Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Enlargement of

Rocky Mountain Region/ Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests/ Grand Valley Ranger District May 2021

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 Project

We make every effort to create documents that are accessible to individuals of all abilities; however, limitations with our word processing programs may prevent some parts of this document from being readable by computer-assisted reading devices. If you need assistance with any part of this document, please contact the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests at (970) 874-6600. In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD 3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender

Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Mesa County, Colorado

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Wildlife

Responsible Official: Chad Stewart, Forest Supervisor 2250 South Main Street, Delta, CO 81416

For Information Contact: William Edwards, District Ranger Grand Mesa Ranger District 2777 Crossroads Blvd, Grand Junction, CO 81506; 970-263-5804; [email protected]

Abstract: The Ute Water Conservancy District (Ute Water) proposes to enlarge Monument Reservoir No. 1 on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG). The project would be located in the Leon Creek watershed, approximately 43 air miles east of Grand Junction, Colorado. The storage volume of the enlarged reservoir would be approximately 5,268 acre-feet and is intended to meet a portion of Ute Water’s year-2045 demand projections. The enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1 would be operated infrequently during drought conditions. Construction may take 4 to 5 years to complete. If the enlargement were approved, road infrastructure would be upgraded in year 1 and the Monument Reservoir No. 1 dam would be enlarged in years 2 through 5. The Forest Service, in evaluating Ute Water’s application, considered two alternatives: the Proposed Action and a No-action Alternative. Issues related to Colorado Roadless Areas and wetlands were the primary drivers of the decision to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Should the deciding official select the action alternative, that decision would entail the authorization of an enlarged reservoir footprint at one location, various road-related construction activities, construction activities at the reservoir site, access to borrow material, and mitigation activities on National Forest System (NFS) lands.


i

Summary The Forest Service, USDA, proposes to authorize the enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 on the Grand Valley Ranger District of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG). The project’s proponent is the Ute Water Conservancy District (Ute Water). Ute Water is the Grand Valley’s largest domestic water provider, serving over 80,000 customers within a 260-square mile area within Mesa County, Colorado. Ute Water’s service area includes the areas in and around the City of Grand Junction, Town of Fruita, Town of Palisade, and the unincorporated Towns of Clifton, Loma, and Mack.

The project is located on the north side of the Grand Mesa, on Monument Creek, approximately 43 air miles east of Grand Junction (T11S, R93W, sections 11 and 12, 6th PM; see Figure 1, page 2, below, for a project location map). Monument Creek is tributary to Leon Creek, and Leon Creek is tributary to Plateau Creek below Vega Reservoir. Plateau Creek is tributary to the Colorado River.

This action is needed because Ute Water is implementing a proactive plan to store water based on projections for increased demand between now and the year 2045, particularly during drought events. Storing approximately 5,300 acre-feet of water in the Leon Creek watershed to address shortfalls is one component of Ute Water’s plan to provide additional water.

Should the Forest Service authorize enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1, it would concomitantly authorize maintenance work for roads and trails on which construction equipment would travel during the construction period and for long-term operations and maintenance. Additionally, permits would be issued for a worker’s camp, borrow material sites, and activities associated with mitigation.

The agency analyzed two alternatives in detail:

1. the Proposed Action: Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 from its current capacity of 446 acre-feet to a capacity of approximately 5,268 acre-feet. This would increase the surface area of the reservoir from its current area of approximately 38 acres to 155 acres. This was the only alternative determined to be both practicable (that is, available and capable of being executed) and sufficient to meet the project purpose and need

2. A No-action Alternative.

The agency identified five major issues through analysis, public and agency scoping and Draft Supplemental environmental statement review.

• Water Resources, particularly changes in duration and volume of downstream flow. Members of the public and cooperating agencies expressed concern regarding potential decreases in flow below the enlarged dam. The project proponent modeled flows for reservoir operations based on a representative sample of water regimes on Grand Mesa.

• Wetlands, especially their loss due to displacement by the enlarged dam or inundation by the enlarged reservoir pool. Enlarging Monument Reservoir No. 1 would inundate 24.3 acres of wetlands while dam, spillway, road, and trail construction would fill an additional 5.0 acres of wetlands for a project total of 29.3 acres. However, proposed mitigation for this impact would offset both the loss of area and function of the inundated wetlands.

• Aquatic Wildlife, effects of changes in flow and sediment transport. Cooperating agencies and members of the public expressed concern that changes in flow duration and volume would result in


ii

loss of aquatic diversity, both by periodic drying of Monument Creek and increased sediment during period of low flow. The final proposed action addresses these concerns through provision of sufficient flows and management of flow volume and rate of increase or decrease to address these concerns.

• Recreation Management, effects to trails. The potential loss of a National Forest System Trail and a popular snowmobile trail to construction impacts and long-term inundation were concerns of many commenters. The proposed action would displace recreational users of the National Forest System Trail during construction, but would be restored upon construction completion. Both trails would be relocated to improved locations.

• Transportation, vehicle traffic during construction. Construction phase traffic would greatly increase truck traffic through Vega Lake State Park. The proposed alternative includes mitigations to limit impacts to Vega Lake State Park.

The final environmental impacts statement analyzes these primary impacts as well as other impacts as required by law or policy. Based upon this analysis, the Responsible Official will decide the following: 1) whether to select the Proposed Action or the No-action Alternative; and 2) if the Proposed Action is selected, prescribe the terms and conditions (including compensatory mitigation) associated with special use authorizations and associated permits for construction activities on NFS lands.


iii

Summary of Changes between Draft Supplemental and Final Environmental Impact Statements The following changes have occurred since the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published in April 2017:

• The scope of the Proposed Action has been limited to enlarging Monument Reservoir No. 1 and subsequent changes in annual operations of the enlarged reservoir.

• The increased reservoir storage would be used to address shortages in system firm yield (i.e., maximum yield that can be delivered without failure during the historical drought of record).

• The proposed enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 has been reduced in size from the Monument Reservoir No. 1 only alternative of the Draft EIS. At 5,268 acre-feet total capacity, it is very close to the enlargement proposed in tandem with an enlargement of Hunter Reservoir in the 2017 document.

• Alternatives considered in detail have changed due to elimination of any proposed action at Hunter Reservoir resulting from review comments on the 2017 Draft Supplemental EIS.

• Alternatives not considered in detail have been updated to reflect no longer evaluating enlargement of Hunter Reservoir in detail.

• The screening of practicable alternatives, for compliance with section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act has been updated.

• Analysis of the Proposed Action has been updated.


v

Table of Contents Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ i Summary of Changes between Draft Supplemental and Final Environmental Impact Statements ............. iii Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action .................................................................................................. 1

Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Process Leading to Publication of the 2017 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement .... 3 Process since Publication of 2017 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ................... 4

Project Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................... 5 Decision Framework ................................................................................................................................. 6 Authorities ................................................................................................................................................ 7

Laws ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 Executive Orders ................................................................................................................................. 10 Regulations ......................................................................................................................................... 11 Directives ............................................................................................................................................ 11 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (1991, as amended) ....................................................................................................... 12

Tribal Consultation ................................................................................................................................. 13 Public Involvement ................................................................................................................................. 13 Issues ...................................................................................................................................................... 14

Water Resources ................................................................................................................................. 14 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................................. 15 Aquatic Wildlife .................................................................................................................................. 15 Recreation Management ..................................................................................................................... 15 Transportation ..................................................................................................................................... 15 Air Quality and Climate Change ......................................................................................................... 15 Terrestrial Wildlife .............................................................................................................................. 15 Vegetation, Native and Non-Native Species ....................................................................................... 16 Special Status Plant Species ................................................................................................................ 16 Soils..................................................................................................................................................... 16 Geology and Minerals ......................................................................................................................... 16 Roadless Areas .................................................................................................................................... 16 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 16 Rangelands .......................................................................................................................................... 16 Paleontological Resources .................................................................................................................. 16

Issues Not Addressed .............................................................................................................................. 16 Health and Safety ................................................................................................................................ 17

Other Related Efforts .............................................................................................................................. 17 Federal Permits Necessary to Implement the Proposal .......................................................................... 18

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action............................................................................. 19

No Action ............................................................................................................................................... 19 Proposed Action (Environmentally Preferable Alternative) ................................................................... 20

Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 ....................................................................................... 20 Connected Actions .............................................................................................................................. 25 Reservoir Operations .......................................................................................................................... 31

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ............................................................... 34 Alternatives Considered under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act .................................................. 34

Summary of Proposed Action ................................................................................................................. 37 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ........................................................ 39


vi

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 39 Consideration of Past, Other Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ......................................... 39 Specialist Reports ................................................................................................................................... 39 Organization of this Chapter ................................................................................................................... 39 Water Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 40

Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 40 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 42 Summary of Proposed Action Effects ................................................................................................. 48

Wetlands ................................................................................................................................................. 49 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 49 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 50

Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Species ........................................................................................................ 56 Endangered Colorado River Fishes ..................................................................................................... 56 Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Species, Aquatic Management Indicator Species, Aquatic Fauna in the Leon Creek Watershed .................................................................................................................. 57 Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects .................................................................................. 66

Recreation Management ......................................................................................................................... 66 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 66 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 69 Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects .................................................................................. 70

Transportation ......................................................................................................................................... 71 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 71 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 71 Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects .................................................................................. 74

Air Quality and Climate Change ............................................................................................................ 75 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 75 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 76 Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects .................................................................................. 77

Terrestrial Wildlife ................................................................................................................................. 78 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 78 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 81 Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects .................................................................................. 85

Vegetation-Native and Non-native Species ............................................................................................ 86 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 86 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 87

Special-status Plant Species .................................................................................................................... 87 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 87 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 88 Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects .................................................................................. 88

Soils ........................................................................................................................................................ 89 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 89 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 90 Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects .................................................................................. 91

Geology and Minerals ............................................................................................................................ 92 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 92 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 93 Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects .................................................................................. 93

Paleontological Resources ...................................................................................................................... 93 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 93 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 93 Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects .................................................................................. 94


vii

Rangelands ............................................................................................................................................. 94 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 94 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 94 Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects .................................................................................. 95

Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................................. 95 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 96 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 98 Summary of Effects .......................................................................................................................... 100

Roadless Areas ..................................................................................................................................... 101 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 101 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................................... 101 Mitigation .......................................................................................................................................... 104

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ....................................................................................... 104 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ............................................................................................................... 105 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ................................................................... 105 Actions Considered for Cumulative Effects Analysis .......................................................................... 105

Mineral Development ....................................................................................................................... 106 Recreation ......................................................................................................................................... 106 Timber Harvest ................................................................................................................................. 107 Water Development .......................................................................................................................... 107 Cumulative Impact to Water Quality, Water Quantity, and Endangered Fishes .............................. 109

Other Required Disclosures .................................................................................................................. 110 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................ 110 American Indian Treaty Rights ......................................................................................................... 110 Congressionally Designated Areas ................................................................................................... 110 Floodplains (Executive Order 11988) ............................................................................................... 110 Colorado Roadless Areas .................................................................................................................. 110 National Landmarks .......................................................................................................................... 111 Municipal Watersheds....................................................................................................................... 111 Parklands ........................................................................................................................................... 111 Prime Farmlands, Rangelands, and Forestlands ............................................................................... 111 Social Groups .................................................................................................................................... 111 Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) ................................................................................................... 111 Wild and Scenic Rivers ..................................................................................................................... 112

Chapter 4. References ............................................................................................................................... 113

Chapter 5. Preparers and Contributors ...................................................................................................... 123

Interdisciplinary Team Members .......................................................................................................... 123 Federal, State, and Local Agencies....................................................................................................... 123 Tribes .................................................................................................................................................... 123 Others ................................................................................................................................................... 123

Chapter 6. Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement .............................................................. 125

Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................... 127

Hunter – Monument Reservoir No. 1 Enlargement Project Response to Comments on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) .................................................................... 127

Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ........................................................ 127 Comments from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) ........................................................... 129 Comments from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), Department of Natural Resources .............. 133 Comments from Eric Kuhn, General Manager, Colorado Water District ......................................... 149 Comment from Jim Pokrandt, Chairman, Colorado Basin Roundtable ............................................ 149


viii

Comment from Kristi Pollard, Executive Director, Grand Junction Economic Partnership ............ 149 Comments from Peter Baier, Mesa County Director of Public Works ............................................. 149 Comment from Phil Bertrand, Superintendent, Grande Valley Irrigation Company ........................ 150 Comment from Luke Basham ........................................................................................................... 150 Comments from Rocky Smith; Christine Canaly, Director, San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council; Alison Gallensky, GIS and IT Director, Rocky Mountain Wild; Alan Apt, Wilderness Chair, Sierra Club Colorado Chapter; Eric Rechel, Co-Chair, Uncompahgre Group, Rocky Mountain Chapter of Sierra Club; and Sloan Shoemaker, Executive Director, Wilderness Workshop .............................. 150 Comment from Christian Reece, Executive Director, Club 20 ......................................................... 155

Appendix B ............................................................................................................................................... 157

Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 Project Alternatives Screening Analysis for Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ............................................................................................................................. 157

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 157 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 157 Current Situation ............................................................................................................................... 159 Alternatives Analyzed for Practicability ........................................................................................... 160 Screening Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 176 References to Appendix B ................................................................................................................ 192

Appendix C ............................................................................................................................................... 195

Design Criteria for the Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 .................................................... 195 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................ 195 Aquatic Wildlife ................................................................................................................................ 195 Cultural Resources, Archaeology, and Paleontology ........................................................................ 196 Hazardous Materials and Emergency Response ............................................................................... 197 Hydrology ......................................................................................................................................... 197 Noise ................................................................................................................................................. 197 Soils................................................................................................................................................... 198 Solid and Sanitary Waste .................................................................................................................. 201 Terrestrial Wildlife ............................................................................................................................ 201 Travel Management and Roads/Trails .............................................................................................. 201 Vegetation ......................................................................................................................................... 203 Visual Resources ............................................................................................................................... 203

Appendix D ............................................................................................................................................... 205

Monument Reservoir No. 1 Operations Plan ........................................................................................ 205 Appendix E ............................................................................................................................................... 211

Monument Reservoir No. 1 Wetland Mitigation Plan .......................................................................... 211 Index ......................................................................................................................................................... 213

List of Figures Figure 1. Location of Monument Reservoir No. 1 ........................................................................................ 2 Figure 2. Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 Project area map .................................................... 22 Figure 3. Monument Reservoir No. 1 dam embankment design (URS, October 2011) ............................. 23 Figure 4. Roads and trails in the project area .............................................................................................. 27 Figure 5. Proposed re-route of NFST 518 near the confluence of Leon Creek and Monument Creek ....... 29 Figure 6. Proposed re-route of NFST 518 around an enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1 ...................... 30 Figure 7. Relative locations of Monument Reservoir No. 1, the Jerry Creek Reservoirs, and the Plateau Creek Intake ................................................................................................................................................ 32


ix

Figure 8. Estimated existing discharge (cubic feet per second) for Monument Creek below the Monument Reservoir No. 1 Dam in wet years (blue) and dry years (red) under current operations ............................ 41 Figure 9. Simulated storage for Monument Reservoir No. 1 enlargement ................................................. 43 Figure 10. Simulated storage for Monument Reservoirs No. 1 and No. 2 combined – existing condition 44 Figure 11. Comparison of wet year hydrograph in Monument Creek below Monument Reservoir No. 1 for existing conditions (blue) and dam enlargement (red) ................................................................................ 45 Figure 12. Comparison of average year hydrograph in Monument Creek below Monument Reservoir No. 1 for existing conditions (blue) and dam enlargement (red) ....................................................................... 45 Figure 13. Comparison of dry year hydrograph in Monument Creek below Monument Reservoir No. 1 for existing conditions (blue) and dam enlargement (red) ................................................................................ 46 Figure 14. Relative locations of Monument Reservoirs No. 1 and No. 2 and Cold Sore Reservoir ........... 55 Figure 15. Comparison of wet year hydrograph in Monument Creek below Monument Reservoir No. 1 for existing conditions (blue) and dam enlargement (red) ................................................................................ 60 Figure 16. Comparison of average year hydrograph in Monument Creek below Monument Reservoir No. 1 for existing conditions (blue) and dam enlargement (red) ....................................................................... 61 Figure 17. Comparison of dry year hydrograph in Monument Creek below Monument Reservoir No. 1 for existing conditions (blue) and dam enlargement (red) ................................................................................ 61 Figure 18. Lynx habitat potentially inundated by enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1 ........................... 83 Figure 19. Roadless areas associated with enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 .......................... 102 Figure 20. Monument Reservoir No. 1 enlargement alternatives ............................................................. 165 Figure 21. Reduced scale Hunter Reservoir enlargement and fen dike alternatives ................................. 167 Figure 22. Maximum drought release in Monument Creek below Monument Reservoir No. 1; maximum release vs. historical conditions ................................................................................................................ 207 Figure 23. Ramping Rate Equation ........................................................................................................... 207 Figure 24. Flow in Monument Creek below Monument Reservoir with full reservoir and agricultural releases existing conditions vs. reservoir enlargement ............................................................................. 208 Figure 25. Average-wet year flow (fill scenario) below Monument Reservoir No. 1; existing conditions vs. reservoir enlargement .......................................................................................................................... 210

List of Tables Table 1. Revised 2045 firm yield (acre-feet) ................................................................................................ 5 Table 2. Characteristics of existing and enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1* ........................................ 20 Table 3. Summary of disturbance by habitat type associated with the Proposed Action............................ 25 Table 4. Alternatives screened for practicability ........................................................................................ 35 Table 5. Monthly average estimated unregulated stream flows for Monument Creek (Reservoir No. 1 outflow) ....................................................................................................................................................... 40 Table 6. Wetlands delineated in area of Monument Reservoir No. 1 and access roads ............................. 50 Table 7. Wetlands delineated in area surrounding Monument Reservoir No. 2 ......................................... 50 Table 8. Wetlands delineated in area surrounding Cold Sore Reservoir .................................................... 50 Table 9. Wetland impacts of Monument Reservoir No. 1 enlargement ...................................................... 51 Table 10. Aquatic resources reestablished, rehabilitated, and restored at Monument Reservoir No. 2 ...... 54 Table 11. Forest Service sensitive aquatic species effect determinations ................................................... 62 Table 12. Monument Creek aquatic macro-invertebrate sample results, November 2, 2018 ..................... 64 Table 13. Air quality data for Mesa County, Colorado from 2012-2016.................................................... 75 Table 14. Pounds of pollutants produced per 100 miles driven by 8 truck sizes, reported in tons, gross vehicle weight* ........................................................................................................................................... 76 Table 15. Pounds of greenhouse gases produced per 10-hour day by four types of construction equipment* .................................................................................................................................................. 77 Table 16. Birds of Conservation Concern associated with project area ..................................................... 78


x

Table 17. Federally protected species that could be located within or adjacent to the project area ........... 79 Table 18. Management indicator species and species designated as sensitive species in the Rocky Mountain Region of the NFS ...................................................................................................................... 81 Table 19. Habitat impact of Proposed Action ............................................................................................. 82 Table 20. Proposed action effect determinations for sensitive species that may occur in the project area . 84 Table 21. Permanent habitat impacts resulting from the Proposed Action at Monument Reservoir No. 1 87 Table 22. Special-status plant species in the project area ........................................................................... 88 Table 23. Soil characteristics around Monument Reservoir No. 1 ............................................................. 90 Table 24. Summary of cultural resource inventories in project area .......................................................... 97 Table 25. Summary of National Register of Historic Places eligibility for cultural resources in project area .................................................................................................................................................................... 98 Table 26. Conditional water rights within the cumulative effects analysis area ....................................... 108 Table 27. Results of 5,000 bootstrap simulations of three water development rates for conditional water rights in project area (acre-feet) ................................................................................................................ 108 Table 28. Revised 2045 firm yield (acre-feet) .......................................................................................... 159 Table 29. Alternatives screened for practicability .................................................................................... 160 Table 30. Alternatives Failing Capacity Screening (acre-feet) ................................................................ 176 Table 31. Alternatives failing average annual watershed yield screening ................................................ 177 Table 32. Alternatives screened from consideration due to lack of conceptual feasibility ....................... 182 Table 33. Summary of alternatives and compliance with screening criteria* .......................................... 191 Table 34. Maximum cross-drain spacing (feet) based on soil types (soil erosiveness) ............................ 198 Table 35. Maximum flow releases (cubic feet per second) from Monument Reservoir No. 1 to meet firm yield drought (1977) ................................................................................................................................. 206 Table 36. Seven-day and peak flood flows for reservoir releases for Monument Reservoir No. 1* ........ 206


1

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Background The Forest Service is the lead federal agency responsible for preparing this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 Project. The project’s proponent is the Ute Water Conservancy District (Ute Water). Ute Water is the Grand Valley’s largest domestic water provider, serving over 80,000 customers in a 260-square mile area within Mesa County, Colorado. Ute Water’s service area includes the areas in and around the City of Grand Junction, Town of Fruita, Town of Palisade, and the unincorporated Towns of Clifton, Loma, and Mack. Ute Water’s source water comes primarily from the Plateau Creek drainage and is conventionally treated to provide approximately 9 million gallons of municipal water supply per day (Ute Water 2019).

The project is located on the north side of the Grand Mesa, on Monument Creek (T11S, R93W, sections 11 and 12, 6th PM), approximately 43 air miles east of Grand Junction (Figure 1). Monument Creek is tributary to Leon Creek, which is tributary to Plateau Creek below Vega Reservoir. Plateau Creek is tributary to the Colorado River.

This action is needed because Ute Water is implementing a proactive plan to store water based on projections for increased demand between now and the year 2045, particularly during drought events. Storing approximately 5,300 acre-feet of water in the Leon Creek watershed is one component of Ute Water’s plan to provide additional water.

The purpose of the USFS federal action is to respond to Ute Water’s application for a special use authorization to enlarge, operate, maintain, and ultimately decommission a reservoir on National Forest System (NFS) lands of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. The need for this action is to fulfill Forest Service responsibility under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1761), National Forest Management Act (16 USC 16011614), and Forest Service Special Use Authorization regulations at 36 CFR 251 Subpart B - Land uses and its implementing polices in Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks at FSM 2700, FSH 2709.11. Further guidance may come from other law, regulation, or policy and the land and resource management plan (LRMP) as appropriate. Under the Forest Service’s special use regulations, when a proponent submits an application for a facility or activity to be located on NFS lands, the Forest Service is required to evaluate that application in accordance with screening criteria contained in 36 CFR §251.54 to ensure that it meets standards.

Among other considerations, the criteria require that the proposed use complies with laws, regulations, and statutes, does not pose a significant or substantial risk to public health or safety, and is consistent or can be made consistent with direction in the applicable LRMP, in this case the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). If the Forest Service determines that the application meets the criteria, the application is then formally accepted. Forest Service acceptance does not guarantee project approval.


2

Figure 1. Location of Monument Reservoir No. 1

The Forest Service has determined: (1) the application meets the criteria described above and has accepted Ute Water’s application for Monument Reservoir No. 1; and (2) that an analysis of the significant natural and human environmental effects of the proposed Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 Project and an analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives is necessary to provide for full public disclosure and to aid in decision-making. Specific details of the application and how Ute Water arrived at the current proposal are provided below in the section titled Project Purpose and Need (page 5).

The Forest Service requested that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), two federal agencies with statutory authority over the proposed Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 Project, participate in the EIS process as cooperating agencies (40 CFR §§1501.6 and 1508.5). A formal cooperating agency agreement was executed between the Forest Service and Corps. The EPA declined to be a cooperating agency. The State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources is also a cooperating agency in recognition of their institutional expertise in the management of fish and wildlife in the State of Colorado and ability to provide the Forest Service with information, comments, and technical expertise.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the GMUG Supervisor’s Office, 2250 South Main Street, Delta, Colorado 81416.


3

Process Leading to Publication of the 2017 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement In February 1998, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued the Final EIS on the Plateau Creek Pipeline Replacement Project (BLM 1998); the Record of Decision was published in May of 1998. The pipeline replacement project was motivated primarily by deterioration of the existing pipeline. Ute Water made the proactive decision to enlarge the pipeline to prepare for expected increases in municipal water demand.

As part of its analysis, the BLM considered 19 preliminary alternatives: three versions of a pipeline replacement and 16 alternatives to a pipeline. Among the 16 alternatives were alternative water development or storage locations, a trans-basin diversion, and treatment of Colorado River water via reverse osmosis filtration. Potential solutions included increased water conservation by customers and the unification of the water delivery services of the municipalities of Grand Junction, Clifton, and Palisade. In doing this, BLM analyzed the potential for some or all of Ute Water’s anticipated future water demand to be met through actions other than additional water storage and diversion.

BLM’s alternative analysis, described in detail in Appendix D of their Draft EIS (Project Record), revealed that developing water in the Plateau Creek drainage was technologically and logistically feasible and met the project cost limitations proffered by Ute Water. Even more important to this analysis, BLM determined that developing water within the Plateau Creek drainage met “Ute Water’s purpose and need and practicability, as defined in the Clean Water Act (BLM 1998).” BLM’s decision was to authorize the replacement of the existing pipeline with one capable of transporting greater quantities of raw water. The BLM’s decision anticipated Ute Water would develop water storage in the Plateau Creek watershed in order to meet future demands.

During analysis of the Plateau Creek Pipeline Replacement Project, Ute Water commissioned a study to quantify their future water needs (Pearse and Associates 1995). The study, commonly called the Pearse Report, examined six potential growth paths for Mesa County’s population, projecting 2045 population totals for the county between approximately 211,000 and 976,000. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau indicate the 2016 population of Mesa County was 150,083 (U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts for Mesa County, Colorado; accessed April 28, 2017). It is possible to extrapolate the data presented in Table III-14 in the Pearse Report using the 2015 U.S. Census Bureau numbers and estimate that Mesa County’s 2045 population would be between 283,000 and 304,000. These estimates are approximately double Mesa County’s current population and raw water demand is expected to increase commensurately.

A county population between 283,000 and 304,000 corresponds to a 2045 average annual water demand between 26.8 and 28.4 million gallons per day, or between 30,020 and 31,812 acre-feet per year (Pearse and Associates 1995). Peak water demand can be estimated to increase to between 42 and 45 million gallons per day (between 47,377 and 50,188 acre-feet) (Pearse and Associates, 1995). Ute Water’s water development plan is based on a firm yield (a quantity needed in a worst-case drought scenario) shortfall of at least 21,400 acre-feet in 2045. These estimates are about four times the average annual water demand in 1995 (Pearse and Associates 1995).

Ute Water submitted to the Forest Service an application to enlarge Hunter Reservoir in 2005. Based on projections in the Pearse Report and BLM’s authorization of an enlarged Plateau Creek Pipeline, Ute Water made the decision to perfect additional conditional water rights by enlarging Hunter Reservoir and submitted an application to Forest Service and Corps. The application described a project that would increase the capacity of the reservoir from 110 acre-feet to 1,340 acre-feet.


4

The presence of a 47-acre wetland complex at Hunter Reservoir was the primary factor in the decision by the Forest Service to prepare an EIS for Ute Water’s application. The Forest Service and the Corps, who participated in the analysis as a Cooperating Agency, published a Draft EIS in 2007. The Draft EIS disclosed the potential impacts of construction activities associated with enlarging Hunter Reservoir and mitigation measures directed almost exclusively at aquatic resources.

A September 17, 2007 letter from the EPA on the Draft EIS prompted consideration of additional alternatives that prevented the inundation of wetlands within the footprint of an enlarged Hunter Reservoir. In response, the Forest Service began a study to determine the actual frequency and extent of fen wetlands on the GMUG. The study, Inventory of Fens in a Large Landscape of West-Central Colorado, took four years, involved an interdisciplinary team of scientists, and was subjected to professional peer-review by wetlands scientists prior to publication (Johnston et al. 2012).

In 2011, the Corps, in response to Ute Water’s application for a permit to enlarge Hunter Reservoir, began the process of identifying a Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative. The Corps’ analysis included reconsideration of several alternatives that were eliminated in the Plateau Creek Pipeline Replacement Project EIS, including the treatment of Colorado River water and using groundwater aquifers as both a source and a point of storage for water. The Corps’ analysis included 11 locations for new dams and 9 proposed reservoir enlargements. Two of the 9 enlargement alternatives were modifications of the original application to enlarge Hunter Reservoir. The enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 was one reservoir enlargement alternative.

In 2012 the Corps presented the Forest Service and Ute Water with its final technical report. This report identified the enlargement of Hunter Reservoir or enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 as the only two alternatives analyzed that met the project purpose and need and were available and capable of being done.

Based on a firm yield need of 21,400 acre-feet (URS 2009), Ute Water made the decision that it would pursue a “blended supply” approach whereby Colorado River water is mixed with water from the Plateau Creek watershed. Their approach 1) developed Monument Reservoir No. 1 and Hunter Reservoir; 2) obtained approximately 3,000 acre-feet of additional water from the Colorado River; and 3) acquired approximately 12,000 acre-feet of water from Ruedi Reservoir, which would be transported via the Colorado River. The intent of reservoir development was to store the approximately 6,600 acre-feet of water at those locations during normal years and access them during drought years. Ute Water’s plan resulted in a firm yield of approximately 21,500 acre-feet. In February 2012, Ute Water also submitted an application to the Forest Service for authorization to enlarge Monument Reservoir No. 1.

Process since Publication of 2017 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement In June 2017, the Forest Service released the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 and Hunter Reservoir. This document analyzed two alternatives for meeting a portion of Ute Water Conservancy District’s projected firm yield shortfall. Alternative 1 included enlarging both Monument Reservoir No. 1 and Hunter Reservoir. Alternative 2, the Proposed Action of the 2017 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, would enlarge only Monument Reservoir No. 1. Alternative 1 would result in 6,607 acre-feet of capacity in the two enlarged reservoirs. Alternative 2 would store 6,589 acre-feet in an enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1.

The Forest Service received comments on the 2017 Draft Supplemental EIS from 10 separate agencies or private entities (see Appendix A for the comments received, and Forest Service response to each


5

substantive issue raised in the comments). As the Corps and the EPA raised a great number of substantive issues and are federal agencies with regulatory responsibility for natural resources that would be affected by the Proposed Action, the Forest Service convened meetings with the Corps and EPA, beginning in December 2017, to identify strategies for addressing the agencies’ comments.

The Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Wildlife (CPW), joined these meetings in August 2018, and submitted comments on the 2017 Draft Supplemental EIS to the Forest Service in September 2018. This comment brought the total to 11 letters.

The EPA, Corps, and CPW all stated strong opposition to enlarging the Hunter Reservoir in their comments on the Draft Supplemental EIS. This opposition was primarily related to the presence of fens within the area that would be inundated by the pool of an enlarged Hunter Reservoir, and the agencies’ strong preference to avoid impacts to this rare wetland type. Based on these comments, and the lack of any practical method of protecting fens in the context of enlarging Hunter Reservoir, any proposal to enlarge Hunter Reservoir was removed from further consideration.

A primary point of disagreement between the Corps and the Forest Service was reliance on the Corps’ February 2012 Technical Report, “Hunter Reservoir Enlargement Project Alternatives Screening Analysis” (Project Record) to establish that enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 met the criteria of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative that meets the project purpose and need. The Corps held that the project purpose and need had changed since preparation of that report, and that the report addressed a lesser enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 than that proposed in the 2017 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

Upon discussion among the agencies, the Forest Service prepared a revised analysis that relied upon conclusions drawn by the Corps’ 2012 Technical Report but updated the project purpose and need and addressed other changes since 2012. Ute Water and the Forest Service also agreed to resize the proposed enlargement to Monument Reservoir No. 1. The revised analysis, attached to this EIS as Appendix B: “Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 Project Alternatives Screening Analysis for Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,” has benefited from collaboration among the Corps, EPA, and the Forest Service.

As part of this process, Ute Water revisited its water need projections, based upon actual numbers of commercial and municipal users in 2009 and factoring in projected population growth. In December 2017, Ute Water provided an estimate of total demand in 2045 of 24,269 acre-feet. This demand includes Ute Water’s ongoing conservation measures to maintain or reduce an already low per capita consumption rate. To convert this to the future firm yield demand, Ute Water applied two factors, an 85 percent efficiency correction factor to account for the estimated loss of 15 percent of water during transfer between source and user, and a 20 percent safety factor. This produced a total firm yield for 2024 of 34,262 acre-feet as summarized in table 1, below (Lyon 2017).

Table 1. Revised 2045 firm yield (acre-feet) 2045 Residential

Demand 2045 Commercial

Demand 2045 Total Demand

Demand with 85% correction

Demand with 20% Safety Factor

17,653 6,616 24,269 28,552 34,262

Project Purpose and Need Since 2013, Ute Water has been implementing improvements to its water system to increase firm yield. These include purchase of 12,000 acre-feet of capacity at Ruedi Reservoir, increasing the capacity of the


6

Colorado River Pumping Station from 12 cubic feet per second to 27 cubic feet per second, and receiving State of Colorado Division 5 Engineer concurrence allowing refill without limitation of Jerry Creek Reservoirs annually. Additionally, Ute Water has implemented water conservation measures including upgrades to its distribution infrastructure, a tiered rate structure, and public education; as described in greater detail under Conservation in Appendix B. In 2018, Ecological Resource Consultants, Inc., modeled the effect of these changes on the existing firm yield of the Ute Water system. The resulting total is 29,773 acre-feet of existing firm yield (ERC 2018, p. 4).

Ute Water, as the water rights holder, is requesting provision of sufficient additional system capacity to meet the modeled 2045 system demand. Specifically, the available system capacity of 29,773 acre-feet per year is less than the modeled firm yield requirement (i.e., the amount of water needed to address drought contingency) of 34,262 acre-feet. Ute Water thus must develop additional firm yield capacity to address a shortfall of 4,489 acre-feet of system capacity (34,262 acre-feet needed for drought contingency less 29,773 acre-feet of system capacity equals 4,489 acre-feet), in order to assure reliable service to its customers through 2045. Ute Water’s project purpose is thus to supply the remaining roughly 4,500 acre-feet of system firm yield capacity for use system support during times of critical drought. Full draw down of the water supply to be stored in the enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1 would occur once during the 19-year study period for which the reservoir was modeled (see Water Resources analysis, below).

The GMUG National Forests’ project purpose is to accept and evaluate a proposal for a special use of NFS lands under the appropriate regulation and policy. Based on our evaluation and the merits of the proposal, we would approve, approve, with mitigations identified through NEPA analysis, or deny the special use.

The Corps’ project purpose is analysis of the impacts of the proposed project on Waters of the United States, and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation of those impacts. The Corps has jurisdiction over Waters of the United States (including wetlands) and is responsible for permitting projects that result in dredge or fill of such waters under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations (33 USC 1344, 33 CFR 320-332).

Decision Framework The Forest Supervisor of the GMUG is the Responsible Official for this proposal. Given the purpose and need, the Responsible Official will review the Proposed Action and mitigation measures to make the following decisions:

• Whether the Proposed Action addresses the issues; is responsive to law, regulation, policy, and forest plan direction; and meets the purpose of and need for action as stated above.

• Whether the information in this analysis is sufficient to implement the Proposed Action.

• Whether to approve the Proposed Action.

• If the Proposed Action is selected, under what conditions and by which methods implementation of the action and associated activities would be conducted.

• Whether the proposed mitigation is appropriate to offset potential impacts to resources as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action.


7

Authorities The following describes the principal laws, policies, and regulations that guide the Forest Service and the Corps in the evaluation of applications such as the Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 Project.

Laws

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.)

Title V, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (Title 43 United States Code (USC) §§1761-1771) Title V, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761-1771). Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to issue permits, leases, or easements to occupy, use, or traverse National Forest System lands. FLPMA directs the United States to receive fair market value unless otherwise provided for by statute and provides for reimbursement of administrative costs in addition to the collection of land use fees (43 U.S.C. 1764(g)).

(1) a. Except in designated Wilderness Areas, Alaska, and specifically excepted situations, FLPMA is the only authority for all forms of use involving:

(2) (1) Transportation, distribution, or storage of water.

(3) (7) Other transportation systems or facilities that are in the public interest, including those that would arise from future technological advances.

Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897, as Amended (16 USC 477-482, 551) This Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to issue rules and regulations for the occupancy and use of the National Forests. This is the basic authority for authorizing use of National Forest System lands for other than rights-of-way. National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 USC §§1600-1602, 1604, 1606, 1608-1614)

This act substantially amends the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. The act strengthens the references pertaining to suitability and compatibility of land areas, stresses the maintenance of productivity and the need to protect and improve the quality of soil and water resources, and avoids permanent impairment of productive capability of the land.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC §§661-667e; 48 Stat. 401) In 1934 this Act authorized the Secretaries of Agriculture and Commerce to provide assistance to and cooperate with federal and state agencies to protect, rear, stock, and increase the supply of game and fur-bearing animals. The amendments enacted in 1946 require consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the fish and wildlife agencies of the states where the “waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or licensed to be impounded, diverted…or otherwise controlled or modified” by an agency under a federal permit or license. The 1958 amendments added provisions to recognize the vital contribution of wildlife resources to the nation and to require equal consideration and coordination of wildlife conservation with other water resource development programs.

Water Resources Development Act (Pub. L. 114-322) The Act provides for improvements to the rivers and harbors of the United States, to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, and for other purposes.


8

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC §§703 – 712; as implemented subject to Executive Order 13186) This act, inspired by depletion of bird populations during the market hunting period of the early twentieth century, established an international framework for the protection and conservation of migratory birds. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act makes it illegal, unless permitted subject to the act’s regulations, to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird.”

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act applies to any federal activity that would adversely affect a migratory bird or its nest, eggs, or young. The act requires that there should be no intentional take of migratory birds, including no direct loss of eggs or young, or interference with nesting that causes nest failure. Incidental take (the unintentional take of migratory birds that results from an activity but is not the purpose of the activity) of migratory birds and/or their active nest contents is allowable under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Department of the Interior 2017). The breeding season in Colorado extends from approximately April 1 to August 31. Although incidental take is allowed under the act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recommends that Best Management Practices (BMPs) be implemented prior to construction.

Act of March 3, 1891 (32 Stat. 1095) (43 USC §§946-949) This act was primarily to repeal timber-culture laws, but sections 18 to 21 provided for the granting of rights-of-way to ditch companies for legal irrigation and drainage purposes. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act repealed this statute; however, it did not terminate those rights-of-way in existence at the time of its passage.

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of August 4, 1954, as Amended (68 Stat. 666; Pub. L. 83-566; 16 USC §1001) This act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with the states and their political subdivisions and local public agencies in preventing watershed damages from erosion, floodwater, and sediment, and in furthering the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water. The act also authorizes the Secretary to cooperate with other federal, state, and local agencies in making investigations and surveys of the watersheds of rivers and other waterways as a basis for planning and developing coordinated programs, and to pursue additional works of improvement on the 11 watersheds authorized by the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944, as amended.

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (P.L. 89-665, 80 Stat. 915) Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on those undertakings. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has issued the regulations implementing section 106 (section 106 regulations), at 36 CFR Part 800: “Protection of Historic Properties.” The act requires that, in carrying out the requirements of section 106, each federal agency must consult with any recognized Tribal entity that attaches religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by the agency’s undertakings.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC. §§1531 et seq.) This act established protection and recovery of imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Under provisions of the act and its implementing regulations, federal agencies are directed to seek to conserve species listed as endangered and threatened. Agencies must also ensure that actions they


9

authorize, fund, or implement are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of such species’ critical habitats.

Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 USC §§1251, 1254, 1323, 1324, 1329, 1342, 1344) This series of laws was written to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters (section 101). Congress sought to sustain the integrity of water quality and aquatic habitat so that waters of the United States would support diverse, productive, stable aquatic ecosystems with a balanced range of aquatic habitats. All issues are framed by the intent of Congress to improve and preserve the quality of the nation’s waters.

• Section 101(g) states “the authority of each State to allocate quantities of water within its jurisdiction shall not be superseded, abrogated, or otherwise impaired by this Act,” which is codified in 33 CFR §320.4, the Corps’ “general policies for evaluating permit applications.”

• The Forest Service must comply with federal, state and local water quality laws and rules, coordinate actions that affect water quality with states, and control non-point source pollution (section 313).

• The Forest Service must apply Best Management Practices, considering local factors, to control non-point source pollution and meet water quality standards (sections 208, 303, and 319). State-classified water uses, and the water quality they need, must be sustained to comply with the anti-degradation policy, unless states decide that vital economic and social development justify impacts (40 CFR §131.12).

• Waters of the United States include, but are not limited to, streams, rivers, lakes and wetlands. Aquatic ecosystems are waters of the United States that serve as habitat for interrelated and interacting communities and populations of plants and animals (40 CFR §230.3).

• Section 401. Under Section 401, a federal agency may not issue a permit or license to conduct any activity that may result in any discharge into waters of the United States unless a state or authorized tribe where the discharge would originate issues a Section 401 water quality certification verifying compliance with existing water quality requirements or waives the certification requirement (33 USC 1341). EPA regulations at 40 CFR 121 address Section 401 certification generally. This analysis and permitting would be conducted as part of requirement for section 404, below.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the Corps to issue permits for discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States at specified sites (33 CFR §320.2(f)). The selection and use of specified sites are directed by the 404(b)(1) guidelines developed by the Corps at 40 CFR Part 230. No discharge of dredged or fill material would be permitted if there is a practicable alternative which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, including special aquatic sites (40 CFR §230.10(a)). We considered whether there would be practicable alternatives and disclose the results of that consideration in Appendix B of this EIS. Special aquatic sites are sanctuaries and refuges, wetlands with a direct surface connection to waters of the Unites States, mud flats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, and riffle-pool complexes (40 CFR §230.3).

• In determining whether to issue a 404 permit, the Corps can consider mitigation measures, including actions that avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for resource losses (33 CFR §320.4(r)). Compensatory mitigation can be required as a condition of a 404 permit to ensure the permitted activity complies with the 404(b)(1) guidelines at 40 CFR §230 (33 CFR §332.1(c)(3)) and to offset environmental losses from unavoidable impacts of the permitted activity (33 CFR §332.3). Compensatory mitigation may be restoration, enhancement, establishment or preservation of aquatic


10

resources commensurate with the amount and type of loss of aquatic functions due to the permitted activity.

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (P.L. 96-95) This law was enacted to secure, for the present and future benefit of the American people, the protection of archaeological resources and sites which are on public lands and Indian lands, and to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information between governmental authorities, the professional archaeological community, and private individuals (Sec. 2(4)(b)).

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (16 USC §§4321, et seq.) The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into law on January 1, 1970 and establishes national environmental policy and goals for the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of the environment and assures that all branches of government give proper consideration to the environment prior to undertaking any major federal action that significantly affects the environment. A major federal action may include federal approval of a project, federal funding of a project or projects performed on federal land. More specifically, this act sets forth requirements to consider the environmental impact of proposed actions; identify adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided; consider alternatives to the Proposed Action; consider the relationship between local short-term uses and long-term productivity; and, identify any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources.

National Forest Roads and Trails Act of October 13, 1964, as amended (16 USC §§532-538) This act authorizes road and trail systems for the national forests. It also authorizes construction and financing of maximum economy roads, and imposition of requirements on road users for maintaining and reconstructing roads, including cooperative deposits for that work.

Materials Act of July 31, 1947 (61 Stat. 681, as amended; 30 USC §§601-604) This act provides for the disposal of mineral materials on the public lands through bidding, negotiated contracts, and free use.

Executive Orders

Executive Order 11988 Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of flood plains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative.

Executive Order 11990 of May 24, 1977 This order requires each agency to take action to minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. Section 5 of the order states, “… [E]ach agency shall consider factors relevant to a proposal’s effect on the survival and quality of the wetlands. Among these factors are: (a) public health, safety, and welfare, including water supply, quality, recharge and discharge; pollution; flood and storm hazards; and sediment and erosion; (b) maintenance of natural systems, including conservation and long term productivity of existing flora and fauna, species and habitat diversity and stability, hydrologic utility, fish, wildlife, timber, and food and fiber resources; and (c) other uses of wetlands in the public interest, including recreational, scientific, and cultural uses.”


11

This order directs the Forest Service to analyze impacts to and coordinate mitigation for wetlands while meeting the needs of the human environment.

Regulations

Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §251(B) This subpart provides direction for special uses management on NFS lands, including guidance pertaining to the special-use application process; terms and conditions of use; rental fees; fee waivers; termination, revocation, suspension, and modification of existing authorizations; and, permit administration.

36 CFR Part 219 These regulations implement the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 USC §§1600 et seq.), require consideration of the relationship of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals, to renewable resources, and set forth the minimum requirements for integrating the nonrenewable mineral resource into a forest plan.

36 CFR §228 These regulations set forth rules and procedures governing use of the surface of NFS lands in conjunction with operations authorized by the general mining laws, oil and gas leasing, and mineral material disposal laws.

36 CFR §§294.40-49 These regulations pertain to management of Colorado Roadless Areas. Some elements of the proposed action occur within the Flat tops and Elk Park Colorado Roadless Area.

40 CFR Sections §§1500-1508 These are the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQs) implementation regulations for NEPA.

This environmental analysis is conducted according to the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR §§1500-1508, as amended) which were published on November 29, 1978 and became effective on July 30, 1979. The CEQ issued revised regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, effective September 14, 2020. The revised regulations provide the responsible official the option of conducting an environmental analysis under the 1978 regulations if the process was initiated prior to September 14, 2020 (40 CFR §1506.13, 85 FR 137, p. 43373, July 16, 2020).

Directives

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7500: Water Storage and Transmission This chapter of the Forest Service Manual provides direction for the storage and transmission of waters on National Forest Lands. Specific chapters related reservoir creation and management are FSM 7503.2 (General Consideration in Design, Construction, Operation, and Maintenance), FSM 7505 (Definitions), 7506 (Jurisdictional Dams), and FSM 7509.11 (Dam Management Handbook).

Forest Service Manual 2600 Chapter 2631.3 This chapter provides direction on the conservation and restoration of fen wetlands.


12

Forest Service Manual 2500: Watershed and Air Management This chapter provides direction for air and watershed management on National Forest System lands. Specific chapters related to water resources are FSM 2520 (Watershed Protection and Management), and FSM 2530 (Water Resource Management).

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.25. Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook incorporates interim directive information, direction related to watersheds conservation practices, and other guidance related to watershed conservation practices.

National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. FS-990a. The National Best Management practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands

FSM 2700 and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2709.11 These chapters provide direction on the issuance and management of permits for special use applications.

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (1991, as amended) The forest plan includes this general direction for the management of non-recreational special uses:

01 Act on special use applications according to the following priorities

a. Land and land use activity requests relating to public safety, health and welfare, e.g., highways, powerlines and public service improvements.

b. Land and land use activities contributing to increased economic activity associated with National Forest resources, e.g., oil and gas, and energy minerals.

c. Land and land use activities that benefit only private users, e.g., road permits, rights-of-way for powerlines, telephones, waterlines, etc.

02 Do not approve any special use applications that can be reasonably met on private or other Federal lands unless it is clearly in the public interest (Forest Plan, pp. III-71).

The Forest Plan also includes this direction specific to Water Uses Management:

03 Special Use Permits, easements, rights-of-way, and similar authorizations for use of NFS lands shall contain conditions and stipulations to maintain instream or by-pass flows necessary to fulfill all National Forest uses and purposes (Forest Plan pp III-51).

Two management prescription areas: 6B and 9A apply to the project area.

• Management Prescription Area 6B – The emphasis is on maintaining soil and vegetation condition and providing forage for livestock production. The area is managed for livestock grazing. Intensive grazing management systems are favored over extensive systems. Range condition is maintained through use of forage improvement practices, livestock management, and regulation of other resource activities. Investment in structural and nonstructural range improvements to increase forage utilization is moderate to high. Structure improvements benefit, or at least do not adversely affect,


13

wildlife. Conflicts between livestock and wildlife are resolved in favor of livestock. Nonstructural restoration and forage improvement practices available are seeding, planting, burning, fertilizing, pitting, furrowing, spraying, crushing, and plowing. Cutting of encroaching trees may also occur. Investments are made in compatible resource activities. Dispersed recreational opportunities vary between semi-primitive non-motorized and natural adjacent to roads. Management activities are evident but harmonize and blend with the natural setting.

• Management Prescription Area 9A – The emphasis is on all components of the Aquatic/Riparian ecosystems. The goals for riparian area management are to manage the vegetation to protect the soil and water resources and to provide healthy, self-perpetuating plant communities, acceptable water quality standards, habitat for viable populations fish and wildlife, and stable stream channels and still water-body shorelines. The aquatic ecosystem may contain fisheries habitat improvement and channel stabilizing facilities that harmonize with the visual setting and maintain or improve fish and wildlife habitat requirements. The prioritized emphasis areas are: 1, Perennial streams, lakes, and reservoirs which support a fishery or municipal water supply or both; 2, Domestic water supplies; 3, Perennial streams, lakes and reservoirs which do not support a fishery or are a domestic water supply; 4, Intermittent streams with the potential, through improved management activities to become perennial. In cases of resource conflict, preferential consideration would be given to riparian area resources over other resources within the management unit.

Tribal Consultation Consistent with the requests of the Tribal Governments affected by projects on the GMUG National Forest, we consulted with Tribes through notification during the general scoping and comment periods. GMUG consulted with the Northern Ute Tribe at the time of release of each of the following public notices: July 29, 2005, the initial public scoping notice for Hunter Reservoir Enlargement Environmental Assessment; October 26, 2005, Federal Register notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement; July 20, 2007, Federal Register notice of availability of the Draft EIS; and Federal Register notice of intent to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement, January 13, 2016. The Northern Ute Tribe indicated that no Tribal cultural properties or sacred sites occur in the project area.

Public Involvement A Notice of Intent to prepare the 2017 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Enlargement of Monument #1 Reservoir and Hunter Reservoir (SDEIS) was published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2016. The Notice solicited public comment on the Forest Service’s preparation of a supplement to the June 2007 Draft EIS for the proposal, by Ute Water, to enlarge Hunter Reservoir. As stated in the Notice of Intent, the supplement included responding to comments on the original application to enlarge Hunter Reservoir and to the application to enlarge Monument Reservoir No. 1.

For the original application, a scoping notice was published on July 29, 2005, and a Notice of Intent describing the agency’s intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the project was published on October 26, 2005. The 2005 Notice of Intent highlighted impacts to wetlands around Hunter Reservoir as the impetus for preparing an EIS. Using the comments from the public and other agencies, the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address. All significant issues identified in the 2007 Draft EIS have been carried forward in the analysis in this document. Additionally, climate change has been identified as an issue for this analysis. Public comments on the agencies’ 2007 Draft EIS, the agencies’ response, comments received following publication of the January 13, 2016 Notice of Intent, and comments received following publication of the 2017 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement are available in the project record.


14

The Forest Service received three comment letters in response to the January 13, 2016 Notice of Intent. Two letters were authored by environmental groups. These letters expressed concern about the need to build reservoirs as well as the potential for enlarged reservoirs to impact wetlands. A third letter was authored by the EPA, who reiterated their concerns about the range of alternatives considered by the Forest Service and potential impacts to wetlands in the Leon Creek watershed.

The Forest Service published a notice of availability of the SDEIS in the Federal Register and a legal notice of availability in the Daily Sentinel (the newspaper of record) on June 16, 2017. These notices provided a summary of the SDIES, provided instructions for accessing a copy of the SDEIS for review, and solicited public comments during a 45-day review period. This notice was also posted to the GMUG National Forest’s public website. The Forest Service received 11 comment letters in response to the 2017 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. One letter was authored by a collection of environmental groups. This letter expressed concern about the project’s potential to adversely affect wetlands, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and the character of Colorado Roadless Areas, as well as general concern about enlargement of reservoirs.

Two letters were authored by federal agencies, the EPA, and the Corps. These letters expressed concern about any inundation of fen wetlands, requested additional analysis of project aquatic effects, requested an update of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative screening, and generally requested additional consultation and coordination with the agencies.

One letter was submitted by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Wildlife (CPW). Their letter requested additional analysis of fishery, aquatic resource, wildlife habitat, and recreational use related to current conditions and potential impacts of the proposed project.

Five of the letters were from water use or economic development groups, and generally supported the Proposed Action. One letter was from the Mesa County Colorado, Director of Public Works, and identified county permits that would be required prior to implementation of either alternative proposed in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. One letter was from a private individual who had concerns about the scale of the project and its potential effects on the character of Grand Mesa.

This project is an activity implementing a land management plan and is not a project authorized under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Therefore, it is subject to pre-decisional administrative review under subparts A and B of 36 CFR Part 218.

Issues We generated issues for this analysis from the comments received in scoping. Appendix C discloses the design criteria developed to address the issues. We analyzed each of these issues with the assumption that the design criteria would be implemented. The Forest Service identified the following issues during scoping and comment periods that were carried forward for analysis to determine the degree of effect within the relevant contexts. With the implementation of the design criteria, none of these issues resulted in the need to develop alternatives to the proposed action:

Water Resources The change in water storage and water management may affect the base flow and peak flow conditions downstream from the enlarged dam. Flow volume and timing could be changed due to retaining greater volumes of reservoir storage at Monument Reservoir No. 1. Dam construction, road grading and leveling and placement of stream crossings along access roads could produce temporary increases in sedimentation and erosion downstream in Monument Creek and Leon Creek. Forest Service engineering


15

and aquatics specialists would coordinate with CPW and Ute Water for the design and construction of any new or replacement road stream crossings.

Wetlands Wetlands would be affected by the Proposed Action, which would result in 29.3 acres of existing wetlands being filled or inundated. Ute Water proposes to implement wetland impact mitigation through restoration and enhancement of wetlands located within the Monument Reservoir No. 2 basin, just upstream of Monument Reservoir No. 1 (see Figure 2 on page 22).

Aquatic Wildlife Sedimentation resulting from dam reconstruction and road construction, use, and maintenance may reduce water quality and affect fish populations and aquatic habitat. Operation and maintenance of the reconstructed dam and enlarged reservoir may affect fisheries downstream and the aquatic environment by altering stream flow patterns and by changing the water temperature. Reservoirs trap nutrients as well as sediment carried by the stream. Larger reservoirs, with longer residence time for stored water, may warm water, which physically lowers dissolved oxygen content. Warmer, standing water, however, promotes aquatic plant growth, including, and most particularly algae, which initiates a complex cycle of interaction between the organisms, dissolved oxygen, and pH content of the water. Increasing dissolved oxygen and pH in the beginning, but ultimately leading to decreased levels of both. Reconstruction and operation and maintenance of the dam and an enlarged reservoir may affect fish and wildlife habitat of special status species, such as federally listed and Forest Service sensitive species.

Recreation Management Enlarging Monument Reservoir No. 1 requires a portion of the Sunlight-Powderhorn Snowmobile Trail be relocated prior to construction. Enlarging Monument Reservoir No. 1 also requires a portion of the Monument all-terrain vehicle (ATV) Trail, NFS Trail 518, to be relocated. Relocation of the western portion of the trail prior to work on the reservoir enlargement would allow use of the trail with minimal disruption. Project activities could remove dispersed campsites during and after reservoir construction and filling. Project construction activities may make NFS Road 262 and NFS Trail 518 temporarily inaccessible, as necessary to address safety concerns and as approved by the authorized officer.

Transportation In addition to changes to recreational trails cited above, project development would increase heavy truck traffic, both within the GMUG National Forests and on adjacent County Roads. This has the potential to result in delays and congestion near the national forest. The project would schedule material hauling during weekdays to reduce impacts to Vega State Park.

Air Quality and Climate Change The construction phase of the project would last 4 to 5 years and involve thousands of hours of heavy equipment and vehicle use in the Leon Creek watershed resulting in emissions. Vehicle emissions are a source of greenhouse gases and could affect air quality in the watershed.

Terrestrial Wildlife Reconstruction and operation and maintenance of the dam and an enlarged reservoir may affect a variety of terrestrial wildlife habitat for several species, including, but not limited to, the federally threatened Canada lynx.


16

Vegetation, Native and Non-Native Species Reservoir enlargement would displace some existing vegetation in the project area. Construction phase soil disturbance has the potential to increase spread of invasive non-native plant species.

Special Status Plant Species No plants listed as threatened or endangered under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act occur within the project area. Eight plants that appear on the Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region’s list of sensitive species occur in Grand Mesa Ranger District. Reservoir enlargement may potentially affect some such species.

Soils Dam reconstruction could directly impact soils within the landscape where construction activities would occur. The soil in those areas could be altered by heavy equipment, which would affect densities, infiltration rates, soil structure, and overall productivity. Disturbed areas may experience erosion until they are stabilized.

Geology and Minerals Dam enlargement would require movement of various lithic and unconsolidated materials.

Roadless Areas The Proposed Action involves construction within Colorado Roadless Areas. Activities associated with the enlargement of the reservoir could cause Roadless area characteristics within the Flattops – Elk Park Colorado Roadless Area to be altered.

Cultural Resources Surveys conducted by the GMUG National Forests have identified cultural resources in the project area. Reservoir enlargement and resulting increases in travel in the project area may adversely affect cultural resources. Project activities could adversely affect these non-renewable resources.

Rangelands The project area is located within the boundaries of the Leon Allotment livestock grazing management area. Reservoir enlargement would inundate some current rangeland area. Increased activity and vehicle travel during construction of the enlarged dam may affect some grazing operations.

Paleontological Resources Exposed portions of a geological formation that may potentially contain scientifically important fossils occurs in the area that would be inundated by reservoir expansion.

Issues Not Addressed The following issues identified during scoping have not been carried forward for analysis in this EIS because they were outside the scope of the Proposed Action; or had already been decided by law, regulation, the forest plan, or other higher level decision; or were irrelevant to the decision to be made; or were conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. A list of non-significant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as non-significant may be found in the project record.


17

Health and Safety Earlier drafts of this EIS addressed the substantial renovation of Hunter Dam required by the Colorado State Engineer to address long-standing issues regarding safety of the existing dam and the potential for failure or overflow. These issues are not addressed in the current EIS, as no changes to the Hunter Reservoir or Dam are now proposed. While this action does not address safety issues at Hunter Reservoir, the Forest Service has authority to authorize such modifications as needed under the terms of the existing special-use authorization for Hunter Reservoir.

A formal dam safety analysis of potential inundation of downstream properties and infrastructure has not been completed. This analysis will be included in Ute Water’s state dam license. Preliminary analysis suggests that the inundation area would not add any additional private properties to the area that would be inundated by failure of the larger Vega Dam downstream.

Other Related Efforts The CEQ’s NEPA regulations encourage the use of tiering (40 CFR §1502.20) and incorporation of existing information by reference (40 CFR §1502.21) when preparing EISs. Tiering and incorporation by reference are used when previous environmental analyses contain discussions or information pertinent to the issues considered in an analysis. This analysis tiers to or incorporates information by reference from the following documents.

The Plateau Creek Pipeline Replacement Project EIS was issued by the BLM in 1998. The document and its Record of Decision contain information relevant to the development of a purpose and need statement in this analysis as well as information related to various alternatives considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis in this document.

In 1998, the USFWS issued a Biological Opinion on Ute Water’s proposal to replace and enlarge the Plateau Creek Pipeline. In that document, the USFWS analyzed all future water development in the service area of an expanded pipeline. That Biological Opinion and Sufficient Progress Memoranda issued by the Service are incorporated into this document by reference. Water depletions associated with all action alternatives in this document are covered by that Biological Opinion and related actions by Ute Water. On August 18, 2016, the Forest Service received confirmation from the USFWS that the 1998 Biological Opinion is still valid for this project.

A Draft EIS for the enlargement of Hunter Reservoir was issued by the Forest Service in 2007. Information included in that document on environmental conditions that have not changed since 2007 has been incorporated into this analysis.

In February of 2012, the Corps released a technical report titled Hunter Reservoir Enlargement Alternatives Screening Analysis (Project Record). The report detailed the process and results of an inter-agency analysis led by the Corps to identify alternatives to Ute Water’s proposal to enlarge Hunter Reservoir. The Forest Service has updated that screening analysis to address changes in the project purpose and need. The revised document is attached to this EIS as Appendix B. Much of the information in that report was incorporated into the section of this report detailing alternatives considered but dismissed from detailed analysis.

Section 102(H) of NEPA instructs federal agencies to use ecological information in planning and development of projects. The CEQ’s implementation regulations for NEPA (40 CFR §1501.2(b)) instruct federal agencies to identify environmental effects in “adequate detail” so that they can be given equal consideration with economic and technical factors associated with a project. The GMUG initiated a study


18

of the distribution and condition of fen wetlands on the forest in 2008 as a direct response to concerns of the EPA about the impact of enlarging Hunter Reservoir on a fen wetland at the site. The report, Inventory of Fens in a Large Landscape of West-Central Colorado, was published, following professional peer review, in April 2012. The results of and insights from that study, along with information from other studies (e.g., Austin and Cooper 2015) are used in this analysis to evaluate potential adverse environmental effects of all alternatives as well as wetland-specific mitigation activities associated with them.

Federal Permits Necessary to Implement the Proposal The following permits or licenses from federal agencies would be required to implement the proposed action.

• Special Use Permit from the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests for Ute Water’s enlargement and operation of Monument Reservoir No. 11.

• Department of the Army Permit for disturbance of Waters of the United States, including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and

• License agreement with the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation to address the impacts of construction phase traffic to the Vega Dam Road.

1 The special use permit would authorize a maximum term of use of 30 years, which would be renewable. If either Ute Water Conservancy District or the Forest Service opts not to renew the term, the project would be terminated. Analysis of the conditions and impacts of termination would be analyzed at the time of proposed termination.


19

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action This EIS was prepared in accordance with the NEPA, the CEQ’s regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR §§1500-1508) the Forest Service’s regulations for implementing NEPA (36 CFR Part 220), and the Corps’ regulations for implementing NEPA (33 CFR Part 325, Appendix B). This EIS has also been formulated to address the information requirements of the 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR Part 230) and the applicable public interest review factors identified at 33 CFR §320.4.

NEPA requires the identification of a project’s purpose and need, which helps to guide the identification of a reasonable range of alternatives and the evaluation of how well those alternatives satisfy the project’s underlying goals. The 404(b)(1) guidelines also require the identification of overall project purpose. The Corps may not issue a Clean Water Act section 404 permit if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences (40 CFR §230.10(a)). An alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being implemented after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purpose (40 CFR §230.10(a)(2)). Wherever special aquatic sites, including wetlands, would be directly impacted, and the activity is not water dependent, practicable alternatives that do not involve special aquatic sites are presumed to be available, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise, and are presumed to have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise (40 CFR §230.10(a)(3)).

