\

To the Members of Congress, 

We are pleased to present the results of the Resource Protection Study at Curecanti National Recreation 

Area (NRA) in Gunnison and Montrose Counties, Colorado. The study was conducted in response to a 

request by Congress to assess the natural, cultural, recreational, and scenic resources within and 

surrounding the NRA; identify alternatives to protect those resources; and recommend a variety of tools 

to achieve this protection. 

The study recommendations will ensure that the Bureau of Reclamation and Western Area Power 

Administration will continue their administrative jurisdictions and responsibilities for the construction, 

operation, maintenance, replacement, and additions required for the Wayne N. Aspinall Unit and the 

Uncompahgre Project. 

The recommendations include a request that Congress consider legislative establishment of the National 

Recreation Area and designation of a Conservation Opportunity Area. Together, the recommendations 

are designed to enhance operational efficiencies among the various land management agencies in the 

Curecanti area; provide for the continuation and potential expansion of recreational opportunities; and 

ensure the conservation of the natural and cultural resources and the preservation of the spectacular 

scenery which is intrinsic to the Curecanti experience. 

Sincerely, 

Michael D. Snyder 

Intermountain Regional Director 

National Park Service 

Dillon Pinnacles dominate the scene along the shore of Blue Mesa Reservoir in the heart of Curecanti National Recreation Area

REPORT TO CONGRESS

Curecanti Resource Protection Study 

June 2009 
REPORT TO CONGRESS

Curecanti Resource Protection Study 

CONTENTS

Executive Summary ......................................................................................1 

Background of Curecanti ........................................................................... 2 

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................... 2 

Primary Emphasis of the Study .................................................................. 3 

Public and Agency Involvement ................................................................ 3 

The Alternatives ........................................................................................... 4 

The Primary Differences Between the Alternatives ................................ 5 

Preferred Alternative Map ..................................................................... 6-7 

Comments on Draft RPS/EIS ..................................................................... 8 

Findings and Recommendations .......................................................... 9-12 

Contacts for Additional Information ....................................................... 13
1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Request from Congress 

The National Park Service (NPS), with the Bureau of 

Reclamation (Reclamation) as a cooperating agency, 

has prepared this report in response to Section 11 of the 

Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and 

Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of 1999 

(Public Law 106-76). The Act instructed the Secretary, 

acting through the NPS Director, to conduct a study 

concerning land protection and open space within and 

adjacent to the area administered as the Curecanti 

National Recreation Area (NRA). The Secretary was 

then to submit a report to Congress summarizing the 

findings and making recommendations. Although the 

study and report was requested within three years of 

passage of the Act, additional time was needed to 

resolve a variety of issues brought up during the course 

of the study. 

The purpose of the study is to assess the natural, 

cultural, recreational, and scenic resources within and 

surrounding the NRA; identify alternatives to protect 

those resources; and recommend a variety of tools for 

this resource protection. 

Additional Background 

The NRA evolved from the Colorado River Storage 

Project Act of 1956. Pursuant to the Act and other laws, 

Reclamation planned for, constructed, and now 

operates the dams, reservoirs, power plants, and 

related facilities of the Curecanti Unit, known today as 

the Wayne N. Aspinall Unit (Aspinall Unit). 

Reclamation also has primary responsibilities for the 

Gunnison Tunnel and its related facilities 

(Uncompahgre Project). Therefore, Reclamation 

served as a cooperating agency on the study and 

environmental impact statement. 

Under a 1965 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

between Reclamation and NPS, Reclamation manages 

the dams, reservoirs, power plants, access roads, and 

related facilities, while NPS manages the natural and 

cultural resources, opportunities for public recreation 

and resource understanding, and their associated 

facilities. 

Despite the decades of NPS presence in co-managing 

the NRA, Curecanti has not yet been formally 

designated by Congress as a national recreation area, 

and has no legislated boundary. 

Study Alternatives and Recommendations 

Two alternatives were selected for detailed analysis of 

impacts by the study team—Alternative 1: No Action 

(Continuation of Existing Conditions); and Alternative 

2: Proposed Action. Alternatives 1 and 2, along with the 

other alternatives considered but eliminated from 

detailed assessment, are described in the Final 

Resource Protection Study/Environmental Impact 

Statement (Final RPS/EIS). Alternative 2 was selected 

as the preferred alternative, or selected action, in the 

Record of Decision. 

