HomeMy WebLinkAbout20102139.tiff United States Forest Arapaho and Roosevelt 2150 Centre Avenue, Building E
LSD Department of Service National Forests and Fort Collins,CO 80526.8119
Agriculture Pawnee National Grassland Voice: (970)295-6600 TDD: (970)295-6794
�"' Web: www.fs.fed.us/r2/arnf
Fax: (970)295-6696
t 3 t:.\ ;: 1 `.
File Code: 1950-3
Date: September 8, 2010
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80632
Dear County Commissioners:
On September 2, 2010, I made the decision to reissue a special use authorization for the Long
Draw Reservoir located on the Canyon Lakes Ranger District in Larimer County, Colorado. I
selected Alternative 3 as described in the March 2009, Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) for this analysis. A detailed description of this alternative is contained in the attached
Record of Decision (ROD). The FEIS and the ROD are also available on the Forest Service
website at www.usda.fs/arp .
My decision considers input from the interdisciplinary team analysis and the involvement of the
public and state and federal agencies. I think the Response to Comments (Appendix A of the
FEIS) has adequately addressed concerns about this project raised during the official comment
period. This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Part 215: Notice, Comment, and Appeal Procedures for National Forest System Projects
and Activities, or if applicable, 36 CFR Part 251 Subpart C: Appeal of Decisions Relating to
Occupancy and Use of National Forest System Lands. The appeal period begins with the legal
notice publication in the Denver Post newspaper (expected on September 9, 2010). Please see
the section titled Administrative Appeal Opportunities on page 26 of the ROD for further
information on submitting appeals.
Thank you for your interest and participation in this project. Please contact Tom Ford at
tford0l CNfs.fed.us or at (970) 295-6610 if you have questions about this project or my decision.
Sincerely,
•-g /kr..„3.
reLGLENN P. CASAMASSA
Forest Supervisor
Attachment
r Tqn 0
rnL 2010-2139
�S q I7 ir!
Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
RECORD OF DECISION
LONG DRAW RESERVOIR SPECIAL USE AUTHORIZATION
Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland
Grand and Larimer Counties, Colorado
I have prepared this Record of Decision (ROD) pursuant to the March, 2009 Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) entitled Long Draw Reservoir Special Use
Authorization. That FEIS documented an interagency environmental analysis of a proposed
action to reauthorize that portion of Long Draw Reservoir built in 1974, which enlarged its
original capacity to 10,800 acre feet. The original reservoir stored approximately 4,400 acre feet
of water, and it and the Grand Ditch were authorized in 1927 under the terms and conditions of
easements issued by the Department of the Interior, pursuant to the authority of the Act of March
3, 1891. Those existing easements are not affected by this decision.
The expanded area of the reservoir had previously been authorized by a series of Forest Service-
issued special use permits, the last of which expired on January 31, 1994. The use, operation,
and maintenance of this reservoir have been occurring since then in a manner consistent with the
terms and conditions of that expired permit. The FEES documents the outcome of an
environmental analysis that was conducted in consideration of reauthorizing the expanded
portion of the reservoir, in a manner consistent with existing laws and regulations governing
water development uses on National Forest System (NFS) lands.
The Forest Service is the lead agency in this analysis and in writing the FEIS, primarily because
Long Draw Reservoir is located on NFS lands. The National Park Service (NPS) is a
cooperating agency because the ongoing operation of Long Draw Reservoir is impacting federal
lands and resources immediately downstream from the dam; lands and resources situated within
and managed by Rocky Mountain National Park (the Park). In addition, two alternatives
considered in the FEIS propose actions within the Park. The NPS will be issuing a ROD
pursuant to the FEIS to approve and authorize activities that will occur on lands within the Park
as a result of this decision.
This ROD includes: a description of the background of the project; a statement of the decision
made including key actions; monitoring and mitigating measures to minimize environmental
impacts; the rationale for the decision; an overview of public involvement and agency
consultation in the decision-making process; a description of other alternatives considered;
findings required by other laws; and, a description of the environmentally preferred alternative.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Long Draw Reservoir is located approximately 35 miles west of Fort Collins in Larimer County
(T. 6 N., R. 75 W., sections 10, 11, 15 and 16, 6th P.M.). Access to Long Draw Reservoir is by
U.S. Highway 287 and State Highway 14 from Fort Collins for approximately 60 miles along the
Cache la Poudre River to the junction of Highway 14 and the Long Draw Road (National Forest
System Road 156). The reservoir is located approximately 9.5 miles southeast on the Long
Draw Road. Long Draw Reservoir is located on La Poudre Pass Creek (also known as Long
Draw Creek), a tributary to the Cache la Poudre River at an elevation of 10,100 feet near the
Continental Divide. La Poudre Pass Creek, both above and below the reservoir, is situated
within the Park. The reservoir itself occupies NFS land within the boundaries of the Roosevelt
National Forest (Forest). The Cache la Poudre River downstream of the confluence with La
Poudre Pass Creek is also on NFS land.
Long Draw Reservoir has a storage capacity of 10,800 acre feet and is owned and operated by
The Water Supply and Storage Company (WSSC, also referred to as the permittee). The
reservoir's primary function is to store water received from the Grand Ditch (also known as the
Grand River Ditch), a trans-basin diversion that diverts waters from tributary headwaters of the
Colorado River in the Park and the Arapaho National Forest. The Grand Ditch transports water
across the Continental Divide over La Poudre Pass into La Poudre Pass Creek, then down La
Poudre Pass Creek for about one mile to the reservoir. Water released from the reservoir flows
from the dam down the creek for approximately an additional 2.5 miles to the confluence with
the Cache La Poudre River, and then down the river to diversions near the mouth of the canyon
where its water is again diverted for storage and irrigation.
The Grand Ditch has been in operation since the late 1890's, prior to the 1915 establishment of
both the Park and the 1910 establishment of the Colorado National Forest (which was
subsequently named the Roosevelt National Forest). The original reservoir and the Grand Ditch
were authorized in 1927 through Department of Interior-issued easements that are still in effect.
The original construction of the Long Draw Reservoir was completed in 1929, at which time it
held about 4,400 acre feet of water and inundated about 263 acres. Historical documents
indicate that the reservoir operations at that time allowed water to pass into La Poudre Pass
Creek below the dam at rates and in quantities that were sufficient to sustain a fishery during the
winter months. Historical records also indicate that peak releases following the original
construction of the reservoir generally did not exceed flows of 200 cubic feet per second.
The reservoir was enlarged in 1974 to its existing capacity of 10,800 acre feet. The enlargement
inundated an additional 53 acres of NFS land. Enlargement of the reservoir was completed prior
to the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). At the same
time as the reservoir enlargement, modifications were made to the Grand Ditch that increased the
volume of water delivered to Long Draw Reservoir.
During the environmental analysis for the 1974 Long Draw Reservoir enlargement, the Forest
Service had recommended that native flows from La Poudre Pass Creek above the reservoir be
allowed to pass through the dam during the winter months to minimize impacts to fisheries
below the reservoir. However, in place of that recommendation, an 84 acre permanent
2
conservation pool (646 acre feet) was constructed in conjunction with the expansion, as a means
of complying with the requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and under the
authority of the Small Reclamation Projects Act. This conservation pool was intended to do
several things. First, it would serve as mitigation for the stream fishery that was lost through
inundation from the expansion of the reservoir. Second, it was expected that this pool would
provide seepage through the dam. It was anticipated that this seepage would provide flow below
the reservoir in La Poudre Pass Creek during the winter months to minimize the adverse impacts
to fisheries below the reservoir. This seepage, and consequently the fisheries benefit, has not
occurred as expected.
The enlarged facility was initially authorized by a series of Forest Service issued temporary
special use permits until 1980, when a ten year special use permit was issued. This permit was
amended in 1981; it expired at the end of 1991, and was subsequently extended through January
31, 1994.
In 1993, the Forest Service initiated preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for
re-issuance of a land use authorization. This process was completed in July 1994 and resulted in
a decision to issue a 50-year easement to authorize the continued use, operation, and
maintenance of the expanded portion of Long Draw Reservoir. That decision was challenged in
a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Trout Unlimited v. USDA, 96-WY-2686-
WD). In April 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado reversed the 1994
decision, finding that it failed to comply with the provisions of FLPMA. In particular, the court
found that the decision was inconsistent with Section 505 of FLPMA, which requires that all
authorizations for the types of uses and occupancies of NFS lands authorized by that Act be
conditioned in a manner to minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife
habitat, and to otherwise protect the environment consistent with other requirements of law and
regulation.