NEPA requires that the EIS alternatives analysis include the alternative of “no action” (40 CFR §1502.14[d]). The CEQ explains that “No Action” means “the proposed activity would not take place and the resulting environmental effects from taking no action would be compared with the effects of permitting the proposed activity or an alternative activity to go forward” (CEQ 1981). In the Corps’ NEPA Implementation Procedures for the Regulatory Program (33 CFR Part 325, Appendix B), the No-action Alternative is one that results in no activities requiring an Individual Permit from the Corps. On-going reservoir maintenance activities that would continue to occur are authorized by Corps Nationwide Permit and any existing authorization issued by the Forest Service. The No-action Alternative may be brought by (1) the applicant electing to modify their proposal to eliminate work under the jurisdiction of the Corps or (2) by the denial of the permit.

This chapter describes the Proposed Action: enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1, and the No-action Alternative. It also includes brief descriptions of alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail, and the rationale for dismissing these alternatives.

No Action A No-action Alternative implies the Forest Service would not authorize construction activities associated with the Proposed Action. However, any existing use/authorization would continue to be managed by the appropriate law regulation and policy governing the administration of occupancy and use on NFS lands. Under the No-action Alternative, Ute Water would not be able to store a portion of its anticipated future water demand at the Monument Reservoir No. 1 site. Furthermore, Ute Water would still have a firm yield gap in future supply and storage within their system. Proposed mitigation activities, including road maintenance and re-location and wetlands-restoration activities, would not occur at this time. Existing water rights and water use would continue the same as is currently operated in Ute Water’s system. Ute Water would need to identify another source of water to meet future supply shortfalls in periods of drought.


20

Proposed Action (Environmentally Preferable Alternative) The Forest Service proposed action is to authorize the construction, operation, and maintenance of an enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 (T11S, R93W, sections 11 and 12, 6th PM; see project area map, Figure 2, below) and all associated mitigation projects. Additionally, the Forest Service would continue to administer any existing and valid authorizations for the operations of existing reservoir operations in the area. The maximum term of use for this authorization is 30 years. Ute Water would have the right to request re-issuance of the authorization at the end of the 30-year period.

Water impounded in this reservoir would meet a portion of Ute Water’s anticipated future firm yield demand. Water stored at this facility would enter Ute Water’s delivery infrastructure via the Plateau Creek Pipeline. Ute Water estimates a 3- to 5-year construction period, which includes time to conduct preparatory connected actions (see Connected Actions section starting on page 25). Reservoir enlargement construction, itself, is expected to take 2 to 4 years.

Ute Water’s operations plan (Appendix D, below) describes the anticipated management of hydrology in Monument Creek that would result from operation of an enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1. Water management would include changing the point of diversion of the absolute water right for 254 acre-feet from Monument Reservoir No. 2 to the enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1 and changing half of the senior agricultural water rights of the Monument Reservoirs, approximately 413 acre-feet, to municipal use. Operations would include provisions to ramp up and down (i.e., incrementally increase and decrease) flows to mimic the historic hydrograph in Monument Creek. This ramping provision would be included to maintain sediment transport aquatic habitat in Monument Creek below the dam, and addresses concerns of CPW. The reservoir operations plan also shows projections that the enlarged reservoir would only be fully drawn-down once in the 19-year period used for the flow modeling.

Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 Ute Water would enlarge the existing Monument Reservoir No. 1 by increasing the size and height of the dam and spillway and increasing the water storage capacity of the facility from the current 446 acre-feet to 5,268 acre-feet. The current inundated area covers approximately 38 surface acres and would be increased to about 155 acres following construction. The proposed enlarged dam would increase the vertical height by 52 feet, from its current height of 28 feet to 80 feet, with a dam crest elevation at 10,263 feet above sea level. The new crest width would be 25 feet and the crest length would be about 1,810 feet. The preliminary embankment design concept assumes a zoned earthen embankment with a 3:1 downstream slope and a 3.5:1 upstream slope. The new dam would include an emergency spillway on the right abutment. Table 2 lists additional details of enlarging Monument Reservoir No. 1.

Table 2. Characteristics of existing and enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1* Characteristic Existing Condition Proposed Action

Dam crest elevation (feet AMSL**) 10,211 10,263 Dam height (feet) 28 80

Dam crest width (feet) 10 25 Dam crest length (feet) 520 1,810 Upstream dam slope 2.25:1 3.5:1

Downstream dam slope 2.25:1 3:1 Storage volume (acre-feet) 446 5,268

Surface area (acres) 37.9 155.3


21

Characteristic Existing Condition Proposed Action Decreed storage, including Monument Reservoir No. 2 (acre-feet) 809 5,284

Service spillway/Water surface elevation (feet) 10,206 10,258 Emergency spillway elevation (feet) NA 10,260

*Based on initial design analysis, some revision may occur with final engineering design. **Above mean sea level.

The soil beneath the enlarged embankment dam consists of deposits of glacial till overlying Uinta Formation siltstone, sandstone, and claystone. The proposed enlarged embankment would be constructed using material drawn from on-site borrow areas to the greatest degree possible and supplemented, as necessary, from off-site source locations. Use of construction materials from the area within the limits of the proposed enlarged reservoir basin is preferred for varied reasons. Using local materials would reduce hauling costs and impacts. Use of materials from the area to be inundated contains the impact of material extraction to area already proposed for alteration. Excavation within the basin would also provide additional capacity in the enlarged reservoir. The upstream slope of the dam would be surfaced with granular riprap and materials to protect against wave erosion. Riprap material, sourced from basaltic talus located throughout the reservoir, would be processed on-site. The specifications for riprap designate hard, durable stone with minimum requirements for abrasion, compressive strength and density consistent with the basaltic material observed at the site. Riprap would range in size from 4 to 21 inches, with a median size of 12 inches (Ute Water, personal communication, May 28, 2020).

A compacted clay core centrally located within the embankment would act as a barrier to seepage. The clay core would extend from the limits of foundation improvements (grout curtain) to the proposed normal water surface elevation of 10,258 feet above mean sea level. It is intended to minimize seepage, reduce pressure on the dam itself, and eliminate the soft soil conditions identified on the downstream toe of the embankment. Geological investigations indicate that the material necessary to construct the clay core exists within the reservoir footprint as identified during the geotechnical evaluation (URS 2011). The foundation of the dam may contain lenses or zones of higher permeable materials that could increase the foundation seepage to unacceptable levels. Future geotechnical investigations and subsequent design considerations would identify the limits of these more permeable zones; these zones would be replaced with a cutoff trench and foundation grouting which could extend below the compacted clay core from left to right abutments.


22

Figure 2. Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 Project area map


23

The enlarged dam would have an internal drainage system. The principal elements of the drainage system would include the filter and chimney drain immediately downstream of the clay core and the blanket drain constructed horizontally downstream of the central clay core along the footprint below the embankment shell. Toe drain collection piping would be constructed along the toe within the blanket drain to convey seepage safely through the embankment for monitoring and measurement (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Monument Reservoir No. 1 dam embankment design (URS, October 2011)

Materials necessary for construction of the internal drainage system are available locally from the Grand Valley area and would need to be transported to the site. No borrow of material would occur on the NFS lands, other than from below the high-water mark of the proposed enlarged reservoir.

The outlet works and service spillway tower would be constructed of concrete, positioned near the upstream toe of embankment, and founded in strong, competent materials to prevent settlement. An access bridge would connect the tower to the dam crest for operation and maintenance equipment and personnel. The outlet works pipe would be sized as necessary to accommodate dam safety requirements of the State of Colorado or the Forest Service Manual, whichever is more stringent, for emergency drawdown or as necessary for the safe diversion of storm inflows during construction. The service spillway crest would establish the normal water surface elevation of the reservoir at 10,258 feet above mean sea level and would pass excess water up to the 100-year recurrence interval down the outlet works conduit into an energy-dissipating basin below the downstream face of the dam.

An emergency spillway would be located in a topographic saddle approximately 850 feet north of the right abutment. Releases from the emergency spillway in excess of the 100-year storm event would enter Monument Creek through an adjacent drainage approximately 500 feet downstream of the enlarged dam. Locating the uncontrolled releases from the emergency spillway away from the embankment is an


24

important dam safety upgrade. The emergency spillway crest length and control sill elevation would comply with the requirements outlined in the Forest Service Manual or would be constructed based on the determination of the inflow design flood hydrology performed in accordance with the Colorado State Engineer’s Dam Safety requirements (Rules and Regulations for Dam Safety and Dam Construction, 2-CCR402-1), whichever is more stringent.

Most of the materials for the construction would be derived, wherever possible, from the borrow areas and the nearby basalt talus within the reservoir footprint to minimize haulage distance, create additional reservoir storage, and minimize disturbed area. An additional benefit of using local materials is the decreased likelihood of introducing exotic nuisance species from outside of the area on trucks and equipment. This potential would also be mitigated through a requirement of vehicle inspection and disinfection (see design criteria for vegetation, Appendix C). Any necessary materials not available from areas within the reservoir basins would be hauled from approved borrow sites off of the NFS lands. In addition to the imported material necessary to construct the drainage collection system (crushed rock, sand), concrete materials including aggregate, cement, and admixtures would be delivered for on-site batching. Road-surfacing and other materials as necessary for access improvements may be brought to the site from the Grand Valley area within 50 miles of the project site.

The majority of construction and fill material for Monument Reservoir No. 1 is available at the site. However, approximately 40,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel, stone and other construction material would need to be imported, requiring an estimated 3,001 round trips using 25-ton end-dump haul trucks for an average of about eight round trips per day during the period of construction. Any new borrow sites that are requested for use outside of the reservoir high water level analyzed in this document would need a separate environmental review and decision-making process.

Because of the short construction season, access is limited to relatively short periods each year. Therefore, construction could take 4 to 5 years. The first year of project implementation would be used to improve access roads, develop borrow areas, stockpile embankment materials, import drainage materials, remove the existing dam, begin foundation grouting (if required), and establish the coffer dam, outlet works, and flood bypass structures. During the second year, construction of the outlet works and service spillway tower could be completed and embankment fill would begin. Construction in the remaining seasons would include completion of the embankment, riprap placement, emergency spillway construction, and the access bridge to the tower.

All trees below 10,258 feet elevation surrounding the reservoir would be cleared prior to reservoir filling. The trees would be sold to Ute Water through a standard Forest Service Timber Sale Contract (FSM 2430, FSH 2409.18). Ute Water would be responsible for their removal. This work would be necessary to reduce debris in the reservoir which could block spillway channels and impact reservoir operations. Additional trees may need to be removed along NFS Trail 518 and the Sunlight-Powderhorn Snowmobile Trail. Estimated total area of tree removal is 25 acres.

Following construction, the dam at Monument Reservoir No. 2, located northeast of Monument Reservoir No. 1, would be breached, water control structures (outlet, concrete walls, etc.) would be removed from NFS lands, and the area would be actively restored to wetland conditions, per the wetland mitigation plan (Appendix E). These restored wetlands, additional wetlands restored at the Cold Sore Reservoir site approximately 14 miles west-southwest of the project site, and aquatic habitat improvements to Monument Creek upstream of Monument Reservoir No 1 would be used as compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts associated with enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1, pending confirmation by the Corps. The existing access route used for operation and maintenance of Monument Reservoir No. 2 would be rehabilitated to the extent necessary and revert to a high-clearance 4-wheel drive travel route.


25

Monument Trail (NFS Trail 518) is a designated motorized trail managed primarily for ATV travel, but is also open to motorcycle, bicycle, horse, and foot traffic. The point of diversion of the water rights associated with Monument Reservoir No. 2 would be changed to Monument Reservoir No. 1.

Table 3 provides a summary of the habitat types that would be permanently altered by the Proposed Action.

Table 3. Summary of disturbance by habitat type associated with the Proposed Action Habitat Type Disturbance (acres)

Grass-Forb-Shrub 69.3 Spruce-Fir 42.2 Wetland 29.3 Riparian 7.4

Total 148.2

A temporary workers’ camp would be located near the construction site to reduce construction traffic and improve construction efficiency. A temporary special use permit would be required for the camp and associated facilities. The site would need to be large enough to accommodate 6 to 10 camp trailers for the 15 to 20 workers and 5 to 6 trucks that would remain on-site. For the temporary construction employee housing required for the project, Ute Water would meet all Mesa County requirements (see response to comments in SDEIS, p. 138). The camp could be located either at the reservoir site or on an old well pad near the intersection of NFS Road 262 and NFS Trail 518.

Heavy equipment, including bulldozers, track hoes, road graders, and compactors, would be stored near the construction site. The spill considerations are included in construction BMPs for the project (see response to comments in SDEIS, p. 138). Temporary sanitation services would be maintained at the camp. The camp would be used during the entire construction phase. To protect wildlife, the special use permit would include a requirement for wildlife resistant food and waste containers. Implementation of a Noxious Weed Management Plan and other design features would prevent the spread of noxious weeds. (see response to comments, p. 144).

Connected Actions The Proposed Action includes a variety of components outside of the Monument Reservoir No. 1 site. These are listed below for quick reference and then described in the following paragraphs. None of these components would be implemented by the No-action Alternative. The Proposed Action would also include required design criteria and BMPs to protect the surrounding natural environment during construction and after the completion of the construction phase of the Proposed Action (Appendix C).

1. Execution of a license agreement between Ute Water and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for mitigation of impacts to Vega Reservoir and Vega State Park.

2. Improvements to NFS Road 262;

3. Improvements and reroute of NFS Trail 518 and the Sunlight-Powderhorn Snowmobile Trail;

4. Compensatory Wetland Mitigation: Decommission Monument Reservoir No. 2 and Cold Sore Reservoir and restore wetlands at the site as compensatory mitigation for wetlands inundated or filled for the enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1;


26

5. Enhance and restore aquatic habitat in the mainstem of Monument Creek; and

6. Change Monument Reservoir No. 2 absolute water rights to Monument Reservoir No. 1 and -change the beneficial use from agricultural to municipal use.

Vega State Park Construction phase traffic could potentially impact users of Vega State Park and park roads including Vega Dam Road and Vega South Road. Vega State Park is managed by the CPW and Vega Dam is operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Ute Water would enter into a license agreement with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation that would mitigate construction-related impacts to the Park and restore impacted roads. This license would restrict heavy construction vehicle passage through the park on weekends and holidays to address CPW concerns.

Road and Trail Improvement: NFS Road 262 and NFS Trail 518 Road infrastructure would be improved during the first year. The approximately 9-mile access route from Vega Reservoir to Monument Reservoir includes a NFS Road and a NFS Trail. NFS Road 262 connects Vega Reservoir to the intersection with NFS Trail 518, which then provides access to Monument Reservoir No. 1 (Figure 4). The road is currently a high clearance, four-wheel drive road with frequent stream and wetland crossings. In order to allow passage of the heavy equipment needed to construct the dam and the trucks that would carry crushed rock, cement or concrete and other material to the work site, substantial improvements to the road and trail would be required in the last 4 miles of the route.

Approximately 3 miles south of the forest boundary in an area that has historically been used as an ATV unloading site, a “transfer area” would be established along NFS Road 262 (Figure 4). The area includes seeps and low areas that accumulate runoff, which results in rutting and other resource damage. The area would be graded, sloped and hardened to improve its utility, while protecting or improving the condition of the surrounding area. The transfer area would be used for construction activities at the Monument Reservoir No. 1 site and would remain as a public parking area following construction.

Road improvements along NFS Road 262 include leveling steep approaches to crossings, improving drainage, removing dips and bumps, enlarging stream crossings, and relocating portions of the road out of wetlands. Culverts would be placed at several stream crossings. These culverts would be removed at the completion of project construction and replaced with hardened ford crossings to limit long-term maintenance requirements and reduce sedimentation of streams.

Due to lack of maintenance, much of NFS Road 262 has a footprint that is more than 30 feet wide. The road would be narrowed to a width of 14 feet with appropriate drainage, outsloped or crowned template to enhance stability, and mutually visible turnouts or turnouts at 1000-foot intervals (whichever is greater) to accommodate vehicle passage. Drainage would be established along the road, creek crossings would be hardened, and surface rock applied to accommodate the increased traffic associated with the larger, heavier vehicles needed for construction of the reservoir enlargements. The road would be upgraded to the transfer area to allow passage by two-wheel drive vehicles. From the transfer area on to the reservoir sites, NFS Road 262 and NFS Trail 518 would be used by off-road equipment and trucks. Such high-clearance vehicles require a lower road standard of road surface than two-wheel drive vehicles, and thus would require less work on the road. Aggregate used from the corrals on NFS Road 262 south to the transfer point would be 1½- inch maximum crushed aggregate with clay fines and shall meet the gradation as shown in the FP-14 Specifications for road construction. Aggregate applied south of the transfer location would be 3-inch maximum crushed aggregate as shown in the FP-14 Specifications for Road Construction. Roadway drainage would be primarily be by rolling dips, constructed at appropriate


27

locations to minimize erosion and siltation from the road prism. The intent of the road upgrades would be to improve the road structure and stability, rather than accommodating increased vehicle speeds.

Figure 4. Roads and trails in the project area


28

NFS Road 262 would remain generally open to public use, with periodic closures of up to 45 minutes for installation of culverts or other repairs. Ute Water or its contractor would be required to provide traffic control during the construction phase of project to assure public safety during times of heavy construction hauling. All traffic control and any closures would be appropriately signed and marked to alert the public. After the completion of reservoir construction, NFS Road 262 would be allowed to return to its original condition naturally, a process that would occur over several years and not require active restoration by Ute Water or the Forest Service. Sections of road relocated out of wetlands would remain in their new upland locations. Over time, the roads and trails accessing Monument Reservoir No. 1 would return to their present condition, limiting access to four-wheel drive vehicles, ATVs, and UTVs.

Compensatory Wetland Mitigation This project would result in permanent and temporary environmental impacts. Temporary impacts would occur during construction and the infrequent operation of the enlarged reservoir. Some beneficial impacts from the Proposed Action have also been identified. Mitigation has been identified for permanent project impacts as described in Chapter 3 and Appendix E. Compensatory mitigation would be required for wetland impacts as the analysis in Chapter 3 concludes that there would be a net loss of wetlands associated with implementation of the Proposed Action. Compensatory mitigation may be required for other resource areas. However, the Forest Service has endeavored to use design criteria (Appendix C) in order to prevent or minimize impacts to other resource areas.

The Compensatory Mitigation Plan describes proposed compensatory mitigation offered by Ute Water to mitigate impacts to waters of the United States from the proposed enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1. Reservoir enlargement would impact 29.3 acres of wetlands due to dam, spillway construction, and inundation when the reservoir fills, as well as road construction and the ATV trail reroute.

Ute Water proposes to mitigate these impacts by draining Monument Reservoir No. 2 and Cold Sore Reservoir as well as restoring aquatic habitat along a reach of Monument Creek above Monument Reservoir No. 1. The existing dams at both reservoir sites would be removed and wetlands in the basin would be restored. The Compensatory Mitigation Plan is included in this EIS as Appendix E.

NFS Trail 518 constitutes the final 2-mile segment of the route from Vega Reservoir to Monument Reservoir No. 1. Portions of this trail are located in or adjacent to wetlands, making part of the trail unsuitable for construction traffic. Several portions of NFS Trail 518 would be relocated and widened to accommodate construction vehicles and equipment (see Figure 5 and Figure 6). Following reservoir construction, the route would be restricted by a narrow gate to limit public use to ATV and UTV less than 50 inches wide. Ute Water would use the gate to allow entry by maintenance vehicles such as excavators and four-wheel drive trucks. The trail would not be maintained beyond a level sufficient for four-wheel drive, high clearance vehicles.


29

Figure 5. Proposed re-route of NFST 518 near the confluence of Leon Creek and Monument Creek


30

Figure 6. Proposed re-route of NFST 518 around an enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1


31

An enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1 would inundate portions of NFS Trail 518 and the Sunlight-Powderhorn snowmobile trail. Approximately 1.5 miles of NFS Trail 518 starting at the current dam would be relocated north of the enlarged reservoir footprint. Additionally, approximately 2.5 miles of the Sunlight-Powderhorn Snowmobile Trail would be relocated outside the reservoir footprint. The new trail would intersect the Sunlight-Powderhorn Trail upstream of Monument Reservoir No. 1. This trail is part of a popular 120-mile long, groomed trail system crossing three national forests, and the new alignment would need to be cleared to an approximate width of 22 feet to accommodate a trail groomer machine. Little disturbance beyond clearing and scatting slash and logs would occur.

Road maintenance along NFS Road 262 and NFS Trail 518 would be the responsibility of Ute Water during reservoir enlargement. A road improvement plan that includes details of improvements, re-routes, and maintenance would be submitted by Ute Water for approval by the Forest Service 30 days in advance of work. Following completion of construction, the Forest Service would resume responsibility for road and trail maintenance. For the duration of the long-term special use authorization, Ute Water would be authorized to use and would maintain any access routes needed for operations and maintenance of the authorized facilities, such as the reservoir, pipelines, and ditches.

Reservoir Operations Ute Water’s reservoir operations plan is shown in Appendix D of this EIS. The enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1 would be used to supplement storage levels in the Jerry Creek Reservoirs during drought conditions. As described in the operations plan (Appendix D), “drought conditions” for Ute Water’s system are defined as any condition that negatively effects average raw water supplies either physically or legally. Monument Reservoir and the Jerry Creek Reservoirs are the primary storage sources for municipal water on Ute Water’s Plateau Creek Raw Water system, and therefore must be operated in conjunction to ensure deliveries are met to the treatment plant that are adequate in quantity and quality. Water would be released at the head gate structure on Monument Reservoir No. 1 Dam and would travel downstream 25.2 miles to Ute Water’s Plateau Creek intake structure. From the Plateau Creek intake, the water is piped approximately 3.8 miles west to the Jerry Creek Reservoirs (see Figure 7).


32

Figure 7. Relative locations of Monument Reservoir No. 1, the Jerry Creek Reservoirs, and the Plateau Creek Intake


33

The timing of these releases would occur primarily during the summer months (May to August) as Ute Water’s direct flow Plateau Creek water rights fall out of priority.

Historically, releases from Monument Reservoir No. 2 have been made to Monument Reservoir No. 1 once sufficient storage capacity is available in Monument Reservoir No. 1 and have continued until Monument Reservoir No. 2 empties. This process has taken place as soon as Monument Reservoir No. 1 can make releases in excess of inflow (late June or early July) and has lasted only a couple months before Monument Reservoir No. 2 has been drained. This senior agricultural water right would continue to be used in the same historical way for releases, unless needed by Ute Water for municipal use. Historically, these agricultural releases have been made between July and September and have averaged around 3.8 cubic feet per second.

Ute Water would operate the enlarged reservoir to allow some channel maintenance outflow at least once every 3 years, sustained over a 3 to 5 consecutive day period.

The conditional storage right of 4,682 acre-ft at Monument Reservoir No. 1 is junior to Vega Reservoir, which is located downstream and is filled in part with water diverted from Leon Creek at the Leon-Park Feeder Canal. Given that Vega Reservoir could place a call and there is very little water physically available at the Monument Reservoir No. 1 enlargement site during the winter, water would generally not be legally available to store under the conditional storage right from November through March (ERC, 2018). During the runoff season, which typically starts as early as April and runs through June, water would be available to divert to storage under the conditional storage right in wet years and most average years. Should all or a portion of the 4,682 acre-foot conditional storage right be perfected, Vega Reservoir could place a call on the conditional junior storage right in some average years particularly following a dry year when Vega does not fill or is significantly drawn down. In all wet years, Ecological Resource Consultants, who modeled operations of the enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1, assumed that there would be no call and water would be legally available to divert under the junior storage right. In dry years and average years following a dry year, Ecological Resource Consultants assumed that there would be a call and water would be not be legally available to divert under the junior storage right. Finally, Ecological Resource Consultants assumed the storage right would not be in priority to divert water to storage from July through October when there is often a more senior downstream call. The legally available supply equals the physical supply during the months of April through June in wet years and some average years.

Modeling has shown that when Monument Reservoir No. 1 is empty (during the initial fill or when drained) it would take 55 months to refill (ERC, 2018). This long filling period is due to the limited physical drainage size above the reservoir and the very junior priority date of Ute Water’s municipal water right to legally fill. In only 8 of the 55 months it takes to refill Monument Reservoir No. 1 would the junior water right be both physically and legally available.

Winter operations of Monument Reservoir No. 1 would remain the same as they are currently. This involves closing the head gate after all fall releases are made, and leaving it closed until conditions at the reservoir site allow for operations (between May and July depending on the snowpack from the previous winter). Once reservoir operation is possible, Ute Water would release any winter storage that is owed downstream.


34

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR §1502.14).

Three NEPA-driven analyses completed between 1998 and 2012 included alternatives to enlarging Hunter Reservoir. The first of these was the BLM’s analysis of Ute Water’s replacement of the Plateau Creek Pipeline in which the BLM considered ten alternatives (BLM 1998). The second occurred in 2007, in which the Forest Service considered nine alternatives in a Draft EIS for Ute Water’s application to enlarge Hunter Reservoir. Most recently, the Forest Service completed a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in 2017. That analysis updated the 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement to include an alternative that did not include enlargement of Hunter Reservoir. It also captured other changes in water supply available to Ute Water Conservancy District since the 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared.

Alternatives Considered under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act An additional alternative screening process outside of NEPA requirements was completed due to the Proposed Action’s potential effects to jurisdictional wetlands. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires a permit (section 404 permit) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the construction of the enlarged dam and reservoir. The section 404 permit would be issued in accordance with Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material (404(b)(1) guidelines; 40 CFR Part 230). The 404(b)(l) guidelines serve as the principal environmental standard by which all section 404 permit applications are to be evaluated.

The 404(b)(1) guidelines require that “no dredge or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse effect on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have significant adverse environmental consequences” (40 CFR §230.10(a)). Under the guidelines, the basic project purpose is examined to determine if the proposed project is water dependent. A project is water dependent if it requires access to or proximity to, or siting within, a special aquatic site2 in order to fulfill its basic purpose.

The basic purpose of the Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 Project is provision of municipal water storage. This purpose does not fundamentally require access or proximity to, or siting within, a special aquatic site. For example, municipal water can be stored in water towers or reservoirs built on dry land. The project is thus not considered “water dependent” by the Army Corps. For non-water dependent uses, their guidelines stipulate that practicable alternatives that do not involve a discharge into a special aquatic site are (1) presumed to exist and (2) presumed to be less environmentally damaging than the proposed use unless clearly demonstrated otherwise. A thorough alternatives analysis is necessary to demonstrate that no such less environmentally damaging practicable alternatives exist.

The Corps uses the overall project purpose to evaluate whether less environmentally damaging practicable alternatives are available as part of the decision to issue a permit for a proposed activity under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The 404(b)(1) guidelines state that an alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being implemented after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and

2 Special aquatic sites . . . are geographic areas, large or small, possessing special ecological characteristics of productivity, habitat, wildlife protection, or other important and easily disrupted ecological values (40 CFR § 230.3(m), July 1, 2019). Special aquatic sites include such areas as sanctuaries and refuges (40 CFR § 230.40), wetlands [with a direct surface connection to waters of the Unites States] (§ 230.41), mud flats (§ 230.42), vegetated shallows (§ 230.43), and riffle and pool complexes (§ 230.45).


35

logistics in light of overall project purpose (40 CFR §230.10(a)(2)). This evaluation applies to all waters of the United States, not just special aquatic sites.

The project’s purpose and need statement is specific enough to define Ute Water’s needs, but not so restrictive as to constrain the range of alternatives that must be considered under the 404(b)(1) guidelines. This EIS considers and discloses the proposed project’s underlying purpose and need from a public interest perspective when appropriate, but generally focuses on the applicant’s purpose and need statement. This EIS considers the views of Ute Water regarding the project purpose and the existence or lack of practicable alternatives, without undue deference to Ute Water’s wishes.

The Corps commissioned a practicability screening of 29 alternatives for supplying additional water capacity to Ute Water’s system during preparation of the 2017 Draft Supplemental EIS. The Corps determined that the resulting screening report, referred to as the 2012 Technical Report, could not be used to screen alternatives to the current Proposed Action due to changes in project purpose and need and other changes since the 2012 Technical Report was prepared. The 2012 report discloses the alternatives screened though that process and the reasons each was determined not practicable and thus eliminated from detailed analysis. The Forest Service has updated the 2012 Technical Report to address these changes. Full analysis of each alternative’s practicability appears in the revised practicability screening in Appendix B to this Final SEIS.

The 29 preliminary alternatives for addressing the project purpose and need, as initially analyzed in the 2012 Technical Report, or as modified from that report to meet the current project purpose, are shown in Table 4. Only one alternative, the proposed action (Alternative #18 in Table 4), met the screening criteria used to determine whether an alternative was practicable (see Screening Criteria section of Appendix B).

Table 4. Alternatives screened for practicability Alternative Description Capacity

Increase (acre-feet)

Hunter Reservoir, Fen Avoidance 1. Reduced Scale

Enlargement This modification would reduce the scale of the dam so that water would be backed up only until it reached the fen, avoiding inundation of the fen and much of the non-fen wetland.

65

2. Construction of a Dike around the Fen

This modification would place an earthen dike around the fen, separating it from the enlarged reservoir and preventing inundation of the fen by reservoir water.

1,090

Construction of New Reservoirs 3. Big Park Construction of a reservoir on NFS lands in Secs. 4 and 5, T. 11 S, R. 93 W.

Water for the reservoir would come from Leon Creek and from Park Creek through a 1.2-mile ditch.

5,470

4. Reduced-Capacity Big Park

Construction of a new reservoir at the Big Park site. No water from Park Creek would be used.

1,385

5. East Leon Creek Construction of a new reservoir on NFS lands in Sec. 27, T. 11 S., R. 93 W., just downstream from Hunter Reservoir.

1,354

6. Buzzard Creek Construction of a new reservoir on private land in Sec. 14, T. 9 S., R. 94 W., about 6 miles east of Collbran.

5,300

7. Owens Construction of a new reservoir on NFS lands in Sec. 25, T. 9 S., R. 92 W., about 18 miles east of Collbran.

5,300

8. Atwell Gulch Construction of a new reservoir on BLM land in Sec. 5, T. 10 S., R. 96 W., about 2 miles northwest of Jerry Creek Reservoir No. 1.

5,300


36

Alternative Description Capacity Increase

(acre-feet) 9. Above Hunter Construction of a new reservoir on NFS lands in Sec. 34, T. 11 S., R. 93 W.,

about ½-mile south of (above) Hunter Reservoir. 1,367

10. West Fork of East Leon Creek

Construction of a new reservoir west of the road to Hunter Reservoir in the NW¼NW¼ Sec. 22, T. 11 S., R. 93 W., about 1 ½- mile below Hunter Reservoir.

52

11. East Fork of East Leon Creek

Construction of a new reservoir in the NE¼NE¼ Sec. 22, T. 11 S., R. 93 W. 1,326

12. West Middle Leon Creek

Construction of a new reservoir west of Colby Horse Park Reservoir in the NE¼NE¼ Sec. 20, T. 11 S., R. 93 W.

1,269

13. Regional Water Storage

Construction of a single, on-channel or off-channel water storage facility that would supply the region’s water needs for 20 to 40 years.

N/A

Existing Reservoir Enlargement 14. Jerry Creek Enlargement of either Jerry Creek Reservoir No. 1 or No. 2. N/A 15. Leon Lake Enlargement of the dam at the headwaters of Middle Leon Creek in the N½

Sec. 29, T. 11 S., R. 93 W. 1,380

16. Colby Horse Park Enlargement of the dam below Leon Lake Reservoir on Middle Leon Creek in the W½ Sec. 21, T. 11 S., R. 93 W.

1,101

17. Kenney Creek Enlargement of the dam on Kenney Creek in the N½ Sec. 8, T. 11 S., R. 93 W.

1,343

18. Monument Reservoir No. 1

Enlargement of the dam on Monument Creek in SE¼ Sec. 11, T. 11 S., R. 93 W.

4,711

19. Monument Reservoir No. 2

Enlargement of the dam north of Monument Creek in the NE¼ Sec. 12, T. 11 S., R. 93 W.

453

20. Jensen Enlargement of the dam located in the headwaters of the Cottonwood Creek drainage in the NE¼ Sec. 12, T. 11 S., R. 93 W.

1,365

Vega Reservoir 21. Storage of Leon

Creek Water Storage of Ute Water Conservancy District’s Leon Creek water in Vega Reservoir, a Bureau of Reclamation facility on private land in Sec. 6, T. 10 S., R. 93 W.

N/A

22. Conversion of Irrigation Water

Purchase of current agricultural water rights stored at Vega Reservoir (or the agricultural land associated with those rights) and conversion of the use from agricultural to municipal.

N/A

23. Reservoir Enlargement

Enlargement of the dam at Vega Reservoir to allow storage of Ute Water’s water from the Leon Creek drainage.

1,340

Groundwater 24. Groundwater

Development Drilling groundwater wells in the Plateau Creek watershed and Groundwater Development using existing pipelines or watercourses to convey water to Plateau Creek and the water treatment facility.

N/A

25. Underground Storage

Transferring Ute Water Conservancy District’s Leon Creek water to injection wells and storing in underground aquifers.

N/A

Other 26. Delivery System

Improvements Improving the delivery system from Jerry Creek reservoirs to Ute Water’s treatment plant and from the plant to the customers, offsetting the need for increased raw water supply.

N/A

27. Conservation Conservation on the part of Ute Water Conservancy District ‘s customers to reduce the demand for new water supplies; programs to educate the public, to promote the use of more modem plumbing, and to promote efficient watering systems.

N/A


37


(acre-feet) 28. Increased

Colorado River Water Use*

An increased amount of raw water would be drawn from the Colorado River. The Ute Water Conservancy District pump station on the Colorado River would be enlarged and more Colorado River water would be blended with raw water from the Plateau Creek drainage.

29. Conversion of Non-Vega Agricultural Water to Domestic Use

Purchase of agricultural water rights (or the agricultural land associated with those rights) that are not associated with Vega Reservoir and conversion of the water’s use from agricultural to municipal.

N/A

*This alternative has been adopted for implementation by Ute Water Conservancy District since preparation of the 2012 Technical Report.

Summary of Proposed Action The proposed action would construct an enlarged dam at the site of the existing Monument No. 1 Reservoir Dam. The new dam would be 80 feet high, 1,810 feet in length, and impound 5,284 acre-feet of water. The overall construction period would total 4 to 5 years; 1 year for transportation improvements and 3 to 4 years of dam and reservoir construction.

The proposed action would address the project primary issues as follows:

Water Resources – Ute Water modeled the basin hydrology and produced daily and longer hydrographs for dry, normal, and wet years. As is presented in Chapter 3, these models demonstrate acceptable flow duration, volume, and rates below the proposed dam.

Wetlands – the loss of wetlands proposed would be the least amount for any practicable alternative, as is demonstrated in Appendix B. Ute Water would provide compensatory mitigation for the area and wetland functions lost through restoration of currently inundated wetlands at the Cold Sore and Monument No. 2 Reservoirs sites. This is analyzed in Chapter 3. Appendix E is a draft plan for the mitigation project. The plan will be finalized after review by the GMUG and discussions between Ute Water and the Army Corps of Engineers.

Aquatic Wildlife – This issue has been addressed by flow restrictions, addition of a bypass flow requirement and use of ramping rates to avoid extreme flushing or sedimentation.

Recreation Management – the disruption of National Forest System Trail 518 during construction is an unavoidable project impact. Post construction changes will enhance the trials.

Transportation – Ute Water has agreed to limitations on timing of transportation through the Vega Lake State Park to reduce this impact.


39

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Introduction This chapter presents the relevant resource components of the existing environment – the baseline environment. It describes the resources of the area that would be affected by the alternatives. This chapter also discloses the environmental effects of implementing the Proposed Action. These form the scientific and analytical basis for comparing the alternatives described in chapter 2.

Consideration of Past, Other Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions The cumulative effects analysis in each resource section discloses the extent to which the effects of past, other present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would accumulate with the effects of the Proposed Action. The interdisciplinary team considered the effects of past actions as part of the existing condition. The current conditions are the sum total of past actions. The Council on Environmental Quality recognizes that “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions” (Council on Environmental Quality 2005). Innumerable actions over the last century and beyond have shaped the hydrologic relationships in the Plateau Creek watershed. Attempting to isolate and catalog these individual actions and their effects would be nearly impossible. By looking at current conditions, the effects of past human actions and natural events are captured, regardless of which event contributed to those effects.

Courts have interpreted a “reasonably foreseeable future action” as one that has been proposed and is in the planning stages. To analyze the cumulative effects of present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, each resource specialist considered the projects described in the Cumulative Effects Analysis section of this chapter (page 105). They identified the actions expected to cause effects to their resource, at the same time and in the same place as effects from the Proposed Action.

Specialist Reports This chapter discloses the anticipated environmental consequences of implementing the Proposed Action on the relevant resource components (issues) disclosed in Chapter 2. Components of each analysis include the existing environment, which is the baseline environmental condition as described under the Proposed Action, the affected environment, which is the relevant context within which the changes in a resource condition are considered, and the intensity of the changes within that relevant context.

This Final SEIS incorporates by reference the resource specialists’ reports in the project record (40 CFR §1502.21). These reports contain the detailed data, regulatory framework, specific resource assumptions and methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references, and technical documentation that the resource specialists relied upon to reach their conclusions.

Organization of this Chapter This chapter is organized in the order of effects to resources directly resulting from the action that addresses the project’s purpose and need. The proposed action is intended to address and immediately


40

affects the hydrologic relationships in the affected area. Therefore, effects to water resources are disclosed first, and all other environmental effects resulting from the proposed action that depend on the changes in water resources are disclosed in order.

The chapter then discloses the effects of the connected actions which are interdependent parts of the larger proposed action and depend on the proposed action for their justification.

Water Resources

Existing Conditions

Water Quantity and Flow Monument Creek catchment comprises 14.5 percent (4,170 acres) of the Leon Creek sub-watershed, and Monument Reservoir No. 1 impounds flows from approximately two-thirds of that area. Modeled unregulated monthly discharge of Monument Creek (at the point of Monument Reservoir No. 1 outflow) ranges from 0.6 cubic feet per second in February to approximately 26.9 cubic feet per second in June (Table 5, Murphy 2009 see Appendix D), with prediction errors of 49 and 51 percent, respectively.

Table 5. Monthly average estimated unregulated stream flows for Monument Creek (Reservoir No. 1 outflow) Month Outflow (cubic feet per

second) Month Outflow (cubic feet per

second) January 0.6 July 9.5 February 0.6 August 3.0

March 0.7 September 1.8 April 2.0 October 1.5 May 14.8 November 1.0 June 26.9 December 0.7

Constructed in 1960, Monument Reservoir No. 1 has absolute decreed rights for storage of up to 572 acre-feet, with an additional right for 254 acre-feet in Monument Reservoir No. 2. Currently, the reservoir draws down during the summer/fall and refills during the winter/spring (see Chapter 2, Reservoir Operations section, for description of dam operation). Figure 8 shows modeled mean monthly discharge for wet and dry years. Water stored in Monument Reservoirs No. 1 and No. 2 is decreed for irrigation use. Monument Reservoir No. 2 flows directly into Monument Reservoir No. 1, resulting in the combined operation of the two reservoirs from the Monument Reservoir No. 1 outlet works.

Historically, releases from Monument Reservoir No. 2 are made to Monument Reservoir No. 1 once sufficient storage capacity is available in Monument Reservoir No. 1 and continue until Monument Reservoir No. 2 is empty. This operation takes place as soon as Monument Reservoir No. 1 can make releases in excess of inflow (late June or early July) and lasts a couple months before Monument Reservoir No. 2 is drained.

Monument Reservoirs No. 1 and No. 2 are typically filled every winter starting in about November through about April. These reservoirs are maintained full until later in the irrigation season when a call is placed on Plateau Creek, typically in July. Water is then released from these reservoirs from July through about September to provide supplemental water for several downstream irrigation ditches. Historically, these agricultural releases are made between July and September and average around 3.8 cubic feet per


41

second. While the reservoirs are full, before summer releases, they are run-of-the-river type where excess inflow is free to run the channel downstream of the outlet to Monument Reservoir No. 1.

Figure 8. Estimated existing discharge (cubic feet per second) for Monument Creek below the Monument Reservoir No. 1 Dam in wet years (blue) and dry years (red) under current operations

Groundwater The relationship between surface and groundwater in upper elevation catchments of the upper Colorado River basin is poorly understood and not well integrated into basin-wide modeling, management, and planning (Lukas and Payton 2020). Williams and others demonstrated that high exchange of snowmelt, ground water, and stream flow occurs in seasonally snow-covered catchments, though at higher rates of transmissivity than are typical in lower altitude basins (2015). Groundwater is an important water source for fens and other wetlands on the Grand Mesa.

Water Quality The Monument Creek catchment is a high-altitude stream system with existing low-head dams and a low density of roads and trails. As such, it has generally good water quality. This is suggested by the presence of mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera) and caddisflies (Trichoptera) in grab samples taken from Monument Creek below the Monument Reservoir No. 1 in 2018. Research has documented the positive correlation between the presence these flies and water quality (Armitage et al. 1983; Extence et al. 1987; Lenat 1988; Courtney and Clement 2002; Xu et al. 2014).

Sediment from roads and trails near streams can degrade water quality. NFS Road 262 closely parallels Leon Creek below its confluence with Monument Creek. NFS Trail 518 closely parallels Monument Creek below Monument Reservoir No. 1. While water quality in Monument Creek and downstream waters of Leon Creek is generally high, this road and trail are an existing source of potential sedimentation in the system.


42

Environmental Consequences

No-action Alternative There would be no immediate change to hydrology or water quality from the existing conditions under the No-action Alternative. Potential of sedimentation from NFS Road 262 and NFS lands. would continue to exist, but the relatively low use of transportation infrastructure on Grand Mesa would limit the impact. In the longer term, under the no-action alternative some reservoirs would ultimately run dry or hold less water, due to increased demand and continued precipitation variability.

Proposed Action

Water Quantity and Flows Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 would protect water storage levels in key downstream Jerry Creek Reservoirs during drought conditions. This section analyzes the effects of the Monument Reservoir No. 1 expansion on flow regime downstream of Monument Reservoir No. 1 dam.

To model the physically available water in the ungauged Monument Creek, Ecological Resource Consultants used Ute Water’s SYSTEM model, developed for the Plateau Creek Pipeline EIS. The model uses the “area-precipitation proration” technique to transfer gauged data from one basin, referred to as the reference gage, to an ungauged basin using area and precipitation data of both basins:

Qu = [(Au×Pu)/(Ag×Pg)]×Qg

where Q = Flow, A= Basin Area, P= Average Precipitation of Basin, u= the ungauged basin, and g= the gauged basin

Ecological Resource Consultants selected the USGS gage on Cottonwood Creek at Upper Station, near Molina (09100500) to estimate the streamflow at the Monument Reservoir No. 1 enlargement because the Cottonwood Creek basin is located reasonably close to Monument Creek with a similar drainage basin area and elevation. Ecological Resource Consultants used the Colorado River Support System to supplement the Cottonwood gage data.

The study period for Ute Water’s Plateau Pipeline EIS was 1975 through 1993, which was deemed adequate to evaluate timing, magnitude, and frequency from Monument Creek Reservoirs because it captured the drought year of record (1977), and provided data for an even mix of dry, normal (average) and wet years (ERC 2018b). Comparing this period’s overall distribution of dry, normal and wet years to the distribution of such years in 10 recent years of records from the gauge at Plateau Creek near Cameo (2005-2014) show a similar distribution of wet, average, and dry years during the recent period, which had 3 wet years, 4 average years and 3 dry years.


43

Figure 9. Simulated storage for Monument Reservoir No. 1 enlargement

The solid line in Figure 9, above, shows storage in acre-feet for Monument Reservoir No. 1, as calculated from modeled inflow, during the years 1976-1993. The graph encapsulates the operations of the proposed enlargement during a period including the drought of record, 1977, and subsequent refilling through average and wet years.

The conditional, junior municipal storage right of 4,682 acre-feet would be relied upon to fill the enlarged reservoir. In this modeled scenario, refilling is accomplished over a six-year period. Complete drawdown occurs only during the summers of 1977 (a drought year) and 1978 to protect the storage levels in the downstream Jerry Creek Reservoirs. A nearly 90 percent refill occurs during years 1979 and 1980, though this process is interrupted by a dry year, 1981, and an average year, 1982. Full storage is achieved by 1983, the beginning of a series of wet years. The peak pattern for years 1983 through 1987 represents partial drawdown for irrigation use.

The salient difference between the existing and proposed condition is the enhanced storage (over ten times the current capacity) of Monument Reservoir No. 1 and the length of time to refill. Figure 10, below, shows modeled annual cycle of filling and drawing down that occurs with the existing storage in Monument Reservoirs No. 1 and No. 2.


44

Figure 10. Simulated storage for Monument Reservoirs No. 1 and No. 2 combined – existing condition

Figure 11, Figure 12, and Figure 13 show the modeled outflow in cubic feet per second for the existing condition and the proposed action (enlargement) for wet, average, and dry years, respectively. The difference between the two curves in each graph is the retention of some runoff in the new enlarged reservoir. During the dry years, releases to maintain storage levels in the downstream Jerry Creek reservoirs would result in average higher peak flows that occur sooner in the year than during the existing condition. It is largely during average years in the modeled scenario that refilling of the reservoir takes place volumetrically; though the refilling years are split between average (1979-1980) and wet (1983 and 1993) years.


45

Figure 11. Comparison of wet year hydrograph in Monument Creek below Monument Reservoir No. 1 for existing conditions (blue) and dam enlargement (red)

Figure 12. Comparison of average year hydrograph in Monument Creek below Monument Reservoir No. 1 for existing conditions (blue) and dam enlargement (red)


46

Figure 13. Comparison of dry year hydrograph in Monument Creek below Monument Reservoir No. 1 for existing conditions (blue) and dam enlargement (red)

Ute Water would operate the enlarged reservoir to allow for channel flows. Impacts to peak flows downstream of Monument Reservoir No. 1 would generally occur if the head gate is not opened prior to spring runoff or if water is stored in the enlarged reservoir using Ute Water’s junior water rights during spring runoff. Ute Water has agreed to release a 0.60 cubic foot per second bypass flow during times of low flow. These operations could result in multiple years of reduced flows in Monument Creek. Reduction in peak flows specifically may reduce the ability of Monument Creek to adequately transport sediment and decrease water availability for resident fish and macroinvertebrates. In consultation with CPW, Ute Water would identify appropriate flows to flush algae in spawning channels with fine sediments as well as flush gravel beds. Commencing in Summer 2020, Ute Water began consulting with CPW on a technical approach to develop appropriate draining and filling operations based on site specific gaging and modeling. Ute Water and CPW would enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) specific to this purpose (Appendix C, Design Criteria Hydrology #4).

Ramping up and down of flow for enlarged reservoir operations would have established rates during reservoir releases (Appendix C: Aquatic Design Features #2), in order to avoid unnecessary scour and stranding of fish. Ute water has proposed the following equation to determine ramping rate:

QR = (%)(Qbkf – Qmaf)

Where: QR = Amount of Allowable Ramping Increase or Decrease, % = 20% for Ramping Up and 10% for Ramping Down, Qbkf = Estimated Bank full Flow, and Qmaf = Average Annual Flow


47

In consultation with CPW, Ute Water would develop a reservoir release and re-fill plan that would mimic the historical hydrograph in Monument Creek.

Winter operations of Monument Reservoir No. 1 would remain the same as they are currently. This involves closing the head gate after all fall releases are made, and leaving it closed until conditions at the reservoir site allow for operations (between May and July depending on the snowpack from the previous winter).

After draw-down of the reservoir, during a drought year, the refilling period would have reduced flows, including peaks. Because the enlarged reservoir is for municipal drought protection, in below-average years Ute Water would not make historic late-summer agricultural releases in order to conserve storage. This condition applies in ten of the nineteen years of the modeling record. In those years, an average of 667.6 acre-feet of water for agriculture rights, stored over the winter, would also be released during runoff when dam operations resume (usually May or June). In the modeled run of the enlargement during the critical first two years of refill after total drawdown (1978-79), zero flow releases are extended 3 months beyond the existing condition, from April to June of 1979.

In the enlargement scenario, the rising limb of the runoff hydrograph would occur later (a few weeks) than with the existing condition for years other than dry drawdowns. This is because the increased reservoir capacity would be able to hold more of the runoff input as storage when the junior municipal water rights are in priority, for release later, when water is needed to augment out of priority depletions in the system.

Ute Water would measure flows from the outlet of the enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1 Dam and submit records of flow for all releases for municipal use to the Forest Service.

Water Quality Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 has the potential to affect water quality in two phases, dam construction and reservoir operation. Construction phase effects could include increases in sedimentation both from ground disturbance for construction of the enlarged Monument Dam and from greatly increased travel on area NFS Road 262 and Trail 518 during construction. Operation phase impacts to water quality would be related to differences in stream scour and sediment transport caused by water releases from the enlarged reservoir.

Dam construction would last from 4 to 5 years, including upgrades to access roads and trails during the first year and 3 to 4 years of actual dam construction. During the entire construction period, the potential for increased sedimentation in project area streams would exist due to removal of vegetation, soil disturbance and increased vehicle traffic on NFS Road 262 and NFS Trail 518. This potential increase in sedimentation would be mitigated through implementation of construction phase best management practices (BMPs) for sediment control prior to any increase in hauling or ground disturbance. These BMPs, described in greater detail in Appendix C, Design Criteria, would include preparation and implementation of a stormwater management plan prior to starting construction, hardening the surfaces of NFS Road 262 and NFS Trail 518 to accommodate increased traffic weight and density, relocating the road and trail away from streams, a suite of sediment control measures at areas of disturbance, establishing vegetation in disturbed sites, and monitoring all such measures during construction. With implementation of these measures, the proposed action is not anticipated to measurably change water quality during the dam construction phase. As stated in Appendix C, compliance with project construction phase design criteria would be monitored by a quality assurance and compliance inspector contracted by


48

the project proponent. The inspector would have authority to halt construction in cases of failure to meet design criteria standards. This would provide a strong incentive to meet the standards.

Reservoir operation could adversely affect water quality in Monument Creek through changing flow regime in the catchment. High discharge flows from the reservoir could cause increased scour in Monument Creek and subsequent deposition downstream. Reduced discharge during times of reservoir filling could cause increased sedimentation due to a lack of normal scouring flows below the reservoir in Monument Creek. Disturbance of wetland function through inundation of wetlands in the reservoir basin could also adversely affect water quality, as wetlands typically improve downstream water quality through trapping sediment and nutrients (Johnston 1991).

As is stated above in the discussion of water quantity effects, reservoir operations would use ramping flows and be limited by existing water rights. Timing and size of releases from the enlarged reservoir would be similar to existing conditions in average and wet years. During times of drought, when water would be released to address shortfalls in the Ute Water reservoir system, flow duration and size would be increased above baseline dry year flows. This may result in some additional scour in Monument Creek. We do not anticipate important changes in sediment or water quality conditions.

Loss of wetlands to inundation by the enlarged reservoir would be mitigated through creation of similar wetlands elsewhere in the drainage, as described in Appendix E, Wetland Mitigation Plan. No measurable changes in water quality should result from loss of wetlands.

Cumulative Effects There are no other current or proposed actions in the project area’s watershed that would, in combination with the effects of the project, accumulate with the project’s watershed effects. No measurable cumulative effects are thus anticipated.

Summary of Proposed Action Effects The enlarged dam would increase the storage capacity of the Monument Reservoir No. 1 by a factor of ten. Timing and magnitude of releases would be comparable to the existing condition in average and wet years, when the reservoir is largely at full capacity, according to model simulations. The principal effect of the enlargement would be during dry years when peaks may be higher, as there would be overall greater releases to maintain water levels in the downstream Jerry Creek Reservoirs.

During average years peaks were reduced. During average and wet years, the timing of the rising limb of the runoff hydrograph may occur later due to greater storage that allows later release. While some commenters have expressed concerns that climate change may result in decreased frequency of wet and average years during the project timeline, neither recent trends nor climate modeling support this conclusion. The most recent 10 years analyzed by Environmental Resource Consultants in their 2018 review of hydrological modeling for Ute Water, 2005 through 2014 included 3 wet years, 4 average years, and 3 dry years (ERC 2018). Climate Change in Colorado states: “. . . any anthropogenic trend in precipitation in Colorado within the model range which does occur in the next several decades would be difficult to detect against the background of decadal natural variability. We can also expect year-to-year natural variability to remain the key driver of Colorado’s precipitation in any given year (Lukas et al. 2014).

Winter operations of Monument Reservoir No. 1 would remain the same as they are currently. This involves closing the head gate after all fall releases are made, and leaving it closed until conditions at the reservoir site allow for operations (between May and July, depending on the level of snowpack from the


49

previous winter). Once reservoir operation is possible, Ute Water would release any winter storage that is owed downstream.

The model, however, was not able to take this physical constraint into account and shows small winter releases in several years.

Wetlands

Existing Conditions

Wetlands on the Grand Mesa According to the Colorado National Heritage Program, there are 2,102 square miles (1,345,280 acres) of wetlands in Colorado, which is about 2 percent of the land area of the state. More than 10 percent (174,999 acres) of the state’s wetlands occur in the Upper Colorado River watershed, which includes the Grand Mesa and Leon Creek watersheds. The USFWS’s National Wetland Inventory database reveals there are 10,747 acres of wetlands in the Vega Reservoir-Plateau Creek Watershed; nearly 16 percent of the estimated 68,087 acres of wetlands on the GMUG (NWI 2020). The total wetlands acres identified in the National Wetland Inventory database represent about 2 percent of the total land area of the GMUG.

In 2008, the Forest Service embarked on a study to identify the frequency, size, condition, and threats to fen wetlands on the GMUG. The study revealed a reasonable estimate of the number of fens on the GMUG is somewhere between 911 and 2,565, covering between 4,098 and 17,970 acres. On the Grand Mesa there are between 213 and 639 fens, covering between 1,038 and 4,729 acres.3 Although the primary purpose of this study – understanding the importance of fen resources that would have been lost had the Hunter Reservoir been enlarged – is no longer valid, the information is retained to provide an understanding of fen resources on the Grand Mesa.

Wetlands in the Leon Creek Watershed National Wetlands Inventory data reveal there are approximately 1,542 acres of wetlands in the Leon Creek watershed, about 5 percent of the total watershed area. Wetlands are classified as either freshwater emergent or forested in the Inventory. There are approximately 1,163 acres of freshwater emergent wetlands in the watershed. According to the Federal Geographic Data Committee’s 2013 publication Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, emergent wetlands are those that are dominated by herbaceous vegetation including grasses, sedges, rushes, and ferns that are adapted to grow in water saturated soil or in standing water. Emergent wetlands are sometimes called marshes, wet-meadows, fens, and sloughs (Federal Geographic Data Committee 2013). There are approximately 379 acres of forested-shrub wetlands in the watershed (NWI 2020). Trees are the dominant life form in forested wetlands. In western mountains, forested wetlands occur in moist areas, particularly along rivers (Federal Geographic Data Committee 2013).

Monument Reservoir No. 1 In 2018 ERO Resources Corporation delineated wetlands in the area that would be inundated by the proposed enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 or filled for construction of the dam, spillway, road, and trails. ERO used the methods for routine on-site wetland determinations as described in 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and used methods in the

3 These ranges reflect 95 percent statistical confidence intervals for the point estimates for fen frequency and area presented in the fen study. The proper interpretation of these ranges is, for example: based on the data that were collected, there is a 1 in 20 (5 percent) chance that the actual number of fens on the Grand Mesa is less than 213 or greater than 639.


50

Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2010). ERO delineated 45.7 acres of wetlands in the project area, classified as shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Wetlands delineated in area of Monument Reservoir No. 1 and access roads Wetland Type Area (acres)

Freshwater Emergent 14.2 Freshwater Scrub-Shrub 29.6 Freshwater Forested 1.9 Freshwater Fen 0

Total 45.7

Monument Reservoir No. 2 In 2011 WestWater Engineering delineated wetlands surrounding Monument Reservoir No. 2, the proposed site for mitigating wetland impacts resulting from the enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1. The Army Corps reviewed the delineations and approved them in 2011. WestWater Engineering delineated 6.0 acres of wetlands in the vicinity of Monument Reservoir No. 2, as shown in Table 7 below.

Table 7. Wetlands delineated in area surrounding Monument Reservoir No. 2 Wetland Type Area (acres)

Freshwater emergent 5.2 Freshwater Fen 0.8

Total 6.0

Cold Sore Reservoir In 2010 WestWater Engineering delineated wetlands surrounding Cold Sore Reservoir, the proposed site for mitigating wetland impacts resulting from the enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1. The Army Corps reviewed the delineations and approved them in 2010. WestWater Engineering delineated 8.0 acres of wetlands in the vicinity of Cold Sore Reservoir, as shown in Table 8 below.

Table 8. Wetlands delineated in area surrounding Cold Sore Reservoir Wetland Type Area (acres)

Wooded Swamp 1.0 Freshwater emergent 2.8 Freshwater fen 4.1

Total 8.0


No-action Alternative Under the No-action Alternative, the Forest Service would not approve the enlargement of any reservoir analyzed in this document. Wetlands along roads and trails and at the reservoir sites would not be affected. Under a No-action Alternative existing conditions at Monument Reservoirs No. 1 and No. 2 and Cold Sore Reservoir would remain unchanged. The wetland complexes at these sites would remain in


51

their current condition, providing wildlife habitat, water storage, and water filtration. No improvements would be made to NFS Road 262 or NFS Trail 518 and riparian areas would not be restored along Monument Creek. Changes in wetland conditions and extent would be driven by changes in overall regional hydrology related to climate change.

Proposed Action Enlarging Monument Reservoir No. 1 would inundate approximately 117.4 additional acres beyond the current reservoir, including approximately 24.3 acres of existing wetlands. These wetlands would be inundated for much of the life of the reservoir. Wetland functions related to wildlife habitat and water filtration performed by these wetlands would, at best, be reduced substantially and would more likely be fully lost. Wetland functions performed by peripheral wetlands would most likely be retarded in years during which these areas are not underwater. An additional 3.7 acres of wetlands would be filled by the enlarged dam and spillway. Finally, 1.0 acre of wetlands would be filled for improvements to or relocation of NFS Road 262 and NFS Trail 518. Upstream of Monument Reservoir No. 1, breaching of the dam at Monument Reservoir No. 2 would adversely affect 0.3 acre of wetlands through removing their supply of water. A total of 29.3 acres of wetlands would be lost to inundation or fill for the proposed action, as summarized in Table 9.

Additionally, approximately 7,500 linear feet of Monument Creek and its tributary channels would be lost to reservoir enlargement, primarily to inundation in the enlarged reservoir. This equates to approximately of 1.0 acre of open water surface in the creek and tributaries.

Table 9. Wetland impacts of Monument Reservoir No. 1 enlargement Project Element Freshwater

Emergent (acres) Freshwater

Scrub-shrub Freshwater

Forested Total

Mon. Reservoir No. 1 Basin 8.3 15.1 0.9 24.3 Mon. Reservoir No. 1 Dam 1.1 2.1 0.1 3.3 Mon. Reservoir No. 1 Spillway 0.1 0.3 0 0.4 NFS Road 262 0.4 0.5 0 0.9 NFS Trail 518 0 0.1 0 0.1 Mon. Reservoir No. 2 Basin 0.3 0 0 0.3

Total Impacts 10.2 18.1 1.0 29.3

Cumulative Effects Other on-going or reasonably foreseeable actions in the project watershed area, such as the Spruce Beetle Epidemic and Aspen Decline Management Response, include design features and other restrictions to protect wetlands and riparian areas. We do not thus anticipate any cumulative effects to wetlands beyond the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action.

Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects The proposed relocation of NFS Trail 518 where it currently impacts wetlands would enhance wetlands at the relocation site and downstream through restoring natural flows in the affected reach of Monument Creek. The use of construction phase BMPs for sediment control, as described above in the Water Quality analysis, would avoid indirect impacts to wetlands down gradient of the project site.

Potential active compensatory mitigation would ensure that no overall decrease in wetland extent or function would result from project implementation. Compensatory mitigation is necessary for NEPA and Clean Water Act compliance. In 2008 the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA published the Final Rule;


52

Compensatory Mitigation of Losses of Aquatic Resources (DOD & EPA). The rule establishes performance standards and criteria for mitigation of impacts to aquatic resources, including wetlands. The rule also defines permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation as the creation, restoration, enhancement, and protection of wetlands by a project proponent to compensate for losses of wetlands area and functions that would result from the project. Ute Water proposes to provide permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation of the wetland impacts of the proposed enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 and related infrastructure improvements.

The Proposed Action would result in fill or inundation of 29.3 acres of wetlands. To comply with Clean Water Act regulations and the no net loss stipulation of Executive Order 11990, Ute Water would be required to provide compensatory mitigation for wetlands impacts of at least 29.3 acres. The Corps is authorized to require greater than 1:1 replacement of wetland area in mitigation to address the uncertainty of ultimate success of restored wetlands in providing the functions benefits of the wetlands lost to development. Ute Water, in consultation with the Corps, has prepared a restoration plan to reestablish wetlands in the basins of Monument Reservoir No. 2 and Cold Sore Reservoir and enhance aquatic habitat conditions along Monument Creek (see Appendix E).

The compensatory wetlands would be monitored to document successful establishment of functional wetlands as described in Chapter 10 of Appendix E. The Corps would be responsible for enforcement of wetland restoration and creation to meet permit stipulations.

Selection of Mitigation Sites In seeking suitable sites for wetland creation, restoration, enhancement, and protection Ute Water considered these criteria (for a more detailed description of the site selection process and criteria, see Appendix E, Section 3).

1. Location: mitigation sites should be located close to the impact area for maximum effect. Ute water sought sites near the impact area at Monument Reservoir No. 1, and in all cases within the Colorado Headwaters Plateau watershed, to ensure a watershed approach to mitigation. Monument Reservoir No. 2 is within 1 mile of the impact area, on a tributary to Monument Reservoir No. 1. Cold Sore Reservoir is approximately 14 miles west-southwest of Monument Reservoir No. 1, within the Cottonwood Creek watershed, also a component of the Colorado Headwaters Plateau watershed.

