HomeMy WebLinkAbout20081930.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE THREE OF DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT- LONG DRAW RESERVOIR ENLARGEMENT
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, the United States Forest Service ("USFS") has issued a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the "Long Draw Reservoir Special Use Authorization," dated March, 2008
("the DEIS"), and
WHEREAS, waters supplied by the Water Supply and Storage Company ("WSSC"),
including those stored in the Long Draw Reservoir Enlargement, currently irrigate thousands of
acres of farm land in Weld County, thereby providing a secure food supply for residents of
Colorado, and
WHEREAS, the Preferred Alternative of the DEIS utilizes non-flow related mitigation to
address flow-related alterations/damage caused by operation of the Long Draw Reservoir, and
WHEREAS, by choosing the Preferred Alternative, the USFS dismisses the relevancy and
benefit of the Cache la Poudre River Joint Operations Plan, in which both WSSC and the City of
Greeley have participated, and
WHEREAS, WSSC, the City of Greeley, and other interested parties have proposed to the
USFS a modified Alternate Three of the DEIS, a copy of which is attached hereto, to take the place
of the Preferred Alternative, and
WHEREAS, the modified Alternative Three is also supported by Trout Unlimited, the
Colorado Division of Wildlife, and the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and
WHEREAS, adoption of the modified Alternative Three by the USFS will demonstrate that
agency's adherence to the amended Forest Plan Standard 12, where the agency must cooperate
with state and local governments, holders of water rights, and interested parties, while minimizing
damage to the environment, pursuant to Section 505 of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976, and
WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners now desires to express its support for the
modified Alternative Three.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado,that it hereby expresses its support of the modified Alternative Three to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the"Long Draw Reservoir Special Use Authorization,"dated
March, 2008, and requests its adoption by the USFS.
2008-1930
BC0038
O7 3`S-O'
RE: STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE THREE OF DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - LONG DRAW RESERVOIR ENLARGEMENT
PAGE 2
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by
the following vote on the 9th day of July, A.D., 2008.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
/,� WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
441 J <.
ATTEST: �� � .+'e,'� /� �� i tz °
Wi ' m H. Jerke, Chair
Weld County Clerk to t B +w 4
Robert D. M ro-Tem
BY: 441
Deputy Cle to the Board
F. Garcia,
PPR D C ‘ji
David E. Long /�
ounty Attorney Crige--1 0,1/7tir
Douglas ademache
Date of signature: /
2008-1930
BC0038
Formatted
ALTERNATIVE 3 - GREENBACK RESTORATION (PREFERRED)
This alternative was designed to respond to the issue of non-flow mitigation, safety
concerns regarding winter dam operations, and current channel conditions in La Poudre
Pass Creek. Alternative 3 would authorize the operation and maintenance of the
expanded portion of Long Draw Reservoir with terms and conditions to participate in
native cutthroat trout conservation projects and a long-term recovery program.
Alternative 3 utilizes off-site mitigation that is not flow related to address damage
caused by various flows from the operations of Long Draw Reservoir. Specifically
Alternative 3 uses the reservoir as a source of native trout to establish and maintain
populations in a series of connected, high quality habitats.
This alternative mitigates for physical damage to the environment with a biological
solution to this damage. This alternative does not change the physical damage that
occurs from the ongoing operations but rather Alternative 3 changes the residents of area
streams from a non-native trout species to a listed native trout species and applies
conservation biology concepts to connect habitat in a manner that mitigates the physical
damage. The establishment of a recovery population of listed native trout which includes
the habitat of the reservoir and is connected with both upstream and downstream access
across area streams means that the physical damage in La Poudre Pass Creek does not
result in diminished function of the metapopulation.
Both the Park and the Forest are required by the Endangered Species Act to conserve
federally listed species. In addition, populations of native trout better meet the Park's
mandate to preserve the natural conditions and wildlife within the Park. Alternative 3
also meets the intent of wilderness within the Park and Forest by restoring native species.
Key provisions of this alternative include:
• Construction of barriers - some temporary and some permanent - to prevent 4 {Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
movement of non-native fish into treated streams;
• Removal of non-native fish and stocking of greenback cutthroat trout; and
• The creation of a metapopulation of greenback cutthroat trout to mitigate the
adverse impacts in La Poudre Pass Creek.
