Rocky Mountain Region; Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests; Grand Valley Ranger District; Mesa County, Colorado; Enlargement of Monument No. 1 and Hunter Reservoirs, 1605-1611 [2016-00508]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1605-1611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00508]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Rocky Mountain Region; Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison 
National Forests; Grand Valley Ranger District; Mesa County, Colorado; 
Enlargement of Monument No. 1 and Hunter Reservoirs

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a supplemental draft environmental 
impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests 
(GMUG) intends to prepare a Supplement to the June 2007 Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Hunter Reservoir 
Enlargement to also include enlargement of the Monument No. 1 Reservoir 
in the Proposed Action. The original notice of intent (NOI) for the 
Hunter Reservoir Enlargement was published in 70 FR 61781 on October 
26, 2005; and the notice of availability (NOA) was published in 72 FR 
39808 on July 20, 2007. Both reservoirs are owned by the Ute Water 
Conservancy District (Ute Water) and are located on National Forest 
System (NFS) lands in the Leon Creek watershed in the eastern portion 
of Mesa County, Colorado.

DATES: Comments concerning the expanded scope of the analysis must be 
received by February 12, 2016. The supplemental DEIS is expected to be 
released in April 2016 for comment and the final environmental impact 
statement is expected in October 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Ute Water Reservoir Enlargement 
Projects, Grand Valley Ranger District, 2777 Crossroads Boulevard, Unit 
1, Grand Junction, CO 81506. Comments may also be sent via email to 
comments-rocky-mountain-gmug-grande-valley@fs.fed.us, or via facsimile 
to 970-263-5819.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Bledsoe, Project Manager, at 
970-263-5802 or via email at lbledsoe@fs.fed.us. Individuals who use 
telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A DEIS analyzing effects from the 
enlargement of Hunter Reservoir was issued in 2007. In 2009, Ute Water 
acquired the rights to Monument No. 1 Reservoir and subsequently 
commissioned a raw water study to be completed to analyze all of its 
water rights (storage and flow), how those rights are currently used 
and what additional rights or facilities might be needed in order for 
Ute Water to have sufficient water to meet increased municipal water 
demands for the next several decades. That study identified the need 
for additional high mountain storage, especially during times of 
drought. In February 2012, Ute Water submitted a proposal for the 
enlargement of Monument No. 1 Reservoir to be considered along with the 
enlargement of Hunter Reservoir.
    With new alternatives and additional information brought forward, 
as well as the length of time that has passed since issuance of the 
DEIS in 2007, the Forest Service has determined that a supplemental 
draft environmental impact statement (SDEIS) that included both 
reservoir enlargement proposals was appropriate (FSH 1905.18.2, Chapter 
10).

Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose and need for the Forest Service action on the Monument 
No. 1 and Hunter Reservoirs enlargement project is to respond to a 
request by the Ute Water Conservancy District for special use permits 
to expand the dams for these two reservoirs, which were submitted under 
the Forest Service's special use regulations (36 CFR 251.54).
    Ute Water has proposed these expansions to meet the need for 
projected municipal water demand. Over the next 30 years, demand is 
expected to increase by about two and a half times the current amount 
of 14,300 acre-feet (AF). The Proposed Action is one of several actions 
that Ute Water has indicated it will need to meet its future demand for 
municipal water in its service area. Those actions include, but are not 
limited to, acquiring new water rights, perfecting existing water 
rights, and upgrading Ute's Colorado River pumping capacity and water 
treatment plant.

Proposed Action

    Under the Proposed Action, the Forest Service would authorize the 
use of NFS lands by Ute Water to enlarge the existing Monument No. 1 
and Hunter Reservoirs by increasing the size and height of the dams and 
spillways, along with the activities associated with those 
enlargements.
    The reservoirs are located in Mesa County, Colorado, about 15 miles 
southeast of Collbran, Colorado. Hunter Reservoir is located in Section 
27, T. 11 S., R. 93 W., 6th P.M. Monument No. 1 Reservoir is located in 
Sections 11 and 12, T. 11 S., R. 93 W., 6th P.M.
    Construction associated with the Proposed Action would likely begin 
with the roads and trails, including necessary relocations, in advance 
of dam construction activities.
    Both reservoirs hold irrigation water rights and are operated as 
irrigation reservoirs, meaning that the reservoirs fill each year and 
are typically drained in the summer after runoff has ended in order to 
irrigate the ranches below the forest boundary that have historically 
used the water. Depending on the amount of snowpack, the reservoirs 
fill during spring and early summer; and the water is stored in the 
reservoirs until later in the summer when the water is needed to 
irrigate the ranches or when a senior water rights holder places a call 
on the stream. The reservoirs are

