comment. Based on the final EA, Reclamation determined that an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the 4-year extension was not required. The decision was documented in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The pending expiration of the long-term Federal water supply contracts in the Republican River watershed afforded Reclamation the opportunity to evaluate existing and proposed Project operation, associated benefits and impacts, and all potential beneficial uses of federally developed surface water supplies on a watershed scale. This information is important for understanding the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects associated with the renewal of water supply contracts within the watershed. It also makes potential enhancement of reservoir benefits possible.
In the NEPA compliance and contract renewal processes documented in this FEIS, efforts have been made to balance contractual obligations and the needs of irrigation districts with the needs of fish and wildlife, recreation, and other beneficial uses.
The management of water in the Basin is of particular importance because increased surface and groundwater usage has led to a decline in the available water supply in the Republican River and its tributary streams, as shown onfigure I-5 and as described in chapter III. This trend has been made worse by drought and some soil and water conservation practices, as described in chapter III, and has been the impetus for litigation under the Republican River Compact.(2)
In general, inflows to all the reservoirs have been declining at a significant rate since the introduction of groundwater pumping. The cause of those declines appears to be from a combination of reduced streamflow due to effects from surface water diversions, groundwater well pumpage, conservation practices, and upstream irrigation development. However, on a subbasin level, some stream reaches have shown increases in average flow due to irrigation return flows and seepage below dams and canals.
Following earlier public involvement (Phase I) concerning resource management, Phase II of the Republican River draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) scoping process was initiated in early 1996 to receive public input on significant issues and the appropriate scope of the DEIS. The scoping process was formally opened with the announcement of Reclamation's Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a DEIS on the renewal of the long-term water supply contracts in the Basin. The announcement was published in the Federal Register on February 29, 1996. Reclamation offered opportunities for public participation through public meetings, news releases, a newsletter, other mailings, and contacts with news media, organizations, and individuals.
Phase I public involvement preceded preparation of the related Republican River Resource Management Assessment (RMA) (July 1996). The RMA process began with informal meetings in 1994 with State and Federal resource agencies to identify resources of concern and to assess available information/data gaps. Those meetings were followed by public information sessions held in 1995 throughout the Basin in Kansas and Nebraska and in Manhattan, Kansas, and Lincoln, Nebraska. An overall public involvement plan, developed at that time, provided for input in the RMA, NEPA, and contract renewal processes, and was designed to:
. Identify and involve diverse interests and concerns throughout the process
. Help the public understand the differences among the various planning processes and how their input affects processes and outcomes
. Provide public forums for diverse viewpoints
. Ensure public participation in the decisionmaking process
During the formal scoping period for the DEIS, public meetings were held, and written or oral comments were received. Technical meetings(3) were held with irrigation district representatives who were asked to identify potential issues in connection with water contract conversion or renewal. Major issues identified by the public in written or public meeting statements in Phase II are listed below and noted under "Issues" sections in chapter IV. Additional public information material is found in Chapter V, Consultation and Coordination.
Figure I-2 Bostwick location map.
Figure I-3 Frenchman-Cambridge location map.
Figure I-4 Almena Unit.
Far more comments centered on the study process than on any other topic (more than 900 written/oral comments were received in all). Most of the comments reflected on the process' complexity, its cost, the time required to complete the study, and the need or mandate for the RMA/eIS process. Some suggested the renewal of contracts is not a major Federal action requiring NEPA compliance, while others were concerned about the way in which decisions would be made and influenced. Specific comments and suggestions concerned the hydrologic modeling process and various aspects of the RMA and NEPA processes.
Other than comments on the RMA/NEPA process (above), this topic generated more responses than any other, underscoring the fundamental economic importance of agriculture in the Basin.
Those who spoke on behalf of businesses and schools related the importance of irrigated agriculture to their tax base and operations. Others pointed out that any changes in water allocations or costs would change the economic balance and lifeways in the Basin.
Many commentors advocated irrigation and the socioeconomic well-being of farmers as the top priority, while others emphasized the original purposes for the Basin's reservoir projects--flood control, irrigation, and recreation. Some commented that increasing recreation use and revenue should be given a higher priority, while a few suggested that human consumption should be a top priority for water in the Basin. Specific comments were received concerning municipal water for the city of Norton.
Farmers and nonfarmers alike suggested that irrigators should pay only for water used, encouraging conservation, fairness, and an adequate profit margin. Many suggested that irrigators had paid a disproportionate share of the cost of building and operating projects in the Basin, and that if water were reallocated to other users, those other users should pay a greater share of costs.
Many people suggested that farmers in the Basin have long practiced good conservation in their farming operations and that credit should be given for those efforts. Some pointed out that irrigation districts have used less water in dry years to make it possible to leave water in reservoirs for other uses. A number of people commented that conservation efforts themselves were changing the water supply balance in the Basin, since certain conservation measures decrease return flow and recharge groundwater. A few suggested requiring greater efficiency and/or making conservation efforts a condition of receiving water.