Alternative 3 provides a functioning metapopulation in a relatively pristine environment
to mitigate for inundation of 53 acres of forest, riparian and meadow habitat, the
complete loss of stream habitat in 3/4 mile of stream under the reservoir, the partial loss
of habitat function in 2.5 miles of stream downstream of the reservoir and continuing for
some undetermined distance in the mainstem and the reduction of 12-15 acres of
riparian and wetland habitat along La Poudre Pass Creek. The amount of habitat and the
number of individuals that are needed to establish a metapopulation vary with the
species and the function of the habitat. In the case of Alternative 3, the physical extent
of the proposal must include La Poudre Pass Creek and the reservoir in order for the
stream to become a sink and the reservoir to function as a source. Therefore, the
terminal barrier that establishes the downstream extent of the metapopulation would be
placed approximately % mile downstream of the confluence of La Poudre Pass Creek
and the Cache la Poudre River. Alternative 3 minimizes damage by restoring a listed
I Formatted: Centered
1
native trout to high quality, habitat in a connected metapopulation resilient to stochastic
events.
This alternative is the result of implementation of Forest Plan Standard 12, National Park
Service management policies, and provides opportunities for a cooperative effort
including partnerships between agencies, non-governmental organizations, the permittee
and other interested parties.
( Formatted: Default
,An interagency partnership would be used to implement the actions described in -{ Deleted: Like all alternatives, i
this alternative. Arrangements for coordination of activities, communication -t Deleted: ation
among the partners and with the public, and mana ' ement of collectivel -raised -( Deleted: of
funds, would be defined in a Memorandum of Understanding among the partners.
Primary participants in this partnership would include the permittee, Forest
Service, National Park Service, Colorado Division of Wildlife, and Trout
Unlimited, and this group would seek additional cooperators and funding partners., .__.--- l Deleted: are the responsibilities of the
,The proposed,activities lends themselves well to cooperative efforts Among these l ie ittee.
interested and experienced parties.
: --- { Deleted: However, the
't Deleted: nature of the
The specific responsibilities of the permittee under the land use authorization 't Deleted: with
would be: participation in this partnership, coordination with the partnership on
treatment of Long Draw Reservoir and development of a bather on the Grand
Ditch if needed, and funding the partnership with $ 100,000 in seed money,
payable over five years. In addition, continued participation of the permittee in
the Joint Operating Plan would provide benefits to the mainstem Cache la Poudre
River downstream of the project area.
Native cutthroat trout restoration would be phased in over approximately, welve years. • Formatted: Default, Line spacing:
Data would be collected in support of implementation including flow, water quality, single
presence of non-target aquatic species such as amphibians, and site information needed to -{ Deleted: ten
develop a detailed implementation plan. Implementation would initially focus on
assessment and design of project features, followed by constructipn and testing of new or { Deleted: ng and testing fish barriers
enhanced barriers where necessary,,$hen removal of non-native fish, then,$he { Deleted: followed by
establishment of greenback cutthroat trout populations through stocking. After - { Deleted: with
establishment of isolated populations throughout the project area, the recoveryprogram____ _ _ Deleted: project
would focus on connecting the populations through the removal of barriers (see Table 2-2
for potential project sequence). The following proposed timeline would be modified as
determined by monitoring and staffing considerations. More than one removal effort
could be completed during the same field season if needed for complete removal of non-
native fish., 4Forinatted: Font: Bold
4- ,'• -- Formatted: CM20
,Table 2-2: Potential Project Sequences : --{Deleted:
`;(Formatted: Font color: Black
r Deleted: ¶
Year Activity Streams
1 Development of MOU among NA
program partners
{ Formatted: Centered
2 .71
Assessment of existing &1 All
planned barrier sites
l Genetic analyses of fish in Baker Gulch
BakerGulch
-3 Barrier design, permitting, & All
construction
,Amphibian sampling; --.-- Deleted: Ranier construction and
, development/permitting of Jong Draw/Neota & Willow testing