[[Page 1606]]

typically empty by late fall, and then the outlets are closed in order 
to capture water over the winter and the next spring.
    For the enlargement of the two reservoirs, Ute Water applied for 
and received water rights decrees for primarily municipal uses, which 
would change how the reservoirs are operated. Because the reservoirs 
are located high in the watershed and existing senior water rights 
downstream are required to be satisfied first, it could take two to 
three years to fill each of the reservoirs. Once filled, Ute Water does 
not anticipate releasing the water stored in the reservoirs until it 
needs the water for municipal purposes or when there is a call on the 
stream by senior water rights holders downstream. Ute Water has 
identified the need for these reservoirs for periods of drought. The 
irrigation water rights would still be available for irrigation of the 
ranches, and that water would still be released. As the reservoirs 
would not be fully drained each year, the spring runoff would replace 
whatever irrigation water was released during the previous summer and 
the majority of runoff would generally pass through the reservoirs and 
spill downstream. Some municipal water could be released in late fall 
and/or winter in order to increase water quality in Plateau Creek prior 
to it being stored in the Jerry Creek Reservoirs and subsequent 
treatment as drinking water.
    Access to both reservoir sites is primarily on the Park Creek Road 
(National Forest System Road (NFSR)) 262, which begins at Vega 
Reservoir below the forest boundary. The Forest Service holds an 
easement for the portion of the road crossing private lands from Vega 
Reservoir to the forest boundary.
    Current Forest Service road management objectives (RMOs) classify 
NFSR 262 as a high clearance, four-wheel drive road; though most travel 
is presently done on all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). During spring runoff, 
NFSR 262, as well as other roads and trails in the area, are usually 
impassable because of high water at the stream crossings.
    Substantial temporary and permanent improvements to the road would 
be required in order to accommodate all the traffic associated with the 
reservoir enlargements and to protect resources. Prior to dam 
construction, NFSR 262 would be narrowed back to its original width of 
14 feet with 12-foot ditches and would have inter-visible (in sight of 
one another) pullouts. Drainage would be reestablished along the road, 
creek crossings would be hardened and surface rock added in order for 
the road to accommodate the increased traffic associated with the 
larger, heavier vehicles needed for construction of the reservoir 
enlargements. The intent of the road upgrades would be to improve the 
road structure and stability and not to allow for increased vehicle 
speeds.
    Approximately three miles south of the forest boundary along NFSR 
262, a ``transfer area'' would be established in an area that has 
historically been used as an ATV unloading area and livestock gathering 
site. The area is prone to holding water onsite and prevents proper 
drainage, which results in rutting and other resource damage. The area 
would be graded, sloped and hardened to allow for use of the site, 
while protecting or improving the condition of resources. This transfer 
area would be used for construction activities including unloading and 
storing material associated with both reservoir sites and would remain 
as a parking area for the Forest Service, permittees and the public 
following construction. The road would be upgraded to the transfer 
point to allow passage by street-worthy vehicles. From the transfer 
point to the reservoir sites, NFSR 262 would be used by off-road 
equipment and trucks, which would require less work on the road.
    It is anticipated that road and trail work for both reservoirs 
would be done prior to the major construction work commencing on the 
reservoirs. The Park Creek Road (NFSR 262) to the Monument Trail 
(National Forest System Trail (NFST) 518) segment would need to be 
completed prior to the numerous construction vehicles accessing the 
construction site, although some breaching of the current reservoir 
could be done at the same time.
    While construction work is ongoing at Monument Reservoir No. 1, 
improvements would be done on NFSR 262 to its intersection with the 
Hunter Reservoir Road (NFSR 280). Construction associated with the 
enlargement of the two reservoirs could last as long as 6 or 7 years; 
however, construction work on NFSR 262 should be complete within 3 or 4 
years.
    There would likely be delays for the public on the access routes to 
the reservoirs, but none of the routes would be closed to the public 
during construction activities.

