[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 96 (Friday, May 17, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35093-35095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-12328]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest, Colorado, 
Kennicott Slough Reservoir Peat Removal Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Surface Creek Ditch and Reservoir Company has asked to be 
allowed to remove all of the peat from Kennicott Slough Reservoir by 
mechanical means over the next five to ten years. This is in response 
to advice from the Colorado State Engineer's office that peat in the 
reservoir poses a serious risk to the integrity of the reservoir, and 
that failure of the dam could result in the loss of life and property 
down stream.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 
by June 1, 2002. The draft environmental impact statement is expected 
August of 2002 and the final environmental impact statement is expected 
December of 2002.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Kennicott Slough Analysis, Grand 
Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests, 2250 Hwy 50, Delta, 
Colorado 81416.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Burch, Environmental Coordinator, 
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests, 2250 Hwy 50, 
Delta, Colorado 81416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Kennicott Slough Reservoir capacity is 
approximately 1,034 acre-feet. The drainage basin area above the dam 
including the reservoir is about 283 acres. Before a dam was built at 
Kennicott Slough there existed a natural lake. Associated with this 
lake were extensive shallows which gradually filled in with peat 
deposits. These peat deposits are the accumulation of organic materials 
from wetland vegetation growth over long periods of time. They are 
thought to be as much as 10,000 years old in some parts of the 
reservoir. Given enough time they will completely fill shallow lakes 
and reservoirs. With the construction of the first dam at Kennicott in 
about 1900 to 1910, the water line of the bankfull pool expanded over 
existing peat and created more shallows conducive to the formation of 
peat and the ``peat body'' began to expand. With the construction of an 
even higher second dam in 1947 and 1948, fluctuating water levels 
caused additional detachment of peat from its original location, and 
peat producing vegetation and the peat body itself continued to expand.
    The Forest Service estimates there to be approximately 317,000 
cubic yards, or using a conversion of 50 to 70 pounds per cubic foot, 
214,300 to 300,000 tons of peat proposed for removal from Kennicott 
Slough. Approximately 80% of the reservoir's surface area is occupied 
by either floating or submerged peat. As water levels fluctuate, and 
especially during spring snow/ice melt and runoff, pieces of peat 
detach from the main peat body and float freely. As water passes 
through the reservoir, these pieces of peat tend to migrate toward the 
outlet and spillway of the reservoir. Some pieces are small; others are 
large (as much as 40 feet across).
    The Colorado State Division of Water Resources has advised that 
these floating pieces of peat pose a real threat to the safety of the 
dam. These detached pieces of peat have the potential of blocking 
either the outlet works or the spillway, causing overfilling of the 
reservoir, spillage and cutting of the earthen dam, and possible 
catastrophic failure. Kennicott is a Class I dam, which means that 
failure poses threat to human safety down stream. The nearest 
habitation is 3\1/2\ miles down stream and 2000 feet lower in 
elevation, with additional homes along the Kiser Creek channel about 6 
miles downstream from the reservoir. The town of Cedaredge is some 12 
to 15 miles below the reservoir on Surface Creek and could be affected 
by the sudden release of water from a dam failure. According to the 
reservoir company, this peat accumulation has been a problem for 50 or 
more years. At one point in time the reservoir was drained for a two-
year period to allow for removal of the peat. The peat was to

[[Page 35094]]

be removed, and sold, but the venture apparently proved unsuccessful 
from an economical approach.
    More recently, the Surface Creek Ditch and Reservoir Company has 
been authorized each year to remove detached pieces of peat which pose 
the greatest threat, using mechanical means of removal. In fall, after 
the reservoir is drained and dried somewhat, a track-mounted backhoe, a 
front end loader, and dump truck operation remove identified peat. In 
2000, approximately 200 tons were removed. This amounted to less than 
one tenth of one percent of the entire peat body at Kennicott. The same 
has been done in the fall of 2001, removing designated portions of the 
peat as part of routine reservoir maintenance. This annual practice of 
selective removal of peat does not address the broader and more long 
term problem.

Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose and need for action is dam safety. The detached pieces 
of peat directly threaten the safety of the dam with risk of blocking 
the spillway and outlet works intake. This poses a threat to the 
integrity of the dam.