freclamation plan, Deleted: 1-4
4 Fish removal Jong Draw/Neota & Willow '{ Deleted: All
Amphibian sampling; 'f Deleted:
4 development/permitting of Mainstem Poudre/Chapin ' Deleted: Mainstem Poudre, Chapin,
Corralreclamation plan l
5 Stocking Long Draw/Neota & Willow, ----{ Deleted: Mainstem Poudre, Chapin
5 Fish removal Mainstem Poudre/ Chaff
Amphibian sampling;
5 development/permitting of Hague
reclamation plan - •
Long Draw/Neota & Willow; Mainstem Poudre/ l - - ••• [1
6 Stocking
Chapin
≤ Fish removal Hague
Amphibian sampling;
6 development/permitting of Corral
reclamation plan
Long Draw/Neota & Willow; Mainstem
7 Stocking
Poudre/Chapin: Hague
7 Fish removal Corral ;{ Deleted: 6
Amphibian sampling; ,,',.{ Deleted: Mainstem Poudre, Chapin,
l Hague, Cascade,Corral
7 development/pennitting of Cascade; La Poudre Pass Creek below Long Draw ,;'
Deleted: Willow, La Poudre Pass,
reclamation plan Neota, reservoir
Stocking •SMainstem Poudre/Chapin; Haguey Corral i ;' , Deleted: All streams except La Poudre
S Fish removal Cascade; La Poudre Pass Creek below Long DraW,/ Pass Creek, reservoir
Q Stocking
ague; Corral; Cascade; La Poudre Pass Creek { Deleted: 7
-below Long Draw - •{ Deleted: Hague, Cascade. Willow,
gorral; Cascade: La Poudre Pass Creek below , Neota, Corral, reservoir
1 1 Stocking ------{ Deleted: 8
- tong - raw
---,-
_ Stocking ,Cascade; La Poudre Pass Creek below Long Draw,
11 Bather removal As determined by monitoring - �2
Deleted: 9
12, J3arrier removal As,determined by monitoring
, ' Deleted: Willow, Ncota, Corral,
reservoir
(Note: Streams in this table refer to project areas: Long Draw/Neota includes the (Deleted:
reservoir and upstream tributaries including Neota Creek; Willow includes Willow Creek `•;,,,;-{ Deleted: 0
and tributaries above the proposed barrier: Mainstem Poudre includes Poudre Lake, the %,;Leleted: Stocking
Cache la Poudre and its tributaries including Chapin Creek above the upper of its two Deleted: needed
proposed barriers; Hague includes Hague Creek and its tributaries above the proposed
1. Formatted: Centered
3 `•
barrier; Corral includes Corral Creek and its tributaries above the proposed barrier;
Cascade includes Cascade Creek and its tributaries above the natural barrier; and La
Poudre Pass Creek below Long Draw includes La Poudre Pass Creek as well as portions
of each of the other streams below the new barriers but above the lower mainstem Poudre
barrier.
Barrier assessment and fish sampling
Barriers (both temporary and permanent) that will be needed for this alternative are
shown on Figure 2-3 and include
1 Natural barrier on Cascade Creek near the confluence of the Cache la Poudre 4 ------- Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
River (permanent barrier), this barrier would need no improvement to be effective;
2 Natural bather which may require enhancement, to prevent fish movement on the
Cache la Poudre River near the confluence of Cascade Creek (permanent barrier);
3 Natural bather which may require enhancement, to prevent fish movement on
Hague Creek near the confluence of Cache la Poudre River (temporary barrier);
4 Natural bather which may require enhancement, to prevent fish movement on the
Cache la Poudre River above the confluence of Hague Creek (temporary bather);
5 Constructed bather to prevent fish movement on Willow Creek near the
confluence of La Poudre Pass Creek (temporary barrier);
6 Natural barrier which may require enhancement, to prevent fish movement on ( Formatted: Default, Left
Corral Creek below the meadow near the Long Draw road crossing (temporary barrier); r Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Font
and color: Auto
7 A constructed barrier on the Grand Ditch near the gauging station (permanent ; ,,p
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
barrier) between Neota Creek and Specimen Ditch, which may be needed to prevent ; Deleted: arriers needed for this
either or both migration of fish into the restoration area via the Grand Ditch and alternative are shown on Figure 2-3 (page
g 25) and include: ¶
migration of fish from the restoration area into west slope streams along the Ditch. Natural barrier on Cascade Creek near the
Alternatively, two barriers may be used - screening to prevent migration of fish out of : confluence of the Cache la Poudre River
Y g ';; (permanent barrier), this bather would
Baker Gulch and a barrier preventing migration of fish from La Poudre Pass Creek into r :3: need no improvement to be effective; ¶
the Grand Ditch. ,e, Enhancement of a natural barrier to
;! prevent fish movement on the Cache la
.
