Chapter 3

Findings of Eligibility and Classification

CHAPTER 3 Findings of Eligibility and Classification

3.1 PURPOSE National Grasslands (Forest Plan), from SW¼SW¼ sec. 20, T. 13 S., R. 72 W. to The purpose of this chapter is to present the SW¼NE¼ sec. 31, T. 12 S., R. 71 W.). findings and summarize the methods and results of the eligibility and classification Segment B - The South Platte River from the determinations that are described in detail in southernmost boundary of private lands in the Appendix D. The goal of these analyses was to vicinity of Lake George downstream to the determine whether the study rivers met the northernmost boundary of private lands near minimum requirements to be eligible for Beaver Creek (7.7 miles rather than the inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 6.0 miles listed in the Forest Plan, from System and, if so, to determine their highest SW¼NE¼ sec. 31, T. 12 S., R. 71 W. to inventoried classification as wild, scenic, or SW¼SW¼ sec. 33, T. 11 S., R. 71 W.). recreational. Segment C - The South Platte River from the southernmost boundary of private lands near Beaver Creek downstream to the upstream end 3.2 SEGMENTS STUDIED of the stream gage above Cheesman Reservoir (10.4 miles rather than the 9.4 miles listed in the The area studied for potential eligibility includes Forest Plan, from SW¼SW¼ sec. 33, T. 11 S., 26.8 miles of the South Platte River from R. 71 W. to SE¼NW¼ sec. 23, T. 10 S., Elevenmile Dam to Cheesman Reservoir, R. 71 W.). 22.6 miles of the South Platte River from For classification purposes, Segment C has been Cheesman Dam to Strontia Springs Reservoir, further divided into three subsections. These and the entire 50.1-mile North Fork of the are: South Platte River. The rivers have been further divided into segments for analytical Segment C1 - From Beaver Creek downstream purposes. These segments are shown on to ¼ mile upstream of Hackett Gulch map 3-1 and described below. (2.9 miles). Segment A - The South Platte River from Segment C2 – From ¼ mile upstream of Elevenmile Dam (downstream from fence on Hackett Gulch downstream to ¼ mile the Denver Board of Water Commissioners’ downstream of Corral Creek (3.0 miles). (Denver Water’s) special-use permit area) downstream to the southernmost boundary of Segment C3 - From ¼ mile downstream of private lands in the vicinity of Lake George Corral Creek to high-water line of Cheesman (8.7 miles rather than the 8.0 miles listed in the Reservoir (upstream of the stream gage) Land and Resource Management Plan for the Pike and (4.5 miles). San Isabel National Forests, Comanche and Cimarron

Findings of Eligibility and Classification ˜ 3-1

r ve en n D lita No po rth ro For et k So M a uth re Plat Pine Jct. A te R F iver (9.7 mi.) Buffalo Bailey Creek G Strontia Springs (17.5 mi.) Res. H (22.9 mi.) E (19.5 mi.) Pike National D Deckers Forest (3.1 mi.) Cheesman Res. Pike National C (10.4 mi.) Forest Legend Area Studied for Eligibility B (7.7 mi.) A Lake Delineates break Woodland George Segment between segments Park Identifier A (8.7 mi.) r ive R Elevenmile tte la Res. P th ou S Map 3-1.—River Segments Studied for Eligibility; South Platte River and North Fork of the South Platte River Wild and Scenic River Study.

Segment D - The 3.1-mile section of the South Segment F - The North Fork of the South Platte River downstream from the stream gage Platte River from the headwaters downstream below Cheesman Dam downstream to the to its confluence with Kenosha Gulch upstream boundary of the Wigwam Club (9.7 miles). property (from NW¼NW¼ sec. 6, T. 10 S., R. 70 W. to SW¼NW¼ sec. 29, T. 9 S., Segment G - The North Fork of the South R. 70 W.). Platte River from its confluence with Kenosha Gulch downstream to the upstream boundary Segment E - The South Platte River from the of the Berger property (NW¼SW¼ sec. 4, upstream boundary of the Wigwam Club T. 7 S., R. 2 W.) near Insmont (17.5 miles). property downstream to the high-water line of Strontia Springs Reservoir (6029-foot contour) Segment H - The North Fork of the South (19.5 miles from SW¼NW¼ sec. 29, T. 9 S., Platte River from the upstream boundary of the R. 70 W. to SW¼NW¼ sec. 29, T. 7 S., Berger property near Insmont downstream to R. 69 W.). within a quarter mile of its confluence with the

3-2 ˜ Chapter 3 South Platte River (22.9 miles from SW¼SE¼ appropriately considered and evaluated in sec. 33, T. 7 S., R. 72 W. to SE¼SW¼ sec. 25, Federal planning.” (U.S. Bureau of Outdoor T. 7 S., R. 70 W.). Recreation, 1972) For classification purposes, Segment H has In 1974, A Conceptual Proposal for a South Platte been further divided into three subsections. Canyons Free-Flowing Recreational River, published These are: by the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), Bureau of Outdoor Recreation found that the Segment H1 - From Insmont (upstream end of river possessed attributes that would make it Berger property) downstream to Estabrook eligible for Wild and Scenic River protection. (downstream side of old stone house) This was not, however, an eligibility (1.5 miles). determination (U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Segment H2 - From Estabrook (downstream Recreation, 1974). side of old stone house) to east of Cliffdale In 1977, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation's (section line between sections 29 and 30) Water and Land Resources Management Study (4.9 miles). for Metropolitan Denver and South Platte River Segment H3 - From east of Cliffdale (section and Tributaries, Colorado, Wyoming, and line between sections 29 and 30) to within a Nebraska lists the South Platte as “free-flowing” quarter mile of the confluence with the South and “potential regional park,” “general park,” or Platte River (16.5 miles). “recreation area” (U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1977).

The Heritage Conservation and Recreation 3.3 HISTORY Service (HCRS), the former agency of the USDI that was responsible for developing the In 1931, the Secretary of the Interior issued a Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI), examined right-of-way to the Denver Board of Water the entire South Platte River during the late Commissioners for a water storage reservoir 1970s. Following the dissolution of the HCRS, (D-032121) along the mainstem and North the National Park Service published the NRI in Fork of the South Platte River pursuant to the 1982. It is a list of rivers potentially eligible for provisions of the Transfer Act of February 1, Wild and Scenic River designation. It included 1905 (33 Statute [Stat.] 628). The right-of-way the South Platte River from below Elevenmile runs from ½ mile below the confluence of the Dam to the high-water line of Cheesman South Platte and the North Fork to 1 mile Reservoir. The Park Service concluded that below Deckers on the South Platte and from these segments (A, B, and C) have outstandingly ½ mile below the confluence to just below remarkable values which might make them Riverview on the North Fork. If constructed eligible for addition into the National Wild and within the right-of-way, this 345,000-acre-foot Scenic Rivers System. reservoir would inundate approximately On June 1, 1983, the Chief of the USDA Forest 17 miles of the South Platte River and 6 miles Service (Forest Service) approved the Regional of the North Fork. Guide for the Rocky Mountain Region In 1972, the Western U.S. Water Plan, Streams and (Regional Guide). The guide confirmed the Stream Systems, Working Document, a multi-agency decision made previously by the HCRS and report, said that the South Platte River has committed the Forest Service to study the “free-flowing values” and “should be eligibility of the South Platte River between Cheesman Reservoir and Elevenmile Dam.

Findings of Eligibility and Classification ˜ 3-3

On October 18, 1984, the Regional Forester Dam, and 9 miles of the North Fork from the approved the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan was confluence to just below Riverview. developed in compliance with the National Forest Management Act (36 Code of Federal In May 1988, the Rocky Mountain Regional Regulations 219) and the National Office of the National Park Service evaluated Environmental Policy Act. The Forest Plan the South Platte River from below Cheesman included an eligibility determination for the Dam to its confluence with the North Fork South Platte River between Cheesman (Segments D and E) for possible inclusion in Reservoir and Elevenmile Dam (see the NRI. In their letter to the Director of the Appendix D). The eligibility determination National Park Service, the Regional Office’s concluded that this section was eligible for investigators wrote that the river “possesses inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System outstandingly remarkable recreational, fish, with a classification of wild between Cheesman historic, and other (endangered species) values.” Reservoir and Beaver Creek (Segment C) and Furthermore, their field inspection “disclosed recreational from Beaver Creek to Elevenmile no characteristics which would cause the stream Dam (Segments A and B). This reconfirmed to be considered ineligible as a Recreational the recommendations previously made by the component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers HCRS and the Regional Guide and committed System.” It is important to note that this was the Forest Service to do a suitability study for an opinion and not an eligibility determination. these three eligible segments for potential On April 7, 1988, Regional Forester Gary inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Cargill, in a letter to the Regional Director of Because these river segments were identified the National Park Service, stated that the Forest through the forest planning process, they are Service did not believe that the South Platte recognized as study rivers under the provisions below Cheesman (Segments D and E) should of Section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers be added to the NRI. On June 9, 1988, the Act (WSRA) (Public Law 90-542 et seq.). Director of the National Park Service accepted In March 1988, the final environmental impact Cargill’s recommendation and withdrew the statement (EIS) for the Metropolitan Denver Park Service’s earlier recommendation for Water Supply, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of listing Segments D and E in the Nationwide Engineers, disclosed that the segment of the Rivers Inventory. South Platte from Cheesman Reservoir to In 1989, the Environmental Protection Agency Elevenmile Dam was eligible for study under (EPA) rejected the Two Forks Dam project as the WSRA. No comments were received on the proposed in the March 1988, final EIS for the draft EIS concerning the question of eligibility Metropolitan Denver Water Supply. EPA below Cheesman Dam. The final EIS, concluded that the proposal was “the most supported by the Governor, Colorado Water environmentally damaging of the alternatives Quality Control Commission, and 41 cities and considered” and concluded “construction and utilities in the Denver metropolitan area, operation of the dam would have unacceptable recommended construction of a dam for water adverse effects on fishery, wildlife, and storage just below the confluence of the recreation areas.” mainstem and North Fork of the South Platte River. If constructed, this 1.1-million-acre-foot In 1989, Congress appropriated $75,000 to Two Forks Reservoir would provide a study the recreation potential of the South dependable future water supply for the Denver Platte River. The Forest Service felt that a Wild metropolitan area but would flood and Scenic River eligibility determination was approximately 21 miles of the South Platte the best way to accomplish this and began the River, from 1 mile below the confluence with study, which included the South Platte River the North Fork to ½ mile below Cheesman below Cheesman Dam (Segments D and E) and

3-4 ˜ Chapter 3 the entire North Fork of the South Platte River Platte corridor, which supports a vital aquatic (Segments F, G, and H). A draft of this ecosystem offering unmatched fishery and document was made available for public review recreation values within a single location easily on August 7, 1995. Following receipt of accessible to major metropolitan areas.” comments, the document was revised. Since the study found that Segments D, E, and H In 1991, EPA's decision not to allow were eligible for potential Wild and Scenic River construction of the Two Forks project was designation, the Forest Service decided to appealed by eight suburban water districts. On continue with a suitability study for these June 5, 1996, U.S. District Judge Richard segments and Segments A, B, and C of the Matsch dismissed the appeal, upholding the South Platte River, which had been found EPA’s 1990 Final Determination. The judge eligible by the Forest Plan in 1984. On ruled that EPA had not “acted capriciously and November 16, 1995, a notice of intent to arbitrarily” in blocking construction of the dam prepare a Wild and Scenic River Study Report because of its impact on the environment. The and legislative environmental impact statement judge also ruled that the eight suburban water (LEIS) for the South Platte River and North districts did not have legal standing to proceed Fork of the South Platte River was published in with the case without support of the Denver the Federal Register (vol. 60, No. 221, p. 57571). Water Board. This marked the start of the public scoping period and of the Forest Service’s preparation of the suitability study. The 1995 Draft 3.4 ELIGIBILITY Eligibility Determination and the 1984 Forest Plan Eligibility Determination were then DETERMINATION incorporated in the Wild and Scenic River Study Report and the draft EIS for the South Platte This eligibility determination is a summary of and the North Fork of the South Platte Rivers. the two eligibility and classification determinations that are described in detail in On November 23, 1990, EPA’s Assistant Appendices C and D. These include: Administrator for Water issued a Final Determination vetoing Two Forks. That 1. The Elevenmile Dam to Cheesman decision prevented the U.S. Army Corps of Reservoir Eligibility Report Engineers from issuing a permit for the (Segments A, B, and C), as construction of the 1.1-million-acre-foot presented in Volume II, project. The Final Determination also vetoed a Appendix F, of the 1984 Forest 400,000-acre-foot version of Two Forks and the Plan; and 450,000-acre-foot reservoir in the Corrective 2. The Eligibility and Classification Action Proposal proposed by the applicants. Determination for the South Platte EPA based its decision on findings that any of and North Fork of the South Platte the Two Forks projects would result in River (Segments D-H), released as a unacceptable adverse effects on fishery areas draft in August 1995, and finalized and recreational areas and that those losses in June 1996, following scoping, for would be avoidable because there were less inclusion in the draft LEIS. environmentally damaging practical alternatives to Two Forks. Moreover, EPA found that the Portions of the latter have been summarized, resources that would be lost were so valuable and the former has been updated to show that the project's impacts, even factoring in the specific outstandingly remarkable values proposed mitigation, were unacceptable. EPA's (ORVs) by segment. These changes are Final Determination concluded that each of the documented in the following sections. Two Forks projects “would inundate the South

Findings of Eligibility and Classification ˜ 3-5

ELIGIBILITY southern end of the lake, and the mainstem of the South Platte was channeled around the To be eligible, a river must meet both of the eastside of the lake for about 0.8 mile. The dam following criteria: washed out in the 1930s but was rebuilt and used for irrigation and recreation purposes. 1. It must be free-flowing, and There is also a small 1-acre lake with a 3- to 2. It must possess one or more ORVs. 5-foot earthen dike immediately below Lake George. Segment B also includes both this channelized portion and the 3- to 5-foot earthen Free-Flowing Character dike. Even though portions of this segment are The WSRA (Section 16b) defines free-flowing channelized or behind a low dam, this 0.8-mile as: section is still considered free-flowing since the dam is small and the diverted portion has taken “. . .existing or flowing in natural on a natural riverine appearance over the past condition without impoundment, 100 years. diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway. All of the study segments are below major dams The existence, however, of low dams, or diversions, and releases are controlled. Seven diversion works, and other minor of the eight study segments were found to be structures. . .shall not automatically bar free-flowing. Only Segment G, from the its consideration for inclusion: Roberts Tunnel to the upstream portion of the Provided, that this shall not be Berger property near Insmont was found not to construed to authorize, intend, or be free-flowing. While some minor channel encourage future construction of such modifications and diversions are present, structures within components of the particularly on Segment H and the lower National Wild and Scenic Rivers portion of Segment D, they are not considered System.” significant enough to affect the free-flowing nature of the river. Segment G, downstream The free-flowing analysis of Segments D-F is from the Roberts Tunnel, has been altered well documented in the Eligibility and extensively and includes more than 20 diversion Classification Determination (Appendix D). dams, numerous check dams, the outlet from Segments A-C were determined to be free- the Roberts Tunnel, channel relocations, and flowing in the Forest Plan; however, some countless other human-made intrusions and additional comments are warranted for modifications to the river bed, channel, banks, Segments A and B. Segment A has a small and vegetation, leaving a majority of the 5-foot dam, located on National Forest System segment no longer in a natural riverine lands just upstream from Lake George. The appearance. original intent of the dam was to raise the water level slightly to provide water for irrigation via Outstandingly Remarkable Values Analysis an aqueduct to the Lake George area. More recently, the floodgates have been removed and The goal of this analysis was to identify the dam has not been used in years. The “outstandingly remarkable values” or, more permittee has asked to abandon the permit and simply, outstanding values on the eight study a special-use permit has not been reissued for river segments. This analysis was carried out in the dam. Segment B includes the 10-foot-high, the 1984 Forest Plan for areas above Cheesman 1,100-foot-long earthen Lake George Dam and Reservoir and in the Eligibility and 85-acre Lake George, which was built for ice Classification Determination of June 1996 production in 1890. At that time, a small, 3- to (Appendix D) for the segments below 5-foot earthen dike was built up on the Cheesman Dam and on the North Fork. These

3-6 ˜ Chapter 3 assessments document the determination of National Forest System developed which river-related values or features are campgrounds and picnic areas and receives outstandingly remarkable. heavy developed and dispersed recreation use. A gravel road that was the location of the old Since seven of the eight study segments and a Colorado Midland Railroad from Colorado portion of Segment G (from the Roberts Springs to Leadville, of which only the grade Tunnel upstream to Kenosha Gulch) were and tunnels remain, parallels this segment. It is found to be free-flowing, their ORVs were the finding of the 1984 Forest Plan that studied and identified as described in Segment A possesses the following ORVs: Appendices C and D and in the 1984 Forest Plan. The outstandingly remarkable values — Scenery – The quarter-mile study studied include: scenic, recreational, geologic, corridor is located between 8450 and vegetation/ecological, fisheries, wildlife, cultural 9200 feet on either side and possesses a (historic and prehistoric), traditional great deal of diversity in landform, water, use/cultural values, and other resources. The color, and vegetation, notable in the determined ORVs for each river segment are geographic region. This includes the listed in table 3-1 (later in this chapter) and are granitic rock formations, the steep also summarized briefly in the next section. forested canyon with several small waterfalls, and the old railroad tunnels South Platte River (Upstream from Cheesman one passes through along the gravel road Reservoir - Segments A, B, and C).—The that parallels the river. In addition, there 1984 Forest Plan documented that Segments A, is the diversity of vegetation, including B, and C contained five outstandingly meadows, aspen, willows, Douglas fir, remarkable values: scenery, recreation, geology, and ponderosa pine forests. The corridor fisheries, and wildlife. The Forest Plan, draws people from all over the region however, did not specify which values were because of the area's ruggedness, found in each segment. This is clarified here for remoteness, and scenic beauty. A forest- each of the three segments. This section of the wide visual resource inventory classified South Platte River flows through a canyon that the entire canyon as “Class A– is approximately 700 feet high and ½ mile wide; Distinctive” due to the highly scenic it is known as Elevenmile Canyon in Segment A features found in the area. and as Wildcat Canyon in Segment C. The terrain consists of a rocky canyon with steep — Recreational - This segment in side walls, interspersed forest cover, and Elevenmile Canyon is one of the most scattered meadows. The central portion popular destination sites in the Pike (Segment B), around Lake George, consists of a National Forest and attracts people from wide, flat canyon bottom. River elevations all over the region. Because of the range from 8450 feet below Elevenmile Dam to accessibility, scenic beauty, and facilities 6860 feet near Cheesman Reservoir. provided, this area receives heavy year- round use. To control use and limit Segment A — Segment A is the environmental damage, a parking fee 8.7-mile section of the South Platte River from system has been implemented here. Rock Elevenmile Dam (downstream from fence on climbing, camping, picnicking, fishing, Denver Water's special-use area) downstream to water recreation (floating and tubing), the southern end of the private lands south of hiking, and sightseeing are the primary Lake George. The area is almost entirely recreation activities. User density is high National Forest System land except for a few from early spring through late fall. acres owned by the Boy Scouts of America in Camp Alexander. This portion contains several

Findings of Eligibility and Classification ˜ 3-7

— Geology - The area is known for its trout populations and habitat. This variety of rare and exemplary geologic segment and Segment A contain some of features. The segment lies in an area of the most diverse habitat conditions of relatively young topography, with north- any of the study areas, and the Colorado south-trending complex mountains cut by Division of Wildlife recognizes the two deep, rugged canyons. The entire area is segments together as an important, high- underlain by Precambrian granite, which quality trout fishery. Along with other forms rocky outcrops throughout the study segments of the South Platte, this segment. Massive rock outcrops are segment is a nationally important exposed in the canyon walls, except producer of brown and rainbow trout where the bedrock has been covered by and draws people from all over the talus and soil. region. — Fisheries - This segment contains Segment C — This 10.4-mile segment nationally renowned brown and rainbow of the South Platte River, from the north end of trout populations and habitat. This the private lands near Beaver Creek to the high segment and Segment B contain some of water line of Cheesman Reservoir (upstream of the most diverse habitat conditions of the stream gage), flows through undeveloped any of the study areas, and the Colorado National Forest System lands that are Division of Wildlife recognizes the two inaccessible except by trails and a few four- segments together as an important, high- wheel-drive roads. Smooth water alternates quality trout fishery. Along with other with boulder-filled channels. The area is within study segments of the South Platte, this 2-5 miles of the Lost Creek Wilderness, is segment is a nationally important essentially undeveloped, and presents a vestige producer of brown and rainbow trout of primitive America. Its primary use is for and draws people from all over the dispersed recreation, which includes fishing, region. The upper 3 miles of the segment hiking, and off-highway vehicle use. A high- is a designated quality fisheries area with voltage powerline crosses the river just special fishing regulations in effect. upstream from Corral Creek. Denver Water owns several acres in the extreme lower portion Segment B — This 7.7-mile segment of of the segment. It is the finding of this analysis the South Platte River, from the southern end that Segment C possesses the following of the private lands south of Lake George to the outstandingly remarkable values: north end of the private lands near Beaver Creek, flows through subdivided private lands — Scenery - The study corridor, located that are used as year-round and seasonal between 8500 and 6860 feet, possesses recreational property. The area is paralleled, great diversity in landform, water, color, crossed, and otherwise heavily influenced by and vegetation, notable in the geographic subdivision roads. U.S. Highway 24 crosses the region. It includes large outcrops of river at Lake George. About 1½ miles of granitic rock and a steep, forested undeveloped stream occurs on National Forest canyon with several small waterfalls. In System land, and a mile or so of the stream addition, it contains a diversity of frontage is private land used for grazing and hay vegetation, including meadows, aspen, pastures. It is the finding of the 1984 Forest willows, Douglas fir, and ponderosa pine Plan that Segment B possesses the following forests. The area lies within an outstandingly remarkable value: undeveloped canyon that is a vestige of primitive America and draws people from — Fisheries - This segment contains all over the region because of its nationally renowned brown and rainbow ruggedness, remoteness, and scenic

3-8 ˜ Chapter 3 beauty. A Pike National Forest visual and habitat. The Pawnee montane resource inventory classified the entire skipper qualifies under the wildlife canyon as “Class A–Distinctive” due to population ORV defined for this the highly scenic features found in the analysis. The montane skipper is a area. globally rare subspecies found only in the area of Platte Canyon from near — Geology - The area is known for its the unincorporated community of variety of rare and exemplary geologic South Platte up to approximately features. The segment lies in an area of 7400 feet in elevation. To add to the relatively young topography, with north- significance of this value, this sub-species south-trending complex mountains cut by of the skipper is listed in the Federal deep, rugged canyons. As in Segment A, Register (52 FR 36176) as a threatened the entire area is underlain by species under the Endangered Species Precambrian granite, which forms rocky Act. Populations occur in this segment outcrops throughout the segment. upstream to the Corral Creek area. The Massive rock outcrops are exposed in the river, over time, has created the rugged canyon walls, except where the bedrock is canyon topography that is now the covered by talus and soil. However, the butterfly’s preferred habitat. outcrops in this segment are more numerous and much more vertical and South Platte River (Downstream from dominant than those in Segment A, and Cheesman Reservoir - Segments D and E).— they form massive granite cliffs that From the base of Cheesman Dam to the high- tower over the river. water line of Strontia Springs Reservoir, the South Platte River canyon drops approximately — Fisheries - This segment contains 700 feet in elevation (from 6700 feet to nationally renowned brown and rainbow 6000 feet). The narrowest canyon and steepest trout populations and habitat. The gradient on the South Platte lies between the fishery in this segment is solely supported base of Cheesman Dam and the Wigwam by self-reproducing rainbow and brown property boundary. The river drops trout, and, as such, is designated as “wild approximately 300 feet within this trout water” by the Colorado Division of 3-mile stretch (Segment D). Between the Wildlife. This section of the river Wigwam property and the community of contains the second highest amount of Nighthawk, the canyon is much broader and suitable trout habitat of the study more open, with an approximate drop of segments (next to Segment D). The area 200 feet in elevation within a 14-mile stretch is recognized by the Colorado Division of (upper end of Segment E). The gradient Wildlife as an important high-quality steepens, and the canyon again narrows from trout fishery. Along with other study this point, dropping approximately 300 feet segments of the South Platte, this between Nighthawk and the Strontia segment is a nationally important impoundment waters, a distance of almost producer of brown and rainbow trout 6 miles (lower end of Segment E). and draws people from all over the region. Although the size of the trout Several creeks and gulches drain into the South caught here is not exceptional, as in other Platte between Cheesman and Strontia Springs segments, the catch rates are quite high Reservoirs. Many, like Jenny Gulch and Saloon due to the abundance of fish present. Gulch, are of low volume or are intermittent in nature. Others, such as Horse Creek, Sugar — Wildlife - This segment contains Pawnee Creek, and Pine Creek, are permanent but also montane skipper butterfly populations of low volume.

Findings of Eligibility and Classification ˜ 3-9

Segment D — Segment D is the 3.1-mile waters provide outstanding angling section of the South Platte River from below opportunities for large trout. Cheesman Cheesman Dam downstream to the upstream Canyon is considered the “crown jewel” boundary of the Wigwam Club property (in the with more than 500 pounds of fish over a NW¼NW¼ sec. 29, T. 9 S., R. 70 W.). The 14-square-foot surface area. The city and county of Denver owns the first mile Colorado Division of Wildlife ranks below Cheesman Dam, and the next 2 miles are this among the most productive trout National Forest System lands. It is the finding streams in the State, if not the country. of this eligibility and classification document The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has that Segment D possesses the following ORVs: designated this section, down to Scraggy View in Section E, as Resource — Recreational - Outstanding fishing and Category 1. Resource Category 1 waters dispersed recreation opportunities such as are unique on a national basis and are hiking and sightseeing are present. This considered irreplaceable. segment in Cheesman Canyon attracts people from all over the region for — Wildlife - Segment D contains Pawnee hiking, fly fishing, and sightseeing in its montane skipper butterfly populations rugged, boulder-strewn canyon. The and habitat. The Pawnee montane canyon is one of the most heavily fished skipper qualifies under the wildlife sections in the State of Colorado and population ORV defined for this analysis. receives the heaviest fishing use in the The montane skipper is a globally rare Front Range. Anglers, hikers, nature subspecies found only in the area of observers, and photographers heavily use Platte Canyon from near South Platte up the Gill Trail, which parallels the river. to approximately 7400 feet in elevation. Outfitters and guides, permitted by the To add to the significance of this value, South Platte Ranger District, cater to this subspecies of the skipper is listed in local, national, and international clients. the Federal Register (52 FR 36176) as a This area is also the site of the annual threatened species under the Endangered Masterfly Tournament, sponsored by Species Act. The river, over time, has Trout Unlimited and used as a fundraiser created the rugged canyon topography to enhance the South Platte River that is now the butterfly’s preferred corridor. habitat. — Fisheries - Segment D contains Segment E — Segment E is the section nationally renowned brown and rainbow of the South Platte River from the upstream trout populations and habitat. This boundary of the Wigwam Club property segment contains exceptionally abundant downstream to the high-water line of Strontia fish habitat and is a nationally important Springs Reservoir (19.5 miles). Approximately producer of wild brown and rainbow 50 percent of the land is National Forest System trout. According to the Colorado land, 45 percent is owned by the city and county Division of Wildlife, there are more than of Denver, and 5 percent is privately owned. It 9,000 miles of trout streams in Colorado, is the finding of this eligibility and classification of which 112.5 miles are designated wild document that Segment E possesses the trout streams and 167.8 miles are “Gold following ORVs: Medal” trout streams. This 3-mile stretch carries both designations. Wild trout — Recreational - This segment provides waters contain fish raised entirely within outstanding dispersed and developed the natural environment; they are not recreational opportunities such as stocked with hatchery fish. Gold Medal

3-10 ˜ Chapter 3 camping, picnicking, hiking, fishing, the Wigwam Club to Scraggy View Picnic scenic driving, and other day-use Grounds, approximately 45 percent of activities. the segment, and Resource Category 2 extends from Scraggy View to Strontia The quality and diversity of developed Springs Reservoir. Gold Medal and and dispersed recreation opportunities in Resource Category 1 waters were this segment and the accessibility and previously described under Segment D. proximity of the area to major Resource Category 2 waters are also metropolitan areas provide an excellent outstandingly remarkable in that they year-round recreation resource. The represent aquatic habitat that, if impacted recreational study for the Two Forks EIS by development, must be mitigated in indicated that recreational use of public kind for no net loss. land in the project area exceeds 304,000 recreational visitor-days per year. — Wildlife - Pawnee montane skipper (This includes an area larger than the butterfly and habitat. (See description in river corridor, but most of the visitor use Segment D) was projected to occur along the river, including the North Fork.) A survey North Fork of the South Platte River – conducted by the South Platte Ranger Segments F, G, and H.—Headwater tributaries District in 1993 lists the wide range of for the North Fork are located high on the activities that occur within Segments E eastern slope of the Continental Divide at and H. In addition to the premier fly 12,500 feet in elevation. The tributaries fishing activity that occurs in the upper combine to form the mainstem of the fork at portion (upper 60 percent) of this approximately 11,300 feet. The North Fork segment, the Paralyzed Veterans of flows eastward for approximately 51 miles America hosts an annual 3-day fishing before reaching the South Platte River at an derby and outing for more than elevation of 6050 feet. Many small intermittent 750 people with disabilities, their families, and perennial streams contribute to the flow. senior citizens, and developmentally The North Fork has three distinct segments. disabled youths. This event occurs near Segment F is from the headwaters to Kenosha the historic site of Twin Cedars at the Gulch near the town of Webster. This segment lower end of the segment. The area is is known as Hall Valley. The landscape is a also popular for waterfowl hunting. This result of alpine glaciation, with a primary segment is considered the best geologic substrate composed of the granitic recreational river within the region of Kenosha batholith. The elevation changes analysis, primarily because of the amount approximately 3,500 feet within the 9.7-mile and diversity of opportunities presented segment. The overall topography is to such a large population base. representative of a typical high mountain glacial — Fisheries - Segment E contains valley, with narrow and steep tributary canyons, nationally renowned brown and rainbow open vistas interrupted by glacial ridges, and trout populations and habitat. The alpine to subalpine vegetation. Colorado Division of Wildlife lists the Segment G, from Kenosha Gulch near Webster South Platte from the Wigwam Club to to Insmont, includes the community of Bailey. the confluence with the North Fork— The underlying geology changes from the approximately 85 percent of this granitic batholith to a schist-gneiss complex, segment's length—as Gold Medal waters. and the valley is much broader with fewer The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gradients. The river parallels an ancient fault, Resource Category 1 rating extends from and the elevation drops 1,520 feet in

Findings of Eligibility and Classification ˜ 3-11

approximately 17.5 miles. Glacial and river to its confluence with Kenosha Gulch gravels form flat terraces along the river. (9.7 miles). Approximately 65 percent of the U.S. Highway 285 parallels most of the river. lands are National Forest System lands, and the Many ranches, communities, and houses are rest are in private ownership. Also included in found in this section, taking advantage of the this analysis is the upper 2.3-mile portion of open topography and transportation network. Segment G above the Roberts Tunnel. It is the The water from Roberts Tunnel enters the river finding of this eligibility and classification in this section, 3 miles downstream from the document that Segment F and the upper community of Webster. 2.2-mile section of Segment G possess no ORVs. Segment H is from Insmont to the confluence with the South Platte River. The North Fork Segment G — Segment G of the North canyon takes on different characteristics within Fork extends from its confluence with Kenosha this 22.9-mile segment. The overall effect is a Gulch downstream 17.5 miles to the upstream narrow and confined river canyon. The river boundary of the Berger property (in the rapidly drops 800 feet within the first 7 miles. NW¼SW¼ sec. 34, T. 7 S., R. 72 W.) near Near the town of Pine, the gradient moderates; Insmont. Approximately 14.5 miles of and river drops only 150 feet in the next Segment G are private lands, and approximately 5 miles. Near the community of Riverview, the 3 miles are National Forest System lands. canyon again becomes narrower and steeper, dropping 1,500 feet in the next 11 miles before This segment was not examined for ORVs reaching the confluence. Population density downstream from the Roberts Tunnel because within this segment is low, as there are only a it did not meet the basic free-flowing eligibility few small communities in this area and many of criteria. In the short stretch above the Roberts the dwellings are occupied on a seasonal basis. Tunnel, it was evaluated and found to be similar The channel has been modified in spots, and to Segment F; no ORVs were identified. the banks have been stabilized in places during Consequently, Segment G is considered the construction of the historic railroad grade ineligible for designation as a component of the and, more recently, by county road work. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Forest Service maintains a work center at Segment H — Segment H of the North Buffalo Creek. Fork extends from the upstream boundary of The entire length of Segment H is paralleled by the Berger property near Insmont, downstream roads, trails, or the historic (abandoned) railroad to within ¼ mile of its confluence with the grade. Access to the river is restricted in places South Platte River (22.9 miles). It is the finding by private lands, but the majority is accessible to of this eligibility and classification document the general public. Jefferson County maintains that Segment H possesses the following ORVs: the Pine Valley Ranch near Pine as a day-use — Recreational - The quality and diversity open-space park. Lands managed by Denver of dispersed recreation opportunities Water and the U.S. Forest Service, from near along this segment and the accessibility Buffalo Creek to the confluence, are also and proximity of the area to major restricted to day use only. National Forest metropolitan areas provide an System land in the Crossons area is open for outstanding year-round recreation dispersed recreational use. A portion of the resource. Kayaking and dispersed land at Crossons is privately owned, and only recreation such as picnicking, fishing, nonmotorized access is allowed in that area. hiking, riding, scenic driving, and other Segment F — Segment F of the North day uses are very popular in this area. Fork extends from the headwaters downstream

3-12 ˜ Chapter 3 The upper portion of this segment, above corridor, but the 1-mile protective Buffalo Creek, contains Class IV and V management buffer around the nesting whitewater rapids and is considered to be site overlaps the river corridor. The one of the premier kayaking waters study corridor provides important within the region due to the presence of foraging habitat for the falcon. The the rapids and the artificial lengthening of nesting site and associated foraging the kayaking season. Its unique value is habitat are considered to be of regional attributed to its level of difficulty, as well importance. The site was the last site to as sustained seasonal flows. The be abandoned during the peregrine importation of water through the Roberts decline of the 1960s; and, thus, the Tunnel makes it possible for kayakers to habitat in this segment is considered to run the North Fork after other rivers in be outstandingly remarkable. the region have passed their peak flows. Kayakers who use the area are — Cultural - The Estabrook Historic accustomed to frequent changes in flow District and the North Fork Historic volumes that result from the operation of District, including the Denver South Park Denver Water's delivery system. and Pacific Railroad grade, are outstanding heritage resources in this The lower portion of the North Fork, segment. The State Historical between Buffalo Creek and the Preservation Office provided input on confluence, is important to all levels of whether the two river corridors contained kayakers and is one of the few areas in outstandingly remarkable cultural values. the region most suitable for teaching That office examined all the known entry-level kayaking. National Register of Historic Places (National Register) sites in the corridor and Summer home residents, some year- determined that within the North Fork round residents, and the general public corridor between the Berger property and heavily use the portion between Buffalo the confluence that there are two Creek and the confluence. The majority outstandingly remarkable historic sites. of the land in that stretch is owned by the These two sites are listed on the National city and county of Denver and is Register because of their association with currently managed by Denver Water as a the transportation, entertainment, and day-use area. recreation elements of Colorado history. This segment also includes part of the The two outstandingly remarkable Pine Valley Ranch, a Jefferson County cultural sites are the Estabrook Historic open-space park that contains group District (occupying approximately ½ mile picnic sites, an amphitheater, several of the river corridor on either side of the trails, and striking rock outcrops. The community of Estabrook) and the North park is very popular regionally for Fork Historic District, which includes the picnicking and hiking. North Fork corridor from ¼ mile west of — Wildlife -This segment contains Pawnee Pine to 100 feet east of the South Platte montane skipper butterfly populations Hotel. Included within the North Fork and habitat and peregrine falcon habitat. Historic District, but separate from the The significance of the skipper butterfly district designation, are several other has been described under Segment D. historic sites that are also considered There is a peregrine nest site immediately outstandingly remarkable on a regional adjacent to the corridor on Cathedral level. The Denver, South Park and Spires. The nest is outside the study Pacific Railroad grade between South

Findings of Eligibility and Classification ˜ 3-13

Platte and Pine is included as one of 2. Scenic river areas - Those rivers or these sites. (NOTE: A segment of this sections of rivers that are free of railroad grade, between the North Fork impoundments, with shorelines or and Estabrook Historic Districts, has not watersheds still largely primitive and been officially assessed for the National shorelines largely undeveloped, but Register but may present a better physical accessible in places by roads. representation of this historic period than 3. Recreational river areas - Those the segments currently listed.) rivers or sections of rivers that are Other values for this segment were evaluated, readily accessible by road or railroad, including scenic, geologic, and fisheries, and that may have some development were found to be significant but not along their shorelines, and that may outstandingly remarkable. Vegetation and have undergone some ecological values were not considered impoundment or diversion in the significant. past. The overriding determinant for classification ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION decisions is the degree of naturalness or, inversely, the degree of evidence of human Six of the eight study segments meet the activity in the river area. A determination is minimum eligibility requirements as specified by based upon the four major topics addressed in the WSRA. They are all found to be free- the classification definitions of wild, scenic, and flowing and to have at least one ORV. These recreational rivers. These topics are: ORVs are listed in table 3-1. 1. Water Resources Development

2. Shoreline Development 3.5 CLASSIFICATION 3. Accessibility River segments found eligible were classified as 4. Water Quality to their most restrictive potential classifications as wild, scenic, or recreational, based upon the level The appropriate classification of the study of development and degree of naturalness segments was analyzed for each of these topics. present in the river corridor. Those individual determinations were then considered as a whole to determine whether the study segments should be classified as wild, CLASSIFICATION METHODS scenic, or recreational in the event of inclusion The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires that within the National Wild and Scenic Rivers eligible rivers be classified as one of the System. This analysis was conducted using the following: framework suggested by the 1982 joint guidelines developed by the Secretaries of 1. Wild river areas - Those rivers or Agriculture and Interior. This framework is sections of river that are free of best displayed in table 3-3, which is reproduced impoundments and generally from the “National Wild and Scenic Rivers inaccessible except by trail, with System; Final Revised Guidelines for Eligibility, watersheds or shorelines essentially Classification and Management of River Areas,” primitive and waters unpolluted. published in the September 7, 1982, Federal These represent vestiges of primitive Register. This table provides an excellent America. summary of the more lengthy narrative in the guidelines. It is not intended to stand alone and

3-14 ˜ Chapter 3

Findings of Eligibility and Classification ˜ 3-15

Table 3-3.—Classification Matrix Attribute Wild Scenic Recreational

Water Resource Free of impoundment Free of Impoundment Some existing Development impoundment or diversion.