The draft version of the RPS/EIS underwent a 90-day 

public review period. Of the 35 comments received, 

63% supported the Proposed Action, 26% were 

neutral, and 11% supported the No Action Alternative. 

It is important to note that the Proposed Action has 

the support of the involved agencies and local 

governments (Gunnison and Montrose Counties, and 

the City of Gunnison). 

The recommendations of the Proposed Action include 

a request that Congress consider legislative 

establishment of Curecanti as a National Recreation 

Area, and designation of a Conservation Opportunity 

Area (COA) outside of the NRA boundary. Details of 

the recommendations may be found on pages 10-12 of 

this Report.

The entire Final RPS/EIS is available on the NPS 

planning website at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/cure. 

It is also included on the compact disc (CD) that is in 

the pocket attached to the inside front cover of this 

Report. In addition, the CD contains this Report to 

Congress, a PowerPoint presentation that identifies 

the background and findings of the study, an 8-page 

Summary Brochure of the Final RPS/EIS, and the 

Record of Decision on the Final RPS/EIS.
2 

BACKGROUND OF CURECANTI

Curecanti NRA is comprised of 41,790 acres of federal 

lands and waters, stretching approximately 40 miles 

along the Gunnison River Basin in Gunnison and 

Montrose Counties, Colorado. It offers a variety of 

recreational opportunities in a spectacular geological 

setting. 

The roots of Curecanti began in 1956 when Congress 

authorized Reclamation to construct the Curecanti 

Unit of the Colorado River Storage Project, which 

consists of three dams, their reservoirs and related 

facilities. Reclamation acquired most of the needed 

lands in the 1960s. These lands were the minimum 

required for the primary purposes of the project, with 

little or no consideration given to potential 

opportunities for land-based recreation that might be 

associated with an emerging NRA. 

Today, pursuant to applicable laws, regulations, and 

agreements, Reclamation, Western Area Power 

Administration (Western), and NPS each have 

jurisdictional roles and responsibilities within and 

adjacent to the NRA. Reclamation manages two 

projects and their dams, reservoirs, power plants, 

access roads and related facilities. Western manages 

electrical transmission lines, a substation, various 

communication sites, and access roads to these 

facilities. (Note: these facilities are shown on the 

“Existing Conditions Map” on page 3 of the Final 

RPS/EIS.) NPS, pursuant to a 1965 Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) with Reclamation, manages the 

natural and cultural resources, opportunities for public 

recreation and resource understanding, and associated 

facilities. It should be noted, however, that the NRA 

has never been legislatively established as a unit of the 

national park system, and has no legislated boundary. 

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 

This study was conducted in response to a request by 

Congress (Public Law 106-76). NPS, with Reclamation 

as a cooperating agency, has conducted the study to 

identify methods and tools that could be used to 

ensure the long-term conservation of surrounding 

natural, cultural, recreational, and scenic resources; 

continued and expanded visitor use, enjoyment, and 

understanding; and continued and/or expanded 

recreational opportunities. The study also evaluated 

whether or not to recommend to Congress that the 

NRA be formally established with a legislated 

boundary, and what agency or agencies should be 

responsible for managing the NRA.

Curecanti National Recreation Area offers a variety of recreational opportunities in a spectacular geological setting.
3 

PRIMARY EMPHASIS OF THE 

STUDY 

This study identified ways in which NPS could work in 

partnership with agencies and local governments, and 

other entities and landowners, to more effectively 

conserve the natural, cultural, recreational, and scenic 

resources and character of the land within and 

surrounding Curecanti NRA. It evaluated whether or 

not NPS should seek formal establishment of 

Curecanti as a congressionally legislated NRA for 

permanence of resource conservation and public 

recreation. 

This study excluded any considerations pertaining to 

water rights or operations of Reclamation projects; any 

recommendation that would infringe on the rights of 

landowners; and any recommendation that would use 

condemnation or other tools not in partnership and 

cooperation with private landowners. 