Proposed Action

    The proposed action is to remove the entire peat mass from 
Kennicott Slough Reservoir (approximately 30 acres) with heavy 
equipment (excavator, loader, dump truck) over a period of several 
years, during the months of August through October, in order to prevent 
additional detachment of the pieces from the main peat mass and 
subsequent movement of the detached pieces into the reservoir spillway 
or outlet structure.

Possible Alternatives

Alternative 1

    Under this alternative no additional peat removal would be 
authorized from Kennicott Slough Reservoir. 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. However we are aware that this could (likely would over time) 
lead to expansion of the peat body, further detachment of peat and 
threat to the safety and function of the dam. This could lead to the 
requirement to remove the dam structure and abandon the reservoir.

Alternative 2

    Under this alternative the current practice of identifying specific 
areas (typically detached, semi-detached or those with extensive 
``fractures'') of peat for removal on an annual basis would continue. 
Only detached pieces could be removed as operations and maintenance 
(O&M). There would be no systematic removal of the larger peat body. 
Operations would take place in the fall and would be below the high 
water line for the reservoir to prevent surface disturbance outside the 
footprint of the bank-full reservoir.

Alternative 3

    This is the proposed action, and will not be repeated in detail 
here. See above.

Alternative 4

    This alternative compresses the time within which the proposed peat 
removal would take place. Instead of extending the removal operation 
over several years, the company would be required to not fill the 
reservoir until all peat was removed. This would likely still take two 
to three years. The files on Kennicott have reference to one other 
occasion when this was attempted but not accomplished due to the cost 
involved. This would compress all effects into one short time period 
and would immediately and completely address the dam safety issue.

Alternative 5

    Under this alternative, an engineering solution would be employed 
to armor or block the outlet works and the spillway against the 
deposits of loose peat. This alternative addresses a way to leave most 
of the peat in place and still maintain the dam in a safe condition as 
required by the State. In general a strong marine netting would be 
installed across the reservoir using concrete caisson piles to support 
the net panels. Prior to installation, peat would have to be removed 
between the netting location and the high water line toward the 
direction of the outlet works. The reservoir would be drained and left 
to dry out to the extent possible in one season to allow collection of 
the peat, drilling of the caissons, and installation of the net panels. 
The location of the netting would be about 25 feet from the outlet pipe 
and about 100 feet from the edge of the dam crest. The netting would 
have to be about 40 feet high in the deepest section and 1200 feet 
long.

Alternative 6

    Under this alternative the leading edge of the existing peat which 
now represents a risk of detachment would be trimmed over the next 2 
years. The edge of the peat would then be anchored using mechanical 
means. The remainder, 80 to 90%, of the peat/wetland/fen would be left 
intact.

Responsible Official

    The responsible official is Robert L. Storch, Forest Supervisor, 
2250 Hwy. 50, Delta, Colorado 81416.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The decision to be made is whether or not to allow the entire peat 
body, or some portion of it, to be removed, and on what schedule; and 
what mitigation measures or operating restrictions (these may include 
timing, methods, and other measures to prevent environmental harm or 
unacceptable conflict in the use of the National Forest).

Scoping Process

    Initial scoping was conducted for this proposal during August and 
early September of 2000. 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. Also, a legal notice 
was run in that same newspaper (see project record). Seven letters were 
received in response, and a number of phone conversations were 
documented. From the response to scoping, as well as from 
correspondence with the Surface Creek Ditch Company, and the State of 
Colorado Division of Water Resources, over a number of years dealing 
with the peat problem at Kennicott, an initial set of issues were 
identified. The agency ID Team met and discussed the project and 
identified additional issues to be addressed. This list of preliminary 
issues will be supplemented following comment in response to this NOI.

Preliminary Issues

    The following issues have been identified as preliminary issues to 
be carried through the analysis: effects on the wetland/fen (including 
Threatened Endangered or Sensitive species of plants), dam safety, 
effects on water quality and water quantity, effects on aquatic and 
terrestrial wildlife (including Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive 
species), effects on the recreation setting and use of the area, 
effects on potential paleontological resources, road use/maintenance 
and access to Kennicott Slough Reservoir, and economics/cost of 
project.

Permits or Licenses Required

    Activities regarding management of this reservoir are governed in 
part by a special use authorizations held by the Surface Creek Ditch 
and Reservoir Company, and administered by the U.S.

[[Page 35095]]

Forest Service. There are no additional permits or licenses required.

Comment Requested

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which 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.
    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, 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 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: April 23, 2002.
Robert L. Storch,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 02-12328 Filed 5-16-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M