HomeMy WebLinkAbout851234.tiff AQUATIC LIFE
Objectives
The purpose of this analysis for the S/SSEIS is to identify and
evaluate the responses of aquatic life, mainly fish and macroinver-
tebrates, to habitat changes resulting from implementation of the
site-specific alternatives. Biotic response determinations will focus
on two areas:
1. Changes in abundance and distribution of fish populations and
their key food items (macroinvertebrates) and
2. Changes in reproduction success, growth rates, and relative
health of fishes.
Aquatic life habitat will be affected by site-specific alterna-
tives in at least one of three ways:
1. Elimination of existing habitat during facilities construc-
tion;
2. Modification of existing habitat due to changes in flow
regimes, water quality, and channel morphology; and
3. Creation of new habitat as a result of facilities construc-
tion.
The IFG4 habitat-based methodology will be used in the final
analysis of aquatic life impacts. Mitigation measures will be ident-
ified and costed for any identified adverse impacts. The USFWS mitiga-
tion policy will be used as a guideline.
The results of the above work will be presented in technical
appendix 4 of the S/SSEIS.
Data Collection
Identification of Data Gaps. General information on the structure
and function of aquatic life resources in the alternative project
environs was collected and reviewed for the preparation of technical
appendix 4 for the SEIS. This data base will provide the foundation
for most of the information needed for preparation of the S/SSEIS.
Recently, the CDOW has completed studies of fish populations and
associated instream flow requirements in the North Fork of the South
Platte River, portions of the main stem of the South Platte River, and
the Blue River. This draft report is undergoing public review. The
draft document will be reviewed by the Work Group to determine the
appropriateness of its use in the S/SSEIS. It is anticipated that the
4-67
851234
draft document will provide the basic data base to fill existing data
gaps, but additional independent data analysis for the S/SSEIS will be
necessary.
In addition, there are several specific data gaps that need to be
filled before the analyses of the probable impacts to aquatic life
resources can begin. Specifically, these data requirements are:
1. Distribution and population estimates for key sport fishes in
the following habitats (figure 4.11) which are likely to be affected;
Streams - North Fork (at Estabrook and Ferndale)
Blue River (between Dillon Reservoir and Green Mountain
Reservoirs and downstream from Green Mountain Reservoir)
Williams Fork (downstream from Williams Fork Reservoir)
Fraser River
Vasquez Creek
South Boulder Creek (upstream from Gross Reservoir and
downstream from South Boulder Creek)
South Platte River (downstream from Chatfield Lake)
Lakes - Chatfield Lake
Gross Reservoir
Green Mountain Reservoir
Dillon Reservoir
Cheesman Lake
Strontia Springs Reservoir
2. Distribution and population estimates are needed for key
macroinvertebrates (fish food items) in (1) the South Platte River
between Cheesman Lake and Strontia Springs Reservoir and (2) downstream
from Strontia Springs Reservoir. The Work Group during its initial
meeting will review these data needs.
Studies Required to Fill Data Gaps. During the spring and early
summer of 1985, the DWD will conduct fish and macroinvertebrate
sampling in the above stream reaches and at selected locations in the
six reservoirs. Collected organisms will be identified, counted,
weighed, and measured. Based on visual observations, the condition of
the fish will be recorded.
Additionally, the DWD will collect information on habitat con-
ditions at the collection stations. These physical and chemical data
will be used in the IFGA analysis. The field program of the Channel
Stability Work Group will be reviewed to determine if their data may
satisfy aquatic life needs. This collection will aid in the applica-
tion of the criteria (appendix B) to the evaluation of potential
impacts.
4-68
W
w W
w H •ri
..-IN•a S+ LL
E IX
J J y 7 6 V Q
a E o Cr >, W
G z v o d a C. >-'
Z w $+ $+ ❑ u 00
W z m a, o v1 1 D
C7 I- W P-
ill w H 0
J U q d
w Cl) )..
00 O
w w J
_ O
0
lc O
44
Oo CC No eo-
W =
7 z Z c i_
o—w N
allo/o, cc cc co
z_
ao
IA 0.ep 0� 4~iNK �� CO
w.. J3 NK
t W> w W
a> la ILI
o I-W f//ncS c=.)¢
y N Q V Q N
v i W co Nw UKal
o U �w
r, m N¢
q 2
O
m m ¢
v w
U O ,�4 CO
O
h Q
m Z W
WCZ
n o > w
l0 w J
0\\ w 2
`j
cot
peel
et
o. CC
LLo
0
a w 5• Fold • ce ix
w
w
J W X N
J co
.�6 o 1 — Z W
3 R a¢
¢ w
z— N
cu F c
w Z w Z N'(L eille w0N o N
ccoW
O' 2 K J
ON1 1 N
W
—
2 N
o N
O
o —
oia Z 0
J
U
in N
i
J
Analyses to be Conducted
The aquatic life analyses which will be conducted by the USFWS
will focus on identifying the habitat value of streams likely to be
affected by the site-specific alternatives. A secondary objective will
be the evaluation of lake habitat. This will be the baseline for
evaluation of the potential project impacts. Postproject conditions
will be determined by the USFWS and superimposed on this baseline to
identify impacts (in terms of habitat and habitat value changes).
After this determination, the USFWS will evaluate the potential rami-
fications to fisheries resources of high value, such as gold medal
streams. Separate habitat value and fishery productivity evaluations
will be performed by the USFWS for aquatic life resources created by
the construction of site-specific alternatives.
The potential impacts on aquatic life from reservoir construction
will be examined by the USFWS using the criteria (appendix B) . The
Work Group may add additional criteria.
For the adverse impacts, potential mitigation practices will be
developed by the USFWS and the Work Group. ES will develop costs for
up to three mitigation plans. A guideline for this development will be
the mitigation policy of the USFWS.
Report Preparation
Technical appendix 4, as prepared by ES, will contain an assess-
ment of each potential project's impacts on aquatic life resources as
developed by the USFWS and reviewed by the Work Group. Baseline data
assembled by ES will be presented. The impact analysis will form the
basis for mitigation options in accord with the USFWS mitigation
policy, as developed by the USFWS and the Work Group. ES will be
responsible for incorporating the results of the impact analyses and
potential mitigation into technical appendix 4. The activities leading
to the preparation of this report are scheduled in figure 4.12.
4-70
0
x
4
0.
4
0
3
A
CU
.o w
co
e
r1 co
h
u
a
0
> ■
0
2
1.1
C.)
O
a.
I7
< ti a
•
to
En
N T 4
O E ly t1 a s
CZ 4 14.1
CC al
H 1')
F
V
6 7 u
CO N
- q •
N !L00Ti
• 00
a v 3 3 u 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 V V V V
Cl '--.. C ---.�� ��� 3
3 3n cn corn A 0 A Ca 33 33 3
W w co a) wmvl cn cn cn cn Cl) cn co cn 3333333 3 3 3 3 �---------�
PC r7 3 00 W 41 43 W W 41 3 3 3 3 3a W W W W Cu Cl Ga Fa G gm cn co co cn
3 w ¢ x Cu Cu Es E. E. wwwraw
H V al
P. 04 C4 H
4 4
u CC W N '00 4-) N N CO , '0
4 al to --I H h > 4 > ,S) .Y 0 u C r1
C0 0 7 N N 7 4 '0 'O •0 •0 '0 '0 M a) •M V 4 O -H 0 u
P7 -1 -H E 4 0 V -H H. --I H H a) a > -L a o 4 co E •H
PH P l 3 C•. rn 0) a) a) a) 41 a) ti 4 4 w A •0 y w
0 0 •-1 •H H H H Z al P: 0 4 a) N C u 4
L 4 4 4 H S+ N Cu W Cu W Cr.. 11 W C) 'O 0 u 4 a) 0
0 0 0 0 0 H .l , T 0 4 C) C0 H U L 4) L 4 3 co a) r A
'0 W 41 W W W H 0) 4 N a 4 a) 4 O u an Y CO 7 N Ca 7 4 4 4 4 4 F CC C4 V V
CO a) Ca C CU C C O 0 0 C W O Ca H -H E 4 0 a1 a) a) a) a) 11111
O u OM R7 Ca ro C H > H 4 H W H > H 4 r1 3 Pi PO 3 W W > > > .l > > ..Y C a) al u a)
4 u 4 1.1 4 1.1 4.1 H E H E a) E E 'd E V O Z40 0 4 0 4 C O 0 0 0 0 0
73 CO tO N to t0 Cx. 4 a 4 > 4 Cn 4 Pa 4 4 '000 00036) 3 H O H a) H a) •-1 •ri •-1 •-r H
11 E000100)Cl C] P] C1 CU C) -. C) 5 al a) 4 'O -H 0 0 O O O > 4 E. > 4 r1 ri -H -H I-+
C N A 'O a a) 1.1 P+ N 0 4 4 41 a) T a) .C H A W .C .C H .C V a) C1 N C) C)
J4 0 a) 7 u u u u u C al a1 N a) H u a) u 'O S --lax Y1 .y' .t cn CY' CO > as m m cn to co u) Cn Lc
Cn H W N •M H H H H Ca O 4 Pa al Cl .-H Q N 3 3 W 4 4 4 4 4 •-I •M H H E •-1 •-I 4 N Ca 0 CC C
a,' U L 41 1.1 L 1.1 Ca 7 H CO 73 0 0 0 O OE. u W PL W N Cu 4 Cu W CO PI PC C G.`
F ''O. U al 411 7 7 7 CO 7 co P 3 a w w C 0 3 3 3 3 3 L u al 41 -HH 41 Co 4 3 a) VIN W W
4 a! CO 1O C H 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 < < < - Ca - 7 - -H - CO - 7 w w u. 4. 4+
C.) •n O d C - -C Q' 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 w 4 00 V V V 'O H •0 .-I '0 •.1 '0 - '0 0 •N +1 +H •-1 •.a
(0 0 N '0 0 'O o '0 O T1 O '0 0 O a) W Cu E. Cu W "Cl PH •O W '0 3 •0 Cu '0 PC 3 1 .? .a .-1
0 4 a) v a) a) C) C) '0 >.w En 3 T w >.4 A 3 a1 H 3 H H H C < < 6 <
3 P1 r1 N N N N N C 3 3 3 3 3 3a) I I I I I CY o' 0' c-
4 •H •'H H •.H •.1 - Co CO CO w m N C1 4 4 1.1 4 4 u u u 1.1 4 < < < <<
• Ca 4 4 4 4 4 0 3 '0 3 •0 3 b 3 'O 3 b 1-, u u u O u u Ca u CO u CO u C0 u C
�� a) r1 CO CO CO 0 CO PI C) a) u CI1 CI a) a) u u Cl 4 -H 0 0 0- 0 C C) u a) i1 a) 4 C 4 a) 11 • . . • .
H .M E E E E E H N H a) •.H N '-1 0) H 01 •-1 Cd "0 '0 '0 "0 v -H CO rl ca H 0 .-1 C -1 0 UOCJCJQ
> CO ES E E E +1 › Z › Z > Z › Z › Z S C C C C 0 C -H P -1 P -H C1 -H CZ -H P CO CE) CO Co cn
al > 7 7 7 7 7 O C) v 0 a) a) 7 ..1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IC 0 0 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)
FL C N cn (n N cn y PL PC Pn PC C Cc) Cu V V V V V V V V V 0 C] 3 O 3 O
O -+ N c'1 Cn .O r co CT O -H N en J un .D r- cc as O -H N c"1 WI I----. CC CI,
0 O O O O C C O O O O 3 3 -H 3 . 4 H .-H ti -1 -H N N N N N N N N N N
2 -i -.t -t �t -t v v v NI -0 -- -t -7 V v -1- - v d -t -s -t < -t .t -d -t J —t'-.
--I r1 - '1 1 -i ,-I I-4 .-H r1 - t.-4I I-4 - .-H-I l 1 - 1.-H ,-1 .--I .N .-H -H r- - H -1 H .-H - .-+ + -1
T I
W
E
t.
C.
d
14
Z
N
al L Iy
.0 W J
I i;
rn G
N
h
a se-,...6.,..c,“_, A F .?S.t_1.k 1
› •I , shnisiVr=c,?,r.--- .- . ' ''"r
0 ,
A-, de
a
h !! !1
00
Ira
ti
T
u
rC S,
0 a
O 6
U
I-,
CV
r--I p
• r1 al
d 00 W
cc
47 —,-I G
ca
H
W d u
co O
a
a1 U C9 U U U U U U U U U U U 000
v O U3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
N 3 3 In cn cn cn r (eacn Ct u) cn Cl)
C) \ in Un cn En cn V1 co to U 01 v1 to v1 O co y W W W W W W W W [x] 3
a cn to W3 3333 33333333 33 3 re. i,
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
C
0 W x v
4J x o a) G IC) x w
u O O ,--I to H M W 0
N W A 'O u) w co W O x O W C .C) x en
En U
x G a1 G W u W •H $4 O rct till 14 M i,a .a
O W a) O u H Cl sa O W Y 0 ti 0.1 +d 0 y
O
41 W 3 0 v .0 .G 54 6 a W .C •v W u, co W ...
O col Cl H kC W 0 0 0 3 0 a) 0 a) u Vl GO G G C 0 0 ❑ � G .-- W I G.
t+ 5 N O u ti N to O W N W H M •H M M •H M •H •0 uI a)
U 3a 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 3 0 al Lt Si 5 0 .-I
x pC
I I 0 H W W U U U 3 el 0.4 u) W cn O CO O W I-, O 1..1.I u ail
�
MI COCOCOCO
C)) CU C) W W U) •.I 'HI •r•1 H •.4• •r-I H •.-1 •ri 0 •H 0 WI 'O
d G G u u u u u u u u u ti H H Sr M 54 t, a r u W co W W W N wk. Co W r-1l'O y
H +i ,-I a) U U U U U U U n1 O o 0 0 0 0 0 H >, O >,x >, i >,'o >, T >, GI i+ O
.-I rl A CI N N C7 to N W an w 4, W 4, w 44 tH G X H - ,-I O r-I N .-I G H .-1 rH r-I W H W q-I 0 0
U C U 0. a a a P. a s rH o to iI CCOCCCCHaN a) W MI e a5 0 0 V
O O W U E E E E E E E u in O W O W W W •H S+ CO 0 i, C cC GE 0 'H G G ca C cC U V I
+I N a1 G H I-4 Iti H H F, I—I H C G G ❑ G 0 G u 0 d W 6 J 6 •U 6 0 6 w d u) 6 'H 6 .y CO
U 5Y1 R7 'H X C to c0 to W W a) to 44 W G C) -1-, W r-I .4•v I U 3
a rH ) N a) a) a al C) O -I. rti H .—I H H D r-I C V O W u al t. C) V Cl IC W 0 v .4W H I 3I W
•.I WI) al sN 44 W 4..1 W 4, 44 P+ a L4 a4 0., a P. •H O v4 3 4, W sN al 4, y µ, .0 44 54 4, •H w •H x W I
H W W W M •H +I •H .H 'ri M u u ,r-1 H M W M W YI U 'H U •H U •H3 '.-I 3 WI '-, I
U -I CC . r.] ,1 .] r.] .] p.4 u u u Y 4J u L •.i U) r.] r..] i .] I.] ,-1 a .] 0.11 u.'+-
u) .4 .1 0.t H •H H •H +1 H •H X 0 I I I I I I I I Flu-, ca
C c a or c c c c 72 Z ,E Z Z X U c c cr c c c c c a; i.
A cQvd 6d6 ddb W 6rda 6v 6v 6 -36v 6 -7d -1of I-, A
66u aaa G. a • au LIAr
W W W (nu) W W co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v o ax ax ax ax ax ax ax ax I I , , .
• r-I N W W CO N CO N ,—I H H H .-I H rH H .-I r—I 4 co 14 W i, U) t, W i+ N i, W 14 N t, W u, a)
0 •U a C) Cl a) C) C) C1 C) a) II C) al C) a) C) al 0 a) 0 Ci O C 0 W 0 CC 0 N 0 N 0 C 0 re' GI ul„
O O E co U) W cn Cl) W O > > > > > > > > E > U F U F U F U F U H U F U F U H
C) C) 0 W cn W W W W N Ql C1 a) C) C) C) C) a) 0 W C 0 C C C G G G C 1.! 0
a A V 6 6 d d 6'6 d A A A A A A A A U A H H H H IH H H H HM3 to I
I
O H N M -t In .p r 00 c O H N M -7 In n 00 Cn O H N M -7 to .cI N 00 C.,C
0 M M M M M M M M M M ,t ,t v -7 .7 ,t -t ,t ,t tr Irt UI v1 v1 Ul In ,rI ,n Lr
IC
2 -1' -7 V -7 -7 d -t -t -7 -Y -1 -7 J -7 d V J -7 S �7 -7 V v -7 - v -t -7 v -7,-7
.a ., .ti .. .+ r, .-, r-+ ..I ,-, ri el -4 .ti .-I r-. .H .i .. .-I .a - r-1 .ti r-+ .ti .ti .a .41 r.L-+
..
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Federal
To comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended, Federal agencies are required to obtain from the USFWS infor-
mation concerning any species, listed or proposed to be listed as
threatened or endangered, which may be present or potentially affected
by a proposed construction project. The following list represents
species to be addressed in the S/SSEIS and biological assessment:
. Listed Threatened or Endangered Species
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
Whooping crane Grus americanus
Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes
Colorado squawfish Ptychocheilus lucius
Humpback chub Gila cypha
Bonytail chub Gila elegans
. Proposed Species
Interior least tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
S/SSEIS Federal Species Analysis. Section 7(c) of the ESA
requires the Federal agency proposing a major Federal action signific-
antly affecting the quality of the human environment to request a
species list and then conduct and submit to the USFWS a biological
assessment to determine the effects of the proposal on listed and
proposed species. Under NEPA, the S/SSEIS must consider and describe
the environmental effect of alternatives, in a comparative manner, on
threatened and endangered species. The S/SSEIS analysis will describe
the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the South Platte River
storage projects and the Williams Fork projects. The S/SSEIS analysis
will consist of the following:
. Final identification of the listed or proposed threatened or
endangered species and any legally determined critical habitat, or any
habitat considered to be essential to the species which may be present
in the area influenced by construction or operation of the projects
(list presented above is complete as of 20 December 1984);
. An assessment of the potential impacts of the Federal actions
on listed or proposed species or critical habitat to include a review
and analysis of the effects of the project proposal on the species, in
terms of individuals and populations;
4-73
. Where impact is identified to listed or proposed threatened or
endangered species or critical habitat, a discussion of the efforts
that will be taken to eliminate any adverse effects, and an analysis of
alternative actions that may provide conservation measures.
Data Collection. The DWD will prepare a draft impact assessment
which will determine if the projects "may affect" any of the listed
species or critical habitats. The analysis will also determine if the
projects are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of proposed
species or result in the destruction or an adverse modification of any
critical habitat proposed for such species.
Endangered Fish. Listed fishes inhabiting the Colorado River
may be affected as a result of water withdrawals associated with the
projects. Information to be proviced by the DWD that is necessary to
evaluate possible impacts to listed fishes must answer the following
questions:
1. What is the net water depletion figure (acre-feet per year)
from the Colorado River system as a result of this development?
Considerations will be given to:
A. Transmountain diversions and reservoir storage and
B. Evaporative losses from all project-related reservoirs.
2. What are the volume, location, timing, and water quality
characteristics of any return flows to the Colorado River system
associated with project operation?
3. How will project operation affect occupied habitat for endan-
gered fishes downstream in the Colorado River? Preproject and post-
project flows will be compared for the period of record, 1947 through
1981. The USGS gages of particular interest are known as the Cameo,
Stateline, and Cisco stream gages. Wet year and dry year flow deple-
tions will also be determined. All flows will be for monthly averages.
Schematic hydrographs which show preproject and postproject annual
changes will be prepared. The USFWS will provide the up-to-date
baseline flow condition at each gage site.
4. How will project operations affect sediment transport charac-
teristics in the Colorado River? Specifically, how will sediment
entrapment, channel stability, and channel equilibrium be affected in
river reaches directly affected by flow changes?
The problem of water depletions and associated effects on endan-
gered fishes is one of the most difficult that the USFWS has faced in
recent years. At the present time, all options are being explored in l`
an interagency committee effort to find solutions to the dilemma that
4-74
exists between the habitat needs of listed fishes and the water needs
of future development in the upper Colorado River basin. The results
of this committee approach are expected to be known prior to the
submission of the final S/SSEIS.
Bald Eagle and Peregrine Falcon. A draft assessment of
impacts will be made by the DWD for the bald eagle and peregrine
falcon. This will include the location and number of riparian and
upland roost sites for bald eagles, as well as any actual nest sites or
prenuptial structures in the project areas. The peregrine falcon
assessment will include the location of any active or historic aeries
that may be in the project areas. Also, any powerlines constructed for
the projects should contain design features that prevent accidental
electrocution of raptors. These data will be presented to the Work
Group for review and comment.
Whooping Crane. Major whooping crane migration stopover
areas exist along the Platte River in south-central Nebraska. Critical
habitat for this species exists along a 53-mile reach of the Platte
River between Lexington and Shelton, Nebraska. Incidental whooping
crane sightings have been reported from areas along the South Platte
River in Weld and Larimer Counties, Colorado. The Platte River system
has been modified by water projects to the point that some of the
whooping crane habitat has been lost. The essential time frames for
flows needed to maintain adequate habitat conditions in Nebraska are
from 1 through 10 May and 16 September through 15 November each year.
The draft impact assessment provided by the DWD to the Work Group
will present and discuss any flow changes that may take place in the
Platte River as a result of the projects, specifically in critical and
known occupied habitat areas for the whooping crane in Nebraska. The
flow changes will be evaluated first at the outlet of Chatfield Lake
and at the South Boulder Creek intake for wet, average, and dry year
conditions. If flow changes are evident, then the analysis will deter-
mine flow changes at the Overton gage in Nebraska. Additional infor-
mation that may need to be provided includes identification and quanti-
fication of existing roosting and feeding habitat. A Platte River
Management Joint Study is presently being developed by the Bureau of
Reclamation and USFWS with input from the States. The plan of action,
which is still in draft stage, will be used in this analysis , if
available.
Interior Least Tern. As is the case with the whooping
cranes, the draft impact assessment provided by the DWD to the Work
Group will address the flow changes that may occur in the Platte River
and any resulting changes in the least tern's habitat as a result of
the proposed projects. The same methodology described above will be
4-75
used. The distribution and abundance of the terns will also be dis-
cussed in the draft assessment.
Biological Assessment. The ESA requires that any Federal
agency proposing a major Federal action, submit to the USFWS a bio-
logical assessment to determine the effects of the proposal on listed
and proposed species. The biological assessment is prepared for the
project proponent's preferred project(s) , as identified in the applica-
tion for a permit and/or rights-of-way, as appropriate. During the
conduct of the S/SSEIS, permit applications will be filed and a
specific biological assessment prepared for the proposed project(s) .
The COE will be responsible for the preparation of the biological
assessment. The DWD will be responsible for collecting and providing
the data necessary for the COE to prepare the biological assessment.
ES will not be directly involved in this activity.
State
The State of Colorado lists threatened and endangered species
unique to the State of Colorado. Species of interest (which are not
listed or proposed for listing by the USFWS) to the projects being
evaluated in site-specific detail are the Colorado River cutthroat
trout, Johnny darter, razorback sucker, and river otter.
Potential effects of water source development to State threatened
and endangered species will be assessed according to evaluation criter-
ia developed by the Work Group.
Endangered Fish. The razorback sucker, Johnny darter, and
Colorado River cutthroat trout may potentially be affected by the
projects.
Physical habitat requirements of the fish are adequately defined,
as are critical discharge criteria. The distribution of Colorado River
cutthroat trout within the Williams Fork basin will be determined by
DWD. Existing information bases at the CDOW and DWD will be assembled
by the DWD and provided to the Aquatic Life Work Group for review.
The impact analysis will be based on habitat requirements of the
various taxa. The primary impact assessments will be project-related
flow regimes versus required habitat flow regimes. Physical habitat
alterations will be addressed on a project-by-project basis by the Work
Group and ES will summarize them. The hydrologic data used in the
analysis will be preproject and postproject flows for wet, average, and
dry years. The hydrology methodology will use the following gage
points.