2. Watershed Condition and Need: the proposed impact and mitigation sites occur in remote areas on the Grand Mesa. Wetland habitats surrounding both mitigation sites are in near reference conditions, being affected primarily by managed grazing. On February 16, 2017, the Forest Service hosted presentations by BLM scientist, Gay Austin, and Colorado State University professor, Dr. David Cooper. Ms. Austin’s presentation included discussions of fen biology and ecology and exposition of the condition of fen wetlands at Hunter Reservoir, Monument Reservoir No. 2, and Jensen Reservoir (an alternative name for Cold Sore Reservoir). Fens are groundwater or stream fed wetlands that accumulate peat (partially decomposed plant matter), and range in nutrient richness (Chadde et al. 1998). Dr. Cooper’s presentation focused on fen restoration techniques and evidence of his success in restoring fen wetlands in the United States and Canada.

Ms. Austin and Dr. Cooper suggested the wetland complex at Monument Reservoir No. 2 has great potential for successful fen restoration. Restoration would be defined as demonstrable peat accumulation and carbon sequestration. Dr. Cooper described several case studies in which peat accumulation and carbon sequestration functions at damaged fen wetlands were fully restored in less than 10 years.


53

Both proposed restoration sites historically supported wetland habitats including fen wetlands. This type of wetland is generally rare. Austin and Cooper found that 79 percent of the fens that they studied on the Grand Mesa had been impacted historically, primarily by reservoir development (2015). Restoring headwater wetlands and fens would help replace functions and ecosystem services impacted by historic reservoir development.

3. Land Uses Surrounding Mitigation Sites: both mitigation sites are surrounded by lands managed by the Grand Valley Ranger District of the GMUG National Forest. They fall within Management Area 6B, defined in the Forest Plan as having the following uses: “Livestock grazing. Rangeland would be maintained at or above satisfactory condition. Semi-primitive non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized and roaded natural recreation opportunities would be provided. Vegetation treatment would enhance plant and animal diversity.” The newly established wetlands would be fenced to exclude grazing livestock until vegetation is well established.

4. Connectivity to Other Aquatic Resources: re-established wetlands and channels at Monument Reservoir No. 2 would restore connectivity to a large expanse of wetlands to the north and west of the reservoir basin on the Flat Tops. To the north is a large interconnected system of fens, and wet meadows, and other wetlands interspersed with conifer stands. Re-establishing a functioning wetland and channel in the drained basin would improve connectivity of this existing headwater aquatic system to downstream aquatic systems.

The re-established wetlands at Cold Sore would provide connectivity between the extensive headwater wetland and fen systems in the surrounding landscape and downstream aquatic systems in the Cottonwood Creek watershed.

5. Existing and Anticipated Hydrology: Existing hydrology at the two reservoirs is controlled by a dam and outlet structure. Winter snowpack and summer rainfall would be the predominant source of water to the reservoir. However, both Monument Reservoir No 2 and Cold Sore Reservoir are in groundwater discharge zones with high water tables derived from winter snowpack.

The anticipated sources of hydrology are the same: groundwater, melting snowpack, summer precipitation, sheet flow and runoff. Monument Reservoir No 2 has surface flow channels entering from the north, and groundwater discharge throughout the basin. Cold Sore Reservoir has a surface flow channel that drains the fen located to the southeast of the reservoir, and a series of springs and seeps along the base of the talus slope framing the southern end of the reservoir.

The source of hydrology for Monument Creek is the watershed, with important contributions from groundwater-fed wetlands adjacent to the channel.

Monument Reservoir No. 2 Ute Water proposes to restore wetlands in the basin of Monument Reservoir No. 2, located approximately 0.8 mile upstream (north) of the proposed Monument Reservoir No. 1 enlargement on a tributary to Monument Creek (Figure 14).

As is described in greater detail in Appendix E, the project at Monument Reservoir No. 2 would re-establish 18.3 acres of a fen complex wetland by removing the dam and draining the reservoir. In addition to restoring wetlands and reestablishing stream channels within the Monument Reservoir No. 2 basin, the proposed mitigation project would rehabilitate stream channel in the tributary creek downstream of Monument Reservoir No. 2 by restoring natural flow regime that had been altered by operation of the reservoir. Table 10 summarizes the aquatic resource gains that would be anticipated from restoration at Monument Reservoir No. 2.


54

Desired conditions for the restored wetlands and streams in the Monument Reservoir No. 2 basin and immediately downstream were determined through analysis of 1934 pre-dam aerial photography and on-site investigations. As is described in greater detail in Appendix E, Ute Water identified areas in the Monument Reservoir No. 2 basin where suitable wetland hydrology would occur by observing groundwater levels in monitoring wells. Similarly, Ute conducted soil investigations to identify conditions suitable for fen or mire (using the Corps definition, areas with greater than 16 inches of organic soil the top 32 inches of the soil profile are considered fens, areas with between 12 and 16 inches are considered mires, collectively the areas are termed peatlands). In some portions of the basin, the original soil surface is buried by layers of sediment ranging from 12 to 21 inches thick, likely from sediment disposition during the life of the reservoir or deposition of excess material during construction of the dam.

Restoration of the wetlands and stream channels within the Monument Reservoir No. 2 basin would include removal of sediments covering native fen soil, establishing stable stream grades where reservoir operations resulted in stream entrenchment, and planting native species. The project would use transplants from the impact area in Monument Reservoir No. 2, locally sourced nursery stock, and seed. Every effort would be made to obtain weed-free stock and seeds. Ute Water determined the species mix for the restored wetlands by comparison to a healthy reference wetland nearby. Ute Water would implement erosion control measures and adaptive management measures to ensure that the restored wetlands are stable until vegetation is established, and the wetlands are self-maintaining. Details of construction, erosion control, post construction monitoring, plant survival requirements, and inspections as required by the Corps are included in Appendix E.

Table 10. Aquatic resources reestablished, rehabilitated, and restored at Monument Reservoir No. 2 Resource Acres Linear Feet

Freshwater Emergent 13.2 - Freshwater Scrub-scrub 5.1 - Total Wetland establishment 18.3 - Channel re-establishment inside drained basin 0.1 1,900 Channel rehabilitation through restored natural flows - 2,000

Cold Sore Reservoir The Corps requested additional restoration beyond that available at Monument Reservoir No. 2. Ute Water proposed restoration of wetlands inundated by construction and operation of the Cold Sore Reservoir, approximately 14 miles west-southwest of Monument Reservoir No. 1 (see Figure 14). Cold Sore Reservoir is located in the Cottonwood Creek watershed. Both Leon Creek and Cottonwood Creek are primary tributaries of Plateau Creek and are located in Colorado Headwaters-Plateau watershed.


55

Figure 14. Relative locations of Monument Reservoirs No. 1 and No. 2 and Cold Sore Reservoir


56

The project at Cold Sore Reservoir would re-establish approximately 29.4 acres of freshwater emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands, including 11 acres of fen. This estimate of area available for restoration within the 32-acre reservoir is based upon aerial photo analysis and a report by West Water Engineering and the Corps (U.S. Department of the Army 2012). Ute Water plans to conduct field analysis of the Cold Sore Reservoir site in the 2020 field season to fine-tune the mitigation plan and acreages available for re-establishment. The Cold Sore Reservoir restoration would include breaching the existing Cold Sore dam, restoring the wetlands thus exposed and rehabilitating stream channels in the basin. Although specific details have not been determined pending field work, restoration of wetlands within the Cold Sore Reservoir basin would use a similar approach to that summarized above for Monument Reservoir No. 2. All construction plans, grading, planting, erosion control and monitoring would be approved by the Corps in negotiation with Ute Water.

Monument Creek Aquatic Habitat Improvement and Restoration As part of ongoing Section 404 permitting and the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan (FWMP) approval process, Ute Water would coordinate the Corps and CPW, respectively, on appropriate mitigation commensurate with impacts to Monument Creek aquatic habitat. Where beaver dams are present and beavers active, no work is proposed. In some reaches, beaver dam analogues (that is, grade control structures that provide functions and effects similar to those of beaver dams) would be developed using the principles of Lite Processed Based Restoration (Wheaton et al. 2019) to mimic natural beaver pond habitat or encourage beavers to occupy the stream reach, or both.

The Forest Service and Corps would coordinate mitigation activities with Ute Water to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including the “no net loss” policy expressed in Executive Order 11990.

Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Species

Endangered Colorado River Fishes

Existing Conditions Four fish species that inhabit the Colorado River are protected as endangered under provisions of the Endangered Species Act:

• Bonytail chub (Gila elegans)

• Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius)

• Humpback chub (Gila cypha)

• Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus)

Critical habitat for endangered Colorado River fishes extends from Rifle downstream to Lake Powell. The USFWS has determined that water projects in the Upper Colorado River watershed that result in water depletions are likely to adversely affect these species. Consultation with USFWS is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act prior to authorization of any federal action that may adversely modify critical habitat, which includes alteration of flow volume or timing (i.e., depletion).

Environmental Consequences The Proposed Action analyzed in this document would result in water depletions and would therefore adversely affect these species.


57

The USFWS has previously determined, in Biological Opinions GJ-6-CO-96-F-0001 (USFWS 2009) and GJ-6-CO-99-F-033(USFWS 1999), that the continued existence of the four listed fish species and their respective critical habitats may be jeopardized by the proposed Ute Water actions. The USFWS has stated in their biological opinions on Plateau Creek Pipeline Replacement Project that the action “is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Colorado Squawfish [now Pikeminnow], Humpback Chub, Bonytail Chub, and Razorback Sucker and result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat.” However, USFWS also developed a reasonable and prudent alternative to avoid a jeopardy opinion and provided a method for calculating future depletions related to the Ute Water system. All new depletions in the Ute Water system, including the Proposed Action described in this document, are included. The Ute Water system depletion from 1996 through 2005 totals 1119.5 acre-feet. Ute Water has paid depletion fees for up to 3,195 acre-feet of new depletions as described in the Biological Opinion. Ute Water is well within the allowable new depletion under the 1998 Biological Opinion, including the Proposed Action in this document. The USFWS provided documentation of the aforementioned Biological Opinions remain in force in a letter dated August 18, 2016.

Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Species, Aquatic Management Indicator Species, Aquatic Fauna in the Leon Creek Watershed

Existing Conditions – Forest Service Sensitive Species The following fish species are designated as “sensitive species” in Region 2 (Rocky Mountain Region) of the Forest Service:

• Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus)

• bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus)

• flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis)

• roundtail chub (Gila robusta robusta)

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) surveyed Monument Reservoir No. 1 in August of 2008, and July of 2012 and 2015. Multiple age classes of cutthroat trout were collected on all occasions within the reservoir. CPW only stocks fingerling sized cutthroat trout. As such, the presence of larger size classes of fish within the reservoir suggest the fish currently overwinter (or have overwintered in the recent past) within Monument Reservoir No. 1.

Cutthroat trout occupy Leon Creeks downstream of Hunter and Monument Reservoirs. East Leon Creek was last sampled by the Forest Service and CPW downstream of Hunter Creek in July of 2010. Additional CPW data indicate that the Forest Service and a private consultant sampled Leon Creek downstream of Monument Creek and Rock Creek in 2013 and 2015, respectively, and collected cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, cutthroat x rainbow trout hybrids, and mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdii). Stocking records provided by CPW indicate that cutthroat trout have been stocked throughout the watershed including upstream of Monument Reservoir No. 1. Eight cutthroat trout, one cutthroat x rainbow hybrid, and 49 mottled sculpin were collected across one sampling pass in a 367-foot section of East Leon Creek with an average width of 14.2 feet. Genetic testing indicated the eight cutthroat trout collected were not genetically pure (L. Martin, personal communication 2010).

On September 23, 2019 CPW surveyed Monument Creek at two sites using a two-pass depletion technique with two backpack electrofishing units (L. Martin, personal communication, 11/05/2019). Site #1 was located 0.3 miles downstream of Monument Reservoir and was 387 feet in length. A total of 37 Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT) were collected at the site, ranging in length from 107 mm (4.2


58

inches) to 269 mm (10.5 inches). Three size-classes of CRCT were present indicating multiple generations. The adult (minimum length of 150 mm or 6.9 inches) density was 128 fish per mile. Two mottled sculpin were also collected. Site #2 on Monument Creek was 519 feet in length and was located 2.3 miles downstream of Monument Reservoir and 0.2 miles upstream of the Leon Creek Confluence. One hundred and eighteen CRCT, 1 brook trout, 1 mottled sculpin, and 1 cutthroat x rainbow hybrid were collected at Site #2. The CRCT collected ranged in length from 43 mm (1.7 inches) to 246 mm (9.6 inches), with 4 size-classes present indicating multiple generations. The CRCT collected consisted mostly of sub-adults. The adult (minimum length of 150 mm or 6.9 inches) density was 61 fish per mile.

Monument Reservoir was surveyed on 9/24/2019 using 3 experimental gill nets for a total effort of 9.15 net-hours. 54 CRCT were collected, ranging in length from 153 mm (6.0 inches) to 404 mm (15.9 inches). Catch per unit effort of CRCT was 5.9 fish per net-hour. The CRCT collected consisted of four size-classes which indicates that cutthroat trout are successfully reproducing upstream of the reservoir in Monument Creek.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) manages the fisheries within Leon Creek and the Leon Creek watershed as recreational opportunities for anglers. The 2010 sampling by CPW and the USFS, in which eight cutthroat trout were collected, was conducted in East Leon Creek. The objective of this sampling effort was to document species presence and composition, not to generate a population estimate. A single pass electrofishing survey was conducted on Leon Creek by the Forest Service approximately 4.5 miles downstream from its confluence with Monument Creek in 2015. Four non-native salmonids (three rainbow trout and one cutthroat x rainbow hybrid) were observed during this effort. The Forest Service did not collect a tissue sample on the suspected hybrid.

Data are lacking for lower Leon Creek and upper Plateau Creek where warmer water temperatures might support seasonal use by other fishes, including species designated as Sensitive species in the Rocky Mountain Region of the NFS: bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus), flannelmouth sucker (C. latipinnis), and roundtail chub (Gila robusta robusta). These species are present in lower portions of Plateau Creek below Vega Reservoir (Ptacek et al. 2005; Rees et al. 2005a; Rees et al. 2005b; Logan 2019). Flannelmouth sucker and bluehead sucker also occupy tributaries of Plateau Creek below Vega Reservoir including Buzzard Creek (L. Martin, personal communication, 2019). Bluehead suckers are also present in tributaries of Buzzard Creek (L. Martin, personal communication, 2019). Monument Dam is about 10.5 stream miles upstream of these areas. Habitat in Leon Creek has not been evaluated for these three species. It is not likely that physical habitat conditions limit occupancy of Leon Creek by these three species, rather, it is more likely that stream temperatures and stream flows are limiting occupancy and seasonal use.

Environmental Consequences – Forest Service Sensitive Species

No-action Alternative Selection of the No Action alternative would maintain conditions and operations as they are currently. Rates of reservoir fluctuation, ramping rates below the dam, and physical habitat conditions would continue into the foreseeable future. Since conditions would be maintained as the status quo, the type of effects to sensitive fish species in the project area would continue. The presence of an artificial dam that interrupts the function of a flowing water body would have effects, some negative and some beneficial, to sensitive species present in the reservoir and in Monument and Leon Creeks. But given the fact that these species continue to exist in the project area with the status quo, leads to the finding that if the No Action alternative is selected it would have No Impact on aquatic sensitive species.


59

Proposed Action There are four effects determinations possible for Forest Service sensitive species (Forest Service Manual 2670):

• No Impact (NI)

• Beneficial Impact (BI)

• May Adversely Impact Individuals (MAII), but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

• Likely to result in Loss of Viability (LV) in the planning area or in a trend toward federal listing.

Colorado River cutthroat trout As described in the affected environment section, sampling has found this fish species in Monument Reservoir and downstream of Monument Dam in Monument Creek and Leon Creek. Effects to CRCT trout would occur during construction and afterwards with the implementation of the enlarged reservoir.

Impoundment breaches and construction activities can cause various levels of deleterious effects to the aquatic environment. Paramount to these is the release of sediment into the stream, especially from either artificial or natural breaches of dams (Wohl and Cenderelli 2000). The Proposed Action includes design criteria and adherence to Soil and Water BMPs to help mitigate these impacts (Appendix C). Additionally, both a stream diversion plan and stormwater management plan would be submitted and approved by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment before work can commence.

According to BMPs (Design Criteria, Appendix C), sediment and erosion control measures would be installed prior to work involving site clearing, stripping and stockpiling of topsoil, excavation, and earthwork. Relocation of the project access routes (NFS Road 262 and NRST 215) away from streams, improving existing stream crossings, and hardening these roads should reduce long-term road and trail water quality impacts to aquatic environments in the project area.

Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT) would be subjected to the impacts of sediment. The successful implementation of project design criteria and BMPs would reduce the impacts of turbidity on these species.

In the hydrology section of this document, the findings were that the main difference between the existing condition and the proposed action would be change in when the hydrograph begins to rise in wet, average, and dry years (see Figure 15, Figure 16, and Figure 17).

Bjornn and Reiser (1991) found that larger juvenile and adult trout appear to be little affected by ephemerally high concentrations of suspended sediment that occur during most storms or episodes of snowmelt. They also found that newly emerged fry appear to be more susceptible to even moderate turbidities than are older fish (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Cutthroat trout initiate spawning behavior at the peak of snow driven runoff and as flows begin to decline (Schmetterling 2001; Muhlfeld et al. 2009). Figure 15, Figure 16, and Figure 17 show that the hydrograph begins to decline in early-August under existing conditions. Under the proposed action (enlarged reservoir), figures 15 (average year) and 16 (wet year) show that the hydrograph would continue to decline in early-August. However, Figure 17 (dry year) shows a shift in the decline from early-August to early-June. This change could delay the timing of CRCT trout spawning by potentially 2 months. An example of a potential impact is that CRCT could emerge from the redd later in the year. This could give them less time to grow before their first winter season which could affect over-wintering survival. However, that is speculative because without more data on the


60

overall abundance of rainbow trout in Monument Creek and Leon Creek, and more extensive macroinvertebrate information, it is difficult to quantify the magnitude of the impact this would have on CRCT. Flow is not the only habitat indicator that trout use to commence spawning. Other variables like temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, and turbidity (Bjorrn and Reiser 1991) can affect when trout begin to spawn. There is not enough available baseline data to make effects determinations on how those specific variables would be impacted by changes brought about by the proposed action.

During construction, the existing population of trout within Monument Reservoir could be adversely impacted. If downstream flows are reduced or water quality is degraded by construction, downstream populations could also be adversely impacted. Therefore, the proposed action “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for the Colorado River cutthroat trout.

Figure 15. Comparison of wet year hydrograph in Monument Creek below Monument Reservoir No. 1 for existing conditions (blue) and dam enlargement (red)


61

Figure 16. Comparison of average year hydrograph in Monument Creek below Monument Reservoir No. 1 for existing conditions (blue) and dam enlargement (red)

Figure 17. Comparison of dry year hydrograph in Monument Creek below Monument Reservoir No. 1 for existing conditions (blue) and dam enlargement (red)


62

However, post-construction impacts are likely to be positive due to creation of a larger body of water which should support a larger trout population than the current reservoir. The larger reservoir should also improve downstream habitat by moderating stream flow fluctuations.

Bluehead sucker, Flannelmouth sucker, and Roundtail chub As described in the existing condition section, data are lacking for lower Leon Creek and upper Plateau Creek where warmer water temperatures might support seasonal use by these fish.

The proposed action would result in water depletion and reduction of stream flow. These effects would be most pronounced during the post-construction period when reservoirs are filling. However, the reduction in stream flow would be minimal. Additionally, an instream flow in Plateau Creek would preserve habitat for these species. Therefore, any action alternatives “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.”

Table 11. Forest Service sensitive aquatic species effect determinations Species Determination

Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus)

May Adversely Impact Individuals but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area,

nor cause a trend toward federal listing. Bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus) May Adversely Impact Individuals but is not likely

to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis) May Adversely Impact Individuals but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area,

nor cause a trend toward federal listing. Roundtail chub (Gila robusta robusta) May Adversely Impact Individuals but is not likely

to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Existing Conditions – Aquatic Management Indicator Species (MIS)

The forest plan designates common trout (brook trout [Salvelinus fontinalis], brown trout [Salmo trutta], rainbow trout [Oncorhynchus mykiss] and cutthroat trout [O. clarki]) as Management Indicator Species (MIS) for aquatic habitat. Within the project area observations have identified this category to include three species: cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and brook trout. These species have been observed in the Leon Creek sub-watershed.

On September 23, 2019 CPW surveyed Monument Creek at two sites using a two-pass depletion technique with two backpack electrofishing units (L. Martin, personal communication, 11/05/2019). Site #2 on Monument Creek was 519 feet in length and was located 2.3 miles downstream of Monument Reservoir and 0.2 miles upstream of the Leon Creek Confluence. One hundred and eighteen CRCT, 1 brook trout, 1 mottled sculpin, and 1 rainbow-CRCT hybrid were collected at Site #2.

Environmental Consequences – MIS Fish Species (Common Trout) No-action Alternative

For this specific location the “common trout” that would be considered MIS are cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and brook trout. These species are not native to the Leon Creek watershed.

Selection of the no action alternative would maintain current operations. Rates of reservoir fluctuation, ramping rates below the dam, and physical habitat conditions would continue into the foreseeable future.


63

Since conditions would be maintained as the status quo, the type of effects to MIS fish species in the project area would continue, subject to any changes in regional hydrology resulting from climate change. The presence of an artificial dam that interrupts the function of a flowing water body would have effects, some negative and some beneficial, to MIS species present in Monument and Leon Creeks. But given the fact that these MIS species continue to exist in the project area with the status quo, leads to the finding that if the no-action alternative is selected it would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest for these MIS species.

Proposed Action

The effects of the proposed action on MIS fish would be similar to those effects on CRCT. See that section for more detail on effects.

The sampling data that is available for this analysis has not documented rainbow trout or brook trout in Monument Reservoir No. 1 so it is unlikely that reservoir fluctuations associated with the proposed action would affect these species. However, sampling efforts were not set up to prove absence of a species so it is possible that these fish could exist in the reservoir and avoided capture. If they do exist in the reservoir, effects to brook trout and rainbow trout would be similar to the effects on Colorado River cutthroat trout (see the section on Forest Service Sensitive Species for effects to cutthroat trout).

As described in the affected environment section, sampling has found these fish species downstream of Monument Dam in Monument Creek and Leon Creek. Effects to MIS trout would occur during construction and afterwards with the implementation of the enlarged reservoir.

In the hydrology section of this document, the findings were that the main difference between the existing condition and the proposed action would be change in when the hydrograph begins to rise in wet, average, and dry years (see Figure 15, Figure 16, and Figure 17). Brook trout spawn in the fall (Behnke 2002). Based on Figure 17 it appears that the timing of their spawning could be delayed by changes in the falling hydrograph during dry years.

Rainbow trout begin to spawn when the spring run-off begins to increase flows. Figures 15 and 16 show that the hydrograph begins to rise in mid-March under existing conditions during average and wet years. Figure 17 shows that the hydrograph begins to rise in mid-April during dry years. Under the proposed action (enlarged reservoir), the figures show that the hydrograph begins to rise in mid-April during wet years. This change could delay the timing of rainbow trout spawning by potentially 1 month during dry years. An example of a potential impact is that rainbow trout could emerge from the redd later in the year. This could give them less time to grow before their first winter season which could affect over-wintering survival. However, that is speculative because without more data on the overall abundance of rainbow trout in Monument Creek and Leon Creek, and more extensive macroinvertebrate information, it is difficult to quantify the magnitude of the impact this would have on rainbow trout. Flow is not the only habitat indicator that trout use to commence spawning. Other variables like temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, and turbidity (Bjorrn and Reiser 1991) can affect when trout begin to spawn. There is not enough available baseline data to make effects determinations on how those specific variables would be impacted by changes brought about by the proposed action.

Management Indicator Viability Statement: The proposed action would change the hydrograph which could impact the timing of rainbow trout spawning. The proposed action would require the implementation of project design criteria and BMPs to protect rainbow trout and brook trout from the direct effects of construction (i.e. salvage efforts for fish and turbidity). The Monument Creek sub-drainage is about 14 percent of the Leon Creek sub-watershed and comprises an even smaller percentage of area at the national forest level. This small percentage of area, along with the successful


64

implementation of project design criteria and BMPs, would not have substantial effects at the national forest level. Therefore, the enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest for these MIS fish species.

Aquatic Fauna in the Leon Creek Watershed (Macroinvertebrates and Mottled Sculpin)

Existing Conditions

As noted above, the mottled sculpin was collected during different sampling efforts. The mottled sculpin is a fish that belongs to the family of fishes called Cottidae. Cutthroat and rainbow trout belong to the family of fish called Salmonidae. Most of the more than 250 species of sculpin are marine but several occupy freshwater in North America and Eurasia (Page and Burr 2011). The mottled sculpin is not a designated MIS fish because it is not a “common trout” as required by the forest plan, nor is it a Forest Service sensitive species. However, it is a native fish species and, in general, shares some habitat requirements with trout which is one reason they can often be found together in flowing waterbodies. Mottled sculpins feed on a wide variety of organisms including mollusks, other sculpins, small trout, and trout eggs (Bailey 1952). However, their diets are primarily made up of benthic insects. The favored habitat of the mottled sculpin is one rich in macroinvertebrate prey, which usually occurs in riffle areas with clear substrates (Bailey 1952). Though they prey on small trout and eggs, sculpins can be preyed upon by larger trout. Mottled sculping can grow up to 152 mm (6 inches) in length (Page and Burr 2011).

Aquatic macroinvertebrates spend at least part of their life cycle in water and are sensitive to changes in water quality. As such they have become a key tool to assess the quality of aquatic environments (Lenat 1994). In western Colorado, high-elevation streams that have experienced little disturbance typically support insect species including caddisflies, mayflies, and stoneflies. No historical biomonitoring data for aquatic macroinvertebrates is available for either Monument Creek or Leon Creek. Forest Service personnel did collect some general baseline presence data for lower Monument Creek. Table 12 provides a summary of the results of two samples taken in randomly selected riffles in Monument Creek. The 1 square meter samples were taken approximately 100 meters above the confluence with Leon Creek. Conditions, including snow and ice, prohibited sampling closer to Monument Reservoir No. 1 Dam. It should be noted that the number of samples and the season of collection were not ideal for fully evaluating the resident aquatic macroinvertebrate community in Monument Creek. Rather sampling efforts were a snapshot to determine presence of species at the time of collection.

Table 12. Monument Creek aquatic macro-invertebrate sample results, November 2, 2018 Sample Number Order Family Common name Individuals Observed

1 Plecoptera Perlodidae Perlodid stoneflies 3 1 Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Crawling mayflies 18 1 Trichoptera Uenoidae Stonecase caddisflies 2 1 Trichoptera Glossosomatidae Saddle-case caddisflies 3 1 Diptera – true flies Chironomidae Midges 2 2 Plecoptera Perlodidae Perlodid stoneflies 1 2 Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Crawling mayflies 45 2 Trichoptera Uenoidae Stonecase caddisflies 7 2 Trichoptera Glossosomatidae Saddle-case caddisflies 2 2 Diptera – true flies Chironomidae Midges 2 2 Trombidiformes Hydracarina Red water mite 1


65

Numerous species of caddisflies, mayflies, and stoneflies are sensitive to disturbance and pollution. Historical research has documented the positive correlation between the presence of mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera) and caddisflies (Trichoptera), the group collectively known as EPT, to water quality (Armitage et al. 1983; Extence et al. 1987; Lenat 1988; Courtney and Clement 2002; Xu et al. 2014).

Environmental Consequences – Aquatic Fauna in the Leon Creek Watershed (Macroinvertebrates and Mottled Sculpin)

No-action Alternative

Selection of the No Action alternative would maintain conditions and operations as they are currently. Rates of reservoir fluctuation, ramping rates below the dam, and physical habitat conditions would continue into the foreseeable future. Since conditions would be maintained as the status quo, the type of effects to mottled sculpin and macroinvertebrate species in the project area would continue. The presence of an artificial dam that interrupts the function of a flowing water body may have negative effects to sculpin and macroinvertebrate species present in Monument and Leon Creeks. The fact that these species continue to exist in the project area with the status quo, leads to the finding that if the No Action alternative is selected it would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest for these species.

Proposed Action

Compared to trout, not much is known about sculpins. Trout and sculpins can be found together in many river systems (Bailey 1952) which provides some evidence that they require similar habitat conditions (clean, cool water, substrates relatively free of fine sediments, and abundant macroinvertebrate populations).

Turbidity and sedimentation could have the most impact on mottled sculpin because they are benthic feeders. If the amount of fine sediment reaches a point where macroinvertebrate populations are adversely impacted, then mottled sculpin could also be expected to be adversely impacted.

Even with effective design criteria and BMPs in place, construction would likely cause minor increases in sediment immediately downstream of Monument Reservoir No. 1 Dam. These impacts are likely to adversely impact aquatic macro-invertebrate populations in the short term; however, research has shown that even with a large release of sediment (e.g., 7,000 cubic meters of clay), aquatic macroinvertebrates can recover within one year of disturbance but there could be changes to the population assemblages (Zuellig et al. 2002). This is due to ability of macroinvertebrates to rapidly recolonize areas provided conditions are suitable. After completion of the new impoundment normal operations of the reservoir would result in maintenance flows (Design Criteria, Appendix C) which should restore the sediment transport balance of the stream. Once fine sediment has been flushed from the area downstream of the dam, macro-invertebrate populations would likely return in a stepping-stone recolonization pattern (Wallace 1990).

Given the population status of the mottled sculpin, the resiliency of macroinvertebrates to recolonize disturbed habitats, and the “soil” project design criteria that would reduce the effects of sediment, leads to the finding that if the Proposed Action alternative is selected it would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest for these species.

Cumulative Effects Aquatic Species

Numerous land use actions (for example, oil and gas activity, recreational activity, livestock grazing, road building, housing development etc.) on State and private lands surrounding the Grand Mesa National


66

Forest are reasonably certain to occur during the foreseeable future. These land uses have the potential to affect aquatic species through sedimentation of streams and lakes, which would affect the water quality needed by trout and some aquatic macro invertebrates. While the proposed reservoir enlargement would have minimal impacts of these species, the potential for water quality changes during reservoir enlargement construction activities may incrementally add to overall impacts on trout and aquatic macroinvertebrates likely to occur in the Monument and Leon Creek drainages and on the GMUG National Forests.

Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects The ramping provisions of increasing and decreasing flows slowly, as described above and in the Reservoir Operating Plan (Appendix D), would mitigate impacts of changes in the hydrology of Monument Creek to aquatic wildlife. Improvements to NFS Road 262 and NFS Trail 518 would potentially benefit stream channels and aquatic populations by improving riparian habitat quality and reducing sediment inputs. Restoration of riparian areas and stream crossings associated with road improvements would be potentially beneficial effects of the Proposed Action. Enlarging Monument Reservoir No. 1 has the potential to improve fishery habitat within the reservoir, and possibly in downstream stream reaches, through improved operations of the enlarged reservoir. Enlarging Monument Reservoir No. 1 would not create a new impoundment and would not result in increased fragmentation of stream habitat in the Leon Creek watershed. Monument Reservoir No. 1 Dam isolates approximately 2.8 miles of perennial stream habitat in an approximate 4.3 square mile watershed. This represents approximately 7.4 percent of the perennial stream miles and 8.6 percent of the watershed area of the Leon Creek watershed.

As stated in Appendix C, compliance with project construction phase design criteria would be monitored by a quality assurance and compliance inspector contracted by the project proponent. Ute Water would make several additional improvements to NFS Trail 518 where it impacts stream habitat and riparian wetlands in Monument Creek, additional improvements to wetlands that are likely to benefit water quality.

Recreation Management

Existing Conditions

Recreation Access Vega State Park is a year-round recreation immediately to the northeast of the project area. The park surrounds Vega Lake, a reservoir operated by the Bureau of Reclamation. Vega State Park’s recreation activities include hiking, fishing, camping cross country skiing, and camping. The park also serves as a staging area for snowmobiler and off highway vehicle (OHV) access to the GMUG National Forests. Park amenities include 109 camp sites, ranging from full hook-up RV sites to walk-in tent sites; five year -round cabins; group sites, and boat ramps.

Access to Vega State Park is via North 64 and 6/10 Road, which becomes the Vega Dam Road where it crosses the Vega Dam and then Vega South Road until it enters national forest and is redesignated NFS Road 262.

Traveling south from Vega State Park, NFS Road 262 and NFS Trail 518 are the access routes to Monument Reservoir No. 1. NFS Road 262 begins as an improved access road. The quality of the rroadway diminishes quickly after fording Park Creek, approximately 3.5 miles south of the forest


67

boundary, to a resource management road. This level of road requires a high-clearance four-wheel-drive vehicle or an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) (see Transportation section). The larger drainage in general has numerous constructed and managed ATV trails, generally open to OHVs less than 50 inches in width. These trails are open to motorized and mechanized vehicles as well as hiker and horse use. These routes are popular throughout the snow free season for motorized recreationists, for fishing and hunting access, and general forest recreation. Installation of a bridge across Park Creek in 2014 for OHV access along NFS Road 260 has extended the use season to the west of the area and increased the opportunities for loop access for OHVs.

The season for snow-free recreation access is relatively short because of the high elevation of the area with access beginning in June and continuing through October.

Dispersed Recreation Dispersed recreation activities are the predominant type of recreation in the analysis area. Fishing, hiking, dispersed camping, four-wheel and OHV driving, and hunting are among the recreation uses found in the area. Dispersed camping and hunting activities increase during the fall big game seasons, especially along NFS Road 262 between Vega Reservoir and the Leon Creek crossing. Dispersed camping using recreational vehicles is limited in the area due to the high clearance vehicles only maintenance level of NFS Road 262. Snowmobiling occurs in the winter.

Recreational fishing in Monument Reservoir No. 1 has been limited by the lack of a full-size road open to public or boat access. The reservoir does provide back-country recreational fishing opportunities to individuals who value an isolated location and are woulding to accommodate difficult access.

National Forest System (NFS) Trail 518 begins at NFS Road 262, south of Big Park and is located along Monument Creek (Figure 4, in Chapter 2). Segments of the trail currently traverse wetlands near the confluence of Monument and Leon Creeks (Figure 5, in Chapter 2). This adversely effects water quality in the wetlands and complicates trail maintenance.

Winter access to the area is provided by the Sunlight to Powderhorn Snowmobile Trail. This route is one of the longest continuously marked and groomed snowmobile routes in the Continental U.S. The route begins on the Grand Mesa National Forest, near to the Powderhorn Ski Area on the west, and continues across the Grand Valley District, on to the Paonia District of the Gunnison National Forest, then back to the Grand Valley along the Buzzard and Owens Creek drainages. The trail crosses onto the White River National Forest and terminates above the Sunlight Ski Area on the east.

The Vega Snowmobile Trail parallels Leon Creek south from Vega Reservoir to its intersection with the Sunlight to Powderhorn Snowmobile Trail near Monument Creek. From there, the Leroux Snowmobile Trail continues up East Leon Creek south, past Hunter Reservoir, and over the divide to Leroux Creek. These trails are under permit to be groomed and marked and represent a significant resource for winter use.

The Sunlight to Powderhorn Trail crosses the project area along Monument Creek, the north edge of Monument Reservoir No. 1, and the South Fork of Monument Creek. This area exhibits the most significant avalanche hazard known along the portion of the trail on the GMUG. The drainage has a very narrow bottom, steep sides, frequent stream crossings, and terrain traps that make this portion of the trail difficult to maintain. The exit from the South Fork of Monument Creek is locally known as “Phazer Hill.” This section is extremely steep, with a tight curve and steep grade transition at the bottom that is difficult to make in deep powder conditions, to an abrupt grade change at the crest vertical curve at the top of the hill where the trail crosses to the next drainage south. Both trail managers and club members have long


68

sought the opportunity to relocate this portion of the trail out of the South Fork of Monument Creek to a more favorable location which would make the route safer and easier to maintain.

Developed Recreation There are no developed recreation areas within the Monument Reservoir No. 1 project area. The nearest developed recreation facilities are located at Vega State Recreation Area.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum is a system that describes a variety of recreation settings on NFS lands. It offers managers a tool for managing landscapes to effectively provide a range of recreation settings for visitors to experience. There are six major setting categories within the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum – Urban, Rural, Roaded Natural, Semi-Primitive Motorized, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, and Primitive. As the word spectrum implies, they range from very developed (Urban) to very rustic and remote (Primitive).

The forest plan classifies the road access corridor and Monument Reservoirs No. 1 and No. 2 as semi-primitive motorized. This classification is defined as including primitive roads and trails, offering a low number of encounters with other people, a subtle and limited management presence, rustic facilities constructed of native materials and a high degree of naturalness with infrequent evidence of human activity. Management activities must blend with the surrounding landscape. They might, on occasion, dominate the landscape, but should blend with the line, form, color and texture of the surrounding landscape. The forest plan contains the following direction concerning visual resource management for those management prescription areas: 6B: General direction for visual resource management within the 6B areas calls for designing and implementing the management activities to blend with the natural landscape, to manage for the adopted visual quality objective, and implement visual resource management as outlines in management requirements. No other resource specific direction or standards and guidelines relevant to this type of project are identified in the forest plan (Forest Service 1995).

Forest Plan Management The project area is covered by the Management Prescription Areas 6B. Recreation management direction is as follows:

Management Prescription Area 6B: • Provide semi-primitive non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural and rural recreation

opportunities.

• Provide roaded natural recreation opportunities within ½ mile of forest arterial, collector and local roads with better than primitive surfaces that are open to public travel.

• Provide semi-primitive motorized recreation opportunities with a low to moderate incidence of contact with other groups and individuals within ½ mile of designated local roads with primitive surfaces and trails open to motorized recreation use.

• Where local roads are closed to public motorized recreation travel, provide for dispersed non-motorized recreation opportunities. Manage recreation use to provide for the incidence of contact with other groups and individuals appropriate for the established Recreation Opportunity Spectrum class.

• Provide semi-primitive non-motorized recreation opportunities in all areas more than ½ mile away from roads and trails open to motorized recreation use.


69

• Provide semi-primitive non-motorized recreation opportunities in all areas more than ½ mile away from roads and trails open to motorized recreation use.

The recreation setting in the area currently satisfies this prescription. The existing conditions in the area meet the designated Semi-Primitive Motorized classification because the setting is generally natural appearing, with limited evidence of human activity, except for the roads, trails and reservoirs. The visual resource management for this area dictates that management activities must blend with the surrounding landscape. They might, on occasion, dominate the landscape, but should blend with the line, form, color and texture of the surrounding landscape. The reservoirs dominate the landscape but blend with the line, form, color and texture of the surrounding landscape. Signage is limited and no recreation facilities are provided. The area offers moderate to good opportunities for solitude and closeness to nature. The expectation for interacting with other people is relatively low and decreases as the route progresses south.


No-action Alternative Under the No-action Alternative, the Forest Service would not approve the enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1, and recreation opportunities and management would not be affected or improved.

Proposed Action

Recreation Access The Proposed Action to improve access into the Monument Reservoir No. 1 would require improvements to NFS Road 262 and reconstruction of the access road currently managed as NFS Trail 518. The road was formerly a high clearance access used to construct Monument Reservoirs No. 1 and No. 2. After enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1, NFS Road 262 would be again maintained for high clearance vehicle use. NFS Trail 518 would be managed for public use by ATV less than 50 inches in width but would be maintained for reservoir operations access by high clearance 4-wheel drive trucks. NFS Trail 518 would be relocated around the proposed enlargement, which would require the route be moved to higher ground and onto more durable, upland areas and out of areas heavily influenced by wetlands. This relocation would mitigate several issues with the current location, including portions of the trail which are poorly drained, are in poor soils and wet areas. The Sunlight to Powderhorn snowmobile trail (NFS Trail 740) would be relocated as part of the Proposed Action. This relocation would move the trail to more stable soils and eliminate the difficult steep section locally known as “Phazer Hill.”

During construction of the enlarged Monument No. 1 Dam, construction traffic would traverse Vega State Park on Vega Dam Road and Vega South Road. This traffic, including trucks hauling rocks and other construction materials and from 12 to 24 additional commuter vehicle trips daily, would add congestion to the road through the park, and noise. These temporary construction impacts would potentially have an adverse effect on recreational experience at Vega State Park. Ute Water would enter into a license agreement with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which operates Vega Reservoir, to mitigate the effects during construction activities.

Dispersed Recreation Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) manages Monument Reservoir No. 1 as an angling opportunity for blue-lineage “recreational” populations of cutthroat trout. Although “recreational” populations do not have the same conservation value as green-lineage cutthroat trout populations, they are very important from an angling and economic standpoint and are still utilized by CPW to provide quality cutthroat trout fishing opportunities (L. Martin, personal communication, 2019).


70

According to CPW, some cutthroat trout survive over-winter within Monument Reservoir No. 1 under existing conditions. CPW surveyed Monument Reservoir No. 1 in August of 2008, and in July of 2012 and 2015. Multiple age classes of cutthroat trout were collected on all occasions within the reservoir. CPW only stocks fingerling sized cutthroat trout. As such, the presence of larger size classes of fish within the reservoir suggest the fish currently overwinter (or have overwintered in the recent past) within Monument Reservoir No. 1. An enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1 could become a more attractive recreational fishery, particularly as fish stocked by CPW would be more likely to survive over-winter during most years in the enlarged reservoir (see Aquatic Wildlife Section above). An improved fishery would undoubtedly attract more anglers, but the increase in fishing would be limited by the difficulty of access to the site.

The project would disrupt use of NFS Trail 518 during the construction phase, as this trail would be used for construction access. At the end of the construction period the trail would be restored to trail standards in its revised location. Relocation of a portion of NFS Trail 518 around a wetland located near NFS Road 262 would facilitate a drier route capable of being maintained.

Developed Recreation No developed recreation facilities are included in the Proposed Action.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Implementation of the Proposed Action would comply with the area’s Semi-Primitive Motorized classification. Although an enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1 would dominate the landscape, it would blend with the surrounding landscape in that numerous dams and reservoirs occur on Grand Mesa. The area would remain natural in appearance, with little other evidence of human activity. Signing would be limited, and no developed recreation facilities would be provided. The expectation for interacting with other people would remain relatively low, even with a slight increase in anglers, because of the difficulty and length of the road.

By maintaining the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classification, the Proposed Action would comply with the recreation management prescription for the area.

Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects Ute Water would enter into a License Agreement with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to establish specific mitigation measures that offset temporary impacts to recreation during construction. Construction activities would be limited from Memorial Day through Labor Day. More specifically, heavy construction vehicles (i.e. haul trucks or dump trucks) would limit travel through the park to Monday through Thursday 7:00 am-7:00 pm and Friday 7:00 am-3:00 pm. Additionally, no heavy construction traffic would occur through the park on holidays or weekends. Additionally, construction commuter vehicles (i.e. pick-up trucks) are estimated to make between 12-24 trips daily through Vega State Park to limit impact to recreationists. Compliance with the project construction phase road use license agreement would be monitored by a quality assurance and compliance inspector contracted by the project proponent. Compliance would be enforced by Forest Service and Bureau Reclamation oversight.

Re-routing the Sunlight to Powderhorn Trail away from an avalanche prone area east of Monument Reservoir No. 1 would increase the safety of winter recreation in that area.

Enlarging Monument Reservoir No. 1 has the potential to result in additional high-quality fish habitat within the reservoir. The Forest Service and CPW would not develop these areas to promote recreation; however, they would provide an expanded additional back-country fishing experience in the watershed.


71

Transportation

Existing Conditions

National Forest System (NFS) Road 262 National Forest System (NFS) Road 262 is a single-lane road designated as open to full-sized vehicles and ATVs within the Grand Mesa Travel Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2002). The road is accepted by the public as a Maintenance Level 2 route with conditions varying from passenger car surfacing in the first few miles to segments of high clearance four-wheel drive challenges of rock and sinkholes. The road’s official designation of Maintenance Level 2 is a designation “assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic, user comfort, and user convenience are not considerations. . . . Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this level.”

The first 1.3 miles of this route, which is located on private land, has been surfaced with rock more than any other stretch of the road. Though maintenance provided within an agreement with the Mesa County Road and Bridge Department (the County) is apparent, the route shows wear, with potholing, edges of large rocks protruding up from the surface, the “width sprawl” a road experiences as travelers try to avoid these rough areas by going off route, and lack of the ditches that help define the traveled way.

Rock surfacing has been applied fairly consistently by the county for about 1.5 miles from the forest boundary. Beyond this point, the road becomes a high-clearance four-wheel-drive route, with little rock surfacing, occasional mud holes, rocky stretches, and stream fords.

Grand Mesa National Forest Special Order #01-2005 states that the road is closed to motorized vehicles over 50” width (except snowmobiles) to protect soft roadbed from December 1 to May 30 each year. Snow accumulation typically closes this route, and currently there is no effective physical barricade at the location for this seasonal closure.

During the winter months, NFS Road 262 is a marked and groomed snowmobile route extending to NFS Road 280 and over to the Leroux Creek Trailhead. The route from the winter trailhead which exists on lands managed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife at Vega Reservoir to its intersection with the Sunlight-Powderhorn trail is groomed as part of the overall system. This grooming continues southward to Leroux Creek winter trailhead as well as east and west along the Sunlight-Powderhorn mainline trail. A marked snowmobile trail over the Flat Tops branches off from the snowmobile route. Also, the route in the vicinity of Hunter Reservoir connects to the well-known and groomed Sunlight-Powderhorn Snowmobile Trail.


No-action Alternative Under the No-action Alternative current management plans would continue to guide management of the roads in the project area. Monument Reservoir No. 1 would not be enlarged; however, Monument Reservoir No. 1, Monument Reservoir No. 2, and Cold Sore Reservoir would still operate as they currently do and would still require periodic access for the reservoirs’ operation and maintenance. NFS Road 262 would be routinely maintained by the Forest Service or in agreement with Mesa County in a condition to accommodate intended use as safely as possible and in accordance with maintenance criteria documented in the road management objectives considering funding and use, or otherwise be maintained


72

by entities under road use permitting. In addition, there may be some reconstruction or decommissioning activities related to other projects funded by other sources taking place in the project area. Ongoing public and permitted road uses would continue.

Segments of NFS Road 262 currently exhibit poor conditions that are conducive to the amount and type of travel on remote forest roads that are located in easily rutted soils that experience abundant precipitation. Maintenance, and especially reconstruction to bring the road up to Forest Service standards adopted from American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials requirements would be done as funding becomes available. Postponing these improvements would enable negative resource conditions to continue and could jeopardize public safety.

Proposed Action National Forest policy is that transportation facilities must be managed and maintained in acceptable condition prior to commencement of permitted activities. As such, required reconstruction, stabilization and maintenance must be completed and approved before construction begins on Monument Reservoir No. 1, and suitable maintenance would be required throughout the use of transportation facilities in support of the Proposed Action.

Design criteria would be used to limit the effects of implementing the Proposed Action (see Travel Management and Roads, Appendix C). Design elements for construction and reconstruction and maintenance would rely heavily on the direction found within the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low Volume Roads. These guidelines are pertinent to roads with an average daily traffic of 400 trips or less.

Some of the related construction traffic impacts may generally require the expansion of the road template from a single to a double lane and curve widening to safely accommodate long commercial vehicles.

Additionally, the increase in the thickness of the gravel surfacing to support the marked increase in the quantity and frequency of axle loadings associated with heavy construction traffic would raise the grade of existing roads. The structural needs of the routes are based upon the quantity of Equivalent Single Axle Loadings that would be projected by the proponent. Individual axle loadings in excess of highway standards would not be allowed (20,000 pounds per axle) with the exception that Ute Water can request heavier loadings on the portion of NFS Road 262 north of the transfer point for Off-Highway type haul equipment. In all cases, soil bearing strength would be analyzed for the loads proposed. Generally, where surfacing thickness is required, there may be an increase in the width of the existing roadway to provide for adequate lane widths. Areas of new disturbance should be minimal but necessary to construct a surfacing section capable of carrying heavy construction axle loads without undue damage to the surrounding resources, roadbeds and other transportation system infrastructure. Standardized design procedures provided by the proponent and reviewed by a Forest Service Professional Engineer shall be used to match field conditions. Appropriate maintenance would be kept commensurate with use.

Project effects include increased traffic loading and potential increased sediment movement due to soil disturbance from road maintenance and reconstruction. Increased traffic volume of construction and commercial vehicles would cause rapid degradation of the road surface, especially where the current road surface has an existing rock surface. Statistics show that road surface degradation from one large semi-truck trip is equal to that of approximately 10,000 passenger vehicle trips. This would have a negative effect on the comfort and safety level of all road users, particularly on NFS Road 262, where the first 1.3 miles includes rock surfacing. Here the road invites more traffic at higher rates of speed. The road would


73

experience impacts consistent with more and heavier traffic, including higher incidence of rutting, potholing, road width expansion, and the creation of alternate parallel routes.

Increased traffic volume means vehicle speeds should be limited to 25 miles per hour, the standard for Colorado unregulated mountainous roads. This would be specified in contract stipulations for construction traffic. We anticipate that the road would be generally limited to speeds lower than 25 miles per hour for prudent drivers due to conditions, such as 3-inch aggregate surfacing and rolling dips for drainage. Any needed active enforcement would be provided by Forest Service Law Enforcement Officers, Mesa County Sheriff’s Deputies.

Project effects would be noticeable and sometimes inconvenient to recreational users, local users and wildlife. Some visitors would choose to accept minor delays, speed reduction and inconveniences associated with project-related construction activity, other users may temporarily choose to recreate in other parts of the national forest that offer similar recreational experiences. Areas like Buzzard-Hightower or Brush Creek drainages may see an increase of visitors because of this.

Long-term effects should remain minimal, as post-project traffic volumes are projected to average 5 or fewer vehicles per day. Service vehicle access for reservoir maintenance would be administered within the conditions of the road use permit and would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

The effectiveness of standards required for the maintenance levels would be based on recognized American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials design criteria provided by the proponent and reviewed by the Forest Service. Use of specified materials and required construction practices for road improvements would provide the best possible performance of the roadway under heavy construction traffic and loadings, especially during saturated conditions.

The projected increase in average daily traffic over the life of this project would result in a substantial increase in total vehicular traffic impacts, particularly with regard to heavy construction traffic. Upgrades to geometry, structural loading capacity and surfacing sections, such as realignment, curve widening, addition of roadway width, rehabilitation of drainage structures and increase in aggregate depths as well as other design and construction techniques would be required to complete this project while minimizing long-term adverse effects on the transportation system.

Safety of the traveling public during this project would be of paramount concern. To safely accommodate construction traffic and public traffic, while minimizing inconvenience to the public, the proponent shall provide and adhere to a Traffic Control Plan and Safety Plan. The proponent would use all applicable traffic control devices and traffic mitigation BMPs that are applicable to provide for the safe passage of traffic in and around the work zone. All traffic control must adhere to the standards of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Improvements to the roads made as a part of the proposed action would reduce the Forest Service maintenance burdens. The proponent would have sole responsibility for road maintenance during the reservoir construction work and subsequently share in the on-going maintenance, under a road use permit, during the life of the project. Under the road use permit, the proponent would also comply with seasonal road closures and restrictions during springtime when roads are most vulnerable to rutting and other damage.

Engineered, hardened fords are the preferred method of stream crossing to accommodate the expected construction related traffic on Forest Service roads. If culverts are deemed necessary for construction traffic, they would be pulled and replaced with engineered, hardened fords after project completion. Any


74

culverts used during construction would be designed to accommodate 100-year flow events. After construction has been completed the road would be allowed to return to a four-wheel-drive, high-clearance route. Development of the road from the Monument Trailhead south would focus on hardening for resource protection and safe travel by construction, not increased speed of travel or general user comfort. The road would be retained as a Maintenance Level 2 road for Ute Water reservoir maintenance access.

Drainage work would be required on NFS Road 262, including pulling ditches, cleaning or replacing culverts, and establishing a cross slope where necessary to divert the water from the road surface. Surface rock application of coarse, 3-inch or smaller material would be needed in areas that are soft for heavier and higher volume traffic expected within this project.

Ten or more rolling dips would be reconstructed to aid in road surface drainage between the forest boundary near Vega Reservoir and the Leon Creek Crossing on NFS Road 262. Curve-widening may be required in areas where longer trailering is needed to transport equipment, materials and supplies.

A cattle guard would be installed within the range allotment fence just east of the Leon Creek crossing and west of the Monument ATV Trailhead (Figure 4, in Chapter 2). The existing allotment fence would be relocated to the north.

Most of the construction and fill material for enlarging Monument Reservoir No. 1 is available at the site. However, some material would need to be imported, typical over the road dump trucks would deliver this to the staging area on NFS Road 262 about 3 miles south of the forest boundary. Moving the material from the staging site to the project site would result in the need for about 3,001 roundtrips by 25 cubic yard off highway type end dump trucks. More typical vehicles carrying crews and supplies would also use the road for access for construction of the reservoir and related road work. The estimated number of crew vehicles would vary depending on the phase of the project but would amount to anywhere from 6 to 12 vehicles per day, traveling into and out from the work site over the life of the project. Construction crews could use as many as 20 vehicles and make an average of 15 trips per day along NFS Road 262 and NFS Trail 518.

Road use permitting is required for all commercial uses. A permit would not be issued until all required construction and reconstruction documents are submitted by the commercial user, reviewed, and approved by the Forest Service. At the pre-construction meeting and after the initial plan has been approved by the Forest Service, a Road Use Permit would be issued. An approved traffic control plan is required and would be a component of the permitting for road use.

Cumulative Effects Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development activities on State and private lands surrounding the Grand Mesa National Forest have already been identified as creating stress on roads within Vega Lake State Park. Additional truck traffic related to the construction phase of the proposed action would accumulate with this ongoing pressure to further impact transportation in and around the park. Long term operational effects of operating an enlarged Monument No. 1 Reservoir should not add any cumulative impact to area transportation.

Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects The conditions of the license agreement between Ute Water and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation would mitigate travel impacts within Vega State Park. Ute Water would maintain and restore impacted roads in Vega State Park to existing conditions or better. Additionally, Ute Water would coordinate with the U.S.


75

Bureau of Reclamation regarding cattle crossing that occur across the dam to avoid conflicts with construction activities in July and October. Design criteria for travel management and roads (see Appendix C) would mitigate impacts to travel within the National Forest. Road construction and maintenance work associated with the Proposed Action is expected to benefit the transportation network in the Leon Creek watershed.

As stated in Appendix C, compliance with project construction phase design criteria would be monitored by a quality assurance and compliance inspector contracted by the project proponent. The inspector would have authority to halt construction in cases of failure to meet design criteria standards. This would provide a strong incentive to meet the standards.

Air Quality and Climate Change

Existing Conditions

Air Quality While Grand Junction, Colorado is the largest urban center between Denver, Colorado and Salt Lake City, Utah, the air quality in Mesa County (in which Grand Junction and the Leon Creek watershed are located) meets or exceeds EPA air quality standards (Table 13).

Table 13. Air quality data for Mesa County, Colorado from 2012-2016 Year Carbon

monoxide (CO)

(in parts per million

[ppm])

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

In parts per

billion [ppb])

Ozone (O3)

(ppm)

Sulfur dioxide

(SO2 (ppm))

Particulate Matter PM

2.5 (in micro

grams per cubic meter

(µg/m3])

Particulate Matter PM

10 (µg/m3)

Lead (Pb) (µg/m3)

2016 1.8 0.8 0.07 - 22 34 - 2015 1.4 0.9 0.08 - 21 34 - 2014 1.7 0.9 0.07 - 21 45 - 2013 1.4 0.9 0.07 - 40 56 - 2012 1.6 1.0 0.05 - 24 22 -

Standard* 35 100 0.070 75 35 150 0.15 *EPA air quality standards are presented for comparison. Source: epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data.

Due to its remoteness and poor road conditions, the Leon Creek watershed experiences a low volume of motorized vehicle traffic. Snowmobile traffic along designated trails is consistent throughout winter months; however, it is reasonable to expect Leon Creek’s airshed to have air quality at least commensurate to that for the entire county.

Climate Change Current projections suggest an increase of from 3 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the 21st Century. The overall effect of this change on snowpack is difficult to estimate, due to projected increases in winter precipitation and other variables (Frankson et al. 2017).


76


No-action Alternative

Air Quality There would be no additional impacts to the air resource beyond the existing low level of emissions from periodic maintenance and low volume recreational motorized use under the No-action Alternative.

Climate Change There would be no additional increases greenhouse gas generation under the No-action Alternative.

Proposed Action

Air Quality Dam construction would last 3 to 5 years (including 1 year to construct infrastructure upgrades and 2 to 4 years for reservoir and dam construction) and involve thousands of hours of heavy equipment operation and vehicle use. Construction activity would affect the air quality parameters listed in Table 13. It is conceivable construction activities would require multiples of one or more of the equipment types depicted in Table 14. Trucks of various sizes would be used to move workers and materials and these trucks emit air pollutants at varying rates (Table 14).

Table 14. Pounds of pollutants produced per 100 miles driven by 8 truck sizes, reported in tons, gross vehicle weight*

Pollutant Fuel 4-5 ton 5-7 ton 7-8 ton 8-9 ton 9-13 ton

13-16.5 ton

16.5-30 ton

> 30 ton

VOC Gas 0.30 0.37 0.93 0.58 0.54 0.63 0.80 VOC Diesel 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.12 THC Gas 0.31 0.38 0.95 0.59 0.56 0.64 0.81 - THC Diesel 0.04 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.12 CO Gas 2.47 3.48 7.45 4.31 3.99 4.87 6.28 - CO Diesel 0.18 0.20 0.26 0.26 0.30 0.38 0.53 0.68

NOx Gas 0.60 0.64 0.91 0.82 0.80 0.92 1.08 - NOx Diesel 0.68 0.73 0.96 1.00 1.32 1.64 2.02 2.42

PM 2.5 Gas 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 - PM 2.5 Diesel 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 PM 10 Gas 0.01 0.11 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 - PM 10 Diesel 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.51 0.06

*Calculations based on EPA vehicle emissions data available at www3.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/420f08027.pdf.

Table 14 shows that gasoline-fueled trucks generally emit more pollutants than diesel-fueled trucks; however, vehicles used for hauling large amounts of material, such as fill material, are going to use diesel fuel.

Rock crushing and construction travel also has the potential to generate fugitive dust.


77

Cumulative Effects Air Quality Construction-related contributions of air pollutants and in the amounts described above would not be expected directly, indirectly or cumulatively when combined with other actions in the area to exceed any National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Colorado Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Climate Change Operation of trucks and heavy equipment for dam construction would also contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. We used emissions data for heavy equipment published by Heidari and Marr (2015) in order to estimate pounds of greenhouse gases generated per 10-hour day (Table 15). These data were generated by direct measurement of emissions from 18 makes and models of backhoes, bulldozers, excavators, and loaders.

Table 15. Pounds of greenhouse gases produced per 10-hour day by four types of construction equipment* Equipment Carbon dioxide

(CO2) Nitrogen oxides

(NOx) Hydrocarbons Carbon

monoxide (CO) Backhoe 385.4 2.9 0.2 0.2 Bulldozer 227.7 2.5 0.3 1.7 Excavator 441.3 3.1 0.3 0.4

Loader 164.5 2.7 0.1 0.9 *Estimates based on emissions data published by Heidari and Marr (2015).

The data presented in Table 15 make it possible, for example, to determine that in a 100-day construction season a single excavator would produce approximately 22 tons of carbon dioxide. In a 5-year construction period that same excavator would produce approximately 110 tons of carbon dioxide.

Cumulative Effects Climate Change The additional emission of greenhouse gases from project activities would contribute to overall climate change trends, however this increase would be incrementally small.

Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects Project construction specifications would include a Colorado Department of Environmental Protection, Division 1 specification that would address the abatement of air pollution specific features would include applying a dust-preventive treatment or periodically watering access and haul roads. Additionally, burning of cleared materials, combustible construction materials, and rubbish would not be allowed. The Contractor would obtain a Fugitive Particle Emission Control Permit as required. Compliance with project construction phase air pollution features would be monitored by a quality assurance and compliance inspector contracted by the project proponent. The inspector would have authority to halt construction in cases of failure to meet design criteria standards. This would provide a strong incentive to meet the standards.


78

Terrestrial Wildlife

Existing Conditions

Mammals Numerous terrestrial wildlife species may occur in the analysis area including American pika (Ochotona princeps), red (pine) squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), yellow-bellied marmot (Marmota flaviventris), American beaver (Castor canadensis), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), moose (Alces alces), coyote(Canis latrans), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), chipmunks (Tamias spp.), ground squirrels (Sciuridae spp.), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cervus canadensis), black bear (Ursus americanus) and several species of mice (Peromyscus spp.) (Fitzgerald et al. 1994; personal observations, Eric Freels). Most of the above species are common and have wide distributions within the region.

Migratory Birds The USFWS publishes a list, “Birds of Conservation Concern,” indicating that avoiding harm to the species on this list would contribute substantially to showing diligence to the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Table 16). These are non-game migratory avian species that the USFWS has targeted as conservation priorities but are not currently federally listed as threatened or endangered.

Potential nesting habitat for the Birds of Conservation Concern in Table 16 is limited by elevation. Breeding habitat for flammulated owl, Williamson’s sapsucker, Swainson’s hawk and northern harrier may occur in the project area (Andrews and Righter 1992; Kingery 1998). Other migratory bird species could be encountered in the area.

Table 16. Birds of Conservation Concern associated with project area Common name Scientific name Common name Scientific name Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Short-eared owl Asio flammeus

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsonii Black swift Cypseloides niger Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Williamson’s sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus Gray vireo Vireo vicinior

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus

Gunnison sage-grouse Centrocercus minimus Bendire’s thrasher Toxostoma bendirei Snowy plover Charadrius

alexandrinus Crissal thrasher Toxostoma rufum

Mountain plover Charadrius montanus Sprague’s pipit Anthus spragueii Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria Virginia’s Warbler Vermivora verginiae

Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa Black-throated gray warbler

Dendroica nigrescens

Wilson’s phalarope Phalaropus tricolor Grace’s warbler Dendroica graciae Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli

Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus Chestnut-collared longspur

Calcarius ornatus

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia


79

Raptors Raptors are birds of prey, which generally occupy the top of the avian food chain. During field surveys, suitable raptor nest sites, such as trees and cliffs, were searched within one-quarter mile of the alternative reservoir sites. Recorded calls of northern goshawk and boreal owl were played around the reservoir site and along the access roads. There was no response at any site. Those raptor species for which suitable nesting habitat is present include sharp-shinned hawk, northern goshawk, red-tailed hawk, golden eagle, American kestrel, flammulated owl, great horned owl, northern pygmy owl, long-eared owl, boreal owl, and northern saw-whet owl (Andrews and Righter 1992; Kingery 1998). No active or inactive nests were found.