After the District Court's 2004 decision, the 1980 special use permit for the occupancy and use
of Long Draw Reservoir became the controlling authorization for the current and ongoing use,
operation, and maintenance of this reservoir enlargement. WSSC has in fact been operating
Long Draw Reservoir in a manner consistent with the terms and conditions of that now-expired
1980 permit. A new land use authorization will be needed if the Forest Service decides to
approve the continuation of this long-existing use and occupancy of NFS land.
The 2004 court decision prompted the Forest Service to initiate a new environmental analysis to
reevaluate the environmental effects occurring due to the current use and operation of this
reservoir. The analysis was designed to serve as the basis for deciding whether to reauthorize the
reservoir enlargement and, if so, to also identify terms and conditions that would be needed in
the issuance of a new special use authorization to assure compliance with Section 505 of
FLPMA, and other applicable laws and regulations.
DECISION
I have decided to select Alternative 3 as described in the March 2009, Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) for Long Draw Reservoir Special Use Authorization. Alternative 3
meets the purpose and need for this project and addresses key issues as described in the FEIS.
Key provisions of the selected alternative include:
• Design, construction and testing of barriers (some temporary and some permanent) to
prevent movement of non-native fish into streams where they have been removed;
• Removal of non-native fish and stocking of greenback cutthroat trout creating a
metapopulation of greenback cutthroat trout in approximately 37 miles of stream habitat
and 106 acres of lake habitat to mitigate the adverse impacts in La Poudre Pass Creek
resulting from the operation and maintenance of Long Draw dam and reservoir. A
metapopulation is a large population that consists of several smaller populations linked
together by immigration and emigration through connected habitat.
In addition to native trout restoration, I have decided to require installation of a darn failure early
warning system to provide around the clock monitoring of the dam. Analysis of the installation
of such a system occurred between the draft and final EIS in response to the key issue of safety.
Such a system addresses the concern that access to the reservoir and dam during the winter is
restricted by snowfall and avalanche activity. Given the length and elevation gain of the Long
Draw Road, the road could be inaccessible during an emergency, even if regularly plowed. In
addition, even if the road was open it would be unlikely that equipment could be mobilized to the
site in a time frame that would make any real difference in terms of abating an emergency.
Given the potential consequences of a dam failure to life and property, I am requiring the
installation of an early warning system.
I am authorizing the issuance of a 30 year easement for the operation and maintenance of the
expanded portion of Long Draw Reservoir with terms and conditions that require the holder to
participate in native cutthroat trout conservation projects and a long-term recovery program in
the upper Cache la Poudre River basin as described in this ROD and the I-EIS.
Project Phases
Native cutthroat trout restoration will be phased in over approximately fifteen years. Data will
be collected in support of implementation including flow, water quality, presence of non-target
aquatic species such as amphibians, and site information needed to develop a detailed
implementation plan. Implementation will initially focus on constructing and testing fish
barriers followed by removal of non-native fish. Upon completion of these tasks, the
establishment of greenback cutthroat trout populations will occur through stocking. After
establishment of isolated populations throughout the project area, the recovery process will focus
on connecting the populations through the removal of barriers. A proposed timeline for the
phases can be found on page 23 of the 1-h1S. This timeline may be modified as determined by
monitoring and other considerations.
4
Barrier Design, Construction and Testing
Barriers will be designed for each specific site and to provide effective prevention of upstream
movement of fish. Barriers needed for this alternative are the same as those described on page
25 of the FEIS and displayed in Figure 2-6 on page 31. All of the barriers are located below the
reservoir except for the barrier on the Grand Ditch, which is above the reservoir.
Barrier construction will generally consist of a waterfall type barrier that will span the stream
channel. All barriers except the Grand Ditch harrier will he designed to appear natural to the
degree possible and will be designed and constructed so they will not impound water flow. To
decrease the risk of fish kills associated with high pH, temporary water diversions will be used
when building or enhancing a barrier if concrete is used. Rocks for barrier construction will be
taken from pre-approved sites to avoid adverse effects to sensitive archeological sites, exotic
vegetation, and threatened, endangered or sensitive species on the terraces next to the streams.
Ground disturbance that could lead to erosion will be avoided and silt fences will be used if
needed to minimize soil movement. Areas disturbed during barrier construction or enhancement
will be revegetated with desirable, native vegetation.
The majority of the streams within the project area flow through land which has been designated
as wilderness and/or land within the Park. Additionally, the Cache la Poudre River is a
designated Wild and Scenic River. Barriers need to be compatible with both Wilderness and
Wild and Scenic River values and therefore all of them, except the barrier on the Grand Ditch.
will be designed with the following considerations:
• Barriers will mimic normal, naturally occurring conditions.
• Barriers will not create unusual hazards or substantially interfere with existing or
reasonably anticipated recreational use of the river.
• Barriers will not prevent naturally occurring events such as bank erosion, channel
shifting, island building, and bed load or debris movement.
• Construction materials are kept natural in appearance.
• Materials are placed in locations, positions, and quantities which mimic natural
conditions.
• Anchoring materials, cables, rebar, etc., are installed in such a manner as to he visually
acceptable.
All barriers will be tested for at least one monitoring season to ensure they are effective in
preventing upstream fish movement. Monitoring could entail fish tagging/marking and electro-
fishing to monitor movement past subject barriers or other more technologically advanced
methods that may he available. The permanent barrier on the mainstem of the Cache la Poudre is
the most critical barrier to the long-term success of a pure greenback cutthroat trout
metapopulation: therefore. the effectiveness of this barrier will be tested for at least two
monitoring seasons.
Project Area
The project area for Alternative 3 includes the darn and reservoir being authorized, as well as the
damaged reaches of La Poudre Pass Creek and streams that connect to these areas. The project
area includes streams within Rocky Mountain National Park above a substantial and existing
natural barrier on the main stem of the Cache la Poudre River. The use of this existing natural
barrier provides the most efficient scale for this restoration effort as it eliminates the need for
construction and maintenance of a constructed barrier and provides for upstream movement of
fish above the barrier into sufficient habitat for a fully functioning metapopulation. In addition,
use of a natural barrier reduces the risk of failure often associated with constructed barriers,
especially in the presence of high flows such as those experienced in La Poudre Pass Creek and
the Cache la Poudre as the result of the combination of natural flows and flows augmented by the
operations of the dam and reservoir.
Removal of Non-Native Fish
Treatments for the removal of non-native fish on about 54 miles of streams and 106 acres of lake
will recover about 37 miles of useable stream habitat and 106 lake acres for the metapopulation.
Removal of non-native fish will be through the use of piscicides. There are currently two
piscicides (rotenone and antimycin) approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for fish removal. Potassium permanganate (KMnO4) is a strong oxidizing agent that will be
used to neutralize either chemical.
Where present, removal of beaver and beaver dams will occur prior to chemical treatments to
facilitate fish removal. If feasible, beavers will be live trapped and moved to other suitable
locations prior to removal of dams. Beaver dams will be removed through explosives or with the
use of hand tools. Beaver will be reintroduced in cooperation with Colorado Division of
Wildlife (CDOW) following successful restoration of native fish.
Prior to beaver dam removal and fish removal via chemical application, surveys for the presence
of egg masses, tadpoles and adults of sensitive amphibian species such as boreal toad, northern
leopard frog or wood frog will be conducted around suitable habitat. If these species are located,
actions will be taken in coordination with CDOW and the Park to minimize impacts to these
species.
Fish killed by chemical treatments will be disposed of by distributing on the banks or removed
from the site via pack animals_ Disposal methods will be determined at the time of
implementation considering public use of the site, amount of fish killed, abundance of predators
and time of year.
Following chemical treatment, sites will be sampled for at least two monitoring seasons to ensure
that fish removal was fully successful. If non-native fish are found, subsequent treatments and
monitoring for two seasons will be required until it is determined that removal is successful.
6
Fish Stocking
Two sub-watersheds in the Park (Hague, Chapin/Upper Poudre) and one on the National Forest
(Corral Creek) will be stocked with native trout after monitoring indicates the streams are free of
non-native fish. In addition, Long Draw Reservoir will be stocked with native trout. Streams
that will be treated but will not he stocked include Baker Gulch, Neota Creek, Willow Creek, and
Corral Creek below the temporary barrier, the mainstem Cache la Poudre River below the
temporary barrier, Hague Creek below the temporary barrier and La Poudre Pass Creek below
the reservoir. All other streams with useable habitat will be stocked with greenback cutthroat
trout. Baker Gulch will not be stocked to prevent the movement of greenback cutthroat trout into
the Colorado River basin. Willow Creek and Corral Creek below the temporary barrier will not
be stocked but rather will be allowed to populate through movement of fish from other recovered
streams to demonstrate the effectiveness of the metapopulation.