Monument No. 1 Reservoir

    Under the Proposed Action, Ute Water would enlarge the existing 
Monument No. 1 Reservoir by increasing the size and height of the dam 
and spillway. The existing earthen dam impounding Monument No. 1 
Reservoir would be rebuilt and increased in size, expanding the water 
storage capacity of the facility from the current 570 acre-feet (AF) to 
5,281 acre-feet. The current inundated area covers approximately 37 
surface acres, which would be increased to about 160 acres following 
construction.
    In order to accommodate construction vehicles and equipment, an 
administrative-use only road would be constructed over the existing 
Monument Trail (NFST 518) and would be widened, relocated and 
realigned, where needed, from its intersection with NFSR 262 to the new 
Monument No. 1 Reservoir dam site. About one-half mile of the road/
trail at its start would be relocated to the north in order to avoid a 
cultural resource site. Relocating that portion of the route would 
result in road construction occurring in the Flattops/Elk Park Colorado 
Roadless Area.
    The Forest Service would manage the realigned access route as a 
``coincidental road,'' which would allow the designation of the route 
as both an administrative road and trail. As an administrative road, it 
would be gated and used for (1) operation and maintenance purposes 
necessary for the water right identified by Ute Water; (2) 
administrative purposes by the Forest Service; (3) fire; (4) emergency; 
or (5) law enforcement personnel. As NFST 518, it would remain open to 
the public as an ATV trail, open to vehicles less than 50 inches in 
width.
    About 1\1/2\ miles of the Monument Trail starting at the current 
dam would need to be relocated because the existing trail would be 
inundated by the water stored in the enlarged reservoir. The relocation 
would move the trail to higher ground along the northern shoreline of 
the newly-enlarged reservoir.
    Approximately four miles of the Sunlight-Powderhorn (S-P) 
Snowmobile Trail would be relocated in order to avoid newly-inundated 
areas from the enlarged Monument No. 1 Reservoir. Instead of the trail 
following NFST 518 from NFSR 262, the trail would instead follow the 
East Leon Creek Trail (NFST 730) for about 1\1/2\ miles and then go in 
an easterly direction to intersect the S-P Trail upstream of Monument 
No. 1 Reservoir. This trail is part of a popular 40-mile-long groomed 
trail system, and the new alignment would need to be about 22 feet wide 
in order to accommodate the groomer.
    The existing dam is a homogeneous, gravelly clay embankment founded 
on glacial drift soils placed across Monument Creek, a tributary to 
East Leon Creek. It has a vertical height of 32 feet with a dam crest 
elevation at 10,206

[[Page 1607]]

feet, a crest width of 10 feet and crest length of about 500 feet. The 
proposed enlarged dam would increase the vertical height by 52 feet to 
a total of 85 feet with a dam crest elevation at 10,255 feet. The new 
crest width would be 25 feet and the crest length would be 1,850 feet.
    The preliminary embankment design concept assumes a zoned earthen 
embankment with a 3:1 downstream slope and a 3.5:1 upstream slope. Six 
internal materials are associated with this type of dam construction. 
These materials include the upstream and downstream shells, a central 
clay core, sand chimney filter, gravel blanket drain, riprap and riprap 
bedding. A vertical tower positioned near the upstream toe would 
connect into a low level outlet works for use during normal operations 
and as a service spillway designed for storm events up to the 100-year 
interval. An emergency spillway would be located on the right abutment 
to convey storm events within the basin tributary to the reservoir 
greater than the 100-year storm event interval.
    The soils beneath the enlarged embankment dam consist of deposits 
of glacial till overlying Uinta Formation siltstone, sandstone, and 
claystone. The proposed enlarged embankment would be constructed using 
material drawn from on-site borrow areas that would be ultimately 
inundated. The upstream slope of the dam would be surfaced with a layer 
of granular riprap bedding and riprap materials to protect against wave 
erosion. Riprap material, sourced from basaltic talus located 
throughout the reservoir, would be processed on-site.
    A compacted clay core centrally located within the embankment would 
act as a barrier to seepage. The clay core would extend from the limits 
of foundation improvements (grout curtain) to the proposed normal water 
surface elevation of 10,250 feet above sea level (ASL). It is intended 
to minimize seepage, reduce pressure on the dam itself, and eliminate 
the soft soil conditions identified on the downstream toe of the 
embankment. The material necessary to construct the clay core exists 
within the reservoir footprint as identified during the Geotechnical 
Evaluation (URS, October 2011). A cutoff trench located beneath the 
clay core of the dam and consolidation grouting of this zone may be 
required.
    The enlarged dam would have an internal drainage system to reduce 
pore pressures and to prevent internal erosion of embankment and 
foundation materials. The principal elements of the drainage system 
would include the filter and chimney drain immediately downstream of 
the clay core and the blanket drain constructed horizontally downstream 
of the central clay core along the footprint below the embankment 
shell. Toe drain collection piping would be constructed along the toe 
within the blanket drain to convey seepage safely through the 
embankment for monitoring and measurement. Materials necessary for 
construction of the internal drainage system are commercially available 
locally from the Grand Valley area and would need to be transported to 
the site.
    The outlet works/service spillway tower would be constructed mainly 
of concrete, positioned near the upstream toe of embankment, and 
founded in strong, competent materials to prevent settlement. An access 
bridge would connect the tower to the dam crest for operation and 
maintenance equipment and personnel. The outlet works pipe would be 
sized as necessary to accommodate dam safety requirements for emergency 
drawdown or as necessary for the safe diversion of storm inflows during 
construction. The service spillway crest would establish the normal 
water surface elevation of the reservoir at 10,250 feet ASL and would 
pass excess water up to the 100-year storm event recurrence interval 
down the outlet works conduit into an energy-dissipating basin below 
the downstream toe of the dam.
    The emergency spillway would be a new feature, located in a 
topographic saddle approximately 850 feet north of the right abutment. 
Releases from the emergency spillway in excess of the 100-year storm 
event would enter Monument Creek through an adjacent drainage 
approximately 500 feet downstream of the enlarged dam. Locating the 
uncontrolled releases from the emergency spillway away from the 
embankment is an important dam safety upgrade. The emergency spillway 
crest length and control sill elevation would be constructed based on 
the determination of the inflow design flood hydrology performed in 
accordance with the Colorado State Engineer's Dam Safety requirements.
    Most of the materials for the construction would be derived, 
wherever possible, from the borrow areas and the nearby basaltic talus 
within the reservoir footprint to minimize haul distance, create 
additional reservoir storage, and minimize disturbed area. In addition, 
imported material necessary to construct the drainage collection system 
(crushed rock and sand), concrete materials including: aggregate, 
cement, and admixtures would be delivered for on-site batching from 
commercial locations. An estimated 40,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel, 
stone and other construction material would need to be imported for the 
dam enlargement, requiring an estimated 3,000 round trips using 25-ton 
end-dump haul trucks for an average of about eight round trips per day 
during the period of construction.
    Because of the high site elevation and short construction season, 
construction of the dam enlargement and associated features could 
continue over three to four years. The first season would be used to 
improve access roads, develop borrow areas, stockpile embankment 
materials, import drainage materials, remove the existing dam, begin 
foundation grouting (if required), and establish the coffer dam, outlet 
works, and flood bypass structures. During the second year, 
construction of the outlet works/service spillway tower could be 
completed and embankment fill would begin. The third season would see 
the completion of the embankment, riprap placement, emergency spillway 
construction, and the access bridge to the tower.
    All trees below 10,255 feet elevation surrounding the reservoir 
would need to be cleared prior to construction completion and reservoir 
filling. This work is necessary to reduce debris in the reservoir which 
could block spillway channels and impact reservoir operations.
    About 40 acres of timber (predominantly spruce-fir) would be 
removed in order to accommodate the relocation of the Monument Trail 
(NFST 518), the S-P Snowmobile Trail and the enlarged inundated area 
for the reservoir.
    Following construction of the new dam at Monument No. 1 Reservoir, 
the dam at Monument No. 2 Reservoir, which is located just northeast of 
Monument No. 1 Reservoir, would be breached, water control structures 
(outlet, concrete walls, etc.) would be removed and the area would be 
reseeded with native species. Additionally, willows would be 
transplanted from the impacted area of Monument No. 1 Reservoir.
    The existing access route used for operation and maintenance of 
Monument No. 2 Reservoir would be rehabilitated to the extent necessary 
and closed to all uses. The water currently stored in that reservoir 
would be transferred to the newly-enlarged Monument No. 1 Reservoir. A 
wetlands mitigation plan to offset effects to wetlands caused by the 
enlargement of the Monument No. 1 Reservoir would be developed and 
would include the restoration of wetlands at Monument