Invertebrate Animals The invertebrate community is primarily composed of insects that inhabit aquatic and terrestrial habitats, as well as ecotones, such as riparian areas. Forest Service personnel have observed butterflies, grasshoppers, dragonflies, damselflies, ants, mayflies, and caddisflies in the area. The insect community appears to be diverse, although there is no evidence that the project area differs markedly from other areas of the Grand Mesa. There are no data suggesting one or more varieties of invertebrate are endemic to the watershed or rare, as measured by some other variable.

Federally Listed Terrestrial Species There are 18 threatened or endangered animals and 13 threatened or endangered plants in Colorado. Species known to occur on or near the Grand Mesa are listed below (Table 17). A complete description of habitat requirements of each species and findings of field inventories for threatened, endangered and candidate species can be found in the Biological Assessment prepared for this project.

Table 17. Federally protected species that could be located within or adjacent to the project area Species Status Presence Project

Effects Rationale

Black-footed ferret Endangered Habitat not present

(NP)

No effect (NE) Not present. This species is limited to prairie dog colonies at lower elevations

(Armstrong 1972). Neither this species nor its habitat is present in the project area.

Canada lynx Threatened Suspected occurrence

(S)

Not likely to adversely

affect (NLAA)

See analysis below

Gunnison sage-grouse and critical

habitat

Threatened Habitat not present

(NP)

No effect (NE) Habitat not present. The remaining Gunnison Sage-Grouse occur in seven

populations living in the sagebrush habitats of southwestern Colorado and

southeastern Utah. No designated critical habitat or suitable habitat occurs in the

project area. Mexican spotted

owl Threatened Habitat not

present (NP)

No effect (NE) Habitat not present. This subspecies of the spotted owl is generally found in canyons that include Douglas fir and Ponderosa pine in southern Colorado, New Mexico,

and Arizona. It has not been documented on the GMUG. Breeding ranges occur up

to 8,200 feet in elevation. The project area does not contain suitable habitat.


80

Species Status Presence Project Effects

Rationale

Western yellow-billed cuckoo

Threatened Habitat not present

(NP)

No effect (NE) Habitat not present. Found in deciduous trees and shrubs at lower elevations than project area (Andrews and Righter 1992).

Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly

Endangered Habitat not present

(NP)

No effect (NE) Habitat not present. Not known to occur on Grand Mesa. No habitat near reservoir site

(USFWS species profile website).

No portion of the project area has been designated as critical habitat by the Secretary of the Interior.

Most species were not analyzed in detail because they exist exclusively outside the project area, necessary habitat is absent from the project area, or there would be no effect on the quantity or quality of habitat. The only terrestrial species carried forward in the Biological Assessment for consideration by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was the Canada lynx. This species is briefly described below. Information on species status, distribution, and ecology was derived from USFWS recovery plans, USFWS habitat mapping, Colorado Natural Heritage Program maps and reports, habitat mapping by CPW, forest-wide GIS lynx mapping coverage (Shenk 2005), personal knowledge, scientific studies and reports, and communication with USFWS biologists.

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Information on Canada lynx status, distribution, and ecology was derived from forest-wide vegetation models developed in collaboration with USFWS (FS 2002c, as updated in 2006), information compiled in the Canada lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger et al. 2000) and the lynx science report (Ruggiero et al. 2000). There are numerous location records on the Grand Mesa of radio-collared lynx released in Colorado by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (Shenk 2005).

Habitat for Canada lynx is found above 8,000 feet in elevation (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Suitable lynx habitat is found in the Monument Reservoir No. 1 enlargement site. There are also approximately 2-3 miles of designated snow compaction routes in the project area in the form of snowmobile trails. Compacted snow may allow competitors such as coyotes and red foxes access to lynx habitat during the winter. Lynx are considered in detail in the Biological Assessment for this project.

Sensitive Species Numerous species designated as Sensitive in the Rocky Mountain Region of the NFS could occur within the project area. Under agency policy, Regional Foresters identify native plants and animals that show evidence of decline and potential sensitivity to national forest and national grassland activities and management within their regions. The Forest Service provides special management attention to these species to conserve them on the lands and watersheds we manage and avoid contributing to their continued decline and eventual need for listing under the national Endangered Species Act. The project may potentially affect the habitat of 14 sensitive species.

The project Biological Evaluation (in project file) analyzes these species. Detailed evaluations of the potential impacts of the proposed project are discussed in the Biological Evaluation for the following species: American marten, pygmy shrew, wolverine, three-toed woodpecker, boreal owl, northern goshawk, northern harrier, ferruginous hawk, olive-sided flycatcher, boreal toad, northern leopard frog, Colorado River cutthroat trout, lesser bladderwort and slender cottongrass.


81

Management Indicator Species Management indicator species are those species that have been selected to represent the habitat needs of a larger group of species requiring similar habitats (Table 18). The Forest Service maintains assessments for all management indicator species found on the GMUG. Management indicator species are considered in detail in the Management Indicator Species Assessment for this project. The Management Indicator Species listed in the 2005 MIS Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2005) are listed in Table 18, below.

Table 18. Management indicator species and species designated as sensitive species in the Rocky Mountain Region of the NFS

Species Presence Effects Population Trend, Rationale Abert’s squirrel Suspected

occurrence (S) No effect (NE) Scope and duration of the project would not cause

a loss of species viability range-wide American Marten Suspected


a loss of species viability range-wide Elk Suspected


a loss of species viability range-wide Brewer’s sparrow Habitat not

present (NP) No effect (NE) Habitat not present

Merriam’s Wild turkey

Habitat not present (NP)

No effect (NE) Habitat not present

Northern goshawk Suspected occurrence (S)

No effect (NE) Scope and duration of the project would not cause a loss of species viability range-wide

Red-naped sapsucker

Suspected occurrence (S)

No effect (NE) Scope and duration of the project would not cause a loss of species viability range-wide


No-action Alternative Under the No-action Alternative, the Forest Service would not approve the enlargement or construction of any reservoir, and terrestrial wildlife species would not be affected.

Proposed Action

Mammals Terrestrial wildlife species would be impacted by increased noise, traffic, and human presence during construction. Work on the roads and trails would be completed a year prior to beginning work on Monument Reservoir No. 1. Construction of the enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 is expected to take 3 to 4 years. Therefore, work could be ongoing for 4 to 5 years. Prolonged construction activity is likely to cause some species to temporarily or permanently move away from the disturbance. Other species could be directly impacted by collisions with vehicles and destruction of dens, burrows, and nests by earth-moving activities.

If the project results in an improved reservoir fishery in Monument Reservoir No. 1, it may increase the number of people traveling there to fish. Sustained increased human traffic would make the area less attractive to some species, such as elk.


82

Vegetation removal would cause a reduction in carrying capacity of the area and the project would result in the permanent loss of some terrestrial wildlife habitat. Approximately 138 acres of terrestrial landscape would be affected by the Proposed Action (Table 19).

Table 19. Habitat impact of Proposed Action Habitat Type Affected Area (acres)

Grass/Forb/Shrub 69.3 Spruce/Fir 42.2

Willow/Riparian 27.1 Total Habitat Affected 138.6

Current Reservoir 33.4

Migratory Birds and Raptors The Migratory Bird Treaty Act applies to any federal activity that would adversely affect a migratory bird or its nest, eggs or young. The act requires that there should be no intentional take of migratory birds, including no direct loss of eggs or young, or interference with nesting that causes nest failure. Incidental take (the unintentional take of migratory birds that results from an activity but is not the purpose of the activity) of migratory birds and/or their active nest contents is allowable under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Department of the Interior 2017). The breeding season in Colorado extends from approximately April 1 to August 31. This period may be more limited in the project area due to high elevation.

Although incidental take is allowed under the act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) does recommend that BMPs be implemented prior to construction. Common measures include clearing of the construction area in advance of the breeding season to make the area unsuitable for nesting, timing of construction to avoid the breeding season, or use of pre-construction surveys to identify bird nests combined with delays in construction for individual nests until the young birds have fledged and left the nest. The first two options are preferable. They do not involve delays in ongoing construction and are less likely to affect active bird nests (active bird nests can sometimes be very difficult to locate).

Timing restrictions on vegetation clearing would avoid incidental take of migratory birds and their nests. Some displacement of upland habitat would result from enlarging Monument Reservoir No. 1. There is ample undisturbed raptor habitat in the areas surrounding the project area. No loss of viability of any bird of conservation concern is anticipated to result from project implementation.

As no raptor nesting was identified in the project area during surveys, no displacement of nests should result from project activities. Any effects to raptors would be limited to temporary disturbance of hunting patterns by construction activity and displacement of upland habitat by the enlarged reservoir. There is ample undisturbed raptor habitat in the areas surrounding the project area.

Federally Listed Species There would be no additional snow compaction and minimal potential for the permanent increase in human activity as a result of the Proposed Action. However, the Proposed Action would inundate approximately 34 acres of potential lynx habitat (Figure 18) and carrying capacity would be reduced proportionally. This amount of habitat represents approximately 1 to 2.5 snowshoe hare home ranges. This reduction in the carrying capacity of the Flat Tops Lynx Analysis Unit for snowshoe hares is likely result in an undetectable effect to lynx and is therefore considered insignificant. In a letter dated August 18, 2016, the USFWS concurred with the determination by the Forest Service that the Monument Reservoir No. 1 enlargement project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” Canada lynx.


83

Figure 18. Lynx habitat potentially inundated by enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1

Wetland mitigation efforts at Monument Reservoir No. 2 and Cold Sore Reservoir would result in conversion of some areas currently supporting seasonal open water with vegetated wetland complexes


84

that would provide foraging areas for snowshoe hares, the lynx primary prey. Approximately 18 acres of potential habitat would be restored at Monument Reservoir No. 2 and approximately 32 acres at Cold Sore Reservoir. See Appendix E for a more detailed description of the proposed wetland mitigation projects at Monument Reservoir No 2 and Cold Sore Reservoirs.

Detailed analysis of impacts to federally listed species is discussed in the Biological Assessment. Consultation for federally listed species was completed on August 18, 2016. The USFWS concurred with the Forest Service’s determinations. The letter of concurrence is located in the project file. The current proposal is the same for the Monument Reservoir No. 1 that was consulted on in 2016. Removal of Hunter Reservoir from consideration that was consulted on in the 2017 Draft EIS actually decreases potential habitat impacts to the Canada lynx, the only federally listed terrestrial species with potential habitat present in the project area.

Sensitive species Species designated as Sensitive in the Rocky Mountain Region of the NFS are analyzed in detail in the Biological Evaluation. The project would result in minor decreases in habitat available for some species (Table 20). Construction activities and traffic would create the most significant impact to Sensitive species that occur in and near the Proposed Action area.

Table 20. Proposed action effect determinations for sensitive species that may occur in the project area Species Determination* Species Determination*

American marten (MAII) May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor

cause a trend toward federal listing.

Northern goshawk MAII

Pygmy shrew MAII Flammulated owl (NI) No impact Bald eagle (BI) Beneficial impact Northern harrier MAII

Northern goshawk MAII Purple martin MAII American marten MAII Boreal toad MAII

Olive-sided flycatcher MAII N. leopard frog MAII

Management Indicator Species The Forest Service analyzed species for which habitat is present in detail. They are elk, American marten (Martes Americana), red-naped sapsucker (Sphyrapicus nuchalis), and northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). During fieldwork, elk and their sign were observed regularly. Marten were not observed, but habitat appears favorable (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). The same is true for northern goshawk (Andrews and Righter 1992). There are probable breeding records for goshawk near the project area (Kingery 1998). Dominant vegetation around Monument Reservoir No. 1 is Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir. Aspen is rare. There is suitable habitat for red-naped sapsucker in Big Park.

Elk: A minor reduction in summer range and an increase in disturbance for elk due to construction of the reservoirs and roads along with related vehicle traffic and other human activity. The Proposed Action would not be expected to reduce the elk habitat effectiveness index below the current 0.54 for the Data Analysis Unit.


85

American marten: The Proposed Action would result in a slight decrease in available habitat for American marten. Construction and road traffic would likely disturb marten in the area.

Red-naped sapsucker: a slight decrease in available habitat for red-naped sapsucker would occur as a result of the Proposed Action.

Decreases in or alteration of habitats are not likely to have measurable effects on management indicator species. This project may temporarily displace or alter how individuals use affected habitats through habitat alteration or disturbance, but these effects would not result in a change in population numbers or trends at the project or forest-wide scales.

Cumulative Effects Numerous land use actions (for example, oil and gas activity, recreational activity, livestock grazing, road building, housing development etc.) on State and private lands surrounding the Grand Mesa National Forest are reasonably certain to occur during the foreseeable future. Where these activities fall within mature aspen, subalpine grass /forb, and spruce /fir, these land uses have the potential to affect elk through loss or degradation of summer range and production area habitat, direct mortality during construction activities, and displacement from habitats. While the proposed reservoir enlargement would have minimal impacts to the species, the potential for displacement during reservoir enlargement construction activities may incrementally add to overall impacts on elk likely to occur in the GMUG National Forests.

Where these activities fall within mature spruce/fir, the land uses have the potential to affect American martin through loss or degradation of martin habitat, direct mortality during construction activities, and displacement from habitats. While the proposed reservoir enlargement, due to the small amount of potential habitat affected, would have minimal impacts to the species, the potential for displacement during reservoir enlargement construction activities may incrementally add to overall impacts to marten likely to occur in the GMUG National Forests.

Where these activities fall within mature aspen and spruce/fir, the land uses have the potential to affect northern goshawk and red-naped sapsucker through loss and degradation of habitat, direct mortality during construction activities, and displacement from habitats. While the proposed reservoir enlargement would have minimal impacts to the species, the potential for displacement during reservoir enlargement construction activities and structural vegetation changes may incrementally add to overall impacts to northern goshawk and red-naped sapsucker likely to occur in the GMUG National Forests.

Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects • In response to a request from the CPW, the Forest Service would restrict construction traffic on NFS

Road 262 to access only after June 15, or if construction has taken place before July 1 in four consecutive years, only after July 1.This timing would limit project related disturbance in an elk production area adjacent to the road.

• Pre-construction surveys would be conducted. If any special status species or habitat is found to be present, Ute Water would coordinate with the Forest Service to determine the most effective means of mitigating or precluding impacts.

• Trees would be cut and removed at the reservoir basin after nesting season, beginning August 1 each year until snow limits travel. This is mitigation to avoid take of nesting migratory birds.

As stated in Appendix C, compliance with project construction phase design criteria would be monitored by a quality assurance and compliance inspector contracted by the project proponent. The inspector would


86

have authority to halt construction in cases of failure to meet design criteria standards. This would provide a strong incentive to meet the standards.

Vegetation-Native and Non-native Species

Existing Conditions

General Vegetation The vegetation descriptions in this section are based on the detailed ground cover mapping by the Forest Service. Because ground cover consists of water, bare soil, and rock as well as vegetation, the Forest Service database uses the term “cover type” rather than “vegetation type.” The database lists dozens of cover types for the project area, the cover types have been aggregated to describe broad vegetation types. Four types have been defined: willow/riparian, spruce/fir, aspen, and grass/forb/shrub.

Vegetation cover near Monument Reservoir No. 1 primarily consists of mountain willow (Salix monticola) and Geyer willow (S. geyeriana). There is less than 0.02 acres of Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) in riparian areas.

Non-riparian cover types containing Engelmann spruce or subalpine fir were aggregated into a spruce/fir category. Non-riparian areas covered by grasses, forbs and scattered shrubs, including some willow, were combined into the category grass/forb/shrub. The non-willow shrub component is usually shrubby cinquefoil (Pentaphylloides floribunda). Patches of willow present may be planeleaf willow (Salix planifolia), wolf willow (S. wolfii), mountain willow, or Geyer willow. The order in which the vegetative types are presented (grass/forb/shrub) is not intended to suggest relative percent of cover.

There are extensive wetlands at the Monument Reservoir No. 1 site and smaller wetlands along roads. Wetlands feature a variety of vegetation types, but grass/forb/shrub is the most common, followed by willow/riparian. Wetland types include wet meadows, littoral zone (the area between the high and low water marks), and fringe wetlands at stream crossings. Willow/riparian habitat is displayed separately in vegetation tables.

Vegetation surrounding Monument No. 2 Reservoir is dominated by open meadows and Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir forest. The meadows are grazed by permitted livestock and are relatively healthy. Cold Sore Reservoir is also surrounded by similar Engelman spruce/subalpine fir forest.

Invasive/Non-native Plants Several species of non-native plants are present in the project area including dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), smooth brome (Bromopsis inermis), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), and meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis). Noxious weeds are alien, introduced, or exotic undesirable species that out-compete native species. Federal and state law prescribe that noxious species must be treated to control or remove them from the landscape. Equipment or material brought from other locations can spread noxious weed species. No species listed as noxious were found within the reservoir enlargement site. The noxious species oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), chamomile (Matricaria perforata), yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and musk thistle (Carduus acanthoides) are present along NFS Road 262.


87


No-action Alternative Under the No-action Alternative, the Forest Service would not approve the enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1. Vegetation would not be affected.

Proposed Action Approximately 138.6 acres of vegetation habitat types would be affected by the Proposed Action. Some vegetation would be restored surrounding the dams, temporary roads, and temporary use areas. However, approximately 135 acres would be permanently inundated (Table 21).

Table 21. Permanent habitat impacts resulting from the Proposed Action at Monument Reservoir No. 1 Habitat Type Area Affected (acres)

Grass/Forb/Shrub 69.3 Spruce/Fir 42.2

Willow/Riparian 27.1 Current Reservoir 33.4

Total New Habitat Affected 138.6

All trees would be removed from within the high-water line of the enlarged reservoir and sold for timber. If vegetation were left in the reservoir, it would die over time and the floating and submerged debris would interfere with the operation of the dam outlet works. Additionally, decaying vegetation could adversely affect water quality due to elevated nutrients and organic matter.

The Forest Service would require that Ute Water provide an approved Non-native/Invasive Weed Management Plan that addresses cleaning of their equipment, approval of a gravel/rock/fill source prior to implementation of the project, and use of approved weed-free seed and nursery stock to prevent introduction or spread of non-native, invasive weed species. Additionally, standard BMPs for the prevention of spread of non-native invasive weed species, such as vehicle washing and inspections, would be implemented, as described in Appendix C, Design Criteria.

Special-status Plant Species

Existing Conditions The USFWS lists 13 plant species in Colorado as either threatened or endangered under provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Two threatened species are present on the Grand Valley Ranger District: DeBeque phacelia and Colorado hookless cactus. Neither species is present in the project area.

There are eight plant species present on the Grand Valley Ranger District included on the list of Sensitive species in the Rocky Mountain Region of the NFS (Table 22).


88

Table 22. Special-status plant species in the project area Species Habitat present? Description

DeBeque phacelia Phacelia scopulina var submutica

No 4,700-6,200 feet, steep clay slopes in the Wasatch Formation.

Harrington’s beardtongue Penstemon harringtonii

No 6,800-9,200 feet in open sagebrush or, less commonly, pinyon-juniper habitat. Not documented in Mesa or Delta County.

Lesser bladderwort Utricularia minor

Yes Fen wetlands above 10,000 feet.

Lesser panicled sedge Carex diandra

No Fen wetlands, calcareous meadows 6,100-8,600 feet.

Rocky Mountain thistle Cirsium perplexans

No Shale slopes 4,500-7,000 feet. Rocks, cliffs, and canyons.

Slender cottongrass Eriophorum gracile

Yes Fens, 8,000-12,000 feet

Sun-loving meadowrue Thalictrum heliophilum

No Sagebrush and pinyon-juniper habitat in undeveloped soils, light colored clays with

shale fragments; 6,300-8,800 feet. Wetherill milkvetch

Astragalus wetherillii No Big sagebrush and pinyon-juniper habitat.

Steep slopes, canyon benches, and talus below cliffs. Sandy clay soils, shale and

sandstone 5,250-7,400 feet.


No-action Alternative: Under the No-action Alternative, the Forest Service would not approve the enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1. Vegetation would not be affected.

Proposed Action There are no known fen wetlands at the Monument Reservoir No. 1 site. Construction activities at this site would have no impact on Lesser Bladderwort or Slender Cottongrass.

Although potential habitat for each species is present at the Monument Reservoir No. 2 and Cold Sore Reservoir sites, Lesser Bladderwort and Slender Cottongrass have not been observed during surveys of the sites. Activities at these locations, by which reservoir infrastructure would be removed and wetlands would be re-established would have no impact on these species.

Cumulative Effects As no direct or indirect to sensitive plants are anticipated to occur from the proposed action, there would be no cumulative effects.

Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects Ute Water has proposed compensatory mitigation for wetlands impacts that would benefit vegetation characteristics in the watershed. See Appendix E.


89

Soils The Soil Survey of Grand Mesa – West Elk Area, Colorado (USDA FS and NRCS 1998) provides information on distribution of mapped soil units within the project area. This published Soil Survey meets National Cooperative Soil Survey Standards and includes descriptions of soil types and their characteristics relevant to management activities.

Soil quality standards are to be applied to “activity areas” (USDA FS 2014). The activity area is considered an appropriate geographic unit for assessing soil environmental effects, because soil productivity is a site-specific attribute of the land. Thus, the activity area is used as the geographic unit to assess soil environmental effects for the Proposed Action.

Activity areas are defined as “a land area affected by a management activity,” such as “harvest units within timber sale areas, prescribed burn areas, grazing areas, or pastures within allotments.” For the Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 Project, the geographic boundary for the activity area is represented by the boundaries for proposed reservoir high-water mark, the foot print of the enlarged dam and spillway, the sites of the relocated NFS Trail 518 and Powderhorn Snowmobile Trail, the temporary upgrade of NFS Trail 518 to serve as a construction haul road, the worker campsite, the Monument Reservoir No. 2 site, the Cold Sore Reservoir site, and areas where existing system trails roads would be reclaimed.

The appropriate geographic area for soil cumulative effects analysis has been defined as the land area affected by a management activity. This is because soil productivity is a site-specific attribute of the land. Forest Service Manual 2550.5 defines soil productivity as the inherent capacity of the soil resource to support appropriate site-specific biological resource management objectives, which includes the growth of specified plants, plant communities, or a sequence of plant communities to support multiple land uses. The productivity of one area of soil is not dependent on the productivity of an adjacent area of land. Similarly, if one acre of land receives soil impacts resulting from management activities and a second management activity that may affect soil is planned for that same site, then soil cumulative effects are possible on that site. Thus, cumulative effects to soil productivity are appropriately evaluated on a site-specific basis.

The temporal scope for assessment of soil resource environmental effects includes both short- and long-term impacts. For the purposes of this analysis, short-term effects are defined as those that occur approximately within 1 to 50 years following proposed management actions. Long-term effects are defined as those that occur approximately within 50 years or more after proposed management actions.

Existing Conditions Soil characteristics develop over geologic time and are determined by the interaction of climate, vegetation, geology, relief and aspect. These factors vary across the geographic area; and, therefore, a range of soils occurs within the area. The rocks that underlay the top of the Grand Mesa are volcanic basalt, while the parent geology for the side slopes is dominated by sedimentary rock. The differences in parent geology determine the physical nature and property of the soils in the project area. Finer textured soils, including silty-clay loams, clay loams, and clays have developed on shale. These soils transmit water slowly and have high runoff rates. The sandstones tend to develop coarser, sandier soils such as sandy-clay loams, sandy loams, and loamy sands that have higher infiltration rates. As these sandstones and shales erode and move down slope they often mix in a colluvium of silts over sands or clays under loams. The soils on the top of the mesas tend to be well drained and deep rocky or gravelly loams associated with glacial till (Cryer and Hughes 2007).


90

At Monument Reservoir No. 1, the existing dam is a homogeneous, gravelly clay embankment founded on glacial drift soils placed across Monument Creek.

The soil units at Monument Reservoir No. 1 have been mapped and presented in the Grand Mesa-West Elk Soil Survey (Forest Service 1998; Table 23).

Table 23. Soil characteristics around Monument Reservoir No. 1 Soil Map

Unit Acres Soil Type Slope (%) Landforms Parent Material Surface

Texture 105 102 Booneville, warm –

Doughspon complex 5 to 15 Slump block

benches, swales

Glacial till from basalt

Very stony loam

110 4 Broad Canyon, warm-Bullbasin-

Cryaquolls complex

0 to 10 Glacial benches

Glacial till from basalt

Very gravelly

loam 155 16 Hayrack-Muggins-

Nutras complex 5 to 40 Mountain

slopes Residuum and colluvium from

interbedded sandstone/shale

Clay loam

197 <1 Wesdy-Mudbuz complex

10 to 40 Mountain slopes

Residuum and colluvium from

interbedded sandstone/shale

Cobbly loam


No-action Alternative Taking no action would not result in any change from existing conditions on soils. Improvements to NFS Road 262 and relocation of NFS Trail 518 to drier sites would not occur. This would result in continuation of ongoing rutting and erosion in these routes.

Proposed Action

Road and Trail Improvements and Relocation Due to lack of maintenance, much of NFS Road 262 has a footprint that is more than 30 feet wide. The road would be narrowed to a width of 14 feet with appropriate drainage and mutually visible pullouts to accommodate vehicle passage. Drainage would be established along the road, creek crossings would be hardened, and surface rock applied to accommodate the increased traffic associated with the larger, heavier vehicles needed for construction of the reservoir enlargements. These improvements to NFS Road 262 would ultimately reduce rutting and erosion along the road but would require temporary disturbance to soils along approximately 4 miles of road.

Approximately 1.5 miles of NFS Trail 518 starting at the current dam would be relocated north of the enlarged reservoir footprint. Additionally, approximately 2.5 miles of the Sunlight-Powderhorn Snowmobile Trail would be relocated outside the reservoir footprint (see Figure 5 and Figure 6 in Chapter 2 for route changes).

The required road and trail work would disturb approximately 6.6 acres of soil. BMPs for road and trail construction, as described in Appendix C, would reduce erosion and sedimentation effects.


91

Monument Reservoir No. 1 Ute Water would increase the height and size of Monument Reservoir No. 1 Dam in order to increase the water storage capacity of the facility. The current reservoir footprint is 37.9 acres and would increase to approximately 155.3 acres. In addition to improvements to NFS Road 262, NFS Trail 518 would be upgraded to support construction traffic. The upgrade to NFS Trail 518 would be restored following construction and public access via motorized vehicles would be restricted to ATVs less than 50 inches in width.

The main dam for the enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1 would be about 80 feet high and 1,810 feet long. Soil would be disturbed during the construction of this dam and would also be used as material to construct the new dam and access roads. All natural characteristics of the soil would be altered where this occurs.

Construction and enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 would disturb or inundate approximately 123 acres of soils. The majority of soils (approximately 102 acres) that would be directly impacted by the Monument Reservoir No. 1 enlargement are Booneville, warm-Doughspon complex, ranging from 5 to 15 percent slopes. These soils are derived from glacial till from basalt and are very deep. They are well drained with moderately slow permeability, have high available water capacity and potential rooting depth of 60 or more inches. Surface runoff is medium to very rapid and the hazard of water erosion is low.

The existing access road traverses a Booneville, warm-Doughspon complex soil unit. The proposed relocation of the access road would traverse Booneville, warm-Doughspon complex) and Wesdy-Mudbuz complex soil units. The Booneville, warm-Doughspon complex and Wesdy-Mudbuz complex have low to moderate shrink-swell and low water erosion potential, but moderate to severe rutting potential. Slopes in these units range from 5 to 40 percent. Use of this road for construction access and material hauling would result in a considerable temporary increase in their use. Road improvements for this use would benefit the overall condition of the existing road through narrowing existing wide spots where users have detoured to avoid muddy spots, and hardening stream fords would reduce existing rutting.

Monument Reservoir No. 2 and Cold Sore Reservoir Ute Water would remove existing low-head dams at each of these reservoirs and restore currently inundated wetlands within the reservoir basins. The existing soil of the basins would be used in place as substrate for the restored wetlands. Rubble and soil from the dam structures would be disposed of in an upland site.

Cumulative Effects Soil effects are very site specific to the altered area. Future timber sales may occur on the GMUG National Forests in areas having some overlap with project area. Additional soil and vegetation disturbance of these projects would incrementally increase the effects of implementing the proposed action.

Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects The Design Criteria for soils (see Appendix C) provide mitigation for impacts to soil. Improvements to NFS roads and trails included in the Proposed Action would reduce erosion and sedimentation associated with the transportation network. As stated in Appendix C, compliance with project construction phase design criteria would be monitored by a quality assurance and compliance inspector contracted by the project proponent. The inspector would have authority to halt construction in cases of failure to meet design criteria standards. This would provide a strong incentive to meet the standards.


92

Geology and Minerals

Existing Conditions The proposed site is located within the Colorado Plateau Physiographic Province, which is generally characterized by dissected plateaus with strong relief (Fenneman and Johnson 1946). The area is located within the Piceance Basin, bounded on the west by the Uncompahgre uplift and on the east by the White River uplift. No faults have been mapped in the area. The sedimentary bedrock on the Grand Mesa is capped by basalt flows, where volcanic magma has cut through in the form of dikes and plugs. The basalt flows on the Grand Mesa are approximately 9 million years old (Yeend 1969). The basalt cap protects the sedimentary rocks below from erosion. This landform was formed where uplift and erosion created a plateau that was once a large flat plain. On Grand Mesa, the movements of ice caps that covered all or portions of the plateau during the past 20,000 years have also shaped the geology and topography. The melting and final retreat of the ice caps left deposits of glacial till in the form of hummocks, moraines, and crevasse fills (all glacial features) across the plateau. The glacial till deposits consist of large basalt boulders, gravel, sand and loams. Retreating ice caps left many depressions that formed shallow lakes and that have been the sites for most of the reservoirs constructed on the Grand Mesa. The Grand Mesa has over 300 reservoir or natural lakes from glacial landforms. These water bodies provide a wealth of aquatic wildlife and wetland areas and are generally managed by the Forest Service with the exception of those on private property near the forest boundary.

Geologic mapping of the project area consists primarily of surficial glacial deposits (till) and quaternary alluvium and colluvium deposits. The stratigraphy of the general project area consists of the Uinta formation, Green River Formation, Wasatch Formation, Mesa Verde Formation and Mancos Formation (Ellis and Freeman 1984). The surface bedrock grades from the Uinta Formation underlying Hunter Reservoir and Big Park to the Wasatch Formation around Monument Reservoir No. 1 to the north. The Wasatch Formation contains clay stones where there has been widespread mass wasting and slumping around the Big Park Reservoir area. These landslides and slumps have been mapped by the Colorado Geologic Survey as far south as Big Park (Soule 1988). There are areas around the Mesa Lakes that have evidence of more recent slumps and slides associated with these formations, but the slumps predate the last glacial period on the Grand Mesa. The high flat basalt flows, mentioned previously, are surrounded by “landslide benches” caused by slumping of the basalt (Yeend 1969). These “slump blocks” vary in width from several feet to several miles depending on the amount of slumping. In general, the basalt on the Grand Mesa was formed from a series of volcanic eruptions approximately 10 million years ago. The lava ponded and cooled in low areas and, because of its hardness, has subsequently protected the underlying softer sedimentary rocks of the Uinta and Green River Formations. Unprotected strata adjacent to the basalt-capped Grand Mesa were stripped away to produce the valleys of the Colorado and Gunnison Rivers and Plateau and Kannah Creek.

As depicted in the 1993 GMUG Oil and Gas Leasing EIS (Forest Service 1993), the eastern half of the project area is covered by the Discretionary No Leasing stipulation, meaning that the area is not available for oil and gas leasing. The remainder of the project area is available for leasing and covered by stipulations, including No Surface Occupancy, Controlled Surface Use, and Standard Lease Terms. However, no oil and gas leases exist within the project area.

The State Division of Reclamation Mining Safety shows no mineral or coal permits in the vicinity. The Division of Reclamation Mining Safety does show that a now-terminated permit for a gravel pit near Vega Reservoir was issued in 1981. No oil and gas leases exist within the project area.


93

Environmental Consequences Mineral resources would not be affected under the No-action Alternative or the Proposed Action.

Monument Reservoir No. 1 is located in an area designated as “discretionary no lease” in the forest plan, enlarging the reservoir as proposed would not affect the availability of oil and gas resources in this area. Connected actions would similarly not affect the geological or mineral resource.

Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects There is no mitigation proposed for impacts to this resource area since no impacts are anticipated.

Paleontological Resources

Existing Conditions

Monument Reservoir No. 1 There are several exposed portions of the Paleocene-Eocene Wasatch Formation at the Monument Reservoir No. 1 site (Western Slope Paleontological Services 2014). The Wasatch Formation is composed of materials deposited through fluvial processes associated with streams, rivers, and other water bodies. A report detailing a 2012 investigation of the Monument Reservoir No. 1 site describes the Wasatch Formation as having the potential to contain “scientifically important” fossils. Fieldwork associated with this report located and identified a number of fossils at the Monument Reservoir No. 1 site that are located in areas that would be inundated by an enlarged reservoir (Western Slope Paleontological Resources 2014).

Monument Reservoir No. 2 and Cold Sore Reservoir No paleontological resources are known to occur at either site.


No-action Alternative There would be no change to paleontological resource conditions under the No-action Alternative.

Proposed Action Fieldwork in 2012 located several fossils at the Monument Reservoir No. 1 site. The report detailing that investigation recommended that exposed portions of the Wasatch Formation be surveyed, and fossil material be collected prior to filling an enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1 (Western Slope Paleontological Resources 2014). It is likely that fossilized material would be inundated by an enlarged reservoir at this site. Additional design criteria are likely to be imposed regarding areas that would be inundated by an enlarged reservoir. See Appendix C for existing design criteria associated with paleontological resources.

Cumulative Effects No other reasonably foreseeable actions that could affect paleontological resources are known. No cumulative effects to paleontological resources are thus anticipated.


94

Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects There is no mitigation proposed for impacts to this resource area.

Rangelands

Existing Conditions The Proposed Action is located within the boundaries of the Leon Allotment livestock grazing management area. The Leon Allotment includes 50,915 acres (of which approximately 41,909 acres are considered suitable for grazing). Grazing permits are allocated to 12 permittees and authorize up to 1,636 cow-calf pairs. The season of use is July 1 to October 5. Forage use on the allotment is 6,889 animal unit months (determined by 3.19 months of use × 1,636 pairs of cattle × 1.32 animal unit factor). The estimated average grazing capacity of the allotment is 6.08 acres per animal unit month (determined by the suitable acres divided by the number of animal unit months permitted = 41,909 acres/6,889 animal unit months). The allotment is divided into ten pasture units delineated by fences and natural barriers.

The open meadow around the Monument Reservoir No. 1 area is typically grazed from August through mid-September. This area is the main access to the upper reaches of the Monument Creek drainage. The surrounding timber limits travel so the drainage bottoms are used to access the higher country.


No-action Alternative There would be no change to the current grazing management under the No-action Alternative.

Proposed Action The Proposed Action is to increase the size of Monument Reservoir No. 1 from the current 446 acre-feet to 5,268 acre-feet, which would inundate 155.3 surface acres, a net gain of 117.4 acres above the current pool area of 37.92 acres. At an estimated capacity of 6.08 acres per animal unit month, this would be 19 animal unit months of grazing land lost. Of the total 6,889 animal unit months available on the allotment, this would be about 0.3 percent. No fences or improvements would be directly impacted by this project.

Reclamation/revegetation of the wetland species within the reservoir basin of Monument Reservoir No. 2, which has been proposed as mitigation for wetlands impacts at Monument Reservoir No. 1, would temporarily deny use of approximately 109 acres of rangelands. This area would be fenced to exclude cattle from the wetland complex during reestablishment of the plants resulting in a temporary loss of approximately 19 animal unit months, about 0.3 percent of the total. An estimated 2.25 miles of fence ($10,000 per mile for construction) would have to be constructed to prevent cattle from accessing the reservoir site. This fencing would be installed and maintained by Ute Water, and would be removed after the wetlands restoration and enhancement has been certified as complete by the Corps. After recovery of the reservoir basin and removal of the fence, grazing would continue. The grazing management for the allotment is determined and monitored annually to address strategies for maintaining and enhancing the vegetation conditions. This would continue into the future.

Actions associated with the enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1, including fencing the area around Monument Reservoir No. 2 would result in a temporary loss of 19 animal unit months and permanent loss of 19 animal unit months, for a total of 38, or 0.6 percent of the current grazing capacity. This is a minor impact to grazing capacity in the allotment and the number of cow-calf pairs within the Leon allotment would not be reduced as a result of the Proposed Action.


95

There would be a short-term impact of construction traffic, which could disrupt cattle movement along the NFS Road 262 corridor and up to Monument Reservoir on NFS Trail 518. This could create hazards for drivers, the cattle managers, and the cattle. Due to the need for numerous vehicles and heavy equipment to access Monument Reservoir No. 1 and No. 2, implementing the Proposed Action would necessitate the installation of a cattleguard in the fence line on NFS Trail 518, Section 3, Township 11 South, Range 93 West, 6th Principal Meridian.

Trail re-routes that are included in the Proposed Action would be necessary to allow cattle access to the watersheds upstream from Monument Reservoir No. 1. The current routes taken by cattle and permittees would be inundated when the reservoir is enlarged.

The “transfer area,” located about 3 miles south of the forest boundary is where cattle have been gathered prior to removal from NFS land each fall since the 1940s. Corrals located at this site are needed for use by the grazing permittees to manage the livestock. Use of this area for equipment and material staging needs to coordinate with the range managers so that there is not undue hardship to the grazing permittees. Proposed improvements at the transfer area would include hardening the site with fill where runoff accumulates, providing trailhead parking away from the corral area so that recreationists do not block access to the corrals, and setting up the transfer area so that it does not limit use of the corrals. Signage and physical barriers would be necessary at the site in order to prevent congestion that could interfere with permittee activity.

Cumulative Effects No cumulative effects to rangelands are anticipated.

Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects The mitigation proposed for impacts to the rangeland resource area are to install a cattleguard in the fence line on NFS Trail 518 and to use the proposed staging/transfer area near the current corrals in lower Park Creek as a means to improve the site for all users, provide better trailhead/campsite parking, move use away from corrals, and provide signage/barriers to maintain regular access to corrals. The GMUG National Forest would verify the cattleguard is installed prior to accepting improvements and approving the special use authorization.

Cultural Resources Numerous federal laws, regulations and Forest Service policies direct the inventory, protection, restoration and interpretation of cultural resources. These include the NHPA, NEPA, the National Forest Management Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 36 CFR Part 800, and FSM Chapter 2300.

The NHPA addresses “historic properties”. Historic properties are cultural resources that are either eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. When an undertaking, as defined in 36 CFR Part 800, is begun, cultural resources are to be located and evaluated for their potential to be placed on the National Register of Historic Places. The State Historic Preservation Officer, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Native American tribes and interested public must be informed of potential effects to any historic property. Agreement on mitigation of adverse effects to all historic properties must be reached through consultation with State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation before any project may take place.


96

A series of federal laws mandate that the impact of federally funded or permitted activities on historic properties, and the protection of these properties be considered prior to the initiation of management activities or undertakings. The value of historic properties on national forests is derived from the public’s recognition, beginning early in the twentieth century, that these nonrenewable resources are important and should be protected. Through these laws, the public commemorates the past by recognizing specific places where historically significant activities and events occurred.

Existing Conditions The entire area of potential effects for the project includes a total of 512.9 acres. Proposed associated project activities that could affect historic properties have been identified as 1) the Monument Reservoir No. 1 enlargement that would involve dam reconstruction and result in the inundation of a larger area; 2) the re-routing and upgrade of access routes to this reservoir; 3) the establishment of a 1-acre work camp/staging area at the base of the Monument Trail; 4) the re-routing of a portion of NFS Trail 518, the existing recreational Monument off-highway vehicle (OHV) trail that would be inundated by the proposed Monument Reservoir No. 1 enlargement; 5) the upgrade and use of an access route to Monument Reservoir No. 2 to decommission an existing dam; and 6) the upgrade and use of NFS Road 262 to access the Monument reservoirs.

More specifically, the Proposed Action includes construction of a larger dam at the location of the existing Monument Reservoir No. 1 dam in order enlarge the reservoir and removal of the Monument Reservoir No. 2 dam. Additionally, all roadbeds would be improved to a maximum running width of 14 feet. NFS Road 262 improvements would be confined to the existing roadbed, as the road is currently 12 to 15 feet in width. Exceptions to the confinement of NFS Road 262 improvements to the existing roadbed would include areas where lead-out ditches would be constructed along the road to improve drainage. None of these ditches would extend more than 50 feet from the existing road. Road or trail segments that have been re-rerouted may also be reclaimed (disturbance would be confined to a 100-foot-wide corridor). As a result, the area of potential effects for all access roads is defined as 50 feet in width on either side of the road for a total corridor width of 100 feet along the existing road or proposed re-route locations.

Surveys and Sites in Area of Potential Effect Class III cultural resource surveys of the areas affected by the Proposed Action were conducted in compliance with the NHPA of 1966 and other federal law, regulation, policy and guidelines regarding cultural resources. In general, cultural resource inventories are conducted to meet requirements of the NEPA, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 USC §1701) and the NHPA. These laws are concerned with the identification, evaluation and protection of fragile evidence of human activity, occupation, and endeavor reflected in districts, sites, structures, artifacts, objects, ruins, works of art, architecture, and natural features that were of importance in human events. Such resources tend to be highly sensitive to disturbance.

Part of the inventory process is to ascertain the significance of any recorded cultural resources because the NHPA directs federal agencies to consider whether federally initiated or authorized actions inadvertently disturb or destroy significant cultural resource values. Significance is a quality of cultural resources that qualifies them for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places according to prescribed criteria given in the Code of Federal Regulations. Field assessments regarding significance are made as recommendations by the cultural resources consultant to the federal agencies and State Historic Preservation Officer. The final determination of the site significance is made by the controlling agencies in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Keeper of the Register at the National Park Service.


97

The Code of Federal Regulations is used as a guide for the in-field site evaluations. Titles 36 CFR Part 50, 36 CFR Part 800 and 36 CFR Part 64 are concerned with the concepts of significance and (possible) historic value of cultural resources. Titles 36 CFR Part 65 and 36 CFR Part 66 provides standards for the conduct of scientific data recovery activities. Finally, Title 36 CFR §60.4 establishes the measure of significance that is critical to the determination of a site’s National Register of Historic Places (Register) eligibility.

Adequate cultural resources inventories by forest archaeologists were conducted for the project area of potential effect.

A total of 15 cultural inventories have been conducted within the entire area of potential effect (Table 24). These inventories have identified a total of 17 cultural resources within and around the area of potential effects (Table 25). Fourteen of the 17 cultural resources are prehistoric lithic scatters. The remaining three cultural resources include a historic corral and the Monument Reservoirs. Of the 17 cultural resources, two sites, 5ME1312 and 5ME11513, are considered to be needs data sites for eligibility for the Register. Additionally, two cultural resources, 5ME18155 and 5ME18610, are considered eligible for listing on the Register. Only these four sites are considered “historic properties” and must be avoided or otherwise protected during project implementation. The remaining 13 cultural resources are considered not eligible for listing on the Register, including the two existing reservoirs. The reservoir sites are not eligible to the Register because they lack integrity of materials, design, workmanship and association that would allow them to convey their historic character and render them eligible to the Register under Criterion A (“Event - “the property must make a contribution to the major pattern of American history”) and Criterion C (“Design/Construction, concerns the distinctive characteristics of the building by its architecture and construction, including having great artistic value or being the work of a master). The sites are not known to be associated with people important in local history, and they also lack the ability to provide additional significant information about local history that would make it eligible to the Register under Criterion D.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) section 106 compliance was completed for the Proposed Action in 2012. All four historic properties would be avoided during project implementation so there would be no adverse effect to historic properties. Below is summary of the cultural resource surveys and affected cultural resources within the area of potential effects. All cultural resource survey reports are available at the GMUG Forest Supervisor’s Office in Delta, Colorado.

Table 24. Summary of cultural resource inventories in project area Report Number Report Name Author Year Inventory

Level R1980020401/ I-80-01-011

Kenny Creek No. 1 Well and Access Babcock 1980 Intensive

I-81-01-011 Kenny Creek No. 1 Well and Access, Site Testing

Babcock 1981 N/A

R1986020401011/ I-86-01-050

Grant Norpac Seismic #7 O’Neil 1986 Intensive

R1989020401002/ I-88-01-019

Leon Creek Seismology Connor 1987 Intensive

R1997020401/ I-97-01-089

Leon Aspen Sale Crum 1997 Intensive

R2002020402007 Hunter Reservoir Expansion Crum 2002 Intensive

R2002020402032 Hunter Reservoir Spillway Crum 2002 Intensive

R2006020402060 Hunter Reservoir Upstream Addition Crum 2006 Intensive


98

Report Number Report Name Author Year Inventory Level

R2006020402064 Ditch Bill Reservoirs on Grand Mesa Lawrence 2006 Intensive

R2006020402070 Big Park Reservoir Alternative Funka 2006 Broad

R2006020402075 Leon Lake Road Rehab Crum 2006 Intensive, Broad

R2006020402078 East Leon Reservoir Alternative Funka 2006 Intensive

R2011020402157 Monument Reservoir No. 1 Alternative (Class III Cultural Resources and Paleontological Inventory)

Connor et al.

2011 Intensive

R2011020402157A Limited Testing and Evaluation of Prehistoric Sites 5ME18157 and 5ME18158

Connor et al.

2011 Testing

R2012020402180 Cultural Resource Inventory and Site Evaluations the Proposed Expansions of Monument Reservoir No. 1 and Hunter Reservoirs

Lane 2012 Intensive

Table 25. Summary of National Register of Historic Places eligibility for cultural resources in project area State Number Site Type Register Status

5ME01309 Prehistoric Field Not Eligible 5ME01311 Prehistoric Officially Not Eligible 5ME01312 Prehistoric Officially Needs Data 5ME01328 Prehistoric Field Not Eligible 5ME01329 Historic Officially Not Eligible 5ME01346 Prehistoric Field Not Eligible 5ME11506 Prehistoric Officially Not Eligible 5ME11507 Prehistoric Officially Not Eligible 5ME11513 Prehistoric Officially Needs Data 5ME13311 Prehistoric Officially Not Eligible 5ME15438 Historic Monument Reservoir No. 2 Officially Not Eligible 5ME18155 Prehistoric Officially Eligible 5ME18156 Prehistoric Officially Not Eligible 5ME18157 Prehistoric Officially Not Eligible 5ME18158 Prehistoric Officially Not Eligible 5ME18159 Historic Monument Reservoir No. 1 Officially Not Eligible 5ME18610 Prehistoric Officially Eligible


No-action Alternative Various Forest Service activities would continue to impact all three historic properties, 5ME1312, 5ME18155 and 5ME18610, under the No-action Alternative. Recreational activities are likely to impact the site, as all three sites are bisected by roads. Continued use of the roads by recreational users could impact the sites in multiple ways. The roadbed could become wider, thereby cutting further into the sites and disturbing potential buried cultural deposits and surface artifacts. Additionally, it is not uncommon for OHV users to illegally go outside of the road corridor potentially impacting the sites through rutting.


99

Finally, the roads passing through the sites increase the chance for the illegal collection of artifacts by recreationists by allowing easy site access. Site 5ME1312 is also susceptible to impacts from recreational camping on the eastern portion of the site as observed through the decreasing number of artifacts located there.

Various additional impacts to the sites would occur if no action is taken. One impact includes the natural erosion processes that occur to the ground surface from the elements. Grazing activities would continue to impact the sites through the breaking and moving of artifacts, as well as increase erosion on the site. In the event that a commercial timber harvest would occur, the sites would be protected from the logging activities, but could potentially be more exposed to artifact collectors and erosional processes with the removal of surrounding timber. Also, timber harvest and thinning activities in the area of heritage resource sites could increase the potential for livestock damage. Road improvement projects have potential to impact the sites in the event the road improvement actions go outside of the road corridor. Finally, catastrophic wildfires and poorly managed prescribed burns have the potential to destroy sites and cause severe surface erosion to occur at sites with the loss of vegetation.

There is an opportunity cost associated with the No-action Alternative in that a beneficial effect of road improvement and relocation that could benefit two sites would not occur. Under the Proposed Action, Ute Water plans to re-route a portion of NFS Trail 518 in order to facilitate heavy equipment traffic during the construction phase of the project. Relocating this route would move it away from cultural sites to which it is currently adjacent. While this benefit is tangential to the purpose of the re-routes, it would be a benefit to two cultural sites that are currently impacted by travel routes.

Proposed Action The Proposed Action would involve the construction of a staging, or transfer, area along NFS Road 262. The use of the staging area has the potential to affect Site 5ME1312. The transfer area would be located in a portion of the site where recreational camping and parking currently occur. The site was originally recorded and tested in 1980. Site 5ME1312 is officially considered to be a needs data site for listing on the Register; therefore, the site is treated as an historic property.

In 1997 the site was visited and re-recorded. Due to camping activities and the paucity of artifacts located in the transfer area portion of the site, this area was identified as not contributing to the eligibility status of the site. The 2012 site visit confirmed the 1997 assessment that the transfer area portion of the site was extensively impacted by camping and parking.

The following are conditions to which Ute Water would adhere under the Proposed Action in order to protect this site. The staging area is located in the western portion of site 5ME1312 that was determined as not contributing to the eligibility of the site for listing on the Register. The site must be avoided during project implementation and no heavy equipment must be allowed within the site boundary. A Forest Service archaeologist should be present to monitor project activities to ensure site avoidance and protection. No project activities would occur east of NFS Road 262 within the site. Improvements to NFS Road 262 would not involve any new disturbance outside the existing road corridor. Placement of rock and gravel is proposed for the existing roadbed to build up the road prism. This action would also protect the site.

Unlike other resources such as vegetation or wildlife, cultural resources are not renewable. Damage or destruction is generally permanent. Although repairs may be possible in some cases, the historic nature of a resource is generally compromised once it has been impacted, and its eligibility for the Register may be affected. Under the Proposed Action, the Heritage Program would continue to review resource projects, as


100

required by Section 106 of the NHPA. This includes the evaluation and identification of appropriate sites for the National Register of Historic Places.

Direct and indirect effects to historic properties under the No-action Alternative as previously discussed above are not attributed to the action itself. However, the Proposed Action may directly and indirectly affect several sites. Direct effects to sites 5ME1312, 5ME11513, 5ME18155 and 5ME18610 are associated to the increased use of the roads that pass through the sites. The potential increase of traffic on the road may increase the chance for direct ground and vegetation disturbance to occur at the site through parking and vehicles going outside of the road and parking corridors. This disturbance could directly affect potential buried cultural deposits and damage and move artifacts across the site’s surface.

More people passing through the site may result in the indirect effects of unauthorized artifact collection or vandalism. Additionally, the direct effect of ground and vegetation disturbance from off-road recreation across the sites may indirectly increase erosion of the site surface.

A beneficial direct effect would be closing or rerouting the roads that pass through the sites. This may prevent off-road users impacting the ground surface, and indirectly prevent the likelihood of unauthorized artifact collection or vandalism. Also, erosion to the site surface from the road cut and off-road use would be lessened.

Historic and present actions that have affected cultural resources within the planning area include livestock grazing activities, timber harvest, vegetation and fuels management, fire suppression activities, road construction, reservoir construction and dispersed recreational use. Cattle and sheep grazing, as well as wildlife movement, have caused direct impacts through trampling and indirect effects of soil erosion. Also, the road construction and road maintenance has likely caused erosion over time to the sites. The construction of the roads has also impacted the portion of each site over which the road passes.

A cultural resource survey of Monument Reservoir No. 1 was conducted in 2011 and 2012 (USDA Forest Service 2012a). Concurrence from the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer office on this determination was obtained on January 31, 2013.

Additionally, during the 2012 survey, a historic property, 5ME18155, was located, along the Monument Trail. The site is considered eligible for listing on the Register, but it would not be affected by the proposed undertaking.

An additional cultural resource survey was conducted in 2012 for newly added areas to the Proposed Action not surveyed during the 2003 and 2005 cultural resource surveys. During this survey a historic property, 5ME18610, was located along the reservoir access road. The site is considered officially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This site would also not be affected by the proposed undertaking.

Summary of Effects Since site 5ME1312 would be avoided during project implementation, the GMUG NF in consultation with the SHPO has determined that the project would have no adverse effect to historic properties and no mitigation is necessary.

If any previously unknown cultural resources are discovered during project implementation, the District or Forest Archaeologist would be notified as soon as possible and all work in the immediate vicinity would stop until the site can be recorded, evaluated, and SHPO and tribal consultation completed if deemed necessary.


101

Since all historic properties would be avoided, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the cultural resources.

Roadless Areas The Colorado Roadless Rule was finalized on July 3, 2012. This Rule replaces the Roadless Area Conservation Rule of 2001 in Colorado. It provides management direction for conserving and monitoring approximately 4.2 million acres of NFS lands in Colorado. The purpose of the rule is to conserve roadless characteristics for future generations and allow management activities within Colorado Roadless Areas that are important to the citizens and economy of the State. The Rule contains exceptions for activities such as have been proposed here. Roadless coordination has occurred between the Forest Service and the state for this project.

Existing Conditions The Flat Tops/Elk Park Colorado Roadless Area is located to the east of NFS Road 262. Monument Reservoirs No. 1 and No. 2 are located within the Flat Tops/Elk Park Colorado Roadless Area (Figure 19). Portions of the Sunlight-Powderhorn snowmobile trail are also located within the Flat Tops/Elk Park Colorado Roadless Areas.


No-action Alternative Activities related to ongoing maintenance and operation access may continue to impact roadless characteristics similar to action alternatives. This is also consistent with the Colorado Roadless Rule.

Proposed Action Existing water rights at the Monument Reservoir No. 1 site allow for development including activities related to roads and incidental tree removal under the Colorado Roadless Rule exceptions. An analysis of impacts to Colorado Roadless Areas, including consideration of the nine Roadless Area Characteristics identified in 36 CFR §294.41 follows.

High-quality air or undisturbed soil, water, and air: Soil effects would be localized and have been described in Soils section of this document. Effects would occur within and outside Colorado Roadless Areas. Ground and surface water effects are described in the Water Resources and Hydrology section of this document. Providing high-quality water for municipal supply is consistent with the Colorado Roadless Rule. Short-term impacts on local air quality are expected only during construction activities and are detailed in the Air Quality section.

Public drinking water: Monument Reservoir No. 1 is an existing facility that predates the establishment of Roadless Areas in Colorado. As such it has an exception from the Colorado Roadless Area restrictions. The purpose of this project is to provide additional storage for municipal water, which includes drinking water, and meeting future water needs of the Grand Valley. Construction activities within the Leon Creek watershed would also occur within the Source Water Protection Area of Collbran, Colorado. The Town of Collbran gets its water from springs located near town and not directly from Leon Creek or Plateau Creek; however, Collbran’s springs may be fed, at least in part, by water from Leon Creek. Accidents (e.g., chemical spills) that occur during construction could affect water quality. Road improvements and restoration and re-


102

establishment of wetlands upstream from Collbran may result in water quality improvement. Water quality and quantity analysis is detailed in the Water Resources section of this document.

Figure 19. Roadless areas associated with enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1


103

Diversity of plant and animal communities: This project would impact wildlife and habitat. Impacts to species and their physical environment are discussed in sections pertaining to Aquatic Wildlife, Terrestrial Wildlife, Vegetation, and Wetlands. The Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation for this project are located in the project file.

Habitat for threatened, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species, and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land: This project would impact the four Endangered Colorado River fishes through water depletions and Canada lynx through removal of habitat. The USFWS has been consulted regarding these impacts, which are discussed in sections pertaining to Aquatic Wildlife and Terrestrial Wildlife, and Vegetation. More information is available in the Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation for this project, both of which are available in the project file.

Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation: There are no primitive recreation classes designated within the project area and this aspect of Roadless Character would not be affected by the project. Mitigation activity around Monument Reservoir No. 2 would remove human infrastructure within a Colorado Roadless Area thereby increasing the appeal of this area for visitors who value opportunities for recreation in areas where human influence on the land is minimized.

Reference landscapes: Roadless Areas within the Leon Creek watershed are not identified in the forest plan as reference landscapes for research, study, or interpretation. As such, this aspect of Roadless Character would not be affected by the project.

Natural-appearing landscapes with high scenic quality: Reservoirs and roads and trails are existing and contribute to the visual environment of the Grand Mesa. The dam enlargement of the Proposed Action would be located within areas covered by the Management Prescription 6B, as described in the forest plan.

The forest plan contains the following direction concerning visual resource management for those management prescription areas:

• 6B: General direction for visual resource management within the 6B areas calls for designing and implementing the management activities to blend with the natural landscape, to manage for the adopted visual quality objective, and implement visual resource management as outlines in management requirements. No other resource specific direction or standards and guidelines relevant to this type of project are identified in the forest plan.

Roadless units within the project area, as well as those areas not included in either Roadless inventory, contain several motorized roads and trails, as well as water developments (i.e., reservoirs and ditches).

The Visual Quality Objective under the Visual Management System describes the future scenery management goal for the area. Visual quality objectives are based on the physical characteristics of the land and the sensitivity of the landscape setting. Visual quality objectives define how the landscape would be managed, the level of acceptable modification permitted in the area, and under what circumstances modification may be allowed.


104

These visual quality objectives are defined as follows:

• Retention, which is the most restrictive visual quality objective in the project area, provides only for management activities that are not visually evident. Under Retention, permitted activities may only repeat the form, line, color, and texture frequently found in the characteristic landscape. Changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., would not be evident.

• Partial Retention provides for management activities that remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Activities may repeat the form, line, color, or texture found in the characteristic landscape, but they should remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape.

• Modification allows for activities that may visually dominate the original characteristic landscape. These activities must, however, borrow from naturally established form, line, color, or texture, so that the visual characteristics are like the surrounding area. Alterations or deviations of the natural landscape should be compatible or complimentary to the overall character within the area affected.

• Maximum Modification permits the greatest visual change where human activity may dominate the characteristic landscape but should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed in foreground or middle ground.

The majority of the project area lies within a “Modification” visual quality objective. Enlarging Monument Reservoir No. 1 Dam would be consistent with current designations and existing Roadless character.

Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites: Existing analyses suggest cultural or sacred sites are located within the project area and this aspect of Roadless Character but would not be directly affected. Indirect effects to cultural resources may continue under any alternative.

Other locally identified unique characteristics: There are no locally unique characteristics within the project area, therefore, this aspect of Roadless Character would not be affected by the project.

Cumulative Effects No other current or foreseeable projects that would be likely to affect Roadless Areas are known. No cumulative effects to roadless areas are thus anticipated.

Mitigation There is no mitigation proposed specifically for impacts to Roadless Areas. However, wetlands specific mitigation at Monument Reservoir No. 2, which is located entirely within a designated Roadless Area, would improve the characteristics of the Roadless Area. Actions that would benefit the Flattops-Elk Park Roadless Area include decommissioning of Monument Reservoir No. 2, removal of the dam and associated infrastructure, and removal of the access road to the Monument Reservoir No. 2 site. The access road is not located within the Roadless Area (Figure 19); however, removing the road would decrease the road density in this portion of the national forest.

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR §1502.16). As declared by the Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures,


105

including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans (section 101).

Generally, the short-term uses of the environment required by the Proposed Action or its alternatives would not greatly affect the long-term productivity of the project area. The construction activities might create marginal disruption of some longstanding uses of the area by wildlife, domestic livestock, and winter recreationists. Such disruption would cease when the construction stopped. After all disturbed areas have been reclaimed, much of the same vegetation resources that were present prior to the project would be available, as restored vegetation and habitat would mitigate short-term environmental effects. Although the inundation of the enlarged reservoir or new construction of reservoirs would cause the long-term loss of some wildlife habitat and domestic forage, this would not be enough to affect local wildlife populations or permitted grazing. All short-term impacts must be considered within the long-term context of the project’s goal: storing drinking water for human use. Additionally, changes to the distribution of functional wetlands in the Leon Creek watershed would not result in a net loss of wetland function in the area.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects There are a number of short-term unavoidable adverse effects resulting from the Proposed Action, which are related to construction activities on roads and at reservoir sites. Effects include increased traffic (primarily construction-related) on NFS Road 262 and NFS Trail 518, wildlife disturbance via human presence, noise, and traffic, release of greenhouse gases, from construction equipment, in the air shed above Leon Creek during the 4- to 5-year construction window.

The primary unavoidable long-term adverse effect of the Proposed Action is inundation of up to 117 acres of NFS lands. Inundated lands would be unavailable for use as terrestrial wildlife habitat, livestock production, timber production, or other extractive activity. The Proposed Action would change the distribution of wetlands and wetland function in the Leon Creek watershed. Wetlands would be inundated as a result of the Proposed Action, which includes a mitigation plan (Appendix E) that would reestablish wetland complexes at Monument Reservoir No. 2 and Cold Sore Reservoir, reestablish wetland acres and function at other multiple sites and restore wetland function in riparian areas along Monument Creek.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line rights-of-way or road. The following impacts are considered irreversible: loss of wildlife habitat and soil productivity beneath an enlarged dam footprint. The following impacts are considering irretrievable: water depletion resulting from evaporation at the enlarged reservoir and change in distribution of wetland function in the watershed.

Actions Considered for Cumulative Effects Analysis Past, present, and future actions associated with recreation, timber management, mineral development, and water development have the potential to affect wildlife habitat, water quality, and water quantity. The Forest Service analyzed the cumulative effect of water development within the entire Plateau Creek watershed (as well as a portion of the Colorado River) and analyzed the cumulative effect of other


106

activities, such as recreation and timber harvest, within a 260 square-mile portion (43 percent of the watershed area) of the watershed. Approximately 184 square miles of this area is managed by the Forest Service. As Ute Water’s proposal to provide additional water storage to address firm yield concerns during times of drought is part of a plan to prepare for water needs in 2045, the potential for cumulative effects to the watershed was analyzed out to that year.

The Plateau Creek watershed is approximately 601 square miles. The portion of the national forest within the watershed supports several uses, including cattle grazing, recreation, timber harvest, and wildlife habitat. Recreational activities include fishing and hunting, ATV use, and snowmobile use. Recreational activities occur 12 months out of the year. There are approximately 983 acres of existing infrastructure open to public use within the 184 square-mile area, which represents about 0.8 percent of the analysis area. There are approximately 3,563 acres of historical timber harvest within this area, which is about 3 percent of the analysis area.