' Poudre River near the confluence of
Studies and hydraulic assessments will be completed by CDOW for proposed bather sites.' Cascade Creek (permanent barrier); ¶
Y P P P Enhancement of a natural barrier to
to evaluate the effectiveness of existing bathers and determine what enhancements may ;;; prevent fish movement on Hague Creek
be needed — including collecting field data needed to allow for design and permitting of : : Rneiverr (temporarye confluen e of Cache la Poudre
1i: River bather); �
new or improved barriers. Additionally, genetic studies on fish from Baker Gulch (a , , Enhancement of a natural bather to
stream intercepted by the Grand Ditch) will be completed by CDOW, in order to inform :1 prevent fish movement on the Cache la
P P : , Poudre River near the confluence of
decisions on whether to pursue chemical treatment of the stream or whether bathers will 3;; Hague Creek (temporary bather); II
be required on the Grand Ditch. Constructed bather to prevent fish
movement on Willow Creek near the
confluence of La Poudre Pass Creek
Barrier Design, Permitting and Construction (temporary barrier); ¶
1 Enhancement of a natural bather to
prevent fish movement on Corral Creek
Based on the first year assessments, the program partners would determine where work • below the meadow near the Long Draw
road crossing (temporary barrier); and¶
was needed to enhance existing barriers, and whether a bather was needed on the Grand A constructed barrier on the Grand Ditch
Ditch. For each enhanced or new bather, designs would be developed and all necessary near the gauging station (permanent
bather) between Neota Creek and
permits secured (e.g., CWA 404), This work would be conducted byprogrampartners , Specimen Ditch.
Formatted: Centered
•
4 � ,
I and/or contractors under direction from the Forest Service and National Park Service.
Barrier construction would generally consist of a waterfall type barrier that would span
the stream channel. Barriers would be designed to appear natural to the degree possible
and would be designed and constructed so they would not impound water flow. Barriers
would be anchored into stream banks to improve function and ensure the barriers would
not move or fail. To decrease the risk of fish kills associated with high pH, temporary
water diversions would be used when building or enhancing a barrier if concrete is used.
Rocks for barrier construction would be taken from pre-approved sites to avoid sensitive
archeological, exotic vegetation, and threatened, endangered or sensitive species on the
terraces next to the streams or sites would be identified where rocks cannot be removed.
The barriers would be of sufficient height to prevent the upstream movement of brook
trout. Rock and concrete would be used to eliminate pool habitat directly below the
barrier. Effective bathers are the result of three factors: the size of the pool below the
bather, the height of the bather, and the size of the fish attempting the jump. Examples
of barriers are shown below.
` Y . .
-, . .
\ •
' ••
• `
_ • )414- 'a v .
At k :4114,1"--171 : ic A+ '. #A- el , 'erg,' i- • 44 • yya'* ' '.VIM. 1! .• - Yr 4,.
4i, ,. • ,__,,,a, I I "i",t I * /.4‘ • • t ,
Figure 2-2: Examples of fish bathers.
• - 44. i sek. .
i' -
A.
To the degree possible, barriers would be located in rocky areas to minimize disturbance
of stream side banks. Ground disturbance that could lead to erosion would be avoided
and silt fences would be used if needed to minimize soil movement. If areas are
disturbed or denuded during barrier construction or enhancement, areas would be
revegetated with desirable, native vegetation.
[Formatted: Centered
5
Barrier construction would be supervised by Forest Service and National Park Service • { Formatted: Default, Line spacing:
employees. For temporary bathers, work likely would be done mostly by hand and l single
would use Trout Unlimited volunteers. Permanent barriers would more likely require
blasting and other work less suited to volunteers.