4-76
Razorback sucker - Colorado River at Cameo gage
Johnny darter - South Boulder Creek at intake
Colorado River
cutthroat trout- Dependent on distribution in upper
Williams Fork (individual stream depletions
will be computed at locations where species
occur)
Endangered Mammal. The river otter is the only species of
interest in this category. This species is of concern in relation to
the South Platte storage projects, particularly New Cheesman and Two
Forks. Data to be provided by the DWD, as appropriate, include:
1. Location and distribution maps (historic and current, as
appropriate) ,
2. Estimate of population status and endangerment factors,
3. Characterization of population status and endangerment
factors, and
4. Characterization of habitat requirements and current condi-
tions.
Species of Special Interest. In addition to the Federal- and
State-designated species, the USFWS has a candidate list of species, of
which three could be affected by proposed projects. There is no legal
requirement to protect candidate species . The list of candidate
species includes two species that are already listed by the State, the
razorback sucker and the Colorado River cutthroat trout, and the Pawnee
montane skipper butterfly. It is within the spirit of the ESA to
consider the species in the environmental review process.
The following information on the Pawnee montane skipper butterfly
will be provided by the DWD in its analysis of the potential impacts of
South Platte storage projects:
1. Location(s) and areal delineation of known populations and
critical habitats,
2. Description of habitat requirements,
3. Estimate of existing population size, and
4. Description of current endangerment factors.
,r.. The data described are necessary for a comprehensive and relevant
evaluation of potential impacts on State and Federal candidate
4-77
threatened and endangered species. The requirements for new data for
each species differ because of the nature and completeness of existing
information, which is more complete for some species than for others.
The request for new information is based on knowledge acquired from
activities involved with preparation of the draft technical appendix 4
reports for each specific project site.
Impacts will be evaluated considering (1) direct habitat losses
caused by construction and operations activities and (2) habitat
degradation. The DWD will perform the initial impact analysis for all
species.
ES, with the assistance of the Work Group, will review the DWD
drafts and prepare mitigation plans. The effects of the mitigation
proposals will be integrated into the impact analysis by ES.
In addition to the evaluation criteria used in technical appendix
4 of the SETS (see appendix B) , the following criteria will be reviewed
and considered by the Work Group for use in evaluating project impacts
on threatened and endangered species:
Criterion Unit of Measurement
Percent of each threatened percent
and endangered species popula-
tion potentially affected by
the project.
(Note: Each species to be analyzed separately.)
Total acreage of endangered acres
species habitat potentially
affected by the project.
(Note: Each species to be analyzed separately.)
ES will perform the evaluations necessary to complete the evalua-
tion criteria analyses for the site-specific technical appendix 4
reports.
Report Preparation
Technical appendix 4 will contain an assessment of the potential
effects of each project on threatened and endangered wildlife species
as developed through the Work Group. Baseline data will be presented.
The impact analysis will have mitigation measures and costs described
as developed by ES and the Work Group. ES will be responsible for
incorporating the results of the Work Group into technical appendix 4.
4-78
The activities leading to the preparation of this report section are
scheduled in figure 4.13.
r
4-79
T
CO
X
4
a
ro
X
A
a
(O W
CO
O+ G
H CO
h
O
OJ 114
>
11
cn 3
W
H u w JE.
U U
N.
ACO h
OD hl
I
z
W ■
d I _W
ya 4 f
F 0
w m w
w H a
a ti
w
a u
U CO a)
>+ 4
H 'o A3AA AAgqAAA AAAAA3 ww W Wu) 333 cn an cn 3 cn 33
3 al 3---- 3333333333333--- O 0 0 0 3 W W w w W W W 0 0
i—i CI A
F .7 w AAAA AA AA AA AA Acn U U 0 Uw mm W 00
W W W W
0 __
'C u .0 'O PI 0 u
u o N C H .v v U
CO a
H Y PA CO .]L 4 N E H .L' .1L.'."1
C.) w .0 .0 R X 'O (a 14 W Cc. 0 0
d u) g 'O u) g 'CJ O W N 4 N 0 a) u 4I o
..0 O N G H ..YM O a) G .-I x a u ..4 H 0 u 4 O cd N co pa '.a
W 4 0 H4 MO) 4 4 0 H N a C) COW p0
) 4 E C 3 N N X X E E I I u
g 0 POE H o 0 4 N E H o H a) > G G C F W W U U 3 3- �+ N
.Z. (d W .G 'O N W W W A "OM ua W E k H0 0 O W W I I I I I I I a) u
O CO •.1 N G N 1J Cd G N LJ 'O CO O 44 M \\ 4.4 I t-I
H 0 $-1 O u 4 0 O N O u 4 0 N N G N W N N CO u F F a 0. 0. a al a)
k1 '.40) 3w W X .C E 3 N a) XX E 'd a) H u u 0. I I NCP GLw P: GGa ,WI ' 7
N
U u F W W U U 3 H W WOUZ CO C 7 (.1 C) 0 co N C
a) H I I I I I I I I I 1 I I u N O E0.1 C) 0 C N -y .ld .Yd �sla 0
a 4 N N N N N N N N in N N in 7 d H 7 I4-I W 0 td (d H 3.4 0) U u 1J 4-1 44 11 14 Y u L 14 Y 11 a 14 0 1-I W O .-I .-I P, X X .1 X .l .1 . I 0
U
u I u u C) O O I) O 0 u u O G u H W 14 •.a r44 G. F F H H F H H w c.
N T G (d O O C O N N O td 0 td N H O 'O u u C0
014 .000- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- a CO C .-I H a) a) N C G O G G C C C C C u u
o ff H EPP 06555 E E E E G a o 7 > > bC 0 o H H H H •ti ,-I •ti .N
N HO 0 N H H H H H H H H H H H H 1J EL) co '.5 H M H ..a ..I 44 E O
¢ 1J W L t CO H C 0 44 11 4J 4.4 Y N CO N N (11 RI CO N N CO
F a a to 7 X X X .C X X 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O T) A a 0 4 Co N .1 N (d 14 u 1, u u u 4 u d H
M Ch A H CO CO CO N N co 4 4 4 4 H 4 W G U pa .-1 HI Z OD pC M N td N N N CO N (d
4 N •.a •r •.I H H •-I H M •.I M M H W M 7 7 •.I •.a u A A A A A = A .-I E
U .7 W > w W W W W W I:0 CO AP W G {C CO H N- 3. E E co a) u u H
66 u C) a) 7 X 7 'CJ H .a •.i X W W W w W W W .,, O
4
a) F4HW H WW1WW1WWWWWW NN 040 NU 4 .C22 ---.--- ���,-- WW
A W v ������������ C A N 0 u H • •.I al H F F F F F F
A al N F H F F H F F H H F F F u W •N O N W N W N a a u
w I'1 •'a N 3 44 N N N o o a) a a a a a a a LI U))
lx. (d H 4 4 Ia 4 4 3a 4 I+ 4 4 4 4 .-I a L 0 4 W >> W OF-1 .-I .-I H 4 4 11 H 4 4 t a
/., a C N a a a a a) a a O aa a) a, a) al H �-I a .--I py a) a) 0. 0 0 0 O 0 I 0 0 a 0
a) C u u u u u u u u u u u u E > u N u N H N H > > E O u o o I u u u C) Cr
4 H C) II N a) a) w I) C) a) al O a) O N N A N a) C C C) O G C 0 C G .. C 4 O
a W A A A A A A A A A A 0 ,702A Ad d H A A V H H H H H H H a
O .a N Cr) v u1 3 I. cc) CN O H N en .Y vt r-. c0 o CH H IN r'1 v vt 01 N. CO CPO H N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O .-I .y .-I H H H .-a .-I .-I H N N N N N NI N N N <n n 1•'1
Z CO CO CO CO CO CO CO N CO Ic0 CO CO CO N W CO - W CO W CJ N ice CO a) CO I W W W IN!
CO a).. .a .-I .a .y .-I .. .ti N f ra .a N .. .-I ,-4 .-I .-I .-I .-I .. .-♦ --41,-I .ti .-1 .-I .-I .-a ..le-4 .» ..1 ..
T
0
x
4
a
6
4
N
z
.0
w
..0 W
Ib
rn G
.a CO 1..
n V
u
a)
A y
o IL Ill
2 S
O W t.
U
i
7 J �c:. :
.i k , _1 .t „;k
0
L • iz"i .r..., r ( 4Cff
—
40.. 3 —
L13
M
.i F
in a✓
.Y oo W
a,
W rr G
a it
z in
r I
H
a d u
m ar
A
4
I0 P 3 AAA A P A A A Ca P A canon A A A 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
N 3 -- 333 333333 33 3333 33 3 ���--���� en --- cn COMO, Cn NN Cn CA
0) A co APP AAA AAA AA A A A A AA A0 W co coW co 0 W c0 01 W W W W W W W W
a W 313131313Z3.13731 W
U) N .'L '0 .-.
W N ,Y .0 .. 0 a) G H .. N .. IO 0. 0 L
H N cn S '0 .Y 0 U G .i 4 0 H 0 v 4 S 0 a) C H ---,I,—, 4
CJ 0) '•L 0 U G .-1 S GS 0) 4 0 .-I N a) 0 4 e0 E •.1 0 -' 4 0 .-I N 0) 0
0i U 0 C0 E +i 0 4 0 rI Ca N W F •0 N 4-II L W F Cd N w N W M 0 I. CI E ++. 0, 0, 0.
V) al P. .0 'O N w W 0 4 C0 E "-I CO C al u CED 0 L 3G-i N C0 O N v C9 C a) u CO W W K
N 0. N C N ) W .0 T) N w N 0 L 4 al N N N N .G F 4 E co 0 L 4 v 0 0 N N
F N Co O L 4 a) C0 N C0 G 0) L N 3 N 0) F F - W W 0 V 0 3 G 3 N u F F 4 E E v
W •rl 3 N CD .C F E 0 L 4 0) C0 0 F W W 0 0 I I I I I I I CO N H W W U U e 3
W U W H W W 0 0 3 N U F F 4 I I I 1 I -him co N N N N N H G I I I I I I I I S
a a) I I I I I I H W a U U 0 N N co co N L U G G C G G ❑ G a N-Y v .T v v d F
W a 0 N N N N CO N L L L L u 7 C0 C0 CO N C0 C0 C0 C0 H
F an +-I L L L L u L l I I I I I U u U U U a 0..i .H .-I .•1 .-I H rl L a S S ?: .Y .v .Y .i' Y 0
2 4 u U u u u U N N 0 C0 0 G E Pi Pi W W Pi Pi P. ,-I F F F H F F F F u
H T a) 0 C0 N co N CO N N N N N ul a a a 0.H H Z G
G F u 0. a a a a a u u L L L L E E E E E 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4)
Cam/) •.r 6 C0 4 H H H H H H C0 CO C0 CO C0 N H H H H H 4 W •.0+ N O O O O O O L •.1 •.r +H +i •.r ..1 •.i ..i C
F a U al O F .C F FFF 5 E a
a
5 E .o. TI ry r-�i H -I q 4) C ea u0 Ca N t0 00 C0 Cu0 w lc0 4Ni u u u a4i i i 44 Ct ti
+i W A rl N N N CO N N H H H Fi H H w w w w w N 00 ND ND NO NO ND 00 N •N C0 C0 Ca N Ca C0 N C0
4 Pi N +i •N M •.1 •.i H kW 4 4 4 W A •.i •N •M •.i +i +H •1 u L P P A C P C P O W
U N W > a W W W a a 4 4 4 4 4 4 0) a) a) N 0 L L L L L L L co) -.i
co \ W 0) CU a) al a) U L L L L L F W •.i M •d M M •.i vi O Z W W W W W W W W F
w A H W W W W W W F F F F F F 4) L L 4J L \ Z 2 Z Z Z 2 Z O \\\ \ \\
A Z - -- --- --- --- 4) 4) 4) U4) 4-1L 7 7 7 7 7 a H a) F F F E-i F F F F Cl
6 a) N F F F F H H 0 0 0 O O O W PO Rl PI W u 0. a a a 0. a 0. a N 4)I
4 +i Cl) 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •'1 0. a a a G. a 0. a JI.__
W N .i 4 4 4 4 4 4 1-4 4 1-4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 H 0) .i .i H .i .H .H r-1 .-1 .-I 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
F a CO 0) C) a) N 0) 0) N 0) 0) al 0) al u a) al a) a) a+-I N U a) Na) ) 0 a) ) al C0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C
6 a) G L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L E > > > > > > > > > 0 0 0 U U U U 0 U E
m P4, -elW a) 0.)
0000000000000 AAAAAAAAW HHFC-IH )-G+ IG- r-GIH VI
M -Y u") 1/40 I--- CO CT O ,--1N M -t C/1 .P r` 00 C. C .-1 N en -a Li" .C r-- c0 a O .--4N en -Y vi .O n 0 O. O'..
0 MM MMM M M V dv -a � d -Y -1 -.Y -Y um vl u-) C ).0 N-I
Z co 00 C. co co Cb 00 NC c0 W CO CC CC CO W CO CYO IX) CL 00 CC 0.^i cC W 00 00 C:0 CC 00 co CC!co NC 0 CX) cO a)Ice S I
.-.i .i .i I r .l 1 r - . . .-Ir .i . .+ .-I ).-I )-I )---1)---1l i .-I Ii ,-I .+ .i 1 -i .i .i ,-I .i ' .+ .+ .+H ).--1 .--.1r rl ! .-1 I—I.i
WETLANDS
Objectives
Wetlands are widely recognized for their wildlife importance,
ground water recharge capabilities, waterfowl production potential,
water quality enhancement characteristics, flood plain protection
values, and recreational uses. Wetlands are expressly considered by
COE and EPA regulations under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and
Federal Executive Orders (11988 and 11990) . Wetland status, produc-
tivity, and integrity are strongly influenced by numerous character-
istics of hydrology which can be affected by water resources develop-
ment, such as the timing, duration, and frequency of flooding and
streamflow. Potential changes in these characteristics by project
activities could constitute a significant threat to wetlands. There-
fore, the analysis of potential impacts to wetlands is recognized as a
key Federal issue in the preparation of the S/SSEIS.
The relative magnitude of potential effects is based on determin-
ations of the total number of wetland systems affected, the nature of
the effect, and the total acreage involved along the project streams.
Changes in associated wildlife values are derived from the wildlife
resource analysis. The impact analysis considers both direct effects
resulting from construction activities and indirect effects caused by
changes in the existing hydrologic regime due to project operations.
The objectives of the described work are to:
1. Identify the kinds, extent, locations, and basic hydrologic
and botanical characteristics of wetlands in each project area;
2. Determine the hydrologic processes controlling maintenance,
composition, and productivity of each type of wetland; and
3. Determine the hydrologic relationships between each water
development project and the wetland types it would potentially influ-
ence.
The alteration of streamflows from either diversion projects or
impoundment projects has been identified as a key issue of concern for
the maintenance of riparian and other flood plain wetlands. The impor-
tance of wetlands for wildlife habitat, water quality improvement,
ground water recharge, recreation, and aquatic life maintenance are
also recognized. Consideration of the wetlands support of these
environmental values have been incorporated into the objectives. The
identified data requirements, proposed evaluation methods and criteria,
and supplemental field studies are intended to provide the basis for
answering six key questions:
4-82
1. What are the types, amounts, and locations of wetlands in each
project area?
2. What are the basic botanical and hydrologic characteristics of
each wetland type?
3. How is each wetland type linked to streamflows that will be
affected by diversions and/or reservoir operations, recognizing that
flows may be either decreased and/or increased?
4. How will alteration of wetland hydrologic processes by the
project affect overall wetland ecology, functional values, stability,
and productivity?
5. How much wetland mitigation will be required; what will it
cost; will it be practical; and where can it be implemented?
6. What secondary effects will wetland loss and/or degradation
cause?
Data Collection
Identification of Data Gaps.
Two Forks Reservoir. The direct study area for wetlands
investigations for the Two Forks Reservoir will include: the Blue
River between Dillon and Green Mountain Reservoirs, the North Fork
downstream from Roberts Tunnel, and the South Platte River downstream
from Cheesman Reservoir to Strontia Springs Dam, including tributaries
in the reservoir pool area. These areas are shown in figure 4.14.
The DWD will reclassify the wetland inventory data prepared by the
DWD for the South Platte River (Cheesman Dam to South Platte) and for
the North Fork of the South Platte River (Farmer's Union to South
Platte) flood plains to conform with the wetland nomenclature used in
the SETS for mapping the wetlands on tributary drainages. The DWD will
conduct the mapping, size determination, and identification of all
wetlands downstream from the dam site to Chatfield Lake. The final map
will be at a scale of 1:24,000 and consist of mylar overlays suitable
for use with USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps. The wetland mapping,
area calculations for each unit, and classification of each wetland
unit will be conducted from the mouth of Roberts Tunnel to the head-
waters of the Two Forks pool elevation.
The DWD will conduct the wetland mapping, area calculations for
each unit, including hydrologic characterization, and classification of
each unit in the Blue River between Dillon and Green Mountain Reser-
voirs. The need for these data will be determined following analysis
4-83
tn
o N Cl)
W E u
O d
W
Sb 0 a
aa
..a i LL W
a ma CC
_I g
4 ° 0 c III
a a
O2 'o a.--1 d
2 W v O 4J Cl) p
W 2 0 +-1 a3
O ~ a"4 W F
in 2°�
J o0 w a I.=
a N }
61
P Ill7 p
ill
w 0
_ O
IX
•`-o Foo> =
zz¢
Cn
o—W
°/i0/ ¢z h z c }
111
a
H c. ca cc NNQ 2] (n
u J o N K
V K W> W W
Oj o F-W y/'oS UZ
e m NW V SW m
o O Cr
c V K2
m t7 2
/`, C R
O
m t .,. ¢
v W
v 0 `4z° N
o h
m z �
W
N C W
".
t. W J
J _
k�
t.
k0t
a1Je(
e` •
. .
. .
• .
�s0S Y
2 K
cc
LL _
O
O
a W 5. F�f* w¢
W
•tu Ix 4el
' — • a W
3 R O a¢
K W
•
—c3 co
0 F 2
W ZLLl 2 N J CL 81lie WD to O N
2 O W
(. 2 J
K O
N N
p
W
J
r 'n 2
o
O_ <1 0 O ?
/"S % 2 O W
J J
Q
U
O
of the Two Forks and other storage projects' system operational
effects.
The DWD has field surveys along South Platte River in the reser-
voir take area to locate, map, and describe Populus deltoides ssp.
monilifera/ Salix amygdaloides/Salix exigua/Spartina pectinata and
Populus deltoides ssp. monilifera Distichlis spicata var. stricta plant
associations. These plant associations have been identified by the
Colorado Natural Heritage Program as being of statewide interest.
Estabrook Reservoir. The study area for wetlands investi-
gations for Estabrook Reservoir will include: the Blue River between
Dillon and Green Mountain Reservoirs, the North Fork downstream from
Roberts Tunnel to the dam site, including tributaries in the reservoir
take area, and from the dam site downstream to the Strontia Springs
Dam. Data to be collected and provided by DWD include:
1. A complete wetland inventory showing each wetland unit
occurring along the main stem flood plain and along each tributary
within the project area. Each wetland unit must be identified by a _
unique coding system to allow, at a minimum, determination of its size,
type, hydrologic characteristics, and location. The primary emphasis
of this activity will be tributaries in the take area.
2. A list of dominant plant species for each wetland type. The
abundance of each dominant species should be described in terms of
percent composition of the total number of species present in the
wetland type.
3. Map overlays at 1 : 24,000 scale showing location of each
wetland unit, with a corresponding tabulation of the size of each unit.
The overlays should be compatible with the appropriate USGS 7.5 minute
quad sheet.
4. General characterization of hydrology for each type of
wetland. Work performed by the DWD will be reviewed by the Work Group
for completeness and correctness as an initial activity.
5. A wetland inventory, size determination, and hydrologic and
vegetation characterizations for each wetland unit using aerial photo-
interpretation of 1:6,000 to 1:12,000 scale photos and 1 to 5 percent
ground-truthing. Ground-truthing should be restricted to selected
examples of each type. The Work Groups may determine that additional
ground-truthing is needed.
6. Wetland mapping and area calculations for each unit, in-
cluding hydrologic characterizations and classification of each unit in
the Blue River between Dillon and Green Mountain Reservoirs. The need
4-85
for these data will be determined following analysis of the Estabrook
and other storage projects' system operation effects.
Ferndale Reservoir. The study area for wetlands investiga-
tions for Ferndale Reservoir will include the Blue River between Dillon
and Green Mountain Reservoirs, North Fork downstream from Roberts
Tunnel to the dam site, including tributaries in the take area, and
from the dam site downstream to the Strontia Springs Dam. Data to be
collected and provided by the DWD include:
1. A complete wetland inventory showing each wetland unit
occurring along the main stem flood plain and along each tributary
within the project area. Each wetland unit must be identified by a
unique coding system to allow, at a minimum, determination of its size,
type, hydrologic characteristics, and location.
2. A list of dominant plant species for each wetland type. The
abundance of each dominant should be discussed in terms of percent
composition.
3. Map overlays at 1 : 24,000 scale showing location of each
wetland unit, with a corresponding tabulation of size of each unit.
The overlays should be compatible with the appropriate USGS 7.5 minute
quad sheet.
4. General characterization of hydrology for each type of
wetland. Work performed by the DWD will be reviewed for completeness
and correctness as an initial activity.
5. A wetland inventory, size determination, and hydrologic and
vegetation characterizations for each wetland unit using aerial photo-
interpretation of 1:6,000 to 1:12,000 scale photos and 1 to 5 percent
ground-truthing. Ground-truthing should be restricted to selected
examples of each type. The Work Group may determine that additional
ground-truthing is needed.
6. Wetland mapping and area calculations for each unit, in-
cluding hydrologic characterizations and classification of each unit in
the Blue River between Dillon and Green Mountain Reservoirs. The need
for these data will be determined following analysis of the Ferndale
and other storage projects' system operational effects.
New Cheesman Reservoir with Tunnel. The study area for
wetlands investigations for the New Cheesman Reservoir will include the
North Fork downstream to the diversion dam, including the diversion dam
take area; the South Platte River, and tributaries in the new reservoir
take area; and from the dam site downstream to Strontia Springs Dam.
Data to be collected and provided by DWD include:
4-86
1. A complete wetland inventory showing each wetland unit
occurring along the main stem flood plain and along each tributary
within the project area. Each wetland unit must be identified by a
unique coding system to allow, at a minimum, determination of its size,
type, hydrologic characteristics, and location. The primary emphasis
of this activity will be to inventory wetlands in the diversion dam and
New Cheesman take areas.
2. A list of dominant plant species for each wetland type. The
abundance of each dominant should be described in terms of percent
composition.
3. Map overlays at 1 : 24,000 scale showing location of each
wetland unit, with a corresponding tabulation of size of each unit.
The overlays should be compatible with the appropriate USGS 7.5 minute
quad sheet.
4. General characterization of hydrology for each type of
wetland. Work performed by the DWD will be reviewed for completeness
and correctness as an initial activity.
5. A wetland inventory, size determination, and hydrologic and
vegetation characterizations for each wetland unit using aerial photo-
interpretation of 1:6,000 to 1:12,000 scale photos and 1 to 5 percent
ground-truthing. Ground-truthing should be restricted to selected
examples of each type. The Work Group may determine that additional
ground-truthing is needed.
6. Wetland mapping and area calculatons for each unit, including
hydrologic characterizations and classification of each unit in the
Blue River between Dillon and Green Mountain Reservoirs. The need for
these data will be determined following analysis of the New Cheesman
and other storage projects' system operational effects.
Chatfield Lake. The study area for wetland investigations
for Chatfield Lake will include the South Platte River from Strontia
Springs Dam downstream to Chatfield Lake, including the reservoir take
area. Data to be collected and provided by DWD include:
1. A complete wetland inventory by type of wetland showing the
location of each wetland; identifying its type; and showing its areal
extent.
2. A list of dominant plant species for each type of wetland.
The abundance of each dominant should be described in terms of percent
composition.
4-87
3. Map overlays at 1:24,000 scale showing locations of each
wetland unit with a corresponding tabulation of the size of each unit.
The overlays should be compatible with the appropriate USGS 7.5 minute
quad sheet.
4. A general characterization of the hydrology of each wetland
type.
5. A wetland inventory, size determination, and hydrologic and
vegetation characterization for each wetland unit using aerial photo-
interpretation of 1:6,000 to 1:12000 scale photos and 1 to 5 percent
ground-truthing. Ground-truthing should be restricted to selected
examples of each type. The Work Group may determine that additional
ground-truthing is needed.