Shoreline Essentially primitive. Little or no Largely primitive and Some development. Development evidence of human activity. undeveloped. No substantial Substantial evidence of evidence of human activity. human activity.

The presence of a few The presence of small The presence of extensive inconspicuous structures, communities of dispersed residential development particularly those of historic or dwellings or farm structures is and a few commercial cultural values, is acceptable. acceptable. structures is acceptable.

A limited amount of domestic The presence of grazing, hay Lands may have been livestock grazing or hay production, or row crops is developed for the full range production is acceptable. acceptable. of agricultural and forestry uses.

Little or no evidence of past Evidence of past or ongoing May have shown evidence timber harvest. No ongoing timber harvest is acceptable, of past or ongoing timber timber harvest. provided the forest appears harvest. natural from the riverbank.

Accessibility Generally inaccessible except Accessible in places by road. Readily accessible by road by trail. or railroad.

No roads, railroads, or other Roads may occasionally reach The existence of parallel provision for vehicular travel or bridge the river. The roads or railroads on one within the river area. A few existence of short stretches of or both banks as well as existing roads leading to the conspicuous or longer stretches bridge crossings and other boundary of the river area is of inconspicuous roads or river access points is acceptable. railroads is acceptable. acceptable.

Water Quality Meets or exceeds Federal No criteria prescribed by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. criteria or federally approved The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of State standards for aesthetics, 1972 have made it a national goal that all waters of the for propagation of fish and United States be made fishable and swimmable. Therefore, wildlife normally adapted to the rivers will not be precluded from scenic or recreational environment of the river, and for classification because of poor water quality at the time of their primary contact recreation study, provided a water quality improvement plan exists or is (swimming) except where being developed in compliance with applicable Federal and exceeded by natural conditions. State laws.

is applied in this analysis in the context of the the eligibility determination and classification longer narrative material and in context with document process (see Appendix D). If the applicable Wild and Scenic River legislation. rivers or river segments are designated, these are the most restrictive inventoried classifications that can be implemented. Less restrictive classifications can be recommended in any 3.6 CLASSIFICATION SUMMARY alternative selection. The classifications are listed in table 3-4 and are briefly summarized A detailed analysis of the classification of each below: study river segment was prepared as a part of

3-16 ˜ Chapter 3 Table 3-4—Classifications of the Study Segments (2.9 miles) due to its undeveloped and primitive Segment Classification Length in Miles nature and lack of water resource and shoreline development. A Recreational 8.7

B Recreational 7.7 Segment C2: Forest Development Trail #654 parallels the river for several miles, and several C1 Wild 2.9 National Forest System four-wheel-drive roads C2 Scenic 3.0 bisect the corridor and cross the South Platte River near the mouths of Corral and Longwater C3 Wild 4.5 Creeks. Because motorized access is allowed D Wild 3.1 with crossings in the section from Hackett E. Recreational 19.5 Gulch to the Corral Creek-Longwater Gulch crossing, this section of the segment is classified H1 Recreational 1.5 scenic (3.0 miles). This is a correction from the H2 Scenic 4.9 original eligibility determination conducted in H3 Recreational 16.5 1984 in Segment C2. Classifications are intended to reflect current conditions and not Total Wild 10.5 anticipated conditions. If conditions change, Scenic 7.9 for instance motorized travel in the canyon is prohibited, then the classification for this Recreational 53.9 segment would be re-evaluated for a possible Total Miles 72.3 change to wild status. Segment C3: This segment is entirely National campgrounds, parking areas, and several picnic Forest System lands and is undeveloped and areas. It is classified recreational (8.7 miles) due primitive. It does contain a very small amount to the amount of road access and the amount of of undeveloped land owned by Denver Water water resource shoreline development. near Cheesman Reservoir and several abandoned cabins on National Forest System Segment B: This segment is paralleled by land. This segment is classified as wild gravel county and National Forest System (4.5 miles) due to its undeveloped and primitive roads. It is also intersected by several other nature and lack of water resource and shoreline roads, including U.S. Highway 24. The segment development. includes the 150-acre Lake George, a low but long earthen dam that makes up at least half of Segment D: This segment is accessible at the lake’s shoreline, a cemetery, several bridges, either end by foot from the Gill Trail. Some a National Forest System campground and cultural development has occurred in the past, trailhead, several rural subdivisions, and the primarily relating to mining and fishing community of Lake George. Many user-created activities. Many non-system trails are evident trails are evident along both riverbanks. It is along both riverbanks. It is classified as wild due classified as recreational (7.7 miles) because of the to the lack of road access and lack of water amount of road access and water resource and resource and shoreline development. shoreline development. Segment E: This segment is paralleled by Segment C1: This segment is entirely National paved and gravel roads. Several small Forest System lands and is undeveloped and communities and isolated houses are located primitive. This segment is classified as wild along the river, and there are several bridges and developed picnic and campsites. Many parking areas that accommodate the large number of

Findings of Eligibility and Classification ˜ 3-17

day-users and anglers are located in this (Jefferson County's Pine Valley Ranch), many segment. Several resorts and private camps are bridges and dwellings, and minor diversions and also located in this segment. This segment is channel work. classified as recreational due to road access and the amount of water resource and shoreline Segment H2: This 4.9-mile segment, located development. within Segment H, extends from the downstream side of the old stone house Segments H1 and H3: Segment H1, on the downstream of Estabrook to the section line North Fork from Estabrook to the upstream between sections 29 and 30 downstream of end of the Berger property, and Segment H3, Cliffdale. It is classified as scenic since the area is on the North Fork from the confluence with predominately undeveloped National Forest the South Platte River to Cliffdale, are classified System lands with very limited access. There is as recreational because they are paralleled by an an old abandoned railroad grade though the historic railroad grade and graveled county area, a footbridge, some small check dams, and roads, and they contain several residential a few dwellings at Crossons, but the area communities, a highly developed recreation area remains largely primitive and undeveloped.

r ve en n D lita po ro et M a re Pine Jct. A

Buffalo Bailey Creek Strontia Springs Res. RECREATIONAL (16.5 mi.) (1.5 mi.) SCENIC (4.9 mi.)

RECREATIONAL (19.5 mi.)

Deckers WILD (3.1 mi.)

Cheesman WILD Res. (4.5 mi.)

SCENIC (3.0 mi.) Wildcat Canyon Legend WILD (2.9 mi.) River corridor Delineates break RECREATIONAL WILD between segments (16.4 mi.) Lake Woodland (4.5) Length of segment George Potential in miles Park Classification

Elevenmile Res.

Map 3-2.—Eligible Segments with Potential Classification; South Platte River and North Fork of the South Platte River Wild and Scenic River Study.

3-18 ˜ Chapter 3

The North Fork of the South Platte River, 3.7 ELIGIBILITY SUMMARY from the upstream boundary of the Berger property near Insmont to the confluence with The South Platte River from Elevenmile the South Platte, also meets the minimum Dam (downstream from the fence on the eligibility requirements as specified by the Denver Water special-use area) downstream WSRA. Segment H is found to be free-flowing to the high-water line of Cheesman Reservoir and to contain outstandingly remarkable (upstream of the stream gage) meets the recreation, wildlife, and cultural values. minimum eligibility requirements as specified by the WSRA. Thus, Segments A, B, and C The North Fork of the South Platte River, from are found to be free-flowing and to contain the its headwaters to its confluence with Kenosha following ORVs: scenic (Segments A and C), Gulch near Webster, is found to be free-flowing recreation (Segment A), geologic (Segments A but possesses no ORVs. As a result, this and C), fish (Segments A, B, and C), and segment (Segment F) is ineligible for inclusion wildlife (Segment C). into the National Wild and Scenic River System. The South Platte River, from downstream of The North Fork of the South Platte River, from the stream gage weir below Cheesman Reservoir its confluence with Kenosha Gulch near to the backwaters of Strontia Springs Reservoir Webster to the upstream boundary of the (6029-foot contour), also meets the minimum Berger property near Insmont (Segment G), is eligibility requirements as specified by the found not to be free-flowing and is, therefore, WSRA. Thus, Segments D and E are found to ineligible for inclusion into the National Wild be free-flowing and to contain outstandingly and Scenic River System. remarkable recreation, fish, and wildlife values.

Findings of Eligibility and Classification ˜ 3-19

Chapter 4

Issues and Alternatives

CHAPTER 4 Issues and Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative

4.1 PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER storage, continued water delivery, current water operations, channel maintenance, potential This chapter introduces the issues and and/or perceived impacts to private alternatives developed during the study process. landowners, and protection of the river’s The study analyzed each of the study rivers for “outstandingly remarkable values” (ORVs). their suitability for designation as a component Because Alternative A2 would be a form of of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System cooperative management by local governments, (National System). The issues listed in this water resource agencies, and other entities, it document were raised during the scoping includes a variety of mechanisms to afford process. Others were raised regarding the protection to the river’s ORVs. Detailed A2 local alternative when it was submitted to information about these mechanisms and their the USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) for effect on river values and the uses of lands and further consideration. The A2 alternative is waters is found in the SPPP. entitled the “South Platte Protection Plan” (SPPP). Alternative A3 (the “Modified South Platte Protection Plan”) was developed by the Forest For this study, 10 alternatives were developed Service in response to issues and concerns and evaluated by an interdisciplinary group of raised about Alternative A2 and is fully Forest Service resource specialists (ID Team). described in this chapter. The preferred alternative is a modified version of Alternative A3. The preferred alternative is Alternative A3 modified to exclude a decision on suitability. Alternative A1, the “no action” alternative Under this alternative, the Forest Service will required by NEPA, describes the current defer a decision on suitability, implement the management of the study river corridors under South Platte Protection Plan, and amend the the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Pike Forest Plan to protect the outstandingly and San Isabel National Forests, Comanche and remarkable values, free-flow, and water quality Cimarron National Grasslands (Forest Plan). This best addresses the concerns of potential water Alternative B recommends the designation of storage, continued water delivery, current water the study rivers at their most protective operations, channel maintenance, and potential inventoried classifications. This maximizes the and/or perceived impacts to private protection and enhancement of free-flow, water landowners. quality, and the ORVs in the study area. Alternative A2 (the SPPP) is summarized in this Alternatives C, D, F, G, I, and J present chapter and reprinted in full in Appendix A. It differing combinations or classifications of is a “no action with outstandingly remarkable rivers or river segments that also protect and values protected” alternative. This alternative enhance the free-flow, water quality, and ORVs addresses the concerns of potential water on the segments recommended for designation.

Issues and Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative ˜ 4-1 Alternatives E and H were considered but protects and enhances the ORVs at the most eliminated from detailed study (see section 4.5). protective inventoried classification above Cheesman Reservoir while addressing the Alternative C recommends the designation of concerns of potential water storage, continued the same rivers as Alternative B but at a less water delivery, current water operations, protective classification than inventoried from channel maintenance, and potential and/or Beaver Creek to Hackett Gulch and from Corral perceived impacts to private landowners on the Creek to Cheesman Reservoir. This alternative North Fork and the South Platte downstream better addresses concerns related to continued from Cheesman Reservoir. off-highway vehicle use in the area. It also provides additional river protection compared Alternative I recommends the designation of to non-designation while allowing a wider range the South Platte upstream from Corral Creek to of natural resource management than with a Beaver Creek with a scenic classification and more protective classification. from Beaver Creek to Elevenmile Dam with a recreational classification. It finds the North Alternative D recommends the same segments Fork not suitable for designation. This and classifications of the South Platte River as alternative protects and enhances the ORVs Alternative B but finds the North Fork not above Cheesman Reservoir but at a less suitable for designation. This protects and protective classification than inventoried from enhances the South Platte River at the most Beaver Creek to Hackett Gulch. It addresses protective inventoried classification while off-highway use in the area, the concerns of addressing the concerns of potential water additional potential water storage, continued storage, continued water delivery, current water water delivery, current water operations, operations, channel maintenance, and potential channel maintenance, and potential and/or and/or perceived impacts to private landowners perceived impacts to private landowners on the in the North Fork study corridor. North Fork and the South Platte downstream The emphasis of Alternative F is to protect and from Cheesman Reservoir. enhance the ORVs while minimizing Alternative J recommends segments similar to restrictions on private landowners and avoiding Alternative D but finds the portion of the South interference with Denver Board of Water Platte from the North Fork confluence to Commissioners’ (Denver Water's) right-of-way Strontia Springs Reservoir not suitable for for a reservoir from the confluence of the designation. It also finds the North Fork not North Fork and the South Platte to Deckers (as suitable for designation. Classifications are the granted by the Department of the Interior in same as Alternative D. This protects and 1931). The alternative recommends the enhances the ORVs in the South Platte study designation of one segment of the North Fork corridor; addresses the off-highway vehicle use and four segments on the South Platte River in the area; and addresses the concerns of that are entirely on National Forest System land potential water storage, continued water and free of encumbrances. This protects and delivery, current water operations, channel enhances the study rivers at the most protective maintenance, and potential and/or perceived inventoried classification on National Forest impacts to private landowners in the North System land. Fork study corridor. Alternative G recommends the designation of Section 4.2 discusses the key study issues the South Platte upstream from Cheesman that formed the basis for developing the Reservoir with the same classifications as alternatives. Section 4.3 gives fuller descriptions Alternative B. It finds the North Fork not of the alternatives considered. Section 4.4 suitable for designation. This alternative

4-2 ˜ Chapter 4 describes alternatives that were not considered of reasonable management options for the in detail and explains why they were not study rivers as required by NEPA. considered further.

Factors that were considered in determining the rivers' suitability include: 4.2 KEY STUDY ISSUES — The characteristics that make the river a worthy addition to the National System Several key issues guided the development and (i.e., its ORVs—scenery, recreation, evaluation of the suitability of the study rivers. geologic, vegetation/ecologic, fisheries, All of these issues were identified through the wildlife, historic cultural, prehistoric public involvement process. In addition, the cultural, and traditional use cultural ID Team identified these same issues. The values). issues also encompass the suitability factors specified in Forest Service guidelines on Wild — The amount of private land within the and Scenic River evaluation. study corridors and the land’s present use The A2 local alternative, the SPPP was — All present and reasonable foreseeable developed by a wide variety of interest groups potential uses of the land and waters and local governmental agencies. At the time it within the river corridors that would be was submitted to the Forest Service for further enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if they consideration in the Wild and Scenic River were included in the National System. Study, all the participating groups were asked to — Public, State and local government submit letters of support to the Forest Service. interest in designation of the rivers. The letters received were of mixed support, with some groups or individuals in full support — The estimated cost of land acquisition, if of the A2 alternative as presented, some groups necessary. supportive of the A2 alternative but listing issues and concerns about the alternative as — Ability of the Forest Service to manage presented, and some groups listing issues and the river under a Wild and Scenic River concerns and stating a preference for designation designation of the river corridor. — Historical or existing rights which could The Forest Service ID Team reviewed the be adversely affected. In determining A2 alternative to determine whether it met the suitability, consideration of any valid standards listed in the draft legislative existing rights must be afforded under environmental impact statement (DLEIS) and, applicable laws (including the Wild and therefore, was a viable alternative to be Scenic Rivers Act [WSRA]), regulations, considered further in a supplemental DLEIS and/or policies (SDLEIS). The DLEIS standards applied to A2 — Key issues and any other issues and were that a wide spectrum of interests be concerns identified by the public or the represented and the ORVs be protected. The ID Team. ID Team determined that the A2 alternative met these requirements, and it was included in In developing alternatives, the Forest Service the SDLEIS. After release of the SDLEIS, the has considered all relevant issues that the public groups who developed the A2 alternative raised during the scoping process. The submitted supplemental material to the Forest alternatives that are considered in detail in this Service. The new material addressed the chapter reflect pertinent issues, concerns, concerns noted above. Additional letters were current conditions, and provide for a full range submitted by some of the groups who had

Issues and Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative ˜ 4-3 expressed concerns earlier, with some to protect resource values, recreational expressing full support and others expressing concerns, property protection, and other conditional support. considerations. The issues listed below were the result of the — Flexibility for stream improvement work public comments received from the DLEIS and to manage flows and protect riverine SDLEIS, public meetings, recent concerns environment. expressed as a result of the Hayman and Schoonover Fires, and the ID Team’s review of — The desire of some communities to all alternatives to determine whether the ORVs reduce their dependence on nonrenewable would be protected. ground water by acquiring additional surface supplies or recharging the aquifers with excess surface water. WATER DEVELOPMENTS (CONSTRUCTION OF DAMS OR — Loss of agricultural production by DIVERSIONS FOR WATER STORAGE) conversion of agricultural water rights for municipal use. Increased water supply needs for the Denver metropolitan area and other Front Range — Concerns that designation would cause communities are inevitable. Changes in how metropolitan water needs to come from the rivers are managed may affect opportunities other sources that may cause more for water storage, diversions, and dam negative impacts elsewhere. construction. — Threat of loss of ORVs by inundation.

Specific Concerns — Threat of damage to or inundation of private property. — Ability to construct water storage to meet the growing residential, industrial, and — Possible prohibition, due to designation, agricultural needs of the Denver of potential dam construction, diversions, metropolitan area. and water storage. — Ability to implement current and planned Concerns Related to South Platte water developments and channel main- Protection Plan tenance in the study corridors. This includes providing for (1) continued high — The 20-year moratorium and flows on the North Fork due to releases relinquishment of Denver Water’s right- from the Roberts Tunnel, (2) increased of-way are only voluntary, so dam and flows in the South Platte due to additional reservoir development are still possible. storage or water brought in from outside the drainage, and (3) flow changes and — Segments B and C are not protected from reservoir drawdowns for conjunctive use. future development. — Ability to maintain flexibility of a high- — The river corridor is not protected from quality, reliable, economic, raw-water future growth pressures. delivery system, including operations, — Diversions, modifications, or other flows, timing of releases, storage, off- project construction are still allowed. channel reservoirs, diversion, channelization, and exchanges. This also — “Off-channel diversion structures” and includes the management of these flows “sediment ponds” may not meet free-

4-4 ˜ Chapter 4 flowing character limitations for water for construction of water developments resource development. or reservoirs. — Water providers need flexibility in river — Impact upon private land by corridor management to expand existing recreationists. reservoirs, replace existing dams, or con- struct off-channel diversion structures to — Limitations on economic activities. meet future water supply operation needs. — Limitations on activities that change the — Method of evaluation of future project appearance of river corridors. proposals for potential impacts to the — Loss of self-determination in land rivers’ ORVs and free-flowing character? management decisions and associated The issue is: How best to ensure the protection feelings. and enhancement of ORVs while minimizing — Fear of additional interference, regulation, effects on current and future water supply of or review processes by a government the Denver and Colorado Springs areas. agency (i.e., threat of scenic easement condemnation). LANDOWNER RIGHTS — Increasing levels/layers of bureaucracies. Changes in how the rivers are managed may affect landowners’ latitude in managing and/or — Landowner liability. developing their property. — Potential increase or reduction in land management costs. Specific Concerns — Potential increase or reduction in revenue — Ability of Denver Water to exercise its of the land to the landowner. 1931 right-of-way to build a reservoir from just below the confluence of the — Changes in desirability of owning the land. North Fork and the South Platte Rivers — Potential effects of local zoning. (Two Forks site) to just above the community of Deckers. The issue is: How to protect and enhance the ORVs while minimizing the effects on private — Effect of possible Wild and Scenic River and municipal landowners. designation on the value of Denver Water’s right-of-way and its other property in the corridor. FISHERIES — Protection of Estabrook and Cheesman Changes in river management could affect expansion dam and reservoir sites for resident fish species, primarily spawning and future water storage. rearing areas for resident fish. Both study corridors contain important fisheries — Effect on water and storage rights and the populations that include wild brown and ability to operate and develop the two rainbow trout. rivers to fully use existing and future water rights (those approved but not in use and Clean, cool water is required to support healthy those in the planning stages). trout populations. It is important to recognize that many other activities within the drainage — Protection of private landowners’ property from fee-title condemnation

Issues and Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative ˜ 4-5 basin, outside of this river segment, have an WILDLIFE impact on both water quality and resident fish populations. Changes in river management could affect options for management of many game and The Streamflow Management Plan (SFMP) of nongame species. Of particular interest are big Alternative A2 includes alterations to water game species—primarily mule deer, bighorn supply operations to protect or enhance sheep, and Rocky Mountain elk—and their fisheries. The SFMP was amended to respond respective wintering habitats. Additionally, to (1) concerns about impacts to the stream several fur-bearing species (e.g., mink, otter, channel, aquatic habitats, and riparian areas raccoon) and nongame mammals and birds from anticipated increased flows and inhabit the areas year-round. The corridors unnaturally long duration flows and (2) the need contain portions of the sole remaining habitat for a full ecosystem design rather than one that of the Pawnee montane skipper butterfly and focuses on recreational trout species. In have been found to be suitable habitat for the response to concerns raised on the original Prebles jumping mouse. The corridors also proposed plan, the supplemental material provide wintering habitat for bald eagles, and submitted by the groups who developed the peregrine falcons nest just outside the North SPPP included enforcement procedures for the Fork corridor. These raptors hunt extensively SFMP and is included in Appendix A. in the corridor. The Pawnee montane skipper, Prebles jumping mouse, and bald eagle are listed Specific Concerns as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Peregrine falcons are a Forest — Protection of a remarkable wild-trout Service Region 2 Management Indicator Species fishery so close to a major metropolitan (MIS). Additionally, any loss of riparian cover area. This includes, but is not limited to, could have an adverse effect on a wide variety (1) the maintenance and enhancement of of game and nongame animal species. fish populations and habitats and (2) the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on The “Recreation, Wildlife, Scenery, and Other fish populations. Values Plan” in Alternative A2 establishes a management structure and identifies concerns — Maintenance and enhancement of riparian to be addressed in a future “Comprehensive habitat and stream structure. Recreation Management Plan.” Issues raised in — Maintenance and enhancement of water the review process were: quality and flow rates. — Recreation values are emphasized over — The possibility of implementing projects wildlife values, particularly in the that are beneficial over the long term but important wildlife corridor in Wildcat may have detrimental short-term impacts Canyon. (e.g., road improvements that cause short- — The Pawnee montane skipper needs term siltation but reduce siltation over the management protection even if it is long term, or channel improvements that delisted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife also produce short-term siltation but Service. ultimately improve fisheries habitat). The issue is: How to best protect and enhance the wild resident trout populations in the corridors.

4-6 ˜ Chapter 4 Specific Concerns — Off-highway-vehicle enthusiasts want to maintain access to the challenging road — Protection of endangered and threatened network in Segment C, Wildcat Canyon. species and their habitat. However, given the current economy and the — Protection of migration routes and budget shortfall of the State of Colorado, the connecting corridors. involvement of State parks in the foreseeable — Winter range for bighorn sheep, elk, and future appears unlikely. The recommendation, deer. currently, is for an interim partnership among the Forest Service, Denver Water, Jefferson — Nongame species populations and habitat. County, and Douglas County to cooperatively manage portions of the area. — Effects of protection of wildlife ORVs on rights of adjacent private property owners. Specific Concerns — Accessibility (e.g., access of wildlife to — habitat and protection of wildlife from Motorized and nonmotorized use various human-caused pressures). opportunities, especially the opportunity for continued motorized use between The issue is: How to best protect and enhance Cheesman Reservoir and Lake George. the game and nongame species in the corridors. — Conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized use in the area between RECREATION Cheesman Reservoir and Lake George. Changes in river management could affect — Conflicts between other types of public recreational use of the river. Recreation use in recreational use (such as mountain bikes the river corridor influences the local counties and hikers on the Gill Trail). economically, socially, and biologically. — How camping, fishing, hiking, driving, and The “Recreation, Wildlife, Scenery, and Other boating for pleasure might affect the Values Plan” outlined in Alternative A2 riverine environment. recommends a preferred management scenario of a Forest Service and Colorado State Parks — Level of recreation development (access partnership, working with Denver Water and points, campground development, etc.). the counties. The Denver Water lands would — be managed for public recreation access in Importance of preserving one of the best conjunction with other public lands in the river river-related recreation experiences corridor. Issues raised in the review process (fishing, hiking, camping, wildlife viewing, were: driving for pleasure) in close proximity to the Denver metropolitan area. — How would the Forest Service–Colorado — State Parks partnership be structured and Importance of the area as a recreational funded? safety valve for a natural recreation experience—i.e., solitude. — What would be the alternative if a Forest — Service–Colorado State Parks partnership Protection of primitive backcountry did not work out? recreational opportunities in portions of the study area. — Private landowners are concerned about — impacts to their lands and county services Preserving the quality and recognizing from increased number of recreationists. the economic importance of this area’s fly

Issues and Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative ˜ 4-7 fishing experience (most technically — Interpretation of historic and prehistoric challenging in the State) and other family- uses and peoples of the area. oriented fishing activities. — Identification of sites, where appropriate, — Prevention of overuse during peak with signs and brochures. seasonal periods. The issue is: How to protect the cultural — Maintaining a high-quality recreational resources in the corridors. experience. — Possible overuse because of designation. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS The issue is: How to best provide opportunities for a quality river-related recreation experience Changes in how the river corridors are managed in the future. can alter the mix and the scope of economic opportunities as well as the mix and magnitude of impacts on social values. SCENERY AND GEOLOGY Changes in river management could affect the Specific Concerns (About Federal Wild and scenic and geologic qualities of the study Scenic River Designation) corridors. Steadily increasing recreational use is — Potential growth limitations, quality of already having its effect. life, and economic impacts to the Denver metropolitan area imposed by designation Specific Concerns (i.e., flow regulation, storage limitations, — Intentional and unintentional changes in takings, impairment of municipalities’ scenic quality due to human disturbance. water development plans, and potential cost of alternate water supply studies). — Changes in vegetation. — Importance of recreation and tourism — Scenic impact of mineral-resource supported by the study rivers to local exploration and development. economies, and the possible impacts to these economies from designation or non- — Scenic impact due to inundation by new designation. or expanded reservoirs. — Issues of equity (i.e., those who benefit The issue is: How to protect and enhance the from changes are rarely the same as those scenic and geologic qualities of the corridors. who are negatively affected). — Protection of the quality of life in the CULTURAL RESOURCES (INCLUDING Front Range through protection of its ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES) scenic and recreational treasures. Changes in river management could affect — Mistrust of Federal Government. cultural resource sites. — Fear of more Federal control of citizens' Specific Concerns lands and lives. — Protection of historic railroading and — Fear of the loss of a way of life. tourism sites. — Additional costs to counties to help administer a Wild and Scenic corridor.

4-8 ˜ Chapter 4 — Recognition that the amenities of the — Memorandums of understanding (MOU) corridors may have a social and economic and Forest Land and Resource value in their own right. Management Plans do not provide the same permanent protection as — Unavailability of mineral resources or congressional designation. timber due to acts of government. — The public needs to be involved in — Fear of another layer of bureaucracy and developing and enforcing the waste of taxpayer's money. implementing agreements. There needs to The issue is: How to manage the corridors to be a third-party mechanism to enforce the protect and enhance the ORVs while agreement. minimizing social and economic impacts to — The public needs to be involved in local private landowners and the water periodic reviews of the implementation of providers and water users in the Denver and this decision. Colorado Springs metropolitan areas. — Can the finding of eligibility be IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT maintained if the SPPP is implemented? The South Platte Protection Plan would be — Can the SPPP be implemented and the implemented through a series of agreements decision on suitability delayed to allow for between the governmental agencies making evaluation of it’s effectiveness? commitments. Private parties, companies, organizations, and other entities that are not parties to the agreements could make use of the 4.3 DESCRIPTION OF Federal Administrative Procedures Act as an enforcement mechanism. The supplemental ALTERNATIVES material to the A2 proposal submitted in June of 2001 included proposed language for an This section presents the 10 alternatives amendment to the Forest Plan to further considered in detail. protect river values. This was seen as a mechanism for third-party enforcement on ALTERNATIVE A1 National Forest lands. The following issues were raised in the review process: This is the “no action” or “no change” alternative. It describes the existing situation — The Forest Service must retain the option and serves as a baseline to evaluate the other to recommend designation in the future if alternatives. Under this alternative, current a local alternative is selected but management of the river corridors would eventually is determined to not adequately continue under the Forest Plan, none of the protect the ORVs, water quality, or free- eligible study segments would be found suitable flow. for addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System or for any other special Federal — Should the SPPP be accepted just because designation (see table 4-1). Adoption of this likelihood of a successful designation alternative would mean that no new programs, recommendation is low? How would protection measures, or designations would be acceptance of the SPPP affect the implemented. There would be no further likelihood of a successful designation efforts to coordinate management activities in recommendation in the future? the corridors beyond what currently exists. The

Issues and Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative ˜ 4-9 corridor boundaries for Alternative A1 are The entire text of the SPPP is in Appendix A of shown in map 4-1. this document. Its major components are

summarized below. Table 4-1.—Alternatives A1, A2, and A3 – Segments Recommended for Designation 1. Protect Canyons. A commitment not Classifi- to build any water works facilities in Segment Length cation Description Cheesman Canyon or Elevenmile None 0 None No river segments Canyon. recommended recommended for designation 2. Streamflow Management Plan. A series of commitments and goals to alter current water facility operations to protect and enhance fisheries. The ALTERNATIVE A2 following are obligations to be met by This is the “no action with ORVs protected” the responsible parties:

alternative. It is an outgrowth of a concept originally posed as Alternative H during scoping a. No loss of existing or future water (See section 4.5), and it responds to an supply. expression of interest raised by the local community to find a local solution to the b. Minimum outflows from Spinney challenge of protecting the rivers' ORVs. The Mountain, Elevenmile, and purpose of the South Platte Protection Plan is Cheesman Reservoirs. The to protect the ORVs identified by the Forest minimum streamflow will be Service and preserve water supply functions measured at the streamflow gage without designating the river under the Wild directly below the reservoirs. and Scenic Rivers Act. These values are Aurora’s and Denver’s operating historical, fishery, geological, recreational, streamflow records will be the scenic, and wildlife resources. The SPPP also official record of the reservoir and recognizes that Colorado’s Front Range tunnel releases for the Streamflow communities rely heavily upon the South Platte Plan. These records will be available for drinking water supply and other municipal upon request. Denver’s releases for and industrial uses and that agriculture minimum streamflows will be throughout northeastern Colorado depends calculated by averaging the 24 “top- heavily on South Platte flows. The ORVs must of-the-hour” readings 8:00 a.m. one be protected in the context of preserving these day through 7:00 a.m. the nest day. functions as well. The interests of all these All top-of-the-hour gage readings communities can be maintained through must be no less than 80 percent of common dialogue toward an approach in which the minimum streamflow. Any daily the many values on the river—habitat, or hourly violation will result in a ecosystem, and human-based—can all be penalty of $10,000 per violation to addressed in coordination and balance with one be paid to the Endowment Fund another. Mutual respect for the many (see number 5 below). This is the important uses is central to the SPPP. It creates maximum penalty per daily period. a cooperative management structure of local, The penalty will be indexed to the State, and Federal agencies. The underlying principle is no loss of existing or future water supply.