Barrier Removal
Isolated populations of native trout above the temporary barriers will be considered established
when the Greenback Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan definition of a stable and established
population is met. Under the current recovery plan, these conditions are:
• No non-native trout found in the subject stream(s);
• Successful recruitment of cutthroat trout two out of five years as determined by
monitoring.
• A minimum of 500 breeding adults in the subject stream(s);
• A minimum of 22 kilograms per hectare (approximately 20 lbs/acre) of fish.
Temporary barriers will be removed after establishment of isolated populations of greenback
cutthroat trout above these barriers in all of the subwatersheds that are stocked. The streams will
be connected to provide the advantages of large, contiguous, connected habitats. Removal of
barriers will consist of blasting or hammering out the constructed barrier, thereby reducing the
height of the jump to facilitate upstream movement of fish. Jump pools below barrier sites will
be enhanced to provide adequate pool depth for movement. Banks will be re-contoured and re-
vegetated.
Metapopulation Establishment
A metapopulation is defined as a group of individual populations of the same species that are
geographically close enough to interact with each other but in an area large enough to ensure
species persistence after a stochastic (or random) event. The individual populations may exist in
two types of areas, source areas or sink areas. Source areas contain high quality habitat that
typically allow the population to increase. Sink areas consist of low quality habitat that over
time would not allow an individual population to survive. Continued use of sink habitats can
occur when excess population from a source area moves to a sink.
This decision will establish a metapopulation of greenback cutthroat trout within an estimated 37
miles of streams. The metapopulation will be considered established and the project successful
when streams in the project area. including Willow Creek, meet the Greenback Cutthroat Trout
7
Recovery Plan definition of a stable and established isolated population at the time of the
determination.
If the definitions for a stable and established population change during a future revision of the
recovery plan, the new definition will replace this definition as the criterion for this effort. If
greenback cutthroat are determined to be recovered and subsequently delisted by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service, isolated populations will be considered established using the standard of the
last recovery plan developed prior to delisting.
Willow Creek is not proposed for stocking in the FEIS. Immigration of greenback cutthroat trout
is the only means for achieving an established population in this stream. By establishing a
population in Willow Creek solely through the movement of fish from other adjacent steams that
have established populations, the function of the metapopulation as described in the FEIS and
this ROD will be demonstrated.
Mitigation and Monitoring
The following mitigation and monitoring provisions are an integral part of this decision and will
be the responsibility of the permittee.
Mitigation
• Any use of antirnycin and rotenone in occupied boreal toad habitat will occur after
tadpoles have metamorphosed and left the water. Existing surveys indicate no currently
occupied toad habitat.
• Treatment areas will be closed to the public during treatment activities and for three days
after the conclusion of treatment activities. The closure will extend far enough
downstream to ensure that chemicals have been neutralized before exiting the closed
area.
• An emergency notification and closure plan will be developed in case of a spill or
chemicals fail to neutralize within the project area.
• Mitigation procedures will be developed in consultation with the Colorado State Historic
Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and any interested
parties that are identified.
• Education of the public regarding non-native fish species impacts to native populations
will occur to reduce the risk of illegal placement of non-native fish into restored areas.
• Any equipment and supplies used for restoration activities will comply with applicable
agency guidelines to prevent the introduction or spread of aquatic nuisance species.
• The permittee will continue participation in the South Platte Water Related Activities
Program to mitigate for the water depletions.
• If sensitive or federally listed species are identified during implementation a Park Service
or Forest Service biologist will be contacted to assess the situation.
• Sensitive resources within riparian and wetland areas, such as threatened, endangered and
sensitive species (TES) and rare plant species, will be clearly marked in the field and
avoided where feasible during construction and implementation.
• Undesirable non-native plants will be removed if possible or clearly marked in the field
and would be avoided where feasible in project activities. Where avoidance is not
8
feasible, monitoring for undesirable vegetation will occur for five years after disturbance
is completed. If undesirable vegetation is found, follow-up treatment could include
mechanical, biological, chemical or additional re-vegetation treatments.
• If additional prehistoric or historic materials are found during the course of this project,
work in that area will cease until the District Ranger/Park Superintendent has been
notified. Work in the area of the cultural resource may not resume until a professional
archaeologist has evaluated the cultural materials and potential effects. The discovery
must be protected until notified in writing to proceed by the authorized officer (36 CFR
800.110 & 112, 43 CFR 10.4).
Monitoring —
• When concrete is used as part of barrier construction, downstream pH monitoring will
occur and operations will cease if pH reaches or exceeds acceptable levels.
• Activity areas will be monitored to ensure organic matter and ground cover is retained to
the degree possible. If areas become heavily disturbed or denuded, re-vegetation in
consultation with the agency re-vegetation specialist will be required.
• Each stream will be monitored for the first three years after greenback have been
reintroduced and a minimum of every three years thereafter for presence of non-native
fish and success of greenback recruitment during the life of the authorization.
• Monitoring of macroinvertebrate recovery after piscicide applications will be undertaken
to assure adequate food supply and biological recovery prior to stocking of greenback
cutthroat trout.
Decision Rationale
My decision is based on the effects disclosed in the final EIS, public comments received on the
draft EIS and throughout the process, the project record, and applicable law, regulation and
policy. In arriving at this decision, I considered a total of thirteen alternatives. Four were
analyzed in detail and nine were eliminated from detailed study for the reasons stated in the FEIS
on pages 35-38.
Alternative 3 minimizes the on-going resource damage being caused by the operation of Long
Draw Reservoir. It does so through non-flow mitigation measures, by creating a metapopulation
of native greenback cutthroat trout that includes the reservoir and the entire length of La Poudre
Pass Creek above and below the reservoir. I selected Alternative 3 because it best meets the
purpose and need as described in the FEIS on pages two and three. In addition I believe that
Alternative 3 meets the Forest Service's responsibilities for minimizing damage to the
environment per Section 505 of Federal Land Policy and Management Act for the reasons listed
below.
1. Both the National Park Service and the Forest Service are required by the Endangered
Species Act to conserve federally listed species and Alternative 3 contributes
substantially to this effort. This alternative will provide significant benefit to the
recovery of greenback cutthroat trout. a threatened species.
2. Because most of the damage resulting from operations of the dam and reservoir are
within the Park. I have also considered the fact that Alternative 3 provides the greatest
benefit to Park resources and values. Because it will restore a threatened native species,
9
Alternative 3 best addresses the fulfillment of the Park's purposes as defined in the
enabling legislation by preserving natural conditions and conserving wildlife for the
people of the United States. In addition, Alternative 3 moves the Park towards the
desired condition for native trout restoration as described in the draft Greenback
Cutthroat Trout Management Plan (in progress).
3. Alternative 3 also meets the intent of wilderness management goals within the Park and
the National Forest by restoring native species.
4. Alternative 3 minimizes adverse impacts to La Poudre Pass Creek by putting the damage
resulting from the ongoing operations of the reservoir into the context of conservation
biology principals, specifically metapopulation dynamics. Alternative 3 uses the
reservoir as a tool to create and maintain a large, connected population of native
cutthroats. Because the reservoir will provide an ongoing source of cutthroat trout, the
damage in the stream becomes less relevant to the long term maintenance of a large
population of greenback cutthroat trout in the Park and the National Forest.
5. Alternative 3 was determined to be the environmentally preferred alternative as described
in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and documented on pages 38 and 39
of the FEIS and described in this ROD.
In selecting Alternative 3, I have considered several concepts that contribute to species recovery
and conservation. The first concept is that of a metapopulation and its importance to the
persistence of a species. The second of those concepts is that of sinks and sources within a large
connected area of habitat. It is the relationship of these two concepts and their application to the
reservoir and the reach of La Poudre Pass Creek below the darn that provides the basis for my
decision.
The concept of a metapopulation is described on page seven of this decision and in the FEIS.
Understanding this key concept is essential for articulating the benefits of Alternative 3. Isolated
populations of native trout are vulnerable to local extinction as the result of stochastic
disturbance events such as fire, disease, localized drought or storms or invasion by non-native
species. Greenback cutthroat trout in isolated drainages with no adjacent opportunities for
refugia do not have the opportunity for protective movement into adjacent areas in reaction to
disturbance. These populations are also vulnerable to genetic issues due to a lack of opportunity
for genetic exchange.
Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in a metapopulation of greenback that would be at
less risk of local extinction and have more robust genetic attributes. A metapopulation is one
which is large enough to consist of several subpopulations linked together by immigration and
emigration. These subpopulations may exist in two types of areas, source areas or sink areas.
