Rocky Mountain Region; Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest; Mesa County, CO; Hunter Reservoir Expansion Project, 61781-61783 [05-21335]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2005 / Notices
by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel,
803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and
Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490
F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980).
Because of these court rulings, it is very
important that those interested in this
proposed action participate by the close
of the 45-day comment period so that
substantive comments and objections
are made available to the Forest Service
at a time when it can meaningfully
consider them and respond to them in
the final supplemental environmental
impact statement.
To assist the Forest Service in
identifying and considering issues and
concerns on the proposed action,
comments on the draft EIS should be as
specific as possible. It is also helpful if
comments refer to specific pages or
chapters of the draft statement.
Comments may also address the
adequacy of the draft environmental
impact statement or the merits of the
alternatives formulated and discussed in
the statement. Reviewers may wish to
refer to the Council on Environmental
Quality Regulations for implementing
the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act at 40
CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Comments received, including the
names and addresses of those who
comment, will be considered part of the
public record on this proposed and will
be available for public inspection.
Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22;
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section
21.
Dated: October 20, 2005.
John D. Berry,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05–21340 Filed 10–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Rocky Mountain Region; Grand Mesa,
Uncompahgre and Gunnison National
Forest; Mesa County, CO; Hunter
Reservoir Expansion Project
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: In order to provide additional
water storage capacity for a growing
population in the Grand Junction Area,
Ute Water Conservancy District (UWCD)
is proposing to enlarge Hunter Reservoir
while also addressing dam safety issues.
The existing reservoir is 16 surface
acres. The proposed expanded reservoir
would be approximately 80 surface
acres.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Oct 25, 2005
Jkt 208001
Comments concerning the scope
of the analysis must be received by
November 28, 2005. The draft
environmental impact statement is
expected in March 2006 and the final
environmental impact statement is
expected in September 2006.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to
Hunter Reservoir Project, Grand Valley
Ranger district, 2777 Crossroads Blvd,
Unit 1, Grand Junction, Colorado 81506.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carrie Surber, Team leader at
csurber@fs.fed.us or (970) 242–8211.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Ute Water
Conservancy District (UWCD) has
decreed water rights for 110 acre-feet
(AF) of storage in Hunter Reservoir
located near the headwaters of Leon
Creek. Leon Creek is located on the
northern slopes of the Grand Mesa, a
prominent geologic feature in Mesa,
Delta and Gunnison Counties in western
Colorado. The Hunter Reservoir project
location is located approximately 11
miles south of Vega Reservoir in Section
27, T. 11 S., R. 93 W. Sixth Principle
Meridian, Mesa County, Colorado.
UWCD also has conditional rights to
store 582.5 AF more water at the Hunter
Reservoir location. In addition to the
Hunter Reservoir water rights, UWCD
have conditional water rights for 5,650
AF of storage at a Big Park site, also in
the Leon Creek drainage basin
downstream of Hunter Reservoir. UWCD
has determined that a new dam at the
Big Park site would not be economically
feasible for the volume of water they
would be allowed to store. UWCD
desires to perfect its Big Park
conditional water rights at the Hunter
Reservoir location by enlarging the
existing dam and reservoir.
Irrespective of UWCD’s storage and
conditional water right desires, the
Colorado Dam Safety Engineer is
requiring UWCD to make structural
improvements to the existing Hunter
Reservoir dam in order to keep using
that facility to store water.
UWCD would like to address both of
these aspects of their water facility’s
management and responsibilities by
enlarging the dam at Hunter Reservoir to
both rectify dam safety concerns and
put their conditional water rights to
beneficial use.
The U.S.D.A Forest Service and the
Army Corps of Engineers, as a requested
cooperating agency, will prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
addressing the environmental
consequences associated with
rehabilitating the dam and enlarging the
reservoir at the Hunter Reservoir
location.
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61781
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of the proposed action is
to bring the Hunter Reservoir dam into
compliance with Colorado Dam Safety
requirements and to enlarge the storage
capacity of the reservoir so that UWCD
can make beneficial use of its existing
and conditional water rights in the Leon
Creek drainage basin.