Also, study recommendations sought to assure that 

Reclamation and Western would continue their 

administrative jurisdiction and responsibilities within 

and adjacent to the national recreation area. These 

include construction, operation, maintenance, 

replacements, and additions; and the agencies and 

their assigns would continue to have unrestricted 

access to their lands and land interests, water and 

water interests, and facilities, consistent with 

Reclamation law and other applicable laws and 

regulations. 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY 

INVOLVEMENT

In developing the Proposed Action, and to receive 

input from all interested parties, NPS conducted more 

than 60 meetings throughout the project with local, 

state, and federal elected officials and/or their staffs; 

neighboring state and federal land management 

agencies; American Indian tribes; adjacent private 

landowners; other stakeholders; and the general 

public. This process began in 2000 by gathering 

information through public and agency scoping 

meetings, included three newsletters and use of the 

NRA and NPS planning websites, and culminated in 

the release of the Draft RPS/EIS in July 2007 for review 

and comment. A summary of those comments appears 

on page 8 of this Report. 

The Final RPS/EIS was released to the public in 

September 2008, and the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA’s) Notice of Availability appeared in 

the Federal Register on October 3. The Final RPS/EIS 

was available for public inspection on the NPS 

planning website, at NRA headquarters, and at local 

libraries; and local and regional media announced the 

availability of the document upon its release. By the 

end of the inspection period on November 3, NPS had 

received no public comments on the Final RPS/EIS. 

The Record of Decision was signed on December 4, 

2008, and the Notice of Availability for the Record of 

Decision appeared in the Federal Register on April 13, 

2009. Alternative 2, “The Proposed Action,” was 

chosen as the selected action. 

In the preferred alternative, the National Park Service continues to manage the natural, cultural, and recreational 

resources; and the Bureau of Reclamation continues to manage their projects at Curecanti National Recreation Area.
4 

Autumn colors abound along Colorado Highway 92 above 

Morrow Point Reservoir

THE ALTERNATIVES 

Numerous alternatives for management were 

considered during the course of the study. However, 

only two were deemed necessary and appropriate for 

detailed assessment. Other alternatives that were 

considered, and the reasons for not analyzing them in 

detail, are described in the Final RPS/EIS. 

The primary differences between the alternatives are 

summarized in the table on the following page. The 

impacts of the alternatives are described in detail in the 

Final RPS/EIS. A map of the preferred alternative, or 

proposed action, appears on the centerfold of this 

Report. 

Under both alternatives, operational responsibilities of 

both Reclamation and NPS would remain essentially 

unchanged from how the NRA is now being managed. 

However, it is anticipated that under Alternative 2, the 

1965 Memorandum of Agreement between 

Reclamation and NPS would need to be revised to 

reflect new legislative requirements. 

Alternative 1 (No Action): Under the No Action 

alternative, the NRA would consist of essentially the 

same area without a legislated boundary. Many of the 

tools that could be applied under the Proposed Action 

towards long-term conservation of important 

resources on lands surrounding the NRA would not be 

authorized under No Action. This would result in a 

greater expectation that some important resources, 

especially scenic resources, would deteriorate over the 

long term. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): This alternative 

recommends that the NRA be legislatively established 

by Congress. The legislation would designate NPS to 

be responsible for managing the natural, cultural, and 

recreational resources, visitor use and education, and 

associated facilities. A net total of approximately 

10,040 acres of mutually agreed upon adjacent federal 

and state agency lands would be added to the NRA 

within a legislated boundary; and some acres would be 

transferred from the NRA to the U.S. Forest Service. 

Potential future transfers to the Bureau of Land 

Management are also recommended. The purpose of 

additions to and transfers from the NRA are for 

improved management efficiencies and expanded 

recreational opportunities within the NRA. 

The Proposed Action also recommends that Congress 

establish a Conservation Opportunity Area (COA) 

outside of the legislated boundary. The COA would 

consist of 24,300 acres of private land where NPS 

would be authorized to implement and assist in 

implementing a variety of tools with cooperating 

landowners that would promote the long-term 

conservation of important resources. These tools 

would include, but not be limited to, acquiring 

interests in land from willing landowners, including 

conservation easements and fee simple ownership. 