Ecological conditions in a source area meet all the needs of the species so that generally, births
of a species exceed deaths of that species. Ecological conditions in a sink area are such that
individuals can exist, but some important ecological need is not met. In sink areas, deaths of
individuals generally exceed births so the population cannot be sustained. The continued
presence of the species in a sink area is entirely due to immigration of individuals from a nearby
source area (faculty.plattshurgh.edu/thomas.wolosz/metapop).
I0
These concepts apply to the relationship between Long Draw Reservoir and La Poudre Pass
Creek. The reservoir is considered a source area for the metapopulation of greenback cutthroat
trout because it will provide high quality, productive habitat that will allow the population to
grow. If necessary, stocking of fish can occur to assure that adequate numbers persist. Stocking
of greenback in the reservoir would be continued, providing an important source of cutthroat into
the metapopulation to maintain more recruitment than loss, even if an event were to occur that
would adversely impact one or more of the subpopulations. The advantage of the reservoir as a
source for the metapopulation is that trout generally grow bigger and mature faster in a lake
environment. This is evidenced by the large size of the greenback cutthroat trout hybrid
currently found in the reservoir. The fish leaving the reservoir when spilling occurs and when
the headgates are opened are larger than stream resident trout and generally in excellent
condition.
All of the other streams in the analysis area, with the exception of La Poudre Pass Creek below
the dam, provide habitat of sufficient quantity and quality to meet all the life history
requirements of greenback cutthroat trout, including spawning, rearing, and overwinter habitat.
Prey species required to sustain trout populations would be available.
La Poudre Pass Creek does not provide conditions sufficient for fish during parts of the year and
does not meet the needs of some life history stages of fish. While fish can and do exist in La
Poudre Pass Creek at times, persistence of fish in the stream is the result of repopulation of the
stream from adjacent refugia. This immigration likely occurs during the spring before releases
begin and again in the fall once flow levels are reduced. In fact, La Poudre Pass Creek acts as an
ecological trap for fish. An ecological trap is a kind of sink that appears to provide conditions
that meet all the environmental requirements of an organism, but does not. This deficiency is not
apparent to the organism so there is no avoidance of the area. In La Poudre Pass Creek, the lack
of spawning, rearing and overwintering habitat and the increased energy costs needed to
withstand unnaturally high flows and dramatic fluctuations in flow are not apparent to fish
moving into the stream during the spring and fall. The physical damage to La Poudre Pass Creek
downstream from the reservoir resulting from its ongoing operation causes this area to act as a
sink; however, the effects to the metapopulation are mitigated because there is a connection to
the source area in the reservoir. In other words, declining populations in the sink can be
replenished by those from the source.
In summary, the ongoing impacts in La Poudre Pass Creek from reservoir operations are
significant habitat alterations that prevent a sustainable population of fish from surviving. This
effect on the metapopulation is mitigated due to the connection with the source habitat in the
reservoir and other high quality stream habitats in the project area. The lower, permanent barrier
establishing the downstream extent of the metapopulation is located approximately 1/4 mile
downstream of the confluence of La Poudre Pass Creek and the Cache la Poudre River where a
natural barrier occurs. Alternative 3 mitigates the effects of this physical damage to the habitat
by providing a biological solution. As such, it is not appropriate to conduct a comparative
analysis between the damage occurring by the ongoing operations of this reservoir and the
biological mitigation of that damage in Alternative 3 by using miles or acres of damage as a
metric. (This is further addressed in a subsequent section of this Decision, entitled
Proportionality).
Alternatives Considered
Three other alternatives that responded to the key issues (a no action alternative and two action
alternatives) were considered in detail in the DEIS and FEIS.
Alternative 1 — Continuation of Current Management — This alternative represents the "no
action" alternative required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This alternative
would continue to authorize the expanded portion of Long Draw Reservoir with terms and
conditions consistent with the operation and maintenance required by the 1980 permit. The 1980
permit contains general conditions requiring the permittee to use caution to avoid causing
damage to forest resources. Timing of storage and releases would vary year to year depending
on the supply of and demand for water.
Alternative 2—Dam Modification for Winter Flows—This alternative was designed to utilize
in-kind methods to directly address damage from ongoing operations of Long Draw Reservoir.
Specifically, Alternative 2 provides for flows in the winter months to mitigate damage from lack
of flows below the reservoir. In addition, Alternative 2 would provide for ramping of flows in
the summer months to mitigate for damage from spiked releases. This alternative would
authorize the operation and maintenance of the expanded portion of Long Draw Reservoir with
terms and conditions designed to minimize impacts within La Poudre Pass Creek. Key
provisions of this alternative include:
• Modification of the dam to allow winter releases;
• Releases of water during the winter months to mitigate loss of over-winter habitat caused
by the current practice of allowing no release of water during the winter months;
• Installation of an early warning system to mitigate for safety concerns; and
• Ramping summer flows to mitigate impacts caused by abrupt spiked summer releases.
Alternative 4 —Colorado River Flows—This alternative would authorize operation and
maintenance for the expanded portion of Long Draw Reservoir with terms and conditions to
release water from the Grand Ditch during the summer months (June through September) into
the Colorado River watershed. To further consider the key issue of off-site flow mitigation,
Alternative 4 was designed to provide additional flow in the Kawuneeche Valley from the Grand
Ditch. This alternative was designed to utilize off-site flows to compensate for damage while not
changing the current operations of Long Draw Reservoir. Specifically, this alternative allows
about 1,700 acre feet of Colorado River water to be bypassed into Red and Lost Creeks in the
Park and not be intercepted by the Grand Ditch. This water would be bypassed when the ditch is
operating, generally from June through September. The bypassed water would be allowed to
flow through the riparian channels, wetlands, and fens of the Kawuneeche Valley into the
Colorado River. Timing of releases and any change in release points would be determined
annually by the National Park Service, in cooperation with the permittee.
In addition to the three alternatives analyzed in detail, nine other alternatives were considered but
dismissed from detailed analysis. The rationale for dismissal is documented in the FEIS. These
alternatives included:
• No authorization alternative— this alternative would not have authorized the occupancy
and use of the enlarged Long Draw Reservoir and dam.
12
• Pipeline alternative — this alternative examined the concept of piping Grand Ditch water
in a 14.5-mile pipeline to the Cache la Poudre River near the confluence of Joe Wright
Creek.
• Long Draw bypass alternative — this alternative examined the concept of constructing a
gravity flow pipeline or open channel around Long Draw Reservoir.
• Channel modification alternative —this alternative would require winter flow releases
that approximate natural flows in both amount and timing. In addition, this alternative
would require the modification of the stream channel within La Poudre Pass Creek
downstream of the reservoir to ensure the winter native flows would be effective.
• R2Cross alternative— this alternative would require winter flow releases at levels
determined by R2Cross, which is the Colorado Water Conservation Board's
recommended methodology for quantifying flow to meet the need of most life stages of
fish and aquatic invertebrates within a stream.
• JOP alternative —this alternative would implement the current Joint Operating Plan
(JOP).
• JOP modification alternative— this alternative would modify the JOP.
• Reduced metapopulation alternative—this alternative examined reducing the size of the
metapopulation by relocation of the permanent barrier on the Cache la Poudre River to a
location on La Poudre Pass Creek below the confluence of Corral Creek.
• Public and Permittee Proposed Modification of Alternative 3— this alternative would
modify Alternative 3 as described in the DEIS by changing the implementation schedule
and identifying responsibilities for implementation to non-governmental organizations,
state and federal agencies with $100,000 of seed money provided by the permittee.
I did not select Alternative 1 because this alternative would continue current management, which
results in unmitigated impacts in La Poudre Pass Creek below the Long Draw dam as
documented in Chapter 4 of the FEIS. When considering Alternative 1, I recognize that during
the analysis of the enlargement of the reservoir in 1972 and 1973, the Forest Service
recommended bypass flows to protect the fisheries in La Poudre Pass Creek below the dam.
Bypass flows were forgone in favor of the construction of the conservation pool, which was
expected to have "significant effect on flows by providing some seepage which is presently not
the case when the reservoir is completely drained." This expectation has not materialized. My
decision now is to consider the issuance of a new authorization, with terms and conditions as
may be necessary to minimize damage in light of current conditions,policies and scientific
knowledge. If the 1973 effects analysis had correctly anticipated impacts, mitigation measures
had been effective and there had been no other changes in conditions or operations, further
mitigation might not be necessary to minimize damage to the environment resulting from the
continued operations and maintenance of the dam and reservoir; however this is not the situation
before me.
I did not select Alternative 2 because, although this alternative proposes winter flows in La
Poudre Pass Creek below the dam equivalent to the native flows in the basin, analysis indicates
that native flows in the currently enlarged channel would not provide sufficient habitat to
maintain a winter fishery in La Poudre Pass Creek.