The need for this combined action is
to afford UWCD the ability to address
both the dam safety and water right use
aspects of their water facilities
management and responsibilities in a
manner that is environmentally,
economically, and technically sound.
The dam safety issues at Hunter
Reservoir go back as far as 1964 when
state inspection reports began to
identify safety concerns at the existing
dam. These 1964 concerns and others
have continued to worsen to the extent
that actions to rectify dam safety
problems must be addressed by UWCD
to continue operations at Hunter
Reservoir.
UWCD needs include providing a
continued supply of water to meet the
public needs for a service area that is
experiencing continued and rapid
growth. As a public utility, UWCD has
a responsibility to operate and manage
its facilities with respect to feature
demand with sound environmental and
economic management.
This proposed action will also meet
the intent of the 2004 Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the
Rocky Mountain Region of the Forest
Service and the State of Colorado,
which states, in part, that the State and
Forest Service agree to explore creative
ways to assure continued operation of
water use facilities on NFS lands while
protecting aquatic resources, that
conflicts are best avoided by careful
advance planning and a spirit of
cooperation, and that reauthorization of
existing water facilities will be done in
cooperation and collaboration with the
holders of the permits and with other
parties such as local governments,
tribes, and state and federal agencies, as
appropriate.
Proposed Action
The proposed action is to authorize
Ute Water Conservancy District (UWCD)
to enlarge Hunter Reservoir and
rehabilitate the dam to address safety
issues. The construction necessary to
accomplish these actions is expected to
take two summer seasons due to the
high elevation of the Hunter Reservoir
site. UWCD would like to begin
construction in the summer of 2007 and
anticipates completion at the end of the
summer in 2008.
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
26OCN1
61782
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2005 / Notices
Dam reconstruction will be done by
raising the dam height to 26 feet,
installing new outlet works, widening
the crest of the dam, install new service
and emergency spillways, rock riprapping the dam embankments, and
installing a seepage curtain at the foot
of the dam toe. These actions would
increase storage capacity, improve flood
surge capacity, and eliminate fill
instability. These actions are expected
to bring the reservoir into compliance
with the Colorado State Engineer’s
Office for dam safety requirements.
Road improvements would be needed
on Forest Roads 262 and 280 to facilitate
access by construction crews and to
bring materials to the construction site.
Both FR 262 and 280 are high-clearance
roads not designed for passenger car
travel. The type of improvements
envisioned for these access roads would
include, but not limited to, grading,
leveling, stabilize and improve stream
crossings, relocation out of wetland
areas, stabilize erosion from road runoff,
and gravel surfacing. Even with the
anticipated road improvements it is
unlikely that neither of these Forest
Roads would be deemed suitable for
passenger car travel, but would facilitate
truck traffic necessary to move crews
and materials into the site.
Most earthen materials needed for
construction would be obtained on site.
Rock riprap would come from a
rockslide area at the site. Dam
embankment material would come from
spillway construction and blanket cutoff
construction. Road surface gravels and
filter drain materials (crushed rock) as
well as cement would be delivered to
the site. Concrete would be mixed and
poured on site.
Possible Alternatives
Alternative 1: See proposed action
above.
Alternative 2: Under this alternative
only dam safety issues would be
corrected and Hunter Reservoir would
not be enlarged.
Alternative 3: A new storage facility
would be constructed at another site
within the Leon Creek drainage basin or
some other adjacent drainage nearby.
Alternative 4: (No action) Under this
alternative, Hunter Reservoir would not
be enlarged nor dam safety issues
corrected. This alternative is required by
NEPA to be presented as a baseline to
consider the environmental effects of
action alternatives. In the event the
action alternatives were found to be
unacceptable, this alternative could be
selected.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Oct 25, 2005
Jkt 208001
Lead and Cooperating Agencies
Lead Agency—USDA, Forest Service,
Grand Mesa , Uncompahgre and
Gunnison National Forest.