4-10 ˜ Chapter 4

er env n D ita No ol rth F rop ork et So M a uth re Plat Pine Jct. A te R iver Buffalo Bailey Creek Strontia Springs Res.

Deckers

Cheesman Res.

Lake Woodland George Park

er iv R Elevenmile tte a Pl Res. h ut So

Map 4-1.—South Platte River and North Fork of the South Platte River Wild and Scenic River Study—Alternatives A1, A2, and A3.

No action — No segments are recommended for designation under these alternatives. See text for further details.

Issues and Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative ˜ 4-11

Consumer Price Index and adjusted f. Public input to annual operating each year at the annual operating plans. meeting. Any known failure to meet the minimum streamflow commit- g. Stream channel maintenance and ment will be reported to the Forest improvement: the Forest Service, Service and the Colorado Division Division of Wildlife, water users, of Wildlife within 1 week of and other interested parties work occurrence. Exemptions to this are: together to identify degraded stream channel areas and sedimentation — Minimum streamflows that are sources and develop instream due to emergencies where public channel improvement projects. safety or dam safety are Develop a stream habitat concerned and will be reported improvement plan. to the Forest Service. h. The following represent desirable — Severe drought conditions when outcomes and goals for water Aurora’s or Denver Water’s suppliers to use as guidance in their customers are on mandatory operating decisions. water use restrictions and the combined contents of Aurora’s — Operate Spinney Mountain, or Denver Water’s major storage Elevenmile, and Cheesman reservoirs are less than Reservoirs to release stored 40 percent full, the minimum water to maintain minimum outflow requirement at Spinney outflow when inflow is low. Mountain, Elevenmile, and — Operate Spinney Mountain, Cheesman reservoirs (as Elevenmile, and Cheesman appropriate) will be 20 cubic feet Reservoirs for outflows in an per second. optimum range the remainder of — The hourly minimum will not the year. apply when reservoirs are — Operate Elevenmile and spilling (the daily minimum still Cheesman outflow for optimal applies). Reservoir outflows temperatures and ramping of may be reduced below the daily temperature fluctuations to hourly minimum for up to benefit fisheries below the dams. 2 hours to rate, clean, and maintain the streamflow gaging — Consideration of whitewater and stations below the reservoirs. fisheries in Roberts Tunnel discharges, within the limitations c. Ramping (changing gradually) described in the Streamflow outflow changes from Elevenmile Management Plan. and Cheesman Reservoirs and the Roberts Tunnel. — Revise annual operating plans to limit fluctuations when the d. New valves, monitors, gages. potential exists to harm vulnerable life stages of brown e. Channel work on North Fork to be or rainbow trout. coordinated with Colorado Division of Wildlife. Future water projects, especially those that would significantly extend bank-full stream conditions, would require an

4-12 ˜ Chapter 4 analysis by the project proponent of composed of interested local channel capacity related to adequate governments, agencies, and parties in protection of fisheries habitat and the basin. This coalition (originally populations, channel stability, and the Upper South Platte Watershed maintenance of the ecosystem. The Protection Association) was triggered by new project proponent is responsible this proposal but is expected to for any necessary analysis and channel continue independent of the SPPP. reconstruction. Changes to channel capacity should be accomplished by 5. Endowment Fund. Front Range local physically reconstructing the channel governments and water suppliers would where necessary. These alterations contribute at least $1 million to be spent should be achieved by means other than on the values identified by the Forest flow manipulation in order to maintain Service. A board would be convened the ORVs in the river corridor. within 90 days following a decision by Proposals for flow and channel the Forest Service to adopt the SPPP in modification for new projects would be lieu of designation. The fund would be reviewed by the annual operations fully financed within 3 ½ years. meeting participants. 6. Enhancement Board. A coordinating 3. Partnership for Recreation, Wildlife, forum, possibly named the Friends of Scenery, and Other Values. A the South Platte River, Inc., would management partnership between a provide comments and responses on qualified recreation management agency activities such as land use or land and the Forest Service is proposed for management planning decisions, as well the mainstem of the river—from as deciding expenditures from the Elevenmile Reservoir to Chatfield endowment. Reservoir. Until the partnership is in 7. Withdrawal of 1986 Applications for place, the Forest Service, Denver Water, Conditional Storage Rights. Both Jefferson County, and Douglas County Denver Water and the Metropolitan would cooperatively manage portions of Denver Water Authority would the area. The SPPP proposes recreation withdraw Water Court applications for management by Jefferson County Open 780,000 acre-feet of additional storage at Space along portions of the North Fork, the Two Forks reservoir site. where the river flows through the park, and a special recreation area at Bailey 8. Alternative to Development of Canyon to be managed by the Forest Denver's Right-of-Way. Denver Service. (NOTE: The qualified Water and environmental groups have recreation management agency in the proposed a working relationship that SDLEIS was identified as Colorado could lead to alternative projects and State Parks. However, given the current allow Denver Water later to relinquish economy and the budget shortfall of the its 1931 right-of-way on the South Platte State of Colorado, the involvement of at the Two Forks site. As a State Parks in the foreseeable future demonstration of good faith in pursuing appears unlikely.) alternative projects, Denver Water would voluntarily impose a moratorium 4. Cooperative Water Quality on applications for development of the Initiatives would be implemented right-of-way for a period of 20 years through the Coalition for the Upper from formal acceptance of the SPPP. South Platte (CUSP), which is

Issues and Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative ˜ 4-13

9. Provision for Limited Development. Additional measures that might be employed In addition, Denver Water and other under this alternative to further protect the present and future water suppliers ORVs would include: would continue to have access to the river for operational and maintenance — Purchase of scenic easements, exchange purposes, such as channel repair and agreements, water rights, or rights-of-way stabilization, construction of from willing sellers, where needed, to sedimentation ponds and removal of better protect the area. sediment, and construction of diversion — Acquisition of properties in the study dams for off-channel reservoirs. It is corridor from willing sellers, through expected that such projects, if any, purchase or exchange, to ensure better would demonstrate, after mitigation, resource protection. the lack of significant long-term adverse effects on the resource values — County or other local government identified and protected by the Plan acquisition of additional properties for (Attachment F). park or open space from willing sellers in the study corridor. Enforcement of the SPPP would be provided by a written agreement between the Forest Service and those entities making commitments ALTERNATIVE A3: MODIFIED SOUTH within the SPPP. The agreement shall be PLATTE PROTECTION PLAN written in a manner to provide for enforcement through the Administrative Procedures Act by As described above, both the public and the citizens or groups with standing, using remedies Forest Service raised issues and concerns about similar to those that would be available if a river the South Platte Protection Plan. The Modified were designated under the WSRA. The agree- South Platte Protection Plan, Alternative A3, ment should provide for public participation in was developed to respond to those issues and the event of (1) significant changes to the writ- concerns. Alternative A3 builds on A2 by ten agreement, (2) leases to Colorado State adding provisions directly related to the issues Parks or other major concessionaires, (3) adop- listed above. It recognizes water supply as a use tion of a recreation management plan, or (4) of the river corridor to be continued while changes to any existing recreation management protecting the ORVs, water quality, and free- plan. In all such cases, the public should have flow. The basic principle of no effect on water the opportunity to ascertain and comment on yield or supply and the multi-agency consistency of the proposed changes with the management framework are maintained. SPPP. Further enforcement would be provided Alternative A3 is designed to more closely through an amendment to the Forest Plan, emulate the protection measures that would which would provide protection for the ORVs apply under a Wild and Scenic River designation and related resources on National Forest System utilizing existing Forest Service legal authorities. lands within the river corridor. For forest lands, The protection measures would be effective this could include providing special manage- only on National Forest lands. Non-National ment area status in the study corridor similar to Forest lands would continue to be managed what exists for the Elevenmile Canyon area. under the existing legal authorities implemented by other Federal, State, and local government This alternative is silent on a finding of agencies. suitability. By remaining silent, the Forest Service would continue to protect the ORVs, Major components of Alternative A3 are listed water quality, and free-flow on eligible below. segments.

4-14 ˜ Chapter 4 1. All new dams or impoundments in the 7. All parties to the MOU, with extensive river corridor on Federal land are public involvement, shall coordinate prohibited. management planning activities to address all river resources in an 2. Any proposals for limited water ecosystem management framework. development projects in the river The Forest Plan shall be used for corridor would be evaluated for management guidance on forest lands. potential effects to ORVs, free-flow, Private landowner concerns about and water quality. The standard of impacts from recreation users would be review and resultant degree to which addressed in this planning effort. eligibility is protected would depend on which variation of A3 is assumed for 8. The North Fork would be managed analysis. See the following section on consistently with the Forest Plan, “Variations.” emphasizing big game species’ winter range. Summer season dispersed 3. The Forest Service would work with recreation activities, with no road or Denver Water and the Colorado facility development, are compatible Division of Wildlife on stream with this management scheme. reconstruction and habitat improvement projects on the North Fork and 9. The special emphasis on managing mainstem of the South Platte River. forest lands for the benefit of the Pawnee montane skipper would 4. The Forest Service would work with continue even if the skipper’s Denver Water, the Coalition for the “endangered” status is downgraded to Upper South Platte (formerly the Upper “sensitive.” South Platte Protection Association), and other interest groups to conduct 10. The Forest Service would work with water quality restoration projects for interest groups to develop a sediment reduction and control, management plan for Wildcat Canyon addressing problems caused by road (Segment C) that addresses recreation maintenance, travel management, stream use, wildlife corridors, ORVs, and water crossings, and degraded areas (e.g., quality protection needs. Buffalo Creek and Hayman Fires). 11. For any individual projects 5. The alternative would be implemented implementing the cooperative through a MOU between the Forest management plan, the Forest Service Service and other concerned agencies, shall develop an agreement with the listing the commitments of all involved project proponent, whether the project parties. Citizen groups shall be involved is conducted by the project proponent with development of the MOU. alone or cooperatively with the Forest Service. 6. The potential interim cooperative recreation management agreement to 12. Any project funded by the Friends of include Forest Service, Denver Water, the South Platte River, Inc., to take Jefferson County, and Douglas County place on Forest Service lands, must first would be addressed in the implementa- be analyzed and approved by the Forest tion of this decision, as part of the Service. MOU development process.

Issues and Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative ˜ 4-15

13. Third party access to enforce the finding Wild and Scenic River System, but they are not of eligibility will be through the Forest recommended for designation at this time. The Plan. river corridor ORVs, free-flow, and water quality would be managed under a 14. The MOU shall include provisions for Federal/State/local government partnership citizen group involvement in periodic using existing legal authorities to protect management reviews of the decision eligibility. River corridor management would be implementation. monitored and periodically reviewed to ensure 15. The Record of Decision shall include continued protection. If partnership indicators to be used to measure management is found to have failed—i.e., if the changes to free-flow, ORVs, and water rivers’ ORVs, free-flow, or water quality quality. Indications that these values are become threatened—the Forest Service would being threatened shall be sufficient forward a designation recommendation for cause for the Forest Service to initiate a protection of the river corridor under the suitability determination. WSRA by an Act of Congress. A new dam proposal in the river corridor would trigger a 16. The Forest Service would apply to the designation recommendation, since the dam Bureau of Land Management to would be an imminent threat to the riverine withdraw the eligible river segments character, ORVs, and free-flow. from mineral entry and development. This action, once approved, would Forest Service management standards for prevent the filing of any new mining maintaining eligibility are in Forest Service claims or location notices in this area. Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 8, section 8.12 (see Existing claims would remain valid. Appendix G): 17. The Forest Plan would be amended as 1. To the extent the Forest Service is appropriate to reflect plan level aspects authorized under law (existing of Alternative A3. authorities only, not WSRA) to control stream impoundments and diversions, the free-flowing characteristics of the Variations identified river cannot be modified. The A2 process did not clearly identify whether 2. ORVs of the identified river area must the eligible segments were suitable for inclusion be protected and, to the extent in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Suit- practicable, enhanced. ability is a controversial topic because of its implications regarding long-term protection of 3. Management and development of the ORVs and the rigidity of protection standards identified river and its corridor cannot to be applied. In its review of the SPPP, the be modified to the degree that eligibility Forest Service found that it could not analyze or classification would be affected (i.e., the SPPP’s long-term protective merits classification cannot be changed from adequately without introducing the matter of wild to scenic or from scenic to suitability into the analysis. Accordingly, two recreational). variations of A3 were developed to represent a full range of suitability-related concepts for A3-Not Suitable.—Under this variation, eligible managing the South Platte and North Fork river river segments are found not suitable at this corridors. time due to the need for flexibility to accommodate reasonably foreseeable future A3-Suitable.—Under this variation, eligible river uses of the land and water which would be segments are found suitable for inclusion in the foreclosed or curtailed if the area were included,

4-16 ˜ Chapter 4 or found suitable for inclusion, in the Wild and be identified so that the project would meet the Scenic River System. The river corridor ORVs, management standards above to the extent free-flow, and water quality would be managed possible. under a Federal/State/local government partnership using existing legal authorities to a A major concern was raised about whether the standard that might be lower than one intended Forest Service might forgo any further to maintain eligibility. River corridor resources consideration of designation if a local alternative would be monitored to ensure continued were selected but was not successful in protection. If partnership management is found protecting the river. Alternative A3, therefore, to have failed—i.e., if the rivers’ ORVs, free- includes a provision addressing this concern by flow, or water quality become threatened creating a bilevel decision statement, which unreasonably—the Forest Service could initiate could be included in the Record of Decision. a new suitability determination at that time and The decision statement for each Alternative A3 reconsider a designation recommendation for variation is as follows. protection of the river corridor under the — A3-Suitable: The study area is WSRA. A new dam proposal in the river determined to be suitable for designation corridor would trigger a new suitability to the Wild and Scenic River System, but a determination since the dam would be an recommendation for designation would imminent threat to the riverine character, not be forwarded at this time. A ORVs, and free-flow. partnership of Federal, State, and local The management standards for maintaining government agencies would manage river corridor ORVs, free-flow, and water eligible segments of the river corridor to quality would be used as goals rather than maintain eligibility as required by the requirements. This variation would allow WSRA. If the partnership is not flexibility for limited project development that successful and the Forest Service finds was deemed critical enough to allow limited that eligibility is threatened, the Forest effects to the ORVs or free-flow. Forest Service would forward a designation Service concerns for project proposals would be recommendation at that time. the same as under the A3-Suitable alternative, — A3-Not Suitable: The study area is but there would be greater flexibility and range determined to be not suitable for of considerations possible under A3-Not designation to the Wild and Scenic River Suitable. Water quality would continue to be System at this time, and the study area is protected and enhanced to the standards released for multiple-use management. provided in the Clean Water Act and the Safe The area would be managed by a Drinking Water Act. partnership of Federal, State, and local Any proposals for limited developments would government agencies with the goal of be evaluated using the procedures in Forest protecting river values as much as Service Manual 2354 to analyze and document possible. If eligibility were threatened potential effects to ORVs, free-flow, or water beyond a limited or reasonable level, the quality. The full text of Forest Service Manual Forest Service would begin a new study to 2354 is in Appendix G of this final reanalyze suitability and would determine environmental impact statement (FEIS). at that time whether to recommend Project design and mitigation measures would designation for threatened portions of the rivers.

Issues and Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative ˜ 4-17

Summary of Public Involvement Features in ALTERNATIVE B Alternatives A2 and A3 Public involvement in management and Alternative B finds all eligible river segments oversight is a key element of the A2 and suitable and recommends them for designation at A3 alternatives. Alternative A2 includes: their most protective classifications. The goal of this alternative is to add all eligible river — Citizen and nongovernmental group segments to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System; representation on the Enhancement maximize protection and enhancement of Board, ORVs, free-flow, and water quality; and maintain system integrity. This alternative was — Open public meetings for the review of developed as a result of concerns about how to Denver Water’s and Aurora's annual ensure the best protection of the rivers’ natural operating plans, environment and ORVs. In this alternative, all of the eligible segments of the two study rivers, — Inclusion of area residents’ concerns in totaling 72.3 miles, would be recommended for the Recreation Management Plan process, addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers — Water-quality concerns addressed by the System (see map 4-2). Classification would be Upper South Platte Watershed Protection in accordance with the potential classifications Association, as listed in table 4-2 and would total 10.5 miles wild, 7.9 miles scenic, and 53.9 miles recreational. — Environmental group representation on Denver Water’s water development task The corridor boundaries would average one- force, quarter mile from each riverbank; the exact boundary location would be determined as part — Public involvement whenever significant of the management planning process after the changes in written agreements or leases river was designated. are proposed, or upon the adoption of a Recreation Management Plan, and ALTERNATIVE C — Enforcement of agreements through the Administrative Procedures Act by citizens Like Alternative B, Alternative C finds all or groups with standing. eligible river segments suitable and recommends them for designation. All segments are recom- Alternative A3 adds several more opportunities mended at their most protective classification, for public involvement to the A2 alternative: except that the classification of the 10.4-mile segment of the South Platte River from — Citizen and group involvement in Cheesman Reservoir to Beaver Creek would be developing an MOU for the implementing scenic for its entire length. The goal of this agencies, alternative is to add all eligible river segments to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, provide pro- — Citizen and group involvement in periodic tection and enhancement of the ORVs, main- reviews of selected alternative tain system integrity, and follow the current implementation, including consideration Forest Plan direction. This alternative was of pursuing a recommendation for developed as a result of concerns expressed by designation, and some stakeholders who wished to ensure pro- — Citizen and group involvement in tection of the river's natural environment and development of the Wildcat Canyon Plan. ORVs while allowing a wider range of natural resource management, including continued off- highway-vehicle use between Beaver Creek and

4-18 ˜ Chapter 4 Table 4-2.—Alternative B – Segments Recommended for Designation Length Segment (miles) Classification Description A and B - South Platte 16.4 Recreational From Elevenmile Dam (downstream from fence on Denver Water's special- use area) downstream to Beaver Creek (northernmost boundary of private land). C1 - South Platte 2.9 Wild From Beaver Creek downstream to 1/4 mile upstream of Hackett Gulch. C2 - South Platte 3.0 Scenic From 1/4 mile upstream of Hackett Gulch downstream to 1/4 mile downstream of Corral Creek. C3 - South Platte 4.5 Wild From 1/4 mile downstream of Corral Creek to high-water line of Cheesman Reservoir (upstream of the stream gage). D - South Platte 3.1 Wild From Cheesman Dam (downstream of the stream gage weir) downstream to Wigwam property (southern end). E - South Platte 19.5 Recreational From the Wigwam property downstream to the high water line of Strontia Springs Reservoir (6029-foot contour). H1 - North Fork 1.5 Recreational From Insmont downstream to Estabrook (downstream side of stone house). H2 - North Fork 4.9 Scenic From Estabrook downstream to Cliffdale (the section line between sections 29 and 30 east of Cliffdale). H3 - North Fork 16.5 Recreational From Cliffdale downstream to within 1/4 mile of the confluence with the South Platte River. Total 72.3

r ve en n D lita No po rth ro For et k So M a uth re Plat Pine Jct. A te R iver Buffalo Bailey Creek Strontia Springs Res. RECREATIONAL (16.5 mi.) (1.5 mi.) SCENIC (4.9 mi.)

RECREATIONAL (19.5 mi.)

Deckers WILD (3.1 mi.)

Cheesman WILD Res. (4.5 mi.)

SCENIC (3.0 mi.) Wildcat Canyon WILD (2.9 mi.)

RECREATIONAL (16.4 mi.) Lake Woodland George Park

er iv R Elevenmile tte a Pl Res. h ut So

Map 4-2.—South Platte River and North Fork of the South Platte River Wild and Scenic River Study—Alternative B.

Maximizes protection and enhancement of ORVs.

Issues and Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative ˜ 4-19

Cheesman Reservoir. In this alternative, all of The corridor boundaries would average one- the eligible segments of the two study rivers, quarter mile from each riverbank; the exact totaling 72.3 miles, would be recommended for boundary location would be determined as part addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers of the management planning process after the System. Classification would be in accordance river was designated. with potential classifications as listed in table 4-3 and would total 3.1 miles wild, ALTERNATIVE F 15.3 miles scenic, and 53.9 miles recreational (map 4-3). Alternative F recommends the designation of one small segment on the North Fork and four The corridor boundaries would average one- small segments on the South Platte that are quarter mile from each riverbank; the exact entirely on National Forest System land and boundary location would be determined as part have no encumbrances. The goal of this of the management planning process after the alternative is to protect the ORVs while river was designated. minimizing the potential and/or perceived effects of designation on private property rights ALTERNATIVE D and on Denver Water’s ability to exercise its 1931 right-of-way for a reservoir from the Alternative D finds all eligible South Platte confluence of the North Fork and the South River segments suitable and recommends them Platte to Deckers. for designation at their most protective classification, but finds the North Fork not In this alternative, five segments of the two suitable for designation. The goal of this rivers, totaling 26.2 miles, would be alternative is to add all eligible South Platte recommended for addition to the National Wild River segments to the Wild and Scenic Rivers and Scenic Rivers System. Only National System, maximizing protection and Forest System lands within the following enhancement of the ORVs and maintaining segments would be recommended for the system integrity. This alternative was developed classifications shown below: as a result of concerns to ensure the best protection of the South Platte River's natural — North Fork, Estabrook to Crossons — environment and ORVs. The chief Scenic assumptions underlying this alternative are that: — South Platte, Elevenmile Dam to Lake George — Recreational 1. The current operations of the Roberts Tunnel might be affected by designation — South Platte, Tappan Gulch to Vermillion either on the North Fork; and Creek — Recreational 2. The influence of transbasin diversions is — South Platte, Beaver Creek and Cheesman greater on the North Fork than on the Reservoir — Wild South Platte. — South Platte, Cheesman Dam to the Wigwam property — Wild In this alternative, all eligible segments on the South Platte River, totaling 49.4 miles, would be Classification would be in accordance with recommended for addition to the National Wild potential classifications as listed in table 4-5 and and Scenic Rivers System. Classification would would total 10.5 miles wild, 5.6 miles scenic, and be in accordance with potential classifications as 10.1 miles recreational (map 4-5). listed in table 4-4 and would total 10.5 miles wild, 3.0 miles scenic, and 35.9 miles recreational (map 4-4).

4-20 ˜ Chapter 4 Table 4-3.—Alternative C – Segments Recommended for Designation

Length Classifi- Segment (miles) cation Description A and B - South Platte 16.4 Recreational From Elevenmile Dam (downstream from fence on Denver Water's special- use area) downstream to Beaver Creek (northernmost boundary of private land). C - South Platte 10.4 Scenic From Beaver Creek downstream to high-water line of Cheesman Reservoir (upstream of the stream gage). D - South Platte 3.1 Wild From Cheesman Dam (downstream of the stream gage weir) downstream to Wigwam property (southern end). E - South Platte 19.5 Recreational From the Wigwam property downstream to the high water line of Strontia Springs Reservoir (6029-foot contour). H1 - North Fork 1.5 Recreational From Insmont downstream to Estabrook (downstream side of stone house). H2 - North Fork 4.9 Scenic From Estabrook downstream to Cliffdale (the section line between sections 29 and 30 east of Cliffdale). H3 - North Fork 16.5 Recreational From Cliffdale downstream to within 1/4 mile of the confluence with the South Platte River. Total 72.3

er nv e an D lit No po rth F ro ork et So M a uth re Plat Pine Jct. A te R iver Buffalo Bailey Creek Strontia Springs Res. (16.5 mi.) RECREATIONAL (1.5 mi.) SCENIC (4.9 mi.)

RECREATIONAL (19.5 mi.)

Deckers WILD (3.1 mi.)

Cheesman Res.

SCENIC (10.4 mi.) Wildcat Canyon

RECREATIONAL (16.4 mi.) Lake Woodland George Park

r ive R Elevenmile tte a Pl Res. h ut So

Map 4-3.—South Platte River and North Fork of the South Platte River Wild and Scenic River Study—Alternative C.

Protects and enhances ORVs while allowing for off-highway vehicle use in Wildcat Canyon south of Cheesman Reservoir.

Issues and Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative ˜ 4-21

Table 4-4.—Alternative D – Segments Recommended for Designation Length Segment (miles) Classification Description A and B - South 16.4 Recreational From Elevenmile Dam (downstream from fence on Denver Water's Platte special-use area) downstream to Beaver Creek (northernmost boundary of private land). C1 - South Platte 2.9 Wild From Beaver Creek downstream to 1/4 mile upstream of Hackett Gulch. C2 - South Platte 3.0 Scenic From 1/4 mile upstream of Hackett Gulch downstream to 1/4 mile downstream of Corral Creek. C3 - South Platte 4.5 Wild From 1/4 mile downstream of Corral Creek to high-water line of Cheesman Reservoir (upstream of the stream gage). D - South Platte 3.1 Wild From Cheesman Dam (downstream of the stream gage weir) downstream to Wigwam property (southern end). E - South Platte 19.5 Recreational From the Wigwam property downstream to high-water line of Strontia Springs Reservoir (6029-foot contour). Total 49.4

er nv e an D lit No po rth F ro ork et So M a uth re Plat Pine Jct. A te R iver Buffalo Bailey Creek Strontia Springs Res.

RECREATIONAL (19.5 mi.)

Deckers WILD (3.1 mi.)

Cheesman WILD Res. (4.5 mi.)

SCENIC (3.0 mi.) Wildcat Canyon WILD (2.9 mi.)

RECREATIONAL (16.4 mi.) Lake Woodland George Park

r ive R Elevenmile tte a Pl Res. h ut So

Map 4-4.—South Platte River and North Fork of the South Platte River Wild and Scenic River Study—Alternative D.

Provides for (protection and enhancement of ORVs and (2) water delivery, by recommending the South Platte for designation while not recommending the North Fork.

4-22 ˜ Chapter 4 Table 4-5.—Alternative F – Segments Recommended for Designation

Length Segment (miles) Classification Description A - South Platte 8.1 Recreational From Elevenmile Dam (downstream from fence on Denver Water's special-use area) downstream to Lake George (southern boundary of private property upstream from Lake George, not including Boy Scout Camp Alexander). B - South Platte 2.0 Recreational National Forest System land between Tappan Gulch and Vermillion Creek. C1 - South Platte 2.9 Wild From Beaver Creek downstream to 1/4 mile upstream of Hackett Gulch. C2 - South Platte 3.0 Scenic From 1/4 mile upstream of Hackett Gulch downstream to 1/4 mile downstream of Corral Creek. C3 - South Platte 4.5 Wild From 1/4 mile downstream of Corral Creek to high-water line of Cheesman Reservoir (upstream of the stream gage). D - South Platte 3.1 Wild From Cheesman Dam (downstream of the stream gage weir) downstream to Wigwam property (southern end). H - North Fork 2.6 Scenic From National Forest System lands downstream from Estabrook, downstream to Pike National Forest Boundary. Total 26.1

er nv e an D lit No po rth ro For et k So M a uth re Plat Pine Jct. A te R iver Buffalo Bailey Creek Strontia Springs Res.

SCENIC (2.6 mi.)

Deckers WILD (3.1 mi.)

Cheesman WILD Res. (4.5 mi.)

SCENIC (3.0 mi.) Wildcat Canyon WILD (2.9 mi.)

(2.0 mi.) RECREATIONAL Lake Woodland George Park

(8.1 mi.) r ive R Elevenmile tte a Pl Res. h ut So

Map 4-5.—South Platte River and North Fork of the South Platte River Wild and Scenic River Study—Alternative F.

Maximizes protection and enhancement of ORVs on Federal lands only.

Issues and Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative ˜ 4-23

The corridor boundaries would average one- ALTERNATIVE I quarter mile from each riverbank; the exact boundary location would be determined as part Alternative I recommends a scenic designation of the management planning process after the for the 6.0-mile stretch of the South Platte River river was designated. from Corral Creek to Beaver Creek and a recreational designation for the 16.4-mile stretch of the South Platte from Beaver Creek to ALTERNATIVE G Elevenmile Dam. This alternative finds the Alternative G finds all eligible segments of the North Fork and Segments C3, D, and E of the South Platte upstream from the gaging station South Platte River not suitable for designation. above Cheesman Reservoir (26.8 miles) suitable The goal of this alternative is similar to that of and recommends them for designation at their Alternative G: to protect and enhance most protective classification. This alternative ORVs upstream from Corral Creek while finds the North Fork and Segments D and E of lessening the potential and/or perceived effects the South Platte River not suitable for of designation on private property rights and on designation. The goal of this alternative is to Denver Water’s ability to exercise its 1931 right- provide protection for some of the ORVs while of-way for a reservoir from the confluence of lessening the potential and/or perceived effects the North Fork and South Platte to Deckers. of designation on private property rights and on This alternative also provides for the protection Denver Water’s ability to exercise its 1931 right- and enhancement of ORVs upstream from of-way for a reservoir from the confluence of Corral Creek while allowing for the possibility the North Fork and the South Platte to of additional water storage (especially from a Deckers. It also allows for continued off- potential Cheesman expansion) and facilitates highway vehicle use between Beaver Creek and continued water delivery, current water Cheesman Reservoir. operations, and channel maintenance. It also would allow the continued use of off-highway The chief assumptions underlying this vehicles between Beaver Creek and Corral alternative are that: Creek. 1. The current operations of the Roberts The goal of this alternative is to designate only Tunnel might be affected by designation those South Platte River segments for which either on the North Fork or on the Wild and Scenic River designation would have mainstem between the confluence and the least potential adverse effect on water Strontia Springs Reservoir; delivery and potential storage. The chief assumptions of this alternative are that: 2. The influence of transbasin diversions is greater on the North Fork than on the 1. The current operations of the Roberts South Platte; and Tunnel might be affected by designation either on the North Fork or on the 3. Potential storage sites downstream from mainstem between the confluence and Cheesman Reservoir would be Strontia Springs Reservoir; foreclosed by designation. 2. The influence of transbasin diversions is Classification would be in accordance with greater on the North Fork than on the potential classifications as listed in table 4-6 and South Platte; and would total 7.4 miles wild, 3.0 miles scenic, and 16.4 miles recreational (map 4-6). 3. Potential storage sites downstream from Corral Creek would be foreclosed by designation.

4-24 ˜ Chapter 4 Table 4-6.—Alternative G – Segments Recommended for Designation Length Segment (miles) Classification Description A and B - South Platte 16.4 Recreational From Elevenmile Dam (downstream from fence on Denver Water's special-use area) downstream to Beaver Creek (northernmost boundary of private land). C1 - South Platte 2.9 Wild From Beaver Creek downstream to 1/4 mile upstream of Hackett Gulch. C2 - South Platte 3.0 Scenic From 1/4 mile upstream of Hackett Gulch downstream to 1/4 mile downstream of Corral Creek. C3 - South Platte 4.5 Wild From 1/4 mile downstream of Corral Creek to high-water line of Cheesman Reservoir (upstream of the stream gage). Total 26.8

er nv e an D lit No po rth F ro ork et So M a uth re Plat Pine Jct. A te R iver Buffalo Bailey Creek Strontia Springs Res.

Deckers

WILD Cheesman WILD Res. (4.5 mi.)

SCENIC (3.0 mi.) Wildcat Canyon WILD (2.9 mi.)

RECREATIONAL (16.4 mi.) Lake Woodland George Park

r ive R Elevenmile te at Pl Res. h ut So

Map 4-6.—South Platte River and North Fork of the South Platte River Wild and Scenic River Study—Alternative G.

Maximizes protection and enhancement of ORVs on areas of the South Platte River upstream from Denver Water’s reservoir right-of-way.

Issues and Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative ˜ 4-25

Classification would be in accordance with The goal of this alternative is to provide potential classifications as listed in table 4-7 and protection and enhancement of the ORVs would total 6.0 miles scenic and 16.4 miles and maintain the integrity of the water-delivery recreational (map 4-7). system. This alternative was developed to balance the concerns for maintaining water The corridor boundaries would average one- delivery and storage capability with the quarter mile from each riverbank; the exact protecttion of the area's natural environment boundary location would be determined as part and ORVs while still meeting present uses. of the management planning process after the The chief assumptions underlying this river was designated. alternative are that:

ALTERNATIVE J 1. The current operations of the Roberts Tunnel might be affected by designation Alternative J finds the North Fork and 1.3 miles either on the North Fork or on the of the mainstem of the South Platte River from mainstem between the confluence and the confluence to Strontia Springs Reservoir not Strontia Springs Reservoir; suitable for designation but finds portions of the South Platte River from the confluence of the 2. The influence of transbasin diversions is North Fork to Elevenmile Dam suitable and greater on the North Fork than on the recommends them for designation into the South Platte; and National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 3. The ORVs identified in Segment E are Recommended classifications are: not as prevalent in the section between — From North Fork confluence to the the confluence with the North Fork and Wigwam Club property — Recreational Strontia Springs Reservoir. — From Wigwam Club property to In this alternative, all eligible segments on the Cheesman Dam — Wild South Platte River, except from the confluence to Strontia Springs Reservoir, would be — From Cheesman Reservoir to one-quarter recommended for addition to the National Wild mile downstream of Corral Creek — Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Classification would — From one-quarter mile downstream of be in accordance with potential classifications as Corral Creek to one-quarter mile listed in table 4-8 and would total 10.5 miles upstream of Hackett Gulch — Scenic wild, 3.0 miles scenic, and 34.6 miles recreational (map 4-8). — From one-quarter mile upstream of Hackett Gulch to Beaver Creek The corridor boundaries would average one- confluence — Wild quarter mile from each riverbank; the exact boundary location would be determined as part — From Beaver Creek confluence to of the management planning process after the Elevenmile Dam — Recreational river was designated.

4-26 ˜ Chapter 4 Table 4-7.—Alternative I – Segments Recommended for Designation Length Segment (miles) Classification Description A and B - South Platte 16.4 Recreational From Elevenmile Dam (downstream from fence on Denver Water's special-use area) downstream to Beaver Creek (northernmost boundary of private land). C - South Platte 6.0 Scenic From Beaver Creek downstream to Corral Creek. Total 22.4

er nv e an D lit No po rth ro For et k So M a uth re Plat Pine Jct. A te R iver Buffalo Bailey Creek Strontia Springs Res.

Deckers

Cheesman Res.

SCENIC Wildcat Canyon (6.0 mi.)

