United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Southwestern

Region

MB-R3-01-2

August 2010

Environmental 

Assessment for Blue 

River and KP Creek 

Wild and Scenic River 

Suitability Study

Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests, Greenlee County, 

Arizona

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on recycled paper – August 2010

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study i

Contents

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need .........................................................................................1

Document Structure................................................................................................................................1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................2

Background.............................................................................................................................................2

Purpose of and Need for Action .............................................................................................................5

Proposed Action .....................................................................................................................................6

Scope of the Analysis.............................................................................................................................6

Decision Framework...............................................................................................................................6

Public Involvement.................................................................................................................................7

Tribal Consultation .................................................................................................................................7

Key Issues...............................................................................................................................................7

Chapter 2 – Description of the Area.................................................................................9

Regional Setting .....................................................................................................................................9

Landownership .....................................................................................................................................11

Land Uses.............................................................................................................................................12

Range....................................................................................................................................................13

Minerals................................................................................................................................................13

Water Management...............................................................................................................................14

Fire Management..................................................................................................................................17

Social and Economic Conditions..........................................................................................................18

Chapter 3 – Findings of Eligibility and Classification.................................................23

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................23

Free-Flowing Condition .......................................................................................................................23

Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs)..........................................................................................23

Fisheries Values....................................................................................................................................23

Wildlife Values.....................................................................................................................................25

Recreation Values.................................................................................................................................30

Scenery Values.....................................................................................................................................32

Historic and Prehistoric Cultural Values..............................................................................................36

Vegetation Values.................................................................................................................................38

Chapter 4 – Description of the Alternatives ..................................................................41

Alternatives Considered in Detail.........................................................................................................41

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study.............................................................44

Comparison of Alternatives..................................................................................................................45

Chapter 5 – Environmental Consequences....................................................................47

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................47

Analysis of Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects...........................................................................47

Environmental Consequences...............................................................................................................48

Resource Effects by Alternative ...........................................................................................................50

Water Management...............................................................................................................................52

Fisheries Values....................................................................................................................................56

Wildlife Values.....................................................................................................................................60

Recreation Values.................................................................................................................................64

Scenery Values.....................................................................................................................................68

Historic and Prehistoric Cultural Values..............................................................................................71

Vegetation Values.................................................................................................................................73

Landownership and Land Uses.............................................................................................................75

Range....................................................................................................................................................79

Minerals................................................................................................................................................80

Fire Management..................................................................................................................................84

Social and Economic Conditions..........................................................................................................84
Contents

ii EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Suitability Assessment..........................................................................................................................91

Chapter 6 – List of Preparers .........................................................................................99

Interdisciplinary Team Members and Consultants...............................................................................99

Federal and State Officials and Agencies...........................................................................................100

Tribes..................................................................................................................................................100

Glossary ..........................................................................................................................101

References Cited.............................................................................................................105

Appendix

A  Map .............................................................................................................................................109

B  Eligibility Report Excerpt............................................................................................................125

C  Blue River Fish Barrier Wild and Scenic River Free-Flow Analysis..........................................149

D  Management Direction................................................................................................................169

E  Present, Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions...................................................181

F  Effects of Managing a River as a Component of the NWSRS v. 042607....................................185

G  Costs of Administering as a Wild and Scenic River ..................................................................195

List of Figures

Figure 1. Average monthly flow at Blue River gage...............................................................................16

Figure 2. Mexican spotted owl territories and critical habitat in or near the study corridors..................27

Figure 3. Historic Adirondack Shelter at Upper Blue Campground........................................................32

Figure 4. Blue River Corridor just south of Upper Blue Campground....................................................32

Figure 5. Diversity of vegetation in the Blue River corridor south of Upper Blue Campground............34

Figure 6. Blue River just south of Upper Blue Campground ..................................................................34

Figure 7. Blue River south of KP Creek..................................................................................................34

Figure 8. South end of KP Creek taken from the Blue River Corridor ...................................................35

List of Tables

Table 1. Blue River segments and classification..................................................................................... 4

Table 2. KP Creek and classification ...................................................................................................... 4

Table 3. Management area acres by river segment ................................................................................. 5

Table 4. Water rights on the Blue River and tributaries in acre-feet......................................................17

Table 5. Federally listed terrestrial and riparian species considered 

for the Blue River and KP Creek wild and scenic suitability study .........................................26

Table 6. Mexican spotted owl protected activity centers in the study corridors ....................................26

Table 7. Management indicator species for the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests that could occur in the study corridors..........................................................28

Table 8. Terrestrial sensitive species listed for the Alpine and Clifton Ranger Districts.......................29

Table 9. Blue River visual quality objectives.........................................................................................33

Table 10. KP Creek visual quality objectives ..........................................................................................35

Table 11. Cultural resource site count and site type by segment, Blue River..........................................38

Table 12. Alternative 1 suitability by segment.........................................................................................41

Table 13. Alternative 2 suitability by segment.........................................................................................42

Table 14. Alternative 3 suitability by segment.........................................................................................43

Table 15. Alternative 4 suitability by segment.........................................................................................44

Table 16. Suitable and unsuitable miles by classification and alternative ...............................................45

Table 17. Comparison of issue resolution by alternative .........................................................................45

Table 18. Effects to MIS species – population and habitat ......................................................................64

Table 19. Summary of effects to threatened (T) or endangered (E) species ............................................64
Contents

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study iii

Table 20. Effects to riparian and aquatic associated sensitive species (all species).................................64

Table 21. Alternative 1 recreation opportunities by segment...................................................................65

Table 22. ROS acreage by eligible segment for alternative 1 ..................................................................66

Table 23. ROS acreage by suitable segment for alternative 3..................................................................67

Table 24. ROS acreage by suitable segment for alternative 4..................................................................67

Table 25. Management area acreage for eligible segments in alternative 1.............................................69

Table 26. Management area acreage for suitable segments in alternative 3 ............................................70

Table 27. Locations queried and number of claims identified with the status.........................................81

Table 28. Classified river segments with other significant land 

designations and level of locatable mineral activity. ...............................................................81

Table 29. Management area acreage by segment (National Forest System lands only) ........................174

Table 30. Management areas in eligible segments (percent acreage) ....................................................174

Table 31. Current management authorities in eligible segments............................................................180

Table 32. Cooperative plans applicable in study corridors ....................................................................180

Table 33. Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions................................................................181

Acronyms

ADC – Arizona Department of Commerce

AMP – allotment management plan

ARPA – Archaeological Resources Protection Act

ASNF – Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

AZGFD – Arizona Game and Fish Department

BLM – Bureau of Land Management

BMP – best management practices 

BO – biological opinions

BR – Blue River

CEQ – Council on Environmental Quality

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations

cfs – cubic feet per second

CAP – Central Arizona Project

CRMP – comprehensive river management plan

CWCS – comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy

CWPP – community wildfire protection plan

E – endangered species

EA – environmental assessment

EIS – environmental impact statement

EPA – Environmental Protection Agency

EPS – Economic Profile System

ESA – Endangered Species Act

EXP/NE – experimental nonessential species

FERC – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FR - Forest Road 
Contents

iv EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

FSH – Forest Service Handbook

FSM – Forest Service Manual

FSSS – Forest Service sensitive species

GCPZ – Greenlee County Comprehensive Plan

GPZC – Greenlee County Planning and Zoning Commission

IRA – inventoried roadless area

MA – management area

MIS – management indicator species

MSO – Mexican spotted owl

NAICS – North America Industrial Classification System

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

NF – national forest

NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act

NRHP – National Register of Historic Places

NRST – National Riparian Service Team

NWSRS – National Wild and Scenic River System

ORV – outstandingly remarkable value

P – proposed species

PACs – protected activity centers

PILT – payment in lieu of taxes

ROD – record of decision

ROS – recreation opportunity spectrum

SHPO – State Historic Preservation Officer

SOPA – schedule of proposed actions

SRSCS – Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act

T – threatened species

TEP – threatened, endangered, and proposed species

TES – threatened, endangered, or sensitive species

TMDL – total maximum daily load

U.S.C. – United States Code

USCB – U.S. Census Bureau

USDA – U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDI – U.S. Department of the Interior

USFWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS – U.S. Geologic Survey

WSR – wild and scenic rivers

WSRA –Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 1

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other relevant law, regulation, and policy. The 

EA discloses the predicted direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would 

result from the alternatives.

The format of this document adheres to the requirements found in the Forest Service Handbook 

for suitability studies conducted for rivers found eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System (FSH 1909.83(2)). This format varies from typical Forest Service 

environmental assessments because the analysis merges the requirements of NEPA with Forest 

Service policy associated with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (act). It includes two additional 

chapters (“Description of the Area” and “Findings of Eligibility and Classification”) which are 

necessary to describe the segments of Blue River and KP Creek eligible for inclusion into the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (National system). The document is organized as 

follows:

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action: This chapter includes information 

on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and 

the Agency’s proposed action for achieving that purpose and need. This chapter 

details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the 

public responded. This chapter also describes key issues.

Chapter 2. Description of the Area: This chapter provides a description of the 

river corridors and surrounding area, including the status of landownership, land 

uses, and management activities.

Chapter 3. Findings of Eligibility and Classification: This chapter summarizes 

the existing conditions for river values for Blue River and KP Creek, including 

the free-flowing character and outstandingly remarkable values. Eligibility 

findings documented in the forest’s 2009 report (appendix B) are summarized.

Chapter 4. Description of Alternatives: This chapter provides a detailed 

description of the Forest Service’s alternative methods for achieving the stated 

purpose and need, and the proposed action. Alternatives were developed based on 

issues raised by the public, Forest Service, and other agencies. Finally, this 

chapter provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated 

with each alternative.

Chapter 5. Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the 

environmental effects of implementing the alternatives. This analysis is organized 

by resource category.

List of Preparers: This chapter provides a list of resource specialists involved in 

the preparation of the EA.

Glossary: A description of terms used in the document.

References Cited: A list of references used for the project.

Appendix: The appendix provides more detailed information to support the 

analyses presented in the EA and consists of several parts.
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

2 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

The project record is located in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Supervisor’s Office and 

includes all additional documentation used and developed in support of this environmental 

analysis.

Introduction

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created by Congress in 1968 (Public Law 90-

542; 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) to preserve certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and 

recreational values in a free-flowing condition for the enjoyment of present and future 

generations. The act is notable for safeguarding the special character of these rivers, while also 

recognizing the potential for their appropriate use and development. 

The Forest Service is conducting an environmental analysis to evaluate the suitability of four 

eligible river segments of the Blue River and one eligible river segment of KP Creek (a tributary 

to the Blue River) on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests in Arizona for inclusion into the 

National system. This analysis is conducted pursuant to section 5(d)(1) of the act and complies 

with the NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4346). Section 5(d)(1) requires agencies to consider 

and evaluate rivers on lands they manage for potential designation while preparing their broader 

land and resource management plans. However, Forest Service policy allows for wild and scenic 

river suitability studies separate from land management planning, such as this analysis (FSH 

1909.12 Ch. 83.2). See map 1 in appendix A for the vicinity of the study area.

The suitability of Blue River is being considered at this time, separate from land management 

planning, due to a proposal to construct a channel-spanning fish barrier in Blue River segment 4, 

located in the Clifton Ranger District. As described below in the purpose and need for the 

analysis, finding this segment suitable would preclude the construction of the fish barrier. See 

map 2 for the location of the proposed fish barrier on Blue River.

KP Creek is included in this study because it is a tributary to Blue River and supports a valuable 

native fishery similar to Blue River. 

This analysis is a programmatic rather than site-specific analysis. No specific on-the-ground 

actions are proposed or examined. The analysis of environmental effects addresses the potential 

changes in management which may occur if the eligible river segments are found to be suitable or

unsuitable for designation into the National system.

Background 

Overview of the Study Process

The wild and scenic river study process is comprised of three steps: eligibility, classification, and 

suitability. Eligibility and classification represent an inventory of existing conditions. Eligibility 

is an evaluation of whether a river is free flowing and possesses one or more outstandingly 

remarkable values (ORVs). If found eligible, a river is analyzed as to its current level of 

development (water resources projects, shoreline development, and accessibility) and a 

recommendation is made that it be placed into one or more of three classes—wild, scenic or 

recreational.
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 3

The final procedural step, suitability, provides the basis for determining whether to recommend a 

river as part of the National system. It is the Forest Service’s analysis and conclusions as to 

whether an eligible river is a worthy addition to the National system.

The identification of a river for study through the forest planning process does not trigger any 

protections under the act. To manage the river for its potential inclusion into the National system, 

the forest plan should provide direction using other authorities to protect its free-flowing 

character, water quality, ORVs, and classification.

Rivers are added to the National system by act of Congress or by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Secretarial designation requires that a river be a part of a state river protection system and the 

state governor to make application to the Secretary.

Status of Eligibility Study on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

The “Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Plan,” hereafter referred to as the forest plan (USDA 

1987), and “Environmental Impact Statement” (USDA 1987a) evaluated segments of the Black 

River and its East and West Forks, Chevelon Creek, and Leonard Canyon, Clear Creek and 

Willow Creek as potential wild and scenic rivers. The forest plan also included direction to: 

“Study the main stem of the Blue River from its confluence with the San 

Francisco River upstream to its confluence with McKittrick Creek in the Blue 

Range Primitive Area as a candidate stream for eligibility in the Wild and Scenic 

River System. Timber harvesting and new road construction are prohibited in the 

potential wild and scenic river corridor; one quarter mile each side of the 

stream. Also, consistent with any outstanding rights, dams, diversions, or other 

water resource developments are also prohibited until the study is completed. The 

study would be completed by 1994” (forestwide standards and guidelines, page 

30).

In 1993, at the request of the Arizona congressional delegation, the Forest Service evaluated 

rivers on the national forests of Arizona for their potential inclusion into the National system. 

This evaluation, documented in the “Resource Information Report, Potential Wild-ScenicRecreational River Designation, National Forests in Arizona” (USDA 1993), found 22 potentially 

eligible rivers (totaling 374 miles) on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (ASNFs). This 

process identified both Blue River and KP Creek as potentially eligible.

As a result of a lawsuit in 2001, the Forest Service was directed by the 9th Circuit Court to treat 

all rivers identified as potentially eligible on the national forests of Arizona as eligible. In 

conveying this opinion, the Regional Forester recommended each forest update their eligibility 

determinations during forest plan revision. As a result of this process, 23 rivers were found 

eligible, including Blue River and KP Creek (USDA Forest Service, 2009). See appendix B, 

“Eligibility Report for the National Wild and Scenic River System, Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests.”

The Blue River was determined to be free flowing and possessing the outstandingly remarkable 

values of scenery, recreation, fish, wildlife, historic, prehistoric, and vegetation. There are four 

eligible segments. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

4 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

KP Creek was determined to be free flowing and possessing the outstandingly remarkable values 

of scenery, recreation, fish, and wildlife. There is one eligible segment. 

The May 2009 eligibility report identified the segments and classifications for Blue River and KP 

Creek as noted in tables 1 and 2, and shown on map 3. 

Table 1. Blue River segments and classification

Segment Description Classification Length

Segment 1 Blue River from the confluence of Campbell Blue and 

Dry Blue Creeks downstream through the Smith Place to 

Bear Creek.

Recreational 25.1 miles

Segment 2 From Bear Creek downstream to 1⁄4 mile above the Blue 

River Trailhead.

Wild 16.0 miles

Segment 3 From 1⁄4 mile above the Blue River Trailhead to 1⁄2 mile 

below Forest Road (FR) 475.

Scenic 4.2 miles

Segment 4 From 1⁄2 mile below FR 475 to the confluence with the 

San Francisco River

Wild 8.1 miles

Table 2. KP Creek and classification

Segment Description Classification Length

KP Creek Begins near the Mogollon Rim close to U.S. Highway 

191 and flows approximately 13 miles to the Blue 

River.

Wild 11.3 miles

Management Areas on National Forest System Lands

The study corridors include six forest plan management areas as described in appendix D and 

shown on maps 4-8. The following section summarizes the management area emphases and acres.

Management Area 1 – Forest Land

Emphasize a combination of multiple uses including a sustained yield of timber and firewood 

production, wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, watershed, and dispersed recreation. (forest plan, 

p. 95)

Management Area 2 – Woodlands – Pinyon-Juniper

Emphasize firewood production, wildlife habitat, watershed condition, and livestock grazing. 

Other resources are managed in harmony with the emphasized resources. Manage recreation use 

levels at the less than standard service level. (forest plan, p. 115)
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 5

Management Area 3 – Riparian

Riparian areas, with their high productivity and diversity, are a limited and critical ecological 

resource. In addition to having high timber, range, recreation, and cultural values, riparian areas 

are vital to the quantity and quality of habitats for fish and some wildlife species, and are basic to 

the hydrologic function of watersheds. Other resources uses and activities may occur to the extent 

that they support or do not adversely affect riparian dependent resources. (forest plan, p. 121)

Management Area 4 – Mountain Grass

Emphasize wildlife habitat and visual quality, especially big game winter range. (forest plan, p.

128).

Management Area 8 – Blue Range Primitive Area

Emphasize wilderness recreation while maintaining wilderness resource values. (forest plan, p. 

142).

Management Area 18 – Sandrock

Emphasize the recovery of this critical watershed. In addition, emphasize management of the 

loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitus) and black hawk (Buteogallus anthracinus). (forest plan, p. 181).

Table 3. Management area acres by river segment 

River

Segment

Management Area (acres)

1

Timberlands

2

Woodlands 

Pinyon -

Juniper

3

Riparian

4

Grasslands

8

Blue 

Range 

Primitive 

Area

18

Sandrock

1 570 1,951 764 3,891

2 3,922 1,033

3 69 1,203

4 1,239 1,067 135

KP Creek 1,290* 144 2,378*

Total 1,860 3,259 1,831 144 10,191 2,371

Purpose of and Need for Action 

The purpose and need for this study is to determine if the eligible portions of the Blue River and 

KP Creek should be recommended to Congress for inclusion into the National system. The need 

to conduct the study at this time is to inform the analysis of the proposed construction of a 

channel-spanning fish barrier in Blue River. In response to the fish barrier proposal, Forest 

Service resource specialists conducted an analysis of its potential effects on the Blue River’s freeflowing condition and found it would affect the free-flowing character. See appendix C for the 

free-flow analysis conducted for the proposed fish barrier. The USDI Bureau of Reclamation 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

6 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

(BOR) proposed the barrier as a conservation measure to protect federally listed threatened and 

endangered fish species as required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) biological 

opinion (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008).

This study evaluates the suitability of Blue River and KP Creek in a timeframe necessary for the 

BOR’s compliance with the USFWS biological opinion. See the “Fisheries Resources” section in 

chapter 5 for more information.

Proposed Action 

The proposed action is to determine which, if any, of the Blue River and KP Creek eligible 

segments are suitable for inclusion into the National system. The suitability study is designed to 

answer the following questions, which the responsible official would consider in conjunction with 

the effects analyses for each alternative:

● Should the river’s free-flowing character, water quality, and ORVs be protected, or are one 

or more other uses important enough to warrant doing otherwise?

● Would the river’s free-flowing character, water quality, and ORVs be protected through 

designation? Is it the best method for protecting the river corridor? In answering these 

questions, the benefits and impacts of WSR designation must be evaluated and alternative 

protection methods considered.

● Is there a demonstrated commitment to protect the river by any non-Federal entities that 

may be partially responsible for implementing protective management?

For those eligible segments found to be suitable, the ASNFs forest plan would be amended to 

include the following forestwide standard: 

“River segments found suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System would be managed in accordance with interim management 

guidelines for suitable rivers found in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 (82.5).”

Segments found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the National system would continue to be 

managed in accordance with the management area direction found in the ASNFs plan and other 

applicable guidance. 

Scope of the Analysis

This environmental analysis determines only whether or not the eligible river segments are 

suitable for inclusion into the National system. Eligibility, including the river’s ORVs, and 

segment classification were identified in an earlier analysis (appendix B). The study boundary 

extends one-quarter mile from each streambank, consistent with the interim management corridor 

for an eligible river (FSH 1909.12, 81.3).

Decision Framework 

The environmental analysis considers issues and alternatives raised by the public and other 

agencies and identified by the Forest Service, and discloses the effects of the alternatives. Based 

on this analysis, the ASNFs forest supervisor (responsible official) would determine:
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 7

1. Which, if any, of the eligible river segments under consideration are suitable and should 

be recommended to the Congress of the United States for inclusion in the National 

system? 

2. What, if any, additional direction is necessary to provide protection consistent with 

Agency policy (FSH 1909.12, 82.5) for suitable river segments.

Public Involvement 

A scoping letter describing the proposed action and seeking public comments was mailed to 

approximately 1,730 groups, individuals, and agencies on January 30, 2009, with comments 

requested to be returned by February 16, 2009. In response to early comments by the public, the 

initial comment period was extended to March 28, 2009. The public was informed of this 

extension with a letter mailed and dated March 6, 2009. The Forest Service also hosted public 

meetings on March 21, 2009, in Blue, Arizona, and on March 28, 2009, in Clifton, Arizona, to 

further engage interested groups and individuals, provide information, and answer questions 

about the suitability study. The public was invited to comment on the proposed action, identify 

potential conflicts or benefits, and provide any relevant information that would be useful in the 

subsequent environmental analysis.

In addition to mailing the scoping letter to interested groups and individuals, notice of the 

proposal was published on the ASNFs Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) beginning on 

January 1, 2009, and the scoping letter and further information was posted on the forest’s Web

site in February 2009. 

The Forest Service received approximately 95 unique responses from interested individuals, 

groups, and agencies, and three different form letters which were submitted 32, 325, and 1,638

times, respectively. The Forest Service also received two petitions. Comments were submitted via 

letter, email, and FAX. 

Tribal Consultation

The Forest Supervisor mailed an informational letter to government leaders and cultural contacts 

of 10 different tribes and pueblos on July 16, 2010. The intent of the letter was to provide early 

notification of the suitability study prior to release of the environmental assessment for public 

review during the formal 30-day comment period, and to invite their participation.

Key Issues

Comments received during scoping were examined for key issues, defined as unresolved effects 

directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Comments were also reviewed 

to determine if they might be addressed in a suitability factor. The Council for Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require the following delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “...identify 

and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered 

by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...” Nonsignificant issues were identified as those: 

(1) outside the scope of the proposed action; (2) already decided by law, regulation, forest plan, or 

other higher level decision; (3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or (4) conjectural and not 

supported by scientific or factual evidence. The list of issues from scoping comments and reasons 

regarding their categorization can be found in the project record.
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

8 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

From the Topics Raised During Scoping, 

the Forest Supervisor Identified the Following Key Issues

Issue 1 – Designation Offers Long-term Protection

Some people commented that they would like to see river segments designated into the National 

system as a way to ensure long-term protection for instream, shoreline, and upland resources. 

Designation would provide statutory protection from the harmful effects of water resources 

projects, require a comprehensive river management plan to develop direction to protect and 

enhance values on Federal lands, and provide for voluntary technical assistance to other entities 

including landowners and other partnership opportunities to help protect values on non-Federal 

lands.

Alternative 4 (all segments suitable and recommended) addresses this issue.

Issue Indicator – River segments found suitable or unsuitable and the associated impacts to river 

values.

Issue 2 – Designation Could Have Economic Impacts

Some people expressed concern that designation of eligible river segments could potentially 

reduce property values, increase Forest Service administration and acquisition costs, and reduce 

the tax base and payments to the county.

Alternative 2 (no segments suitable and recommended) and alternative 3 (some segments suitable 

and recommended) address this issue.

Issue Indicators – Economic impacts to the Blue community area and Greenlee County; USFS 

costs of developing the CRMP and administering designations.

Issue 3 – Designation May Preclude, Limit or 

Enhance Uses and Activities on Private and Public Lands 

Some commented that designation would restrict activities such as water withdrawal, grazing, 

road repair, and rehabilitation and restoration activities conducted on private and public lands, 

resulting in degradation and loss of natural and cultural resources. 

Alternative 2 (no segments suitable and recommended) and alternative 3 (some segments suitable 

and recommended) address this issue.

Issue Indicators – Types of activities, including resource protection activities, affected by 

designation.

Issue 4 – Current Management and Collaboration

Some commented that designation is unnecessary to ensure river protection and duplicative of 

existing collaborate efforts to protect values on Federal and non-Federal lands. They believe, 

existing law, regulation, and policy, in conjunction with these collaborative efforts between 

agencies and citizens, would continue to ensure protection of the river values.

Alternative 1 (no action) and alternative 2 (no segments suitable and recommended) address this 

issue.

Issue Indicator – Existing mechanisms to protect free-flowing condition, water quality, and 

ORVs.
EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 9

Chapter 2 – Description of the Area

This chapter provides a description of the river corridors and surrounding area, including the 

status of landownership, land uses, and management activities. Detailed descriptions of resources 

identified as outstandingly remarkable values are included in chapters 3 and 5.

The Blue River and KP Creek eligible segments are located within Greenlee County, Arizona; 

Segment 1 of the Blue River begins near the eastern boundary of Greenlee County, adjacent to 

Catron County, NM, with all four segments subsequently flowing south-southwest to the San 

Francisco River. The eligible segment of KP Creek begins near U.S.191 in Greenlee County and 

flows east to the Blue River near the end of Blue River segment 1. See map 3 in appendix A.

Regional Setting

The headwaters of the Blue River watershed are in the physiographic setting of the Colorado 

Plateau. The river cuts down through a geological transition zone with the lower portion in the 

basin and range of southern Arizona. The watershed is approximately 396,105 acres and lies 

within the greater Gila River basin, which flows west from headwaters in New Mexico until it 

meets the lower Colorado River at Yuma, Arizona. The Blue River flows for approximately 53 

miles before it flows into the San Francisco River. The San Francisco River lies primarily east of 

the Blue River and is a major tributary of the upper Gila River. In addition to the San Francisco 

River, significant tributaries of the Gila River include the Salt River, San Pedro River, Santa Cruz 

River, Verde River, and Agua Fria River. The majority of the Blue River watershed is part of the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests in Arizona, with approximately 28,100 acres within the Gila 

National Forest in New Mexico.

Map 9 in appendix A displays the study corridors, special areas, topography, and other features 

within the upper and lower 5th code Blue River watershed.

General Description – Blue River

Location: The legal description of the river includes Township/Ranges: T01N, R30E; T01N, 

R31E; T02N, R30E; T02N, R31E; T03N, R30E; T03N, R31E; T04N, R31E; T04N, R32E, Gila 

and Salt River Meridian and T01S, R31E; T02S, R30E; T02S, R31E, Gila and Salt River 

Meridian.

The Blue River is divided into two Fifth Hydrologic Unit watersheds (1504000403 Upper Blue 

River and 1504000407 Lower Blue) which together form one large relatively undisturbed 

watershed when compared to the other watersheds on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. 

The Blue River watershed extends over a significant elevational difference between the top of the 

watershed near Alpine, Arizona, and its mouth at the San Francisco River. The highest point in 

the watershed is near the Mogollon Rim at approximately 9,400 feet (2,865 meters), while the 

mouth of the watershed lies at 3,683 feet (1,177 meters).

Overall, the landscape of the eligible Blue River corridor studied in this analysis includes a 

diversity of textures, colors, and forms which create striking views everywhere along the river 

corridor. Boulders, rocks, and sediments from the side canyons contribute to the mainstem river 

bottom. The river corridor varies from wide flood plains separated by narrow box canyons to 

wide or narrow sandy river bottoms to a relatively narrow canyon with towering canyon walls. 

Slumps and fault lines are visible in places like the Blue Box. The river cuts through dark lava 
Chapter 2  Description of the Area

10 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

flows, red walls, white volcanic ash, and rock-studded conglomerate. In places, water flows 

through narrow, almost slotlike reaches and elsewhere through wide and meandering flood plains.

The uppermost 13 miles of the Blue River flow through management areas designated by the 

1987 forest plan as forest and woodland, with management emphasis on multiple uses. The river 

then flows for approximately 23 miles through the Blue Range Primitive Area. The Blue Range 

Primitive Area is managed to emphasize wilderness recreation, while maintaining wilderness 

resource values. The forest plan currently prohibits timber harvesting and new road construction 

in the potential wild and scenic river corridor (one-quarter mile on each side of the stream) from 

the San Francisco River upstream to the confluence with McKittrick Creek in the Blue Range 

Primitive Area. This country contains a wide range of ecological communities from semidesert 

grassland below the Mogollon Rim to high mountain forests above the rim. It is primarily 

composed of woodlands, interior chaparral, and grasslands, with ponderosa pine and mixed 

conifer found in the higher elevations. The Mogollon Rim traverses the area west to east while 

the Blue River and its rugged canyon run north to south. Rolling terrain, unique rock formations, 

and rough, precipitous canyons characterize the landscape of this area. A 17 mile portion of the 

lower river below the Blue Range Primitive Area is closed to motorized vehicle use.

The Blue River is adjacent to Centerfire, Nolan, and Pipestem Inventoried Roadless Areas 

(IRAs), and within and adjacent to Lower San Francisco IRA. Wildlife and fisheries values are 

significant in this relatively remote watershed and are briefly described in chapter 3. Of the 21

fish species native to the Gila River basin, the Blue River is occupied by 6 native fishes, 

including the loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), which is listed under the Endangered Species Act 

as threatened and is at high risk of extinction in the Southwest. Additional fisheries information is 

provided in chapter 5.

Recreation opportunities include picnicking, camping, swimming, canoeing, and hiking. The area 

is used by licensed and permitted outfitters and guides for hunting and fishing. There are also 

opportunities for mountain biking along Forest Road 281, which parallels and crosses the Blue 

River. Many trailheads provide non-motorized access to the Blue Range Primitive Area. 

Developed recreation opportunities include the Upper Blue and Blue Crossing Campgrounds. 

Where the river flows through the Blue Range Primitive Area, hiking, backpacking, camping, 

horse packing, and hunting all occur along the river and its canyon corridors. However, it’s very 

remote, vast, and undeveloped so it offers a primitive recreation experience unlike elsewhere in 

the State. The Blue River Trailhead is located 3 miles south of the Blue Range Primitive Area 

boundary.

General Description – KP Creek

Location: The legal description of KP Creek includes Township/Ranges: T02N, R30E; T03N, 

R29E; T03N, R30E, Gila and Salt River Meridian.

KP Creek is located approximately 30 miles upstream from the mouth of Blue River. KP Creek

originates near the Mogollon Rim close to U.S. Highway 191. Forest Road 55 provides access to 

upper KP Creek and KP Trail 70, thereby providing access to other trails. From its origin it flows 

generally east and southeast for approximately 13 miles to the Blue River. Approximately 2,378 

acres of the KP Creek river corridor, or two-thirds of its length, lie within the Blue Range 

Primitive Area. A portion of the creek also flows through lands that were identified in the 1987 
Chapter 2  Description of the Area

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 11

forest plan as potential additions to the Blue Range Primitive Area. Except for one private parcel 

in the lower mile outside of the study corridor, KP Creek is public land managed by the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests.

The scenery is widely diverse. Upper KP Creek rushes down a steep, thickly-forested canyon 

with lush riparian vegetation. Two small waterfalls can be seen from KP Trail, which follows the 

creek downstream. Additional waterfalls are found about 7 miles downstream, but these are 

located off the trail. Grassy flats contrast with large, old-growth ponderosa pines and provide 

views into deep pools and across to canyon walls. This river was noted for its native trout 

populations as far back as 1904, and is proposed for introduction of Gila trout within the next 5

years.

The dense vegetation and large down logs make the river corridor prime habitat for black bear 

and blue (dusky) grouse, both species which require high quality habitat. Bobcat and mountain 

lion frequent this unroaded, wild country. Mule deer can be spotted; Coues deer are occasionally 

seen in the lower elevations. Several Mexican spotted owl pairs have territories along the river 

corridor, and in the late winter and early spring pairs may be heard calling. The riparian corridor

provides habitat for small mammals such as voles and mice, important owl prey species. 

Migratory birds that use high elevation riparian areas include MacGillivray’s, red-faced, and 

yellow warblers. The yellow-breasted chat may use the lower elevation portion of the river 

corridor. Other wildlife species along the river segment include Rocky Mountain elk, Albert’s 

squirrel, long-tailed weasel, and coyote. The lower 5 miles of KP Creek are part of the identified 

Blue River Complex Important Bird Area. 

KP Creek provides opportunities for hiking, fishing, backpacking, and horseback riding. The two 

small waterfalls about 3 miles downstream from KP Cienega Campground are a popular day hike 

destination. Licensed and permitted outfitters and guides operate hunting and fishing trips along 

KP Creek. Approximately 3,253 acres have been classified as wilderness-primitive recreation 

niche, providing recreation opportunities of solitude and remoteness.

Landownership 

Map 10 in appendix A displays the landownership in Blue River segment 1.

The following information is based on a one-half mile corridor (one-quarter mile from each 

streambank). The majority of the Blue River and all of the KP corridors are located on National 

Forest System (NFS) lands.

Segment 1 of Blue River contains 14 private parcels (USDI, Bureau of Land Management 2010). 

Of the approximately 8,032 acres within this 25.1 mile segment, there are 1,367 (17 percent) 

acres of private land and 6,665 (83 percent) acres of NFS lands. The private parcels range from 

36 to 160 acres and are currently zoned under Greenlee County as rural RU-36 (one dwelling unit 

per 36 acres).

The private land parcels are scattered along the entirety of segment 1, creating a pattern of mixed 

landownership. Portions of public land in this segment extend up to 4 continuous river miles, and 

one private section (multiple owners) extends along the river segment for approximately 5

continuous miles.
Chapter 2  Description of the Area

12 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Land Uses

Private land developments and uses in segment 1 of Blue River include one rural schoolhouse, 12 

homes with outbuildings, and several water diversions used primarily for irrigation. Many of the 

private parcels span the river. The primary consumptive water uses on private land are for 

irrigation, stock watering, and domestic wells and fish ponds. There are small hay fields and 

gardens along the Blue River valley bottom. There is year-round road access and approximately 

four families live there year-round (conversation with Myron Burnett, Wilderness Ranger, Clifton 

Ranger District). One of the private parcels has a fish hatchery which is regulated by the Arizona 

Department of Agriculture and has been used in the recent past by a private individual to raise 

nonnative rainbow trout.

NFS lands within the corridors that are outside of the Blue Range Primitive Area are managed 

primarily for multiple uses of timber, firewood, wildlife, dispersed recreation, or for riparian 

values. Management of the Blue Range Primitive Area emphasizes wilderness recreation while 

maintaining wilderness resource values. The designated forest plan riparian management areas 

are in segments 1, 3, and 4 with the priority emphasis on: (1) threatened and endangered species; 

(2) coldwater fisheries; (3) warmwater fisheries; and (4) all other riparian dependent resources. 

Special Use Permits

The Forest Service authorizes uses of NFS land by individuals and companies by issuing special 

use permits. Presently, the only known uses authorized by permit are:

● A Navopache Electric Cooperative 69 KV transmission line crossing through the 

southern portion of the parcel paralleling Blue River Road No. 67004.

● Several private roads which provide landowner access to their property from the main 

road (conversation with Ryan Domsalla, forest lands specialist). There are no active 

applications for any additional uses.

● Hunting and fishing outfitters and guides. 

Access and Infrastructure

There are relatively few road miles in the Blue River watershed, with most occurring in the upper 

watershed south of Alpine and outside of the study segments, the Blue Range Primitive Area, or 

the inventoried roadless areas. Forest Road 281 is a main road which parallels the river near the 

valley bottom from the state line in Section 5 (T4N) to private lands in Section 14 (T2N). This 

road provides access for local residents and for trailheads to the Blue Range Primitive Area. 

Within the Blue Range Primitive Area, which encompasses the upper three-quarters of segment 2, 

river access is nonmotorized only. The river is also closed to motorized use from the southern 

boundary of the primitive area south to the confluence with San Francisco River, except at the 

point of crossing for Forest Road 475 (Juan Miller Road).

The watershed has many trail systems, including trails for foot and horseback use that access the 

river in segments 2, 3, and 4. Primary access to segment 2 is via trails accessible from U.S.

Highway 191 and Forest Road 35. Forest Road 475 (Juan Miller Road) provides access to 

segment 3 from U.S. Highway 191. Two trails leave the river segment below a road crossing in 

segment 4.
Chapter 2  Description of the Area

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 13

Two Forest Service campgrounds are located in segment 1. There is also a power line parallel for 

the entire segment 1. There is a Forest Service administrative unit called Blue Camp in segment 

1, often used as a fire crew base during fire season. A cable car and stream gauging section are 

located in segment 3 near Forest Road 475.

Forest Road 55 leads to KP Cienega Campground and provides the only motorized access in the 

KP Creek drainage. The remainder of the canyon is accessible only from several foot or horse 

trails. The trails include KP, North Fork KP, KP Rim, Blue Lookout, McKittrick, and Steeple. 

There are 7 miles of the KP Trail in the study corridor of KP Creek, with 5 miles parallel to the 

creek. Other trail segments occurring in the study segment include less than 1 mile of the 

McKittrick, North Fork KP, and Blue Lookout Trails. 