Bather removal would consist of blasting or hammering out the constructed barrier,
reducing the height of the jump to facilitate up stream movement of fish. Jump pools
below barrier sites would be enhanced by hand or with appropriate equipment to provide
for adequate pool depth for movement. Banks would be re-contoured and revegetated.
As with construction of these temporary barriers, work would be supervised by Forest
Service and National Park Service employees and to the extent possible use volunteers.
Removal of Non-Native Fish
Removal of non-native fish would recover about 43 miles of useable habitat through
treatments on up to 70 miles of streams. The most effective method for completely
removing undesirable fish populations is through the use of chemicals. There are
currently two chemicals approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for
fish removal, rotenone and antimycin. Rotenone is more effective in slow or still water
environments while antimycin works well in moving water environments.
Rotenone is rapidly toxic to fish by inhibiting respiration. The toxicity of rotenone is
affected by light, temperature, oxygen concentration, alkalinity, and turbidity. Rotenone
is less effective in cold or highly alkaline waters and can be sensed by fish, causing them
to move away from treatment areas to seek cover (Lennon 1970, Lennon and Vezina
1973). The effects of rotenone can be reversed if fish are exposed to a non-treated water
source. Waters treated with rotenone can be detoxified with potassium permanganate or
chlorine (Lennon 1970).
The active ingredient in Fintrol is antimycin A and the inactive ingredient is acetone.
Acetone is broken down in water and soils located in aquatic, riparian and wetland
communities, but the time required for this to occur varies. Acetone and its by-products
do not impact aquatic resources. Antimycin is an antibiotic that irreversibly blocks
cellular respiration in fish (Lennon 1970). Concentrations of antimycin that are lethal to
fish have little effect on other aquatic life, waterfowl and mammals (Herr, et al. 1967,
Greselin and Herr 1974, Lennon 1970, Rosenlund 1998, Walker, et al. 1964). Antimycin
self-neutralizes in stream environments after 100 to 300 feet of elevation loss but can be
also be detoxified using potassium permanganate (Rosenlund 1998). Antimycin is less
effective in waters with high pH and the liquid concentration is difficult to disperse in
lakes (Lennon 1970). Potassium permanganate (KMnO4) is a strong oxidizing agent that
is used to neutralize both chemicals.
Chemical treatment of streams for fish removal must be carefully designed in advance of Formatted: Default, Line spacing:
the treatments. Based on anticipated flows, delivery time of the chemical downstream, L single
and presence of other species of concern such as leopard frog and boreal toad, a treatment
plan for each project area would be developed by CDOW, in coordination with the
Tiormatted: Centered
6 •
National Park Service and Forest Service, and using volunteer assistance with data
collection. Any necessary permits will be secured in the year prior to scheduled
treatment.
,Where present, removal of beaver and beaver dams would need to occur prior to { Deleted: Removal
chemical treatments to facilitate fish removal. Beavers would be live trapped and
moved by the Forest Service and National Park Service to other suitable locations prior
to removal of dams. Beaver dams would be removed through explosives or by hand
tools. Beaver would be reintroduced in cooperation with Colorado Division of Wildlife.
Jn the last five years there have been several court cases, ,guidance documents, and - Deleted: Fish killed by chemical
agency memos distributed to clarify the use of piscicide. These chemicals do not require treatments of would be collected in ba and
g Y disposed by distributing on the banks.
a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit under the Clean Water Act In some areas, fish could be removed
(Ninth Circuit Court, 2005). They need to be applied in accordance with the Federal from me site by pack animals to reduce
PP the amount of carcasses. Disposal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act labeling (Ninth Circuit 2005). In addition, a methods would be determined at the time
Fish Control Permit is typically obtained from the Colorado Division of Wildlife. of implementation considering public use
of the site, amount of fish killed,
abundance of predators and time of year. '
Treatments would be conducted by the Division of Wildlife, Forest Service, and National
Park Service, with chemicals handled and applied only by certified professionals;
volunteers may assist in support roles not involving handling of the chemical. Fish killed
by chemical treatments would be collected in nets and disposed of by distributing on the
banks. In some areas, fish could be removed from the site by pack animals to reduce the
amount of carcasses. Disposal methods would be determined at the time of
implementation considering public use of the site, amount of fish killed, abundance of
predators and time of year.