[[Page 1608]]

No. 2 Reservoir. Additional mitigation could be required by the Forest 
Service and/or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    A temporary workers' camp would be located near the construction 
site to reduce construction traffic and improve construction 
efficiency. The site would need to be large enough to accommodate six 
to ten camp trailers for the 15 to 20 workers and five to six trucks 
that would remain on-site. The camp could be located either at the 
reservoir site or on an old well pad near the intersection of NFSR 262 
and NFST 518. Heavy equipment, including bulldozers, track hoes, road 
graders, and compactors would be stored near the construction site as 
work progresses. Temporary sanitary facilities and trash service would 
be maintained. A temporary special use permit would be required for the 
workers' camp.
    As mitigation for effects to wetlands at Monument No. 1 Reservoir 
caused by the enlargement, Ute Water proposes to:
     Permanently drain Monument No. 2 Reservoir, remove the 
functioning dam, and transfer the water to Monument No. 1 Reservoir;
     Rehabilitate and permanently close the administrative 
access route to Monument No. 2 Reservoir;
     Reestablish or establish 19.37 acres of wetlands, 
including 3.18 acres of fen wetlands, within the drained basin of 
Monument No. 2 Reservoir. Work would include grading with excavators, 
roughening, and using seedling planting, transplants or seed plugs;
     Rehabilitate about 0.05-acre of wetlands just west of 
Monument No. 2 Reservoir degraded by the administrative access route; 
and
     Relinquish the Agriculture Irrigation and Livestock 
Watering System Easement issued by the Forest Service for Monument No. 
2 Reservoir. Relinquishment of the easement removes a permanent 
encumbrance upon NFS lands.
    Additional mitigation could be required by the Forest Service and/
or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Hunter Reservoir