Cooperating Agency—U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District,
Colorado/Gunnison Basin Regional
Office has been requested to participate
as a cooperating agency.
Responsible Official
The Responsible Official is Charles
Richmond, Forest Supervisor, Grand
Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison
National Forests, 2250 South Highway
50, Delta, Colorado 81416.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
Given the purpose and need, the
Forest Supervisor will review the
proposed action, other alternatives and
mitigation measures in order to make
the following decisions:
• Whether or not to authorize the
enlargement of Hunter Reservoir and
conduct road reconstruction and other
support activities to meet the stated
purpose.
• If an action alternative is selected,
under what conditions and by which
methods reservoir enlargement and
associated activities would be
conducted.
The Federal Land Policy and
Management Act gives the Forest
Service the authority to issue or deny
authorizations for water storage
facilities. The Forest Service is also
required to protect and manage natural
resources.
Scoping Process
Initial scoping was conducted for this
proposal during August 2005. Letters
inviting comments on the proposal were
sent to parties known to be interested.
A news release was issued and
published in the Grand Junction Daily
Sentinel on Saturday May 28, 2005.
Also, a legal notice was run in that same
newspaper on Friday May 27, 2005.
Seven letters were received in response.
An initial set of issues, listed below,
were identified from reading the
response to scoping, from working with
federal agencies, including the Corps of
Engineers, and from Forest Service and
consultant analysis.
Preliminary Issues
The following issues have been
identified as preliminary issues to be
carried through the analysis:
Wetlands: Based on wetland
delineation by WestWater Engineering
in October 2005, the following wetland
classification categories will be below
high water elevation of the proposed
enlarged reservoir: approximately 32
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
acres of wetlands, 6 acres of littoral
zone, and 14 acres of existing
unvegetated reservoir bottom. The total
acres of wetlands to be inundated are
about 38 acres. Some of these wetlands
have the characteristics of peat forming
wetlands, which could be fens. Fens in
these southern regions of the Rocky
Mountains are considered rare and
unique because of the plant
communities often associated with such
wetlands.
Soils and Water Resources: The access
road will require grading, leveling and
has 28 stream or wetland crossings.
Leon Creek would be diverted during
dam reconstruction activities and there
would be temporary increases in
sedimentation and erosion downstream
in Leon Creek. On-site soils would be
used for dam construction material.
Recreation: Proposed project activities
could cause increased recreation at the
reservoir and to the Hunter Reservoir
area because of the improved access
conditions and the attraction of a larger
reservoir. Improved access could also
change the recreational opportunity
spectrum for the area.
Threatened/Endanged/Sensitive(TES)
Species, Wildlife and Vegetation:
Proposed project activities could affect
existing vegetation and wildlife habitat,
including TES such as Canada lynx,
boreal toad and bald eagle.
Fisheries: Proposed project activities,
especially during construction, could
affect existing fisheries in the reservoir
and Leon Creek. The long-term effects
on downstream fisheries and in-lake
fisheries have the potential to improve
because there could be decreased
potential for winter-kill in the reservoir
and if in-stream flow provisions can be
incorporated into the reservoir
operations.
Transportation: Proposed project
activities could affect National Forest
System Roads. NFSR 280 and 262 are
currently rough four-wheel drive roads
that will need to be upgraded to allow
access for crews, equipment and
materials. Even with improvements, it is
unlikely passenger cars could access
Hunter Reservoir. Lack of annual
maintenance would allow these roads to
degrade to current conditions.
Range: Proposed project activities
could affect grazing capacity in the Leon
Creek Grazing Allotment. More water
would be available over a longer period
if the proposed action is approved but
there would be a loss of wetland grasses
and forbs that are currently utilized as
forage for livestock.
Other issues may be identified
through the scoping process.
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
26OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2005 / Notices
Permits or Licenses Required
Department of the Army Permit (404
permit) for dam fill. Obtained by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Special Use Permit from the U.S.
Forest Service.
