![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest, Colorado, Kennicott Slough Reservoir Peat Removal Project
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: May 7, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 88)]
[Notices]
[Page 30648-30650]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07my02-37]
========================================================================
Notices
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents
appearing in this section.
========================================================================
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 Forest, 2250 Hwy 50, Delta,
Colorado 81416.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Burch, Environmental Coordinator,
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest, 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 build 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 bankfill 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 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 pear. 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
[[Page 30649]]
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 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 in tact.
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. Forest Service. There are no additional permits or licenses
required.
Comment Requested
This notice of intent initiates the scoping proces which guides the
development of the environment 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
1090.15, Section 21)
[[Page 30650]]
Dated: April 23, 2002.
Robert L. Storch,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 02-11214 Filed 5-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M