Much of the COA would remain in private ownership; 

however, increased opportunities for working in 

partnership with landowners would create 

opportunities for resource conservation. 

Implementation would occur over many years, and 

would be dependent upon the willingness of 

neighboring landowners. The study recognizes that the 

availability of federal funds for acquiring interests in 

land may be limited. However, many of the goals and 

objectives of Alternative 2 would still be achievable 

through the application of other tools that could be 

used to provide incentives to willing landowners for 

conserving resources. 
5 

8 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT RPS/EIS

The Draft Resource Protection Study/Environmental 

Impact Statement was released in July 2007. It was 

posted to the NPS planning website at 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/cure, and its availability 

was advertised in local newspapers, and in letters 

mailed to over 700 government entities, organizations, 

landowners, and other individuals. The 90-day public 

review period ran from July 20 to October 22. Of the 35 

comments received, 63% supported Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action), 26% were neutral, not specifying 

which alternative was favored, and 11% supported 

Alternative 1 (No Action). A brief summary of the 

comments on the Draft RPS/EIS appears below. 

Bureau of Land Management, Colorado Division of 

Wildlife, and U.S. Forest Service are neighboring land 

management agencies. They have been briefed on 

numerous occasions throughout the study, have 

provided input into development of the Proposed 

Action, have provided written comments on the Draft 

RPS/EIS, and are all in support of Alternative 2, the 

Proposed Action. 

Gunnison and Montrose County Commissioners and 

the City of Gunnison Council Members have 

expressed their support of the Proposed Action. The 

Gunnison County Planner is considering 

incorporating RPS data and recommendations into the 

component of the county’s comprehensive master plan 

that will deal with the portion of the county that 

includes the Curecanti area. 

In general, landowners with whom the study team has 

met were interested in the concepts being proposed by 

the study. Some landowners expressed the sentiment 

that they appreciated the goals of the RPS, as many of 

those goals aligned with their own desires of being 

good caretakers of the land. However, some 

landowners would not want to open their property for 

public access (for example, to hikers), and many plan 

to remain on their property. Several landowners 

expressed the view that although they would be 

opposed to any plan that would infringe on private 

property rights, they would consider working 

cooperatively with NPS in order to meet mutually 

agreed upon conservation goals. 

A more comprehensive listing of the comments and 

NPS responses to them are located in Chapter 5: 

Consultation and Coordination of the Final RPS/EIS. 

Also included in Chapter 5 are all the letters received 

from agencies and organizations in their entirety.

Cooperative efforts will serve to conserve the resources and to enhance recreational opportunities at Curecanti National Recreation Area.
Autumn colors abound along Colorado Highway 92 above Morrow Point Reservoir

THE ALTERNATIVES Numerous alternatives for management were considered during the course of the study. However,only two were deemed necessary and appropriate for detailed assessment. Other alternatives that were considered, and the reasons for not analyzing them in detail, are described in the Final RPS/EIS. The primary differences between the alternatives are summarized in the table on the following page. The impacts of the alternatives are described in detail in the Final RPS/EIS. A map of the preferred alternative, or 

proposed action, appears on the centerfold of this Report. Under both alternatives, operational responsibilities of both Reclamation and NPS would remain essentially unchanged from how the NRA is now being managed. However, it is anticipated that under Alternative 2, the 1965 Memorandum of Agreement between Reclamation and NPS would need to be revised to reflect new legislative requirements. Alternative 1 (No Action): Under the No Action alternative, the NRA would consist of essentially the same area without a legislated boundary. Many of the tools that could be applied under the Proposed Action towards long-term conservation of important resources on lands surrounding the NRA would not be authorized under No Action. This would result in a greater expectation that some important resources,especially scenic resources, would deteriorate over the long term. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): This alternative recommends that the NRA be legislatively established by Congress. The legislation would designate NPS to be responsible for managing the natural, cultural, and 

recreational resources, visitor use and education, and 

associated facilities. A net total of approximately 10,040 acres of mutually agreed upon adjacent federal and state agency lands would be added to the NRA within a legislated boundary; and some acres would be transferred from the NRA to the U