Many commented that the goal of contract renewal should be to provide an adequate supply of water at a fair cost; many requested the same terms as in existing contracts. Irrigators said they wanted timely renewal of long-term contracts of preferably 40 years, but not less than 25 years, because investments are made on the basis of long-term commitments, and they need security. A few commented on perpetual versus renewable contracts. Still others felt the renewal process was addressing the social and economic changes exactly as it was intended to do.
Concern was expressed about the relationship of groundwater and surface water supply and use, and many asked why the study was not going to analyze this relationship. Some felt that if there are restrictions on surface use, there should also be restrictions on groundwater pumping.
Comments in this category generally addressed specific reservoir operating levels, including minimum pool levels below which water would not be drawn down for irrigation or smaller reservoir flood pools to free up additional water for other uses.
Many of the comments which specifically addressed fish or wildlife suggested that water development projects themselves, as well as the farm operations that followed, have created significant wildlife and fish populations and habitat. A few comments advocated meeting fish and wildlife habitat needs.
Most of the comments that specifically addressed recreation suggested that it provides a significant economic contribution in the Basin. Several comments suggested that recreation should be given a higher priority than irrigation in managing Keith Sebelius Reservoir. A few individuals said recreationists should be able to use any water surplus beyond irrigation needs, but, if there are shortages, they should go to other reservoirs.
Although few comments were received in this category, concerns were expressed about the Republican River Compact between Kansas and Nebraska and how its terms and/or potential litigation would or should affect the outcome of the contract renewal process.
The Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA require Reclamation to consider the relationship of contract renewal to other projects and activities in the area. The relationship can be direct, indirect, or cumulative in nature, and extends to activities or projects that are:
. Connected actions (40 CFR 1508.25(a)(1)), denoting closely related actions that should be discussed in the same EIS
. Cumulative actions (40 CFR 1508.25(a)(2)), denoting actions which, when viewed with other proposed actions, have cumulatively significant effects
. Similar actions (40 CFR 1508.25(a)(3)), denoting actions which have similarities to the proposed action that provide a basis for evaluation together, such as common timing or geography
Resource Management Assessment Process.--The Republican River RMA identified water-related resources in the Basin, documented their historic and existing conditions, identified trends or predicted future conditions, discussed goals and objectives, and provided a framework for development of alternatives for this comprehensive FEIS. Much of the information gathered for, and incorporated into, the RMA was used to prepare the DEIS and this FEIS.
Goals and objectives for future management of water-related resources were proposed using existing Federal, State, and local planning and other documents. Identified trends, proposed goals, and objectives, in turn, were used to develop a range of management scenarios unconstrained by existing laws and regulations to foster innovative and creative scenarios that would address all water needs in the Basin. The RMA concluded with a list of feasible management scenarios that were further evaluated to develop the range of reasonable alternatives presented in this FEIS.
The interrelationship of RMA, NEPA, and contracting processes is illustrated in figure I-6.
NEPA Process.--The RMA, by developing an accurate depiction of the historic and present environment, and by analyzing trends and possible management goals, has served as a data bank for the material required by NEPA in the EIS process. In addition to informal scoping, the RMA specifically yielded information for developing the alternative plans described in chapter II of this FEIS, the affected environment and accompanying impacts described in chapter III and chapter IV, and consultation/coordination functions summarized in chapter V.
Contract Renewal Process.--An interdisciplinary team responsible for the RMA and FEIS addressed issues in contract extension, renewal or conversion of the long-term water service contracts, and the development of Reclamation's basis of negotiation (BON), which provides background information and justification for Reclamation's negotiating position on various contract renewal issues. The BON was developed in accordance with Reclamation laws and policy and followed initial steps, which included payment capacity studies to determine irrigators' ability to pay (figure I-7) and, accordingly, the maximum amount they are required to pay on Project construction loans. The BON reflects current Reclamation policy and applicable State and Federal laws and regulations.
Types of Contracts.--The current contracts that provide water service to the Basin irrigation districts were entered into under the authority of section 9(e) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (1939 Act). Water service contracts entered into under 9(e) of the 1939 Act are limited by law to a term no longer than 40 years. In 1956, the 1939 Act was sup-plemented by the Administration of Contracts Under Section 9, Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (1956 Act). The 1956 Act provides, among other things, for the conversion of water service contracts entered into under section 9(e) of the 1939 Act to repayment contracts under section 9(d) of the 1939 Act. Repayment contracts entered into under section 9(d) of the 1939 Act are limited by law to a repayment period of no longer than 40 years.
Many of the Basin irrigation districts have requested that their 9(e) water service contracts be converted to 9(d) repayment contracts pursuant to the 1956 Act. It is proposed that the repayment contracts will have a repayment period of 40 years. Irrigation districts are required to repay their portion of the irrigation obligation within the repayment period of the repayment contract. In situations where the irrigation districts' payments are not sufficient to repay the entire irrigation obligation within the repayment period, aid to irrigation will pay the balance.
Both section 9(e) and 9(d) types of contracts are subject to modification and renegotiation, including compliance with NEPA and other applicable laws, if Reclamation and the irrigation district(s) agree to consider changes to the contract. In addition, water deliveries under both types of contracts are subject to water availability and shortages, which may be affected by drought, diversions, and other causes. Reclamation's discretion to address water-related environmental issues during contract renewal, or during the term of either type of contract, is defined by Reclamation or other Federal law.