Gross Reservoir. The study area for wetland investigations
for Gross Reservoir includes South Boulder Creek from Moffat Tunnel to
the DWD intake, including the tributaries in the reservoir take area.
Hydrologic operation studies will be performed to determine if the
project would affect flows downstream from the intake in an average,
wet, or dry year. Data to be collected and provided by DWD include:
1. Wetland inventory by type; acreage calculation of each
wetland unit; botanical characterization identifying dominant species
by percent composition; and hydrologic characterization of each wetland
type from Moffat Tunnel along South Boulder Creek to the headwaters of
the enlarged pool.
2. Wetland inventory by type; acreage calculation of each
wetland unit; botanical characterization identifying dominant species
by percent composition; and hydrologic characterization of each wetland
type from Gross Dam downstream to the DWD intake.
All East Slope Reservoir Projects. The study area for
wetland analysis on the South Platte reservoir sites (Two Forks ,
New Cheesman, Estabrook, Ferndale, and Chatfield) also includes the
river from Strontia Springs Dam downstream to Chatfield Dam. One of
the first analyses to be performed is a hydrologic operation study of
the reservoir to determine the downstream changes in flow in average,
wet, and dry years. The Work Group will review these data to evaluate
the flow effects on wetlands in average , wet , and dry years. If
effects are identified in the hydrologic studies (average year, post-
project flows vary from preproject flows) downstream from Chatfield
Lake or the DWD intake on South Boulder Creek, the following types of
data may be determined by the Work Group to be needed, but the extent
of their implementation and specific data requirements must be agreed
to by the COE prior to collection by the DWD.
4-88
1. Develop topographic maps and cross-sections of representative
wetlands downstream from Chatfield Lake or the intake.
2. Wetland inventory, size determination, and vegetation charac-
terization for two special-concern plant associations identified by
the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (see above).
3. The above activities associated with additional study down-
stream from Chatfield Lake and the South Boulder Creek intake are not
considered to be part of this negotiated work plan.
Williams Fork Gravity/Pumping. The study area for wetlands
investigations in the Williams Fork basin includes: the main stem of
the Williams Fork from its headwaters downstream to the confluence with
the South Fork and the South Fork from its headwaters to the confluence
with the main stem.
The DWD has entered into a contract with the USGS to conduct a
study to determine the ground water and surface water relationships in
the study area of the Williams Fork basin. The general study require-
ments and its design were developed by representatives of the DWD, COE
(Sacramento and Omaha), and EPA. Subsequent changes were made by the
DWD and COE. Study requirements and design were developed during two
field trips to the Williams Fork basin and at technical work sessions.
Installation of equipment began in October 1984. The following pre-
sents the USGS data collection program.
Hydrologic data will be collected at four wetland sites (figure
4.15) and meteorological data at two stations. The four wetland sites
are believed to represent examples of the following hydrologic regimes:
(1) wetlands maintained by side-slope drainage only; (2) a wetland
maintained by streamflow only; and (3) a wetland maintained by both
side slope and streamflow.
A well and piezometer network will be established at each site to
define the contour of the water table. This information will show the
slope of the ground water toward or away from the river. The informa-
tion may help determine the direction of ground water flow and, there-
fore, show whether the river is contributing to or receiving water from
the wetlands.
Water quality information will be collected and will be used to
determine if the chemical nature of the ground water is different from
the surface water. A difference indicates sources for the hydrologic
units (wetlands) and, therefore, will help identify whether the wet-
lands are receiving water from valley side slope sources or the river.
4-89
co
CC y M •
0 V 0 •
W3 LLy a r > Wo j
0` tn2 W •
1Yr J C we e z
3Q 2a LL = 0 0 p N• a O
W = ar= I— � = o W O e
H r o
a es
N� J W W 2 fW" y - < 0
a 3 Q W u r.
3U J a
W
0. 3 `
•
..� hi 1 m
W '1 ��S -� R , I'I M
J
4 }} co
1 , •f ---A
` N h 1.� r-I
o
�- T
1
,H,
— m
L f i �r � i j' j W 3 k 4J4 w
co
W 0 - ' -F..MI 4ra
, ,N
7
CC
W
o
m 2 II
3 s
S m 5 0
F ° U ° ° V 2 i 6
i 3 ° Z 2
= 2 W e ° ` F 0 2 W ° 2 2 W
a °= 2 s ° V m a
W °
J 0 a
� � , o ) ® IiI4I ) N
The continuous flow recorders will be installed at the stream-
gaging stations and will provide gage height information. This infor-
mation will be combined with discharge measurements to provide a record
of daily and annual discharge. The data will denote the time and
duration of any overbank flooding. Combining the stream flow informa-
tion with groundwater information will help delineate interaction
between the river, the ground water, and the wetlands.
The specific data gathering program at each site is presented
below:
1. Wetland Site 1
Surface water
1 stream gaging station upstream
1 v-notch weir with staff gage on side tributary
2 crest stage gages
Ground water
8 piezometers
Water quality
Samples will be taken quarterly at the stream gaging
site
2. Wetland Site 2
Surface water
1 stream gaging station upstream
1 stream gaging station downstream
1 stream gaging station on tributary
1 v—notch weir with a staff gage on site tributary
1 crest stage gage
Ground water
9 piezometers
3'wells with continuous recorders
1 or 2 staff gages in nearby beaver ponds
Water quality
Sample will be taken quarterly at the stream gaging site
and at one or two wells
3. Wetland Site 3
Surface water
1 stream gaging station upstream
2 crest stage gages
Ground water
6 piezometers
4-91
Water quality
Samples will be taken quarterly at the stream-gaging
site and at the well
Suspended sediment samples will be collected at time of
streamflow measurements
4. Wetland Site 4
Surface water
1 crest stage gage
Ground water
4 piezometers
Water quality (none)
5. Meteorological Stations 5 and 6
Meteorologic conditions will be monitored with a micrologger
data recording system. Data will be recorded on both a cassette and a
printer.
Data - Site 5
Precipitation
Relative humidity
Air temperature
Wind speed and direction
Solar radiation
Data - Site 6
Air temperature
Headwater Inflow - Site 7
1 gaging station
Snow courses will be run at sites 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 at least once
a year, in March or April.
Standard USGS techniques will be used by the USGS to reduce the
data. The data will then be presented in tables. Statistical and
graphical tools will be used to present, interpret, and summarize the
available data. Surface water discharge and water quality analysis
data will be published in the annual data report for Colorado.
Gain/loss analyses will be done along the wetland reaches of the
river. Ground water flow paths will be evaluated using ground water
levels, streamflow data, and water chemistry data.
4-92
In addition, the DWD will conduct topographic mapping (contour
intervals, 2 feet) of the four wetlands under investigation. After 1
year, data from this study will be analyzed. Depending on the results
of the first year analysis, the study may be modified. Supplemental
studies may include more monitoring at additional wetlands, development
of additional topographic maps, and development of cross-sections of
wetlands downstream from diversions.
One of the first activities to be performed by the DWD will be to
provide the operational hydrology of the Williams Fork gravity and
pumping projects. This information will be reviewed by the Work Group
to determine if the wetland study area should extend downstream to
Horseshoe Canyon. A critical factor in this study is the tributary
influence on the main stem downstream from Leal gage near the con-
fluence of the South Fork with the main stem. If the project effects,
hydrologically, extend downstream from the Leal gage then the following
studies by DWD are expected to be required:
1. Wetland mapping, inventory by type, size determination for
each unit, and plant characterization by type for wetlands between Leal
and Horseshoe Canyon;
2. Determination of hydrologic regime for wetlands downstream
from the confluence of the main stem and the South Fork in the vicinity
of the Leal gage (primary goal is to understand the hydrologic rela-
tionships between streamflow and ground water recharge in the wetlands
next to the channel);
3. Establish a stage-discharge relationship (curve) and asso-
ciated cross-section of the stream channel at the Leal gage, Williams
Fork near Parshall gage, and at two or three appropriate locations on
the main stem;
4. Develop a water table hydrograph correlated to a stream
hydrograph at the Leal gage (the Work Group may decide that this will
require monitoring wells);
S. Evaluate the response of the water table to variations in
adjacent stream levels to provide the data to determine the impact of
changes in streamflow patterns on wetlands (this analysis will be
mainly in the Williams Fork basin but may be applicable to the South
Platte also) .
The data necessary to assess operational effects are preproject
and postproject average-year streamflows (from the DWD model studies)
and aquifer characteristics in the alluvium of the stream. The aquifer
characteristics will be obtained from available published data if
possible. If suitable published data are not available, the Work Group
4-93
will determine if shallow-well pumping tests will be needed to be
performed to generate the required data.
The variations in preproject and postproject streamflows will be
converted to variations in stream level using, in most cases, rating
curves at appropriate stream gages. Changes in water table levels for
various changes in stream levels and various time intervals will be
computed by means of transient ground water flow equations for a range
of distances from the stream. The range of distances will encompass
the zone of significant effects. These analyses will need to be
performed for, or adjusted to, those reaches of the river system where
the impact on wetlands may be critical. The results will be presented
in tabular and graphic forms.
The results of these analyses will be applicable to a horizontal
water table in a strict theoretical sense, however, the results can be
applied to a sloping water table without errors that are significant,
considering the level of precision of the overall study. The results
will not be applicable to a situation where standing bodies of water,
fed by a source other than the stream, occur in the wetlands; such a
situation is much more complex and would require extensive site-
specific field work for proper analysis.
The work elements described above are not considered part of the
ES negotiated scope of work, since they will be performed by the DWD
and USGS.
Analyses to be Conducted
An initial activity of this resource analysis will be the forma-
tion of a technical Work Group. The formation will be initiated by the
COE with assistance from ES. The Wetlands Work Group will review and
comment on work products and participate in the formation of impact
assessments and development of mitigation opportunities.
Literature and field data will be used to establish the existing
status of wetland resources in each project area. The data provided by
the DWD will include:
. Type classification,
. Quantities (acres) by type,
. Species and community characteristics,
. General hydrologic characteristics,
. Location in project area, and
. Mapping.
4-94
The water budget studies on representative wetlands for the
Williams Fork project will provide the data necessary to resolve the
importance of spring streamflows to wetland hydrology. This relation-
ship is the key for determining the probability and magnitude of
proposed stream diversions on downstream wetland resources. ES will
prepare a baseline report based on the compiled information, including
the verbal report and tabular data summaries provided by the USGS.
This baseline report will be discussed by the Work Group and a deter-
mination will be made by the Work Group whether a worst case wetlands
impact analysis should be performed for the Williams Fork. ES will use
the guidance of the Work Group and will prepare the wetland impact
analysis utilizing the baseline data report.
The wetland impact analysis for project alternatives which will be
prepared by ES will tabulate wetland losses and alterations for all
types of wetlands to the same level of site-specific detail. The
impact assessment will consider construction- and operation-related
impacts. Construction-related impacts will include evaluation of
wetlands affected by fill activities and reservoir impoundment.
Operation-related impacts will include evaluation of potential changes
in streamflow volume, timing, duration, and flooding frequency based
on average year operational hydrology. Departures of these parameters
from existing regimes will be a key determinant of potential impacts.
Correlations will be established, where appropriate, between ground
water tables and streamflows to evaluate wetland impacts due to project
operation.
The impact analysis prepared by ES will be based on extrapolation
of detailed data from representative wetlands. The detailed analysis
will be performed for representative wetlands. Therefore, while all
wetlands will be identified and mapped, hydrologic impacts will be
applied to each category as derived from the actual site studies.
These analyses will be reviewed and discussed by the Work Group.
Wetland mitigation alternatives for each project area will be
developed by ES with assistance of the Work Group. The associated
costs of each alternative will be estimated by ES to the extent per-
mitted by planning details and regulatory commitments. These will be
reviewed and discussed by the Work Group.
During the conduct of the wetland resource impact analysis, the
representative wetlands, as classified by species composition and
hydrologic characteristics, will be categorized by functions they
provide. The Work Group will utilize the information collected and
provided by the DWD and USGS to identify the representative wetland
types. Representative wetland types are defined to have similar
species composition and hydrologic regimes (such as maintained by
surface water or ground water) . The Work Group will determine, based
4-95
on field visits to the representative wetlands, what functions they are
supporting. ES will document this analysis and incorporate it into the
entire wetland impact analysis.
In addition to the two wetland area evaluation criteria used in
technical appendix 4 of the SEIS (appendix B), the following criteria
will be reviewed by the Work Group for the site-specific analysis:
Criterion Unit of Measure
Costs of wetland mitigation/enhancement
measures. dollars
Acres of wetland mitigation required. acres
ES will perform the evaluation criteria analysis for the technical
appendix 4 reports.
Report Preparation
Technical appendix 4 of the S/SSEIS, as prepared by ES, will
include the following information: (1) baseline wetland resources
reports of the project areas, including the data collected by the USGS
in the Williams Fork basin; (2) incorporation of additional study
results, if available (such as Homestake II) ; (3) assessments of
project construction and operational impacts on wetlands; (4) plans for
mitigating impacts; and (5) costs for implementing mitigative actions.
The schedule of activities for wetlands is provided in figure
4.16.
4-96
m
z
L
d
n k
m
z
0
CU
A0 W
CO
CT G
L i CO
h
O
U
q
0
2
L
U
O
a)
N
141
iv
CL
11111//1 11;
rti
y
41/111 44
111 in
cn 111111111:1;LIZ
,7 U
Vti CO I)
.-I r q
a ro q q q q G q q c.9 cA c9 Gl 3 3 3 3 - '--- 2 O a9 c.9 3 6' 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
C G) CI 10 = q q (=lap G CO CO y N an 7n q q an CO !n In ni cn
0 .7 W W W W W W W I W W W W W W
H
W
L
u +4 G .& o al G rI .-
0Ul in a) W m .Y 'V a) 00 $4 ro E +I 0
•n,-I L , 0 a) G ri ,:,i rl W .0 'o m ui m W
CO ,Y •V O L rl 10 L O rl m a) li .O O G U L CO
?' O (1) G r1 .Y L al L G 0 44 CO E •.i 0 m 0 L L U m 0 m L L L L L L
ii O H m U L Pi L C) m W .0 'a7 al W N W rI 3 N (1) .0 .G L E - - - - - -
o s... co E r4 0 LI rl m G a) L m LI H W 1k O O O 'V 'V 'V 'V 'o 'V
W .0 •0 N w 0 W L L a) L 0 L 34 al 0 0 0) > CO 'V 'V 'V 'V 'V 'V
O am+ w ill cl o U wo U •.Nib EI co w O cOGO Sa 0 3 0 d 0 0 m 0 m m 44-1 b d 6 6 d d
3 CO a) .C .G L E L .H .i C) 0) C) Cl O O
H W W Cl C) (7 3 L al m rl 'V 4+ 4+ L 4i L ii la O >+ G G G C G G G G m G .Y G G G T) G
.C I I I I I I I It . 0 m a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 bO 0 00000 O rI .Y •.i 0 •.i a) •rl C •.4 ri •-4
CO m CO a1 m m m .C LLI > 4-1 mu. wILw We w w 'G 0 •.i -el •.i •.i •rI LI +i E Pe 0 E L e Me U E
G 'o 'V 'V 'V 'V 'V Tl C) O G+ W I) T Li L L L L 4- L L ii 0 3+ L L m H E L Ti 4.
Cnn ..Oi N cad N a co co N m ,d W O a P.LI CD DI V)
G a 0. a x G G G G G G C 4)04 W 4-, N Y C +Hi U CO-+ Cl +4-I L i y
d L Li ri LI ri Li ri .-i al L E cd N m m n1 m •0 7 7 7 7 0 7 7 m O V L U L v N O 10 al C
H •r• 0 a) N al CU U a) G G LO C) 'V O Z Z Z X Z X Z N S W W W W W W W g E-4 W q LW Q ,C U Q U
44 3333 333 4-4 LI ml 0 >, >. >4 >, >-. L 'ov 'CI 'o 'V "0 HO ^ ^ ^ - ^
co a s - a a a a a)claw =+a CO I H M M M -i n-ii T E N t0a c0a 0 C el ca O I o I o o I 0 I o
al 0 m m 0 m a3 0 W N 10 U LI L L L L 4+ H L coa) r1 ri ri ,--1 .-I ri ri ' 'LV •c ~O tot Co'V • Tl CO-0 CV
q £ XXX ZZZ L G a> > co > > > a) CC N N N aa)) N aa)) N x•.Gi .2'Ti 40 S •.Gi C•r-i ^0 •.G+ w.,CH
w w w w w w w 1 3 0 L m 'o >,3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a a a
a) C) 0.^ u Z 'V 'V 'v 'o 'c 'V 'o •.i en CO - CO a Co a ao -.. CO CC a
r. L L L L L L L •n•r1 a) rl rl LI rl .-I ri Li > ri .i ri ri .-I ri ri CMG MG It OM G 0 C It
ro cd CO It CO It N 0 > L L I .-i a) a) a) a) a) a) a) 0 - a) It N V It V cE -- Z •.i £ -el £ •-.. X M £ -.i i
.0 .0 .G -0 .0 F L 4, a) a) al ri •.i -1 +i •ri •-1 H M N ri > P. P. > > > > m U m CO m Ul
CJ 0 0 0 0 U U P. C Vl cn d W W W W W W W 0. d W W W W W W W C O a 5 a
O ri N cn d vl 4.0 CO Cr, O rt N M S Ln •0 t` CO Cn O L N r1 -Y v1 ‘0 n Co C' C Li N r1
0 0 0 0 0 C O G O O O .-I ri .i ri ri .~ .-y .-I ri ri N N N N N N N N N N en r1 c't en
2 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
✓ ri .r .-1 ri .i rl .-1 .-I .i r-I .-I r1 r• r-I .-i rr r1 r i .-v .-I r1 r rl r r r - .-I r1 i ri .-I r r-
Co
co
Z
w
a
d
w
Co
z
0CU
L ti:
10 Oz.
CO c 'L Y ..
ti A �:,:
J
U
o h
al k> , J
O
z
cu
a _
cru
c a
r "' ,..
C
� t`�Y +µ•3F' ..,_�
C
C
I-)
'0 w
c 0.
o d
C)
v w
al
z
• A
al O11
1 CO W
c .
W ri Co
X co
a I-)
U
FI
W v U
co O
a
a)
O U U U U U U U U CDOCDUCD U 000
'C 3 Ca3 C3 (0 C0 4a C] co co co cn3 33 3333 33 33 33 33 3 co U co Pcru ak)co U W v) CO P-10
W
C 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 CD U W W �� ���� W W W P W W W W W W 0
O Cl) L] Ca Ca Ca C] (0 W CO CO CO Cr) Cl) CO V) V) CO V) CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO U
tl W D D W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
X
mX v a
0 CO X '0 X O G r1
Or. X O U C r1 X W O rI C O u
w O rI C U w 0 X 'O O H C a •'1 X X i w
Cl) O I.) C E -H 0 X 0 U C rl X %_ o w 'O C w U) w w w0
E w 'o C w C W w O rl C U w v ca C U u C C 0.
•. 3 oJ G a) Co O w ca E •'-1 0 O U w al ca O to rn a w
C o a. w U C 0 O W y b a) W C W C 3 C U F .G w E E U K
ICNX 'o a C, 3 a a) •cC w E E rn m ❑ a) cO GHW WUUU3 30.'
no X X O U C r X C C o C F+ W UUU 3 001. 3. 00300001 w U C o O C C 1 I I I 1 I II W
d 1.. Y. O ,--I0 a) w o ca u 0)O 3 r ar t w s ri v v d a s d
O O w C E +. 00. 1-a WI I I 1 1 1 1 ++ E-I W W O U U U 3 a e.
U W W A v w N W c U U0 u X X X X X X X X X C
w Co
C C C U m .C U a 1. .l u u .1 u u a w w w w w w w u Fi F H Fi E-4 H F F m >
+. VI O L w O C 0 C (11 X V) O o D U U U U U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •'I C Cv
E E 3 C U •c .C w E C w p a C C C C C C C w w w w 111 w w Z Co Co Co CO C co C C E-I
C w0 F W W U V U 3 0 0 a a a a a a fn G Y 1J Y 11 L Y L .1
O U •ri +i 3 G v E E E E E E E E 1J O C C w C C C C C C C C O .r7
m •,-I .i.. rI Co 14 u .1 41 Co 11 44O U I-1 I-1 1-I H H H H G •M C G C C C G C C C C C G O O C7 G] 0 q C] 00 u a
d u w rl C C C C C C C C O C O Co C C C C C C C w
[-i a ca ,. rI .1 u C v v v 'C COC E C ri r, r+ .-I .i r-i rI 'C C C C C C C C y c
•'I 3 ft CO CO CO a0 CO POW w l C C C C C G C NCO w a w w W P. a C G C G C G G G C -..1-
1. ^ C C G C G G C FL C 01 a1 C C C C ca C C ..1 440000000M 0.
U O I •M N +. M •r. •-I +i 0 a CO r1 r-1 r-I r1 H r1 ry a) .J Y Y 4-I L .H L L N .ti rl r1 ry r1 rl r-i r1 G 11
C w a a a a a a a O J V)W U L .J 1.1 U L1 }1 m i. 4F-1 4,1'. ., .H y.I H O y y4-i y 1 CJ 1,I yJ N H W
U IC a P. C1 a s a C. . w Co CC O O O V U O U C Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z U U U U U U U O U C
A TG C ro ca al C m Co (0 '0 Co = 333333 3d 3333333 3 U
P. S 4-1 10+ 1.1 C C C C C C C 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a a a a R. a y O
00 ai U Y 1..1 .1 .! a. Y a) C •.i U) N N N U) to (n CI r1 r1 r1 r1 'i r� ri r-. 1--I w w w w w w w 1. �.,1
G C ^ w Cr) a E U O D U O U O .r1 O O D U O O U O U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
+. Z 'd 'O 'O .0 'C7 'U .o C O U .0 C C C C C U C > > > > > > > > > > U U U U U C00 V U
M4
C 'O 'O •C 'C 'd 'U .L w w C C C C C C C C U U O U O O O O D U G G G C C 0 C 001-
0. d d d d d d d U W a N d d d d d d d IX 000 000 q 0 01-. I-. F-I I-I I-I I-. H 1-I U '4
1
--1 :V) d t` CC an O r-1 N <h 11'1 .O rd -.t Cr) O .-I N c'1 dC .O n co L O .-i N M LE)c .O ro c rn O r. h�
0 N c'1 m cra c'1 M -1 v - v N N -1 �1 + J ul LriN v1 v) CV
v1 ✓1 L.nN v) v) .O )O .D )O )O .D .D N )G IC N t` I"--
Z
N 4V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N .1 N N NIN N N N N N N N N N N N N NICV N NI4l
r-. I-1 rI rti r-4 r1 r-i r1 r-I r1 T-4 r-1 .-I r1 ,-4 rl rl N rl r-I r1 rI rl I-I rI .-11,-1 .-1 rl r1 rr r-I rl ^i i.--1 V-. 4-
SOCIOECONOMICS
Objective
The objective of the socioeconomic analysis is to identify the
effects of construction and operation of the alternative projects on
the local and regional socioeconomic setting.
The site-specific alternatives are located in two general socio-
economic areas. Information and analysis needs are presented under
two categories of alternatives: South Platte storage alternatives and
Williams Fork alternatives. Individual site-specific projects are
mentioned in the work description only if they have additional work
requirements that differ significantly from those listed in the parent
category. This is the same approach that was utilized in the presenta-
tion of the socioeconomic data base and potential impacts for the
preliminary draft of technical appendix 4 for the systemwide analysis.
Data Collection
Identification of Data Gaps. The socioeconomic information base
and impact analyses in the above document addressed the following
topics:
1. Economic base (employment, income, retail sales) ,
2. Selected economic groups (recreational expenditures, crop
values, timber production) ,
3. Community infrastructure and public finance (housing, sales
and property tax revenues, utility costs) ,
4. Demographic and social characteristics (population change,
housing and business relocation), and
5. Land use (lands acquired by project , adjacent land use
changes, relocation of utility corridors, changes in land value) .
A major portion of the data base may be applicable to the develop-
ment of the site-specific evaluations of socioeconomic impacts for the
S/SSEIS. However, there are areas where information (1) is needed on
smaller geographic units, (2) will have to be updated due to recent
developments in the site—specific areas, or (3) has to be disaggregated
to a more detailed level. One of the first activities of the Work
Group will be to review the existing data base and determine supple—
mental data requirements.