RECREATIONAL (16.4 mi.) Lake Woodland George Park

er iv R Elevenmile tte a Pl Res. h ut So

Map 4-7.—South Platte River and North Fork of the South Platte River Wild and Scenic River Study—Alternative I.

Protects and enhances ORVs on areas of the South Platte River upstream from potential expansion of Cheesman Reservoir, while allowing for off-highway vehicle use in Wildcat Canyon south of Cheesman Reservoir.

Issues and Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative ˜ 4-27

Table 4-8.—Alternative J – Segments Recommended for Designation

Length Segment (miles) Classification Description A and B - South Platte 16.4 Recreational From Elevenmile Dam (downstream from fence on Denver Water's special-use area) downstream to Beaver Creek (northernmost boundary of private land). C1 - South Platte 2.9 Wild From Beaver Creek downstream to 1/4 mile upstream of Hackett Gulch. C2 - South Platte 3.0 Scenic From 1/4 mile upstream of Hackett Gulch downstream to 1/4 mile downstream of Corral Creek. C3 - South Platte 4.5 Wild From 1/4 mile downstream of Corral Creek to high-water line of Cheesman Reservoir (upstream of the stream gage). D - South Platte 3.1 Wild From Cheesman Dam (downstream of the stream gage weir) downstream to Wigwam property (southern end). E - South Platte 18.2 Recreational From the Wigwam property downstream to confluence with the North Fork (excludes section from confluence to high-water line of Strontia Springs Reservoir). Total 48.1

r ve en n D lita No po rth ro For et k So M a uth re Plat Pine Jct. A te R iver Buffalo Bailey Creek Strontia Springs Res.

RECREATIONAL (18.2 mi.)

Deckers WILD (3.1 mi.)

Cheesman WILD Res. (4.5 mi.)

SCENIC (3.0 mi.) Wildcat Canyon WILD (2.9 mi.)

RECREATIONAL (16.4 mi.) Lake Woodland George Park

r e iv R Elevenmile te at Pl Res. h ut So

Map 4-8.—South Platte River and North Fork of the South Platte River Wild and Scenic River Study—Alternative J.

Provides for (1) protection and enhancement of ORVs and (2) water delivery by recommending the South Platte for designation while not recommending designation on the North Fork. Also, allows for current off-highway vehicle use in Wildcat Canyon south of Cheesman Reservoir.

4-28 ˜ Chapter 4 r ve en n D lita No po rth ro For et k So M a uth re Plat Pine Jct. A te R iver Buffalo Bailey Creek Strontia Springs Res.

Management area established in 2003

Deckers

Cheesman Res.

Management area established in 1984

Lake Woodland George Park

r e iv R Elevenmile tte a Pl Res. h ut So

Map 4-9.—South Platte River and North Fork of the South Platte River Wild and Scenic River Study—Preferred Alternative, Forest Plan Amendment.

Amends the Forest Plan to establish a new management area designated to protect river values in eligible segments identified by this study. The amendment’s direction applies to both the new management area and the one established in 1984.

Issues and Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative ˜ 4-29

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE entering into an agreement, such as passing corporate resolutions to that effect. The Forest Service intends to protect the The Preferred Alternative also considers criteria outstandingly remarkable values, free-flow and for determining whether the SPPP is actually water quality of eligible segments of the South being implemented and working properly. At a Platte River through the cooperative process minimum these criteria are: described in Alternative A2 with Forest Service 1. Within 6 months of the Forest Service legal authorities added as described in decision, potential contributors certify to Alternative A3. The river corridor’s ORVs, the Forest Service that they intend to free-flow, and water quality are to be managed contribute to the Fund and support the under a Federal/State/local government SPPP. partnership as outlined in the South Platte Protection Plan (Appendix A). See map 4-9. 2. The various periodic coordination meetings identified in the SPPP are being held. An The agency is not completing the Wild and example is the meetings under the Scenic River suitability study at this time to Streamflow Management Plan. allow for a period of review of the adequacy of the SPPP. The Forest Service will, however, 3. Within 3½ years of the Forest Service amend the Forest Plan (see below) to maintain decision, the Endowment Fund is fully the findings of eligibility and classification to the funded, as outlined in the SPPP. (This is maximum extent possible under its existing the period prescribed by the SPPP for authorities. Guidance for protection of an reaching full financing.) eligible river is found in Forest Manual 1924.03 If these criteria are met, the Forest Service and Forest Service Handbook 1909.12-92-1, could conclude that the SPPP has been section 8.12 (see Appendix G of this implemented. If not, it may have to conclude document). River corridor management will be that the SPPP has too little local support to be a monitored and periodically reviewed to ensure viable alternative, in which case, the agency will continued protection of free-flow, ORVs, and consider reopening the river study process and water quality. The monitoring program will rely making a determination regarding suitability. on current indicators and the standards and Further, if monitoring over time indicates that guidelines from the Forest Plan. the ORV’s, free-flow or water quality are being Both Alternatives A2 and A3 envision the threatened, the Forest Service may similarly find development of agreements among participating it necessary to reopen the river study and interests as part of implementing the SPPP. suitability determination process. However, under the Preferred Alternative such agreements are not considered mandatory, for these reasons: (1) As a matter of enforcement, BASIS FOR THE PREFERRED the Forest Service is accountable to adhere to ALTERNATIVE agency policy regarding protection of eligibility whether it enters into other agreements or not. In the SDLEIS, the Forest Service analyzed the (2) Such agreements are voluntary undertakings SPPP as a part of a Wild and Scenic River and signatories are able to withdraw if needed. suitability determination. However, comments (3) While the Forest Service needs early on the SDLEIS indicated it is not timely to confirmation from entities contributing to the conclude the Wild and Scenic River study, Endowment Fund that they intend to pending implementation and evaluation of the contribute to the Fund and support the SPPP, SPPP. Given that the South Platte Wild and confirmation can be made in more ways than by Scenic River study was initiated by the Forest Service, there is no required timeframe for

4-30 ˜ Chapter 4 completing the study. A decision on suitability — The Forest Service can protect ORVs, is not being made at this time so that the SPPP free-flow and water quality under the can be given a chance to demonstrate whether it auspices of the National Forest is a reasonable substitute to designation under Management Act. the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. — It has very few conflicts with existing At this time, no activities are being proposed uses. that might threaten ORVs, free-flow, or water quality (recognizing that unknowns exist as a — Except as affected by the Hayman Fire, it result of the Hayman Fire). However, such a ensures the protection of the South proposal remains a possibility; ir or when one is Platte's current fisheries population and submitted, it will provide a meaningful test of habitat, and the current mix of dispersed the SPPP’s effectiveness. Following review of and developed recreation use in the river the proposal under the SPPP’s auspices, a corridor. conclusion will emerge whether the proposal is — By maintaining the finding of eligibility consistent with the SPPP’s goals. The Forest without making a finding on suitability at Service will then also need to review the this time, all river interests are ensured proposal to determine whether it is consistent involvement in the cooperative with the agency’s policy (see above) of management and protection of the river maintaining eligibility. If not, a decision corridor. Implementation of the regarding suitability may become necessary. In Streamflow Protection Plan will further essence, that decision would establish the enhance fisheries habitat and the agency’s position whether the merits of the whitewater recreational experience. The proposal outweigh the values threatened by it or additional costs of developing a visa versa. If by that time this EIS has become comprehensive river management plan stale, a new NEPA document may need to be under designation would be avoided. developed and released. Until that time comes, a decision on suitability does not need to be made. DRAFT FOREST PLAN This approach was selected over the other alternatives because: AMENDMENT — It has the best prospect of success for MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENT: WILD protecting river values by striking a AND SCENIC RIVER MANAGEMENT reasonable balance between strong proponents for finding all segments The following replaces the direction in the suitable and worthy of designation, and current Forest Plan found on pages III-16 and strong opponents of any designation at all. III-17. In this manner it maintains a broad base The following river segments have been of support for cooperative management determined eligible for a suitability evaluation of the river corridor. for designation as a Wild and Scenic River: — To the extent of Forest Service authorities and cooperator participation, it ensures — South Platte River from below Elevenmile protection of the ORVs, free-flow, and Dam to the high water line of Cheesman water quality for which these segments Reservoir, and below Cheesman Dam to were found eligible. the high-water line of Strontia Springs Reservoir (49.4 total miles), and

Issues and Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative ˜ 4-31

— North Fork of the South Platte River d. Prohibit construction of roads from Insmont (upstream end of Berger within the river study area if it property) to the confluence with the would have direct and adverse mainstem of the South Platte River effects on the values which make (22.9 miles). the river eligible for potential inclusion into the National System. The boundaries extend one-fourth mile on each side of the river segments. Pending the e. Maintain current motorized access suitability study and recommendation, the study character and avoid any changes to area will be protected to preserve its the potential Wild and Scenic River characteristics, which make it eligible. classification. 1. Protect river segments that have been f. Maintain free-flowing characteristics determined eligible for potential and water quality during the study addition to the National Wild and and congressional review period. Scenic Rivers System from activities which could diminish or change the g. Manage tree stands within the study free-flowing character, water quality, or area to maintain or enhance the scenic, recreational, fish and wildlife, potential Wild and Scenic River and other values which make the river values. Protect scenic values by eligible for designation. sizing and shaping timber harvest units to achieve a natural appearance a. Request that Federal lands which and to harmonize with the constitute the bed or bank, or which surrounding landscape. are within one-quarter mile of either bank, be temporarily withdrawn h. Prohibit special uses or permitted from appropriation and entry under land uses which degrade or have the mining laws. Withdrawal should directly adverse effects on values continue until the river segment is which make the river segment a) found to be ineligible; b) not eligible. recommended for inclusion in the i. None of this direction shall abrogate National System; or c) added to the any existing privileges or contracts system by Act of Congress. affecting National Forest System b. Safeguard the values of the river lands held by any private party area by appropriate conditions and without consent of said party. stipulations in leases, permits, and Activities affecting the applicability licenses, including prospecting, of the United States mining and issued under terms of the mineral mineral leasing laws are subject to leasing laws. valid existing rights. c. Extraction of salable, common- 2. Activities and facilities will be consistent variety minerals from the river or with the adopted Recreation the study area shall not be Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and with authorized until the study is potential river classification in eligible complete and recommended actions segments. See map 4-10. are enacted.

4-32 ˜ Chapter 4 r ve en n D lita No po rth ro For et k So M a uth re Plat Pine Jct. A te R iver Buffalo Bailey Creek Strontia Springs Res. Rural Semi-primitive Rural non-motorized

Deckers Semi-primitive non-motorized

Cheesman Semi-primitive Res. non-motorized

Semi-primitive motorized Wildcat Canyon Semi-primitive non-motorized

Rural Lake Woodland George Roaded Park Natural r e iv R Elevenmile tte a Pl Res. h ut So

Map 4-10.—South Platte River and North Fork of the South Platte River Wild and Scenic River Study—ROS Objectives.

Shows ROS Objectives for various segments of the study area.

3. In high-use Semi-primitive Motorized events or persons, their distinctive and Semi-primitive Non-motorized architectural and engineering areas, consider designating backcountry characteristics, or their intrinsic camping sites and restricting use to scientific data. those sites. 7. Fire lines should not be constructed 4. Activities and facilities will meet with heavy equipment unless necessary designated Visual Quality Objectives to save lives or property or to prevent (VQOs). See map 4-11. resource damage. 5. Integrate trail systems with other 8. If the free-flowing character, water government entities, partners and quality, or the scenic, recreational, private landowners adjacent to the fisheries, wildlife, and geological forest. outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs) that make the river eligible for 6. Preserve and protect significant historic, designation are found to decline or archaeological, and paleontological when significant action may impact resources for their association with

Issues and Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative ˜ 4-33

r ve en n D lita No po rth ro For et k So M a uth re Plat Pine Jct. A te R iver Buffalo Bailey Creek Strontia Springs Res. Modification Modification Preservation

Partial Retention

Deckers Retention

Cheesman Preservation Res.

Partial Retention Wildcat Canyon Preservation

Partial Lake Woodland Retention George Park

er iv R Elevenmile te at Pl Res. h ut So

Map 4-11.—South Platte River and North Fork of the South Platte River Wild and Scenic River Study—VQOs.

Shows VQOs for various segments of the study area.

eligibility or potential classification in require a change in management planning for any of the eligible segments, the Forest the river, so proposed language for an Service with participating parties should amendment to the Forest Plan is being included cooperate to address the threat to the with this FEIS. The current language in the values. Forest Plan includes the finding of eligibility for the river segments above Cheesman Reservoir. The amendment will incorporate the finding of eligibility for the sections of the river: PROCESS AND PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE FEIS — 22.7 miles of the South Platte from below Cheesman Dam to the high line of After the public comment period for the Strontia Springs Reservoir; and SDLEIS, further analysis was incorporated into the document. — 29 miles of the North Fork from Insmont to the confluence with the South Platte. The finding by the Forest Supervisor for the Pike, San Isabel National Forests to protect the ORVs through a cooperative process will

4-34 ˜ Chapter 4 The amendment will also incorporate a change needs in the river corridor. This language, in classification for a section of river above developed through public dialog, would have Cheesman Reservoir. been included in a recommendation for designation under the WSRA. The intent of After the 30-day comment period, this FEIS this alternative was to accomplish the following: and Plan Amendment may be revised, and a Record of Decision will be released. The Plan — Capture agreements that developed during Amendment will revise the Forest Plan to the A2 process. complement the SPPP on National Forest System lands. The Forest Plan will be the — Reduce uncertainty by resolving the vehicle to implement the preferred alternative, suitability matter through legislation. including development of final boundaries for Uncertainty would be reduced in these the river corridors and a monitoring plan to ways: ensure that the ORVs are protected. ƒ For Denver metropolitan area water providers, by defining where strict COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES protection of ORVs would be applied and where greater flexibility would be Appendix B offers a point-by-point comparison available for limited development to of the provisions of all the alternatives. This meet water supply needs. comparative format allows the reader to more easily identify the differences between the ƒ For environmental concerns, by alternatives, including the key issues. providing for long-term protection of river values that can be enforced by all Federal agencies. — Enable the Forest Service to implement 4.4 ALTERNATIVES NOT the alternative much more efficiently than is possible under the A2, A3-Suitable, or CONSIDERED IN DETAIL AND A3-Not Suitable alternatives, because the ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER authorities are clear and direct under the TUDY WSRA for cooperation with State and S local government agencies. This section describes the alternatives that were This alternative received little or no support identified during the study process but from the public and was found not to meet the eliminated from further study. intent of the WSRA.

DESIGNATION WITH LEGISLATIVE DESIGNATION WITH STATE LANGUAGE TO ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY ADMINISTRATION FOR LIMITED WATER DEVELOPMENT Since the State of Colorado does not have any This alternative was identified in the SDLEIS as State Scenic Waterway or State Protected River the Preferred Alternative. It involved a System legislation and the Forest Service designation scenario that embraced the manages the majority of the lands in the study flexibility of Alternative A3-Not Suitable where corridors, this alternative was eliminated from needed for water supply purposes. The key further study. Private lands make up about one- feature here was some yet-to-be-developed third of the study corridor, and some segments legislative language, which would establish of the study corridor contain little or no private limitations on development to protect river land. Even less acreage is under county values while addressing future development management. The State and the counties were

Issues and Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative ˜ 4-35

not interested, at this time, in serving as the lead 1. All other action alternatives provided agency for managing or administering the study better resource protection, corridor under the WSRA. 2. No specific alternative was put forth by any government agency during scoping, NATIONAL RECREATION AREA DESIGNATION 3. the general proposals that were presented received little public support, Designation of the study corridor and portions of adjacent lands as a National Recreation Area, 4. State administration could result in extra instead of Wild and Scenic River designation, costs and potential conflicts in an area was considered but eliminated from further that currently is managed mostly by the study. This concept received little or no U.S. Forest Service, and support during public scoping. In addition, a 5. Some form of special area designation National Recreation Area designation would could be considered in more detail impose even greater restrictions on private land under Alternative A2. usage than would a Wild and Scenic River designation. DEVELOPMENT OF AN ADVISORY OR RIVER MANAGEMENT BOARD SPECIAL LEGISLATION TO PREVENT FEDERALLY APPROVED OR ASSISTED An alternative based solely on the development DAMS of a formal advisory board to better manage and protect the river and the associated corridor by The concept of special legislation addressing improving coordination of those involved in the only the issue of dam construction was use of the area was considered but eliminated considered but not carried forward in the from detailed study. Under this alternative, the analysis process because its impacts would be study corridor would not be added to the similar to those of the alternatives National Wild and Scenic Rivers System but, recommending designation. With little or no instead, a formal advisory board or River public support during the scoping process, Management Board would be established to special legislation was determined to be an better protect the area in addition to the existing uncertain process, at this time, to recommend mechanisms and management plans currently in and carry through to implementation. place. The board would develop a management plan and provide an ongoing forum for SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA coordination and oversight of river DESIGNATION ADMINISTERED BY THE management activities. FOREST SERVICE OR THE STATE OF Development of a river management board as COLORADO the primary emphasis of an alternative was Various alternatives seeking congressional eliminated from further detailed study because: approval for special area designation (National 1. The Board, by itself, would have little, if River, National Heritage River, etc.) or seeking any, authority to implement its State designation and administration of a special recommendations and, thus, could not area (such as on the Arkansas River), in lieu of ensure protection of the ORVs. Wild and Scenic River designation, were considered but eliminated from detailed study 2. Additional advisory board or because management direction, without other

4-36 ˜ Chapter 4 agreements, would not prevent Most people favored either designation or non- inundation by reservoirs. designation of the entire South Platte study corridor. Alternatives B, C, D, and J already 3. A River Management Board, along with include all of the area described in other protective measures, could be Alternative E, and there were no public incorporated into Alternative A2 or concerns about the area between Strontia other alternatives. Springs Reservoir and Cheesman Dam that were not already addressed in other alternatives. OTHER COMBINATIONS OF RIVER CLASSIFICATIONS Alternative H All river segments were considered at their most This “cooperative management” alternative was protective classifications in Alternative B and at listed early in the analysis process. It arose in less protective classifications in other direct response to an instruction in the WSRA alternatives, based on public scoping. Several to consider measures to protect the area's ORVs other combinations of potential river without Wild and Scenic River designation. The classifications were also considered for Forest Service felt that Alternative H, as designation but were eliminated from detailed described, was insufficiently detailed to evaluate study because: its ability to ensure the protection of the area's ORVs. The general concept of this alternative 1. Most of the potential classifications is embodied in Alternative A2. were already covered by Alternatives B, C, D, F, G, I, and J. THE SOUTH PLATTE PROTECTION 2. No comments or key issues identified PLAN’S VERSION OF THE FOREST PLAN the need to reduce the protection of AMENDMENT other potential classifications. The South Platte Protection Plan contains a Alternative E proposed amendment to the Forest Plan (Attachment G to Appendix A). Most of the This alternative recommended the addition of items in the amendment came from a menu two segments of the South Platte River to the being used by Forests in Region Two that are National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: going through the Plan revision process. SPPP participants developed the proposed 1. A segment from downstream Cheesman amendment independent of Forest Service Dam to the Wigwam property, classified review and comment. as wild, and After reviewing the amendment following its 2. A segment between the Wigwam submission the Forest Service concluded that, property and Scraggy View classified while it addressed protection of values recreational. Its purpose was to adequately, it did so at a greater level of detail recommend designation of the portions than necessary. As a result, the agency elected of the study rivers that contain the most to base the amendment primarily on language in outstanding trout populations. the current Forest Plan, adding only selected This alternative was included in the preliminary items from the proposal. The result is less alternatives that were mailed to the public in specific than the proposal but nonetheless February 1996. It was eliminated from detailed clearly requires the protection of values. The study because it received few if any favorable Forest Service appreciates the effort put into responses during the public comment period. the proposed amendment.

Issues and Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative ˜ 4-37

Chapter 5

Environmental Consequences

CHAPTER 5 Environmental Consequences

5.1 PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER undertakes those actions. Cumulative effects on resources were analyzed for all This chapter describes the effects of each alternatives in this chapter. alternative on the environment, and how these effects relate to the key issues identified in The area of influence, or area of potential section 4.2. cumulative effect, is different for each resource. The effects of all past, present, and reasonably In each of the following sections, the impacts foreseeable actions occurring on all lands, on issues and resources that would occur if no regardless of ownership, in the corridor and, in additional actions were taken are described some cases, near the corridor are considered in under Alternative A1, the “no action” the effects analysis. alternative. The impacts of all the other alternatives on issues and resources are The effects analyzed in this chapter relate only estimated based upon further actions to alternatives developed in analyzing the undertaken in each alternative. suitability of the study rivers for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System The scope of this analysis includes three types (National System). Detailed effects of other of effects (see 40 Code of Federal Regulations proposals, such as construction of a reservoir, (CFR) 1508.7 and 1508.8): are beyond the scope of this final environmental impact statement (FEIS). Direct effects. These effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time Effects described for the designation and place. Direct effects on resources alternatives are based on a strict interpretation were analyzed for all the alternatives and and implementation of the Wild and Scenic are described in this chapter. Rivers Act (WSRA). Rivers are added to the National System through amendments to the Indirect effects. These effects are caused WSRA. Oftentimes, the legislative language of by the action and are later in time or the final designation is negotiated so that a farther in distance but are still reasonably particular use of the river corridor can be foreseeable. Indirect effects on resources accommodated under designation. were analyzed for all the alternatives and are described in this chapter. River segments not recommended for designation in any of the alternatives would be Cumulative effects. These effects result managed under the appropriate management from incremental and collective impacts of directive contained in the Forest Land and the action when added to other past, Resource Management Plan. present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what person or The summary of environmental impacts of each agency (Federal or non-Federal) alternative on key study issues can be found in

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-1

Appendix B, Comparison of Alternatives mineral entries in segments classified as wild. Including Key Study Issues. The table in (See the following discussion.) section 5.20 lists the additional Federal costs for implementing each of the alternatives. Refer to ALTERNATIVE A1 (NO ACTION) AND A2 Chapter 4 for a full description of the (SOUTH PLATTE PROTECTION PLAN) alternatives. Neither of these alternatives would have any

effect on current or potential mineral claims within the study corridors. Only the developed 5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL recreation areas are currently permanently withdrawn from future mineral entry. COMPONENTS NOT AFFECTED UNDER ALL ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE A3 AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Analysis of the alternatives revealed no effects on the environment that would represent a Under the Preferred Alternative and significant change from the present situation for Alternative A3, the Forest Service would the following factors: air quality, chemical water process a mineral withdrawal of the river quality, climate, upland geomorphology, corridor for final approval by the Bureau of geology, grazing, landforms, and soils. Land Management (BLM) under existing administrative processes and legal authorities. After the withdrawal is approved, no mining activity would be allowed except for any 5.3 MINERALS grandfathered rights to claimants, located prior to the date of the withdrawal, where discovery is Designation as a Wild and Scenic River could proven. directly impact the potential development of locatable minerals (hardrock forms such as gold, ALTERNATIVES B, C, D, F, G, AND J silver, feldspar, and mica), leasable minerals (oil, gas, coal), and salable minerals (sand, gravel, Under these alternatives, all wild portions of the stone) in the area. Under the Land and Resource eligible segments would be withdrawn from Management Plan for the Pike and San Isabel future mineral entry. Although the mineral National Forests, Comanche and Cimarron National potential of these segments is low, new Grasslands (Forest Plan) for the Pike National discoveries are possible, and some currently Forest, the South Platte has a discretionary “No uneconomic minerals could become Lease” status (i.e., the Forest Service has commercially viable. discretionary authority to remove sensitive Existing claims in the wild segments would still resource lands from oil and gas leasing). That be valid and could still be worked under status would remain unchanged regardless of approved operating plans. In all designated whether or not the river is designated. The segments, existing mineral activity would be North Fork is under a “No Surface Occupancy” conducted in a manner that minimizes surface stipulation (i.e., the surface cannot be occupied disturbance, sedimentation, pollution, and visual in order to drill for or extract minerals). Any impairment, which could add additional access would have to be by subsurface protections to revised operating plans. directional drilling from an adjacent private property. This condition would remain the same with or without designation. However, designation would impact potential future

5-2 ˜ Chapter 5 ALTERNATIVE I management plan implemented after a decision on this study is made. If necessary, these effects Since none of the river segments would be could be mitigated by increasing partnerships, classified as wild under this alternative, no areas signage, and Federal funding in the designated would be withdrawn from mineral entry. In all area or by limiting dispersed camping sites, designated segments, existing mineral activity access, parking, or user numbers. would be conducted in a manner that minimizes surface disturbance, sedimentation, pollution, Effects to local zoning are the same for all and visual impairment, which could add alternatives but may vary among the counties. additional protections to revised operating In Colorado, counties have a substantial degree plans. of latitude in developing their land use planning programs but are subject to overall State zoning direction. Designation does not give the Federal Government any authority to change local zoning, but the Forest Service, under all 5.4 LAND USE AND alternatives except A1, may work with the OWNERSHIP counties to try to influence zoning in areas where the identified ORVs are threatened. Changes in how the rivers are managed may Because more than 50 percent of the lands in affect landowners’ latitude in managing and/or the corridor are publicly owned, there would be developing their property. Some of the no possibility for condemnation of private lands landowners’ concerns are perceived rather than for fee-title or for scenic easements under the actual, since designation has little effect on designation alternatives. Under a designation private land. It could, however, have a definite alternative, the Forest Service would work with effect on some water and storage rights. landowners willing to negotiate scenic easements or sell their land. EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES The Forest Plan encourages coordination of land use activities and cooperation in None of the alternatives affect the ability of a developing mutually needed road systems with landowner to prevent trespass or reduce landowners who have inholdings within the impacts from recreationists, and none of them forest. There is no legal authority, however, for alter a landowner's liability in the event a extending that cooperation to areas (such as recreationist is hurt while on private land. approximately one-third of the North Fork Private landowners would not be required to corridor) that lie outside the Pike National allow members of the public to use their lands Forest . The plan also stresses the importance under any of the alternatives. Recreational use of providing reasonable access across National of National Forest System lands and, hence, Forest to private parcels surrounded by public potential trespassing on adjacent private lands land. The Forest Service has no authority to are expected to increase with or without regulate construction, road building, economic designation. It is possible that the increase activity, or zoning on private land. could be slightly greater under designation, since rivers receive more publicity through The Forest Plan encourages land exchanges designation. The USDA Forest Service (Forest with willing landowners to acquire private Service) would monitor any increases in use and parcels in areas where water quality, wildlife, would take appropriate measures to mitigate any fisheries, recreation, geologic, scenic, or cultural impacts to private lands and outstanding values are of high importance, as well as in remarkable values (ORVs) as determined by the those areas where resource values may benefit.

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-3

Under all alternatives, timber harvesting on Alternatives A2, A3, and the Preferred private lands would continue to be regulated Alternative include voluntary provisions for under State law. Under the Federal Land water rights and storage rights to be managed to Management Policy Act, the Forest Service enhance the ORVs as much as possible within recognizes that the designated utility corridors existing constraints. New development identified in the Forest Plan (see “Land Use, proposals for water resources facilities in the Utilities” under “Affected Environment”) river corridor would be evaluated in a public would be given first consideration for the planning process, and their potential effects to location of future electric, gas, oil, and ORVs, free-flow, and water quality would be communication facilities, regardless of potential analyzed and documented. Under the Preferred for Wild and Scenic River designation. Alternative and A3-Suitable, the Forest Service would not approve any project that threatened eligibility of the river on National Forest lands. ALTERNATIVE A1 – NO ACTION Under A3-Not Suitable, the Forest Service would For those landowners who place a high value consider maintaining eligibility a goal rather upon stability of land use, the continuance of than a requirement and, therefore, would current management maintains their sense of consider limited or reasonable effects if the self-determination, whereas the other proposal was deemed critical enough in the alternatives are perceived to add more public planning process. regulation and bureaucracy. The likelihood that incompatible uses on adjacent lands would These partnership alternatives are designed to affect their own property is lowest under this be accomplished through voluntary alterations alternative. It also creates no additional need to water system operations and would require for landowner contact with any additional local, no further controls or oversight of operations State, or Federal agencies. by the Forest Service. The partnership agencies would work together to minimize future impacts and manage existing impacts of water ALTERNATIVES A2, A3, AND THE system operations. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Property rights for both private landowners and ALTERNATIVE B water rights holders under Alternatives A2, A3, This alternative adds all eligible study segments and the Preferred Alternative are the same. of the study rivers to the National Wild and Private landowner concerns about increased Scenic Rivers System. The Federal lands in the recreation use, firefighting, and road use would corridors would be managed by the Forest be incorporated into a management plan Service to protect free-flow and to protect and complemented by the Forest Plan completed enhance the ORVs of each river segment. The after this study decision. Private landowners effects on private land would be identical to would be encouraged and recruited to those of Alternatives A1, A2, A3, and the participate in all of the public involvement Preferred Alternative. The Forest Service opportunities these alternatives provide. would have no authority to determine zoning or County Commissioners would be involved in set other restrictions on private lands. river corridor management and would represent the interests of private landowners. The Federal Under any of the designation alternatives, the Government would gain no authority over Forest Service would gain authority over private private land under any of the alternatives lands in only one situation—if a landowner considered. Landowners would continue to wanted to construct something in the bed or follow county zoning and other regulations. bank of the designated river and needed Federal assistance or approval, the Forest Service could

5-4 ˜ Chapter 5 invoke section 7(a) of the WSRA and review the local landowners favor designation except in the project for effects on the ORVs, free-flow, and portions of the North Fork upstream from water quality. If a private landowner's project Buffalo Creek. was found to have any direct or adverse effects, the Forest Service would work with the For individual landowners, the actual impacts of landowner to redesign the project to be dealing with the Forest Service should not consistent with designation. Under section 11 change from Alternatives A1, A2, A3, and the of the WSRA, the Forest Service can provide Preferred Alternative except that landowners technical and financial assistance directly to would be assured that no dams would be built. private landowners for any needed projects in The Forest Service would work with the bed or bank of a designated river. landowners willing to negotiate conservation easements or sell their land, allowing the Forest Potential limitations on economically Service to more effectively manage the river productive activities would remain the same as corridor. in Alternatives A1, A2, A3, and the Preferred Alternative, except to lands acquired by the ALTERNATIVE C Forest Service from willing sellers. Such purchases could potentially benefit landowners The effects of this alternative would be the who wish to sell but cannot find other buyers. same as those of Alternative B. Willing sellers might also have the opportunity to be compensated through the sale of ALTERNATIVE D easements, yet retain ownership of their land. In addition, Federal administrators could assist The effects of this alternative are the same as willing landowners through cooperative projects those of Alternative B for the South Platte and technical assistance. corridor and Alternative A1 for the North Fork corridor. Some landowners might feel a loss of self- determination under this alternative. This mostly would be perceived, since the Federal ALTERNATIVE F Government would have little, if any, authority over private lands. Nevertheless, because this The effects of the alternative would be the same alternative would be seen as increasing the as those of Alternative A1, since there are no presence of the Federal Government, it would private lands in the corridor recommended for be perceived negatively by many as an additional designation. layer of bureaucracy and as an additional threat to the autonomy of the residents of the ALTERNATIVE G counties. Other landowners, however, would have a positive perception about the increased The effects of this alternative are the same as market that this alternative may generate for those of Alternative B on the South Platte their property. To the extent that land use is corridor upstream from Cheesman Reservoir. stabilized and impoundments precluded, They are the same as those of Alternative A1 landowners also may find owning land within for the South Platte corridor downstream from the river corridor more desirable. Cheesman Reservoir and for the entire North Fork corridor. Community members and corridor users would find their feelings of self-determination largely ALTERNATIVE I governed by whether they agree or disagree with the management strategy achieved by each The effects of this alternative are the same as individual easement or Federal purchase. Most those of Alternative B on the South Platte

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-5

corridor upstream from Corral Creek. They are table 3-3). There are no plans to increase the the same as those of Alternative A1 for the number of cattle on this or any allotment along South Platte corridor downstream from Corral the river corridor. Creek and for the entire North Fork corridor.

ALTERNATIVE J 5.6 FOREST ECOLOGY The effects of the alternative would be the same as those of Alternative D except in a 1.3-mile VEGETATION section of the South Platte downstream from the confluence, where the effects would be the Changes in river management could affect the same as those of Alternative A1. vegetation and the ecosystem in the river corridors. The alternatives, ranked in order of the amount of protection they provide to vegetation (most protective to least), are B, C, 5.5 GRAZING D, J, F, G, I, A3 (as well as the Preferred Alternative), A2, and A1. Grazing practices allowed inside the river corridor are dependent on the type of TIMBER classification (wild, scenic, or recreational), the values for which the river was designated, and Changes in river management resulting from land use management objectives. The level of designation have the potential to limit timber protection should be commensurate with the management options and opportunities. identified river values. Additionally, management actions taken in the corridor would have either a positive or a negative impact upon the health of adjoining EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL timberlands. ALTERNATIVES There has been no commercial harvest on None of the alternatives would effect current Federal lands in the corridors in the past grazing allotments or practices, since grazing 50 years. It is likely, though, that some timber allotments are not expected to increase in the would need to be removed from these corridors foreseeable future and the probability of vacant in the future to improve forest health by allotments being restocked is very low due to reducing forest susceptibility to insects, disease, increasing urban growth close to the forest. As and wildfire. Although the actual amount of noted under “Affected Environment,” there timber harvested is relatively low, continued currently are four active allotments along the withdrawal of additional suitable acres from the South Platte River corridor and no active timber base has a cumulative impact on the allotments along the North Fork corridor. The overall timber supply in the local market area. Wigwam allotment is the only allotment where cattle actively use the South Platte River. A major watershed restoration project, the Accessibility is limited by terrain and, to some Upper South Platte Watershed Protection and extent, recreational use. Part of this allotment is Restoration Project, is currently underway in the in Segments C2 (most protective classification is Pike and San Isabel National Forests to address scenic) and C3 (most protective classification is concerns of wildfire hazards and water quality wild). A limited amount of domestic livestock degradation following the Buffalo Creek Fire of grazing is acceptable in a wild corridor (see 1996 (Forest Service, 2000a). As part of the project, a landscape assessment was conducted

5-6 ˜ Chapter 5 to identify high-risk fire and erosion areas. All recreational facilities construction within treatments undertaken to correct these vegetated areas would be allowed. Smaller problems would be designed to be compatible portions of Segments E, H2, and H3 are under with the river corridor protection goals. Further Management Prescription 7A, in which timber analysis and fuel treatments will be implemented production is the management emphasis. as a result of the Hayman Fire that burned through the study area in 2002. Approximately 500 acres is scheduled to receive vegetation treatments as part of the Upper None of the alternatives would have any effect South Platte Watershed Protection and on private landowners’ potential income from Restoration Project. These treatments consist timber management on private lands. Under a of thinning and creating openings in order to designation, the Forest Service may encourage reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and landowners to lessen timber harvest on private subsequent erosion and to improve habitat for lands within designated Wild and Scenic River the Pawnee montane skipper. corridors. All current land use practices on private land—such as timber harvest, home Segment H2 also contains some acreage under construction, mining, grazing, and farming— Management Prescription 5B, in which big would continue. In terms of their impact on game winter range is emphasized. Any the availability of timber resources (from lowest vegetation management in that area has to be to highest) and the opportunity they provide to compatible with the needs of big game. The improve forest health (from best to poorest), Forest Plan and regional policy would continue the alternatives rank as follows: A1, A2, A3 (as to provide protection for threatened, well as the Preferred Alternative), I, C, G, J, D, endangered, and sensitive plant species during F, and B. any project action.