Range

There are currently 11 actively grazed livestock allotments located along the Blue River and KP 

Creek. Nine of the allotments are managed out of the Clifton Ranger District, and two are 

managed out of the Alpine Ranger District. 

Through a mix of previous cooperative agreements with grazing permit holders and past 

environmental analysis decisions, livestock grazing on Federal lands is not permitted within the 

Blue River and KP Creek corridors (personal communication, Reed and Hill 2008, 2010). 

Livestock use within the corridors has been reduced to water crossing activities and for minimal 

equine use through use of natural barriers and fencing. The original fencing was constructed to 

control livestock, prevent drift, and preserve and protect the riparian corridor for threatened and 

endangered species and their habitat. Livestock drift can occur and the permittee is notified and 

the unauthorized livestock are removed. 

Minerals

There are no active locatable mineral claims or permits for removal of salable mineral material 

within the Blue River watershed. Closed claims occur along the main stem of Blue River, and no 

closed claims occur along KP Creek. There is no leasable mineral activity in the Blue River 

watershed, which includes KP Creek.

None of the corridor is withdrawn from locatable or leasable mineral entry. Prospecting, locating 

and developing mineral resources within the Blue Range Primitive Area may occur. These 

activities are to be managed to minimize the effect on the area’s wilderness character (36 CFR 

293.17(b)).

There is a single 148-acre parcel located within Sections 19 and 30, T01S, R31E, at the north end 

of Blue River segment 3 that has privately owned mineral rights. A land exchange completed in 

1987 allowed the seller to retain ownership of all minerals. It is possible in the future that the 

owner of these minerals (presently unknown if any exist) could exercise their right to access and 

extract the minerals.
Chapter 2  Description of the Area

14 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Water Management

Geology and Channel Conditions 

The predominate rock type of the Blue River watershed is undifferentiated tertiary volcanics 

(Ratte et al., 1969). These include basalts and andesites, as well as less resistant ash flows. High 

angle faults are a common structure along the Blue River. Some occur singly, others in closely set 

parallel bands which weaken rock in the faulted zone (Inman, 2000). It is possible that the 

elevation of the Blue River main stem is controlled by faulting.

The valley of segment 1 consists of fossiliferous alluvial and lacustrine deposits of the middle or 

early Pliocene: conglomerates, sands, silts, and clays. Segment 2 is through dark, fine-grained 

basalts and sites locally interbedded with sedimentary material and tuff. The older volcanics may 

be inclined due to faulting and tilting. Segments 3 and 4 are within lighter, acidic volcanic rocks 

which include strata of tuff and agglomerate. These rocks are very eroded, faulted, and broken.

The geology of KP Creek drainage is volcanic in the upper segments; basalts and andesites of 

Quaternary to Tertiary in age, changing to epiclastics: laharic, breccias and volcanic 

conglomerates, sandstones and mudstones. At the confluence with the Blue River exposures are 

tertiary aged rhyloitic ash flow tuffs overlain by gray weathering tilted beds of conglomerate 

(Ratte et al., 1969).

For most of its length, Blue River is confined by bedrock in a narrow valley bottom. The channel 

itself is deeply entrenched in alluvial material. One-time marginal flood plains are now terraces 

not inundated except in very high flood stages. Where the valley is wider, in faulted zones, flood

plain alluvium occupy the valley floor, the channel is poorly defined or multithreaded in a wash 

or braided form. It is assumed that the channel scoured and widened during the 1900s as a result 

of clearing of vegetation for log transport (NRST, 2000). Much of the former flood plain has been 

subsequently washed away, along with a road that once ran the length of the river from Alpine to 

Clifton and a number of habitations. 

Water Quality 

The temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, nutrients and fecal-coliform of Blue River has been 

tested by grab samples on 24 separate occasions at the USGS stream gage site in segment 3 

(USGS 2008). Samples were collected during 1989-1993 at various flow levels (7 to 782 cfs). 

The summary of results indicate that the river meets State water quality standards for beneficial 

uses except for fecal-coliform, and is often well below thresholds, except during times of extreme 

high flow, when turbidity may exceed standards. Beneficial uses as listed by the state of Arizona 

(State of Arizona, 2008b) for the Blue River and its tributaries are:

● Fish consumption

● Full body contact

● Irrigation

● Livestock watering 

● Warmwater fishery: segments 2, 3, and 4

● Coldwater fishery: segment 1
Chapter 2  Description of the Area

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 15

The State also collects water quality and fecal coliform data at various sites along the river not 

just at the gage to determine if listing as impaired is necessary.

The Blue River is on the State of Arizona’s 2008 303(d) list as impaired for fecal-coliform from 

Strayhorse Creek to the confluence with the San Francisco River (State of Arizona, 2008a). 

The Blue River was formerly listed as impaired for not meeting turbidity standards and a total 

maximum daily load (TMDL) was completed in 2001 (Stephenson and Konrad, 2001). This study 

concluded that the Blue River has a naturally high sediment load due to the geology of the 

watershed. In particular, large slumps and slides feed sediment directly to the river (Inman 2000). 

In addition, there is a high volume of sediments stored in terraces along the channel as well as 

within the channel itself. Within segments 2, 3, and 4, below 5,000 feet elevation, the Blue River 

was classified as a warmwater fishery which has a turbidity standard of 50 nephelometric 

turbidity units (NTU) versus turbidity requirements of 10 NTU for coldwater fisheries. 

Water quality data shows KP Creek meeting State of Arizona standards for all appropriate 

beneficial uses: coldwater fisheries, full body contact, domestic water supply, human 

consumption of fish taken, and agricultural watering. The entire eligible segment has been 

classified by the state as “unique water” because of high quality. 

Instream Flow and Water Use

Flow rate of Blue River is highly variable due to the influence of summer monsoonal rains which 

drive many of the higher peaks of record. Annual peak streamflow occurs typically July through 

October or mid-February through April, with sharp troughs in between. However, high flows may 

occur in any month July through April in a given year (figure 1). Other influences, beside summer 

monsoons are steadier and longer lasting winter-spring storms and spring snowmelt runoff mostly 

generated from snowpack at higher elevations from February to April. 

The Blue River is perennial, but with discontinuous flow. During drier times of the year, sections 

of the river go subsurface in the wider sections of the valley and flow at the surface in the 

narrower parts of the valley. Several tributaries are classified as perennial by the forests’ GIS 

database. These streams are Campbell Blue, Turkey, Jackson, Foot, Grant, Lanphier, Raspberry, 

Strayhorse, Little Blue, Squaw, Pigeon and, of course, KP Creek.

A stream gage (USGS Station 09444200; USGS, 2008) operated in turn by the U.S. Geologic 

Survey and the Arizona Department of Water Resources is located at the crossing of Juan Miller 

Road (FR 475) in the lower portion of segment 3 (period of record; 1967 to present). Average 

mean daily discharge is 76.2 cubic feet per second (cfs). The maximum instantaneous peak flow 

on record was approximately 30,000 cfs. Minimum mean daily discharge for the period of record 

was 1.4 cfs. 

No flow data is available for KP Creek, but average flow of the stream was estimated at 4 cfs in 

the 1993 report on potential wild and scenic designation (USDA Forest Service, 1993). Arizona 

2006 water quality data within the Blue River watershed lists the Campbell Blue River and KP 

Creek as attaining all uses (State of Arizona, 2008a).
Chapter 2  Description of the Area

16 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Averge Monthly Discharge, Blue River

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Discharge (cfs)

Figure 1. Average monthly flow at Blue River gage

Water Rights

The surface and ground waters within the Blue River watershed are used for a variety of 

purposes. Some of the uses are primarily nonconsumptive such as rafting, fishing, primitive area 

travel, and nature study. Other uses are considered consumptive. The primary consumptive uses 

on private land are irrigation, stock watering, domestic wells, and fish ponds. Primary 

consumptive water uses of the forests are for grazing management, wildlife management, fire 

suppression, road maintenance, and domestic use at Blue Camp Administrative Site. Some of 

these uses involve spring developments or use directly on undeveloped water sources. Others 

involve direct diversions of waters from the Blue River or from some of its tributaries. The major 

consumptive uses can contribute to a diminishment of flows in the Blue River and its tributaries, 

particularly during irrigation season which generally occurs from early spring until the start of the 

summer monsoon season. This coincides with a natural period of lower flows in the Blue River, 

especially the months of May, June and early July.

The relative rights and priorities of appropriation for diversion of waters from the Blue River and 

its tributaries were adjudicated in 1936 by the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for 

the County of Greenlee. Judge Darrell Ling issued Amended Decree No. 1154-B “In the Matter of 

the Determination of the Relative Rights to the Use of the Gila River and its Tributaries in 

Greenlee County” on April 27, 1936. This decree, commonly referred to as the Ling Decree, is 

the principal document governing the administration of water rights in the Blue River watershed 

(which is part of the Gila River Basin). The total allowed diversion of water from the Blue River 

watershed under the Ling Decree is 1,000 acre-feet per annum for irrigation of 250 acres. An 

acre-foot is a measurement of volume equal to an acre of land 1 foot deep.
Chapter 2  Description of the Area

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 17

Several additional claims that were not considered in the Ling Decree have been filed or asserted 

for waters diverted from the Blue River and its tributaries. To the knowledge of the forests, these 

claims have yet to be adjudicated in a state court. Some of the claims may duplicate claims in the 

Ling Decree. These additional claims for diversions involve in excess of 844.82 acre-feet of 

water. Therefore, between the Ling Decree and other water rights, 1,844.82 acre-feet of the Blue 

River, KP Creek, and other tributaries are allocated for consumptive use.

The Forest Service controls 336 acre-feet of water rights on the Blue River and Campbell Blue 

Creek (table 4). The Forest Service intends to transfer acquired water rights to other types and 

locations of use (such as instream water rights) under State law once the Arizona Department of 

Water Resources moratorium on processing water rights applications on Federal lands is lifted.

Assuming withdrawals would occur between April 1 and August 1, this volume constitutes a 

continuous withdrawal rate of 7.6 cfs, an amount close to the average mean daily flow of the Blue 

River at the gage site in the month of June (figure 1) and nearly equal to the July flow in the 

beginning of the monsoon season. Flow is discontinuous throughout the Blue River, in the lower 

flow months. Segment 1 is known to have been dewatered by withdrawals (C. Nelson, personal 

communication, April 2009).

Table 4. Water rights on the Blue River and 

tributaries in acre-feet

Forest Private

Ling Decree

Blue River 188 316

KP Creek 0 16

Other Tributaries 148 332

Other Water Rights

Blue River 0 709.12

Tributaries 0 135.7

Totals 336 1,508.8

There are two state water rights for surface withdrawals from KP Creek by private landholders at 

the confluence of KP Creek and the Blue River, according to the forests’ records. This is a river 

segment just below the study segment. The withdrawals total 16 acre-feet. If assumed over an 

irrigation season of approximately April 1 to August 1, then the 16 acre-feet would represent a 

continuous withdrawal rate of 0.07 cfs. It would not appear from this information that the 

magnitude of surface water withdrawal from the creek would constitute an issue with the flow 

characteristics of KP Creek.

Fire Management

See map 11, “Fire Management Motorized Access.”
Chapter 2  Description of the Area

18 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Since 1995 a number of large wildfires have occurred in the watershed above Blue River segment 

1. In the last 10 years, 62,100 acres within the Blue River watershed (16 percent of the total 

watershed area) have burned, not including fires of less than 500 acres. These fires did not enter 

the eligible corridors, burning principally in the timbered uplands. Riparian vegetation along the 

Blue River has not been affected by wildfire.

A long history of grazing and fire suppression has altered the vegetation composition and 

structure in the watershed and caused departure from the natural fire regime. A natural fire plan 

was first developed in 1979 for the Blue Range Primitive Area, which began a period of limited 

management of natural fire in the area. Recent changes in national fire policy and amendments to 

the forest plan have allowed a more liberal approach to managing natural fire.

Treatments including prescribed burning and thinning under various ecosystem restoration 

projects have been completed or are planned in these watersheds. About 20 percent of segments 

2, 3, and 4 have been treated with prescribed fire by 2008. 

Prescribed burning and limited thinning treatments are planned within segment 1 associated with 

private land along the canyon bottom. These urban interface treatments are based on the 

“Greenlee County Community Wildfire Protection Plan” (Greenlee County, 2005).

Blue Road (FR 281) is used to access private parcels as well as for recreation access to the Blue 

Range Primitive Area. Blue Road (FR 281) closely parallels the river through segment 1 and 

crosses the river several times including several low water crossings. 

The 2004 KP Fire burned 16,091 acres including portions of the upper reaches of KP Creek 

within the eligible corridor.

There is limited motorized access for fire management activities. Blue Road (FR 281) which 

parallels the Blue River from the New Mexico-Arizona state line at its north to its terminus at 

Cosper Ranch to its south provides the primary motorized access to segment 1. Red Hill (FR 567) 

and Pueblo Park (FR 232) Roads provide access to Blue Road from the west and east respectively 

in segment 1. Juan Miller Road (FR 475 and 475C) provides point access to the lower Blue River 

in segment 3. Access into the roadless and primitive areas is limited to foot or horseback travel. 

The forest supervisor can authorize helicopter travel in emergency situations.

Social and Economic Conditions

The following discussion focuses on and compares the social and economic conditions of 

Greenlee County and the section of Greenlee County surrounding the segments being evaluated; 

this subsection of Greenlee County includes the community of Blue located on segment 1 of the 

Blue River. Except where otherwise noted, the information below is drawn from the 2009 

Eligibility Report (USDA Forest Service, 2009).

Population, Housing, and Demographics

From 1970 to 2006, the population of Greenlee County has declined approximately 29 percent, 

from 10,477 to 7,468 (EPS, 2009). Population declines are a function in large part of local 

changes in mining and the mining industry (e.g., 1980 through 1990) (Greenlee County, 2003).
Chapter 2  Description of the Area

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 19

The segments of Blue River and KP Creek eligible for designation are located in the northern area 

of the county in the vicinity of an unincorporated area (zip code 85922) which includes the 

community of Blue. The economic conditions within this area are likely to be influenced to some 

extent by the economic opportunities, dominated by the mining sector, located in the southern 

part of the county. However, the unincorporated area in close proximity to Blue River/KP Creek 

should also be viewed as economically distinct in comparison to other parts of the county. The 

total population for the zip code area (85922) representing the area surrounding the segments, 

including the Blue community, was estimated at 36 people according to the 2000 Census, a small 

fraction of the county population of 8,547 (U.S. Census Summary File 1, Table DP-1, Profile of 

General Demographic Characteristics).

An estimated 38 housing units were located within zip code 85922 in 2000, of which 21 were 

seasonal (Census Table DP-1), confirming that the Blue community area is highly rural and 

sparsely developed and suggesting that recreation, second homes, and/or tourism are significant 

components of social and economic conditions in the Blue community area. Approximately 4 

students attend the Blue Elementary District School located in the Blue community1.

Data are not readily available to describe housing and population trends for the Blue community; 

however, data for a larger area encompassed by Census Tract 9901, which includes zip code 

85922 and the Blue community as well as other more populated areas such as parts of Clifton (zip 

code 85533), indicate that population and housing units have increased substantially (59 percent

and 39 percent respectively) from 1990 to 2000 compared to Greenlee County as a whole 

(population and housing units increased by 7 percent and 5 percent respectively). These results 

suggest the potential for a trend toward development and population growth for the area that 

includes the Blue community; however, the number of, and the growth in seasonal homes within 

Census Tract 9901 is small. Seasonal homes decreased from 79 to 55 between 1990 and 2000 for 

Census Tract 9901 (based on U.S. Census Table DP-1). A significant percentage of the seasonal 

housing units within Census Tract 9901 are located within the Blue community area zip code (i.e., 

21 out of 55 seasonal housing units located in zip code 85922), but growth in 

seasonal/recreational housing for the area may not be significant based on the Census data for 

Tract 9901. Information was not obtained to characterize seasonal housing trends after 2000.

Available income data indicates no families or individuals were below the poverty level for the 

Blue area in 2000 (Census 2000 Table DP-3) compared to 8 percent of families below poverty in 

Greenlee County as a whole. The Blue area population is primarily white (31 of 36) with 6 

individuals declaring themselves to be Hispanic or Latino (17 percent Hispanic) compared to 

Greenlee County where 43 percent are Hispanic or Latino, 2.7 percent American Indian or 

Alaskan Native, 0.6 percent Black/African American, and 0.4 percent Asian or Native 

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (Census 2000 Table DP-1).

Employment, Income, and Recreation Spending

Mining, primarily in the Clifton-Morenci-Metcalf area (Phelps Dodge Morenci Mine), has been 

and continues to be the primary source of employment and income in Greenlee County with the 

mining company Freeport McMoRan being the major employer. As of 2007, mining contributed 

 1 Annual Business Report (2000) for the Blue Elementary District (Arizona Department of Education) www.azed.gov
Chapter 2  Description of the Area

20 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

61 percent of county employment and 78 percent of all labor income2.In 2000, labor income from 

mining accounted for the greatest percentage of all personal income (just under 50 percent),

followed by non-labor income (e.g., dividends, interest, payments by government to individuals 

such as Medicare/unemployment), and labor income from construction (approximately 17 percent

of personal income each). Health services, accommodations and food services (includes tourism), 

and ranching/agriculture are also contributors to the county economy. Ranching on Blue River, 

Eagle Creek, and the “Frisco” River has contributed to the Greenlee County economy since the 

1870s, and these areas are, therefore, expected to rely more on agriculture and ranching.

In general, communities that are specialized in a particular area (such as mining) are more 

vulnerable to larger scale economic disruptions; relatively large decreases in personal income for 

Greenlee County during recessions are evidence of this vulnerability. The relative significance of 

non-labor income (considered to be a stable source of income) helps to offset some of this 

vulnerability and may reflect the presence of increasing retiree populations and/or an aging 

population within Greenlee County; by 2006, non-labor income had grown to 31 percent of total 

personal income (EPS, 2009).

The section of Greenlee County surrounding the Blue River is substantially more rural as 

indicated by the fact that a total of only two business establishments with paid employees (one in 

construction and one in accommodations and food services) were recorded for the zip code area 

representing the Blue community (85922) in 2007, each of which employs between 5 and 9 

workers. No more than two establishments are recorded for zip code 85922 between 1998 and 

2007. A total of five residents in the Blue area zip code (85922) were employed in 

transportation/trucking and arts/entertainment/recreation (Census 2000 Table QT-P29), along with 

three residents employed “at home,” possibly working indirectly in ranching or agriculture. These 

observations are consistent with the enterprise level data noted above for 2007. Workers 

employed within arts/entertainment/recreation are likely associated with local outdoor outfitters 

and guides or campgrounds associated with the KP Creek and Blue River. There may be 

ranching/grazing activities within the Blue area that are not reflected in employment data due to 

the likelihood that some landowners or permit holders operating within the Blue community 

reside outside of the 85922 zip code area. There is also potential for workers to be employed in 

multiple economic sectors (e.g., ranching and mining) depending on season or other work 

conditions.

Recreation and seasonal visitors are likely to contribute to the local economy surrounding the 

Blue River and Blue community. Numbers of recreational visits to the Blue River and KP Creek

areas are not known, beyond statements within the 1993 resource information report (USDA 

Forest Service, 1993) indicating that “use is estimated at about 1,500 recreation visitor days 

annually” for the KP Creek alone. The portion of visitor days attributable to non-locals (i.e., those 

living more than 50 miles driving distance from the site) is not available3

, however, the number is 

expected to be significant given knowledge about visitors traveling from Phoenix and Tucson 

(USDA Forest Service, 1993). Spending by non-local visitors is estimated to range from $30 to 

 2 All employment and income data derived from aggregate 2-digit North American Industrial Classification 2007 data 

obtained from Federal Government sources (e.g., U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis) via IMPLAN (Minnesota 

IMPLAN Group, 2003).

3 Spending by non-local visitors is a source of “new” money (i.e., recreation exports) that supports local jobs and 

income.
Chapter 2  Description of the Area

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 21

$60 per visitor day for activities including fishing, hunting, hiking, and biking, based on spending 

data for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.4 Spending by visitors to the areas associated

with the segments being evaluated for designation suitability is, therefore, expected to contribute 

to local jobs and income, including those in the immediate Blue community area, recognizing that 

not all visitor spending would occur within the Blue community.

 4 Spending values per visitor day are derived from expenditure data (dollars per party per trip) as well as information 

about average party size and trip length presented in Stynes and White, 2006. Values are also based on evidence 

showing that visitor spending on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests is “higher than average” relative to other 

national forests (Stynes and White, 2005). 

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 23

Chapter 3 – Findings of 

Eligibility and Classification

Introduction

This chapter summarizes the eligibility findings and describes the free-flowing condition, 

conditions of the ORVs, and classification of Blue River and KP Creek. It presents the affected 

environment for the values for which Blue River and KP Creek were found eligible for inclusion 

into the National system. Summaries of predicted environmental effects and recommendations 

regarding suitability are discussed in chapter 5.

Please see the “Background” section in chapter 1 as well as the Forest Service’s evaluations of 

eligibility and classification for Blue River and KP Creek in appendix B for details regarding the 

evaluation process.

Free-Flowing Condition

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act defines free flowing as “existing or flowing in a natural 

condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of 

the waterway” (Section 16(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act). 

Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs)

Eligible rivers must have at least one outstandingly remarkable value. The Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act identifies river values as scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, 

cultural, or other similar values, but does not further define ORVs. Forest Service resource 

professionals develop and interpret criteria in evaluating river values (unique, rare, or exemplary) 

based on professional judgment on a regional, physiographic, or geographic comparative basis. 

The river values discussed below are identified as outstandingly remarkable for Blue River and/or 

KP Creek.

Fisheries Values

Blue River

Finding from 2009 eligibility report (appendix B): Fish species and habitat are ORVs because the 

Blue River contains one of the highest number of native fish species. This habitat is crucial to the 

survival of many native fish species. 

Existing Conditions

Fish Assemblage

The Blue River contains a federally listed threatened fish species, loach minnow (Tiaroga 

cobitis). Loach minnow critical habitat is designated within the Blue River and several Blue River 

tributaries. Critical habitat within the Blue River is designated from the Blue River’s confluence 

with the San Francisco River, which is also critical habitat, upstream to the Blue River’s 

confluence with Campbell Blue and Dry Blue Creeks, a total of 51.1 miles (USDI Fish & Wildlife 

Service 2007). The loach minnow is restricted to 10 percent of its overall historic range (USDI 

Fish & Wildlife Service 2007) and the Blue River is important refugia for this species. A number 

of Forest Service sensitive species are also present in the Blue River eligible segments including 
Chapter 3  Findings of Eligibility and Classification

24 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

longfin dace (Agosia chrysogaster), desert sucker (Catostomus clarki), and Sonora sucker 

(Catostomus insignis). Speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), a non-sensitive native species, is also 

present. Nonnative species such as channel catfish (Ictaluras punctatus), flathead catfish 

(Pylodictis olivaris), red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), and 

nonnative trout are also present, with greater nonnative abundances in the downstream segments 

(3 and 4) than in the upstream segments (Clarkson et al. 2008). The Desert Fishes Team (2003) 

included the Gila chub (Gila intermedia) and roundtail chub (Gila robusta) as historically 

occurring in the Blue River.

Habitat

The Blue River area has been settled by Anglo farmers and ranchers since the 1890s. After a site 

visit in 2000, the National Riparian Service Team (NRST) concluded that continuous grazing, instream wood removal, timber harvest, log drives, road construction, channelization, and diking 

led to an almost complete destabilization of the Blue River (NRST 2001). NRST also concluded 

that there was evidence that the Blue River was recovering, especially on Forest Service 

administered lands (NRST 2001).

Additional stream surveys of portions of segment 3 and 4 of the Blue River were conducted in 

2005 (Thornton 2007). At the time of these surveys, few of the previous human impacts were 

continuing within the watershed (ibid). Most of the land alongside the Blue River is now Federal 

and no grazing occurs on those lands. Water extraction is the largest remaining human-caused 

impact. The results of the 2005 survey, of segment 3 and a portion of segment 4, were similar to 

the NRST report; the results showed that the majority of the Blue River reaches surveyed are 

recovering from past degradation (ibid). A variety of habitats were found in the 2005 survey with 

pools making up 25 to 54 percent of wetted habitats. None of the reaches within the survey 

showed substantial erosion problems from fine sediments (ibid). This survey data also indicated 

that the appropriate habitat/primary constituent elements (USDI Fish & Wildlife Service, 2007) 

are available for loach minnow (low gradient, riffles, perennial flow) in portions of the eligible 

segments.

KP Creek

Finding from 2009 eligibility report (appendix B): Fish habitat is an ORV because of the high 

quality habitat that supports native fish species.

Existing Conditions

Fish Assemblage

It is likely that the fish assemblage in the portion of KP Creek contains native species: speckled 

dace and desert sucker as well as nonnative trout (USDA Forest Service, 2009). Loach minnow 

were detected at the confluence of the Blue River and KP Creek during the 2005 Arizona Fish and 

Game permanent monitoring station survey. The coldwater section of KP likely contains 

nonnative rainbow and Apache trout (USDA Forest Service, 2009). Nonnative, but Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) listed, Apache trout were transplanted into KP Creek in 1969. This population 

resides above a high falls barrier, likely preventing frequent movement by this species into the 

Blue River (Coleman pers. comm. 2009). A visual survey of KP Creek in 2009 found juvenile and 

adult Apache trout-like fish. This species was observed the whole length of the survey from the 

headwaters of KP Creek to 2.5 miles downstream (Coleman pers. comm. 2010). Historically, KP 
Chapter 3  Findings of Eligibility and Classification

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 25

Creek would have contained Gila trout (Coleman pers. comm. 2009). The Gila trout recovery 

plan specifies that KP Creek would have Gila trout reintroduced as part of a reestablishment of 

this species into its historic habitat (USDI Fish & Wildlife Service, 2003).

Habitat

Stream habitat survey data is not available for KP Creek. This creek flows through a steep canyon 

with flow, temperature, and riparian vegetation suitable for coldwater fisheries (USDA Forest 

Service, 1993) which could provide suitable habitat for future Gila trout reintroductions. This 

stream is less accessible and smaller than Blue River which has likely lead to minimal 

disturbances from human sources.

Wildlife Values

Blue River and KP Creek

Finding from 2009 eligibility report (appendix B): Wildlife species and habitat are ORVs because 

of the diversity of species and habitats that are found along the river corridor.

Existing Conditions

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed, 

and Forest Service Sensitive Species

The Blue River corridor contains important populations of federally listed threatened and 

endangered wildlife species, as well as Forest Service sensitive wildlife species. A wide diversity 

of habitats occurs in the study corridors that support these species. In addition, there are two 

management indicator species (MIS) that also depend on the corridor, as well as a diversity of 

migratory and resident songbirds.

Federally listed species include the endangered jaguar (Panthera onca), Mexican gray wolf 

(Canis lupus baileyi), threatened Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), endangered 

Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and threatened Chiricahua leopard 

frog (Rana chiricahuensis). Sensitive species include bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), 

Southwestern river otter (Lontra canadensis sonorae), New Mexico jumping mouse (Zapus 

hudsonicus luteus), American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), common black-hawk 

(Buteogallus anthracinus), Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), 

Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii), Nothern leopard frog (Rana pipiens), Lowland leopard frog (Rana 

yavapaiensis), Arizona toad (Bufo microscaphus microscaphus), Mexican garter snake 

(Thamnophis eques megalops), Narrow-headed garter snake (Thamnophis rufipunctatus) and the 

White Mountains water penny beetle (Psephenus montanus). Two MIS that depend on the 

corridor include Lincoln’s sparrow and Cinnamon teal. A diversity of migratory and resident 

songbirds use the corridor as well.

Table 5 lists the endangered (E), threatened (T), and experimental nonessential (EXP/NE) species 

considered for this analysis. 
Chapter 3  Findings of Eligibility and Classification

26 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Table 5. Federally listed terrestrial and riparian species considered for the Blue River and 

KP Creek wild and scenic suitability study

Common Name Scientific Name Federal 

Status

Known to 

Occur in 

Study 

Corridors?

Potential to 

Occur Regularly 

in or Near Study 

Corridors?

Lesser long-nosed bat Leptonycteris curasoae

yerbabuenae E NO NO*

Jaguar Panthera onca E NO YES

Mexican gray wolf Canis lupus baileyi EXP/NE YES YES

Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida T YES YES

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus E NO YES

Chiricahua leopard frog Rana chiricahuensis T YES YES

**Habitat is not present in the study corridors. This species will not be discussed further in this document.

Protected Activity Centers and Critical Habitat

The study corridors include critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis 

lucida). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended, for the Mexican spotted owl (MSO) as published in the Federal 

Register on August 31, 2004 (Vol. 69, No. 168). The 1995 recovery plan for the owl outlines 

management actions that guide land management agencies in efforts to remove recognized threats 

and recover the owl. Critical habitat designation is based on recovery needs and guidelines as 

identified in the recovery plan. Both KP Creek and Blue River have areas that are located within 

MSO critical habitat. See figure 2.

Protected Activity Centers: The Blue-San Francisco consultation (USDI Fish & Wildlife 

Service, 2003) identified approximately 350 acres of lowland riparian restricted habitat along the 

Blue River. Informal surveys for MSO were conducted along the Blue River in 2003 with no 

detections of owls. Two MSO or PACs (protected activity centers) occur within the eligible 

corridor of KP Creek and four MSO PACs occur within the eligible corridor of Blue River (all in 

segment 1). See table 6.

Table 6. Mexican spotted owl protected activity centers in 

the study corridors

PAC Name PAC No. Location

Upper Blue 42 Blue River – Segment 1

Blue Vista 55 Blue River – Segment 1

Lower KP Creek 28 KP Creek

Rim 51 KP Creek

Butterfly 54 KP Creek
Chapter 3  Findings of Eligibility and Classification

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 27

Critical Habitat: MSO critical habitat for KP Creek starts 3.3 miles from the confluence of KP 

Creek and the Blue River. Critical habitat is 1.8 miles along the northern side of the river, and 

extends 5.9 miles further on both sides of the river. MSO critical habitat for the Blue River starts 

1.4 miles upstream from the confluence of KP Creek and the Blue River. Critical habitat is 10.5 

miles along the southeastern part of Blue River, and extends 4.5 miles further on both sides. See 

figure 2.

Figure 2. Mexican spotted owl territories and critical habitat in or near the study corridors

Management Indicator Species 

The management indicator species (MIS) listed in table 7 could have habitat or could occur 

within the study corridors. Management indicator species identify representative habitat types and 

associated species that occur within the national forest boundary and/or because they are thought 

to be sensitive to management activities. The MIS were developed to provide a framework for 

changes to forest habitats and their associated species. These MIS are designed to identify 
Chapter 3  Findings of Eligibility and Classification

28 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

potential beneficial or adverse effects on specific species or habitats of concern, establish the 

significance of those effects, and eliminate or minimize any adverse effects.

Of the 15 management indicator species identified for the ASNFs, mule deer, Rocky Mountain 

elk, wild turkey, and Abert’s squirrel are specifically mentioned in the eligibility report (appendix 

B) as known to occur in the study corridors.

Table 7. Management indicator species for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests that 

could occur in the study corridors

Species

Projected 

Potential 

Habitat 

Indicator 

Management 

Area 

Association 

Habitat Associations Defined by the 

RO3WILD Model and Described in the 

“Wildlife Coefficients Technical Report” 

as Amended in 1985

Elk Early 

succession

MA-1, MA-2, 

MA-4

Wide variety of vegetation type reflecting 

summer/winter and forage/cover needs.

Mule deer Early 

succession

MA-1, MA-2 Wide variety of vegetation types reflecting 

summer/winter and forage/cover needs.

Abert’s 

squirrel

Early 

succession

MA-1 Ponderosa pine, especially more dense mature and 

pole stands. Gambel oak for feeding.

Merriam’s 

turkey

Late succession MA-1 Wide variety of vegetation types, but especially 

aspen, gambel oak, ponderosa pine, and juniper.

Pygmy 

nuthatch

Late succession MA-1 Moderately dense to dense mature and old-growth 

ponderosa pine.

Northern 

goshawk

Late succession MA-1 Moderately dense to dense stands of mature and oldgrowth spruce-fir, mixed conifer, and ponderosa 

pine.

Mexican 

spotted owl

Late succession MA-1 Dense stands of mature and old-growth mixed 

conifer and ponderosa pine.

Red squirrel Late succession MA-1 Moderately dense to dense stands of mature sprucefir and mixed conifer, and old-growth stands of 

spruce-fir and mixed conifer.

Hairy 

woodpecker

Snags MA-1 Mature and old-growth stands of spruce-fir, mixed 

conifer, and ponderosa pine; also, mature and oldgrowth aspen stands to a lesser degree.

Plain (juniper) 

titmouse

Snags MA-2 Primarily mature and old-growth pinyon-juniper 

woodlands; snags within those woodlands.

Pronghorn 

antelope

Early 

succession

MA-2, MA-4 Grasslands and early seral stage of juniper 

grasslands.

Lincoln’s 

sparrow

High elevation 

riparian

MA-3 Mature, high elevation, woody riparian communities.

Aquatic 

macroinvertebr

ates

Not in FLMP 

EIS

MA-3 Not modeled.

Cinnamon teal Wetlands MA-11 Not modeled.
Chapter 3  Findings of Eligibility and Classification

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 29

Forest Service Sensitive Species 

Regional Forester Sensitive Species are those species of highest viability concern on the national 

forests. Sensitive species were identified in 2007 through the Forest Service Regional Forester’s 

Sensitive Species designation process. These species are discussed in detail in the biological 

evaluation (BE) for the project.

Overall, the reasons for concern for viability for each species is a result of one or a combination 

of several factors including habitat and species rarity or poor distribution, population decline 

trends, risk to habitat integrity and population vulnerability. Determination of risk to species 

considered the ecological requirements, life history and geographic range of the species. Sensitive 

species occur on the Alpine and Clifton Ranger Districts in a wide range of habitats. Table 8 lists 

the sensitive species known, or with potential to occur, in the area proposed for designation on the 

Alpine and Clifton Ranger Districts.

Table 8. Terrestrial sensitive species listed for the Alpine and Clifton Ranger Districts

Common Name Scientific Name Known or Potential to Occur 

in Study Corridors?

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Potential for nest sites.

Southwestern river 

otter

Lontra canadensis sonorae Habitat exists in the study corridors.

New Mexico jumping 

mouse

Zapus hudsonicus luteus There is a record of this species from the Blue River 

in Greenlee County, and habitat occurs in the study 

corridors.

Springerville pocket 

mouse

Perognathus flavus 

goodpasteri

Lack of habitat within the riparian area, and the lack 

of documentation of this species’ occurrence.

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis No goshawk territories occur near or within the study

corridors.

American peregrine 

falcon

Falco peregrinus anatum Observed along the Blue and San Francisco Rivers.

Common black-hawk Buteogallus anthracinus Habitat exists in the study corridors.

Western yellow-billed 

cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus 

occidentalis

Potential habitat within the study corridors.

Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii Observed on both the San Francisco and Blue Rivers.

Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens Potential habitat within study corridors.

Lowland leopard frog Rana yavapaiensis Potential habitat within study corridors.

Arizona toad Bufo microscaphus 

microscaphus

Commonly found on the Clifton Ranger District along 

the Blue and San Francisco Rivers.

Mexican garter snake Thamnophis eques megalops Potential habitat within study corridors.

Narrow-headed garter 

snake

Thamnophis rufipunctatus Observed in backwater rocky pools alongside 

vegetated banks of Blue River.

White Mountains 

water penny beetle

Psephenus montanus Potential habitat in study rivers. Occurs in cold fastflowing, high elevation streams in Apache and 

Greenlee Counties.
Chapter 3  Findings of Eligibility and Classification

30 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Recreation Values

Blue River

Finding from 2009 eligibility report (appendix B): Recreation is an ORV because the recreation 

opportunities are diverse and attract visitors from throughout and beyond the area of comparison. 

Many visitors are attracted because of the remote and primitive setting.

Existing Conditions

Recreation Setting and Opportunities

Segment 1 - Recreation opportunities include picnicking, camping (figure 3), swimming, and 

hiking. There are also opportunities for mountain biking along Forest Road 281, which parallels 

and crosses the Blue River. Many trailheads provide non-motorized access to the Blue Range 

Primitive Area. Developed recreation opportunities include the Upper Blue and Blue Crossing 

Campgrounds. Trailheads include Blue Admin, Sawmill, Grant Creek and Steeple. Refer to table 

21 in chapter 5 for a display of the recreation opportunities. There are 4 miles of hiking and 

horseback riding trails in the study corridor for this segment.

Recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS)5 classes for this segment include:

● roaded natural – 6,875 acres

● semi-primitive motorized – 205 acres

● semi-primitive nonmotorized – 98 acres 

The recreation niche for segment 1 is dispersed recreation outside of the Blue Range Primitive 

Area, and wilderness or primitive within the Blue Range Primitive Area.

