Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2005 / Notices 61781 

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 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2005 / Notices 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 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Umatilla National Forest, Columbia and 

Garfield Counties, WA School Fire 

Salvage Recovery Project 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

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. 

DATES: 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 

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