ALTERNATIVE A1 – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVES A2, A3, AND THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The “no action” alternative would have no direct effects on forest health. The existing Changes in river management under management direction under the Forest Plan Alternative A2, A3 and the Preferred provides for vegetative management to maintain Alternative have the potential to limit timber and improve forest health. Where allowed by management opportunities and options, thereby the Forest Plan, a full range of timber affecting management for forest health in the management practices would be available. river corridors. Stands could be thinned to improve health of Under the A2 and A3-Not Suitable alternatives, individual trees, which would provide resistance some limited effect may occur in the future if a to various insects and pathogens. Defoliated development project is approved that would trees could be removed through sanitation and have limited impact on the ORVs or free-flow. salvage harvests. Stands could also be Effects under the A3-Not Suitable alternative regenerated using clear-cut, seed tree, or would be similar to those under A1: any shelterwood harvests. potential effects to vegetation for big game or Most of the corridor falls under the Forest to habitat for threatened, endangered, and Plan’s Management Prescription 2B, in which sensitive species would be mitigated and roaded natural recreation opportunities are approved through a public planning process. emphasized. In this prescription, vegetation Vegetation treatment costs would be higher management has to be compatible with the than under Alternative A1, but less than under recreation emphasis, but some timber harvest the Proposed Alternative, Alternative A3- could be allowed. Road construction and Suitable, or B.

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-7

The effects on vegetation and timber under Timber management, road construction, and Alternative A3-Suitable and the Preferred other ground-disturbing activities outside the Alternative would be similar to those for designated river corridors could not diminish Alternative B, because eligibility for designation the ORVs within the corridors. This provision would be maintained for the future. The river could pose some limitations on silvicultural corridor segments classified wild would be techniques, which may result in higher cost or removed from the suitable timber base, and so reduced volume of harvest in the drainage vegetation management activities to improve outside the corridors. Overall opportunities to forest health could be done in these segments protect forest health would be more costly only on an emergency basis. Tree stands could under this alternative than under any of the not be thinned commercially to improve health others. of individual trees, nor could species diversity be treated. The stand health would be the result In those portions of the recommended eligible of natural events over the long term. Road segments with a wild classification, opportunities construction would be precluded in wild for vegetative management to maintain and segments, increasing the cost of managing improve forest health would be allowed only forest health. The effects on forest health in the under emergency conditions for insect and segments classified recreational or scenic would be disease control, fire, natural catastrophe, or generally similar to those of Alternative A1. public safety. A wild classification would also There would, however, be some indirect preclude road construction and, thus, increase adverse effect on forest health since new road the cost of managing forest health. In these construction and bridge crossings would be areas, tree stands could not be thinned more limited than under A1, and increased commercially to improve the health of ORV protection would place more limitations individual trees; and this restriction could lead on harvest methods and amounts. Overall to increased susceptibility to various insects and opportunities to protect forest health would be pathogens. Species diversity would not be more costly under this alternative than all others encouraged, and stand health would depend on except B. the course of natural events over the long term. Additional emphasis would be placed on the The effects on forest health in the segments inventory and protection of diverse plant classified recreational or scenic would be generally communities along the river corridors. Any similar to those of Alternative A1. There vegetation treatment conducted would be would, however, be some indirect adverse compatible with the ORVs, protect water effects on forest health since new road quality, and manage for overall forest and construction and bridge crossings would be ecosystem health. more limited than under A1, and increased ORV protection would place more limitations on harvest methods and amounts. The amount ALTERNATIVE B of actively managed forest vegetation could be The 3.1-mile wild section of Segment D in somewhat less, because timber sales conducted Cheesman Canyon and Sections C1 and C3 primarily for the purpose of maintaining forest (totaling 7.4 miles) in Wildcat Canyon would be health would likely have a lower economic value removed from the suitable timber base. This than a traditional timber sale. would reduce the suitable acres in the corridors Additional emphasis would be placed on the by 616 acres to 4,279 acres. The corridors inventory and protection of diverse plant could produce approximately 49,634 cubic feet communities along all the recommended river per year. corridors. In addition, the Federal dam prohibitions would ensure the protection of all

5-8 ˜ Chapter 5 designated areas from inundation. The Forest Overall opportunities to protect forest health Service would prepare a river management plan would be less under this alternative than under and administer the recommended rivers under Alternatives A1, A2, A3, the Preferred the WSRA, which would protect and enhance Alternative, and I. the ORVs in the corridor, leading to more protection of the area's ecosystems. ALTERNATIVE D The planned vegetation treatments under the The effects of this alternative would be similar guidelines of the Upper South Platte Watershed to those of Alternative B for the South Platte Protection and Restoration would be consistent segments and Alternative A1 for the North with this and any other action alternative, since Fork segments. the objective of that project is not timber production. The 3.1-mile wild section of Segment D in Cheesman Canyon and Sections C1 and C3 ALTERNATIVE C (totaling 7.4 miles) in Wildcat Canyon would be removed from the suitable timber base. This This alternative is similar to Alternative B, would reduce the suitable acres in the corridors except for the classification of scenic rather than by 616 acres to 4,279 acres. The corridors wild for Segments C1 and C3 in Wildcat could produce approximately 49,634 cubic feet Canyon. Effects in this section are the same as per year. those described for scenic and recreational sections under Alternative B. Existing off-highway Overall opportunities to protect forest health vehicle use (OHV) would continue, and the would be less under this alternative than with development of unofficial routes could impact Alternatives A1, A2, A3, the Preferred both riparian and upland vegetation. This type Alternative, I, C, G, and J. of damage could be mitigated through partnerships, but previous experience has ALTERNATIVE F indicated that law enforcement would continue to be needed in the area. Mineral leasing could The effects of this alternative would be similar also occur, causing some impact on vegetation, to those of Alternative D except that an but this use is very unlikely in the area. additional 2.6-mile area on the North Fork would be recommended for designation The 3.1-mile wild section in Cheesman Canyon (Segment H2), a 19.5-mile segment of the South (Segment D) would be removed from the Platte downstream from the Wigwam Club suitable timber base. This would reduce the property (Segment E) would not be designated, suitable acres in the corridors by 25 acres to and two sections totaling 6.3 miles around Lake 4,870 acres. The corridors would produce George would not be designated. approximately 56,492 cubic feet per year. The 3.1-mile wild section of Segment D in Constraints imposed by designation would Cheesman Canyon and Sections C1 and C3 slightly reduce potential timber production on (totaling 7.4 miles) in Wildcat Canyon would be suitable Federal land in the corridors, as removed from the suitable timber base. This compared to Alternative A1, but not as much as would reduce the suitable acres in the corridors under Alternative B. Constraints include more by 616 acres to 4,279 acres. The corridors restrictive road and bridge access, higher Visual could produce approximately 49,634 cubic feet Quality Objectives (VQOs), and additional per year. measures to ensure the protection and enhancement of ORVs. The adverse effects of designation on the opportunity to manage forest health would be

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-9

similar to those of Alternative B for those ALTERNATIVE J segments designated. Overall opportunities to protect forest health would be less under this The effects under this alternative would be alternative than under all other alternatives similar to those of Alternative D, except for the except Alternative B. 3.0-mile section of Segment C where the effects would be similar to those of Alternative C. ALTERNATIVE G The 3.1-mile wild section of Segment D in The effects under this alternative would be Cheesman Canyon and Sections C1 and C3 similar to those of Alternative B on the South (totaling 7.4 miles) in Wildcat Canyon would be Platte upstream from Cheesman Reservoir and removed from the suitable timber base. This similar to those of Alternative A1 on the North would reduce the suitable acres in the corridors Fork and on the South Platte downstream from by 616 to 4,279 acres. The corridors could Cheesman Reservoir. produce approximately 49,634 cubic feet per year. Sections C1 and C3 (totaling 7.4 miles) in Wildcat Canyon would be removed from the Adverse effects on the opportunities to manage suitable timber base. This would reduce the forest health would be similar to those of suitable acres in the corridors by 591 acres to Alternative B. Overall opportunities to protect 4,304 acres. The corridors could produce forest health under this alternative would be approximately 49,659 cubic feet per year. greater than under Alternatives D or F but less than under Alternatives A1, A2, A3, the Adverse effects on the opportunity to manage Preferred Alternative, C, G, or I. forest health in the designated segments are similar to those of Alternative B. Overall opportunities to protect forest health would be greater under this alternative than under D, F, 5.7 FISHERIES, WATER or J; but they would be less than under Alternatives A1, A2, A3, the Preferred RESOURCES, AND WATER Alternative, I, and C. DEVELOPMENT

ALTERNATIVE I This section describes impacts to fisheries and water quality of each alternative in five topic The effects under this alternative would be areas: channel integrity and aquatic habitat, similar to those of Alternative C upstream from fishery management, angler use, water Corral Creek and similar to those of development and flow regime, and water Alternative A1 downstream from Corral Creek. quality. The topics of channel integrity and Overall opportunities to protect forest health aquatic habitat, water development and flow would be greater under this alternative than regime, and water quality were added as a result under all other alternatives except A1, A2, A3, of issues raised concerning Alternative A2, the and the Preferred Alternative. South Platte Protection Plan (SPPP). Under this alternative, no acres would be Maintenance of free-flow, the protection of removed from the suitable timber base. The water quality, and the protection and study corridors would contain 4,895 suitable enhancement of the area's ORVs (section 1(b) acres, which are capable of producing of the WSRA) are of primary concern when approximately 56,782 cubic feet of wood considering streams for inclusion into the annually. National System. The most serious potential

5-10 ˜ Chapter 5 impacts to the natural resources of the study Water Development on a Designated Wild segments include: and Scenic River 1. Inundation of the area by the Designation prevents development of water construction of dams and resource projects that adversely impact free- flow or the values for which the river was 2. Diversions that would deplete the designated. Projects certain to be precluded flows. include water storage facilities and any lesser It is important to recognize that many other water developments, such as diversion activities within the drainage basin, outside of structures or sediment traps that interfere with this river segment, have an impact on water free-flow. quality and the ORVs, including dams, diversions, augmented flows, regulated flows, Designation of the South Platte as a National recreational activities, land management (road Wild and Scenic River grading, prescribed fire, timber harvest), private Just because an agency recommends designation land uses, and other off-site water does not mean that Congress will consider the developments. proposal to add the river to the National Changes in river management could impact System. The ensuing legislative process is the resident fish species, primarily their spawning final determining factor. In the case of the and rearing areas. Clean, cool water and South Platte River, the various interests appropriate flows at the right season are involved hold strong differences of opinion required to support the habitat necessary for regarding whether the river should be healthy fish populations. On the other hand, an designated. Without a broad base of local increased water supply need for the Denver support, prospects for designation of the river metropolitan area and other Front Range are doubtful. However, to allow meaningful communities is forecast. Changes in how the comparison between alternatives, the analysis rivers are managed would affect opportunities assumes the river has been added to the for water storage, diversions, and dam National System in designation alternatives. construction. Water Development on an Eligible River As the alternatives in this document deal with resource conservation rather than resource Agency identified study rivers (rivers identified development activities, none of them would under section (5) (d) (1) of the WSRA), are not have any effect on Denver Board of Water protected by the WSRA from the harmful Commissioners’ (Denver Water's) approved effects of water resource projects. The Forest right-of-way for a 345,000-acre-foot reservoir Service would, to the extent of other authorities, near the confluence of the North Fork and the protect the river’s free-flow and ORVs on South Platte. National Forest lands, as outlined in the Forest Service Handbook 1909.12-92-1, section 8.12. BACKGROUND ON ASSUMPTIONS (See Appendix G of this document.) Other entities, however, are not bound by this agency Analyzing the consequences of this study’s policy, which means that water resource alternatives involves a number of assumptions projects could be constructed on non-National described below. These assumptions are Forest lands; this means that an eligible river necessary to explain the relationship of the provides more opportunities for water alternatives to actions of the Forest Service and development than does a designated river on other entities that are not bound by Forest non-National Forest land. A facility might be Service policies and authorities. placed on private land, for example. However,

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-11

whether such a development would be success. Any such proposal would require proposed or approved is subject to the same approval from a large number of governmental uncertainties described in the following and other entities, and there is no assurance paragraph. today that all of the requisite approvals would be obtained. For all of these reasons, it is not Water Development on a River Found Not possible to predict whether a water storage Suitable for Inclusion in the National Wild and project would ever be proposed or built in the Scenic Rivers System study area. Alternative A3-Not Suitable covers this situation. In this alternative, the Forest Service would CUMULATIVE EFFECTS continue to protect the river’s free-flow and Past land and water uses in the project area have other values through its statutory authorities. caused long-term major modifications of the The Forest Plan could be amended to reflect forest landscape, original stream channel, and this intent. However, in this situation, there is riparian vegetation, thus altering channel no assurance that a water development project characteristics and water quality in the affected would be either proposed or approved, for two study area. These modifications are a result of reasons. dams, water diversions, bridges, roads, trails, First, the Forest Plan Amendment being logging, grazing, fire suppression, and prepared will operate to prohibit water homesteading. Dams alter streamflows and developments other than possibly minor ones temperatures, trap and reduce sediment for diversion or sediment-removal purposes. transport, and block fish passage. Existing Even though these prohibitions could be impacts from roads, trails, and other removed by the Forest Service at some point in development include loss of riparian vegetation, the future, at this time, there is no way to assess accelerated erosion, and increased the likelihood of a revocation. sedimentation. Riparian land use and associated sediment runoff have been shown to reduce Second, setting the Forest Plan Amendment stream production potential for aquatic aside for the moment, it cannot be known organisms. Although past actions resulted in whether anyone would even propose any water more river sediment, the reservoirs trap development within the study area, particularly sediment reducing downstream concentrations. for water storage. At this time no such proposals have been made, nor did any specific Sedimentation from past and existing land uses possibilities emerge during the development of has resulted in the listing of river Segments A, the SPPP. While some water providers do not B, and C as impaired under section 303(d) of wish to foreclose any possibilities that might the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act help with their water supply needs, others show requires all parties with responsibility for little interest in the potential for additional managing the resource, including managers of storage within the study area. This is because public lands and private landowners, to identify the traditional water supply practice of onsite and treat sediment sources and to develop a storage has been joined by alternate practices— “Total Maximum Daily Load” (TMDL) such as conjunctive use, conservation, or off- assessment for these segments. The Forest channel storage—that appear to entail lower Service worked with the Colorado Department levels of public controversy. In addition, the of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) past experience with the Two Forks project on the assessment, which was completed in the suggests that any future proposal for a storage spring of 2002 (Colorado Department of Public facility in the study area could expect severe Health and Environment [CDPHE], 2002). opposition, high cost, and no assurance of

5-12 ˜ Chapter 5 The cumulative effects of past logging, grazing, EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL and fire suppression have indirectly increased ALTERNATIVES the risk of catastrophic fires, which result in severe erosion. The Buffalo Creek, Hi Meadow Segments found not suitable under any (Forest Service, 2000a), and Hayman Fires and alternative would be managed under the Forest subsequent storm events washed large quantities Plan. Protective standards under the plan of sand and gravel from fire-exposed soils into would remain in effect, and there is no the affected river corridor. Extreme sediment guarantee that water development projects loading has caused channel instability and would be proposed on these segments. shifting, increased bank erosion, and increased The Forest Service, the State, water providers, bed deposition. Long after the occurrences of and other interested groups would cooperate in these fires, sediments from the burned areas will the development of a water quality restoration continue to erode into the river and are plan to treat sediment sources that impact the expected to adversely affect aquatic resources eligible segments. These sources would be for many years. The action alternatives and identified in the Source Water Assessment other restoration efforts, such as the Upper required under the Safe Drinking Water Act. South Platte Protection and Restoration Project, The Coalition for the Upper South Platte can help reduce the risk of large-scale fire and (CUSP, formerly known as the Upper South the potential for erosion and major sediment Platte Watershed Protection Association) would influx. These efforts would have long-term coordinate the restoration effort. This beneficial cumulative effects, with increased cooperative arrangement would not apply to aquatic organism production and decreased private lands unless the landowners voluntarily sedimentation of downstream reservoirs. agreed to participate. The action alternatives were designed to protect As noted above under “Cumulative Effects,” the eligible river segments and mitigate impacts section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires caused by other actions. Therefore, each action all parties with responsibility for managing alternative would have positive cumulative the resource, including managers of public impacts on fisheries and water resources and lands and private landowners, to identify and help meet Clean Water Act requirements. treat sediment sources and develop a The action alternatives reflect changes in how TMDL assessment for Segments A, B, and C. water supply planning takes place. For many The results of this assessment (CDPHE (b), decades, water supply needs were addressed 2002) will likely heighten the priority for water primarily by constructing new reservoirs quality protection and restoration by the Forest because, at the time, that appeared to be the Service and the State, much as designation most efficient method. Then, as societal values would. changed, more effort was devoted to finding alternative methods of meeting water supply ALTERNATIVE A1 – NO ACTION demands, such as conservation and aquifer storage, for instance. The cumulative effect has Aquatic Habitat and Channel Integrity been that building a new reservoir is no longer There is no Federal prohibition of major dams, presumed to be the best method available, and diversions, or water development projects under other methods now play a much larger role in this alternative. Any such projects undertaken water supply than earlier (Nichols et al., 2001) within the corridors could have direct adverse This change in attitude was clearly evident in effects on the flow regimes and existing habitat the denial of the Two Forks reservoir proposal, for wild trout populations. There would be and it is also reflected in the action alternatives greater potential in this alternative for analyzed in this study.

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-13

operational changes at existing water variety of management options would be developments, which could result in a considered to produce quality fisheries in the considerable change in habitat and a subsequent special regulation areas. decrease in trout production. Although changes in flows at certain times of the year could be Angler Use beneficial to trout habitat, they would most likely be detrimental to the populations. Any Angler use is highly variable in the study area. new diversion or other water developments With the population of the Front Range could potentially affect the amount and timing increasing dramatically, angler use would most of flows and, thus, aquatic habitat. likely increase in all segments. As the population in the State increases and Sedimentation would continue to result from subsequent development encroaches on the the development of visitor facilities, such as area, angler use would also increase. Access campgrounds, picnic grounds, parking areas, could also increase as roads and trails are trails, and trailheads, and from increased private improved and/or developed in sections of the development. Human activity in the area could study area that now have limited access. result in an increase in sedimentation which would have a direct effect on fisheries habitat. Water Development and Flow Regime However, attempts are being made to manage use in a way that reduces the amount of Under this alternative, neither designation nor sediment that reaches the stream channel. cooperative arrangement would be achieved to There is no requirement to mitigate erosion protect the free-flowing condition, ORVs, or from adjacent roads under this alternative, so water quality of eligible segments in concert sedimentation into the stream channels would with the goals of the WSRA or any other water continue, restricting fish habitat. The Forest protection strategy. On non-Federal lands, Service would continue to use current there would be no effect on the operation of management practices and authorities to reduce existing water projects. On Federal lands, road sedimentation. Compared to the other existing and new water developments, as well as alternatives, this one offers less potential for flow regimes, would be subject to terms and funding activities to enhance fish habitat or conditions that protect public resource values reduce sedimentation, as well as less potential under applicable Federal law and the existing for Federal funding for easement and/or fee- Forest Plan. This alternative provides the most title acquisition of fish habitat and riparian areas flexibility for the water providers to expand from willing sellers. The Forest Service would existing reservoirs, replace existing dams, have full authority to perform channel construct diversions, and meet future water restoration on Federal lands and could seek to supply demands. Existing water rights and work cooperatively with local landowners to interstate compacts would be completely restore channel integrity on non-Federal lands. unaffected. Natural resources, including some of the area's Fishery Management ORVs, would continue to be subject to the Segments of the South Platte River are currently potential effects of inundation by reservoirs or managed under a variety of regulations. Special to altered flow regimes resulting from the management areas would continue, with construction of dams or diversions to help meet stocking and normal regulations maintained in the growing residential and industrial needs of most areas. Stocking of catchable fish would the Denver metropolitan area, provide a more continue in normal regulation areas, while a efficient water delivery system, provide additional reservoir-based recreation, provide additional flood control, provide ground water

5-14 ˜ Chapter 5 recharge through the conjunctive use concept, may be reduced under the designation and provide additional hydropower generation, alternatives since new supplies could be diverted which would contribute to local and regional from the study corridors. power supplies. Inundation could also displace private landowners within the study corridors. Existing and new water developments on non- federal lands could affect flow regimes unabated Because the river is not recommended as a Wild in the study corridor unless voluntary and Scenic River and no other protection cooperative arrangements were made with water strategy is afforded under this alternative, providers. There are numerous indirect effects current and planned water developments, such which could result from significant change in as channel straightening, bank stabilization, flow regimes. Extended bank-full (1.5-year diversions, and other modifications of the flood) or above-bank-full conditions, changes in waterway, would not be subject to mitigation timing of reservoir releases, or extreme changes review beyond what is required in the existing in flow regimes can result in excessive bank Forest Plan on National Forest System lands erosion and sediment transport, degradation of and regulatory authorities of other agencies on aquatic and riparian habitat, and reduction of other lands. aquatic food sources. If the river does not receive normal flood flows, the channel capacity Current water operations, releases, flows, could be reduced. If the base flow is reduced, timing, storage, importation of water, water temperatures could exceed water quality exchanges, and the management of the current standards and degrade aquatic habitat. On and future water delivery system would not be federal lands, flow regimes would be protected affected by the restrictions that would be by terms and conditions that protect public imposed by Wild and Scenic River designation. resource values under applicable federal law, as Costs to water suppliers in the Denver on any federal lands. metropolitan area would not increase as a result of restrictions imposed under the WSRA, and potential water development projects would be Water Quality unaffected by any protection strategy. Current Water quality protection and restoration would water quality standards and flow management be subject to Federal and State requirements, practices would apply, and any changes to just as on all other lands. The heightened current standards would result from the recently priority for water quality protection and completed assessment to determine TMDL restoration associated with designation would under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act not exist under this alternative. However, and would not be imposed under the WSRA. efforts to reduce erosion and subsequent Thus, the ability of water providers to operate, sedimentation in the river would continue develop, and fully use existing and future water utilizing the assessment of TMDL. rights on the North Fork and the South Platte River would not be affected by the WSRA. ALTERNATIVE A2 – SOUTH PLATTE Opportunities to replace portions of PROTECTION PLAN communities' dependence on ground water with surface supplies or potentially recharging The South Platte Protection Plan was developed aquifers with excess surface water in the South through negotiations among representatives Platte basin would not be foreclosed under this from a broad range of interest groups, in an alternative as they might under the WSRA. The attempt to preserve flexibility for future water demand for conversion of existing agricultural development but still protect the corridors water supplies to municipal and industrial use without recommending Federal designation under the WSRA. Free-flow, water quality, and

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-15

ORVs on non-Federal lands would not be endowment fund established under the SPPP. protected under the WSRA. (See Attachment D of Appendix A.) The arrangement would likely heighten the priority Aquatic Habitat and Channel Integrity for water quality protection and restoration by the Forest Service and the State, much as The section of the SPPP entitled “Streamflow designation would. Under a designation Management Plan for the Upper South Platte alternative, this fund would not be available for River” (Attachment B to Appendix A of this mitigation work; therefore, Alternative A2 report) addresses stream habitat concerns provides the greatest potential for restoration. regarding river sedimentation and areas needing channel habitat improvement projects. The Fishery Management and Angler Use Forest Service, the State, water providers, and other interested groups would cooperate in The effects of this alternative on fishery channel reconstruction of the eligible segments management and angler use would be similar to to improve degraded conditions and to those of the A1 alternative. Implementation of withstand increased high flows while protecting the streamflow management plan may improve ORVs. The parties would also cooperate in habitat for fish species residing in the river. habitat restoration of the eligible segments to Resultant benefits to the fish populations might improve existing conditions for aquatic life. To lead to better catches and, hence, to greater minimize sedimentation and bank erosion and angler use in those sections directly downstream to improve aquatic habitat conditions, the from the Elevenmile and Cheesman Forest Service, Colorado Division of Wildlife, impoundments. water providers, and other participants would develop a stream habitat monitoring and Water Development and Flow Regimes improvement plan. The improvement plan would: Under this alternative, existing Federal authorities would be used, together with local 1. Identify degraded areas of stream cooperative arrangements, to protect the river channel habitat, corridor from actions that could diminish the 2. Identify stream bank erosion and free-flowing condition, ORVs, or water quality river sedimentation sources, in some of the eligible segments. Parties to this agreement would state that no new water 3. Quantify changes in channel developments projects would be built in integrity and aquatic habitat Segments A or D, thus protecting 11.8 miles of associated with management actions, the South Platte from impoundment. Water and developments could be built in the other eligible 4. Develop instream channel habitat segments subject to existing Federal, State, and improvement projects to improve local authorities. On Federal lands, existing and stream channel habitat, including new water developments in these other bank stabilization and erosion segments would be subject to terms and control, which would not be allowed conditions that protect public resource values under the WSRA and may affect under applicable Federal law, as on any Federal free-flow. lands. Effects on existing or new water developments and their operations on non- Improvements would be designed to produce Federal lands upstream from eligible segments long-term benefits for channel integrity and would be under the auspices of the SPPP and aquatic habitat, as well as indirectly improving subject to other Federal, State, and local water quality. One potential funding source for regulations. This alternative does not protect this improvement plan is the $1-million

5-16 ˜ Chapter 5 eligible segments from future water necessary analysis and channel reconstruction. developments as effectively as designation. Under the guidance of the SPPP, in order to Administration of existing water rights and maintain ORVs in the river corridor, any interstate compacts would be unaffected. necessary alterations to channel capacity should be achieved by means other than flow Denver Water and the Metropolitan Denver manipulation, such as physically reconstructing Water Authority would withdraw their the channel. Any proposals for flow and applications for 780,000 acre-feet of conditional channel modification for new projects would be storage rights at the Two Forks reservoir site. reviewed by participants at an annual operations Denver Water would also self-impose a 20-year meeting established under the SPPP. (See voluntary moratorium on developing its right- Appendix A, Attachment B, p. B-5.) This of-way for a 345,000-acre-foot reservoir. (See mitigation measure voluntarily addresses some Attachment F in Appendix A of this of the protections that designation would document.) This commitment would ensure impose on new upstream, downstream, or that no substantial water development would tributary projects under section 7(a) of the invade Segments E or H for 20 years. Denver WSRA. However, potential protection for Water would invite environmental interests to ORVs and free-flow would be guided by the cooperate to seek alternate projects that would tenets of the SPPP and not the WSRA. allow permanent relinquishment of the right-of- way at some later date. The long-term effect of Under the Streamflow Management Plan, the this proposal is unknown. If no alternate reservoirs would be operated to benefit aquatic projects were identified, the right-of-way could life and habitats. The first goal of the be developed after the 20-year moratorium A2 alternative related to the fisheries ORV is to expires. Such a project would invade portions maintain minimum streamflows downstream of of Segments E and H, which would impair their reservoirs. Denver Water would self-impose free-flowing condition and ORVs. minimum flow releases of 32 cubic feet per second (cfs) from Elevenmile Reservoir and In coming decades, water system improvements 35-40 cfs from Cheesman Reservoir. Aurora and future importation of water to the Upper would self-impose minimum flow releases of South Platte Basin could alter the hydrologic 32 cfs from Spinney Mountain Reservoir. basis of the SPPP. This plan is not intended to These flows would provide relatively stable promote or restrict new water from future habitat conditions during the fall, winter, and projects but to provide goals for protection of early spring months. A provision is included the existing trout fishery values present in the for exceptions during drought. The second goal South Platte River. Additional water or of the A2 plan is to provide transition flows that prolonged high-flow periods due to new project would reduce environmental stress as discharge water would be subject to the requirements of levels vary. Reservoir outflow changes would the Streamflow Management Plan. Even under be “ramped”—or changed gradually—in order these requirements, future flow regime changes to reduce stress on fish. Particular emphasis caused by importation may require a larger would be placed on limiting fluctuations that stream channel to adequately protect water could adversely affect the various life stages of quality, fisheries habitat and populations, brown and rainbow trout. The proposed flow channel stability, and maintenance of the regime can also have the indirect beneficial ecosystem. Future water projects, especially effects of maintaining riparian/wetland those that would significantly prolong bank-full vegetation and maintaining the aquatic food stream conditions, would require the project web. The Streamflow Management Plan section proponent to prepare an analysis of channel of the SPPP offers advantages over designation capacity related to these issues. The new by addressing minimum streamflows, ramping, project proponent would be responsible for any and channel maintenance flows.

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-17

Another goal of the Streamflow Management parties. These proposed reservoir operations Plan is peak-flow management. Although high would be targeted to benefit aquatic life and flows occur naturally, they may impede the habitats and could not be realized in any recruitment of young fish into the population if designation alternative unless voluntary flows increase greatly in a short amount of time. cooperative arrangements were made. The However, high streamflows are also periodically installation of the new outlet valve would allow necessary in order to maintain channel stability the dam operators to withdraw water at various and capacity and to transport sediment through depths in order to maintain the optimal the channel. Due to limited storage capacity, temperature for sustaining and enhancing the water rights and other constraints, managing rainbow and brown trout fishery and to meet peak flows is the least attainable of the fishery State water quality temperature standards. management goals in Alternative A2. The plan provides a mechanism for monitoring fish Denver Water would self-impose a mixing of recruitment and channel conditions and for top and bottom releases from Elevenmile deciding whether the balance between these Reservoir and Cheesman Reservoir from July conflicting purposes needs to be adjusted. As through September to achieve water part of the annual operating plan, the temperatures that benefit aquatic life. Changes participants would determine whether to in water temperature would be held to less than attempt to provide a channel maintenance flow 10 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) per day when during spring runoff or to attenuate peak flows possible. When Denver Water has filled the to enhance fishery recruitment. The goal would surcharge pool at Elevenmile Reservoir, which be to maintain successful “year-class typically occurs in July, bottom releases would recruitment” for brown and rainbow trout be made to meet target temperatures through populations at least once every 3 years. This September. Starting no later than October 1, would mean that fish born within a certain year bottom releases would be discontinued to allow would survive their first winter and become part the surcharge pool to fill. In the future, bottom of the population the next year. A successful releases for moderating wintertime stream recruitment would replace all older fish, 2 or temperatures would be considered. At more years old, that have left the population as Cheesman, Denver Water would install a result of natural or human-related causes. temperature gages in the spillway, the valve manifold, and the streamflow gage downstream of the dam to monitor downstream water Water Quality temperature. When possible, Denver Water Currently, water released from Elevenmile would adjust the proportion of spillway Reservoir is drawn from the surface. The discharge and bottom releases to: surface water exhibits the greatest degree of 1. Keep the downstream temperature temperature fluctuation, as it is exposed to the below 60 °F during spilling and warming effects of the sun and the surrounding air. Water released from the surface of 2. Provide a temperature gradient of reservoirs such as Elevenmile is commonly less than 10 °F per day while making warmer than is desirable for the aquatic species the transition into and out of downstream. Within 5 years of selecting this spilling. alternative as the final decision, new outlet Resources made available through valves would be installed at Elevenmile Dam. implementation of the SPPP may be used for Denver Water and the city of Aurora would habitat restoration projects. decide the precise operations of reservoir releases following annual operations meetings conducted with the public and any interested

5-18 ˜ Chapter 5 ALTERNATIVE A3 AND THE alternative except through subsequent voluntary PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE cooperative arrangements.

