[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61781-61783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#86e5f5f3f4e4e3f4c6e0f5a8e0e3e2a8f3f5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="60031315120205122006134e0605044e1513">[email protected]</span></a> 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:
    <bullet> Whether or not to authorize the enlargement of Hunter 
Reservoir and conduct road reconstruction and other support activities 
to meet the stated purpose.
    <bullet> 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>