Segment 2 - Most of this segment is in the Blue Range Primitive Area. Hiking, backpacking, 

camping, horse packing, and hunting all occur along this river and its canyon corridors. This 

portion of the Blue River area is very remote, vast, and undeveloped so it offers a primitive 

recreation experience unlike elsewhere in the State. At the south end of segment 2 is the Blue 

River Trailhead. There are 17 miles of hiking and horseback riding trails in the study corridor for 

this segment.

ROS classes for this segment include:

● primitive – 3,785 acres 

● roaded natural – 182 acres

● semi-primitive motorized – 498 acres

● semi-primitive nonmotorized – 491 acres

The recreation niche for segment 2 is dispersed recreation outside of the Blue Range Primitive 

Area, and wilderness or primitive within the Blue Range Primitive Area.

 5 The acres generated for each ROS class are approximate and based on the best available data. When the forest plan 

was signed in 1987, mapping of the ROS classes was deferred. Over the years several mapping efforts have occurred 

that have generated varying acreages for each class. The data used for this analysis was generated using the data 

prepared for the forest plan revision effort that is underway.
Chapter 3  Findings of Eligibility and Classification

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 31

Segment 3 – There are no developed recreation sites along this segment, however there is a trail 

network offering a variety of opportunities. There are 1.3 miles of hiking and horseback riding 

trails in the study corridor for this segment.

ROS classes for this segment include:

● primitive – 200 acres 

● roaded natural – 1,000 acres

● semi-primitive motorized – 71 acres

The recreation niche for segment 3 is dispersed recreation.

Segment 4 - Advanced canoeing and kayaking are possible during high runoff seasons starting 

from Juan Miller Road. There are no developed recreation sites along this segment, however,

there is a trail network offering a variety of opportunities. There are 1.6 miles of hiking and 

horseback riding trails in the study corridor for this segment.

ROS classes for this segment include:

● semi-primitive nonmotorized – 2,234 acres 

● roaded natural – 74 acres

● semi-primitive motorized – 134 acres

The recreation niche for segment 4 is dispersed recreation.

KP Creek 

Finding from the 2009 eligibility report (appendix B): Recreation is an ORV because the 

recreation opportunities attract visitors from throughout the area of comparison, the State of 

Arizona, and have the potential to attract visitors from beyond the area of comparison.

Existing Conditions

Recreation Setting and Opportunities

KP Creek provides opportunities for hiking, fishing, backpacking, and horseback riding. A 

popular day hike destination is two small waterfalls about 3 miles downstream from KP Cienega. 

KP Creek also provides access to the Blue Range Primitive Area. Licensed and permitted 

outfitters and guides operate hunting and fishing trips along KP Creek.

Approximately 2,378 acres of the river corridor is in wilderness – Blue Range Primitive Area. 

However, 3,253 acres have been classified as wilderness-primitive recreation niche, providing 

recreation opportunities of solitude and remoteness.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes include:

● primitive – 2,409 acres 

● roaded natural – 780 acres

● semi-primitive nonmotorized – 623 acres
Chapter 3  Findings of Eligibility and Classification

32 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Several hiking and horseback riding trails provide access to KP Creek. This includes KP, North 

Fork KP, KP Rim, Blue Lookout, McKittrick, and Steeple Trails. There are 7 miles of the KP 

Trail in the 1⁄4 mile corridor of KP Creek, along with less than 1 mile of the McKittrick, North 

Fork KP, and Blue Lookout Trails.

Figure 3. Historic Adirondack Shelter at Upper Blue 

Campground

Figure 4. Blue River Corridor just south of Upper Blue 

Campground

Scenery Values

Blue River

Finding from the 2009 eligibility report (appendix B): Scenery is an outstandingly remarkable 

value because of the diversity of landforms, colors, and vegetation found along the river corridor 

(figure 4).
Chapter 3  Findings of Eligibility and Classification

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 33

Existing Conditions

The Blue River landscape includes a diversity of textures, colors, and forms which create striking 

views everywhere along the river corridor (figure 5). The river bottom is littered with boulders, 

rocks, and sediment from the side canyons (figures 6 and 7). The river corridor varies from wide 

flood plains separated by narrow box canyons to wide or narrow sandy river bottoms to a 

relatively narrow canyon with towering canyon walls (figure 8). Slumps and fault lines are visible 

in places like the Blue Box. The river cuts through dark lava flows, red walls, white volcanic ash, 

and rock-studded conglomerate. In places, water flows through narrow, almost slotlike reaches 

and elsewhere through wide and meandering flood plains.

The following information is from the ASNFs working draft land management plan (June 2009) 

description of the Blue geographic area.

“This rugged backcountry contains a wide range of ecological communities from 

semidesert grassland below the Mogollon Rim to high mountain forests above the 

rim. It is primarily composed of woodlands, interior chaparral, and grasslands, 

with ponderosa pine and mixed conifer found in the higher elevations. The 

Mogollon Rim traverses the area west to east while the Blue River and its rugged 

canyon run north to south. Rolling terrain, unique rock formations, and rough, 

precipitous canyons characterize the landscape of this area. The Blue Range 

Primitive Area, the only primitive area in the NFS, makes up 45 percent of this 

area.”

The acres of each of the visual quality objectives are displayed in tables 9 and 10 for each 

segment of the Blue River and KP Creek.

Table 9. Blue River visual quality objectives

Blue River 

Segment

Visual Quality Objective Acres

Preservation Partial Retention Modification

1 126 7,052

2 438 4,441 77

3 1,236 37

4 95 2,346
Chapter 3  Findings of Eligibility and Classification

34 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Figure 5. Diversity of vegetation in the Blue River corridor 

south of Upper Blue Campground

Figure 6. Blue River just south of Upper 

Blue Campground

Figure 7. Blue River south of KP Creek
Chapter 3  Findings of Eligibility and Classification

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 35

KP Creek

Finding from the 2009 eligibility report: Scenery is an ORV because of the lush vegetation, steep 

canyon walls, and tumbling waterfalls. 

Existing Conditions

The scenery is widely diverse. Upper KP Creek rushes down a steep, thickly forested canyon with 

lush riparian vegetation. Two small waterfalls can be seen from KP Trail, which follows the creek 

downstream.

Additional waterfalls are found about 7 miles downstream but these are located off the trail. 

Grassy flats contrast with large, old-growth ponderosa pines and provide views into deep pools 

and across to canyon walls.

Table 10. KP Creek visual quality objectives

Visual Quality Objective Acres

Preservation Retention Partial Retention

3,243 480 90

Figure 8. South end of KP Creek taken from the 

Blue River Corridor
Chapter 3  Findings of Eligibility and Classification

36 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Summary of the Scenery Management System Inventories

Common to Blue River and KP Creek

Both streams have a high level of public concern for scenery based on the scenic class ratings of 1 

and 2. The high levels of scenic attractiveness class A for each segment of the Blue River and KP 

Creek support the eligibility finding that scenery is an outstandingly remarkable value.

Blue River

Segment 1 is the only segment that includes a moderate existing scenic integrity (ESI) due to the 

landscape appearing slightly altered for 57 percent of the corridor. This rating is compatible with 

the recreational river classification. Segment 1 also has the lowest percent of scenic attractiveness 

class A landscapes, at 71 percent. All of the other segments have at least 80 percent class A scenic 

attractiveness.

Segment 2 has the greatest amount of very high ESI, or unaltered landscape, out of all the 

segments. This rating supports the wild river classification. 

Inventory ratings for segment 3 support the classification of a scenic river. This is the only 

segment that does not have any ESI rated very high. The entire segment is rated an ESI of high, 

where the deviations in the landscape are not evident.

Although 91 percent of segment 4 has a high ESI rating, deviations in the landscape are not 

evident and the rating supports the wild river classification. This segment is the only segment that 

includes scenic attractiveness class C, for 1 percent of the segment. 

KP Creek

Approximately 87 percent of the corridor is rated as very high ESI, where the landscape is 

unaltered except for minute deviations if any. The scenic attractiveness class A makes up 93

percent of the corridor. These inventory ratings support the wild river classification of KP Creek. 

Historic and Prehistoric Cultural Values

Blue River

Historic

Finding from the 2009 eligibility report (appendix B): Historic resources are an ORV because 

of the length of post-settlement use in the area.

The Blue River area was notorious for cattle rustling in the mid-1800s. By the late 1800s several 

small cattle ranching homesteads were established along the Blue River. Some of these historic 

ranch headquarters on segment 1 are still used today and remind visitors of the area’s ranching 

heritage. The Forest Service was also present along the Blue River. The Baseline Ranger Station, 

established circa 1908, was located on the southern boundary of the Blue Range Primitive Area. 

Evidence of Civilian Conservation Corps construction work can be seen in Upper Blue and Blue 

Crossing Campgrounds.
Chapter 3  Findings of Eligibility and Classification

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 37

Prehistoric

Finding from the 2009 eligibility report: Prehistoric resources are an outstandingly remarkable 

value because the river corridor contains extensive evidence of occupation and use by the 

Mogollon culture.

Potentially thousands of prehistoric sites occur along the Blue River, which figured significantly 

in the prehistoric Mogollon culture. During prehistoric times, the area around the river provided 

all life-sustaining resources including game animals, wild resources, reliable water for 

agriculture, building materials, and suitable locations for habitation sites. Typical sites include 

rock shelters, shard and lithic scatters, pit-house villages, and rock masonry room blocks or 

pueblos.

Existing Conditions

A total of 133 known archaeological sites are located in the Blue River study corridor (segments 1 

through 4). These sites include scatters of historic and prehistoric artifacts, pictographs, ranches, 

prehistoric structures, historic campgrounds, homesteads, pit houses, roasting pits, grinding 

stones, Great Kiva sites, ceremonial sites, or village sites. Of the 133 sites, 16 are located on 

private property. 

Many of these sites have been recorded over time as the result of exploration, amateur 

archaeological investigations, forest projects requiring survey, and oral traditions. No formal 

cultural resource survey was conducted for this suitability study; however, many surveys for 

previous projects have occurred. Approximately 528 acres of the area of potential effect (APE)

have been previously surveyed for various projects other than this suitability study. Data from 

these studies has been analyzed for this report. These reports suggest that some sites within the 

Blue River corridor are subject to natural erosion, bioturbations such as gopher or rodent 

burrowing, historic logging activities, early road construction, vandalism, and artifact hunters. Of 

the 133 sites located in the corridor, only 4 have been evaluated on National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) criteria. The remaining 129 sites are unevaluated and considered “potentially

eligible” for the NRHP. These sites must be protected until further testing and evaluation is 

completed. This “potentially eligible” status and affiliation with the Mogollon culture and other 

nearby native groups are the contributing ORVs of the Blue River corridor. 

The corridor subject to study has been broken into four segments based on tentative 

classifications of wild, scenic, or recreational eligibility: segment 1 – recreational, segment 2 –

wild, segment 3 – scenic, and segment 4 – wild. Table 11 displays the type and count of sites per 

segment.
Chapter 3  Findings of Eligibility and Classification

38 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Table 11. Cultural resource site count and site type by segment, Blue River

Blue River 

Segment

Historic 

Sites

Sites Exhibiting 

Historic and 

Prehistoric 

Components

Prehistoric 

Sites

Unknown 

Sites** Total

1 11 3 77 1 92*

2 5 0 17 0 22

3 1 0 14 0 15

4 0 0 3 1 4

*16 of these sites are located on privately owned lands in segment 1.

**Sites that have been reported but not confirmed or formally recorded. No cultural resource surveys for any 

undertaking have been conducted along KP Creek. Given the site density along Blue River, it is highly likely 

that there are many undiscovered sites located along the KP corridor. Before any undertakings are to take 

place, a survey for archaeological resources should be conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the forest plan.

KP Creek

Neither history nor prehistory was identified as an ORV for KP Creek.

Vegetation Values

Blue River

Finding from the 2009 eligibility report (appendix B): Vegetation is an ORV because of the 

great diversity of vegetation communities associated with the changes in elevation, including the 

deciduous shrub and tree canopies along the river segments.

Existing Conditions

Blue River

The Blue River is a tributary of the San Francisco River and is part of the Gila River Basin. 

Elevations range from approximately 3,865 feet to over 9,000 feet. The Blue River corridor 

contains a diverse mix of species including alligator and one-seed juniper, and occasional piñon 

and ponderosa pine. Grey and Emory oak, mountain mahogany, Wright’s silktassel, buckbrush, 

desert ceanothus, and some mesquite also occur. Perennial bunchgrasses can be abundant within 

the canyon, with five different species of grama grasses present. There are also more than seven 

species of muhly grasses.

Riparian vegetation includes narrowleaf and Fremont cottonwood, Arizona sycamore, boxelder, 

Arizona walnut, alder, various willows, ash, hoptree, and seepwillow (not a true willow). The tree 

canopy is not continuous, but broken up by vertical rock canyons that eventually open to gentler 

slopes. Wildflowers bloom in the spring and after summer rains, while sand-loving grasses such 

as vine mesquite, creeping muhly, and sand dropseed are found in the river’s shifting flood plain. 

This diversity of vegetation, especially in riparian areas attracts a wide variety of avian species.

A tamarisk inventory of the Blue River was done in 2005, with approximately 41 river miles 

inventoried. A total of 293 locations with one or more tamarisk plants and a total of 2,260 
Chapter 3  Findings of Eligibility and Classification

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 39

individual plants were recorded with an average density of 1 plant every 96 feet. Tamarisk plants 

were found throughout the canyon bottom, but were most commonly found along the watercourse 

or within secondary flood channels often hundreds of feet from the primary watercourse.

KP Creek

Vegetation was not identified as an ORV for KP Creek.

Existing Conditions

A variety of vegetation occurs on the canyon slopes because of differing slope aspects. On northfacing slopes, the vegetation consists of spruce, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine with side 

drainages possibly supporting Goodding’s onion. On the south-facing slopes, vegetation is 

primarily oak, mountain mahogany, and juniper and piñon. Riparian vegetation in upper KP 

Creek includes alder, willow, and other uncommon plants such as baneberry, sweet cicely, cow 

parsnip, twinberry, false-hellebore, and monkshood. Blumer’s dock is found along the upper 

portion of the creek. Lower KP Creek contains boxelder, Arizona walnut, and Arizona sycamore 

with wild grape and Virginia creeper vines climbing some of the trees. Emory oak, California 

buckbrush, and some poison ivy are also found along the lower canyon bottom. The 2004 KP 

Wildfire affected several spots along the creek; here regrowth demonstrates plant succession.

Forest Service Sensitive Plant Species

Twenty-one Forest Service sensitive species potentially occur on the forests (USDA Forest 

Service, 2007). Of these, one Forest Service sensitive plant species, Goodding’s onion, is 

expected to occur within the eligible Blue River and KP Creek wild and scenic river corridors.

No threatened, endangered or proposed plant species are known to occur within the analysis area,

and no critical habitat for plants has been designated in the analysis area.

Classification

River segments are classified for study as either wild, scenic, or recreational based on the 

condition of the river and the adjacent lands as they exist at the time of the study. The criteria for 

determining classification of a river segment is based on existing water resources projects, 

shoreline development, accessibility, and water quality (FSH 1909.12, 82.3).

Wild rivers are those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally 

inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive, and waters 

unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America.

Scenic rivers are those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines 

or watersheds still largely primitive, and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places 

by roads. 

Recreational rivers are those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or 

railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone 

some impoundment or diversion in the past. 
Chapter 3  Findings of Eligibility and Classification

40 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Refer to tables 1 and 2 in chapter 1 for a description of four segments of the Blue River and one 

segment of KP Creek.

Blue River segment 1 was classified as recreational due to FR 281 that parallels almost the entire 

segment. This segment also includes private lands with residences, outbuildings and other 

development.

Blue River segment 2 and 4, and KP Creek were classified as wild because they are primarily 

within the Blue Range Primitive Area and/or they have little development and are accessible by 

trail only.

Blue River segment 3 was classified as scenic because Juan Miller Road crosses through the 

corridor and river.
EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 41

Chapter 4 – Description of the Alternatives

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Four alternatives including a no action alternative (alternative 1) are analyzed in detail in this 

environmental assessment. The no action alternative represents the current condition, including 

the continuation of current management of the river corridors. This alternative serves as a 

baseline for comparison among the alternatives.

The alternatives described below provide a range of suitably determinations for the five eligible 

river segments displayed on map 3, Blue River and KP Creek eligible corridors and 

classifications.

Alternative 1 – No Action (Defer Suitability Determination)

See map 12 in appendix A.

Alternative 1 defers suitability determinations at this time. This alternative is the current 

condition and requires protecting the rivers’ eligibility and classification consistent with forest 

plan direction and Agency policy (FSH 1909.12, 82.5). This alternative precludes construction of 

the fish barrier for native fish restoration.

The goal of this alternative is to use current management and collaborative efforts to protect and 

enhance the free-flowing condition and ORVs in the eligible river segments. This management 

approach would maintain WSR eligibility until a suitability study is conducted sometime in the 

future.

Under alternative 1, current management would continue under the existing authorities as 

directed by the forest plan and other existing authorities listed in appendix D, “Management 

Direction.” The river segments would continue to be managed as eligible for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic River system. Interim management policies outlined in FSH 1909.12, 

Chapter 82 would apply in order to protect free flow, water quality, and ORVs while maintaining 

the river classifications as recommended in the 2009 eligibility study (appendix B).

Table 12. Alternative 1 suitability by segment

Forest Plan Amendment

Alternative 1 would require an amendment to forestwide standards and guidelines:

Eligible River 

Segment Miles Classification Suitability

Management 

Direction 

(Appendix D)

Interim 

Management 

(FSH 1901.12 

Ch. 82)

Blue River – 1 25.1 Recreational Deferred Existing Applies

Blue River – 2 16.0 Wild Deferred Existing Applies

Blue River – 3 4.2 Scenic Deferred Existing Applies

Blue River – 4 8.1 Wild Deferred Existing Applies

KP Creek 11.3 Wild Deferred Existing Applies
Chapter 4  Description of the Alternatives

42 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

“River segments determined to be eligible or suitable for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System would be managed in accordance with 

interim management guidelines for eligible or suitable rivers found in Forest 

Service Handbook 1909.12 (82.5). Where there is conflict between forest plan 

management area direction and the management guidelines for eligible or 

suitable rivers (FSH 1909.12 Ch. 82.51), the more restrictive provisions would 

apply.”

Alternative 2 – No Segments Suitable and Recommended

See map 13 in appendix A.

The goals of this alternative are to (1) avoid any potential effects to the existing social, economic, 

and land use conditions that might occur if Blue River and KP Creek were included in the 

National system, and (2) provide future options for management and protection of river values 

through existing authorities and collaborative efforts. This alternative allows for construction of 

the fish barrier for native fish restoration.

Under alternative 2, none of the eligible river segments would be found suitable and 

recommended for inclusion in the National system. Protection of river values would revert to the 

direction provided in the ASNFs forest plan, and interim management direction to protect as a 

potential wild and scenic river (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 82) would not apply. 

Alternative 2 would find:

● 0 miles suitable

● 64.7 miles not suitable

Table 13. Alternative 2 suitability by segment

No forest plan amendment is required under alternative 2.

Alternative 3 - Some Segments Suitable and Recommended

See map 14 in appendix A.

Eligible River 

Segment Miles Classification Suitability

Management 

Direction 

(Appendix D)

Interim 

Management 

(FSH 1901.12 

Ch. 82)

Blue River – 1 25.1 Recreational Not Suitable Existing Does Not Apply

Blue River – 2 16.0 Wild Not Suitable Existing Does Not Apply

Blue River – 3 4.2 Scenic Not Suitable Existing Does Not Apply

Blue River – 4 8.1 Wild Not Suitable Existing Does Not Apply

KP Creek 11.3 Wild Not Suitable Existing Does Not Apply
Chapter 4  Description of the Alternatives

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 43

Alternative 3 would protect the rivers’ ORVs through a mix of management strategies that include 

WSR designation for some segments, and collaborative efforts with other agencies and local 

stakeholders on the remaining segments. The alternative would maximize protection and 

enhancement of free flow, water quality and the ORVs while allowing for other activities such as 

construction of the fish barrier for native fish restoration in the lower Blue River, and 

collaboration with agencies and local citizens in the upper Blue River. If the suitable corridors 

were subsequently added to the National system by Congress, future protection would be in 

accordance with the act.

Alternative 3 would find:

● 38.84 miles suitable

● 25.86 miles not suitable

Table 14. Alternative 3 suitability by segment

Forest Plan Amendment

Alternative 3 would require an amendment to forestwide standards and guidelines:

“River segments determined to be eligible or suitable for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System would be managed in accordance with 

interim management guidelines for eligible or suitable rivers found in Forest 

Service Handbook 1909.12 (82.5). Where there is conflict between forest plan 

management area direction and the management guidelines for eligible or 

suitable rivers (FSH 1909.12 Ch. 82.51), the more restrictive provisions would 

apply.”

Alternative 4 – All Segments Suitable and Recommended

See map 15 in appendix A.

The goal of this alternative is to maximize protection and enhancement of free flow, water quality,

and ORVs and to maintain system integrity into the future.

Eligible River 

Segment Miles Classification Suitability

Management 

Direction 

(Appendix D)

Interim 

Management 

(FSH 1901.12 

Ch. 82)

Blue River – 1 25.1 None Not Suitable Existing Does Not Apply

Blue River – 2 16.0 Wild Suitable Existing Applies

Blue River – 3 4.2 Scenic Suitable Existing Applies

Blue River – 4a 7.34 Wild Suitable Existing Applies

Blue River – 4b 0.76 None Not Suitable Existing Does Not Apply

KP Creek 11.3 Wild Suitable Existing Applies
Chapter 4  Description of the Alternatives

44 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Alternative 4 would find all eligible segments of Blue River and KP Creek suitable and 

recommended as additions to the National system. Protection would be through existing 

authorities, including interim management directed by FSH 1909.12 (82.5). If the rivers were 

subsequently added to the National system by Congress, future protection would be in accordance 

with the act. This alternative precludes construction of the proposed fish barrier for native fish 

restoration.

Alternative 4 would find:

● 64.7 miles suitable

● 0 miles not suitable

Table 15. Alternative 4 suitability by segment

Forest Plan Amendment

Alternative 4 would require an amendment to forestwide standards and guidelines:

“River segments determined to be eligible or suitable for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System would be managed in accordance with 

interim management guidelines for eligible or suitable rivers found in Forest 

Service Handbook 1909.12 (82.5). Where there is conflict between forest plan 

management area direction and the management guidelines for eligible or 

suitable rivers (FSH 1909.12 Ch. 82.51), the more restrictive provisions would 

apply.”

Alternatives Considered 

but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Study Just a Portion of Blue River 

This alternative would narrow the scope of this analysis to that portion of the Blue River directly 

and indirectly affected by the proposed fish barrier if implemented. One respondent to scoping 

felt that studying all eligible segments is a waste of time and money and would delay construction 

of the barrier. Another respondent thought the Bureau of Reclamation should work with the USFS 

to focus the analysis according to the river hydraulics calculated based on the fish barrier design.

Eligible River 

Segment Miles Classification Suitability

Management 

Direction 

(Appendix D)

Interim 

Management 

(FSH 1901.12 

Ch. 82)

Blue River – 1 25.1 Recreational Suitable Existing Applies

Blue River – 2 16.0 Wild Suitable Existing Applies

Blue River – 3 4.2 Scenic Suitable Existing Applies

Blue River – 4 8.1 Wild Suitable Existing Applies

KP Creek 11.3 Wild Suitable Existing Applies
Chapter 4  Description of the Alternatives

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 45

Rationale for elimination from detailed study: Limiting the suitability study to just the portion 

of the river in the vicinity of the fish barrier would reduce the comprehensive nature of the 

suitability study and make it impossible to assess suitability in a meaningful way.

Study All Eligible Rivers in the Watershed

Include the other eligible rivers in the watershed in the study. 

Rationale for elimination from detailed study: The programmatic nature of this analysis is 

more commonly and comprehensively conducted in the process of large-scale land management 

planning. As noted in the “Purpose and Need” section in chapter 1, Blue River is under study at 

this time in order to facilitate the BOR’s compliance with the USFWS’s biological opinion which 

requires protection of native fish. It is logical to include KP Creek at this time due to the 

similarity of the valuable native fishery and fish restoration plans on these two waterways.

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 16. Suitable and unsuitable miles by classification and alternative

Alt. 1

Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Suitable Unsuitable Suitable Unsuitable Suitable Unsuitable

Wild

Deferred 

suitability

0 35.40 34.64 0.76 35.40 0

Scenic 0 4.20 4.20 0 4.20 0

Recreational 0 25.10 0 25.10 25.10 0

Total Miles 0 64.70 38.84 25.86 64.70 0

Table 17. Comparison of issue resolution by alternative

Issue Indicator Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Long-term 

Protection

River segments found 

suitable or unsuitable;

the associated impacts 

to river values.

Suitability 

determinations 

deferred. See 

chapter 5 for 

predicted 

impacts.

Suitable: none 

Unsuitable: all 

study segments. 

See chapter 5 

for predicted 

impacts.

Suitable: BR-2, 

BR-3, BR-4a, 

KP-1 

Unsuitable: BR1, BR-4b

See chapter 5 

for predicted 

impacts.

Suitable: all 

study segments

Unsuitable: 

none

See chapter 5 

for predicted 

impacts.
Chapter 4  Description of the Alternatives

46 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Issue Indicator Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Economic 

Impacts

Economic impacts to 

the Blue community 

area and Greenlee 

County: property 

values and changes in 

revenues

Negligible Negligible Minimally 

positive

Minimally 

positive

USFS costs of 

developing the CRMP 

and administering 

designations

NA NA CRMP: 

$175,000 

Administration: 

$35,000 per 

year

CRMP: 

$250,000 

Administration: 

$50,000 per 

year

Land Use 

Restrictions

Types of activities, 

including resource 

protection activities, 

affected by 

designation.

None None None None

Current 

Management 

and 

Collaboration

Mechanisms to protect 

free-flowing 

condition, water 

quality, and ORVs 

outside of designation 

in the National system

forest plan forest plan forest plan forest plan

FSH interim 

management for 

eligible rivers

FSH 1909.12 

(82.5 and 82.51)

NA FSH interim 

management for 

suitable rivers 

(suitable 

segments only)

FSH 1909.12 

(82.5 and 

82.51)

FSH interim 

management for 

suitable rivers

FSH 1909.12 

(82.5 and 82.51)

Additional law, regulation, and policy.

(appendix D)

Greenlee County Community Wildfire Protection Plan

Memorandum of 

understanding

for analysis of a 

fish barrier on 

Federal lands -

decision 

deferred

Memorandum of understanding for 

analysis of a fish barrier on Federal 

lands

NA for 

proposed barrier 

location

Memorandum of understanding for conservation and management of 

resources in Blue River
EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 47

Chapter 5 – Environmental Consequences

Introduction

This chapter addresses the environmental consequences predicted for each alternative by 

disclosing how management, uses, and activities in each segment may change if found suitable or 

unsuitable, and any predicted resource effects. 

The analysis of environmental effects focuses on the river values (free-flowing condition, water 

quality, and outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs), land uses, and management activities) in 

the river corridors as follows:

1. Free-flowing condition

2. Water management

3. Outstandingly remarkable values identified in the eligibility study:

a. Fisheries

b. Wildlife

c. Recreation

d. Scenery

e. Historic and prehistoric

f. Vegetation

4. Land uses and management activities:

a. Landownership and land uses

b. Special use permits

c. Access and infrastructure

d. Range

e. Minerals

f. Fire management

g. Social and economic conditions

In addition, as provided in sections 4(a) and 5(c) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of October 2, 

1968, factors considered as a basis for the suitability determination for each river follow the 

effects discussions.

Analysis of Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

This analysis describes the effects of implementing each alternative on the biophysical and 

socioeconomic environments, and the uses and activities that may be precluded, limited or 

enhanced if a river segment is included in the National system.

The management of Blue River and KP Creek is currently guided by Agency policy in FSH 

1909.12, Chapter 82.5. To the extent of Forest Service authority, the responsible official may 

authorize site-specific projects and activities on National Forest System lands within eligible or 

suitable river corridors only where such projects protect the river’s free-flowing condition, water 

quality, ORVs, and classification.
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

48 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

The management direction and authorities which apply to the study corridors at the time of this 

analysis are summarized in “Appendix D – Management Direction.”

The following assumptions are incorporated into this effects analysis:

● Congress may or may not act to designate any segments found suitable and recommended 

by this analysis.

● Uses and activities occurring on private lands within the study corridors would continue. 

The addition of Blue River and KP Creek into the National system would not affect uses 

and activities on private lands as designation confers no regulatory authority to the river

administering agency for management of non-Federal lands.

● The cumulative effects analysis considers the projects listed on the ASNFs’schedule of 

proposed actions at the time of this analysis, as well as ongoing uses and activities in the 

analysis area (see appendix E). Reasonably foreseeable future actions are those 

anticipated in and near the study corridors in the near future.

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects is the river corridor (one-quarter mile on each side 

of the river’s banks). The cumulative effects analysis area includes lands within the 5th code 

watersheds of the study corridors. 

Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to all Suitable Determinations

River segments determined suitable would be recommended for inclusion into the National 

system. The Forest Service would manage recommended segments to protect their free-flowing 

condition, water quality, ORVs, and classification consistent with its policy for interim 

management (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 82.5).

If designated, the river administering agency is responsible for protecting and enhancing these 

same values. Designation affords certain legal protection from adverse development, e.g., 

prohibits construction of dams and other federally assisted water resource development projects 

judged to have an adverse effect on river values. The act also withdraws Federal lands within wild 

classified segments from locatable and leasable mineral entry. However, most current uses and 

activities on Federal lands within the corridors may continue so long as they protect river values. 

Uses and activities on Federal lands that have the potential to affect river values would be 

addressed through site-specific environmental analyses on a case-by-case basis.

Designation neither gives nor implies government control of private lands within the river 

corridor. The Forest Service has no authority to regulate or zone private lands under this act; 

however, as the river administering agency, it may highlight the need for amendment to local 

zoning. Land use controls on private lands are solely a matter of State and local zoning. Although 

the act includes provisions encouraging the protection of river values through State and local 

governmental land use planning, there are no binding provisions on local governments 

(Interagency Council, 2006). 

People living or owning property within a designated river corridor would be able to use their 

property as they had before designation. While river plans may establish goals for new 

construction consistent with classification, there is a wide range of uses compatible with these 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 49

classifications so long as the overall values and character of the river corridor are maintained. If 

there is a proposed development on private land which is clearly incompatible with designation, 

classification, or management objectives, the Forest Service would typically provide technical 

assistance to find ways to alleviate or mitigate the threat to river values. The Forest Service may 

also engage in negotiated efforts to remove the threat through cooperation with the local zoning 

authority, or purchase a partial right (easement) or the property in fee title on a willingseller/willing-buyer basis.

The Forest Service would consider purchase of land only which is voluntarily offered and 

normally only undeveloped. While the public law allows for condemnation of private land under 

certain circumstances, the law also states that condemnation cannot be used if 50 percent or more 

of the land within the boundaries is already in public (including state and local) ownership. As the 

Federal lands in these river segments exceed 50 percent, Federal condemnation of private 

property in fee would not be allowed.

The act also allows for acquisition of a scenic easement (Section 16(c)); i.e., a defined 

development right. The individual landowner would still own the land and have full use of the 

land within the terms of the scenic easement. However, the Forest Service has not purchased any 

scenic easements within the State of Arizona and it is not anticipated that any would be pursued.

Maintenance of private roads within the designated corridor generally would not be affected. In 

consultation with landowners and other local and State permitting agencies, every effort would be 

made to eliminate or reduce adverse impacts from proposed road improvement, realignment, 

and/or new construction. Should mitigation and/or consultation fail to reduce adverse impacts to 

an acceptable level, the Forest Service could negotiate with the landowner to purchase the 

specific development rights necessary to remove the threat to the river.

Federally assisted water resources projects, i.e. activities within the river’s bed or its banks such 

as roadway bank revetment, new diversion structures, or dredging are subject to review by the 

river administering agency under Section 7(a) of the act. Such projects may be federally assisted 

or permitted if judged not to adversely affect the river’s free-flowing condition, water quality, or 

ORVs.

Ownership of the bed and bank of a river is unaffected by designation. If the riverbanks are in 

private ownership, the landowner continues to control their use after designation. Designation 

does not grant new privileges to the public on private lands.

Section 13(c) of the act expressly reserves the quantity of water necessary to protect river values. 

This Federal reserved water right is generally adjudicated in a state forum (e.g., state court or 

basin-wide adjudication). The designation does not supersede existing, valid water rights and 

establishes a priority date coincident with the river’s date of designation into the National system.

The act requires development of a comprehensive river management plan (CRMP) within 3 full 

fiscal years after designation. This plan would address resource protection, development of lands 

and facilities, user capacities, and other management practices necessary to protect values. 

Citizen involvement, particularly on rivers with mixed ownership, is the key to an enduring plan 

and the current collaborative planning efforts among agencies, State and local governments, and 

citizen groups provide an excellent basis for its development.
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

50 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Forest Plan Amendment

The proposed forest plan amendment applies to all alternatives in which river segments are 

eligible or suitable (alternatives 1, 3, and 4). The amendment as proposed (chapter 4) would

provide direction to manage the eligible and suitable river corridors in accordance with FSH 

procedures, which are intended to protect, maintain, or enhance river values (water quality, freeflowing condition, and outstandingly remarkable values) as well as tentative classifications under 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The amendment would clarify the management requirements 

when existing management area direction is inconsistent with protection of river values under the 

act.

Effects Common to All Unsuitable Determinations

River segments determined unsuitable for inclusion into the National system would continue to 

be managed under existing authorities (“Appendix D – Management Direction”). Agency policy 

(FSH 1909.12, Chapter 82.5) to protect the river corridors as a potential wild and scenic river 

would no longer apply. Long-term protection and enhancement of the river’s free-flowing 

condition, water quality, and ORVs would not be ensured by the act. New water resources 

projects and mineral entry may be allowed to the extent of existing management authorities. 

Changes to management on Federal lands would likely occur as land management plans are 

revised over time and reflect changing values, societal needs, and natural resource management 

approaches.

Current collaborative efforts among agencies, State and local governments, and citizen groups 

intended to conserve and manage natural resources in Blue River and KP Creek would be 

unaffected. These include the partnership currently being formalized in a memorandum of 

understanding among agencies and citizens intended to protect and enhance resources in the Blue 

River watershed. In particular, efforts to improve native fisheries, including the proposal to 

construct a fish barrier in Blue River segment 4, could proceed if approved after appropriate 

environmental analysis, separate from this suitability study. The goals and objectives of these 

partnerships among agencies and citizens focus on protection and enhancement of resources, and 

could serve as alternative approaches to protecting river related values.

Uses and activities on private lands within the river corridor would continue as desired by the 

landowners, subject to local regulation.

Resource Effects by Alternative

Free-Flowing Condition

Alternative 1 – No Action (Defer Suitability Determination)

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Water resources projects proposed on Federal lands within Blue River and KP Creek would

continue to be analyzed as to their effect on the river’s free-flowing condition, water quality, and 

ORVs, with adverse effects prevented to the extent of existing Agency authorities (such as special 

use authority). The rivers would not be protected from proposed hydroelectric facilities or other 

federally assisted water resources projects under Section 7(a) of the act. 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 51

There are no water supply or flood control projects anticipated in the foreseeable future on Blue 

River; some small-scale water resources projects are likely to be constructed on private lands in 

this corridor. There are no existing or foreseeable water resources projects on KP Creek.

The fish barrier proposed for construction in Blue River segment 4 could not be implemented 

under this alternative because it would affect the free-flowing condition of the river (appendix C).

Alternative 2 – No Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

There is no requirement to analyze water resources projects proposed on Federal lands within 

Blue River and KP Creek and to protect their eligibility (free-flowing condition, water quality, 

and ORVs). Free-flowing condition may be altered in the future by construction of water 

resources projects. This alternative provides the least protection for free-flowing conditions.

There are no water supply or flood control projects anticipated in the foreseeable future on Blue 

River; some small-scale water resources projects are likely to be constructed on private lands in 

this corridor. There are no existing or foreseeable water resources projects on KP Creek.

The fish barrier proposed in Blue River segment 4 could be constructed under this alternative 

(pending approval with appropriate environmental analysis). This barrier would impact the freeflowing condition of this segment of the river (appendix C). 

Alternative 3 –Some Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Segments added to the National system would be protected from the harmful effects of water 

resources projects under Section 7(a) of the act. This provision prohibits the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) from licensing the construction of hydroelectric facilities on 

rivers that have been designated as components of the National system. Further, the act prohibits 

other Federal agencies from assisting in the construction of any water resources project that 

would have a direct and adverse effect on a designated river. Proposed water resources projects 

below, above, or on a stream tributary to a designated river are evaluated as to their potential to 

invade the designated river area or unreasonably diminish the scenic, recreational, fish or wildlife 

values of the designated river.