I did not select Alternative 4 because while this alternative provides for beneficial impacts to
wetlands and fens in the Kawuneeche Valley in the Park, these benefits are minor. I was also
concerned that while Alternative 4 would provide benefits to the upper Colorado River, it does
not benefit La Poudre Pass Creek and the Cache la Poudre River where impacts from the
operations of Long Draw Reservoir are currently being realized. For these reasons I do not
believe this alternative would best meet the Forest Service's responsibility for minimizing
damage under FLPMA.
Consideration of Key Issues
Key issues are concerns that led to the development of an alternative, a conflict regarding uses of
a resource that can be resolved through different approaches or alternatives, and/or necessary for
an informed decision. Key issues are further discussed on page 7 of the FEIS. The key issues
were the result of public scoping and are generally described as the following:
• adverse impacts in La Poudre Pass Creek
• off-site flow mitigation (more specifically the JOP)
• non-flow mitigation
• the safety of winter operations of the dam
In considering the key issues and the analysis documented in the FEIS, I have determined that,
when considered collectively rather than individually, Alternative 3 best addresses these
concerns. Specifically, the conditions in La Poudre Pass Creek as the result of the ongoing
operations of the dam and reservoir were determined to be significant and unacceptable.
Although Alternative 3 does not provide for direct flows in La Poudre Pass Creek below the
reservoir, it does provide the best means for mitigating the adverse impacts from the current
operations of Long Draw Reservoir through compensatory means. Analysis undertaken and
documented in the FEIS indicates that native flows in the currently enlarged channel would not
provide sufficient habitat to maintain a winter fishery in La Poudre Pass Creek without
modification of the channel. Analysis also determined that requiring flows that would provide
effective habitat without channel modification during the winter would drain the reservoir to the
conservation pool, resulting in less habitat in the reservoir without eliminating a period of
insufficient flows in the enlarged stream channel.
I also considered utilizing off-site flows as mitigation for the unacceptable impacts from the
current operations. The JOP was selected as off-site mitigation for four reservoirs in 1994:
Long Draw, Joe Wright, Barnes Meadow, and Peterson Lake. Two of the original facilities, Joe
Wright and Barnes Meadow, are directly connected to Joe Wright Creek, which is the receiving
stream for the JOP and a tributary of the Cache La Poudre River. In contrast, Long Draw
Reservoir is not directly connected to Joe Wright Creek; rather it is situated on La Poudre Pass
Creek, an upstream tributary of the Cache la Poudre River.
Today, neither Long Draw Reservoir nor Joe Wright Reservoir requires compliance with the
JOP. The land underneath Joe Wright Reservoir was exchanged to the City of Fort Collins with
the requirement that flows of 3 cfs be released during the winter through a conservation
14
easement. Today implementation of the JOP is required only for two facilities, Barnes Meadow
and Peterson Lake.
Although Alternative 4 would be beneficial to wetlands and fens in the Kawuneeche Valley in
the Park, these benefits would be minor. After consideration of the analysis documented in the
FEIS, I have concluded that Alternative 4 would not meet the Forest Service's responsibility for
minimizing damage under FLPMA when comparing its benefits to the benefits of Alternative 3.
In addition, the benefits are not directly connected to the impacted area as they will be in
Alternative 3. If direct mitigation of the ongoing damage is not readily feasible, then it is my
preference to provide for off-site mitigation that is as closely connected to the ongoing damage
as possible. Alternative 4 has limited effectiveness in addressing the unacceptable impacts from
the operations of the dam and reservoir
Other Considerations
Non-Flow or Off site Mitigation
The Forest received many comments during the process of amending the Forest Plan Stream
Flow standard (standard 12), as well as during the initial scoping for this analysis, that
questioned the appropriateness of using offsite and/or non-flow measures when mitigating the
dewatering of a stream that is occurring as a result of the ongoing operations of this facility. My
ID team spent considerable resources considering whether this environmental damage could be
minimized through offsite or non-flow measures. During the environmental analysis, it was
determined to my satisfaction, that damage to the environment can be minimized through these
types of measures as documented in the analysis of Alternatives 3 and 4.
Numerous comments received during the scoping period suggested that the ongoing impacts
should he mitigated by releasing flows directly into the stream below the dam. To thoroughly
address this approach, my ID team identified and analyzed Alternative 2, which would provide
for direct flows into La Poudre Pass Creek though the dam. The ID team also considered three
additional alternatives that would return flows to La Poudre Pass Creek. These alternatives were
dismissed from further analysis for a variety of reasons described in the FEIS.
Proportionality
I received comments expressing concerns that the mitigation described in the preferred
alternative was not commensurate with the impacts being mitigated. Those who submitted such
comments based their concern upon the fact that 2.5 miles of streamreach were being impacted
below the reservoir in La Poudre Pass Creek, while 37 miles of stream habitat and 106 acres of
lake habitat will be restored with the implementation of Alternative 3. The concern expressed by
some was that, solely using these acres and miles as numbers or metrics. Alternative 3 requires
mitigation that is far in excess of the damages being caused by the operation of this project.
I do not agree with the use of these metrics when comparing the ongoing impacts or damage with
the biological mitigation measures in Alternative 3. On page 56. the FEIS describes the impacts
of the current operations. Operations create extreme habitat conditions ranging from zero flows
I>
during the winter to unnaturally high flow conditions when the permittee releases water from the
reservoir for downstream water uses. The permittee's operations have altered the hydrology and
the channel characteristics of La Poudre Pass Creek and the mainstem of the Cache la Poudre
River below the confluence. The combination of project operations and channel changes
negatively affect fish habitat on La Poudre Pass Creek, both upstream and downstream of the
reservoir.
While the authorization that was analyzed in the FEIS is for the dam and expanded portion of the
reservoir, these operations are inseparable from the operations of the Grand Ditch and the
perpetual easement that authorizes the original, smaller reservoir which sits at the bottom of the
current reservoir. The expanded portion of the reservoir cannot be operated without operating
the original and now submerged segment of this reservoir; nor can it be operated without the
operation of the Grand Ditch. In fact, the reservoir only exists because the Grand Ditch exists
and brings water across the divide. Impacts of the operations include the capture and
conveyance of water into the expanded reservoir and the filling and maintenance of the original
reservoir. While the initial impacts occurred in the past, the continuation of these operations
causes a continuation of impacts and subsequent trends.
While I understand the concern for proportionality and the desire to be able to directly compare
the amount of damage with the amount of mitigation, restricting the consideration of alternatives
that cannot be directly compared deviates from the flexibility that was built into Forest Plan
Standard 12. Standard 12 allows mitigation that is not in-kind when authorizing water
developments and anticipates that direct comparisons in amounts may not be appropriate. In
addition, this concern does not consider that it is common practice to mitigate environmental
damage with an entirely different form of mitigation.
It is not uncommon for the Forest Service to fulfill its statutory and regulatory obligations on
similar projects by identifying and requiring mitigation that cannot be directly compared to the
impacts being mitigated. In many cases, by identifying indirect or alternative means of
mitigating the ongoing impacts of an existing project, such as this one, the outcome may be one
which minimizes economic impacts to the project owner, and can coincidentally minimize direct
and indirect impacts to the ongoing operations of the authorized use.
For example, grazing along a stream that causes miles of potential bank instability and riparian
damage could be mitigated with a fence of the same length and the direct comparison of linear
feet affected to linear feet protected could be made. The impacts to the stream and riparian could
also be mitigated with water developments at other locations in the area. There is no way to
install a half of a water development; the only unit that is appropriate is one. The size of the
development would need to fit the number of animals using it, the size of the water source filling
it, and the terrain where it is located. Comparing the miles of stream impacted to the number and
size of the water development isn't meaningful and illustrates the difficulties in comparing miles
and months of impacts associated with the operations of Long Draw Reservoir with a
metapopulation. The only unit that can be applied to a metapopulation is one. There cannot be a
half metapopulation. Additionally, the size of the population is dependent on the available
habitats, the target species, and the opportunities for a sustainable downstream barrier.
16
Alternative 3 mitigates impacts of the expanded reservoir and ongoing operations by improving
streams connected to the reservoir and to La Poudre Pass Creek through the restoration of native
trout. It is this direct connection to the reservoir and La Poudre Pass Creek that defines the size
of the alternative, not the number of streams or their lengths. Once the metapopulation of native
trout is established, the fact that fish cannot fulfill their life history within La Poudre Pass Creek
becomes less relevant because the fish populations connected to that damaged stream will be
substantially improved by the presence of desirable and sustainable native trout populations.
It is difficult to make a direct comparison between the mitigation of Alternative 3 and how it
serves to mitigate the impacts being incurred by the operation of the darn and reservoir.