    The Hunter Reservoir Road (NFSR 280) intersects NFSR 262 and heads 
south along East Leon Creek to Hunter Reservoir and crosses streams in 
numerous locations. The current Forest Service RMO for NFSR 280 
classifies the road as a high clearance, four-wheel drive road. Road 
improvements would include improving cross drainage by constructing 
rolling dips and lead-out ditches within and adjacent to the current 
road prism, removing extreme dips and bumps, adding rocks to perpetual 
soft areas of the road, and defining and hardening small stream 
crossings.
    Approximately the last mile of the Hunter Reservoir Road (NFSR 280) 
would be relocated to eliminate current wetlands impacts in the creek 
bottom. This portion of the current road would be obliterated to the 
extent possible, as well as rehabilitating the wetlands in which the 
road currently lays. Signing by the Forest Service would be installed 
to direct the public and other users to the newly-relocated road.
    The new road would leave the creek bottom and approach Hunter 
Reservoir in an upland location just west of East Leon Creek and go 
about 5,560 feet to the Hunter Reservoir dam. The road standard for 
this new route would be a Forest Service Traffic Service Level D, which 
includes a running surface ranging from 14 to 16 feet wide and an 
average corridor width, including the road, of 22 feet. The road would 
have native material surfaces with drainage structures and roadbed 
stabilization as shown on a plan and profile drawing. The design would 
show grades, structures, cross sections and alignments for the route, 
as well as estimated quantities of timber clearing acreage, seeding 
acreage, volumes of excavation, log deck locations, slash disposal 
areas, etc. Proposed road improvements and maintenance for the entire 
access route would be the responsibility of Ute Water during reservoir 
enlargement construction.
    The new road would not be removed upon completion of the project 
but would remain in place and allowed to return to the specified high-
clearance, four-wheel-drive condition and would be open to the public 
for use with full-sized vehicles, in accordance with the Grand Mesa 
Travel Plan. The final alignment of the relocated road would be 
approved in the field by the Forest Service prior to construction.
    Because of the anticipated increase in traffic to Hunter Reservoir, 
commercial cattle guards would be installed and approximately one mile 
of fence relocated to the north at the junction of Leon Lake Road (NFSR 
127), Hunter Reservoir Road (NFSR 280), and West Leon Trail (NFST 730). 
This would eliminate the need for two gates currently in place that 
need to be opened and closed by the public.
    About a mile of the existing Leroux Creek Snowmobile Trail would be 
rerouted to avoid newly-inundated areas from the enlarged Hunter 
Reservoir. This trail is part of a groomed trail system, and the new 
alignment would need to be about 22 feet wide to accommodate the 
groomer.
    The existing earthen dam impounding Hunter Reservoir would be 
rebuilt and increased in size, expanding the water storage capacity of 
the facility from the current 110 acre-feet to 1,340 acre-feet. The 
current inundated area covers approximately 19 surface acres, which 
would be increased to about 80 acres following construction.
    The existing dam is a homogeneous, gravelly clay embankment founded 
on glacial drift soils placed across East Leon Creek. It has a vertical 
height of 11 feet with a crest elevation at 10,367 feet, a crest width 
of eight feet and crest length of 412 feet. The proposed enlarged dam 
would increase the vertical height by 26 feet to a total of 37 feet 
with a crest elevation at 10,393 feet. The new crest width would be 18 
feet and the crest length would be 1,098 feet.
    The new reservoir would require two saddle dams: The west saddle 
dam, an embankment located immediately west of the main dam, and the 
east saddle dam, located in a topographic saddle 600-700 feet east of 
the main dam. The saddle dams would have vertical heights less than 20 
feet and crest lengths less than 570 feet (see Figure 2 below).
    The soils beneath the enlarged embankment and the two saddle dams 
consist of glacial till overlying Uinta formation sandstone and 
claystone. The proposed saddle dams and enlarged embankments would be 
constructed using material drawn from on-site borrow areas that would 
ultimately be inundated. The upstream slope of the dam would be 
surfaced with a layer of riprap comprised of basalt boulders. The 
riprap would be taken from basaltic talus located just south of the 
reservoir and processed on-site. New outlet works would include 
replacement of the existing 18-inch outlet conduit with a 24-inch 
conduit.
    A clay blanket cutoff, consisting of a 3-foot-deep layer of 
extremely clayey soil that acts as a barrier to seepage, would be 
located on the face of the dam upstream of the existing embankment. The 
cutoff would extend into the bedrock or to an elevation of 10,314 feet, 
whichever is reached first. It is intended to minimize seepage, reduce 
pressure on the dam itself, and eliminate the soft soil conditions 
identified on the downstream toe of the embankment.
    The new dam would have two spillways, a replacement service 
spillway and a new emergency spillway. The new service spillway would 
control normal pool and pass routine floods downstream. Set in the west 
saddle dam, the spillway would establish normal pool at 10,388 feet 
elevation and would pass excess water down a