S

Forest Service

The Proposed Action also recommends that Congress establish a Conservation Opportunity Area (COA) outside of the legislated boundary. The COA would consist of 24,300 acres of private land where NPS would be authorized to implement and assist in implementing a variety of tools with cooperating landowners that would promote the long-term conservation of important resources. These tools would include, but not be limited to, acquiring 

interests in land from willing landowners, including 

conservation easements and fee simple ownership. Much of the COA would remain in private ownership;however, increased opportunities for working in partnership with landowners would create opportunities for resource conservation. Implementation would occur over many years, and 

would be dependent upon the willingness of 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIO“The Secretary shall submthat makes recommendatrespect to the findings of tregarding action that may respect to the land describ(Section 11, Public Law 106-76, Although the study was requepassage of the Act, additional resolve issues brought up at mconducted throughout the proneeded to coordinate study acdevelopment of a master plan Section 11 asked the Secretary the Director of the National Pthe following four tasks: 

(1) assess the natural, cultuscenic resource value and within and surrounding thRecreation Area (includinhabitat, and other public b(2) identify practicable alteresource value and characand surrounding the CureRecreation Area;(3) recommend a variety oand viable tools to achieve in paragraphs (1) and (2); a(4) estimate the costs of imapproaches recommended 

The findings and recommendfour tasks are summarized in tdescribed in detail in the Final Study/Environmental Impact SRPS/EIS), which is available oincluded with this Report
PRIMARY EMPHASIS STUDY This study identified ways in whpartnership with agencies and lother entities and landowners, tconserve the natural, cultural, rresources and character of the lsurrounding Curecanti NRA. It not NPS should seek formal estCurecanti as a congressionally lpermanence of resource conserrecreation. This study excluded any considwater rights or operations of Rerecommendation that would inlandowners; and any recommencondemnation or other tools nocooperation with private landowAlso, study recommendations sReclamation and Western wouladministrative jurisdiction and and adjacent to the national recinclude construction, operation

replacements, and additions; antheir assigns would continue to access to their lands and land in

water interests, and facilities, coReclamation law and other appregulations. 

Reclamation Project Requirements

• The majority of the lands currently within the NRA,and some currently outside of it, were withdrawn or acquired for Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) purposes, including the Uncompahgre Project, and the Aspinall Unit of the Colorado River Storage Project. • Reclamation and its assigns have administrative jurisdiction and responsibilities for construction,operation, maintenance, replacement, and additions,consistent with Reclamation law and other applicable laws and regulations. Western Area Power Administration (Western) has similar responsibilities for the electric transmission system for the Aspinall Unit. • The current management of resources and recreation by NPS is subject to Section 8 of the Colorado River Storage Project Act, and is provided for in a 1965 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Reclamation and NPS. In an agreement dated August 30, 1979, Reclamation and NPS recognized the need for legislation for final establishment of Curecanti National Recreation Area. • NPS administration of the NRA must be consistent and compatible with the primary purposes of the Aspinall Unit and the Uncompahgre Project, and with Reclamation law, as amended and supplemented. • Reclamation has existing legal rights within and adjacent to the NRA that predate and take precedence over NPS’s rights or uses within the NRA. • There are numerous and varied existing legal rights on lands that must be recognized and honored. These rights include, but are not limited to, reserved mineral rights, electrical transmission rights-of-way, and access rights. • All lands within the NRA that have been withdrawn or acquired by the United States for Reclamation purposes should remain subject to primary use for Reclamation or power purposes so long as they are withdrawn or needed for such purposes

Recommendations for NRA Establishment

Based on the preferred alternative (Alternative 2: Proposed Action), Congress should consider enacting legislation establishing Curecanti as a National Recreation Area. • Congress should designate the area identified in the Proposed Action as the “Curecanti National Recreation Area.” The new NRA would initially include approximately 51,830 acres of land consisting of Federal land within the existing NRA and agreedupon additional land to be transferred from neighboring federal and state agencies, within a new boundary that would need to be legislated. • Legislation should provide purpose statements for the NRA, such as: 

- To conserve the scenic, natural,historic, archeological, wildlife, and fishery resources. 