At this time, no such projects have been proposed for Blue River segments 2, 3, and the upper 

part of 4, or for KP Creek. Therefore, there would be no short-term changes from designation. In 

the long term, the act would protect the free-flowing condition of these designated segments.

The free-flowing condition of Blue River segment 1 and 0.76 miles of segment 4, which would 

not be found suitable and recommended for inclusion in the National system, could be altered in 

the future. 

The fish barrier proposed in Blue River segment 4 could be constructed under this alternative 

(pending approval with appropriate environmental analysis). This barrier would impact the freeflowing condition of this segment of the river (appendix C).
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

52 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Alternative 4 - All Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Designation would provide Blue River and KP Creek protection from the harmful effects of water 

resources projects under Section 7(a) of the act. This provision prohibits the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) from licensing the construction of hydroelectric facilities on 

rivers that have been designated as components of the National system. Further, the act prohibits 

other Federal agencies from assisting in the construction of any water resources project that 

would have a direct and adverse effect on a designated river. Proposed water resources projects 

below, above, or on a stream tributary to a designated river are evaluated as to their potential to 

invade the designated river area or unreasonably diminish the scenic, recreational, fish or wildlife 

values of the designated river.

At this time, no such projects have been proposed in the study corridors; therefore, there would be 

no short-term changes from designation. In the long term, the act would protect the free-flowing 

condition of these designated segments.

In addition, the fish barrier proposed for construction in Blue River segment 4 could not be 

implemented under this alternative because it would affect the free-flowing condition of the river 

(appendix C).

Water Management

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Ongoing projects such as road and trail maintenance, and the development of gravel pits would 

continue within the upper and lower Blue River 5th field watersheds. Best management practices 

are designed for project implementation to minimize the addition and negative impact of 

sediment in Blue River or KP Creek. Wildfires would continue to occur sporadically, most 

commonly above KP Creek. The Campbell Flat prescribed burn, planned to reduce fuels, would 

occur to lower the risk of high intensity wildfire in this area, thereby reducing the risk of fine 

sediment to the rivers. Development would be expected to continue periodically on private land 

in segment 1 along the Blue River.

The lower half of Blue River segment 1 and the upper three-quarters of segment 2 are within the 

Blue Range Primitive Area, which is managed to emphasize wilderness recreation while 

maintaining wilderness values. No timber harvesting or road construction is allowed in the river 

corridor of the primitive area, which protects this section of the river from any additional 

sediment from roads or timber harvest.

Maintenance of water developments and ditch lines would occur under all alternatives. These 

activities would be allowed under all alternatives as long as water quality is protected to meet 

state defined beneficial uses. 

Alternative 1 – No Action (Defer Suitability Determination)

Under alternative 1, suitability findings would be deferred and current management would 

continue. All segments of Blue River and KP Creek would be managed as eligible for inclusion 

into the National system. 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 53

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The Forest Service would continue to protect and enhance water quality using existing authorities 

including forest plan management area direction and interim management guidelines as 

summarized in “Appendix D – Management Direction.”

The Blue River is presently fenced from active grazing along the river, and riparian vegetation 

has continued to improve since removal of livestock. Maintaining high water quality by 

protection of riparian areas is supported under this alternative. 

There would be no short-term negative impact to water quality because there would be no change 

in current management in accordance with State and Federal standards through adherence to 

standard water quality monitoring directed by the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), and various State laws. 

Blue River and KP Creek are study rivers determined eligible for the National system through 

Agency planning processes in accordance with Section 5(d)(1) of the WSR Act, and as such are 

not protected from proposed hydroelectric facilities or other federally assisted water resources 

projects. The protection afforded by Section 7(a) of the act does not apply to Section 5(d) (1) 

study rivers.

Therefore, water resources projects proposed on Blue River and KP Creek would be analyzed as 

to their effect on a river’s free flow, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values, with 

adverse effects prevented to the extent of existing Agency authorities (such as special use 

authority). However, there are no water resource development projects intended for water supply 

or flood control proposed in the foreseeable future. The fish barrier proposed for construction in 

Blue River segment 4 could not be implemented under this alternative because it would affect the 

free-flowing condition of the river. There are no existing or foreseeable water projects, new roads, 

or any type of development projects planned for KP Creek. With no large projects proposed 

within the study area, there would be no foreseeable changes in management or negative effects 

to water quality or quantity within any of the study segments under this alternative. Rivers being 

studied under Section 5(d) (1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act are not withdrawn from the 

mining or mineral leasing laws. Therefore, deferring suitability and designation of the wild 

segments of Blue River (segments 2 and 4) as a wild and scenic river allows for the potential of 

new mining or mineral leasing. However, as there are no active locatable mineral claims or 

mineral leasing within the project area at this time, it is unlikely that new mines would be 

developed in the short term (next 5 years). The absence in the river corridors of locatable, leased, 

or salable mineral activities, along with associated roads and other ground-disturbing actions (and 

potential use of polluting chemicals), describes the existing situation. Water quality impacts are 

possible in the future if mineral activities occur.

Foreseeable future projects include road improvements along Blue Road (FR 281). This road 

closely parallels the upper part of the Blue River and is a chronic source for fine sediment. Road 

improvements include upgrading drainage features, fixing a blind corner, and laying back the 

slope on some vertical cut banks (White-Trifaro, personal communication 2009). There is 

potential for a temporary increase in fine sediment with the road work but improved drainage 

features would lower the long-term addition of sediment from this road. Work that would not 

impact water quality of the river could occur, such as restoration work to improve habitat for 

native fish. 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

54 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Alternative 2 – No Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The existing authorities listed in appendix D continue to apply except for interim management 

directed by FSH 1909.12, Chapter 82. Interim management and the potential protections afforded 

by designation would be discontinued. It is unlikely that a determination of unsuitable and not 

recommending Blue River and KP Creek for inclusion in the National system would affect water 

quality of the river in the short term, as protection of water quality is required by State and 

Federal agencies regardless of the outcome of this study. 

However, effects to water quality could occur as new projects were implemented within the 

corridor. Future conditions may be impacted due to the potential for projects that affect the river 

such as river crossing upgrades, road building, road maintenance, campground improvements 

near the river, or water resource development projects (outside the primitive area and inventoried 

roadless areas). Implementation of future projects would be in accordance with existing 

authorities at the time, which would not include the protection of free-flowing conditions afforded 

by designation in the National system. At this time, mining within the watershed consists of using 

salable materials (gravel) from outside the active channel for road work along the river. If road 

building or major improvements occurred along these segments of the river, it would be expected 

to have detrimental effects to water quality due to the potential for elevated levels of fine 

sediment from road-stream connectivity. The fish barrier proposed in Blue River segment 4 could 

be constructed under this alternative (pending approval with appropriate environmental analysis). 

This barrier would impact the free-flowing condition of the river. Short-term impacts to water 

quality could occur during construction of the dam, but long-term impacts to water quality are not 

expected due to the application of best management practices required to protect water quality.

Alternative 3 – Some Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Under this alternative, Blue River segments 2, 3, part of 4, and all of KP Creek would be found 

suitable and recommended for inclusion in the National system. Blue River segment 1 and the 

lower 0.76 miles of segment 4 would be found unsuitable and not recommended for inclusion in 

the National system.

All suitable and recommended segments would continue to receive interim management for 

suitable rivers as directed in FSH 1901.12 (82) as discussed under alternative 1 and above in 

“Effects Common to All Suitable Determinations.”

Section 13(c) of the Wild and Scenic River Act creates a process for a Federal reserved water 

right for wild and scenic rivers, and Section 1(b) establishes the protection of water quality as one 

of the threefold purposes of the act.

The Forest Service is required to develop a comprehensive river management plan (CRMP) 

within 3 years of designation. Cooperation requires active participation by the Forest Service with 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and State water quality agencies in the evaluation of 

existing water quality, identification of limitations, and development of the often long-term 

strategies necessary to address water quality related problems. The quantity of a Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act Federal water right appears to be the amount necessary to achieve the purposes of the 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 55

act; here that would appear to be that amount necessary to preserve the free-flowing condition of 

the river and to preserve the values for which a river was protected (Baldwin 2001).

Blue River segment 2 has no active roads, with only non-motorized trails to access the river. No 

additional roads would be expected to be approved along this part of the river, and the wild nature 

of this segment would be maintained. Segment 3 has two road access points and segment 4 has no 

road access. Inclusion in the National system would give additional long-term protection to water 

quality by controls on the level of development within the wild and scenic segments.

Hydroelectric and water resources projects would be restricted upon designation of suitable 

segments into the National system. The Forest Service would protect the free-flowing condition 

and other values of the designated rivers. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act prohibits the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) from licensing the construction of hydroelectric 

facilities on rivers that have been designated as components of the National system. Further, the 

act prohibits other Federal agencies from assisting in the construction of any water resources 

project that would have a direct and adverse effect on a designated river. Proposed water 

resources projects below, above, or on a stream tributary to a designated river are evaluated as to 

their potential to invade the designated river area or unreasonably diminish the scenic, 

recreational, fish or wildlife values of the designated river.

The suitable segments would be protected from any future water development projects within 

these segments. At this time, no such projects have been proposed for Blue River segments 2, 3, 

and the upper part of 4, or for KP Creek. Therefore, there would be no short-term changes from 

recommending these rivers be added to the National system. In the long term, there would be an 

additional layer of protection for both the Blue River and KP Creek from future changes in 

management, particularly any water development projects that could affect the free-flowing 

condition of the Blue River or KP Creek. This alternative excludes wild segments from new 

mining claims for added protection for water quality along approximately 9 miles of the Blue 

River and 11.3 miles of KP Creek that are outside the primitive area. There is minor potential for 

local water quality impacts from the potentially increased recreation found at designated wild and 

scenic rivers. Specific management direction would be needed to mitigate these impacts if Blue 

River or KP Creek became more popular and recreation use increased.

Segment 1 and 0.76 mile of segment 4 would be found unsuitable and, therefore, the free-flowing 

condition of these segments could be altered in the future. Water development projects could 

change the free-flowing condition, which in turn could affect water quality and beneficial uses.

Under this alternative the fish barrier in Blue River segment 4 could be built because the freeflowing condition could be altered with the same impacts as discussed under alternative 2. The 

interim management guidelines intended to protect and enhance river values for eligible and 

suitable wild and scenic rivers would be removed from Blue River segment 1 and the lower 0.76 

miles of segment 4. As segment 1 is upstream of the other segments, any additional water 

development projects would affect free-flowing conditions in the other segments of the Blue 

River. Segment 1 has the only private ownership of all the study segments, and the majority of 

present water withdrawals. This is also the segment most likely to have additional grounddisturbing projects planned due to access and jurisdiction. Effects for these unsuitable segments 

are the same as the effects described for alternative 2.
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

56 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Alternative 4 - All Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

This alternative finds all eligible segments suitable and recommended for inclusion in the 

National system. These segments would continue to receive interim protection under FSH 

1909.12 (82) and could be congressionally designated. Congressional action would protect all 

segments from all federally assisted water development projects that would adversely affect a 

river’s free-flowing condition and water quality, and require a comprehensive river management 

plan be developed within 3 years of designation to protect water quality, free-flowing condition, 

and outstandingly remarkable values.

Effects to Blue River segment 1: It is not expected that designation would affect any road or 

irrigation ditch line maintenance. All projects would be required to follow Federal, State, and 

local laws and ordinances to protect water quality as they do under all the alternatives. Roads and 

trails are allowed in recreational segments as long as water quality, protection of ORVs, and freeflowing status is maintained. Projects on Federal lands that impact water quality or free-flowing

status would not be allowed. As noted in “Effects Common to All,” activities on private lands 

would be unaffected by designation. 

Effects to Blue River segments 2 and 3: Effects to water quality and management implications 

for suitable segments are the same as those described in alternative 3 for Blue River segments 2 

and 3.

Effects to Blue River segment 4 and KP Creek: Under this alternative, the fish barrier proposed 

in the lower part of Blue River segment 4 would not be constructed because it would alter the 

free-flowing condition of the river (appendix C). Designation under this alternative would 

exclude the largest area (all wild segments) from mineral leases/mining for long-term protection 

of water quality.

Designation would not affect the list of projects likely to occur in the near future (listed in 

appendix E and discussed under “Effects Common to All Alternatives” and “Alternative 1”). 

These projects and similar projects would likely occur periodically and would be expected to 

have negligible to minor short-term effects on water quality from the addition of fine sediment 

where ground-disturbing activities such as road work or burning occur. This alternative gives the 

most protection to free-flowing conditions of the river and would result in the most 

comprehensive management for water quality due to the CRMP and changes in forest plan 

direction to protect and enhance river values. This would be a long-term positive effect for water 

quality and especially free-flowing conditions of Blue River and KP Creek.

Fisheries Values

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Native fish management for Blue River and KP Creek is ongoing under plans of Arizona Game 

and Fish Department (AGFD), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests. The goals of these plans are to protect and conserve native fishes, 

including federally listed loach minnow and habitat designated as critical for loach minnow. 

The following effects discussions summarize and incorporate by reference the supporting 

biological evaluation and biological assessment which includes detailed information regarding the 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 57

existing conditions and environmental effects to threatened, endangered, and sensitive fish 

species. 

Alternative 1 – No Action (Defer Suitability Determination)

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

All five eligible river segments would continue to be managed as eligible for their potential 

inclusion into the National system, and the Forest Service would continue to use its existing 

authorities to protect free flow, water quality, recommended classification, and the fish ORV. 

Work that would not impact free-flowing characteristics of the river could occur such as 

mechanical (e.g. nets, spear guns, and electrofishing) nonnative fish removal and restoration to 

improve habitat for native fish. The five segments are not protected from proposed future water 

resource projects, such as dams, hydroelectric facilities or other in-channel modifying structures 

under Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Effects from such projects would be 

analyzed to prevent adverse effects to the extent Agency authority allows (such as special uses 

authorities). With the exception of a proposed BOR fisheries barrier, there are no foreseeable 

plans for water resource projects within the Blue River or KP Creek corridors. Management of 

the fisheries resources within the Blue River and KP Creek corridors would not change from its 

current condition. The current level of protection for the fish ORV as provided by the Endangered 

Species Act, the ASNFs forest plan, Arizona’s State Wildlife Action Plan, interim wild and scenic 

management guidelines for eligible rivers, and other authorities (appendix D) would continue 

within the KP Creek and Blue River corridors.

An effect from this alternative would be to preclude approval of the channel-spanning fish barrier 

proposed near the mouth of Blue River. Preclusion of proposed barrier construction has the 

potential to increase the population of nonnative predatory fishes in Blue River such as channel 

catfish (Ictalurs punctatus) and flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), which move upstream from 

the San Francisco River. Barriers have been used on many streams in the Southwest in attempts to 

prevent nonnative species from impacting native fish populations by blocking access to upstream 

habitat. Nonnative fish can out-compete and/or prey on native frogs, snakes, turtles, and fishes 

causing significant decreases and even extirpation of native aquatic species. Blue River currently 

has a relatively low percentage of nonnative fish in comparison to the San Francisco River, 

however, pool habitat occupied by catfishes in lower Blue River lack native fishes, except large 

suckers, indicating localized impacts to small bodied native fishes. More than 70 catfish were 

removed from the lower Blue River in June 2009. The overall rate of invasion into the Blue River 

from the San Francisco is not well defined, but active mechanical removal of large nonnative 

fishes in Blue River is an ongoing action conducted by the AGFD to protect native fishes in Blue 

River.

Appendix E lists the present, ongoing, and future actions within the Blue River and KP Creek 

corridors. Roads and fires (prescribed and wild) in the Blue River and KP Creek corridors could 

increase sediment in these areas. Increased sediment can decrease the availability of clean 

spawning gravels, decrease pool depth, decrease aquatic macroinvertebrate prey availability, as 

well as contribute to other negative effects to the fish ORV which can decrease overall population 

size. However, road maintenance and prescribed fires are designed to follow best management 

practices which can reduce the input of sediment and other effects, such as riparian vegetation 

disturbance. Current human uses include water withdrawals, crossings (motor, foot, and horse), 

and limited fishing for trout. In 2000, Blue River showed some evidence of recovery from severe 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

58 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

alteration of the early part of the 20th century, as observed by the National Riparian Service Team 

(NRST 2001).

Summary of Effects to Fisheries ORVs

This alternative would not recommend designation on any segment of Blue River or KP Creek as 

suitable for wild, scenic, or recreational designation, however, current protections would remain 

in place including interim management for eligible corridors. This alternative would preclude 

barrier construction and allow nonnative fishes to migrate into the Blue River from the San 

Francisco River resulting in predation in the mainstem on native aquatic species, as currently 

observed in lower river pool habitat. Therefore, this alternative may affect the fish ORV through 

reductions in native fish populations by predation from nonnative catfishes. 

Alternative 2 – No Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

With this alternative a determination would be made that all five segments are found unsuitable 

for inclusion in the National system. Interim management for eligible or suitable rivers would be 

discontinued. Fish ORVs occur in all five of these segments. Protection and/or management from 

the Endangered Species Act, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests forest plan, Arizona’s State 

Wildlife Action Plan, and project specific biological opinions (BOs) from the USFWS (which 

currently allow some level of incidental take) would continue. Standards and guidelines within 

the ASNF forest plan require retainment of 60 percent of potential loach minnow habitat across 

the forest and seek to preserve instream flows where such species are present in management area 

3 (riparian).

Management of loach minnow and ESA designated critical habitat where present in Blue River 

segments 1 through 4 would continue at current levels.

This alternative would not authorize, but would allow for implementation of the biological 

opinion (BO) issued for the Central Arizona Project (CAP), which includes a key conservation 

measure to construct a fish barrier near the confluence of the Blue River with the San Francisco 

River (USDI Fish & Wildlife Service, 2008). The Bureau of Reclamation has proposed and is 

currently conducting NEPA analysis for a fish barrier approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the 

Blue River’s confluence with the San Francisco River. This barrier would prevent the movement 

of fish upstream from the San Francisco River into the Blue River. The barrier could have an 

overall long-term beneficial effect on the native fish populations of the Blue River. Therefore, this 

alternative may beneficially affect fisheries ORVs. However, any projects or actions with a 

Federal nexus that may affect listed species or critical habitat in the unsuitable segments would

have to undergo site-specific consultation, and would be consulted on in the future (including the 

proposed BOR fish barrier).

Cumulative effects would be the same as described for alternative 1.

Effects Determination and Rationale

This alternative would release all of the segments from wild and scenic river interim management 

and future consideration. This has the potential to allow future water resources projects such as 

the development of dams, hydropower projects, or other in-channel modifying structures. 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 59

However, with the exception of the proposed BOR fisheries barrier, there are no plans to develop 

such projects. This alternative would not preclude the construction of the fish barrier at the mouth 

of the Blue River. The barrier could have an overall beneficial effect on the native fish 

populations of the Blue River. Therefore, this alternative may beneficially affect fisheries ORVs. 

Alternative 3 - Some Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct and Indirect Effects

In this alternative three of five segments and most of a fourth segment would be found suitable 

for designation. These segments would receive interim protection and could be congressionally 

designated. Recommendation of these segments would ensure additional protection and 

conservation of the fish ORVs found in these segments if they are congressionally designated. 

Congressional action would require a comprehensive river management plan within 3 years of 

designation.

Segment 1 on Blue River would be found unsuitable for inclusion in the National system and 

protection afforded by interim management guidelines for suitable rivers would be discontinued. 

A portion of segment 1 is within the Blue River Primitive Area, and this portion would continue 

to receive wilderness arealike protection as well as the other protections described in the 

alternative 2 effects. Management of the portion of segment 1 that is not within the Blue River 

Primitive Area could allow future water resources projects such as the development of dams, 

hydropower projects, or other in-channel modifying structures in the future.

Effects Determination and Rationale

This alternative would release segment 1 (25.1 miles) and a 0.76 mile portion of segment 4 from 

wild and scenic river interim management and future consideration and allow for construction of 

the proposed BOR fish barrier in the lower portion of segment 4, if approved under a separate 

NEPA process. Under this alternative there is the potential to allow future water resources 

projects such as the development of dams, hydropower projects, or other in-channel modifying 

structures in the released segments. However, with the exception of the proposed BOR fisheries 

barrier, there are no plans to develop such projects. Protections for fisheries described in 

alternative 2 would apply to National Forest System lands in segment 1 and to the 0.76 mile 

portion of segment 4. The barrier could have an overall long-term beneficial effect on the native 

fish populations of the Blue River. Therefore, this alternative may beneficially affect fisheries 

ORVs. Because the free-flowing nature of segment 1 could be altered in the future and ESA listed 

loach minnow occupy segment 1, this alternative may allow for future adverse affects to loach 

minnow. Any projects or actions with a Federal nexus in segment 1 or 4 would have to undergo 

site-specific consultation, and would be consulted on in the future.

Alternative 4 – All Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct and Indirect Effects

This alternative would recommend that five segments, all of which have fish ORVs, would be 

suitable for WSR designation. These segments would continue to receive interim protection and 

could be congressionally designated. Congressional action would protect and conserve all 

segments from federally assisted water development projects that would adversely affect a river’s 

free-flowing condition, water quality, or fish ORVs, and require a comprehensive river 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

60 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

management plan be developed within 3 years of designation. This alternative finds 134.4 miles 

that contain fish ORVs as suitable for designation. 

The portion of segment 4 where the fish barrier, as described in alternative 3, is proposed for 

construction would be found suitable. A free flow analysis of the proposed fish barrier determined 

that construction would impact the free flow of water at that site in the Blue River (USDA Forest 

Service, 2008). Precluding the construction of the fish barrier would indirectly affect fisheries 

ORVs within the Blue River corridor. Nonnative fish could continue to enter the Blue River from 

the San Francisco River, potentially out-competing or preying on native fisheries.

Designation of these segments could prevent water resources projects such as the development of 

dams, hydropower projects, or other in-channel modifying structures. This would have an indirect 

beneficial effect on the fisheries ORVs. 

Effects Determination and Rationale

Finding these segments suitable for designation as wild, scenic, or recreational would have 

beneficial (no allowance for water resource projects that impact free flow) and negative (no fish 

barrier to prevent nonnative fish predation from occurring) affects on the fish ORVs of the Blue 

River. Therefore, the determination is that this alternative has both potential beneficial and 

adverse effects to the fisheries ORV.

Wildlife Values

Please see the supporting biological evaluation and biological assessment for detailed information 

regarding the existing condition of wildlife values in the study corridors and the environmental 

effects which are summarized below.

Alternative 1 – No Action (Defer Suitability Determination)

Suitability determinations would be deferred and all study river segments would continue to be 

managed under the existing authorities described in appendix D. In addition, the interim 

management guidelines for managing rivers eligible for inclusion in the National system would

continue to apply to all segments.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

All five river segments would continue to be managed as eligible for their potential inclusion into 

the National system, and the Forest Service would continue to use its existing authorities to 

protect wildlife ORVs. Management activities in the river corridor could occur, including 

manipulation of vegetation which could alter habitat characteristics to benefit some wildlife 

species or to possibly reduce habitat for other wildlife species depending on the life history 

requirements of the species.

Rare wildlife species dependent on the river corridors could be adversely affected by future water 

resources projects such as the development of dams, hydropower projects, or other in-channel 

modifying structures. The effects of such projects could change outstandingly remarkable wildlife 

values due to the impact to the water flow and possible change to vegetation (habitat) in the study

corridor on either side of the river. With the exception of the proposed BOR fisheries barrier, 

there are currently no plans to develop water resource projects within the Blue River or KP Creek 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 61

corridors. Management of the wildlife resources within the Blue River and KP Creek corridors 

would not change from its current condition. The current level of protection for the wildlife ORVs 

as provided by the ESA, ASNFs forest plan, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Arizona’s State Wildlife 

Action Plan, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and other local and Federal authorities (appendix D) 

would continue within the KP Creek and Blue River corridors. 

Effects Determination and Rationale

This alternative would not affect or impact the wildlife ORVs because of the existing authorities 

that are currently in place and which would continue.

Summary of Effects from the Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation

No Effect – Jaguar, Mexican gray wolf, Mexican spotted owl, Southwestern willow flycatcher, 

Chiricahua leopard frog.

No Impacts – Bald eagle, Southwestern river otter, New Mexico jumping mouse, American 

peregrine falcon, Common black-hawk, Western yellow-billed cuckoo, Bell’s vireo, Northern 

leopard frog, Lowland leopard frog, Arizona toad, Mexican garter snake, Narrow-headed garter 

snakes, White Mountains water penny beetle.

Alternative 2 - No Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct and Indirect Effects

In this alternative, a determination would be made that all river segments are found unsuitable 

and released from wild and scenic river interim protection as directed by FSH 1901.12 (82.5). 

Protection of river values would continue to be managed by existing laws and regulations and 

standards provided in the forest plan. Alternative 2 would provide the least level of long-term 

protection to wildlife since no stream segment would be identified as suitable and ultimately 

designated in the National system. This alternative in itself would not cause any changes to 

outstandingly remarkable wildlife values, nor would it provide any additional protection to these 

wildlife values.

Over time, depending on area management standards, large-scale projects like dams, water 

projects and other activities such as timber harvest and road building, could be approved for some 

segments, affecting outstandingly remarkable wildlife values.

Current management incorporates mitigations and project design features to protect sensitive 

species. Federally listed species would continue to be under the protection of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) and any existing recovery plans. Any projects or actions with a Federal nexus 

that may affect listed species or critical habitat in the unsuitable segments would have to undergo 

site-specific ESA consultation, and would be consulted on in the future. If, after appropriate 

environmental analysis, the proposed fish barrier is constructed, there would be long-term 

benefits to aquatic species such as the narrow headed garter snake, loach minnow, and lowland 

leopard frogs, which are likely to occur in the lower river.

Summary of Effects from the Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation

No Effect – Jaguar, Mexican gray wolf, Mexican spotted owl, Southwestern willow flycatcher, 

Chiricahua leopard frog.
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

62 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

No Impacts – Bald eagle, Southwestern river otter, New Mexico jumping mouse, American 

peregrine falcon, Common black-hawk, Western yellow-billed cuckoo, Bell’s vireo, Northern 

leopard frog, Lowland leopard frog, Arizona toad, Mexican garter snake, Narrow-headed garter 

snakes, White Mountains water penny beetle.

Alternative 3 - Some Segments Suitable and Recommended

Habitats and populations of federally listed, Forest Service sensitive, and management indicator 

species in the segments found unsuitable under alternative 3 would not have the higher level of 

protection afforded by eligibility, interim management guidelines, and inclusion in the National 

system. Any ground-disturbing project proposed in the unsuitable segments would be conducted 

under forest plan direction (including all mitigations and project design features) and other 

existing authorities designed to protect wildlife values. There is potential for disruption to wildlife 

travelways if segments are not designated contiguously. Populations and habitats for TESP 

species are discussed in the BA and BE. 

Under alternative 3, populations and habitats of management indicator species would continue to 

fluctuate naturally or follow current trends but a downward trend is possible in those segments 

not designated, particularly those species sensitive to fragmentation. Protection authorities for 

federally listed and Forest Service sensitive species are discussed in the biological assessment and 

biological evaluation for this project. If, after appropriate environmental analysis, the proposed 

fish barrier is constructed, there would be long-term benefits to aquatic species such as the narrow 

headed garter snake, loach minnow, and lowland leopard frogs which are likely to occur in the 

lower river.

Changes in vegetation which could occur due to management actions in the unsuitable segments 

may affect wildlife. All terrestrial species can be affected by the distribution and amount of 

successional stages and age classes in a vegetation community. Any change in vegetation 

diversity, juxtaposition, or age class would be beneficial to some species and a detriment to 

others. Big game is affected the least because of mobility and how they use variations in 

vegetation (hiding cover, thermal cover, and foraging). Many species (game and non-game) have 

adapted, to some degree, in the same way. Migratory birds may be the least adapted. Ground 

nesting migratory birds prefer an abundance of grasses, forbs, and shrubs to help hide nests and 

make little use of areas without ground cover. Canopy nesting birds may pay little attention to 

ground cover but are tied to canopies, canopy cover, and their height above the ground. 

For segments found suitable, ground-disturbing activities may occur as long as ORVs, free flow, 

and classification of recreational, scenic, or wild are protected. Protection of the river corridor 

from ground-disturbing activities may allow the area to proceed through natural successional 

stages and leads to mature and old age classes of vegetation favoring species that prefer mature 

and old age classes. Whether protected or not, catastrophic natural events such as fire, flood, 

wind, and disease can affect succession and age class diversity within vegetation types in all 

stages of succession.

Summary of Effects from the Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation

No Effect – Jaguar, Mexican gray wolf, Mexican spotted owl, Southwestern willow flycatcher, 

Chiricahua leopard frog.
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 63

No Impacts – Bald eagle, Southwestern river otter, New Mexico jumping mouse, American 

peregrine falcon, Common black-hawk, Western yellow-billed cuckoo, Bell’s vireo, Northern 

leopard frog, Lowland leopard frog, Arizona toad, Mexican garter snake, Narrow-headed garter 

snakes, White Mountains water penny beetle.

There could be “Beneficial Impacts” to sensitive species within any river segments that are 

designated.

Alternative 4 - All Segments Suitable and Recommended

Under alternative 4, there is no change other than natural fluctuation expected in population 

trends for any management indicator terrestrial species. Since all segments within the river 

corridor may be designated, alternative 4 would likely provide a higher level of protection to MIS 

species than alternatives 2 and 3, allowing the population trend for MIS species to possibly 

increase.

There would be no effect/no impact on terrestrial TES species because there are no grounddisturbing activities proposed in this action.

Protection of the river corridor for ORVs, free flow, and maintaining the classification of 

recreational, scenic, or wild, may include site-specific ground-disturbing activities. Any activities 

would be designed to protect or enhance the wildlife and vegetation ORVs, thus short-term 

disturbances may occur for long-term beneficial objectives. Some species such as the Mexican 

spotted owl would be supported by natural succession that supports areas of mature and old age 

classes of vegetation. Whether protected or not, catastrophic natural events such as fire, flood, 

wind, and disease can affect succession and age class diversity within vegetation types in all 

stages of succession. Alternative 4 would offer a higher level of protection to all threatened, 

endangered, proposed and sensitive wildlife species within the area of influence (1/4 mile each 

side of the river segment).

Summary of Effects from the Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation

No Effect – Jaguar, Mexican gray wolf, Mexican spotted owl, Southwestern willow flycatcher, 

Chiricahua leopard frog.

Beneficial Impacts – Bald eagle, Southwestern river otter, New Mexico jumping mouse, 

American peregrine falcon, Common black-hawk, Western yellow-billed cuckoo, Bell’s vireo, 

Northern leopard frog, Lowland leopard frog, Arizona toad, Mexican garter snake, Narrowheaded garter snakes, White Mountains water penny beetle.

Comparison of Alternatives – Populations and Habitat

Out of 14 MIS species, 3 are associated with riparian corridors or aquatic/riparian habitats. Five 

federally listed species are associated with these same habitats. And 13 sensitive species are 

riparian or aquatic habitat dependent. Tables 18, 19, and 20 compare alternatives by species 

associated with riparian and/or aquatic habitats and their measurement indicators.
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

64 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Table 18. Effects to MIS species – population and habitat

Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Lincoln’s 

sparrow

Trend would 

remain the same 

(declining)

Trend would remain 

the same (declining)

Trend could become 

static in parts of the 

corridors

Trend could become 

stable

Aquatic 

macroinvertebrates

Trend would 

remain static

Trend would remain 

static

Trend could become 

stable

Trend could become 

stable or could 

become upward

Cinnamon 

teal

Trend would 

remain stable

Trend would remain 

stable

Trend would remain 

stable

Trend would remain 

stable or could 

become upward

Table 19. Summary of effects to threatened (T) or endangered (E) species

Species Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Jaguar No effect No effect No effect No effect

Mexican gray wolf No effect No effect No effect No effect

Mexican spotted owl No effect No effect No effect No effect.

Southwestern willow flycatcher No effect No effect No effect No effect

Chiricahua leopard frog No effect No effect No effect No effect

Table 20. Effects to riparian and aquatic associated sensitive species (all species)

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

No impact No impact No impact No impact

Recreation Values

Measurement Indicators

● Acres of recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) class per segment.

● Type of river related recreation opportunity available per segment.

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Arizona State Fish and Game Department hunting and fishing regulations are unaffected by any 

alternative (and the WSRA per 13(a)). For wild and scenic rivers, we may recommend changes if 

necessary to protect value; however, fish and wildlife species’ management remains a state 

responsibility.
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 65

Alternative 1 – No Action (Defer Suitability Determination)

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative 

Current management would continue, including all existing authorities noted in appendix D. 

Interim management guidelines for eligible segments would apply as directed by FSH 

1901.12(82).

Current forest plan direction would sustain the following recreation opportunities within the Blue 

River and KP Creek corridors.

Table 21. Alternative 1 recreation opportunities by segment

Recreation 

Opportunity

Segment

BR-1 BR-2 BR-3 BR-4 KP Creek

Picnicking X

Mountain biking X

Swimming X

Camping X X

Hiking X X X X X

Hunting X X X X X

Fishing X X

Backpacking X X X X

Horse packing X X X X

Canoeing X

Kayaking X

Current forest plan direction would continue to provide a range of recreation opportunity 

spectrum (ROS) classes that would offer forest visitors a variety of settings to recreate in. The 

types of recreation opportunities currently available in both the Blue River and KP Creek 

corridors would continue to be available to forest visitors. Table 22 displays the existing ROS 

acreage for each segment of the Blue River and KP Creek.

No cumulative effects to the recreation setting or array of recreation opportunities from ongoing 

road maintenance, Bear Fire Trail relocation, or dispersed and developed recreation activities are 

expected to occur. There is a reasonable foreseeable change in transportation management that 

may change designation of motorized roads and trails in the area. This may lead to changes in the 

ROS settings and changes in the recreation opportunities available in areas with any designation 

changes.
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

66 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Table 22. ROS acreage by eligible segment for alternative 1

Eligible Segment

ROS Class

P SPNM SPM RN

1 98 205 6,875

2 3,785 491 498 182

3 200 71 1,000

4 2,234 134 74

KP Creek 2,409 623 780

Total Acres per ROS Class 6,394 3,446 908 8,837

P = Preservation; SPNM = Semi-primitive, nonmotorized; SPM = Semi-primitive motorized; RN= Roaded 

natural.

Alternative 2 – No Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Although no segments would be found suitable or recommended for inclusion in the National 

system, the ROS classes would likely be maintained in the Blue River and KP Creek corridors 

under alternative 2 with the existing forest plan direction. This would result in maintaining the 

same ROS acreage as displayed in alternative 1. Management Areas 8 (Blue Range Primitive 

Area) and 18 (Sandrock) provide an emphasis on recreation, specifically on primitive and semiprimitive ROS settings and the recreation activities that occur in those settings. The 12,562 acres 

of Management Areas 8 and 18 would continue to provide emphasis on primitive and semiprimitive ROS and associated activities. This constitutes 64 percent of the study corridors. 

Management Areas 1 (timberlands), 2 (pinyon-juniper woodlands), 3 (riparian), and 4 

(grasslands) do not emphasize recreation and could have a change in the acreages of ROS classes 

over time as a variety of management activities could take place resulting in cumulative effects.

Current forest plan direction would sustain the same recreation opportunities within the Blue 

River and KP Creek corridors as in alternative 1. Interim management guidelines for rivers 

eligible for inclusion in the National system would be discontinued, so restrictions to facilities 

and use designed specifically to protect river related values as described in appendix D would no 

longer be required.

Cumulative effects would be the same as described for alternative 1.

Alternative 3 – Some Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Table 23 displays the acres of ROS classes that would be maintained in the Blue River and KP 

Creek corridors under alternative 3.

A suitability determination would provide additional protection and emphasis on the ROS settings 

and recreation opportunities available under this alternative.
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 67

Table 23. ROS acreage by suitable segment for alternative 3

Suitable Segment

ROS Class

P SPNM SPM RN

2 3,785 491 498 182

3 200 71 1,000

Modified 4 2,007 134 74

KP Creek 2,409 623 780

Total Acres per ROS Class 6,394 3,121 703 2,036

P = Preservation; SPNM = Semi-primitive, nonmotorized; SPM = Semi-primitive 

motorized; RN= Roaded natural.

A suitability determination of these river segments would sustain and provide additional emphasis 

to the recreation opportunities within the Blue River and KP Creek corridors as discussed in 

alternative 1. Designation would require that the types and amounts of public use the river area 

can sustain without adverse impact to other values be identified in the comprehensive river 

management plan.

Although Blue River segment 1 and the lower portion of segment 4 are not included in the 

suitability recommendation, current forest plan direction would likely sustain management of the 

ROS classes in those areas. Effects to recreation values in these segments would be similar as 

those described in alternative 2 for unsuitable segments.

Cumulative effects would be the same as described for alternative 1.

