![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Fox and Crescent Reservoir Maintenance, High Uintas Wilderness, Ashley National Forest, Duchesne County, UT
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: May 10, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 23879-23881]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10my01-25]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Fox and Crescent Reservoir Maintenance, High Uintas Wilderness,
Ashley National Forest, Duchesne County, UT
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Dry Gulch Irrigation Company (DGIC), holder of special use
permits to operate Fox and Crescent reservoir dams in the High Uintas
Wilderness on the Ashley National Forest, has requested permission to
maintain the dam structures to correct deficiencies that may result in
failure of the dams in the near future. This maintenance work will
require an assessment of environmental consequences, including those
associated with proposals to use motorized and mechanical tools and
equipment within the boundaries of the High Uintas Wilderness.
DATES: To be most useful for early identification of issues, comments
concerning the scope of the analysis should be received in writing by
May 29, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and questions should be send to: Dave Frew,
Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Attn: Fox Lake Project, Roosevelt/
Duchesne Ranger Districts, Ashley National Forest, 244 West Highway 40,
Roosevelt, Utah 84066.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Specific questions about the proposed
project and analysis should be directed to Dave Frew, Interdisciplinary
Team Leader, 244 West Highway 40, Roosevelt, Utah 84066.
Responsible Official: Jack Blackwell, Regional Forester,
Intermountain Region, is the responsible official for this EIS and the
Record of Decision.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal arose due to concerns found in
various state and federal inspections of these dams over the past
couple of years. Both of these dams are over 70 years old, and like all
human made structures require periodic maintenance to insure their safe
continued operation. These reservoirs are accessible only by primitive
trail--there are not roads accessing these facilities. In the past,
these reservoirs have been accessed from time to time by helicopter.
The reservoirs must be maintained if storage is to continue to be
allowed.
In 1984, Congress designated the area encompassing these reservoir
sites at the High Uintas Wilderness, further complicating access by the
wilderness provision against motorized or mechanical access or the use
of motorized or mechanical tools and equipment. The 1964 Wilderness Act
provides that motorized transport, tools and equipment and/or
mechanical access may be authorized in specific circumstances, that
being when it is determined they are the minimum requirement necessary
for the proper administration of the area, and when authorized by the
proper authority.
Proposed Action
DGIC proposes the following activities to insure the proper
maintenance of the dams. Both the State of Utah Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Water Rights, and the Forest Service agree that
the maintenance activities proposed meet the technical requirements,
and are necessary to accomplish if the dams are to continue to be used
for their intended purpose. The proposed action involves helicopter
transport to the reservoir sites for materials and equipment, and also
proposes on-site motorized equipment to complete the work.
Fox Lake
Repairs to the outlet pipe with consist of slip lining the existing
36 inch
[[Page 23880]]
corrugated pipe with 30" ID and a 32\1/2\" OD 40 pound pressure HEPE
pipe with two joints totaling 96 ft. 6 inches, with a stainless steel
band to join the pipes. A new structure will be formed and a new
concrete structure will be poured. The outlet structure may also need
to be replaced, or if not replaced, then some grout work will be
necessary. Existing head gate controls will be removed and the wet well
will be filed with native material. A new 30-inch Waterman head gate
and frame assembly will be installed on the inlet end of the outlet
pipe. The southwest levee will be raised approximately 3 inches in
elevation to match the elevation of the dam. The north levee will be
raised approximately 9 inches to match the elevation of the dam. Native
material from existing borrow pits are proposed to be used to complete
this portion of the project. There may also be some work on the main
dike to insure proper freeboard.
The leak at the toe of the southwest levee will be excavated into
the downstream toe and a sand filter installed to stop any fine
material movement through the dike. This sand will be over laid with
native material.
Any leaks on the upstream apron of the spillway will be repaired.
An 8 inch thick retaining wall, three feet high, and 22 feet long will
be poured on the downstream apron and will be doweled into the existing
concrete spillway and the cracks will also be repaired. Riprap will be
placed on the downstream to protect the spillway. All woody vegetation
will be removed from the existing dam, levees, and dike (this action
could take place annually or as needed for long term maintenance.)
Crescent Lake
A new head gate frame assembly will be installed and any repairs to
the head gate or outlet pipe will be performed to ensure proper
operation. The cracks in the masonry dam will be repaired using a grout
facing material and glue mixture.
The proposed action requires the following materials at the
reservoir sites: An oxygen and acetylene torch, 24 pieces of \1/2\ inch
rebar, one generator, one generator welder, two portable electric
cement mixers, one grout pump, 100 gallons of fuel, one containment
trough, six feet of 36 inch culvert and band, two wheel barrows, two 2
inch water pumps, sealable containers for transportation of human waste
materials from the job site, 96.5 feet of HDPE pipe, a 30 inch Waterman
head gate, miscellaneous lumber and forms, miscellaneous tools and
supplies, and camp equipment and supplies for the work crews.