Integration of the Contract Renewal and NEPA Processes.--Identification of the Federal action and its purpose and need as described in this FEIS were important factors in the outcome of the integrated process. For example, the range of alternatives necessary for NEPA compliance and the BON depended upon parameters identified in the purpose and need statement, which largely determined how broadly the Federal Government would consider and evaluate effects associated with the Federal action. While the purpose and need statement was being developed, the feasibility and legality of, and authority to enter into and/or renew, water service contracts was researched and documented. This information provided important background for the negotiating team when contract negotiations began. Completion of analyses concerning the payment capacity and the ability to repay were integral to developing a final BON for contract renewal.
As noted earlier, public scoping meetings were held throughout the Basin to identify existing information, data gaps, and significant issues associated with water service contract renewal. When information was lacking, technical studies and updated analyses were conducted to predict environmental effects of the alternatives. In addition, following the scoping and technical meetings, a preliminary BON was prepared and approved. The approved BON established negotiating positions for nonresource-related issues (negotiating positions for resource-related issues were not developed until Reclamation's preferred alternative was announced in order to minimize the possibility of an irretrievable commitment of resources).
A multidisciplinary team was established to identify and resolve contract issues once issues and concerns had been identified through NEPA scoping and/or contract-related technical meetings. A negotiating team was also established to negotiate water charges, water supply operations, administrative provisions, and other contract articles with the irrigation districts.
The analysis of impacts in the DEIS provided information necessary to identify Reclamation's preferred alternative. It was important to understand the impacts associated with each alternative prior to developing the final BON; alternatives were used to establish resource-related parameters within which the final BON was developed. The next step was developing a formal negotiating position. The BON was approved, following development and analysis of the alternatives.
Identification of a preferred alternative provided the necessary information to finalize a biological assessment for threatened or endangered species located in the project area. In addition, this information was used to develop a request for the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide information pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (attachment A).
The DEIS, preferred alternative, and BON provided the information and authority necessary for the negotiating team to begin negotiations with the irrigation districts. The contract negotiations began during development of the DEIS and finalization and approval of the final BON; they resulted in a "Negotiated Alternative" that has been considered in this FEIS. The Negotiated Alternative became Reclamation's preferred alternative in this FEIS, and it is not the same as the preferred alternative in the DEIS. Contract negotiations were concluded prior to release of this FEIS, and draft contracts were prepared and made available for a 60-day public review and comment.
As noted earlier, Reclamation water resource development divisions of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program are included in the study area. These include the Upper Republican, Frenchman-Cambridge, Kanaska, and Bostwick Divisions. The Frenchman-Cambridge and Frenchman Valley Irrigation Districts are in the Frenchman-Cambridge Division in Nebraska; Bostwick Irrigation District in Nebraska and Kansas Bostwick Irrigation District No. 2 are in the Bostwick Division; and Almena Irrigation District No. 5 is in the Kanaska Division. The Upper Republican Division contains Bonny Dam and Reservoir, which is operated and maintained primarily for flood control and fish, wildlife, and recreation use. In 1982, the State of Colorado purchased the conservation space in Bonny Reservoir for fish, wildlife, and recreation use.
Operating Agreements.--These agreements were developed between Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers (Corps) to regulate reservoirs in the Republican River Basin. The agreements for Harlan County, Swanson, and Harry Strunk Lakes were drawn up between 1957 and 1973. These agreements mandate storage and operation for such purposes as flood control and irrigation and, in some instances, also for public health, recreation, and fish and wildlife preservation.
Under these reservoirs' operational pattern, runoff is captured during the nonirrigation season in an effort to refill the reservoir to the top of the active conservation storage pool. Peak releases are generally made in July and August when precipitation is low and irrigation demands are high due to crop needs. To conserve water for future irrigation needs, releases have been minimized or eliminated during the nonirrigation season. Operations are coordinated between the irrigation districts and Reclamation's McCook Field Office.
Field Working Agreements.--These agreements were developed between Reclamation and the Corps for the regulation of reservoirs in the Basin. The agreements for Harlan County, Swanson, Hugh Butler, Harry Strunk, and Keith Sebelius Lakes and for Enders and Lovewell Reservoirs were drawn up between 1950 and 1973. With the exception of Harlan County Lake, these agreements outline the details necessary to implement flood control regulations for flood control in the respective reservoirs. Harlan County Lake flood control regulations are defined in the Corps' operating manuals for all labor in the Republican River Basin.
The Republican River Compact, as noted earlier, governs the use of and allocates the virgin water supply of the Basin; it makes specific allocations by State and subbasin derived from average annual supplies originating in 13 subbasins of the Republican River. The compact is to eliminate controversy among the States and to promote joint action to control floods and to provide for the equitable and efficient use of Basin water for beneficial consumptive use.
As required by the 1982 Reclamation Reform Act (RRA), irrigation districts within the Basin have developed water conservation plans. These plans outline water conservation objectives and list their accomplishments to date. Plans will be updated every 5 years, as required under the RRA. Details of past and current water conservation accomplishments are described below, by district.