Alternative 4 – All Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The ROS classes that would be maintained in the Blue River and KP Creek corridors under 

alternative 4 are the same acreage as alternative 1. Table 24 displays the acres of the ROS classes

that would be maintained for each segment of the Blue River and KP Creek.

Table 24. ROS acreage by suitable segment for alternative 4

Segment

ROS Class

P SPNM SPM RN

1 98 205 6,875

2 3,785 491 498 182

3 200 71 1,000

4 2,234 134 74

KP Creek 2,409 623 780

Total Acres per ROS Class 6,394 3,446 908 8,837
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

68 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

This alternative would provide the greatest protection and emphasis of ROS classes and 

associated recreation opportunities for all segments of the Blue River and KP Creek. The 

following recreation opportunities would be available:

● Blue River Segment 1 – picnicking, camping, swimming, mountain biking, horseback 

riding, and hiking.

● Blue River Segment 2 – hiking, horse packing, backpacking, camping, and hunting.

● Blue River Segment 3 – the trail network provides an array of opportunities including,

but not limited to, hiking, horseback riding, and backpacking.

● Blue River Segment 4 – advanced canoeing and kayaking, hiking, and horseback riding.

● KP Creek – hiking, fishing, backpacking, horseback riding, and hunting.

Upon designation, a comprehensive river management plan would be developed which would

require that the types and amounts of public use the river area can sustain without adverse impact 

to other values be identified.

Cumulative effects would be the same as described for alternative 1.

Scenery Values

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Current management of the Blue River as mainly a partial retention corridor (along with a small 

acreage allowing modification) does not provide enough protection to ensure that the visual 

resource ORVs would be maintained or enhanced over time. The activities allowed in 

Management Areas 1 and 2 are often not compatible with maintaining the visual resource 

outstandingly remarkable value for the Blue River and KP Creek. However, the proposed forest 

plan amendment states that any activities proposed in the wild and scenic river corridors must 

comply with the interim management guidelines for eligible or suitable rivers established in FSH 

1909.12 Ch. 82.50, and Ch. 82.51. These management guidelines ensure the protection of all 

outstandingly remarkable values of eligible or suitable rivers, and supersede the forest plan VQO 

direction. Therefore, recognizing that the forest plan does not ensure protection of the visual 

resource ORVs, FSH 1909.12 Ch. 82.50, and Ch. 82.51 do ensure these ORVs would be 

protected, maintained, or enhanced as a result of any future management activities.

Alternative 1 – No Action (Defer Suitability Determination)

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Table 25 shows the amount of acres of each management area in this alternative. 

Management Areas 1 and 2 cover 26 percent of the Blue River and KP Creek eligible corridors. 

Management Area 1 allows for lands to be managed for modification and maximum modification 

visual quality objectives (VQOs). Management Area 2 provides limited direction for management 

of visual resources regarding timber harvesting These management areas are not compatible with 

maintaining the visual resource outstandingly remarkable value for the Blue River and KP Creek, 

however as stated above, the forest plan amendment proposed in this alternative would provide 

direction to protect, maintain, or enhance the scenery ORV in all future management activities.
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 69

Table 25. Management area acreage for eligible segments in alternative 1

Management Area Acres*

MA-1 

Timberlands

MA-2 

Woodlands

MA-3 

Riparian

MA-4 

Grasslands

MA-8 Blue 

Primitive Area

MA-18 

Sandrock

1,860 3,259 1,831 144 10,191 2,371

The majority of the Blue River is currently managed as partial retention VQO. Management 

activities could occur that would alter scenic resources and diminish the scenic attributes that 

make it an ORV.

Interim management guidelines for eligible rivers would continue, however, no specific direction 

exists for managing visual resources. The guidelines do require that any recreation facilities be 

“screened from view from the river to the extent possible.” (FSH 1901.12 (82.5))

Current management of the Blue River as mainly a partial retention corridor does not provide 

enough protection to ensure that the visual resource ORVs would be maintained or enhanced over 

time. Management Areas 1 and 2 are not compatible with maintaining the visual resource 

outstandingly remarkable value for the Blue River and KP Creek, however as stated above, the 

forest plan amendment proposed in this alternative would provide direction to protect, maintain, 

or enhance the scenery ORV in all future management activities.

Cumulative effects from ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future management activities 

(appendix E) such as road maintenance, travel management, and developed recreation would not 

affect scenery resources. The reasonably foreseeable activities of acquiring additional forest 

system lands (the recent land exchanges noted in appendix E were not tied to meeting wild and 

scenic river objectives) could maintain scenic qualities in the cumulative effects analysis area. 

The reasonably foreseeable activities of the Campbell Flat prescribed burn, Campbell Blue 

wildland-urban interface analysis, development of private property, and unauthorized motorized 

use could negatively affect scenic resources within the cumulative effects analysis area. In the 

past, unauthorized motorized use has adversely affected scenery, and the intent is to appropriately 

regulate such activity in the future.

Alternative 2 – No Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Under this alternative, visual resources would be managed under the existing forest plan 

direction. Management direction for visual resources would enable a variety of management 

activities to occur in the Blue River and KP Creek corridors. Current management of the Blue 

River as mainly a partial retention corridor does not ensure that the visual resource values would

be maintained or enhanced over time. Under this alternative the scenery values would not be 

protected, maintained, or enhanced in accordance with direction for the protection of eligible, 

suitable or designated rivers. 

In addition to the cumulative effects described under alternative 1, a fish barriers may be 

constructed (after appropriate environmental analysis) in Blue River segment 4 if found 

unsuitable. Fish barriers could alter visual resources. Impacts to visual resources could include 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

70 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

alterations to streamflow, and the appearance of the barrier itself may impact the visual quality of 

the river corridors.

Alternative 3 – Some Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

A suitability determination would provide additional protection and emphasis on the visual 

resources in Management Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 than what would occur in alternative 2.

Table 26. Management area acreage for suitable segments in alternative 3

Management Area Acres*

MA-1 

Timberlands

MA-2 

Woodlands

MA-3 

Riparian

MA-4 

Grasslands

MA-8 Blue 

Primitive Area

MA-18 

Sandrock

1,290 1,175 973 144 6,300 2,371

A suitability determination of these river segments would sustain and provide additional emphasis 

to the visual resources within the Blue River and KP Creek corridors. Although Blue River 

segment 1 and the lower portion of segment 4 are not included in the suitability recommendation, 

current forest plan direction would allow a variety of management activities to occur in those 

areas that may or may not meet the assigned VQOs. Visual resource ORVs would be best 

protected with a suitability determination. Current management of the Blue River as mainly a 

partial retention corridor does not provide enough protection to ensure that the visual resource 

ORVs would be maintained or enhanced over time. Management Areas 1 and 2 are not 

compatible with maintaining the visual resource outstandingly remarkable value for Blue River 

and KP Creek, however as stated above, the forest plan amendment proposed in this alternative 

would provide direction to protect, maintain, or enhance the scenery ORV in all future 

management activities.

Cumulative effects are the same as described under alternative 1. In addition, fish barriers may be 

constructed (after appropriate environmental analysis) in segments found unsuitable. Fish barriers 

could alter visual resources. Impacts to visual resources could include alterations to streamflow, 

and the appearance of the barrier itself may impact the visual quality of the river corridors.

Alternative 4 – All Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

This alternative would provide the greatest protection and emphasis of visual resources for all 

segments of the Blue River and KP Creek. As stated above, the forest plan amendment proposed 

in this alternative would provide direction to protect, maintain, or enhance the scenery ORV in all 

future management activities.

Cumulative effects are the same as described under alternative 1.
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 71

Historic and Prehistoric Cultural Values 

In many places, river corridors or waterways are hubs of past cultural activity. Through history, 

waterways have provided a source of food, hydration, passage, industry, irrigation, and a way of 

life. The types of sites present in the Blue River corridor vary from prehistoric to historic, and 

from small artifact scatters to the remains of large-scale dwelling sites and ranching activity.

There are three key factors that facilitate an analysis of multiple alternatives. These factors run 

consistently through a discussion of comparing alternatives to designate suitable segments of 

wild, scenic and recreational streams. These are:

1. Suitability determinations require no ground-disturbing activities. However, grounddisturbing activities are likely to occur after the suitability is determined. These activities 

may include increased use by recreationists, forest projects including vegetation 

management, mineral withdrawals, permitting, or road maintenance.

2. Designation of a stream segment as wild, scenic or recreational provides additional 

resource protection as directed by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Future project 

proposals and activities within the designated corridor would be required to improve or 

protect the outstandingly remarkable values such as historic and prehistoric cultural 

resources.

3. Designation alone does not fulfill the requirement of Section 106 or any other regulations 

for any undertakings or activities that occur after the designation. Future project 

proposals within the area of potential effect (APE) would require the heritage analyses 

necessary to comply with applicable laws, regulations, and policies in place to protect 

cultural resources, including the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and forest 

plan.

Effects Common to All Alternatives

A wild, scenic, or recreational designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not offer 

any specific protection to cultural resources located within the APE. The same laws that regulate 

Federal undertakings and the management of cultural resources (appendix D) are applicable in 

these areas and protect cultural resources and exploitation of the proposed segments. Given these 

regulations are followed (regardless of alternative), future effects to the cultural resources are 

limited. However, increased traffic, recreationists, and continued use of the corridor could have 

an adverse effect. These potential effects should be addressed in the comprehensive river 

management plan developed after designation for suitable segments, and in an overall cultural 

resource monitoring and evaluation plan for the river corridors even if not designated.

Alternative 1 – No Action (Defer Suitability Determination)

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Activities associated with alternative 1 would not cause any new effects to cultural resources 

located in the Blue River corridor. Past, present, and foreseeable actions in the APE include 

prescribed burning, permitting, wildfire suppression, road maintenance, road designation, a fish 

barrier, trail restoration, water diversions, administrative use, land acquisition or exchanges, 

recreational use, private development and associated activities, and grazing. It is unknown if these 

activities have any effect on cultural resources, as a formal resource survey has not been recently 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

72 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

conducted in the APE to date. The Federal regulations (NHPA, EO 11953) and forest plan 

objectives provide protection of cultural resources. There are no regulations protecting cultural 

resource sites on private lands. In alternative 1, existing or undiscovered cultural resources could 

be adversely affected by activities on private lands, as some sites are located on the boundaries of 

private and forest boundaries. Lack of evaluation or monitoring such sites could compromise their 

integrity and eventual evaluation for the National Register of Historic Places. Conversely, all 

activities on Federal lands are considered Federal undertakings and require a heritage analysis to 

comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and forest plan 

standards and guidelines. The purpose of such an analysis is to monitor existing sites and 

condition, and record new sites. These sites should then be evaluated for NRHP eligibility. A 

heritage analysis would also provide the opportunity to identify past and present effects to 

cultural resources within the APE.

Alternative 2 – No Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Even though determined to be unsuitable for inclusion in the National system, and wild and 

scenic river interim protection discontinued, the river corridors would continue to be managed by 

the laws, regulations and policies that protect cultural resources. This alternative would not cause 

any changes to outstandingly remarkable heritage values.

Activities associated with alternative 2 would not cause any new effects to cultural resources 

located in the Blue River corridor. Since the protection of resources would continue to be 

managed by existing laws and regulations, no new effects are anticipated. Past, present and 

foreseeable actions in the APE include prescribed burning, permitting, wildfire suppression, road 

maintenance, road designation, fish barriers, trail restoration, water diversions, administrative use, 

land acquisition or exchanges, recreational use, private development and associated activities, and 

grazing. It is unknown if these activities have any effect on cultural resources, as resource surveys 

have not been conducted in the APE to date. The Federal regulations mentioned previously 

(NHPA, EO 11953) and forest plan objectives provide protection of ORVs.

There are no regulations protecting cultural resources on private lands. In alternative 2, existing 

or undiscovered cultural resources could be adversely affected by activities on private lands, as 

some sites are located on the boundaries of private and forest boundaries. Lack of evaluation or 

monitoring such sites could compromise their integrity and eventual evaluation for the NRHP. 

Conversely, all activities on Federal lands are considered Federal undertakings and require a 

heritage analysis to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

and forest plan standards and guidelines. The purpose of such an analysis is to monitor existing 

sites and condition, and record new sites. These sites should then be evaluated for NRHP 

eligibility. A heritage analysis would also provide the opportunity to identify past and present 

effects to cultural resources within the APE.

Alternative 3 – Some Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 3 recommends segments 2, 3, and the upper portion of 4 (4a) as suitable. Segments 1 

and 4b would be found unsuitable. There are 92 sites located in segment 1 and 1 site in segment 

4b. Even though unsuitable for inclusion in the National system and wild and scenic river interim 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 73

protection would be discontinued, segments 1 and 4b would continue to be managed by the laws, 

regulations and policies that protect cultural resources. This alternative would not cause any 

changes to outstandingly remarkable heritage values.

Past, present and foreseeable actions in the APE include prescribed burning, permitting, wildfire 

suppression, road maintenance, road designation, fish barriers, trail restoration, water diversions, 

administrative use, land acquisition or exchanges, recreational use, private development and 

associated activities and grazing.

There are no regulations protecting cultural resources on private lands. In alternative 3, existing 

or undiscovered cultural resources could be adversely affected by activities on private lands, as 

some sites are located on the boundaries of private and forest boundaries. Lack of evaluation or 

monitoring such sites could compromise their integrity and eventual evaluation for the NRHP. 

Conversely, all activities on Federal lands are considered Federal undertakings and require a 

heritage analysis to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

and forest plan standards and guidelines. The purpose of such an analysis is to monitor existing 

sites and condition, and record new sites. These sites should then be evaluated for NRHP 

eligibility. A heritage analysis would also provide the opportunity to identify past and present 

effects to cultural resources within the APE. This alternative could provide an additional layer of 

protection to cultural resources over time, in addition to other relevant laws and policies due to 

the potential restrictions to ground-disturbing activities in the designated river corridors.

Alternative 4 – All Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The effects of alternative 4 are the same as those described for suitable segments in alternative 3.

Summary of Effects

Since the sites within the APE are unevaluated for NRHP, it is difficult to determine the role that 

these sites should play within an ORV status. Many sites may be considered ineligible for the 

NRHP, while some likely are eligible. Likewise, the possibility of more sites being located in the 

project area is highly likely, as a survey of the previously unsurveyed areas has not been 

completed. The sheer density and variety of sites certainly indicates that this area was a hub of 

cultural activity and significant for that reason. 

Regardless of WSR designation or eligibility, other laws that manage archaeological sites provide 

protection to all sites in the corridor. Given these laws and that this project has no grounddisturbing activities, effects to the cultural resources are limited. However, increased traffic, 

recreationists, and continued use of the corridor could have an adverse effect. The comprehensive 

river management plan developed after designation should address monitoring and evaluation for 

historic and prehistoric resources within the corridor to assess short- and long-term effects and to 

ensure protection.

Vegetation Values

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There is little difference in the effects of the alternatives on vegetation ORVs. No actions on the 

ground are proposed, so the effects analysis is limited to the level and type of protection that 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

74 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

would occur for vegetation resources in the analysis area depending on whether the different 

segments are found to be suitable or unsuitable for designation as wild, scenic or recreational, or 

whether no finding of suitability occurs resulting in continued consideration as eligible. No 

ground-disturbing activities are proposed in any of the alternatives, so there would be no direct 

effects on vegetation diversity. There would be no cumulative effects on vegetation ORVs as a 

result of implementation of any of the alternatives. 

Forest Service Sensitive Species

The alternatives would have no impact on Goodding’s onion (Allium gooddingiiis). Habitat 

within the corridors could support populations, and protection is provide through forest plan and 

other authorities. Activities proposed within the corridors in the future would be analyzed for 

potential environmental effects to this species.

Alternative 1 – No Action (Defer Suitability Determination)

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on vegetation ORVs are expected with implementation 

of alternative 1. All segments would continue to be managed to maintain eligibility, so protection 

of vegetation ORVs would continue as specified in FSH 1909.12, Chapter 80, Section 82.5. Any 

management actions proposed in the area would be subject to site-specific NEPA analysis, as well 

as other relevant laws, regulations and policies. In addition, forest plan direction for eligible wild 

and scenic river corridors would apply.

Activities affecting vegetation would be guided by direction in the ASNFs’ forest plan and would 

be consistent with Agency policy to protect the outstandingly remarkable vegetation values of the 

Blue River. This interim policy states in part:

Wild rivers - Cutting of trees and other vegetation is not permitted except when 

needed in association with a primitive recreation experience such as to clear trails 

or to protect users or the environment, including wildfire suppression. Prescribed 

fire and wildland fire use may be used to restore or maintain habitat for 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive species and/or restore the historic range of 

variability.

Scenic or Recreational rivers - A range of vegetation management and timber 

harvest practices are allowed, provided that these practices are designed to 

protect, restore, or enhance the river environment, including the long-term scenic 

character.

Alternative 2 – No Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

No direct effects on vegetation ORVs are expected with implementation of alternative 2, but 

indirect effects could include changes in vegetation diversity because restrictions identified in 

FSH 1909.12 on the types of vegetation management allowed within areas suitable for 

designation as wild, scenic or recreational would no longer apply. As a result, vegetation diversity 

could be changed as a result of management actions implemented in areas that were once eligible 

for consideration under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 75

No cumulative effects are predicted. Although none of the segments would be protected under 

FSH 1909.12, they would continue to be subject to Forest Service requirements for management 

actions that could influence vegetation diversity. Any management actions proposed would be 

subject to site-specific NEPA analysis, as well as other relevant laws, regulations, policies, and 

plans.

Alternative 3 – Some Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from implementation of alternative 3 would be consistent 

with effects discussed in alternatives 2 (for unsuitable segments) and 4 (for suitable segments).

Where segments are recommended, no direct or indirect effects on vegetation ORVs are expected. 

No ground-disturbing activities are proposed, so no change in vegetation diversity would occur. 

Restrictions to vegetation management activities in FSH 1909.12 would apply if this alternative 

was implemented. These restrictions are based on classification of segments as wild, scenic, or 

recreational (FSH 1909.12).

Alternative 4 – All Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on vegetation ORVs are expected with implementation 

of alternative 4. No ground-disturbing activities are proposed in this alternative, so no change in 

vegetation diversity would occur. Restrictions to vegetation management activities in FSH 

1909.12 would apply if this alternative was implemented. These restrictions are based on 

classification of segments as wild, scenic, or recreational (FSH 1909.12).

Landownership and Land Uses

Alternative 1 – No Action (Defer Suitability Determination)

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Private landownership and uses in Blue River segment 1 would be unaffected by continued 

interim management of NFS lands as a potential wild and scenic river. The private lands would

continue to be regulated through Greenlee County zoning and as rural RU-36 (one dwelling unit 

per 36 acres). This low level of permissible rural development, current conditions and trends in 

Greenlee County, and present landowner stewardship as evident in collaborative planning efforts, 

is likely to protect river and riparian values into the foreseeable future.

NFS lands in Blue River and KP Creek would continue to be managed as a potential wild and 

scenic river, protecting, to the extent of existing Agency authority, the river’s free-flowing 

condition, water quality and ORVs. This alternative precludes construction of the proposed fish 

barrier in Blue River, segment 4.

Alternative 2 – No Segments Suitable and Recommended 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Private landownership and uses in Blue River segment 1 would be unaffected by continued 

management of NFS lands under the direction of the ASNFs forest plan. The private lands would
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

76 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

continue to be regulated through Greenlee County zoning and as rural RU-36 (one dwelling unit 

per 36 acres). This low level of permissible rural development, current conditions and trends in 

Greenlee County, and present landowner stewardship as evident in collaborative planning efforts, 

is likely to protect river and riparian values into the foreseeable future.

NFS lands in Blue River and KP Creek would be managed by the direction in the ASNFs’ forest 

plan. The requirement to protect as a potential wild and scenic river would be discontinued, 

increasing the likelihood of some limited development that might not protect the river’s freeflowing condition, water quality, or ORVs in the same manner as inclusion into the National 

system. This alternative allows construction of the proposed fish barrier in Blue River, segment 4 

(pending approval with appropriate environmental analysis).

Alternative 3 – Some Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Private landownership and uses in Blue River segment 1 would be unaffected by designation of 

Blue River segments 2, 3 and the majority of 4, and KP Creek. The private lands would continue 

to be regulated through Greenlee County zoning and as rural RU-36 (one dwelling unit per 36 

acres). This low level of permissible rural development, current conditions and trends in Greenlee 

County, and present landowner stewardship as evident in collaborative planning efforts, is likely 

to protect river and riparian values into the foreseeable future.

NFS lands in Blue River segments 2, 3 and the majority of 4, and KP Creek would be managed 

by the direction developed through the CRMP. This direction would protect the river’s freeflowing condition, water quality, and ORVs. The portion of Blue River segment 4 that contains 

the proposed fish barrier is not recommended for designation so this alternative allows for its 

construction (pending approval with appropriate environmental analysis).

Alternative 4 – All Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Private landownership and uses in Blue River segment 1 would be unaffected by designation of 

Blue River and KP Creek. The private lands would continue to be regulated through Greenlee 

County zoning and as rural RU-36 (one dwelling unit per 36 acres). This low level of permissible 

rural development, current conditions and trends in Greenlee County, and present landowner 

stewardship as evident in collaborative planning efforts, is likely to protect river and riparian 

values into the foreseeable future. Proposed water resources projects associated with these private 

lands would be subject to the additional review required by Section 7(a) of the act. Such projects 

that are judged to harm the river’s free-flowing condition, water quality, or ORVs would prevent 

continued Federal assistance or permitting. 

NFS lands in Blue River and KP Creek would be managed by the direction developed through the 

CRMP. This direction would protect the river’s free-flowing condition, water quality, and ORVs.

Development of the CRMP provides the opportunity to integrate local objectives and capitalize 

on the current collaborative planning. This alternative precludes construction of the proposed fish 

barrier in Blue River, segment 4.
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 77

Special Use Permits

Effects Common to All Alternatives

This section discusses authorization of uses of NFS land through a special use permit. Existing 

special use permits are unaffected by any alternative. The remainder of this section focuses on 

future application for such a permit, which requires an analysis and decision by the responsible 

official.

Alternative 1 – No Action (Defer Suitability Determination)

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Issuance of special use permits would be guided by direction in the ASNFs forest plan and 

consistent with Agency policy to protect the free-flowing condition, water quality, and ORVs of 

Blue River and KP Creek. This interim policy states in part:

Wild, scenic, and recreational rivers – New transmission lines such as gas 

lines, water lines, and so forth are discouraged. Where no reasonable alternative 

exists, additional or new facilities should be restricted to existing rights-of-way. 

Where new rights-of-way are indicated, the project shall be evaluated as to its 

effect on the river’s outstandingly remarkable values and classification. Any 

portion of a utility proposal that has the potential to affect the river’s free-flowing 

condition shall be evaluated as a water resources project.

Alternative 2 – No Segments Suitable and Recommended 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Issuance of special use permits would be guided by direction in the ASNFs’ forest plan and all 

current law, regulation, and policy guiding the authorization of special uses on NFS lands. 

Alternative 3 – Some Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Issuance of special use permits would be guided by direction in the ASNFs forest plan and all 

current law, regulation, and policy guiding the authorization of special uses on NFS lands. In 

addition, designation of Blue River segments 2, 3 and the majority of 4, and KP Creek would also 

require protection of their free-flowing condition, water quality, and ORVs. The act allows 

granting an easement or right-of-way within the boundary of a WSR, subject to conditions to 

protect these values (Section 13(g)).

Alternative 4 – All Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Issuance of special use permits would be guided by direction in the ASNFs forest plan and all 

current law, regulation, and policy guiding the authorization of special uses on NFS lands. In 

addition, designation of Blue River and KP Creek would also require protection of their freeflowing condition, water quality and ORVs. The act allows granting an easement or right-of-way 

within the boundary of a WSR, subject to conditions to protect these values (Section 13(g)).
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

78 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Access and Infrastructure

Alternative 1 – No Action (Defer Suitability Determination)

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Road and trail construction or reconstruction, area closures, or changes in vehicle types or 

seasons of use on NFS land would continue to be guided by direction in the ASNFs forest plan 

and consistent with Agency policy to protect the free-flowing condition, water quality, and ORVs 

of Blue River and KP Creek. This interim policy states in part:

Wild rivers - motorized travel on land or water may be permitted but is generally 

a non-compatible use. New roads are not generally compatible with this 

classification. A few existing roads leading to the boundary of the river corridor 

may be acceptable. New trail construction should generally be designed for 

nonmotorized uses. However, limited motorized uses that are compatible with 

identified values and unobtrusive trail bridges may be allowed. New airfields 

may not be developed.

Scenic rivers - motorized travel on land or water may be permitted, prohibited, 

or restricted to protect the river’s values. This would be determined through river 

management planning and through project-level environmental analysis. New 

roads are permitted to parallel the river for short segments or bridge the river if 

such construction fully protects river values (including the river’s free-flowing 

condition). Bridge crossings and river access are allowed. New trail construction 

or airfields must be compatible with and fully protect identified values.

Recreational rivers - Motorized travel on land or water may be permitted, 

prohibited, or restricted to protect the river’s values. This would be determined 

through river management planning and through project-level environmental 

analysis. New roads are permitted to parallel the river if such construction fully 

protects river values (including the river’s free-flowing condition). Bridge 

crossings and river access are allowed. New trail construction or airfields must be 

compatible with and fully protect identified values.

Alternative 2 – No Segments Suitable and Recommended 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Road and trail construction or reconstruction, area closures, or changes in vehicle types or 

seasons of use on NFS land would continue to be guided by direction in the ASNFs forest plan.

Alternative 3 – Some Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Road and trail construction or reconstruction, area closures, or changes in vehicle types or 

seasons of use on NFS land would continue be guided by direction in the ASNFs forest plan. In 

addition, designation of Blue River segments 2, 3 and the majority of 4, and KP Creek would also 

require protection of their free-flowing condition, water quality, and ORVs. Future proposals for 

access and infrastructure on NFS lands must also be consistent with classification. Blue River, 

segment 2 and the recommended portion of 4, and KP Creek are classified as wild and, therefore, 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 79

allow the most limited range of future access and infrastructure, consistent with their essentially 

primitive in-corridor development.

Alternative 4 – All Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Road and trail construction or reconstruction, area closures, or changes in vehicle types or 

seasons of use on NFS land would continue be guided by direction in the ASNFs forest plan. In 

addition, designation of Blue River and KP Creek would also require protection of their freeflowing condition, water quality, and ORVs. Future proposals for access and infrastructure on 

NFS lands must also be consistent with classification. Blue River, segments 2 and 4, and KP 

Creek are classified as wild and, therefore, allow the most limited range of future access and 

infrastructure, consistent with their essentially primitive in-corridor development.

Range

Effects Common to all Alternatives

Livestock grazing on private lands is unaffected by any alternative. 

Alternative 1 – No Action (Defer Suitability Determination)

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

There is currently no livestock grazing permitted on Federal lands in the Blue River or KP Creek 

corridors based on previous cooperative agreements with grazing permit holders and past 

environmental decisions. Continuing to provide interim management to protect as a potential wild 

and scenic river would not, therefore, affect this livestock grazing regime or the ability to protect 

the riparian habitat for threatened and endangered species.

Alternative 2 – No Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

There is currently no livestock grazing permitted on Federal lands in the Blue River or KP Creek 

corridors based on previous cooperative agreements with grazing permit holders and past 

environmental decisions. Discontinuing interim management to protect as a potential wild and 

scenic river would not, therefore, affect this livestock grazing regime or the ability to protect the 

riparian habitat for threatened and endangered species.

Alternative 3 – Some Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

There is currently no livestock grazing permitted on Federal lands in the Blue River or KP Creek 

corridors based on previous cooperative agreements with grazing permit holders and past 

environmental decisions. Discontinuing interim management on unsuitable segments would not 

affect this livestock grazing regime or the ability to protect the riparian habitat for threatened and 

endangered species.

Designation (of suitable segments) does not preclude livestock grazing on Federal lands so long 

as such activity is conducted in a manner that protects river values. The current grazing regime, 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

80 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

designed to protect riparian habitat for threatened and endangered species, is entirely consistent 

with wild and scenic river designation.

Alternative 4 – All Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Designation does not preclude livestock grazing on Federal lands so long as such activity is 

conducted in a manner that protects river values. The current grazing regime, designed to protect 

riparian habitat for threatened and endangered species, is entirely consistent with wild and scenic 

river designation.

Protection of river values would occur through cooperation with landowners and local 

government in the development of the comprehensive river management planning processes to 

determine the most effective ways to protect river values.

Minerals

No ground-disturbing actions are proposed under any alternative, so the effects analysis is limited

to the level and type of mineral activity allowed in the analysis area depending on whether 

different segments are found to be suitable or unsuitable for designation under the act. forest plan 

Standards and guidelines that specifically apply to mineral activity include the following:

No streambed alteration or removal of material is allowed if it significantly 

affects riparian-dependent resources, channel morphology, or streambank 

stability (page 90).

In sensitive resource areas, protect the resource by vigorous investigation of 

mineral rights. This includes titles searches, BLM record searches, and zone 

geologist involvement (page 90).

There would be no cumulative effects from minerals activities as a result of implementation of 

any of the alternatives.

The U.S. Department of Interior BLM’s Reporting Application Pub MC Geo Index (LR2000 

Public Reports) was searched for the identified townships, sections, and ranges. Active and closed 

mining claims were identified through this official USDI BLM database. A summary of the 

common/salable mineral contracts or over-the-counter sales for Fiscal Year 2009 on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs was also obtained.

The townships, ranges, and sections queried included areas inside and outside of the 1⁄4 mile 

boundary but within the Blue River watershed, which also includes KP Creek. The result for 

locatable mineral claims was that there are no active mining claims in the queried area, all 

previously filed claims have been closed (table 27).
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 81

Table 27. Locations queried and number of claims identified with the status

Township and 

Range Section Number of Claims

First Date of Mineral

Lode Claim Location

Date of Mineral Lode 

Claim Closure

T1N/R30E 25 17 1977 1981

T2S/R30E 25 10 1970 1987

T2N/R30E 01 2 1983 1985

T1S/R31E 05 ** 240 1974 1990 or 1991

T1S/R31E 06 24 1974 1990 or 1991

T1S/R31E 08 ** 400 1974 1990 or 1991

T1S/R31E 17 ** 320 1974 1990 or 1991

T1S/R31E 19 ** 32 1974 1990

T1S/R31E 20 ** 160 1974 1990

** Denotes sections that include the mainstem Blue River. No claims were located on or near KP Creek. 

In the Blue Range Primitive Area prospecting, locating, and developing mineral resources may 

occur (36 CFR 293.17(a)). Those activities are to be managed to minimize the effect on the areas 

(sic) wilderness character. Closed claims were located within the Blue Range Primitive Area 

(sections 5, 6, and a small portion of 8 in T1S/R31E). Some of the closed claims may have been 

located in the eligible wild and scenic corridor classified “wild” in the 2009 eligibility report 

(appendix B).

Any of the closed claims located in a large portion of section 8, plus all of sections 17, 19, and 20 

are within an IRA. Some of those claims may also have been located in the eligible wild and 

scenic corridor classified “wild” in the 2009 eligibility report (appendix B). No closed or active 

claims identified in the BLM database were located in the sections of land that include the 

eligible corridor of segment 3, which is classified as “scenic,” or in segment 4, which is classified 

as “wild.”

Table 28. Classified river segments with other significant land designations and level of 

locatable mineral activity.

Eligible 

Segment Miles Classification

Other 

Designation 

(acres)

Level of Past or 

Present Locatable 

Mineral Development

Salable

Mineral 

Activity

Blue River 

Segment 1

25.1 miles Recreational MA1-570

MA2-1952 

MA3-764

MA8-3891

No claims located in 

segment 1

None

Blue River 

Segment 2

16.0 miles Wild MA8-3922 

MA18-1033

Over 1,000 closed claims in 

the sections which the river 

flows through, but not all 

claims were in the eligible 

corridor.

None
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

82 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Eligible 

Segment Miles Classification

Other 

Designation 

(acres)

Level of Past or 

Present Locatable 

Mineral Development

Salable

Mineral 

Activity

Blue River 

Segment 3

4.2 miles Scenic MA2-69 

MA18-1203

No claims in this corridor None

Blue River 

Segment 4

8.1 miles Wild MA2-1179 

MA3-1024 

MA18-135

No claims in this corridor None

KP Creek 11.3 miles Wild MA1-1092 

MA4-113 

MA8-2378

No claims in this corridor None

Alternative 1 – No Action (Defer Suitability Determination)

Under alternative 1, suitability findings would be deferred and current management would

continue. All segments of Blue River and KP Creek would continue to be managed for inclusion 

into the National system and eligibility is maintained. The goal of this alternative is to continue 

current management of the ORVs under existing authorities. Rivers being studied under Section 

5(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act are not withdrawn from the mining or mineral leasing 

laws.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Under the no action alternative, mineral development could occur, although at this time there are 

no active claims for locatable minerals or permits for removal of salable mineral materials (except 

localized use of gravel outside of the active channel for road maintenance). There is no mineral 

leasing activity in upper or lower Blue River 5th field hydrologic units (watersheds). Lands 

would continue to be available for mineral development and mining claims, subject to existing 

forest plan standards and guidelines, including in the Blue Range Primitive Area. No active or 

closed claims are located on National Forest System lands near KP Creek. 

Alternative 2 – No Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Under this alternative a determination would be made that all segments are not suitable and they 

would be released from wild and scenic river interim protection. Protection of river values would

continue to be managed by the standards provided in the forest plan. The current forest plan was 

signed in 1987 and amended 14 times, with the last amendment in 2009. There are no existing 

active locatable mineral claims, and there is no mineral leasing activity on National Forest 

System lands, however, future development of mining claims and mineral leases could occur. 

Choosing this alternative would not initiate any changes to mineral development.
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 83

Alternative 3 – Some Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Under this alternative those segments and portion of segments recommended as suitable for wild 

and scenic designation would continue to receive interim protection, as protective management 

for eligible river areas determined suitable are subject to existing laws and Agency guidance until 

Congress acts. Lands would be available for mineral development and mining claims and leases 

would continue to be handled under current policy and regulations.

If segments are congressionally designated, a comprehensive river management plan (CRMP) 

would be developed within 3 years and the 34.6 miles of segment classified as “wild” would be 

withdrawn, effectively preventing future mineral resource development subject to valid existing 

rights (of which none are documented by USDI BLM) on NFS lands. Valid existing rights would

have to be proved prior to approval of any mining plan that would conflict with the purposes of 

the withdrawal. Any mining claim with valid existing rights that might eventually be perfected 

would result in patent only to the mineral deposit along with such rights to the use of the surface 

and surface resources as are reasonably required for mining. Holders of valid mineral leases (of 

which none are documented or known for the project area) retain the rights granted by the terms 

and conditions of the specific leases. Mineral leases are subject to regulations issued by the 

Secretary of the Interior to protect water quality and scenic values (43 CFR 3809).

If designated, on miles classified as “scenic” (4.2 miles), mineral development would be managed 

according to the language in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. New mining claims can be located 

and new mineral leases can be issued but both are subject to reasonable access and regulations 

that minimize effects to surface resources. The 25.1 miles of “recreational” segment 1 and the 

0.76 mile of “wild” segment 4 determined not suitable for wild and scenic designation would be 

released from wild and scenic river interim protection and effects on mining as discussed in 

alternative 2 would apply.

Alternative 4 – All Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

All four segments plus KP Creek (64.7 miles) recommended for wild and scenic designation 

would continue to receive interim protection, the effects of which are explained in alternative 1 

analysis. Lands would continue to be available for mineral development, including the Blue 

Range Primitive Area, and mining claims and leases (none of which currently exist) on National 

Forest System lands would be handled under current policy and regulations. Rivers being studied 

under Section 5(d)(1) of the act are not withdrawn from the mining or mineral leasing laws. 

Protective management requirements for eligible river areas determined suitable are subject to 

existing laws and Agency guidance until Congress acts. If the segments are congressionally 

designated, a comprehensive river management plan would be developed within 3 years of 

designation and 35.4 miles of segments with “wild” classifications would be withdrawn. 

Segments would be managed to protect their ORVs possibly limiting operations of any existing 

mineral claims, subject to valid existing rights.

Affects of withdrawal on mineral development is the same as described in alternative 3, with the 

addition of 0.76 mile of “wild” segment 4, if this segment of the Blue River was designated.
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

84 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Fire Management

Alternative 1 – No Action (Defer Suitability Determination)

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Fire management activities would be guided by direction in the ASNFs forest plan and would be 

consistent with Agency policy to protect the free-flowing condition, water quality and ORVs of 

Blue River and KP Creek. This interim policy states in part:

Wild rivers - prescribed fire and fire for resource benefits may be used to restore 

or maintain habitat for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species and/or restore 

the historic range of variability.

Scenic or recreational rivers - fire management activities may be authorized to 

protect or enhance river values.

Alternative 2 – No Segments Suitable and Recommended 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Fire management activities would be guided by direction in the ASNFs forest plan. Prescribed 

fire and thinning may continue to be used to restore ecosystems.