South Platte Storage Alternatives. The initial information
gap is the definition of the area of socioeconomic influence for each
site—specific alternative. The three levels of socioeconomic impact
4-99
area definition in the case of South Platte Storage alternatives are:
(1) the area of inundation; (2) the immediate vicinity of the project;
and (3) the broader geographic area which could be significantly
affected by the proposed project. The immediate project vicinity
encompasses population centers where construction workers might live or
where recreational visitors might purchase goods or services. The
broader geographic area would consist of: (1) those counties and
school districts whose public sector finances could be affected; (2)
those more distant areas which will provide the project work force; (3)
areas where Front Range recreational visitors will likely come from;
and (4) areas affected by hydrologic changes to the proposed develop-
ment, including Boulder, Grand, and Summit Counties. The impact area
for each project will be defined by the Work Group.
The second information gap concerns characterization of the areas
to be inundated or acquired for project facilities. One type of needed
information is the specific acreage of each type of land use that will
be covered by water. The economic value of the land and its uses will
be identified. The relocation impacts on households, businesses, and
other structures will be defined in terms of types, individuals, and
economic worth. Settlement or relocation costs will be identified as
well as available housing for relocation.
Additional and more detailed information is needed on the social
and economic features of the area bordering the reservoir and other
project facilities. Land use changes due directly or indirectly to the
location of project features need to be forecast. Since numerous
socioeconomic impacts are derived from the labor force needed for
project construction, specific data are needed on the size and timing
of the construction force. Data are needed on what portion of this
force will be supplied by the resident labor pool and what portion will
be acquired from remote labor pools.
Further, projection of expenditures of recreational visitors in
the area surrounding the reservoir must be made along with estimates of
existing facilities and services to meet the increased demand.
The third information gap area concerns remote social and economic
resources that are likely to be affected by the new reservoir project.
The draw of recreational visitors from alternative recreational areas
such as Dillon Reservoir must be estimated. Baseline information on
existing water-based recreational areas near the project site will be
profiled in terms of land use and revenues.
Finally, existing and future land use plans for the reservoirs and
vicinity must be obtained.
4-100
Williams Fork Alternatives. There are relatively few gaps in
the existing social and economic resource data base. Due to the
smaller scale of these alternatives, the lack of major reservoir
development, and near wilderness setting of these projects, the range
of potential impacts is relatively limited.
More detailed information is needed on the following topics:
1. Type, frequency, and routes of construction equipment and
worker traffic;
2. Manpower requirements for construction and location of labor
pools likely to supply needed workers;
3. Loss of various acreages due to facility construction;
4. Possibility of additional use of project site environs due to
access roads created by the project;
5. The ability of local infrastructure (roads, housing, ser-
vices) to meet project demands during construction; and
6. Operational effects of the Moffat Tunnel system on selected
Grand County community infrastructures.
Studies Required to Fill Data Gaps. A listing of the specific
activities and studies that will be conducted to obtain the above
needed data are listed under the alternatives categories. The fol-
lowing activities will be conducted by the DWD. Information devel-
opment from these studies will be reviewed and discussed by the Work
Group, with ES participation.
South Platte Storage Alternatives.
1. Mapping of land uses and identification of structures in
inundation areas will be conducted.
2. The definition of the impact area in the immediate project
vicinity will be based in part on case studies of other water storage
projects in proximity to large metropolitan areas. A range of minimal
to heavy recreational use during operation will be provided by these
case studies, in keeping with the current recreational role of the
proposed South Platte storage projects. Reservoir projects expected to
be included are Pueblo, Dillon, Chatfield, Cherry Creek, Narrows,
Horsetooth, Granby, and Shadow Mountain.
3. An inventory of households and businesses in the inundation
area will be conducted to ascertain their socioeconomic characteristics
4-101
and the overall magnitude of impacts related to inundation. Season-
ality of use or activity will be a key concern.
4. A separate, abbreviated series of interviews will be con-
ducted with business representatives in the immediate vicinity of the
impact area. This effort will attempt to produce an inventory of
businesses by type, number of employees, total retail or commercial
sales, and capability of responding to demands associated with the
proposed water development project.
5. Interviews with county planning officials, assessor offices,
and town officials will be accomplished to properly characterize
socioeconomic conditions and future impacts in the immediate vicinity
and regional setting of the project.
6. Field research will be conducted to document the extent of
human activity in reservoir inundation areas and the availability of
housing and other community services in communities likely to exper-
ience project-related growth. This growth might stem from construction
activities or recreational amenities after the reservoir is opera-
tional. Specifically, the extent and nature of urban development that
will be affected, either directly or indirectly, by reservoir develop-
ment will be quantified. Real estate developers active in the area
will be contacted for this information.
7. Estimates of potential changes in current property value and
property tax receipts will be collected.
8. Field work will be performed to identify potential service
delivery problems, such as inadequate road networks or housing supply.
9. Information on the range of the potential recreation effects
will be reviewed and appropriate costs and revenue standards will be
applied to determine the cost/benefit of recreational changes. The
past experience of other reservoir-based recreation facilities in the
Denver region will provide insight into the potential impact of a new
East Slope storage reservoir complex.
10. An analysis of project work force requirements, labor force
migration patterns, and existing and proposed transportation networks
will be collected and utilized to determine the potential effect of the
proposed project on local transportation costs and road system ade-
quacy.
11. The regional socioeconomic impact analysis will include the
South Platte River downstream from Denver and the Blue River basin
between Dillon and Green Mountain Reservoirs. Agricultural concerns on
4-102
the East Slope include effects on agricultural production. West Slope
issues include recreation and water/wastewater.
Williams Fork Alternatives. The following activities will be
conducted by the DWD and provided to the Work Group for review and
comment.
1. The components of the economic base analyses for Summit,
Grand, and Boulder Counties, which include data on housing, community
infrastructure, economic development, income, employment, and projected
growth, will be updated and analyzed.
2. Discussions will be conducted with knowledgeable local
officials in order that greater detail than that reflected in the
previous analyses can be developed.
3. Water demands on the West Slope will be evaluated as part of
site-specific studies, since competition for water resources is
recognized as an issue. Population centers, agriculture, and indus-
tries within the defined areas of socioeconomic influence (including
Grand and Boulder Counties) , will be addressed. West Slope growth
projections for each impacted population center in these counties will
be applied to an appropriate per capita usage figure. Future demands
will be compared with supplies, both with and without the proposed
Williams Fork development alternatives to the extent data are available
or reasonably developed.
Analysis to be Conducted
The socioeconomic analysis will be conducted by the DWD.
South Platte Storage Alternatives. Plans for project development,
including construction and operation, applied to baseline information
for the project area will provide the basis for assessing impacts on
the socioeconomic environment. The SEIS evaluation criteria (appendix
B) will be reviewed and, if necessary, modified by the Work Group, then
applied in greater geographic specificity, e.g. , on a municipal or
county-wide basis as well as a regional basis (both East and West
Slopes) . The impact analysis will be conducted recognizing the range
of potential impacts stemming from each alternative development.
Preconstruction, construction, and operation stages will be
recognized individually. Utilizing the "without project" and "with
project" projections, the effects of the project on socioeconomic
conditions will be defined.
The analysis will identify and quantify each project's impacts on
community infrastructure, economic growth, leisure opportunities,
displacement of people, aesthetic values, public sector costs and
4-103
revenues, land use, other business activity, and other water users.
The financial effects of the project costs will be addressed. Speci-
fically, effects on rate-payers and overall requirements will be
examined for the period of project operation. The ability of users to
pay for the project will not be examined.
In addition, the impact of the North Fork or South Platte storage
projects on the West Slope (because West Slope diversion is necessary
to provide water) will be analyzed and addressed. For example, the
socioeconomic effects of Dillon Reservior levels or streamflow changes
on the Blue River downstream from Dillon Reservior and/or the South
Platte River downstream from the metropolitan sewage outfall associated
with East Slope storage will be examined. The analysis will be based
on hydrologic data to be provided by the DWD. The purpose is to
identify the magnitude of socioeconomic impacts which might occur.
The final analysis prepared by the DWD will describe the effects
of the various alternative plans in quantitative terms. Where this
cannot be done, effects will be defined in a qualitative, descriptive
manner. The evaluation criteria will be used to place values on the
significant adverse as well as beneficial effects of the East Slope
storage projects. Assumptions or criteria upon which judgments will be
made will be clearly stated. Public policy, community preferences, and
the magnitude and degree of severity of impact are factors that will be
considered in the evaluation process.
Means of mitigating significant negative impacts will be identi-
fied and evaluated. Cost ranges for implementing mitigation plans,
operations, and monitoring will be developed.
Williams Fork Alternatives. The impact assessment process will
focus on the direct impacts of project development and associated work
force migration and the impacts of land inundation and pipeline con-
struction. Additional analysis will look at the secondary effects of
project development, including the effects of reduced streamflows.
The evaluation criteria defined in the previous analyses (appendix
B) will be used to allow comparative review of alternative projects.
Possible means of mitigating impacts will be identified and costs for
implementing, operating, and monitoring mitigation plans will be devel-
oped.
Report Preparation
A socioeconomic technical report will be prepared by the DWD and
reviewed by the Work Group with ES participation. The socioeconomic
report will be edited or rewritten as necessary by ES for incorporation
in the overall technical appendix 4. ES also will verify the informa-
tion as it is incorporated. The contributions to the technical
4-104
appendix developed by ES will consist of the following principal
components:
1. A profile of socioeconomic conditions in the affected area,
including projections of future conditions both with and without the
proposed project.
2. Identification of significant impacts, including their
causitive factors, related to the construction and operation of the
project.
The socioeconomic activities necessary to accomplish the above
scope of work are listed and scheduled in figure 4.17.
4-105
cc
Z
I•
a.
0
.O
W
I
In u
u l IV kt,
o 1/41 us
1 . '_ ..
to w N • i -:00 r N C-7 , J S:r •ix_ k.. ..-, . , I
41 0 uti ..P ..1 4
. -i 1 .
lc
CD Cl.
a 111.4
W .a , •
U CCo W 1
cn ON
Ja W
r, "60 0C70C700C70AAAA AA AA AA AV AAAA AA Acn CnCD AAA cncncn O1 cn cnrn cn
rl al 3333333333333 333333 3 3333 33341 413 333W ;4'W :4W 4141 c3.t
aJ A A A A A A A A AAA cn A A A AAAA A A A
7 ..4 W
W
.'7 0 C4•r1 +J C m .x •C7 C7
I—I u L+ -r1 A Li, ctl C Cl) J.+ aL ?+ 0 r♦ a) m >•+
W c0 r1 0 m U U m rl 0 .-- .. u H 0 I. as •,-1 E 0
b C 0 0 •.c ri ,—I «♦ Cl. U U ++ >, I+ I+ 0 0 W Jl 'No w m m 4.
O 44.4 .4-4 >, on E -4 0 m c.., rl o u iJ >, 0 0 ,•1 S>:.. c0 C a a) m
O U bO L O •,1 Cl) r-I v7 c0 •••♦ 0 +.J [i, W P+ 0 l+ Ia c0 C l 0 m
0 •rI a) •••I C 0 U000 o U Pau -O TI G O ••-I 0 m 3 m a) .C •C 1.+ E rJ
H > w co a) rl o w O •,•I O W C rI rl 0 0 o m • G H 41 G,. U CJ C,
N r1 rl I■ E 0 sti cn U E w a) O U Et aJ •,•I •.11 3 E I 0
L+ 1•+ >•+ U U 00 < 0 41 Cl) +1 0 U Cl) G •,1 a) u v aD H 3 �t -- - I - 0.
O 0 0'rl r1 al 0 ). a$ E 0 I •.1 O H > C4 •,-1 •.1 a) 1. I.+ CJ
w w t1. cn > 04 u 0 •a w of O O .O I I ILO > PC P W 0 0 04
C.) U U G U U3 C U cC a •d a) a) CO 0 0 w w m H H H H H H F,
0 0 01 Si I+ 1.4 C0 C0 W +J H •-I .'7 O W 1-1 c0 C C L L +J I I I m tiW w G ,T
aJ a1 a) O O O a) a. I U ,G U w >•+ CO O J,1 +-I U •.i 0 0 c0 C 0 G 0 0 0 0
W >•+ S., tiH w w WE Cl) a) E CL•G W •1 C a...7 •-I MOW .-e x .-NL m Cl) m CO Cl) .1 r •.1 •rI •.1 -,-I -1 •,-i .1
•G •G d AC H -' ra E co c a) 1--1 0 U ,-•l r-I r♦ 44 41 4 >, a) a m .1 .-I w m
ca ca ca c0 O 0 1a M I V) Ell U 4. 0. w r♦ m m G w w ca ca RI CO N c0 c0 C0
W W a) a) a) W O MG) to Q 00 4 E a) W co m m c0 >. 0 G i a-1 u J-+ u N H
C U U U I-I S. I•+ UT) CO O C0 C0 EA c0 .1 • • • E E E G .1 r♦ •r+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 c0 C0 C0 C0
4 O m co o .< c0 m a a) a a) E w4-1 u O 4-J ,H toV) VJ333d ca c04-+ O O •,1AAAAAC] A O
cn rI a. a a. a sa 1.1 a+ U i+ 0) U 03 00 I Cl) 0 0) G C a. rI -.i JJ 1J
< U E E E +-1 1., +-1 5 o < U 4-J4-IA 4-IAA I A 0 m C C 0 0 0 0 u < < 0 1.1 +-, C0 — C G C G 0 0
H a•1-a 1-a 1•-I t) U U I-I .-1 Cl) 0 C0 0 C0 ca Cl) --I •.I •.-I '-I •.1 •,-I U O N 0 o I o 0 0 0 0 :-,
•r{ c0 c0 0 0 U •--I H r-I a ,--i .l •_C u L aL c0 in Cl) L L 0 p0 •.1 U U U U U U OO
Ia a) a) a) P. CL CL. CL U U w w w +J w W W c0 c0 4. +-I m m m co m m C- U u 0 ri -,-1 J.+ 41 W i 41 k W 41 W I:a O,
o +J +J u E E E 0 m U A Q Cl) C0 L 1-4 +J +.., U +.J E C0 Cl) -,1 JJ 4.J •r1 \\ICI\\'\ \ C
m 4.-$ A+ U H H H .—I G • • • O • E E a A u U U U U U U H a• J-+ •.1 ••-C l X U U U U U I U� U -
000000000 E E c0 Z Z 0 0 0 0 0 1 0; 0 E
A .1 ra r♦ a) I-I P. W 44 a) A a. a. a. O. C1. W I-a H op a) cn cn to cn cn'cn k cn U.
w w w W W W +-) +.J L +-J 1-1 1-+ 4-1 +-J +J 0000004-4 •.4 a.' +.J L I
CI) CO CO U U U • U U U E E U a) 3 H H H I-, H H a) >, U 0, 0 a) a. aJ a. a. 0, w
• a E E a) c0 a a) cu a) cn a) v a) 3 3 a) .-I a) ,-I ti-, w •.i r-i I.1 ,--I I.+ I- I. 1.+ 0 1.. I.. ,--1,
En U) a] 3 3 3 3 41 ••I ,- -t .1 .-c .-I .-i .--1 (D.•r1 •-I -4 .i rc .-1 .-J a. rl •,•,i X WI a) a. 0 0 0 o r-, o O
w r♦ .1 r♦ ,—I r♦ ,—I r♦ r♦,r♦ , I E > al Mal N C0 al E 1.+, I , >Ii > E U U U U U U U O
A A A A A A A A A U COJ U 0 V V U °I V V COJ OU4 ) W W W W Ii) V >> Q A A C.) I-I I-I I I-II I-1 I-, ►,-,00 I-1101
O ,--i Non u-i ,D CO C, O .-i N on ,T tin ,Dr. 00 CT O .--. N c•1 - tits ,O r- co C, O ..-I cv on 7 tifl',D r... 00 C, C
0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,--4 .-{ ,--1 r+ .-I .-i ,•-i .-a .-I .-4 N N N N C') N N O4 N N Cl on C', C) O1 Cl cn on Cl Cl -7 -:
Z O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O C 0 O O O C C C O CD ED O O O O O C O CD C IC
I
TRANSPORTATION
Objectives
The inundation, rerouting, and increased use of portions of the
regional and local transportation network due to construction of water
supply facilities, as well as site-specific short-term and long-term
access and circulation requirements, dictate that a thorough review of
regional and site-specific transportation needs be undertaken. Thus,
required improvements to the regional and local transportation network;
potential impacts that may be encountered in construction of improve-
ments; and possible mitigation measures to alleviate the identified
impacts will be developed. In addition, the costs of providing the
needed transportation improvements, including potential mitigation
measures, will be estimated for each site-specifc project.
It is anticipated that no more than two specific corridor alter-
natives or combinations of corridor alternatives will require analysis
at each project site.
Data Collection
The following information, already developed by the DWD and con-
sultants, is necessary to assess appropriate transportation infra-
structure needs, both regionally and on a site-specific basis:
▪ Roadway network inventory,
▪ Facility capacities/conditions,
▪ Existing travel times/distances,
• Existing traffic counts,
• Local operational problems,
▪ Topography,
• Soils,
Hydrology, and
Wildlife patterns
In addition, other area-wide and site-specific information to be
provided by the DWD is necessary to evaluate both regional and local
transportation needs. This information would include:
Anticipated regional growth and development plans,
Trail network inventory,
Land ownership,
Anticipated land use/intensity
-Recreation
-Commercial
-Private,
Fire/forest access road requirements,
Utility corridors,
r
Anticipated construction staging scenarios,
4-107
• Recreational travel forecasts for each impoundment site,
• Origin and destinaton date for recreational trips, and
▪ Alternative recreational opportunity plans for each impound-
ment site.
Identification of Studies Required to Fill Gaps . Except for
recent DWD efforts to develop potential alignments for roadways
required to replace existing roadways that would be inundated (mostly
in the vicinity of the proposed Two Forks project) , little analysis
effort has been undertaken to date to identify the transportation needs
for the proposed developments. Therefore, a transportation infra-
structure needs analysis, both on a regional and site-specific basis,
will be accomplished by the DWD. A route location/alternative analysis
for each specific water source will be undertaken by the DWD in order
to address new or replacement transportation facilities.
Those facilities identified as needing upgrading will also be
evaluated by the Work Group with respect to potential impacts and
possible mitigation measures. Finally, conceptual drawings of both new
and upgraded facilities will be developed by the DWD; and an evaluation
of the potential impacts , construction feasibility, and costs of
providing the needed transportation infrastructure on a site-specific
basis will be done by the DWD.
Analysis to be Conducted
A transportation infrastructure needs analysis will be undertaken
by the DWD to identify those facilities, both regionally and locally,
that require relocation and/or upgrading. In addition, new site-
specific facilities may be required to provide access to specific
recreational development sites, private lands, temporary construction
access and forest access . This analysis by the DWD requires the
utilization of both existing and future regional growth patterns, in
conjunction with facility construction needs and anticipated future
local land use and intensity. Short-term and long-term forecasts of
both regional and local travel demands will be developed by the DWD
based on proposed recreational opportunities at each project site.
Baseline regional travel projections will also be developed by the DWD
to delineate those regional transportation network improvements
necessary to accommodate the proposed sites. These travel projections
will then be assigned to the roadway network available after project
completion in order to identify deficiencies in the network.
Both regional and site-specific accessibility will be evaluated by
the DWD. This will include a regional and local capacity/operations
analysis to identify any improvements required to remaining roadway
facilities after project construction and future alternative access and
through routes deemed necessary. Temporary construction period access
needs will also be identified by the DWD.
4-108
A route location/alternative analysis will be undertaken by the
DWD for those existing facilities identified as requiring relocation or
new facilities in the transportation needs analysis. This effort will
include the identification of the most likely corridor for each
facility. This work effort can be accomplished utilizing an "oppor-
tunity overlay technique" in conjunction with an alternative evaluation
matrix methodology.
A preliminary impacts analysis for the identified potential
corridor and roadway required to meet network needs, including right-
of-way required, construction feasibility, visual intrusion, potential
environmental concerns, and socioeconomic factors will then be under-
taken by the Work Group and consultants responsible for each element of
work, as explained in the sections for each discipline. In addition,
existing facilities that are identified in the needs analysis as
requiring upgrading will be evaluated by the Work Group with respect to
the level of upgrading required and the potential environmental and
other impacts of these facility modifications. For all sensitive areas
within the corridors, potential cost-effective impact mitigation
measures will be identified by the Work Groups and consultants.
Prior to writing the final EIS, the COE will make a determination
of the need for more detailed evaluation of identified alternatives.
This is currently not within this scope of work. This might require a
refinement of the new potential roadway alignments, which will include:
preparation of conceptual designs; roadway operations/ safety analyses;
identification of visual intrusion and environmental impacts, including
impacts to air quality, noise (particularly during construction), and
wildlife; and a more detailed cost estimate of those new facilities
deemed necessary. For those facilities identified as merely requiring
upgrading, this analysis would also include the addition of roadway
user impacts. Temporary construction traffic needs would likewise be
evaluated. Staging of improvements relative to the immediate and
long-term access needs would also be evaluated.
Report Preparation
The technical appendix 4 reports will be developed from three
specific work products. The first will be a DWD summary of the
findings of the transportation infrastructure needs analysis. This
will include regional and site-specific recommendations to accommodate
anticipated through movement and access needs. In addition, regional
needs strictly associated with these proposed developments will be
identified by the DWD. Included in these recommendations will be
probable corridor locations, facility types required, language require-
ments, and facility design standards necessary to meet agency require-
ments having jurisdiction in the study area.
4-109
The second work product will be a DWD summary of the route
location/alternative analysis undertaken for new facilities identified
in the needs analysis. In addition, a summary of the preliminary
evaluation of those facilities merely requiring upgrading for temporary
construction period facilities will also be provided. Also included in
this product will be a series of recommendations of corridors for
further evaluation.
The final work product will summarize the corridor analysis;
provide conceptual drawings for each type of roadway analyzed; and
include a summary of the findings of the analyses. These summaries
will be presented in sufficient detail regarding potential impacts and
costs to be appropriate for inclusion in any overall project benefit/
cost or feasibility analyses that may be desired. Also included in
this final product could be a series of specific recommendations,
including a staging implementation plan of transportation improvements
for each site-specific impoundment facility or groups of specific
facilities. In addition, the various permits and processes necessary
to implement these improvements will be identified.
The DWD will furnish each of the three work products described
above. ES will review these products, in conjunction with the Work
Group, and shall incorporate all work into the Task 4 technical
appendix report for each project.
The transportation impact analysis activities are listed and
scheduled in figure 4.18.
4-110
T
CO
2
H
d
d
r 44
z
a:
a
.D W
co
a+ C •
H %i
U
a) •
co
D 1e,
O _
2 e^ -
Y
U
O O
al
z oo - h
off ¢ -EH
a -, k .: nn r
Poi C :y - ?�
PI C
g2 "7 .- `t. r
T '+S > z�•:
Pi Z Gr
O H
w d S
W
a H
o CO
Z
W �x
--gym L t
v
w m w .
rn
>i
H
H
E S U
U W O
d - A
A
CO H m 3
H. va = A AA Fl1333 00000A AA 0003 000000000(OAP 33 3333 Ncn
S G333333333 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 33333333333333333333333 .331.033473341
a) F10000 A A A A 3030 A A A AAA A A A A A A A A A A'O o A A A AAA CO
W a V U
a
o v x
CD H C O al x
W ro c o a) x 4) x 'i ro O r-1 H '0 x
E H ro O Y x14 H0) CO 0 xi.
al o ri N Y • W W ) co p C W H N •C x
x M E E 1.4 000111 Y C a) N ) b O x H C O al x O +. E H ro O
W W CO N40 b W H 0. 0 ro al O Y H N 0. H V E O H H •C o W Li-. N N L •C w
Y a) N co C W G' 3 L L H N a) E O O M E H ca O Y .-ROC)O - 1' Y al N C C
O co co Y H E F U U V W W 3 W w w Wan 'O in W 1.4 U N Os H O cciC C O Y H CO
H
-i L -clam ar E • N Y N ro G N 0, •- E H RI o 3 L L H N C.)