Frenchman Valley Irrigation District Past and Current
Water Conservation
Accomplishments
(1) Installation of metered turnouts, trash screens, modified check structures, and turnout relocations.
(1) Programs are in place that will assist irrigators in making improvements in their on-farm irrigation practices. The Frenchman Valley Irrigation District has offered to assist the irrigators with buried pipe projects, working in cooperation with the irrigators and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The district's assistance varies from design assistance, relocating turnouts, acquiring pipe, providing metered turnouts, and placing the pipe.
(2) The district estimates that 12.5 percent of the district's 9,600 acres are irrigated by center pivot, 12.5 percent use surge valves, 70 percent use gate pipe, and 5 percent use open ditch. This results in an estimated improvement of 11.5 percent in on-farm efficiency since the beginning of the project. These improved irrigation practices result in an estimated savings of 1,150 acre-feet per year.
(3) The district has an estimated 1,200 acres irrigated by center pivot. Water use by center pivots has been estimated to be 9 inches. This allows the irrigators to stretch their 4 to 5 inches of project water and reduce the amount of groundwater used to supplement their project acres.
(4) The district cooperates with Reclamation, the NRCS, and the Middle Republican Natural Resource District in a surge valve loaner program. The program allows an irrigator to use a surge valve free of charge for 1 year. At the end of the year, the irrigator can purchase the surge valve, and the money will be used to purchase additional valves to be loaned the following year. If the irrigator does not wish to purchase the surge valve, it will be returned to the district, where it will be loaned to another irrigator the next year. This program promotes the use of more efficient irrigation practices and prolongs the district's water supply.
(1) The district times the water deliveries to retain the greatest amount of water in Enders Reservoir for the longest period of time.
(2) The district continues to evaluate and fine tune its water ordering policy and canal and lateral operations so that wastes and diversion dam bypasses are minimized and delivery efficiencies are improved.
(3) The district requires water users to place water orders 2 days in advance due to the distance between the Enders Reservoir and the diversion dam.
(4) The district attempts to utilize natural flows and storm runoff whenever possible to prolong the district's water supply and to save storage water in Enders Reservoir.
(1) The district has established a policy for annual ditch rider training. This training includes topics concerning land classification, conservation methods, canal operations, and environmental concerns (i.e., chemical handling and use).
(2) District personnel attend water user seminars and take advantage of the information currently available on water conservation and reducing crop water needs.
Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation District Past and Current
Water Conservation
Accomplishments
(1) By 1987, the Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation District had converted 122 miles of open ditch laterals to buried pipe. The estimated savings from this program is 61,000 acre-feet per year.
(2) A high-seepage section of the Cambridge Canal has been improved with the installation of lining material. Approximately 3.6 miles of canal was lined, which eliminated canal losses in this section. This results in an estimated water savings of 1,800 acre-feet per year.
(3) Other canal improvements - Other water-saving measures that the district has implemented include installing meters, improving turnout settings, installing trash screens, modifying check structures, completing water transfers, using a computer to log water deliveries, and initiating educational programs. As a result of these improvements, the savings are estimated to be 100 acre-feet per year.
The district has an operation and maintenance (O&M) policy in place to keep canals repaired, graded, and shaped to original design specifications. The canals are inspected after each water season to make necessary repairs and shaping prior to the next water season. The canal shaping program is set up on a 3-year cycle. This results in an overall water savings to the district.
(4) Total estimated savings from system improvements:
| Buried pipe program | 61,000 acre-feet per year |
| Canal lining | 1,800 acre-feet per year |
| Other improvements | 100 acre-feet per year |
| Total savings | 62,900 acre-feet per year |
(1) The Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation District has programs in place that will assist irrigators to make improvements in their on-farm irrigation practices. The district has provided assistance to 106 on-farm irrigation improvement projects. The district's assistance includes surge valves, new turnouts, metered deliveries, center pivots installed by farmers, reuse pits, and gated pipe. Irrigators installed 60 center pivots from 1993 to 1999.
(2) On-farm improvements in irrigation practices have resulted in water savings to the district. The increases in water efficiencies were achieved by irrigators' changing to more efficient irrigation practices, changing from open ditch irrigation to gated pipe, using surge valves, and installing center pivots. Approximately 16 percent of the district's 45,000 acres are now irrigated with center pivots, about 22 percent are using surge valves, and the remainder are using gated pipe. These improvements result in an overall on-farm efficiency improvement of about 15 percent, which results in an estimated district water savings of 10,750 acre-feet per year.
(3) The district has shown an increase in the number of center pivots installed in recent years. These pivots not only provide a more efficient use of the water, but they also require a reduced supply of water. The district has estimated that a center pivot will use 9 inches of water on the same field that previously used 15 inches before installing a center pivot (a water savings of 40 percent). The district has a total of 60 pivots within the district's boundaries, which results in a water savings of 6,000 acre-feet per year.