Alternative 3 – Some Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Fire management activities would be guided by direction in the ASNFs forest plan. In addition, 

designation of Blue River and KP Creek would also require protection of their free-flowing 

condition, water quality, and ORVs. Future proposals for prescribed fire and thinning on NFS 

lands must also be consistent with classification. Blue River, segment 2 and the recommended 

portion of 4, and KP Creek are classified as wild and, therefore, allow the most limited range of 

future access and infrastructure, consistent with their essentially primitive in-corridor 

development.

Alternative 4 – All Segments Suitable and Recommended

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Fire management activities would be guided by direction in the ASNFs forest plan. In addition, 

designation of Blue River and KP Creek would also require protection of their free-flowing 

condition, water quality, and ORVs. Future proposals for prescribed fire and thinning on NFS 

lands must also be consistent with classification. Blue River, segments 2 and 4, and KP Creek are 

classified as wild and, therefore, allow the most limited range of future access, consistent with 

their essentially primitive in-corridor development.

Social and Economic Conditions

Methodology and Assumptions

Economic effects are presented as a general and qualitative discussion of the following issues 

associated with the concerns identified during scoping (see chapter 1):
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 85

1. Potential economic impacts (e.g., impacts to jobs and income) to the Blue community 

and surrounding area as a result of potential changes in resource access, outputs, and/or 

services, including grazing/livestock operations, timber harvest, water use, and 

recreational guides/outfitters/facility opportunities.

Consideration and Assumptions: For background and assumptions about resource 

outputs and services associated with Federal and private lands within the river 

corridors, see other resource specific sections in this chapter.

2. Potential indirect effects to property values as a result of changes in rights to use or 

access adjacent public lands and resources, as well as changes in natural amenities and 

conditions.

Considerations and Assumptions: Existing water rights and diversions are not 

expected to be affected as a direct result of any of the alternatives. Under the act, 

designation neither gives nor implies government control of private lands within 

the river corridor. Development of the CRMP provides the opportunity to 

integrate local objectives and capitalize on the current collaborative planning.

Purchases, exchanges, or acquisition of easements on private land are not currently 

projected under any of the alternatives. None of the alternatives preclude such 

consideration from willing sellers.

Existing private land uses are protected through local zoning, and property values are 

unlikely to be affected by designation. Protection of ORVs on Federal lands, including 

attributes such as scenery associated with primitive settings and wilderness, may 

contribute to the value of year-round or second-home property within or in the vicinity of 

the designated river corridor in segment 1. There are very few studies which have 

examined the effects of designation on land values. 

3. Potential for other social effects (e.g., potential losses in revenue sharing payments to 

state and counties (Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT), Secure Rural Schools and 

Community Self-Determination Act (SRSA) funding), transportation/access, safety (fire), 

and visitor effects (e.g., trespass)).

Considerations and Assumptions: According to urban interface treatment needs described 

in the “Greenlee County Community Wildfire Protection Plan” (Greenlee County, 2005), 

prescribed burning and limited thinning treatments are planned within segment 1 

associated with private land along the canyon bottom. The “recreational” classification of 

segment 1 would not preclude activities within the river corridor necessary to implement 

fuels reduction treatments consistent with the Greenlee County CWPP. The CWPP also 

acknowledges the presence of Blue Range Primitive Area in other segments and that 

treatment options are limited in these areas.

Payments to the State and counties (i.e., PILT and SRSA payments) are not expected to 

be affected by designations.

Relative to questions about the effect of designation on the number of recreational 

visitors to the Blue River and KP Creek corridors, Keith et al. (2008) found no conclusive 

evidence to support a consistent link between designation and recreational participation 

rates. This conclusion was due, in part, to the fact that there are no good before-and-after 

examinations of designation effects. It should also be noted that changes in visitation 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

86 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

rates would be constrained if ORVs are threatened from visitor overuse for a designated 

segment; the CRMP may adopt necessary constraints through permit programs or other 

mechanisms.

Benefits associated with most river values (free-flowing condition, water quality and ORVs can 

be characterized as being non-market or non-use benefits (e.g., wildlife habitat, geologic features, 

bequest values, existence values) which are difficult to monetize or quantify beyond the 

indicators already summarized in other specialist reports prepared for this suitability analysis.

The potential costs of developing the CRMP and administering designations are also projected for 

each alternative. There are three cost categories associated with designation: (1) administration 

and operation (annual river related costs), (2) river planning (i.e., CRMP development), and (3) 

land acquisition (see appendix G for details). Purchases, exchanges, or acquisitions of easements 

on private land are not currently projected under any of the alternatives. Consequently, costs to 

the Forest Service are currently assumed to be zero for land acquisitions.

No cumulative effects specific to economic or social conditions are identified for any alternatives; 

cumulative effects associated with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions are indirectly 

addressed through incorporation of assumptions about resource-specific effects from other 

specialist analyses and assessments.

Alternative 1 – No Action (Defer Suitability Determination)

Potential for Economic Impacts: Livestock grazing is not currently permitted on Federal lands 

within the Blue River or KP Creek corridors based on previous cooperative agreements with 

grazing permit holders and past environmental decisions. Livestock grazing on private land in 

Blue River, segment 1, is unaffected. Continuation of interim management to protect Federal 

lands as a potential wild and scenic river is unlikely to affect timber or minerals management, or 

recreation opportunities and corresponding jobs in the local community associated with guiding, 

outfitting, and/or campgrounds. There are no water supply or flood control projects anticipated on 

Federal lands of any segment. Small-scale water resources projects likely to be constructed on 

private lands are unaffected. Road improvements on private lands are unaffected.

Potential for Property Value Impacts: No direct or indirect effects to private land use or 

ownership are projected for any of the alternatives. In the future, private lands are likely to remain 

at a low level of development, based on current conditions and trends. Existing water rights are 

unaffected. Forest Service policy is to protect the river’s free-flowing condition, water quality and 

ORVs on Federal lands to maintain their eligibility also protecting natural amenities that 

contribute to quality of life and recreation for seasonal and year-round residents.

Potential for Other Social Effects: PILT and SRSA payments to Greenlee County are not 

affected. No change in the number of visitors is anticipated. Road development and access 

necessary on Federal lands within the corridor to implement fuels reduction treatments is 

consistent with the “Greenlee County Community Wildfire Protection Plan,” thus insuring 

opportunities to protect the local community against the risk of wildfire is not precluded.

Overall Direct/Indirect Effects: NEGLIGIBLE. The potential for economic impacts associated 

with changes in jobs and income related to the use of goods and services derived from NFS land 

(as well as private lands) are expected to be negligible. No significant changes in land and water 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 87

use opportunities or local/natural amenities (including scenery, recreational opportunities, 

transportation, and safety) are projected, implying negligible impacts to property values. Social 

effects derived from conditions related to safety, access, transportation, payments to the county, 

and visitor numbers are not expected to change.

Costs: CRMP cost = $0 Administration cost = $0

Future costs are possible if designation occurs. Acquisitions of private land and/or land exchanges 

with willing sellers would continue to be an option for the Forest Service as a means of protecting 

resource values, depending on funding and interest expressed by willing private landowners.

Alternative 2 – No Segments Suitable and Recommended

Potential for Economic Impacts: Changes in the flow of goods and services that contribute to 

jobs and income are expected to be similar to alternative 1. There is greater flexibility to propose 

or support water resources projects and some other projects such as road construction or 

improvements on Federal lands. However, such projects are constrained by underlying 

management area direction, including the Blue Range Primitive Area and the presence of 

inventoried roadless areas. It is unlikely that future activities on Federal lands might degrade 

recreational opportunities, and, therefore, affect any jobs reliant on these opportunities.

Potential for Property Value Impacts: No direct or indirect effects to private land use or 

ownership are projected for any of the alternatives. In the future, private lands are likely to remain 

at a low level of development, based on current conditions and trends. Existing water rights are 

unaffected. River related values would continue to receive protection on Federal lands as dictated 

by existing authorities, recognizing those authorities (e.g., forest plan) can change over time. 

Potential for Other Social Effects: Conditions related to safety, access, transportation, payments 

to the county, and visitor numbers are expected to be similar to alternative 1.

Overall Direct/Indirect Effects: NEGLIGIBLE. There is little evidence to suggest that changes 

in goods and services associated with the use of NFS land (as well as private lands) would be 

significant or have an impact on jobs and income. No significant changes in land and water use 

opportunities or local/natural amenities (including scenery, recreational opportunities, 

transportation, and safety) are projected, implying negligible impacts to property values. Social 

effects derived from conditions related to safety, access, transportation, payments to the county, 

and visitor numbers are not expected to change.

Costs: CRMP cost = Not applicable Administration cost = Not applicable

Even without designations, private land and/or land exchanges/acquisitions with willing sellers 

would continue to be an option for the Forest Service as a means of protecting resource values, 

depending on funding and willing interest expressed by private landowners.

Alternative 3 – Some Segments Suitable and Recommended

Potential for Economic Impacts: Changes in the flow of goods and services that contribute to 

jobs and income are expected to be similar to alternative 1. Designation of Blue River suitable 

segments (2, 3 and the majority of 4) and KP Creek is unlikely to affect timber management or 

recreation opportunities and corresponding jobs in the local community associated with guiding, 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

88 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

outfitting, and/or campgrounds. While there are no water supply or flood control projects 

anticipated on these segments, Section 7(a) of the act would provide for protection from the 

harmful effects of water resources projects. 

Designation of Blue River segment 2 and the portion of segment 4 and KP Creek classified as 

wild, withdraws a one-quarter mile corridor on either side of the river from locatable or leasable 

mineral entry. However, neither corridor is valuable for mineral resources based on limited past 

activity and no existing claims or leases. 

Future development in Blue River segments 2, 3 and the majority of 4 and KP Creek is 

anticipated to be minor. Designation would provide assurances about long-term protection of 

river values, including the existing recreational opportunities within these segments. 

Exclusion of the lower 0.76 mile of Blue River segment 4 (out of a total of 8.1 miles for segment 

4) is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on the canoeing/kayaking opportunities but 

is expected to help enhance native fish populations in the Blue River as well as corresponding 

recreational benefits. The recreational opportunity spectrum (ROS) for the upper portion of 

segment 1 is currently “roaded natural,” and significant change in this condition is not expected 

as a result of activities allowed in the absence of designation.

Potential for Property Value Impacts: Effects are expected to be similar to alternative 2, with 

the exception that greater long-term protection of river values in segments 2 and 3, the upper 

portion of segment 4, and KP Creek, combined with potential restoration of native fisheries helps 

protect natural amenities that contributes to quality of life and recreation for seasonal and yearround residents in the local area. Proposed water resources projects associated with private lands 

in Blue River segment 1 would continue to be guided by other existing Federal, State or local 

authorities, without the additional review required by Section 7(a) of the act. 

Potential for Other Social Effects: There is no conclusive evidence to support a consistent link 

between designation and recreational participation rates. Adverse community effects from visitors 

are expected to be negligible for the Blue/KP given remoteness, non-navigability of most segment 

miles, and the fact that visitation rates would be constrained if river values are threatened by 

excessive numbers of visitors (i.e., CRMPs can adopt permit programs and other mechanisms to 

control visitation).

Overall Direct/Indirect Effects: MINIMAL (uncertain potential for slight positive effects). 

Long-term protection of river values, combined with potential enhancements of native fish 

populations may contribute to recreational opportunities and corresponding jobs, which—given 

little evidence indicating adverse impacts to other job/resource sectors—may suggest a slight 

positive economic impact, though the magnitude of the impact would be difficult to measure. The 

potential for positive property value effects resulting from long-term protection of ORVs/fish 

populations and corresponding natural amenities and recreation is uncertain. Conditions related to 

safety, access, transportation, and payments to the county are expected to be similar to alternative 

1. The effects of potential increases in visitors are expected to be minimal.

Costs: CRMP = $175,000 spread over 3 years Administration = $35,000 per year

No costs are attributed to acquisitions; however, depending on funding and willing interest 

expressed by private landowners, acquisitions of private land and/or land exchanges with willing 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 89

sellers would continue to be an option for the Forest Service as a means of protecting resource 

values.

Alternative 4 – All Segments Suitable and Recommended

Potential for Economic Impacts: Potential changes in the flow of goods and services, and 

corresponding impacts to jobs and income are expected to be minimal, similar to alternative 3. 

Designation of Blue River and KP Creek is unlikely to affect timber management or recreation 

opportunities and corresponding jobs in the local community associated with guiding, outfitting, 

and/or campgrounds. While there are no water supply or flood control projects anticipated on 

these segments, Section 7(a) of the act would provide for protection from the harmful effects of 

water resources projects. 

Designation of Blue River segment 2 and the portion of segment 4 and KP Creek classified as 

wild, withdraws a one-quarter mile corridor on either side of the river from locatable or leasable 

mineral entry. However, neither corridor is valuable for mineral resources based on limited past 

activity and no existing claims or leases. 

Future development on Federal lands in the Blue River and KP Creek corridors is anticipated to 

be minor. Designation would provide assurances about long-term protection of river values, 

including the existing recreational opportunities within these segments. 

The potential economic opportunities afforded by improvements to native fish populations in 

alternative 3 would not occur in alternative 4.

Potential for Property Value Impacts: Effects are expected to be similar to alternative 3, with 

the exception that greater long-term protection of river values, combined with potential 

restoration of native fisheries helps protect natural amenities that contributes to quality of life and 

recreation for seasonal and year-round residents in the local area. Proposed water resources 

projects associated with private lands in Blue River, segment 1, would be subject to the additional 

review required by Section 7(a) of the act. Such projects that are judged to harm the river’s freeflowing condition, water quality, or ORVs would prevent continued Federal assistance or 

permitting.

Development of the CRMP provides the opportunity to integrate local objectives and capitalize 

on the current collaborative planning. Should proposed uses or development on private land be a 

potential threat to river values, negotiated efforts would be pursued to ease the threat through 

local zoning, state provisions, or other measures (purchasing a partial right (easement) or property 

in fee title are last resorts). Scenic easement condemnation is rarely used; there are no known or 

foreseeable proposals which would necessitate acquiring easements through condemnation (the 

agency has not purchased a scenic easement in the State of Arizona). Existing water rights 

(almost all of which are located within segment 1) are unaffected. Long-term protection of river 

values in all segments may be perceived as an improvement in natural amenities that contributes 

to quality of life and recreation for seasonal and year-round residents in the local area.

Potential for Other Social Effects: Designations of all segments has the potential to attract 

additional visitors, however, any potential increases in visitors are not expected to have an 

adverse effect on social/community conditions for the reasons outlined above for alternative 3. 

Payments or revenue sharing through Secure Rural Schools and PILT are not expected to change 

with the designations. The recreational classification of segment 1 does not preclude road 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

90 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

development and access on Federal lands necessary to implement fuels reduction treatments 

consistent with the Greenlee County CWPP, thus insuring opportunities to protect the local 

community against the risk of wildfire.

Overall Direct/Indirect Effects: MINIMAL (uncertain potential for slight positive effects). 

Long-term protection of existing ORVs may contribute to recreational opportunities and 

corresponding jobs which, given little evidence indicating adverse impacts to other job/resource 

sectors, may suggest a slight positive economic impact, though the magnitude of the impact 

would be difficult to measure. No significant changes in land and water use opportunities 

associated with private property are expected. The offsetting effects of (1) potential perceptions 

about land use and development constraints (in segment 1) and (2) long-term protection of ORVs 

on property values is uncertain, but overall effects are expected to be minimal. Payments to the 

county are expected to remain unchanged. The effects of potential increases in visitors are 

expected to be minimal, and the “recreation” designation in segment 1 is compatible with the 

county’s community wildfire protection plan.

Costs: CRMP = $250,000 spread over 3 years Administration = $50,000 per year

No costs are attributed to acquisitions; however, depending on funding and willing interest 

expressed by private landowners, acquisitions of private land and/or land exchanges with willing 

sellers would continue to be an option for the Forest Service as a means of protecting resource 

values.

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994) directs Federal agencies to focus attention on the 

human health and environmental conditions in minority communities and low-income 

communities. The purpose of the executive order is to identify and address, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 

populations and low-income populations. 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) provides the following definitions in order to 

provide guidance with the compliance of Environmental Justice requirements:

“Minority population: Minority populations should be identified where either: 

(a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the 

minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than 

the minority population percentage in the general population or other 

appropriate unit of geographic analysis...”

“Low-income population: Low-income populations in an affected area should be 

identified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the 

Census.”

“Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty: In 

identifying low-income populations, agencies may consider as a community 

either a group of individuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or a 

set of individuals (such as migrant workers or Native Americans), where either 

type of group experiences common conditions of environmental exposure or 

effect.”
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 91

Based on results in the “Population, Housing, and Demographics” section, there is no evidence to 

suggest that the proposed action would have a disproportionate adverse effect on low-income 

populations, nor that minority populations for the local area would meet the Environmental 

Justice criterion for a minority population. Minority or low-income populations are, therefore, not 

expected to experience disproportionate adverse effects as a result of the designations being 

evaluated.

Civil Rights Impact Analysis

The Civil Rights Policy for the USDA, Departmental Regulation 4300-4 dated May 30, 2003, 

states that the following are among the civil rights strategic goals: (1) managers, supervisors, and 

other employees are held accountable for ensuring that USDA customers are treated fairly and 

equitably, with dignity and respect; and (2) equal access is assured and equal treatment is 

provided in the delivery of USDA programs and services for all customers. This is the standard 

for service to all customers regardless of race, sex, national origin, age, or disabilities.

The wild and scenic river designation and designation suitability process does not discriminate 

against minorities, women, or persons with disabilities because designations and corresponding 

management applies equally to all groups. Designations and requirements do not prohibit or 

inhibit use on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability or marital or 

familial status.

Suitability Assessment

Suitability Factor 1

Characteristics that do or do not make the area a worthy addition to the National system. 

Historic and Prehistoric Values: From a cultural resource viewpoint, these waterways have 

characteristics that make them a worthy addition to the National System. The density and variety 

of sites present indicate a unique and significant archaeological value in this area. The best 

method for protecting these ORVs isn’t necessarily a WSR designation, but a plan to survey areas 

that may contain archaeological sites, evaluate unevaluated sites, monitor for past, present and 

future effects, and develop a management plan, in keeping with the forest plan. Forest Service 

Policy (FSM 2361.3) requires that projects with the potential to affect cultural resources, 

including lands which would leave Federal agency control through sale or exchange, be surveyed 

for cultural resources in order to comply with 36 CFR 800 – Protection of Historic Properties, 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. These 

requirements provide significant protection of cultural resources independent of inclusion in the 

National system. 

Fisheries Values: The fish populations and habitats of segments 1 through 4 of the Blue River 

and the KP Creek segment do have characteristics that would make all of these segments worthy 

additions to the National system. Segments 1 through 4 of the Blue River contain populations of 

loach minnow, a threatened fish under ESA. All four of these segments also contain loach 

minnow critical habitat. These segments also contain an assemblage of native desert fish that are 

Forest Service sensitive species. Recovering habitat, suitable for the reintroduction of native fish 

such as spikedace and razorback sucker, is present within the Blue River. KP Creek provides 

coldwater habitat for the potential reintroduction of Gila trout and currently contains the listed 

Apache trout, though this population is outside of its historic range. 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

92 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

These ORVs currently have protection from ESA, direction in the forest plan, including 

regulations for the Blue Range Primitive Area, AZGFD, and conservation measures from the CAP 

biological opinion.

Designation of some or all of the segments as a WSR would add a layer of protection and 

conservation for the fisheries resource. Alternative 4 would prohibit construction of the currently 

proposed channel-spanning fish barrier between the Blue River and San Francisco River. This 

barrier would prevent the movement of nonnative fish from the San Francisco River into the Blue 

River and is important to future fisheries restoration projects in the Blue River. Excepting 

preventing construction of this barrier—in alternatives that recommend segment 4 of Blue 

River—designation should complement habitat restoration and reintroduction. It would also 

protect aquatic resources from the harmful effects of future water resources projects and provide 

additional protection from road building and timber harvest outside the Blue Range Primitive 

Area.

Water Management: The Blue River and KP Creek have characteristics that make them a 

worthy addition to the National system. Blue River is a mixture of forest and agriculture land 

along segment 1; most of segment 2 flows through the Blue Range Primitive Area; and most of 

segments 3 and 4 are also fairly isolated. Segment 1 has active water withdrawal and associated 

water rights. Due to a lack of water in the area, it is anticipated that there would be continued 

pressure on withdrawal of surface water from the Blue River. Past actions from the early 1900s 

have caused degradation to the Blue River from which the lower part of the Blue has not yet 

recovered. Additional water withdrawals would further slow recovery efforts.

In the short term, Blue River is protected by the Clean Water Act, direction in the forest plan, 

ESA fish and recovery plans, and other authorities as listed in appendix D. WSR designation may 

protect areas outside the primitive area from additional road building and quarries within the river 

corridors. Protection under the act would give Blue River an added layer of protection over 

present management rules, especially for the long term, when management direction could 

change. Section 13(c) of the act expressly reserves the quantity of water necessary to protect river 

values. This Federal reserved water right is generally adjudicated in a state forum (e.g., state court 

or basin-wide adjudication). The designation does not supersede existing, valid water rights and 

establishes a priority date coincident with the river’s date of designation into the National system.

KP Creek is an important recreational area and coldwater fishery with outstanding water quality 

that should have the added layer of protection afforded designated wild and scenic rivers.

Wildlife Values: The Blue River and KP Creek corridors are important to a diversity of wildlife 

resources including sensitive, threatened, and endangered wildlife species. In particular, these 

corridors play an important role for possible recovery of the threatened Mexican spotted owl due 

to the adjacency of critical habitat. These corridors provide valuable travel way habitat for the 

endangered Mexican gray wolf and jaguar, as well as nesting and foraging habitat for the 

endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher. In addition, there are several management indicator 

species that rely on the functionality of the river corridor system.
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 93

Suitability Factor 2

The current status of landownership and use in the area.

As detailed above in the “Landownership and Land Uses” section, all of the study segments are 

entirely Federal lands except Blue River segment 1, which encompasses 1,367 acres of private 

lands, or 17 percent of the segment acres. Uses on private lands within the corridor include 

agriculture, livestock grazing, homes, and a school. The Federal lands are managed by the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests’ plan, with uses and activities within the corridors consistent 

with management area direction. 

Suitability Factor 3

The reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and water that would be enhanced, 

foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the National system.

Enhanced: Designation would protect and enhance the river’s free-flowing condition, water 

quality, and ORVs, including the generally primitive recreation experiences.

Foreclosed or Curtailed: Any federally assisted water resources project judged by the river 

administering agency to have an adverse effect to river values would be prohibited. This would

include water supply dams, diversions, and the fish barrier construction proposed in Blue River 

segment 4. 

Section 13(c) of the act expressly reserves the quantity of water necessary to protect river values. 

The designation does not supersede existing, valid water rights and establishes a priority date 

coincident with the river’s date of designation into the National system. The quantity of water 

needed to protect river values might limit future water withdrawal.

Private Lands: Designation would have no direct effect on current or future uses on private 

lands. 

Suitability Factor 4

The Federal agency that would administer the area should it be added to the National 

system.

The USDA Forest Service, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, would administer the area upon 

designation.

Suitability Factor 5

The extent to which the Agency proposes that administration of the river, including the costs 

thereof, be shared by State and local agencies.

The Forest Service is not proposing shared administration and costs with State and local agencies. 

However, collaborative efforts among agencies and citizens currently in place to protect and 

enhance river values would continue and be incorporated in the comprehensive river management 

plan developed after designation. Future proposed actions intended to implement the river 

management plan could be developed and funded cooperatively with State and local agencies.
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

94 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

The estimated administrative and planning costs to the agency are noted in the “Social and 

Economic Conditions” section, “Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects.” 

Suitability Factor 6

The estimated cost to the United States of acquiring necessary lands and interests in land 

and of administering the area should it be added to the National system.

There are no plans or intent to acquire lands or interests in land within the study corridors at this 

time.

Suitability Factors 7, 8, and 9

A determination of the degree to which the State or its political subdivisions might 

participate in the preservation and administration of the river should it be proposed for 

inclusion in the National system.

An evaluation of the adequacy of local zoning and other land use controls in protecting the 

river’s outstandingly remarkable values by preventing incompatible development. 

The State/local government’s ability to manage and protect the outstandingly remarkable 

values on non-Federal lands. This factor requires an evaluation of the river protection 

mechanisms available through the authority of State and local governments. Such 

mechanisms may include, for example, statewide programs related to population growth 

management, vegetation management, water quantity or quality, or protection of river 

related values such as open space and historic areas.

The Greenlee County Planning Department and the State of Arizona are the regulatory authorities 

for all land use and development activities which occur on private property within the 

unincorporated areas of the county. Landowners must acquire permits to construct developments 

on their land (Greenlee County, 2007a). Designation confers no regulatory control. Development 

on private lands in segment 1 would need to be consistent with the rural (RU) zoning ordinances 

(Greenlee County, 2007a). Private land uses such as limited livestock grazing, irrigation, and 

operation of a small school may continue and are unaffected by designation. The 2007 

“Floodplain Management Ordinance for Greenlee County” contains restrictions that help protect 

ORVs, free-flowing condition, and prevent incompatible development within the flood plain, such 

as restricting (within the flood plain) construction activities, dredging, filling, water diversion or 

flood control structures, or any alterations of the stream channel or flood plain (Greenlee County, 

2007b). The “Greenlee County Comprehensive Management Plan” (Greenlee County, 2003, with 

2005 updates) requires maintaining the 1-acre parcel minimum size limit for lands on septic and 

well systems. It also requires coordination with other agencies to protect natural resource values. 

It can be assumed by the vision and requirements in the comprehensive plan that the county 

would cooperate with the Forest Service as needed to protect river values and the recreational 

classification.

The “Greenlee County Comprehensive Management Plan” includes a permitting process for 

developments on private land, and indicates the county’s willingness to participate with adjacent 

land managers in protecting natural resource values. 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 95

The Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), a division of Arizona State Parks, assists 

private citizens, private institutions, local governments, tribes, and State and Federal agencies in 

the identification, evaluation, protection, and enhancement of historic and archaeological 

properties that have significance for local communities, the State of Arizona, or the Nation. The 

role and function of the SHPO is defined in both State law (Arizona Historic Preservation Act) 

and Federal law (National Historic Preservation Act, as amended). Activities of the SHPO 

include:

● Statewide survey to identify and evaluate historic structures and archaeological sites;

● Nomination of eligible historic and archaeological properties to the National Register of 

Historic Places;

● Review of Federal and State actions that may affect historic and archaeological 

properties;

● Technical assistance to owners of historic properties;

● Technical assistance to certified local governments/local preservation commissions;

● Public education and awareness programs; and

● Assistance through matching grants and assistance to property owners seeking tax credits 

and incentives (http://azstateparks.com/SHPO/index.html).

Most of the lands surrounding the Blue River and KP Creek are managed by the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests. All of the native fish species found in the Blue River and KP Creek 

are listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (Tier 1a or 1b) under the “Arizona Game and 

Fish Department’s State Wildlife Action Plan.” The state wildlife action plan is designed to be a 

collaborative wildlife conservation effort. The framework of the plan was built on coordination 

with private landowners, Federal agencies, tribes, State agencies, cities and towns to name a few. 

The purpose of the plan is to prevent listing of species and to keep “common species common.”

This plan outlines and prioritizes strategies for the conservation of these species and their habitat. 

Loach minnow is an ESA listed species and receives protection on non-Federal land.

State/local government management for wildlife resources is under the Arizona Game and Fish 

Commission. For terrestrial and riparian associated wildlife species, there are no other rules or 

regulations that would apply to species habitat or populations with the exception of Arizona 

Game and Fish hunting regulations for game species such as antelope, turkey, mule deer, elk and 

some furbearer species. None of these species are riparian dependent but all would utilize the 

river corridor at some time during its life cycle.

Water quality rules are managed by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, which is 

responsible for implementation of the Clean Water Act in the State. Arizona Department of Water 

Resources is responsible for ensuring a long-term water supply for the citizens and beneficial uses 

of the State.

Suitability Factor 10

Support or opposition to designation. Assessment of this factor would define the political 

context. The interest in designation or nondesignation by Federal agencies; State, local and 
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

96 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

tribal governments; national and local publics; and the State’s congressional delegation 

should be considered.

The forest plan evaluated segments of several rivers as potential wild and scenic rivers. The 

record of decision recommended the main stem of the Black River be added to the National 

system and directed the future study of the Blue River. In 1993, at the request of the Arizona 

congressional delegation, the Forest Service evaluated rivers on the national forests of Arizona for 

their potential inclusion into the National system. A series of meetings were held in cooperation 

with the BLM and NPS, with public comments for rivers flowing on the national forests 

summarized in “Public Meeting Report Summary, National Forests of Arizona” (December 

1993).

The BLM used the statewide evaluation as a basis to conduct a statewide suitability study, 

completing a FEIS in 1994. In response to rivers studied on BLM administered lands, there was 

both support and opposition. They noted that, generally, citizen and local governments opposed 

recommending rivers for addition to the National system in Graham and Greenlee Counties 

(“Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Report/Record of Decision,” February 1997).

The public involvement section in chapter 1 summarizes the comments received during public 

scoping for this suitability study, and all comments and respondents are included in the project 

record. The comments encompass the full spectrum between support and opposition. Scoping 

respondents who supported potential designation cited protecting river values and those in 

opposition stated that the river is “already well managed.” On one hand, some question the Forest 

Service’s jurisdiction in the area entirely, claiming that the Forest Service has no legal right to 

manage the land, and existing laws such as the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and Endangered 

Species Act do not apply, therefore, considering suitability for inclusion in the National system is 

illegal. On the other hand, comments by individuals and conservation groups, including several 

national and Arizona based conservation groups, recognize the unique and exemplary resources in 

the study area, and support designation for all segments.

In general, it appears that many local residents with ties to the Blue River through personal 

history or landownership within or near the study corridor oppose designation. Concerns have 

been expressed about eligibility findings, the effects of designation on private lands and water 

rights, property values, and the perceived threat of condemnation of private lands. They question 

the need for designation when the natural and cultural resources are adequately protected through 

existing authorities and collaboration.

Agencies

The Arizona State Game and Fish Department supports the range of outstandingly remarkable 

values identified in the eligibility study. These segments of the Blue River and KP Creek possess 

outstandingly remarkable values including fish, wildlife, and recreation. Hunting, fishing, and 

watchable wildlife opportunities are key components of this recreational value, and that future 

management of these segments should allow for the continued use by the public for wildlife 

related recreational activities. They request coordination during the analysis to determine the 

potential impacts of suitability on the ability of the department to maintain and enhance the 

fisheries through electroshocking, nets, fish barriers, and chemical renovations.
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 97

The USDI Bureau of Reclamation requested consideration of the proposed fish barrier in Blue 

River segment 4. 

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality supports measures likely to improve water 

quality, including the suitability study and possible inclusion of Blue River and KP Creek in the 

National system.

Suitability Factor 11

The consistency of designation with other Agency plans, programs, or policies and in 

meeting regional objectives. Designation may help or impede the goals of tribal 

governments, or other Federal, State or local agencies. For example, designation of a river 

may contribute to State or regional protection objectives for fish and wildlife resources. 

Similarly, adding a river that includes a limited recreation activity or setting to the National 

system may help meet statewide recreation goals. Designation might, however, limit 

irrigation and/or flood control measures in a manner inconsistent with regional 

socioeconomic goals.

Historic and Prehistoric Values: Archaeological site stewardship programs unite volunteers and 

archaeological sites to educate the public and preserve and protect cultural resources. The 

archaeological sites that become part of the program are usually at risk, require monitoring, need 

evaluation, or meet some other special circumstance. The volunteers learn a specialized task and 

help in the preservation of the site. Designation of Blue River may open the doors for such a 

program to flourish between participating State or Federal governments, landowners, and 

interested volunteers. 

Fisheries Values: Three of the species currently and/or historically found within the eligible 

segments have ESA status and recovery plans. These recovery plans have goals that are mostly 

consistent with WSR designation. The recovery plan for loach minnow has a goal of protecting 

existing loach minnow populations with the specific steps of discouraging detrimental land and 

water uses, protecting perennial flows with a natural hydrograph, and examining the potential for 

construction of fish barriers (USDI Fish & Wildlife Service, 1991). The recovery plan for Gila 

trout includes restoring populations to the historic Gila trout range (USDI Fish & Wildlife 

Service, 2003). 

A biological opinion (BO) issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Central Arizona 

Project (CAP) included construction of a fish barrier near the confluence of the Blue River with 

the San Francisco River as a conservation measure for the CAP (USDI Fish & Wildlife Service, 

2008). The Bureau of Reclamation has proposed and is currently conducting NEPA analysis for a 

fish barrier approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the Blue River’s confluence with the San 

Francisco River. This barrier would prevent the movement of fish upstream from the San 

Francisco River into the Blue River; the species assemblage of the San Francisco is composed of 

more nonnatives than the Blue River. Arizona’s State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) includes plans 

for all of the native fish within the Blue River and KP Creek segment.

Designation of segment 4 of the Blue River would prevent the construction of the channelspanning fish barrier currently being considered at this site. Construction of the fish barrier is 

mentioned in the loach minnow and Gila trout in their plans as a potential means of recovery.
Chapter 5  Environmental Consequences

98 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Wildlife Values: The USFWS designation of critical habitat for the federally listed Mexican 

spotted owl is within and adjacent to the river corridor. Designation of the river corridors would

be consistent and compliant with the 1995 recovery plan which cites alteration of its habitat as a 

threat to this species. Under the recovery plan, restricted areas include riparian environments 

because of the high value to this species. The recovery plan recommends broad guidelines for 

riparian systems which emphasize the maintenance and restoration of riparian areas. The loss of 

lower and middle level riparian habitat was cited in the final rule as a factor in habitat loss.

Social and Economic Condition: Designation is consistent with the Greenlee County plan, the 

“Greenlee County Community Wildfire Protection Plan,” and the ASNFs’ plan.

Suitability Factor 12

The contribution to river system or basin integrity. This factor reflects the benefits of a 

“systems” approach, for example, expanding the designated portion of a river in the 

National system or developing a legislative proposal for an entire river system (headwaters 

to mouth) or watershed. Numerous benefits may result from managing an entire river or 

watershed, including the ability to design a holistic protection strategy in partnership with 

other agencies and the public.

Blue River and KP Creek are part of the Upper Gila River basin which encompasses 12 rivers and 

additional tributaries determined eligible for inclusion in the National system. Designation of all 

segments of Blue River and KP Creek makes the greatest contribution to managing as a river 

system. 

Suitability Factor 13

The potential for water resources development. The intent of the act is to preserve selected 

rivers from the harmful effects of water resources projects. Designation would limit 

development of water resources projects as diverse as irrigation and flood control measures, 

hydropower facilities, dredging, diversion, and channelization.

Blue River is one of the larger river systems in this part of Arizona. It flows through the Blue 

Range Primitive Area and is relatively unroaded. While current management gives it a high 

degree of protection, there are always pressures for development of water resources projects. 

Inclusion into the National system prevents the harmful effects of water resources projects on 

Blue River and KP Creek’s free-flowing condition, water quality, and ORVs. There are no water 

supply or flood control projects anticipated in the foreseeable future on Blue River; however, 

some small-scale water resources projects may be constructed on private lands in this corridor. 

Those that require a Federal permit or assistance would also be subject to review by the river 

administering agency. There are no existing or foreseeable water resources projects on KP Creek.

Designation of the entirety of Blue River segment 4 would preclude construction of the channelspanning fish barrier currently being at this site.
EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 99

Chapter 6 – List of Preparers

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes 

and non-Forest Service persons during development of this environmental assessment.

Interdisciplinary Team Members and Consultants

Pat Nasta

USDA - Forest Service

TEAMS Enterprise Unit

Interdisciplinary Team Leader 

Environmental Coordinator

John Bruin 

MB Native American Veteran’s Inc. for

USDA – Forest Service

TEAMS Enterprise Unit

Lands Specialist

Chris Miller

USDA - Forest Service

Washington Office

Ecosystem Management Coordination

NEPA Services Group 

Economist

Carol Thornton

USDA - Forest Service

TEAMS Enterprise Unit

Hydrologist

Amanda Campbell

USDA - Forest Service 

TEAMS Enterprise Unit

Archaeologist

Brooke DeVault

USDA - Forest Service

TEAMS Enterprise Unit

Fisheries Biologist

Jan Spencer 

USDA - Forest Service

TEAMS Enterprise Unit

Landscape Architect 

Recreation Specialist

Donna Ray

USDA - Forest Service

TEAMS Enterprise Unit

Wildlife Biologist

Beth Humphrey

USDA - Forest Service

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

Forest Wildlife Biologist

Amy Unthank

USDA - Forest Service

Region 3, Regional Office

Fisheries Program Manager

Dan Mindar

USDA - Forest Service

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

Forest Fuels Specialists

Troy Grooms

USDA - Forest Service

TEAMS Enterprise Unit

Range Specialist

Jackie Diedrich

USDA – Forest Service

Washington Office

National Wild and Scenic Rivers Specialist

Kim Kerrigan 

MB Native American Veteran’s Inc. for

USDA – Forest Service

TEAMS Enterprise Unit

Writer/Editor
Chapter 6  List of Preparers

100 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Federal and State Officials and Agencies

Governor of Arizona, Policy Advisor for Natural Resources

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Arizona Water Resources Department

Greenlee County

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation

Tribes

Hopi Tribe

White Mountain Apache Tribe

San Carlos Apache Tribe

Tonto Apache Tribe

Yavapai-Apache Tribe

Yavapai-Prescott Tribe

Pueblo of Zuni
EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 101

Glossary

This section provides a glossary of definitions of terms used in the EA.