Mineral Development There are 15 acres of existing disturbance in the Buzzard Creek watershed associated with gas well pad development. The Buzzard Creek watershed is located upstream of Vega Reservoir. Roads associated with existing gas well pads account for 4 of the 15 acres.

Forest Service records indicate no pending lease requests for the area. As depicted in the 1993 GMUG Oil and Gas Leasing EIS, the area to the east of the NFS Road 262 is covered by the Discretionary No Leasing stipulation. The rest of the area is covered by No Surface Occupancy stipulations, and a small area adjacent to the reservoir is covered by Standard Stipulations. The Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety shows no mineral or coal permits in the vicinity. Consequently, minerals development is unlikely to contribute to cumulative impacts to water quality, water quantity, and wildlife habitat.

Recreation It is not anticipated that recreation would increase in the project area during the 4- to 5-year dam construction period. It is possible that road improvements would entice recreationists to venture south along NFS Road 262. However, road improvements that would be conducive to travel in two-wheel drive and other low-clearance vehicles would not be completed the entire length of NFS Road 262. Road improvements would facilitate access for the first 2-3 miles of NFS Road 262, beyond the forest boundary. Beyond that, the road would continue to be passable only by four-wheel drive and high-clearance vehicles.

Upon completion of the action alternative it is likely that Colorado Parks and Wildlife would stock fish to enhance the existing recreational fishery. The Forest Service has no intention of developing infrastructure (e.g., campgrounds, parking areas, toilets) at any reservoir site in the upper Leon Creek watershed. It is likely that people would be attracted to a fishery in the enlarged reservoir. The remoteness of these sites is likely to dampen the enthusiasm of all but the most dedicated still-water anglers. The remoteness and relatively poor access are likely to have the same effect on other recreationists, including campers, hikers, and bird watchers. While relocation of segments of the Sunlight-Powderhorn Snowmobile trail and NRS Trail 518 away from sensitive soils and flooded areas would enhance our ability to maintain these trails, these changes would not greatly change the popularity or use of these trails. The contribution of this project to the cumulative recreation pressure within this part of the national forest is likely to be insignificant.


107

Timber Harvest Timber harvest, by way of road construction and ground disturbance during harvest as well as the removal of trees, has the potential to affect both water quality and water quantity. The Forest Service’s 10-year harvest plan for subwatersheds on the north side of the Grand Mesa includes 8,560 acres of timber harvest. This is approximately 7 percent of the 184-square mile analysis area. Timber harvest areas are spread among 9 subwatersheds (USGS Hydrologic Unit Code 12). Subwatersheds range in size between 7,800 acres and 27,600 acres. The amount of harvest within a subwatershed ranges from 0.8 percent (228 acres in a 27,600-acre subwatershed) to 28 percent (2,220 acres in a 7,810-acre subwatershed).

Timber harvest activities including road construction, hauling, harvest, and yarding have the potential to compact soils over the entire 8,560-acre treatment area. Compacted soils could promote overland water flow and result in increased erosion (Chamberlin et al. 1991). A short-term effect of timber harvest would be some increase in water quantity. For example, research shows that clear cutting 40 to 100 percent of conifer or mixed-conifer timber in Colorado can increase short-term water yield 22 to 30 percent (Chamberlin et al. 1991).

Long-term degradation of water quality is a far more significant concern to the Forest Service considering the significance of many of these subwatersheds as sources of municipal water for towns and cities in western Colorado. Water quality variables typically influenced by timber harvest include temperature, fine sediment load, dissolved oxygen, and nutrients (Chamberlin et al. 1991). The Proposed Action is intended to store high-quality water for human use and activities that degrade water quality are contrary to this goal. If design criteria and BMPs failed simultaneously across the entire 8,560 acres, this could result in increased overland water flow and erosion on 7 percent of the 184 square-mile analysis area. That 7 percent is distributed across 9 subwatersheds and would occur over a 10-year period during which adaptive management practices would be used to repair damaged areas prior to initiating harvest activities at the next site. Design criteria and BMPs used by the Forest Service are designed to protect the integrity of riparian areas, which serve as important buffers when fine sediment is inevitably mobilized following timber harvest (Chamberlin et al. 1991).

It is not a foregone conclusion the Forest Service would offer all 8,560 acres of suitable timber land for sale in the next 10 years. Much of the area planned for harvest has been impacted by bark beetles and it is possible some areas may not be able to be harvested prior to the timber degrading to the point it is no longer merchantable. If the Forest Service does sell the entire planned volume of timber, the fact that timber harvest is spread among 9 subwatersheds and over a 10-year period suggests that timber harvest is likely to result in additive degradation of water quality in the Plateau Creek watershed.

The cumulative impact of timber harvest on wildlife habitat has been considered previously in the Forest Service’s analysis of the Spruce Beetle Epidemic and Aspen Decline Management Response EIS (available online at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/96623_FSPLT3_3083981.pdf). The cumulative effects identified were related to sedimentation in streams and disturbance and dislocation of individuals during active timber sales. The project design criteria were determined adequate to mitigation or minimize effects.

Water Development The Colorado Decision Support System database was accessed on September 9, 2016, to identify conditional water rights in the Plateau Creek watershed that could be developed between now and 2045. There are 110 conditional water rights in and around the project area, such as Monument Reservoir No. 1, as well as downstream locations including the Colorado River. Seventy-one of these (64 percent) are for less than 10 acre-feet. The volume of water associated with conditional water rights is 328,230 acre-feet,

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/96623_FSPLT3_3083981.pdf


108

of which 243,372 acre-feet are associated with a reservoir site on the Colorado River, downstream from Glenwood Springs (Table 26).

Table 26. Conditional water rights within the cumulative effects analysis area Description Volume (acre-feet) Notes

Una-Paradise Reservoir 243,372 Colorado River, downstream from Glenwood Springs Owens Creek Reservoir 31,786 Reservoir on private land

Buzzard Creek Reservoir 20,000 Reservoir on private land Willow Creek Reservoir 19,448 Headwater tributary to Buzzard Creek

Jerry Creek No. 2 Reservoir

7,791 Additional enlargement of Jerry Creek Reservoir No. 2.

Salt Creek Reservoir 3,000 Main stem of Salt Creek, downstream from Leon Creek. Various 100-499 13 projects; 1,975.3 acre-feet total volume Various 10-99 21 projects; 650.7 acre-feet total volume Various 1-9.9 58 projects; 202.9 acre-feet total volume Various 0-1 12 projects; 3.8 acre-feet total volume

The primary impact of water development in the above table is water depletion in the Colorado River, which is likely to negatively impact native fishes and their habitat. To evaluate this, we developed scenarios in which proportions of the total conditional water rights in the above table are developed in the next 30 years. We compared these to monthly discharge data for the Colorado River at its confluence with Plateau Creek and for Plateau Creek, when applicable.4

In the 2015 water year (October 2014 through September 2015), USGS gauge data show that approximately 3.05 million acre-feet of water flowed past the Cameo gauging station, located upstream from Grand Junction, Colorado. For the 2014 water year the value was 3.4 million. The Proposed Action could reduce discharge in the Colorado River by 0.2 percent (5,268/3.05 million acre-feet) during the filling period (generally less than 6 years, per modeling); however, if every conditional water right included in the above table was developed, annual discharge in the Colorado River upstream from Grand Junction, Colorado, could be reduced by more than 11 percent.

We used a statistical re-sampling technique commonly referred to as “bootstrapping” (Sokal and Rohlf 1998) to simulate water development scenarios in which 1, 2, and 3 randomly selected water development projects occur each year of the 30-year analysis period. Developing 4 water rights each year is analogous to maximum development: all 114 water rights are developed by year 29. We constructed 5,000 simulations of 30 (1 project per year), 60, (2 projects per year), or 90 (3 projects per year) conditional water rights (Table 27).

Table 27. Results of 5,000 bootstrap simulations of three water development rates for conditional water rights in project area (acre-feet)

Volume 1 Project Per Year 2 Projects Per Year 3 Projects Per Year Minimum Volume 65 2,987 27,463 Maximum Volume 308,447 339,209 340,404

4 For example, construction of Una-Paradise Reservoir would have no effect on Plateau Creek discharge whereas several other large reservoirs would decrease overall discharge from Plateau Creek.


109

Volume 1 Project Per Year 2 Projects Per Year 3 Projects Per Year Median Volume 55,105 211,023 299,239 Average Volume 88,496 180,926 269,249

The statistics in Table 26 reflect the highly skewed distribution of conditional water rights in the project area: about two thirds of the 110 conditional water rights are for volumes less than 10 acre-feet. Only 3 conditional water rights are for volumes great than 19,000 acre-feet. One of those is for 243,372 acre-feet. As mentioned above, if every conditional water right was developed in the next 30 years that would reduce the discharge of the Colorado River by 11 percent. If the median volumes presented in Table 26 were developed Colorado River discharge (3.05 million acre-feet in 2015) would decrease by 2, 7, and 10 percent, respectively.

Average annual discharge from Plateau Creek is approximately 159,000 acre-feet. The large reservoirs in the above table would result in the retention of significant portions of the annual discharge from Plateau Creek. The volume of Owens Creek Reservoir is approximately 20 percent of the annual discharge from Plateau Creek, Buzzard Creek Reservoir and Jerry Creek Reservoir No. 2 each are about 12.5 percent, and Willow Creek Reservoir is about 5 percent. Developing all of these reservoirs would result in the retention of approximately 50 percent of the total annual discharge from Plateau Creek, which would far exceed the effects of the proposed project. These water rights could not be developed, however, without separate impact analyses.

Ute Water holds several conditional water rights in the Plateau Creek watershed. Ute Water plans to meet its firm yield need of 21,400 acre-feet through a blended-supply approach whereby water from Plateau Creek and the Colorado River are used to meet future water demand. Developing approximately 5,300 acre-feet of surface water storage in the watershed meets Ute Water’s total surface water storage need under this plan. It is unlikely, upon completion of one or more reservoir projects in the Leon Creek watershed, that Ute Water would pursue additional surface water storage in the watershed.

Cumulative Impact to Water Quality, Water Quantity, and Endangered Fishes Of the four activities considered in the cumulative effects analysis, recreation, minerals development, timber harvest, and water development, the last of these is the most likely to result in additive impact to the Plateau Creek watershed and the hydrograph of the Colorado River. The rate at which conditional water rights would be developed in the area is highly uncertain. The Colorado Decision Support System database shows that many of the existing water rights have undergone proof of diligence proceedings at least once. As long as water right holders are granted findings of diligence every six years, conditional rights can be held in good standing without development.

Most of the water rights that are developed in the next 30 years would be those for volumes less than 10 acre-feet. Three of the six biggest water rights considered in this analysis are for reservoir construction or enlargements presented in the Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Detailed Study section of this document (Buzzard Creek Reservoir, Jerry Creek Reservoir, Owens Creek Reservoir). As such, they can be considered highly speculative. Should Ute Water implement the Proposed Action, their long-term development plan does not currently include complementary reservoir development in another part of the Plateau Creek watershed.

Under a maximum development scenario, approximately 11 percent of the annual discharge of the Colorado River would be retained behind the 110 dams associated with the conditional water rights in this


110

analysis. As the Colorado River is over-allocated currently, an 11-percent reduction is significant. It is likely to increase the concentration of fine sediment and pollutants in Colorado River water, thereby reducing the overall water quality and quantity of water for native fishes. If applicable5, the effects of water depletions associated with these developments would fall under the regulatory authority of the USFWS via the Endangered Species Act. The Proposed Action would retain a very small fraction of this potential total development scenario, the effects of the Proposed Action have been accounted for in water depletion payments made by Ute Water.

Other Required Disclosures The CEQ’s implementation regulations for NEPA at 40 CFR §1502.25(a) direct “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with …other environmental review laws and executive orders.”

Air Quality This proposal would have some short-term impacts on air quality levels from emissions and fugitive dust: however National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Colorado Ambient Air Quality Standards would not be exceeded by the Proposed Action.

American Indian Treaty Rights This proposal would not conflict with any treaty provisions of any tribal group.

Congressionally Designated Areas

Wilderness: There are no lands designated in the project area as wilderness; therefore, there would be no impacts on Wilderness.

Wilderness Study Areas: There are no lands designated in the project area as Wilderness Study Areas or recommended for wilderness classification; therefore, there would be no impacts on any Wilderness Study Area.

National Recreation Areas: There are no lands designated in the project area as National Recreational Areas; therefore, there would be no impacts on any National Recreational Area.

Floodplains (Executive Order 11988) The project area and adjacent areas contain floodplains. The project is short-term in duration, and BMPs are included that would reduce any impact to floodplains. The effects to floodplains would be mitigated so that there would be no long-term impacts to those resources. A detailed discussion of impacts to area hydrology is found in the “Water Resources” section of Chapter 3.

Colorado Roadless Areas Impacts would occur to two Colorado Roadless Areas from all alternatives, including the No-action Alternative because Monument Reservoir No. 1 is partially located within the Flattops – Elk Park

5 Water depletions not previously accounted for in USFWS environmental reviews.


111

Colorado Roadless Area. Monument Reservoir No. 2, a proposed wetland mitigation site, is entirely within the that roadless area. A detailed discussion of impacts to Roadless Areas is found in the “Roadless Areas” section of Chapter 3.

National Landmarks There are no national landmarks in the project area; therefore, none would be affected by the Proposed Action or its alternatives.

Municipal Watersheds Effects to the Town of Collbran’s municipal watershed, as well as Ute Water’s municipal water supply could occur. A source water protection plan has been prepared and is being implemented for the project area, and recommendations for protection of those water supplies are included in the design criteria outlined. By implementing those design criteria, effects would be minimized or eliminated.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in additional storage of water for municipal uses.

Parklands There are no lands within the proposed project area that would be characterized as parklands; therefore, there would be no impacts on any parklands.

Prime Farmlands, Rangelands, and Forestlands

Prime Farmland: The project area is not located in or adjacent to prime farmlands; therefore, there would be no impacts to prime farmlands.

Prime Rangeland: The project area does not contain prime rangeland because of soils and climate. Therefore, there would be no impacts on prime rangelands.

Prime Forestland: There are no prime forestlands in the project area.

Social Groups The project would have no impacts on any social groups, including minorities, Native American Indians, women, or the civil liberties of any American citizen.

Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the inundation 24.3 acres of wetlands in the project area and fill of an additional 5.0 acres, for a total 29.3 acres of wetland alteration. Inundation would be permanent in some areas, within the footprint of the low-water level of the enlarged reservoir, and periodic in others, along the margins of the high-water line of each reservoir. Wetlands impacts would be mitigated by the reestablishment or restoration of wetlands at the Monument Reservoir No. 2 and Cold Sore Reservoir sites, as well as aquatic habitat enhancements on Monument Creek.


112

Wild and Scenic Rivers There are no lands designated or proposed for Wild and Scenic Rivers in the project area; therefore, the project would not impact any Wild and Scenic Rivers.


113

Chapter 4. References Armitage, P. D., D. Moss, J. F., Wright, and M. T. Furse. 1983. The performance of a new biological

water quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running-water sites. Water research, 17(3), 333-347.

Andrews, P., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, CO, USA.

Archfield, S. A., Steeves, J.D. Guthrie, and K. G. Ries III. 2013. Towards a publicly available, map-based regional software tool to estimate unregulated daily streamflow at ungauged rivers. Geoscientific Model Development, 6(1), 101-115.

Arnold, S. J. Dileo, T. Takushi. 2014. Colorado greenhouse gas inventory – 2014 updates including projects to 2020 and 2030. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AP-COGHGInventory2014Update.pdf

Austin, G. 2008. Fens of Grand Mesa, Colorado: characterization, impacts from human activities, and restoration. Master’s Thesis. Prescott College, Prescott, Arizona, USA.

Austin, G. and D. Cooper. 2015. Persistence of high elevation fens in the Southern Rocky Mountains, on Grand Mesa, Colorado, U.S.A. Wetlands Ecology and Management 24(3):317-334.

Behnke, R. J. 2002. Trout and salmon of North America. The Free Press a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc. New York, NY. 359 pp.

Bezzerides, N., and K. R. Bestgen. 2002. Status review of roundtail chub Gila robusta, flannelmouth sucker Catostomus latipinnis, and bluehead sucker Catostomus discobolus in the Colorado River basin. Larval Fish Laboratory Contribution, 118.

Biette, R. M., Dodge, D. P., R. L Hassinge., and T. M. Stauffer. 1981. Life history and timing of migrations and spawning behavior of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) populations of the Great Lakes. Canadian journal of fisheries and aquatic sciences, 38(12), 1759-1771.

Bjorrn, T. C. and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:83-138.

Breaux, A., and F. Serefiddin. 1999. Validity of performance criteria and a tentative model of regulatory use in compensatory wetland mitigation permitting. Environmental Management 24:327-336.

Chamberlin, T. W., R. D. Harr, and F. H. Everest. 1991. Timber harvesting, silviculture, and watershed processes. Pages 181-206 in W. R. Meehan, editor. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Chisholm, I. M., W. A. Hubert, and T. A. Wesche. 1987. Winter stream conditions and use of habitat by brook trout in high-elevation Wyoming streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116:176-184.

Cleare, E. 2013. An introduction to greenhouse gas emissions from hydroelectric reservoirs: the what, the where and the how. http://www.brynmawr.edu/geology/206/cleare2.htm

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AP-COGHGInventory2014Update.pdf


114

Cook, N., F. J Rahel, and W. A. Hubert. 2010. Persistence of Colorado River cutthroat trout populations in isolated headwater streams of Wyoming. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 139(5), 1500-1510.

Cooper, D. J., L. H. MacDonald, S. K. Wenger, S. and W. Woods. 1998. Hydrologic restoration of a fen in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, USA. Wetlands 18:335-345.

Courtney, L. A., and W. H. Clements. 2002. Assessing the influence of water and substratum quality on benthic macroinvertebrate communities in a metal‐polluted stream: An experimental approach. Freshwater Biology, 47(9), 1766-1778.

Cryer, D. H., and T. J. Hughes. 2007. Soil survey of Grand Mesa – West Elk Area, Colorado: parts of Delta, Garfield, Gunnison, Mesa, and Montrose Counties. Review draft of 1997, no published. 497 pp. Electronic data dated September 28, 2007. Available at http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/

Cunjak, R. A. and G. Power. 1986. Winter habitat utilization by stream resident brook trout and brown trout. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:1970-1981.

Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). 2012. Colorado River Water Availability Study Phase 1 Report. http://cwcbweblink.state.co.us/weblink/0/doc/158319/Electronic.aspx?searchid=78f0eafa-0b8f-4d8a-9ff3-faf67cc82f52

Doyle, M. W., E. H. Stanley, D. L. Strayer, R. B. Jacobson, and J. C. Schmidt. 2005. Effective discharge analysis of ecological processes in streams. Water Resources Research, 41(11).

DOD&EPA (Department of Defense; Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Compensatory mitigation for losses of aquatic resources. 33 CRF Parts 325 and 332; 40 CFR Part 230. Federal Register, April 10. 112pp

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report 7-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.

Ellis, M. S., and V. L. Freeman. 1984. Geologic map and cross sections of the Carbondale 30’ by 60’quadrangle, west-central Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Coal Investigations Map C-97-A, scale 1:100,000.

ERC (Ecological Resource Consultants, Inc.). 2018a. Summary of System Model Results. Memorandum from Heather Thompson, ERC, to Jeremy Lyon, Ute Water Conservancy District. ERC, 35715 US Hwy. 40 Suite D204, Evergreen, CO, April 11, 2018; 6 pp.

ERC. 2018b. Summary of System Model Results for Monument Reservoir Enlargement. Memorandum from Heather Thompson, ERC, to Jeremy Lyon, Ute Water Conservancy District. ERC, 35715 US Hwy. 40 Suite D204, Evergreen, CO, May 29, 2018; 24 pp.

ERC 2018c. System Model Study Period. Memorandum from Hayden Strickland and Heather Thompson, ERC, to Jeremy Lyon, and Steve Ryken, Ute Water Conservancy District. ERC, 35715 US Hwy. 40 Suite D204, Evergreen, CO, June 1, 2018; 5 pp.

http://cwcbweblink.state.co.us/weblink/0/doc/158319/Electronic.aspx?searchid=78f0eafa-0b8f-4d8a-9ff3-faf67cc82f52

http://cwcbweblink.state.co.us/weblink/0/doc/158319/Electronic.aspx?searchid=78f0eafa-0b8f-4d8a-9ff3-faf67cc82f52


115

ERO Resources Corp. (ERO). 2019. Ute Water Conservancy District Monument 1 Reservoir project – wetland delineation summary of findings. Denver, CO: February 15: 36pp.Extence, C. A., A. J. Bates. W. J Forbes, and P. J. Barham. (1987). Biologically based water quality management. Environmental pollution, 45(3), 221-236.

Farrington, M. A., R. K. Dudley, J. L. Kennedy, S.P. Platania, and G. C. White. (2013). Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker larval fish survey in the San Juan River during 2012. 2012 Draft Annual Report. American Southwest Ichthyological Researchers, Albuquerque, NM.

Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C.

Fenneman and Johnson. 1946. Physical Divisions of the United States: Washington, D.C., U.S. Geological Survey special map series, scale 1:7,000,000. Available at: http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getspatial?physio

Fitzgerald, J. P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado, Niwot.

Frankson, R., K. Kunkel, L. Stevens, and D. Easterling, 2017: Colorado State Climate Summary. NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 149-CO, 4 pp.

Furniss, M. and C. Howe. 2015. Regional-scale climate change vulnerability assessment for infrastructure in the national forests and grasslands of the Rocky Mountain Region: including roads, trails and recreational facilities. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Region. Lakewood, CO.

Furniss, M. J. and 17 co-authors. 2013. Assessing the vulnerability of watersheds to climate change: results of national forest watershed vulnerability pilot assessments. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-884. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr884.pdf.

Furniss, M. J. and 12 co-authors. 2010. Water, climate change and forests; watershed stewardship for a changing climate. UDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-812.

GEI Consultants. 2006. Kirkendall Dam and Hunter Reservoir enlargement, project 04295. Geotechnical Report submitted Ute Water Conservancy District.

Gordon, E. and D. Ojima, editors. 2015. Colorado climate change vulnerability study. A report submitted to the Colorado Energy Office. Western Water Assessment and Colorado State University. http://wwa.colorado.edu/publications/reports/co_vulnerability_report_2015_final.pdf

Greenhouse Gas Online. 2016. Methane Sources – Wetlands. http://www.ghgonline.org/methanewetland.htm.

Halofsky, J., D. Peterson, and K. Marcinkowski. 2015. Climate change adaptation in United States federal natural resource science and management agencies: a synthesis. US Global Change Research Program. http://www.globalchange.gov/sites/globalchange/files/ASIWG_Synthesis_4.28.15_final.pdf

Heidari, B. and L.C. Marr. 2015. Real-time emissions from construction equipment compared with model predictions. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 65:2, 115-125, DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2014.978485

http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getspatial?physio

http://wwa.colorado.edu/publications/reports/co_vulnerability_report_2015_final.pdf

http://www.ghgonline.org/methanewetland.htm

http://www.globalchange.gov/sites/globalchange/files/ASIWG_Synthesis_4.28.15_final.pdf


116

Henderson, R., J. L. Kershner, and C. A. Toline. 2000. Timing and location of spawning by nonnative wild rainbow trout and native cutthroat trout in the South Fork Snake River, Idaho, with implications for hybridization. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 20(3), 584-596.

Hirsch, C. L., M. R. Dare, and S. E. Albeke. 2013. Range-wide status of Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus): 2010. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Holden, P. B. (Ed.). 1999. Flow recommendations for the San Juan River. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2.

Holgerson, M.A. and P. A. Raymond. 2016. Large contribution to inland water CO2 and CH4 emissions from very small ponds. Nature Geoscience 9, 222-226, doi:10.1038/ngeo2654 http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v9/n3/full/ngeo2654.html

Howe, C., J. Almy, J., C. Speas, W. Young, and B. Stratton. 2011. Water vulnerability assessment pilot project: Case study: USDA Forest Service Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests, Delta, CO.

IUCN. 2011. Mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdii). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019-3. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 10 December 2019.

International Hydropower Association. 2010. GHG measurement guidelines for freshwater reservoirs. Derived from: The UNESCO/IHA Greenhouse Gas Emissions from freshwater reservoirs research project. Goldenfum, J. Ed. International Hydropower Association, London, United Kingdom. 154 p.

Johnston, B. C., B. T. Stratton, W. R. Young, L. L. Mattson, J. M. Almy, and G. T. Austin. 2012. Inventory of fens in a large landscape of west-central Colorado: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Report to Forest Supervisor, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests, Delta, Colorado.

Johnston, C.A. 1991. Sediment and nutrient retention by freshwater wetlands: Effects on surface water quality, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 21:5-6, 491-565.

Kelly, D. 2016. Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Small Lakes. http://www.lakescientist.com/greenhouse-gas-emissions-small-lakes/

Kingery, H. E. (ed.). 1998. Colorado breeding bird atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership. Denver, CO. 636 pp.

Kumar, A., T. Schei, A. Ahenkorah, R. Caceres Rodriguez, J.-M. Devernay, M. Freitas, D. Hall, A. Killingtveit, and Z. Liu. 2011. Hydropower. In IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation [O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlomer, and C. von Stechow (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srren/Chapter%205%20Hydropower.pdf

Lenat, D. R., and M. T. Barbour. 1994. Using benthic macroinvertebrate community structure for rapid, cost-effective, water quality monitoring: rapid bioassessment. Biological monitoring of aquatic systems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, 187-215.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v9/n3/full/ngeo2654.html

http://www.lakescientist.com/greenhouse-gas-emissions-small-lakes/

http://www.lakescientist.com/greenhouse-gas-emissions-small-lakes/

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srren/Chapter%205%20Hydropower.pdf


117

Lomolino, M. V. 2001. Elevation gradients of species-density: historical and prospective views. Global Ecology and Biogeography 10:3-13.

Lukas, J., J. Barsugli, N. Doesken, I. Rangwala, and K. Wolter. 2014. Climate change in Colorado: a synthesis to support water resources management and adaptation. Second Edition. University of Colorado Boulder. http://wwa.colorado.edu/climate/co2014report/Climate_Change_CO_Report_2014_FINAL.pdf

Lyon, J. 2017. Ute Water’s demand and yield analysis, raw water source alternatives study, April 2009. Memorandum to John Slown, Beth Anderson, and Matt Montgomery. December 20, 2017 56 pp.

Maeck, A., T. DelSontro, D. McGinnis, H. Fisher, S. Flury, M. Schmidt, P. Fietzek, and A. Lorke. 2013 Sediment trapping by dams creates methane emission hot spots. Environmental Science and Technology, 47:8130-8137. dx.doi.org/10.1021/es4003907.

McMillan, J. R., J. B. Dunham, G. H. Reeves, J. S. Mills, and C.E. Jordan. 2012. Individual condition and stream temperature influence early maturation of rainbow and steelhead trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 93(3), 343-355.

Miller, G.A., and Associates. 1997. Groundwater resources technical memorandum prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. This document is Part 5 of Volume 1 of the Technical Memoranda for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Plateau Creek Pipeline Replacement Project. This document is part of the project record.

Muhlfeld, C. C., T.E. McMahon, D. Belcer, and J. L. Kershner. 2009. Spatial and temporal spawning dynamics of native westslope cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi, introduced rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, and their hybrids. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 66(7), 1153-1168.

Murphy, D. 2009. Hydrologic/aquatic analysis Methodology and results for the proposed Hunter Reservoir and Monument &1 Reservoir enlargements and alternatives (unpublished report) 8pp.

National Academy of Sciences. 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. Report by the Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses. Available at: www.nap.edu/catalog.10134.html.

National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS). 1987. A joint effort of the U. S. Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. State Soil Geographic Data Base, Interim Report, August 22, 1997.

NWI (National Wetlands Inventory). 2020. CONUS Wetlands; Geodatabase Feature Class.US Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed on line 05-27-2020 at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/GIS-Tools-and-Resources.html .

NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer. An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1 NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed December 29, 2019).

Needham, P. R. and A. C. Jones. 1959. Flow, temperature, solar radiation, and ice in relation to activities of fishes in Sagehen Creek, California. Ecology 40:465-474.

http://wwa.colorado.edu/climate/co2014report/Climate_Change_CO_Report_2014_FINAL.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/GIS-Tools-and-Resources.html

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/GIS-Tools-and-Resources.html


118

Nichols, S. S., J. Thompson, and J. Wilkinson. 2008. The federal wetland permitting program: avoidance and minimization requirements. Environmental Law Institute, Washington D.C., USA.

NOAA Climate.gov https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/dataset/1981-2010-climate-normals-climographs)

NRCS National Climate and Weather Center, SNOTEL Data and Products http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snow/

Ogle, S. M., and 13 co-authors. 2014. Quantifying greenhouse gas sources and sinks in cropland and grazing land systems. Chapter 3 in Quantifying greenhouse gas fluxes in agriculture and forestry. Methods of entity-scale inventory. Technical Bulletin 1939, Office of the Chief Economist Climate Change Program Office. July 2014.

Page. L. M., and B. M. Burr. 2011. Peterson field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 663 pp.

Pearse and Associates. 1995. Ute Water service area domestic water demand projections. Technical memorandum prepared for the Ute Water Conservancy District. October 1995.

Ptacek, J.A., D.E. Rees, and W.J. Miller. 2005. Bluehead Sucker (Catostomus discobolus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/blueheadsucker.pdf [accessed on-line September 13, 2018].

Rangwalla, I. and R. Rondeau. 2014. Three climate scenarios for the Gunnison Basin Region by 2035.

Ray, A., J. Barsugli, K. Avery, K. Wolter, M. Hoerling, N. Doesken, B. Udall, and R. Webb. 2008. Climate change in Colorado: a synthesis to support water resources management and adaptation. A report by the Western Water Assessment for the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Western Water Assessment. http://wwa.colorado.edu/publications/reports/WWA_ClimateChangeColoradoReport_2008.pdf

Raymond, P., and 14 co-authors. 2013. Global carbon dioxide emissions from inland waters. Nature 503:355-359. DOI.10.1038/nature12760

Rees, D.E., J.A. Ptacek, R.J. Carr, and W.J. Miller. 2005a. Flannelmouth Sucker (Catostomus latipinnis): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/flannelmouthsucker.pdf [accessed on-line September 13, 2018].

Rees, D.E., J.A. Ptacek, and W.J. Miller. 2005b. Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta robusta): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/roundtailchub.pdf [accessed on-line September 13, 2018].

Resh, V. H., A. V. Brown, A. P. Covich, M. E. Gurtz, H. W. Li, G. W. Minshall, and R. C. Wissmar. 1988. The role of disturbance in stream ecology. Journal of the North American benthological society, 7(4), 433-455.

https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/dataset/1981-2010-climate-normals-climographs

https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/dataset/1981-2010-climate-normals-climographs

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snow/

http://wwa.colorado.edu/publications/reports/WWA_ClimateChangeColoradoReport_2008.pdf


119

Riehle, M. D. and J. S. Griffith. 1993. Changes in habitat use and feeding chronology of juvenile rainbow trout in fall and the onset of winter in Silver Creek, Idaho. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:2119-2128.

Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. E. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department of the Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service. U.S. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53. Missoula, Montana, USA, 142 pp.

Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, et al. technical editors. 2000. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Schmetterling, D. A. 2001. Seasonal movements of fluvial westslope cutthroat trout in the Blackfoot River drainage, Montana. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 21(3), 507-520.

Shenk, T. M. 2001. Post-release monitoring of lynx reintroduced to Colorado: annual progress report for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, December 2001. Colorado Division of Wildlife

Soule, J. M. 1988. OF-88-01 surficial-geologic and Landslide map of Vega Reservoir and vicinity, Mesa County, Colorado.” landslide, 1:24,000. Open file report. Denver. CO: Colorado Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources.

St Louis, V., C. Kelly, E. Duchemin, J. Rudd, D. Rosenberg. 2000. Reservoir surfaces as sources of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere: a global estimate. BioScience 50:766-775.

Turner, R. E., A. M. Redmond, and. B. Zedler. 2001. Count it by acre or function – mitigation adds up to net loss of wetlands. National Wetlands Newsletter 23:5-16.

URS. 2007. Technical memorandum, Big Park and East Leon Potential Dam Site Geotechnical Assessment, Site Visit Memo, November 8, 2007. Glenwood Springs, Colorado, USA.

URS. 2009. Raw water source alternatives study. Final report prepared for the Ute Water Conservancy District. April 2009.

URS. 2011. Technical memorandum, Monument No. 1 Potential Dam Site Geotechnical Assessment. Glenwood Springs, Colorado, USA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and Natural Resource Conservation Service. 1998. Soil Survey of Grand Mesa – West Elk Area, Colorado.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1991. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests; land and resources management plan. Delta, CO.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Landscape aesthetics a handbook for scenery management. Agriculture Handbook Number 701.


120

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. Environmental Assessment Grand Mesa travel management. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest, Delta, CO. 124pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. Decision notice and finding of no significant impact; Grand Mesa travel management. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest, Delta, CO. 14pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2005. Forest plan amendment 2005-1; management indicator species amendment. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest, Delta, CO: May 2005. 17pp.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2006). Watershed conservation practices handbook. Forest Service Handbook R-2 FSH 2509.25, 58 pp. Amendment No. 2509.25-2006-1, approved April 20, 2006. Denver, CO: Rocky Mountain Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007. Hunter Reservoir Enlargement. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. June 2007.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2012a. Cultural resource inventory and site evaluations; the proposed expansions of Monument No.1 and Hunter Reservoirs. Grand Mesa National Forest, Mesa County, CO: GMUG Report No. R2012 020408 180, prepared by Elizabeth Lane, Zone Archaeologist, Grand Valley and Paonia Ranger Districts, December 5, 2012. 30 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2012b. National Best Management Practices for water quality management on National Forest system lands. Vol. 1: National core BMP technical guide. FS-990a, April 2012. 165 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014. Cochetopa hills vegetation management project; environmental assessment, Saguache County, Colorado. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests, Gunnison Ranger District, Gunnison, CO. 184 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2016. Hunter Reservoir enlargement supplemental draft environmental impact statement biological evaluation. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests; Grand Valley Ranger District, Collbran, CO: 34pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2016. Spruce beetle epidemic, aspen decline management response; Final Environmental Impact Statement. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest, Delta, CO. 856pp.

U.S. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Hunter Reservoir enlargement project alternatives screening analysis; final technical report. July 2012.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Plateau Creek pipeline replacement project. Final environmental impact statement. February 1998.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 2015. Grand Junction Field Office resource management plan. Available online at https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage&currentPageId=74172. Accessed May 20, 2017.

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage&currentPageId=74172




121

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Final Programmatic Biological Opinion for Bureau of Reclamation’s operations and depletions, other depletions, and funding and implementation of recovery program actions in the upper Colorado River above the confluence with the Gunnison River. Mountain-Prairie Region, Denver, December: 9pp.

USFWS. 2009. Final Gunnison River Basin programmatic biological opinion. Ecological Services, Colorado Field Office. Denver, December 4: 123pp.

U.S. Department of Interior, US Geologic Survey. 2016. Ecology of greenhouse gas emissions from coastal wetlands. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/wetland-and-aquatic-research-center/science/ecology-greenhouse-gas-emissions-coastal?qt-science_center_objects=1#qt-science_center_objects.

U.S. Department of Interior. 2017. M-37050; the migratory bird treaty act does not prohibit incidental take. Principal Deputy Solicitor’s Memorandum, December 22: 41pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Climate change vulnerability assessments: four case studies of water utility practices. Global Change Research Program, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-10/077F. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. National Water Program 2012 strategy: response to climate change. Available at www.epa.gov/water/climatechange.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Causes of climate change. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Overview of Greenhouse Gases; Methane Emissions. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html.

U.S. Geologic Survey: Stream Stats (2017). StreamStats: streamflow statistics and spatial analysis tools for water-resources applications. https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/streamstats-streamflow-statistics-and-spatial-analysis-tools?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects

Ute Water. 2008. Memorandum from Ed Tolen to U.S. Forest Service. Response to data needs request for Hunter Reservoir environmental Impact statement. Ute Water Conservancy District. September 26, 2008. Grand Junction, Colorado.

Ute Water. 2019. Ute Water Conservancy District webpage. Accessed online at https://www.utewater.org/, 2/27/2019.

Wallace, J. B. 1990. Recovery of lotic macroinvertebrate communities from disturbance. Environmental Management, 14(5), 605-620.

Western Slope Paleontological Services. 2014. Paleontological resource survey report for the Ute Water Conservancy District Monument Reservoir No. 1 Expansion Project in Mesa County, Colorado. Declaration of Positive Findings. WSP Project #2014-02. August 19, 2014.

Wheaton J.M., Bennett S.N., Bouwes, N., Maestas J.D. and Shahverdian S.M. (Editors) 2019. Low-tech process based restoration of riverscapes: design manual. Version 1.0. Utah State University Restoration Consortium. Logan, UT.

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/wetland-and-aquatic-research-center/science/ecology-greenhouse-gas-emissions-coastal?qt-science_center_objects=1#qt-science_center_objects



http://www.epa.gov/ncea

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html

https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/streamstats-streamflow-statistics-and-spatial-analysis-tools?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects



https://www.utewater.org/


122

Williams, M. W., E. Hood, N. P. Molotch, N. Caine, R. Cowie, and F. Liu. 2015. The ‘teflon basin’ myth: hydrology and hydrochemistry of a seasonally snow-covered catchment, Plant Ecology & Diversity, 8:5-6, 639-661, DOI: 10.1080/17550874.2015.1123318

Wohl, E. E., and D. A Cenderelli. 2000. Sediment deposition and transport patterns following a reservoir sediment release. Water Resources Research, 36(1), 319-333.

Yeend, W. E. 1969. Quaternary geology of the Grand and Battlement Mesa area, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 617, 50 p., Golden, Colorado, USA.

Zuellig, R.F., B.C. Kondratieff, and H.A. Rhodes. 2002. Benthos recovery after an episodic sediment release into a Colorado rocky mountain river. Western North American Naturalist 62(1), pp. 59-72.


123

Chapter 5. Preparers and Contributors The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, federal, state, and local agencies, tribes and other organization and individuals during the development of this environmental impact statement:

Interdisciplinary Team Members Matthew Dare, Forest Fisheries Biologist, Project Manager, GMUG Beth Anderson, Soil and Water Program Lead, GMUG William Edwards, Grand Valley Ranger District Ranger Jonathan Hare, Realty Specialist, Grand Valley Ranger District, GMUG Catherine Freels, District Archaeologist, Grand Valley Ranger District, GMUG Eric Freels, District Wildlife Biologist, Grand Valley Ranger District, GMUG Monica Klingler, Rangeland Management Specialist, Grand Valley Ranger District, GMUG Christie LaDue, District Timber Specialist, Grand Valley Ranger District, GMUG Doug Marah, Civil Engineering Technician, GMUG Eric Moser, Hydrologist, U.S. Forest Service, Washington Office, Enterprise Program Loren Paulson, District Recreation Specialist, Grand Valley Ranger District, GMUG Raymond Rivera, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Forest Service, Washington Office, Enterprise Program John Slown, Biologist/Planner, U.S. Forest Service, Washington Office, Enterprise Program Mike Surber, District Rangeland Management Specialist, Grand Valley Ranger District, GMUG Niccole Mortenson, Forest National Environmental Policy Act Specialist, GMUG Bruce Schumacher, Paleontologist, Minerals and Geology Management, U.S. Forest Service Washington Office Nick Szuch, Realty Specialist, Forest Lands Program Manager, GMUG

Federal, State, and Local Agencies U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Tribes Ute Indian Tribe

Others Wetlands specialists consulted for this project:

Dr. David Cooper, Colorado State University.

Gay Austin, US Bureau of Land Management

Heather Thompson, Ecological Resource Consultants, Inc.


125

Chapter 6. Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement This EIS would be distributed to individuals who specifically requested a copy of the document or to those who submitted substantive comments during scoping or during the comment period on the Draft EIS and to required and cooperative agencies and tribes, state and local governments and water user groups. It would be posted to the Forest Service’s public website for environmental analyses on the GMUG and listed on the Forest Service’ Schedule of Proposed Actions.


127

Appendix A Hunter – Monument Reservoir No. 1 Enlargement Project Response to Comments on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS)

Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1. The EPA’s primary concerns with this project focus on avoiding, minimizing and mitigating impacts

to aquatic resources while meeting the project need. With this DSEIS, the Forest Service has selected a Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) that reduces the impact to wetlands by 13.4 acres compared to Alternative 1 [note: wetland acreage shown in comments of this appendix reflects earlier analysis presented in the 2017 SDEIS].

Response: We, the Forest Service, developed Alternative 2, the Forest Service’s preferred alternative in the DSEIS, largely to address EPA’s and the Corps’ concerns regarding the wetlands impact proposed in the earlier Draft EIS. The current Proposed Action of enlarging Monument Reservoir No. 1 to a capacity of 5,268 acre-feet would further reduce the wetlands impact of the project to 29.3 acres, or a decrease of 4.2 acres from the DSEIS preferred alternative and a decrease of 16.6 acres from Alternative 1 of the DSEIS.

2. By identifying a preferred alternative that avoids impacts to the Hunter Reservoir fen wetland complex, the Forest Service has addressed EPA’s principal concern expressed in both its 2007 Draft EIS comments and its 2016 DSEIS scoping letter. Most importantly, selecting an alternative that excludes Hunter Reservoir in the Record of Decision (ROD) would resolve the EPA’s “EU-3” rating [a rating of “Environmentally Unsatisfactory Inadequate Information”] on the original Draft EIS.”

Response: The Forest Service acknowledges the comment.

3. Alternative 1 would still result in significant impacts to aquatic resources including the loss of 33.5 wetland acres. We have encountered very few Clean Water Act section 404 permits in Colorado that propose that magnitude of wetland loss. Our enclosed detailed comments therefore encourage the Forest Service and the applicant to continue to explore opportunities to reduce and mitigate Alternative 2’s impacts to aquatic resources between now and the Final EIS.

Response: To clarify, the 33.5-acre wetland inundation would occur with the DSEIS preferred alternative, Alternative 2. The new proposed alternative of the FEIS would result in the loss of 29.3 acres of wetland. The Forest Service recognizes that is a large wetlands impact. Ute Water and the Forest Service have analyzed alternatives to reservoir storage (see FEIS, pp 20-37) and actually only propose achieving about 18 percent of the minimum worst-case scenario system capacity through reservoir storage. We also considered multiple alternatives of reservoir development to obtain the water capacity Ute Water projects it would need to serve its future customer base (see FEIS, pp 14-16). After conducting these alternative analyses, we are confident that the wetlands impacts proposed are the minimum feasible. Conceptual plans for mitigation of these unavoidable impacts to wetlands are presented in the FEIS, see pages 51-56. The draft wetland mitigation plan as negotiated between Ute Water and the Corps is attached as Appendix E. A final mitigation plan will be available prior to the start of project implementation, pending negotiations between Ute Water and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.


128

4. The EPA is rating the Draft EIS as Environmental Concerns - Insufficient Information (EC-2). The “EC” rating indicates that the EPA review has identified environmental impacts that need to be avoided to fully protect the environment. The “2” rating indicates that the EPA has identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussion as outlined in the detailed comments that we recommend for inclusion in the Final EIS.

Response: We have addressed the Environmental Concerns component of the EPA’s rating, which addresses a need to environmental impacts. In this case the impacts were inundation and fill of fens, a rare wetland type. We addressed these impacts by removing Hunter Monument enlargement from the project. The current configuration would not adversely affect any fen wetlands. The additional information that EPA requested updated environmental baseline information and additional detail regarding water quality, hydrology, and stream conditions. We have addressed this comment by updating the existing conditions sections for Water Resources (beginning on page 40), Wetlands (page 49), Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species (pages 56, 57, 62 and 64), and Terrestrial Wildlife (page 78) in the FEIS.

5. [The EPA] encourage[s] Ute Water and the Forest Service to continue to seek opportunities to reduce impacts to aquatic resources through the NEPA public comment process and during the Clean Water Act section 404 permitting process. We understand that alternatives that had been initially considered and then eliminated from further study have subsequently been implemented by Ute Water without triggering the need for additional NEPA analysis in some instances. Examples include water leasing from the Bureau of Reclamation at Ruedi Reservoir, expansion of Jerry Creek Reservoir No. 2, and the use of blended Colorado River water as additional water supply. We encourage the continued exploration of additional water supplies or conservation opportunities that could reduce the need for the full expansion of the Monument Reservoir No. 1 footprint and its associated wetland impacts.

Response: In cooperation with the Forest Service, Ute Water has thoroughly analyzed alternative sources of additional water capacity. The firm yield shortfall that the proposed expansion of Monument Reservoir No. 1 would address is the remaining shortfall after alternatives cited in the comment letter have been implemented. An exhaustive analysis of practicable alternatives conducted by Ute Water is appended to the FEIS as Appendix B and is also described at pages 34 - 37 of the FEIS.

6. The EPA recommends the wetland mitigation credits associated with the realignment of NFS Road 280 be reevaluated with assistance from the Corps and updated in the Final EIS. The EPA supports relocating this route and retaining this mitigation measure to help offset the wetland, water quality and habitat impacts associated with construction and operation of the project. We support the Forest Service and Ute Water in their commitment to fully mitigate the wetland impacts of this project, and we offer our assistance in working through the permitting process.

Response: We have reevaluated the mitigation credits associated with relocation of NFS Road 280, and no longer consider the road and trail work to be a major component of wetlands impact mitigation. Conceptual plans for mitigation of unavoidable impacts to wetlands are presented in the FEIS, see pages 51 - 56. The draft wetland mitigation plan as negotiated between Ute Water and the Corps is attached as Appendix E.

7. The Clean Water Act section 404 permitting process would require more information on aquatic resource mitigation than that provided in the DSEIS. If additional information about wetlands mitigation is included in the Final EIS, permitting of this project may be more efficient than if the information is not included in the Final EIS. We recommend including a description of the type, location, and acreage of proposed wetland mitigation, as well as planting densities, hydrology manipulation, and performance standards. We also recommend the Final EIS indicate that


129

unavoidable wetlands impacts would be compensated per the mitigation requirements found both in the section 404(b)(l) guidelines Part 230.10(d) and 2008 Mitigation Rule (40 CFR §230.91 Subpart J - Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources).

Response: Conceptual plans for mitigation of unavoidable impacts to wetlands are presented in the FEIS, see pages 51 - 56. The draft wetland mitigation plan as negotiated between Ute Water and the Corps is attached as Appendix E.

8. In 2012, the Corps did not identify the expansion of Hunter Reservoir as the preliminary least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) due to the availability of Monument Reservoir No. 1 (DSEIS p. 10), and therefore the Corps would not likely be able to permit Alternative 1 under Clean Water Act section 404, and the 404(b)(1) guidelines.

Response: We agree that Alternative 1, as proposed, has greater environmental impact than Alternative 2. This is the primary reason that Alternative 2 is the Forest Service’s preferred alternative in the DSEIS, and that a more aggressive approach to limiting reservoir enlargement has been embraced in the new proposed alternative of the FEIS.

9. Fens are, for all practical purposes, non-renewable and irreplaceable and attempts to mitigate these ecosystems would be extremely challenging once function has been impaired. Therefore, in accordance with the goal of no overall net loss of the nation’s remaining wetland base for the Clean Water Act section 404 regulatory program, we strongly support the Forest Service’s efforts to avoid both direct and indirect impacts to these highly valued resources.

Response: The comment is noted. Our Proposed Action would avoid impacts to fens, and Ute Water’s draft wetland mitigation plan includes restoration of fens inundated by prior reservoir development.

10. It might be useful to consider whether there have been any events in the project area since 2007 that could have affected water quality, hydrology, stream bank conditions or water temperatures such as changes in land use, fires, or loss of tree cover due to bark beetles. If such changes have not occurred, it may be reasonable to assume that water resource conditions remain similar to those described in the 2007 document.

Response: Review of conditions documented by the recent Spruce Beetle, Aspen Decline Management Response EIS, a forest-wide management analysis, indicates little change in water resource from those described in the 2007 draft EIS.

Comments from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 11. Both Ute Water’s proposed alternative (Alternative 1), as well as the Forest Service agency preferred

alternative (Alternative 2), would result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, 46.9 acres and 33.5 acres of wetlands respectively, and require Department of the Army authorization prior to starting work.

Response: In discussions with Ute Water, the project proponent, the Forest Service has stressed the need to reduce overall impacts to wetlands. Since publication of the DSEIS in June 2017, Ute has identified additional alternative sources of firm yield, and has agreed to reduce to the overall reservoir storage target for an enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1 at approximately 5,268 acre-feet. This smaller reservoir would reduce total wetlands fill or inundation to approximately 29.3 acres. The Forest Service and Ute Water are aware of the need to obtain a section 404 permit from the Corps prior to starting any work on the project analyzed in the FEIS.


130

A revised Proposed Action for the project that describes the smaller proposed reservoir enlargement was provided to the project review team (Army Corps, US EPA, CPW, Ute Water and Forest Service) on October 17, 2018.

12. Clean Water Act section 404 (b)(1) guidelines specifically require that a permit cannot be issued if a practicable alternative exists that would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem. Practicable alternatives are presumed to exist. It is the applicant’s responsibility to clearly demonstrate to the Corps that the presumption of a less damaging alternative does not exist. All practicable alternatives must be fully evaluated, and the Corps is required to select the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA), regardless of how attractive compensatory mitigation proposals may be to a project.

Response: The Forest Service has updated the Hunter Reservoir Enlargement Project Alternatives Screening Analysis; Final Technical Report, prepared for the Corps by WestWater Engineering in 2012 (U.S. Department of the Army 2012) to reflect the revised Proposed Action. During a regularly scheduled review team conference call on January 16, 2018, the Corps agreed that the revised 404(b) analysis need not look beyond the geographic area and alternatives (revised to meet new purpose and need) analyzed in the 2012 Technical Report. The Forest Service agreed to also consider combining smaller reservoir alternatives that were screened out as too small. On a regularly scheduled review team conference call of July 17, 2018, the Corps tentatively approved the approach and content of revised LEDPA Analysis. It had been released to the review team in updated form on July 12, 2018.

13. Since 2012, the project purpose, proposed impacts, and range of alternatives have changed. Use of the same criteria utilized in the 2012 final technical report to screen alternatives for an increased need is no longer ripe or valid. The record must contain sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed discharge complies with the requirements of the 404(b)(1) guidelines. The amount of information needed to make such a determination and the level of scrutiny required by the guidelines is commensurate with the severity of the environmental impact and the scope of the project. Non-water-dependent activities that would impact special aquatic sites are subject to a more rigorous level of the 404(b)(1) guidelines alternatives analysis.

Response: See the response to comment number 12 above. The LEDPA screening analysis has been rewritten to accurately address the current Proposed Action and project purpose.

14. The Corps believes that the depth and scope of the alternatives currently proposed, to include the evaluation of the physical, chemical, biological and human use characteristics, are inadequate to determine the LEDPA.

Response: See response to comments number 12 and 13, above.

15. While the DSEIS states that the Corps’ 2012 final technical report identified Monument Reservoir No. 1 as the LEDPA, this is inaccurate. The alternative was neither determined to be the LEDPA nor the “pre-LEDPA,” but was determined to be a less damaging alternative to the Hunter expansion. The conclusion in that document (page 25) was that Monument Reservoir No. 1 was a practicable and available alternative with less aquatic resource impacts than expanding Hunter; 19.7 acres of wetland impact compared to 32 acres. This is an important distinction. We ask that this be clarified in the Final EIS.

Response: The FEIS no longer identifies the proposed action at eh LEDPA. Rather it describes the analysis used to screen potential water supply alternatives as practicable under the definition at Clean Water Act, Section 404 (b) (1) , and shows that the proposed enlargement of Monument


131

Reservoir is the only alternative that is both practicable and would meet the project purpose and need (see FEIS, pages 34 - 37 and Appendix B).

16. Supporting documentation used to demonstrate that practicable alternatives have been identified and screened should be sufficiently robust to rebut the presumption that a less damaging alternative does exist.

Response: A more complete description of the screening of alternatives has been completed as an update to the 2012 Technical Report. This screening is the Section 404 (b)(1) process described in the FEIS on pages 34 - 37, and attached to the SFEIS as Appendix B.

17. The Corps again recommends considering a combination of alternatives that could together serve to meet the underlying revised project purpose, and together may reflect a practicable alternative that is potentially less damaging than a single alternative or location.

Response: Ute Water has aggressively sought and acquired additional sources of firm yield capacity to meet the projected shortfall. These alternatives to additional reservoir storage in the Plateau Creek watershed include increasing the capacity of Ute’s Colorado River pumping station to produce the maximum increase to firm yield compatible with water quality constraints, purchasing additional water rights and storage capacity at Ruedi Reservoir, and obtaining rights for multiple fills of the Jerry Creek Reservoirs within a single water year. Obtaining these additional sources of firm yield allowed achievement of Ute’s goal of 2045 capacity with enlargement of Monument Reservoir to approximately 5,300 acre-feet capacity.

18. Some alternatives in the DSEIS were sized much larger than the need, such as Buzzard Creek Reservoir (16,800 acre-feet), Atwell Gulch (19,400 acre-feet), and Owens Reservoir (22,000 acre-feet), and were then eliminated due to being characterized as speculative. These alternatives are dismissed in the DSEIS without sufficient analysis. These alternatives should be re-sized appropriately, limited to meet the project purpose, and reconsidered individually or in combination.

Response: Each of those alternatives was resized to approximately 5,300-acre-foot capacity (the target yield gain) and evaluated in the revised screening analysis attached to the FEIS as Appendix B.

19. The fact that an applicant does not own an alternative parcel does not preclude that parcel from being considered as a practicable alternative. Additionally, limiting the range of alternatives to the Plateau Creek drainage and tied to the Plateau Creek Pipeline artificially constrains the purpose statement. An adequate range of alternatives should consider all practicable alternatives, or a combination of alternatives, that would meet Ute Water’s project need. This would include acquisition of water rights and storage in existing reservoirs, rather than these alternatives being dismissed based on uncertainty. The level of documentation required to demonstrate an alternative is not practicable is rigorously high when impacts of this level are proposed.

Response: Alternatives considered, and indeed incorporated in the Proposed Action, encompass actions outside of the Plateau Creek drainage. These include increasing Colorado River pumping capacity and increased storage at Ruedi Reservoir. The proposed reservoir storage capacity to be developed in the Proposed Action represents only that fraction of the overall capacity increase needed that cannot be realized through other alternatives. Limiting analysis of reservoir storage to the Plateau Creek drainage is consistent with regional water planning actions going back to 1998. Analysis of the alternatives analyzed in the 2012 Technical Report is also consistent with an oral agreement between the Corps and GMUG reached on the team conference call of January 16, 2018. No alternative parcels were dismissed because they were not owned by Ute Water or


132

administered by the Forest Service. Several alternative reservoir sites outside of such ownership or jurisdiction were evaluated.

20. The approach taken to rank categories of alternatives (DSEIS page 46) is an inaccurate and problematic interpretation of 40 CFR §230.7. Each practicable alternative that meets the project purpose should be evaluated individually. Without individual analysis, statements that enlarging an existing reservoir is less damaging than, and is preferred over, new reservoir construction are unsupported.

Response: Agreed that the approach taken in the DSEIS was over-simplified. That said, the current screening analysis (update of the 2012 Technical Report) shows that enlargement of Hunter Reservoir or Monument Reservoir No. 1 are the only feasible alternatives that are available and capable of being done. The process used to make this determination is summarized on pages 34 - 37 of the FEIS, and presented in full at Appendix B. As the Hunter Reservoir enlargement would be unacceptable to the EPA and Corps due to loss of a fen and much greater direct impacts to wetlands in general than the Monument Reservoir No. 1 enlargement, the ranking of alternatives is straight-forward.

21. Fen wetland ecosystems are, for all practical purposes, non-renewable and irreplaceable given they often take thousands of years to develop.

Response: The comment is noted. For this reason, the Forest Service and Ute have abandoned the alternative that would enlarge Hunter Reservoir. No fens would be affected by the proposed enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1.

22. The 404(b)(1) guidelines have a prescribed sequence of first impact avoidance, followed by impact minimization, with compensation for any remaining unavoidable impacts considered last. It is currently unclear whether the DSEIS adequately addresses this prescribed sequence given these requirements to fully consider and assess avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands. As stated throughout these comments, the guidelines specifically require that a permit cannot be issued if a practicable alternative exists that would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem.

Response: Ute Water and the Forest Service followed the sequence of avoiding, minimizing and then proposing mitigation for only those impacts to aquatic resources that proved unavoidable. The screening process described on pages 33 - 37 of the FEIS addressed this sequence. The screen looked at alternatives for providing the necessary firm yield that avoided wetlands. These included mixing additional Colorado River into their supply, developing groundwater sources, and purchasing additional storage at existing reservoirs. These alternatives reduced but did not eliminate the firm yield shortfall. The Monument Reservoir No. 1 expansion would impact a smaller area of wetlands than any other alternative (enlargement of Hunter Reservoir was eliminated from consideration due to its larger impact to wetlands). This is minimization. Finally, Ute Water proposes to restore and enhance wetlands at Monument Reservoir No. 2 and Cold Sore Reservoir to provide mitigation of the project wetlands impacts (see pages 51 - 56 of the FEIS and Appendix E).

23. The statements in the section Wetlands - Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects (DSEIS page 101) that compensatory mitigation, as required by the Clean Water Act, would be in the amounts of 5.6 acres for Alternative 1 and 12.2 acres for Alternative 2 is a mischaracterization of both impacts and compensatory mitigation under the Clean Water Act. Impacts from Alternative 1 and 2 are 46.9 acres and 33.5 acres respectively. Wetland restoration through activities such as road improvements cannot be used to “buy down” impacts and associated compensatory mitigation. With respect to the Clean Water Act, we ask that this be clarified in the Final EIS.


133

Response: As we discussed at the initial project review team meeting at the Corps’ office in Grand Junction, Colorado, on December 4, 2017, the Forest Service agrees that the approach to mitigation presented in DSEIS is flawed. The Forest Service recognizes that enhancement of wetland or riparian function due to road improvements at one location does not eliminate impacts to wetlands occurring elsewhere in the project area. Ute Water and the Forest Service have worked together with the Corps to identify opportunities for compensatory wetlands mitigation through restoration or creation of wetlands in the upper Plateau Creek drainage during section 404 permit negotiations. See Appendix E for the currently proposed draft wetland mitigation plan.

24. The following issue arose during the scheduled project review team conference call on July 16, 2018 and evolved during subsequent discussions among the Colorado Department of Parks Wildlife, the Corps, Ute Water, and the Forest Service. Both the Corps and the CPW request that Ute Water provide additional modeling and hydrographs showing flow in Monument Creek below the Monument Reservoir No. 1 dam, both as existing and with operation of the proposed enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1. The Forest Service should then use the resulting hydrology to model the aquatic impacts of changed flows.

Response: Ute Water contracted with Ecological Resources Consultants, Inc., to refine their earlier firm yield modeling to include hydrographs for reservoir operations under modeled conditions. This was later refined to include a baseline hydrograph plus three operational scenarios, in each of which storage in the enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1 is reserved for use during drought. Under Scenario A, Monument Reservoir No. 1 is drawn down once in response to drought during the modeled time period and is drawn prior to full depletion of the Jerry Creek reservoirs. Under Scenario B, Monument Reservoir is again drawn down once in response to drought during the modeled time period, and is the last reserve used during drought (drawn down only after full depletion of the Jerry Creek reservoirs). Under Scenario C, Monument Reservoir No. 1 is drawn down prior to the full depletion of the Jerry Creek reservoirs and a second draw down release is also taken from Monument Reservoir during a second dry period.

Although these scenarios were modeled at the request of CPW only Scenario A was used by the Forest Service to conduct aquatic environmental impact analyses of the effects of the changes in flow from baseline. Scenario A was used as it provide the worst-case scenario regarding changes in flow below the enlarged dam.

Comments from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), Department of Natural Resources

General Comments: 25. CPW also recommends that the Forest Service acknowledge the potential for a federal- and state

listed Threatened species, the greenback cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki stomias) to be present in Hunter Reservoir, as well as the East Leon Creek drainage within the DSEIS. Several sections within the DSEIS should be updated to reflect the new information provided based upon genetic analyses (“A Genetic Status of the Coon Creek and Hunter Reservoir Cutthroat Trout Populations,” R.P. Evans and D. K. Shiozawa, December 2009; “Seven Lakes and the Pike’s Peak native [PPN]: history and current disposition of a critical cutthroat trout brood stock,” K.B. Rogers and C.M. Kennedy, June 2008). CPW understands that the Forest Service has requested a Biological Opinion (BiOp) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) related to the presence of greenback cutthroat trout lineage fish within the East Leon Creek drainage. The CPW further requests the DSEIS be updated to reflect or reference the information provided within the BiOp.


134

Response: The currently Proposed Action, enlarging Monument Reservoir No. 1, would not affect Hunter Reservoir or the East Leon Creek drainage. The affected streams, Monument Creek and Leon Creek below its confluence with Monument Creek, and potential project effects to greenback cutthroat trout in these streams are discussed in the FEIS at pages 62 - 64.

26. The Chapter 2 title “Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action”, the “Proposed Action” is never clearly identified. CPW infers it to be ‘Alternative 1’ since it includes all elements described in Table 2 (p. 22), but this is never overtly stated. If this is true, then the “Proposed Action” and the “agency preferred action” (Alternative 2) are different, which is also not clear.

Response: The currently Proposed Action is described on pages 20 - 34 of the FEIS. The FEIS analyzes only the Proposed Action and taking no action.

27. At times it appears the “existing conditions” subsections of Chapter 3 make inferences about project impacts. These subsections should be reviewed and all conclusions about project impacts should be moved to the “environmental consequences” subsection. (ex: pg. 51 “There is no evidence current water uses affect mottled sculpin and changes to reservoir operations included in the Proposed Action are unlikely to affect this species.“)

Response: We reviewed the FEIS text to remove any conclusions about project impacts from the “existing conditions” subsections of Chapter 3.

28. The intent of the project is unclear. In some locations it appears the project would only be relied on for drought storage, in other locations the language indicates that, at some point in the future, the reservoir expansion(s) may be used for yearly operational storage. The intent of the project should be clarified, and all impacts should be assessed based on the long-term intended use of the reservoir(s).

Response: We regret this lack of clarity in the DSEIS. The project purpose has only been to create additional reservoir storage capacity for use during drought conditions. We clarified the text of the project purpose and need (SFEIS, pages 1 - 6) to better reflect this.