(4) Total savings from on-farm improvements:
| Savings from improved irrigation practices | 10,750 acre-feet per year |
| Reduced demand by center pivots | 6,000 acre-feet per year |
| Total | 16,750 acre-feet per year |
| Total conservation practices savings | |
| System improvements | 62,900 acre-feet per year |
| On-farm improvements | 16,750 acre-feet per year |
| Total water savings | 79,650 acre-feet per year |
(5) The district has created a conservation fund and has been making contributions into it for the past 3 years.
(6) The district had traditionally diverted between 70,000 and 85,000 acre-feet per year. The district currently has no open ditch laterals, which eliminates the need for wasteways and conserves water by reducing evaporation and seepage water losses.
(7) The district developed rules governing services to inform irrigators on the proper techniques of operations. This was initiated in the 1950's and is updated annually. These rules included the district board's right to annually set limits and restrictions for all purposes.
(8) The district encourages the use of educational information. The district attends Four States Irrigation Council meetings, Irrigation Project Reauthorization Council meetings, and Reclamation workshops.
(9) District personnel attend annual ditch rider seminars to discuss updates on operations and chemical and equipment use.
(10) In 1977, the district initiated the practice of burying laterals at the district's expense if individual landowners furnish all the material. In addition, since 1977, the district has a practice that provides irrigators with assistance for the installation of pipe from turnouts to center pivots or buried pipe to allow for the conversion from open ditch to gated pipe at the district's expense. This practice continues today.
(11) With cooperation between Reclamation, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, and the district, annual operations were adjusted at Harry Strunk Lake so that spilling was eliminated during spring walleye spawning.
(12) In 1985, the district revised the existing conservation plan to reflect the plan guide-lines in the RRA. The water conservation plan is reviewed annually to determine if projected annual accomplishments were achieved and to measure overall conservation goals.
(13) Converting open ditch laterals to buried pipe has significantly reduced the amount of herbicides, soil sterilants, and algicides used in the district.
(14) In 1990, the district installed a computer system and developed a water accounting program. In 1999, the computer system was upgraded.
(15) The district conducts an annual crop census from irrigators within the district. The district is considering developing a survey to determine and measure the on-farm efficiencies in terms of the type of irrigation methods employed by individual irrigators. The survey would be conducted in conjunction with the crop census.
Bostwick Irrigation District in Kansas Past and Current
Water Conservation
Accomplishments
(1) The Kansas-Bostwick Irrigation District has an extensive program for converting open ditch laterals to buried pipe. Of the 133 miles of open ditch laterals in the Kansas Bostwick District, 22 percent (28.9 miles) have been converted to buried pipe as of September 1999. This results in an estimated water savings of 14,450 acre-feet per year.
(2) High-seepage sections of the Courtland Canal above Lovewell Reservoir have been improved with the installation of lining material. This has eliminated canal seepage losses in these sections. As of 1999, 5.7 miles of the Courtland Canal have been lined. This results in an estimated water savings of 4,560 acre-feet per year.
(3) Other water saving measures that the district has implemented include installing metered turnouts, installing trash screens, modifying check structures, relocating turnouts, and initiating educational programs. As a result of these improvements, the savings are estimated to be 100 acre-feet per year.
(4) Total estimated savings from system improvements:
| Buried pipe program | 14,450 acre-feet per year |
| Canal lining | 4,560 acre-feet per year |
| Other improvements | 100 acre-feet per year |
| Total savings | 19,110 acre-feet per year |
(1) The Kansas-Bostwick Irrigation District has programs in place that will assist irrigators in making improvements in their on-farm irrigation practices. The district has offered to assist the irrigators with buried pipe projects, working in cooperation with the irrigators and the NRCS. The district's assistance varies from design assistance, relocating turnouts, acquiring pipe, providing metered turnouts, and placing the pipe.
As of September 1999, the district had provided assistance to a total of 84 on-farm irrigation improvement projects. It is difficult to estimate the amount of water that is saved as a result of these improvements. Water savings due to these improvements will be included in the following section on improved irrigation practices.
(2) In 1990, the district began surveying their irrigators as to the type of irrigation practices that are in use. This survey was repeated in 1994 and 1998. Estimated efficiencies for each method of irrigation were provided by Reclamation's Great Plains Regional Office. By multiplying the percentage of acres under each type of irrigation by the corresponding efficiency, the district's overall on-farm efficiency can be estimated.
The results of the survey show that on-farm efficiencies improved from 42.7 percent in 1990 to 44.8 percent in 1994 (an improvement of 2.1 percent from 1990) and up to 48.5 percent in 1998 (an improvement of 3.7 percent from 1994). The increases in on-farm efficiencies were achieved by irrigators' changing to more efficient methods of irrigating, such as gated pipe or center pivots. The changes from 1990 to 1998 resulted in an estimated savings of 4,270 acre-feet per year. The changes from the original irrigation method (all open ditch) resulted in an estimated savings of 6,250 acre-feet per year.
(3) With the increase in the number of center pivots installed within the district, it is estimated that these pivots not only provide a more efficient use of the water, but they also require a reduced supply of water. The district has estimated that a center pivot uses 9 inches of water on the same field where 15 inches were used before installing the pivot (which equals a water savings of 40 percent). As of 1999, the district's 57 pivots resulted in an estimated savings of 5,160 acre-feet per year.