{ Formatted: Default
Following treatment, sites would be sampled to ensure that the fish removal was fully
successful; in some cases, more than one treatment may be required to completely
remove non-native trout and prepare the way for reintroduction of native greenback
cutthroat trout.
Fish Stocking
Four subwatersheds in the Park and two on the National Forest would be stocked with
native trout by CDOW and volunteers, in coordination with the Forest Service and
National Park Service, annually for three years. The desired condition is a native trout
fishery capable of sustaining itself over the long term. In addition, streams selected are
all connected to La Poudre Pass Creek, with the exception of Cascade Creek. Cascade
Creek was selected because of the presence of a natural barrier near the confluence
with the Poudre River that would allow Cascade Creek to serve as an isolated
population. Larger inter-connected populations are better in many regards such as
increased genetic interchange and less vulnerability to stochastic events. However in
the context of species recovery, isolated populations can be valuable (due to their
isolation) because they are protected from the risk of spread of disease and non-native
and hybrid fish introduction into the system. Cascade Creek would provide this
I benefit. Similarly, the dam at Long Draw Reservoir would provide partial isolation for
,.{ Formatted: Centered
those fish in and upstream of the reservoir; the Reservoir could provide a source of fish
movement downstream, but its fish populations would be isolated from upstream
movement of other fish.
Metapopulation Establishment
This alternative proposes the establishment of a metapopulation of greenback cutthroat
trout within about 45 miles of streams. A metapopulation is a large population that
consists of several smaller populations linked together by immigration and emigration.
The population must be large enough to withstand local natural events and subsequent
local extirpations and connected enough that subpopulations could re-colonize the area.
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
The amount of habitat and the number of individuals that are needed to establish a
metapopulation vary with the species and the function of the habitat. In the case of
Alternative 3, the physical extent of the proposal must include La Poudre Pass Creek
and the reservoir in order for the stream to become a sink and the reservoir to function
as a source. Therefore, the terminal barrier that establishes the downstream extent of the
metapopulation would be placed approximately `/a mile downstream of the confluence of
La Poudre Pass Creek and the Cache la Poudre River. Alternative 3 minimizes damage
by restoring a listed native trout to high quality, habitat in a connected metapopulation
resilient to stochastic events. Greenback cutthroat trout are the only trout native to the
Poudre River basin. This trout is the state fish of Colorado and currently federally listed
as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
After reestablishment of isolated populations of greenback cutthroat trout in each { Deleted: The
portion of the project area, temporary barriers would be removed and theistreams .---{ Deleted: habitat found in these
would be connected to provide the advantages of large, contiguous connected habitats.
Cascade Creek, also in the Park, would be stocked with native trout but would not be
connected to the other subwatersheds because of a large, natural cascade that currently
prevents upstream movement of fish out of the mainstem of the Cache la Poudre
River.
Mitigation and Monitoring
Mitigation - the following mitigation measures would be incorporated into this
alternative:
❑ Any use of antimycin and rotenone in occupied boreal toad habitat would occur
after tadpoles have metamorphosed and left the water. Existing surveys indicate no
currently occupied toad habitat.
is.[Formatted: Centered
8
Chemical application activities would not occur prior to August 1 and would
normally conclude by October 15 to avoid sensitive nesting and denning periods for
wildlife.
Treatment areas would be closed to the public during treatment activities and for
three days after the conclusion of treatment activities. The closure would extend far
enough downstream to ensure that chemicals used have been neutralized before exiting
the closed area.
i An emergency notification and closure plan would be developed in case rotenone
fails to neutralize within the analysis area.
H Actions in this alternative have the potential to adversely affect the historic
characteristics of the Grand Ditch by introducing modern elements (constructed barrier)
to a historic structure (Grand Ditch). If this alternative is chosen, the Forest would follow
the procedures outlined in 36 CFR 800.5 and develop mitigation procedures in
consultation with the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation and any Interested Parties that are identified. Mitigation may
include photo-documentation of the sites that are affected.