- To manage the lands, waters, fish and wildlife, and recreational activities by means consistent with the purposes of the Colorado River Storage Project Act and the Uncompahgre Project. 

- To provide for public understanding, use, and enjoyment. 

• NRA legislation must protect Reclamation’s and Western’s ability to meet their missions, including project operation, maintenance, replacement, and land 

addition or expansion; and to allow unrestricted access to their lands and land interests, water and water interests, and facilities. Legislation must protect the 

interests identified under the “Reclamation Project Requirements” section of this page. • NRA legislation should identify NPS as the agency responsible for managing the natural, cultural, and 

recreational resources, visitor use and education, and 

associated facilities; and should provide NPS 
BACKGROUND OF CURECANTICurecanti NRA is comprised of 41,790 acres of federal lands and waters, stretching approximately 40 miles along the Gunnison River Basin in Gunnison and Montrose Counties, Colorado. It offers a variety of recreational opportunities in a spectacular geological setting. The roots of Curecanti began in 1956 when Congress authorized Reclamation to construct the Curecanti Unit of the Colorado River Storage Project, which 

consists of three dams, their reservoirs and related facilities. Reclamation acquired most of the needed lands in the 1960s. These lands were the minimum required for the primary purposes of the project, with little or no consideration given to potential opportunities for land-based recreation that might be associated with an emerging NRA. Today, pursuant to applicable laws, regulations, and 

agreements, Reclamation, Western Area Power Administration (Western), and NPS each have jurisdictional roles and responsibilities within and adjacent to the NRA. Reclamation manages two projects and their dams, reservoirs, power plants,

access roads and related facilities. Western manages electrical transmission lines, a substation, various communication sites, and access roads to these facilities. (Note: these facilities are shown on the “Existing Conditions Map” on page 3 of the Final RPS/EIS.) NPS, pursuant to a 1965 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Reclamation, manages the natural and cultural resources, opportunities for public 

recreation and resource understanding, and associated facilities. It should be noted, however, that the NRA has never been legislatively established as a unit of the national park system, and has no legislated boundary. 

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY This study was conducted in response to a request by Congress (Public Law 106-76). NPS, with Reclamation as a cooperating agency, has conducted the study to 

identify methods and tools that could be used to ensure the long-term conservation of surrounding natural, cultural, recreational, and scenic resources;

continued and expanded visitor use, enjoyment, and understanding; and continued and/or expanded recreational opportunities. The study also evaluated whether or not to recommend to Congress that the NRA be formally established with a legislated boundary, and what agency or agencies should be responsible for managing the NRA.

Recommendations for DesConservation Opportunity • Congress should designate a COpportunity Area (COA), which approximately 24,300 acres of pthat lies outside and adjacent to NRA boundary. (Ref: Final RPS• Congress should authorize the to use tools within the COA to cvalues important to the NRA, raassistance to conservation easemacquisition, subject to the willinto participate. (Ref: Final RPS/E

Appendix A.)• The concept of the COA embrof Interior’s initiative of cooperthe NPS Director’s goal to increnational park system. It is consisto use cooperative conservation boundaries. (Ref: Final RPS/EIS

• The Secretary should be given the new NRA boundary to incluCOA at such time as it is acquirebe made available for such acquRPS/EIS, page 52.) 

Specific Considerations fo• Providing for coordination of management. Legislation should 

coordinated administration and NRA. It should be relatively brospecific on how the NRA is to banticipated that the 1965 MOA band NPS would need to be reviswould be an administrative proclegislation. The revised MOA wdiffering missions, respective ro

for each agency. (Ref: Final RPS

• Other agency lands to be trans
EXECUTIVE SUMMRequest from Congress The National Park Service (NPReclamation (Reclamation) as has prepared this report in resBlack Canyon of the Gunnison Gunnison Gorge National Cons(Public Law 106-76). The Act iacting through the NPS Directconcerning land protection anadjacent to the area administerNational Recreation Area (NRthen to submit a report to Confindings and making recommestudy and report was requestepassage of the Act, additional tresolve a variety of issues brouof the study. The purpose of the study is to cultural, recreational, and scensurrounding the NRA; identify those resources; and recommethis resource protection. Additional Background The NRA evolved from the CoProject Act of 1956. Pursuant tReclamation planned for, consoperates the dams, reservoirs, 