(4) Total savings from on-farm improvements:
| Improved irrigation practices | 6,250 acre-feet per year |
| Reduced demand by pivots | 5,160 acre-feet per year |
| Total | 11,410 acre-feet per year |
| Total conservation practices savings | |
| System improvements | 19,110 acre-feet per year |
| On-farm improvements | 11,410 acre-feet per year |
| Total water savings | 30,520 acre-feet per year |
(5) In the 1950's, whenever possible, the district began the practice of filling canals with riverflows or flood waters prior to the irrigation season to lessen canal ditch loss at the start of the watering season and to control the growth of weeds. This practice continues today to conserve reservoir storage.
(6) The district developed rules governing services to inform irrigators on the proper techniques of operations. This was initiated in the 1950's and is updated annually. These rules included the district board's right to annually set limits and restrictions for all purposes.
(7) Since the 1960's, the district has encouraged the use of educational information from and participated in programs from the Kansas State University Experimental Farm, which is located within the district boundary. The district attends Four States Irrigation Council meetings and Reclamation workshops.
(8) Since the mid-1970's, district personnel attend annual ditch rider meetings to discuss updates on operations. New ditch riders are required to attend special courses.
(9) In the late 1970's, the district initiated the practice of burying laterals at the district's expense if individual landowners furnish all the material. The district established a policy in the 1980's that they would stand 30 percent of the cost of the material along with all the installation costs. This 30 percent represents a ditch loss savings which all irrigators within the district will benefit from. This policy remains in effect today and is well received by the irrigators.
(10) The district established a practice in the 1970's of providing assistance to irrigators who were upgrading their on-farm irrigation facilities by improving turnout locations, installing meters, and assisting with buried pipe projects to allow the use of gated pipe or center pivots. This practice continues today.
(11) In 1985, the district revised the existing conservation plan to reflect the plan guide-lines in the RRA. The water conservation plan is reviewed annually to determine if projected annual accomplishments were achieved and to measure overall conservation goals.
(12) In 1990, the district developed and conducted a survey of all irrigated lands within the district. The survey is conducted every 4 years for the purpose of measuring on-farm efficiencies in terms of the type of irrigation methods employed by individual irrigators. The survey has been conducted in 1994 and 1998. The district plans on conducting the survey again in 2002.
(13) In 1992, the district installed a computer system and developed a water accounting program.
(14) In 1993, the district developed a policy concerning transferring acres. This policy established a "bank" in which to place or withdraw acres, which allowed for improved irrigation and pivot development. A formula was created in 1999 to ensure that 50 percent of the water savings by pivot conversion was returned to the local supply when acres are used from the district's bank to allow for the conversion. This policy remains in effect today and has resulted in water savings with astonishing success.
Bostwick Irrigation District in Nebraska Past and Current
Water Conservation
Accomplishments
(1) The Bostwick Irrigation District has approximately 11 miles of laterals that have been abandoned or converted to buried pipe, or that are no longer in active service. This results in an estimated water savings of 5,500 acre-feet per year.
(2) High-seepage sections of the Courtland Canal above Lovewell Reservoir have been improved with the installation of lining material. This has eliminated canal seepage losses in these sections. As of 1999, 5.7 miles of the Courtland Canal have been lined, resulting in an estimated water savings of 4,560 acre-feet per year.
(3) The current district operational objectives are to improve water delivery measurement, operate canals with minimal elevations for delivery, install critical wasteways to reduce impacts of canal fluctuations (avoids shutting down service to repair ditches, allows more consistent scheduling, and reduces service run time), and assist users with conservation efforts. The district has an aggressive program of continuous maintenance for the system which includes gate replacement; lateral shaping; silt removal; bank stabilization using soil, rock, or concrete; tree cutting; mowing; rodent removal; vegetation control; applying canal sterilants; moss control; structure improvements; and facility enhancements. Water savings from these O&M improvements are estimated at 500 acre-feet per year.
(4) Total estimated savings from system improvements:
| Elimination of open ditch laterals | 5,500 acre-feet per year |
| Canal lining | 4,560 acre-feet per year |
| Other improvements | 500 acre-feet per year |
| Total savings | 10,560 acre-feet per year |
(1) The district has programs in place that will assist irrigators in making improvements in their on-farm irrigation practices. The district has offered to assist the irrigators with buried pipe projects and to work in cooperation with the irrigators and the NRCS. The district's assistance varies from design assistance, relocating turnouts, and improving water measurement, labor, and cost assistance.
(2) The district has a total of 22,907 acres, of which approximately 6.4 percent is still using open ditch, 6.1 percent is irrigated by center pivot, and the remaining 87.5 percent is irrigating with gated pipe. Irrigators changing to more efficient methods of irrigating, such as gated pipe, and center pivots have increased the district's on-farm efficiency approximately 7 percent, resulting in an estimated savings of 3,500 acre-feet per year.
(3) Pivots installed in the district provide a more efficient use of water and require a reduced supply of water. The district has estimated that a center pivot will use 9 inches of water on the same field on which the irrigator previously used up to 15 inches before installing the pivot (a water savings of 40 percent). The district has a total of 1,400 acres irrigated by pivots, which results in a water savings of 1,750 acre-feet per year.