Transporting these tools and equipment will require an estimated
minimum of 16 to 22 helicopter flights. The project is estimated to
take 40-45 days with work crews varying from six to fourteen personnel.
The helicopter operation will require a staging area be established at
a site outside the wilderness at the Reader Creek meadows. The staging
area is accessed via the Chepeta Lake road, and the helicopter
refueling operations will take place at the staging area. Helicopter
drop zones will be located either on the dam itself or within close
proximity, to the work areas. If possible, drop zones will be within
the reservoir area.
It is proposed that four saddle horses be at the worksite for the
duration of the project for safety reasons, and four to six draft
horses be available for 21 days to assist with the project work. There
will be other horses used as needed for transportation to and from the
worksite. The livestock will be using forage areas to the north and
west of Fox reservoir. Supplemental feed may be required for the
livestock. Campsites will be established t6o support up to 14 persons
at one time per campsite. Campsites will be at least one mile apart.
Alternatives
At least two and possibly three action alternatives will be
considered in the analysis.
Alternative 1--Proposed Action (As Described Above)
Alternative 2--Complete Repairs Using Primitive Means
This alternative will basically require that the needed work be
done with wilderness friendly tools and equipment--minimizing or
eliminating the proposed means of access by helicopter and the one-site
motorized and mechanical equipment to perform the needed work. This
alternative must be analyzed with the understanding that changing the
proposal to the extent that repairs cannot effectively be made to meet
safety and other pertinent standards will not meet the purpose and need
of the project.
Alternative 3--Modification of the Proposed Action
There may be other ways to accomplish the needed work through some
variation or modification of the proposed action that will further
address important issues or minimize impacts and costs of the project.
These modifications often become apparent as the analysis of the
project goes forward and our publics become involved in the process.
Alternative 4--No Action
Under this alternative, the proposed repairs will not be completed.
This will require that a storage restriction be put on the Fox
reservoir immediately and shortly on the Crescent reservoir. Future
work under this alternative will require activity to permanently
stabilize these reservoirs so as not to function as draw down
reservoirs. This alternative effectively eliminates the reservoirs as
storage for late season irrigation water to the farms and ranches in
the Uinta Basin.
Issues
The following is a preliminary list of issues identified by the ID
Team. Other issues raised during public involvement will also be
discussed in this EIS. The preliminary issues include:
1. Impacts of the project on wilderness values.
2. Ability to use legally held water rights.
3. Access to the sites--impacts on existing trails.
4. Water Quality.
5. Riparian Areas/Stream Conditions.
6. Borrow areas and sites--material sources.
7. Rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
8. Impact to wilderness visitors including noise, dust, and
opportunities for solitude.
9. Impacts to wildlife resources including Threatened, Endangered
and Sensitive species.
10. Impacts to outfitter--guide operations.
11. Historical integrity of the dams.
Decision To Be Made
The decision to be made is: Should the DGIC be allowed to effect
the repairs, as proposed, on Fox and Crescent dams to allow further use
of the reservoirs as storage for late season irrigation water as
presently authorized under special use permit, and, if so, what
motorized and mechanical tools and equipment will be allowed in the
designated High Uintas Wilderness to complete the project. A decision
will also be made on the location of the helicopter-staging site
outside the wilderness.
Public Involvement
Public participation is especially important at several points
during the analysis, particularly during initial scoping and review of
the draft EIS. Individuals, organizations, federal, state, and local
agencies who are interested in or affected by the decision are invited
to participate in the scoping process. This information will be used in
the preparation of the draft EIS.
[[Page 23881]]
The second major opportunity for public input is during the review
of the draft EIS. The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the EPA
(Environmental Protection Agency) and to be available for public review
in September, 2001. At that time the EPA will publish a notice of
availability of the draft EIS in the Federal Register. The comment
period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA's notice
of availability appears in the Federal Register. It is very important
that those interested in this proposed action participate at that time.
To be the most helpful, comments on the draft EIS should be as specific
as possible and may address the adequacy of the statement or the merits
of the alternatives discussed (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). The Forest Service believes, at
this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several
federal 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 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, 533 (1978). Also
environmental objections that could be raised at the draft EIS stage,
but that are not raised until after completion of the final EIS, may be
waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, (9th
Circuit, 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 30-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 EIS.
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 EIS or the merits of the alternates
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.
After the comment period ends on the draft EIS, the comments will
be analyzed and considered in preparing the final EIS. The final EIS is
scheduled for completion in March, 2002.
Dated: April 16, 2001.
Jack G. Troyer,
Deputy Regional Forester.
[FR Doc. 01-11740 Filed 5-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3401-11-M