Education of the public regarding non-native fish species impacts to native
populations would occur to reduce the risk of illegal placement of non-native fish into
restored areas.
Monitoring — the following monitoring measures would be incorporated into this
alternative:
[ 1 To decrease the risk of fish kills associated with high pH, downstream pH
monitoring would occur and operations would cease if pH reached or exceeded
acceptable levels.
I I To minimize potential for erosion, activity areas would be monitored to ensure
organic matter and ground cover is retained to the degree possible. If areas become
heavily disturbed or denuded, revegetation in consultation with the agency revegetation
specialist would be required.
I_1 The project partners would monitor each stream for the first three years after .- - [ Deleted: permittee would be required tc
greenback have been reintroduced,and a minimum of every three years thereafter for ---{ Deleted:
presence of non-native fish and success of recruitment for greenbacks, - Deleted: Years
Deleted: during the life of the
Contingency authorization
Formatted: Centered
A metapopulation would be considered established when all monitoring of all recovery
streams indicates that they are free of non-native trout for at least three years, ;( Deleted: permittee would be
greenback cutthroat have been introduced into all suitable habitats and all temporary : responsible for
l
barriers have been effectively removed. If non-native fish are found in the recovered FDeleted: ing
streams after the metapopulation is established, the program partners would work to ,•; f Deleted: as soon as practicable in
coordination with the
establish, temporary fish barriers,(under supervision of the Forest Service and National
Deleted: Forest Service and National
Park Service) to limit the re-invasion of non-natives. The,project partners would then park Service would then be responsible
work to re-establish pure populations of greenback cutthroat trout. , forn -establishing
Deleted: During reestablishment, the
permittee would be relieved of stream
Cost estimates monitoring responsibilities until the
metapopulation is re-established.
,.{ Formatted: Centered
9 4,.
Alternative 3 would cost about X50,000 - $ 1 million, in addition to in-kind _.--{ Deleted: 1,100,000
contributions from program partner; The estimated costs for the,project include: { Formatted: Highlight
o $40,000 for bather studies/data collection and materials �.
Deleted: in the first ten years and
D $80,000 to $140,000 for Grand Ditch barrier costs (if necessary) about $5,000 each year thereafter for the
life of authorization for monitoring
O 4152000 for data collection (flow, temperature, pH, gradient, etc.) needed for fish
Formatted: Highlight
removal efforts; ., •
O $300,000 for designs permitting & construction and testing of fish bathers; 0, '. ,( Deleted: first ten
D $1,350,000 for fish removal; `� Deleted: yCa15
❑ it
•
$20,000 for greenback cutthroat trout stocking; ` Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
❑ $x5,000 for fish barrier removal; and Deleted: 85
❑ $42,000 for administration ;, Formatted: Not Highlight
it Deleted: 154
Potential funding partners Deleted: 695
Formatted: Not Highlight
In addition to seed money of $100,000 provided by the permittee, the project partners
Deleted: 65
would pursue other funding from government, foundation, and private sources. A listing
of possible sources and amounts of funding requests are outlined below: this list is Formatted: Not Highlight
illustrative and does not reflect all possible partners nor does it indicate a commitment of Deleted: 1
funds from the listed sources. However, these sources do appear to have program Deleted: ; and 9
$40,000 for monitoring.priorities that are very consistent with the work proposed in this alternative and should
therefore be good prospects for funding support. While each individual funding source {Formatted: Not Highlight
has inherent uncertainty, it is likely that collectively these (and other) sources can fully
fund the project's needs beyond the permittee's contribution.
• Colorado Water Conservation Board — Fish and Wildlife Resources Fund. •--- ---{ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
$150,000 - $225,000 (can cover up to 25% of a project)
• Colorado Division of Wildlife - Species Conservation Grant Program. $25,000 -
$50,000 (requires 1 : 1 nonfederal match)
• Trout Unlimited. $25,000 - $40,000
• Western Native Trout Initiative - $50,000 - $100,000
• Great Outdoors Colorado — wildlife quadrant (must work with CDOW). $50,000
- $100,000 (requires 1 : 1 match), or more
• National Fish and Wildlife Foundation - $50,000 - $200,000 (requires 1 : 1
nonfederal match)
• Species Conservation Trust Fund — must be approved in bill by Colorado General
Assembly — $250,000 - $500,000
• National Forest Foundation - $40,000 - $50,000 (requires 1 : 1 nonfederal match)
or more.