Therefore, it is equally challenging to attempt to assess whether the non-flow, biological solution
that comprises the mitigation in Alternative 3 is proportional to that which is being mitigated.
Implementation of Alternative 3 mitigates physical damage that has occurred as the result of the
expansion of this reservoir and its ongoing operations. It does so using a biological approach
without any attempt at otherwise directly mitigating the physical damage. Rather it changes the
residents of the stream from non-native fish to a native cutthroat trout in a large enough area to
reduce vulnerability from environmental events.
If I were to select Alternative 2 in the FEIS, which would provide for a more direct means of
mitigating the ongoing impacts of this project by requiring minimum streamflow releases from
the dam, then the proportionality of the mitigation might be simpler to demonstrate. However, as
described above, there were concerns with the selection of Alternative 2. The "channel
modification alternative" described on page 36 of the FEIS would alleviate many of the concerns
with Alternative 2 but additional and creative work would be necessary to ensure channel
modifications structures could blend with the landscape to ensure National Park Service
management goals and policies were met. This alternative (channel modification) would be
expensive in terms of both the costs that would be required to establish it, and the costs that
would be incurred by the effect it would have on changes to the current operations of Long Draw
reservoir through flow requirements. As documented in the analysis, Alternative 2 would cost an
estimated $1,783,000 to implement, with potentially additional operational costs due to
modifications of current reservoir operations. In comparison, implementation of Alternative 3 is
estimated to cost $831,600.
Economics
Alternative 3, the selected alternative, is likely to he the least costly to the permittee. The
economic analysis presented in the FEIS indicates Alternative 3 would cost less than the upper
cost estimate for Alternative 2 and less than Alternative 4. While NEPA requires the disclosure
of the economic impacts of all alternatives considered, FLPMA does not allow for consideration
of cost as a decision factor under section 505 of FLPMA. However, in response to the comments
made on the DEIS and in keeping with the spirit of Forest Plan Standard 12, I looked for ways to
reduce the cost of Alternative 3 and minimize its scope wherever possible. Modifications made
to Alternative 3 from its original design included the elimination of the proposed restoration of
Cascade Creek, changing the barrier type on the Grand Ditch, reducing the number of temporary
barriers, and reducing the miles of streams to be stocked with native trout. In addition to these
changes. which are described in the FEIS, I am further reducing the amount of stocking required
7
by eliminating stocking requirements for streams above Long Draw Reservoir, including Neota
Creek.
Although restoration of Cascade Creek provides the benefit of a permanently isolated population
with limited risk of disease or hybridization, this stream has been removed as a requirement of
this Decision because the restoration of a native population in this stream would not be
connected to the metapopulation. The large, natural cascade near the confluence of Cascade
Creek and the Poudre River prevents upstream movement of fish and this confluence is below
the permanent barrier. To further reduce the overall cost of the alternative, the barrier on the
Grand Ditch will be a one way barrier that prevents upstream movement of native trout out of the
reservoir into the ditch rather than the two way barrier that was described in the DEIS. This
greatly reduces the cost of the barrier and limits the need for ongoing maintenance however it
also necessitates the chemical removal of trout in several of the streams that are intersected by
the Grand Ditch.
A reduction in the stocking of native trout will also reduce costs; therefore, I am not requiring the
stocking of Willow Creek, Neota Creek, and the reaches of streams below temporary barriers.
These areas will be allowed to populate through migration of fish from areas that have been
stocked after the removal of the temporary barriers. Because Willow Creek will not be stocked,
there is no need for a temporary barrier on this stream, further reducing costs.
While these cost saving changes were made in response to comments on the DEIS, further
research of the specifics of implementation of this alternative determined that similar projects
across the country include multiple treatments with chemicals in their implementation. Projects
like Alternative 3 require multiple treatments for complete removal of non-native trout, so I have
included two chemical removal efforts in my estimate for all streams in the area.
Baseline
Some comments on the DEIS took issue with the "baseline" used in our analysis. These
comments suggested that no mitigation should be required in the reauthorization of this facility
because mitigation for the enlargement of the dam was done when it was authorized and
enlarged in the 1970s. Some comments also suggested that mitigation is not appropriate because
the current renewal of the land use authorization for Long Draw Reservoir will not affect or
change operations and thus will not affect the "baseline" or status quo. These comments rest on
a misinterpretation of the requirements of FLPMA. Simply put, a "baseline" is not a component
of the analysis required under that statute. Instead, FLPMA requires an agency to evaluate the
damage caused by the authorized facility and to minimize that damage. NEPA requires an
agency to evaluate a "no action" alternative to provide a baseline as part of its "hard look" at a
proposed action and reasonable alternatives to that action.
The analysis fulfilled that requirement of NEPA by using the current operations of the existing
project as the no action alternative. Doing so, however, was not intended to imply that the
environmental damage being caused by the existing operations of this facility should be
authorized to continue. To the contrary, Section 505 of FLPMA requires that each right of way
authorization - whether new or renewal - contain terms and conditions to. among other
18
requirements, "...minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat
and otherwise protect the environment." This requires consideration of information available
today as well as consideration of present day standards and concerns. The Forest used all
available information to assist in this analysis under NEPA and FLPMA. including determining
the ongoing impacts of continued project operations. This reauthorization illustrates the value of
that requirement by appropriately identifying the continuation of the operation of this facility
under the terms and conditions of the 1980 permit as the "no action" alternative for the FEIS.
Double Mitigation
Some comments received in response to the DEIS spoke about the concept of double mitigation,
with the implication being that the estimated environmental effects of the enlargement of this
facility were analyzed and have already been mitigated, when the enlargement was first
proposed and previously authorized in 1974 (prior to construction). This analysis documented
that some of the assumptions relied upon, when past mitigations were imposed, were not entirely
accurate and that some mitigation measures, such as those designed to benefit fisheries, have not
proven to be effective. Consequently the environmental damage caused by enlargement of the
dam, reservoir, and its operations has been greater than what had been anticipated. FLPMA was
enacted 2 years after the enlargement of this facility (1976), and it requires the Forest Service
when issuing new authorizations, even for previously authorized and existing facilities, to
minimize that damage pursuant to FLPMA provisions.
Cooperative Efforts
It became clear during the development of Alternative 3 that potential opportunities exist for a
cooperative effort in implementing that part of the Alternative requiring the establishment of a
metapopulation of native trout species. Although implementation of Alternative 3 is ultimately
the responsibility of the permittee, the nature of this alternative lends itself to being implemented
via cooperative efforts and the formation of partnerships between agencies, non-governmental
organizations, and the permittee.
I received the results of an unprecedented effort in the form of a collaboratively developed
alternative from a coalition including Water Supply and Storage, Trout Unlimited, City of
Greeley, Colorado Division of Wildlife, and Colorado Water Conservation Board during
comments on the draft EIS. This collaborative alternative proposes that Alternative 3 he
modified with changes to the implementation schedule, a reduction in the number of fish
removal efforts, and with other revisions that would require non-governmental organizations.
state agencies and federal agencies to become responsible for implementing various elements of
Alternative 3.
After careful consideration, I cannot accept this alternative and have dismissed it as a proposed
means of implementing Alternative 3. 1 have done so because I have no authority to commit
non-governmental organizations or other federal, state or local agencies to implement measures
that will ultimately be the responsibility of the holder of the land use authorization that will be
issued pursuant to this decision.
After the FEIS became available, this group has continued to work towards agreement for a
cooperative implementation effort. At the time of the signing of this ROD, the group has
differentiated portions of Alternative 3 as mitigation and enhancement as a means to identify
portions of the project in which grants and partnerships would be the main avenue for funding
implementation. This decision is not intended to detract nor negate the efforts or intentions of
this group, and it is my hope that the collaborative work that has been done to date will provide
the foundation for long term agreements between interested parties in the successful
implementation of Alternative 3.
To demonstrate my commitment to this collaborative effort, I am directing my staff to participate
in the development of partnerships and assist in the efforts being conducted by the interested
parties, and to work with technical and policy experts in the development of an implementation
plan.
The implementation plan will provide details for the following tasks:
• Incorporation of design criteria and mitigation measures identified in both the National
Park Service and Forest Service's Record of Decision into applicable phases of the
project;
• Incorporation of reasonable and prudent measures identified in the Biological Opinion
received from US Fish and Wildlife Service into applicable phases of the project;
• Procedures for testing of existing barriers;
• Identification of specific sites for barrier construction or enhancement;
• Steps for developing detailed site plans for barriers;
• Methods and schedule for testing barriers after construction;
• Identification of brood stock;
• Data needs to develop chemical treatment plans that would include:
o Placement and type of chemical application
o Number of personnel needed for chemical application
o Access
o Base camp and dispersed camp locations and configuration;
• Stocking of fish, including numbers, location and methods of stocking effort;
• Removal of barriers;
• Short and long term monitoring;
• Partner commitments and identification of other partnering opportunities;
• Additional planning if non-target aquatic species (e.g., amphibians) are identified in
project area; and,
• Additional planning if non-native fish are identified upstream of barriers after greenbacks
have been reintroduced.