E U U U W W 3 rn •� N N N N H N N CO 0 N a) Y H O CO a) CO N W N ID •C N w 1 10 1 1 W a.I 'I
CO M M M M •.i •(0 M M H L L N al H E v' % Y a) <a C N I I I 1 1
H .CC H H H H H H T N Cl) CO co N N > N E U U W 30 3 FL 0 H C O Y H 0 H S S S S S S S
> N ro GM ro Mcia> H TT T TT TT •44 Ot •C co a) H 9
H) 7 '7 > > > > ro H H H H H H H H co N co N N N N Dal Y W U V W W U 3 H x x x H x x
W W W W W W W W G MG G G N G ro C Ma l + O •.i CO M M •.i M a H F F F F F F
d C G G G C G C G N N N co N N N N 0 O H H H H H H
'a) b b 'C b b b b d d d d d 6 6 6 T T T T T T 3 -I D 0 0 0 O N N N co N N CO
Q) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) co H H a) H H H H M = E W3 W W W W Y Y Y L Y Y Y
G v O a) a) m a) v co'C Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Lt ca re co ro 0 U U U U U U U
12 2 Z 2 2 2 Z Z O H H H H H H H H C C C Cd G G C G GIG C •.i c C C c C C r ctl m N m MGM
Ct V1 v d d d d d d d . d d d Y -1 ro ca ro ro ro -I a H E HlI E.
d Y o 0 0 0 0 o O D 2 m H H H 3 r-I3 H H a 8 E E H E E
F a d W W W W W W W c G G G J..) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 00 W P+ P� M w W w H H H H H H H
•.. G G C C G G G G Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D U U U U U O U Y •.i
H H H H H H H H H N •.i •M M •N vi W M M N co ro ro a1 aJ ro Ms, Y • • • • • N N N N co cc)C N
U to Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 0. E H a a a E 0 M Y Y •H Y Y Y -.J = C C C C C C
CO N Cl) N N N N N N H al co ro ro N N m U E E E E E E E E 0.2 .i rl .i M M M M ro CO CO t0 ca ti ro
CU C C G C C C C C W 00 U 00 C) U U H H H H H H H H (1) ZZ X X £ X y H H H H H H H
A et ca ca )cal4 ro ca N ro C 0 0 -1 -I -1 -1 -1 -1 y' T H F F F F H H
H H H H H H H H H a s a a a a a s C C E C E C C C1 H P. 0. 0. 0 0. a 0.
F F F F E E E H 8 E 8 E i E E 0) •m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a 0. J a
CO 0) al a) al ) O N U •.i M M H M M ' M 0) Y H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
'C 'C 'C C 'CO •C O C Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H H H H H H H H M C U > U al > N > 0 0 0 0 0 0 O I
C C G 1 G G C 0 G O a) a) O al a) U O CI Cu 0) > > C) C) > > C U 0000O U U U,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H H H H H H H v •C 0) al al a) a) a) L C C C G C C C,
0000c) 000H xmc[ 3a zcemaw CIO waaw axe-IAAAAAAnHH HHHF.. H
I
O -i N M S CrN. lb a) co -I Nn S V1 .D n WC O H Nn S N W C1 un .C - OH NMS un .ol- CC Cr,ICI
.
0000000 00000000000 H r-1 H .-1 H H HH HI--, N N NN NN N N NN mm mMmm mm m en.—I
2 rncn mmmn mm nn era en mm nmmen en on nmmm nm en on <nrn mm mnnm mn m cninI
N N N N N N N N N N 0IN N N N N N N N IN N N N N NN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I N I
RECREATION
Objectives
Although the proposed water development projects are not primarily
designed to provide recreation, the projects will probably incorporate
recreational features for one or both of the following reasons:
1. Replacement of recreation resources loss in the implementa-
tion of the proposed project; and
2. Provision of recreation resources in the proposed project
features to meet mitigation needs or to improve the general accept-
ability of a particular project.
Data Collection
Identification of Data Gaps. Data on existing recreational
resources and activities have been collected and analyzed for Task 4 of
the SEIS. Existing data on recreation are generalized information
gathered from regional forest management planning documents, State
plans, and planning objectives at a regional level. This information
has, to the extent practical, been disaggregated to subregional infor-
mation for the SEIS. Site-specific project analysis requires the
development of a more detailed level of data in the specific project
area. The recreation data needs are:
South Platte Storage.
1. Recreation by type of use on non-USFS lands within project
areas;
2. All recreation use data (RUD) by recreation activity, disaggre-
gated by use and, to the extent possible, by geographic area within each
project area;
3. Water-based recreational use of streams downstream from all
projects;
4. Determination of future recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS)
classes after the project is in place.
. Williams Fork System.
1. RUD by recreation activity, disaggregated by use and geographic
area within project area;
2. Determination of future ROS classes after the project is in
place.
".., Gross Reservoir.
1. Recreation use data for non-USFS lands in the study area;
4-112
2. RUD by recreation activity, disaggregated by use and geographic
area within project area;
3. Determination of future ROS classes after the project is in
place.
. Chatfield Lake.
1. Plans for replacement/relocation of facilities that will be
inundated;
2. Identification of changes in operation plan for reservoir.
. All Projects.
1. Projections (today and in 20 years) of recreation use by
activity without the project;
2. Description of recreation users, to the extent that existing
data are available, including point of origin, primary activity, reasons
for choosing the area, and other recreation areas used in the region.
3. Recreation facilities and use areas in and near each site-
specific project area, including location, facilities, recreation use
(identification of planned facilities will be required) .
Studies Required to Fill Data Gaps. The determination by the DWD
of recreation use of non-USFS lands will require an onsite survey for
each project area. Extensive participation of the USFS will be required
to project recreation use without the project from existing forest
management plans.
Where it is determined by the Work Group that a project would
affect downstream recreation use, a downstream recreation use survey
will require specific information on users of the stream corridor.
The collection of recreation facility data in the project area by
the DWD has involved contact with Federal, State, and local agencies,
and private organizations.
Analyses to be Conducted
Preproject Environment.
• Identify and Describe Recreation Use. Based on the assembled
data base, recreation use will be described by the DWD in terms of
recreation visitor days for each project area. Distribution of recrea-
tion use within each project area will be described in terms of RUDs for
the following project areas:
4-113
(1) South Platte storage projects,
(2) Williams Fork System projects, and
(3) Gross Reservoir Enlargement.
Recreation use will be identified by recreation activity defined in
the USFS resource information management (RIM) system.
Identify and Describe the Recreation Setting. The recreation
setting will be described by DWD in terms of the USFS ROS system for
classifying recreational lands in order to estimate impacts to the
recreation experience. ROS data for preproject conditions will be
refined by onsite inventories and ROS maps will be developed for each
project area based on survey data and onsite studies.
. Identify and Describe Recreation Users. Based on obtained
information, recreation users in the project area will be described by
the DWD. The following user information will be presented: (1) origin
of users, (2) primary activity participated in, (3) reason for using the
area, and (4) other favorite recreation areas in the region. An area of
influence in terms of recreation users will be identified for each
project area. It is anticipated that the area of influence for the
South Platte storage projects and Gross Reservoir will be a zone around
the Front Range area. For the Williams Fork projects, this area will be
the Williams Fork basin and the Blue River basin. The area of influence
will be based on user origins and will include other alternative
recreation areas in the region.
. Recreation Supply. Recreation facilities/opportunities in the
area of influence will be identified and described by the DWD using
SCORP in order to identify the recreation supply. This will be accom-
plished by contacts with Federal, State, local, and private entities.
Facilities and use areas to be identified include: reservoirs, fishing
streams, hiking/ climbing areas, camping areas, picnic areas and boating
areas. Data to be presented include: location/description of facili-
ties, recreation use in RUD if available, and potential for future use.
Planned areas (such as proposed ski areas, hiking trails, campgrounds,
and parks) and areas with potential for recreation use will be inven-
toried.
. Recreation Demand. Demand for recreation in the area of
influence will be identified by the DWD per SCORP for an agreed-upon
year of completion for each project. These dates will be the same for
all South Platte storage projects and both Williams Fork system pro-
jects. County population will be compiled. Recreation participation
rates for major activity categories (per capita) will be presented using
existing State and Federal data. Each recreation activity will be rated
r.... high, medium, or low in terms of recreation need, based on a comparison
of supply and demand.
4-114
. Projection of Recreation Use Without the Project. Utilizing
the description of recreation use for the existing conditions, recrea-
tion use without the project will be projected by the DWD for the
proposed year of completion for each project area. These data will be
developed in coordination with the USFS.
Postproject Environment.
. Recreation Plans. A range of recreation plans for each project
area will be identified for each project area by the DWD. The USFS
plans will be reviewed and summarized.
▪ Identify Changes to Recreation Use. The DWD impact assessment
will identify recreation activity days lost for each activity category
as a result of proposed projects. Potential increases in recreation use
as a result of proposed projects without mitigation will also be
developed. All presentations will use 1984 as the base year.
• Identify Changes to the Recreation Setting. Effects on the
quality of the recreation experience will be evaluated by the DWD,
utilizing the ROS for classifying recreational lands. The USFWS will
identify the number of acres of ROS-classified lands which no longer
meet certain ROS criteria for their current classification under the
current management plan.
Mitigation. The DWD, with the assistance of the Work Group, will
develop alternative mitigation plans and costs.
. Replaceability of Losses. The significance of project losses
and gains will be evaluated by comparing changes to recreation use with
recreation supply and demand data developed for the existing environment
in the area of project influence. Potential replaceability of lost
recreation activities will be identified.
. Enhancement. Mitigation measures will be developed for adverse
impacts resulting from site-specific projects. A method will be
developed a using visitation estimation equation with the following
data: (1) population of the county of origin of visitors, (2) travel
costs, (3) per capita income, (4) a gravity variable which utilizes data
from existing reservoirs, and (5) size of conservation pool. Projec-
tions will be made for the year of project completion and with various
levels of mitigation measures. Data will be disaggregated and plans
will be formulated by using recreation visitation and distribution data
from other reservoirs and by working with the USFS.
Recreation use projections for Gross Reservoir will be developed by
the DWD by projecting increases from existing use.
4-115
Mitigation plans developed for Williams Fork system projects will
be closely tied to visual resource mitigation measures, due to the
management objective of preservation of primitive recreation (see Visual
Resources).
The USFS will be actively involved in the development of recreation
mitigation. Based on the analysis of the project in place and existing
management plans, a determination will be made of whether the prescribed
ROS will be different. If changes are identified, the current recrea-
tion use anticipated under the existing management plan will change.
This will require that the DWD consider several alternative ROS con-
ditions as potential mitigation. The USFS will participate in the
development of alternative mitigation plans to satisfy ROS conditions
and consider their effects on potential changes in management plans.
Integral components of this analysis will be visual impacts and effects
on transportation systems.
The DWD will identify costs for each mitigation level for each
project. Costs will be estimated for the year of project completion
based on current dollars and will include construction, operation, and
maintenance costs.
. Evaluation Criteria. Evaluation criteria 1-10 developed for
use in the SEIS (appendix B) will be supplemented with the following
additional criteria:
Evaluation Criteria Unit of Measure
Total number of kinds of recreational
opportunities lost that are replaceable
within the region. number
Total recreation visitation to reservoirs
(mitigation levels 1, 2, 3) RUD
Report Preparation
Baseline information, impact identification and evaluation, and
potential mitigation in the site-specific project area will be incor-
porated into the technical reports by the DWD. ES will edit and rewrite
this information as necessary to incorporate it into technical appendix
4. ES will verify the information as it is incorporated. The activi-
ties for this work effort are scheduled in figure 4.19.
4-116
T
et
X
4
a
As,. 6
N
0
Z
.0
W
co
w
rn G
H co
n
O
W
A
o 1
O
z t
u p
0 N
v I
co
1 y 00 ,
Z 7 T
W
cG
n • 4 ;
5 )
4. as
Z t
W 4 ) - ir., :≥ }.
0 ¢ h "=a
\ WC
M..
0 Z
r
P
an _�
>4 Len W
F co W
F 0
H ~ N lIl
U
6 I
4.0 U
co W
- A ,___
--I __
N
\7 W
'0 0 U o o o U U Co o c o o U U U A A 0 0 A A A A A A 0 A A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000,0
41 m 333333333333333 ...+ 333333333333333333333 3313
a
o 0000000000000000000000000
F ca
a W - G 0 W CU L+
6 W co O H 0 H
4 ,1 E 4 GI 4 W a het I x
u W f4 10 .0 t co a •.1 N 'V ,l 4 H C 0 W 4
O u a) al C CO u u 4 H 0 0 W 4 4 W ca O H 4 V)
CO 0 0 W u 4 O 10 ,-I an 4 W c0 o ff 4 0 •r1 E 4 ca o a w v
a 3 t .G LO W 4 E G W 0 ,4 E 4 CU 0 a v.l CO tap 17 W ,1 .. H e 0 0 .L'
E F U O 41 a 03 7, 4 a 4+ 0 w a "0 c•. 4 W CO 0 G 4.4 4 W 0 O H 4 I
CI) F u 0 u W 0 0 C 0 O fO W O u 4 CO ,1 0 H4 E 4 CO O
0 u u u u u u u 4 a 0 GI 4) 0 u 4 V) 0 3 L .C 4 V) a E C W 4. CO 0 .O v a
W E w co CUCUCUCUCUCUICUC 3 .G ...G 4 LO W E -, F U U U r41 Gz4 3 7 u W En N G
1-1 CO u a a L' F U U U r1 a 3 u u 00 W O u 4 U) V)I G
6 W •.1 co a aaa a a u 0 u u u u u 1J u 14 3 .G .C 4 0 0 E •.11 0
14 E N O a a a a a a o H u u u u u u u W cO 0 CO c0 c0 f0 CO 0 F O O CO w 4 3 m I.r11
u u •.4 1J 0000000 3 CU C W 0 CO CU N 4 a >, u
U CO 4 O 0 • U a a a a a a a a 4., Va W W W 4-1 4-I H: 0
N G C u u u u o O u u u >. a a a a a a a a) a a a a a a a 0 O o O o o 0 0 c0 I OOI,
G a 3 m CU W a W W a) a) W W W a a a a a a a a4 0 0 0 0 o O O c'.N I
4 0 E '0 0 C[A cL a s aL a4 a s a 430000000 U co W (0 f0 fn CI) tO 6 u'
CP ,1 F \ 4 0 C) G M U U U U U U U O L Yl J 4) 1l L L
6 u6 H '
5 C 0 4 4 1 4a 44 . 0. W 4a V 1 .I CO U U U U U CU G a) W 0) Cl W I) C) a4 U U U U CU U u z'_
F a u 0 J G C O O O O o O O O u W W W W a) a) a) •4 a, a s a4 aL a4 p4 a) 0 ca 0 0 co co U.
•.4 U W u 'O ttl GO W (Y. a4 W. c4 a4 a4 a4 u a) a a a a a a a. c0!. 4'.
4 W 4 U •I H H H H H H H H •rl CO 'n•n•n 97-r •n•n 4 E E E E E E E a o
u •n u 0 x c0 c0 Cl W W W C) W W a) V) •n •n •n •n •n•n •.i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 F F H F H F F a 4+
to O N a:.0 u u > > > > > > > > c 0 0 0 0 0 0 o X 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 u H
W 4 a E c0 CU W W W W W W 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 41 a a a a a a 7 0 0 0 U U U U c
0 a a H u A a .a ✓.7 .7 ra a a a r7 U a a a a a a a u u u u u u u R+ 0 a) a 0 0 W a a o I
H W a W W W 0) 0) (0 (01010101000 K a4 a a' a4 a4 a' +J .,,
W Cl 04 3 Cl u u u u u u u u 3 4 14 4 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Cl uI
�•. G G 0E a) 0 u u u U u Cu U a) a a a w a s PI GP. a a a a a a C 4 1 4 4 4 L. 4 4 H C
•M •.1 ,i W ,1 44 W W I W W W W a) Cl H H •.i W W W W W 0) Cl a'.0
41 4i 4+ 0 > w H H H H H H H H > 41 4.1 4-1144 114 W 41 W W 4a 4-I 44 4-I 4.4 w 41 44 11 J 4J 1J 44 14 El
0001000000000000000001 0000000010000001010) 010
a a A 6 c4 a to to to U CO h V) CO a 0 0 A A a 0 A A 0 A 0 [Ha a a 0 a a A 0 a a a C IH
0 H N en -S 41 1/40 r CC Cs 0 HIN fn - 41 '0 N- CO Cn 0H N.I M -Y In 10! N O. 0 H NM -t In 1C I"-, CO C1
O 0 0 00 C 00 C 0 0 H H H H H H H H H H N N N CV N N N N N N Cl M M M Cr) M M Cl M M
Z T Cll C:1 C\ C1 C CT C11 Cr, Q. 01 01 Cn 0' CI1 Ol Cn C11 Cr) OTh C1 C11 C, 01 01 C, Cl C+ Cn Oe C11 Cn T 01 I C Ch C, C C G�
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H i-4 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H -I H H H H H H IH
ro
a
ro
s
.)
P.)
a)a,
F
E\
q
> y
O
z
Y
U
O
a
m
00
7
CO
hi
ti
O
v 4
ro
rn ^t
a m w
rn
m
ti
W d U
a0 Cl
q
4
O
PC) 3 W 00 U U U U 00 man an an an U cn
ro 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 W W W W W W W W
U q U
.i Fs G 0 Cl x Y
x tie m 0 0 m -0 0 fa
u Ix+ N O Ori .0 Cc) u N rnro ml W CCl
0 r1 Q 4 ro 0 0 ca W O Y 4 N a
3 0 Wu. m m a b w3 4 m v 9
L y 0 a l ca 00 N 7G-4 ca E-a U I CI'J W W I0.1 �Y
c F U U U W W 3 cI Z �7 v .I7 1 m
O 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 F F F F F F F Cl
•.i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
❑ h •.! w w w w w w w C C C ❑ C G G w
U •.Ci 4-3 o G G C C G C G C M � •� •� ,-I •T-4 or( 0
¢ Y O M ro ro al ro ro CO CO N ro N ro ro ro ro
F a •rl .-I .-1 ti r-I r-I rH r-I Y Y Y Y JJ Y Y 4
H u Y 0.4 a w a a a a N ro G re Ca CO ro 0
U L Y Y Y Y Y 4.J
q g q q q q q
Z X C
N C C Z Z 9-1
Z Z Z Z O N N C) CU N N ~
0 0 a a a a a a a w
0. a a s a s Y
Y Y 0 0 0 00 0 0040. 0. 0i a a a a a a U
a 4 I-I .-1 r-1 ri N .-i ri 4 4 4 4 $4
O a > > > > > , , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 uutJU E
C1 Cl C1 C) O C1 C1 U C C C C C G C 0
H a Q g
O r+ t",4 en -7 ° i0 r- c0 0 0 .-I N rn , un co
O nY un u-1 tl
Z rn rnrnrnrn o, rn rnrnmrn on rn rnc+ rnrn
rN - r•I
VISUAL RESOURCES
Objectives
The visual resources of site-specific project areas will be
evaluated and impacts to those resources from project development will
be determined for the S/SSEIS . The visual resource analysis will
consider the effects and changes that may result in Federal land
management due to project implementation.
Data Collection
Identification of Data Gaps. The following information is necessary
for all site-specific project areas.
1. Visual quality objectives (VQO),
2. Existing visual condition (EVC) ,
3. Visual absorbtion capability (VAC) (existing USFS data for VQO,
EVC, and VAC are not of sufficient detail),
4. 'Seen area' mapping for all site-specific projects except Gross
Reservoir are not of sufficient detail,
5. Perspective plot data are needed for certain identified
viewpoints of proposed projects.
Identification of Studies Required to Fill Gaps. To develop VQO,
EVC, and VAC at site-specific study detail, the USFS will have to be
contacted and worked with extensively. Site ground-truthing will be
required for EVC and VAC data.
Detailed 'seen area' mapping will require extensive onsite studies
from identified key viewing areas.
VIEWIT perspective plots will require USFS data and computer runs
for identified viewpoints.
Analysis to be Conducted
The DWD will conduct all visual resource analyses, including the
development of mitigation plans and costs. The Work Group, with the
participation of ES, will review these products.
Contrast ratings, which identify conflicts and compatibility
between the project and existing landscape, will be developed by the DWD
and used to identify impacts to visual resources. The USFS VQO, EVC,
and VAC data of the USFS will be used to identify the significance of
such contrast ratings. VQO will be used in order to determine if they
no longer will be met under postproject conditions. Changes to EVC
classes will also be evaluated.
'Seen area' data will be developed by the DWD to describe project
visibility, the second major component used in identifying project
4-119
impacts. Visibility is defined as the delineation of the relative
amount of terrain seen from points along designated key viewing areas.
Visibility and contrast will be compared by the DWD to identify the
level of visual impacts.
Mitigation measures will be developed by the DWD for each site—
specific project. Mitigation plans for Williams Fork system projects
will be developed with the objectives of preservation of primitive site
characteristics and minimization of exposure of proposed facilities to
recreationists. Mitigation plan objectives for South Platte storage
and the Gross Reservoir projects are to minimize landscape degradation,
and viewer exposure to such degradation, as well as provide views of
the dam, reservoir, and background features. Mitigation measures to be
proposed include:
1. Road corridor location,
2. Revegetation practices,
3. Building design and siting,
4. Construction techniques and access limitations,
5. Maintenance practices,
6. Use of color and textures,
7. Screening of project features, and
8. Trail relocation.
As with the recreational analysis, the visual mitigation will rely
heavily on consideration of USFS management planning objects and how
postproject conditions could require modification of visual objectives,
thus requiring modification of management plans. Alternative land
management needs will consider associated visual quality changes and
subsequent management planning modifications.
Technical Report Preparation
The visual resource impact evaluation will be incorporated in
technical appendix 4 by ES, using narrative descriptions, tables, maps,
and evaluation criteria. The visual resources technical reports, as
provided by the DWD and reviewed by the Work Group and ES, will be used
as a base. The associated activities for the development and com-
pletion of this information are scheduled in figure 4.20.
4-120
T
N
£
4
a
6
r-. 4
N
£
A
u
A W
W
CT C
H N
ti
U ‘U
Y
0
> w E
O
Z ENV N'
L Ill
Jeff.)
I 14 4
O S
W
0 44
o
F x
Fr
r N
ce o
4-- 4 ,-S
w 6 .. ,.
a 4 s. ,� 4,. s' .
co
la z
rra
J v, v —
(0 CO 44
o.
>+ G
H
H r0
D
H
H -t u
U 0 u
I.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
O a1 -- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
N -O U U OOO OO OO OC7O0 OOO O L] GI UOOO OO OOO U UCI OOOO OO Om cn
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 �� W ❑1.
-t .O-1 00000000 O O O A O O O A 00000000 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3
W
m .
] al o �c., x G .0 0 v .0
a o Cd sot r4 E o r'$., v CC 0 .-ui %i co
P. 'O A w w w W 0 •.i E 4 N 0 ,0
0 N L w m
O 4 a N u O w w w a CJ N G w 0
3 a1 w A A 4 E O O co v L 4 Co 4:. 0
E-444 (.7.1000 3 Ul '0 .- 3 4 A A w u a w
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .0 .i C O al •0 H U U U W cr. 3 0 0
Co 17 .0 a0. 0. O. a P. a 4 u N O Hi 4
,S+ W N o .i uI. o N N N mica cd cd L N o •.i E 4 N 0 w 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 HO
£ £ £ £ £ Z £ G . P:. CI) W w A 'G 4. w G w
0 •r1 E 4 N O +1 a) co co L a) N G •.4 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
O W w Cw w A 01 Cv L cal cd cd al cd cd <d E a O O N CU a 4 w Cfl •ri N Cd N N N N CO N
H M 4J a) co 0 cd al a) a) a) a) a) a) a 3 4 A A w a) E T L H rl rI ri r-I .i rl .-I
Cl) 0 0 N u a 4 w H 4 4 I. 4 4 4 4 0 Cd H O D U aC P. 3 H 0.a P. P. P. P. a P. P.
X w 3 4 A A w u E •.i 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 H al N 0 Y .Y
O C) 0 H 0 0 0 W k. 3 a u 4 a L a a a a a G Cd C C G C C C 0 0 H H
E G C C G G C G > 6 N N N N N Cd cd 6 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cn +i Z u 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 u u u u u u u u N O +i .ri .i •r. •r. •rt •r. L O O
6 L Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U N u N u u u d O 0 w w w w w w w L p .4 a L a a a a a Cd a a,
H 0. CO W (H W 4, 4i 111 W. CO (n Cr, Cn N CI) Cn •r. L 1) a L L a a U L N N Cd cd cd CO N bG CG
•r-1 L N N 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 CO 4 0 0 0 U U U U N L N 00 CO CZ CO be pp Ca., •r1 r.