[[Page 1609]]

conduit into an impact basin below the face of the dam. The emergency 
spillway would be a new feature, located in a topographic saddle about 
1,600 feet southeast of the dam, with a concrete control beam at 
10,389.5 feet elevation, 1.5 feet above normal pool. The emergency 
spillway is set away from the main embankment to discharge floodwater 
into a drainage basin just east of East Leon Creek, preventing erosion 
of the dam because of overtopping.
    The enlarged dam embankment would have an internal drainage system 
to reduce pore pressures and to prevent internal erosion of embankment 
and foundation materials. The principal element of the drainage system 
would be toe drains in the embankment and the saddle dams to collect 
and convey seepage flows to the downstream side of the embankments. The 
toe drains would be 4-inch drainpipes surrounded by filter material.
    Most materials for the construction would be derived from the 
borrow areas and the nearby basaltic talus described above. However, 
approximately 14,415 cubic yards (26,363 tons) of sand, gravel, stone 
and other construction material would need to be imported, requiring an 
estimated 1,056 round trips using 25-ton end-dump haul trucks for an 
average of about 8 round trips per day during the period of 
construction. Because of Hunter Reservoir's elevation and snow cover, 
the season during which construction activities could take place is 
short, extending from July until late September. The short construction 
season means that dam enlargement and construction of associated 
features would require three summers for completion.
    A minimum conservation pool of 27 acre-feet at a maximum depth of 
40 feet would be retained in the reservoir to maintain a viable fishery 
and to avoid winter kill, as proposed by Ute Water.
    A conservation flow of 0.5 cfs or the amount of inflow into the 
reservoir would be released from October through May to preserve 
hydrologic function of the stream below the Hunter Reservoir dam. The 
exact dates in which the conservation flow would be required would 
fluctuate with the release schedule of the reservoir. At no time would 
the channel be allowed to be de-watered.
    An on-site workers' camp would be established at Hunter Reservoir 
because of the time-consuming commute and the need to maximize working 
time at the site. The camp would be large enough to accommodate four to 
five camp trailers (approximately 500-600 square feet) for the ten to 
15 workers and three to four trucks that would remain on site. Heavy 
equipment, including bulldozers, track hoes, road graders and a sheep's 
foot compactor, would be stored near the construction site as work 
progresses. Temporary sanitary facilities would be maintained on a 
weekly basis and trash would be contained in a metal bear-proof 
container. A temporary special use permit for the camp would be 
required.
    Some of the proposed reservoir area to be inundated is forested. 
All trees below 10,393 feet elevation in areas that would be inundated 
would be cleared and the slash disposed of, per Forest Service 
instructions, prior to filling of the reservoir in order to reduce 
debris in the reservoir and the potential for blocking spillways. 
Construction of the new access road would also require the removal of 
trees. These activities would result in about nine acres of trees, 
mostly spruce-fir, being removed.
    As mitigation for effects to wetlands at Hunter Reservoir caused by 
the enlargement, Ute Water proposes following actions:
     Relocation of the existing Hunter Reservoir Road out of 
the drainage bottom where it currently impacts wetlands and 
rehabilitating those wetlands following road relocation;
     Removal of existing embankment dams and water control 
structure at Jensen (aka Cold Sore) Reservoir, located in Sections 27 
and 34, T. 11 S., R. 95 W., 6th P.M.;
     Transfer of Jensen Reservoir water rights held by Ute 
Water to another area, likely within the Cottonwood Creek watershed;
     Protection of approximately 8.3 acres of existing fen and 
rehabilitation of about 8.5 acres of degraded fen with the reservoir 
basin using techniques such as check dams, seed plugs, etc.;
     Removal of the existing two-track administrative route to 
the reservoir that crosses several wetland areas and serves access to 
perform operation and maintenance activities for Jensen Reservoir; and
     Relinquishment by Ute Water of the easement issued by the 
General Land Office pursuant to the Act of March 3, 1891, for Jensen 
Reservoir. This action eliminates a permanent encumbrance on National 
Forest System lands.
    Additional mitigation could be required by the Forest Service and/
or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Possible Alternatives