I am committed to facilitating the continuation of these collaborative and cooperative efforts to
assure the successful implementation of this decision.
Public Involvement Conducted
Public involvement with the Long Draw analysis began on May 25, 2005 with the publication of
the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement in the Federal Register
20
(Vol. 70, No. 100). The Forest Service solicited comments throughout the development of this
environmental impact statement. Specific outreach efforts included the following:
• A letter soliciting comments sent on May 17, 2005 to about 600 individuals, agencies,
and organizations on the Forest and Grassland-wide mailing list.
• In August 2005, the Forest Service sent a letter soliciting comments on the key issues
identified by the interdisciplinary team from the comments received during the initial
scoping effort.
• The August letter also provided an opportunity for interested parties to meet with the
interdisciplinary team, if requested. The City of Greeley and The Water Supply and
Storage Company requested meetings with the Forest Service and met with the
interdisciplinary team on October 6, 2005. In addition, there was a follow-up meeting
with The Water Supply and Storage Company on November 16, 2005.
• On February 16, 2006, the Forest Service held a public meeting to solicit comments on
updated key issues and alternative concepts. The Forest Service accepted written
comments on the information presented at the February meeting until March 20, 2006.
• On June 26, 2006, the Forest Service met with Water Supply and Storage Company, City
of Greeley, and Trout Unlimited at their request to discuss their concerns regarding this
project.
• On June 25, 2007, the Forest Service held a public meeting to solicit comments on the
updated alternatives and accepted written comments on the information presented until
July 13, 2007.
• On March 28, 2008 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Notice of
Availability of the DEIS in the Federal Register and the public had until July 11, 2008 to
review and comment.
• On May 1, 2008, the Forest Service held a public meeting to answer questions on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
The effort described above, in addition to many informal meetings and site visits with the
permittee and other interested parties, meets Standard 12 of the Forest Plan calling for
cooperation in the management of water resources.
Comments on the DEIS were received from four individuals, the permittee, Trout Unlimited, a
coalition of interested parties described previously in this ROD and nine government agencies.
The agencies that commented include the Corps of Engineers, Northern Water Conservancy
District, the Board of County Commissioners of Grand County, the Department of the Interior,
the State of Colorado Office of the Attorney General, Colorado Division of Wildlife, the
Environmental Protection Agency, Board of County Commissioners of Weld County and the
City of Greeley.
The entities described above provided me with a wide variety of comments. These ranged from
a desire to remove the reservoir to allowing the continued operations unchanged. While some
comments were supportive of the preferred alternative, others reflected concerns over the type of
mitigation being proposed in the action alternatives. Some comments indicated that off site or
non flow mitigation should not he considered. Concerns were expressed regarding descriptions
of baseline, historical mitigation and the description of damage resulting from the operations of
the dam and reservoir. Comments that provided additional information, proposed clarification
and corrections to the DEIS were also received.
Changes to the FEIS in response to comments received on the DEIS have been generally
restricted to adding detail to descriptions and analysis, consideration and/or dismissal of
proposed modifications, and addition of a discussion regarding required permits and certificates.
These modifications did not reach the level of substantive changes.
Findings Required by Other Laws
I have reviewed the Long Draw Reservoir Special Use Authorization Final EIS, project record,
and public comments and find that applicable environmental laws, procedures and
documentation to authorize the continued occupancy and use of National Forest System land
have been satisfied. I have concluded that my decision is in compliance with current laws,
regulations, and policies.
National Forest Management Act— My decision to implement Alternative 3 is consistent with
the intent of applicable Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines. I have reviewed
the Forest Plan, Final EIS, and project record and determined that this decision is consistent with
the forest-wide goals and objectives stated in the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, Chapter One) and is
consistent with applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines for water resources, real estate
and special uses. The action in this project complies fully with applicable Geographic Area
(Cameron Pass, Neota Wilderness, and Comanche Peak Wilderness) and Management Area (1.1,
1.3, 3.1, 4.3, 5.5) direction.
Implementation of Alternative 3 will not influence terrestrial management indicator species
population trends at the local or planning unit (Forest-wide) scales. Aquatic management
indicator species in the project area include brook trout, Colorado River cutthroat trout and
greenback cutthroat trout. Brook trout will be extirpated from the project area but it is not
expected to affect persistence of brook trout across the planning unit (Forest-wide). Colorado
River cutthroat trout will be removed from Baker Gulch but it is not expected to affect
population trends across the planning unit (Forest-wide). The effect to greenback cutthroat trout
population trends will be beneficial at the local and planning unit (Forest-wide) scales.
Implementation of Alternative 3 will not result in a loss of viability in the planning area of any
sensitive species, nor cause a trend towards federal listing.
My decision is based on a review of the record that shows a thorough assessment of relevant
scientific information. The best available science has been sought and applied in all aspects of
the development of the FEIS and this ROD. Where it was identified by the Forest that additional
information would provide for a more informed decision, the Forest contracted with USGS to
undertake a study and analysis of winter conditions on the mainstem of the Cache la Poudre
River. In addition, scientific information was provided by interested parties and the Forest
collected, analyzed and presented, through specialist reports, site specific information and studies
for my consideration and in support of my decision. The record, hydrologic data and analysis
provided by the permittee, studies on conditions in the headwaters of the Colorado River within
the Park undertaken by Dr. David Cooper of Colorado State University, and supporting
12
information collected from private and governmental entities support the analysis documented in
the FEIS.
Clean Water Act—The Army Corp of Engineers has been consulted regarding required permits
and compliance with the Clean Water Act. Recently, the rules regarding the use of piscicides in
the context of the Clean Water Act have changed and additional permitting may be required for
their use. All applicable permits from the Army Corp of Engineers and the State of Colorado
will be obtained prior to implementation of Alternative 3 to assure compliance with the Act.
Endangered Species Act —Previous consultation for the Long Draw Dam and Reservoir took
place in 1994 and a Biological Opinion from the USFWS was received on June 2, 1994
(FWS/ES/FS/GJ-6, CO-93-F-026). This Biological Opinion remains valid for the effects of the
ongoing operations of Long Draw Reservoir to all species except greenback cutthroat trout.
Since the 1994 Biological Opinion, the Canada lynx and Preble's meadow jumping mouse have
been listed as threatened and the bald eagle has been delisted.
To address changes in the effects of the proposal and the list of species being considered,
consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in compliance with Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act has been undertaken in connection with this authorization. A Biological
Assessment was completed for implementation of Alternative 3 and while this alternative
provides significant, long term benefits to greenback cutthroat trout, the determination was made
that implementation of Alternative 3 may affect and is likely to adversely affect greenback
cutthroat trout. This is because as streams are recovered and stocked with native trout,
individual trout would be expected to move downstream below temporary barriers into untreated
sections of the project. When those sections are treated, these individuals would be impacted
and potentially killed by actions associated with the treatments. In addition, there is one known
population of greenback cutthroat trout on Hague Creek within the Park. Individuals from this
population will be at the same risk when Hague Creek is treated. Mitigation is in place and
described in the mitigation section of this ROD to minimize the number of individuals that
would be at risk.
After formal consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, a Biological Opinion (BO) was
provided to the Forest and Park. This Biological Opinion provides reasonable and prudent
measures (RPM) for implementation of Alternative 3 that minimize impacts of incidental take of
greenback cutthroat trout. These measures are requirements for the Forest by US Fish and
Wildlife Service.
• RPM #1: The Forest Service shall minimize harm of existing greenbacks from project
activities.
• RPM #2: The Forest Service shall minimize harm to reintroduced greenbacks from
project activities.
• RPM #3: The Forest Service shall maintain a pure restored greenback population.
In addition, to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the BO requires
compliance with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and
prudent measures. described above and outline reporting and monitoring requirements.
1. The Forest Service shall ensure that all conservation measures identified in the proposed
action will be followed.
2. The Forest Service shall ensure that the Hague Creek greenback population will not be
impacted by project activities (RPM # 1).
3. The source of fish for the reintroduction will be developed through coordination of the
Greenback Cutthroat Trout Recovery Team.