Comments Requested
This notice of intent initiates the
scoping process that guides the
development of the environmental
impact statement.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22;
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section
21)
Early Notice of Importance of Public
Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review
A draft environmental impact
statement will be prepared for comment.
The comment period on the draft
environmental impact statement will be
45 days from the date the
Environmental Protection Agency
publishes the notice of availability in
the Federal Register. Comments
received, including the names and
addresses of those who comment, will
be considered part of the public record
on this proposal and will be available
for public inspection.
The Forest Service believes, at this
early stage, it is important to give
reviewers notice of several court rulings
related to public participation in the
environmental review process. First,
reviewers of draft environmental impact
statements must structure their
participation in the environmental
review of the proposal so that it is
meaningful and alerts an agency to the
reviewer’s position and contentions.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.
NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also,
environmental objections that could be
raised at the draft environmental impact
statement stage but that are not raised
until after completion of the final
environmental impact statement may be
waived or dismissed by the courts. City
of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016,
1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin
Heritages Inc. v. Harris, 409 F. Supp.
1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of
these court rulings, it is very important
that those interested in this proposed
action participate by the close of the 45
day comment period so that substantive
comments and objections are made
available to the Forest Service at the
time when it can meaningfully consider
them and respond to them in the final
environmental impact statement.
To assist the Forest Service in
identifying and considering issues and
concerns on the proposed action,
comments on the draft environmental
impact statement should be as specific
as possible. It is also helpful if
comments refer to specific pages or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Oct 25, 2005
Jkt 208001
chapters of the draft statement.
Comments may also address the
adequacy of the draft environmental
impact statement or the merits of the
alternatives formulated and discussed in
the statement. Reviewers may wish to
refer to the Council on Environmental
Quality Regulations for implementing
the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act at 40
CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Dated: October 18, 2005.
Charles S. Richmond,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05–21335 Filed 10–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Umatilla National Forest, Columbia and
Garfield Counties, WA School Fire
Salvage Recovery Project
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service will
prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) to disclose
environmental effects on a proposed
action to recover the economic value of
dead and dying trees damaged in the
School Fire, and remove potential
hazard trees from open forest travel
routes, developed recreation sites, and
administrative sites within North Patit
Creek, Little Tucannon River,
Cummings Creek, Tumalum Creek,
Headwaters of Tucannon River, and
Pataha Creek subwatersheds. School
Fire, located 12 miles south of Pomeroy,
Washington, burned approximately
52,000 acres across mixed ownership in
August 2005, of that approximately
27,000 acres were on National Forest
System Lands administered by Pomeroy
Ranger District, Umatilla National
Forest.
Comments concerning the scope
of the analysis must be received by
November 28, 2005. The Draft EIS is
expected to be filed with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and be available to the public for review
by April 2006. The Final EIS is
scheduled to be completed by July 2006.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to
the Responsible Official, Kevin D.
Martin, Forest Supervisor, Umatilla
National Forest, 2517 S.W. Hailey
Avenue, Pendleton, OR 97801. Send
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61783
electronic comments to: commentspacificnorthwest-umatilla@fs.fed.us.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dean Millett, Project Team Leader,
Pomeroy Ranger District, 71 West Main
Street, Pomeroy, WA 99347, phone
(509) 843–1891. e-mail:
dmillett@fs.fed.us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose and Need. The purpose and
need of the School Fires Salvage
Recovery Project includes: (1) Recovery
of the economic value of a portion of
dead and dying trees consistent with
protection of other resource values; and
(2) Improving public safety within the
fire area by removing potential hazard
trees along open forest travel routes,
developed recreation sites, and
administrative sites.
Proposed Action. This action includes
salvage of dead and dying trees from
approximately 10,000 acres and removal
of potential hazard trees for public
safety along open forest travel routes,
developed recreation sites, and
administrative sites. Salvage harvest
methods would include ground based,
skyline, and helicopter yarding systems.