4 Cd L <d w Cd cd cd Cd Cd L Cd Cd w t CO w CC L w w Cd (d CC cd ro Cd 0. u 00•H •.i .r. ..i ri rl ..i a
U GI N a a a a a L a N N L a a a a a a N G 0.. d a d a a a E Cd •r. L 1J a a a a a .ri CO N
w O CO N Cd Cd N N Cd CI a N N N N N N N O a) E E E E E E E H a L .r, •r1 .r, •ri •.1 •r. ..i £ L L
al O C y uO u C
00 00000 00000000 OHHHHF-I HH u fi •ti £ £ £ £ £ £ £ (U C
�
£
+1 L u a) C) Cl a) C) W a. a a 0. 0. a 0. a L a) a) u a) a) C) u L 0. C. 0. 0. 0. 0. Ca a. C] -
E u H ri r1 ,--1 ri rl c i u 30000000W 3 N N N N N N N u 3 3 0 0 0 0 0000) 0. vi
�..� 4 H •a H +I 6,-1 •.i +i •.1 H v ti r-1 H H H H H .i u T T T T T T Tr1 v u H H .-I H H H H ri 4 4'
u 0. 0. 0. a a 0. 0. a a -r1 C) a) C) Cl al C) a) 0. •ri H r1 r. ri H rl .i 0. H. •rl u u u u u C) u 0. 0 01
L E E E E E E E E E > > > > > > > > E > N N N N N N N E > > > > > > > > > E U cry
u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u u 0 Cl u C) u u 0 u C G G 0 G G C O u Cl u u a) a u u C) 0 0 C
0 0 0 U U U U U U U PL O O O O 0 O O U C C 6 < < < < < 0 a C O C CO O O O U H HI
I
O H N r1 -t L.0n 0 Cr, 0 H N cn -t 1/) NO n CO CT 0 ri eV r? --t v1 n 0 Cr 0 H N rt .-t vO CO Cn 1r ti
0 0000 000000 —r , r1 r. .-I ri r-i r1 H .-+ N N N N N N N N N N cn m col en en cn r1 n en en
Z N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CV CV
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1(V N
i+
P.
i+
CO
1/40 4!
C W
O `1
0 C
HI CO
A
4
O
z �C
' r'W d�"i"- '
y 3 ,
7
z 10 •
H ° 4I
C
ed'
u �
•p i.
C a
O 6
U
is!
p•
N P
V 4)
CO ;Si
rn
PG
CD
W t U
00 W
i+
:
C V] CO CO CO CO
W
v W W W W W W
t x
H C 0 uGI -
e °, m 0 Su
Li) CO A "0 W
u CJ C4 C
C V
U U 0.4
I III I
t t t
xxxx
F F F
CO M 0 0 0 0 0
Q a+ u u u u u t
E a 0 0 0 0 0
•-I M H H +i H1.4
,y
LI N
U C N N C4 CO CO
C) l) U !.1
Q Q Q q Q 0)
41
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0)
i+ eC
O 0 0 0 0 0
G C C C C 0
H H H H H CJ
O H N en - vt
o t t t t t t
Z N N N N N N
N N N N N N
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Objectives
The objectives of the cultural resource analyses are to insure
that the S/SSEIS identifies and describes any impact to cultural
resources and that the intent of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, is fulfilled. This work effort, including all
data collection, field survey work, impact analysis, and identification
of any mitigation options, will be conducted by ES.
An initial activity of this resource analysis will be the forma-
tion of a technical Work Group. The formation will be initiated by the
COE with assistance from ES. The Work Group will review and comment on
work products and participate in the formation of impact assessments
and the development of mitigation opportunities.
Data Collection
Identification of Data Gaps. The Colorado State Historic Preser-
vation Officer (SHPO) requires that an EIS summarize available cultural
resources data and present an adequate plan for and commitment to
completion of any necessary surface inventory, site evaluation, and
impact mitigation, according to an acceptable schedule, prior to the
initiation of project construction. In general, Federal agencies will
follow the same guidelines in assessing the adequacy of an EIS.
A detailed review and analysis of available cultural resources
data is available for the Two Forks, Williams Fork Gravity, Williams
Fork Pumping, and Gross Reservoir Enlargement projects. To meet
S/SSEIS requirements, ES will update the literature review to reflect
recently recorded sites (the SHPO considers a site file search to be
valid for only 30 days) . In addition, ES will conduct sample surveys
of the Two Forks and Gross Reservoir project areas and will complete
the pedestrian inventory of currently known impact areas for the
Williams Fork Gravity and Pumping alternatives. ES will evaluate
cultural sites in terms of eligibility of nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) , to the degree possible using
surface inventory data, and will make recommendations concerning
determinations of eligibility and effect. Plans and schedules for the
completion of site evaluations and impact mitigation will be developed.
The New Cheesman with Tunnel, Ferndale, and Estabrook Reservoir
projects were only examined under the screening of South Platte storage
reservoirs ; therefore, ES will conduct detailed research to meet
S/SSEIS requirements. During the screening process, the information
base included the listing of previously recorded sites obtained from
the Colorado Preservation Office. The nature and extent of previous
surveys and historic land use as indicated by patent records will be
4-123
researched and local informants will be consulted regarding the cul-
tural history of the upper South Platte River basin in the project
areas . In addition, ES will conduct sample inventories of these
project areas. ES will evaluate cultural sites that are recorded
during the inventories in terms of eligibility for nomination to the
NRHP, to the degree possible using surface inventory data, and will
make recommendations concerning determinations of eligibility and
effect. Plans and schedules for the completion of site evaluations and
impact mitigation will be developed.
The Chatfield Lake area has been completely inventoried for
cultural resources and many of the recorded sites were excavated by the
University of Denver in the 1970's. The majority of the sites were
destroyed during reservoir construction. The current status of pre-
viously recorded sites in the proposed enlargement impact areas and
their NRHP eligibility is uncertain. However, the COE will relocate
eight of these sites and assess their NRHP elibility during the summer
of 1985. Therefore, no additional field work will be required at Chat-
field Lake at this time. If any of the sites are potentially eligible
for nomination to the NRHP, a plan and schedule for impact mitigation
measures will be required and will be developed by the COE.
Fulfillment of the cultural resources requirements for the S/SSEIS
will not be sufficient to allow construction. Generally, all back-
ground research and a sample surface inventory based on a statistically
reliable model will be completed before a permitting decision is made.
USFS and BLM will use the inventory information as a basis for permit
stipulations concerning additional evaluations (such as test excava-
tions) and/or impact mitigation measures . In order to approve a
Section 404 permit application, the COE requires that background
research, a sample surface inventory, and determinations of eligibility
and effect be completed for the entire permit area. The permit area
for each project will include the dam embankment, spillways, areas to
be inundated, diversion dams, underground conduits, and tunnels. This
does not include road and utility corridors. Literature material will
be used to analyze these areas. If borrow areas are proposed which are
located outside of reservoir impact areas, they will be included within
the area to be considered for cultural resources inventory under this
work plan.
Permits will not be sought for all of the project alternatives
addressed in the S/SSEIS. Therefore, to avoid the high cost of inten-
sive cultural resources inventory for all projects, the COE, USFS, and
the SHPO were consulted concerning cultural resources studies that must
be conducted in order for permitting decisions to be made on the basis
of the S/SSEIS. The BLM was invited but did not attend the meeting.
Each project was individually discussed with the objective of defining
4-124
the minimum field investigations that must be conducted before per-
mitting decisions can be made.
Identification of Study Required to Fill Gaps. To meet S/SSEIS
requirements and to allow permit decisions, literature reviews for each
project will either be updated (Two Forks, Williams Fork Gravity,
Williams Fork Pumping, Gross Reservoir Enlargement) or conducted (other
South Platte storage reservoirs) . As a part of the analysis of
existing data, the Work Group will define the remaining cultural
resource requirements; finalize the detailed plan; schedule the com-
pletion of remaining studies. In the identification and development of
a plan for completion of remaining requirements, the DWD, SHPO, COE,
USFS, and other agencies (such as BLM) will participate in the Work
Group to ensure that all major concerns have been adequately addressed
prior to the commencement of field work.
Depending on the character of the baseline information, the plan
will include the evaluation and/or mitigation requirements of indivi-
dual sites and/or districts. The information assembled through the
literature review will be used to identify those areas which will be
examined through a pedestrian cultural resources inventory.
Each project is discussed below in terms of the initially proposed
field investigations that the Work Group will consider for adequacy.
These studies will be further defined by the Work Group, if necessary.
Before these studies can be started, the DWD will define the direct
impact areas for each project.
Two Forks Reservoir. The SHPO, COE, and USFS agree that in
addition to the research and analysis required, the following studies
should be completed.
1. For this contract, ES and the COE assume that Two Forks
Reservoir would inundate approximately 7,300 acres. ES will conduct a
20 percent sample inventory (about 1,500 acres) of the impact area,
including the North Fork Historic District. The North Fork Historic
District is included within the sampling universe even though it will
be subject to a separate reassessment, if necessary, after the EIS is
completed. The inclusion is justified because to exclude the North
Fork Historic District would delete the majority of the Two Forks
impact area on the North Fork of the South Platte River from considera-
tion under this study.
2. Previously recorded sites within the impact area that are
eligible or potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP will be
revisited to assess their current condition. The exact number of sites
requiring this type of examination will be determined by the boundaries
4-125
of the direct impact areas; however, it can be estimated that 50 sites
will require re-examination.
3. A nonrandom reconnaissance of the South Platte River Valley
will be conducted to estimate the number of, and to photograph, struc-
tures that appear to constitute historic sites.
Post-S/SSEIS studies that will be required through permit stipu-
lations that can be identified at present include a resurvey of the
North Fork Historic District, to assess the current condition of its
various components and to identify contributing and noncontributing
elements, and an historic sites survey of the sites identified during
the EIS in the South Platte River Valley. Mitigation of adverse
effects to any site or district listed or eligible for listing on the
NRHP will be required. The latter will include, at a minimum, the
North Fork Historic Distict and several individual sites listed on the
NRHP.
Estabrook Reservoir. The SHPO, COE, and USFS agree that, in
addition to the research and analysis required, the following studies
should be completed:
1. A 20 percent randomly stratified sample inventory of impact
areas, including the Estabrook Historic District, will be completed.
The impact area is considered to be 3,000 acres and the survey would be
600 acres.
2. A nonrandom reconnaissance to estimate the occurrence of, and
to photograph, structures that appear to constitute historic sites
within the impact area will be completed.
At a minimum, post-S/SSEIS work that would be required by permit
stipulations would include completion of surface survey; a resurvey of
the Estabrook Historic District to assess the current condition of its
components and to identify contributing and noncontributing elements;
and a historic sites survey of the structures located during the EIS
within the impact area. Mitigation of adverse effects to the Estabrook
Historic District and any other sites determined eligible for nomina-
tion to the NRHP will be required.
Ferndale Reservoir. The SHPO, COE, and USFS suggest that the
following study be conducted:
1. A 20 percent sample inventory of areas outside the North Fork
Historic District will be completed. This represents 20 percent of
approximately 3,000 acres, or 600 acres.
4-126
r
At a minimum, post-S/SSEIS studies which will be required through
permit stipulations would include completion of the surface survey; a
resurvey of the North Fork Historic District to assess the current
condition of its components and to identify contributing and non-
contributing elements; and an impact mitigation program for the North
Fork Historic District.
New Cheesman Reservoir with Tunnel. The SHPO, COE, and USFS
suggest that the following studies be conducted:
1. An inventory of a 20 percent sample of the impact area will be
conducted.
2. A determination of eligiblity will be completed for Cheesman
Dam (historic sites 30/05/0004 and 18/06/0002) .
At a minimum, the post-S/SSEIS studies will include a permit
stipulation for the completion of surface inventory.
Chatfield Reservoir. The COE plans to complete the field
work that will be necessary to relocate and assess the NRHP eligibility
of any cultural sites in the proposed impact area. It may be necessary
to develop a plan and schedule for the mitigation of adverse effects to
any site that is determined eligible for nomination to the NRHP.
Williams Fork Gravity/Williams Fork Pumping. The SHPO, COE,
and USFS agree that a pedestrian inventory of all new surface distur-
bance areas that can be identified at present will be completed. This
represents approximately 1,100 acres for the cumulative area requiring
survey. The entire tunnel corridor will be examined. Previous inven-
tories that have been conducted in these site-specific areas are
inadequate for current needs.
Additional required post-S/SSEIS studies and investigations which
would be handled through permit stipulation could include surface
inventory of as yet unspecified impact areas (such as staging areas) ,
additional evaluation of site significance and/or a program to mitigate
adverse effects to sites listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP.
Gross Reservoir Enlargement. The SHPO, COE, and USFS agree
that a surface inventory of proposed new disturbance areas will be
completed. This represents approximately 400 acres.
At present, it is unlikely that extensive, significant cultural
sites exist within the proposed impact areas. Permit stipulations
concerning evaluation of NRHP eligibility and/or impact mitigation will
be developed as needed.
4-127
Analyses to be Conducted
A more detailed analysis of project effects will be possible with
the results of the field investigations recommended above.
1. Additional areas requiring surface inventory, if any, will be
identified for each project. These additional inventory requirements
may be included as permit stipulations and will not be conducted as
part of the S/SSEIS work. Recommendations will be based on field work
that has been conducted prior to the analyses. Data from field invest-
igations may allow the prediction of potential site locations and could
justify the exclusion of certain areas from further cultural resource
study.
2. Determinations of eligibility will be sought for all cultural
resources for which significant recommendations have been made. ES
will coordinate the process of obtaining SHPO and Federal agency
concurrences concerning site or district eligiblity and will prepare
NRHP nomination forms as necessary.
3. Plans for completion of site evaluations (such as additional
research and test excavations) will be formulated for each site for ^
which a determination of eligibility cannot be made. Cost estimates
for site evaluations will be developed.
4. Recommendations concerning project effect (impact assessments)
will be made, according to the criteria of effect and adverse effect
(36 CFR 800).
5. Any new sites identified in the Gross Reservoir study area
will be evaluated in terms of eligibility for inclusion in the Walker
Ranch Historic District.
6. Mitigation alternatives will be proposed for each NRHP elig-
ible or listed site or district which will be adversely affected by the
project. An estimate of time required for mitigation programs and a
cost estimate or range of costs will be developed for each of the
mitigation alternatives. On the basis of the completeness of baseline
(inventory and evaluation) data, a confidence level will be provided
with each cost estimate.
7. A schedule for the completion of inventory, assessment or
evaluation, and mitigation of adverse effects, including the time and
consultations necessary for obtaining concurrences and determinations,
will be developed for each project.
8. The projects will be evaluated according to the criteria used
in the SEIS, which were found to satisfactorily quantify project
effects by the SHPO, USFS, COE, and BLM.
4-128
9. ES will allocate up to 40 hours for consultation with an
architectural historian for review and comment concerning project
effects on historic structures.
Report Preparation
The evaluation of the effects of each project on the cultural
resources of the study area will be described in detail in technical
appendix 4 and summarized in the S/SSEIS. The activities leading to
this effort are scheduled on figure 4.21. Correspondence concerning
determinations of eligibility and effect and the acceptability of plans
and schedules for completion of additional studies will be appended as
necessary. Precise site locations and/or predictions of site locations
will be deleted from documents which will be available to the general
public.
4-129
C
0
X
4
0-
d
4
x
x
cil
.o w
lo
rn c IL
-) 2
0) illJ
0
O �
C) z*.'
O tit9i A -a:
W m £ I ! )
ce e0 - •'is 9 . `.
Inff
a C W , - �
pa T
N
wd r
W 4
c) • i
r......
7 un a)
O W W
on
H G
> 0
F In
H
H -7 U
H OJ al
U - G
d
4 W W
N O O
H 00 00000000034 01010101 u] U O U VI VI W CO V) V) VI VI U U V0 N W C/) V) to N U V)
N 4) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 W W 0 W W W W W 3 3 W w O W W W W W W W O W W W W W W
d I-3 0 W P 0 Ul 0
W
x • a0 N N 'o X CD P.1
0 X ai � a) 0 , 0 P+ 1-I PPPP a) 0 I-I-I 0 W ‘00 — r C u O X X
H 4 )34 a) H O 4 4 CO 'p X 0 HI E td 4 X .. C CO 3+ a) CO H I O 4 4
W 0 •r1 t0 4 O O X ri C a) O X X W CC W N 'C P W W Id H 0 H E 0 4 O O
W CO w 'O A [lc W 4 0) a) H 0 H 4 U) a C) C C ri a w CO W CO 'o .O kI W u
m u C C0 0 H E c0 N O O O O CC: Ill M i 0) N a .n 1+ a) C 0 4
O O t0 4 u CO co C W m w to •b .0 V. W 3 %4 .G .C a) v) E E Coo t0 C) 4. aJ to m O
3 4 .C O CO E E au m u a! C M E-1000 4444 3 3 C o 3 5-1 .7 = u Ca E E a
H UOfs W 33H 0 act a) 4 u to CC off HU OU W W 33 a)
to 3 4 F .C a) N E E 4) 4 4 N N 4 4 5i 4 H U
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0) H0 U 0 W W 3 3 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) to 4 4 54 4 4 4 4 1.4
PC
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 41 W 4i 4. 4I tH w 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .r
WI LL. W t4 4-I W W it U U ♦•1 .1 U 4.4 44 H M H W W W W W W W W
E t0 al N CO m ca ro ro u) u u) to to CO u) CO co CC •.I 4 X
a
000 CEO al N N N hi T T T T T T T T N O N ctl N N N N N N H X v J .Y v .Y I v v CO
4 4 4 4 14 4 400 0) a) a) a) 0) O a) a) > H H H H H Hi Hi •-I £ X X X X X X X X CO
C PO PO W PP 00 W o0 O > > > > > > > > 4 I C a a w Pa a P. a s 'O H H H H H H H H
.Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. 4 1. 4 4 4 4 5. 54 7 0 O 'O C 0
U H 4 4 5. 4 5. 4 4 a 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 CO L H u L L 4J v 11 a 11 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u
COG a a s PI a P. P. N to to to to U to 0'0 'C i0 cu0 :ri 9 � 9-1 -H C0 0) aI u u 1.1 u 1) u 44 u
H 'O '0 'O '0 'O HI 'O H 'C •C1 'O '0 '0 'O '0 T) H 00--- \\\\\\\ H Y u 1) Y u 1) L u L 7
4 14 r-1 ri H H I—I I—I 0) .1 H ri r—I r I H I—I H (1) 'O H co CO on CO co CO CO v) N U 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 a
U a) a) 4) a) a) a) a) H C) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) H H 1) U Y 11 a) Y L L 1.1 > to a a a ai a a a a G
CC H •ra H H H •rI H W •.i •HI H H •rt H •r1 H k+ a) H U u U C-) U v u u cal' a C C C C C C C CH
a) W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W H Z c0 C)ca c0 N ci N C E HH H II H H I-1 HI
0 m CI w a 0. ca, aaaaa) H v
a a a a a 0. a u u 1-) u u u 1) u u u a E EEEEEE E u u u u u u u 4) 4) 4-)
O O O O O o 0 a) C) c C) C1 C) C-1 C) u C) 3 0 H H H H H H H H W 3 4 41 4 4 4 4 4 4 C)
0,40., H H H H H ri H H 7 7 7 7 77 77 14 a) H H -H 73 ca t0 CO c0 co I r A H
0) C) 0) C) a) C) C) 0.10 "C3 10 'O '0 10 'C 'O a H Cl H ' H r•1 H H H H a) a ali a 0. a 0.1a a a
> > > > > > > E CCC C CZ G C E > > CI CO to c0 co co co N E > u u a) VC4)14) 0) E
C) u C) O C) C) 0) O 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) O > > > > > > > > 0 a) 4 4 4 4 4 41 4 4 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 000 Pe 0 W w w w w w w W U fL wlala a s Cc Cc a U
O •-I N M ut 'o r-- T O Hi N m -t un C n W O C Hi N en 1 V1 'O N. CO an C H N C^ v u1 c n
O 00 00 C 0 GO 00H H H Hi ri HHHH Hi Hi N N N N N N N N N N min (n to en to en t1
X in V1 Ln u9 in cn Ln ul N I , Vl U) tin un N in U) ✓1 in ✓1 in in ul ✓1 u1 U) ill 1l1 u'1 N In in u'l it, tr. U) u^, u1
H H Hi ' r1 H1 HJ Hi Hi Hi HI r-I H Hi H H Hi H-I H HE ' .-1 ' N H Hi Hi ' r•1 Hi rI H Hi ' H Hi H '
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
Objectives
Successful project planning recognizes that achieving institu-
tional feasibility is more than satisfying permit and other formal
requirements for agency approval. An open and ongoing planning process
must exist that includes direct involvement of:
1. Public agencies that are responsible for the management of
natural resources that may be affected by one or more of the project
alternatives;
2. Public agencies whose policies apply and/or who have juris-
diction in project areas;
3. Interested individuals and/or public groups that support or
oppose the proposed project; and
4. Public agencies that will be formally involved in project
approval processes, including mitigation plans.
Only with the above multi—interest involvement process can a
realistic "road map" be prepared for the routing of the proposed
project through the maze of Federal, State, and local approvals and
institutional factors. The early development of this "road map" will
significantly increase the opportunity for ultimate project success.
The key steps in "road map" development include:
1. Identification of those entities which will be involved in
project evaluation and/or implementation and their likely roles;
2. Identification of permitting requirements, regulatory,
constraints, and points of required (or desired) agreement and cooper-
ation among public agencies; and
3. Evaluation of the likelihood of project constraints, delays,
and/or increased costs as a consequence of institutional factors.
A significant level of effort has been invested in the implemen-
tation of the above planning process for the development of the SEIS.
While the ongoing planning process can be continued and usefully serve
the needs of the S/SSEIS planning process, the site-specific nature of
the latter requires that local public agencies and citizen groups
increase their level of participation.
4-131
Data Collection
Identification of Data Gaps. A formal listing of the entities
which will be involved in the evaluation of each site-specific project
is required. The Federal and State entities have been defined in the
SETS process; however, the listing of county and other local entities
will need to be reviewed and expanded. Specific information on each
entity's role in the project evaluation process is also needed.
Concerning permitting and approval requirements of the agencies,
there is a need to confirm that the latest version of all applicable
regulations have been acquired from Federal, State, and local agencies.
Further, appropriate agencies will be contacted to ascertain that the
most recent regulations will be used in the evaluation of the site-
specific projects. This information will need to be reviewed for
the additional detail that is required by the applicable local permits.
Information will need to be collected concerning how the various
policies of the public agencies, particularly the local agenices, may
be applied to the evaluation of the site-specific projects within their
jurisdiction.
Studies Required to Fill Data Gaps. ES, with the assistance of
the Work Group and the Joint Review Process, will collect the infor-
mation and perform the studies required. Three levels of studies are
planned to obtain the needed data.
1. Collect information from affected counties to define their
probable role in the site-specific project evaluation and permitting
process;
2. Collect information from appropriate public agencies con-
cerning the key areas of:
(a) Section 7 consultation (USFWS)
(b) Threatened and endangered species (USFWS, CDOW)
(c) Historic and cultural resources (State of Colorado)
(d) Water rights (State Engineer's Office)
(e) Need for Section 404 permit (COE)
(f) 401 water quality certification
(g) Forest Land Practices Management Act; and
3. Collect information through the Colorado Clearinghouse as
well as the involved public agencies to review applicable regulations,
policies, and relative roles in the site-specific evaluation process.
Key areas such as salinity and Colorado River Compact obligations and
administration are in this category.
4-132
Analysis to be Conducted
Utilizing the information obtained from public agencies by ES
concerning their policies, permit/approval requirements, and anticip-
ated review/evaluation procedures for the various site-specific alter-
natives, ES, with assistance of the Joint Review Process, will prepare
a "road map" for the anticipated route of each alternative through the
maze of necessary approvals and institutional factors. A tentative
schedule will be developed by ES for the events on the above "road
map". ES will hold meetings with appropriate agencies and public
interests to review the "road maps".