4. Prior to closing off the water flow for the winter in the La Poudre Pass Creek below Long
Draw Reservoir, the water flow in La Poudre Pass will be ramped down (i.e., gradually
reduced) to minimize the number of fish stranded in pools overwinter. The schedule to
achieve this will he developed by the Interagency Implementation Team (RPM # 2).
5. The Forest Service shall ensure that long-term monitoring and removal of non-native fish
will occur for the life of the special use permit authorization.
6. The Forest Service shall provide a written annual report to the Service each year this
Biological Opinion is in effect. The report will include: I) a summary of project
activities achieved during the past year; 2) discussion of any difficulties encountered in
implementing the proposed action; and, 3) reports of monitoring studies, including
number of fish mortalities. The report shall be submitted to the Service by April 1 of
each year, or other date through mutual agreement.
The Biological Assessment determined that no other listed species would be affected by
implementation of Alternative 3.
Federal Land Policy and Management Act—FLPMA represents the intent of Congress to
balance the use of public lands by diverse interests while continuing to protect the environment.
Section 505 of FLPMA establishes that terms and conditions may be imposed when uses of
federal land for rights of way are granted. All of the action alternatives provide means for
minimizing damage; however, the FEIS on page 38 identifies Alternative 3 as the
environmentally preferable alternative and provides rationale for this determination.
FLPMA requires that damage be minimized by terms and conditions in an authorization but does
not prescribe how that may be accomplished. Additionally, FLPMA requires damage associated
with an authorization to be minimized regardless of when that damage occurred. FLPMA does
not contain any provisions or language allowing for the "grandfathering" of past damage during
re-authorizations and in fact, requires that all damage associated with the authorization be
minimized.
Based on the analysis in the FEIS, I believe that on-site mitigation requiring bypass flows
without modification of the channel below the dam, as proposed in Alternative 2, would not
minimize damage to the environment because native flows would not provide usable habitat in
what has become a significantly enlarged and altered stream channel below the dam. The
analysis also determined that requiring minimum stream flows to provide effective habitat during
the winter in the existing channel would drain the reservoir to the conservation pool, resulting in
less habitat in the reservoir without eliminating a period of insufficient flows below the dam in
the stream. This provides a compelling reason for identifying off-site alternatives as a means to
minimize damage. The off-site mitigation proposed in Alternative 3 does so; it mitigates the
effects of the physical damage to the habitat resulting from the operations of the darn and
24
reservoir by providing a biological solution while concurrently minimizing impacts to the
ongoing operation of this water development facility.
National Historic Preservation Act—The Grand Ditch is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places and will be adversely impacted by the implementation of Alternative 3. The
construction of a fish barrier along the Grand Ditch will add modern visual elements and could
require modification of the ditch itself, which will adversely affect the historic character of the
ditch. In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, the Forest Service has notified and invited the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and Colorado Historical Society to enter into an
agreement to negotiate appropriate mitigations.
Energy Requirements anti Conservation Potential of Alternatives: The energy required to
implement this decision in terms of petroleum products will be insignificant when viewed in
light of the production costs and effects of the national and worldwide petroleum reserves.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that would best promote the national
environmental policy as expressed in Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act.
Generally this alternative causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment and
best protects,preserves, and enhances historic, cultural and natural resources.
Of the four alternatives presented in this FEIS, Alternative 3 is the environmentally preferable
alternative because it best promotes the national environmental policy as it is described in the
National Environmental Policy Act to include:
• responsibility of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding
generations;
• assurance of safe, healthful, productive and aesthetically and culturally pleasing
surroundings;
• attainment of the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation,
risk to health or safety, or other undesirable or unintended consequences;
• preservation of important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage,
and maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of
individual choice;
• achievement of a balance between population and resource use which promotes a high
standard of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and
• enhancement of the quality of renewable resources and maximum attainable recycling of
depletable resources.
Alternative 3 best fulfills the responsibility for future generations by significant contribution to
recovery of threatened native fish "...of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical,
recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people" (Endangered Species Act. 1973).
Alternative 3, without additional risk to safety or health, improves the productivity and aesthetics
of the area with establishment of a native fishery. Alternative 3 increases the beneficial uses of
the environment by significant contribution towards the recovery of a threatened native fish
•
while fully maintaining the current benefit of the use of the stored water. This is accomplished
without additional degradation or risk to health or safety. Alternative 3 preserves all aspects of
our national heritage, including the natural aspect for which the Park was established and
contributes towards diversity with native species recovery. Alternative 3 best achieves a balance
between the various uses of the Park and Forest resources, including water for agricultural and
municipal uses and species conservation and recovery. Alternative 3 enhances the quality of the
renewable fisheries resource without changing the use of the depletable resource of water.
Administrative Appeal Opportunities
This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 215 and under 36 CFR Part 251 Subpart C. Only the permittee may
appeal under 36 CFR Part 251, however, the permittee must choose to appeal under either 36
CFR 251 or 215, but not both (36 CFR 251.85). Notices of Appeal that do not meet the content
requirements of 36 CFR 215.14 or 36 C.F.R. 251.90, as appropriate, will be dismissed.
Appeal Filing Information
Appeals filed under 36 CFR, Part 215, must be filed (regular mail, fax, email, hand-delivery, or
express delivery) with the Appeal Deciding Officer at the address shown below. Appeals,
including attachments, must be filed within 45 days from the publication date of notice of this
decision in the Denver Post, the newspaper of record. Attachments received after the 45 day
appeal period will not be considered. The publication date in the Denver Post is the exclusive
means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Those wishing to appeal this decision under 36
CFR, Part 215 should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other
source.
Appeals filed under 36 CFR Part 251 Subpart C (including attachments) must be in writing and
filed with the Reviewing Officer within 45 days following the date on the notice of the written
decision (36 CFR 251.88). Appeals filed under 36 CFR 251 Subpart C must have a copy of the
appeal simultaneously sent to the Deciding Officer (36 CFR 251.88).
The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered appeals are: 7:30 AM—4:30 PM,
Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Electronic appeals filed under 36 CFR 215 must be
submitted in a format such as an email message, rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc) to the e-
mail address shown below. In cases where no identifiable name is attached to an electronic
message, a verification of identity will be required. A scanned signature is one way to provide
verification.
An appeal may be filed by any person, non-federal organization, or entity that has provided
comments or otherwise expressed interest in this proposed action by the close of the comment
period for the DEIS. For further information on how to file an appeal, please see the appropriate
regulations at http://www.access.epo.cov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html.
26
Where to Send an Appeal
Mail:
USDA Forest Service
Rocky Mountain Region
Attn: Appeal Deciding/Reviewing Officer
740 Simms Street
Golden, CO 80401-4720
Fax:
(303) 275-5134
Email:
appeal s-rockv-mountain-regional-office Cap fs.fed.u s
When an appeal is electronically mailed, the appellant should receive an automated
electronic acknowledgement of agency receipt. If the appellant does not receive electronic
confirmation of receipt, it is the appellant's responsibility to ensure timely receipt of the
appeal by other means [36 CFR 215.15(c)(3)].
Appellants filing under 36 CFR Part 251 must simultaneously send a copy of the appeal to:
Glenn P. Casamassa
Forest Supervisor
Arapaho and Roosevelt NFs and Pawnee NG
2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. E
Fort Collins, CO 80526
It is the appellant's responsibility to provide sufficient project or activity specific evidence and
rationale,focusing on the decision, to show why the Responsible Official's decision should be
reversed [36 CFR 215.14(a)]. It is the responsibility of the appellant to provide sufficient
activity-specific evidence and rationale, focusing on the decision, to show why the Deciding
Officer's decision should be reversed (36 CFR 251.90).
Implementation
Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215 and 36 CFR Part 251 Subpart C, if no appeal is filed within the 45
day time period, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, five business days
from the close of the appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation may occur
on, but not before, the 151x' business day following the date of the last appeal disposition.
27
Further Information
The Long Draw Reservoir Final Environmental Impact Statement, this Record of Decision, and
other related documents can be found on the web at: v•ww.fs,.usda.eov/arp
For further information regarding the FEIS, the Record of Decision, or other issues related to the
Long Draw Reservoir analysis, please contact Tom Ford at 970-295-6610 or tford01@fs.fed.us.
/ • 9- z —Jo
nn P. Casamassa Date
o est Supervisor
apaho and Roosevelt National Forest and
awnee National Grassland
The U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA)prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis
of race,color, national origin. age. disability,and where applicable, sex, marital status,familial status, parental
status,religion, sexual orientation. genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an
individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large
print, audiotape,etc.)should contact USDA's TARGET Center at(202) 720-2600(voice and TDD). To file a
complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W..
Washington, DC 20250-9410,or call (800)795-3272 (voice)or(202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal
opportunity provider and employer.
28
Hello