Ground based systems would not be
used on sustained slopes greater than 30
percent. To facilitate haul some existing
classified roads would be reconstructed
and about 15 miles of temporary roads
would be constructed. No new classified
road construction is proposed and all
temporary roads would be closed or
decommissioned after project activities
are completed. No commercial harvest
or road construction is proposed within
the Willow Spring Inventoried Roadless
Area. Tree planting is proposed in
salvage harvest areas where there is
insufficient seed source to ensure
natural regeneration in a timely manner.
Some areas would have submerchantable trees felled prior to
planting, and these areas would be
broadcast burned to reduce excessive
fuel loading before planting. Forest Plan
amendments would be included as
needed.
Possible Alternatives. Alternatives
will include the proposed action, no
action, and additional alternatives that
respond to issues generated during the
scoping process. The agency will give
notice of the full environmental analysis
and decision-making process so
interested and affected people may
participate and contribute to the final
decision.
Scoping. Public participation will be
especially important at several points
during the analysis, beginning with the
scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7). Initial
scoping began with the project listed in
the 2005 Fall Edition of the Umatilla
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
26OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61781-61783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21335]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Rocky Mountain Region; Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison
National Forest; Mesa County, CO; Hunter Reservoir Expansion Project
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In order to provide additional water storage capacity for a
growing population in the Grand Junction Area, Ute Water Conservancy
District (UWCD) is proposing to enlarge Hunter Reservoir while also
addressing dam safety issues. The existing reservoir is 16 surface
acres. The proposed expanded reservoir would be approximately 80
surface acres.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received
by November 28, 2005. The draft environmental impact statement is
expected in March 2006 and the final environmental impact statement is
expected in September 2006.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Hunter Reservoir Project, Grand
Valley Ranger district, 2777 Crossroads Blvd, Unit 1, Grand Junction,
Colorado 81506.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Surber, Team leader at
csurber@fs.fed.us or (970) 242-8211.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Ute Water Conservancy District (UWCD) has
decreed water rights for 110 acre-feet (AF) of storage in Hunter
Reservoir located near the headwaters of Leon Creek. Leon Creek is
located on the northern slopes of the Grand Mesa, a prominent geologic
feature in Mesa, Delta and Gunnison Counties in western Colorado. The
Hunter Reservoir project location is located approximately 11 miles
south of Vega Reservoir in Section 27, T. 11 S., R. 93 W. Sixth
Principle Meridian, Mesa County, Colorado.
UWCD also has conditional rights to store 582.5 AF more water at
the Hunter Reservoir location. In addition to the Hunter Reservoir
water rights, UWCD have conditional water rights for 5,650 AF of
storage at a Big Park site, also in the Leon Creek drainage basin
downstream of Hunter Reservoir. UWCD has determined that a new dam at
the Big Park site would not be economically feasible for the volume of
water they would be allowed to store. UWCD desires to perfect its Big
Park conditional water rights at the Hunter Reservoir location by
enlarging the existing dam and reservoir.
Irrespective of UWCD's storage and conditional water right desires,
the Colorado Dam Safety Engineer is requiring UWCD to make structural
improvements to the existing Hunter Reservoir dam in order to keep
using that facility to store water.
UWCD would like to address both of these aspects of their water
facility's management and responsibilities by enlarging the dam at
Hunter Reservoir to both rectify dam safety concerns and put their
conditional water rights to beneficial use.
The U.S.D.A Forest Service and the Army Corps of Engineers, as a
requested cooperating agency, will prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) addressing the environmental consequences associated
with rehabilitating the dam and enlarging the reservoir at the Hunter
Reservoir location.
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of the proposed action is to bring the Hunter Reservoir
dam into compliance with Colorado Dam Safety requirements and to
enlarge the storage capacity of the reservoir so that UWCD can make
beneficial use of its existing and conditional water rights in the Leon
Creek drainage basin.
The need for this combined action is to afford UWCD the ability to
address both the dam safety and water right use aspects of their water
facilities management and responsibilities in a manner that is
environmentally, economically, and technically sound.