related facilities of the Curecathe Wayne N. Aspinall Unit (AReclamation also has primary Gunnison Tunnel and its relat(Uncompahgre Project). Therserved as a cooperating agency environmental impact statemeUnder a 1965 Memorandum obetween Reclamation and NPthe dams, reservoirs, power pl

related facilities, while NPS m

• Withdrawal. The lands within the boundary should 

be withdrawn, subject to valid existing rights, from 

location, entry, and patent under the mining laws of the United States, from the operation of the mineral leasing laws of the United States, and from operation of the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. (Ref: Final RPS/EIS, pages 201-202.) • Grazing. Valid existing leases and permits for grazing 

on NRA lands should be allowed to continue. However, the Secretary should be granted the authority to accept voluntary termination of a lease or permit, or in the case a lease or permit is vacated for a period of 3 years, to terminate said lease or permit. It is anticipated that NPS will develop agreements with the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service regarding administration of grazing permits whose allotments fall in more than one jurisdiction. (Ref: Final RPS/EIS, pages 204-205.) 

• Hunting and Fishing. Hunting and fishing are 

currently allowed in the NRA—fishing by NPS policy,and hunting pursuant to §7.51 of Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations. Both are appropriate activities for the area, and are being cooperatively managed with the Colorado Division of Wildlife. It is recommended that legislation authorize the continuation of these activities within the NRA. (Ref: Final RPS/EIS, pages 106-107, 173.) • Water Rights. Legislation should address the effect 

on water rights, perhaps with language similar to that used in Public Law 106-76: “Nothing in this Act shall constitute an express or implied reservation of water for any purpose; or affect any water rights in existence 

prior to the date of the enactment of this Act, including any water rights held by the United States. Any new water right that the Secretary determines is necessary for the purposes of this Act shall be established in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of the laws of the State of Colorado.” (Ref: Final RPS/EIS, pages 7 & 53.) 

Funding Requirements • One-Time Costs. The one-time cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated to range from 

$3,690,000 to $14,973,000, including acquiring 

interests in land, and cooperative conservation costs. The relatively large range is because of the many variables pertaining to acquiring interests in land. These include the results of a required land protection plan, potential changes in fair market value of property, options relating to acquiring conservation easements, the availability of matching grants and similar cost-sharing opportunities, the participation of partners and third parties to help acquire interests in land, willingness of landowners to cooperate, and negotiations with landowners. 

• Ongoing Costs. In addition to the one-time costs,

there will be a recurring annual cost of $160,000 for the equivalent of two full-time employees. The employees would be needed: (1) to completely implement and sustain the preferred alternative; and (2) for operational requirements pertaining to lands added to the NRA, including resource and visitor management and protection, interpretation,construction and maintenance, and administration. 

(Ref: Final RPS/EIS, pages 56-58.)
REPORT TO CONGRESS

Curecanti Resource Protection Study

CONTENTS

Executive Summary ......................................................................................1 Background of Curecanti ........................................................................... 2 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................... 2 Primary Emphasis of the Study .................................................................. 3 Public and Agency Involvement ................................................................ 3 The Alternatives ........................................................................................... 4 The Primary Differences Between the Alternatives ................................ 5 Preferred Alternative Map ..................................................................... 6-7 Comments on Draft RPS/EIS ..................................................................... 8 Findings and Recommendations .......................................................... 9-12 Contacts for Additional Information ....................................................... 13

CONTA

National Par

Mike Snyder, Reg

Intermounta

Phone: 303-

E-mail: mike_sn

The National Park unimpaired the natresources and valuepark system for education, and inspfuture generations. cooperates with pathe benefi ts of naturesources conservatrecreation throughand the world.
VISIT US ON THE WEB! 

www.nps.gov/cure 

National Park Service 

United States Department of the Interior