29. It does not appear that this project includes a water quality analysis. What would be the impacts to water quality from this Proposed Action? Is such analysis anticipated prior to the Final EIS?

Response: Yes, we have analyzed the project water quality impacts, see FEIS, pages 47 - 48.

30. The project description should clarify if the construction route would involve trucks crossing the Vega Reservoir dam. Additional construction access restrictions may be needed should the route cross Vega dam, and potentially impact operations and public use of CPW’s Vega State Park.

Response: The use of existing public roads for construction access is consistent with ongoing practices. Ute Water would enter into a license agreement with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to provide mitigation of project impacts to Vega Dam and Vega State Park (see FEIS, pages 69 - 70).

31. It is somewhat difficult to determine exactly what mitigation is being proposed - are project impacts offset by project benefits, and imbedded within an alternative, or would a mitigation plan specific to the project be crafted from the elements described in some of the Appendices and in the document? Distinctions between a mitigation plan (if developed), and what is part of the Proposed Action needs to be made clearer. It does not appear that a mitigation plan or state position under CRS 37-60-122.2 has been proposed as mitigation or incorporated into a preferred alternative. There are mitigation elements described within this document that could (or should) be packaged into a clear mitigation plan. Otherwise the Record of Decision for this project should clearly describe the specific measures intended to mitigate impacts. The elements necessary to provide overall benefits to wetlands, and


135

aquatic and terrestrial habitats are described in the DSEIS or in the Appendices (particularly Appendix B), but these need to be crafted into something more cohesive and linked to a Proposed Action.

Response: Mitigation of adverse impacts to fish and aquatic species (page 66) and terrestrial wildlife (page 85) is discussed in the FEIS. The Record of Decision identifies impact of the Proposed Action and references the draft mitigation plan in Appendix E. The Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan between CPW and Ute Water has not been finalized. Completing this agreement will be a condition of Ute Water’s Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.

General CPW comments regarding terrestrial species: 32. Note that Hunter Reservoir is in black bear summer concentration habitat, mule deer summer range as

mapped by CPWs species activities mapping; there should be strict guidelines to prevent conflicts with bears.

Response: Comment is no longer germane to the Proposed Action, as no development or other disturbance of Hunter Reservoir is proposed.

33. CPW also has concern about recent declines in elk calf: cow ratios on the Grand Mesa and summer activity may exacerbate any issues influencing the declines. Activity should be confined to as small an area as possible and signage and education about not disturbing baby animals (or any animals) should be implemented. Signage should also include no hunting, no firearms, no harassing wildlife, etc. If possible, the road should be closed to all traffic aside from necessary vehicles.

Response: Where the project haul road parallels an elk calving area, we have negotiated a road closure agreement in late spring and early summer to limit impacts to elk production (see page 85 in the FEIS). This was CPW’s suggested solution to the impacts of project construction.

34. There is high potential for increased public traffic if the road is improved and it would be best to minimize that during summer months when calves and fawns are younger and in need of more solitude.

Response: See response to prior comment.

35. Material hauling and truck trips - This amount of traffic over a 9-year period would result in indirect impact to wildlife species. Indirect impacts have not been addressed in the DSEIS; given that the construction phase of the project is proposed to last seven to nine years the continuous activities would result in indirect impact to wildlife species which should be identified in the DSEIS.

Response: Since changing the Proposed Action to enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 only, we anticipate a construction phase of 3 to 5 years. A discussion of indirect impacts to wildlife species from construction phase disturbance appears at pages 81 - 85 in the FEIS. These include avoidance of areas near the dam site and access roads due to greatly increased noise and activity in these areas, reduction in habitat for terrestrial species due to the increased foot print of Monument Reservoir No. 1, and impacts to aquatic habitat due to changes in flow in Monument Creek with reservoir enlargement and operation.

36. The area is mapped as lynx habitat; the EIS should consider whether there are statewide/federal guidelines about the mitigation for those habitats. Is the trail relocation consistent with the Lynx plan?

Response: We discuss impacts to Canada lynx at pages 82 - 84 in the FEIS. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with our determination that the Proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx.


136

37. The DSEIS does mention avian, terrestrial, and aquatic wildlife species; however, the document does not include some specific habitat impacts that need to be reviewed and included in the document.

Response: The Forest Service has discussed habitat impacts with CPW to flesh out this comment. We have addressed additional specific habitat impact concerns including disruption of an elk calving area by increased traffic, impacts to aquatic wildlife from changes in stream flow, and potential for greater over-winter fish survival in the enlarged reservoir. See pages 56 - 66 (aquatics) and 81 - 85 (terrestrial) in the FEIS.

Specific CPW Comments - by Page Number 38. Page 13: Under Alternative 1, Ute Water has proposed a 0.5 cubic feet per second release from Hunter

Reservoir during wintertime to improve habitat conditions in East Leon Creek and Leon Creek. What time frame is considered the “wintertime?” Please clarify how was 0.5 cubic feet per second determined as the appropriate stream flow rate to improve habitat conditions in these creeks.

Response: We no longer propose to consider enlarging Hunter Reservoir. In response to discussions with the Corps and CPW, Ute Water obtained hydrological modeling of Monument Creek under current conditions and with an Enlarged Monument Reservoir operating under three scenarios. The Forest Service used this information to analyze aquatic impacts of reservoir operation. For discussion of current operations plans, including winter releases, see pages 28 - 31 and Appendix D in the FEIS.

39. Page 23: Road Improvements – Any creek crossings associated with NFS Roads 262 and 280 should be reconsidered with culverts. Depending on location, culverts may be designed for aquatic organism passage or may not – depending upon the specific circumstances. Would NFS Roads 262 and 280 be actively maintained (as needed) by the Forest Service once they are improved? Further, BMPs to eliminate increased sedimentation and runoff to streams and wetlands should be followed and monitored during all road and trail improvement activities.

Response: NFS Road 280 is no longer a component of the project implementation, as we are not doing any work at Hunter Reservoir. We would commit to using upgraded culverts of creek crossing by the NRS Road 262 for the duration of the construction project. The road would be maintained appropriately by the Forest Service and BMPs would be implemented during all road improvements. See pages 71 - 74 of the FEIS for a discussion of road improvements and maintenance.

40. Page 30: Dam Construction - All equipment brought on site for this project should be inspected visually for aquatic invasive species and disinfected per CPW recommended procedures. BMPs to eliminate increased sedimentation and runoff to both reservoirs should be followed and monitored during all construction activities.

Response: Construction contracts would include inspection and disinfection of equipment being brought on site. BMPs for sediment control would be implemented.

41. Page 29-30: Workers Camp - CPW supports the use of a workers camp; however, we recommend that the following restrictions be placed on work staff living or visiting the camp: 1) no pets be allowed, 2) no firearms be allowed, 3) all trash and food be stored in a bear proof container, 4) no bbq grills or outdoor cooking be permitted, 5) all encounters with bears be reported to CPW immediately.

Response: The Forest Service and CPW have negotiated acceptable restrictions for the workers’ camp. See page 25 in the FEIS.


137

42. Page 31: Construction and Fill - The construction would require extensive heavy truck traffic; the DSEIS does not include discussion of a spill response plan. One should be developed and implemented for the project for both reservoirs. Spill response kits should be strategically placed for both construction sites. Further, the DSEIS does not contain specific language or plan for the decommissioning and removal of Monument Reservoir No. 2; the DSEIS should specifically describe the plan for concrete removal, pipe removal, regarding, reclamation, etc. The draft states that the area would be allowed to “naturally revegetate”. The project should include a revegetation plan and weed management plan.

Response: These considerations are included in construction BMPs for the project (Appendix C. Design Criteria).

a. The Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan described in the Soils Design criteria would assure compliance with all federal and state requirements (Appendix C, p. 197).

b. Excavated materials or other construction materials would not be stockpiled or wasted on or near stream banks, lake shorelines or other watercourse perimeters where they could be washed away by high water or storm runoff or could in any way encroach upon the watercourse itself (Appendix C, p. 197).

43. Finally, native materials harvested from the local area would be preferred, as opposed to imported materials from the Grand Valley that may harbor aquatic invasive species. Trees and other vegetation slated for removal could be used within the enlarged reservoir as fish habitat. CPW can assist with design and anchoring options for potential habitat improvement structures.

Response: Native materials would be used to extent they are available. Leaving trees and other vegetation within the reservoir is inconsistent with dam safety and other reservoir operational considerations.

44. Page 32: What does “processing” mean? Would a rock crusher be brought on site? How would it be powered? How would waste be treated? Where would water come from? Would hazardous material be part of or result from concrete mix? All material brought onto site must be certified weed free. There needs to be a long-term weed management plan. There needs to be a traffic and spill prevention plan.

Response: The word “processing” in the DSEIS referred to crushing and grading gravel for use in the project. Some such processing of gravel would likely occur in the proposed action The potential impacts of this operation would be some creation of fugitive dust, as discussed on pages 76 - 77 of the FEIS. Weed management considerations and traffic and spill prevention plans are included in construction BMPs for the project (Appendix C, Design Criteria).

45. Page 43: Impacts to water circulation- The conclusions stated in this section are overreaching. It appears that there is an assumption that a reservoir expansion, no matter the size, is less damaging than a new reservoir. While this may often be the case, consideration should be given for the fact that the expansion of Monument Reservoir No. 1 would increase the size of the reservoir by 10-fold. Such a large expansion has the potential to alter stream dimensions. In addition, the statement “the removal of one or both of the reservoirs in concert with expanding an existing reservoir would result in restoration of more natural water circulation patterns in the watershed” is unsubstantiated. This statement may not be true due to the size of the expansions compared to the smaller size of the reservoir(s) that would be removed. In either case, a statement of this nature should be revised to reflect an operations analysis of the alternatives and their impact on the local hydrology as compared to current conditions.


138

Response: The discussion has been removed.

46. Page 43: Impacts to normal water fluctuations- Water fluctuations should be evaluated for each specific scenario to determine impacts caused by water fluctuations.

Response: Additional modeling of reservoir operations and its effects on hydrology has been completed and is discussed in the Water Resources section of the FEIS at pages 42 - 48. Water fluctuation under the proposed scenario would include greater peak flows and longer periods of low flow, but would not significantly change sediment transport or fish habitat. The use of a ramping up and down flow changes would avoid abrupt changes in flow.

47. Page 44: Impacts to fish and other aquatic organisms- Reservoir operational plans should be evaluated for each specific scenario to determine impacts to fish and other aquatic organisms within the proposed reservoir(s) and downstream of the reservoir(s).

Response: See revised analysis of impacts to aquatic and semi-aquatic species in the FEIS at pages 56 - 66.

48. Page 45: Impacts to riffle and pool sequences- Reservoir operational plans should be evaluated for each specific scenario to determine impacts to riffle and pool sequences.

Response: See discussion of ramping flows, maintenance flows and recolonization of disturbed areas at pages 56 - 66 of the FEIS. Only Scenario A was used for Effects Analysis. Due its status as the worst-case scenario. Design Criteria 4 and 5 for hydrology address managing outflows from the enlarged reservoir to maintain channel form and function below the dam (Appendix C).

49. Page 45: Impacts to fisheries- It is premature to indicate that an “enlargement of Hunter Reservoir would have an additional beneficial impact to stream fishes in East Leon Creek, “without a reservoir operational plan being provided. How was 0.5 cubic feet per second determined as the appropriate stream flow rate to “improve” habitat conditions in these creeks? Reference is made to “relatively warm water from the bottom of Hunter Reservoir” being available. Please provide the data that supports this conclusion.

Response: We no longer are considering any enlargement of Hunter Reservoir.

50. Also, why was a bypass flow not considered for Monument Reservoir No. 1?

Response: Ute Water will provide a 0.60 cubic foot per second bypass flow when filling the reservoir under its junior water right. No bypass flow will occur in winter as reaching the dam to control flows is often not possible in winter conditions. This is no change from current reservoir operations.

51. The implication is that a major new reservoir in the upper drainage would improve water circulation but the DSEIS does not describe how the hydrograph would be affected during the ‘fill’ or operational project lives. There should be recognition of how peak flow retention at this location would affect flows at the dam site, particularly when considering how a sequence of dry years would affect peak and low flows below the dam(s).

Response: See figures 11, 12, and 13 (pages 45, and 46) of the FEIS, and associated text, pages 42 - 47. During dry and wet years the peak flow would be delayed, during normal years the hydrograph would be essentially unchanged. Ute Water has committed to a 0.60 cubic foot per second bypass flow to maintain sediment transport and fish habitat.

52. Appendix C contains clear information about flow in Leon Creek following implementation of a Hunter Reservoir Enlargement, but other than using a StreamStats analysis of flow metrics on the


139

Monument Creek drainage, there is no clear hydrologic update to the Appendices that considers a Monument Reservoir Enlargement. Even the analysis in Appendix p. C-9 seems to dismiss the consequences on reduced peaks and changes to baseflows based on observations at a few cross sections on East Leon Creek. There is no geomorphic analysis of the channels or riparian conditions below the Monument No. 1 dam, nor an indication of expected post -project changes.

Response: The revised hydrology section of FEIS, pages 42 - 47, discusses changes peak flow and timing of flows. No important changes to overall stream sediment transfer and substrate are anticipated.

53. Page 46: Summary- The last sentence states that “a single reservoir enlargement, therefore, should serve as the bar by which relative environmental impact is evaluated”. It is CPW’s understanding that environmental impact is assessed based on current conditions without any project. Please clarify the intent of this statement.

Response: The statement has been removed from the FEIS.

54. Page 49: Under the DSEIS fishery analysis, the quantification of the depletion is not clear. Please include a reference to an Appendix or other study that describes Ute’s current depletions, their projected depletions under a future scenario or the different proposed alternatives, and how or if depletions are offset outside Ute’s depletion credit purchase. Have any wet-water alternatives to purchasing flow credits been analyzed? Ute WCD has a history of working proactively on Recovery Program efforts, and incentivizing flow protections and delivery of water to the 15-mile reach should be considered.

Response: See FEIS, page 57, for a discussion of Ute Water’s depletion payments. These water depletions are related to a larger impact of Ute Water’s and others use of water and potential impacts to four endangered fish downstream in the Colorado River. A biological opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approves these depletions, including all proposed in the Monument Reservoir No. 1 Enlargement project.

55. Page 50, 3rd paragraph: “…Leon Creek is free-flowing from its confluence with Plateau Creek and Hunter Dam and Monument Reservoir No. 1 Dam. While there are numerous diversions on Leon Creek, there is no evidence that contradicts the assumption that a fish can move freely throughout the un-dammed portion of the Leon Creek watershed at some point each year.” CPW would like more evidence of how ‘numerous diversions’ and the free-flowing nature of Leon Creek between the dam(s) and Plateau Creek presently operate (i.e., are there dry-up reaches or impassable structures?) and a description of how project alternatives might affect the ‘free-flowing’ nature of Leon Creek. Is an altered hydrograph in a reach without diversions still considered ‘free flowing’?

Response: The FEIS discusses movement of fish within the Leon Creek system and changes in flow in Monument Creek associated with reservoir operations. While there is evidence that Monument Creek occasionally dries for a short reach immediately below Monument Reservoir, the creek is supplemented by tributaries between the dam and the Creek’s confluence with Leon Creek. Only minor changes to flow in Leon Creek are anticipated to result from the proposed action.

56. Page 50, 4th paragraph: “No formal sampling for aquatic invertebrates was conducted for this project.” ...”is compelling circumstantial evidence that the alterations to the hydrology and temperature of these reaches have not been detrimental to resident macroinvertebrates.” Without evidence of what macroinvertebrates existed prior to the existing structures’ presence this statement appears to be unsubstantiated. Further, no conclusions regarding macroinvertebrate populations should be reached without first conducting macroinvertebrate sampling.


140

Response: While no comprehensive survey of aquatic invertebrates has occurred in Monument Creek, Forest aquatic ecologists conducted modest sampling between the Monument No. 1 Dam and the confluence of Monument Creek and Leon Creek in the late fall of 2018. This sampling revealed a moderately diverse assemblage of invertebrates, suggestive of good water quality and substrate conditions. See pages 64 - 65 for discussion of known macro-invertebrate populations in Monument Creek and project effects.

57. Page 51, last full paragraph: “There is, therefore, no compelling evidence the Leon Creek watershed supported a native trout population before Colorado became a part of the United States of America.” If the watershed currently supports a trout population, what would have prevented it from supporting a trout population in the past?

Response: Language has been removed from FEIS.

58. “If this scenario is true then alterations to the physical characteristics of the watershed may impact a single native fish species, Mottled Sculpin”. The intent of this statement is unclear. Please revise and, if it is intended to make conclusions about project impacts, move the statement to the “Environmental Consequences” section of the document.

Response: The discussion of the effects to mottled sculpin is moved to the “Environmental Consequences” section.

59. “As the Leon Creek watershed has little significance as a recreational fishery (Lori Martin, CPW, personal communication), current and future impacts to stream fishes due to reservoir operations could be considered discountable from a conservation and recreational perspective.” This statement is a miscommunication. CPW manages the watershed for recreational fisheries and has done so for over forty years. As a result of CPW’s reservoir stocking efforts, fish populate the streams - upstream and downstream of most of the reservoirs mentioned. Natural reproduction has been documented in several waters. Therefore, there is not a present need for CPW to stock this watershed’s streams. CPW does not agree that the recreational and conservation fishery should be considered “discountable”. CPW does not have a clear idea from the DSEIS of post -project flow alterations.

Response: The FEIS addresses possible enhancement of recreational fishery through creation of a larger, deeper dead pool at an enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1 at page 70. CPW has participated in discussions of proposed reservoir operating plan and the resulting post construction flow patterns. See the SFEIS, pages 42 - 47 for details of post-project flows.

60. Page 52: Monument Reservoir Enlargement impact analysis- This section describes the size of the Monument Creek watershed relative to the Leon Creek watershed; the Monument area contributes less than 10 percent to the drainage area for Leon Creek, and the Hunter or Leon Creek analyses might be good surrogates for expected response on Monument Creek. However, there is very little flow information on Monument Creek presented, nor a direct comparison referencing prior information (e.g., Appendix C). CPW would like to see more analyses before agreeing to the conclusions presented.

Response: See Hydrology section of FEIS (pages 42 - 47) for analysis of flow in Monument Creek and effects of reservoir operations on the flows.

61. Page 52, 3rd paragraph: “an enlarged reservoir would not result in additional dewatering downstream from the dam and no mitigation is proposed for this impact.” It is unclear how increasing reservoir capacity by over 5,000 acre-feet would not result in additional dewatering of the stream. This conclusion should be removed unless substantiated by a reservoir operations report.


141

Response: See Hydrology section of FEIS (pages 42 - 47) for analysis of flow in Monument Creek and effects of reservoir operations on the flows. This section explains that filling the enlarged reservoir, both initially and after any drawdown to provide municipal water during a drought year, would be slowed due to the requirement to continue honoring senior water rights. Ute Water has agreed with CPW to provide a bypass flow of 0.60 cubic feet per second to maintain Monument Creek downstream of the Monument No. 1 dam.

62. Page 52, last paragraph: The Monument Reservoir Enlargement impact analysis describes the minimal impacts that the fill period and operational periods would have on flows below the Monument Reservoir No. 1 site. CPW would like more information on the current and impacted hydrologies below the site, or at least clear indication that the DSEIS is deferring to the Appendix C hydrology reflecting the Hunter Enlargement project.

Response: See Hydrology section of FEIS (pages 42 - 47) for current and modeled hydrology in Monument Creek. This section shown projected hydrographs for Monument Creek below the enlarged Monument No. 1 Reservoir during dry, average, and wet years. The section depicts these projected flows with recorded flows in the system and discusses the effects of the changes.

63. Page 53: There is a description of the multiple benefits from implementing a Hunter Reservoir Enlargement Project, including lentic habitat and a commitment to a winter instream flow below the dam. However, the negative impacts associated with inundating a natural stream and altering an intact hydrograph were not well described. This discussion should be expanded.

Response: Hunter Reservoir is no longer a component of this project.

64. Page 53, last paragraph: “Once filled Ute Water proposes to maintain the reservoir at full volume until such time it requires the water to meet future demands…Should Ute Water need to begin releasing the full volume of water from the reservoir on an annual basis, the direct effects would not manifest themselves for years.” It is CPW’s understanding that this project is intended for drought storage and not operational storage associated with future demands. These statements should be clarified.

Response: The text has been clarified throughout that the purpose of the Proposed Action is drought storage, not operational use.

65. Page 53-54: last paragraph under the Hunter Reservoir Enlargement analysis: “…However, changes in the annual hydrograph associated with retaining a larger portion of snowmelt in the enlarged reservoir and releasing that water on an as-needed basis is an impact to the East Leon Creek watershed and the Leon Creek watershed that cannot be avoided following reservoir enlargement.” This quote suggests there would be impacts but does not present these impacts clearly. Overall, it is hard to assess benefits and impacts of the project from this statement or without analysis of the hydrologic effects of the Monument Reservoir No. 1 Enlargement.

Response: See Hydrology section of FEIS (pages 42 - 47) for analysis of flow in Monument Creek and effects of reservoir operations on the flows. Water fluctuation under the proposed scenario would include greater peak flows and longer periods of low flow, but would not significantly change sediment transport or fish habitat. The use of a ramping up and down flow changes would avoid abrupt changes in flow. No modeling of lows at Hunter Reservoir is included in the FEIS, as no changes to the Hunter Reservoir are proposed.

66. Page 63, last paragraph: The loss of wetlands at Monument Reservoir No. 1 is proposed to be offset by the reestablishment of wetlands at Monument Reservoir No. 2. It is unclear if the fencing of Monument Reservoir No. 2 is temporary, associated with the re-establishment of wetlands, or if the area would be permanently prevented from cattle grazing. It would seem that, if the impacts to


142

wetlands at Monument Reservoir No. 1 are permanent, then the protection afforded the mitigation wetlands at Monument Reservoir No. 2 should also be permanent.

Response: The wetlands mitigation plan Ute Water is negotiating with the Corps would establish standards for enhanced or created wetlands at the Monument Reservoir No. 2 site. Once these standards have been met, the fencing would be removed. This reflects the existing condition cattle having access to established wetlands throughout the Grand Mesa area.

67. Page 69, Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects: “Enlarging one or more reservoirs would result in additional high-quality fish habitat in the Leon Creek watershed they would provide a back country fishing experience that does not exist in the watershed currently” The impacts of reservoir enlargement on the recreational fishery would depend on the operation and available dead pool of the reservoir; this statement should be revisited once a reservoir operations report is complete and the impact on fisheries can be determined. Also, there is existing back-country fishing available in the area; the statement should be narrowed to more clearly describe how the reservoir expansion would improve the existing fishery.

Response: The conclusions presented above have been revised. See discussion of possible enhancement of recreational fishery at an enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1 at page 69.

68. Page 79, Terrestrial Wildlife: It is unclear in the Terrestrial Wildlife section if the existing conditions apply to only the Hunter Reservoir site, which was previously analyzed, or if they also apply to the Monument Reservoir No. 1 site, for which a terrestrial wildlife evaluation does not appear to have been completed. This distinction should be clarified throughout the section.

Response: All discussions of terrestrial wildlife (pages 78 - 81) in the FEIS apply only to the Monument Reservoir No. 1.

69. The section should also include analysis of Colorado Wildlife Action Plan Tier 1 Species of Concern.

Response: This Forest Service project analysis addresses species listed or proposed for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act, Forest Service Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species. These categories of species include all Colorado Wildlife Action Plan Tier 1 Species of Concern.

70. Page 80, Raptors: This section indicates that raptor surveys were completed at both the Hunter Reservoir and Monument Reservoir No. 1 sites. Please verify when this survey took place and that it did in fact cover both reservoir sites.

Response: Surveys of the Monument Reservoir site have been completed. No active raptor nests were located.

71. Page 80, Invertebrate Animals: It is CPW’s understanding that neither reservoir site was surveyed for macroinvertebrates. Conclusions about the robustness of invertebrates should be tempered without baseline information that can be compared to a scientifically sound metric of macroinvertebrate health.

Response: See pages 64 - 65 for the FEIS for a discussion of aquatic macro invertebrates in Monument Creek, and page 79 of the FEIS for a limited discussion of terrestrial invertebrates. Neither was found in unusual diversity or abundance.

72. Page 82, Environmental Consequences: “Alternative 1 would result in the permanent loss of approximately 213 acres of terrestrial wildlife habitat.” What is the impact of alternative 2? Also, please clarify where this figure is demonstrated in Tables 22 and/or 23.


143

Response: The revised Proposed Action would result in permanent loss of 138.6 acres of terrestrial habitats, as summarized in Table 19 on page 82.

73. Page 83, Action Alternatives: “A pika population was observed in the area where basalt boulders would be mined for riprap. Pika habitat in that area would be impacted as a result of removing this material.” Please clarify which alternative this statement applies to.

Response: That statement applies to the Hunter Reservoir site. No alteration of the Hunter Reservoir is currently proposed.

74. Page 85, Elk: This section references impacts from Alternative 1 but does not make any statement about Alternative 2. Please include a statement about each alternative.

Response: See discussion of impacts to elk from Proposed Action at page 85 of the FEIS.

75. Page 86: NFS Road 262 - There is an opportunity for the FS and project proponent to install a permanent barricade at this location. NFS Road 280 presents the same opportunity. CPW requests that these options be considered.

Response: We considered closing these routes, but could find no pressing reason to permanently barricade these roads, which are open to public use.

76. Page 89: The abandoned portion of NFS Road 280 would be re-vegetated, barricaded from vehicles and fenced off from cows upon project completion. Why wait until the completion of the project to reclaim this section of road? Reclamation could begin as soon as the new route segment if built and being used.

Response: That activity is specific to the Hunter Reservoir enlargement, which is no longer proposed.

77. Page 90, Vegetation-Native and Non-native Species: The language in this section suggests that existing conditions were only developed for Hunter Reservoir. Please clarify the existing conditions at the Monument Reservoir No. 1 site throughout this section. This section also appears to be missing a “Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Impacts” subsection.

Response: See pages 86 - 88 for a discussion of vegetation in the Monument Reservoir No. 1 site and a discussion of mitigation and beneficial impacts.

78. Page 90: In a meeting on May 8, 2017, the Forest Service and Ute Water agreed that should Alternative 2 be implemented, improvements to NFS Road 280 could serve as compensatory mitigation for impacts to wetlands and this work benefit the transportation network in the watershed. Every action must be taken to ensure that the human activity level remains the same after the project is completed as it was before the project. Road closures as necessary, road decommissioning if necessary, seasonal use if necessary. Road upgrades for the project should not be used as justification for change in use and ROS designation.

Response: No change in recreation opportunity spectrum is proposed or anticipated.

79. Page 91: There is no mention of invasive non-native plant species monitoring or control for the construction period of the project and beyond; the project proponent should prepare and implement an invasive non-native plant management plan.

Response: Implementation of a Noxious Weed Management Plan and other design criteria would prevent the spread of noxious weeds. See page 86 in the FEIS for a discussion of invasive non-native plants.


144

80. Page 92: This section describes the watershed hydrology of the Leon Creek drainage and tries to put the physical infrastructure and basin scales into context. Please provide a table to aid in this description.

Response: Table 5 on page 40 of the FEIS shows normal flows in Monument Creek at the site of the existing Monument No. 1 dam. The following section provides a discussion of modeled changes to flow volume and duration that would result from the project. See Hydrology Section of FEIS on pages 40 - 47.

81. Page 93, last paragraph: “Estimates of average annual discharge at the mouth of Leon Creek range from 62 to 66 cubic feet per second; however, for 90 percent of an average year discharge is 7-9 cubic feet per second.” A simple plot of the daily average hydrograph with estimates of dry and wet years (e.g., 25 percent and 75 percent exceedances) overlaid on the mean daily flows would be very helpful.

Response: Hydrographs on Figures 11, 12, and 13 (pages 45 and 46) show the average pre- and post-construction daily hydrograph for wet, normal, and dry years. See Hydrology Section of FEIS on pages 40 - 47 for new detail regarding modeling of discharge and reservoir operations.

82. Page 93-97: - The DSEIS should include a more thorough description of the analysis and results. Some discussion of how the project(s) or mitigation might address limiting factors by upgrading infrastructure or proposing water-based improvements such as base flows, conservation pools, or flushing flows would be helpful for CPW to properly assess the Monument No. 1 Enlargement.

Response: See Hydrology Section of FEIS on pages 40 - 47, these features have been added.

83. Page 95, Table 27: Understanding of the hydrology would be aided by adding results for wet, dry, and average years to this table, F.

Response: See Hydrology Section of FEIS, figures 11, 12, and 13 (pages 45 and 46) for additional analysis of wet, average, and dry years.

84. Page 95, 2nd from last paragraph: “Reducing spring discharge in Leon Creek by 2.5 percent during a 3 to 5-year period during which an enlarged Hunter Reservoir would be filled is unlikely to have an effect on the animal and plant communities throughout the watershed.” This statement is located in the section that describes impacts at Monument Reservoir No. 1. Is the reference to Hunter Reservoir meant to be Monument Reservoir No. 1? Also, please separate out impacts to the local watershed (Monument Creek) as compared to the Leon Creek watershed. In addition, the watershed would be impacted by both the amount of water reduction and the timing of said reduction. Please expand on the timing of said reduction in this section.

Response: See Hydrology Section of FEIS, figures 11, 12, and 13 (pages 45 and 46). All discussions of hydrology now only consider Monument Creek and Monument Reservoir No. 1.

85. Page 97, last paragraph of Monument Reservoir No. 1 subsection: “Ute water could lessen the annual reduction of water yield from Monument Reservoir No. 1 Dam by extending the time to refill the reservoir; however, this approach could limit the availability of water from this facility during extended droughts”. (This statement also appears in the Alternative No. 1 subsection.) The intent of this statement is unclear - is the DSEIS proposing a mitigation measure with this statement? Is the project proponent committed to taking this action? If not, this reference is misleading and should be removed.

Response: The statement has been removed.

86. Page 100, Environmental Consequences: Each of the Proposed Actions discuss the wetland impacts of the reservoir expansion but then also make reference to reclaiming wetlands at Monument


145

Reservoir No. 2. Is the reclamation of wetlands at Monument Reservoir No. 2 considered a part of the proposed alternatives or a mitigation measure? If it is a mitigation measure, then reference to said reclamation should be removed from the environmental consequences section so that actual impacts of the alternatives are apparent.

Response: Work at Monument Reservoir No. 2 would be wetlands mitigation. The text has been revised and clarified to reflect this.

87. Page 98-103: Two main lines of thought emerged from review of the wetland ‘affected environment and impact assessment’ and Appendices A and B: (1) The assessments reflect a partially updated delineation that included inundation and reclamation at Monument Reservoir Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, but also “... that they would have to obtain a new wetlands 102 delineation along NFS Road 262 and NFS Road 280, NFS Trail 518, as well as Hunter Reservoir and Monument No. 1 and No. 2 Reservoirs.” (bottom p.101 to 102); and (2) that specifics of wetland mitigation have yet to be determined. CPW appreciated the Appendix a description of the differences between the Montana Wetlands Assessment methodology, and what WestWater has developed specific to the Grand Mesa. Based on the 7-page assessment forms (Attachment F-1 in Appendix A), CPW also trusts the methodology to be complete, thorough, and a credible way to compare wetland types and functional values specific to the Grand Mesa. CPW suggests adjustments to the weight factors dependent upon the site specifics of the wetland being assessed (e.g., fen vs emergent vs riparian wetlands may have different dependencies on the hydrologic environment).

Response: The new mitigation plan developed by Ute Water in cooperation with the Corps will clarify these issues, when finalized.

88. The DSEIS states that the watershed contains suitable habitat for amphibians but neglects to state that potential habitat for Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas) exists above Hunter Reservoir, an area affected by potential reservoir expansion. Habitat above Monument Reservoir has not been surveyed or evaluated by CPW or Forest Service according to the DSEIS.

Response: See discussion of Boreal Toad at page 84 of FEIS.

89. eDNA purpose and utility is taken out of context. eDNA is a relatively new tool currently being investigated to help focus search areas for boreal toads. While eDNA may offer information, the technology is not yet refined enough to rely solely on eDNA as an indicator of a species presence or absence which is indicated in the last paragraph of the referenced email on March 1, 2016. eDNA samples were not taken throughout the area as was indicated in the DSEIS. Samples were collected at East Leon Creek, Monument Creek and Young’s Creek only. Visual occupancy surveys are the primary method used to indicate presence or absence of amphibians by CPW. CPW conducted a visual survey in 2015 by CPW; East Leon Creek was surveyed on three occasions while all other sites were only surveyed on a single visit. No other surveys have been conducted in any other years in this area by CPW.

Response: Discussion of eDNA use has been removed from FEIS.

90. “Extensive” should be removed from the last paragraph, 3rd sentence. Surveys were conducted over a two-day period in 2015 by a crew of six with the exception of East Leon Creek, which was surveyed on two additional occasions. A relatively small portion of the potential affected areas were surveyed. We did not have time to survey above Monument Reservoirs. The DSEIS should mention that not all available habitats were surveyed including areas that would be directly affected by the physical reservoir expansion.

Response: FEIS has been revised to reflect level of effort of 2015 surveys.


146

91. Pg. 50 last paragraph: CPW did not conduct chytrid sampling in 2015 for the affected area. In addition, CPW relies on body swabs and PCR sampling for chytrid and not eDNA. The email referenced by the DSEIS did not state any information regarding collection or knowledge of presence of chytrid within the survey area; all such references should be removed from the EIS. The referenced email states that to be considered for a future Boreal Toad reintroduction site, it would be important to test for chytrid presence. CPW requests that this paragraph be re-written to accurately portray the referenced email, including CPW’s comment that testing for chytrid still needs to be conducted.

Response: FEIS has been revised to reflect level of knowledge regarding chytrid in area.

92. CPW’s opinion is that “IF” chytrid is present, Boreal Toad populations may not be present. However, as indicated in the same referenced email, another site on the Grand Mesa National Forest (Buzzard Creek) is considered to have a stable population of toads in the presence of chytrid, Chorus Frogs and Tiger Salamanders.

Response: This reference has been removed from the FEIS

93. CPW disagrees with the statement that “...changes to reservoir operations included in the Proposed Action are unlikely to affect this species” (reference to Mottled Sculpin). In addition, CPW does not have enough information to evaluate what the potential impacts to aquatic species related to this project are. Providing the operational plans for both Hunter Reservoir and Monument Reservoir No. 1 and completion of an aquatics baseline analysis for both Hunter Reservoir and Monument Reservoir No. 1 would assist in further evaluation of the potential impacts to the fisheries of the Leon Creek water shed.

Response: The Forest Service stands by its conclusions regarding Mottled Sculpin. Additional information regarding reservoir operating plans has been added FEIS

94. CPW suggests rephrasing the following sentence, “While these species are present in Plateau Creek (reference to the 3 species), stream temperatures and physical habitat characteristics in Leon Creek and East Leon Creek are not conducive to occupation by Bluehead Sucker, Flannelmouth Sucker (Catostomus latipinnis ), and Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta) “ by replacing “are not conducive” to “may not be. “CPW and others have shown that these species migrate seasonally into and out of tributaries. Little data have been collected in this particular area to address whether the 3 species utilize lower Leon Creek. Bluehead Sucker (Catostomus discobolus) have been documented in the nearby Buzzard Creek drainage, and all 3 species have been documented in portions of Plateau Creek.

Response: The comment is noted. The Forest Service stands by its conclusions regarding these fish species.

95. Page 52: What is the proposed depth and size of Monument Reservoir No. 1’s dead pool and how would the dead pool allow for overwintering of fish?

Response: The exact dead pool dimensions have not been determined. Monument Reservoir No. 1 would allow overwintering of fish during most seasons other than those immediately following extreme drought years. See page 195 of the FEIS.

96. Page 52: CPW disagrees with the statement that “any fish present in Monument Reservoir No. 1 during construction and reservoir filling are unlikely to be impacted.” Further evaluations of these actions are required to determine potential impacts to the fisheries in the reservoir, as well as downstream.

Response: See page 65 for measures that would be implemented to mitigate incidental mortality of resident fishes.


147

97. Knowing what the operational plan is for Monument Reservoir No. 1 would be helpful.

Response: The operational plans have been incorporated into the Water Resources section of the FEIS (pages 40 - 47), and attached to the EIS at Appendix D.

98. Page 53: What is the proposed depth and size of the conservation pool in Hunter Reservoir? How would this conservation pool allow for overwintering of fish? “When Hunter Reservoir has been stocked it has been done so via airplane at great expense to CPW and with limited return to creel due to the fact stocked fish cannot survive the winter.” CPW does not have information to suggest that a complete winterkill has occurred or is occurring at Hunter Reservoir. Please provide documentation of this presumption.

Response: No changes are proposed at Hunter Reservoir.

99. Page 53: How was the 0.5 cubic feet per second winter instream flow from Hunter Reservoir determined “to maintain stream habitat for resident aquatic life”? How was a three -year flushing flow in East Leon Creek determined? What is the time frame for those releases, and what are the various flow rates and their duration? Knowing what the operational plan is for Hunter Reservoir would be helpful. How is the wintertime release from Hunter Reservoir compensatory mitigation for impacts to aquatic habitat?

Response: For a discussion of these factors at Monument Reservoir No. 1, see pages 40 - 47 of the FEIS.

100. Page 69: Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects- CPW recommends that the statement “Enlarging one or more reservoirs would result in additional high-quality fish habitat in the Leon Creek watershed” be rephrased to “Enlarging one or more reservoirs has the potential to improve fish habitat within the reservoirs, and possibly downstream depending on reservoir operations.”

Response: The language has been removed from the FEIS.

101. Page 69: Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects- CPW is not “developing these areas to promote recreation.” CPW currently provides multiple recreational angling opportunities within the Leon Creek watershed. Please rephrase.

Response: The FEIS has been revised to recognize existing recreational angling opportunities.

102. Page 80 and Page 84: References are made to a Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation, respectively. CPW would appreciate the opportunity to review these documents.

Response: These documents are available in the project record, or can be viewed on-line at: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=9127.

103. Page 89: Action Alternatives- Culverts should be considered for creek crossings where feasible. Further, it may be desirable for some of these culverts to pass aquatic organisms, while in some situations, it may be undesirable to do so. Also, to reduce the chances of WD being introduced into the watershed, native materials should be utilized where and when feasible.

Response: Some creeks would be culverted during the construction phase. After construction these culverts would be removed and replaced with hardened fords to reduce long-term maintenance load and stream sedimentation. See Transportation Section of the FEIS, pages 71 - 74.

104. Page 93: Leon Creek Watershed-The document indicates that estimates for discharge are at the mouth of Leon Creek, yet that location is downstream of four water diversions. This location does not appear to be representative of the entire drainage. CPW understood that there was a consultant hired

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=9127


148

by the project proponent who had established several cross sections within East Leon Creek downstream of Hunter Reservoir when Hunter Reservoir was first proposed for expansion, however this information was not presented in the DSEIS. Is the stream flow information collected by this consultant available for review and consideration?

Response: The hydrology section has been rewritten to reflect additional flow modeling and estimation. The location of the modeled flows is the Monument No. 1 dam on Monument Creek. Hunter Creek is no longer included the analysis.

105. Page 95: Monument Reservoir No. 1- Presuming only 20-30 percent of the total reservoir volume is retained each year of the filling period, and only 16-31 percent of the total annual discharge from Monument Reservoir No. 1 would be retained in the reservoir, how does this provide improved habitat for the in-reservoir fishery and the fishery downstream? How are the proposed volume and reservoir operations different from the current volume and reservoir operations? How do these considerations factor into the proposed dead pool?

Response: The analysis determined that reservoir operations would not adversely affect fishery habitat in Monument Creek. The reservoir basin would be deepened, resulting in a larger dead pool volume, thus allowing over-winter survival of fish in the reservoir in more years than the current condition. See discussion of hydrology at pages 40 - 47 and aquatic effects at pages 56 - 66.

106. Page 96: Hunter Reservoir- Presuming only 20-30 percent of the total reservoir volume is retained each year of the filling period, and only 9-15 percent of the total annual discharge from Monument Reservoir No. 1 would be retained in the reservoir, how does this provide improved habitat for the in-reservoir fishery and the fishery downstream? How are the proposed volume and reservoir operations different from the current volume and reservoir operations? How do these considerations factor into the proposed conservation pool?

Response: Discussion of Hunter Reservoir effects is no longer valid, as no action would be taken at Hunter Reservoir.

107. Page 97: Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects- Are the 0.5 cubic feet per second release and flushing flows out of Hunter Reservoir only possible under Alternative 1 because of adjustments that would need to be made during the enlargement? Or, can those options still be considered as potential mitigation if Alternative 1 is not selected?

Response: The question about flows out of Hunter Reservoir is no longer topical, as we are no longer proposing any changes to Hunter Reservoir. The release and flushing flows from Hunter mentioned in the 2017 SDEIS are no longer proposed.

108. Page 97: Summary of Mitigation and Beneficial Effects- No instream flow or flushing flow has been proposed for Monument Reservoir No. 1 under either Alternative. The fisheries downstream of Monument Reservoir in Monument Creek, and also Leon Creek could both potentially benefit with changes in the stream flow regime during the winter and under flushing flows. These possibilities should be considered further.

Response: Both a bypass flow of 0.60 cubic feet per second and provision of flush flows have been added to the proposed action for Monument No. 1 Reservoir. See discussion of effects of base flow and flushing flows at pages 40 - 47.

109. Page 122: Aquatic Wildlife- What are the proponent’s plans for dewatering during construction? Is the proposed conservation pool at Hunter Reservoir only proposed during the winter months of the construction period or in perpetuity? We encourage the Forest Service to visually inspect and disinfect


149

all equipment per CPW recommended procedures that would be utilized during this project to reduce the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species. Equipment should be also be disinfected between sites.

Response: Construction dewatering would use a diversion channel to move water around the dam site. See page 20 - 25. The enlarged conservation pool at Monument Reservoir No.1 would last the duration of operations of the enlarged reservoir. The project includes provision of inspection and disinfection of vehicles entering the project area to avoid introduction of invasive species (see page 25 and Design Criteria, Appendix C, FEIS.

Comments from Eric Kuhn, General Manager, Colorado Water District 110. Colorado’s Water Plan adopted December 2015, and its allied Colorado River (mainstem) Basin

Roundtable’s Basin Implementation Plan (BIP) cites Hunter and Monument Reservoir No. 1 enlargements as projects to advance water supply security in the Grand Valley.

Response: We note the comment.

111. The Colorado Basin BIP notes that Ute Water Conservancy District (“Ute Water”) has achieved “strong conservation gains lowering the average water use to less than 80 gallons per person per day.”


Comment from Jim Pokrandt, Chairman, Colorado Basin Roundtable 112. The Basin Implementation Plan further stated that the enlargement of [Hunter and Monument No.

1] reservoirs also advanced four of the remaining five basin themes, including protecting and restoring healthy streams, sustaining, promoting and protecting agriculture, developing water conscious land use strategies and encouraging a high level of basinwide conservation [letter also contains the two comments made in Colorado Water District letter, above].

Response: The comment is noted. Forest Service is cooperating with Ute Water and other stakeholders to balance increasing reservoir storage with other resource concerns.

Comment from Kristi Pollard, Executive Director, Grand Junction Economic Partnership 113. The Ute Water’s Board of Directors has taken several proactive approaches in preparing their

infrastructure for future demands including, but not limited to; the enlargement of their terminal reservoir Jerry Creek Reservoir No. 2, enlargement and upgrades to their now 30 million gallon a day (MGD) treatment facility, the purchase of 12,000 acre-feet of water in Ruedi Reservoir, and enlargement/improvements to their Colorado River Pump Station [letter also contains the comments from Colorado Water District and Colorado Water Basin letters, above].

Response: The comment is noted. This reinforces that the alternatives analyzed in the DSEIS included multiple alternatives for meeting water demand other than simple reservoir enlargement.

Comments from Peter Baier, Mesa County Director of Public Works 114. Mesa County requires an access permit for any new access or change in use of an access to and

from county roads. Larger construction jobs hauling more than 4,500 tons of material within one month may be subject to restrictions on County roads pursuant to section 5.2.9 of the MCLDC. Additional county permits may be required.


150

Response: This comment addresses an implementation issue. Ute Water would meet all Mesa County requirements.

115. For the temporary construction employee housing required for the project, the Forest Service should consult and coordinate with appropriate Mesa County departments on issuance and enforcement of a Forest Service Special Use including: Public Health, Road and Bridge, Planning and Development, Building, and the Sheriff’s Office.

Response: This comment addresses an implementation issue. Ute Water would meet all Mesa County requirements.

Comment from Phil Bertrand, Superintendent, Grande Valley Irrigation Company 116. It is important to our community that we maintain our current water quality by developing water

within the current watershed.

Response: The comment is noted. Development of additional reservoir storage capacity in the Plateau Creek drainage is consistent with this comment.

Comment from Luke Basham 117. “Hunter Reservoir is too remote for such a large project, which would disturb wildlife and quiet

of area. There are many other areas in lower country, such as adding another Jerry Creek reservoir that would be much more suited for heavy equipment operation.”

Response: Enlarging Jerry Creek reservoir was among the alternatives screened, but found not practicable, due geological constraints on enlarging the reservoir in the case of Jerry Creek. Lower elevation alternatives also raise issues regarding greater evaporation loss and flashier hydrology in potentially rain dominated versus snow dominated systems. The FEIS addresses wildlife impacts at pages 78 - 85, and solitude or vehicle access at pages 68- 70.

Comments from Rocky Smith; Christine Canaly, Director, San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council; Alison Gallensky, GIS and IT Director, Rocky Mountain Wild; Alan Apt, Wilderness Chair, Sierra Club Colorado Chapter; Eric Rechel, Co-Chair, Uncompahgre Group, Rocky Mountain Chapter of Sierra Club; and Sloan Shoemaker, Executive Director, Wilderness Workshop 118. We are especially glad to see that the Proposed Action does not now include enlarging Hunter

Reservoir, which would cause the further loss of fens, a unique and irreplaceable type of wetland.


119. The analysis of alternatives must be rigorous and objective under NEPA (40 CFR §1502.14(a)). The examination of alternatives that would avoid harm to wetlands (i. e., “special aquatic sites”) must be even more rigorous (40 CFR §230.3(a)(3)). See section I D of our 2007 comments on the DEIS and section III of our 2016 DSEIS scoping comments for further discussion.

Response: Ute Water and the Forest Service have conducted an exhaustive search for viable alternatives to providing water capacity. This includes increased use of storage at existing reservoirs, purchase of additional Colorado River water, greater water conservation by Ute Water


151

customers, creation of additional reservoirs and enlargement of existing reservoirs. This process is described in the FEIS on pages 28- 34, and Appendix B.

120. We wonder about the practicality of using increased storage at Monument Reservoir No. 1 to increase the proponent’s firm annual yield. According to the DSEIS, the conditional water right to be used for most of this increased storage is dated July 1, 2005. Id. at 94. This is a very junior right, which means in many years, water would not be available to allow full use of this right. In dry years, there would likely not be any water available to fulfill it. Enlarging Hunter Reservoir would be only slightly better from the perspective of efficient use of water rights, as the storage right for that facility dates to September 17, 1970. Ibid.

Response: The modeling of use and refill times for an enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1 include consideration of flow reduction due to calls on water with more senior water rights than Ute Water’s municipal water rights at the Reservior.

121. We wonder whether either action alternative analyzed in detail in the DSEIS is the least damaging alternative that would allow use of the proponent’s water rights. Note that some alternatives are dismissed from detailed consideration because the proponent’s rights would be junior. DSEIS at 35, 39. It is possible that a combination of these alternatives could allow use of the water rights and meet the project’s purpose and need, as the DSEIS admits: “Numerous permutations of these alternatives would result in the high-elevation storage of more than 6,600 acre-feet of water.” Id. at 40.

Response: The Forest Service’s analysis of practicable alternatives (see pp. 34 - 37 and Appendix B, page 160, in the FEIS) determined that our preferred alternative is the only available alternative capable of being done that meets the project purpose and need. This is a rigorous standard required by section 404 of the Clean Water Act and would render alternatives determined not available or capable of being done moot.

122. The proposed mitigation for wetlands that would be inundated with an enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 under preferred alternative 2 consists of rehabilitating wetlands now underneath Monument Reservoir No. 2, which would be decommissioned, and improvements to FSR 262 and FST 518. DSEIS at 101-102. In general, in-kind mitigation is preferable to out-of-kind mitigation because it is most likely to compensate for the functions and services lost at the impact site. It is not clear from the analysis in the DSEIS if the proposed mitigation would be in-kind.

Response: The mitigation information presented in the DSEIS did not include the details requested. The Forest Service has provided additional information on aquatic resource mitigation in the final FEIS (Appendix E), including in-kind replacement of wetland functions. This proposed mitigation is subject to final approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

123. Wetland replacement is generally not easy to accomplish. Removing inundation, i. e., water storage from areas that were formerly wetlands does not guarantee that the wetland function would return. For example, sediment may cover the area that was formerly under water. That and the fact that there may be no seed or root source means that wetland vegetation may not re-grow where it formerly did without additional efforts. In any case, successful mitigation may take considerable expense and time. Successful mitigation may take considerable expense and time with an uncertain possibility of success in restoring wetland function. Thus, for each acre of wetland lost, more than one acre of wetland must be re-established or created for mitigation, in order to fully comply with the Clean Water Act’s 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR Part 230). With uncertainty about the success rate for re-establishing wetlands and the long time it might take to restore fens, if that is even possible (see below), we believe a mitigation ratio of at least 2:1 must be required.


152

Response: We note the comment. As stated above, additional details of the proposed wetland impact mitigation are presented in the FEIS. We propose active restoration of areas previously inundated, including removal of any sediments that accumulated and planting a suitable mix of native hydric plants, as necessary. The mitigation ratio to be required would be determined in section 404 permitting discussions between Ute Water and the US Army Corps of Engineers, discussions of the final details of the wetland mitigation plan are ongoing.

124. The amount of claimed mitigation for road 280 is questionable. At a 1:1 replacement ratio for lost wetlands, 12.2 acres of impacts to wetlands would still need to be mitigated to fully replace the wetlands lost under preferred alternative 2. DSEIS at 101. DSEIS Table 29 at p. 101 suggests that this could be accomplished with relocation of Road 280 north of Hunter Reservoir, a component that would not have to otherwise be included as part of preferred alternative 2 because no enlargement of Hunter Reservoir is proposed.

There are some problems here. One is that claiming 20 acres of mitigation for this appears to exaggerate what would actually occur if this road is relocated. Though only 0.8 acres of wetlands is directly impacted by the road, “areas of visibly damaged soils and increased erosion, [comprises] approximately 20 acres”. It is not clear how visual damage and purported soil erosion occurs on 20 acres if the road directly impacts less than one acre. Is erosion off the entire length of the road believed to be adversely affecting the wetland? Even repairing that might not rehabilitate 20 acres.

It is also unclear if decommissioning the road would fully rehabilitate wetland function. Could the road be sufficiently removed to allow an increase in wetland function? The proposed work on FSR 280 involves improvements at 26 points, which would mostly be reconstructed creek crossings. DSEIS at 89. In other words, the improved road would still go through wetlands. Use of the road has undoubtedly compacted soils. Uncompacting them would not automatically occur just by decommissioning the road. And with the remaining creek crossings, soils in those areas would remain compacted.

As with the work proposed for road 262 and Trail 518, relocating road 280 to an upland site, if it truly resulted in improved aquatic site function, would be wetland rehabilitation, which “does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area”.

Response: As the commenter states, there were errors in the measurement of mitigation credits presented in the SDEIS. As mentioned in the response to EPA’s comment number 6, above, we have reevaluated our computation of wetlands mitigation. A revised description of proposed mitigation is provided in the FEIS at Appendix E.

125. We strongly recommend that enlarging Hunter Reservoir (as proposed by Alternative 1) not be approved due to impacts to fen wetlands.

Response: EPA and the Corps of Engineers made similar comments to the 2007 EIS. This resulted in our creation of Alternative 2, which avoids inundation of fen wetlands. The current Proposed Action, as described and analyzed in the FEIS, includes no changes at Hunter Reservoir.

126. Concerns about counting fen restoration as mitigation, as fen restoration is difficult and time consuming. As discussed in subsection B above, removing a dam and reservoir may not immediately result in wetland reestablishment without active restoration. The Forest Service should not approve any action where compensatory mitigation of wetlands would be required, as is the case with any action alternative here, until the mitigation plan is approved.

Response: Additional information about the all wetlands restoration or creation plans, including those for fens, appears in the FEIS at Appendix E. Mitigation plans include post restoration


153

monitoring and adaptive management measures to maximize likelihood of success. Representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have participated in regular planning team meetings for this project since December 2017 and have provided comments and input on the proposed mitigation plan.

127. Because lynx habitat near the existing Monument Reservoir No. 1 would be inundated by the enlargement, the loss of habitat would be permanent. Appropriately, the determination for lynx is “may affect, is likely to adversely affect”. DSEIS at 83. This conflicts with an August 18, 2016 response by the Fish and Wildlife Service, to a letter from Forest Supervisor Scott Armentrout asking for informal consultation. The FWS states that the loss of lynx habitat would be undetectable and therefore insignificant. This letter notes that a Biological Opinion, issued for an earlier version of the project which would have enlarged Hunter Reservoir (as proposed in the 2007 DEIS) “assumed that the permanent loss of habitat was a significant effect because the habitat could not be replaced and there were no options for mitigation”. FWS letter at 2. The loss of habitat at Hunter Reservoir would have been 32 acres; for enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1, it would be 25.7 acres. See DSEIS at 83. Both losses would be permanent, as the habitat would be underwater and could not be used by lynx or its main prey, snowshoe hare. We do not understand how the slight drop in habitat loss changes the conclusion about the significance of the loss. Note that no mitigation is proposed (DSEIS at 85), so the habitat to be lost would not be replaced. Since the effect of the Proposed Action is clearly likely to adversely affect the lynx, consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service is still needed.

Response: The commenter misunderstands the August 18, 2016 concurrence letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Forest Supervisor Scott Armentrout. This letter does not state that a 32-acres loss of lynx habitat would be significant. On the contrary, the letter specifically states: “The current proposed action will result in the permanent removal of approximately 32 acres of lynx habitat within the Flat Tops Lynx Analysis Unit. This amount of habitat represents approximately one to 2.5 snowshoe hares home ranges. This reduction in the carrying capacity of the Flat Tops Lynx Analysis Unit for snowshoe hares is likely to result in an undetectable effect to lynx, and is therefore considered insignificant.” That letter concurs with the forest’s determination of that the project May Affect, but is Unlikely to Adversely Affect Lynx. The current reduction from 32 acres of habitat loss to 25.7 acres remains within the 32 acres determined acceptable to the Fish and Wildlife Service in their August 18, 2016, letter.

128. Increasing length and height of the dam, as well as greatly increasing the size of the Monument Reservoir No. 1, would considerably increase the visual impact of Monument No. 1 Dam and Reservoir. Two Roadless area characteristics, “high quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air” and “natural-appearing landscapes with high scenic quality” (from the Water and ingfColorado Roadless Rule, 36 CFR §294.41) would be reduced. The Roadless character of the CRA would thus be diminished.

Response: The FEIS specifically addresses consistency with Colorado Roadless Rule (pp. 101 - 104), “High-quality air or undisturbed soil, water, and air” (page 101), and “Natural-appearing landscapes with high scenic quality” (page 103). The Colorado Roadless Rule contains exceptions for activities related to maintenance and modification of existing reservoirs.

129. Under the forest plan, the area of proposed reservoir expansion would be at least partially in management area 6B, under which: “[m]anagement activities are evident but harmonize and blend with the natural setting” (forest plan at III-145). The proposed dam and reservoir enlargement would be very noticeable and thus not be consistent with this direction.


154

Response: The FEIS addresses forest plan consistency, specifically for Management Prescription 6B, at page 68. We determined the proposed action is consistent with Management Prescription 6B.

130. The introduction to the disclosure of impacts to aquatic fauna states that it “does not include presentation of impacts related to construction activities, such as sediment inputs to streams”, even though such impacts are acknowledged to be important. DSEIS at 52. Even if the application of design criteria is expected to “prevent or minimize the short-term impacts to streams, riparian areas, and aquatic animals resulting from construction” as stated, the impacts must still be disclosed to comply with NEPA and its implementing regulations.

Response: Additional modeling of flow and mitigation of dewater have been added to identify effects of construction upon impacts to aquatic species. As described on pages 58- 66 of the FEIS, increases in sedimentation during construction and decreases in flow during the filling period after construction could adversely affect Colorado River cutthroat trout, bluehead sucker, flannelmouth sucker and roundtail chubb downstream of the dam. Mitigation of these potential impacts is discussed on page 66 of the FEIS. Similarly, increased activity during the construction phase is likely to displace terrestrial wildlife. For analysis of effects to terrestrial species, with recommended mitigation, see, pages 81– 85 of the FEIS.

131. Also, not fully disclosed are the effects on aquatic life from the filling of an expanded Monument Reservoir No. 1. The enlarged facility would take 3-5 years to fill. DSEIS at 52. The annual flow reduction is said to be “24 to 39 percent of the annual yield at Monument Dam”; also “19 to 31 percent of the total volume of flow in Monument Creek would be retained in the reservoir”. DSEIS at 97. This does not add up to 100 percent of the flow. The DSEIS states that enlarged reservoir filling “is unlikely to have an effect on the animal and plant communities throughout the watershed”. Id. at 97. The EIS needs to disclose what the flows would be immediately downstream of the enlarged dam as well as further downstream, and how this would impact aquatic life. It is not sufficient to say that a considerably reduced flow would not affect the watershed as a whole.

Response: See page 66 for a discussion of filling impacts. As described in the Water Quantity and Flow section of pages 42 - 47, reservoir filling would be include pass through of senior water rights volume, this would reduce the immediate effect of flow reduction, but increase the duration of filling. Comment about flow reduction and retention at reservoir not totaling to 100 percent is spurious. The 19 to 31 percent of total flow in Monument Creek cited would include flows contributed by tributaries below the dam.

132. Mitigation should be in-kind and require that at least two acres of wetlands be created or rehabilitated for every acre lost. The public should be allowed to comment on a final or near-final mitigation plan before it is approved and before the Forest Service issues a draft Record of Decision for this project.

Response: While we have provided more information about the mitigation plans in the FEIS (see Appendix E), the final mitigation plan will be negotiated between the Corps of Engineers and Ute Water in resolution of Ute’s section 404 Permit application.

133. The Forest Service and Corps of Engineers must consider other alternatives, such as combinations of various types of projects that might allow the proponent to meet its need for increased firm annual yield of water.

Response: The FEIS does include combinations of other projects to meet the purpose and need. See description of alternatives considered on pages 34 - 37 and Appendix B


155

Comment from Christian Reece, Executive Director, Club 20 134. Colorado’s Water Plan listed the Monument No. 1 and/or Hunter Reservoir enlargement project as

an “Identified Project” in securing and protecting safe drinking water now and in the future. The Plan further stated that this project aligns with the plan’s theme of: protecting and restoring healthy streams; sustaining, promoting, and protecting agriculture; developing water conscious land use strategies; and encouraging a high level of basin-wide conservation.

Response: The Forest Service acknowledges the comment.


157

Appendix B Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 Project Alternatives Screening Analysis for Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

Introduction The Corps administers permitting of impacts to Waters of the United States, including wetlands, under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The action proposed by the Forest Service and the Ute Water Conservancy District, enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1, would place dredge or fill material into Waters of the United States, and inundate additional waters of the United States in the enlarged reservoir basin. Given these conditions, section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires a Department of the Army Permit (section 404 permit) from the Corps for the construction of the dam and reservoir. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed 404(b)(l) guidelines that serve as the principal environmental standard by which all section 404 Permit applications are to be evaluated.

The 404(b)(1) guidelines require that “no dredge or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse effect on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have significant adverse environmental consequences” (40 CFR §230.10(a)). The guidelines stipulate that practicable alternatives that do not involve a discharge into a special aquatic site [primarily wetlands] are (1) presumed to exist and (2) presumed to be less environmentally damaging than the Proposed Action, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise. Finally, the term “practicable” is defined in the guidelines as “available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing, technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.”

This appendix updates a practicable alternatives screening completed for an earlier version of the proposed project by the Corps in 2012. The update primarily makes the 2012 screening consistent with the current project purpose and need.

Background As is described in Chapter 1 of the EIS, the Forest Service has been working with the Ute Water Conservancy District since 2005 to explore suitable opportunities for additional reservoir storage on the national forests in the Plateau Creek watershed. Ute’s purpose in this effort is to meet an existing shortfall between current water system firm yield, or quantity of water needed in a worst-case drought scenario, and the future firm yield requirement modeled for their system in 2045. Providing reservoir storage within the GMUG is consistent with the Organic Administration Act of 1897, which created the Forest Service, and states that a primary purpose of establishing a national forest is: “…securing favorable conditions of water flows.”

The initial proposal to increase reservoir storage capacity was an enlargement of Hunter Reservoir from 110 acre-feet to 1,340 acre-feet, proposed in the Forest Service’s 2007 Hunter Reservoir Enlargement Draft EIS. The Hunter Reservoir enlargement proposed in 2007 was strongly criticized by the EPA due to the presence of an ecologically sensitive montane wetland complex including fen wetlands, springs, and tributaries associated with East Leon Creek within the area to be inundated by the enlarged reservoir. The EPA identified the fen at Hunter Reservoir as an Aquatic Resource of National Importance under the Clean Water Act section 404(q) Memorandum of Agreement. Impacts to approximately 26 acres


158

of aquatic resources at the Hunter site were also identified as “unacceptable” in the EPA’s 2007 Draft EIS comment letter.

In response to the EPA’s and other comments, Ute Water Conservancy District and GUMG revised their approach to identifying additional water storage capacity and released a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in June 2017 (the 2017 DSEIS). This DSEIS analyzed two action alternatives. Alternative 1 would enlarge both Hunter Reservoir and Monument Reservoir No. 1 to a total storage capacity of approximately 6,600 acre-feet. Alternative 2, the Forest Service’s proposed alternative, would enlarge Monument Reservoir No. 1 only to a capacity of approximately 6,600 acre-feet. Alternative 2 would not result in any impacts to fens. Alternative 1 would result in approximately 47 acres of fill or inundation of wetlands or other aquatic resources, while Alternative 2 would result in approximately 34 acres of such effects.