The dam safety issues at Hunter Reservoir go back as far as 1964
when state inspection reports began to identify safety concerns at the
existing dam. These 1964 concerns and others have continued to worsen
to the extent that actions to rectify dam safety problems must be
addressed by UWCD to continue operations at Hunter Reservoir.
UWCD needs include providing a continued supply of water to meet
the public needs for a service area that is experiencing continued and
rapid growth. As a public utility, UWCD has a responsibility to operate
and manage its facilities with respect to feature demand with sound
environmental and economic management.
This proposed action will also meet the intent of the 2004
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Rocky Mountain Region of
the Forest Service and the State of Colorado, which states, in part,
that the State and Forest Service agree to explore creative ways to
assure continued operation of water use facilities on NFS lands while
protecting aquatic resources, that conflicts are best avoided by
careful advance planning and a spirit of cooperation, and that
reauthorization of existing water facilities will be done in
cooperation and collaboration with the holders of the permits and with
other parties such as local governments, tribes, and state and federal
agencies, as appropriate.
Proposed Action
The proposed action is to authorize Ute Water Conservancy District
(UWCD) to enlarge Hunter Reservoir and rehabilitate the dam to address
safety issues. The construction necessary to accomplish these actions
is expected to take two summer seasons due to the high elevation of the
Hunter Reservoir site. UWCD would like to begin construction in the
summer of 2007 and anticipates completion at the end of the summer in
2008.
[[Page 61782]]
Dam reconstruction will be done by raising the dam height to 26
feet, installing new outlet works, widening the crest of the dam,
install new service and emergency spillways, rock rip-rapping the dam
embankments, and installing a seepage curtain at the foot of the dam
toe. These actions would increase storage capacity, improve flood surge
capacity, and eliminate fill instability. These actions are expected to
bring the reservoir into compliance with the Colorado State Engineer's
Office for dam safety requirements.
Road improvements would be needed on Forest Roads 262 and 280 to
facilitate access by construction crews and to bring materials to the
construction site. Both FR 262 and 280 are high-clearance roads not
designed for passenger car travel. The type of improvements envisioned
for these access roads would include, but not limited to, grading,
leveling, stabilize and improve stream crossings, relocation out of
wetland areas, stabilize erosion from road runoff, and gravel
surfacing. Even with the anticipated road improvements it is unlikely
that neither of these Forest Roads would be deemed suitable for
passenger car travel, but would facilitate truck traffic necessary to
move crews and materials into the site.
Most earthen materials needed for construction would be obtained on
site. Rock riprap would come from a rockslide area at the site. Dam
embankment material would come from spillway construction and blanket
cutoff construction. Road surface gravels and filter drain materials
(crushed rock) as well as cement would be delivered to the site.
Concrete would be mixed and poured on site.
Possible Alternatives
Alternative 1: See proposed action above.
Alternative 2: Under this alternative only dam safety issues would
be corrected and Hunter Reservoir would not be enlarged.
Alternative 3: A new storage facility would be constructed at
another site within the Leon Creek drainage basin or some other
adjacent drainage nearby.
Alternative 4: (No action) Under this alternative, Hunter Reservoir
would not be enlarged nor dam safety issues corrected. This alternative
is required by NEPA to be presented as a baseline to consider the
environmental effects of action alternatives. In the event the action
alternatives were found to be unacceptable, this alternative could be
selected.
Lead and Cooperating Agencies
Lead Agency--USDA, Forest Service, Grand Mesa , Uncompahgre and
Gunnison National Forest.
Cooperating Agency--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento
District, Colorado/Gunnison Basin Regional Office has been requested to
participate as a cooperating agency.
Responsible Official
The Responsible Official is Charles Richmond, Forest Supervisor,
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests, 2250 South
Highway 50, Delta, Colorado 81416.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
Given the purpose and need, the Forest Supervisor will review the
proposed action, other alternatives and mitigation measures in order to
make the following decisions:
Whether or not to authorize the enlargement of Hunter
Reservoir and conduct road reconstruction and other support activities
to meet the stated purpose.
