[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 245 (Thursday, December 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66253-66254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31070]



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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Land Use 
Authorization for Lakewood Raw Water Pipeline; Roosevelt National 
Forest, Boulder County, CO

AGENCY: Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National 
Grassland is proposing to issue an easement to the City of Boulder 
Colorado to cross 5 miles of National Forest System lands with a 
replacement pipeline. The easement would allow the City to replace, 
maintain and operate Lakewood Pipeline. The pipeline is a raw water 
transmission line used to transport municipal water nine miles from 
Lakewood Reservoir to Betasso Water Treatment Plant. The City proposes 
to install the replacement pipeline in the vicinity of the 1906 
pipeline, with some specific deviations to avoid potentially adverse 
impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. The proposal is for a 27- 
to 33-inch inside-diameter steel pipeline to be buried with a minimum 
of 4 feet of cover.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
in writing by January 20, 1996. The Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement will be published mid-February, 1996 for a 45-day comment 
period. The final Environmental Impact Statement will be issued at the 
end of June 1996.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: The Regional Forester, Region 2 Rocky Mountain 
Region, will be the responsible official and will decide whether to 
grant an easement for a pipeline on National Forest System lands and at 
what location.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Submit written comments, suggestions 
and questions to: Jean Thomas, Project Coordinator; Arapaho and 
Roosevelt National Forests; 240 West Prospect; Fort Collins Colorado 
80526; 970-498-1267.


[[Page 66254]]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The City of Boulder is proposing to maintain 
the historical water delivery function of the Lakewood Pipeline 
facility. Continued operation to serve this function will require 
reconstruction of the facility. The City's proposal consists of 
installing the replacement pipeline in the vicinity of the 1906 
pipeline, with some specific deviations to avoid potentially adverse 
impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. The City will restore, to 
the extent reasonably possible, the contours and vegetation on National 
Forest System lands, estimated to be 18 acres, and the private lands, 
estimated to be 25 acres, along the Pipeline corridor. The City will 
require access to the pipeline for repair and maintenance.
    The existing Lakewood Pipeline must be replaced because air 
entrainment, caused by the current pipeline, reduces the Betasso Water 
Treatment Plant's capability to remove drinking water contaminants. New 
stricter drinking water standards have been adopted by the EPA. The 
City will not meet the new standards based on water tests performed 
under current operating conditions. Also, the pipeline interior lining 
is deteriorating and collecting in the pipeline low points, restricting 
the flow in the pipeline. This has reduced the pipeline's capacity from 
the historical rate of 20 million gallons per day (mgd) to 14 mgd.
    The Forest Service is considering analyzing five alternatives in 
the Lakewood Raw Water Pipeline Environmental Impact Statement. (1) A 
No Action Alternative, where the Forest Service would not authorize the 
use of National Forest System lands for the pipeline. The City would 
not be required to remove the existing pipeline because removal would 
create undesirable environmental impacts. (2) A Cleaning and Relining 
Alternative which entails refurbishing the existing pipeline, and 
reducing air entrainment to Betasso Water Treatment Plant through the 
use of vacuum deaeration equipment. (3) Sugarloaf Road or a Pump-Driven 
Replacement Pipeline alternative. The objective of the Sugarloaf Road 
Alternative is to confine pipeline construction to established road 
corridors, thereby avoiding the potential environmental effects from 
construction disturbance along the existing pipeline and North Boulder 
Creek, but would require pumping. (4) The Existing Pipeline Alignment 
is the City of Boulder's proposed action. This alternative closely 
follows the existing and 1906 Lakewood Pipeline alignment along North 
Boulder Creek. (5) Peewink Alignment--Gravity-Fed Replacment Pipeline. 
This alternative seeks to address concerns regarding impacts to the 
North Boulder Creek riparian zone and to reduce pumping and traffic 
concerns associated with the Sugarloaf Road alternative.
    Lakewood Pipeline reconstruction has been considered since 1988. 
Over the years both the City of Boulder and the Forest Service have 
asked the public to express their concerns and issues. The primary 
concerns are about impacts of reconstruction to aquatic and riparian 
ecosystems in North Boulder Creek if the pipeline follows the 
historical right-of-way, or concerns for personal safety and 
convenience if Sugarloaf Road is closed for periods of time for 
construction along the road. The environmental analysis will also 
address impacts to air, soils, forested and nonforested terrestrial 
ecosystems, recreation and visual resources, cultural resources and 
private properties and residents.
    The Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National 
Grassland intend to publish the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
for public comment in mid-February, 1996. 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.
    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. versus 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 versus Hodel, 803 
F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. versus 
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 participated 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 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 as 
40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
    The Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National 
Grassland intend to issue the final Environmental Impact Statement the 
end of June 1996.

    Dated: December 13, 1995.
M.M. Underwood, Jr.,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 95-31070 Filed 12-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M