Over the development of this project, various alternative actions have been proposed and analyzed several times. The most comprehensive analysis for practicability was the Hunter Reservoir Enlargement Project Alternatives Screening Analysis Final Technical Report prepared by WestWater Engineering, Inc. on behalf of the Corps, Regulatory Division Sacramento District in 2012. This report, hereafter called “the 2012 Technical Report” and incorporated into this appendix by reference, analyzed 29 alternatives for providing water supply to address shortfalls of firm yield, including the enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 to a capacity of 5,268 acre-feet, as is currently proposed. The 2012 Technical Report determined that “Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 met all of the criteria and can be judged practicable and so ‘available and capable of being done’” (p. 14). The 2017 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 and Hunter Reservoir (“DSEIS”) relied heavily on the analysis of the 2012 Technical Report, and recommended enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 as the Forest Service’s preferred alternative.

Upon review of the DSEIS, however, the Corps of Engineers noted several problems with use of the 2012 Technical Report as a screening document for identifying practicable alternatives. During the interval between 2012 and completion of the DSEIS in 2017, Ute Water Conservancy District obtained additional sources system capacity. These include increasing its pumping capacity, purchasing additional water rights and storage capacity at Ruedi Reservoir, and dry year leasing of the District’s agricultural water rights. This reduced the firm yield gap considerably and changed the project purpose from the addition of at least 1,340 acre-feet to contribute to a larger shortfall, as proposed in the 2012 Technical Report, to providing approximately 6,600 acre-feet of additional storage capacity to meet the project firm yield. Additionally, the DSEIS analyzed enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 to a greater capacity (6,598 acre-feet) than was analyzed in the 2012 Report. Due to these changes, particularly the change in project purpose and need, the Corps determined that use of the 2012 Technical Report was no longer valid.

On December 4, 2017, representatives of the Corps of Engineers, the Forest Service, and Ute Water Conservancy District met at the Grand Junction, Colorado, office of the Corps, Colorado West Section, Sacramento District, to discuss resolution of the practicability screening and other issues related to the DSEIS. At this meeting, the Corps agreed that analysis of the original 29 alternatives considered in the 2012 Technical Report would be appropriate. No additional alternatives would be required, but the screening would need updates to reflect the current Proposed Action and some alternatives would also be updated. The Forest Service agreed to update the screening of those alternative with the following conditions:

• The project purpose and need in the screening analysis would be updated to reflect the current firm yield determinations made by Ute Water Conservancy District;


159

• Three potential new reservoirs analyzed at large capacity in the 2012 Technical Report; Atwell Gulch Reservoir, Buzzard Creek Reservoir, and Owens Reservoir; would be analyzed at a smaller capacity that reflects the current purpose and need;

• Reservoirs that were considered not practicable in the 2012 Technical Report due to their small yield or capacity; Above Hunter Reservoir, Colby Horse Park Reservoir, Jenson Reservoir, Kenney Creek Reservoir and West Middle Leon Creek Reservoir; would be reconsidered collectively, should they be otherwise determined practicable and their total capacity would meet the project purpose and need; and

• Monument Reservoir No. 1 would be analyzed at the capacity analyzed in the 2012 Technical Report, or 5,268 acre-feet.

Current Situation Over the course of the years since the 2012 Technical Report was completed, Ute Water Conservancy District has revised both its projected 2045 firm yield estimate and its available system capacity. In 2017 Ute Water Conservancy District revisited its water need projections using actual commercial and municipal water uses in 2009 (the baseline year of its earlier water need study) and factoring in projected population and commercial growth in the service area. This resulted in an estimate of total 2045 system water demand of 24,269 acre-feet. To convert this to firm yield, Ute Water Conservancy District applied two factors, an 85 percent efficiency correction factor to account for the estimated loss of 15 percent of water during transfer between source and user, and a 20 percent safety factor. This yielded a total firm yield for 2024 of 34,262 acre-feet as summarized in Table 28, below (Ute Water 2017).

Table 28. Revised 2045 firm yield (acre-feet) 2045 Residential

Demand 2045 Commercial

Demand 2045 Total Demand

Demand with 85% correction

Demand with 20% Safety Factor

17,653 6,616 24,269 28,552 34,262

Since 2013 Ute Water Conservancy District has been implementing improvements to its water system to increase firm yield. These include purchase of 13,000 acre-feet capacity from Ruedi Reservoir, increasing the capacity of the Colorado River Pumping Station from 12 cubic feet per second to 27 cubic feet per second, and allowing more than one fill of the Jerry Creek Reservoirs annually. In 2018 Ecological Resource Consultants, Inc., modeled the effect of these changes on the existing firm yield of the Ute Water system. The resulting total is 29,773 acre-feet of existing firm yield (ERC 2018, p. 4). The revised firm yield estimate need for 2045 of 34,262 acre-feet is thus 4,489 acre-feet greater than existing system capacity of 29,773 acre-feet.

34,262 acre-feet -29,773 acre-feet

4,489 acre-feet

The purpose of the Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 Project is thus to develop approximately 5,300 acre-feet reservoir storage to for use in years of drought in order to meet the 2045 projected water demand of Ute Water Conservancy District. The reservoir storage target is larger than the total firm yield shortfall to accommodate inefficiencies due to variation in rain fall and overall system efficiencies.


160

Ecological Resource Consultants, Inc. also modeled the firm yield available from the proposed increase in capacity of Monument Reservoir No. 1 to 5,268 acre-feet. The result would be an increase of firm yield to the system of 4,291 acre-feet above the existing firm yield, for a total of 34,064 acre-feet, or 29,773 acre-feet + 4,291 = 34,064 (ERC 2018, p.4). This total is within 0.6 percent of modeled 2045 firm yield requirement and is considered to meet the need.

This appendix contains an updated practicability screening of potential alternatives to meet the project purpose and need. “Practicable” is defined by the 404(b)(1) guidelines as “available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes” (40 CFR §230.3(l)). See Chapter 1 of the EIS for additional background on the current proposal.

Alternatives Analyzed for Practicability The 29 preliminary alternatives for meeting the project purpose and need, as initially analyzed in the 2012 Technical Report, or as modified from that report to meet the current project purpose, are shown in Table 29. These alternatives fall into several broad categories. Two of the alternatives involve modifications of the proposed enlargement of Hunter Reservoir, eleven involve proposed construction of new reservoirs, seven involve enlargement of existing reservoirs, three involve Vega Reservoir water or facilities, and are tied to geologic formations. The remainder involve solutions not related to creating additional sources of water system capacity. The proposed locations of these alternatives are provided on Figure 20, below.

Table 29. Alternatives screened for practicability Alternative Description Capacity

Increase (acre-feet)

Hunter Reservoir, Fen Avoidance Reduced Scale

Enlargement This modification would reduce the scale of the dam so that water would be backed up only until it reached the fen, avoiding inundation of the fen

and much of the non-fen wetland.

65

Construction of a Dike around the Fen

This modification would place an earthen dike around the fen, separating it from the enlarged reservoir and preventing inundation of the fen by

reservoir water.

1,090

Construction of New Reservoirs Big Park Construction of a reservoir on NFS lands in Secs. 4 and 5, T. 11 S, R. 93

W. Water for the reservoir would come from Leon Creek and from Park Creek through a 1.2-mile ditch.

5,470

Reduced-Capacity Big Park

Construction of a new reservoir at the Big Park site. No water from Park Creek would be used.

1,385

East Leon Creek Construction of a new reservoir on NFS lands in Sec. 27, T. 11 S., R. 93 W., just downstream from Hunter Reservoir.

1,354

Buzzard Creek Construction of a new reservoir on private land in Sec. 14, T. 9 S., R. 94 W., about 6 miles east of Collbran.

5,300

Owens Construction of a new reservoir on NFS lands in Sec. 25, T. 9 S., R. 92 W., about 18 miles east of Collbran.

5,300

Atwell Gulch Construction of a new reservoir on BLM land in Sec. 5, T. 10 S., R. 96 W., about 2 miles northwest of Jerry Creek Reservoir No. 1.

5,300

Above Hunter Construction of a new reservoir on NFS lands in Sec. 34, T. 11 S., R. 93 W., about ½-mile south of (above) Hunter Reservoir.

1,367


161


(acre-feet) West Fork of East

Leon Creek Construction of a new reservoir west of the road to Hunter Reservoir in the

NW¼NW¼ Sec. 22, T. 11 S., R. 93 W., about 1 ½- mile below Hunter Reservoir.

52

East Fork of East Leon Creek

Construction of a new reservoir in the NE¼NE¼ Sec. 22, T. 11 S., R. 93 W.

1,326

West Middle Leon Creek

Construction of a new reservoir west of Colby Horse Park Reservoir in the NE¼NE¼ Sec. 20, T. 11 S., R. 93 W.

1,269

Regional Water Storage

Construction of a single, on-channel or off-channel water storage facility that would supply the region’s water needs for 20 to 40 years.

N/A

Existing Reservoir Enlargement Jerry Creek Enlargement of either Jerry Creek Reservoir No. 1 or No. 2. N/A Leon Lake Enlargement of the dam at the headwaters of Middle Leon Creek in the

N½ Sec. 29, T. 11 S., R. 93 W. 1,380

Colby Horse Park Enlargement of the dam below Leon Lake Reservoir on Middle Leon Creek in the W½ Sec. 21, T. 11 S., R. 93 W.

1,101

Kenney Creek Enlargement of the dam on Kenney Creek in the N½ Sec. 8, T. 11 S., R. 93 W.

1,343

Monument Reservoir No. 1

Enlargement of the dam on Monument Creek in SE¼ Sec. 11, T. 11 S., R. 93 W.

4,711

Monument Reservoir No. 2

Enlargement of the dam north of Monument Creek in the NE¼ Sec. 12, T. 11 S., R. 93 W.

453

Jensen Enlargement of the dam located in the headwaters of the Cottonwood Creek drainage in the NE¼ Sec. 12, T. 11 S., R. 93 W.

1,365

Vega Reservoir Storage of Leon

Creek Water Storage of Ute Water Conservancy District’s Leon Creek water in Vega

Reservoir, a Bureau of Reclamation facility on private land in Sec. 6, T. 10 S., R. 93 W.

N/A

Conversion of Irrigation Water

Purchase of current agricultural water rights stored at Vega Reservoir (or the agricultural land associated with those rights) and conversion of the

use from agricultural to municipal.

N/A

Reservoir Enlargement

Enlargement of the dam at Vega Reservoir to allow storage of Ute Water’s water from the Leon Creek drainage.

1,340

Groundwater Groundwater Development

Drilling groundwater wells in the Plateau Creek watershed and Groundwater Development using existing pipelines or watercourses to

convey water to Plateau Creek and the water treatment facility.

N/A

Underground Storage

Transferring Ute Water Conservancy District’s Leon Creek water to injection wells and storing in underground aquifers.

N/A

Other Delivery System Improvements

Improving the delivery system from Jerry Creek reservoirs to Ute Water’s treatment plant and from the plant to the customers, offsetting the need for

increased raw water supply.

N/A

Conservation Conservation on the part of Ute Water Conservancy District ‘s customers to reduce the demand for new water supplies; programs to educate the public, to promote the use of more modem plumbing, and to promote

efficient watering systems.

N/A

Increased Colorado River Water Use*

An increased amount of raw water would be drawn from the Colorado River. The Ute Water Conservancy District pump station on the Colorado


162


(acre-feet) River would be enlarged and more Colorado River water would be

blended with raw water from the Plateau Creek drainage. Conversion of Non-Vega Agricultural

Water to Domestic Use

Purchase of agricultural water rights (or the agricultural land associated with those rights) that are not associated with Vega Reservoir and

conversion of the water’s use from agricultural to municipal.

N/A

*This alternative has been adopted for implementation by Ute Water Conservancy District since preparation of the 2012 Technical Report.

Three of the eight potential new reservoir construction alternatives - Big Park, Reduced Capacity Big Park, and East Leon Creek- are located at sites that Ute Water has had under consideration for some time. Two of the new construction alternatives - the Buzzard Creek and Owens Reservoir - were examined in a 1967 feasibility study by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) for the now defunct Battlement Mesa Project (BOR 1967) and have been periodically considered since then. A reservoir site at Atwell Gulch site has received comment from time to time but has never been evaluated. The remaining new construction alternatives include four new locations in the Leon Creek watershed at which a dam might be constructed and a large, regional reservoir to be constructed at an unspecified location.

The enlargement alternatives involve Vega Reservoir, Ute Water’s two Jerry Creek Reservoirs, and five other existing reservoirs - four in the Leon Creek drainage - that could potentially be enlarged. The remaining five alternatives are not based on construction of new water storage but rely on other means to increase the supply of municipal water or diminish demand for water. Four of these alternatives - Groundwater Supply, Delivery System Improvements, Conservation, and increased use of Colorado River Water - were examined as preliminary alternatives to the Plateau Creek Pipeline Replacement Project and are reevaluated here. Each alternative is described in the following paragraphs.

Enlargement of Hunter Reservoir

Reduced Scale Enlargement of Hunter Reservoir This alternative would involve reducing the size of the new dam so that the high-water mark of the enlarged reservoir would only reach the northern edge of the fen (Figure 21). Such a reduction in the scale of the reservoir would avoid inundating the fen and would also leave much of the non-fen wetland undisturbed. The estimated surface area of a reduced-scale reservoir would be 21 acres, with a volume of 175 acre-feet, an increase in volume of only 65 acre-feet over the existing 110 acre-feet (Ute Water 2011a). This alternative fails to meet the screening criterion for capacity (see Table 30).

Construction of a Dike around the Fen at Hunter Reservoir As originally conceived this alternative entailed design and construction of an earthen berm around the fen, separating it from the enlarged reservoir and preventing inundation of the fen by reservoir water (Figure 21). However, the scale of the “berm” would be such that it would likely be considered an extension of the enlarged Hunter dam or a dam in its own right. The structure has been termed a “dike” to distinguish it from the dam itself. The dike would have a minimum length of 1,260 feet, would require approximately 53,000 cubic yards of material for its construction, would have a footprint of 3.1 acres, and would have a height of nearly 30 feet at its deepest point. The height of the dike would likely put it under the jurisdiction of the Colorado State Engineers Office, which would consider the structure a “small dam” (Colorado 2007). If the alternative were implemented, two acres of fen would be protected from the


163

reservoir, approximately three acres of non-fen wetland would be covered by the footprint of the dike, and 27 acres of non-fen wetland would be inundated (Ute Water 2011a). This alternative fails to meet the screening criterion for capacity (see Table 30).

Alternatives Based on New Reservoir Construction

Big Park Reservoir Under this alternative, a new dam and reservoir would be constructed on NFS lands at a site located on Leon Creek in sections 4 and 5, T. 11 S., R. 93 W., 6th P. M., approximately 5.4 miles south of Vega Reservoir and five miles downstream from Hunter Reservoir, at an elevation of about 9,400 feet above sea level (Figure 20) Ute Water has a conditional right to 5,650 acre-feet of water at the Big Park site, with a priority date of September 17, 1970. That figure was estimated to be the maximum volume of a reservoir at that location. An earth embankment dam with a height of 180 feet and a crest length of 2,100 feet would be constructed to impound Leon Creek. The surface area of the reservoir impounded behind the dam would be 123 acres; the impoundment would hold up to 5,470 acre-feet of water at normal pool elevation (Ute Water 2008a).

The reservoir would be filled with water from Leon Creek and its tributaries and also with water from Park Creek, to the north. Because Park Creek joins Leon Creek below the dam site, a major feature of this alternative is construction of a concrete diversion structure in Park Creek and a 1.2-mile ditch that would carry water south to the reservoir from the NE¼ of section 32, R. 93 W., T. 10 S. The ditch would have an estimated capacity of 30 cubic feet per second. Leon Creek alone may not provide sufficient flow to fill the reservoir because of the other demands on water from the Leon Creek drainage.

Construction access to the Big Park dam site would be along NFS Road 262. Road improvements would be required to accommodate the heavy-truck traffic hauling fill material. In addition, a segment of new permanent road off of NFS Road 262 would be built to provide access to the dam and reservoir site for construction, maintenance, and operations purposes. Inundation of the reservoir would necessitate relocation of approximately 1/3 mile of NFS Road 262.

The Big Park Reservoir does not satisfy the site suitability criterion (see Table 33).


165

Figure 20. Monument Reservoir No. 1 enlargement alternatives


167

Figure 21. Reduced scale Hunter Reservoir enlargement and fen dike alternatives


168

Reduced-Capacity Big Park Reservoir Located at the same site as Big Park Reservoir, this reservoir would be of a smaller scale and of greatly reduced capacity. The dam for this alternative would be 135-ft high with a 1300-ft crest length, inundating approximately 52 acres, and providing 1,385 acre-feet of storage at normal pool elevation. Because of the reduced reservoir volume, a feeder ditch from Park Creek would not be needed.

Construction access to the Big Park dam site would be along NFS Road 262. Road improvements would be required to accommodate the heavy-truck traffic hauling fill material. In addition, a segment of new road off NFS Road 262 would be built to provide access to the dam and reservoir for construction, maintenance, and operations purposes. Because of the reduced scale, inundation of the reservoir would not necessitate relocation of NFS Road 262 (Ute Water 2008a).

The Reduced Capacity Big Park Reservoir does not satisfy the site suitability or cost criteria (see Table 33).

East Leon Creek Reservoir Under this alternative, a new dam and reservoir would be constructed on NFS lands at a site located in section 27, T. 11 S., R. 93 W., 6th P.M., about ½ mile downstream from Hunter Reservoir on East Leon Creek and approximately 10.4 miles south of Vega Reservoir (Figure 20). The elevation at the East Leon Creek site is approximately 10,200 feet above sea level, Ute Water would use the same conditional water rights in the Leon Creek watershed for this alternative that it would use to either enlarge Hunter Reservoir or construct one of the Big Park Reservoirs.

The East Leon Creek site is located in a narrow section of East Leon Creek below the existing Hunter Reservoir dam. The East Leon Creek Reservoir would be impounded by a 122-foot high by 1,085-foot long roller-compacted concrete dam, providing approximately 1,354 acre-feet of storage at normal pool elevation. The preliminary design for this dam assumed a 1.5:1 upstream and 0.5: 1 downstream slope. Since site constraints prevent the construction of an adequate spillway and discharge channel, the Colorado State Engineer’s Dam Safety requirements call for the probable maximum flood to be passed over the dam itself in a way that would not jeopardize the integrity of the dam. This is why a roller-compacted concrete dam is needed at this site. The preliminary design for this dam includes a lowered concrete section in the middle of the dam that would act as both a service and emergency spillway. Construction access to the East Leon Creek dam site would be along NFS Road 262 and NFS Road 280.

Road improvements would be required to accommodate the heavy-truck traffic hauling fill material. In addition, a segment of new permanent road off NFS Road 280 would be built to provide access to the dam and reservoir for construction, maintenance, and operations purposes (Ute Water 2008b).

The East Leon Creek Reservoir does not satisfy the technology, logistics, or cost criteria (see Table 33).

Atwell Gulch Reservoir This alternative includes a new dam and reservoir that would be built in Atwell Gulch, a drainage about 2 miles north of the Jerry Creek Reservoirs that feeds into Plateau Creek (Figure 20). No plans, designs, or engineering studies had been developed for such a reservoir prior to this analysis.

Atwell Gulch is an ephemeral stream that drains the southwest side of Battlement Mesa into Plateau Creek near the intersections of State Highways 65 and 330. It drains an area of approximately 8 square miles. Because Atwell Gulch only flows in response to storm events, there is insufficient water yield for a


169

reservoir just from these flows. Water to fill a potential reservoir at this site would come primarily from snowmelt off the Grand Mesa delivered through Ute Water Conservancy District’s Plateau Creek Pipeline.

The best location for a dam to impound approximately 5,300 acre-feet in Atwell Gulch is located near the center of section 5, Township 10 South, Range 96 West, 6th Principal Meridian, about 2 miles northwest of Jerry Creek Reservoir No. 1. An earthen embankment dam at that site would be about 140 feet tall with a crest length of 1,700 feet. At a normal water surface elevation of 5,560-ft above sea level, the reservoir would impound about 5,300 acre-feet of water and cover 104 surface acres. The dam and reservoir would be on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. A new 54-inch raw water pipeline from Ute Water Conservancy District’s existing Plateau Creek Pipeline to the reservoir would be required.

The Atwell Gulch Reservoir does not satisfy the institutional capability and property rights criteria (see Table 33).

Buzzard Creek Reservoir The Buzzard Creek Dam and Reservoir would be located approximately ½ mile north of State Highway 330 at County Road 64 and 3/10 in section 14 of Township 9 South, Range 94 West, 6th Principal Meridian. The site is about 4 miles north of Vega Reservoir and 6 miles east of the Town of Collbran (Figure 20). This is one of two sites - the other is the Owens Reservoir site - included in the 1967 feasibility study done by the US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) for the now defunct Battlement Mesa Project (BOR 1967).

The proposed Buzzard Creek site is in a relatively steep valley incised into a broad alluvial terrace known locally as the Peninsula. The Peninsula rises above Buzzard Creek and Plateau Creek to the south and is part of a broader valley between Battlement Mesa to the north and Grand Mesa to the south. At the location of the proposed embankment, the Buzzard Creek valley is about 140 feet deep and 700 feet wide. The steep valley slopes are densely vegetated with brush and some conifers. Irrigated pastures lie in the upper portion of the reservoir basin. The dam and reservoir would be located entirely on private land.

The proposed dam would be a zoned earth-fill structure 105 feet high, with a crest length of 500 feet. The reservoir would have a capacity of 5,300 acre-feet, a normal water surface elevation of 7,040 feet above sea level, a surface area of approximately 200 acres, and extend upstream from the dam approximately 2 miles. The reservoir would be filled from Buzzard Creek.

The Buzzard Creek Reservoir does not satisfy the institutional capability or property rights criteria (see Table 33).

Owens Reservoir The Owens Dam and Reservoir site is about 18 miles east of Collbran in Mesa County. The site was first described in the June 1967 BOR Feasibility Report on the Battlement Mesa Project although it had been under consideration since the 1930s (BOR 1967). The dam would be built across Buzzard Creek in the southwest quarter of section 27, Township 9 South, Range 92 West, 6th Principal Meridian, about 1.75 miles downstream of the point where Owens Creek joins Buzzard Creek (Figure 20). The reservoir would inundate Buzzard Creek for about 1.5 miles upstream of the dam. The dam would be entirely on NFS lands, as would virtually all of the reservoir.

The proposed dam would be a rolled earth and rock-fill structure 105 feet high with a crest length of 950 feet. The reservoir would have a capacity of approximately 5,300 acre-feet, a normal pool elevation of 8,220 feet above sea level, and a surface area of approximately 155 acres. The reservoir would be filled from Owens and Buzzard Creeks (GEI 1999).


170

Construction access to the Owens dam site would be along NFS Road 265. Road improvements may be required to accommodate the heavy-truck traffic hauling fill material. In addition, a segment of new road off of NFS Road 265 would be built to provide access to the dam and reservoir for construction, maintenance, and operations purposes.

The Owens Reservoir does not satisfy the site suitability criterion (see Table 33).

Above Hunter Reservoir This alternative would involve the construction of a reservoir at one of four newly identified potential sites in the Leon Creek drainage. This site above Hunter Reservoir is in an unnamed drainage in the SE¼NE¼ Sec. 34, T. 11 S., R. 93 W., about 4,300 feet south of Hunter Reservoir (Figure 20). Preliminary design calculations indicate a dam with a generally north-south orientation, 109 feet high and about 1,275 feet long. The dam could impound approximately 1,367 acre-feet of water. Construction and maintenance of the dam would require construction of about 1 mile of new road through or around Hunter Reservoir (Ute Water 20l1b).

The Above Hunter Reservoir fails to meet the screening criterion for average annual watershed yield (see Table 31).

West Fork of East Leon Creek Reservoir This alternative would also involve the construction of a reservoir at one of four newly identified potential sites in the Leon Creek drainage. It would be located west of the road to Hunter Reservoir and west of East Leon Creek in an unnamed drainage in the NW¼NW¼ Sec. 22, T. 11 S., R. 93 W., about 1.5 miles below Hunter Reservoir (Figure 20). Preliminary design calculations indicate a dam with a generally east-west orientation, 41 feet high and about 800 feet long. The dam could impound approximately 52 acre-feet of water. Construction and maintenance of the dam would require construction of about ¼ mile of new road (Ute Water 2011b).

The West Fork of East Leon Creek Reservoir fails to meet the capacity screening criterion (see Table 30).

East Fork of East Leon Creek Reservoir This alternative would also involve the construction of a reservoir at one of four newly identified potential sites in the Leon Creek drainage. This site, located in the NE¼NE¼ Sec. 22, T. 11 S., R. 93 W., is about 0.6 mile east of East Leon Creek and 1.5 miles north of Hunter Reservoir (Figure 20). Preliminary design calculations indicate a dam with a generally north-south orientation, 112-feet high and about 1,220 feet long. The dam could impound approximately 1,326 acre-feet of water. Construction and maintenance of the dam would require construction of 0.9 to 1.5 miles of new road (Ute Water 2011b).

The East Fork of East Leon Creek Reservoir fails to satisfy the institutional capability criterion (see Table 33).

West Middle Leon Creek Reservoir This alternative would also involve the construction of a reservoir at one of four newly identified potential sites in the Leon Creek drainage. This site is located immediately west of Colby Horse Park Reservoir in the NE¼ Sec. 20, T. 11 S., R. 93 W. (Figure 20). Preliminary design calculations indicate a dam with a generally east-west orientation, 70 feet high and about 1,203 feet long. The dam could impound approximately 1,269 acre-feet of water. Construction and maintenance of the dam would require construction of about 1/4 mile of new road (Ute Water 2011b).


171

Construction of a Regional Water Storage Reservoir Under this alternative, a single, on-channel or off-channel water storage facility would be built that would supply the region’s water needs for 20 to 40 years, eliminating the need for the Hunter Reservoir Enlargement project and many other smaller storage projects. The regional reservoir could be constructed by Ute Water alone or in collaboration with the other water supply systems in the Grand Valley. No site for such a reservoir has been identified nor has the source of water for the reservoir been identified.

Alternatives Based on Reservoir Enlargement

Jerry Creek Reservoir Enlargement Under this alternative, Ute Water would increase its raw water supply by enlarging either of the Jerry Creek Reservoirs. The Jerry Creek Reservoirs are two existing water storage reservoirs, Jerry Creek Reservoir Numbers 1 and 2, located on Jerry Gulch, a tributary to Plateau Creek (sections 9 and 16, T. 10 S., R. 96 W.) (Figure 20). Ute Water has just completed an enlargement of Jerry Creek Reservoir No. 2 (GEI 2005). The enlargement raised the normal water surface by 7 feet and increased the capacity of the reservoir by approximately 1,300 acre-feet (GEI 2003). The enlargement included construction of a new emergency spillway from Jerry Creek Reservoir No. 2, with a 750-ft concrete sill that discharges into Jerry Creek Reservoir No. 1; a new emergency spillway from Jerry Creek Reservoir No. 1, with a 250-ft concrete sill; a new raised service spillway outlet at Jerry Creek Reservoir No. 2; and other miscellaneous improvements. Under this alternative, Jerry Creek Reservoir No. 1 would be enlarged, or Jerry Creek Reservoir No. 2 would be enlarged even further.

The Jerry Creek Reservoir Enlargement fails the conceptual feasibility Criterion (see Table 32).

Enlargement of Leon Lake Reservoir Leon Lake is a natural lake at the headwaters of Middle Leon Creek in the N½ Sec. 29, T. 11 S., R.93 W. (Figure 20). The lake was enhanced to store additional water in the early 1900s by the Leon Lake Ditch and Reservoir Company. An outlet tunnel was constructed to take the water from Leon Lake to Marcott Creek, on the Cedaredge side of the Grand Mesa. The existing dam on Leon Lake is on the northeast side of the reservoir and is about 20 feet high and 300 feet long. The enhanced reservoir stores about 3,500 acre-feet of water. It has a drainage basin of about 714 acres. The estimated annual flow from the basin is 1,780 acre-feet, with a maximum of 2,914 acre-feet and a minimum of 1,103 acre-feet (Ute Water 2011b).

There is a direct flow right of 54 cubic feet second through the Leon Tunnel Canal and a storage right of 3,500 acre-feet in Leon Lake controlled by the Leon Lake Ditch and Reservoir Company. The Company typically operates this system by opening the diversion at the end of the irrigation season and taking all of the native flow into Leon Lake through the canal to the Cedaredge side of the Grand Mesa to fill the reservoirs on the south side of the Grand Mesa. Once those reservoirs are full, the diversion is closed, and Leon Lake begins to fill. It is usually full by June; at which time the diversion is opened again to begin draining the reservoir and also taking all of the available native flow into the reservoir. Out-of-priority diversions from Leon Lake to the Cedaredge side are replaced with water from Colby Horse Park Reservoir for release into the Leon Creek drainage

Enlargement of Leon Lake Reservoir fails to meet the screening criterion for average annual watershed yield (see Table 31).

An enlargement of this reservoir would require about a 20-foot raise on the dam and would provide an additional 1,380 acre-feet of water storage.


172

Enlargement of Colby Horse Park Reservoir Colby Horse Park Reservoir sits between East Leon Creek and Middle Leon Creek just below Leon Lake in the W½ Sec. 21, T. 11 S., R. 93 W. (Figure 20). It was constructed in the early 1900s to act as compensatory storage for diversions from Leon Lake to the Cedaredge side of the Grand Mesa. It is operated by the Leon Lake Ditch and Reservoir Company to provide water to senior water rights downstream in Leon Creek when the Company is diverting water from Leon Lake out-of-priority. Because the original drainage basin for this reservoir was so small, the Middle Fork Leon Creek was permanently diverted to provide additional flows into this reservoir (Ute Water 2011b).

The existing dam is about 20 feet high, 400 feet long and impounds 446 acre-feet of water. An enlargement of this reservoir would require a dam that is about 40 feet high and 2,350 feet long, with an arc in the axis. The reservoir would store an additional 1,101 acre-feet of water for a total impoundment of 1,547 acre-feet.

Colby Horse Park Reservoir has a drainage basin of 689 acres. The estimated annual flow from the basin is 1,717 acre-feet, a maximum of 2,812 acre-feet and a minimum of 1,064 acre-feet. The existing storage rights for Colby Horse Park Reservoir amount to 446 acre-feet. The average storable flow for this reservoir is 852 acre-feet, which would provide an additional 406 acre-feet, when it was in priority to store. The basin would provide an additional 1,261 acre-feet of storable water in the wettest year.

The Enlargement of Colby Horse Park Reservoir fails to satisfy the water Availability and water rights criteria (see Table 33).

Enlargement of Kenney Creek Reservoir Kenney Creek Reservoir (also called Kendall Reservoir) is in the N½ Sec. 8, T. 11 S., R. 93 W. (Figure 20). It is located on Kenney Creek, which is tributary to Leon Creek from the west side of the drainage. The dam and reservoir were constructed in the 1930s to provide supplemental irrigation water. The water rights for this reservoir are collectively owned by private individuals and the Forest Service (about 32 percent of the rights).

Kenney Creek Reservoir currently has a dam that is about 12 feet high, 400 feet long and impounds 87 acre-feet of water. The proposed enlargement of this reservoir would require a 70-foot high dam that is about 1,250 feet long. The enlarged reservoir would impound 1,430 acre-feet of water (Ute Water 2011b).

Kenney Creek Reservoir has a drainage area of 1,517 acres, much of which goes to supplying the flow rights of several ditches used to fill Anderson Brothers Reservoir No. 1 and to provide supplemental water to Grove Creek, which is situated west of Leon Creek and is tributary to Plateau Creek. In many years these rights take all of the available flow from the upper portion of this drainage basin. Only the lower portion of the basin, 628 acres, could truly be considered as tributary to Kenney Creek Reservoir when calculating potential yield of an enlarged reservoir.

Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 This reservoir is located on Monument Creek, a tributary to Leon Creek, in SE¼ Sec. 11, T. 11 S., R. 93 W. (Figure 20). Monument Reservoir No. 1 was constructed in the 1920s to provide supplemental irrigation water to ranches in the Salt Creek Drainage, which is a tributary to Plateau Creek to the west of Leon Creek. Water has historically been diverted from Leon Creek through the Kiggins Salisbury Ditch to Salt Creek. The water rights for this reservoir are owned by Ute Water.


173

Monument Reservoir No. 1 currently has a dam that is 32 feet high, 500 feet long and impounds 573 acre-feet of water, at normal pool elevation. An enlarged dam would have a height of 96 feet and a length of 1,950 feet. It would impound an additional 4,711 acre-feet of water, for a total of 5,268 acre-feet of storage (Ute Water 2011b).

Monument Reservoir No. 1 has a drainage basin of around 2,622 acres, which includes the drainage basin for Monument Reservoir No.2. The estimated average annual flow from the basin is 6,537 acre-feet. The existing storage rights in both Monument Reservoirs are 827 acre-feet. The average storable flows to the reservoir are 2,947 acre-feet.

Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 2 This reservoir is located north of Monument Creek on what is known as the Flattops in the NE¼ Sec. 12, T. 11 S., R. 93 W. on a small tributary to Monument Creek to the north and above Monument Reservoir No. 1 (Figure 20). Like Monument Reservoir No. 1, Monument Reservoir No. 2 was constructed in the 1920s to provide supplemental irrigation water to ranches in the Salt Creek drainage through the Kiggins Salisbury Ditch. The water rights for this reservoir are owned by Ute Water.

Monument Reservoir No. 2 has a main dam that is 19 feet high with a length of 500 feet. The reservoir currently impounds 249 acre-feet of water. An enlargement of this dam would entail an upstream raise of 20 feet and 5 saddle dams, with heights of about 15 feet, along its west and south sides. The enlarged reservoir would store an additional 453 acre-feet of water.

Monument Reservoir No. 2 has a drainage basin of about 336 acres. The estimated average annual flow from the basin is 837 acre-feet, with a maximum of 1,370 acre-feet and a minimum of 519 acre-feet. The existing storage rights for Monument Reservoir No. 2 amount to 254 acre-feet. The average amount available for storage is only 244 acre-feet, which is less than the existing storage right. The most additional storage that this basin would provide would be 162 acre-feet (Ute Water 2011b

Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 2 fails to meet the screening criterion for capacity (see Table 30).

Enlargement of Jensen Reservoir Jensen Reservoir (also called Cold Sore Reservoir) is located within the Cottonwood Creek drainage near the very top of the Grand Mesa in the NE¼ Sec. 12, T. 11 S., R. 93 W. (Figure 20). It was originally constructed in about 1913 at the site of an existing natural lake and has a decreed storage right for 134.26 acre-feet of water.

Jensen Reservoir has an existing series of dams that are between about 4 feet and 10 feet tall. The total length on the embankment side of the reservoir is about 1,600 feet long with one long embankment and about 5 or 6 smaller embankments comprising the dam (Ute Water 2011b).

The reservoir has a drainage area of 197 acres. The estimated annual flow from the basin is only 355 acre-feet, with a maximum of 576 acre-feet and a minimum of 218 acre-feet. The existing storage rights for Jensen Reservoir are 134 acre-feet. The average storable flow for this reservoir is 208 acre-feet, which would only provide an additional 74 acre-feet, when it was in priority to store. The basin would only provide an additional 215 acre-feet of storable water in the wettest year. This alternative fails to meet the screening criterion for average annual watershed yield (see Table 31).

An enlargement of this reservoir would require about a 46-foot high embankment generally in the shape of an arc. It would provide an additional 1,365 acre-feet of water.


174

Vega Reservoir Alternatives

Conversion of Vega Reservoir Water from Agricultural to Municipal Use Vega Dam and Reservoir are located about 10 miles east of the town of Collbran (Figure 20). Constructed as the central element of the Collbran Project, the dam was authorized by Congress in 1952 and, under the direction of the Bureau of Reclamation, was completed in 1960. Today the project is managed by the Collbran Conservancy District and provides irrigation water for 22,210 acres in the Collbran Project. The project also supports the operation of two hydroelectric plants on Plateau Creek with a capacity of 13,500 kilowatts, the Lower Molina and Upper Molina Power Plants. The dam sits in the channel of Plateau Creek, forming a reservoir with a total capacity of 33,800 acre-feet and an active capacity of 32,980 acre-feet. The reservoir stores surplus flows of Plateau, Leon, and Park Creeks. The Leon and Park Creek flows are brought to the reservoir through the 2.7-mile Leon-Park Feeder Canal. Most project water is released from Vega Reservoir and delivered by the Southside Canal to the project. Some water is released into Plateau Creek for diversion by downstream ditches (BOR 2010).

This alternative calls for Ute Water to purchase the rights to agricultural water currently stored at Vega Reservoir (or purchase the agricultural land associated with those rights), to continue storing the water in Vega Reservoir, releasing it into Plateau Creek to the Ute Water System, and then converting the water to municipal use.

Storage of Ute Water’s Leon Creek Water in Vega Reservoir Under this alternative, if Vega Reservoir had excess capacity, the water that Ute Water proposes to store in Hunter Reservoir would instead be allowed to flow down Leon Creek, then through the Leon-Park Feeder Canal, and be stored in Vega Reservoir.

Enlargement of Vega Reservoir Under this alternative, if the excess capacity were not available in Vega Reservoir to store Ute Water’s Leon Creek water, then Vega Dam would be enlarged to create the extra capacity.

As is described below, in the Screening Criteria section, alternatives that include storing municipal water in Vega Reservoir fail to meet the multiple screening criteria, including operational and institutional capability, legal status, water rights, and water availability (see Table 33).

Groundwater Alternatives

Groundwater Development Under this alternative, Ute Water would increase its raw water supply by accessing and pumping groundwater in the Plateau Creek watershed. Groundwater wells would have to be located in suitable locations throughout the watershed. Suitable locations would be defined by groundwater availability, land use restrictions, landownership, and cost. New pipelines or existing watercourses, or both, would convey water from wells to Plateau Creek and then to the downstream Ute Water treatment facility. Well and pipeline locations on NFS lands would require authorization by the Forest Service (Ute Water 2011c).

This alternative fails to meet the conceptual feasibility criterion due regional geology (see Table 32).

Underground Storage of Surface Water Under this alternative, Ute Water would inject surface water from its existing water rights into bedrock aquifers to replace or enhance existing groundwater supplies. As demanded, water would be recovered from the aquifers by pumps and conveyed with surface facilities, including pipelines, to points of use.


175

Injection and recovery wells would be situated in suitable locations throughout the watershed. Suitable locations would be defined by locations of useable aquifers, land use restrictions, landownership, and cost. New pipelines and/or existing watercourses would convey water from recovery wells to Plateau Creek and then to the downstream Ute Water treatment facility. Well and pipeline locations on NFS lands would require authorization by the Forest Service (Ute Water 2011c).

This alternative fails to meet the conceptual feasibility criterion due regional geology (see Table 32).

Other Alternatives

Delivery System Improvements Raw water is delivered by the Molina Pipeline from Lower Molina Power Plant and by the Plateau Creek Pipeline from Ute Water’s final storage site at Jerry Creek Reservoirs to the treatment plant. From the plant, treated water travels through an extensive delivery system. Deteriorating pipe, damaged pipe, improperly installed pipe, or other faulty equipment could produce losses of significant amounts of water. Upgrading and improving the delivery system could be a potential means of reducing the demand for new water supplies; effectively offsetting some of the need for increasing water supply (Ute Water 2008c).

This alternative has already been implemented to a great extent; additional savings are not likely to be feasible (see Screening Criteria, below). Conservation of Treated Water This alternative is based on the premise that conservation on the part of Ute Water’s customers would reduce the demand for new water supplies and offset the need for an enlarged Hunter Reservoir (Ute Water 2008c).

Ute Water’s user base has limited ability to realize additional conservation that would yield large savings (see Screening Criteria, below).

Increased Colorado River Water Use Historically Ute Water has used the Colorado River as an emergency water supply source in the event of a catastrophic maintenance problem involving its Plateau Creek raw water pipeline or the Jerry Creek reservoirs. The intake structure for delivering river water to the Ute Water treatment facilities is located between mile marker 44 and 45 along Interstate 70 (1-70) in DeBeque Canyon. Ute Water’s Colorado River pump station is located between the river and I-70, adjacent to the riverbank. The water is pumped from this location to an intermediate secondary pump station, which in turn pumps the water to the treatment facility, an overall 343-foot gain in elevation (Ute Water 2011d).

In order to implement the alternative, Ute Water would build upon its conventional treatment process by incorporating enhanced coagulation and flocculation equipment, plate technology in the sedimentation process, and membrane technology in the form of either Nano filtration or low-pressure reverse osmosis to address water quality concerns. A pre-sedimentation basin would have to be constructed and a method of disposing of the new waste stream would have to be devised and permitted. Existing pumps would be used on a year-round basis (Ute Water 2011d).

This alternative has been implemented to the extent feasible since preparation of the 2012 Technical Report. It is no longer available (see Screening Criteria, below).

Conversion of Non- Vega Reservoir Agricultural Water to Municipal Use This alternative calls for Ute Water to purchase, as it becomes available, agricultural land with water rights used for irrigation purposes or to purchase the water rights alone in order to increase system supply


176

of water. Conversion of these rights from irrigation to municipal use would require a water court ruling. One of the alternatives described above calls for converting water stored in Vega Reservoir from agricultural to municipal use. That alternative would rely solely on water that is stored annually in Vega Reservoir - Collbran Project Water. While the potential supply of such land and water rights for this alternative would come from the Plateau Valley, this alternative is distinguished from the distinguished from the Conversion of Vega Reservoir Water from Agricultural to Municipal Use alternative in that it would include all Plateau Valley irrigation water that is not Collbran Project water. The Collbran Project irrigates about 21,000 acres in the Plateau Valley. There is a comparable amount of land that is not associated with the Collbran Project and water for this alternative would come from those lands. Instead of irrigating the land for crop production, the water would be released downstream, eventually reaching Plateau Creek, and then entering the Ute Water system where it would be converted to municipal use.

Ute Water has determined that stocks of agricultural water available do not meet requirements. See Table 32, below.

Screening Criteria The following criteria provide a method of evaluating whether the each of the alternatives listed in Table 29, above, is practicable. The initial screenings for Purpose and Need and Conceptual Feasibility are broad first-cut screens to eliminate alternatives that would not meet the project purpose or could not be implemented. The alternatives that remain after the initial screenings are subjected to full practicability screening for all criteria. For ease of review and brevity, only alternatives or traits of alternatives that fail the screen are presented here. This rebuts the presumption of practicability inherent in the 404(b)(1) guidelines. Full analysis of each alternative appears in the 2012 Technical Report. Purpose and Need

Capacity The purpose and need for this project is to supply of an additional firm yield of 4,489 acre-feet of water to the Ute Water Conservancy District’s system. The proposed method of achieving this purpose would be addition of approximately 5,300 acre-feet of additional reservoir storage in the Plateau Creek Watershed by enlarging Monument Reservoir No. 1. Although we are committed to examining combinations of alternatives that would collectively meet this capacity, individual projects that would add less than 15 percent of the enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1 capacity (793 acre-feet of storage), are excluded as too small to contribute to the project purpose and need in a meaningful way. See Table 30 for a list of alternatives excluded due to failing to meet the project purpose and need.

Table 30. Alternatives Failing Capacity Screening (acre-feet) Alternative Storage Capacity Increase

Reduced-scale Enlargement of Hunter Reservoir 175 West Fork of East Leon Creek Reservoir 52

Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 2 453

Average Annual Watershed Yield Although the additional reservoir storage capacity proposed by enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 would be used primarily in cases of critical need during infrequent drought years, it is important that watershed yield is sufficient to refill any depleted storage in a relatively short period. In the case of the proposed enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1, the enlarged capacity would be approximately 5,300 acre-feet, and the basin’s average annual yield would be approximately 2,950 acre-feet. Average annual watershed yield thus would be approximately 56 percent of total reservoir storage capacity,


177

allowing recovery of reservoir depletion in a short period. In cases where average annual yield is less than 20 percent of potential reservoir storage capacity (more than 5 average years for recovery from full depletion), the potential reservoirs are excluded as unlikely to meet project purpose and need during prolonged drought. This screen would exclude three reservoirs due to low or, in the case of Leon Lake, no available yield. See Table 31 for a list of the alternatives with watersheds that do not provide sufficient annual yield to pass this screening.

Table 31. Alternatives failing average annual watershed yield screening Alternative Capacity

(acre-feet) Average Yield

(acre feet) Yield as Percent of Capacity

Above Hunter Reservoir 1,367 234 17% (about 5.8 average years to fill) Jensen Reservoir 1,365 74 5% (about 18.4 average years to fill)

Enlarged Leon Lake 1,340 0 0, all yield diverted from drainage

Conceptual Feasibility This secondary screen eliminates alternatives with no reasonable expectation that the water resources needed to support a potential alternative are in fact available and that the facilities associated with it could be built at the location proposed. The criterion is different from the determination of actual feasibility made during the practicability analysis. A simple example illustrates the difference. A dam proposed in terrain that has a generally low gradient with no natural basin for water collection and no clear site for constructing a structure that impounds water in the basin is not conceptually feasible. On the other hand, an alternative might call for a dam in terrain with a substantial gradient, a natural basin, and an obvious site for locating an impoundment structure. That alternative would be considered conceptually feasible even though, after closer analysis, it might turn out to have geotechnical problems that cannot be surmounted.

Upon initial investigation, ten of the alternatives discussed in the 2012 Technical Report failed the conceptual feasibility test. Six failed due to inherent conceptual infeasibility. Four failed because Ute Water Conservancy District has already implemented them to the extent of practical feasibility, and no measurable addition to firm yield can be obtained through additional efforts. A brief discussion of each alternative screened out due to not being conceptually feasible follows.

Construction of Dike to Protect the Fen at Hunter Reservoir This alternative entails design and construction of a dike around the fen, an Aquatic Resource of National Importance. The potential impact of inundating this wetland was determined unacceptable by the EPA during review of the 2007 Draft EIS for an earlier iteration of this project. The proposed dike would separate the fen from the enlarged reservoir. This would prevent inundation of the fen by reservoir water. The location of the fen and its integration with terrain features upstream and downstream create a situation that would require extraordinary engineering solutions to continue its ecologic function while surrounded by a dike. The solutions to such a situation are not known and, even if they exist, cannot be known without extensive study and experimentation. Given the uncertainty of whether constructing a dike around the fen would actually protect this important wetland, this alternative does not satisfy the conceptual feasibility criterion.

Construction of a Regional Reservoir This alternative would fail the conceptual feasibility criterion. As no site for this large reservoir can be specified, the feasibility of a dam at the site can’t be evaluated. Without the specification of a site and a


178

dam design, the storage volume cannot be estimated. Additionally, without identifying the site, it is not possible to evaluate the potential storable flows at the site and the effect that senior water rights might exert at that site. It is thus not possible to determine whether construction of such a Regional Reservoir would be feasible.

Jerry Creek Reservoir Enlargement Under this alternative, Ute Water Conservancy District would increase its raw water supply by enlarging either of the Jerry Creek Reservoirs. The Jerry Creek Reservoirs are two existing water storage reservoirs, Jerry Creek Reservoirs Numbers 1 and 2, located on Jerry Gulch, a tributary to Plateau Creek. Ute Water Conservancy District completed an enlargement of Jerry Creek Reservoir No. 2 (GEI 2005) several years ago. The enlargement increased the capacity of the reservoir by approximately 1,300 acre-feet (GEI 2003). Under this alternative, Jerry Creek No. 1 would be enlarged, or Jerry Creek No. 2 would be enlarged even further.

It has been determined that geological conditions, specifically the presence of a permeable layer or bedrock just above the existing upper elevation of the dams, at the sites of Jerry Creek Numbers 1 and 2 preclude enlargement of either dam. This layer would likely cause considerable seepage, hindering the enlarged reservoirs’ ability to store water, and possibly leading future dam safety issues (Ute Water Conservancy District 2008). For that reason, no dam enlargement can be designed and no increase in storage volume is possible. The alternative thus fails the conceptual feasibility criterion, as it could not be implemented.

Storage of Leon Creek Water in Vega Reservoir This alternative assumes that excess capacity exists in Vega Reservoir and that the water that Ute Water Conservancy District proposes to store in Monument Reservoir No. 1 could instead be allowed to flow down Leon Creek, then through the Leon-Park Feeder Canal, and be stored in Vega Reservoir. It also assumes that Ute Water would be able to transfer its Leon Creek storage rights to Vega Reservoir.

The alternative fails to satisfy conceptual feasibility criterion. Although the storage facility is already in place and although it is assumed that shortfalls in firm yield could be addressed by transferring water storage rights, there is in fact no certitude that the necessary storage volume would be available in the amount and at the times needed by Ute Water Conservancy District. Any excess storage available in Vega Reservoir would only be available in the winter and spring months. Ute Water Conservancy District would be forced to release its water in the spring to make room for Collbran Project water as it became available during spring melt. This schedule would not meet the needs of Ute Water Conservancy District. During many years the water would proceed unused into the Colorado River because downstream storage was not available. Although allowing seasonal increased storage of water, that storage would in fact not contribute to an increase in the effective firm yield. Stored water would not be available at the time needed.

Groundwater Development Under this alternative, the Ute Water Conservancy District would increase its raw water supply by accessing and pumping groundwater in the Plateau Creek watershed, then transferring the water downstream through pipelines or perhaps natural watercourses from the wells to Plateau Creek or directly to the water treatment facility. This alternative would satisfy the project purpose and need criteria if underground water could be identified in sufficient quantities to meet the average yield requirement. The aquifers supplying the water would constitute the equivalent of constructed storage facilities necessary to supply additional firm yield.


179

Several studies have demonstrated, however, that underground water is not available in sufficient usable quantities to meet the average yield criterion. The groundwater resources were extensively evaluated in the Plateau Creek Pipeline Replacement Project EIS (CDM 1997). In the project area basalt flows cap the Grand Mesa. They contain groundwater that discharges via seeps and springs in the headwater tributaries of Plateau Creek. The BOR drilled several test wells in the basalt cap and concluded that significant quantities of water could not be produced from that formation. The analysis revealed that the basalt-aquifer system had estimated water storage of at most 113,000 acre-feet (an amount of water that would offset Ute Water Conservancy District’s future water demand for about eight years). The overall groundwater potential from the basalt-aquifer was deemed to be too limited for any significant development. Transmissivity, specific capacity, well yield, hydraulic conductivity, and the estimated volume are all low. The safe yield of the aquifer - that is, the quantity of water that can be withdrawn on a sustained basis, is also likely to be low as recharge rates are small. Ultimately, the analysis showed that the basalt aquifers of the Grand Mesa could provide water supplies for low volume uses such as cabins and campgrounds but could not provide water supplies for a municipality.

Underlying formations, such as the Green River, Wasatch and Mesa Verde Group, contain aquifers that could be accessed. However, these waters are very high in total dissolved solids. Data from an oil and gas test hole near Collbran indicated that water in the Mesa Verde Formation contains about 4,450 mg/l of total dissolved solids. The Wasatch Formation is known for its low permeability and Colorado State Engineer’s records indicated that wells in the Wasatch typically yield only a few gallons per minute (CDM 1997). The Green River Formation is also known for its low permeability and also yields only very small quantities of water. The conclusion of the ground water resources evaluation study done for the Plateau Creek Pipeline Replacement Project EIS was that “no aquifers or group of aquifers were identified in the project area that appear to have adequate quantities of usable ground water to meet the long-range needs of Ute Water Conservancy District ‘s Service Area.”

Since the underground resources to sustain an increase in firm yield are not available, the alternative is not conceptually feasible.

Underground Storage of Surface Waters This alternative relies not on the availability of water in underground aquifers, but on the availability of bedrock aquifers into which the Ute Water Conservancy District could inject surface water from its existing water rights to replace or enhance existing groundwater supplies. As demanded, water would be recovered from the aquifers by pumps and conveyed with surface facilities, including pipelines, to points of use. Injection and recovery wells would be situated in suitable locations throughout the watershed. Suitable locations would be defined by locations of usable aquifers, land use restrictions, landownership, and cost. New pipelines and/or existing watercourses would convey water from recovery wells to Plateau Creek and then to the downstream Ute Water Conservancy District water treatment facility (Ute Water 2011c).

The same studies that demonstrated underground water is not available in sufficient usable quantities to meet the firm yield criterion also indicated there are not suitable underground aquifers for injecting surface water. The 1997 study done for the Plateau Creek Pipeline Replacement Project EIS and the 1987 BOR study both demonstrated in addition to having limited contribution to Ute Water Conservancy District ‘s raw water supply, “the basalt cap aquifer on Grand Mesa has significant limitations to recharge (including the injection of surface waters), store, move, and recover water in volumes needed to support a municipal water system, and would only be suited to provide water supplies for low volume uses such as cabins or camp grounds”.


180

In addition, the potential sedimentary aquifer units in the vicinity of the Plateau Creek Basin - the Green River, Wasatch, Mesaverde, and Mancos shale formations - exhibit low permeability, are locally limited in extent to approximately the footprint of Grand Mesa and outcrop high on the steep side slopes of Grand Mesa. They would be poor candidates for development of conjunctive use with surface water. Another factor, particularly in the Mancos formation, is poor water quality. The total dissolved solids concentrations have been observed in the range of 6,000 to 13,000 mg/l. It would not be possible for Ute Water Conservancy District to maintain a standard of total dissolved solids concentrations at or below 300 mg/1 70 percent of the time with development of this aquifer. As the underground resources necessary to allow injection of surface water are not available, the alternative fails to meet the conceptual feasibility criterion.

Delivery System Improvements The Ute Water Conservancy District’s treatment plant receives raw water deliveries via the Molina Pipeline from Lower Molina Power Plant and via the Plateau Creek Pipeline from Ute Water Conservancy District’s final storage site at Jerry Creek Reservoirs. From the plant, treated water travels through an extensive delivery system. Deteriorating pipe, damaged pipe, improperly installed pipe, or other faulty equipment could produce losses of significant amounts of water. Upgrading and improving the delivery system could be a potential means of reducing the demand for new water supplies, effectively offsetting some of the need for increasing water supply.

The technologies for reducing water transmission losses by improving the water delivery system are known and have been available for some time. However, the technologies have already been applied by Ute Water Conservancy District, continue to be applied, have largely had their effect. Little potential for substantive reduction in transmission losses in the future remains. Since 1997 Ute Water Conservancy District has expended more than $15,000,000 for water main replacement and upgrade projects. Most of these projects replaced older mains with a history of leaks. In addition, Ute Water Conservancy District has expended about $1,400,000 in the past 10 years for leak repairs. In 1997, the percentage of unaccounted water in the District’s treated water system was a high of 18 percent and had decreased to 3 to 5 percent by 2012 (U.S. Department of the Army 2012). The industry-wide average for unaccounted water is around 13 percent (Ute Water 2008).

While Ute Water Conservancy District would continue to actively replace aging water mains and repair leaks as quickly as possible, there are no available means of reducing system losses on a scale sufficient to offset the storage contribution of a Monument Reservoir No. 1 Enlargement. For this reason, the alternative can be considered as already having been implemented and is no longer a conceptually feasible way of either offsetting the need for increased water storage or the need for increase water yield.

Conservation This alternative is based on the premise that conservation on the part of Ute Water Conservancy District’s customers would reduce the demand for new water supplies and offset the need for an enlarged Hunter Reservoir. The technologies for reducing demand for water by enhancing conservation are well understood and have been available for some time. In the case of Ute Water Conservancy District and its customers though, the technologies have already been applied, have had their effect, and there are no remaining substantive conservation gains to be made.

Ute Water Conservancy District has less to gain from conservation measures than many other water providers. The District was originally organized to provide domestic water to residents of the Grand Valley that had historically relied on cisterns for their domestic use and who had irrigation water from a system of agricultural ditches that also provided water for lawns and gardens. As a result, a relatively


181

small share of the finished water provided by Ute Water Conservancy District is used for irrigation. Only 19 percent of Ute Water Conservancy District’s finished water is used for outdoor purposes, contrasted with 42 percent for the City of Denver and 39 percent for the City of Louisville, two representative municipal water providers on the Front Range. Municipal water providers like these can show substantial savings from conservation simply by instituting limitations on the timing or amount of water applied outdoors. Such large savings are not available to Ute Water Conservancy District because outdoor use is relatively small. Residential per capita demand by Ute Water customers is about 83 gallons per day, compared to Denver Water customers who have an estimated per capita demand of 162 gallons per day. Ute Water Conservancy District uses tiered rate structure, which results in an increased cost per 1000 gallons of water consumed as use increases. This provides an incentive for water conservation.

Ute Water Conservancy District has instituted programs to educate the public, to promote the use of more modern plumbing, and to promote the use of restricted flow showerheads and more efficient watering systems. These programs have reduced water use and, thus, slowed the rate of growth in demand for water (Ute Water 2008c).

While Ute Water Conservancy District would continue to promote conservation of domestic water, it has exhausted any means of reducing demand through conservation on a scale sufficient to offset the storage contribution of the Monument Reservoir No. 1 Enlargement. For this reason, the alternative is no longer a conceptually feasible way of either offsetting the need for increased water storage or the need for increase water yield. Thus, the alternative does not satisfy the project purpose and need.

Increased Use of Colorado River Water The 2012 Technical Report concluded that pumping additional water from the Colorado River would be conceptually feasible (Appendix B, p. B-16), but determined that this alternative would not meet all the practicability screening criteria (Appendix C, pp C-24 and 25).

In 2013 the Ute Water Conservancy District proposed a blended supply concept which would incorporate additional pumping of Colorado River water to blend with water from the Plateau Creek watershed. This blended supply would meet safe drinking standards and provide additional water to meet increasing demand. Between 2015 and 2017, the District upgraded the capacity of its pumps at the Colorado River pumping station. This resulted in an increase of 5,610 acre-feet of annual system firm yield. Ute Water Conservancy District determined this to be the maximum quantity of Colorado River use feasible in the context of water quality constraints (Ute Water 2017). This alternative has thus been implemented by the Ute Water Conservancy District and is no longer available to further increase yield.

Conversion of Agricultural Water Rights for Domestic Use The Ute Water Conservancy District has investigated agricultural conversion/dry year leasing of the District’s agricultural water rights for domestic use. While some additional water rights may be available for purchase, the process includes multiple uncertainties related to the amount of water physically and legally available at any time. Additionally, conversion of agricultural water rights to domestic use may require a Colorado Water Court decision. Given these uncertainties, this alternative is considered not viable to substantially or quantifiably increase firm yield.

Table 32, below summarizes the reasons that proposed alternatives were screened from consideration as not conceptually feasible.


182

Table 32. Alternatives screened from consideration due to lack of conceptual feasibility Alternative Reason Determined Not Conceptually Feasible

Dike to Protect Fen at Hunter Reservoir Site

Uncertainty of whether fen could continue to function while isolated by dike

Regional Reservoir Lack of measurable data on speculative project with no location or capacity information.

Jerry Creek Reservoirs Enlargement Hazard of raising dam due to permeable geologic strata Storage at Vega Reservoir Necessary volume not guaranteed, and would be available at wrong time

of year Groundwater Development Geological conditions would not yield sufficient water volume, water

quality would likely be poor Underground Storage of Surface Waters Geological conditions to not provide sufficient volume of storage

Delivery System Improvement Ute Water has made substantial system improvements already, only incremental gains remain viable

Conservation Ute Water has invested in conservation programs; potential gains from additional conservation are much smaller than system shortfall

Increased Use of Colorado River Water Ute Water implemented pumping station capacity increases to maximize potential use of Colorado River water between 2015 and 2017

Conversion of Agricultural Water Rights to Domestic Use

Uncertainties regarding volume water available, legal viability of converting agricultural water to domestic use

Practicability Screening The introduction describes 29 alternatives for meeting the project purpose and need that the Ute Water Conservancy District developed over several years. Purpose and need screening presented above screened out three of these as producing too small of an increase in overall storage to provide a meaningful contribution to the project purpose and need, and an additional three as receiving too small a yield from their watersheds to recover in a timely way from depletion. The conceptual feasibility screening presented above screened out an additional ten of these alternatives as not available, either due to their not being conceptually feasible or already having been implemented to the extent feasible.

This section describes the next stage of the screening process, an evaluation of the 13 remaining alternatives against the practicability criteria. The 13 remaining alternatives are: 1) Big Park Reservoir, 2) Reduced-Capacity Big Park Reservoir, 3) East Leon Creek Reservoir, 4) Atwell Gulch Reservoir, 5) Buzzard Creek Reservoir, 6) Owens Reservoir, 7) Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1, 8) East Fork of East Leon Creek Reservoir, 9) West Middle Leon Creek Reservoir, 10) Colby Horse Park Reservoir Enlargement, 11) Kenney Creek Reservoir Enlargement, 12) Conversion of Agricultural Water Storage at Vega Reservoir to Domestic Use, and 13) Vega Reservoir Enlargement.

Practicability Screening Criteria Ute Water Conservancy District’s proposed Monument Reservoir No. 1 Enlargement requires a Department of the Army permit (section 404 permit) and is subject to the 404(b)(l) guidelines of the Clean Water Act. The guidelines state that “no discharge of dredge or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences” (40 CFR §230.10(a)). Practicable is defined by the guidelines as “available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.” Those alternatives that are considered practicable then undergo an analysis of their environmental effects to allow a determination of the practicable alternative that would have the least damaging environmental consequences.


183

To be considered practicable, an alternative must meet the three general practicability criteria described in the 404(b)(l) guidelines: existing technology, logistics, and cost. The general definition of each criterion is straightforward. The existing technology criterion examines whether the scientific and engineering capability needed to implement the preliminary alternative is currently available. The logistics criterion is broader than the technology criterion. It refers to the operational, legal, and institutional requirements that must be met for the proponent to successfully implement an alternative. The cost criterion relates to the expense of developing an alternative. Is the expense reasonable in light of similar projects that have been done? If an alternative were to satisfy all of the criteria, then it would be considered “available and capable of being done.” Failure to satisfy any one of the criteria means that the alternative is not practicable and is therefore not “available and capable of being done.”

For the Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 Project alternative screening process, the technology and logistics criteria were subdivided into distinct elements to allow for more clarity and precision in screening the alternatives. The complete suite of practicability criteria for the alternatives screening process is described below. Failure to satisfy any one of the elements of a criterion means failure to satisfy the criterion.

Technology Criteria

Proven Technology –

The alternative should rely on scientific and engineering capability that would achieve the objectives set out for it, that is currently available, that has not already been applied to the maximum extent possible, and that has been proven to minimize the risk of failure and the risk to human safety. If the alternative depends on a technology that is untested or contains a high degree of risk, then the alternative would not meet the standard.