    Over 20 alternatives were initially considered (Scoping--DEIS, 
2007), including some that would not involve use of NFS lands. Of 
those, the following alternatives have been identified for further 
analysis:
    Alternative 1--Proposed Action: See Proposed Action description 
above.
    Alternative 2--Big Park Reservoir: A new dam and reservoir would be 
constructed at a site located on Leon Creek in Section 5, T. 11 S., R. 
93 W., 6th P.M., approximately 5.4 miles south of Vega Reservoir and 5 
miles downstream from Hunter Reservoir at an elevation of about 9,400 
ASL. A conditional water right for 5,650 acre-feet of water would be 
used to fill the new reservoir. The new earthen dam would have a height 
of 180 feet and a crest length of 2,100 feet, and surface area of the 
reservoir impounded behind the dam would be 123 acres at normal pool 
elevation.
    A concrete diversion structure in Park Creek and a canal about 1.5 
miles long would be constructed that would carry water south to the 
reservoir from the NE\1/4\ Section 32, R. 93 W., T. 10 S., 6th P.M. The 
canal would have an estimated capacity of 30 cfs. This would also 
require construction of new access road.
    A service and emergency spillway, consisting of a 240-feet long 
concrete side channel and chute on the right abutment of the dam, would 
be constructed. A concrete hydraulic jump-type stilling basin would be 
used at the end of the spillway channel to dissipate the energy of the 
water and reduce the velocity of the water prior to it re-entering Leon 
Creek.
    Approximately one-third mile of the NFSR 262 would be relocated to 
avoid inundated areas created by the new reservoir.
    Approximately 85 acres of aspen and 46 acres of spruce-fir timber 
would be removed to allow for construction of the new dam, canal and 
relocated NFSR 262.
    Some construction and fill material would be available onsite; 
however, approximately 526,600 cubic yards of clay core material, sand, 
and gravel would be imported. The availability of source rock for 
riprap is extremely limited at Big Park and, therefore, riprap would 
also need to be imported. With the use of 25-ton dump trucks, a total 
of about 21,000 round trips would be required to transport the 
necessary materials to the site.
    The improvements for the rest of NFSR 262, including the transfer 
site, to the reservoir site would be the same as those described in the 
Proposed Action. A workers' camp would also be required.
    Alternative 3--Reduced-Capacity Big Park Reservoir: A new dam and 
reservoir would be constructed at the same site as the Big Park 
Reservoir

[[Page 1610]]

Alternative but of smaller scale and of greatly reduced capacity. The 
dam for this alternative would be 135-ft high with a 1,300-ft crest 
length, inundating approximately 52 acres, and providing 1,385 acre-
feet of storage at normal pool elevation. Water rights from Park Creek 
would not be utilized under this alternative and, therefore, a feeder 
canal from Park Creek would not be required.
    Construction access to the Reduced-Capacity Big Park dam site would 
be along NFSR 262, and the same road improvements described in the 
Proposed Action, including the transfer area, would be required to 
accommodate the heavy-truck traffic hauling fill material. Unlike the 
Big Park Reservoir, no relocation of NFSR 262 would be needed because 
the dam for the Reduced-Capacity Big Park Reservoir would be 
constructed farther west of NFSR 262 than the Big Park Reservoir. But 
that also means a longer access road would be needed to accommodate 
construction of the dam. It is anticipated that up to a mile of new 
road would be needed. After construction is completed, an access route 
to allow for operation and maintenance of the dam and stilling pond 
would remain. The permanent access route needed for operation and 
maintenance of the dam and reservoir would be narrowed to the minimum 
width necessary for this purpose and would be gated to prohibit public 
motorized access.
    Some construction and fill material would be available onsite; 
however, about 167,000 cubic-yards of sand and gravel would be 
imported. Using 25-ton end-dump haul trucks, a total of over 15,000 
round trips would be needed to transport the necessary embankment, 
riprap, and concrete raw materials to the site.
    Approximately 56 acres of aspen and 23 acres of spruce-fir timber 
would be removed to allow for construction of the new dam and access 
route.
    A workers' camp would also be necessary near the reservoir site 
during construction activities.
    Alternative 4--No Action: Analysis of the No Action Alternative is 
required by 40 CFR part 1502.14(d). In the event the action 
alternatives were found to be unacceptable, this alternative could be 
selected. Under the No Action Alternative, the Forest Service would not 
permit the enlargement of Monument No. 1 or Hunter Reservoirs or the 
construction of any of the action alternatives that would occur on NFS 
lands. With no dam construction or enlargement occurring on NFS lands, 
there would be no need for new access road construction and road 
improvements associated with dam enlargement or construction; and no 
timber would be removed. The existing water developments and water 
resource conditions would continue. Under this alternative, Ute Water 
would still need to address dam safety concerns identified by the State 
Engineer's Office for the existing Hunter Reservoir. Ute Water's water 
rights, for which conditional decrees were issued, would not be 
developed. Ute Water may submit additional special use authorization 
applications for water improvements or developments on the GMUG for any 
of their water rights.

Lead and Cooperating Agencies

    The Forest Service is the lead agency for preparation of the SDEIS. 
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the Colorado Department of 
Natural Resources (DNR) are cooperating agencies.