If an action alternative is selected, under what
conditions and by which methods reservoir enlargement and associated
activities would be conducted.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act gives the Forest Service
the authority to issue or deny authorizations for water storage
facilities. The Forest Service is also required to protect and manage
natural resources.
Scoping Process
Initial scoping was conducted for this proposal during August 2005.
Letters inviting comments on the proposal were sent to parties known to
be interested. A news release was issued and published in the Grand
Junction Daily Sentinel on Saturday May 28, 2005. Also, a legal notice
was run in that same newspaper on Friday May 27, 2005. Seven letters
were received in response. An initial set of issues, listed below, were
identified from reading the response to scoping, from working with
federal agencies, including the Corps of Engineers, and from Forest
Service and consultant analysis.
Preliminary Issues
The following issues have been identified as preliminary issues to
be carried through the analysis:
Wetlands: Based on wetland delineation by WestWater Engineering in
October 2005, the following wetland classification categories will be
below high water elevation of the proposed enlarged reservoir:
approximately 32 acres of wetlands, 6 acres of littoral zone, and 14
acres of existing unvegetated reservoir bottom. The total acres of
wetlands to be inundated are about 38 acres. Some of these wetlands
have the characteristics of peat forming wetlands, which could be fens.
Fens in these southern regions of the Rocky Mountains are considered
rare and unique because of the plant communities often associated with
such wetlands.
Soils and Water Resources: The access road will require grading,
leveling and has 28 stream or wetland crossings. Leon Creek would be
diverted during dam reconstruction activities and there would be
temporary increases in sedimentation and erosion downstream in Leon
Creek. On-site soils would be used for dam construction material.
Recreation: Proposed project activities could cause increased
recreation at the reservoir and to the Hunter Reservoir area because of
the improved access conditions and the attraction of a larger
reservoir. Improved access could also change the recreational
opportunity spectrum for the area.
Threatened/Endanged/Sensitive(TES) Species, Wildlife and
Vegetation: Proposed project activities could affect existing
vegetation and wildlife habitat, including TES such as Canada lynx,
boreal toad and bald eagle.
Fisheries: Proposed project activities, especially during
construction, could affect existing fisheries in the reservoir and Leon
Creek. The long-term effects on downstream fisheries and in-lake
fisheries have the potential to improve because there could be
decreased potential for winter-kill in the reservoir and if in-stream
flow provisions can be incorporated into the reservoir operations.
Transportation: Proposed project activities could affect National
Forest System Roads. NFSR 280 and 262 are currently rough four-wheel
drive roads that will need to be upgraded to allow access for crews,
equipment and materials. Even with improvements, it is unlikely
passenger cars could access Hunter Reservoir. Lack of annual
maintenance would allow these roads to degrade to current conditions.
Range: Proposed project activities could affect grazing capacity in
the Leon Creek Grazing Allotment. More water would be available over a
longer period if the proposed action is approved but there would be a
loss of wetland grasses and forbs that are currently utilized as forage
for livestock.
Other issues may be identified through the scoping process.
[[Page 61783]]
Permits or Licenses Required
Department of the Army Permit (404 permit) for dam fill. Obtained
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Special Use Permit from the U.S. Forest Service.
Comments Requested
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process that guides the
development of the environmental impact statement.
Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review
A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for
comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement
will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency
publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register. Comments
received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will
be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be
available for public inspection.
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of
draft environmental impact statements must structure their
participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is
meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519,
553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the
draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised
until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may
be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d
1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages Inc. v. Harris, 409
F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings,
it is very important that those interested in this proposed action
participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that
substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest
Service at the time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond
to them in the final environmental impact statement.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft
environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is
also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the
draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft
environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives
formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer
to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing
the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at
40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook
1909.15, Section 21)
Dated: October 18, 2005.
Charles S. Richmond,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05-21335 Filed 10-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