The type and extent of coordination required among S/SSEIS partic-
ipants, information needs for the various review and evaluation pro-
cesses, and anticipated institutinal "trouble spots" will be noted in
the chart or an attachment.
ES will prepare legal position papers on up to four institutional
issues for which additional interpretation is needed. Possible issues
include interpretation of the Denver and other city charters regarding
water rates and other conservation issues, the Consolidated Ditches
Agreement regarding reuse, nontributary ground water development under
municipal boundaries, and the 1041 local land use permitting issue.
Report Preparation
The instituional issues associated with each site-specific alter-
native will be discussed in technical appendix 4 of the S/SSEIS .
Activities for the institutional analyses and evaluations are scheduled
in figure 4.22
4-133
T
Gs
Z
4
a
d
4
0
N
.o W
CO ❑ 41
H co
in
U
Cii
CZ L
O C 1/41
Z j\l
L y
o J
Oi
W cn 1/41
cn
r a Z
.ES 6
C H 1.I
.:...�w. p
a 7 1L 21
_.s. ? k _
d V , :it
o ")
E.
cn
H d
W0 al
Z 1
W ?
I-1 to ar
-^ a mw
a rn
W H 0
x ro
o h
>+ v u
E co as
H - A
7
H 4.04.000 0000 C90 c.) ca 0000
H 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
C) 4 \\\\ \\\\ \\\\\\\(--..
d v Waal pa a4aal a aalw ww ww ww as 333333 33 EnN Nrn cn En cnEn
ro h h h r) '7 "') En n nn on In ', "7 h \\\\\\ \\ W W a W W W W W
N 0 \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ to In VI V] !n (n (S4
N a Va y cn N W W W En N to to cn cn W cn N W W W W WW W W
d• W W 41 [4 W W W W W W W W W W W W
a) 0 .-I 0
al CCI
a ... N hi ”.4E x
W 't7 4 a N a a1 Co .Y rO
Ci C ro U v CO .-Y N O 0 H S'
H O 4 L ro a) N O CO .Y 't7 in N1 b N H co ro N 4 L
W 3 O N . L 5 4 .L 0 .-I C .Y L ,.1L U 0 C r-I .]L N 0 Et 4 5 H 0 4
H a W G 0 3 U' N H 0 a) ro N 0 4 H o td a) N N W la ,G N w W 41 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O to 4 •.I 5 0 a1 O tC N 5 •ri O 0 0 ro a L ma.
> > > > > > > W T1 P W N W N 0 W rC .1a N W Pi CO +i 0 4 L a1 a1 N OW
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 G CZ L N MCI 07 U U CO 4 3 m N .0 E N W
4 14 4 4 4 14 4 0 4 L ro al N 0 4 0 4 U U ro N O N H W W U 0 3 C7
a a a a a a a 3 0 14 .C ,C 5 4 •ri 3 a) co L' ,C 5 14 tC S
a a a a a a a 0 F W W U U 3 0 G H W W 0 V 3 C7 as I I I I I I I
d d d d dd -a 0 a ,y.I
H N 4 N N 4 4 4 N L U L L L U U 4.1 ..„1- -5d -Y � �' V NI
r4G00 0GOL
•r4 •ri +1 -H •ri M "--I ro W W 4I t4 14-i y..1 y.i a ro ro ro ro NI et ro m ro
G H Y E H H
G U L N CO CO co N co co H H F H H E E—.F F F E
O N a N a N N 0 M 0 W IW CU D 0p M 0 CU 0 •E N 4 N 4 4 4 4 O
I
N U H I-I H I-I H H H M (L 0.1 a a+ aw 6L� a+ 4 •.I .I-I 'H •ri +1 •ri M O O L U U U O O L
d a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 0 N N N 4 4 4 4 G 0 0 0 0 0 U'I
F H a a\ a PC :' F4 N DO 0 C en 0 C 60 0 C 0 GL ro N ro ro (C 14 0 01 ,1 •.1 +i .N •.i +I ••I 0.i
U N N N N CO N N 'C •,I +-I •ri •ri +I •r1 •,-I P 0.l W fA Pa W Pa al > ro a ca Ca tC CO ro G
CO C1 a) N 0) N N v H U U U L L U 1.J H W U U U U L L U H
a) H N H •ri •M +I +1 U U L L L L L U L L U L L L CO ro CO Ca CO Ca al
A 'H M ti M 4 •La •Li U 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 +O+ G G C C C G C U P Pp A pip P U
L L L L U L L N 4 4 4 4 4 N 4 al H H H H H F-I H a) a a a a a a s U
r••r•• C C G C G C G H U a) O a1 al a) al H H 4 N 4 N 4 4 4 H
W W W W W G.1 W a.a4 P+ as I a P.. as P+ a H ,-1 .-I r-I .-I H .-I a o 0 0 0 o 0 0 a.
5 5 ro ro ro ro to ro ro 5 u u u u u u u 5.
00000000000000000 > > >I > > > > 0 C CC C C G C O.
H H H H H H H U H H H H H H H C1 W W W W W W W U H H H H H H H C:
I
H N (•'1 5 to .D 1` cO O 0 H N Cly In .D t- CO0+ 0 Iti N c1 5 vl .0 t`I
o c0 rn 0 r I
O 0 0000 00 0 0 0 .-I .-I ,--I .+ H H ,-a r-I I-I .-I N N N N N N N N N N Cr) Cr',
Z I-+ r-I r-I I-I .-1 r I .ti Ir r-I ,-1 r l — r: I-I r-1 rt r--I - I-I .-I .-I .-I r-I r-I ri I-, r-1 r-I .-r .-1 r-1 .-I I
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N1 1
APPENDIX A
PRELIMINARY OUTLINE FOR SYSTEMWIDE/SITE-SPECIFIC EIS
COVER SHEET
a. Identify lead and cooperating agencies.
b. Identify all Federal actions, title of action, and location of
action (State, county, city, etc.)
c. Name and address of person(s) who can provide further information,
including phone number.
d. Designation of EIS as to draft or final.
e. One paragraph abstract of the EIS.
f. Date by which comments are to be received.
Chapter 1 (10 pages)
SUMMARY
a. Major conclusions.
b. Areas of controversy.
c. Unresolved issues.
d. Identification of Federal authorities.
e. Summary of purpose and need.
f. Identification of beneficial and adverse impacts.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 2 (15 pages)
PURPOSE AND NEED
a. Identify Federal agencies purpose and need.
1. Background:
(a) Foothills.
(b) Systemwide.
(c) Site-Specific.
2. Federal agency actions.
(a) Omaha District permits.
(b) Sacramento District permits.
(c) U.S. Forest Service rights-of-way and easements.
(d) U.S. Forest Service changes in forest management plans.
(e) Bureau of Land Management rights-of-way and easements.
b. Identify applicant's purpose and need.
1. Summarize existing supply (yield) .
2. Summarize future demand, including discussion of projects of
others.
3. Identify shortfall.
A-1
Chapter 3 (40 pages)
ALTERNATIVES
a. Alternative eliminated from future consideration.
1. Discuss screening process to get down to 37+ sources; why
eliminated.
2. Discuss results of evaluation of 37+ sources, including
sources identified during rescoping; why eliminated.
b. Alternative Scenarios.
1. Discuss process of scenario formation.
2. Identify scenarios.
3. Discuss major findings of scenario analysis (these would be
the major decision issues or controversial issues).
4. Tabulate the comparative analysis of the scenarios.
5. Identify least cost, environmentally preferred, and applic-
ant's preferred scenarios.
c. Site-Specific Alternatives.
1. Discuss letter of intent and how scenario sources were cate-
gorized as to site-specific.
2. Identify site-specific sources by category.
(a) Within the capability of the applicant and within the
jurisdiction of the Federal agencies.
(1) Two Forks.
(2) New Cheesman.
(3) Ferndale.
(4) Estabrook.
(5) Chatfield.
(6) Williams Fork gravity.
(7) Williams Fork pumping.
(8) Gross enlargement.
(b) Within the capability of the applicant, but outside the
jurisdiction of the Federal agencies (no Federal action) .
(1) Conservation.
(2) Ground water.
(3) Agricultural water acquistion.
(4) Nonpotable reuse.
(c) Reasonably foreseeable, beyond the capability of the
applicant, but within the jurisdiction of the Federal agencies.
(1) None.
(d) Reasonably foreseeable, beyond the capability of the
applicant and outside the jurisdiction of the Federal agencies.
(1) None.
3. Discuss major findings of site-specific analysis (these would
be the major decision issues or controversial issues) .
4. Discuss mitigation, including range of mitigation likely to be
required for each alternative, cost, etc.
5. Tabulate the comparative analysis of the site-specific
sources.
6. Identify the least cost, environmentally preferred, and
applicant's preferred alternatives.
A-2
Chapter 4 (40 pages)
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
a. Introduction.
b. Overview of Areal Resources.
c. Physiography, Topography, and Geology.
d. Soils.
e. Water Quality.
f. Hydrology.
g. Channel Stability.
h. Vegetation.
i. Wildlife.
j. Aquatic Biota.
k. Threatened and Endangered Species.
1. Federal.
2. State.
1. Wetlands.
m. Socioeconomics.
n. Recreation.
o. Transportation.
p. Visual Resources.
q. Cultural Resources.
r. Institutional.
Chapter 5 (80 pages)
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
a. Overview of Environmental Consequences.
1. Two Forks.
2. New Cheesman.
3. Ferndale.
4. Estabrook.
5. Chatfield.
6. Williams Fork gravity.
7. Williams Fork pumping.
8. Gross enlargement.
9. No Federal action.
b. Physiography, topography, and geology.
1. Two Forks.
2. New Cheesman.
3. Ferndale.
4. Estabrook.
5. Chatfield.
6. Williams Fork gravity.
7. Williams Fork pumping.
8. Gross enlargement.
9. No Federal action.
c. Soils.
1. Two Forks.
2. New Cheesman.
3. Ferndale.
/'` 4. Estabrook.
A-3
5. Chatfield.
6. Williams Fork gravity.
7. Williams Fork pumping.
8. Gross enlargement.
9. No Federal action.
d. Water Quality.
1. Two Forks.
2. New Cheesman.
3. Ferndale.
4. Estabrook.
5. Chatfield.
6. Williams Fork gravity.
7. Williams Fork pumping.
8. Gross enlargement.
9. No Federal action.
e. Hydrology.
1. Two Forks.
2. New Cheesman.
3. Ferndale.
4. Estabrook.
5. Chatfield.
6. Williams Fork gravity.
7. Williams Fork pumping.
8. Gross enlargement.
9. No Federal action.
f. Channel Stability.
1. Two Forks.
2. New Cheesman.
3. Ferndale.
4. Estabrook.
5. Chatfield.
6. Williams Fork gravity.
7. Williams Fork pumping.
8. Gross enlargement.
9. No Federal action.
g. Vegetation.
1. Two Forks.
2. New Cheesman.
3. Ferndale.
4. Estabrook.
5. Chatfield.
6. Williams Fork gravity.
7. Williams Fork pumping.
8. Gross enlargement.
9. No Federal action.
h. Wildlife.
1. Two Forks.
2. New Cheesman.
3. Ferndale.
4. Estabrook.
5. Chatfield.
6. Williams Fork gravity.
A-4
r
7. Williams Fork pumping.
8. Gross enlargement.
9. No Federal action.
i. Aquatic Biota.
1. Two Forks.
2. New Cheesman.
3. Ferndale.
4. Estabrook.
5. Chatfield.
6. Williams Fork gravity.
7. Williams Fork pumping.
8. Gross enlargement.
9. No Federal action.
j. Threatened and Endangered Species.
1. Two Forks.
(a) Federal.
(b) State.
2. New Cheesman.
(a) Federal.
(b) State.
3. Ferndale.
(a) Federal.
(b) State.
4. Estabrook.
(a) Federal.
(b) State.
5. Chatfield.
(a) Federal.
(b) State.
6. Williams Fork gravity.
(a) Federal.
(b) State.
7. Williams Fork pumping.
(a) Federal.
(b) State.
8. Gross enlargement.
(a) Federal.
(b) State.
9. No Federal action.
(a) Federal.
(b) State.
k. Wetlands.
1. Two Forks.
2. New Cheesman.
3. Ferndale.
4. Estabrook.
5. Chatfield.
6. Williams Fork gravity.
7. Williams Fork pumping.
8. Gross enlargement.
9. No Federal action.
r
A-5
1. Socioeconomics.
1. Two Forks.
2. New Cheesman.
3. Ferndale.
4. Estabrook.
5. Chatfield.
6. Williams Fork gravity.
7. Williams Fork pumping.
8. Gross enlargement.
9. No Federal action.
m. Recreation.
1. Two Forks.
2. New Cheesman.
3. Ferndale.
4. Estabrook.
5. Chatfield.
6. Williams Fork gravity.
7. Williams Fork pumping.
8. Gross enlargement.
9. No Federal action.
n. Transportation.
I. Two Forks.
2. New Cheesman.
3. Ferndale.
4. Estabrook. -�
5. Chatfield.
6. Williams Fork gravity.
7. Williams Fork pumping.
8. Gross enlargement.
9. No Federal action.
o. Visual Resources.
I. Two Forks.
2. New Cheesman.
3. Ferndale.
4. Estabrook.
5. Chatfield.
6. Williams Fork gravity.
7. Williams Fork pumping.
8. Gross enlargement.
9. No Federal action.
p. Cultural Resources.
1. Two Forks.
2. New Cheesman.
3. Ferndale.
4. Estabrook.
5. Chatfield.
6. Williams Fork gravity.
7. Williams Fork pumping.
8. Gross enlargement.
9. No Federal action.
A-6
q. Institutional.
1. Two Forks.
2. New Cheesman.
3. Ferndale.
4. Estabrook.
5. Chatfield.
6. Williams Fork gravity.
7. Williams Fork pumping.
8. Gross enlargement.
9. No Federal action.
LIST OF PREPARERS (1 page)
a. Names, qualifications (expertise, experience, professional dis-
ciplines) of major contributors to EIS, to include contractor persons.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT (9 pages)
a. Overview.
b. Original scoping.
c. Rescoping.
d. Agency coordination.
e. Roundtable.
f. Identify people that DEIS was sent to. Identify people who re—
sponded to DEIS in FEIS (same list as DEIS w/asterisk).
g. Comments and responses for final.
INDEX
a. EIS and Appendixes.
A-7
APPENDIX B
EVALUATION CRITERIA
The resource categories identified in Section 4 provide the founda—
tion for evaluating the environmental effects of the water source
alternatives. Specific evaluation criteria were developed for each of
the resource categories and are listed in Tables B.1 through B. 15 in
this appendix. The resource categories are:
Physiography, Topography, and Geology
Soils
Water Quality and Hydrology
Vegetation
Wildlife
Aquatic Life
Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Life
Threatened and Endangered Vegetation
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife
Wetlands
Socioeconomics
Recreation
Visual Resources
Cultural Resources
Institutional Issues
n
B-1
TABLE B. 1
RESOURCE CATEGORY: Physiography, Topography, and Geology
UNIT OF
EVALUATION CRITERIA MEASUREMENT
1. Total linear feet of slopes designated
either as moderate or greater potential
for slope failure or as active slope
failure areas affected by project. feet
2. Total number of known avalanche paths
crossing or within project right-of-
way. number
3. Number of faults directly beneath the
project area. number
4. Number of faults within 10 miles of
the structure. number
5. Total acreage of extremely pervious
geologic units within the project
boundary. acres
6. Total linear feet of project
(excluding reservoir pool) within a
flash flood corridor. feet
7. Total number of subsurface mineral
resources potentially within the
project right-of-way. number
8. Total acreage of sand and gravel
'resources within the project right-
of way. acres
9. Total linear feet of project in
areas with slopes between 30 and 50
percent. feet
10. Total linear feet of project in
areas with slopes greater than 50
percent. feet
B-2
TABLE B.2
RESOURCE CATEGORY: Soils
UNIT OF
EVALUATION CRITERIA MEASUREMENT
1. Total acreage of disturbed soils
on locations with 30 to 50 percent
slopes, acres
2. Total acreage of disturbed soils
on locations with greater than 50
percent slope. acres
3. Total acreage of soils that will be
removed from plant production by
project facilities. acres
4. Total acreage of highly erodible
soils disturbed. acres
5. Total disturbed acreage of highly
erodible and difficult to revege-
tate soils, acres
6. Total acreage of prime, unique,
or State important agricultural
lands converted to other uses. acres
B-3
TABLE B.3
RESOURCE CATEGORY: Water Quality and Hydrology
UNIT OF
EVALUATION CRITERIA MEASUREMENT
1. Percent increase in water delivered
to historic gaging. percent
2. Miles of water quality restricted
stream segments affected (inundated or
flow reduced below low flow Q�_10). miles
3. Percent increase/decrease in mean
monthly winter flows (September-
April). cubic feet per second
4. Increase/decrease in annual mean
flows. cubic feet per second
5. Percent increase/decrease in maximum
spring flows (May-June). percent
B-4
TABLE B.4
RESOURCE CATEGORY: Vegetation
UNIT OF
EVALUATION CRITERIA MEASUREMENT
1. Total acreage of vegetation disturbed. acres
2. Total acreage of disturbed vegetation
converted to another type. acres
3. Total acreage of vegetation perma—
nently removed. acres
n
B-5
TABLE B.5
RESOURCE CATEGORY: Wildlife
UNIT OF
EVALUATION CRITERIA MEASUREMENT
1. Number of raptor nest sites within
1.0 mile of project boundary (bald
eagle, golden eagle, peregrine
falcon). number
2. Number of critical big game winter
ranges affected. number
3. Total acreage of critics big game
winter range permanently lost
(mule deer, elk, bighorn sheep). acres
4. Number of big game migration cor-
ridors crossed or blocked. number
5. Number of big game calving or
lambing grounds affected (elk and
bighorn sheep). number
6. Total acreage of wildlife habitat
permanently lost. acres
7. Number of bird rookerie affected. number
8. Number of waterfowl concentration
areas affected. number
9. Miles of new roads constructed in
areas more than 1 mile away from
existing roads. miles
10. Total acreage of wildlife habitat
converted to another habitat type. acres
B-6
TABLE B.6
RESOURCE CATEGORY: Aquatic Life
UNIT OF
EVALUATION CRITERIA MEASUREMENT
1. Number of perennial streams
affected by direct flow diversions,
inundation, or channelization. number
2. Number of perennial stream miles
affected by direct flow diversions,
inundation, or channelization. number
3. Total surface acreage of all aquatic
habitat conversions. acres
4. Number of stream miles of high quality
fish habitat inundated (includes gold
medal and wild trout streams). miles
5. Number of stream miles of high quality
fish habitat affected by flow diversions
(includes gold medal and wild trout
streams). miles
6. Percent increase/decrease in pounds
per acre of sport fish. percent
7. Total pounds of stocked fish required
to maintain a sport fishery. pounds
8. Number of migratory routes affected. number
B-7
r
TABLE B.7
RESOURCE CATEGORY: Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Life
UNIT OF
EVALUATION CRITERIA MEASUREMENT
1. Number of endangered and threatened
aquatic species affected. number
2. Number of stream miles of essential/
critical habitat affected. miles
r
r
B-8
TABLE B.8
RESOURCE CATEGORY: Threatened and Endangered Vegetation
UNIT OF
EVALUATION CRITERIA MEASUREMENT
1. Number of endangered and threatened
species affected. number
2. Number of designated critical habitats
affected. number
3. Total acreage of designated critical
habitats affected. acres
4. Number of special status species
affected. number
B-9
TABLE B.9
RESOURCE CATEGORY: Threatened and Endangered Wildlife
UNIT OF •
EVALUATION CRITERIA MEASUREMENT
1. Number of endangered and threatened
species affected. number
2. Number of critical/essential habitats
affected. number
3. Total acreage of critical/essential
habitats affected. acres
B-10
TABLE B.10
RESOURCE CATEGORY: Wetlands and Riparian Areas
UNIT OF
EVALUATION CRITERIA MEASUREMENT
1. Number of wetlands and/or riparian
areas affected (increase or decrease). number
2. Total acreage of wetlands and/or
riparian areas affected (increase or
decrease). acres
B-11
TABLE B.11
RESOURCE CATEGORY: Socioeconomics
UNIT OF
EVALUATION CRITERIA MEASUREMENT
Demography/Social
1. Households requiring relocation, number
2. Businesses requiring relocation. number
3. Construction workers as a percent
of the existing population. percent
Employment/Sales
1. Long-term net change in employment
(includes direct, induced, and indirect
new jobs). jobs
2. Long-term net change in retail sales. 1983 dollars
3. Long-term net change in personal
income. 1983 dollars
4. Net change in employment during
construction phase. jobs
5. Net change in retail sales during
construction phase. 1983 dollars
6. Net change in personal income during
construction phase. 1983 dollars
7. Number of long-term local hires as a
proportion of the 1982 work force. percent
8. Change in the ratio of summer to winter
employment from 1981 to postproject. percent
Economics
1. Net change in value of agricultural
crop production. 1983 dollars
2. Net change in value of grazing. 1983 dollars
3. Net change in value of timber
production. 1983 dollars
4. Net change in recreational expen-
ditures. 1983 dollars
Land Use
1. Prime and unique farmlands or lands of
statewide importance removed from
production. acres
2. Prime timberland removed from
production. acres
3. Rights-of-way through public land
required. miles
4. Utilities corridors requiring
relocation. miles
B-12
5. Transportation corridors requiring
relocation. miles
6. Rangelands removed from grazing. acres
7. Forestlands removed from timber
production. acres
8. Farmlands removed from production. acres
9. Net change in flood plains. acres
10. Land changed to higher economic value. acres
11. Land changed to lower economic value, acres
Infrastructure and Public Finance
1. Net long-term change in sales tax
revenues. 1983 dollars
2. Net long-term change in property tax
revenues. 1983 dollars
3. Net change in sales tax revenues
during construction period. 1983 dollars
4. Net changes in government costs. 1983 dollars
5. Utilities potentially facing
higher costs (list entities). number
6. New housing demand during construction
as a percentage of existing vacant
housing supply. percent
B-13
TABLE B. 12
RESOURCE CATEGORY: Recreation
UNIT OF
EVALUATION CRITERIA MEASUREMENT
1. Total number of recreation days
gained/lost annually. days
2. Average percent increase/decrease
in recreation days gained/lost
annually (mean of all existing types). percent
3. Total number of existing recreational
facilities gained/lost. number
4. Total number of kinds of existing
recreation activities lost. number
5. Number of designated unique, high
quality, or regionally significant
recreational sites gained/lost. number
6. Total increase/decrease in acreage of
U.S. Forest Service lands which fail
to meet ROS (Recreation Opportunity
Spectrum) planning objectives. acres
7. Total number of recreation
days created/unavailable to satisfy
CDOW 1983 strategic fish and wildlife
planning objectives. days
8. Total number of recreation days
created/unavailable to satisfy
USFS forest planning objectives. days
9. Total number of recreation days
created/ unavailable to satisfy
Colorado SCORP objectives. days
10. Number of miles of designated and
candidate wild and scenic rivers
affected. miles
11. Total acreage of wilderness area
affected, acres
B-14
TABLE B. 13
RESOURCE CATEGORY: Visual Resources
UNIT OF
EVALUATION CRITERIA MEASUREMENT
1. Total acreage of high visual quality
landscape within the study area. acres
2. Total number of miles along key view-
ing points with views of high visual
quality landscapes within the study
area. miles
3. Total acreage of high visual quality
landscape visible from key viewing
areas. acres
4. Total acreage of landscape experienc-
ing moderate to strong levels of visual
change visible from key viewing area. acres
5. Total miles along key viewing areas
experiencing moderate to strong degrees
of landscape modification or visual
changes. miles
6. Total acreage of landscape with
management objectives of high visual
quality that experiences moderate to
strong levels of visual change. acres
B-15
TABLE B. 14
RESOURCE CATEGORY: Cultural Resources
UNIT OF
EVALUATION CRITERIA MEASUREMENT
1. Number of recorded cultural resource
sites within the project boundary. number
2. Number of unrecorded cultural
resource sites known to exist within
the project boundary. number
3. Number of cultural resource sites
listed or eligible for listing on
NRHP within the project boundary. number
4. Number of cultural resource sites
potentially eligible for listing on
the NRHP within the project boundary. number
5. Number of historic or archaeological
districts listed or eligible for list-
ing on the NRHP affected by the
project. number
6. Extent of proposed impact to listed
eligible districts. percent of total acres
7. Surface area for which pedestrian
inventory for cultural resources will
most likely be required. acres
8. Resource density documented for the
project area and its immediate sur—
roundings. sites/acre
B-16
TABLE 8. 15
RESOURCE CATEGORY: Institutional Issues
UNIT OF
EVALUATION CRITERIA MEASUREMENT
Federal Permits or Authorizations
1. Section 404 Permit (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
2. Section 9 Permit (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
3. Section 10 Permit (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
4. Special Use Permit (U.S. Forest Service)
5. Timber Sales Contract (U.S. Forest Service)
6. Right-of-Way (Bureau of Land Management)
7. Special Land Use License and Easement (Bureau of Reclamation)
8. Permit for Encroachment Into Wilderness (U.S. President)
9. Section 7 Consultation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
10. Radio Licenses (Federal Communications Commission)
11. Explosives User's Permit (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms)
12. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency)
13. Hydropower License (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)
State Permits or Authorizations
1. Water Rights (District Water Court)
2. Well Permit (Division of Water Resources, DNR)
3. Permit for Bedrock Aquifer Well (Division of Water Resources, DNR)
4. Reservoir Plan Approval (Division of Water Resources, DNR)
5. Open Burning Permit (Air Pollution Control Division, DOH)
6. Fugitive Dust Control Plan and Fugitive Dust Permit (Air Pollution
Control Division, DOH)
7. Approval of Location and Construction of Water Works (Drinking
Water Section, DOH)
8. Section 401 Certification (Water Quality Control Division, DOH)
9. Section 402 Permit (Water Quality Control Division, DOH)
10. Special Transport Permit (Department of Highways)
11. Survey Permit (Department of Highways)
12. Access Control Permit (Department of Highways)
13. Underground and Utility Permit (Department of Highways)
14. Permit for Explosive Materials (Public Safety Section, DLE)
15. Right-of-Way (State Board of Land Commissioners)
16. Certification of Public Convenience and Necessity (PUC)
17. Cultural Resources Clearances (State Historical Society)
Local Permits on Authorizations
1. The Colorado Land Use Act of 1974
2. Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act of 197S
3. State Subdivision Regulations
4. Zoning Plans
5. Building Codes 6. Other County Authority
B-17
SYSTEMWIDE/SITE-SPECIFIC EIS
METROPOLITAN DENVER WATER SUPPLY
SUPPLEMENTAL WORK PLAN NO. 2
SYSTEMWIDE MODIFICATIONS
i"� TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE •
BACKGROUND 1
TASK 1: PROJECT INITIATION 1
TASK 2, 2A, 2B, AND 2C: DEVELOP FUTURE WATER DEMANDS 1
TASK 3: EXISTING WATER SUPPLY 1
TASK 4: EVALUATE WATER SOURCES FOR FUTURE SUPPLY 2
TASK 5: DEVELOP AND EVALUATE WATER SUPPLY SCENARIOS 5
TASK 6: PREPARE DRAFT EIS 5
TASK 7: RESPOND TO COMMENTS 5
TASK 8: FINAL EIS 5
TASK 9: ASSIST IN PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 5
TASK 10: MEETINGS 6
TASK 11: PROJECT MANAGEMENT 7
TASK 12: COORDINATION AND REVIEW WITH OTHERS 7
MODIFICATIONS TO SYSTEMWIDE EIS
METROPOLITAN DENVER WATER SUPPLY
BACKGROUND
The Systemwide EIS Final Work Plan was completed in January 1983.