Site Suitability –

The physical conditions necessary for application of the technology called for must be available at the site, must not create a high risk to human safety or the environment, or must not require extraordinary engineering solutions. This criterion distinguishes between the technology to be applied and the physical conditions in which it would be applied. Most of the alternatives would require construction of some kind of facility and, as with all construction projects, geological, soil, and moisture conditions must be such that facility construction would be successful and enduring. For five of the sites, detailed examinations of site suitability were not available. As each of the alternatives is similar to other proposed projects in the area that were determined to meet the site suitability criterion, site suitability was not used as a disqualifier for any of these five sites.

Logistics Criteria

Operational Capability-

The alternative must be in general agreement with the operational structures and processes of the proponent. No significant restructuring or reorganization of the proponent’s traditional or long-standing operations should be required by implementation of the alternative.

Legal Status –

The alternative must not be contrary to any federal, state, or local law or regulation. If it is, there must be limited opportunity for exception to or exemption from the law or regulation. Determinations under this criterion do not amount to formal legal opinions but are simply the best estimates of the participants in the screening process as to the likely effect of applicable law or regulation.


184

Institutional Capability –

The alternative must not contradict or conflict with the plans, goals, objectives, or operations of other entities that have an interest in the rights and resources that would be affected by implementation of the alternative. In particular, the alternative must not conflict with established land uses or resource designations of federal and state agencies. If it does, there must be no opportunity for a reasonable accommodation between the alternative and the use or designation.

Property Rights –

The proponent must own the property necessary for development of the alternative, have the right of use of the property, or have the potential to own or acquire the right of use.

Water Availability and Water Rights –

The water to be stored or used must be physically available in sufficient quantities and the proponent must own the water rights necessary for development of the alternative or have the potential to acquire the rights.

Cost Criterion

Reasonable Cost –

The alternative’s cost must be reasonable in comparison with costs of similar projects in the Plateau Creek watershed. Developing the alternative must not result in a cost per unit of raw water (acre-foot) that is unreasonably high. It is estimated that the current cost of agricultural water, about $3,000 per acre-foot, yields an average cost for consumptive use as municipal water of $6,700 per acre-foot. This figure serves as the standard for determining whether an alternative’s cost is reasonable. Alternatives that generate a cost that is the same or less than that standard are certainly reasonable. Alternatives that cost two or three times as much may be expensive but are still considered reasonable. Alternatives that cost more than that are not considered reasonable. The cost of implementing an alternative was the last criterion considered and cost was not estimated for all the alternatives. For six of the alternatives, technical or logistical problems were substantial enough that there was no reason to estimate the cost of the alternative. For seven of the alternatives, a cost estimate was made [or inferred from nearby similar sites] and evaluated against the standard.

Practicability Screening Assessment Because the 404(b)(1) guidelines establish a presumption that practicable alternatives exist, this assessment focuses on those elements of each alternative that rebut that presumption. The following individual assessments focus on any practicability screening criteria not met by each alternative. Individuals interested in reading the entire assessments of each alternative should see the 2012 Technical Report, which is available in the project record.

Individual Screening Assessments

Big Park Reservoir Technology Criteria

Site Suitability - A geotechnical assessment of the Big Park site was conducted that concluded “this geologic setting is of concern relative to the old and young landslide areas mapped,” and that there was a question whether “this site should even be considered for a dam of this magnitude.” The wet and moist nature of the east abutment, along with the surface instability of the area, indicates that the foundation


185

preparation for the dam site would likely be challenging for a structure that is 180-ft high (URS 2007). The Big Park Reservoir does not satisfy the Site Suitability criterion.

Reduced-Capacity Big Park Reservoir Technology Criteria

Site Suitability - A geotechnical assessment of the Big Park site was conducted that concluded ‘this geologic setting is of concern relative to the old and young landslide areas mapped.’ And that there was a question whether ‘this site should even be considered for a dam of this magnitude.’ The wet and moist nature of the east abutment, along with the surface instability of the area, indicates that the foundation preparation for the dam site would likely be challenging for a structure that is 135-ft high (URS 2007). The Reduced-Capacity Big Park Reservoir does not satisfy the Site Suitability criterion.

Cost Criterion

Reasonable Cost – At a total estimated cost of $3.9 million, the unit cost of this storage alternative is $27,365 per acre-foot of stored water (Ute Water 2008b), assuming 1,385 acre-feet at normal capacity, compared to the average cost for acquiring municipal water, $6,700 per acre-foot. That would make this an alternative so expensive that it would not be considered reasonable. At this cost, the alternative does not satisfy the Cost criterion.

East Leon Creek Reservoir Technology Criteria

Site Suitability - The alternative faces obstacles similar to the alternatives located at the Big Park site in that site conditions would probably not allow construction of a dam. A geotechnical assessment of the site conducted in 2007 concluded there is potential for moderate mass movement on slump block benches that occur in this area. Furthermore, the assessment concluded that the site “does not appear to be a good roller-compacted concrete dam site.” This is due to the weathered shale that would form the foundation, a width-to-height ratio in the valley that exceeds what is considered suitable for a roller-compacted concrete dam site, and differential settlement (uneven settlement of soil, alluvium and bedrock) across the foundation area (URS 2007). Because of the geotechnical unsuitability of the site for a roller-compacted concrete dam - the only type of dam that could be built at the site - the East Leon Creek Reservoir Alternative does not satisfy the Site Suitability criterion.

Logistics Criteria

Institutional Capability - The most important land use designation under this alternative is the Forest Service Roadless designation. The East Leon Creek dam and reservoir would be entirely within the Flattops/Elk Park Roadless Area. Since the ¼-mile access road required for construction of the dam would also be within the Roadless area for most of its length, any decision by the Forest Service on a reservoir at the site would include a decision on permitting a new road in the Roadless area.

A decision based on the Colorado Roadless Rule would only permit a new road to this reservoir site if it were needed: to exercise reserved and outstanding rights; to repair road-related resource damage; to improve road traffic safety; or to provide access to an authorized water conveyance structure, for which a water right is held or has been filed for. None of these conditions would apply to the East Leon Creek Reservoir, and the new road would be inconsistent with the Colorado Roadless Rule. The alternative thus fails to satisfy the Institutional Capability criterion.


186

Cost Criterion

Reasonable Cost – At a total estimated cost of $31.9 million, the unit cost of the East Leon Creek Reservoir alternative is $23,560 per acre-foot of stored water (Ute Water 2008b), assuming 1,354 acre-feet at normal capacity, compared to the average cost for acquiring municipal water, $6,700 per acre-foot. That would make this an alternative so expensive that it would not be considered reasonable. At this cost, the alternative does not satisfy the Cost criterion.

Atwell Gulch Reservoir Logistics Criteria

Institutional Capability – This alternative would not meet all the logistical requirements. The proposed facility would conflict with current BLM land use designations. In August 2015 BLM designated a 2,900-acre area, including the proposed reservoir site, as the Atwell Gulch Area of Critical Environmental Concern (BLM 2015, p. 11). This area was so designated due to the presence of rare plants including Colorado hookless cactus, DeBeque milkvetch, and Naturita milkvetch. The area is operated by BLM as a no surface occupancy site due to these rare species. BLM would not approve any dam construction or impoundment of water (pers. Comm. Kevin Hyatt, BLM 1/18/18). Although construction of a dam just off of BLM land along Mesa County Road 45 ½ could impound the targeted capacity of water, virtually all of the reservoir impounded by a dam at that location would occur within the BLM Atwell Gulch Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NFS land north of the BLM parcel does not have suitable terrain and for sufficient water storage. The alternative thus does not satisfy the Institutional Capability criterion.

Property Rights – Ute Water Conservancy District would not receive authority from BLM for location of either the dam or the reservoir for reasons described above under Institutional Capability. For that reason, the alternative does not satisfy the Property Rights criterion

Buzzard Creek Reservoir Logistics Criteria

Institutional Capability – As described below in the discussion of property ownership, a dam and reservoir at the Buzzard Creek site would conflict with a number of established land uses: agricultural, residential, and public utility. All these conflicts could be resolved through purchase of private property or through negotiated settlements with those who benefit from the existing land uses. The likelihood of Ute Water Conservancy District resolving the conflicts is discussed below and this criterion is not satisfied for the same reasons that the Property Rights criterion is not satisfied.

Property Rights – The Buzzard Creek Reservoir alternative does not meet the requirement for property ownership or right of use because the dam and reservoir would be located entirely on private property that Ute Water Conservancy District does not own and could only acquire with extreme difficulty. Construction of the facility would require purchase of at least 8 separate parcels, totaling approximately 843 acres. At least 2 parcels have single-family residences. A 2018 review of property status in Mesa County concluded that none of the properties is currently for sale. An earlier analysis, as reported in Appendix C of the 2012 Technical Report, determined that the larger parcels are owned by only five ranching families, that none of the owners has exhibited any desire to sell property, that properties have typically transferred between family members through estate transfers, and that transfers that have occurred in the recent past have frequently involved litigation. Although Ute Water Conservancy District has power of eminent domain, the number of parcels to be purchased and the social and cultural values at stake indicate that the property acquisition process using eminent domain would be time consuming and difficult, in all likelihood generating public resistance and extensive litigation.


187

Owens Reservoir Technology Criteria

Site Suitability – Although earlier assessments of the Owens dam site indicated a dam might be built there, a 1999 geotechnical assessment found fault with that earlier work. Based on new boreholes in the dam abutment areas and other analyses, the new assessment raised concerns about the stability of the slopes in the abutment areas and a large part of the reservoir rim (GEI 1999). The assessment concluded, “While foundation stability may not be a ‘fatal flaw,’ it would be a significant design issue.” On the basis of that report, Ute Water Conservancy District discontinued examination of the site as a potential dam and reservoir. More recent examination of the GEI analysis confirmed that design and safety concerns would be valid for the currently proposed smaller capacity dam (Ute Water 2018). The alternative thus does not meet the requirement for appropriate physical conditions.

West Middle Leon Creek Reservoir

This proposed new reservoir meets all screening criteria and is thus considered available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.

Enlargement of Colby Horse Park Reservoir Logistics Criteria

Water Availability and Water Rights – An enlargement at Colby Horse park Reservoir would have a junior storage right and would be subject to the Cameo call and the 16 cubic feet per second instream flow right on Plateau Creek. In addition, it would be junior to downstream water rights on Leon Creek including a year-round Colorado Water Conservation Board instream flow right for 3.5 cubic feet per second, several irrigation rights, and the Leon Park Feeder Canal rights. Due to the limited drainage basin and the effects of upstream diversions at Leon Lake and bypasses for downstream water rights, there would be little to no firm yield associated with an enlargement at this site (ERC 2009, 17 and 18). This alternative thus does not satisfy the Water Availability and Water Rights criterion.

Enlargement of Kenney Creek Reservoir

This proposed reservoir enlargement project meets all screening criteria and is thus considered available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.

Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1

This proposed reservoir enlargement project meets all screening criteria and is thus considered available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.

East Fork of East Leon Creek Reservoir Logistics Criteria

Institutional Capability- The most important land use designation under this alternative is the Forest Service Roadless designation. The East Fork of East Leon Creek dam and reservoir would be entirely within the Flattops/Elk Park Roadless Area. Since the 1.75-mile access road required for construction of the dam would also be within the Roadless area for most of its length, any decision by the Forest Service on a reservoir at the site would include a decision on permitting a new road in the Roadless area.


188

The Colorado Roadless Rule would only permit a new road to this reservoir site if it were needed: to exercise reserved and outstanding rights; to repair road-related resource damage; to improve road traffic safety; or to provide access to an authorized water conveyance structure, for which a water right is held or has been filed for. As none of these conditions would apply to the East Fork of East Leon Creek Reservoir the new road would be inconsistent with the Colorado Roadless Rule. The alternative thus fails to satisfy the Institutional Capability criterion.

Conversion of Agricultural Water Storage at Vega Reservoir to Domestic Use Logistics Criteria

Operational Capability - Ute Water could purchase agricultural land within the Collbran Project that is currently irrigated by water from Vega Reservoir. However, Ute Water would not have acquired the right to redirect the water, to alter the period of delivery, or use it for nonagricultural purposes. Control of the timing of water releases and of the direction of the release could only come with control of the facilities at Vega Dam and Reservoir. Without control of the direction, and timing of water releases, this alternative does not satisfy the Operational Capability criterion.

Legal Status - Congress created the Collbran Project for a variety of purposes including irrigation, domestic, municipal, industrial, stockwater, fish and wildlife, and hydropower (Act of July 3, 1952; Ch. 565, 66 Stat. 325). However, the final Congressional authorization of federal funds for the project was directed only at irrigation, stockwater, fish and wildlife, and hydropower. It did not include allocations for municipal, industrial, or domestic uses. Because of this, only water for irrigation, fish and wildlife, and hydropower can be stored or utilized in project facilities. Water stored in Vega Reservoir cannot be used for municipal, industrial, or domestic purposes. The intent of Congress is evidenced further in the Collbran Project Repayment Contract (between BOR and the Collbran Conservancy District), which states that water “shall be used on lands within the District.” (BOR 2010) The alternative does not satisfy the Legal Status criterion.

Institutional Capability - The alternative conflicts with the established plans, goals, objectives, and operations of the Collbran Conservancy District and the Collbran Project. The project was created to provide irrigation water for 22,210 acres in the Plateau Valley. That water sustains much of the agricultural economy of the Plateau Valley and the communities of Collbran and Molina. This alternative would run counter to the mission and to the annual operations of the Collbran Project and for that reason fails to satisfy the Institutional Capability criterion.

Property Rights - Ute Water can purchase agricultural land within the Collbran Project that is currently irrigated by water from Vega Reservoir. With that purchase, Ute Water would have acquired the right to use shares of project water delivered to the property during the agricultural growing season for irrigation of its purchased land. It would not have acquired the right to redirect the water, to alter the period of delivery, or to use it for non-agricultural purposes. Control of the timing of water releases and of the direction of the release could only come with control of the facilities at Vega Dam and Reservoir. Those facilities are owned by the Federal Government and are not for sale. (BOR 2010) Because Ute Water cannot acquire the ownership or right of use necessary to control the direction, timing and use of water associated with Vega Reservoir, this alternative does not satisfy the Property Rights criterion.

Water Availability and Water Rights - All the water stored in Vega Reservoir is managed by water rights held by the Collbran Conservancy District. The District does not sell those rights but distributes water to project lands according to the share of project land that is warranted for each parcel. The Collbran Conservancy District does not offer water rights for sale because its prescribed legal mission is provision of agricultural water to project lands and the water rights are central to that mission. Because Ute Water


189

cannot purchase the water rights necessary for implementing the alternative, the alternative fails to satisfy the water rights criterion.

Vega Reservoir Enlargement Logistics Criteria

Operational Capability - Implementation of the Vega Reservoir Enlargement alternative would not be in accord with the normal operating structure and processes of Ute Water. Although the reservoir would be within Ute Water’s normal area of operations, construction and maintenance of the facility would not be under Ute Water’s supervision and control, the stored water would not be managed under Ute Water’s direction. Even if the dam were to be enlarged, Ute Water would still have no controlling interest in Vega Dam and its related facilities and there is no reasonable expectation that it could gain such an interest. Control of the timing of water releases and of the direction of the release could only come with control of the facilities at Vega Dam and Reservoir. Without control of the direction, and timing of water releases, this alternative does not satisfy the Operational Capability criterion.

Legal Status - Congress created the Collbran Project for a variety of purposes including irrigation, domestic, municipal, industrial, stockwater, fish and wildlife, and hydropower (Act of July 3, 1952; ch. 565, 66 Stat. 325). However, the final Congressional authorization of federal funds for the project was directed only at irrigation, stockwater, fish and wildlife, and hydropower. It did not include allocations for municipal, industrial, or domestic uses. Because of this, only water for irrigation, fish and wildlife, and hydropower can be stored or utilized in project facilities. Water stored in Vega Reservoir cannot be used for municipal, industrial, or domestic purposes. The intent of Congress is evidenced further in the Collbran Project Repayment Contract (between BOR and the Collbran Conservancy District), which states that water “shall be used on lands within the District.” (BOR 2010) The alternative does not satisfy the Legal Status criterion.

Institutional Capability - The alternative conflicts with the established plans, goals, objectives, and operations of the Collbran Conservancy District and the Collbran Project. The project was created to collect and store irrigation water for agricultural purposes. This alternative would run counter to the mission and to the annual operations of the Collbran Project and for that reason fails to satisfy the Institutional Capability criterion.

Property Rights - Even if Vega Dam and Reservoir were to be enlarged sufficiently to store additional water from Leon Creek, Ute Water would not have acquired the right to redirect the water, to alter the period of delivery, or use it for non-agricultural purposes. Control of the timing of water releases and of the direction of the release could only come with control of the facilities at Vega Dam and Reservoir. Those facilities are owned by the Federal Government and are not for sale. (BOR 2010) Because Ute Water cannot acquire the ownership or right of use necessary to control the direction, timing and use of water associated with Vega Reservoir, this alternative does not satisfy the Property Rights criterion.

Summary Table 33 shows the results of the practicability screening. Of the 13 alternatives, 10 failed to satisfy all the practicability criteria. Only Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1, West Middle Leon Creek Reservoir, and Enlargement of Kenney Creek Reservoir met all the criteria and can be judged practicable and so “available and capable of being done.” Four of the alternatives failed three or more criteria; two failed two criteria, and four failed a single criterion. The Institutional Capability criterion was met by the fewest of the alternatives, followed be the Property Rights criterion and the Site Suitability criterion.


190

Of the three alternatives that meet all the screening criteria and can thus be considered “available and capable of being done,” two are small reservoirs that had been screened out in the 2012 Technical Report due to low storage capacity or low yield not meeting the project purpose and need. In negotiations with the Corps in 2017, the Forest Service agreed to consider these smaller reservoirs’ ability to meet the project purpose need collectively, should they meet the screening criteria. The two smaller reservoirs that meet all the screening criteria, West Middle Leon Creek Reservoir and Kenney Creek Reservoir, would provide storage capacity of 1,269 acre-feet and 1,430 acre-feet, respectively. This total of 2,699 acre-feet is slightly more than half of the 5,268 acre-feet capacity of the proposed Monument Reservoir No. 1 Enlargement. The two reservoirs thus fail to meet the project purpose and need.

Conclusion Monument Reservoir No. 1 remains the only alternative “available and capable of being done” that meets the project purpose and need.

E n l a r g e m e n t o f M o n u m e n t R e s e r v o i r N o . 1 P r o j e c t F i n a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t S ta t e m e n t

1 9 1

T a b l e 3 3 . S u m m a r y o f a l t e r n a t i v e s a n d c o m p l i a n c e w i t h s c r e e n i n g c r i t e r i a *

A l t e r n a t i v e P r o v e n T e c h n o l o g y

S i t e S u i t a b i l i t y

O p e r a t i o n a l C a p a b i l i t y

L e g a l S t at u s I n s t i t u t i o n a l C a p a b i l i t y

P r o p e r t y R i g h t s

W a t e r R i g h t s C o s t A l t e r n a t i v e A v a i l a b l e

B i g P a r k R e s e r v o i r Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N o

R e d u c e d B i g P a r k R e s e r v o i r

Y N Y Y N Y Y N N o

E a s t L e o n C r e e k R e s e r v o i r

Y N Y Y N Y Y N N o

A t w e l l G u l c h R e s e r v o i r Y N / A Y Y N N Y N / A N o

B u z z a r d C r e e k R e s e r v o i r Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N o

O w e n s R e s e r v o i r Y N Y Y Y Y Y N / A N o

W e s t M i d d l e L e o n C r e e k R e s e r v o i r

Y N / A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y e s

C o l b y H o r s e P a r k R e s e r v o i r E n l a r g e m e n t

Y N / A Y Y Y Y N N / A N o

K e n n e y C r e e k R e s e r v o i r E n l a r g e m e n t

Y N / A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y e s

M o n u m e n t R e s e r v o i r N o . 1 E n l a r g e m e n t

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y e s

E a s t F o r k o f E a s t L e o n C r e e k R e s e r v o i r

Y Y Y Y N Y Y N / A N o

C o n v e r s i o n o f A g . W a t e r a t V e g a R e s e r v o ir

Y Y N N N N N N / A N o

*Y = meets criterion, N = does not meet criterion


192

References to Appendix B Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2015. Approved Resource Management Plan for the Bureau of

Land Management; Grand Junction Field Office. BLM, Grand Junction, CO: 220pp + appendices.

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). 1967. Battlement Mesa Project, Feasibility Report. U.S, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Region 4. June 1967. Salt Lake City, Utah.

CDM 1997. Water Resources Technical Memorandum. Technical Memoranda of the Draft EIS, Plateau Creek Pipeline Replacement Project, Volume III. June 1997. Grand Junction, Colorado.

Colorado 2007. Rules and Regulations for Dam Safety and Dam Construction. State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, Office of the State Engineer. January 2007. Denver, Colorado.

Ecological Resource Consultants, Inc. (ERC). 2009. Memorandum to Ed Tolen, Ute Water Conservancy District Engineer, and John Sikora, URS, from Ecological Heather Thompson, ERC, November 3, 2009, Evergreen Colorado: 27 pp.

ERC. 2018. Summary of SYSTEM model results for Monument Reservoir enlargement. Memorandum to Jeremy Lyon, Ute Water Conservancy District, from Heather Thompson, ERC, May 29, 2018, Evergreen Colorado, 24pp.

GEI. 1999. Reconnaissance-Level Assessment of Owens Creek Dam Site. GEI Consultants, Inc. Submitted to Ute Water Conservancy District November 18, 1999, Englewood, Colorado.

GEI 2003. Conceptual Design of Spillway Modifications for Increased Storage at Jerry Creek Reservoirs. GEi Consultants, Inc., Mesa County, Colorado. Submitted to Ute Water Conservancy District, Centennial, Colorado, November 2003.

GEI. 2004. Preliminary Evaluation of the Proposed Buzzard Creek Reservoir Project, Mesa County, Colorado. GEi Consultants, Inc., Centennial, Colorado. [Provided to the Forest Service by Ute Water as part of its September 26, 2008, response to the Forest Service data needs request].

GEI. 2005. Technical Memorandum G.1, Pre-Design Geotechnical Field Investigations Report. Jerry Creek Reservoir No. 2 Enlargement. GEi Consultants, Inc. Submitted to Ute Water Conservancy District, Centennial, Colorado, March 2005.

URS. 2007. Technical Memorandum, Big Park and East Leon Potential Dam Site Geotechnical Assessment, Site Visit Memo, November 8, 2007. Glenwood Springs, Colorado.

Ute Water. 2008a. Memorandum to Mike Klish from Ed Tolen, District Engineer. Opinion of Probable Costs for Big Park and Little Big Park Reservoirs. Ute Water Conservancy District. January 7, 2008. Grand Junction, Colorado.

Ute Water. 2008b. Memorandum to Carrie Surber from Ed Tolen, District Engineer. Opinion of Probable Costs for East Leon Reservoir. Ute Water Conservancy District. January 10, 2008. Grand Junction, Colorado.


193

Ute Water. 2008c. Memorandum from Ed Tolen to U.S. Forest Service. Response to Data Needs Request For Hunter Reservoir EIS. Ute Water Conservancy District. September 26, 2008. Grand Junction, Colorado.

Ute Water. 2011a. Memorandum to Mark Gilfillan from David Priske, District Engineer. Evaluation of the Modifications of the Proposed Action to Hunter Reservoir Enlargement. Ute Water Conservancy District. October 28, 2011. Grand Junction, Colorado.

Ute Water. 2011b. Memorandum to Mark Gilfillan from Ed Tolen, District Engineer. Evaluation of Proposed Alternatives to Hunter Reservoir Expansion. Ute Water Conservancy District. August 10, 2011. Grand Junction, Colorado.

Ute Water. 201lc. Memorandum to Mark Gilfillan from Ed Tolen, District Engineer. Evaluation of Proposed Groundwater Alternatives to Hunter Reservoir Expansion. Ute Water Conservancy District. August 10, 2011. Grand Junction, Colorado.

Ute Water. 2011d. Memorandum to Mark Gilfillan from David Priske, District Engineer. Colorado River Alternative. Ute Water Conservancy District. October 25, 2011. Grand Junction, Colorado.

Ute Water. 2017 Handout; USFS/USAACOE Meeting, from Jeremy Lyon, Ute Water Conservancy District, to Matthew Montgomery, US Army Corps of Engineers; Beth Anderson, Water Program Lead, GMUG National Forests; William Edwards, Grand Valley District Ranger, and John Slown, U.S. Forest Service Enterprise Program; December 4, 2017.

Ute Water. 2018. Memorandum to John Slown from David Priske, District Engineer. Regarding discussions of site suitability for dam enlargement at Owens Reservoir site.

U.S. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Hunter Reservoir enlargement project alternatives screening analysis; final technical report. July 2012.


195

Appendix C Design Criteria for the Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 The following environmental protections are included as design criteria of the Proposed Action and would be applied to the design, construction, and operation of the Enlargement of Monument Reservoir No. 1 Project. These design criteria were derived from Ute Water’s proposal, from law, regulation, and policy or were identified by the Forest Service or Corps to avoid or minimize environmental effects on specific resources. Design criteria should be considered integral to the analysis of effects in Chapter 3 of the EIS. Construction phase design criteria such as best management practices for erosion control and dust abatement would be monitored by a quality assurance and compliance inspection contractor funded by the project proponent. This contractor would report to the Forest Service. In the event of any reports of non-compliance with design criteria, the Forest Service reserved the right to stop work until non-compliance has been resolved.

Air Quality 1. Air quality would be maintained by permitting of all regulated air pollution sources through the

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division, assuring compliance with all federal and state standards.

2. Such additional methods and devices as are reasonable to prevent, control and otherwise minimize atmospheric emissions or discharges of air contaminants would be used, including:

a. No burning of cleared materials, combustible construction materials and rubbish.

b. Dust abatement techniques shall be used as directed by the Forest Service to minimize dust in a way such that visibility and air quality are not affected, and a hazardous condition is not created. Dust would not reach a height of 12 feet.

Aquatic Wildlife 1. Fisheries Management – Pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 37-60-122.2(1), Ute Water is

preparing a Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan (FWMP) to address mitigation for fish and wildlife impacts from the Monument Reservoir #1 enlargement identified in the EIS. Mitigation and enhancement measures to offset impacts to aquatic wildlife would be developed by Ute Water in consultation with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) as part of the FWMP process. A fishery currently exists in Monument Reservoir #1 reservoir that has sustained during historical drawn down periods to the existing level of the outlet works that occurred at the end of each season. A dead pool is almost non-existent at the level at or below the outlet works and thus provides very little fish protection during winter months, yet fish currently appear to be surviving as indicated by the 2019 fishery CPW survey results following 2018 drought conditions. A dead pool of a yet to be determined size would be established in the enlarged reservoir to fish to overwinter.

2. Ramping Rates for the Enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1 - In consultation with CPW, Ute Water would develop a reservoir release plan that would mimic the historical hydrograph in Monument Creek in order to avoid unnecessary scour and stranding of fish. Ute water has proposed the following equation to determine ramping rate:


Where:


196

QR = Amount of Allowable Ramping Increase or Decrease % = 20% for Ramping Up and 10% for Ramping Down Qbkf = Estimated Bank full Flow Qmaf = Average Annual Flow

3. Construction practices that maintain existing stream flows and minimize siltation and pollution, including construction of a bypass ditch around the construction activities, would be employed to protect aquatic species located downstream of the project. BMPs described below for soil would be used to meet this objective.

4. Construction equipment would be cleaned, disinfected, and inspected per CPW guidelines to prevent introduction of invasive aquatic species.

Cultural Resources, Archaeology, and Paleontology The Forest Service and the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer office agreed on actions that would be included in the proposed action in order to protect cultural sites located in the area of potential effect. The design criteria for preventing any adverse effect to the historic properties is discussed below.

1. Site 5ME18155: To mitigate impacts of the proposed project activities to site 5ME18155, the Monument Trail (NFS Trail 518) would be re-routed to avoid the site. The site would be avoided by at least 50 feet and would be monitored by an archaeologist during new route construction. Exclusion fencing would be used during construction if appropriate. After the access route has been re-routed to avoid the site, the existing track through the site would be reclaimed using off-site fill to ensure additional disturbance and water erosion do not continue to affect the site. These actions would ensure that the project has no adverse effect to the site. Concurrence from the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer office was obtained on January 31, 2013.

2. Site 5ME18610: To mitigate impacts of the proposed project activities to site 5ME18610, the current access route, FSR 280, would be re-routed to avoid the site. The site would be avoided by at least 50 feet and would be monitored by an archaeologist during new route construction. Exclusion fencing would be used during construction if appropriate. After the road has been re-routed to avoid the site, the existing track through the site would be reclaimed by hand using off-site fill to ensure additional disturbance and water erosion do not continue to affect the site. These actions would ensure that the project has no adverse effect to the site. Concurrence from the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer office for the site eligibility status and avoidance measures to protect the site was obtained on January 31, 2013.

3. General criteria for cultural resources projection

a. All employees of Ute Water, contractors, subcontractors or other parties associated with the project would be instructed that, upon discovering evidence of possible prehistorical, historical or archeological objects, work would cease immediately at that location and the engineer would be notified, giving the location and nature of the findings. The Forest Service would be notified immediately. Care would be exercised so as not to disturb, or damage artifacts or fossils uncovered during excavation operations.

b. The authorized officer would be immediately notified of all antiquities or other objects of historic or scientific interest, including but not limited to historic or prehistoric ruins, fossils, or artifacts discovered in connection with the use and occupancy authorized by this permit. Ute Water’s employees, contractors, etc., would leave these discoveries intact and in place until directed otherwise by the authorized officer. Measures to protect the environment and


197

mitigate environmental damage specified by the authorized officer would be the responsibility of Ute Water.

c. During project implementation, in the unlikely event of an inadvertent encounter of Native American remains or grave objects, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act requires that all activities must cease in their discovery area, that a reasonable effort be made to protect the items found or unearthed, and that immediate notification be made to the agency Authorized Officers as well as the appropriate Native American group(s) (IV C. 2). Notice of such a discovery may be followed by a 30-day delay (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act section 3(d)). Further actions may also require compliance under provisions of the NHPA of 1966 and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act.

Hazardous Materials and Emergency Response 1. The Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan described in the Soils Design criteria would

assure compliance with all federal and state requirements.

2. A Fire/Emergency Response/Health and Safety Plan that addresses the potential for accidents and injuries, and other emergencies would be prepared and submitted to the Forest Service for approval and kept onsite. This plan would be made available to the Forest Service prior to construction and kept on all active locations.

Hydrology 1. Implementation of BMPs for the Proposed Action as described in the Soils Section below would

minimize effects, such as sedimentation, from the construction activities on affected streams.

2. A Stream Diversion Plan would be developed prior to any construction activity. The plan would describe small diversion dams located in each of the drainages and diversion ditches used to cause the flows on the perimeter of the site into the existing Monument Creek.

3. Refueling or lubricating and storage of hazardous materials, chemicals, fuels, etc., would only take place in designated locations that are more than 100 feet from wetlands and other water bodies or drainages.

4. Flushing Flows: Impacts to peak flows downstream of Monument Reservoir #1 would generally occur if the head gate is not opened prior to spring runoff or if water is stored in the enlarged reservoir using Ute Water’s junior water rights during spring runoff. These operations could result in multiple years of no or reduced flows in Monument Creek. Reduction in peak flows specifically might reduce the ability of Monument Creek to adequately transport sediment and decrease water availability for resident fish and macroinvertebrates. In consultation with CPW, Ute Water would identify appropriate flows to flush algae in spawning channels with fine sediments as well as flush gravel beds. Commencing in Summer 2020, Ute Water would consult with CPW on a technical approach to develop appropriate draining and filling operations based on site specific gaging and modeling. Ute Water and CPW would enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) specific to this purpose.

Noise Noise would be minimized by compliance with applicable laws and regulations regarding the prevention, control and abatement of harmful noise levels.


198

Soils 1. A Stormwater Management Plan would be prepared and submitted to the Colorado Department of

Public Health and Environment for approval at least 30 days prior to starting construction.

2. Sediment and erosion controls would be installed prior to work involving site clearing, stripping and stockpiling topsoil, excavation and earthwork. The sediment and erosion controls would be maintained and repaired during the course of construction.

3. Excavated materials or other construction materials would not be stockpiled or wasted on or near stream banks, lake shorelines or other watercourse perimeters where they could be washed away by high water or storm runoff or could in any way encroach upon the watercourse itself.

4. At road intersections with existing drainages that cannot be easily carried by use of a temporary culvert, low-water crossings would be established. The approaches to any crossing would be armored by placing a minimum 8-inch depth of 1 to 3 inches of clean crushed rock, 14 feet wide for a distance of 20 feet on each side of the drainage to minimize siltation, bank rutting and erosion. Crossings would be constructed perpendicular to the flow line. When access is no longer needed, any temporary culverts and associated fill would be removed. Hardened low water fords shall be left in place. Silt fences or appropriate sediment control devices would be used to prevent siltation into existing drainages, ponds or associated riparian areas.

5. Ute Water shall prepare a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan and submit it to the Forest Service for approval at least 30 days in advance of construction.

6. Soil disturbing actions would be avoided during long periods of heavy rain or wet soils to prevent excessive rutting and mobilization of sediment during runoff events.

7. Because the construction would last several summers, plans to stabilize the construction sites over the winter would be developed and approved by the Forest Service in order to prevent runoff and sediment escaping the work sites.

8. Cross-drain spacing on roads would conform to the following specifications:

Table 34. Maximum cross-drain spacing (feet) based on soil types (soil erosiveness) Road grade % Extra Erosive High Erosive Moderate Erosive Low Erosive

1-3 600 1,000 1,000 1,000 4-6 300 540 680 1,000 7-9 200 360 450 670

10-12 150 270 340 510 13-15 120 220 270 410

The erosiveness classifications listed above are based on the Unified Soil Classification system (ASTM D 2487). Extra erosive soils include silts and sands with little or no binder. Highly erodible soils include silts and sands with moderate binder. Moderate erosive soils include gravels and fines or sands with little or no fines. Low erosive soils include gravels with no fines.

9. During road reconstruction, initial clearing operations would fully contain material on-site and not allow material to move into wetlands or into the riparian zone. Excess excavated material and construction debris developed along roads near streams would be disposed of in an area outside of the riparian area and floodplain.


199

10. Upon completion of construction, Ute Water would re-grade, prepare a seed bed and reseed temporary road improvements

11. Any new road construction would be designed to avoid excessive grades (greater than 12 percent) for distance in excess of 200 feet.

12. Ute Water would obtain a mineral material contract from the Forest Service for use of borrow areas, inside of the proposed enlarged reservoir basin.

13. The following comprehensive reclamation plan was submitted by Ute Water as part of the Proposed Action. The Forest Service would either approve or modify this plan as part of the analysis and decision-making process:

a. Seed

b. Grass seed would be from the same or previous year’s crop. Only certified weed-free seed would be used. All seed would be free of prohibited noxious weeds (as defined by the State) and would contain no greater than 1 percent other weeds. The labels from the seed bags would be provided to the Forest Service.

c. All sites would be seeded with the following mixture at a total rate of 19 lbs./acre of pure, live seed:

i. Mountain Bromegrass: 5 lbs./acre

ii. Slender Wheatgrass: 3 lbs./acre

iii. Thickspike Wheatgrass: 3 lbs./acre

iv. Canby Bluegrass: 3 lbs./acre

v. Blue Wild Rye: 3 lbs./acre

vi. American Vetch: 2 lbs./acre

d. Seed would be furnished and delivered premixed in the indicated proportions. Seed bag tags, or the equivalent, would be provided for each delivery of seed. Tags would show the guaranteed percentages of purity, weed content, germination, net-weight, date of seed testing and date of shipment.

e. Seedbed Preparation

i. A minimum of 6 inches of topsoil, borrowed on-site, would be placed over all areas disturbed during construction, other than areas rip rapped to protect from wave or running water erosion, including the bottom of the reservoir. The seeding would be limited to those areas of disturbance above normal reservoir water levels.

ii. Topsoil would not be placed in water or while frozen or muddy conditions exist.

iii. Topsoil would be compacted with a CAT D6 bulldozer or larger to the appropriate tilth, density, consistency and friability to provide a suitable growth medium for sprouting and seedling survival.

iv. All areas would be graded to drain. The maximum slope steepness would be 3:1 unless otherwise shown on the project drawings or approved in writing by the project engineer.


200

v. The final surface of the topsoil would be left in a rough or “pocked” condition to encourage better vegetation growth. There would not be any localized low spots that would allow water to accumulate.

vi. The seedbed would be prepared by contour cultivating 4-6 inches deep with a harrow or disc. All other areas that have been disturbed or compacted by equipment would be scarified to receive seed.

f. Seed Application: Seeding would be accomplished as promptly as is feasible after ground disturbance to limit establishment of invasive exotic plants. No seeding would take place when soils are frozen or excessively wet or dry.

g. Mulch

i. Certified weed free straw mulch would be inspected and bound with twine as regulated by the Weed Free Forage Act, CRS Title 35, Article 27.5, and administered by the Colorado Department of Agriculture. Mulch would be accompanied by a certificate of compliance as defined in the rules and regulations of the aforementioned Act. Tags from the straw mulch would be provided to the Forest Service.

ii. A uniform depth of certified weed free straw mulch would be applied to all seeded areas outside of the reservoir basins. Mulch would be applied at the rate of 2,000 lbs. /acre.

iii. Following application of mulch, tackifier would be applied in a slurry with water and wood fiber to all mulched areas. Tackifier would consist of a free flowing, non-corrosive powder produced from the natural plant gum of Plantago isularos (Desert Indianwheat).

iv. The powder would conform to the following requirements:

1. Protein content: 16 +/- 0.2 percent 2. Ash content: 2.7 +/- 0.2 percent 3. Fiber: 4.0 +/- 0.4 percent 4. pH, 1 percent solution: 6.5 – 8.0

h. Monitoring and Completion of Reclamation

i. All seeded areas would be maintained in good condition, reseeding and mulching if and when necessary, until a good, healthy, uniform growth is established over the entire area seeded and until vegetation is established. The target is establishment of 70 percent vegetation cover within 3 years of seeding.

ii. On slopes, actions would be taken to prevent washouts. Any washout that occurs would be re-graded and reseeded and the reseeded area would be maintained until vegetation is established.

iii. An area would be considered to be satisfactorily reclaimed when: a) Soil erosion resulting from the operation has been stabilized and b) A vegetative cover at least equal to that present prior to disturbance and a plant species composition at least as desirable as that present prior to disturbance has been established.

iv. Areas not demonstrating satisfactory reclamations as outlined above, would be rehabilitated, reseeded and maintained meeting all requirements as specified above.


201

14. Avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality and riparian resources by controlling soil erosion, erosion of road surface materials and water quality problems originating from construction, maintenance and use of roads.

15. Monitor sediment released from the Monument Reservoir No. 1 site during construction. If a sediment plume does not dissipate within 300 feet of its origin, pause construction activities for 10 to 30 minute intervals, as necessary to allow sediment to settle.

16. Ensure that road improvements are designed with the mitigation measures outlined in the Forest Service National BMPs for Water Quality Management on NFS lands (USDA Forest Service 2012b) specifically the following:

a. Locate roads to fit the terrain, follow natural contours, and limit the need for excavation

b. Locate roads as far from water bodies as is practicable to achieve access objectives, with a minimum number of crossings and connections between the road and the water body.

c. Change designated season-of-use if necessary, to mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality and/or riparian resources.

Solid and Sanitary Waste 1. All solid waste (trash) that results from construction and completion activities, including work camp

(s), would be contained in a metal bear-proof trash cage. All material in the trash cage would be removed from the location and deposited in an approved sanitary landfill. Trash would be removed in a timely manner to avoid attracting bears to project area during construction activities.

2. Portable toilets would be provided for construction workers at the construction site and the work camp. These would be maintained and removed by Ute Water as appropriate.

Terrestrial Wildlife 1. Pre-construction surveys would be conducted. If any special status species, nest, or habitat is found to

be present, Ute Water would coordinate with the Forest Service to determine the most effective means of mitigating or precluding impacts.

2. For Canada lynx, no snow compaction above baseline levels would be permitted.

3. Trees would be cut and removed at the reservoir basin after nesting season, beginning August 1 each year until snow limits travel.

4. Construction traffic on NFS Road 262 would only be allowed for access after June 15, or if construction has taken place before July 1 in four consecutive years, only after July 1. This would limit project related disturbance in an elk production area adjacent to the road.

Travel Management and Roads/Trails 1. Ute Water would reconstruct, maintain, and use NFS Roads accessing the reservoir and mitigation

sites consistent with stipulations of its Special Use Permit with the Forest Service.

2. Road and Trail Improvement Plan would be submitted to the Forest Service for approval a minimum of 30 days before construction begins. The Road and Trail Improvement Plan would include methods for road and trail maintenance and reconstruction. NFS Trail 518 and the portion of the Sunlight-Powderhorn trail shall be relocated prior to reservoir construction activities. Those locations shall be located in conjunction with Forest Service personnel or approved by the District Ranger and Forest Engineer.


202

3. Traffic on NFSR 262 and NFST 518 would be accommodated with Maintenance for Traffic clauses. The road or trail may be closed for periods of up to 45 minutes. Ute Water would submit a traffic control plan that meets the requirements of the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices. All reconstruction shall be done to meet the requirements of the Standard Specifications for the Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Project (FP-14).. Additionally, the portion of NFSR 262 (Park Creek Road that intersects Vega Dam Road and Vega S Road) through Vega State Park may be impacted due to heavy equipment traveling over Vega Dam. Vega State Park is managed by the CPW and Vega Dam is operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR).

Ute Water would enter into a License Agreement with USBR to establish specific mitigation measures that offset temporary impacts during construction. Ute Water would maintain and restore impacted roads in Vega State Park to existing conditions or better. Additionally, Ute Water would coordinate with the USBR regarding cattle crossing that occur across the dam to avoid conflicts with construction activities in July and October. Construction activities would be limited from Memorial Day through Labor Day. More specifically, heavy construction vehicles (i.e. haul trucks or dump trucks) would limit travel through the park Monday through Thursday 7:00 am-7:00 pm and Friday 7:00 am-3:00 pm. Additionally, no heavy construction traffic would occur through the park on holidays or weekends. It is assumed that the previously described man camp would be utilized by construction workers and that commuter vehicles (i.e. pick-up trucks) would make between 12-24 trips daily through Vega State Park to limit impact to recreationists.

4. Project-related vehicular traffic would be restricted to approved locations. Operational equipment would be restricted to the road prism and construction site at all times.

5. Mobilization and demobilization of heavy equipment would be scheduled during the week and not on weekends or holidays to avoid high public traffic periods.

6. Road Maintenance: NFS roads would be maintained according to Forest Service road management objectives. Existing NFS roads currently open for use would also receive pre-haul maintenance depending upon their condition and the needs of the project. Pre-haul maintenance would not include road reconstruction or repairs of an extraordinary nature, but would include maintenance of drainage structures, grading the road surface, corrections to cut/fill failures, spot rock applications and rolling dips, etc. Ute Water would consult with the Forest Service on the degree and manner of preconstruction maintenance, road reconstruction, and ongoing maintenance that would be required.

7. Temporary Roads: Roads constructed for temporary access would generally be short in length and used where the topography and drainage requirements are minimal, and the potential impacts are low. Road construction and would be consistent with the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509-25-99-1). In general, these roads would serve no long-term need as roads; therefore, they would be closed and obliterated after use.

8. Cattle guards would be installed in the allotment boundary fence on NFS Road 262 according to Forest Service standards.

9. Ute Water would develop and implement a specific traffic control plan prior to commencing construction. The traffic control plan would be approved by the District Ranger. The plan would include control techniques such as signing and traffic delays, when necessary. All traffic control would be done per the Manual of Traffic Control Devices.

10. Ute Water would furnish, install and maintain all temporary traffic controls, including signage as directed by the Forest Service, which provides forest users with adequate warning of hazardous or potentially hazardous conditions associated with dam construction activities. Ute Water would coordinate with CPW to provide timely notice of increased traffic in Vega State Park.


203

11. Ute Water would consult with the Forest Service on the removal of road improvements and the eventual reversion of the roads to a high-clearance, four-wheel-drive condition.

Vegetation 1. A Weed Management Plan [or weed and invasive species] would be submitted and approved by the

Forest Service prior to construction. The plan would outline strategies to preclude the inadvertent introduction, establishment, or proliferation of any noxious weed species in the project area. This plan would address four goals - prevention, treatment, monitoring and cooperative actions - and would provide specific management objectives and specific actions agreed to by Ute Water and approved by the Forest Service.

2. Preventative actions would include the cleaning of vehicles and equipment and inspection by the Forest Service prior to bringing them into the project area.

3. For imported gravel and fill material to be used in construction activities, every effort would be made to use a weed free source.

4. Weed surveys would be conducted prior to construction.

5. Treatments would be developed using integrated weed management principles for each species and situation. Treatments may include hand pulling, grubbing, mowing, mulching, seeding, burning, herbicide application (at suitable distance from waters), and soil management.

6. Monitoring of noxious weeds would be conducted on a scheduled basis to detect new infestations, evaluate prevention and/or treatment success, and identify the need for re-treatment.

7. Ute Water would coordinate its efforts with the Forest Service to manage noxious weeds.

Visual Resources 1. To limit visual impacts, new roads would be located so they are visually screened (by topography or

forest vegetation) from travel ways, when practicable.

2. Locations of work camps would be submitted to the Forest Service for approval.


205

Appendix D Monument Reservoir No. 1 Operations Plan The Enlargement of Monument Reservoir # 1 Project (Monument Reservoir) would add storage capacity to the Ute Water Conservancy District’s (Ute Water) Plateau Creek raw water system and increase overall annual firm yield. The Ute Pipeline and the Ute Pipeline Enlarged are direct diversions located at the discharge point of the Lower Molina Power Plant and Plateau Creek. The Jerry Creek Reservoirs are regulating reservoirs used to collect water from these direct diversions and deliver them to Ute Water’s water treatment plant. The enlarged Monument Reservoir No. 1 would be used to supplement storage levels in the Jerry Creek Reservoirs during drought conditions when the Ute Pipeline and the Ute Pipeline Enlarged diversions are being curtailed due to low flows and/or water rights administration. Monument Reservoir No. 1 and the Jerry Creek Reservoirs are the primary storage sources for municipal water on Ute Water’s Plateau Creek Raw Water system, and therefore must be operated in conjunction to ensure deliveries are met to the treatment plant that are adequate in quantity and quality. Water would be released at the head gate structure on Monument Reservoir No.1 dam and travel downstream 25.2 miles to Ute Water’s Plateau Creek intake structure. From the Plateau Creek intake, the water is piped approximately 3.8 miles west to the Jerry Creek Reservoirs.

It is in Ute Water’s best interest to use the water stored in Monument Reservoir No. 1 only when necessary to protect water levels in the Jerry Creek Reservoirs. While drought protection is the primary reason for additional storage at Monument Reservoir No. 1, the exact severity of drought that would trigger the need for releases is hard to quantify. For Ute Water’s system, a drought would be defined as any condition that negatively effects average raw water supplies either physically or legally. The ability to operate the Jerry Creek Reservoirs is critical to the Plateau Creek Raw Water system. Releases from Monument Reservoir No. 1 to the Jerry Creek Reservoirs would take place to preserve Ute Water’s uninterrupted operation of these regulating reservoirs. The timing of these releases would occur primarily during the summer months (May to August) as Ute Water’s direct flow Plateau Creek water rights fall out of priority. Modeling performed by Ecological Resource Consultants, Inc. (ERC) in 2018 provided the worst‐case operational scenario based on a period of record between 1974 and 1993 and a future demand from a population projection for 2045. This period of record includes the 1977 drought, which is the worst drought on record for the Plateau Creek basin (1939‐2014). The modeling shows how Ute Water would need to make releases and drain the entire capacity of Monument Reservoir No. 1 to meet its operational demands. These releases could be made at a peak flowrate of 38 cfs during the last week of June to simulate a natural runoff hydrograph. Releases would ramp up to 38 cfs starting the middle of April and then ramp down until the end the middle of October (Table 35). The flowrate of 38 cfs was chosen because it was analyzed to be the 10‐yr design criteria flood flow as shown in Table 36 (Murphy, 2009). The hydrograph for a worst‐case release year is shown in Figure 22, with a comparison to the historical average year hydrograph. Ramping up and down would take place according to the ramping rate formula in Figure 23, and closely match the historical hydrograph. The total of these releases is approximately 7,600 acre‐feet, which is the total capacity of the enlarged reservoir and the bypass flows (inflow) that Ute Water is not entitled to store in Monument Reservoir No. 1. The total historical average year hydrograph produces around 4,700 acre‐feet. In the event only a portion of the capacity of Monument Reservoir No. 1 is needed to meet demand, releases would be made between May and August, and again simulate a natural runoff hydrograph. The peak flow rate for a smaller release would be the minimum needed to satisfy that specific demand requirement (how much and how quickly). Smaller releases would still follow the design criteria flood flow. All releases would adhere to ramping rates.


206

Table 35. Maximum flow releases (cubic feet per second) from Monument Reservoir No. 1 to meet firm yield drought (1977)

Date Flow Date Flow Date Flow January 1.70 May 30 to Jun 8 28.11 Aug 22 to Aug 29 15.15 February 0.99 Jun 9 to Jun 18 33.11 Aug 30 to Sep 6 12.28 March 2.07 Jun 19 to Jun 25 38.11 Sep 7 to Sep 15 9.78 Apr 1 to Apr 8 3.11 Jun 26 to Jul 4 35.24 Sep 16 to Oct 1 7.28 Apr 9 to Apr 16 5.61 Jul 5 to Jul 12 32.37 Oct 2 to Oct 8 4.78 Apr 17 to Apr 23 8.11 Jul 13 to Jul 20 29.50 Oct 9 to Oct 14 3.31 Apr 24 to May 1 10.60 Jul 21 to Jul 28 26.63 Oct15 to Oct 31 2.28 May 2 to May 9 13.11 Jul 29 to Aug 5 23.76 November 0.00 May 10 to May 19 18.11 Aug 6 to Aug 13 20.89 December 0.00 May 20 to May 29 23.11 Aug 14 to Aug 21 18.02 - -

Table 36. Seven-day and peak flood flows for reservoir releases for Monument Reservoir No. 1* Recurrence Interval (years) 7-Day Peak

2 22 34 5 31 53 10 38 66 25 44 83 50 50 96

100 55 109 *All flow values in cubic feet per second


207

Figure 22. Maximum drought release in Monument Creek below Monument Reservoir No. 1; maximum release vs. historical conditions


QR = Amount of Allowable Ramping Increase or Decrease % = 20% for Ramping Up and 10% for Ramping Down Qbkf = Estimated Bank full Flow Qmaf = Average Annual Flow

Figure 23. Ramping Rate Equation

The existing senior agricultural water right accounts for up to 826.7 acre‐feet of the total capacity. The total of this existing senior right for Monument Reservoir No.1 is 572.7 acre‐feet and for Monument Reservoir No. 2 is 254 acre‐feet. Monument Reservoir No. 2 flows directly into Monument Reservoir No. 1, resulting in the combined operation of the two reservoirs from the Monument Reservoir No. 1 outlet works. Historically, releases from Monument Reservoir No. 2 are made to Monument Reservoir No. 1 once sufficient storage capacity is available in Monument Reservoir No. 1 and continue until Monument Reservoir No. 2 is empty. This process takes place as soon as Monument Reservoir No. 1 can make releases in excess of inflow (late June or early July) and only lasts a couple months before Monument Reservoir No. 2 is drained. This senior agricultural water right would continue to be used in the same historical way for releases, unless needed by Ute Water for municipal use (it is included in the municipal releases described in the previous paragraph). Historically, these agricultural releases are made between July and September and average around 3.8 cfs. Figure 24 shows a hydrograph of operating the reservoir when it is full and making agricultural releases compared to current operations. When transferred for municipal use (via change of water right proceeding in water court), the senior agricultural right would


208

only yield approximately 413 acre‐feet (50% of the 827 acre‐ft of decreed water right) (ERC, 2018). The other half of the 827 acre‐ft would be required to be released as return flows. Release of those agricultural flows for municipal use could be made whenever Ute Water needs them, while the release of the return flows would have to match the timing of the original use (July to September, pending water court review). The return flow releases would be approximately 2 cfs over that time.

Ute Water is committed to flushing flows to improve aquatic habitat downstream of the reservoir by maintaining targeted habitat hydraulics and sediment transport in Monument Creek. Ute Water would develop a site‐specific technical approach to determine proposed flows for flushing and ecohydraulics necessary to support fishery habitats in Monument Creek.

Figure 24. Flow in Monument Creek below Monument Reservoir with full reservoir and agricultural releases existing conditions vs. reservoir enlargement

The conditional (junior) storage right of 4,682 acre‐ft at Monument Reservoir No. 1 is junior to Vega Reservoir, which is located downstream and is filled in part with water diverted from Leon Creek at the Leon‐Park Feeder Canal. Given that Vega Reservoir could place a call and there is very little water physically available at the Monument Reservoir No. 1 enlargement site during the winter, water would generally not be legally available to store under the conditional storage right from November through March (ERC, 2018). During the runoff season, which typically starts as early as April and runs through June, water would be available to divert to storage under the conditional storage right in wet years and most average years. Vega Reservoir could call out the conditional storage right in some average years particularly following a dry year when Vega does not fill or is significantly drawn down. In all wet years, ERC assumed that there would be no call and water would be legally available to divert under the conditional storage right. In dry years and average years following a dry year, ERC assumed that there would be a call and water would be not legally available to divert under the junior conditional storage


209

right. Finally, ERC assumed the conditional storage right would not be in priority to divert water to storage from July through October when there is often a more senior downstream call. The legally available supply equals the physical supply during the months of April through June in wet years and some average years.

Modeling has shown that when Monument Reservoir is empty (during the initial fill or when drained) it would take 55 months to refill (ERC, 2018). This lengthy amount of time is due to the limited physical drainage size above the reservoir and the very junior priority date of Ute Water’s municipal water right to legally fill. In only 8 of the 55 months it takes to refill Monument Reservoir No. 1 would the junior water right be both physically and legally available. The modeling showed that this junior right would have been able to divert in years 1979, 1980 and 1983. Based on the 104‐year record of Plateau Creek flows (1909 to 2013), these years were 114%, 113% and 301% of average. This illustrates that this junior water right would only be available during above average water years in the Plateau Creek drainage. The remaining storage capacity of the enlarged reservoir would be filled with Ute Water’s existing senior agricultural water right that would be in priority during the non‐irrigation season in almost every year. Figure 25 shows a hydrograph of the average year fill scenario, that is, an average year after reservoir expansion, compared to the corresponding average existing year. While filling under the junior municipal water right, Ute Water proposes to bypass 0.60 cfs to support stream health.

Winter operations of Monument Reservoir No. 1 would remain the same as they are currently when the reservoir is full. This involves closing the head gate after all fall releases are made, and leaving it closed until conditions at the reservoir site allow for operations (between May and July depending on the severity of the previous winter). Once operating the reservoir is possible, releases of water that were stored over the winter that Ute Water is not entitled to would be made. The model, however, was not able to take this physical constraint into account and shows winter releases in several years. The flows shown in the model are from water Ute Water historically stores every year under the senior right but would bypass in most years with the enlargement. Because the enlarged reservoir is for municipal drought protection, in below average years Ute Water would not make these historic late summer agricultural releases to conserve storage. In ten of the nineteen years of the modeling record this condition applies. In those years, an average of 667.6 acre‐feet of water would be stored over the winter and released during runoff. Ute Water would, however, operate the outlet for making bypass releases when filling under the junior municipal right (typically between April and June). Ute Water would also operate the outlet to bypass runoff inflow (May and June) when the reservoir has capacity (would not spill during runoff), but its water junior right is not in priority.


210

Figure 25. Average-wet year flow (fill scenario) below Monument Reservoir No. 1; existing conditions vs. reservoir enlargement


211

Appendix E Monument Reservoir No. 1 Wetland Mitigation Plan (Separate document)


213

Index

A alternative water development, x, 3, 17, 103, 105,

108, 109 annual discharge, 108, 109, 144, 148 aquatic ecosystems, 9, 13, 19, 34, 130, 132, 157, 182 Army Corps of Engineers, i, vii, 2, 34, 37, 50, 51, 119,

120, 123, 127, 129, 130, 135, 151, 152, 153, 193 Atwell Gulch, 35, 131, 159, 160, 162, 168, 169, 182,

186, 191

B base flow, 14, 144, 149 beneficial effects, vi, vii, 51, 66, 70, 74, 77, 85, 88, 91,

93, 94, 95, 99, 132, 142, 147, 148 boreal toad, 80, 145, 146 Buzzard Creek Reservoir, 108, 109, 131, 159, 169,

182, 186, 191, 192

C chorus frog, 146 chytrid, 146 Clean Water Act, iii, v, viii, 3, 5, 6, 9, 18, 19, 34, 51, 52,

117, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 135, 151, 152, 157, 182 Section 404, iii, v, viii, 5, 6, 9, 18, 19, 34, 35, 56,

127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 152, 157, 160, 176, 182, 183, 184

Colorado River, i, vi, 1, 3, 4, 6, 37, 41, 42, 49, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 80, 103, 105, 107, 108, 109, 113, 114, 116, 121, 128, 131, 132, 139, 149, 151, 154, 159, 161, 162, 175, 178, 181, 182, 193

Colorado Roadless Areas, i, vii, 11, 14, 16, 101, 110 Colorado Roadless Rule, 101, 153, 185, 188 conservation pool, 144, 147, 148, 149 culverts, 26, 28, 73, 74, 136, 147, 198

D dead pool, 140, 142, 146, 148, 195 dewatering, 140, 149, 154 dredge or fill material, 6, 9, 34, 129, 157, 182

E Environmental Protection Agency, vii, 2, 4, 5, 9, 14,

18, 51, 75, 76, 114, 121, 127, 128, 130, 132, 152, 157, 158, 177

F fen, ix, 4, 5, 11, 14, 18, 35, 41, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 56,

88, 113, 114, 116, 127, 128, 129, 132, 145, 150, 152, 153, 157, 158, 160, 162, 167, 177, 182

filling period, 33, 108, 148, 154 firm yield, iii, ix, x, 3, 4, 5, 6, 19, 20, 106, 109, 128,

129, 131, 132, 133, 157, 158, 159, 160, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 187, 205, 206

fisheries, 13, 14, 66, 70, 81, 106, 139, 140, 142, 148, 195, 208

flushing flow, 144, 147, 148, 149, 208 Forest Service Trail 518, 151

G greenback cutthroat, 69, 133, 134

H Hunter Reservoir, iii, ix, 3, 4, 5, 13, 17, 18, 34, 35, 36,

49, 52, 67, 71, 84, 92, 97, 98, 115, 117, 120, 121, 127, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 167, 168, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176, 177, 180, 182, 193

I instream flow, 62, 141, 147, 148, 187

J Jerry Creek Reservoirs, ix, 6, 31, 32, 35, 36, 42, 43, 44,

48, 108, 109, 128, 131, 133, 149, 150, 159, 160, 161, 162, 168, 169, 171, 175, 178, 180, 182, 192, 205

L least environmentally damaging practicable

alternative (LEDPA), 129, 130 Leon Creek, i, vi, viii, 1, 14, 15, 29, 33, 35, 36, 40, 41,

49, 54, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 74, 75, 97, 101, 103, 105, 106, 108, 109, 133, 134, 136, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 157, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 168, 170, 171, 172, 174, 176, 178, 182, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 208

lynx, 15, 79, 80, 82, 84, 103, 135, 201 habitat, 80, 82, 135, 153


214

M Mesa County population, 3, 5, 58, 60, 62, 65, 85, 140,

143, 146, 159, 205 mottled sculpin, 57, 58, 62, 64, 65, 134, 140, 146

O Owens Reservoir, 131, 159, 162, 169, 170, 182, 187,

191, 193

P Plateau Creek Pipeline Replacement Project, 3, 4, 17,

20, 34, 42, 57, 117, 131, 162, 169, 175, 179, 180, 192

Plateau Creek watershed, 1, 3, 4, 36, 37, 39, 105, 106, 107, 109, 131, 133, 150, 157, 161, 174, 178, 181, 184, 209

R reservoir volume, 148, 168 road 262, 15, 25, 26, 28, 31, 41, 42, 47, 51, 59, 66, 67,

69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 85, 86, 90, 91, 95, 96, 99, 101, 105, 106, 136, 143, 145, 151, 163, 168, 201, 202

road 280, 71, 128, 136, 143, 145, 152, 168, 196 Ruedi Reservoir, 4, 5, 128, 131, 149, 158, 159

S Sunlight-Powderhorn Trail, 15, 24, 25, 31, 67, 69, 70,

71, 90, 101, 106, 201

T tiger salamander, 146 trans-basin diversion, 3

U Ute Water Conservancy District, i, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13,

15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 66, 69, 70, 72, 74, 85, 87, 88, 91, 94, 99, 106, 109, 110, 111, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 121, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 145, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202, 203, 205, 207, 208, 209

V Vega Reservoir, i, 1, 25, 26, 28, 33, 36, 37, 49, 58, 67,

69, 71, 74, 92, 106, 119, 134, 160, 161, 162, 163, 168, 169, 174, 175, 176, 178, 182, 188, 189, 191, 208

W water demand, 3, 19, 109, 118, 149, 159, 179 water depletion, 17, 56, 62, 103, 105, 108, 110, 139 water quality, 9, 13, 15, 41, 42, 47, 48, 59, 60, 64, 65,

66, 67, 87, 101, 105, 106, 107, 110, 113, 115, 116, 120, 128, 129, 131, 134, 140, 150, 175, 180, 181, 182, 201

water resource, 7, 12, 13, 40, 117, 118, 129, 177, 179 water rights, x, 3, 6, 19, 20, 25, 26, 33, 36, 37, 46, 47,

48, 101, 107, 108, 109, 131, 141, 151, 154, 158, 161, 162, 168, 172, 173, 174, 175, 178, 179, 181, 184, 187, 188, 197, 205

water treatment, 3, 175 wetlands

function, 37, 48, 105, 151, 152 impacts, 15, 24, 28, 50, 52, 88, 94, 127, 128, 129,

130, 132, 145, 152 mitigation, 24, 56, 84, 105, 111, 113, 127, 128,

129, 133, 134, 135, 142, 145, 152, 153, 154

Documents

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Enlargement of