Responsible Official

    The responsible official for the Forest Service is the Forest 
Supervisor of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National 
Forests. The responsible official for the ACOE is the Chief, Colorado 
West Regulatory Branch. The responsible official for the DNR is the 
Chief, Dam Safety Branch.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    Given the purpose and need, the Responsible Official for the Forest 
Service would review the Proposed Action, other alternatives and 
mitigation measures in order to make the following decisions:
     Whether or not to authorize the Proposed Action, road 
reconstruction and other support activities on National Forest System 
lands to meet the stated purpose by issuing:
    (1) Special use permits pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act of October 21, 1976, as amended (FLPMA), for each of the 
reservoir enlargements;
    (2) Temporary special use permits pursuant to the Act of June 4, 
1897, for on-site workers' camps;
    (3) Mineral materials contracts for borrow material and riprap (The 
Materials Act of July 31, 1947);
    (4) Road use permits for the necessary road reconstruction and 
relocation (National Forest Roads and Trails Act of October 13, 1964 
(FRTA)); and
    (5) Timber contracts for the removal of timber that would otherwise 
be inundated following enlargement of the reservoirs (Timber Settlement 
Authority (36 CFR 223.12)).
     If an alternative is selected on National Forest System 
lands, under what conditions and by which methods implementation of the 
alternative and associated activities would be conducted.
     Whether or not the proposed mitigation is appropriate to 
offset impacts to resources as a result of implementation of 
alternatives.
    The Responsible Official for the Army Corps of Engineers will 
determine whether or not to issue a permit in accordance with Section 
404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act and whether or not the mitigation 
proposed for wetlands impacts at Monument No. 1 and Hunter Reservoirs, 
as outlined in a wetlands mitigation plan, is adequate.
    The Responsible Office for the Colorado Department of Natural 
Resources will review and approve the conceptual dam designs prior to 
construction. As-built plans must be approved by the DNR following 
construction but prior to water being stored in the reservoirs.

Preliminary Issues

    Soils: Dam reconstruction could directly impact areas of soil 
within the landscape where construction activities would be occurring. 
The soil in those areas could be altered by heavy equipment, affecting 
densities, infiltration rates, natural horizonation and overall 
productivity. These disturbed areas could experience erosion until they 
are stabilized.
    Water Resources: The change in water storage and water management 
could affect the base flow and peak flow conditions below Monument No. 
1 Reservoir and Hunter Reservoir. Dam reconstruction, road grading and 
leveling and placement of stream crossings by access roads could 
produce temporary increases in sedimentation and erosion downstream in 
Leon and Monument Creeks.
    Wetlands: Year-round or seasonal inundation of wetlands, including 
fens, located at Monument No. 1 and Hunter Reservoirs, could diminish 
or disrupt the wetland function.
    Wildlife (including Aquatic Wildlife): Sedimentation resulting from 
dam reconstruction and road construction, use and maintenance could 
reduce water quality and affect fish populations and aquatic habitat. 
Operation and maintenance of the reconstructed dams and enlarged 
reservoirs could affect fisheries downstream and the aquatic 
environment by altering stream flow patterns and by changing the water 
temperature.
    Special Status Species (Threatened/Endangered/Sensitive/MIS): 
Reconstruction and operation and maintenance of the dams and enlarged 
reservoirs could affect fish and wildlife

[[Page 1611]]

habitat of special status species, such as federally listed and Forest 
Service sensitive species.
    Recreation and Transportation: Project activities could remove 
dispersed campsites during and after dam reconstruction.
    Project construction activities could make NFSRs 262 and 280 and 
NFST 518 temporarily inaccessible. Temporary improved access could 
temporarily change the recreational opportunity spectrum classification 
in the area of Monument No. 1 and Hunter Reservoirs. Temporary improved 
access to the reservoirs could cause the expectation and desire on the 
part of the public for continued improved access.
    Colorado Roadless Areas: Enlargement of the Monument No. 1 and 
Hunter Reservoirs would add municipal water supply storage within the 
Flattops/Elk Park Colorado Roadless Area (CRA) consistent with valid 
exisiting rights. Although the access routes to Hunter Reservoir and 
the majority of the access route to Monument No. 1 Reservoir are 
outside the CRA boundary, the current NFST 518 starts in the CRA. Under 
the Proposed Action, the access route would be widened, upgraded and 
relocated in order to avoid a cultural site; and that construction 
would be done within the CRA.

Permits or Licenses Required

    Forest Service: Includes, but is not limited to, FLPMA special use 
permits, temporary special use permits (workers' camp, etc.), road use 
permits, mineral material permits, and timber removal contracts.
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Department of the Army permit 
pursuant to Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
    Colorado Water Quality Control Division: Water quality 
certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

Scoping Process

    This notice of intent continues the scoping process, which guides 
the development of the SDEIS. Comments received in response to the DEIS 
will also be addressed in the SDEIS.
    It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times 
and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of 
the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be 
provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly 
articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions related to the 
expanded scope of the analysis.
    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names 
and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record 
for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be 
accepted and considered, however.

    Dated: January 7, 2016.
Scott G. Armentrout,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2016-00508 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P