(4) Total savings from on-farm improvements:
| Improved irrigation practices | 3,500 acre-feet per year |
| Reduced demand by pivots | 1,750 acre-feet per year |
| Total | 5,250 acre-feet per year |
| Total conservation practices savings | |
| System improvements | 10,560 acre-feet per year |
| On-farm improvements | 5,250 acre-feet per year |
| Total water savings | 15,810 acre-feet per year |
(5) The current district operational objectives are to improve water delivery measure-ment, log canals for minimal elevations for delivery, install critical wasteways to reduce impacts of canal fluctuations (avoids shutting down service to repair ditches, allows more consistent scheduling and reduces service run time), and assist users with conservation efforts.
(6) The district has an aggressive program of continuous maintenance for the system which includes gate replacement; lateral shaping; silt removal; bank stabilization using soil, rock, or concrete; tree cutting; mowing; rodent removal; vegetation control; applying canal sterilants; moss control; structure improvements; and facility enhancements.
(7) The district has strict policies in place concerning water ordering. One board policy states that deliveries will not begin (or continue) unless a certain number of irrigators request deliveries. Another board policy requires that most irrigators place water orders 2 days in advance, and some must place orders 3 days in advance.
(8) The district has lowered its base water supply in an effort to conserve water. The base water delivery for the district is currently 12 inches per acre per year, and additional water may be purchased at the current O&M rate if available.
(9) The district, Reclamation, and the Kansas-Bostwick Irrigation District cooperated on canal lining projects on high-loss sections of Courtland Canal.
(10) The district has eliminated portions of open ditch laterals by replacing them with buried pipe, abandoning sections, or not watering up unused laterals.
(11) The district currently participates in a wide variety of organizations. The district attends and participates in conferences sponsored by the Nebraska State Irrigation Association, Nebraska Water Resources Association, Nebraska Water Users, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Republican River Basin Management Districts, the Governor's Water Council, Irrigation Projects Reauthorization Council, and Four States Irrigation Council. The district has given testimony on various bills in the State legislature and has helped draft settlement options to resolve the lawsuit between Kansas and Nebraska over waters in the Republican River Basin.
Almena Irrigation District Past and Current
Water Conservation Accomplishments
(1) The Almena Irrigation District realizes the value and benefit of converting open ditch laterals to buried pipe (i.e., reduced seepage and evaporation losses). However, their lack of available funds has prevented the district from implementing an aggressive system improvement program. In 1999, through an agreement with Reclamation, the district converted a section of it high-loss, high-maintenance open ditch to buried pipe and has another section planned for 2000.
(2) Irrigators within the district use well water to supplement their surface water supply. The operation of the delivery system recharges the groundwater in the area.
(3) The district's canals are graded and shaped in order to reduce system losses and ensure a good, clean flow of water.
(4) The district has added and relocated several turnouts to increase efficiency and conserve water.
(5) The district determines the length of time of its watering season at the beginning of each growing season and makes adjustments depending on the amount of available water. For example, if the district only has 4 inches of water to deliver to the irrigators, the irrigation season will be completed in a 4-week period. If the district is fortunate enough to receive adequate rainfall within the watering season, releases from Keith Sebelius Lake are immediately terminated until requests are received from the irrigators to resume deliveries. This practice retains the greatest amount of water in Keith Sebelius Lake for the longest period of time, which benefits all users.
(6) Almost all the district has been converted from open ditch irrigation to gated pipe. This has improved on-farm efficiencies by approximately 5 percent.
(7) The district has established a policy for annual ditch rider training. This training includes topics concerning land classification, conservation methods, canal operations, and environmental concerns (i.e., chemical handling and use).
(8) District personnel attend local water user seminars and take advantage of the information currently available on water conservation and reducing crop water needs. In addition, the superintendent attends Reclamation-sponsored workshops and meetings to gain management skills.
Water supply conditions throughout the Basin have varied in the past and will continue to vary in the future. With the continued development of groundwater, an increase in non-Project irrigated acres, the implementation of water conservation practices, and the natural fluctuation of rainfall patterns, the water supply available for all users in the Basin will continue to vary from year to year. Cumulative impacts of these actions are reflected in the No Action Alternative.
As the lead agency in this Project, Reclamation has the responsibility to ensure compliance with NEPA and other environmental laws. In addition, Reclamation has the responsibility to assure that actions conform to Reclamation laws and current policies. Other Federal and State agencies also involved in management and environmental compliance are identified in Chapter V, Consultation and Coordination, and cooperating agencies are noted below.
| Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Natural Resources Conservation Service Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks Nebraska Natural Resource Commission Nebraska Department of Water Resources |
Kansas Division of Water Resources Kansas Water Office Kansas-Bostwick Irrigation District No. 2 Almena Irrigation District No. 5 Frenchman Valley Irrigation District Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation District Bostwick Irrigation District in Nebraska |
The proposed renewal or conversion of long-term water service contracts is conducted under the authority of the Reclamation Acts of 1902 and 1956. This FEIS documents compliance with additional laws and mandates, cited below.
Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq.)
Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 USC 1251 et seq.)
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC
1532 et seq.)
Farmland Protection Policy Act (Public Law [P.L. 97-98])
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (16 USC
1532 et seq.)
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC 4321 et seq.)
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration
Act of 1966
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 USC 1271 et seq.)
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, 1977
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 1977
Executive Order 11991, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality,
1977
Flood Control Act(s) of 1941 and 1944
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 469 et seq.)
Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 470
et seq.)
Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act (16 USC 461 et seq.)
National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470
et seq.)
Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 1971
American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, as amended (42 USC 1996)
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act of 1990 (25 USC 3001 et seq.)
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (P.L. 13-141)
Treaty with the Potawatomi of
1846
Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)
Secretarial Order 3175 on Indian Trust Assets
Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, 1994
Federal Water Project
Recreation Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-72)
Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-293, title II, 96 Stat. 1263)
Republican River
Compact
Operating Agreements
Reclamation's NOI to prepare this EIS was published in the Federal Register, and written responses were elicited. Reclamation reviewed those responses, in addition to input received on the RMA, during preparation of the draft and final EISs. Substantive comments were addressed in this FEIS, while others were determined to be outside the scope of this FEIS and/or Reclamation's authority; responses to substantive comments are included in attachment D.
Scoping meetings related to issues presented in the RMA and those identified for the DEIS were conducted in August 1996 in McCook, Alma, and Superior, all in Nebraska; and in Belleville and Manhattan, Kansas. The preliminary draft of the DEIS was prepared and circulated internally and to cooperating agencies for a 30-day review. Preparation of the preliminary draft and BON provided the background information and authority necessary for Reclamation's contracting staff to initiate negotiations with the irrigation districts. After the internal review, a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the DEIS for a 60-day public review and comment period was published in the Federal Register. The NOA and local media notices also announced public hearings on the DEIS November 2 through 4, 1999, in Belleview, Kansas, and Almena and McCook, Nebraska. The public comment period was reopened an additional 30 days, during which time the public could also review the Corps' Technical Report (attachment B to this FEIS). A public meeting on the Negotiated Alternative and technical report was held April 12, 2000, at Alma, Nebraska.
Written responses to all substantive comments have been published as a separate section in this FEIS (attachment D). Following compliance with the Endangered Species Act and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, a preliminary FEIS was prepared and circulated internally. After that review, another NOA was published in the Federal Register. The responses to substantive comments on the FEIS will be incorporated into the Record of Decision, which concludes the NEPA process.
Reclamation has concluded negotiations with the irrigation districts, and on May 16, 2000, made the final draft repayment and long-term water service contracts available for a 60-day public review and comment period. Approval of the final contracts may include water conservation and other environmental commitments made by Reclamation and the irrigation districts (environmental commitments are listed in chapter V). Additional commitments were required to extend the contracts from 25 to 40 years.
This document is available for review at Reclamation's Nebraska-Kansas Area Office, Grand Island, Nebraska; Great Plains Regional Office, Billings, Montana; Technical Services Center, Denver, Colorado; and Program Analysis Office, Washington, D.C.; at irrigation district offices in Almena and Courtland, Kansas, and in Cambridge, Red Cloud, and Culbertson, Nebraska; and at Project area public libraries. The FEIS is also available at www.gp.usbr.gov
This FEIS includes seven chapters, as follows:
Chapter I--Describes the general setting of the proposed Federal action; the purpose of and need for the action; key issues; the relationship among the contracting, environmental, and planning processes; and legal and other requirements.
Chapter II--Introduces planning concepts and describes legal, institutional, and other constraints; alternatives formulation and screening; alternatives considered in detail; discusses alternatives considered but eliminated; and provides a summary comparison of alternatives and their impacts.
Chapter III--Describes the affected environment.
Chapter IV--Describes environmental consequences: affected resources, resources minimally affected or not impacted, the kinds of impacts assessed, and the significant environmental impacts of the various alternatives considered in detail.
Chapter V--Discusses agency and public consultation, including an overview of coordination with various local, State, and Federal agencies, and with private entities during preparation of the RMA and EISs; describes the Environmental Commitment Plan; and provides distribution lists for the RMA and EISs.
Chapter VI--Lists preparers of the FEIS.
Attachments are:
A Biological Opinion/biological Assessment and Coordination Act Report
B Corps of Engineers' Technical Report
C Water Quality
D Comments and Responses
1. 1 Bonny Reservoir is located in the Basin system but is not included in the Project analysis because there is no irrigation district receiving water from the reservoir and, therefore, there is no water service contract.
2. The Republican River Compact of 1943 is an agreement among the States of Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas, consented to by the U.S. Congress, which governs the use of waters of the Republican River and its tributaries.
3. Technical meetings are a forum for exchanging information or conducting discussions on technical information, issues, processes, and procedures of the negotiations process. They do not include negotiations themselves or any agreements or discussion on contract matters subject to negotiations. They are not open to the public.
| Table of Contents | Executive Summary | Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 | Chapter 5 | Chapter 6 |
| Glossary | Conversion Tables | Bibliography | Index | Attachments | Tables | Figures | Report to Public |