In addition, we would seek funding support from Colorado-based private foundations
such as the Gates Family Foundation, El Pomar Foundation, and Adolph Coors
Foundation, and from potential corporate sponsors/partners. If work is required on
barriers for the Grand Ditch itself, there may also be Farm Bill program dollars available
for funding assistance.
Permit conditions
,.t Formatted: Centered
10
While work under this alternative would be conducted through an interagency
partnership, the permittee would have specific conditions in their land use authorization
to support this partnership effort:
• To provide $100,000 in seed money for the program, payable as $20,000 per year •------- Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
over the first five years of the permit;
• To coordinate with the program on construction (if necessary) and maintenance of
a bather on the Grand Ditch: and
• Coordinating operations of Long Draw Reservoir to facilitate chemical treatment
of the reservoir and La Poudre Pass Creek for fish removal.
In addition, the permittee would continue its participation in the Joint Operating Plan to
provide flow mitigation for lower segments of the Cache la Poudre.
{ Formatted: Centered
11 421.4
Alternative 3 - Greenback Recovery
` ,, Comanche Peak
�•‘` Wilderness \
,� 1�6 G ,\; {
t�. ♦`` .Mirror Lake 1
1
1
Q ♦
40
( t,.e.A
r l Orr al et
tyi
i I
i VW///0 /I
111
40 f re.
f;. Neota ♦ _ _ 1lazrn• ( ,•'rr
i ,.cv
re Wilderness . x,.► �,�� . 7 C
ofIf• ,e, rig
r
rl T.
, llu;etin: I.ake
i (�. 1
Rocky Mountain
r
�,,,,• �° National Park l'
,tl �;' i La Poudre Pass ��v 1
4OO,--/ . �` �\ i
/ r / N. i
1 , v,
1 / AL
``/ e ,,.
/ ,N
/
rr -C
f - 1
/ l (r
t V /
1
t f
1 J f
1
.♦
1
1`♦` /r.i
/
/..
• •/1
.� r
—` ♦
/ `X /.
♦ i ♦
1
\1,, it l •
/ ♦ ' 0 0.5 1 2 rvl lies
atc - ♦` . If lea 1 ill
Map Crz+trafMmv/ 13 ::. ,
Idgn nI
ei Pro t,c 4ReaowlyknI I E.t n9tlaluralCWrvr ! 1ta�arwycanttructe.]lune/ + NatlontlFong
• Wthrrwf ik Ae us H4.,..„,^/t3S Fan t l Fa Ea Rosa • 2 ' t:cmwvnt Natural eons neoQn9•rnx.canNrt ® Tanporary Nava ono/nn ncdag artw m•N Paler IAatan Nasal Pen
i, Catania Slat•Fowl
.3 Tw.rarry tl.aui Parrot need m/emert t� Pt#nerwt Conitnlg,A Bang f lees t" M"
I ' tertpotsy Waver Bono ne•dn9•reancemMrt U���
ratted: Centered
•
12 4
Page 3: [1] Deleted David.Nickum 6/26/2008 4:36:00 PM
Fish removal Corral, Hague, Cascade
Page 3: [2] Deleted David.Nlckum 6/26/2008 4:42:00 PM
Barrier removal As determined by monitoring
Esther Gesick
From: Bruce Barker
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 5:37 PM
To: Esther Gesick; Jennifer VanEgdom
Subject: Addition for July 9th Agenda
Attachments: Long Draw Reso.wpd
Long Draw
Reso.wpd (14 KB)
I hate to do this, but I got word this afternoon that the resolution I was doing regarding
the Long Draw Reservoir needs to be approved tomorrow. It is attached. Unfortunately,
the City of Greeley is still working on the attachment which describes Modified
Alternative Three. They will send to me probably on Wednesday afternoon or Thursday
morning of this week.
2008-1930
1
Hello