Alternative A3 and the Preferred Alternative Fishery Management and Angler Use were prepared by the Forest Service as modifications of Alternative A2 in order to Fishery management and angler use under this address certain administrative and other alternative would be similar to those of the requirements of the Forest Service, including an A2 alternative. amendment to the Forest Plan. The Suitable and Not Suitable options of A3 differ based on how Water Development and Flow Regime the issue of suitability is handled. A3-Suitable Under either the Preferred Alternative, requires adherence to Forest Service policy that Alternative A3-Suitable, or Alternative A3-Not requires protection of the values for which the Suitable, existing Federal authorities would be river was eligible and suitable, within the limits used, together with local cooperative of Forest Service legal authorities, until arrangements, to protect the river corridor from Congress either enacts or rejects legislation to actions that could diminish the free-flowing designate all or portions of the river. A3-Not condition, ORVs, or water quality. To the Suitable allows evaluation and consideration of extent of Forest Service authority, no new dams proposed development projects that might or impoundments would be allowed on adversely affect the values that have been National Forest lands. On non-Federal lands identified. Stated differently, A3-Suitable upstream from eligible segments, effects of protects eligibility as a hard requirement, existing or new water developments and their whereas A3-Not Suitable seeks to protect operations would be reviewed under the identified values as a management goal. The auspices of the SPPP and would be subject to Preferred Alternative is silent on suitability but other Federal, State, and local regulations. necessarily protects eligibility as a hard Under the Preferred Alternative and Alternative requirement, similar to A3-Suitable. A3-Suitable, proposed water development projects would be reviewed for effects on For each of the following, the effects of eligible segments. Alternative A3-Not Suitable Alternative A3-Not Suitable would be similar to would not protect eligible segments from future Alternative A2 unless otherwise noted. The water developments as effectively as the effects of Alternative A3-Suitable would be Preferred Alternative, A3-Suitable, or similar to Alternative A2 subject to review for designation. Administration of existing water effects on eligibility and suitability. The effects rights and interstate compacts would be of the Preferred Alternative would be similar to unaffected under either the A3 alternative or the Alternative A2 subject to review for effects on Preferred Alternative. eligibility. As in Alternative A2, Denver Water and the Aquatic Habitat and Channel Integrity Metropolitan Denver Water Authority would withdraw their applications for 780,000 acre- The Forest Service, the State, water providers, feet of conditional storage rights at the Two and other interested groups would cooperate Forks reservoir site. Denver Water would also in channel reconstruction and habitat adopt a 20-year voluntary moratorium on restoration of the eligible segments, just as developing its right-of-way for 345,000 acre- in Alternative A2, with the same benefits to feet. This commitment would ensure that no channel and habitat integrity, riparian substantial water development would invade vegetation, wetlands, and water quality. These Segments E and H for 20 years. Denver benefits could not be realized in any designation Water would invite environmental interests

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-19

to cooperate to seek alternate projects that water lines. Nor, for lesser projects such as would allow permanent relinquishment of structures for diversion or sediment removal, the right-of-way at some later date. Effects would a complete disruption of free-flow be of this action under the Preferred Alternative expected. or either A3 alternative would be similar to Alternative A2. Water Quality The effects to water quality would be similar to As in Alternative A2, flow regimes would be those under Alternative A2. Effects on water subject to the tenets of the Streamflow quality would be subject to review under Management Plan for both A3 alternatives and Alternative A3-Suitable to ensure no degradation the Preferred Alternative. to level of quality from the time the segments Under A3-Suitable, the Forest Service would use were found suitable. Similarly, effects on water existing authorities to protect the rivers’ ORVs, quality would be subject to review under the free-flow, or water quality until Congress Preferred Alternative to ensure no degradation determines whether to add any or all segments to level of quality from the time the segments found suitable to the National System and were found eligible. authority under the WSRA, particularly section 7(a), begins. As a result, no appreciable ALTERNATIVE B change in these resources would occur on National Forest lands in the interim. If This alternative would recommend designation Congress were to designate any or all of the of 72.3 miles of river at their inventoried segments at a later date, then all lands in the classifications. It would provide substantial designated corridor would be subject to the potential to protect and enhance fish guidelines of the WSRA. Similarly, under the populations and their respective habitats within Preferred Alternative, the Forest Service would the designated corridors for enjoyment by use existing authorities to protect the rivers’ future generations. This result is due primarily ORVs, free-flow, and water quality for which to three factors: they were found eligible, until such time as the agency finds it necessary to make a final 1. Designation would prohibit decision on suitability. As with A3-Suitable, no authorized water projects which appreciable change in these resources would could adversely affect free-flow, occur on National Forest lands in the interim. water quality, or the ORVS; Under A3-Not Suitable, however, the Forest 2. Designation would confer a Service could approve projects that have some recommendation of additional effects on these resources, such as structures for monitoring and the protection and diversion or sediment removal. Over time, enhancement of both water quality depending upon the nature and extent of and fisheries ORVs in all eligible development allowed, the cumulative effects of segments although funding for such such projects could degrade, somewhat, the an activity is not guaranteed under ORVs, free-flow, or water quality. However, the WSRA; and the magnitude of individual projects that might 3. Designation creates a greater be approved would be limited because, even potential for additional Federal under Alternative A3-Not Suitable, the Forest funding for easement and/or fee- Service would not approve any water storage title acquisition of fish habitat and structures within segments of the river corridors riparian areas from willing sellers. that had been identified as eligible during the present study. Therefore, there would be no This alternative provides additional Wild and inundation of large areas beyond ordinary high Scenic River direction to the Forest Service to

5-20 ˜ Chapter 5 manage other river-related resources such as water providers to adjust outflows from existing recreation and transportation to protect and facilities in order to benefit ORVs. Through an enhance the fishery. Protection of water amendment to the Forest Plan, road quality, flows, and riparian would be similar maintenance and associated impacts would be to that afforded under the Streamflow more restrictive in this alternative than in Management Plan under Alternatives A2, A3, Alternative A1; and this could help reduce and the Preferred Alternative. Alternative B sedimentation in most segments. However, would include the development of a because of the designation, attraction to a management plan, increased emphasis on National System river could increase use in partnerships to improve fisheries, and fisheries more accessible segments. habitat and monitoring of water quality and flows as under Alternatives A2, A3, and the Designation would protect the existing channel Preferred Alternative. It would also include integrity and aquatic habitat of each designated Federal financial and technical assistance not river segment. Designation could not force provided under Alternatives A2, A3 or the improvement of existing channel integrity, but Preferred Alternative which instead offer local voluntary cooperative arrangements could be financial assistance through an endowment made with landowners to perform such fund. restoration. Development of a comprehensive river No new water development or other action that management plan would identify direction and might have a direct and adverse effect on possible management actions to protect and channel integrity or aquatic habitat could occur enhance river values. Monitoring of water in any designated river segment, because of the quality and flows would provide information accompanying impact to free-flow, water needed to measure progress toward attaining quality, or the ORVs. Moreover, actions that goals to protect fisheries. The construction of occur upstream or on a tributary of a designated minor structures for improvement of fish river segment, if they require Federal assistance habitat would be considered compatible in all and/or permit, would need to incorporate segments, provided they protect or enhance mitigation measures to bring any adverse effects ORVs and do not affect free-flow. Limited within acceptable limits (section 7(a) of the Federal financial and technical assistance, both WSRA). Any actions upstream that do not inside and outside the corridor, would be meet this requirement would not be allowed. available for projects such as fencing and Mitigation measures resulting from these riparian restoration that could result in water upstream actions might include adjusted quality improvements. outflows from the facility, channel reconstruction to sustain channel integrity and protect ORVs, or some combination of the two. Channel Integrity and Aquatic Habitat However, there would be a consistent process This alternative would provide protection for all to analyze whether these measures meet the eligible segments in the study area, similar to limits of section 7(a) of the WSRA. These that afforded by the Streamflow Management limits are defined by the processes in Forest Plan under Alternatives A2, A3, and the Manual 2345.7 (Appendix G) on the amount Preferred Alternative, without the guarantee of and type of reconstruction that would be funding. Although the potential would exist for allowable on a designated river. If those limits increased Federal funding for habitat restoration were exceeded by some proposed future and enhancement, appropriation or allocation project, then an alternate method of delivery of of such funding would not be guaranteed. water to the metropolitan area would have to be Under this alternative, the Forest Service would developed. Such a scenario was envisioned in a pursue voluntary cooperative arrangements with letter to the city of Aurora in which a

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-21

$425-million pipeline would be constructed classified as wild by lack of roads. This from Antero Reservoir to Chatfield Reservoir condition would not change under this following U.S. 285 (Mulhern, 1996). alternative. (See section 5.9, “Recreation.”) However, improvements in habitat conditions Various measures, such as closing or improving could result in a higher quality fishing roads in poor condition, revegetating disturbed experience. areas, and restricting access to sensitive areas would be carried out to meet the intent of designation. These measures could also be Water Development and Flow Regime implemented under Alternatives A2, A3, or the The inclusion of all eligible segments into the Preferred Alternative as part of habitat National System would prevent the Federal restoration projects funded through the Energy Regulatory Commission from licensing endowment fund. These measures would help the construction of any dam, water conduit, reduce sedimentation in the designated reservoir, powerhouse, transmission line, or segments. At a minimum, these measures other project works under the Federal Power would prevent any degradation of habitat Act. In addition, no department or agency of conditions throughout the South Platte study the United States could assist by loan, grant, area, though they might be less effective in the license, or otherwise in the construction of any North Fork study area. water resources project within the river corridor that would have a direct and adverse effect on Fishery Management the values for which the river was designated. The most significant effect of designation under Special management areas would continue, with the WSRA would be to prohibit future stocking and normal regulations maintained in impoundment of these rivers (subject to prior most areas. Stocking of catchable fish would existing rights). Other water resource projects, continue in normal regulation areas, while a such as structures for water diversion or variety of management options would be sediment removal, would require review under considered to produce quality fisheries in the the WSRA and may not be approved. special regulation areas. The designation of some segments to more restrictive use, and Designation would also require that any possibly improved habitat conditions, may activities undertaken on areas or tributaries warrant a change in regulation to reflect the above or below designated reaches be evaluated increased fishery potential. to determine if they “. . .invade the area or unreasonably diminish the scenic, recreational, Management practices that reduce erosion and and fish and wildlife values present. . .as of the subsequent sedimentation in the river would date of designation. . ..” (section 7, WSRA). If a probably be adopted. Habitat improvement determination is made that the area will be techniques may be used to improve riparian and invaded or values will be unreasonably stream channel conditions. diminished, then the Forest Service would work with the project proponent to identify Angler Use recommendations to reduce adverse effects to within acceptable levels (Diedrich, 1997). Angler use is already high in this area, and any increase would result from addition to the Designation would not affect the operation National System and increased public awareness of existing water development projects or of the area. Additionally, angler use may existing flow regimes on the South Platte increase in the entire study area as the or North Fork. Designation would not population of Colorado increases. Access is affect any modified operation of existing restricted currently to foot traffic in the sections water developments as long as there is not a

5-22 ˜ Chapter 5 direct and adverse effect on the values for other modifications of the waterway, would which the river was designated. However, have to be evaluated for their effects on the the Forest Service would pursue voluntary river’s free-flowing condition, water quality, and cooperative arrangements with water providers ORVs. New water resource projects could not to adjust outflows from existing facilities in be implemented if judged to have an adverse order to benefit ORVs similar to those effect on the river’s free-flow, water quality, and outlined for the Streamflow Management ORVs. On the North Fork, this could lead to Plan in Alternatives A2, A3, or the Preferred impacts on the management of any planned Alternative. delivery system for the future, increased costs, and additional Federal agency review of For example, while natural ranges of flows, maintenance projects. On the South Platte, including high flows, are needed to maintain since there are few, if any, current or planned stream channels, increasing the duration of high water delivery improvements necessary to flows (at or near bank-full discharge) well maintain the system, there would be little or no beyond natural ranges has been shown to impact to the system’s operations. damage streambanks in some cases. However, under the WSRA, (see Appendix F, Alternative B would have no effect on Denver sections 10(e) and 11(b) (1)), the Forest Service Water's approved right-of-way for a would pursue cooperative agreements with 345,000-acre-foot reservoir near the confluence operators of water resource facilities to limit the of the North Fork and the South Platte, because artificially extended durations of high flows. the Wild and Scenic River designation would be These agreements would seek to provide better subject to that reservation. However, if protection to the streambanks and aquatic additional discretionary Federal approvals were resources but could limit timing and flow required to permit a resources project, Denver options for water delivery and storage. Water would not be able to obtain these approvals if the project were determined to Conversely, low flows within the study have “direct and adverse” effects on the values corridors have, for the most part, been for which the segment was designated. favorably affected by releases from upstream impoundments, because the resulting flows are Water suppliers in the Denver metropolitan area above the historic low-flow levels. These would have to plan for any new water storage, higher-than-normal low flows are beneficial to diversion and transmission facilities to be the aquatic resources of the river. However, if located outside the designated corridor. the volume of releases were to drop below Communities now dependent on ground historic low-flow levels, there could be an water would be precluded from constructing adverse impact to aquatic resources. If such new reservoirs in designated corridors in order operational changes were to occur on a to develop surface supplies or to recharge designated Wild and Scenic River, then the their aquifers with surface water. The impetus Forest Service would, again, seek cooperative to convert agricultural water supplies to agreements that would ensure aquatic resource municipal and industrial use may be greater protection. These agreements could also affect under this alternative than under the others timing and quantity of flow options available for because no new dams could be built in the water delivery and storage. designated corridor to increase water storage. The greatest pressure on alternative sources of Designation might affect future flow regimes water supply would arise under this alternative. tied to a new water development structure; and Disagreement exists whether implementation of any efforts to implement ongoing and planned this alternative would cause future water water delivery improvements, such as channel shortages in the Denver metropolitan area. modification, bank stabilization, diversions, and Based on the SPPP’s contemplation of a

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-23

possible future wherein no new reservoirs are unappropriated flows exist except perhaps in constructed, it can be reasonably concluded that years of high runoff. other sources of water might be sufficient to meet future demand. Others, however, remain One difference between all of the designation unconvinced that those alternatives will prove alternatives (B, C, D, F, G, I, and J) and those sufficient and, instead, argue that no options alternatives that include the SPPP (A2, A3, should be foregone at this time (Douglas and the Preferred Alternative) is longevity. County Commissioners and Douglas County The SPPP alternatives offer protections for Water Resource Authority, 2000). a 20-year time period. The SPPP would be evaluated for its overall effectiveness each time The effect on land values and private a water resources project was proposed. On the development in the study corridors is highly other hand, designation would provide speculative. If Denver Water determined it was permanent protection, with each proposed not able to construct a reservoir, then its water resources project evaluated under section extensive land holdings in the corridors might 7(a) of the WSRA. be considered excess and sold or exchanged with another entity. If these lands did go into Water Quality private ownership, it is likely that the resulting development of additional homes, private One overall purpose of designation under the recreation businesses, and commercial WSRA is to protect water quality (section 1(b)). enterprises on what is now vacant land would The WSRA directs the Forest Service to change the current recreation and visual cooperate with the Environmental Protection characteristics of the river corridor. If the lands Agency and the State to protect and maintain were exchanged into Federal ownership, future water quality in designated river segments development would be limited. Part of the (section 12(c)) as well as reduce or eliminate corridor lies in Douglas County, one of the sources of contamination. Designation by itself fastest growing counties in the United States. does not mandate higher water quality The value of private lands might increase under requirements but would likely heighten the designation if potential purchasers and priority for water quality protection and developers were less concerned about future restoration by the Forest Service and the State, inundation. especially those sections conferred 303(d) status, due to the recognition of Generally speaking, existing water rights are not significant river resources. affected by designation. The WSRA states that designation shall not be construed as a The Clean Water Act provides authority for reservation of the waters of such streams for States to classify streams as to beneficial use and purposes other than those specified in the describe the water quality parameters that will WSRA or in quantities greater than necessary to be tested to monitor that classification quality. accomplish these purposes. The Forest Service It is State of Colorado policy to classify waters would be able to acquire water rights under in designated wild rivers as constituting an State law. However, these would be junior to outstanding natural resource and, therefore, existing rights. The Forest Service would likely subject to anti-degradation rules CDPHE, 2001, ask the Colorado Water Conservation Board to section 31.8 (2) (a) (ii)). However, such an file for an instream flow water right on action is extremely unlikely given the problems unappropriated flows to protect the ORVs from with erosion control, especially in those diversions by other parties. This action would segments with 303(d) status, and other impacts not impact existing uses of water rights but that exist in each eligible segment. (See would prohibit future water development. “Channel Characteristics” under Chapter 2, However, there is debate on whether “Affected Environment,” section 2.12.)

5-24 ˜ Chapter 5 If the waters within the designated reach Canyon). In that segment, the amount of classified as scenic or recreational do not meet State protection would be slightly less than that standards for the beneficial use classification of provided by Alternatives B, D, F, G, and J but the stream, corrective action would be required much more than that of Alternatives A1, A2, I, (segments classified as wild must meet Federal and possibly A3 or the Preferred Alternative. and State standards to meet classification The construction of additional roads and trails requirements). This would be the case for those in the Wildcat Canyon area is possible under segments conferred 303(d) status. This would this alternative but less probable than under lead to definite water quality improvements but Alternative A1 or I. Segments designated as would mean additional costs for the owners of wild would be managed for little or no evidence any lands found to be sources of sedimentation. of human activity. Therefore, various measures If the quality of imported water is below current would be implemented in these segments to standards, some additional treatment could be reduce or restore existing disturbed areas, required before importation, which could also resulting in decreased sedimentation. The limit management options and increase costs. increased possibility of additional access into the Wildcat Canyon area, as compared to Corridor designation would not affect land uses Alternatives B, D, F, G, and J, could result in on non-Federal lands, where State and local increased sedimentation. Any existing or new land use regulations would prevail. However, access would be managed so as not to affect the voluntary cooperative arrangements could be scenic classification. Therefore, at a minimum, made with landowners to emphasize water habitat conditions would remain constant quality restoration. As in Alternatives A2, A3, throughout the study area. and the Preferred Alternative, designation would heighten Forest Service priority for water quality protection and restoration measures on Fishery Management Federal lands. Fishery management would be similar to Alternative B. ALTERNATIVE C Management practices that reduce erosion, and Designation under this alternative would be subsequent sedimentation in the river would similar to Alternative B, except that the entire probably be adopted. The potential to adopt 10.4 miles of Segment C (Wildcat Canyon) management practices that reduce erosion and would be designated as scenic instead of subsequent sedimentation in the river would be Segment C2 only. high, but not as high as in Alternative B in Segment C. Channel Integrity and Aquatic Environment Water Development and Flow Regime The effects of Alternative C would be similar to Alternative B for all sections except The effects of Alternative C would be the same Segments C1 and C3 (10.4 miles), which would as those of Alternative B. have a lower degree of protection because of the slightly higher potential for shoreline Water Quality development and roads under a scenic classification. (See table 3-3, the classification The effects of Alternative C would be similar to matrix.) those of Alternative B. Although the 1982 guidelines (U.S. Department of the Interior This alternative would provide the highest level ([DOI] and U.S. Department of Agriculture of protection for all eligible segments in the [USDA], 1982) for the WSRA state that water study area other than Segment C (Wildcat quality in wild waters must “meet or exceed

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-25

Federal criteria . . .,” scenic and recreational waters Fishery Management would still be subject to the criteria of the Fishery management on the South Platte, Federal Pollution Control Act of 1972, under Segments A, B, C, D, and E, would be similar to which a water quality improvement plan must Alternative B. exist or be developed for any waters considered to be of poor quality. Therefore, the scenic Effects on the North Fork, Segment H, would classification assigned to the entire length of be similar to Alternative A1 with higher Segment C in this alternative does not potential for water development projects that necessarily mean protection of water quality could significantly affect fish populations. This would be any less than under the Alternative B includes reduced potential for changes in wild classification for Sections C2 and C3. management practices to reduce erosion and subsequent sedimentation in the North Fork. ALTERNATIVE D Angler Use This alternative would designate none of the segments on the North Fork but would The effects of angler use on the mainstem of designate all segments on the mainstem at their the South Platte would be similar to most protective classifications (49.4 miles). Alternative B. Effects on the North Fork Effects of designation on the mainstem would would be similar to Alternative A1. be similar to Alternative B and on the North Fork, similar to Alternative A1. Water Development and Flow Regime; Water Quality Channel Integrity and Aquatic Environment The effects of this alternative on water Like Alternative B, this alternative would development, flow regime, and water quality provide the best protection for all eligible would be the same as those of Alternative B for segments on the mainstem of the South Platte the South Platte. For the North Fork, they River in the study area. Management of the would be the same as Alternative A1, with the North Fork corridor would be the same as following exceptions. Since the extreme lowest under Alternative A1. This alternative would quarter-mile of the North Fork would lie within provide more area of habitat protection than the designated corridor, it would be subject to Alternative A1, F, G, I, or J but less than the same potential restrictions on water quality, Alternative B or C. The potential exists for timing, and flows as under Alternative B. These more area protection on the North Fork under restrictions could indirectly impact the Alternatives A2, A3, and the Preferred operation of the Roberts Tunnel and of the Alternative. However, comparison between entire river, just as if the entire North Fork Alternatives A2, A3, the Preferred Alternative, corridor were designated. Under this and Alternative D is difficult with the alternative, the Forest Service would pursue information currently in hand. The potential voluntary cooperative arrangements with water for water development projects being proposed providers to adjust outflows from existing and approved under Alternatives A2, A3, and facilities in order to benefit ORVs. the Preferred Alternative may decrease protection in some segments of the study area. ALTERNATIVE F There is no Federal prohibition of dams or diversions for the eligible segments on the This alternative would designate four segments North Fork under Alternative D. Management on the South Platte River and one segment on of the eligible South Platte corridors would be the North Fork that fall entirely on National the same as under Alternative B. Forest land (total of 26.2 miles). Effects of

5-26 ˜ Chapter 5 designation on these segments would be similar This would shift off-road-vehicle use outside to Alternative B. Effects on the other segments the designated areas. As a result, habitat would be similar to Alternative A1. conditions would, at a minimum, remain constant throughout the designated portions of Channel Integrity and Aquatic Environment Federal lands in the study area, but could possibly degrade on the areas not recommended Designating five segments of National Forest for designation. System lands within the study areas would have effects similar to those of Alternative B, but Fishery Management only on those lands. One of the most important areas in the study corridors for fish Fishery management under this alternative habitat and fish populations, from above would be similar to that of Alternative B for the Deckers to Scraggy View on the South Platte, five segments of National Forest Land in the would not be protected under this alternative. study area. The designation of some segments to more restrictive use, and possibly improved This alternative would prohibit major dams and habitat conditions, may warrant a change in diversions in most of the aquatic habitats regulation to reflect the increased fishery administered by the Forest Service in the study potential. The fragmented nature of the area. This would provide more area of habitat designated segments may make regulation more protection than Alternative A1, G, or I but less difficult. than any of the other alternatives. Under this alternative, habitats influenced by flow levels Attempts would continue to reduce erosion and would be maintained to meet the appropriate subsequent sedimentation in the river. Habitat designations. This alternative includes no improvement techniques may be used to Federal prohibition of dams or diversions for improve riparian and stream channel conditions eligible North Fork Segments H1 and H3, nor on the designated areas to provide a higher for the areas of the South Platte in Segment E quality habitat. and the private lands around Lake George. Management of the designated corridors would Angler Use be identical to that described for Alternative B. The effects on angler use for the five segments In these areas, habitats influenced by flow levels of National Forest Land in the study area would would be maintained to meet the intent of the be similar to Alternative B. Angler use may WSRA. This may result in protection of free- increase in all segments as the population of flows similar to that of Alternative B since both Colorado increases. However, the increased study rivers include segments recommended for desirability of the designated segments to designation. Various remedial measures—such visitors that are interested in experiencing a as closing or improving roads in poor condition, higher quality and more pristine fishery would revegetating disturbed areas, and restricting probably draw more people to the area. access to areas sensitive to surface-disturbing activities—would be carried out to meet the Water Development and Flow Regime intent of designation. These measures would help reduce river sedimentation on federally Designating five segments of National Forest administered lands. However, no such System lands within the study corridors would remediation would be required on non-Federal have effects on water development and flow lands, even where they are intermingled with the regime similar to those of Alternative B but only Federal lands. Recreational impacts would have on those lands. No non-Federal lands would be to be mitigated in Wildcat Canyon in order to involved, so many of Denver Water's current meet the wild designation in Sections C1 and C3. operations in the North Fork would not be

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-27

subject to review for compliance with the restricted than under Alternative A1, in order to WSRA unless they inundated or unreasonably reduce their associated impacts. Various diminished the values for which the upstream or remedial measures—such as closing or downstream wild and scenic river segments were improving roads in poor condition, revegetating designated. Potential water storage disturbed areas, and restricting access to areas opportunities in the undesignated segments are sensitive to surface-disturbing activities—would not foreclosed. be carried out to meet the intent of designation. These measures would help reduce Water Quality sedimentation in the designated segments. Recreational impacts would have to be The effects on water quality would be similar to mitigated in Wildcat Canyon in order to meet those of Alternative B. the wild designation. This would shift off-road- vehicle use outside the designated areas. ALTERNATIVE G Habitat conditions, at a minimum, would remain constant along the South Platte above This alternative would designate the 30.8 miles Cheesman Reservoir. Effects on habitat of the South Platte River in the study area that conditions along segments found not suitable are upstream from Cheesman Reservoir. would be similar to those described under Effects in the designated area would be similar Alternative A1. to Alternative B. Effects in the non-designated segments would be similar to Alternative A1. Fishery Management

Channel Integrity and Aquatic Environment Effects on fishery management would be similar to Alternative B for segments A, B, and C. This alternative would provide the same Effects for all other segments would be similar protection for the aquatic habitats in the study to Alternative A1. area upstream of Cheesman Reservoir as in Alternative B. The most important area in the Angler Use study corridors for fish habitat and fish populations, from Cheesman Dam to Scraggy Effects on angler use would be similar to View on the South Platte, would not be Alternative B for segments A, B, and C. Effects protected. for all other segments would be similar to Alternative A1. This alternative would provide more area of habitat protection than Alternative A1 or I but Water Development and Flow Regime; less than any of the other alternatives. It Water Quality includes no Federal prohibition of major dams, diversions, or water developments for the On the South Platte above Cheesman Reservoir, eligible North Fork segments or for the eligible this alternative would have the same effects as South Platte segments downstream from Alternative B. Potential water storage Cheesman Dam. Management of the South opportunities in the undesignated segments are Platte corridor upstream from Cheesman not foreclosed. Below Cheesman Reservoir and Reservoir would be identical to that described on the North Fork, effects would be similar to for Alternative B. In that area, habitats those of Alternative A1. influenced by flow levels would be maintained to meet the appropriate designations. Road ALTERNATIVE I maintenance and construction near the mainstem from Cheesman Reservoir up This alternative would designate the 22.4 miles through Elevenmile Canyon would be more of the South Platte within the study corridor

5-28 ˜ Chapter 5 upstream from Corral Creek. Effects on Fishery Management Segment C1 would be similar to Alternative C, Effects on fishery management would be similar and effects on the other designated segments to Alternatives B and C for segments A, B, and would be similar to Alternatives B or C. Effects C2. Effects on C1 would be similar to on the non-designated segments would be Alternative C. Effects for all other segments similar to Alternative A1. would be similar to Alternative A1.

Channel Integrity and Aquatic Environment Angler Use On the South Platte above Beaver Creek, this Effects on angler use would be similar to alternative would have the same effects as Alternatives B and C for segments A, B, and Alternative B. The effects between Beaver C2. Effects on C1 would be similar to Creek and Corral Creek would be the same as Alternative C. Effects for all other segments those of Alternative C. For the remaining would be similar to Alternative A1. segments, the effects would be the same as those of Alternative A1. This alternative would provide slightly more area of habitat protection Water Development and Flow Regime; than Alternative A1 but less than the other Water Quality alternatives provide. The most important part On the South Platte above Beaver Creek, this of the study corridors for fish habitat and fish alternative would have the same effects on populations, from Cheesman Dam to Scraggy water development, flow regime, and water View on the South Platte, would not be quality as Alternative B. Between Beaver Creek protected under this alternative, and it provides and Corral Creek, it would have the same no Federal prohibition of major dams, effects as Alternative C. Potential water storage diversions, or water developments on the sites in the undesignated segments are not eligible North Fork segments, nor on the foreclosed. Below Corral Creek and on the eligible South Platte segments downstream from North Fork, the effects would be the same as Corral Creek. On the eligible segments those of Alternative A1. upstream from Corral Creek, habitats influenced by flow levels would be maintained to meet the appropriate designations. ALTERNATIVE J Sedimentation would be reduced throughout The effects on the 48.1 miles of eligible the designated segments. There would be some segments along the South Platte above the potential for construction of additional roads North Fork confluence under Alternative J are and trails in the Wildcat Canyon area above described below. The effects on the entire Corral Creek. Construction of additional roads North Fork and on the 1.4 miles of the South and trails in Wildcat Canyon below Corral Platte below the North Fork confluence would Creek would be subject to current Forest Plan be the same as those of Alternative A1. standards and guidelines. At a minimum, habitat conditions would remain constant in the Channel Integrity and Aquatic Habitat designated areas upstream from Corral Creek; however, major habitat changes could occur in Like Alternative D, this alternative would all the remaining segments. provide the best protection for all eligible segments on the South Platte in the study area, except that no protection would be provided for the 1.3-mile section of the South Platte River from the North Fork confluence to Strontia Springs Reservoir and for the entire

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-29

North Fork study corridor. Management of the Alternative A1. Potential water storage sites in North Fork corridor and the 1.3-mile non- the undesignated segments are not foreclosed. designated South Platte segment would be the same as under Alternative A1. Water Quality On the South Platte, habitats influenced by flow For the designated segments, this alternative levels would be maintained to meet the intent of would have the same effects as Alternative C. the WSRA. This may result in protected flow For the remaining segments, it would have the levels on that river similar to those of same effects as Alternative A1. Alternative B. Road maintenance and its associated impacts would be more restrictive in this alternative than they are at present. Sedimentation could be reduced along the South Platte but could increase along the North 5.8 WILDLIFE Fork. The same potential exists for construction of additional roads and trails in As described in the “Affected Environment” Segment C2 in Wildcat Canyon as under section (Chapter 2), the study area contains a Alternative B, D, F, or G, which could lead to diverse mix of vegetation from wetlands to more sedimentation in this area. Also, upland forests. This mix of vegetation creates recreational use of that segment could increase diverse habitat for wildlife that helps meet their if access is improved into the area. feeding, cover, and breeding requirements. All of the acres within the study corridors are considered wildlife habitat except for the areas Fishery Management occupied by roads and facilities. Segments C, Effects on fishery management would be similar D, E, and H have been determined to possess to Alternative C except for the 1.3-mile section ORVs for wildlife. of the South Platte River from the North Fork Designation of the study area, or lack of confluence to Strontia Springs Reservoir and for designation, would provide varying amounts of the entire North Fork study corridor. Effects protection for wildlife habitat and would affect on these sections would be similar to the management of the corridor for wildlife in Alternative A1. the future.

Angler Use A ranking of the alternatives based on the amount of protection they provide for wildlife Effects on angler use would be similar to habitat, from most protective to least protective, Alternative C except for the 1.3-mile section of is as follows: Alternative B, C, D, J, F, G, I, the South Platte River from the North Fork A3-Suitable, Preferred Alternative, A3-Not confluence to Strontia Springs Reservoir and for Suitable, A2, and A1. This is based on the the entire North Fork study corridor. Effects number of river miles that are protected, the on these sections would be similar to significance of the protected habitat, the Alternative A1. permanence of protection, and the activities allowed in each classification (wild, scenic, or Water Development and Flow Regime recreational). On the South Platte above the North Fork During scoping, the public raised the issue of confluence, this alternative would have the same the effects of designation on downstream effects as Alternative D. On the North Fork threatened and endangered species such as the and on the South Platte below the North Fork whooping crane, piping plover, and least tern confluence, it would have the same effects as and on associated habitat of the sandhill crane.