Since the initial document was completed, six modifications in the scope
of work have been made with associated adjustments in the contract
value. The following represents a seventh modification in the
Systemwide scope of work based on the rescoping of the Systemwide EIS to
include site-specific project analysis and based on changes in concepts
of how the Systemwide EIS would be conducted. The modifications are
presented with reference to the specific tasks in the Systemwide EIS
work plan and its earlier modifications.
TASK 1: PROJECT INITIATION
No change from existing work plan.
TASK 2, 2A, 2B, AND 2C: DEVELOP FUTURE WATER DEMANDS
No change from existing work plan or modification.
TASK 3: EXISTING WATER SUPPLY
Comments received on the draft of Technical Appendix 3 Existing
Water Supply suggest that nontributary ground water yields may be
overstated because of inadequate accounting of decreed rights which are
considerably in excess of well capacities and gradual deterioration of
well production over time. This will necessitate additional analysis
relating to nontributary ground water yields not contemplated in the
existing scope of work.
The additional work to be conducted by Engineering-Science (ES)
will attempt to determine whether the existing nontributary ground water
safe yields are correctly stated. Currently, the draft report indicates
a safe yield of approximately 66,000 acre-feet. The analysis will
consist of further review of the existing information on decreed rights
versus the well production capacities, and well production deterioration
and potential effects on safe yields over time. The new work includes:
1. Visits, interviews, and further review of public records to
determine if ground water safe yields should be re-specified. This
includes interviews with up to six and no less than four water suppliers
who have a major dependence on nontributary ground water. Any changes
that are applicable to the four to six suppliers would be applied to the
total nontributary ground water safe yield of the study area.
2. The ability of ground water suppliers to sustain production of
a specific safe yield over time will be evaluated based on the existing
data base, the above interviews, and review of public records. The
1
analysis will look at current rates of withdrawal, or safe yields if
they are larger, and the reasonableness of maintaining these withdraw-
als. If appropriate, correction factors to the existing safe yields
will be applied where it appears that yields cannot be maintained. This
work will be incorporated into the final task 3 report.
TASK 4: EVALUATE WATER SOURCES FOR FUTURE SUPPLY
WATER CONSERVATION
A preliminary draft report on water conservation has been prepared
and distributed for comment. During the preparation of this report sev-
eral intermediate reviews were conducted which included representatives
of the Corps of Engineers (COE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ,
Denver Water Department (DWD) , Environmental Caucus, West Slope, and the
Metropolitan Water Providers. Comments were received on interim prod-
ucts and these changes were incorporated in the preliminary draft re-
port. Several work elements have been completed which were not within
the original scope of work. This work involved an increased level of
detail by ES in the analysis of previously negotiated conservation mea-
sures, the analysis of additional conservation measures, and the use of
the COE Institute of Water Resources (IWR) methodologies. This report
is undergoing revision to incorporate the results of these additional
analyses.
PROJECTS OF OTHER PARTICIPANTS
i^ As a result of rescoping, new water sources have been identified
that are projects of other participants. These projects include Clear
Creek Reservoir and Rocky Ford agricultural ditch rights.
The analysis of Clear Creek Reservoir by the DWD will consist of a
review of potential dam sites on Clear Creek above the city of Golden.
One representative site will be selected. This site is expected to be
the general location where project proponents have filed for a water
storage right. A rough cost estimate and facility description will be
developed by the DWD for the site. The potential safe yield of the
representative project will be estimated by the DWD. Institutional
problems that are unique to this project will also be identified by the
DWD. The purpose of the engineering, hydrologic, and institutional
analyses will be to determine feasibility and timing of construction so
that appropriate adjustments can be made to the water demand deficit for
50-year alternative scenario formation. It is not anticipated that any
environmental impact analysis will be conducted on this project as a
part of this scope of work.
The city of Aurora has obtained an option for the purchase of
agricultural water rights in the Rocky Ford ditch in the Arkansas River
basin. To the extent information is available, the yield and future use
of this water will be described by the DWD. Once information is
assembled, a determination will be made by the COE as to whether this
yield should be included as a new water source for Aurora. No environ-
mental impact analysis will be conducted on the use or transfer of these
water rights.
2
•
The description and analysis of the Clear Creek Reservoir and Rocky
Ford Ditch rights will be conducted by the DWD. The DWD will provide
the COE and ES with a draft report on each water source, which will be
reviewed by ES and the COE. Comments from ES and the COE will be
discussed with the DWD and the report will be modified as necessary. ES
will incorporate the final DWD report into the technical appendix on
projects of other participants.
ES will estimate, where possible, a safe yield for each project of
other participants studied previously and will identify which ones will
be built and the time frame when new yields will become available. This
analysis will take into account the project costs, yields, and institu-
tional constraints.
GREEN MOUNTAIN RESERVOIR PUMPING AND JOINT USE RESERVOIR
Preliminary draft reports on the Green Mountain Reservoir pumping
project and the Joint Use Reservoir have been reviewed and comments have
been received. Based on these coments, it is necessary to provide more
detail on costs, yields, and operation of the Green Mountain pumping
project than originally contemplated in the existing scope of work.
For the purpose of including the Joint Use Reservoir in scenario
formation and analysis, it is necessary to select a representative site
for further analysis of a Joint Use Reservoir. The representative Joint
Use Reservoir project will be the Wolford Mountain Dam which would be
located on Muddy Creek as identified to the COE by the Colorado River
Water Conservation District.
The more detailed engineering and hydrologic analyses of the Green
Mountain pump back and Joint Use Reservoir will be prepared by the DWD.
The DWD will provide a description of the institutional problems of
these projects. ES and the COE will review the report. The DWD, the
COE, and ES will discuss the comments and, as appropriate, the report
will be modified. No further environmental analysis will be conducted
by ES. ES will incorporate the results into the technical appendix.
EAGLE—PINEY PROJECT
During rescoping, the Wolcott Reservoir/Tunnel project was identi-
fied as an alternative to the Eagle-Piney project. This project would
utilize the Wolcott Reservoir site on Alkali Creek and a tunnel from the
Wolcott Reservoir under the Eagles Nest Wilderness to Dillon Reservoir.
The DWD will furnish information on engineering, cost, and yields in a
report to the COE and ES. ES will evaluate this alternative, based on
existing environmental and institutional analyses for the Green Mountain
pumping and Eagle-Piney projects. This analysis will be incorporated by
ES into the existing Eagle-Piney/Eagle-Colorado chapter of technical
appendix 4.
JOINT SYSTEM OPERATION
The DWD will provide to the COE an operational analysis of the DWD
water supply system incorporating the operation of other water
3
suppliers' systems in an attempt to enhance the existing safe yield of
the system. This report will provide a description of how the joint
system would operate, the assumptions used, and the possible yields.
These hydrologic operational studies will be provided to the COE for
review and verification. The COE and DWD will discuss COE comments and
a final report prepared. The COE will transfer to ES the write-up of
the joint system operational study for incorporation into the draft
technical appendix.
NEW SOURCES
The rescoping process identified two new water sources: Fremont
Fort Reservoir and the lower South Platte Reservoir pump back. The DWD
will develop project descriptions and data on these two water sources,
including facility description, costs, operational hydrology, potential
safe yields, and institutional issues. This information will be provid-
ed to ES and the COE for review. The DWD, COE, and ES will discuss
comments and the report will be revised as appropriate. A final draft
report will be provided by the COE to ES for incorporation into the
draft technical appendix 4.
ES will analyze the potential water quality impacts of a lower
South Platte Reservoir pump back and the DWD will utilize this analysis
to estimate additional treatment costs of this water source. No envi-
ronmental analysis will be conducted for Fremont Fort. No other envi-
ronmental analysis, other than water quality, will be conducted for
E-- South Platte pump back.
PREPARE TECHNICAL APPENDIX
During the rescoping of the Systemwide EIS it became apparent that
a single technical appendix to present the evaluation of all water
sources would be inadequate. Therefore, three separate technical
appendices will be prepared.
Technical appendix 4a will present a description and analysis of
water sources which were screened out. These are the water sources not
utilized in alternative scenarios or selected for site-specific analy-
sis. This appendix will include responses to comments, as appropriate,
based on the review comments on the preliminary draft reports.
Technical appendix 4b will present a description and analysis of
those projects utilized in alternative scenarios and not evaluated in
site-specific detail.
Technical appendix 4c will present a description and analysis of
those site-specific and No Federal Action projects described in the
site-specific work plan.
NEW SCHEDULES
The schedules for accomplishing these new work elements associated
with Task 4 are presented in figure 1.
4
C.
s✓
4 I
CO G
La on cc
rl '-) - • .
H C.1
a
G. A
ZI . .
c_.,
. _. , . _
u I
O
. .
� . _
� 1 1
A I l I _ , . _ I._,
.._,
iiiial
. ,
o
._,
.. . ... _ .
ciI .,_,
.., I _ , I
i
c,
„i
. . ..
...
G-. - . _
co GIII I I
rn r
,-i '')
U
co a ,
A I
p • -- I _ '
C.)
>a • W
)
. - - W Cti CJ) cJ) .7 0l G3'
c3 = - - co :G7 = C:a 0 W 0
(-1 CC.J .) O C.7
O
i x G
C..' O
i •,I G
G .7 4-) G O u
E •... 0.
• o x ac
:-' •... P.. u O a
G. u cy '- 'S'
a a -o C o
E 1 o 4-1 m E L Q c r,
E H .-1 7 01 }.
O 11 OP.P. 11 ::,- a m -- l) E E-* w a
ate' o w v; 4-1 Z w C...=. = r x
i aL ri C y, C 'D C X CJ
G 42d :I
"' j' o e o a �a o c
6 } y r1 y cn s- m w _ _ = x
�, cn
u cc w ro cn 3 J .L w x
n a n ai ca a •� •� ro °a. ro : =
n a y a-o > u a E a E. E- = a a
o ••-i o •,I a u 3 P--1 > x 3 3 s. co
.-1 s-i r-i $a aG a O y+ a a c7 cc
JUJU aG u a-+ P. w •-1 •r1 a s
:n > cn w •r1 •-1 •,•+ :4 b > > a
.1 a a a a 0 cn 'v 'v -0 aG w a a N a
A Ca Gl A CJ G.: W W W MPG P4 P. PG
PG
P..
IN ;v. 7 un a0 O •'-' N M ..-.1 '1` I
.00000000 —i •--+ •--1 .•a •--- ,-.
I0,010,00000 0 0000 0 • 1 1 I
..-..
1 -
a
z - . _
I-I N
c
U
1
w co C
ON
a HI In
O
H U
W a
0
Z
u
U
O
a
v
co
aC
d
.
7
C
7
M
i.
Nii"
S+
6
—
3-,
c
Z
a)
•
w
W
co
c0 C
W
—I'-I h
-a O
-03
CU
C.
Yi •
901 C/) w w CI) w 3 o w Q co w a c Z w ` C c./1 0
'— o _ _
a
r-1 L
C4-4 S+
s+
O C O U
a
al H N W H • O
L
). O W > W u U a) a
a JUA O G4 u O a.) o X J.)
c
W .c U L+ a) u 1C-I 34 O Z O a) 4- C
a. U u Q) ,-I O 0) u • u C S. u V a
G a u O( U u y. P. C I) CO C A Q. an u
I O .:L c a c ri rI O • v1 co +i M U. cc Si u u H
r I C•ri U .C CO w O C a W O S+ M W '0 0 0 o hi t+ O
O u Q) U .C — 3 W '-) U O u G W "'9 a. E a O o a U
d x •.i U Si 0 - u F4 0 '- C c 7 c Q. W a 4 a) +i
u 7 U ..� W C u u C c 7 W C t' u W' W a) aS r1
'C O) W C O o u C O O C o W C4 O rC U• a4 W' A
M < )a 70-I .0 hi O M c rI O c c 0 Z CO >• u rI 7
EI U u OLD 1 u o U U u u 00 O ti u a ° i w w c °
e» c .I U c ri u c c u U u p c a. a. w e ai w aO
0 k I-4 ea N m �a( a 0 3O $4 a CO $4 •r1 u a 0 H a s
- C ouiwww O. 3 ao o O o ., a O CU U W
ti W
c k U s HI + rI .i O t ti W nN W Ur m
cu a u u u u U U M O W W •.i C u u U • 41-{{ a M i a 0+
P1 U +i •-I HI •r1 > W > U > > > W •N +i > y •-1 E > > a) rI
ti 'G 'O 'O '6 W a) a) c U U a) 'o -O U U '0 0 a) W ). W
w www wo ac4I-Ia a x w w a x wU x aax
0 00000 00 0 --$ -4 '-I .-I H .--i ,.. ,_. •.. ,ti NN N
!000 .7 00 00 0 .Y .Y c .Y .Y n n .Y .Y .1 00 "
__ IO 000 OO 00 00 0 0 n n.n n_dr-._�tOOO
FINALIZE TECHNICAL APPENDIX
Ten percent of the previously allotted funds for Task 4 and Task 5
of the Systemwide EIS will be placed in an optional account to be used
for finalization of the Tasks 4 and 5 technical appendixes. The level
of effort required for finalization will be negotiated after the public
reviews. The contracting officer will authorize any use of the optional
funds.
TASK 5: DEVELOP AND EVALUATE WATER SUPPLY SCENARIOS
There is no change from the existing work plan except for how the
Task 5 report will be finalized, which is described under Task 4. The
schedule for the conduct of Task 5 is presented in figure 2.
TASK 6: PREPARE DRAFT EIS
ES completed an initial draft of the Systemwide EIS. The Supple—
mental Draft EIS is deleted from the scope of work.
TASK 7: RESPOND TO COMMENTS
This task is deleted. No work was authorized or conducted under
this task.
TASK 8: FINAL EIS
This task is deleted from the scope of work.
TASK 9: ASSIST IN PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The structure of the Systemwide EIS and the overall public involve-
ment process has been modified beyond the initial concept and work
scope. These changes are a function of the incorporation of site-speci-
fic projects, a closer working relationship with the Metropolitan Water
Roundtable, and a reduction in coordination with the CAC.
The following represent modifications to the public involvement
process as originally described in the Systemwide EIS Final Work Plan.
PREPARATION OF FACTSHEETS
ES will continue to take the responsibility for preparation of fact
sheets for each technical appendix. Review and final approval will be
provided by the COE. ES will prepare six fact sheets.
PREPARE INFORMATION BROCHURES
This activity is complete. No further work is required.
PREPARE AND DISTRIBUTE NEWS RELEASES
The COE will assume full responsibility for the conduct of this
task.
5
-
`I
. _ . - -
H -
_ -
1.4
r• r.
_ _ . - _ . -
a)
L-
vo
m C
o• ca
W
cC r•i ^)
CI l . .
C7 W
w CI
0
1I I0
CM r
.-1
7
In
•
7I
tea
Sat-
III
ro
CI
W
A
CO C
ON G
r-I ')
d W
CO G
C. ci c.5 ci•
1.4 eS
a c R R C 0 c O W _ _ _ 00 0 W C0 a O - - CO'.
C: Cy Li
-o a if
U m W o C
u
•-. >. •r1 x 0 0 •-1 i s
a CO C( CJ 0 ri a cL Cr'
1-
a C, r--4 CC 0 0 .0 c I—
••-• r• C3. '
a .C. ca a, , a.
0 C 0 > C w „ W a p v
Q I a d G C Ln N 7a r-I O a C: a
cc a. 00 1 r 0
0 .. W • 9i a_ ... S W N a cr
4-I C C Q O E „ W CD N W F u ¢
0 Cd CC r- c Ia 0 G rd C cd Cd P.' .+ . Cr C
O q a. C .J 'CI 0 00 )- F H 'CI O C. > •r1
I-I • E . cd > O • +i 0 A C a. 6 L1
i ca ~ >�Q „ O •—I . O 0 0 0 co o C O p
Z C O u a) = T O a) .-I Z H G a. •rl L d a)
W 0 A G > 04 r4 a.1 O K +J „ H 111 )a a. ca
}4 .,i a) •r1 O C )r C H O G 'w w E O 0) O an
Ct „ .-4E. „ •r CO 0) 'O •r1 Cd G •-I 4-1 .Y' o. a •ri
a! W N )-1 C C ^H >. )+ E I.+ )a r-1 CO 00 > )a •
W N -in
u r-I .-I ro ). W E Z N •r C) 0 a) hi 00 3 G •r O
0 . )a G a 7 G 'o U O — G )a N E W •r1 a. a •r1
u a) a a a) >,,ct c) d a) a) >. >,a. o •r1 u a a) r-I
H E 7 7 u x 3 u s+ I< hi a w > W r- u a)
Z E" W r4 W VI C) N w • CO A W 11 W Cl O CU W CO H
Q W •-1 O O CJ O G C O C4 W' E P,
.I a 'o o 'W7 h 3 • Ia o hi E E 3 b a) u u C: a 3
u G -i r-1 •rI 7 a) v ro r-1 CO •r1 .i W W CO •ri r1 •.+ al •
:4 W CO > W > G •ri fa a a a ri r I •r1 „ W '44 . ri M
W ri O > O a) > O W > W W C) > •r1 ri .o d „ C) >
> W Ca )a W 3a QC) O W W )a S+ S+ W 'O W 7 7 d) )a W
W cEr) I-I a. Ca a, cn c4 ova q a. a. W C4 W W a. a W a. W
O
km z-p 0ON rn -300 000 0 0 O -a N . . . .O � CO CA O
000OO 00000 ' ' rarO Cra r � \C N
10000000000 00000,0 000
PREPARE MEDIA PACKET
This activity has been completed. No further activity is required.
PREPARE NEWSLETTER
ES will continue to take responsibility for the conduct of this
activity with assistance in preparation and review by the COE. ES will
prepare five newsletters.
PREPARE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DOCUMENTATION RECORD
ES will continue to take responsibility for the conduct of this
activity. The conduct of this activity has been incorporated into Task
10.
PREPARE TEAM SUPPORT FOR PRESENTATIONS
ES will continue to take responsibility for the conduct of this
activity. ES will provide team support for 12 presentations, as de-
scribed in Task 10.
PROVIDE PUBLIC INFORMATION COORDINATION
ES will provide an information "hotline" at the ES office and
discontinue the current line at Entercom. This is included in Task 11
under "Communication with the General Public." The remaining activities
will be the responsibility of ES, with support from the DWD, as origin-
ally described in the Final Work Plan.
CAC REIMBURSEMENT BUDGET
No funds have been expended for this activity.
ASSIST IN NEWS CONFERENCES
The COE will assume full responsibility for this activity.
MEDIA CONTACT PROGRAM
This activity is deleted from the current scope of work.
MEDIA TOUR
This activity is deleted from the current scope of work.
ARRANGE PUBLIC MEETINGS/HEARINGS
ES is to continue to take responsibility for this activity and it
has been incorporated into Task 10. ES will provide support for up to
12 public hearings/meetings under this activity, as descried under Task
10.
TASK 10: MEETINGS
A specific number of meetings have been identified for each tech-
nical Work Group (appendix B to the contract). ES will keep an account-
ing of meetings attended and their duration. It is currently assumed
that adequate time has been budgeted. If Work Group attendance time
begins to be excessive (exceeding 120 percent of the allocated meeting
time) , adjustments will be requested.
n
6
Meetings with the EIS Coordinating Committee, various other Round-
table groups, and all of the entities currently participating in the EIS
process were negotiated under Project Management. These are described
in Task 11.
ES will provide the COE with a high level of support for a total of
12 public meetings associated with the completion of Tasks 2, 4, and 5.
This will include arrangements for meetings, support, meeting attend-
ance, presentation, a description of meeting results, and an attendance
list.
TASK 11: PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Project management has been expanded to include both Systemwide and
Site-Specific management activities. Management from September through
December 1984, when no management budget was available but management
activities were continuing, is included. The following functions are
included in project management:
1. Coordination with COE management.
2. Coordination with COE Work Group coordinators.
3. Coordination with DWD.
4. Coordination with Cooperating Agencies.
5. Contractor-Subcontractor team meetings.
6. Coordination with the Roundtable, EIS Task Froce, and the EIS
/-, Coordinating Committee.
7. Coordination with Metropolitan Water Providers.
8. Coordination with Environmental Caucus.
9. Communication and responses to the general public (including
dedicated phone line).
10. Administrative Support
a. Mailing lists (occasional corrections).
b. Meeting Announcement (occasional).
c. Preparation of letters of transmittal.
d. Distribution and routing of correspondence filing system
(ES).
e. Furnishing correspondence to COE and DWD.
11. Schedule monitoring, input to scheduling development , and
interaction with COE schedule Control Officer.
12. Preparation of a subject index of 150 to 200 words for tech-
nical appendix 4 and 5.
In addition, the Corps required support when its personnel are in
working quarters provided by ES. ES will provide two phones in the COE
office as well as support services for typing, drafting, and xeroxing.
TASK 12: COORDINATION AND REVIEW WITH OTHERS
This task activity has been superceded by the formation of the EIS
Coordinating Committee. This task is deleted from the scope of work.
r
7
Hello