Allotment: An area of land assigned to one or more livestock operators for grazing livestock.

Alternatives: Different ways of addressing the environmental issues and management activities 

considered in the environmental impact statement. These serve to provide the decision maker and 

the public a clear basis for choices among options.

Aquatic habitat: Habitat that is inundated by water with a frequency sufficient to support a 

prevalent form of aquatic life.

Classification: The process whereby designated rivers are classified as wild, scenic, and/or 

recreational according to criteria established in Section 2(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Coordinated or Concurrent Studies: Wild and scenic river studies conducted by more than one 

agency or entity.

Cultural resources: Those fragile and nonrenewable remains of human activities, occupations, 

and endeavors as reflected in sites, buildings, structures, or objects. Cultural resources are 

commonly discussed as prehistoric or historic values.

Designation: The process whereby rivers are added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System by an act of Congress or by administrative action of the Secretary of the Interior with 

regard to state-designated rivers under Section 2(a)(ii) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Economic impact: The change, positive or negative, in economic conditions that directly or 

indirectly result from an activity, project or program.

Ecosystem: A complex self-sustaining natural system which includes living and nonliving 

components of the environment and the circulation of matter and energy between organisms and 

their environment.

Eligibility: Qualification of a river for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

through the determination (professional judgment) that it is free flowing and, with its adjacent 

land area, possesses at least one river related value considered to be outstandingly remarkable.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended): Federal law to ensure that no Federal action 

would jeopardize federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species of plants or 

animals.

Ephemeral: Streams or drainages that flow in direct response to precipitation for a short period 

of time. The precipitation events are primarily summer storms or sudden spring snowmelt. The 

duration of flow is typically a day to a week. Ephemeral streams do not usually support riparian 

vegetation.

Existing right-of-way corridor: A parcel of land with fixed limits or boundaries that is being 

used as the location for one or more rights-of-way.

Free-flowing: as applied to any river or section of a river, means existing or flowing in natural 

condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of 

the waterway. The existence, however, of low dams, diversion works, and other minor structures 
Glossary

102 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

at the time any river is proposed for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

shall not automatically bar its consideration for such inclusion: Provided, that this shall not be 

construed to authorize, intend, or encourage future construction of such structures within 

components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (WSR Act, Section 16(b)).

Intermittent: Streams that flow for a longer period of time than ephemeral streams. The duration 

of flow is typically several months and is usually in response to spring snowmelt. Intermittent 

streams typically do not have surface flows of water during the winter and summer. However, 

many intermittent streams have riparian vegetation supported by the surface flows and shallow 

ground water that is likely perennial.

Leasable minerals: Minerals such as coal, oil and gas, sodium, and all other minerals that may 

be acquired under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended.

Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System: A framework for establishing acceptable and 

appropriate resource and social conditions in recreation settings. A system of management 

planning. Refer to United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical 

Report INT-176, January 1985, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, 

Utah.

Locatable minerals: Any valuable mineral that is not salable or leasable, including gold, silver, 

copper, tungsten, uranium, etc.

Mineral material disposals: Disposal of sand, building and decorative stone, gravel, pumice, 

clay and other mineral materials and petrified wood through permit or contract for salt or fee.

Mineral withdrawal: Closure of land to mining laws, including sales, leasing, and location, 

subject to valid existing rights

Motorized travel: Travel in any motorized vehicle for recreation purposes; includes driving or 

riding in off-highway areas.

National Register of Historic Places: A list of districts, sites, structures, and objects significant 

in American history and culture maintained by the Secretary of the Interior.

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: Established by the Wilderness Act of 1968 to protect 

rivers and their immediate environments that have outstanding scenic, recreational, geologic, fish 

and wildlife, historic, cultural, and other similar values and are preserved in free-flowing 

conditions.

Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI): A source list of rivers which have been tentatively 

determined by the National Park Service and other Federal land managing agencies as eligible for 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Outstandingly Remarkable Values: Values among those listed in Section 1(b) of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act: “scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historical, cultural, or other 

similar values...” Other similar values which may be considered include ecological, biological, or 

botanical, paleontological, hydrological, scientific, or research values.

Patent: A government instrument (or deed) that conveys legal title for public land to an 

individual or another government entity.
Glossary

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 103

Perennial: Streams that typically flow year-round. Perennial streams may have interrupted 

surface flow characterized by stream segments with flowing water or a series of pools between 

sections of dry to moist stream channel. Stream segments with interrupted flow are supported by 

perennial, shallow ground water. During drought, a perennial stream may go dry.

Placer mining: That form of mining in which the surface soil is washed for gold or other 

valuable minerals.

Preferred alternative: The alternative, in the environmental impact statement, which 

management has initially selected as offering the most acceptable resolution for the issues and 

concerns.

Public lands and related waters: Lands, or interest in lands, administered by Federal agencies. 

Related waters are waters which lie directly over or adjacent to public lands and require some 

management control to protect federally administered resources, or to provide for enhanced 

visitor safety.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS): A continuum used to characterize recreation 

opportunities in terms of setting, activity and experience opportunities. The spectrum covers a 

range of recreation opportunities from primitive to urban. With respect to river management 

planning, the ROS represents one possible method for delineating management units or zones. 

“Recreational” river areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers which are readily accessible by 

road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have 

undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Section 

2(b)).

Right-of-way: The legal right for use, occupancy, or access across land or water areas for a 

specified purpose or purposes. Also the lands covered by such rights.

Riparian habitat: Areas of land directly influences by permanent water and having visible 

characteristics, such as a vegetation type which reflects the presence of permanent surface or 

subsurface water.

River: a flowing body of water or estuary or a section, portion, or tributary thereof, including 

rivers, streams, creeks, runs, kills, rills, and small lakes (WSR Act, Section 16(a)).

River area: For study rivers, that portion of a river (segment or corridor) and its immediate 

environment comprising a minimum area extending at least one-quarter mile from the ordinary 

high water mark. For designated rivers, the river and adjacent land within the authorized 

boundaries.

River segment/corridor: The portion of the river segment and corridor authorized either by 

Congress or an agency for study and its immediate environment comprising a minimum area 

extending at least 1⁄4 mile for each riverbank. For designated rivers, the river and adjacent land 

within the authorized boundaries.

Salable minerals: are minerals disposed of by permit and consist, for example, of common 

varieties of sand, stone, and gravel.
Glossary

104 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

“Scenic” river areas: Those rivers, or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with 

shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive, and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible 

in places by roads (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Section 2(b)).

Scoping process: An early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed 

and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action.

Study corridor: For study rivers, that portion of a river (segment or corridor) and its immediate 

environment comprising a minimum area extending at least one-quarter mile from the ordinary 

high water mark.

Study report or suitability evaluation report: The report on the eligibility and suitability of a 

study river for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Section 4(a) of the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act requires the Secretary of the Interior, or the Secretary of Agriculture—or 

both—to prepare and submit the report to the President. The President transmits the report with 

his recommendation(s) to Congress.

Wetlands: Lands including swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as wet meadows, 

spring areas, river overflow areas, mud flats, and natural ponds.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (“the act”) of 1968, as 

amended, Public Law 90-542 (16 U.S.C. 1271-87, et seq.).

Wild and Scenic Study River: Rivers identified in Section 5 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

for study as potential additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The rivers shall 

be studied under the provisions of Section 4 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Wild, Scenic and/or Recreational: The three classes of what is traditionally referred to as a 

“wild and scenic river.” Designated river segments are classified as wild, scenic and/or 

recreational, but the segments cannot overlap.

“Wild” river areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers, which are free of impoundments and 

generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive, and 

waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of America (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Section 

2(b)).

Withdrawal: The term “withdrawal” means withholding an area of Federal land from settlement, 

sale, location, or entry, under some or all of the general land laws, for the purpose of limiting 

activities under those laws in order to maintain other public values in the area or reserving the 

area for a particular public purpose or program; or transferring jurisdiction over an area of 

Federal land, other than “property” governed by the Federal Property and Administrative Services 

Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 472) from one department, bureau or agency to another department, 

bureau or agency (Federal Land Management Policy Act (as amended), 1976).
EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 105

References Cited

Baldwin, Pamela. 2001. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and Federal Water Rights. CRS Report 

RL30809 for Congress. American Law Division, Redistributed as a Service of the 

National Library for the Environment, January 18, 2001. 

Burnett, Myron. Wilderness Ranger, Clifton Ranger District. Personal communication.

Clarkson, R., P. Marsh, J. Stefferud, and B. Kesner. 2008. Fishery survey of the lower Blue River, 

Greenlee County, AZ. May 19-22, 2008. 5 pp.

Coleman, S. 2009. USDA Forest Service, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Zone Fisheries 

Biologist, Alpine and Clifton Ranger Districts. Personal communication with B. DeVault. 

April 16, 2009. 

Coleman, S. 2010. USDA Forest Service, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Apache-Sitgreaves 

Zone Fisheries Biologist, Alpine and Clifton Ranger Districts. Personal communication 

with B. DeVault. February 2, 2010.

Desert Fishes Team. 2003. Status of federal and state listed warm water fishes of the Gila River 

basin, with recommendations for management, report 1. 22 pp. 

Domsalla, Ryan. Lands Specialist, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Personal communication. 

Economic Profile System. 2009. Socio-Economic Profile for Greenlee County, Arizona, for 2007. 

Report generated using EPS (Headwaters Economics (www.headwaterseconomics.org) 

August 17, 2009.

Greenlee County. 2005. Greenlee County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Logan Simpson 

Design, Inc. September 2005. Tempe, AZ. 113 pp.

Greenlee County, 2007a. Greenlee County Planning & Zoning Regulations. Greenlee County, 

Clifton, AZ

Greenlee County. 2007b. Floodplain Management Ordinance. Greenlee County, Clifton, AZ.

Greenlee County Planning and Zoning. 2003. Greenlee County Comprehensive Plan (printed 

May 11, 2005). Greenlee County Planning and Zoning, Clifton, AZ. 

http://www.co.greenlee.az.us/pz/pdfs/ComprehensivePlan.pdf

Inman, D. E. 2000. U.S. Forest Service, Region 3, unpublished report. Blue River Terrain 

analysis.

Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council. 2006. A Compendium of Questions & 

Answers Relating to Wild and Scenic Rivers. Technical report, original edition 1997, 

revised 2006.

Keith, J., Jakus, P., Larsen, J., Burr, S., Reiter, D. and J. Zeitlin. 2008. Impacts of Wild and Scenic 

River Designation: A report to the Utah Governor’s public lands office. Report prepared 

by Utah State University, Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. Logan, UT.

National Riparian Service Team (NRST). 2000. Final Blue River Watershed Trip Report, October 

31-November 2, 2000. Prineville, OR.

National Riparian Service Team. 2001. Blue River watershed trip report, Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests. October 31-November 2, 2000. 
References Cited

106 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Nelson, Chris. 2009. USDA Forest Service, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Hydrologist. 

Personal communication, April 2009.

Ratte, J. C., Landis, R. E., and D. L. Gaskill. 1969. USDI Geological Survey Bulletin 1261-E. 

Mineral Resources of the Blue Range Primitive Area Greenlee County, Arizona, and 

Catron County, New Mexico.

Reed, Donna and Mike Hill, Rangeland Management Specialists, USDA Forest Service, ApacheSitgreaves National Forests. 2008, 2010. Personal communication.

State of Arizona. 2008a. Status of Ambient Surface Water Quality in Arizona; Arizona Integrated 

305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report. Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality.

State of Arizona. 2008b. Arizona Administrative Register, Title 18, Chapter 11, Article 1, Water 

Quality Standards for Surface Waters, Appendix B, Surface Water and Designated Uses.

Stephenson, Larry W. and Sara Konrad. 2001. Draft Blue River Turbidity Report. Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality Hydrologic Support and Assessment Section, Total 

Maximum Daily Load Unit. Phoenix, AZ.

Stynes, D. and E. White, 2005. Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors, NVUM Four Year 

Report. Report based on Joint Venture Agreement 01-JV-11130149-203 between USDA 

Forest Service, Inventory and Monitoring Institute (Fort Collins, CO) and Michigan State 

University (Lansing, MI).

Stynes, D. and E. White, 2006. Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors by Activity. Report 

based on Joint Venture Agreement between USDA Forest Service, Inventory and 

Monitoring Institute (Fort Collins, CO) and Michigan State University (Lansing, MI).

Thornton, C. 2007. Stream report for the Blue River. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. 37 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1987. Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests Plan and Amendments. Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1987a. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Plan. Southwestern Region. 

Springerville, AZ.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. Resource Information Report: 

Potential Wild, Scenic, Recreational River Designation – National Forests of Arizona. 

Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 24 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007. Southwestern Region Sensitive 

Plants List. 9/21/2007.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2008. Blue River fish barrier Wild and 

Scenic River Act section 7 determination. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, 

Springerville, AZ. 21pp. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009. Eligibility Report for the National 

Wild and Scenic River System, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Springerville, AZ. 

201 pp.
References Cited

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 107

United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Loach minnow 

recovery plan. Albuquerque, NM. 52 pp. 

United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Blue and San Francisco 

Rivers Consultation. Arizona Ecological Services Field Office. Arizona Ecological 

Services Web site:

http://www.fws.gov/arizonaes/Documents/Biol_Opin/950441_Blue_SanFranciscoGrazin

g.pdf

United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Gila trout recovery 

plan. Albuquerque, NM. 86 pp. 

United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Spikedace (Meda 

fulgida) and the Loach Minnow (Tiaroga cobitis). 54 (72): 13356-13422

United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Reinitiated biological 

opinion on transportation and delivery of Central Arizona Project water to the Gila River 

basin in Arizona and New Mexico and its potential to introduce and spread 

nonindigenous aquatic species. May 15, 2008 memorandum from Field Supervisor to 

Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix, AZ. AESO/SE 02-21-90-F-119.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2010. Master Title Plats, 

BLM Arizona State Office; 01N30E001; 01N31E001; 02N30E001; 02N31E001; 

03N29E001; 03N30E001; 03N31E001; 04N31E001; 04N32E0001; 01S31E001; 

02S31E001; 02S30E001.

United States Geological Survey. 2008. Web site database: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/sw

White-Trifaro, Linda J. 2009. USDA Forest Service, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Wildlife 

Biologist. Personal communication. Oct. 6, 2009.

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 109

Appendix A  Map
Appendix A  Maps

110 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix A  Maps

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 111
Appendix A  Maps

112 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix A  Maps

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 113
Appendix A  Maps

114 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix A  Maps

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 115
Appendix A  Maps

116 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix A  Maps

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 117
Appendix A  Maps

118 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix A  Maps

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 119
Appendix A  Maps

120 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix A  Maps

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 121
Appendix A  Maps

122 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix A  Maps

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 123

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 125

Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

126 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 127
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

128 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 129
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

130 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 131
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

132 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 133
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

134 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 135
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

136 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 137
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

138 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 139
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

140 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 141
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

142 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 143
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

144 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 145
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

146 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 147
Appendix B  Eligibility Report Excerpt

148 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 149

Appendix C  Blue River Fish Barrier

Wild and Scenic River Free-Flow Analysis
Appendix C  Blue River Fish Barrier Wild and Scenic River Free-Flow Analysis

150 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix C  Blue River Fish Barrier Wild and Scenic River Free-Flow Analysis

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 151
Appendix C  Blue River Fish Barrier Wild and Scenic River Free-Flow Analysis

152 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix C  Blue River Fish Barrier Wild and Scenic River Free-Flow Analysis

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 153
Appendix C  Blue River Fish Barrier Wild and Scenic River Free-Flow Analysis

154 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix C  Blue River Fish Barrier Wild and Scenic River Free-Flow Analysis

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 155
Appendix C  Blue River Fish Barrier Wild and Scenic River Free-Flow Analysis

156 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix C  Blue River Fish Barrier Wild and Scenic River Free-Flow Analysis

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 157
Appendix C  Blue River Fish Barrier Wild and Scenic River Free-Flow Analysis

158 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix C  Blue River Fish Barrier Wild and Scenic River Free-Flow Analysis

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 159
Appendix C  Blue River Fish Barrier Wild and Scenic River Free-Flow Analysis

160 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix C  Blue River Fish Barrier Wild and Scenic River Free-Flow Analysis

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 161
Appendix C  Blue River Fish Barrier Wild and Scenic River Free-Flow Analysis

162 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix C  Blue River Fish Barrier Wild and Scenic River Free-Flow Analysis

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 163
Appendix C  Blue River Fish Barrier Wild and Scenic River Free-Flow Analysis

164 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix C  Blue River Fish Barrier Wild and Scenic River Free-Flow Analysis

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 165
Appendix C  Blue River Fish Barrier Wild and Scenic River Free-Flow Analysis

166 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
Appendix C  Blue River Fish Barrier Wild and Scenic River Free-Flow Analysis

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 167
Appendix C  Blue River Fish Barrier Wild and Scenic River Free-Flow Analysis

168 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study
EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 169

Appendix D  Management Direction

This appendix includes management direction and guidance that applies to the study corridors 

from the following sources:

● Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 – Land Management Planning Handbook, Chapter 80: 

Wild and Scenic River Evaluation (January 31, 2006)

● Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Plan, 1987, as amended 2006, 2008, and 2009

● Additional law, regulation, and policy

● Cooperative plans

Interim Management of Eligible or 

Suitable Rivers – FSH 1909.12, Sections 82.5 and 82.51

Interim management applies after a river is found eligible or suitable but before designation in the 

NWSRS and the subsequent development of a comprehensive river management plan. Direction 

for interim management for National Forest System lands ensures that eligible or suitable rivers 

remain free-flowing and the outstandingly remarkable values are afforded adequate protection, 

subject to valid existing rights. Affording adequate protection requires sound resource 

management decisions based on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. Protective 

management may be initiated by the administering agency as soon as eligibility is determined. 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.12,

Chapter 80 (effective January 31, 2006)

82.5 – Interim Management of Eligible or Suitable Rivers

During interim management of eligible or suitable rivers, the following management guidelines 

are to be used when carrying out projects and activities for the National Forest System for each of 

the river classifications in this section.

Legislatively mandated study rivers as defined in section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

of October 2, 1968 (act) are afforded statutory protection under the act, including section 7(b), 

water resources projects; section 8(b), land disposition; section 9(b), mining and mineral leasing; 

and section 12(a), management policies. Protection of Forest Service identified study rivers (sec. 

5(d)(1) of the act) derives from other existing authorities (such as the Clean Water Act, 

Endangered Species Act, and Archeological Resources Protection Act). 

To the extent the Forest Service is authorized by statute, a responsible official may authorize sitespecific projects and activities on NFS lands within river corridors eligible or suitable only where 

the project and activities are consistent with all of the following:

1. The free-flowing character of the identified river is not modified by the construction or 

development of stream impoundments, diversions, or other water resources projects.

2. Outstandingly remarkable values of the identified river area are protected.

3. For all legislatively mandated study rivers, classification must be maintained as 

inventoried until the study report is received by Congress and for the protection period 

specified in the act, even if the study report recommends managing the river at a less 

restrictive class (such as from wild to scenic or scenic to recreational).
Appendix D  Management Direction

170 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

4. For all Forest Service identified study rivers, classification must be maintained as 

inventoried unless a suitability study (decision) is completed that recommends 

management at a less restrictive classification (such as from wild to scenic or scenic to 

recreational).

82.51 – Management Guidelines for Eligible or Suitable Rivers

The following guidelines apply to interim management of eligible or suitable rivers and 

responsible officials should apply these on NFS lands or where the Forest Service holds an 

interest on non-Federal lands such as rights acquired through scenic or access easements to 

protect river values. These guidelines may be applied to interim management of wild and scenic 

rivers governed by the specific language in sections 7(a), water resources projects; 8(a), land 

disposition; 9(a), mining and mineral leasing; and 12(a), management policies (FSM 2354).

The following protection guidelines shall be continued until a decision is made on future use of 

the river and adjacent lands. Section 5(a) study rivers shall be protected, as directed in sections 

7(b), 8(b), 9(b), and 12(a) of the act for the period specified in section 7(b). The protection period 

is 3 years from the date the study report is transmitted to Congress. The protection necessary to 

maintain a section 5(d)(1) study river as a potential wild and scenic river may be modified or 

discontinued for identified rivers upon a finding of ineligibility or nonsuitability. (See the review 

and approval process in FSH 1909.12, section 84.)

A responsible official may authorize site-specific projects and activities on NFS lands within river 

corridors eligible or suitable where the project and activities are consistent with the following:

1. Water Resources Projects (Water Supply/Flood Control)

Wild, Scenic, Recreational. Development of water supply dams, diversions, flood control 

works, and other water resources projects on a section 5(a) study river shall be analyzed 

under section 7(b) of the act. A water resources project is defined in Title 36, Code of Federal 

Regulations part 297 (36 CFR part 297) as the construction of developments that affect the 

river’s free-flowing characteristics. Water resources projects determined to have a direct and 

adverse effect on river values (free-flow, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values) 

under section 7(b) are prohibited. Water resources projects proposed on a section 5(d)(1) 

study river are not subject to section 7(b), but will be analyzed as to their effect on a river’s 

free-flow, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values, with adverse effects prevented 

to the extent of existing agency authorities (such as special use authority).

2. Hydroelectric Power

Wild, Scenic, Recreational. Development of hydroelectric power facilities is not allowed on 

or directly affecting a section 5(a) study river. This provision of section 7(b) of the act is 

interpreted as a prohibition of new hydroelectric facilities within the study boundary. Section 

5(d)(1) study rivers found eligible are to be protected pending a suitability determination.

Protect section 5(d)(1) study rivers found suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System (National system) for their free-flowing condition, water quality, and 

outstandingly remarkable values.
Appendix D  Management Direction

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 171

3. Minerals

a. Wild

i. Locatable. Subject to valid existing rights, mining claims are prohibited within 

1/4 mile of a section 5(a) study river under section 9(b) of the act. Existing 

mining activity on a section 5(a) study river and existing or new mining activity 

on a section 5(d)(1) study river are subject to regulations in 36 CFR part 228 and 

shall be conducted in a manner that minimizes surface disturbance, sedimentation 

and pollution, and visual impairment.

ii. Leasable. Leases, licenses, and permits under mineral leasing laws are subject to 

conditions necessary to protect the values of the river corridor in the event it is 

subsequently included in the National system.

iii. Salable. Disposal of salable mineral material is prohibited to protect river values.

b. Scenic, Recreational

i. Locatable. Subject to valid existing rights, mining claims are prohibited within 

1/4 mile of a section 5(a) study river under section 9(b) of the act. Existing 

mining activity on a section 5(a) study river and existing or new mining activity 

on a section 5(d)(1) study river are subject to regulations in 36 CFR part 228 and 

must be conducted in a manner that minimizes surface disturbance, 

sedimentation and pollution, and visual impairment. 

ii. Leasable. Leases, licenses, and permits under mineral leasing laws would be 

subject to conditions necessary to protect the values of the river corridor in the 

event it is subsequently included in the National system.

iii. Salable. Salable mineral material disposal is allowed if the values for which the 

river may be included in the National system are protected.

4. Transportation System

a. Wild. New roads are not generally compatible with this classification. A few existing 

roads leading to the boundary of the river corridor may be acceptable. New trail 

construction should generally be designed for nonmotorized uses. However, limited 

motorized uses that are compatible with identified values and unobtrusive trail 

bridges may be allowed. New airfields may not be developed.

b. Scenic. New roads and railroads are permitted to parallel the river for short segments 

or bridge the river if such construction fully protects river values (including the 

river’s free-flowing character). Bridge crossings and river access are allowed. New 

trail construction or airfields must be compatible with and fully protect identified 

values.

c. Recreational. New roads and railroads are permitted to parallel the river if such 

construction fully protects river values (including the river’s free-flowing character).

Bridge crossings and river access are allowed. New trail construction or airfields 

must be compatible with and fully protect identified values.
Appendix D  Management Direction

172 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

5. Utility Proposal 

a. Wild, Scenic, Recreational. New transmission lines such as gas lines, water lines, and 

so forth are discouraged. Where no reasonable alternative exists, additional or new 

facilities should be restricted to existing rights-of-way. Where new rights-of-way are 

indicated, the project shall be evaluated as to its effect on the river’s outstandingly 

remarkable values and classification. Any portion of a utility proposal that has the 

potential to affect the river’s free-flowing character shall be evaluated as a water 

resources project.

6. Recreation Development

a. Wild. Major public use areas such as large campgrounds, interpretive centers, or 

administrative headquarters should be located outside the river corridor. Minimum 

facilities may be provided in keeping with the essentially primitive character. If 

sanitation and convenience facilities are necessary, locate them at access points or at 

a sufficient distance from the riverbank so that they are not visible from the river.

Prevent impacts to water quality and other identified river values.

b. Scenic. Public use facilities such as moderate size campgrounds, simple sanitation 

and convenience facilities, public information centers, administrative sites, or river 

access developments and so forth are allowed within the river corridor. All facilities 

shall be located and designed to harmonize with their natural and cultural settings, 

protect identified river values including water quality, and be screened from view 

from the river to the extent possible.

c. Recreational. Recreation, administrative, and river access facilities may be located in 

close proximity to the river. However, recreational classification does not require 

extensive recreation development. All facilities shall be located and designed to 

harmonize with their natural and cultural settings, protect identified river values 

including water quality, and be screened from view from the river to the extent 

possible.

7. Motorized Travel

a. Wild. Motorized travel on land or water may be permitted, but is generally not 

compatible with this classification.

b. Scenic, Recreational. Motorized travel on land or water may be permitted, prohibited, 

or restricted to protect the river’s values.

8. Wildlife and Fish Projects

a. Wild. Construction of minor structures and vegetation management to protect and 

enhance wildlife and fish habitat should harmonize with the area’s essentially 

primitive character and fully protect identified river values. Any portion of a wildlife 

or fisheries restoration or enhancement project that has the potential to affect the 

river’s free-flowing character shall be evaluated as a water resources project.

b. Scenic. Construction of structures and vegetation management to protect and enhance 

wildlife and fish habitat should harmonize with the area’s largely undeveloped 

character and fully protect identified river values. Any portion of a wildlife or 
Appendix D  Management Direction

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 173

fisheries restoration or enhancement project that has the potential to affect the freeflowing character shall be evaluated as a water resources project. 

c. Recreational. Construction of structures and vegetation management to protect and 

enhance wildlife and fish habitat should fully protect identified river values. Any 

portion of a wildlife or fisheries restoration or enhancement project that has the 

potential to affect the river’s free-flowing character shall be evaluated as a water 

resources project.

9. Vegetation Management

a. Wild. Cutting of trees and other vegetation is not permitted except when needed in 

association with a primitive recreation experience such as to clear trails or to protect 

users or the environment, including wildfire suppression. Prescribed fire and 

wildland fire use may be used to restore or maintain habitat for threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species and/or restore the historic range of variability.

b. Scenic, Recreational. A range of vegetation management and timber harvest practices 

are allowed, provided that these practices are designed to protect, restore, or enhance 

the river environment, including the long-term scenic character.

10. Domestic Livestock Grazing

a. Wild. Domestic livestock grazing should be managed to protect identified river 

values. Existing structures may be maintained. New facilities may be developed to 

facilitate livestock management so long as they maintain the values for which a river 

was found eligible or suitable, including the area’s essentially primitive character. 

b. Scenic. Domestic livestock grazing should be managed to protect identified river 

values. Existing structures may be maintained. New facilities may be developed to 

facilitate livestock management so long as they maintain the values for which a river 

was found eligible or suitable, including the area’s largely undeveloped character.

c. Recreational. Domestic livestock grazing should be managed to protect identified 

river values. Existing structures may be maintained. New facilities may be developed 

to facilitate livestock management so long as they maintain the values for which a 

river was found eligible or suitable.

The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 

Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan)

As noted in the purpose and need in chapter 1, the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests’ forest 

plan provides the following direction: 

“Study the mainstem of the Blue River from its confluence with the San Francisco 

River upstream to its confluence with McKittrick Creek in the Blue Range 

Primitive Area as a candidate stream for eligibility in the Wild and Scenic River 

System. Timber harvesting and new road construction are prohibited in the 

potential wild and scenic river corridor: one-quarter mile each side of the 

stream. Also, consistent with any outstanding rights, dams, diversions, or other 

water resource developments are also prohibited until the study is completed. The 
Appendix D  Management Direction

174 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

study will be completed by 1994. (Amendment 2 June 1990, Replacement page 

44-2).”

The eligibility study was completed in 1993 and updated in 2009.

The public lands within the eligible river segments are currently managed in accordance with the 

ASNFs forest plan. Each segment includes one or more management area allocations with goals 

and objectives that direct the uses and activities permitted on that land. 

The 21,870 acres of public lands in the eligible corridors are managed for multiple uses. The 

acres and percent of land in each management area are displayed in table 29. Much of the lands in 

the corridor are inaccessible by motorized means and are managed to protect wilderness values 

(Management Area 8). 

Table 29. Management area acreage by segment (National Forest System lands only)

Eligible Segment and 

Tentative Classification

Management Area Acreage

1 2 3 4 8 18

BR-1 — Recreational 570 1,951 764 3,891

BR-2 — Wild 3,922 1,033

BR-3 — Scenic 69 1,203

BR-4 — Wild 1,239 1,067 135

KP Creek — Wild 1,290 144 2,378

Total Corridor Acres by 

Management Area 1,860 3,259 1,831 144 10,191 2,371

Percent of total acres by 

Management Area 9% 17% 9% 1% 52% 12%

Table 30 lists the management areas in each segment. A general description of the management 

emphasis associated with each management area follows table 30. 

Table 30. Management areas in eligible segments (percent acreage)

Segment Management Areas Approximate Percent of 

Segment

Blue River-1a

MA-1 Forest Land 7%

MA-2 Woodland 23%

MA-3 Riparian 9%

MA-8 Primitive Area 45%

Blue River-2

MA-8 Primitive Area 79%

MA-18 Sandrock Special MA 21%
Appendix D  Management Direction

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 175

Blue River-3

MA-2 Woodland 5%

MA-18 Sandrock Special MA 95%

Blue River-4

MA-2 Woodland 51%

MA-3 Riparian 44%

MA-18 Sandrock Special MA 5%

KP Creek

MA-1 Forest Land 34%

MA-4 Mountain Grass 4%

MA-8 Primitive Area 62%

a

Blue River segment 1 study corridor encompasses 17 percent private lands; all other segments are 

entirely Federal lands

Management Area 1 — Forest Land

Emphasize a combination of multiple uses including a sustained yield of timber and firewood 

production, wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, watershed, and dispersed recreation. Manage for 

timber production using integrated resource management to achieve diverse stands protected from 

losses due to insects or diseases exceeding endemic levels. Visual quality levels are generally 

modification, partial retention, and retention. Maximum modification is allowed to manage insect 

or disease outbreaks or to harvest fire-killed timber.

Management Area 2 — Woodland

Emphasize firewood production, wildlife habitat, watershed condition, and livestock grazing. 

Other resources are managed in harmony with the emphasized resources. 

Management Area 3 — Riparian

Riparian areas, with their high productivity and diversity, are a limited and critical ecological 

resource. In addition to having high timber, range, recreation, and cultural values, riparian areas 

are vital to the quantity and quality of habitats for fish and some wildlife species, and are basic to 

the hydrologic function of watersheds. Other resource uses and activities may occur to the extent

that they support or do not adversely affect riparian dependent resources. (Forest Plan, p. 121)

Identify capacity for recreation in each riparian area. The objective for each riparian area should 

be maximum possible recreation use while protecting or enhancing the riparian characteristics of 

each site. (Forest Plan, p. 123)

Recreation use, including off-road vehicle use, will be prohibited or restricted and sites 

rehabilitated in areas in unsatisfactory condition when recreation was a significant causative 

factor affecting condition. (Forest Plan, p. 124)

Management Area 4 — Mountain Grass

Emphasize wildlife habitat and visual quality, especially big game winter range. (Forest Plan, p. 

128)

Manage recreation use at less than standard levels. (Forest Plan, p. 128)
Appendix D  Management Direction

176 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Management Area 8 — Primitive Area

Emphasize wilderness recreation while maintaining wilderness resource values. (Forest Plan, p. 

141)

Management Area 18 — Sandrock

Emphasize the recovery of this critical watershed. In addition, emphasize the management of the 

loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitus) and the Black hawk (Buteogallus anthracinus). No vegetative 

management practices are planned in this management area.

ASNFs Forest Plan — Applicable Resource Direction

Water Resources

Riparian: Improve vegetation condition in riparian areas. This is an emphasis area for the plan. 

Improvements will be accomplished by reducing or, in some cases, eliminating adverse impacts 

from grazing, vehicles, and overuse by man.

Soil and Water: Maintain, or where needed, enhance soil productivity and watershed condition. 

Put all areas in a satisfactory watershed condition by 2020. Maintain a high quality sustained 

water yield for forest users and others. Identify and protect wetlands and flood plains.

Recreation

Manage the recreation resource to provide opportunities for a wide variety of developed and 

dispersed experiences. Provide for developed site and dispersed visitor use (Forest Plan p. 14).

Forestwide Standards and Guidelines

The forest plan directs that Blue River be studied from “the main stem of the Blue River from its 

confluence with the San Francisco River upstream to its confluence with McKittrick Creek in the 

Blue Range Primitive Area as a candidate stream for eligibility in the Wild and Scenic River 

System. Timber harvesting and new road construction are prohibited in the potential wild and 

scenic river corridor; one quarter mile each side of the stream. Also, consistent with any 

outstanding rights, dams, diversions, or other water resource developments are also prohibited 

until the study is completed” (Forest Plan, p. 30).

Manage to ensure the maintenance of the existing diversity of recreation opportunities, settings 

and activities. (p. 31)

The following variations in the actual (recognizing probable mapping errors of existing 

classifications) recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classes are acceptable:

● Primitive: No Change

● Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized: +5%

● Semi-Primitive Motorized: +10%

● Roaded Natural: +15%

● Rural: +15%
Appendix D  Management Direction

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 177

On the Sitgreaves National Forest, acres of semi-primitive classes in virgin timber stands will be 

maintained without variation. (Forest Plan, p. 32)

Off-road vehicle activities will be managed to minimize conflicts with other uses, prevent 

interference with the management of other resources, and prevent general environmental 

degradation while providing a range of ORV opportunities. The three wilderness areas and the 

Blue Range Primitive Area are closed to ORV use. (Forest Plan, p. 34)

Trails are closed to vehicle use unless signed open. (Forest Plan, p. 34)

Management of the recreation resource will emphasize maintenance of existing opportunities for 

solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation in wilderness. (Forest Plan, p. 43)

Wilderness

Administer to maintain the current wilderness character. In most issues between the biological 

wilderness resources and human preferences, the resource and its preservation will be given 

priority.

Visual Resources 

Manage and enhance visual resource values by including visual quality objectives in resource 

planning and management activities. (pg. 15)

Forestwide Standards and Guidelines

Projects are planned to meet visual quality objectives. (Forest Plan, p. 35)

To meet specific resource management objectives, the following visual quality objectives 

variations are allowed for a management area:

● Preservation: No Change

● Retention: +_ 2% foreground = -5% background and middle ground.

● Partial Retention: +-5% foreground, +-10% background and middle ground

● Modification/maximum Modification: +-10% in all zones

One classification movement downward is all that will be allowed. 

Highly scenic areas on or near highways or recreation sites are managed as foreground retention 

without any variation.

Slight deviations from acceptable variations in visual quality objectives can only be considered 

on a case-by-case basis and only authorized by the forest supervisor. (Forest Plan, p. 36)

The visual quality objective for wilderness areas is preservation. (Forest Plan, p. 42)
Appendix D  Management Direction

178 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Fisheries Resources

Forestwide Standards and Guidelines

Manage threatened and endangered animal, fish, and plant habitat to achieve declassifying in a 

manner consistent with the goals established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 

Implement threatened and endangered species recovery plans. 

Monitor management practices within occupied and potential peregrine falcon, Apache trout, bald 

eagle, loach minnow, and Little Colorado River spinedace habitat, and evaluate impacts. 