5-30 ˜ Chapter 5 If the study area or segments of the study area Water Development were designated, the construction of a dam and Alternative A1 would allow the potential for reservoir on those segments would be dam and reservoir development in the study precluded. Currently, the eligible segments are area. While specific impacts would be free-flowing. With designation, they would addressed in detail at the time of such a continue to be free-flowing. Wild and Scenic proposal, the analysis of past inundation designation would not alter existing proposals in the study area (U.S. Army Corps of downstream water allocations or determine the Engineers [USACE], 1988a) determined that quantity of water that eventually reaches there would have been habitat losses for wildlife habitats of downstream threatened and which would have required costly replacement endangered species (Denver Water, 2002). mitigation. Without Wild and Scenic designation, future dam and reservoir proposals could be considered. If one is proposed that would Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects “cause a new depletion or facilitate the Given the expected population increase within continued depletion” of the South Platte River, Colorado, it is likely that incremental habitat consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife losses would occur in the study area from the Service would be required under section 7 of development of private lands and the the Endangered Species Act. The Fish and development of visitor facilities on public lands. Wildlife Service would determine the effects of Increased human activity in the area could also the proposed project on downstream species at reduce the effectiveness of the habitat. that time. Secondary negative effects include the increased risk of wildfire and the introduction of non- ALTERNATIVE A1 – NO ACTION native species, particularly noxious weeds. These effects are common to all alternatives and In this alternative, the current management are considered to be part of the baseline activities that affect wildlife and its habitat conditions. would not change. The Forest Plan would continue to be the primary document guiding Based on the biological report (Appendix E), management of the study area, and recreation this alternative would not affect federally listed would continue to be the major management species, sensitive species, or management emphasis in the corridor. Fuel wood removal, indicator species. prescribed fires, the treatment of noxious weeds, and cattle grazing are some of the ORV Protection management activities that would continue as they have in the past. The Forest Service, This alternative would not identify or provide Colorado Division of Wildlife, and Denver additional protection for any ORVs in the study Water would continue to work cooperatively to area. manage lands and enforce wildlife regulations. Any proposed project that may affect ALTERNATIVE A2 threatened, endangered, or proposed species would still be subject to the Endangered Species In the A2 proposal one of the stated goals is to Act; and the project’s effects on sensitive “Provide resource and ecological protection or species and management indicator species restoration for wildlife and plant species.” (See would also be considered. Appendix A, Attachment C, p. C-2.) The details of how this would be accomplished are not stated but would be addressed in the future in a more detailed Recreation Management

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-31

Plan. Based on this stated goal, wildlife, and waterworks facilities in Cheesman Canyon or plant species may receive more emphasis on Elevenmile Canyon and to withdraw the Denver Water and private lands in the future. application for 780,000 acre-feet of additional Since this proposal extends from Elevenmile storage at the Two Forks site. Reservoir to Chatfield State Park, this alternative provides an opportunity to Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects cooperatively manage more acres for the benefit of wildlife than do any of the designation This alternative would protect 11.8 miles of the alternatives. Habitat improvement projects, river corridor in Cheesman and Elevenmile such as prescribed burning, would be more Canyons from impoundment. The biological effective with the coordinated effort of all land report determined that this alternative would managers. Funding for wildlife habitat benefit all federally listed, sensitive, and improvement projects may be available through management indicator species in the study area the Endowment Fund. (See Appendix A, for at least 20 years. Because of the complex Attachment D.) Overall, wildlife habitat implementation of the management plans and management under this alternative would not the 20-year time limit for protection, this vary substantially from the existing condition. alternative provides less protection than the The Forest Plan would continue to be the designation alternatives and Alternative A3 primary document guiding wildlife habitat or the Preferred Alternative, but more than management on National Forest System lands. the no action alternative (A1). Under Recreation would continue to be the major Alternative A2, long-term protection of the management emphasis in the corridor. The ORVs is not a certainty, and more complex Forest Service, Colorado Division of Wildlife, implementation measures may be required. and Denver Water would continue to work After 20 years, wildlife habitat in the river cooperatively to manage lands and enforce corridor could be at risk of inundation. regulations for wildlife. Any proposed project that may affect threatened, endangered, or ORV Protection proposed species would still be subject to the Endangered Species Act. Any proposed actions The Pawnee montane skipper population and on National Forest System lands would also be habitat was determined to be an outstandingly evaluated for their effects on sensitive species remarkable wildlife value in Segments C, D, E, and management indicator species. and H. The A2 alternative would protect this value primarily through its use of the The A2 proposal also specifically mentions Endangered Species Act. As stated in the developing Bailey Canyon as a special recreation A2 proposal (Attachment A of Appendix A), area with emphasis on whitewater recreation any lease of lands owned by Denver Water in (Appendix A, Attachment A). This area is Segments C, D, E, and H would specify that currently managed as big game winter range, areas of skipper habitat be managed in a manner and developing it with a recreation emphasis to protect the species. This commitment is would diminish its value for wildlife. subject to future critical habitat mapping, delisting of the species, or changes to the Water Development Endangered Species Act. The skipper was identified as an ORV based on its unique Alternative A2 would allow water-supply-related occurrence in the river corridor, not on its improvements in Segments B, C, E, and H but status as a listed species. Should the species be would not impact the corridor’s ORVs delisted or any other stated change take place, it significantly during the 20-year moratorium on is not clear how the A2 alternative would development of Denver Water’s right-of-way. provide protective measures for this ORV. The A2 proposal commits to not build any

5-32 ˜ Chapter 5 Peregrine falcon habitat was determined to be indicator species in the study area for at least an ORV in Segment H. The known nesting 20 years. Because of the management changes site is currently closed to human activity stated above, the A3 alternatives and the each nesting season. Alternative A2 would Preferred Alternative would protect wildlife recommend additional road and trail habitat more than Alternatives A1 or A2 but construction restrictions for this site. These less than the designation alternatives. measures would provide full protection for Additionally, under the Preferred Alternative this ORV for at least 20 years. Protective and Alternative A3-Suitable, the ORVs on measures beyond 20 years were not identified. National Forest System lands would be protected; and as a consequence, wildlife habitat on those lands would also be protected. Since ALTERNATIVE A3 AND THE Alternative A3-Not Suitable would allow limited PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE or reasonable effects on ORVs, it would not Alternatives A3-Suitable, A3-Not Suitable, and the provide as much wildlife habitat protection as Preferred Alternative would protect all ORVs Alternative A3-Suitable or the Preferred for at least 20 years but would not recommend Alternative. designation. These alternatives are not substantially different from A2 in terms of their ORV Protection effects on wildlife. One difference is that the Bailey Canyon area would continue to be The Pawnee montane skipper population and managed as big game winter range, with low habitat was determined to be an ORV in levels of recreation use, rather than as a special- Segments C, D, E, and H. The A3 alternatives emphasis whitewater recreation area. This and the Preferred Alternative would protect this would protect the winter range and riparian value primarily through use of the Endangered wildlife habitat of the canyon. The Wildcat Species Act and by committing to not build Canyon area, Segment C, would have a focused waterworks facilities in Segment D. Since planning effort to determine compatible and Alternative A3-Not Suitable would allow limited appropriate uses for the area. Wildlife is one of or reasonable effects to this ORV, it would not the issues of concern in this area. provide as much protection as the Preferred Alternative or Alternative A3-Suitable. Should the skipper be delisted or any other stated Water Development change take place, this ORV would continue In addition to the A2 commitments, the to be protected on National Forest System Preferred Alternative and Alternative A3- lands under the Preferred Alternative and Suitable would protect eligibility on National Alternative A3-Suitable and, to a lesser extent, Forest System lands, and A3-Not Suitable would under A3-Not Suitable. allow critical development projects to have Peregrine falcon habitat was determined to limited or reasonable effects on ORVs or be an ORV in Segment H. The known nesting free-flow. site is currently closed to human activity each nesting season. The A3 alternatives and the Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Preferred Alternative would recommend The A3 alternatives and the Preferred additional road and trail construction Alternative would protect 11.8 miles of the river restrictions for this site. These measures corridor in Cheesman and Elevenmile Canyons would provide full protection for this ORV from impoundment. The biological report for at least 20 years. Protection measures determined that this alternative would benefit all extending beyond 20 years were not identified. federally listed, sensitive, and management Additionally, under Alternative A3-Suitable and the Preferred Alternative, a small portion of the

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-33

site that is on National Forest System lands benefit all federally listed, sensitive, and would be protected as an ORV. Since management indicator species in the study area Alternative A3-Not Suitable would allow limited more than any other alternative. or reasonable effects to this ORV, it would not provide as much protection as the Preferred ORV Protection Alternative or A3-Suitable. Under this alternative, wildlife ORVs would be protected under the guidance of the Wild and ALTERNATIVE B Scenic Rivers Act in all areas where they have This alternative would protect 72.3 miles of the been identified (Segments C, D, E, and H). All rivers at their most protective classifications. skipper habitat and peregrine falcon habitat in the study area would be protected. Water Development ALTERNATIVE C Designation under the WSRA would prohibit future impoundments of the designated rivers Water Development by any major water resource project requiring The effects of water development on wildlife Federal approvals, subject to prior existing would be the same as under Alternative B. rights. Any proposed improvements to the water delivery system—such as channel modification, bank stabilization, diversions, and Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects other modifications of the waterway—would The effects on wildlife under this alternative have to be evaluated for their effects on the would be the same as those of Alternative B, river’s free-flowing condition and ORVs. except that the 10.4-mile section of Segment C would be managed as scenic and not wild. This Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects would allow some roads and motorized use in Segment C that would not be allowed under This alternative could provide additional Alternative B. In the past, motorized use of protection for wildlife and its habitat primarily portions of Segment C has impacted riparian, due to the prohibition of future impoundments. wetland, and upland habitat. This alternative Designation would also prohibit new roads and would create favorable cumulative effects by motorized use in wild segments and limit new providing habitat linkages and connectivity with construction and new river crossings in scenic other undeveloped drainages, but it may not be segments, which would reduce disturbances to as effective in this respect as Alternative B. The wildlife and riparian habitat. This alternative biological report determined that Alternative C would allow less recreation development and would benefit all federally listed, sensitive, and road construction than any of the other management indicator species in the study area alternatives. This restriction on development but would provide less benefit than could result in favorable cumulative effects by Alternative B. providing habitat linkages and connectivity with other undeveloped drainages, particularly in Segment C, Wildcat Canyon. On the other ORV Protection hand, accessibility for future wildlife habitat Under this alternative, wildlife ORVs would be improvements projects could be limited, protected under the guidance of the Wild and especially in Segment C. Because this Scenic Rivers Act in all areas where they have alternative protects the most river miles in the been identified (Segments C, D, E, and H). All most protective classifications, the biological skipper habitat and peregrine falcon habitat in report determined that this alternative would the study area would be protected.

5-34 ˜ Chapter 5 ALTERNATIVE D Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Water Development The effects on wildlife under this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative D, The effects of water development on wildlife except that an additional 2.6-mile segment on would be the same as under Alternative B for the North Fork would be recommended for Segments A, B, C, D, and E and the same as designation (Segment H2), a 19.5-mile segment Alternative A1 for Segment H. of the South Platte downstream from the Wigwam Club property (Segment E) would not Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects be designated, and two small sections totaling 6.3 miles around Lake George would not be The effects on wildlife under this alternative designated. The effects would be the same as in would be the same as those of Alternative B, Alternative B for the designated segments and except that Segment H of the North Fork the same as in Alternative A1 for the non- would not be recommended for designation. designated segments. The biological report This segment is 22.9 miles long. About determined that this alternative would benefit 700 acres of riparian habitat, 140 acres of most federally listed, sensitive, and management grassland habitat, and 5,400 acres of forested indicator species in the segments considered but habitat in this segment would not be protected would provide less benefit than Alternative J. through designation. The biological report Even though Segments E and H3 would not be determined that this alternative would benefit protected, Alternative F would not impact the most federally listed, sensitive, and management Ute ladies tresses’ orchid. indicator species in the segments considered but would provide less benefit than Alternative C. ORV Protection Even though Segment H1 would not be protected, Alternative D would not impact the Under this alternative, the wildlife ORVs would boreal toad. The effects on Segment H would be protected under the guidance of the Wild be the same as Alternative A1. and Scenic Rivers Act on Segments C and D but not on Segments E and H. Approximately ORV Protection 5 percent of the skipper habitat in the study area would be protected. Under this alternative, the wildlife ORVs would be protected under the guidance of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act on Segments C, D, ALTERNATIVE G and E but not on Segment H. Approximately Water Development 60 percent of the skipper habitat in the study area would be protected. The effects of water development on wildlife would be the same as under Alternative B for Segments A, B, and C. The effects for ALTERNATIVE F Segments D, E, and H would be similar to Water Development those of Alternative A1.

The effects of water development on wildlife Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects would be the same as under Alternative B on all National Forest System lands and the same as The effects on wildlife under this alternative under Alternative A1 on other lands. would be the same as those of Alternative B on the South Platte upstream from Cheesman Reservoir, and the same as those of Alternative A1 on the North Fork and the

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-35

South Platte downstream from Cheesman ORV Protection Reservoir. The biological report determined Under this alternative, the wildlife ORVs would that this alternative would benefit most federally be protected under the guidance of the WSRA listed, sensitive, and management indicator on Segment C upstream from Corral Creek but species in the segments considered but would not on Segment C downstream from Corral provide less benefit than Alternative F. Even Creek or on Segments D, E, or H. Less than though Segments E, H1, and H3 would not be 1 percent of the skipper habitat in the study area protected, Alternative G would not impact the would be protected. Ute ladies tresses’ orchid or the boreal toad.

ORV Protection ALTERNATIVE J Under this alternative, the wildlife ORVs would Water Development be protected under the guidance of the Wild The effects of water development on wildlife and Scenic River Act on Segment C but not on would be the same as under Alternative B for Segments D, E, or H. Approximately 1 percent Segments A, B, C, D, and E above the of the skipper habitat in the study area would be confluence with the North Fork. The effects protected. on Segment E downstream from the confluence with the North Fork and Segment H would be ALTERNATIVE I similar to those of Alternative A1.

Water Development Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The effects of water development on wildlife The effects on wildlife under this alternative would be the same as under Alternative C for would be the same as those of Alternative B, Segments A and B and for the part of except that Segment H of the North Fork and a Segment C from Beaver Creek to Corral Creek. 1.3-mile section of Segment E would not be The effects for Segments D, E, and H and for recommended for designation. About 700 acres Segment C downstream from Corral Creek of riparian habitat, 140 acres of grassland would be similar to those of Alternative A1. habitat, and 60 acres of shrubland, and 5,700 acres of forested habitat would not be Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects protected through designation. The biological The effects on wildlife under this alternative report determined that this alternative would would be the same as those of Alternative C benefit most federally listed, sensitive, and upstream from Corral Creek, and the same as management indicator species in the segments Alternative A1 downstream from Corral Creek. considered but would provide less benefit than The biological report determined that this Alternative D. Even though Segments H1, alternative would benefit most federally listed, would not be protected, this alternative would sensitive, and management indicator species in not impact the boreal toad. the segments considered but would provide less benefit than Alternative G. Even though ORV Protection Segments E, H1, and H3 would not be Under this alternative, the wildlife ORVs protected, this alternative would not impact the would be protected under the guidance of Ute ladies tresses’ orchid or the boreal toad. the WSRA on Segments C, D, and E but not on Segment H or 1.3 miles of Segment E. Approximately 60 percent of the skipper habitat in the study area would be protected.

5-36 ˜ Chapter 5 WSRA designation for establishing and 5.9 RECREATION maintaining river classifications and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes. In these This section discusses the effects of each alternatives, the potential for cooperative alternative on recreation in terms of recreation management and funding of recreation facilities use, recreation experience, facilities is high, with a commitment by Denver Water to development, management, recreation allow another agency to manage recreation use partnerships, and protection of ORVs. and development on its lands. In many parts of Recreation use of the area has an economic and the corridor, Denver Water’s lands offer better social influence on the local counties. It also recreational opportunities than the National affects their natural resources. The principal Forest System lands. Alternatives A2, A3, and differences between the alternatives relate to the the Preferred Alternative also provide a source potential implementation of water resource of funding for projects that could include development and on river protection scenarios. recreation facilities. The opportunity for management partnerships is very high in these EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL alternatives, with several agencies and ALTERNATIVES organizations committed in writing to providing funds or other resources. In all alternatives, the State's authority over boating safety is unaffected. Laws and Alternatives A2, A3, and the Preferred regulations regarding boating on rivers, Alternative do not protect outstandingly including passage of watercraft through reaches remarkable recreation values as well as the bounded by private land, would be applicable in designation alternatives, in that the SPPP does all alternatives. For Alternatives A2, A3, and not prohibit dam construction. However, long- the Preferred Alternative, the increase in total term protection is greater than in no action recreation use and visitation would be most Alternative A1, because under the SPPP Denver similar to that of Alternative B, based on the Water voluntarily commits to not proposing a geographic area included. However, dam in their right-of-way at the confluence for Alternatives A2, A3, and the Preferred an extended time period, and all water providers Alternative offer better opportunities for commit to constructing no new water works in management partnerships, funding, and Elevenmile and Cheesman Canyons. enforcement than any of the designation Alternatives A2, A3, and the Preferred alternatives, which would likely have to rely Alternative include a larger river corridor area more on Federal funding and personnel for than any of the other alternatives since the implementation. In addition, some of the river management area would extend downstream to flow and bank rehabilitation agreements in A2, include Strontia Springs Reservoir and Waterton A3, and the Preferred Alternative could enhance Canyon to Chatfield State Park. This larger many recreation values by reducing the river management area and the cooperative appearance of unnatural impacts, by improving commitments provide an opportunity for fisheries, or by extending periods when flow is greater consistency in management and, sufficient for boating. therefore, a higher quality recreation experience The types of recreation experiences available and protection of ORVs, free-flow, and water under Alternatives A2, A3, and the Preferred quality. Alternatives A2, A3, and the Preferred Alternative would parallel those of Alternative probably provide a greater service to Alternative B, since the SPPP would use the the recreating public than the other alternatives same guidelines as those used under considered in this study.

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-37

ALTERNATIVE A1 – NO ACTION If no additional water resource projects are built, recreation uses are expected to increase by This alternative accommodates the current 3-4 percent annually on National Forest System recreation use patterns as directed by the Forest lands. Extensive partnership efforts with Plan but allows for more recreation Denver Water, Colorado Division of Wildlife, developments in the area. New recreational four-wheel drive clubs, and other organizations facilities would be analyzed on a case-by-case would continue to provide quality recreation basis for consistency with the Forest Plan. opportunities and additional resource protection Commercial outfitting and guiding would in the area. Opportunities to provide additional continue to be administered by special use recreation facilities along the study corridors permit. Additional operations may be permitted would not be affected. if consistent with the Forest Plan. Recreation use is expected to continue to ALTERNATIVE A2 increase annually but would likely increase Alternative A2 would allow water-supply-related somewhat less rapidly than with the Wild and improvements in Segments B, C, E, and H, Scenic River designation proposed in although Denver Water has committed itself to Alternatives B through J. Designation may not cause significant impacts to the recreation inherently attract more visitors to the river ORVs considering the river corridor as a whole. corridor. Road construction and timber This ORV protection standard is greater than harvest under the Forest Plan could reduce that provided in A1 but less than that provided the opportunities for solitude and primitive in A3, the Preferred Alternative, or any of the recreation experiences in the potential wild designation alternatives. and scenic segments of the study corridors. The ROS classes for the study corridors would remain rural for Segments A, B, E, and H; ALTERNATIVE A3 AND THE semi-primitive motorized for Segment C from PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Corral Creek to Vermillion Creek; and semi-primitive nonmotorized on Segment C Alternatives A3-Suitable and A3-Not Suitable and from Corral Creek to Cheesman Reservoir the Preferred Alternative provide two and on Segment D development standards: A3-Suitable and the Preferred Alternative absolutely protect the Motorized off-highway-vehicle recreation eligibility of river segments on National Forest opportunities would continue to be available in lands, whereas A3-Not Suitable has eligibility as a the potential wild segments, especially in the goal but allows some critical development areas of current OHV use such as Wildcat projects that could have limited or reasonable Canyon. Any new road construction in the effects to ORVs or free-flow. The Preferred study corridors would provide additional Alternative and A3-Suitable protections of opportunities for motorized recreation, ORVs and free-flow are greater than those of including sightseeing. Alternatives A1, A2, or A3-Not Suitable but are less than those of any of the designation This alternative leaves open the potential for alternatives. For example, under A3-Not major dams, diversions, and water Suitable, if a proposed diversion structure would developments in the study corridors. If this create a small impoundment that would affect should occur, those recreation opportunities, the kayaking, canoeing, or tubing experience, it based on the free-flowing river as currently nevertheless could be approved if a need for exists, could be irretrievably lost. Different additional water supplies was determined to be types of recreation opportunities could become critical enough to warrant limited or reasonable available, though, if a new reservoir were built. effects to the recreation ORV.

5-38 ˜ Chapter 5 ALTERNATIVE B as long as the ORVs were protected. However, this classification does not require extensive Annual recreation use on National Forest recreation development. Disabled access would System lands would be expected to be slightly be increased as recreation sites are improved in higher under this alternative than under A1, as the recreational and scenic segments. rivers receive more publicity through designation. If designation does attract more The opportunities for solitude in the wild users to the river corridor and no mitigation sections in Segments C and D would be measures are taken, it could cause cumulative enhanced and maximized under this alternative. impacts such as habitat degradation and visible The ROS would change from semi-primitive impacts such as vegetation loss at campsites and motorized to semi-primitive nonmotorized in along foot trails, bank erosion, and increased Segments C1, C2, and D. Motorized recreation litter. opportunities in these areas would be prohibited. This would ensure the protection of A river management plan would be developed, the high-quality nonmotorized dispersed which would include mitigating measures to recreation opportunities in these areas. The protect the natural resources in the corridor current OHV use would be allowed to continue from increasing recreation use. Any increases in in Segment C2. New roads and recreation use would be monitored, and measures would development in this segment would be be taken to mitigate any impacts on private discouraged but not prohibited. The ROS lands and ORVs as determined by the would change from roaded natural to semi- management plan. If necessary, these measures primitive nonmotorized in Segment H2. This could include limiting dispersed camping sites, would lead to the protection of the area's access, parking, or user numbers, or providing backcountry nature. The ROS class would appropriate facilities compatible with the remain roaded natural for Segments A, B, E, classification. H1, and H3. This alternative is likely to maintain the current Even more extensive partnership efforts with recreation use patterns, except that motorized Denver Water, Colorado Division of Wildlife, OHV use would not be allowed in Segments C1 four-wheel drive clubs, and other organizations and C3. This would not change current use would be pursued; and some additional Federal appreciably since most motorized use in Wildcat funding could be available to provide additional Canyon is confined to Segment C2. Additional protection to the recreational ORV in the area. measures to protect current recreation values would be specified in a river management plan, This alternative provides no potential for which would include special measures to protect approved dams, diversions, and water and enhance the recreation ORVs in development projects in the river corridors. Segments A, D, E, and H. This alternative Recreation opportunities and activities generally limits developed recreation dependent on the free-flowing river would be construction in the river corridors. It precludes preserved. the construction of major public use areas such as large developed campgrounds, administrative ALTERNATIVE C sites, and interpretive centers in the wild segments of the river corridors. Recreational The effects of Alternative C would be similar to development could occur in scenic segments if those of Alternative B except that all of such structures were screened from the river. Segment C would remain semi-primitive motorized. Recreational development in the recreational This would allow the continuation of the area's segments would allow major public use areas current OHV use and backcountry nature and and campgrounds in close proximity to the river would discourage, but not prohibit, new roads

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-39

and recreation development in this segment. ALTERNATIVE I The opportunities for solitude in the wild section in Segment D would be enhanced and The effects of this alternative are the same as maximized under this alternative. The ROS those of Alternative C for the South Platte would change from semi-primitive motorized to corridor upstream from Corral Creek and the semi-primitive nonmotorized in this section, and same as those of Alternative A1 for the South motorized recreation would be prohibited. This Platte corridor downstream from Corral Creek would ensure the protection of high-quality and for the entire North Fork corridor. This nonmotorized dispersed recreation alternative would provide no protections from opportunities in Segment D. The ROS major dams, diversions, and water classifications for Segments A, B, E, H1, H2, developments and no protections for recreation and H3 would be the same as under ORVs downstream from Corral Creek on the Alternative B. South Platte nor on the North Fork.

ALTERNATIVE D ALTERNATIVE J The effects of this alternative are the same as The effects of this alternative would be the those of Alternative B on the South Platte same as those of Alternative D except in the corridor and those of Alternative A1 on the following places: North Fork corridor. 1. The effects to a 1.3-mile section of the South Platte downstream from ALTERNATIVE F the confluence would be the same as The effects of the alternative would be similar Alternative A1. to those of Alternative B for National Forest 2. Segment C2 would remain semi- System lands, except that it would provide no primitive motorized. protections from major dams, diversions, and This classification would allow the continuation water developments and no protections for of the area's current OHV use and backcountry recreation ORVs downstream from the nature and would discourage, but not prohibit, Wigwam Club property on the South Platte and new roads and recreation development in these in Segments H3 and H1 on the North Fork. segments.

ALTERNATIVE G The effects of this alternative are the same as those of Alternative B for the South Platte 5.10 TRANSPORTATION corridor upstream from Cheesman Reservoir, and the same as those of Alternative A1 for the EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL South Platte corridor downstream from ALTERNATIVES Cheesman Reservoir and for the entire North Fork corridor. This alternative would provide All roads in Segment C, Wildcat Canyon, are no protections from major dams, diversions, closed currently subsequent to the June 2002 and water developments and no protections for Hayman Fire and pending a roads analysis. recreation ORVs downstream from Cheesman The following discussion addresses road Dam neither on the South Platte nor on the status for all alternatives prior to the fire, and North Fork. reference to keeping roads open is based on pre-fire conditions. The conclusions of this EIS transportation analysis may change

5-40 ˜ Chapter 5 subsequent to the findings of the Hayman roads routes in the area might be opened as long as analysis. The analysis currently is underway, resource values could be protected under the and a report should be available by the fall of Forest Plan. 2003. The Hayman Fire, started in June of 2002, resulted in a temporary closure of these roads ALTERNATIVE A1 – NO ACTION pending a roads analysis to assess resource This alternative does not affect existing damage and develop recommendations for transportation uses and systems within the future use. study corridors. It is the current situation as specified in the Forest Plan and serves as the ALTERNATIVES A2, A3, AND THE baseline to which other alternatives may be PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE compared. Roads could be constructed into any portions of the river corridor but would require Changes in river management could have an the preparation of a separate environmental impact on transportation use, road maintenance, analysis or environmental impact statement. and travel opportunities. The potential effects of Alternatives A2 and A3-Not Suitable are the In most areas, the likelihood of new roads, same since, under both alternatives, limited or except for access roads to housing reasonable detractions from the Wild and developments, is considered low. Existing Scenic River eligibility could be approved. The roads in Segment C (Wildcat Canyon) would Preferred Alternative and Alternative A3- remain open; and this includes, for instance, the Suitable maintain full eligibility, thereby allowing OHV road that crosses the South Platte from only development projects that would not Corral Creek (National Forest Service Road change or diminish the ORVs, free-flow, or [NSFR] 540), turns south and parallels the west water quality. bank for a mile, then fords the South Platte, and climbs out of the canyon to the east near In most areas, the likelihood of new roads being Longwater Gulch (NFSR 221). The Hackett constructed, except for access roads to housing, Gulch Road (NFSR 220), which goes down to is considered low. Existing roads in the Wildcat the river, would remain open, although the ford Canyon area are closed currently pending a has been closed. Roads that are currently closed roads analysis subsequent to the Hayman Fire in and would remain closed in all alternatives June of 2002. Results of the roads analysis and include the four-wheel-drive Northrup Gulch comprehensive public planning effort might be Road (NFSR 206), which was closed several to close some of the OHV roads due to the years ago about a quarter-mile from the river to high risk of sedimentation and unacceptable mitigate erosion and protect resource values, resource damage and an inability to mitigate the and the Metberry Creek Road (NFSR 205), damages. Four-wheel-drive and OHV clubs which has been closed below Custer Cabins to would be specifically included in the planning reduce erosion on a quarter-mile steep section. process to assure a full understanding of the The remaining open roads are very valuable to recreational use of the area. Additional issues to the motorized community as they represent a be considered are impacts to wildlife travel level of challenge in four-wheeling that is not corridors and habitat needs, private landowner abundant near the Front Range. Four-wheel- concerns when developing solutions for drive and OHV clubs would continue to work resource, and water quality protection. The with the Forest Service to ensure the protection Forest Service would continue to work with of resource values in this area. Additional four-wheel drive and OHV groups to address resource issues, user education, and enforcement. No roads would be constructed

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-41

in the wild classification area. To do so would (Hackett Gulch to Corral Creek), primary negate the classification definition for wild. recreation activity in this area, would be unaffected by this alternative. The Forest Sediment loads from road maintenance and Service would work with four-wheel-drive and road use would be addressed to reduce impacts OHV clubs to develop partnerships and ensure to the river water quality. Road maintenance the protection of resource values in Wildcat activities of all agencies would be reviewed and Canyon. Additional mitigation measures would revised to meet water quality “best management be added to protect ORVs in the recreational practices” and reduce the sediment loads. New segments upstream from Wildcat Canyon. A practices for all agencies may be developed and management plan would be written that would implemented by all parties that participate in the minimize river crossings in all designated memorandum of understanding that would be segments and add additional protections to limit required to establish either of these alternatives. impacts of roads on the ORVs. These road Road paving may occur in the recreational construction mitigation measures might reduce classification areas. Under the Elevenmile some future road construction in the scenic and Ecosystem Management Project approved in recreational segments. 1995, the upper 2.7 miles of Elevenmile Canyon road would have been closed to public use, and the remainder of the road would have been ALTERNATIVE C paved to reduce sediment from road The effects of this alternative would be the maintenance activities. However, this project same as those of Alternative B, except that no will not be implemented due to the high cost motorized vehicle roads or OHV areas would and lack of available resources. be closed in Wildcat Canyon (Segment C). No new roads would be constructed on River crossings in designated segments would National Forest land along the North Fork in be minimized, and additional constraints on Bailey Canyon to manage for big game winter road building would limit its impacts on the range and summer dispersed recreation ORVs. These road construction mitigation activities. No roads would be constructed in measures might reduce some future road Cheesman Canyon to maintain its wild construction in the scenic and recreational classification. Road construction limitations in segments. The Forest Service would continue these areas would constrain access for future working with four-wheel-drive and OHV clubs natural resource management to existing roads. to develop partnerships and ensure the protection of resource values in Wildcat Canyon. Additional routes in the area might be ALTERNATIVE B opened as long as the ORVs were protected and Under Alternative B, all 10.5 miles of wild enhanced. segments would be closed to motorized vehicles, and no road construction would be ALTERNATIVE D allowed. Protection of the area’s primitive characteristics would be ensured. Future access The effects of this alternative would be the for natural resource management in these areas same as those of Alternative B on the South would be severely limited. This alternative Platte corridor. The effects on the North Fork would have little effect on current access in would be the same as under Alternative A1. No Cheesman Canyon (Segment D), but it would additional road construction mitigation eliminate any OHV use in Segments C1 and C3 measures to minimize effects of roads on ORVs in Wildcat Canyon. OHV use in Segment C2 would occur on the North Fork.

5-42 ˜ Chapter 5 ALTERNATIVE F 5.11 SCENERY The effects of this alternative on National Forest System lands in Segments A, B, C, D, While all of the alternatives afford scenery and H2 would be the same as those of protection, the level of protection differs Alternative B. The effects would be similar to between Alternative A1, Alternatives A2 and those of Alternative A1 in Segment E on the A3, the Preferred Alternative, and designation. South Platte and in Segments H1 and H3 on the Changes in river management could affect the North Fork, as no additional mitigation scenic qualities of the river corridor. measures on road construction would occur in those segments. ALTERNATIVE A1 – NO ACTION

ALTERNATIVE G Under Alternative A1, the scenic quality of National Forest System lands along the river The effects of this alternative upstream from would be protected through the Forest Plan Cheesman Reservoir would be similar to those standards and guidelines. Scenic quality on of Alternative B. Effects in Segments D and E private lands is protected through application of on the South Platte and in Segment H2 on the the counties’ comprehensive plans or zoning North Fork would be similar to those of guidelines. Alternative A1, as no additional road construction mitigation measures would be The Existing Visual Condition categories under imposed on National Forest System lands in Alternative A1 would maintain the current those segments. conditions in the study corridors as specified in the Forest Plan. (See section 2.14, “Scenery,” in Chapter 2.) The Existing Visual Conditions for ALTERNATIVE I the area along the river in the study corridors The effects of this alternative would be the range from II to V, with Type II predominating. same as those of Alternative C on the South In Type II areas, changes in the landscape are Platte upstream from Corral Creek and the not visually evident to the average person unless same as those of Alternative A1 on the North pointed out. Type IV represents areas in which Fork and on the South Platte downstream from the average forest visitor easily notices changes Corral Creek. in the landscape (as defined in Chapter 2). The area along the river in Elevenmile Canyon (Segment A), the South Platte downstream from ALTERNATIVE J the Wigwam Club (Segment E), and the North The effects of this alternative would be similar Fork downstream from Ferndale to the to those of Alternative B on the South Platte, confluence (most of Segment H3) fall in this except for the 1.3 miles from the confluence category. Type V represents areas in which with the North Fork to Strontia Springs changes in the landscape are strong and would Reservoir. The effects on the North Fork and be obvious to the average visitor. The South on that 1.3-mile section of the main stem would Platte around Lake George (Segment B) and the be the same as Alternative A1. North Fork upstream from Ferndale (Segments H1 and H2) generally qualify for this category. What this means is that the visual qualities of the National Forest System lands already are high. In addition, Denver Water manages most of its lands in the area to protect the water

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-43

quality in its water delivery system, to provide cooperative management of the river corridor. recreation, and to protect other natural Most notably, the Front Range Mountain resources in the area; and this approach also Backdrop Project—an ongoing joint effort by results in protection of the area's scenic the Colorado counties of El Paso, Douglas, qualities. Current county zoning has also been Jefferson, Boulder, and Larimer—has effective in limiting development in most segments. The potential for future water demonstrated the willingness and ability of resource developments would not be foreclosed Front Range counties to cooperate for the sake under this alternative. In the event a dam was of protecting scenic resources. constructed, the resulting reservoir would result in an irretrievable loss of the free-flowing nature ALTERNATIVE B and the existing scenic character of the rivers. Under this alternative, the Forest Service would The Visual Quality Objectives for the study prepare a management plan, which would corridors, as described in section 2.16, would review and modify the current Existing Visual not change under this alternative. These are Conditions, both inside and outside the study described in Chapter 2, “Affected corridors, to ensure the protection and Environment.” All segments would remain at enhancement of ORVs. Special attention would Foreground Retention or Middleground Partial be given to scenery on the South Platte in Retention in parts of Segment H. Segments A and C where it is an ORV. Federal funding and technical assistance may be This no action alternative provides no earmarked for the corridor, in addition to additional funding to manage scenery in the funding already available under existing corridors and no Federal technical assistance to National Forest programs. landowners. Federal easement and/or land exchange from willing sellers to protect scenery VQOs could be more restrictive than they would be unlikely. would be under Alternative A1 and could move toward preservation in the wild areas, remain as ALTERNATIVES A2, A3, AND THE retention in the foreground of the scenic segments, PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE and change from partial retention to retention in the middleground of the scenic segments. The Preferred Alternative, Alternatives A2, and (“Middleground” indicates areas outside the A3 also protect National Forest System lands study corridors that are visible from within the through the Forest Plan’s standards and corridor.) VQOs of the recreational segments guidelines. Protection under these alternatives, would remain the same as they are under however, would be greater than it is under A1 Alternative A1. as a result of the greater emphasis placed on scenery protection to comply with the SPPP or These changes would have an effect on the to maintain Wild and Scenic River designation amount and type of potential timber harvest eligibility, either as a requirement or as a goal. and type of facilities and recreational VQOs might be more restrictive. Any changes developments allowed both in the corridors and to further restrict VQOs would be made during in the middleground areas outside the corridors. the management planning process. Under these more restrictive VQOs, vegetation management treatments, including timber The Jefferson, Park, and Douglas County removal, both within and adjacent to the comprehensive plans would still protect private corridors, would not be visible from roads and lands and other non-Federal lands. In these recreation areas within the corridors. No cases also, the protection may be higher as a scheduled timber harvest would be allowed result of these counties being party to the within the wild segments, and vegetation

5-44 ˜ Chapter 5 treatments, including timber removal, within the Club property. This alternative provides greater other segments and in areas visible from the protection of scenery than Alternatives A1, G, corridors would be limited by the VQO. Since and I. future mining claims would be prohibited in wild segments and additional restrictions would be ALTERNATIVE G placed on timber harvest, roads, and recreational developments, this alternative The effects of this alternative would be similar would provide better protection of scenery over to those of Alternative B upstream from a greater area than any of the other alternatives. Cheesman Reservoir and similar to those of Alternative A1 for the North Fork and the Alternative B offers a greater likelihood of South Platte downstream from Cheesman Dam. additional funding to improve scenery in the This alternative provides greater protection of recommended river corridors and a greater scenery than Alternatives A1 and I. likelihood of Federal technical assistance. It also could lead to Federal easements and/or ALTERNATIVE I land exchanges with willing sellers to protect scenery under the WSRA. The effects of this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative B upstream from the No approved dams could be constructed in the Wigwam Club property and similar to those of corridors, thus preventing the resultant Alternative A1 for the North Fork and the irretrievable loss of the existing scenic character South Platte downstream from the Wigwam of the rivers. Club property. This alternative provides less protection of scenery than any of the other ALTERNATIVE C alternatives except Alternative A1. The effects of this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative B, except that all ALTERNATIVE J Segments C1 and C3 (totaling 7.4 miles) would The effects of this alternative would be similar be classified as scenic rather than wild. This to those of Alternative D, except that a 0.3-mile alternative still provides greater protection of portion of the South Platte below the scenery than any of the other alternatives except confluence would not be included in the Alternative B. designation. This alternative provides greater protection of scenery than Alternatives A1, F, ALTERNATIVE D G, and I. The effects of this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative B for the South Platte and similar to those of Alternative A1 for the North Fork. This alternative provides greater 5.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES protection of scenery than Alternatives A1, F, G, I, and J. Cultural resources have been identified within or adjacent to all segments and corridors of the North Fork and the mainstem of the South ALTERNATIVE F Platte considered during this analysis. The The effects of this alternative would be similar North Fork corridor (Segment H) contains the to those of Alternative B upstream from the North Fork and Estabrook Historic Districts, Wigwam Club property and similar to those of which are identified as possessing ORVs. There Alternative A1 for the North Fork and the are other important historic and prehistoric South Platte downstream from the Wigwam cultural properties within the study area, notably