Wildlife Resources

Maintain habitat to maintain viable populations of wildlife and fish species and improve habitat 

for selected species. This is accomplished “directly” through habitat management and “indirectly” 

through coordination of habitat management in conjunction with other resource activities. And to 

increase opportunities for wildlife and fish oriented recreation opportunities. (Forest Plan, p. 15)

As discussed in the biological assessment for this project, threatened and endangered species are 

currently protected under the Endangered Species Act. In addition, there are recovery plans for 

the Mexican spotted owl and Mexican gray wolf. Protections for sensitive species are found in the 

mitigations and project design features of the current forest plan as discussed in the biological 

evaluation.

MIS species are offered no specific protections as these species are not considered rare, with the 

exception of a few species that are also listed as TESP species (which are discussed in the BA and 

BE). 

Historic and Prehistoric Cultural Values

Forest Service policy (FSM 2361.3) requires that projects with the potential to affect cultural 

resources, including lands which will leave Federal agency control through sale or exchange, be 

surveyed for cultural resources in order to comply with 36 CFR 800 – Protection of Historic 

Properties, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended; 

the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979; the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA); the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; and the American 

Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978. The “Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Plan” standards

and guidelines outline that identified sites will be evaluated for eligibility for the NRHP. As 

undertakings develop, the forest is required to complete the Section 106 process or follow 

protocol as established in any programmatic agreements with the State Historic Preservation 

Office. 

Vegetation Values

Forest plan goals for vegetation and botanical resources are largely limited to discussion related 

to timber and firewood production, and the relationship between vegetation and other resource 

areas (e.g. habitat for wildlife species, management of riparian areas, forage for livestock, etc.).

There are no goals identified in the forest plan specifically for botanical resources.
Appendix D  Management Direction

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 179

Forest plan objectives for vegetation and botanical resources are similar to the goals. These are 

largely related to timber volume and firewood production and vegetation management practices 

used to reach desired timber stand attributes. There is some discussion of management practices 

that would reduce ground fuels and stimulate new growth of forbs and browse plants to benefit 

wildlife and livestock grazing, and seeding or planting browse and forb species in riparian 

habitats to benefit wildlife. There are no objectives identified in the forest plan specifically for 

botanical resources.

The forest plan directed that the river be studied from “the main stem of the Blue River from its 

confluence with the San Francisco River upstream to its confluence with McKittrick Creek in the 

Blue Range Primitive Area as a candidate stream for eligibility in the Wild and Scenic River 

System. Timber harvesting and new road construction are prohibited in the potential wild and 

scenic river corridor, one quarter mile each side of the stream. Also, consistent with any 

outstanding rights, dams, diversions, or other water resource developments are also prohibited 

until the study is completed” (Forest Plan, p. 30).

Range

The 1987 “Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Plan” has been amended with 13 amendments 

through February 2008. Amendment one (August 1989) specifically “clarifies management for 

riparian areas” and amendment six (June 1996) contains standards and guidelines that implement 

development recovery plans for the Mexican spotted owl and also standards and guidelines for 

the continued protection of the northern goshawk. The forest plan (Management Area 3) 

recognizes KP Creek and the Blue River as Priority 1 for containing threatened and endangered 

species or habitat that is used by threatened and endangered species. 

Fire Management

Current forest plan direction for the Blue Range Primitive Area (Fire Management Zone VI) 

(Blue River segments 1 and 2, KP Creek) states “Fire is the primary management tool for 

maintaining and/or enhancing the primitive values of these areas.” “A systematic program of 

planned prescribed burning and/or wildland fire use for resource benefits may be undertaken to 

accomplish resource management objectives.” (Forest Plan, p. 92) “Appropriate management 

response will be taken on all man-caused fires as per other applicable standards and guidelines.” 

(Forest Plan, p. 87) “Mechanical line-building equipment is prohibited, except in extreme 

emergencies and with Regional Forester approval.” “Other motorized equipment or mechanical 

transport (helicopter, power saw, etc.) may be used with Forest Supervisor approval.” (Forest 

Plan, p. 92) Inventoried roadless areas have a similar management emphasis with limited 

motorized access and limited values at risk from fire. Current fire management direction indicates 

an appropriate management response will be taken on all fires within the roadless areas (eligible 

segments 1, 3 and 4) indicating the response to fires will be commensurate with values at risk and 

firefighter and public safety.

Additional Law, Regulation, and Policy

Table 31 lists the existing authorities that apply to Federal and private lands within the eligible 

river corridors. 
Appendix D  Management Direction

180 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Table 31. Current management authorities in eligible segments

Jurisdiction Law, Regulation, Policy, Agreements

Federal Lands ASNFs Forest Plan

Federal Lands Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

Federal Lands Interim Management of Eligible or Suitable Rivers

Federal Lands National Historic Preservation Act

Federal Lands 36 CFR 800 – Protection of Historic Properties

Federal Lands Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

Federal Lands Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

Federal Lands American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978

Federal/Private Lands Clean Water Act

Federal/Private Lands Federal Water Pollution Control Act

Federal/Private Lands Safe Drinking Water Act

Federal/Private Lands Endangered Species Act

Loach Minnow Recovery Plan

Spikedace Recovery Plan

Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan

Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan

Federal/Private Lands State of Arizona Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy

Federal/Private Lands State of Arizona Game and Fish Department – Hunting and Fishing Regulations

Private Lands Rural (RU) zoning ordinances

Private Lands 2007 Floodplain Management Ordinance for Greenlee County

Private Lands Greenlee County Comprehensive Plan

Cooperative Plans

Table 32. Cooperative plans applicable in study corridors

Cooperative Plan Date Cooperating Parties

Greenlee County Community Wildfire 

Protection Plan for wildfire suppression

09/2005 USDA Forest Service, Greenlee County

Memorandum of Understanding for 

analysis of a fish barrier on federal lands

07/02/2009 USDA Forest Service, Arizona Game and Fish 

Dept., USDI Bureau of Reclamation

Memorandum of Understanding for 

conservation and mgt. of resources in 

Blue River

DRAFT 

02/2010

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and 

Fish Dept., USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of 

Reclamation, Greenlee County, Upper Eagle Creek 

Watershed Assoc.
EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 181

Appendix E  Present, Ongoing and 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

The activities and projects listed below in table 33 are those which are currently occurring in the 

Blue River watershed, or are proposed for future action. The past projects and activities are those 

which have already occurred and have contributed to the exisiting conditions in the watershed. 

The interdisciplinary team used the present, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions when 

predicting the cumulative environmental effects of the alternatives (chapter 5).

A cumulative effect is the effect on the environment that results from the incremental effect of the 

action when added to the effects of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

regardless of what agency or person undertakes the other actions and regardless of landownership 

on which the other actions occur. An individual action when considered alone may not have a 

measurable effect, but when its effects are considered in sum with the effects of other past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the effects may be significant. Cumulative 

impacts are assessed in terms of how the proposed action would add to past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable activities. 

The actions in table 33 occur within the cumulative effects analysis area, which is the Upper Blue 

and Lower Blue 5th code watershed. This scale encompasses all headwaters of the Blue and KP 

Rivers. Completing the cumulative effects analysis required each specialist to choose those 

activities from the list that overlaps in time, space and location with each alternative. The 

specialist then analyzed the incremental effect to their resource from the alternative when the 

proposed action was added to these activities. 

Table 33. Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 

No

.

Project or 

Activity Name

Activity or Project 

Type Status Affected Area (or acres)

1 Campbell Flat RX 

Burn

Fuels reduction Foreseeable -

2011

600 acres planned in Campbell Flats 

Meadow, west of Hwy. 191, T5N, 

R30E, Sec 31, East 1/2

2 Fire History Unplanned ignitions 

originating within or 

adjacent to project area 

(1/4 mile boundary)

1988 to 2005 Blue River: (1) Sunflower Fire, 

2005, 385 ac. within 1⁄4 mile of 

project boundary

KP Creek: (1) KP Fire, 2004, 16,092 

ac.; (2) KP Fire, 2003, 10 ac.; (3) KP 

Fire, 2001, 17 ac.; (4) Thomas Fire, 

2003, 10,644 ac.; and (5) Steeple 

Fire, 2003, 6,009 ac.

3 Campbell Blue 

WUI

Wildlife habitat and 

riparian restoration

Foreseeable in 

2010

Lower Campbell Blue River along 

FRs 30 and 281 and around private 

holdings of the Luce and Kronkite 

Ranches: T4N, R32E, Sec 5; T41/2N, 

R31EW, Sec 25, 24-361 and T41/2N, 

R32E, Sec 31, 32, G&SRM

4 Bear Fire Trail 

Restoration

Trail realignment due to 

flooding

Foreseeable in 

2010

Vicinity of Largo Creek drainage and 

Lanphere Creek drainage, T3N, 31E, 

S27, 35, and 34; T2N 31E, S3, and 10

5 Water diversions Same Ongoing Variable
Appendix E  Present, Ongoing, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

182 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

No

.

Project or 

Activity Name

Activity or Project 

Type Status Affected Area (or acres)

6 Black River Land 

Exchange –

Rancho Alegre (1 

of 2 parcels)

Acquisition of quality 

riparian and aquatic 

habitat and the associated 

road access (refer to the 

FEIS/ROD at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/a

snf/projects)

Foreseeable –

ROD signed 

in September 

2009

79.76 acres acquired (Rancho Alegre 

parcel) along the west fork of the 

Blue River – equates to 0.25 mile 

stretch of river channel and 3 acres of 

wetland habitat along the river –

accessed via FR 25.

8 Black River Land 

Exchange – Blue 

River Ranch 

parcel (2 of 2 

parcels)

Acquisition of quality 

riparian and aquatic 

habitat and the associated 

road access (refer to the 

FEIS/ROD at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/a

snf/projects)

Foreseeable –

ROD signed 

in September 

2009

158.68 acres acquired along the Blue 

River – equates to 1.50 miles of river 

channel and 55 acres of riparian 

habitat – accessed from the east and 

south via road 67004.

9 Fish barrier Channel-spanning barrier 

to restore native fish to 

Blue River

Proposed Located above San Francisco River 

on Blue River at river mile 0.76.

10 Transportation 

System

Forest maintenance of 

maintenance level (ML) 

1, 2, 3, and 4 roads

Ongoing 85 miles per acre within or adjacent 

to Blue River analysis area: (3 miles 

ML 1 (closed); 28.8. miles ML 2 

(high clearance); 53.2 miles ML 3, 4;

and 0 miles ML 5)

9 miles within or adjacent to KP 

Creek analysis area: (1) 3 miles ML 1 

(closed); 4.3 miles ML 2 (FR 184);

1.7 miles ML 3 (FR 55); 0 miles of 

ML 4 and 5 (Note FR 191 is not 

directly adjacent to analysis area)

11 Transportation 

System

Designated 

nonmotorized trails (no 

designated motorized 

trails within or adjacent 

to analysis area)

Existing 216 miles within/adjacent to Blue 

River corridor.

19.70 miles within/adjacent to KP 

Creek corridor: (1) North Fork KP 

Trail 93; (2) KP Trail 70; (3) Blue 

Lookout Trail 71; and (4) McKittrick 

Trail 72.

12 Travel 

Management Rule 

planning

Designation of motorized 

roads, trails and areas, 

see project 

information/maps at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/a

snf/projects

Foreseeable –

potential 

changes to

existing 

motorized 

transportation 

system

Preferred alternative has not been 

selected at this time. DEIS available 

by May 15, 2010.

13 Private property Adjacent to the Blue 

River

Ongoing/ 

foreseeable

1,367 acres in 14 parcels in Blue 

River segment 1.

0 acres along KP Creek.

14 Private property 

development

Recent new home 

construction with 

associated road 

construction (excavation, 

Ongoing and 

foreseeable

Private property adjacent to Blue 

River Segment 1.
Appendix E  Present, Ongoing, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 183

No

.

Project or 

Activity Name

Activity or Project 

Type Status Affected Area (or acres)

switchbacks)

15 Road 

maintenance –

associated 

activities

Permit new use of three

existing gravel pits 

adjacent to FRs 281, 567, 

and 232.

Foreseeable -

2010

Exact acres undetermined at this time

16 FR 281/County

Road 67004 

annual road 

maintenance

Annual road maintenance 

includes blading, culverts 

and hazard tree removal

Ongoing Annual maintenance on 36.2 miles *

17 Road 

improvements –

FR 281

Install culverts and 

widen road in three

places on curves to 

increase visibility

Foreseeable -

2010

Lower Blue Road, T2N, R30E, Sec 

11, SE 1/4

18 Unauthorized 

motorized use

Non-system routes used 

to access Blue Primitive 

Area

Ongoing Not quantifiable. Incursions primarily

occur during hunting season.

19 Grazing 

Allotments

Livestock grazing within 

or adjacent to Blue River 

and KP Creek

Ongoing Blue: Sandrock – 62,715 ac.

Blue: Pigeon – 32,474 ac.

Blue: Wildbunch – 23,039 ac.

Blue: Bobcat-Johnson – 24,732 ac.

Blue: Fishook/Steeple Mesa – 24,554 

ac.

Blue: Bush Creek – 317 ac.

Blue: Cow Flat – 22,991 ac.

Blue: Red Hill – 7432 ac.

Blue/KP Creek: Raspberry – 24,117 

ac.

KP Creek: KP Summer – 21,030 ac.

20 Developed 

Recreation Use

Campgrounds, day use 

areas, trailheads 

(parking)

Ongoing Blue River: Blue Crossing CG, 

Upper Blue CG, Blue Admin TH, 

Sawmill TH, Tutt Creek TH, Grant 

Creek TH, Steeple TH, Horse 

Canyon TH, Blue River TH

KP Creek: KP Cinega TH, KP TH

21 General 

Recreation Use

Fishing, viewing scenery, 

dispersed day and 

overnight use

Ongoing See 2009 eligibility report

* Best management practices for road maintenance along the Blue River have been utilized for all maintenance projects 

since 1995.

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 185

Appendix F  Effects of Managing a River as 

a Component of the NWSRS v. 042607

The management responsibilities associated with a designated wild and scenic river (WSR) are 

explained in detail in the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council’s (council) 

technical report, “Wild and Scenic River Management Responsibilities” (March 2002). The 

following discussion is excerpted from this source document and describes the effects of 

managing a river as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (National 

system), based on the direction in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (act).

The intent of each section of the act relevant to management of WSRs is briefly presented, 

followed by specific management implications.

Purposes (WSRA Section 1(b))

The purposes for which WSRs are added to the National system are to protect the river’s freeflowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs). Sections 7(a) and 

10(a) make reference to these collective “values” for which rivers are added to the National 

System.

Management Implications

● Focus the comprehensive river management plan (CRMP) and subsequent river 

management on protecting a river’s free-flowing condition and water quality in addition 

to the ORVs.

● Thoroughly define the ORVs to guide future management actions and to serve as the 

baseline for monitoring.

Classification (WSRA Section 2(b))

The classification system describes the type and intensity of development in existence at the date 

of the river’s designation. To be “administered” in a class means defining the river’s initial 

landscape character and, through development of the CRMP, establishing standards relative to 

future in-corridor land uses. For example, administering a wild river will require more restrictive 

decisions to protect the river’s character than on a scenic or recreational river. However, it must 

be emphasized that the intent of the act, to preserve a river’s free-flowing condition (Section 7(a)) 

and to protect and enhance the values for which it was designated (Section 10(a)), applies equally 

to each of the three classifications.

A river’s classification does not represent the values for which it was added to the National 

System. For example, a “recreational” river segment denotes a level of in-corridor and water 

resources development and does not necessarily mean that the recreation resource has been 

determined an ORV. Similarly, a recreational classification does not imply that the river will be 

managed for recreational activities. For example, there are rivers in the National System 

paralleled by a road and hence classified as recreational for which the ORV is the fish resource.

An appropriate intensity of recreation and other resource use will be allowed subject to an ability 

to protect and enhance those fish populations/habitats.
Appendix F  Effects of Managing a River as a Component of

the NWSRS v 042607

186 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Management Implications

● Describe a river’s classification and landscape character at the date of designation in the 

CRMP to serve as the basis for evaluating proposed land uses and monitoring.

● Use classification to provide a general framework for the type and intensity of land 

management activities that may take place in the future.

● Consider allowing uses in existence at the date of designation that do not conform to the 

river’s classification and that are not specifically addressed in the enabling legislation to 

continue, so long as the river’s free-flowing condition, water quality, and ORVs are 

protected.

● Apply the protections under Sections 7 (water resources projects) and 10(a) 

(nondegradation policy) independent of classification.

Establishment of Boundaries 

and Classification (Sections 3(b) and 3(c))

The act requires that each federally administered river in the National System have a legally 

established boundary. Congress has, in a few instances, specified the boundaries for a river in the 

designating legislation. Generally, however, this responsibility is left to the managing agency to 

be completed following designation. This section requires the administering agency to establish a 

detailed boundary of not more than 320 acres of land per river mile within 1 year of the date of 

designation. For the significant majority of rivers in the National System, Congress has included 

the classification in the designating legislation.

The notice of availability of the boundaries and classification (if not included in the amendatory 

act) must be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to Congress. Refer to 

“Establishment of WSR Boundaries,” a technical report of the council (September 1998), for 

additional discussion of developing a boundary that provides necessary protection for identified 

values.

Management Implications

● A bank-to-bank boundary is unacceptable (refer to “Establishment of WSR Boundaries”

for a more detailed discussion).

● Use a river’s ORVs as the basis for boundary establishment. They must be sufficiently 

described and properly referenced in establishing a detailed boundary for the river.

● The final WSR boundary is not required to be posted or otherwise located on the ground.

Management Plan (Section 3(d)(1))

The act requires a “comprehensive management plan . . . to provide for protection of the river 

values” (Section 3(d)(1)). The CRMP must address: resource protection; development of lands 

and facilities; user capacities; and other management practices necessary or desirable to achieve 

the purposes of the act.

The comprehensive river management plan (CRMP) is to be coordinated with, and incorporated 

into, a river administering agency’s resource management plan. The act provides 3 full fiscal 
Appendix F  Effects of Managing a River as a Component of

the NWSRS v 042607

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 187

years after the date of designation for its completion and requires a notice of its completion and 

availability be published in the Federal Register.

Management Implications

● A CRMP is required for all congressionally designated WSRs.

● Include a detailed description of the ORVs as a platform for development of necessary 

management direction in the CRMP.

● Address the types and amounts of public use the river area can sustain without adverse 

impact to other values in the CRMP (interagency guidelines).

● Review and revise, as necessary, pre-1986 CRMPs to include all elements described in 

Section 3(d)(1).

● Prior to the completion of a CRMP, thoroughly analyze the effects of a proposed activity 

on the values for which the river was designated.

Acquisition Procedures and Limitations 

(Sections 6(a)(1) through 6(g)(1)-(3))

This section describes procedures and limitations for acquisition of lands and interests in lands by 

Federal managers on congressionally designated WSRs. Acquisition of lands (fee-simple) or 

interests in lands (easements) from willing sellers is an appropriate tool in select circumstances on 

some rivers. Note: The provisions of Section 6 do not apply to rivers added under Section 

2(a)(ii). Refer to “Protecting Resource Values on Non-Federal Lands,” a technical report of the 

council (October 1996) for discussion of nonacquisition strategies for protecting river values.

Management Implications

● Establish general principles for land acquisition in the CRMP (interagency guidelines)

where appropriate. Consider acquisition of lands or interests in lands to provide resource 

protection and access and to facilitate appropriate recreation use.

Restrictions on Hydroelectric and 

Water Resources Projects (Section 7(a))

This section is one of the most important and powerful parts of the act, directing Federal agencies 

to protect the free-flowing condition and other values of designated rivers. More specifically, the 

act prohibits the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) from licensing the construction 

of hydroelectric facilities on rivers that have been designated as components of the National 

System. Further, the act prohibits other Federal agencies from assisting in the construction of any 

water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on a designated river. The act 

also includes a standard that governs water resources projects below, above or on a stream 

tributary to a designated river or congressionally authorized study river. Determinations under 

Section 7(a) or 7(b) are made by the river administering agency.

Refer to the “Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: Section 7,” a technical paper of the council (May 

1997), for a discussion of standards and presentation of procedures to evaluate the effects of 

proposed water resources projects. The Department of Agriculture has regulations governing the 

applicability of Section 7 at 36 CFR Part 297.
Appendix F  Effects of Managing a River as a Component of

the NWSRS v 042607

188 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

Management Implications

● The Secretary of Agriculture or the Interior (or his/her designee) is responsible for 

making determinations under Section 7.

● Evaluate a water resources project based on its effects on the values for which a river is 

added to the National system, namely its free-flowing condition, water quality, and 

ORVs. The river’s classification is not a factor in this evaluation.

● FERC licensed facilities are prohibited within a designated river corridor. Other federally 

assisted water resources projects within a designated river corridor are evaluated as to 

their potential “direct and adverse effect” on the values for which the river was 

designated. Proposed water resources projects below, above, or on a stream tributary to a 

designated river are evaluated as to their potential to invade the designated river area or 

unreasonably diminish the scenic, recreational, fish, or wildlife values of the designated 

river.

● Include direction in the CRMP to evaluate a water resources project under Section 7(a). It 

is also helpful to provide reference to, or include, the evaluation procedures in the CRMP 

(or appendix).

Limitations on Entry on Public Lands (Section 8(a))

This section requires all public lands within a WSR corridor to be retained in Federal ownership, 

with allowances for exchange as conditioned in Section 6(d) and lease of Federal lands as 

described in Section 14(A).

Management Implications

● Consider the potential for exchange in establishing general principles for land acquisition 

in the CRMP.

Limitations on Mineral Entry (Section 9(a))

In areas where mineral activity is permissible, the CRMP should address locatable, leasable and 

salable mineral materials. Locatable minerals are “valuable mineral deposits” located under the 

General Mining Law of 1872, as amended, and include, for example, gold, silver, copper and 

lead. Leasable minerals are defined by statute (e.g., oil, gas, coal, geothermal); a lease must be 

obtained from the government for their extraction. Salable minerals are disposed of by permit and 

consist, for example, of common varieties of sand, stone and gravel. Leasable and salable mineral 

activities are discretionary on the part of the administering agency.

The act affects the development of Federal minerals in several ways. First, subject to valid 

existing rights (i.e., subject to existing mining claims and mineral leases), the minerals located on 

Federal lands within the bed or banks or within 1/4 mile of the banks of any designated wild river 

are withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the mining laws and from the operation of 

the mineral leasing laws. Second, subject to valid existing rights (i.e., subject to mining claims 

where the claimant has filed a proper patent application and paid the required fees prior to the 

river’s designation), mining claimants may only obtain title to the mineral deposits and such 

rights to the use of the surface and surface resources as are reasonably required for prospecting or 

mining. Third, the act requires regulations be developed to govern mining and mineral leasing 

activities in WSR corridors. While the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture have not issued 
Appendix F  Effects of Managing a River as a Component of

the NWSRS v 042607

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 189

these regulations, the BLM and USFS use their existing regulations (43 CFR 3809 and 36 CFR 

228, respectively) to meet, to the extent possible, the nondegradation standard of Section 10(a).

Management Implications

● Provide direction for discretionary mineral activity in the CRMP, as appropriate.

● Consider the opportunity to recommend a withdrawal of scenic and recreational river 

segments from the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended through the river planning 

process, as appropriate. Such a recommendation, however, will require a detailed analysis 

of the values to be protected and rationale for the recommendation. This proposal should 

be closely coordinated with the BLM, the agency responsible for mineral withdrawal.

Management Direction (Section 10(a))

The interagency guidelines interpret Section 10(a) as a “nondegradation and enhancement policy 

for all designated river areas, regardless of classification.” Existing uses on Federal lands may 

continue where they do not conflict with river protection. Adverse effects to the values made 

explicit in Section 1(b) of the act on Federal and non-Federal lands must be identified in 

development of the CRMP, with appropriate strategies detailed for their resolution. To achieve a 

nondegradation standard, the river administering agency must document baseline resource 

conditions and monitor changes to these conditions.

Management Implications

● This section is interpreted as a nondegradation and enhancement policy for all rivers, 

regardless of classification (interagency guidelines). The river manager must seek to 

protect existing river-related values and, to the greatest extent possible, enhance those 

values.

● Provide for public recreation and resource uses that do not adversely impact or degrade 

the values for which the river was designated (interagency guidelines).

● Protect rivers by documenting and eliminating adverse impacts on values (free-flow, 

water quality, ORVs), including activities that were occurring on the date of designation.

Enhance rivers by seeking opportunities to improve conditions.

Management of WSRs in Wilderness (Section 10(b))

Section 10(b) removes the potential for conflict on WSRs flowing in designated wilderness by 

applying the more restrictive provisions of the WSRs or Wilderness Acts in any situation of 

conflict. This section recognizes the importance of designating river systems by removing any 

potential for conflict in dual designations.

Management Implications

● River managers must be familiar with provisions of both acts when developing the 

CRMP.
Appendix F  Effects of Managing a River as a Component of

the NWSRS v 042607

190 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

WSRs Administered by the USDA Forest Service (Section 10(d))

This section provides the USFS the authority to use its general statutory authorities to protect 

WSR values. Some of the most important laws applicable to the USFS include the Organic 

Administration Act, Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, and National Forest Management Act.

This section also allows the USFS to require special use permits for all commercial guiding 

services on WSRs flowing through Federal or private lands. The authority is codified in 

regulation (36 CFR, Part 261), with its scope defined as “an act or omission” within the 

designated boundaries of a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Specifically, Section 261.10(c) prohibits conducting any business activity within the boundaries 

of a WSR “unless authorized by federal law, regulation, or special-use authorization.” If use 

regulation is necessary to protect river values, Section 261.58(z) allows the USFS to prohibit by 

order “entering or being on lands or waters within the boundaries of a component of the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System.”

Requiring special use permits for commercial guides and, as appropriate, nonregulatory or 

regulatory permits for private on-river and/or in-corridor river use allows the USFS to provide a 

level of public safety, to maintain a desired recreation experience, and to protect biological and 

physical values. On-river limitations may include, for example, restrictions on the numbers of 

private and commercial boaters, timing of use, and type and size of craft. In-corridor limitations 

may include, for example, restrictions on party size, timing of use, and type of activities.

Management Implications

● Apply general statutory authorities, in addition to the requirements of the act, to protect 

WSR values.

Cooperative Agreements (Section 10(e))

This section encourages a Federal-state partnership in WSR administration. It recognizes the 

benefits from collaborative development and implementation of a CRMP and the role of state and 

local government in directing activities on non-Federal lands (e.g., water pollution abatement, 

zoning). Refer also to Section 12(a) of the act that directs Federal agencies to, where appropriate, 

enter into written cooperative agreements with the state river administering agency for the 

management of Federal lands within the boundaries of a state administered (Section 2(a)(ii)) 

river.

Management Implications

● Identify opportunities in the CRMP for the river administering agency to effect specific 

written cooperative agreements in administration of a WSR.

Federal Assistance to Others (Section 11(b)(1))

This section authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, or the head of 

any Federal agency to provide technical (i.e., nonmonetary) assistance and the use of agency 

funds to states, their political subdivisions, private organizations, and individuals to “plan, 

protect, and manage river resources.” This authority applies to projects/activities on non-Federal 

lands within and proximate to a WSR corridor. It provides a mechanism to effect partnerships for 

projects/activities distant from the designated WSR yet with the potential to affect designated 
Appendix F  Effects of Managing a River as a Component of

the NWSRS v 042607

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 191

WSR values. Opportunities for such partnerships should be identified in the CRMP and 

implemented through a properly documented written agreement to assure the public’s interests 

and the private landowner’s rights are protected.

Management Implications

● Identify opportunities in the CRMP for the river administering agency to effect specific 

written cooperative agreements in administration of a WSR.

Management Policies (Section 12(a))

This section applies to activities conducted by a Federal department or agency that are within or 

proximate to a WSR designated under Sections 2(a)(ii) or 3(a). It also applies to rivers under 

study pursuant to Section 5(a) and to rivers being considered pursuant to Section 2(a)(ii).

Through the language of this section, Congress directs other Federal agencies to protect river 

values in addition to meeting their agency mission. Refer to “Implementing the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act: Authorities and Roles of Key Federal Agencies,” a technical report of the council 

(January 1999), for a description of the authorities of other Federal agencies in river protection.

Management Implications

● In addition to preparing a CRMP for lands within the river corridor, the riveradministering agency must consider actions on lands it administers adjacent to this area 

and make certain such actions protect WSR values.

● Other Federal agencies must protect WSR values in actions for which they are 

responsible within and adjacent to a WSR corridor.

Existing Rights (Section 12(b))

Section 12(b) qualifies that nothing in Section 12(a) is to be construed to eliminate existing rights 

or privileges affecting Federal lands without the owner’s consent.

Management Implications

● Consider existing rights or privileges affecting Federal lands when evaluating 

management actions on lands within or adjacent to the river corridor administered by the 

river administering agency or other Federal agency.

Water Pollution (Section 12(c))

Section 12(c) directs the river administering agency to cooperate with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and state water quality agencies in addressing water quality concerns in 

WSRs. Cooperation requires active participation by the river administering agency in evaluation 

of existing water quality, identification of limitations, and development of the often long-term 

strategies necessary to address water quality related problems.

Management Implications

● Seek enforcement of water quality laws through the EPA and state water quality agencies.
Appendix F  Effects of Managing a River as a Component of

the NWSRS v 042607

192 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

● Work in cooperation with the EPA and state water quality agencies to establish baseline 

conditions, identify water quality related issues, and develop a strategy to 

improve/protect water quality.

Jurisdiction and Responsibilities of 

State with Respect to Fish and Wildlife (Section 13(a))

This section clarifies that the role of the states in management of fish and wildlife is unaffected 

by the act. The river administering agency remains responsible, however, for evaluation of 

components of fish or wildlife restoration or enhancement projects that are also water resources 

projects and subject to Section 7(a) of the act. In most instances, such projects would have a 

beneficial effect on WSR values; however, they must be designed to avoid adverse effects on free 

flow and other river related values.

Management Implications

● Develop an effective partnership with state fish and wildlife agencies to achieve mutual 

goals in river protection.

Federal Reservation of Water (Section 13(c))

This section expressly reserves the quantity of water necessary to achieve the act’s purposes, 

including protecting the values for which a river is designated.

Management Implications

● Describe the dependency of ORVs to flow in the CRMP.

● Establish baseline conditions, identify water quantity related issues, and develop a 

strategy to protect flow-dependent ORVs.

Interstate Compacts (Section 13(e))

This section clarifies that interstate compacts are unaffected by the act.

Management Implications

● Determine if an interstate compact exists and identify its tenets.

Navigable Rivers (Section 13(f))

Section 13(g) clarifies that nothing in the act affects a state’s rights to navigable waterways. A 

body of water is determined to be navigable under Federal law when, at the time of statehood, it 

was used or was capable of being used as a public highway for transporting goods or for travel in 

the customary modes of trade and travel on water (the Daniel Ball case, U.S. Supreme Court).

State ownership of the underlying riverbed does not, however, preclude the river administering 

agency from regulating uses (e.g., private and commercial boating) on the water column as 

necessary to meet the purposes of the act. The need to regulate on-water use includes providing a 

level of public safety, maintaining a desired recreation experience, and protecting biological and 
Appendix F  Effects of Managing a River as a Component of

the NWSRS v 042607

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 193

physical values. On-river limitations may include, for example, restrictions on the numbers of 

private and commercial boaters, timing of use, and type and size of craft.

Management Implications

● Work in partnership with the state to assure that the state’s public trust interest in 

navigability and the purposes of the act are met.

Easements and Rights-of-Way (Section 13(g))

An easement or right-of-way may be granted within the boundary of a WSR, subject to conditions 

to protect values.

Management Implications

● Evaluate any component of a project proposal requiring an easement or right-of-way that 

is a water resources project under Section 7(a) of the act prior to further consideration of 

the easement/right-of-way.

● Grant an easement or right-of-way subject to the nondegradation policy of Section 10(a) 

and if it is in accordance with all laws applicable to the area.

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 195

Appendix G  Costs of 

Administering as a Wild and Scenic River

There are three cost categories associated with designation: (1) administration and operation 

(annual river-related costs), (2) river planning (i.e., CRMP development), and (3) land 

acquisition6

.

Administration, Operation, and CRMP Development

Costs for administration and CRMP development are a function of complexity factors related to 

recreation use, ownership, and resource issues associated with the designated river(s). A range of 

complexity scores was determined for the Blue River and KP Creek segments in aggregate, 

recognizing the variation in complexity across alternatives. 

Based on an aggregate complexity rating of low to moderate (skewed toward low) for the Blue 

River and KP Creek segments, as well as past reviews of costs associated with river 

designations7

, final approximated costs are estimated to range from $35,000 to $50,000 per year 

for administration and $175,000 to $250,000 total cost spread over a 3-year period for planning 

and CRMP development (2008 dollars).

All Blue River and KP Creek segment corridors being considered for designation under the 

alternatives are within national forest lands, with the exception of the 7.7 miles of Segment 1 that 

flow through private land parcels. Consequently, there is no expectation that administrative 

involvement by other agencies (state or local) will occur, implying that the Forest Service will not 

be sharing administrative and CRMP development costs8

. 

Land Acquisition

Based on the information summarized in the land/land values section above, purchases, 

exchanges, or acquisitions of easements on private land are not currently projected under any of 

the alternatives. Consequently, costs to the Forest Service are currently assumed to be zero for 

this cost category.

Costs procedures are drawn from and outlined in “Developing Costs for Administration of Forest 

Service Administered Wild and Scenic Rivers” ( July 10, 2001) as well as “Estimated Costs of 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Program, V.091104”, as cited in the suitability study conducted for rivers 

in Utah (USDA Forest Service, 2008). The table below describes the factors and issues that can 

be used to make complexity determinations. 

 6

 For details about costs and procedures for estimating costs for administration and planning in this analysis see 

“Developing Costs for Administration of Forest Service Administered Wild and Scenic Rivers” ( July 10, 2001) as well 

as “Estimated Costs of Wild and Scenic Rivers Program, V.091104”. These procedures were adopted from the costing 

analysis completed for the suitability study conducted for rivers in Utah (USDA Forest Service, 2008).

7 See “Estimated Costs of Wild and Scenic Rivers Program V.091104” for as cited in the recent Utah rivers suitability 

evaluation (USDA Forest Service, 2008)).

8 Personal communication with J. Diedrich, USDA Forest Service, WO/National Wild and Scenic River Program 

Manager, 2/11/2010.
Appendix G  Costs of Administering as a Wild and Scenic River

196 EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

For the combined Blue River and KP Creek segments, the following assumptions were adopted to 

make a complexity determination for the Blue River/KP Creek corridors:

Recreation Use – Low to Moderate Complexity

● Multiple Uses – Moderate Complexity (variety of recreational activities across the 

segments and within some segments; primitive settings may reduce complexity for 

segment 2 and parts of other segments).

● Commercial Activities – Low to moderate complexity (some licensed outfitters and 

guides, some campgrounds in segment 1).
Appendix G  Costs of Administering as a Wild and Scenic River

EA for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study 197

● Need for regulation/permitting – Low complexity (extensive permitting not expected to 

be needed).

Ownership – Low Complexity

● Segments are primarily located within national forest lands with the exception of the 

upper portion of segment 1 of the Blue River. Low expectation for the need for easements 

(title purchases very unlikely).

Resource Issues – Moderate Complexity

● Fish/aquatic life – Moderate to high complexity (emphasis on restoration of native fish 

populations, habitat crucial to many fish/aquatic species).

● Wildlife – Low to moderate complexity (some threatened/sensitive species; maintenance 

of wildlife travel corridors important bird habitat area).

● Historical/Cultural – Moderate complexity (relatively large number of historic and 

prehistoric sites within the corridors).

● Riparian/Watershed – Moderate to high complexity (historically a flood prone area with 

continuing concerns about floods and riparian protection; watershed restoration a focus in 

segments 2 and 3 (MA 18 = recovery of watershed).

● Livestock/grazing – Low to moderate complexity (few existing allotments, some 

evidence of diversions for agriculture/grazing purposes; past history of grazing).

● Mining/minerals – Low complexity.

● Timber – Low complexity.

Based on the complexity assumptions above, an aggregate complexity rating for the Blue River 

and KP Creek segments is assumed to be low to moderate (skewed toward low).

Past reviews of costs for rivers of varying complexity have been used to estimate ranges of annual 

costs for administration: $25,000 (low complexity) to $50,000 (moderate complexity) to 

$200,000 (high complexity) per year (2001 dollars); total costs over a 2- to 3-year period for 

CRMP development were estimated to range from $100,000 to $300,000 (2001 dollars) (see 

“Estimated Costs of Wild and Scenic Rivers Program v. 091104”). Based on these cost ranges, the 

aggregate complexity rating above, and variation in number of segments designated across 

alternatives, annual administrative costs are estimated to range from $35,000 to $50,000 in 2008 

dollars. Total CRMP costs are estimated to range from $175,000 to $250,000 spread over a 3-year 

period.

This costing procedure applies to the aggregate river component, comprised of the multiple 

segments being designated (personal communication: J. Diedrich, USDA FS, WSR Program 

Manager).