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-45

the remains of two pioneering railroads. The that, if constructed, could potentially affect grade, related features, and archeological significant cultural sites. deposits of the Midland Railroad are contained in Eleven Mile Canyon; similar remnants of the ALTERNATIVE A2 – SOUTH PLATTE Denver, South Park, and Pacific Railroad are PROTECTION PLAN preserved on the lower portion of the North Fork between the confluence with the South Given appropriate planning and scheduling, Platte and Bailey. These railroad-related implementation of Alternative A2 would have resources are not considered outstandingly no direct effects on cultural properties. The remarkable in this analysis; however, the historic withdrawal of the 1986 applications for water remains of both railroads are eligible to the storage and the 20-year moratorium on right-of- National Register of Historic Places (National way development would provide some Register). None of the alternatives in this protection for potentially threatened cultural analysis include proposed actions that would sites. Cultural resource inventories for affect any known historic or prehistoric cultural riverbank stabilization and restoration projects property. Implementation of some of the would be sufficient to identify potentially considered alternatives may lead to future affected cultural sites; and protection measures, actions that would provide additional protection if appropriate, can be developed from survey for significant cultural sites. However, results. Because the historical remains of the implementation of some other alternatives Denver, South Park, and Pacific Railroad and would not protect the known and potential the Midland Railroad are near the river channel, significant cultural sites from inundation or it may be necessary to build in specific other damage resulting from the construction protection measures for these resources during and operation of water impoundments on either the planning for riverbank stabilization and the mainstem or the North Fork. restoration. Implementation of partnerships to manage the river corridor and its significant ALTERNATIVE A1 – NO ACTION resources would result in opportunities for protection, interpretation, and public use (if Alternative A1 would maintain the current appropriate) of cultural sites. Also, the conditions and management strategies without Endowment Fund proposed in this alternative the protections afforded by Wild and Scenic could be used to repair and interpret significant designation. Implementation of this alternative historic sites. Thus, implementation of this would have no direct impacts on cultural alternative may result in increased protection resources. Significant cultural resources and enhancement for cultural resources. (National Register or State Register eligible cultural properties or “sites”) would be In terms of cultural resource protection, protected on Federal or State lands, and sites on implementation of Alternative A2 may have private lands would be unprotected. There advantages when considering cultural would be no mandate for enhancement of properties, such as historic railroads, that significant sites (i.e., for site interpretation or traverse the land holdings of multiple owners. other public use). However, government A joint agency partnership could be effective in agencies and other interested parties could still consolidating management and care of these form partnerships to ensure the interpretation properties under one entity. and protection of cultural resources. Implementation of Alternative A2 may have Implementation of this alternative could allow beneficial indirect effects on significant cultural approved dam construction, diversions, or other sites. If the proposed bank stabilization and water developments within the study corridors restoration projects are implemented, they could be designed to retard or stop the loss to

5-46 ˜ Chapter 5 archeological and historical sites resulting from the Denver, South Park, and Pacific Railroad, current soil and bank erosion. Many parts of the Midland Railroad, and the North Fork and the Midland, Denver, South Park, and Pacific Estabrook Historic Districts) with portions Railroad grades and related features are very owned by multiple parties. Implementation of close to the river channel and are currently river channel restoration projects would have vulnerable to damage from this source. beneficial effects on cultural sites currently threatened by river flows and bank erosion. No cumulative effects are envisioned if Alternative A2 is implemented. No cumulative effects are forecast if the Preferred Alternative or Alternative A3 are ALTERNATIVE A3 AND THE implemented. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE B The Preferred Alternative and Alternative A3 should have more beneficial effects than A2 for Alternative B would designate the eligible and cultural resources. The stipulation regarding suitable portions of the study corridors at their development of a cooperative management plan most protective inventoried classifications. with a major cultural resources component Management plans would be developed for each should enhance cultural sites in general. No river corridor; the plans would include direct effects on cultural sites resulting from the provisions for the protection and enhancement implementation of A3 or the Preferred of outstandingly remarkable resources, including Alternative are forecast, assuming that the cultural properties. Implementation of proposed channel work is preceded by Alternative B would have no direct effects on appropriate cultural resources investigation and cultural resources. Indirect effects would be evaluation. The withdrawal of the 1986 Denver beneficial. Implementation of the management Water and Metropolitan Denver Water plans would mean more protection for cultural Authority application for conditional storage sites and could encourage interpretation of the rights and the proposed 20-year moratorium on outstandingly remarkable sites, such as the development of Denver Water’s right-of-way North Fork Historic District and the Estabrook would result in interim protection for significant Historic District. Cultural surveys implemented cultural sites. through the provisions of the corridor management plans would lead to the Under Alternative A3-Not Suitable, a project identification, protection, and interpretation, if with potential effects to cultural resources could warranted, of currently unknown significant be evaluated, but any potential effects would be sites. The prohibition of dams and additional mitigated and approved through a public limitations on roads, timber harvest, scenery planning process. intrusions, motorized use, and mining entry Indirect effects seen from the implementation would further protect cultural sites. of the Preferred Alternative and Alternative A3 should be beneficial, given the development of ALTERNATIVE C a cooperative management plan by the non- Federal signatories to the Memorandum of Designation would be essentially the same as Understanding (MOU) with a major cultural Alternative B, although the segment from resources component. The cultural component Beaver Creek to Cheesman Reservoir would be would include provisions for condition classified as scenic rather than wild. The effects monitoring, protection, interpretation, and on cultural resources should be very similar to appropriate public use of cultural sites. The those described for Alternative B. plan should accommodate linear sites (primarily

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-47

ALTERNATIVE D including the grade of the Denver, South Park, and Pacific Railroad and the Estabrook This alternative provides no additional Historic District, would receive additional protection for significant sites on the North protection under Alternative F but not under Fork. All sites on the North Fork, whether on this alternative. government or private lands, would be vulnerable to the effects of dam construction ALTERNATIVE I and inundation. In this eventuality, some cultural resource values could be preserved Alternative I is very similar to Alternative G. through mitigation. As none of the North Fork The effects are the same as for that alternative, corridor is designated in this alternative, cultural except that cultural properties in 4.4 additional sites there would not receive the added miles of Wildcat Canyon (Segment C) would protection and interpretation that is provided not benefit from the added protection afforded under the WSRA. Indirect effects on cultural by Wild and Scenic River designation. sites located within the South Platte mainstream corridor would be the same as described for ALTERNATIVE J Alternative B. Alternative J is very similar to Alternative D. ALTERNATIVE F The effects are the same as for that alternative, except that the North Fork and 0.3 miles of Selection of Alternative F would designate four the combined South Platte downstream from segments on the South Platte and one segment the North Fork confluence would not on the North Fork; private lands and the stretch be protected. Thus, the entire North Fork, of the river contained in the Denver Water's including the South Platte Hotel and other 1931 right-of-way would not be designated. components of the outstandingly remarkable Selection of this alternative would create no North Fork Historic District, would not direct effects to cultural resources. The be afforded additional protections under potential for indirect effects would be increased this alternative. On the South Fork, the because of the greater likelihood of dam prohibition of projects affecting flows construction and the resulting destruction and within the designated corridors and the inundation of cultural sites. Fewer cultural sites limitations on road construction, timber would be protected, interpreted, or otherwise harvest, scenery intrusions, motorized use, enhanced than under Alternatives B, C, D, or J. and mining entry would further the protection The cultural sites in the segments of the South of cultural sites. River management plans Platte corridor upstream from Cheesman would be prepared for each designated Reservoir, including the Midland Railroad grade, corridor; the plans would include provisions would be afforded the additional protection and for the protection and enhancement of enhancements inherent in designation. outstandingly remarkable resources, including cultural sites. Implementation of this ALTERNATIVE G alternative would have no direct effects on historic or prehistoric sites because no ground- Alternative G would designate the South Platte disturbing projects or other activities potentially corridor upstream from Cheesman Reservoir. affecting these resources are planned. The effects of this alternative would be very similar to those projected for Alternative F. Indirect effects of this alternative would be The only difference is that the cultural beneficial for those cultural sites on the South resources within the single segment on the Fork. Implementation of river management North Fork designated in Alternative F, plans would result in added protection for them.

5-48 ˜ Chapter 5 Resource inventories implemented through the one day. Due to the uncertainties of the future, provisions of the management plans would lead they were unable to provide such information. to the identification, protection, and Because the Forest Service is not required to interpretation (if appropriate) of currently speculate on the kind of water development that unidentified significant resources. However, the might be proposed—particularly to a degree of significant resources of the North Fork, detail that would lend itself to a quantitative including the outstandingly remarkable North analysis of costs, revenues, and associated Fork and Estabrook Historic Districts, would economic and social impacts—the analysis that not be additionally protected through follows is appropriately qualitative in nature. implementation of this alternative, and indirect effects are possible. When compared to In qualitative terms, the economic efficiencies Alternatives A2, A3, and the Preferred of the alternatives are presumed to follow an Alternative, the indirect effects of this inverse relationship with costs. That is, an alternative may be less beneficial because alternative with relatively low costs would have designation would not necessarily lead to a relatively high economic efficiency, and vice channel restoration work or the formation of an versa. As this is a programmatic undertaking endowment fund. rather than a discrete project, known Forest Service and other Federal costs are limited No cumulative effects are forecast if this largely to document preparation and general alternative is implemented. analysis and planning, with no resultant revenues that can be clearly identified.

The ORVs and other natural resource-based activities (water development, timber, minerals, 5.13 SOCIOECONOMIC land use, etc.) were discussed in Chapter 2. The CONSIDERATIONS Two Forks EIS (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1988, vol. I, pp. 5-1 to 5-236) used a The following discussion is based on a quantitative approach to some values, such as qualitative analysis of broad forces that might fisheries and recreational activities, based on affect future social and economic matters. usage figures. Maguire and Alden (1994) also Generic terms such as ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ are measured recreational use in the study corridors. used to depict relative differences between Their study did not measure the impact of that alternatives regarding economic and social use on the local economies. Similarly, the outcomes. A qualitative analysis of this nature National Forest Recreation Survey, conducted is appropriate given the uncertainties discussed every 4 years, (USDA, 2002), focuses on use under “Fisheries, Water Resources, and Water and not on economic benefit to the region. Development” in this chapter. For example, to Additionally, the survey was designed to be calculate the costs and other impacts of statistically significant at the forest level, and precluding water developments under the sample sizes in the river corridor are not large various action alternatives would require enough to be statistically significant at the local speculation on the details of projects being level. Information exists on the value of precluded. Since no applications have been fisheries statewide (DOI and U.S. Department submitted, such details are not available. of Commerce, 2001) but not at the local level. During development of the South Platte Too many unknowns and uncertainties are Protection Plan, the participating water provider attached to this study to warrant quantitative representatives were asked if they would analysis at this stage. Some future proposal for identify the types and locations of water more tangible actions could create the need for developments that they might wish to construct a quantified analysis of economic efficiency and

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-49

the relative economic value of scenic, geologic, EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL recreational, wildlife, fisheries, and cultural ALTERNATIVES resources. Local communities would continue to see a The relationship between water development 3- to 4-percent growth in recreation and and local economic growth was reviewed in associated expenditures at local businesses. section 2.18 under the heading ‘Projecting Production of timber and minerals from the Future Population Growth for the Area of study area and the number of jobs resulting Influence.” That discussion pointed out that from such production would be negligible. For any causal relationship between the two appears these reasons, local communities near the study difficult to establish. That is, the absence of a corridors should expect the same changes in new reservoir in the study corridors would not business employment and income regardless of necessarily prevent, or even impede, growth in the alternative selected. the Front Range. Nor, from the reverse viewpoint, would the presence of a new Because recreation use is not expected to reservoir in that area necessarily stimulate change dramatically with any level of growth. The mechanisms of growth are far too designation, counties should not expect complex to support compelling conclusions of significant differences between the alternatives that nature. In large part, this is because of the in road or law enforcement costs associated increasingly important role being played by with each alternative. Counties may decide that alternative sources for water, such as some zoning changes would be necessary with conservation and others. (See “Future designation; the costs to make and maintain Demands for Water” in section 2.12.) these changes were not estimated but are not Disagreement on this matter is largely due to expected to be significant. the wide range of viewpoints and associated reasonable assumptions that can be made and to Forest Service receipts from sales of timber or the complex nature of the analyses involved. recreation use fees over the foreseeable future One viewpoint argues that the absence of a are expected to be very small. Consequently, reservoir obviously constrains growth because counties that share in Forest Service receipts, all of the other possibilities involve greater receive payments in lieu of taxes (PILT), or costs. In contrast, another viewpoint argues receive sales tax receipts from concession- that plenty of agricultural water is already operated Forest Service recreation sites should available that could be converted to growth- expect the same negligible changes regardless of supporting uses—if only efficient pricing the alternative selected. mechanisms were allowed to operate free of Many amenity values contribute to the real political policies driven by social issues. A third social and economic values of the alternatives. viewpoint argues that, if the full social and However, they are difficult to quantify and must economic cost of a reservoir is taken into be inferred from other resource effects account, then non-reservoir scenarios are clearly discussed in this document. Examples of these preferable. As this debate has been going on effects include projected changes to wildlife for many years, it appears that no amount of habitat, the range of recreation opportunities, study will be able to produce a single answer the quality of the river for fisheries, and the that reconciles the issue to the satisfaction of all scenic beauty of the river corridor. Demands interests. on the river for downstream uses (such as maintenance of whooping crane habitat in Nebraska) would not change under any of the alternatives and would not have an appreciable effect on costs to the water users.

5-50 ˜ Chapter 5 ALTERNATIVE A1 – NO ACTION this EIS does not go to the same lengths to describe the future under No Action. Various The Colorado Department of Local Affairs organizations, however, are regularly assessing (2001) has incorporated reasonably foreseeable the situation regarding water supply, demand, actions in their projections of population and cost. For example, see Hydrosphere growth in the area of influence. For this reason, Resource Consultants, Inc. (1999 and 2001). cumulative socio-economic effects have been The assumptions and analyses underlying such incorporated into this alternative. Projected publications sufficiently reflect the no action population changes to 2025 of about future. 1.5 percent annually and associated effects (e.g., water supply needs) are expected. This determination is made when considering very ALTERNATIVE A2 high growth rates of the late 1970s or early This alternative allows less flexibility than 1990s and their associated effects. Effects Alternative A1 to consider water development described under other alternatives are projects that may affect the ORVs. incremental changes. Opportunities for developing and managing This alternative would not preclude any additional large surface water projects such as opportunities for developing and managing federally authorized dams and reservoirs in the additional surface water supplies to meet the study corridors would be voluntarily forgone in projected increased demand through the Cheesman and Elevenmile Canyons and in the construction of dams and reservoirs. With all Two Forks right-of-way for 20 years. opportunities retained, costs to water providers Consequently, future costs to water providers (which are passed on to metropolitan area and their customers would likely be slightly residents and businesses) would be the lowest higher than under Alternative A1 but lower than possible. Even though the South Platte is in the Preferred Alternative or Alternative A3. highly regulated, community uses of water in New sources would have to be realized, or a the South Platte would be most readily greater emphasis on conservation would be accommodated under this alternative. needed to meet the projected increases in demand. The no action alternative in the Two Forks EIS bears certain similarities to Alternative A1 in ALTERNATIVE A3 AND THE this EIS. While analyzing distinctly different PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE proposals (i.e., reservoir construction versus protection under the WSRA), in both cases the Under the Preferred Alternative and A3-Suitable, no action alternative attempts to describe the opportunities for developing and managing new effects of going forward without surface water supplies through Forest Service implementation of the proposal being analyzed. authorized facilities in the study corridors would Because the Two Forks proposal involved a be limited to facilities that would not threaten large investment of capital, its EIS delved eligibility. With such opportunities limited, deeply into the costs likely to be incurred by future costs to water providers and their various water providers and their customers and customers may be among the highest of the communities under its various alternatives, alternatives analyzed, along with Alternatives B including no action (U.S. Army Corps of and C. Because the South Platte is highly Engineers, vol. VIII, pp. 5-175; Technical regulated, community and other uses of water in Appendix 4C, vol. 9). The Two Forks EIS also the South Platte would likely be limited. made water demand and supply projections based on a variety of detailed assumptions. In Alternative A3-Not Suitable would provide some contrast, because of the uncertainties involved, flexibility in considering water development

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-51

projects that may affect the ORVs. Future management in the North Fork could be costs to water providers and their customers affected. With some opportunities precluded would likely be lower than under the Preferred and projected demand for water supplies Alternative or Alternative A3-Suitable but higher expected to increase, costs to water providers than in Alternative A2. and their customers would be higher than under Alternatives A1, A2, A3, or the Preferred Alternative but lower than in Alternatives B or ALTERNATIVES B AND C C. Designation of river segments under the WSRA could affect the metropolitan areas of Denver ALTERNATIVES G AND J and Colorado Springs and local communities near the corridors. These effects could include Opportunities for developing and managing the cost and availability of water supplies, additional surface water supplies through dams recreation-generated jobs and income, and reservoirs in the study corridors would be production of forest commodities such as limited but not precluded in all segments. Flow timber and minerals, revenues to local management in the North Fork would not be governments, and the cost of providing affected. With some opportunities precluded, government services. costs to water providers and their customers would be higher than under Alternatives A1, These alternatives would preclude opportunities A2, A3, and the Preferred Alternative but lower for developing and managing additional surface than costs under Alternatives B through F. water supplies through federally authorized dams, reservoirs, and other water development Because the South Platte is one of the most projects in the study corridors. As a result, regulated rivers in the county, community and future costs to water providers and their other uses of water in the South Platte may be customers may be the highest of the alternatives limited. Additional costs to water users in the analyzed, given the projected increase in Denver metropolitan area would not be likely demand for new water supplies. Because the because of these obligations. South Platte is highly regulated, community and other uses of water in the South Platte would ALTERNATIVE I likely be more limited than under Alternative A. Cumulatively, these effects may be significant. Nearly all opportunities for developing and Designation could affect how future water managing additional surface water supplies obligations can be met. For example, as through dams and reservoirs would remain mentioned above under “Channel Integrity and available. Impacts are similar to those of Aquatic Habitat,” a scenario of alternate water Alternative A1 except from Corral Creek delivery from South Park was prepared for the through Elevenmile Canyon, where minimal city of Aurora. Although the $425-million cost attention has been given to development of for this project was not verified, it is an future water supplies. With nearly all indication of the type of additional cost that opportunities retained, future costs to water could result from a designation scenario. providers and their customers would be the lowest of all the alternatives except for ALTERNATIVES D AND F Alternatives A1, A2, and A3, and the Preferred Alternative. Even though the South Platte is Opportunities for developing and managing highly regulated, community uses of water in additional surface water supplies through dams the South Platte would be feasible. Additional and reservoirs in the study corridors would be costs to water users in the metro area would not limited but not precluded in all segments. Flow be likely because of these obligations.

5-52 ˜ Chapter 5 time, resource and social conditions change 5.14 IMPLEMENTATION AND enough to warrant new review and analysis. ENFORCEMENT The bi-level decision statement of Environmental and recreational user groups Alternative A3 or the Preferred Alternative raised implementation and enforcement issues (whereby the Forest Service may revisit the for the A2 Alternative, the SPPP. The SPPP question of designation if a selected local was developed through a public planning alternative is determined to have failed) is new process that involved interested local and has not been tested in court. Therefore, it government agencies and interest groups. The is unclear how long this NEPA analysis would Forest Service participated only as an observer remain usable without requiring renewed and provided information about the resources analysis and study. If the determination that a and related Forest Service policy and local alternative has failed comes after sufficient regulations. Many questions about SPPP time for resource and social conditions to have implementation and enforcement could not be significantly changed, then a new review and answered until the Forest Service, as the analysis may have to be conducted to determine administering Federal agency, was made a full the suitability of the river corridor for participant, along with the local government designation. agencies, in the new management structure for Alternative A3-Not Suitable would (1) find the the river corridor established by the SPPP. river corridor not suitable for designation;,(2) Alternative A3 and the Preferred Alternative release the corridor from further consideration add the Forest Service to the management for designation to the Wild and Scenic River scheme, responding to issues raised concerning System, and (3) manage the river corridor under A2. In general, if Alternative A2 were selected the partnership of Federal, State, and local for the decision in this study, it would be government agencies. This alternative is implemented through the mechanisms comparatively flexible regarding development identified in Alternative A3. projects in the river corridor for water resources, roads, recreation facilities, or some FUTURE RECOMMENDATION FOR other purpose. If this alternative were to fail, DESIGNATION the Forest Service could consider a new NEPA process and suitability determination. A finding The Forest Service can reconsider or reopen a that a selected alternative had failed would decision made in a National Environmental create a changed condition for the river corridor Policy Act (NEPA) analysis whenever and warrant reconsideration of the original circumstances change significantly. In order to decision. reconsider a decision, another NEPA review and analysis would be required to evaluate the Under A3-Suitable and the Preferred Alternative, changed conditions. Under current NEPA Forest Service policy, rather than the WSRA, planning processes in the Forest Service, would legally bind the Forest Service to protect decisions are generally considered effective until the eligibility of the river corridor for the resource and social conditions have designation. The development standard for significantly changed. The non-binding “rule of maintaining eligibility under these alternatives is thumb” is 5 years. Generally, after 5 years’ comparatively strict.

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-53

LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESSFUL highly unlikely that the South Platte would be DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION designated without the unified support of local governments, agencies and groups. Since 1992 (when 27 river segments were designated in Michigan, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, The current political climate in Colorado most and California), only 15 new river designations likely would not support designation because of and 3 additional river segments on previously concerns about securing adequate water designated rivers have been added to the supplies for the rapidly expanding metropolitan National System. Five of the most recent river population in the State. It is possible to develop or river segment designations were done by the a management plan for a river tailored to meet Secretary of the Interior at the request of a State the specific needs in a river corridor and get a Governor. designation by Congress, as was done for the SuAsCo River in Massachusetts. However, that One of the most recent congressional designation effort took 5 years and had the full designations was the Sudbury-Assabet-Concord support of all agencies and groups. A (SuAsCo) River in Massachusetts in April 1999. designation recommendation could be prepared The SuAsCo River is a 29-mile segment having to meet the specific needs of the South Platte scenic and recreational classifications. The River corridor, as is typically done for other National Park Service conducted the eligibility river designations. This approach was and suitability determinations at the request of a recommended as the Preferred Alternative in coalition of local government agencies and the Supplemental DLEIS. It did not receive the groups. The coalition prepared a river public support needed for legislation and was management plan, took it to the State’s not pursued further. It is described further in congressional delegation, and, after 5 years, Chapter 4 under Alternatives Not Considered in succeeded in getting the river designated by Detail and Eliminated from Further Study Congress to the National System. The Forest Service currently has about 15 to PERMANENT PROTECTION FROM 20 designation recommendations from across NEW DAMS the country awaiting action by the Potential for New Dams Administration or Congress. Current Forest Service policy is to forward recommendations During the A2 process, there was occasional for designation to the President and Congress discussion of the potential for new dams on the only if those recommendations have full local South Platte River system within the study area, support, including support from interest groups, particularly on the mainstem of the South State and local government agencies, and the Platte. Potential dam sites on both rivers were State’s congressional delegation. If a included in alternatives analyzed during the Two designation alternative were the selected Forks study. It is uncertain whether any of alternative in this study, section 5(d) (1) of the those sites are feasible today. WSRA would require the Forest Service to manage the river corridor as a “study river” One view is that, because the Two Forks dam using existing forest management legal failed to gain approval, it is unlikely that any authorities. Authorities provided in the WSRA other storage projects in the study area would would not be applicable to this study area until be approved (or even proposed). Any other such time as the river is actually designated by waters that might be obtainable today for use Congress or the Secretary of the Interior to the along the Front Range would have to be National System. Congress can designate a river imported from other basins. Water would be without Federal agency action; however it is stored in these other basins, not in the South Platte basin, and the only storage needed on the

5-54 ˜ Chapter 5 east slope might be for regulation of delivery. legally bound to comply with the Forest Service But since regulatory facilities already exist, there request to withhold their approval. may be no need for additional storage. Under this view, then, the potential for a new dam in The decision mechanism for Alternative A3 and the study area is relatively low. the Preferred Alternative is the Forest Plan, which prohibits any new dams or other An alternate view holds that, because current developments that would threaten free-flow, water supplies for the Denver metropolitan area ORVs, and water quality on forest lands. This are not adequate for projected growth, no mechanism has limitations because the Forest options for future supplies should be foregone Plan can be amended. Alternative A2 provides under any circumstance. Even waters generated a lower level of protection from new dams. in the South Platte basin should not be entirely The SPPP includes a 20-year moratorium on discounted. According to this viewpoint, the construction in Denver Water’s right-of-way at thinking expressed in the preceding paragraph is the Two Forks site and a commitment for no based on too many assumptions that are too water works in Cheesman and Elevenmile tenuous, given the critical nature of future water Canyons. But dams are not excluded from needs. other portions of the river or after 20 years in the right-of-way. A dam could be proposed off Permanence of Protection National Forest lands and be approved by whatever government authorities have Concern was raised about the level of jurisdiction. However, any project proposed in protection provided to the river corridor from this particular river corridor is highly likely to new dams by the various mechanisms being affect National Forest lands due to the land considered in the alternatives. The WSRA ownership configuration. clearly prohibits approval of any new impoundment structure in a designated river, or MOUs are authorized under several existing above or below a designated river, if it invades forest management legal authorities. MOUs are or unreasonably diminishes the recreation, legally limited to a 10-year period. Forest scenic, or fish and wildlife ORVs or free-flow. Service policy (Forest Service Manual 1586) However, once a river is designated to the recommends review and renewal of MOUs National System by Congress or the Secretary every 5 years and reissuance every 10 years. of the Interior, a new dam in the river can be Changes in personnel, resources, or social and approved by congressional action regardless of economic conditions could lead to a need to designation protections. revise an MOU. A designation recommendation by a Federal Designation to the National System would agency under section 5(d)(1) does not invoke a provide the strongest protection of the section 7 analysis process and the prohibition of mainstem and North Fork of the South Platte projects as is the case with congressional study River from any future dam development. A rivers; other Federal agencies are required to designation recommendation for an agency deny Federal assistance or permits for any study river would provide protection under legal projects on congressional study rivers but not authorities until such time that the river were on agency study rivers. If a dam project were included into the National System through proposed under any of the alternatives congressional legislation. Local Alternative A3 considered in this Wild and Scenic River study, and the Preferred Alternative would utilize the the Forest Service would request the approving same legal authorities to protect the river Federal agency to allow a project review for corridor from water development on National potential impacts to ORVs, free-flow, and water Forest System lands as well as retain eligibility. quality; but the Federal agencies would not be

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-55

NEEDS FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 3. During any future consideration of IN RIVER MANAGEMENT forwarding a designation recommendation. Alternatives A2, A3, and the Preferred Alternative are built on the concept of local In addition, Alternative A3 considers a management with extensive public involvement. provision for “citizen suits” or some kind of See the summary list of public involvement mechanism for more direct enforcement action provisions under “Summary of Public by citizens when dealing with implementing Involvement Features in Alternatives A2 and agencies other than the Forest Service. Those A3” in Chapter 4, section 4.3. agencies, however, have raised several concerns about this provision. Such a provision could Alternative A2 provides public interest groups increase the agencies' legal liability for lawsuits, with representation on the Enhancement Board including the possibility of frivolous lawsuits and on the Denver Water water development that would take agency budgets and focus away task force. Public interest groups and the from managing the river corridor. As a result, general public are involved at several points: the “citizen suit” mechanism does not appear to be feasible. 1. In any significant changes in the implementing management Alternative A3 contemplates the option of agreements; establishing a Citizens Advisory Group under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) in 2. During the Recreation Management order to give the public a formal mechanism by Plan development process; which to participate in river corridor 3. Through the Coalition for the management. The Secretary of Agriculture or Upper South Platte; and Congress appoints a FACA Advisory Group, to 4. At the Denver Water/city of Aurora be administered by the Forest Service. water systems' annual operating plan Establishing a FACA Advisory Group is a review meetings. lengthy process, and the establishment of such a group requires the administering agency to For the Forest Service, a legal enforcement follow specific guidelines . However, President mechanism is provided through the Clinton issued a policy during his tenure to limit Administrative Procedures Act, a Federal law the number of citizen advisory groups for each that prohibits “arbitrary and capricious” actions Federal agency due to concerns about by Federal officials. To successfully file under unnecessary agency expense to administer the the Administrative Procedures Act, a group or groups. In light of this, the approach is unlikely individual must have legal standing, which is to be adopted despite its merits. granted only to parties of agreements with Federal agencies. In addition, the Act sets a high standard of proof, making it difficult for plaintiffs to prove and win judgment. 5.15 ADVERSE Alternative A3 and the Preferred Alternative ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS provide for public and interest group involvement in several additional ways: THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED 1. In developing an MOU among the None of the alternatives include management implementing agencies; direction that would directly create unavoidable 2. During periodic review of all adverse environmental effects. It is conceivable agencies' implementation; and that the lack of additional action under Alternative A1 could lead to adverse effects on

5-56 ˜ Chapter 5 river corridor resources at some time in the logging of a forest that will grow back) or future, but this would depend on the nature of permanently as a result of taking action. Since the threat and the ability of existing resource the alternatives in this document deal with protection mechanisms to address it. For resource conservation rather than resource example, a major or minor dam or water development activities, no alternative calls for diversion project in the study area could any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of adversely affect all the natural resources resources. Alternative A1 and Alternative A3- mentioned in this report, as well as create a Not Suitable do recognize the potential for decisive level of conflict. Alternatives A2 and decisions outside the scope of this document to A3-Not Suitable allow for limited water make irreversible and irretrievable commitments development projects and possible effects to of resources. Such potential effects would be ORVs and free-flow. evaluated on a case-by-case basis at the time a project is proposed.

5.16 LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND 5.18 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS THE MAINTENANCE AND Cumulative effects have been previously ENHANCEMENT OF LONG- addressed in this chapter under the specific resource headings such as fisheries, wildlife, TERM PRODUCTIVITY recreation, and water development. The A1, A2, and A3-Not Suitable alternatives could allow All of the alternatives except A1 contain for limited water developments that have some measures designed to preclude, or at least delay, adverse effects to ORVs, free-flow, or water new dam construction, hydropower quality; and these effects could cumulatively development, and other development projects erode eligibility depending on the exact nature that could adversely affect the ORVs. While the and extent of the developments. Such potential relative level of protection afforded against such effects would be evaluated on a case-by-case dams and water projects varies between the basis at the time a project is proposed. alternatives and is subject to debate, the intent of each is consistent. None of the alternatives The cooperative watershed, water quality contains specific actions that require a improvement, and channel improvement substantial loss of short-term use in order to projects identified in Alternatives A2, A3, achieve long-term protection. and the Preferred Alternative combined with the Source Water Protection Plan, the TMDL determinations, and the Upper South Platte Watershed Restoration Project (Forest 5.17 IRREVERSIBLE AND Service initiative) could cumulatively improve water quality, aquatic and riparian habitat, IRRETRIEVABLE wetlands, and channel stability within the COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES project areas and could reduce sedimentation at downstream water storage facilities. There are This section is meant to articulate any resources no other known cumulative effects. that would be lost either temporarily (such as

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-57

new management corridor would be established 5.19 NATIONAL FOREST along all segments identified for protection, MANAGEMENT ACT AND with management direction and standards and OTHER FINDINGS guidelines established consistent with the selected alternative. FOREST PLAN IMPLICATIONS BIODIVERSITY The Forest Plan would be amended under all alternatives. Based on the information The issue of biodiversity was addressed by presented here, the amendment’s geographic considering its major components such as scope and effect on overall production of goods wildlife, fisheries, and scenery (vegetation) as and services from the land governed by the well as issues such as maintaining the free- Forest Plan appears to be non-significant, as flowing condition of the river and levels of defined under the National Forest Management naturalness within the river corridor. Act. Therefore, a non-significant amendment is appropriate. CONSUMERS, CIVIL RIGHTS, MINORITY Amendment details will vary between GROUPS, AND WOMEN alternatives. Under alternatives recommending None of the alternatives would have a designation under the WSRA, a new significant impact upon these issues. management area would be placed over river Information on associated impacts is located in segments recommended as suitable for the discussions on socioeconomic impacts. designation. This new management area would embrace the study corridors, which extend one- quarter mile from the river. Management PRIME FARMLANDS direction and standards and guidelines affecting There are no prime farmlands within the study these areas would resemble those that already corridors. apply to the eligible corridor on the South Platte River between Cheesman Reservoir and Elevenmile Reservoir (Forest Plan, pages III-16 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED to III-17). Their purpose would be to protect SPECIES eligibility until Congress resolves the issue of The anticipated effects to these species have designation. previously been discussed in the “Vegetation,” Alternative A1 would involve an amendment “Wildlife,” and “Fisheries” sections of this that would remove the special management area chapter. corridor between Elevenmile Reservoir and the Cheesman property. The corridor was WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS established when the current Forest Plan was approved in 1984. Management area direction Wetlands and floodplains are protected under for lands currently within that corridor would the Clean Water Act. On Federal lands, be modified and made similar to that of wetlands and floodplains are also protected adjoining lands. under Executive Order 11990 and Executive Order 11988, which allow for no net loss, Alternatives A2, A3, and the Preferred regardless of the alternative selected. Under Alternative would also involve a Forest Plan Alternative A2, it is possible that dam amendment, the purpose of which would be to construction, diversions, hydropower implement the alternative’s intentions to the development, or water diversion projects could extent that Forest Service authorities allow. A occur after 20 years, which could have a definite

5-58 ˜ Chapter 5 impact on wetlands and floodplains. Under 5.21 ADDITIONAL FEDERAL Alternatives A1 and A3-Not Suitable, the effects of dam construction, diversions, hydropower IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR development, and water diversion projects EACH ALTERNATIVE would be addressed in the public planning process for a specific project if the project Table 5-1 summarizes the additional cost to the received the necessary permits, licenses, and Federal Government, above the current level, approval by the appropriate Federal agencies. for implementing each alternative. The Streamflow Management Plan and the SPPP of Alternatives A2, A3, and the Preferred These costs are based on fiscal year 2002 dollar Alternative could provide an opportunity to values and have been separated into three enhance or protect existing wetlands and categories for each alternative. The three floodplains. Alternatives B, C, D, F, G, I, and J categories include costs associated with the consider and protect wetlands and floodplains. management plan, land and easement acquisition, and administration

Annual administrative costs for Alternatives A2, A3 and the Preferred Alternative reflect the 5.20 SUMMARY OF THE efforts needed to manage an area with multiple ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF partners. Administrative costs may reduce in future years after the partnerships are well EACH ALTERNATIVE ON THE established. Administrative costs would also be KEY STUDY ISSUES driven up because of increased non-Federal capital investment in the river corridor. The summary of environmental impacts of each Projects funded through the Endowment Fund alternative on key study issues can be found in or through State or Federal grants would require Appendix B, Comparison of Alternatives Forest Service review and participation. Including Key Study Issues.

Table 5-1.—Federal Implementation Costs (2002 dollar values in thousands of dollars rounded to the nearest thousandth) Alternatives A3- A3-Not PREFERRED A1 A2 Suitable Suitable ALTERNATIVE B C D F G I J Management N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 211 201 159 127 110 112 169 Plan (one-time cost) Land and No None None None None Costs may be incurred for potential exchanges Easement change and future easements, but are too speculative to Acquisition be estimated at this time. Administration No 50 50 50 50 85 79 60 42 42 32 58 (annual cost) change

Environmental Consequences ˜ 5-59